JOHN L. NETHERS
"Driest of Drys": Simeon D. Fess
The struggle was long and hard fought,
but the final victory was short-lived for
the national prohibition movement in the
United States. Temporary success came
with the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment
in 1919, but the drys had to admit
defeat with adoption of the Twenty-first
Amendment in 1933. One contemporary
historian has noted that the "most
importunate of all the crusades of this generation
was that against Demon Rum."1
Many persons and organizations had been
caught up in the persistent temper-
ance crusade which had its roots in the
colonical period and included the Woman's
Christian Temperance Union and Frances
Willard, temperance orators such as
Neal Dow and John Gough, the Anti-Saloon
League, the Temperance Society of
the Methodist Episcopal Church--the most
active of the religious denominations in
denouncing alcohol--and Carry Amelia
Nation of Kansas whose hatchet symbolized
her personal vendetta against the
saloon. Among the Ohioans who played a part
in this vexing economic, social, and
political drama was Simeon D. Fess, educator,
politician, and statesman.
Fess was born in 1861 on a farm near
West Newton, Allen County, Ohio, to
Henry and Barbara Herring Fess. The
father, born in 1808, probably in Berne,
Switzerland, had emigrated during the
early thirties with other members of his
family to the United States where the
family settled in Westmoreland County,
Pennsylvania. During his early manhood,
Henry moved to Cincinnati, where in
1847 he met and married Barbara Herring.
The family remained in Cincinnati
until around 1859 when they moved
northward to Allen County, probably because
Barbara had relatives there.2
Simeon's father died in 1866 leaving his
widow and seven children destitute.
The family depended upon the older
children for economic support, but Simeon,
being the sixth born and only four years
old at the time of his father's death,
remained at home. When he was ten, he
went to live with his older and only sister,
Elizabeth, who had recently married a
farmer by the name of George Brown. At
sixteen, he began working for the local
farmers from whom he received his lodging;
1. Samuel Eliot Morison and Henry Steele
Commager, The Growth of the American Republic (New
York, 1962), II, 463.
2. The only biographies of Fess are John
Lewis Nethers, "Simeon D. Fess: Educator and Politician"
(unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The
Ohio State University, 1964) and Lehr Fess, "The Most Unforget-
table Character I have ever Known,"
Northwest Ohio Quarterly, XXXIII (1961), 154-159.
Mr. Nethers is professor of history,
Ashland College.
|
however, he intermittently made his home at the Browns until he married in 1890.3 Fess attended one-room rural schools and, after completing high school at Alger in 1879, passed the county examination for teachers. He found employment at "Flea Harbor" school a few miles south of West Newton.4 In 1881, a year after he began teaching, Fess entered Ohio Normal University (now Ohio Northern) at Ada, only a few miles from West Newton. He became regularly employed in 1887 at the university as a tutor and instructor, and continued as a student, graduating in 1889 with highest honors. Upon graduation he remained at his alma mater as an instructor of history, political science, and constitutional law. In 1899 Fess was 3. Information on Fess's ancestry, birth, early education, and youthful activities, as well as those of his wife, was obtained from many sources, especially from personal interviews, private papers, and cor- respondence with this author. Lehr Fess, Fess's eldest son, who died in 1965, provided valuable informa- tion through interviews and the loan of his father's personal papers and memorabilia. The bulk of the Simeon D. Fess papers are now deposited at the Ohio Historical Society. See also Nethers, "Fess," 1-9. 4. Rhoda Brown to Lehr Fess, April 23, 1959, Lehr Fess private papers; Lehr Fess, interview held at Toledo, October 18, 1963. See also Nethers, "Fess." 8-11, 14-15. |
180 OHIO
HISTORY
selected as vice-president and secretary
of the university, while continuing as a
lecturer.5
A year after graduation from college, he
married Eva Caudas Thomas, daughter
of Dr. Benjamin Allen and Ella Thomas of
Rushville, Fairfield County, Ohio. Dr.
Thomas was a general practitioner in
that community for many years. Eva had
graduated from Ohio Northern in 1887 and
immediately became a member of the
faculty, teaching Latin.6
Wishing to attain a doctorate of
philosophy in history and law, Fess in 1902
left Ohio Northern and became a graduate
student and lecturer at the University
of Chicago. Mainly because of financial
problems (by then the couple had three
sons), he left Chicago in 1907 to assume
the presidency of Antioch College, Yellow
Springs, Ohio, where he remained as
president and professor of history until 1917,
when he resigned to devote full time to
his political responsibilities in the United
States House of Representatives.7 Until
his death in 1936 he continued to make
his home in Yellow Springs.
Even though his two attempts for public
office were unsuccessful while he was
still at Ohio Northern, he was elected
as a delegate to the Ohio Constitutional
Convention of 1912, where he served as
vice-president. Caught up in the fever of
politics, later in 1912, he ran
successfully for the United States House of Repre-
sentatives from the Sixth District, and
was then reelected for four successive terms
from the Seventh District. In 1922 he
defeated the Democratic incumbent, Atlee
Pomerence, for the United States Senate
and was reelected in 1928 by a huge
majority.
Fess became known as an apostle of
prohibition, isolationism, protectionism,
and Americanism. In the House he opposed
the Underwood tariff, and for the
remainder of his life adhered to the
policy of high protection. He was an opponent
of Wilsonian domestic policies, although
he firmly supported United States en-
trance into World War I. Along with the
Old Guard he denounced the League of
Nations but supported President Harding
when he called for United States par-
ticipation in the World Court and when
he favored world conventions aimed at
the preservation of peace through
restriction of armaments. Being a strong believer
in "Americanism" and women's
rights, he voted for stricter immigration laws, for
measures to prevent "un-American
activities," and he actively favored the Woman's
Suffrage Amendment. There are no legislative
acts designated by the congressman's
name, but Fess introduced and promoted
legislation concerned with vocational
education, the Library of Congress and
the National Archives. He was greatly inter-
ested in the creation of a National
University and introduced a bill for such a pur-
pose in several congresses.
As a loyal conservative Republican, the
Ohio legislator firmly supported the
Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover
administrations, especially defending the Harding
administration against the charges of
corruption and scandal. He was one of the
leaders in the movement to draft
Coolidge for a third term. Other party activities
included the chairmanship of the
Republican National Congressional Campaign
Committee in 1918, 1920, and 1922; in
1928 he served as temporary chairman
5. Lehr Fess, interview, October 18,
1963; Herald (Ada), March 24, 1893, May 26, October 20, 1899.
See also Nethers, "Fess," 27-29, 38, 40-42.
6. Herald, March 1890; Lehr Fess,
interview, October 18, 1963; News (Yellow Springs), December
25, 1925. See also Nethers,
"Fess," 28-31.
7. Lehr Fess, interview, October 18,
1963. See also Nethers, "Fess," 47-50, 56-60.
Simeon D. Fess 181
and keynote speaker of the Republican
National Convention; and he served as
chairman of the Republican National
Committee for the period 1930-1932. Along
with other members of the Old Guard,
Fess was unable to sense the developing
tides of social and economic change in
the twenties and thirties, and the depression
of the 1930's ended the influence of his
particular conservative group. With emer-
gence of the New Deal in 1933, he became
reactionary and he bitterly denounced
the new philosophy in the Senate, in the
press, and in his public speeches. Even
though he realized his reelection
chances were slim, he ran for a third term in 1934
but was overwhelmingly defeated. He died
two years later, greatly disturbed by
the "trend towards socialism"
in America.
Little information is known concerning
Fess's formal religious background prior
to the time he enrolled at Ohio
Northern. His parents evidently were Christian,
and both probably were affiliated with
one of the Pennsylvania Dutch religious
sects. As a boy Fess may have attended
the local Methodist Church at West New-
ton, but records show that in "the
winter of 1887 he united with the M. E. [Meth-
odist Episcopal] Church" in Ada. He
remained active in this denomination the rest
of his life, as did his wife. He
infrequently taught Sunday School, attended con-
ferences and conventions, and for a few
years served as church superintendent.8
In a discussion in the Senate in 1933,
on the repeal of prohibition, Fess helped
explain why he had developed a strong
opposition to the liquor trade.
It was my misfortune to spend most of my
minority years near a little town [Ada] where
there was no police regulation whatever.
The institution in that town [that] gave us more
concern and was productive of more evils
than all other things that we knew of in the
community was the saloon. I think if
there could been something like police regulation
so that the unlimited run of evil that
flowed out of such an institution could have been
controlled, I might not have had such
intense opposition to it.9
Fess's candidacy for the Ohio
Constitutional Convention of 1912 was looked
upon with favor by the Anti-Saloon
League. Wayne B. Wheeler, then superintendent
and attorney for the league, upon
hearing that Fess was a candidate for member-
ship in the convention, wrote that he
had heard the people of Greene County were
enthusiastic about his candidacy and
predicted that Fess would be a power therein.10
As a member of the convention, Fess
spoke in behalf of prohibition, opposing the
license system in any and all forms; but
his ideas did not prevail. Because the wets
and drys could not agree, the committee
on liquor traffic returned two reports to
the convention: the majority report
favored unrestricted license; the minority fa-
vored restricted license. Fess concurred
with neither, but voted, however, with the
minority on the ground that it was the
better of the two. The Greene County Tribune
of March 21, 1912, reported that Fess
had been a power in Ohio for the temperance
cause and added that he had been called
all over the state where he had "appealed
to the sound sense of men," and had
"never failed to make votes for the temper-
ance cause."11
In connection with his election later in
1912 to the Sixty-third Congress, he
received letters of congratulations from
several of the Ohio Anti-Saloon districts,
8. Lehr Fess, interview, October 18,
1963; Herald, July 16, 1897, September 30, 1898; Nethers,
"Fess,"
36-38. The Herald from 1897-1901
contains several references to his involvement in local church affairs.
9. Congressional Record, 73rd cong., 1st sess., 533-535.
10. Wayne B. Wheeler to Fess, July 14,
1911, Box 4, Fess Papers.
11. Greene County Tribune, March
21, April 4, 1912.
182
OHIO HISTORY
including one from C. W. Eldredge,
superintendent of the Cincinnati district:
Let me congratulate you on this splendid
victory, and you know from your own observa-
tion that we did everything in our power
to elect you. I sent out 4000 letters in your behalf
and answered many inquiries in person
and over the phone. I also sent a special letter to
every co-operating preacher in the
District.12
Although it was frequently suggested
that Fess was a member of the Anti-Saloon
League, he never did join the
organization or receive campaign contributions, but
he endorsed its cause and often spoke in
its behalf. In denying personal member-
ship in the organization, in 1933 he stated:
While I have never been what would be
called a propagandist on the subject [prohibition],
never having joined any parade or
organization, notwithstanding the usual report that the
Senator from Ohio is identified with
this or that sort of organization, not a word of it con-
taining any element of truth.
Upon being selected chairman of the
Republican congressional nominating com-
mittee in 1918, Fess received letters of
congratulations from several of the local
and state Anti-Saloon leagues, including
those in Illinois and Maryland. The league
no doubt saw in Fess a champion and
promoter of its interest. George W. Crabbe,
superintendent of the league in
Maryland, added in his congratulations that he
hoped to see Fess elected Speaker of the
House.13
In December 1917, Congress passed the
Eighteenth Amendment which was later
ratified by the states. Fess voted for
the proposed amendment in the House. In
defending the need for national
prohibition, Fess reviewed the efforts that had
been tried to make control of the liquor
traffic effective. He stated that after great
deliberation he had come finally to the
conclusion that "there was no way effectively
to deal with liquor except by forbidding
both its manufacture and sale."14 Congress
enacted the Volstead law of October 28,
1919, which defined intoxicating liquor as
any beverage containing over one-half of
one percent alcohol and provided stringent
regulations for enforcement of the
measure. Representative Andrew J. Volstead of
Minnesota, chairman of the judiciary
committee, had been selected in January 1919
to draw up the act (H.R. 6810), but Lehr
Fess believed that his father. Senator
Fess, who was then chairman of the
committee on education, had been consulted
by Wayne B. Wheeler and Alben Barkley,
the leading Democratic advocate of
prohibition in the House, with regard to
the act. Lehr said that "the meeting with
Wheeler and Barkley was held in father's
office in the House Office Building and
here they had studied a draft of the
Volstead Act."15
The Federal Government made spasmodic
efforts to enforce the Volstead act
from 1920 to 1930, and Fess readily
approved of any measure proposed or passed
for stricter enforcement. Writing in
reply to a Mr. R. E. Brennan of Washington,
12. C. W. Eldredge to Fess, November 7,
1912, Box 6, Fess Papers.
13. Congressional Record, 73rd
cong., 1st sess., 533-535. There is much correspondence in the Fess
Papers relative to the Anti-Saloon
League, especially letters of congratulations from members of the
league. See Crabbe to Fess,
September 4, 1918, Box 13, Fess Papers.
14. Congressional Record, 65th
cong., 2d sess., 469-470.
15. Lehr Fess, interview, October 18,
1963; letter, Lehr Fess to author, March 19, 1964. Lehr Fess
said that he definitely remembered the
meeting. Research did not indicate that Fess played a part in
drafting the Volstead act, but since he
was one of the leading Prohibitionists in the House he no doubt
was consulted. Elton R. Shaw, Prohibition:
Going or Coming (The Eighteenth Amendment and the Volstead
Act) (Berwyn,
Illinois, 1924), does not mention Fess.
Simeon D. Fess
D. C., in 1925 concerning the question
of a modification of the act to permit 1
return to light wines and beers, Fess
asserted that he was then and always h
been opposed to the traffic in
intoxicating liquors. In his opinion "the amazi
tendency among otherwise good citizens
to ignore the law is not a ground nor ev
a suggestion that the law should be
either repealed or modified, but it is conclus?
on the needs of education in citizenship
as well as patriotism."16
He informed Brennan furthermore that no
single movement (prohibition) h
resulted "in such lessening of
family privations and the multiplying of home co
forts by turning the pay check toward
the home rather than the saloon." F,
stressed the fact that if the citizens
clamoring for the return of liquor "would e
ploy the same time and energy to induce
the violator of the law to obey the lay
the problem would be solved "by
building up a public opinion that would not tol
ate disobedience of law and resistance
of the government."17
Fess was also deeply concerned and
involved in the appointment of prohibiti
enforcement officers, especially in
Ohio. In 1921 Major Roy A. Haynes, promine
Methodist and Republican newspaper
editor of Hillsboro, Ohio, was appoint
Federal Prohibition Commissioner by
President Harding. The appointment h
been involved in controversy, especially
between Attorney General Harry
Daugherty and the Republican
organization in Ohio on the one side, and Fra
B. Willis and the Ohio Anti-Saloon
League on the other. Later, in 1923, when t
efforts to enforce prohibition were
ineffective, Commissioner Haynes came unc
criticism from many sources. Haynes had
the support of Senators Willis and Fe
as well as Wayne B. Wheeler and Ernest
H. Cherrington, who was secretary of t
executive committee of the Anti-Saloon
League of America.18
During the controversy in 1923, Senator
Fess wrote President Coolidge stati
that he was glad the President had
backed Haynes against "the onslaughts of o
tain newspapers." Fess then added:
"I want to express my deep appreciation
the public assurance you have given for
the enforcement of law in which you inte
to sustain the efforts of the
enforcement officers."19 Coolidge replied that he w
glad to get Fess's endorsement in behalf
of Haynes and added, "it is always
pleasure to hear from you, and
especially in this instance."20
In 1925 an administrative change by
President Coolidge placed General Linc?
C. Andrews, Assistant Secretary of the
Treasury, in charge of prohibition enfore
ment. Haynes, however, remained as a
political advisor to Andrews, even thou
he was virtually stripped of all
authority. At this time Fess wrote to Andrews th
he was deeply concerned that no
consideration of political or personal preferer
should unduly influence the appointment
of prohibition officers in Ohio. In ref
ence to effectual enforcement, the Ohio
Senator assured Andrews, "I shall lea
nothing undone to assist you in my
position in this effort."21
A year later, in 1926, another
administrative change created a Bureau of Pi
hibition. Willis, Fess, and Wheeler
brought pressure to bear upon President Co,
16. Fess to R. E. Brennan, August 15,
1925, Box 26, Fess Papers.
17. Ibid.
18. Ernest H. Cherrington to Coolidge,
October 3, 1923, Folder 21 D, Coolidge Papers, Library
Congress.
19. Fess to Coolidge, September 13,
1923, ibid.
20. Coolidge to Fess, September 17,
1923, ibid.
21. Fess to Lincoln C. Andrews, June 18,
1925, Box 25, Fess Papers. For further details on this c?
troversy, see Gerald E. Ridinger,
"The Political Career of Frank B. Willis" (unpublished Ph.D. disser?
tion, The Ohio State University, 1957), 225-230.
184 OHIO
HISTORY
idge, Andrew Mellon, and Andrews to have
Haynes made head of this new agency.
The New York Times of March 24,
1927, reported that Haynes loomed as the
new "dry chief" in the
reorganization act which was to become effective April 1,
and that the postion was won as a result
of efforts of the Anti-Saloon League and
other dry organizations, including the
Methodist Board of Temperance. According
to the Times, Secretary of
Treasury Mellon and Andrews had favored John D.
Pennington, the prohibition
administrator in Pittsburgh, but after a conference of
Mellon, Haynes, and Coolidge on March
23, the report was that Haynes "was in."
Haynes, however, did not become commissioner
at that time, but on March 25,
1927, he was made acting commissioner
while Mellon was in Europe. The New
York Times of May 11 referred to
his being made acting commissioner and reported
that informed opinion indicated he would
not be appointed permanent prohibition
commissioner in spite of pressure being
exerted by Fess, Willis, and the league for
his appointment. Since there was much
opposition to Haynes, he finally was relieved
of his position.
In the senatorial election of 1922, Fess
ran against Atlee Pomerene, the incum-
bent Democrat and a wet. There can be
little doubt that at this time a contributing
factor to Fess's victory was his support
of prohibition and temperance which gained
him many votes among the women,
religious groups, and educators. The Anti-
Saloon League of Ohio pledged its
support to him, and Wayne B. Wheeler, by
then General Counsel and Legislative
Superintendent of the Anti-Saloon League
of America, also endorsed his candidacy.
Wheeler, in a letter to Fess before the
primary, stated that his own personal
feeling was that Fess should be a candidate
and that he would be available for
further conference since "we are tremendously
interested in having a Republican
candidate in Ohio who stands right on the pro-
hibition issue and who can win against
Senator Pomerene."22 Upon winning, Fess
received several thousand letters and
telegrams of congratulations, many of which
referred to his stand on temperance. One
such letter from Rev. S. L. Boyers, a
Methodist minister who had been an
acquaintance when both were attending Ohio
Northern, stated:
After your nomination in the primary I
happened to see a comment by one of the Balti-
more papers which was, "Simeon D.
Fess is as dry as hell." I told my congregation that
that was one of the highest
commendations a Methodist could receive.23
In 1925 Fess predicted that there would
be no backward step on the saloon
question and that if there was to be any
modification of the Volstead act, such
change should be toward making
enforcement more rigid. He believed that "nothing
is more certain than the indictment by
this country of the evil of the traffic in
intoxicating liquors and the mere
suggestion of its return will certainly stir still
deeper the people's determination not to
tolerate its existence."24 Reaffirming his
views on the enforcement of the Volstead
act and the Eighteenth Amendment in a
letter to Mr. E. R. Tweedie of Columbus,
Senator Fess needed five pages for his
reply, which included the remark
"The 18th Amendment is in the Constitution and
it will never come out. No man not a
simpleton will deny the truth of that state-
ment." He pointed out that
"the citizen who insists that a law he does not like
22. Miscellaneous letters, Boxes 14-18;
Wheeler to Fess, March 31, 1922, J. A. White To Fess, April 1,
1922, Box 14, Fess Papers.
23. S. L. Boyers to Fess, November 9,
1922, Box 20, Fess Papers.
24. Fess to Brennan, August 15, 1925,
Box 26, Fess Papers.
|
should be violated is, whether he means it or not, an anarchist and as such an enemy of the Government and should be so treated." In very strong language he informed his constituent that the greatest problem confronting America was dis- regard of the law: Difficult as is the alien problem it is not nearly so hard to deal with as the un-American American who is a citizen voter which renders the offence so much the greater. The im- mediate problem is not how to Americanize the alien, but rather how to treat the un- American who denounces a public official, sworn to uphold the Constitution and enforce the law of the land.25 On January 16, 1926, a sharp interchange took place in the Senate between Senator Edwin S. Broussard of Louisiana and Fess over the enforcement of the prohibition amendment. The debate illustrates the Ohioan's persistent call for coercive means to enforce the measure. Broussard: Does the Senator advocate penal servitude for a man who violates the prohi- bition law? 25. Fess to E. R. Tweedie, November 5, 1925, Box 27, Fess Papers. |
Fess: I will very quickly vote for imprisonment. Broussard: Would the Senator advocate capital punishment? Fess: Oh, not necessarily. Broussard: Not necessarily? Fess: I do in some cases. Broussard: In some cases the Senator would? Fess: Yes. Broussard: . . . if we should follow the Senator from Ohio, we would hang people for violating the prohibition law. Fess: Oh, that is no argument. Broussard: . . . if the Senator will advocate an amendment of this law, we will gladly vote for it; but he is advocating the infliction of more severe penalties for a viola- tion of the law. Fess: That is the sort of an amendment I would be willing to vote for.26 On August 7, 1930, Fess was elected chairman of the Republican National Committee; he then had to deal with both the wets and drys in his party. In spite 26. Congressional Record, 69th cong., 1st sess., 2226-27. |
|
of difficulties, he retained the position until after the national convention at Chicago in June 1932. During his chairmanship he received constant criticism from the wets and the more liberal wing of the party who disagreed with his views on the de- pression, especially after the election in November 1930 when the Democrats made substantial gains in Congress. Also, attacks from anti-prohibition quarters were directed at his warning, which was issued after the November election, against repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment. Representative Fred A. Britten, Republican from Illinois, said that "when Senator Fess says 'prohibition is here to stay,' he is talking for himself and not as Chairman," and added that even though Fess was an ardent Republican, he was also an intolerant dry. Britten then expressed the view that future Republican success would hinge largely upon party leadership which rightfully senses public opinion in the northern states. Former Senator James A. Wadsworth, Jr., Republican of New York, another severe critic, asserted, "the trouble with Senator Fess is he cannot see what is going on in this country. Tears dim his sight."27 By mid-November it was reported by the inner circles of the GOP that Fess 27. Toledo Morning Times, November 11, 1930; Cincinnati Enquirer, November 10, 11, 12, 15, 1930. |
188 OHIO
HISTORY
would quit and would be replaced
"within the next 15 days," because of his No-
vember 11 ultimatum that the Republican
party must remain dry. The ultimatum
was judged by Republican liberals to
have ended his usefulness as chairman. At
this time it was even threatened that if
the Republican drys did not swing into
line for repeal or modification of
prohibition a liberal nationalist party would be
organized for the 1932 presidential
campaign.28 At a meeting with the President
on November 15 the GOP chiefs, however,
denied that Fess was "on the spot."29
Because the attacks persisted,
ex-President Coolidge, who was now a "columnist,"
came to the defense of Fess, remarking
that the Senator had been drafted at a
difficult time. "He is an honest
and conscientious man of high character with a
record for disinterested service. . . .
As chairman and senator he is entitled to
respectful consideration. . . . There
are some in this party who disagree with him.
That would be true of anyone. . .
." Coolidge further surmised that he was not
"likely to be driven out by
attacks." Criticism of Fess continued as long as he was
chairman, and possible replacement was
frequently rumored. No doubt one cause
for the rumors was the belief that Fess
had been selected on a temporary basis.30
As mentioned previously, from its
passage in 1918 until its repeal in 1933 prohi-
bition came under continuous and
increasing criticism, and by 1932 it was evident
in the national conventions and
platforms of both parties that legislation relative
to national prohibition was to be
changed. The Democratic platform recommended
unequivocally repeal of the Eighteenth
Amendment and immediate legalization of
the manufacture and sale of beer. The
drys attempted a substitute but were de-
feated. The Republicans, after
compromising differences of opinion, recommended
in their platform that the people be
given an opportunity to pass upon a proposed
amendment allowing the states to deal
with the problem, reserving to the Federal
Government the power to protect the dry
states and "safeguard our citizens every-
where against the return of the saloon
and attendant abuses."31
This was in part what Fess had asserted
in November 1930, when he said the
people would never stand for the return
of the saloon, nor would they give up
the Eighteenth Amendment; yet he
acknowledged that the increased penalties
imposed for liquor violators had failed.
To him the bootlegger was without char-
acter and did not mind going to jail to
be supported by the public. "We are filling
the jails, but I am afraid that is not
the necessary deterrent," he observed.32
Speaking in April 1932 to three
delegates from the Woman's Organization for
National Prohibition Reform, Fess
informed them that his position on prohibition
was unchanged. Admitting that
prohibition was not a complete success, he added
that until somebody could show him
something better than the Eighteenth Amend-
ment, he was going to stand by that
measure. He emphasized he had just returned
from a three-day speaking trip in Ohio
and that he "had not seen a drunken person
on the streets."33
As the June 14 Republican convention
neared, Fess came to realize there would
be some modifications of the prohibition
amendment, yet in an interview a few
28. Cincinnati Enquirer, November
13, 14, 1930; Toledo Morning Times, November 19, December 5,
1930. The controversy made the front
page in the Enquirer.
29. Toledo Morning Times, November
19, 1930. Fess did not attend this meeting.
30. Ibid., November 16, 19,
December 5, 1930. See also Nethers, "Fess," 291-296.
31. Eugene H. Roseboom, A History of Presidential
Elections (New York, 1959), 433, 437.
32. Newspaper (unknown) clipping of
November 10 or 11, 1930, Lehr Fess private papers.
33. Chicago Daily Tribune, April
14, 1932. The three women delegates were from Ohio and pre-
sented statistics to show that Ohio was getting
"wetter." Fess informed them that he "did not think much
of figures" and certainly was not
afraid of them.
|
weeks prior to the convention he refused to discuss the ticklish issue. When asked what the platform would say on prohibition he replied: "I cannot discuss that. Personally, I am a dry."34 With the adoption of the Republican platform plank which recommended that the people be given an opportunity to pass upon an amendment allowing the states to deal with the problems, but reserving to the Federal Government the power to protect the dry states, Fess accepted the plank and somewhat reluctantly announced that he would support the Republican platform.35 In regard to this ambiguity, Fess, in November after the general election, received a letter from the Reverend Horace Hyde Russell of Westerville, who was the founder of the Anti-Saloon League. Russell rebuked him for his accord with the terms of the Republican platform, saying that he was trying to "ride two fast horses running in opposite directions." In his reply Fess was rather resentful. He quoted 34. An interview with Fess by George S. Viereck, "What the Republican Platform Must Stand for this Year," Liberty Magazine, June 4, 1932, pp. 34-38. 35. Fess to Rev. Howard Hyde Russell, November 18, 1932, Box 30, Fess Papers; Cleveland Plain Dealer, November 21, 1932. |
190 OHIO
HISTORY
the plank in the Republican platform and
asserted that it represented the best
solution of a problem which was rapidly
reaching the point of complete nullification
of the law in most of the eastern
states. He maintained that the local governments
were not enforcing the Eighteenth
Amendment, hence the Republican plank
attempted to solve the problem. Since he
thought the people in general were still
opposed to the liquor traffic, Fess
further defended his vote on the plank by saying,
"I could not now maintain a
character of integrity to my own conscience and refuse
to support a resubmission on the basis
of the plank adopted. The Democrats will
want to submit an out-and-out repeal
plank." Fess reiterated that he was opposed
to the Democratic solution and
maintained that its adoption would produce a state
of chaos, as "it would open the
flood gates to liquor which would so stir the
American people that they would sweep it
out of existence by a torrential flood of
righteous indignation. . . ." Fess
then reminded Russell:
It will not do for you to assail men who
are just as dry as you are, not only in public life
but in private life as riding two horses
or voting both ways. . . . You and I had no respect
for that sort of narrow-mindedness. You
condemned it just as I did and it will not do now
as leader of the temperance forces to
charge me and others who are as anxious to solve
the problem in favor of the dry cause as
you are, with voting both wet and dry when we
are doing what we think is best for the
temperance cause without regard to any political
results.
I deeply regret that you have taken the
attitude as announced in your letter. The tem-
perance cause will not succeed under the
leadership representing a spirit of that sort. On
the other hand it will succeed if the
friends of good Government and opponents of the
liquor traffic will consider the cause
free from any personal abuse.36
Not only had Fess voted for the plank,
but he had also been consulted when it
was written. According to Herbert
Hoover, on May 10, 1932, Senator William E.
Borah of Idaho, a Republican and the
leader of the drys, had been told that both
the Eighteenth Amendment and the
Volstead act could not be enforced. Hoover
then suggested that the liquor question
should be left up to the states but with
Federal protection of the dry states,
and Borah concurred. After the meeting with
Borah, the President suggested that
former Interior Secretary from Ohio, James R.
Garfield, be made chairman of the
resolutions committee at the convention. This
was done and Hoover presented his
suggestions on the platform to Garfield, who
conferred with the leaders of both the
wet and dry elements in the party. After-
wards, Garfield reported that Senators
Borah and Fess on the dry side and Senator
David A. Reed of Pennsylvania and others
on the wets side agreed to the prohibi-
tion plank. Hoover stated that he had
little confidence in such two-man political
agreements, and he therefore suggested
to Garfield that he arrange a joint meeting
with Senators Borah and Fess, Secretary
of Treasury Ogden L. Mills, Secretary of
Interior Ray L. Wilbur and Postmaster
General Walter F. Brown, that they might,
in one another's presence, agree upon
the precise wording of the plank. Garfield
held the meeting and reported that they
all agreed upon the proposed plank.37
As it turned out, Fess was irritated by
the conduct of the delegates at both the
Republican and Democratic national
conventions in 1932, and, in writing to his
son Sumner on July 8, he stated that it
was difficult to spell out any definite results
of the conventions. He thought it was
disgraceful, in a time of depression "when
36. Ibid.
37. Herbert Hoover, The Memoirs of
Herbert Hoover (New York, 1952), III, 318-320.
Simeon D. Fess 191
every human being ought to be concerned
about how to start the flow of capital
into industry for the employment of
labor," the maximum interest in the conven-
tions "would circulate about the
question of a legal glass of beer." In his opinion
both conventions, if measured by the
character of the delegates, were up to stan-
dard; but "measured by the
hoodlumism that flowed in from the slums of the cities,
which made the galleries the next thing
to a madhouse, they were a disgrace that
must be blotted out if conventions were
to continue." He ended his remarks with
the opinion that "the interest in
the two platforms seemed to be lost except in the
one question--liquor."38
Even with the victory of the Democrats
in November 1932, Fess was still hopeful
that modifications of prohibition could
be made, avoiding out-and-out repeal advo-
cated by the Democrats. Soon after the
election, he admitted that there was no
clear solution to the problem created by
repeal, but hoped that the Democrats
would remain an enemy of the saloon.
Emphasizing that some sort of control was
imperative, he observed that there were
"dozens of forms being recommended."
He concluded that it was largely a case
of starting all over again with the problem.39
His hope however was not realized, and
in February, after the new president
and Congress took office, a Senate joint
resolution (211) was introduced proposing
an amendment to the Constitution to
repeal prohibition. The measure passed the
Senate on February 16, but Fess did not
vote. On the previous day he had offered
an amendment which would have permitted
Congress broader authority, granting
it the power to prevent the return of
the saloon. In his remarks before the Senate,
he stated that he had voted against
taking up the joint resolution, not because he
was opposed to anything being done, but
because he thought it was not the time
to act. In defending his position against
out-and-out repeal, he explained to his
colleagues: "I cannot vote for
straight repeal, because if I should do that it would
mean to me utter chaos in the handling
of this problem, and I would be doing a
thing that my whole conscience would
revolt against."40
On March 16, 1933, in a discussion in
the Senate on the repeal of prohibition,
Fess presented an eloquent speech in
which he gave a brief summary of prohibition,
the origin of his views, and his
consistent demand for strict prohibition enforcement.
Then he defended his vote and action on
the problem:
Whenever the time comes that on a moral
question I will first see how the current runs
before I vote, and then vote in
accordance with that current, though I feel it my duty to
prevent the current running in that
direction as far as possible, then I will change my
views also, but I want it understood
here and now that on a question of right and wrong
I propose to do what, in my judgment, my
people ought to want me to do; and I am not
going to undertake to be like a bird of
passage, perhaps flying in one direction at this hour
and in another direction the next hour .
. . . I am an enemy of the saloon. I shall fight it,
as long as God gives me breath to fight
it, as the most un-American institution that ever
cursed this land.41
In 1934, Fess ran for reelection for his
third term in the Senate against former
Ohio Governor Vic Donahey, a Democrat,
who had retired from politics after leav-
ing the governorship in 1929. Although
prohibition was supposedly a "dead issue,"
38. Fess to his son Sumner, July 8,
1932, Box 30, Fess Papers.
39. Springfield Sun, November 17,
1932.
40. Congressional Record, 72d
cong., 2d sess., 4166-68.
41. Ibid., 73rd cong., 1st sess.,
533-535.
192
OHIO HISTORY
Fess still felt compelled to discuss the
matter in the campaign since he received
many letters relative to prohibition and
felt obliged to reply. Lehr, disturbed by
his father's behavior, suggested in a
letter on May 23, 1934, that to refer to the
prohibition question in his speeches was
a mistake and that his remarks on the
issue might cause some wets to oppose
him who otherwise would support his legis-
lative record.42 Fess
immediately replied, "I never touch on the liquor question in
my correspondence except under the
following circumstances, where anyone writes
me mentioning it in any way . . .
." He then informed his son:
If it ever becomes necessary for me to
speak on the liquor question publicly, I shall make
it clear that I have not changed my
view, which was to the effect that regulation was not
effective, and to the degree that public
opinion would back it, prohibition would be the
method.
In closing, he vowed that "if I
cannot win on the position of that sort, I do not
want to win on any kind of
deception."43
Although Fess was defeated by Donahey by
a plurality of over 400,000 votes,
the liquor question, according to the
political analysis, was not the main cause for
his defeat; his attitude toward the New
Deal and his essential conservatism were
more important factors.44 His
defeat also shows that even though times had changed,
Simeon Fess remained steadfast, refusing
to compromise his fundamental principles.
42. Lehr Fess to Fess, May 23, 1934, Box
31, Fess Papers.
43. Fess to Lehr Fess, May 25, 1934, ibid.
44. Columbus Dispatch, November
7, 1934; Cleveland Plain Dealer, November 8, 1934.
JOHN L. NETHERS
"Driest of Drys": Simeon D. Fess
The struggle was long and hard fought,
but the final victory was short-lived for
the national prohibition movement in the
United States. Temporary success came
with the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment
in 1919, but the drys had to admit
defeat with adoption of the Twenty-first
Amendment in 1933. One contemporary
historian has noted that the "most
importunate of all the crusades of this generation
was that against Demon Rum."1
Many persons and organizations had been
caught up in the persistent temper-
ance crusade which had its roots in the
colonical period and included the Woman's
Christian Temperance Union and Frances
Willard, temperance orators such as
Neal Dow and John Gough, the Anti-Saloon
League, the Temperance Society of
the Methodist Episcopal Church--the most
active of the religious denominations in
denouncing alcohol--and Carry Amelia
Nation of Kansas whose hatchet symbolized
her personal vendetta against the
saloon. Among the Ohioans who played a part
in this vexing economic, social, and
political drama was Simeon D. Fess, educator,
politician, and statesman.
Fess was born in 1861 on a farm near
West Newton, Allen County, Ohio, to
Henry and Barbara Herring Fess. The
father, born in 1808, probably in Berne,
Switzerland, had emigrated during the
early thirties with other members of his
family to the United States where the
family settled in Westmoreland County,
Pennsylvania. During his early manhood,
Henry moved to Cincinnati, where in
1847 he met and married Barbara Herring.
The family remained in Cincinnati
until around 1859 when they moved
northward to Allen County, probably because
Barbara had relatives there.2
Simeon's father died in 1866 leaving his
widow and seven children destitute.
The family depended upon the older
children for economic support, but Simeon,
being the sixth born and only four years
old at the time of his father's death,
remained at home. When he was ten, he
went to live with his older and only sister,
Elizabeth, who had recently married a
farmer by the name of George Brown. At
sixteen, he began working for the local
farmers from whom he received his lodging;
1. Samuel Eliot Morison and Henry Steele
Commager, The Growth of the American Republic (New
York, 1962), II, 463.
2. The only biographies of Fess are John
Lewis Nethers, "Simeon D. Fess: Educator and Politician"
(unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The
Ohio State University, 1964) and Lehr Fess, "The Most Unforget-
table Character I have ever Known,"
Northwest Ohio Quarterly, XXXIII (1961), 154-159.
Mr. Nethers is professor of history,
Ashland College.