The Birmingham age-herald., 1920-10-22
ROOTS REPLY ID
 TELEGRAM OF COX
 IS MADE PUBLIC
Says Nominee Makes Only One Statement Showing Where He Stands and That Is
 Meaningless
By Associaien rress

tonight made public the following tefe- gram to Governor Cox replying to his request to correct an alleged false statement in MT. Roots New York ad dress Tuesday regarding the governors position upon the League of Nations:
 T have today received your telegram dated yesterday. l would not willingly do you injustice, as 1 do not think 1 have. You began your campaign by an interview with the President and au- thoritative statement that yom and he
 were in complete accord upon the League of Nations. l cannot be nis- taken about his position. Throughout the long struggle in the Senate he steadfastly refused to give his assent to any reservation when substantially changed the covenant as he brought i, back. He certainly has not changed His very recent utterances show that If you have changed from that complete accord with him. have not heard of it. Such a change is not indicated by the vague and general expressions of your telegram, saying that you will accept reservations that will clarify, that will be helpful, that will reassure the Amer ican people, that you would sit down with the members of the Senate. that you would confer with MT. Wilson, MT Taft and myself, and all others who have sincere purpose, etc. because you are the one who would determine what was helpful, what would reassure the American people, what advice you follow, and you are solemnly pub
 lcly pledged to an agreement with Mr. wilson concerning the covenant he brought back from Europe,
 There is one statement of your tel egram that does give a definite idea of where you stand upon what MT. Wilson declares to be the heart of the league the general alliance of Article X, by which the United States would under take to guarantee as against external aggression the territory and independ ence of every member of the league and to make that guarantee good by war if necessary. You say in your telegram that you will accept reservations that Will clearly show our associates in the league that Congress and Congress alone has the right to declare war and that our constitution sets up limits Ill legislation or treaty making beyond winch we cannot go.'
 MEANS NOTHING
 That, 1t seems, is what you are will ing to do about Article x. We'll, it is absolutely nothing. Everybody knows already that only Congress has right to declare war, and that there are lim- its to legislation and treaty making power. All governments of all civil- ized nations know it. You accomplish nothing hN tcllingGhem ot 1t agan rhe trouble about giving llie pliarani ee pro vided in Article Is that the making of a treaty containing 1t is solemn as- surance to aif nations that it is within the treaty making power. and that the promise to make war binds Congress as fully as it binds all other mem be rs of our government to maintain the plighted faith of the United States. In all governments the power to declare war rests somewhere and an agreement to make war is an agreement that that power shall be so exercised by off, cers in whom it rests A refusal by Congress to pass the necessary resolu- tion would simply be a breach of treaty.
 An analogous case in the power of Congress to appropriate money There is no other power in our government to do that; but if the United States makes treaty agreeing to pay $1 1,000, GOO, 900 to another country. would any one say that the obligation would ,e cancelled by refusal of Congress to the money? Certainly ret; the only effect would be that the United States would have broken faith. The real question is whether we shall enter into a guarantee under which the faith of treaties will require Congress. to pass resolution declaring war. That is what the President proposed That is what your telegram makes is clear you propose.
 "On the same day when you sent the telegram, according to the press re- ports, in a meeting at Providence some in ha t6i sL aJ fJ you accept the Lodge reservations to the League of Nations2' There vas your opportunity. Among those reser. vations was one which said:
 The United States assumes no ob- ligation to preserve the territorial In, tegrity or political indepe ndence of any other country by the supplement of military or naval forces, etc. unless in any particular case the Con3r Ass which under the constitution has the sole power to declare or to authorize the employment Of military or naval forces of the United States shall in the exercise of full liberty of action by act or joint resolution so provide.f
 ''The reservation would leave con gress free whenever the time came 10 act in accordance with its judgment and conscience, and the judgment and
 
 ing the merits of the controversy at that time.
 Your position. as you now state it, would leave Congress bound by .hs solemn pledge offaith to our country to pass the resolution for war no nat ter what the merits of the controversy might be.
 "If you did not mean that Con gress should be bound. you had an opportun'- ty at that meeting in Providence to say, I agree 10 this reservation o> this part of this reservation. Your answer is reported to have been, The Lodge reservations never were serious. ly suggested. If they had been. Sena- ter Lodge would have declared for them in the republican platform adopt ed at Chicago And thus you side stepped the question: and you state in your telegram to me the perfectly fu- tile thing you are willing to do Ipon the subject of Article x.
 Your telegram to me undertakes to state your case. and both what you say a nd what you refrain from saying con firm the understanding 1 expressed in my speech that your position and I,ur- pose are to impose upon the United States the covenant negotiated at Paris any real change whatever"