Ohio History Journal

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.

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.

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.