be respected, assuring those of both contending factions that public opinion within the city would speedily ascertain the right and wrong of the controversy.  And so it proved to be.  But learning there were abuses in the plants that needed correction the Governor gave his assent to an investigation by a legislative committee through the helpful publicity of which all interests were induced to redress certain grievances.  It gave an object lesson not only to Akron but to all the state.  It taught even the turbulent element that only harm could come through infraction of the law and through disrespect for rights of person and property.  The remainder of the story is that I. W. W. disturbers have more sterile soil in Ohio to cultivate than in any of the states about it.

A startling comparison two years later at East Youngstown, during the administration of Governor Cox’s successor, disclosed by contrast the value of the peaceful plan.  Through a policy of uncertainty and wavering, a riot was allowed to start and military were needed to put down the disorder, life being lost in the process.

The details of the incidents of similar nature to that of Akron need not be recounted here, but the invariable policy pursued was the collection of all the facts, so far as possible, by a representative of capital and one of labor.  Of this course, the simple statement can be made that it was eminently successful.

This recital has been made as a preliminary to the narrative of the great steel strike of 1919 on which the Governor’s fame as an administrator in troubled times largely rests.  The same policy of investigation and research was pursued.  Solemn warning was given that freedom of speech and assembly must be respected rigidly but that neither must become the instrument of license nor of subversive speech or conduct.  At the time when the situation reached a critical stage the Governor issued this statement: 

“To the Mayors of municipalities and County Sheriffs of Ohio: 

“I am impressed with the importance of a statement to the mayors and sheriffs as to a policy which should serve as a guide to government, both state and local, in the matter of turbulent conditions which have developed in many communities, from pending industrial disputes.

“We have inquiry at the executive office from local officials clearly indicating that no rule of action has been developed in the face of present emergencies and further that none is in prospect.  The constitution imposes upon the Governor the very definite responsibility of law enforcement.  While it is the duty of the mayor of a municipality and the sheriff of the county to execute the laws, the founders of our charter of government gave to the state executive, not only the right to keep vigilant eye on conditions in every community, but his oath imposes the obligation so to do.  Therefore, in no part of the state must a public officer permit the violation of the law.  The mayors and sheriffs seem to have proper concept of their duty in the abstract.  The purpose of this statement is to deal with specifications.