The Connecticut labor press., 1920-11-13
GRAVE OMISSIONS
 IN COX'S RECORD
 ARE NOW ALLEGED
Missing Portions Vitally Import ant to Labor Men in Compar-
 ing Presidential Candidates.
AN INADVERTENCE
Not Believed That A. F. of L.. Heads Were Aware of Appar-
 ent Error in Compilation.

The somewhat amazing announce ment Is now made that the informa- ton supplied to members of organized labor throughout the country in relation to the records of Candidates Harding and Cox by the heads of the A. F. of L. non-partisan movement, probably without intention, omitted matter ad- verse to Governor Cox. The following article from The National Labor Di- gest presents the situation without prejudice:
 ''An unfortunate omission has come to light i'll the comparison of the rec ords of Senator Harding and Governor Cox in relation to measures in which Labor has been deeply interested. This comparison was compiled and put forth very recently over the signatures of Samuel Gompers, Matthew Wol1 and Frank Morrison, president, vice-presi- dent and secretary, respectively, of the American Federation of Labor. It was published in full in the September issue of The National Labor Digest and was given official publication in the Amer ican Federationist about 10 days later. The omission is evidenced in the Cox record and consists, principally, of points unfavorab1e to Labor. The miss
 
 necessary to labor men wishing to form an accurate opinion, based on past performances, of the two candidates for the presidency The absence of so inn portant a part of the congressional rec ord of Governor Cox, as that omitted, has aroused the suspicion III many quarters that activities of Senator Harding, more favorable to Labor, per haps, than those shown in the record published, may also have been over looked The discovery of the omission was made by Congressman John I. Nolan (Labor) and Paul Scharrenberg, secretary of the California State Fed eration of Labor and labor member of the Presidents Industrial Confer ence which went on the rocks over the question of collective bargaining.
 MT. Scharrenberg, desirous of giving the Federation political committee the full benefit of all doubts, wrote imme- diately (September 28th( to President Gompers asking for an explanation be speedily given. Three weeks later, with election day drawing very close, no explanation has been received and Labor's non-partisan political move ment has thus been placed Ill an ex- treme1y embarrassing light. It can not for a moment be imagined that the omission was deliberate act intended to deceive the followers of Labor. MT. Gompers and his associates responsible for the document, are politicians, by far too wise to attempt anything so crude. It IS but reasonable to believe that satisfactory explanation will be made sooner or later, but 1t has been monumental error to allow its making to be delayed.
 "A careful check of the 10 test votes listed by Labor as a check on the con- gressiona1 records of the members of the Sixty-second Congress shows that Governor Cox, then congressman, voted favorably on two of them and absented himself on roll call on the other eight measures.
 "The ten issues omitted from the Cox labor record, as sent out over the sigma lures of Gompers, Woll and Morrison, and published in The National Labor Digest, were of enough interest to La bor to cause the American Federation of Labor to check up all other members of Congress and record their votes on them. Together with Governor Cox's action on each, they follow:
 May B, 1o11-Statehood for
 Arizona and New Mexico
 providing mandatory enact
 ment of the initiative, ref
 erendum and recall. Not voting May 13, 1o12-Popu1ar cleo
 tion of United States Sen
 ators Not voting May IA, 1o12-Clayton In-
 junction Limitation Bill,
 rule to consider. Not voting May IA, 1o12-Fina1 passage
 Clayton Injunction Limita-
 ton Bill NOI VOtlIlS July 8, 1o12-Rule to consid-
 CT Clayton Bill to regulate
 court procedure in con-
 tempt cases .......No Not voting July il, 1o12-Clayton Con-
 tempt Bill-fnal passage. Not voting Dec. Y, 1912-Literacy Test
 in Immigration Restriction
 Bill Not voting Feb. 1o, le15-Immigration
 Restriction Bill over Presi-
 dents veto .....Fa Favorable March l, IWorkmen's
 Compensation ............ + Favorable March 4, 1913-Sundry Civil
 over Presidents veto be-
 cause 1t contained exemp-
 ton of labor from prosecu-
 ton under antitrust act. Not voting
 There are several questions which this incident has already aroused and which should be answered: What is the explanation of the omission in the Cox record? Are there any other points in Cox's entire political record, unfavor able to Labor, which have not been made public? Are there any points Ill the, Harding record favorable to La Dor, which were overlooked i'll Labor's compilation of the Harding and Cox records? These are simple questions that are being asked by men entitled to know exactly how favorable or un- favorable each candidate has proved himself to be to their interests. They are natural questions. Intelligent work CTS do not want any candidate made to appear to them as better or worse than all the facts prove him to be. If men are asked to accept, with confidence, Labor's reports on such matters, Labor must exercise great care in seeing that xl-