The Lexington intelligencer. [volume] (Lexington, Mo.) 1901-1949, 1922-06-02

Its editorial page:
THE Globe-Democrat is an In
dependent newspaper, printing the
news impartially, supporting what
1t believes to be right and oppos-
ing what 1t believes to be wrong,
without regard to party politics"
The same issue Of the Globe DEM
ocrat contained the following editor
ial, dealing with the candidacy Of
Senator James A. Reed for renomina-
ton in the democratic party, Aug. LIST:
ais Reed Right or Wrong7"
"The test is" said Senator Reed in
his speech at Springfield Monday, mot
whether | agreed with the President
but whether l was right or wrong"
That, indeed, is the test. We have
never had any quarrel with Mr.. Reeds
independence of thought or action.
We are independent ourselves, and
take orders from no man or no party.
one, who Is elected to an office call
ing for the exercise Of craftsmanship
should be Judged primarily by his
judgment, as 1t is expressed in his acts.
Was Mr.. Reed right or wrong? If he
was right the Democratic party was
wrong. There Is no escape from that
conclusion. Mr.. Reed Is going about
the state telling the people that he
opposed the demands of the Wilson adj
ministration for a great standing army
and navy, for universal military SER
vice, after the world war, and for the
acceptance of a mandate over Armenia.
Aud he asks his hearers If they would
have supported these proposals. OF
course, they answer mo" and he in
terperts this as public approval.
AS a matter of fact, there we're not
party issues. The Secretary Of War
presented recommendations proposed
by the general staff as to the estab-
lishment of the army on a peace foot
ing. This was not an administra-
ton demand nor did Wilson give it
active support. The Republican Con-
gress reOrganized the army and navy
according to its own Ideas Of right,
and It's work was approved by VIII
son. The President asked Congress to
accept a mandate for Armenia, but
with no expectation that 1t would be
granted. and he did not press the mat
ter. These questions did not make
a ripple In public interest. There was
never the slightest chance Of the adOp-
ton Of the department army program
or Of the Armenian mandate. The
Democratic platform of 1920 did not
have a word to say about army or
navy organization and did not support
an Armenian mandate, cOntenting II.
self with a recommendation that Am
erica should render any proper aid
to the Armenians, consistent with the
constitution. to enable them to estab-
fish a government Of their own.
Senator Reeds attitude on these
matters had nothing to do with the
anger that caused the Democratic
party of Missouri to re%pudiate him
In 1920. The Issue between him and
his party does not rest upon the re-
latlvely unimportant acts which he
presents in detail In his plea for sup
port, but upon the highly important
acts In opposition to the primary de.
mands Of the party, discussion Of which
he o carefully avoids. "Let bygOnes
be b%ygones," he has said. Yet he de.
clares that the test Is whether he was
right or wrong. Right or wrong on
WHAT On the small matters Of no par
ticular interest, or upon the big ques.
lions that were and r the core and
circumference Of Democratic party
p%rinclplesf No man did more than Reed
to defeat the Democratic party in
1920 by his constant vigorous and
vl%tuperative opposition to these prin.
clples. Was he right or wrong In thisl
That, he says. is the test. II he
was right, we repeat, the party was
wrong, and support Of Reed must be
Viewed as a confession that It was
wrong.
In September, 1919, when President
Wilson was turning, eastward from
California, In that great speaking
tour which ended so traglcally a few
days later, Senator Reed made a four
hour speech In the Senate, one OF
many such, opposing the purposes Of
that historic Journey. Was he right
II so, Wilson was wrong, treasonably
wrong. In April, 1920, the Missouri
Democratic Convention refused, by &
vote Of 1910 to 429, TO permit Reed
TO be a delegate to the national con
vention and In its platform instructed
the Missouri delegation to "vOte AZ
a unit for the adoption Of a platform
approving the League OF Nations
without destructive reservations OF
the part Of the Senate" Was II RICH
In thls7 II so. Reed was wrong. Wa,
the Democratic party right when II
national convention II demanded tn,
ratification Of the covenant Of tn,
League of Nations and declared tina
"only by doing this may we hope I,
aid effectively in the restoration O
order throughout the world and to tax,
the place, which we should assum,
In the front rank Of spiritual. com
mercial and industrial advancementY'
II the party was right. then Reed wa.
wrong. Reed was bitterly, viciously, viru
lently against all this. and aided mlghtil,
In overwhelming tho party in defeat. Wa.
he right, or was the party rightf Tha
II the issue.
The party was right, never 80 supremel,
right In all It's history, as the course .
subsequent events IL constantly proving
And Reed was wrong. enormously wrong
The party cannot indorse Reed without re
pudiating the finest and highest principle
Z has ever advocated. II cannot indorsI
Reed without striking a deliberate blow
60 the great leader who led the mart,
y the people Through the nations mos