Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1922-06-08

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 Wrons7"
"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 It 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
m~inistration for a great standing army
and nav for universal military SER
vice, after the world war. and for the
acceptance of a mandate W. Armenia,
And he asks his hearers if they would
have supported these proposals. or
course, they answer NO" and he in
terperts this ms 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 Il peace foot
ing. This was not an administra-
ton "demand'' nor did Wilson give it
active support. The Republican Con-
gress recognized the army and navy
according to its own ideas of right,
and its work was approved by Will
son. The President asked Congress to
accept a mandate for Armenia, but
with no expectation that it 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
vi VI liC AIlItiltull lllsilludLNs AliC
Democratic platform of 1920 did not
have a word TO say about army OF
navy organization and did not support
an Armenian mandate, co~ntenting it.
self with a recommendation that Am
erica should render any proper aid
to the Armenians, consistent with the
constitution, to enable them to estab-
lish 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 ~repudiate him
IN 1920. The issue between him and
his party does not rest upon the re-
latively 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 now carefully avoids. "Let bygones
be bygones," 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-
tons that were and are the core and
circumference of Democratic party
principles? No mar did more than Reed
to defeat the Democratic party in
1920 by his constant vigorous and
vituperative opposition to these prin-
iciples. Was he right or wrong in this?
That, he says, is the test. If he
was right, we repeat. the party was
wrong, and support of Reed must be
viewed as a confession that ii was
wrong.
In September, 1919, when President
Wilson was turning, eastward from
California, in that great speaking
tour which ended SO tragically q 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?
If so, Wilson was wrong, reasonably
wrong. In April, 1920, the Missouri
Democratic Convention refused. by a
vote of 1910 to APO, to permit Reed
to be a delegate to the national con-
vention and In It's platform instructed
the Missouri delegation to vote as
q unit for the adoE ion of a platform
approving the League of Nations
without destructive reservations On
the part of the Senate" Was 1t right
in this? If so. Reed was wrong. Was
the Democratic party right when in
national convention 1t demanded the
ratification of the covenant of the
League of Nations and declared that
"only by doing this may we hope to
aid effectively in the restoration of
order throughout the world and to take
the place, which we should assume
in the front rank of spiritual, CON-
mercial and industrial advancement
If the party was right. then Reed was
wrong. Reed was bitterly, viciously. viru-
lentiy against all this. and aided nightly
In overwhelming the party in defeat. Was
he right, or was the party right? That
Is the issue.
The party was right, never so supremely
right In all Its history, as the course Of
subsequent events is constantly proving.
And Reed was wrong, enormously wrong.
The party cannot indorse Reed without re-
pudiating the finest n highest principles
iit has ever advocated. It cannot indorse
Reed without striking a deliberate blow
at the great leader who led the party
and the people through the nations most
appalling crisis, and set American stand
ards Of righteousness upon heights never
before attained. only to fan himself before
the ons!aughts Of such men as James A.
Reed, The Democratic party. in all the
years OF its history. never achieved so
much or SO fully justified Its existence as
IT It'd under Woodrow Wilson. Yet Reed
who perhaps did more than any other one
man to cause the defeat Of the party, is
asking the Democrats Of Missouri to re-
turn him to the Senate. where. he
uromtsee be will nureata tina 90 ma r.nree