PHILIP A. GRANT, JR.
Congressional Campaigns of
James M Cox, 1908 and 1910
On September 16, 1908, the Democrats of
the Third Congressional District of Ohio
held their biennial convention at
Middletown and by acclamation nominated James
M. Cox of Dayton as their candidate for
the House of Representatives. Thus began
the public career of the only Ohioan
ever nominated for the presidency by the
Democratic party. The aggressive
campaign waged by Cox for a seat in Congress
inaugurated a twelve year period of
sustained political activity, culminating in his
candidacy for President of the United
States.
Thirty-eight years of age, Cox was the
publisher of the Dayton Daily News and
one of southwestern Ohio's most
illustrious citizens.1 The year 1908 was indeed an
opportune time for Cox to launch his
political career. The Democrats of the Third
District were optimistic that year
largely because the Republican opposition was
split into two irreconcilable factions,
one of which was led by Charles W. Bieser,
Montgomery County Republican chairman,
and the other by freshman Congressman
John E. Harding of Middletown.
Bieser had been responsible for denying
renomination to Harding, and the latter
was to retaliate by running for
reelection to Congress in 1908 as an independent.
Replacing Harding as the Republican
nominee was one of Bieser's most loyal
supporters, State Representative William
G. Frizell of Dayton. The Third District
consisted of Montgomery, Butler, and
Preble counties, and was marginal in political
complexion.2 Since the
district was almost evenly divided between Republicans and
Democrats, it was imperative for each
party to maintain maximum harmony within
its ranks. In 1906, when the Republicans
had been united, Harding had easily
defeated his Democratic challenger by a
plurality of 1,730 votes: 24,567 (49.4%)
to 22,837 (46.0%). The Socialist and
Prohibitionist candidates had received 1,896
and 393 votes respectively.3
Although nominated on September 16, Cox
did not launch his congressional
1. For an autobiographical account of
Cox's early life see James M. Cox, Journey Through
My Years (New York, 1946), 3-53.
2. During the sixteen years of its
existence, the district had been represented by five congress-
men: three Democrats and two
Republicans. Each party had won four regular congressional
elections during this period, while the
Democrats had won the only special election. Indicative
of the district's marginal character was
the fact that four of these elections had been decided
by less than 202 votes.
3. Ohio, Annual Report of the
Secretary of State, 1906, p. 153.
Mr. Grant is associate professor of
history at Pace College Westchester in Pleasantville, New
York.
|
campaign until nearly two weeks later. Altogether his campaign lasted five weeks, during which he made approximately three dozen public appearances. The bulk of Cox's speeches were delivered in Montgomery and Butler counties, while only four days were spent in sparsely populated Preble County. Indeed Cox reserved the final two weeks of the campaign almost exclusively for political activities in the Dayton area, a decision probably motivated by the fact that Dayton and the other nearby communities in Montgomery County accounted for more than sixty percent of the district's population.4 From the outset of his campaign Cox heartily praised both the 1908 Democratic National Platform and the presidential candidacy of William Jennings Bryan. Ap- plauding the platform as the "greatest declaration of popular rights since the Declaration of Independence," Cox eagerly volunteered explanations of its major planks.5 Steadfast in his loyalty to Bryan, Cox stressed that his party's presidential nominee had for many years been among the nation's most fervent advocates of political and economic reforms. Throughout the campaign Cox concentrated on what he believed to be the vital issues of the day, portraying himself as a progressive Democrat completely in accord with the official pronouncements of his party.6 Frequently charging that the dominant Republican party had failed to solve the serious problems confronting the nation, Cox was sharply critical of the record of the recently adjourned Sixtieth Congress. He blamed the Republicans for the Panic
4. According to the 1900 census, the population figures were as follows: Montgomery County 130,146; Butler County 56,870; Preble County 23,713. Abstract of the Twelfth Census of the United States, 1900 (Washington, 1904), 166. 5. The entire text of the platform may be found in The Campaign Text Book of the Demo- cratic Party of the United States, 1908 (Chicago, 1908), 7-17, 220-227. 6. Daily News (Dayton), October 6, 8, 23, 27, 29, 30, 1908. |
6
OHIO HISTORY
of 1907,7 and on at least two
occasions inferred a causal relationship between
previous economic disruptions and the
presence of the Republican party in power.
Denouncing the shortcomings of past GOP
platforms, Cox tried to persuade the
voters of the Third District that the
Republicans had pursued a policy of negativism
in national affairs.8
There is abundant evidence to warrant
the conclusion that Cox considered the
tariff question the paramount issue in
the congressional campaign of 1908. Histor-
ically the Democratic party had opposed
the protective tariff, and in 1908 the
Democrats had adopted an unequivocal
plank on tariff revision in their national
platform.9 Cox and many other
Democrats sensed that the Republicans would be
especially vulnerable at this time
because of their refusal to repeal the Dingley Tariff
act of 1897.10 In his first major
campaign speech at Dayton on September 30, Cox
severely criticized the "stupendous
privileges" accorded to American industry under
the Dingley tariff. Thereafter he
availed himself of every opportunity to identify
the Republican party with a senseless
and discriminatory system of tariff protec-
tionism. On several occasions Cox
advanced the argument that the protective tariff
perpetuated the existence of monopolies.
He also charged that some American
manufacturers found it necessary to
operate factories abroad, because of retaliatory
measures other nations had imposed
against the United States, and that domestic
manufacturers were charging the American
farmer more for agricultural implements
than they were selling such implements
to customers in foreign countries. In speech
after speech Cox not only assailed the
justification for continuing the tariff but also
pointed out its detrimental effects on
the welfare of both the worker and the
consumer.11
With the sole exception of the tariff
question, Cox devoted more attention to the
need of guaranteeing bank deposits than
to any other issue. Referring to the adverse
effects of the Panic of 1907, Cox at the
beginning of the campaign stressed that
he and the Democratic party were
"committed absolutely" to guaranteeing bank
deposits.12 Cox argued that
this was necessary in order to prevent runs on banks
7. A detailed account of the Panic of
1907 may be found in William C. Schluter, The Pre-
War Business Cycle, 1907 to 1919 (New York, 1923), 13-34.
8. Daily News (Dayton), October
3, 6, 8, 10, 21, 28, 29, 1908. Daily News-Signal (Middle-
town), September 29, October 13, 1908.
9. Stressing that "during years of
uninterrupted power no action whatever has been taken
by the Republican Congress to correct
the admittedly existing tariff inequities," the Democrats in
1908 approved the following statement:
"We favor immediate revision of the tariff by the
reduction of import duties. Articles
entering into competition with trust-controlled products
should be placed on the free list and
material reductions should be made in the tariff upon the
necessities of life, especially upon
articles competing with such American manufactures as are
sold abroad more cheaply than at home;
and gradual reductions should be made in such other
schedules as may be necessary to restore
the tariff to a revenue basis." Campaign Text Book, 10.
10. A thorough analysis of the Dingley
tariff may be found in Frank W. Taussig, The Tariff
History of the United States (New York, 1931), 325-360.
11. Daily News (Dayton), October
1, 10, 14, 20, 23, 27, 30, 31, 1908; Evening Journal
(Hamilton), October 9, 1908; Daily
News-Signal (Middletown), October 17, 1908.
12. A portion of the 1908 Democratic
platform read as follows: "The panic of 1907, coming
without any legitimate excuse when the
Republican party had for a decade been in complete
control of the Federal Government,
furnishes additional proof that it is either unwilling or in-
competent to protect the interests of
the general public. It has so linked the country to Wall
Street that the sins of the speculators
are visited upon the whole people ...." The Democrats
"pledged" that national banks
would "be required to establish a guarantee fund for the
prompt payment of the depositors of any
insolvent national bank, under an equitable system
which shall be available to all State
banking institutions wishing to use it." Campaign Text Book,
223-224.
Cox's Campaigns 7
and assure the American people of a more
stable financial system. He undoubtedly
felt that the average citizen was
genuinely concerned with protecting his savings,
and he was also aware that many
residents of Ohio's Third Congressional District
had suffered financial losses either
directly or indirectly as a result of the Panic of
1907. Apparently optimistic that popular
sentiment strongly favored measures to
protect depositors, Cox flatly predicted
that within five years all banks would guar-
antee deposits as a precondition to
their survival.13
In addition to expressing himself quite
forcefully on the need for tariff and banking
reform, Cox endorsed the passage of a
constitutional amendment providing for a
federal income tax.14 Indicating
his grave concern over the maldistribution of wealth
in the United States, Cox deplored the
fact that the Republican majority in Congress
had declined to pass a joint resolution
in behalf of an income tax amendment.
Because a small minority of the
population owned the vast majority of the nation's
property, Cox insisted that it was
necessary for economic and social reforms to
emanate directly from the people.15
During the campaign Cox voiced
unqualified support for the objectives of the
labor movement. He emphasized the labor
plank in his party's national platform, a
plank generally acknowledged to be the
most comprehensive ever adopted by a
major American political party.16 Specifically
Cox urged the establishment of a
Department of Labor, and promised that,
if elected to Congress, he would introduce
legislation calling for general
employers' liability.17
Among the other issues discussed by Cox
during the 1908 campaign were business
monopolization, railroad regulation, and
direct election of United States Senators.
Expressing alarm over the growth of business consolidation,
Cox warned that
monopolies were stifling opportunities
for the nation's young people.18 On the
question of railroads he took pride in
the fact that, unlike the Republicans, the
Democrats had demanded rate regulation
as early as the presidential campaign of
1896.19 Cox also urged the adoption of a
constitutional amendment providing that
United States Senators be elected
directly by the citizens of their respective states.20
On all of these matters Cox was
affirming support for planks included in the 1908
13. Daily News (Dayton), October
1, 8, 20, 22, 23, 30, 31, 1908; Daily News-Signal (Middle-
town), October 3, 1908; Evening
Journal (Hamilton), September 30, October 9, 1908.
14. In 1908 the Democrats adopted the
following plank: "We favor an income tax as part
of our revenue system, and we urge the
submission of a constitutional amendment specifically
authorizing Congress to levy and collect
a tax upon individual and corporate incomes, to the
end that wealth may bear its
proportionate share of the burdens of the Federal Government."
Campaign Text Book, 12.
15. Daily News (Dayton), October 6, 8, 31, 1908.
16. In 1908 the Democrats urged that
labor organizations be treated "with rigid impartiality"
in all judicial proceedings, declared
that there should "be no abridgement of the right of wage
earners and producers to organize for
the protection of wages and the improvement of labor
conditions," endorsed the
"eight-hour day on all government work," pledged the enactment of
a federal law "for a general
employers' liability act covering injury to body or loss of life of
employes," and vowed to support
legislation "creating a Department of Labor, represented
separately in the President's
Cabinet." Campaign Text Book, 12.
17. Daily News (Dayton), October
1, 10, 22, 29, 1908; Evening Journal (Hamilton), October
9, 1908.
18. Evening Journal (Hamilton),
October 24, 1908.
19. Daily News (Dayton), October
6, 27, 1908.
20. Ibid., October 1, 1908.
8 OHIO HISTORY
Democratic Platform.21 Throughout the duration of the 1908 congressional campaign there is no record that Cox ever referred to either of his two opponents, Frizell and Harding. Realizing that his opposition was divided between regular Republicans led by County Chairman Bieser and independent Republicans loyal to Congressman Harding, Cox undoubt- edly felt that it would be prudent to concentrate on issues rather than personalities. Indeed the spokesmen of the rival Republican factions, largely ignoring Cox, re- peatedly indulged in personal villification against one another. By the end of the campaign a multitude of charges and countercharges had been leveled by both Bieser's and Harding's supporters, all of which accentuated the irreconcilable diff- erences of opinion within the Republican party of the Third District.22 The election was held on November 3, and the early returns indicated an unmistakable Democratic trend in Cox's district. By the following day it was evident that the Democrats had emerged victorious in all the major political races. Both Bryan and Judson Harmon, the Democratic presidential and gubernatorial candidates, carried the district by comfortable margins. The entire Democratic ticket carried Butler County, while the Democrats won all but two of the nineteen offices at stake in Montgomery County. Winning all three of the district's counties, Cox was handily elected to Congress. The final vote was as follows:23 |
|
Although Cox received more votes than the combined total of his two major opponents and probably would have been elected even if the Republicans had been united, he was the beneficiary of the strong electoral performances by Bryan and Harmon.24 The unity in Democratic ranks was in sharp contrast to the obvious Republican dissention. Cox, undoubtedly encouraged by the internal strife plaguing the local Republican party, conducted a statesmanlike campaign, stressing what he believed to be issues of vital consequence to the citizens of the Third District. He had proved to be an energetic campaigner and would enter the House of Represent-
21. Denouncing private monopolies as "indefensible and intolerable," the Democrats in 1908 demanded enactment of legislation "to make it impossible for a private monopoly to exist in the United States." The Democrats also favored "efficient supervision and rate regulation" of railroads, recommending that the Interstate Commerce Commission be authorized to undertake physical valuation of railroad property. They also endorsed election of United States Senators "by direct vote of the people." Campaign Text Book, 14, 11. 22. Herald (Dayton), October 10, 12, 15, 1908; Journal (Dayton), October 1, 9, 13, 14, 16, 21, 28, November 1, 1908; Republican-News (Hamilton), September 19, October 1, 2, 5, 22, 30, 1908. 23. Bryan, carrying Butler and Montgomery counties, outpolled his Republican opponent, William Howard Taft, by a margin of 33,491 to 30,908. Harmon, a former Attorney-General of the United States, defeated his Republican challenger, Andrew Harris, 36,636 to 28,348. Annual Report of the Secretary of State, 1908, p. 185, 187, 189, 194, 222, 235, 239, 272, 468. 24. In 1904 Judge Alton Parker, the Democratic presidential candidate, had polled 24,122 votes in the Third Congressional District. This total accounted for only 42.4% of the major party vote of that year. By contrast Bryan's 33,491 votes in 1908 accounted for 52.1% of the major party vote. Harmon received the largest plurality ever recorded by a Democratic guber- natorial candidate in the history of the Third District with 35,636 votes. |
Cox's Campaigns 9
atives at one of the most exciting times
in American political history.
On March 15, 1909, the first session of
the Sixty-First Congress assembled, at
which time James M. Cox was sworn in as
a member of the House of Representatives.
Between the opening ceremonies and the
adjournment of the first session on August
5, he would have the responsibility of
casting votes on a number of important issues.
The three foremost issues considered
during these months were internal reform of
the House, federal taxation, and tariff
revision.
For several years prior to 1909 many
Democrats, including Cox, had severely
criticized the excessive influence
wielded by the incumbent Speaker of the House,
Joseph G. Cannon.25 Shortly
after the House assembled on March 15, Representative
Champ Clark, Democratic floor leader,
offered a resolution designed to curtail
Cannon's powers. In addition to
depriving the Speaker of the right to appoint the
personnel of most committees, this
resolution provided that the powerful Rules
Committee be elected by the entire House
membership and authorized a study to
determine ways of revising and
simplifying existing House procedures. Cox supported
the Clark resolution, and, although the
proposal was rejected by a vote of 203-180,26
it was quite evident that a substantial
minority was dissatisfied with the structure
of the House under Cannon.
The controversy over a federal income
tax had been raging since the United States
Supreme Court in 1895 had invalidated a
congressional income tax statute on
constitutional grounds. Subsequent to
this historic judicial decision, a campaign
had been launched in behalf of an income
tax amendment to the Constitution. In
his quest for a seat in Congress, Cox
had pledged to support a federal income tax,
and on July 12, 1909, he joined an
overwhelming majority of his colleagues in the
House in voting to submit an income tax
amendment to the states.27
The most bitterly debated issue of the
first session of the Sixty-First Congress
was tariff revision. Cox, as previously
mentioned, had repeatedly urged tariff reform
in his 1908 campaign. Fifteen days after
taking his oath as a member of the House
Cox delivered his maiden speech,
denouncing the protective tariff as seriously harmful
to the economy of Ohio's Third
Congressional District and strongly advocating that
many of the necessities of life be
placed on the free list. The tariff proposal presented
to the House, authored by Representative
Sereno Payne, was assailed by the Demo-
crats as unduly protectionist in
character. Consequently, Cox and nearly all his
Democratic colleagues unsuccessfully
opposed passage of the Payne bill. When this
bill emerged from a House-Senate
conference committee it was even more distasteful
to the Democrats, largely because of
numerous amendments sponsored by Chairman
25. Charging that the House had come
under the Speaker's "absolute domination," the
Democrats in their 1908 platform had
adopted the following statement: "We demand that
the House of Representatives shall again
become a deliberative body, controlled by a majority
of the people's representatives and not
by the Speaker, and we pledge ourselves to adopt such
rules and regulations to govern the
House of Representatives as will enable a majority of its
members to direct the deliberations and
control legislation. Campaign Text Book, 221.
26. Congressional Record, 61
Cong., 1 Sess., 21-22; Champ Clark, My Quarter Century of
American Politics (New York, 1920), II, 270-272; Cox, Journey Through
My Years, 64-65; Post
(Washington, D.C.), March 16, 1909.
27. A scholarly account of the income
tax question between 1895 and 1909 may be found
in Randolph E. Paul, Taxation in the
United States (Boston, 1954), 40-97; House of Repre-
sentatives, Report on the resolution
(S.J. Res. 40) proposing an amendment to the Constitution,
July 12, 1909; Congressional Record, 61
Cong., 1 Sess., 4440; Post (Washington, D.C.), July 13,
1909.
10
OHIO HISTORY
Nelson Aldrich of the Senate Finance
Committee.28 Cox was among the congressmen
opposing acceptance of the Payne-Aldrich
conference report. A motion to recommit
the conference report lost by the narrow
vote of 186-191, and the report itself was
approved by the somewhat larger margin
of 195-183.29 The tariff debate of 1909
had been long and acrimonious, and Cox
and other Democrats both in the House
and throughout the nation were expected
to focus attention on the deficiencies of
the Payne-Aldrich Tariff act in the
congressional elections of 1910.30
The House had been so preoccupied with
the tariff question that committee
assignments were not announced until the
final day of the first session. It was a
foregone conclusion that Cox, as a
freshman congressman, would be appointed to
relatively minor committees. Thus, it
was not surprising Cox was assigned to the
District of Columbia and Alcoholic
Liquor Traffic committees. Indeed he welcomed
his assignment to the District of
Columbia committee, because one day each week
was always reserved for floor debate on
matters relating to the needs of the nation's
capital.31
After spending several months in Ohio,
Cox returned to Washington for the opening
of the second session of the Sixty-First
Congress. The second session began on
December 6, 1909, and continued until
June 25, 1910. Cox and his colleagues were
undoubtedly mindful that they faced
reelection campaigns in 1910, and the second
session was characterized by unusual
partisanship. Among the major issues facing
the members were the revived controversy
over reform of House rules, establishment
of a postal savings system, and
enlargement of the powers of the Interstate Commerce
Commission.
Although the Democrats had failed to
reduce the powers of the Speaker in 1909,
criticisms of Cannon's domination of the
House persisted. An inkling that Cannon's
influence was waning occurred on January
7, 1910, at which time an amendment was
offerred by Nebraska's Representative
George W. Norris, providing a special com-
mittee to investigate the Department of
the Interior that would be elected by the
House rather than one appointed by the
Speaker. Supported by Cox and the bulk
of his fellow Democrats, the Norris
amendment was approved by a vote of 149-146.32
Ten weeks later Norris introduced a
resolution, the principal object of which was to
assure that the members of the Rules
Committee be elected by the House itself.
After three days of heated debate and
parliamentary wrangling, the House, rebuffing
Cannon, approved the Norris resolution
by a margin of 191-156. Cox not only voted
28. Congressional Record, 61
Cong., 1 Sess., 260-263, 1300-1302; Cox, Journey Through
My Years, 61-63; Post (Washington, D.C.), March 31, April
10, 1909; House of Representatives,
Conference Report on the bill (H.R.
1438) to provide revenue, equalize duties, encourage
the industries of the United States, and
for other purposes, July 30, 1909; Nathaniel W. Stephen-
son, Nelson W. Aldrich (New York,
1930), 346-361.
29. Congressional Record, 61 Cong., 1 Sess., 4754-4755; Post (Washington,
D.C.), August
1, 1909.
30. Analyses of the Payne-Aldrich act
may be found in the following articles: George M.
Fisk, "The Payne-Aldrich
Tariff," Political Science Quarterly (March 1910), 35-68; Frank
W. Taussig, "The Tariff Debate of
1909 and the New Tariff Act," Quarterly Journal of Eco-
nomics (November 1909), 1-38; H. Parker Willis, "The
Tariff of 1909," Journal of Political
Economy (November 1909), 589-619, (January 1910), 1-33.
31. Congressional Record, 61
Cong., 1 Sess., 5091-5093; Cox, Journey Through My Years, 59.
32. Norris, a dissident Republican from
Nebraska, was one of Cannon's foremost critics.
The purpose of his amendment was to
prevent Cannon from appointing a committee composed
primarily of supporters of the Interior
Department's policies. Congressional Record, 61 Cong.,
2 Sess., 404-405; George Norris, Fighting
Liberal (New York, 1945), 109-110; Post (Washing-
ton, D.C.), January 8, 1910.
Cox's Campaigns 11
for passage of the Norris resolution but
also supported an unsuccessful attempt to
depose Cannon as Speaker.33
For many years various bills calling for
the establishment of a postal savings
system had been pending before the
House. Cox had advocated such a system while
campaigning for a seat in Congress,
consistent with a plank contained in the 1908
Democratic Platform.34 Although
Cox and virtually all other congressional Democrats
favored postal savings as a matter of
principle, they objected to the proposal advanced
by the Republican majority in the House,
primarily because of a provision that the
system would be administered by a board
of trustees rather than the local post
offices. When this proposal reached the
floor of the House, Cox initially supported
a Democratic substitute for the bill and
then voted to recommit the entire measure to
the Post Offices and Post Roads
committee. Apparently feeling, however, that the
bill contained some constructive
features, Cox, unlike most of his fellow Democrats,
voted for it on final passage.5
Cox was vitally interested in
strengthening the power of the Federal Government
to regulate interstate commerce. In 1910
the House considered the Mann bill,
enlarging the government's jurisdiction
over railway operations and authorizing the
creation of a Commerce Court. Fearing
that the proposed Commerce Court would
be overly conservative in its rulings,
Cox and the vast majority of House Democrats
voted to recommit the Mann bill, and,
after the recommital motion failed by a margin
of 157-176, voted against the bill's
passage.36 This legislation, however, was con-
siderably liberalized in the Senate,
thereupon becoming known as the Mann-Elkins
bill. Consequently, Cox and nearly all
other House Democrats urged acceptance of
the Senate version of the bill, but a
motion to that effect was defeated 156-162.
Instead, the bill was sent to a House-Senate
conference committee. Convinced that
too many of the bill's beneficial
provisions had been deleted by the conference com-
mittee, the Democrats futilely opposed
the measure in its final form.37
In addition to voting on a wide variety
of national issues, Cox was involved in a
number of matters directly related to
the welfare of Ohio's Third Congressional
33. Congressional Record, 61
Cong., 2 Sess., 3436-3439; Charles R. Atkinson, "The Com-
mittee on Rules and the Overthrow of
Speaker Cannon," (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Colum-
bia University, 1911), 103-120; Norris, Fighting
Liberal, 113-119; Post (Washington, D.C.),
March 18, 19, 20, 1910.
34. Although preferring legislation to
guarantee bank deposits, the Democrats in 1908 had
adopted the following plank: "We
favor a postal savings bank if the guaranteed bank can not
be secured, and that it be constituted
so as to keep the deposited money in the communities
where it is established. But we condemn
the policy of the Republican party in proposing postal
savings banks under a plan of conduct by
which they will aggregate the deposits of rural
communities and redeposit the same while
under government charge in the banks of Wall
Street, thus depleting the circulating
medium of the producing regions and unjustly favoring
the speculative markets." Campaign Text Book,
15.
35. House of Representatives, Report on
the bill (S. 5876) to establish postal savings de-
positories, June 7, 1910; Congressional
Record, 61 Cong., 2 Sess., 7765-7768; Edwin W. Kem-
merer, Postal Savings: An Historical
and Critical Study of the Postal Savings Bank System of
the United States (Princeton, 1917), 21-49; Post (Washington,
D.C.), June 10, 1910.
36. Congressional Record, 61
Cong., 2 Sess., 6031-6033; Post (Washington, D.C.), May 11,
1910.
37. Congressional Record, 61
Cong., 2 Sess., 7577-7578; Post (Washington, D.C.), June 8,
1910; Conference Report on the Bill
(H.R. 17536) to create a commerce court, and to amend
the act entitled "An Act to
regulate commerce," approved February 4, 1887, as heretofore
amended, and for other purposes, June
14, 1910; Congressional Record, 61 Cong., 2 Sess., 8485;
Frank H. Dixon, "The Mann-Elkins
Act, Amending the Act to Regulate Commerce," Quar-
terly Journal of Economics (August 1910), 593-633.
12 OHIO
HISTORY
District. In 1910 he addressed his
colleagues on conditions at the Soldiers' Home in
Dayton, complaining that the amount of
money appropriated for the subsistence of
the veterans residing there was woefully
inadequate. Cox persuaded the House to
increase a proposed appropriation for
the Soldiers' Home by $253,000. He was also
instrumental in securing House approval
for the construction of a new federal build-
ing in Dayton, a facility which at the
time of its completion would include a central
post office and a United States District
Court.38
Renominated for the House of
Representatives in 1910, Cox formally began his
reelection campaign by delivering a
lengthy speech at the Coliseum in Hamilton on
October 7. The 1910 congressional
campaign was remarkably similar to Cox's
initial political venture two years
earlier. As in 1908, this campaign lasted approxi-
mately five weeks and was confined
primarily to Montgomery and Butler counties.
Also, consistent with the policy he had
established in 1908, Cox concentrated on a
few major issues and never referred to
either of his two opponents by name.
Unlike 1908, Cox in 1910 was an
incumbent congressman. Rather than merely
criticizing the Republican opposition,
he constantly reminded his constituents of the
votes he had cast during his term in the
House. Indeed Cox made his voting record
the basis of his reelection campaign,
citing the principal questions considered by the
House and explaining why he had
supported or opposed each.
As in 1908, Cox insisted that the tariff
was the paramount issue of the campaign.
At virtually every public appearance the
congressman staunchly defended his opposi-
tion to the Payne-Aldrich tariff.
Charging that the act was a thoroughly protectionist
measure, he frequently alleged a causal
relationship between the prevailing high duties
and the rising cost of living.
Accordingly, Cox complained that the 1909 statute
adversely affected the economic welfare
of the Third District's farmers, workers, and
consumers. Stipulating that the tariff
should only be high enough to compensate for
differences in production costs at home
and abroad, the legislator maintained that
protective tariff constituted an
indirect taxation. He also reiterated his conviction
that the high Republican tariff provoked
foreign nations to adopt retaliatory policies
which forced American manufacturers to
remove their operations to other countries.
He also reaffirmed that the tariff was
the foremost reason for the growth of monopolies
in the United States. Repeatedly
criticizing the Republican party for ignoring its 1908
platform pledge in behalf of tariff
revision, Cox inferred that the GOP was irrevocably
committed to the protective tariff. As a
remedy for the problems occasioned by the
high tariff, he strongly endorsed the
negotiation of reciprocity treaties with foreign
nations. Judging by the priority status
which Cox accorded to the tariff issue and the
fervor with which he assailed the
Payne-Aldrich act, he undoubtedly was convinced
that his constituents were deeply
concerned with this question.39
Next to the tariff issue Cox devoted an
unusual amount of attention to the income
tax question. Although Congress in 1909
had approved an income tax amendment
to the Constitution, only nine states
had ratified this amendment by October 1910.
Cox and many other Democrats had urged
passage of a congressional income tax
bill, assuming that the Supreme Court
would likely reverse its 1895 decision declaring
such a law unconstitutional. Cox
asserted that prompt approval of income tax legisla-
38. Congressional Record, 61
Cong., 2 Sess., 6177-6183, 6990-6998, 7003-7006; Cox, Journey
Through My Years, 60-61, 65-66; United States Statutes at Large,
1909-1911, XXXVI, 680, 694,
704, 1370.
39. Daily News (Dayton), October
7, 11-29, 1910; Evening Journal (Hamilton), October 7,
11-15, 18, 19, 1910; Daily
News-Signal (Middletown), October 8, 11-14, 17, 18, 1910.
Cox's Campaigns 13
tion would provide additional revenue
for the Federal Government and thus facilitate
tariff reduction. He also declared that
such legislation would "compel hidden and in
many instances inactive wealth to pay
its proportionate share of public expenses."
Finally, Cox concluded that the existing
federal corporation tax was ultimately paid
by the consumer, because corporations
generally increased the prices of their products
in order to secure necessary money for
their taxes.40
Although Cox scrupulously refrained from
indulging in personalities when cam-
paigning against his opponents in the
Third Congressional District, he availed himself
of every opportunity to excoriate the leaders
of the Republican party in the House and
Senate. On many occasions he sharply
criticized Speaker Cannon and Senator Aldrich.
Aware that Cannon's image had become
considerably tarnished, Cox charged that the
Speaker had devised tyrannical rules for
the avowed purpose of stifling majority
sentiment in the House. The Ohioan made
it quite clear that Cannon's influence
could be eliminated only if the
Democrats gained control of the House of Representa-
tives. As for Aldrich, Cox assailed the
Senator for his role in perpetuating the pro-
tective tariff and resisting tax reform.
Cox often reminded his audiences that Cannon
and Aldrich were the two dominant
figures in Congress, and that, as a consequence
of their leadership, the Republicans had
remained insensitive to the pressing needs
of the time.41
During the 1910 campaign Cox also
directed his attention to such issues as postal
savings, railroad regulation, and
conservation. He expressed pride in having voted
for the establishment of a postal
savings bank, arguing that this institution would not
only protect the savings of workers and
farmers but would also eliminate fears of
periodic financial panics.42 Explaining
the votes he had cast on the Mann-Elkins bill,
he emphasized his belief in effective
federal regulation of railway operations. Finally,
Cox severely criticized the
conservationist policies of the Republican party, specific-
ally citing President William Howard
Taft's controversial dismissal of an ardent
conservationist, Gifford Pinchot, as
Chief of the Forestry Service.43
Cox's principal opponent, Republican
George R. Young of Dayton, waged an
unusually brief campaign and made
comparatively few public appearances.44 Young's
position on the tariff was diametrically
opposed to that espoused by Cox, as the
Republican aspirant praised both the
principle of tariff protectionism and the Payne-
Aldrich act. Young also attempted to identify
the leadership of the Republican party
with sound money and national
prosperity. Although he firmly supported his party
on all substantive issues, Young did on
several occasions indicate his strong dis-
approval of Speaker Cannon.45
40. Daily News (Dayton), October
7, 13, 18, 19, 22, 24, 1910; Evening Journal (Hamilton),
October 13, 19, 1910; Daily
News-Signal (Middletown), October 13, 18, 1910.
41. Daily News (Dayton), October
11, 12, 14, 15, 17-19, 26, 28, 31, November 1, 3, 1910;
Evening Journal (Hamilton), October 11, 15, 19, 1910; Daily
News-Signal (Middletown),
October 11, 12, 14, 18, 1910.
42. Daily News (Dayton), October
11, 14, 24, 1910; Evening Journal (Hamilton), October
14, 15, 19, 1910; Daily News-Signal (Middletown),
October 14, 18, 1910.
43. Daily News (Dayton), October
13, 14, 31, 1910; Evening Journal (Hamilton), ibid.;
Daily News-Signal (Middletown), ibid.
44. In 1910 Cox was also challenged by
two minor opponents, Harmon Evans, Socialist,
and Richard E. O'Byrne, Independent.
45. Journal (Dayton), October 11,
18, 23, 25, 27, 28, 1910; Republican-News (Hamilton),
October 10, 21, 22, 27, 28, November 2,
1910.
14 OHIO HISTORY
The 1910 elections were held on November 8. The Democrats won a smashing nationwide victory, gaining fifty-six seats in the House of Representatives, adding nine seats in the United States Senate, and securing a majority of the governorships in the various states. The Democratic trend was nowhere more evident than in Ohio's Third Congressional District. Cox, again carrying all three of the district's counties, was easily reelected to Congress. The election statistics were as follows:46 |
|
Cox's margin of 12,809 votes over his Republican opponent was a very impressive plurality. His total accounted for 62.7% of the major party vote, whereas four years earlier the Democratic congressional candidate had polled only 48.2% of the major party vote. Cox undoubtedly was genuinely pleased that such a sizeable majority of the Third District's voters had responded so favorably, both to his performance as a member of the House of Representatives, and to the issues which he had effectively championed in the 1910 campaign. Although appointed to the prestigious Committee on Appropriations at the open- ing of the Sixty-Second Congress in April 1911, Cox was soon thereafter to begin his quest for the governorship of Ohio. Nominated for governor by acclamation on June 15, 1912 and elected to the first of three terms as Ohio's chief executive on November 5, 1912, he was to climax his distinguished public career in 1920 as the Democratic candidate for President of the United States. A political novice at the time he launched his initial congressional campaign in September 1908, Cox by November 1910 had been overwhelmingly reelected to his second term in the House of Representatives and thus became the leading contender for the governorship of the nation's third largest state. Indeed the twenty-six month period between September 1908 and November 1910 constituted the political apprenticeship of James M. Cox.
46. The Democrats won 228 of the 390 seats in the House, thus guaranteeing the end of Cannon's reign as Speaker. Although the Republicans retained nominal control of the Senate, that body was to be dominated during the next two years by a coalition of forty-one Democrats and approximately ten progressive Republicans. Harmon was reelected governor of Ohio by 100,377 votes, and the Democrats also elected governors in such important states as Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and Indiana. Altogether the Democrats would have twenty-six of the nation's forty-six governorships. Annual Report of the Secretary of State, 1910, p. 168. |
PHILIP A. GRANT, JR.
Congressional Campaigns of
James M Cox, 1908 and 1910
On September 16, 1908, the Democrats of
the Third Congressional District of Ohio
held their biennial convention at
Middletown and by acclamation nominated James
M. Cox of Dayton as their candidate for
the House of Representatives. Thus began
the public career of the only Ohioan
ever nominated for the presidency by the
Democratic party. The aggressive
campaign waged by Cox for a seat in Congress
inaugurated a twelve year period of
sustained political activity, culminating in his
candidacy for President of the United
States.
Thirty-eight years of age, Cox was the
publisher of the Dayton Daily News and
one of southwestern Ohio's most
illustrious citizens.1 The year 1908 was indeed an
opportune time for Cox to launch his
political career. The Democrats of the Third
District were optimistic that year
largely because the Republican opposition was
split into two irreconcilable factions,
one of which was led by Charles W. Bieser,
Montgomery County Republican chairman,
and the other by freshman Congressman
John E. Harding of Middletown.
Bieser had been responsible for denying
renomination to Harding, and the latter
was to retaliate by running for
reelection to Congress in 1908 as an independent.
Replacing Harding as the Republican
nominee was one of Bieser's most loyal
supporters, State Representative William
G. Frizell of Dayton. The Third District
consisted of Montgomery, Butler, and
Preble counties, and was marginal in political
complexion.2 Since the
district was almost evenly divided between Republicans and
Democrats, it was imperative for each
party to maintain maximum harmony within
its ranks. In 1906, when the Republicans
had been united, Harding had easily
defeated his Democratic challenger by a
plurality of 1,730 votes: 24,567 (49.4%)
to 22,837 (46.0%). The Socialist and
Prohibitionist candidates had received 1,896
and 393 votes respectively.3
Although nominated on September 16, Cox
did not launch his congressional
1. For an autobiographical account of
Cox's early life see James M. Cox, Journey Through
My Years (New York, 1946), 3-53.
2. During the sixteen years of its
existence, the district had been represented by five congress-
men: three Democrats and two
Republicans. Each party had won four regular congressional
elections during this period, while the
Democrats had won the only special election. Indicative
of the district's marginal character was
the fact that four of these elections had been decided
by less than 202 votes.
3. Ohio, Annual Report of the
Secretary of State, 1906, p. 153.
Mr. Grant is associate professor of
history at Pace College Westchester in Pleasantville, New
York.