Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-08-30
JAMES vi. COX UNLIKELY
TO BE DEMOCRAT CHOICE
Defeat in 1920 Presidential Race Is OBJ
stacle to denomination of Prohi-
bition Repeal Advocate.

nomination sweepstakes In such I'M
Official polls of sentiment as have been
taken he ranks far down on the list
In his own State Democratic leaders
are doubtful of his strength as a favo-
rite son, Gov. George White, former
national chairman, and Newton D.
Baker, Secretary of War in President
Wilson'S cabinet, having a greater hold
than he on the support of the Ohio
Democracy
Judging from present indications, Mr.
Cox would become contender only If
the factions opposed to Gov Franklin
d. Roosevelt's candidacy found it i'm
possible to unite on one of the more
prominently considered compromise
candidates. Still. a political situation
can change considerably in II or IL
months. and stranger things could hap
pen than the nomination of Mr.. Cox.
Should TIE three-time Governor of
Ohio find himself formidable oppo-
nent of Gov. Roosevelt in the Demo-
cratic convention. a situation would be
presented in which running mates I'M
der the Democratic standard in 1920
would be striving for the main prize.
1929 Defeat Is Obstacle.
The defeat suffered by Cox in 1920.
more decisive from the standpoint of
D
reason why Cox cannot at this stage
be regarded as a serious contender for
the nomination in 1892 Although there
Is precedent for it, party leaders are
reluctant to nominate defeated can
dldate unless they are forced to because
of the candidates exceptional personal
strength as was the case when Will
liam Jennings Bryan seized the banner
in 1912 after having suffered two
defeats.
Aside from the handicap of previous
defeat, however, Mr. Cox does not seem
to labor under disadvantages more nu-
msrCuS than those attached to the can
didacy of any other Democratic posi-
bility, except that at present there is
TO movement in his behalf. If as has
been objected. Mr.: Cox is identified with
the Wilsonlan ideals which aroused so
much antagonism in the Democratic
ranks in 1920. so, too. is Gov. Roose-
ye!t, who campaigned on the same plat
form and was Assistant Secretary of
the Navy in Wilson'S wartime cabinet.
On the positive SIDE Mr.. Cox is COM
paratiVely young The is 81 years old
and vigorous. Since his defeat he has
not taken prominent part in politics.
hence he has avoided alignments with
any faction. He was said to be behind
the Smith-Raskob leadership in the
dtGtIlpJ OF Ine present national CHAIR
man to place the National Committee
on record in advance of the national
convention as in favor of repeal of the
eighteenth amendment but when the
committee met last March he made
conciliatory speech.
FavorS Prohibition Repeal.
Although former Gov. Smith and Mr..
Raskob have thus far maintained ST.
lence concerning their choice for the
1882 race, both have stressed the desir-
ability of a wet candidate and a wet
platform. II this is the criterion of
availability for the nomination, former
Gov. Cox should be considered among
the contenders, for he has plainly de-
clared his opposition to the eighteenth
amendment. As late as June, 1890
Mr.. Cox said:
II unhesitatipgly favor the repeal of
the eighteenth amendment"
AS Governor of Ohio he was opposed
by the Anti-Salcon League because it
was felt he had given aid and comfort
to the enemies OF a stricter excise law.
He was outskopen against the enact
ment of the eighteenth amendment in
the absence of e large proportion of the
younger voters who were servIngsin the
A. e, F. His position in 1920 was one
Of favoring light wines and beers, qual-
fled by a proncuncement in favor OF
law enaetnent. Consistently through