Ohio History Journal

LESLIE J. STEGH

 

 

A Paradox of Prohibition: Election of

Robert J. Bulkley as Senator

from Ohio, 1930

 

 

 

 

 

Hail, Hallowed Ohio!

Rich and beautiful state!

Rivers and roads and railways,

And queenly cities and great;

Fertile fields and factories,

Happy homes and health-

M-O-T-H-E-R of Prohibition,

And a s-o-b-e-r Commonwealth!1

The issue of prohibition of the liquor traffic was one that had kept Ohio in turmoil

prior to the enactment of state prohibition and the passage of the Eighteenth

Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, not long after prohibition

became part of the law of the land, the question of its repeal increasingly drew pop-

ular attention. Repeal was an issue that had potent political implications, and the

purpose of this study is to examine it as a political issue in an attempt to determine

its impact upon election results in 1930. The victorious campaign of Democrat

Robert J. Bulkley, running on a "wet" platform for a United States Senate seat from

"dry" Ohio will be the main focus. Several students of Ohio political history have

attributed Bulkley's victory in 1930 primarily to his stand for repeal of national pro-

hibition. However, other and perhaps more important factors can be found that

contributed to his success, and these will be evaluated.²

Early in the 1920's prohibition seemed to be effectively enforced in Ohio. For ex-

ample, H. L. Mencken reported in 1924 that Cleveland "was as dry as the Sahara"

when the Republican National Convention was held there, disappointing everyone

except Calvin Coolidge. But by the end of the decade many observers claimed con-

ditions had changed. One reporter declared that brewing vats and stills were as

 

 

 

 

1. "Hail, Hallowed Ohio," an Anti-Saloon League Song, The American Issue (Ohio Edition), June 26,

1931, pp. 2-3.

2. Ohio voters approved a state prohibition amendment in 1918. The Eighteenth Amendment and the

Volstead Act (the national law providing for the enforcement of prohibition) were passed in 1919 and

took effect in January 1920.

Mr. Stegh is University Archivist, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio.

• 1
 

common and almost as openly operated as filling stations. The same person stated that Ohio was self-sufficient in terms of alcoholic beverages. The Cleveland Plain Dealer carried tales of prohibition violations, gangsterism, murders, and corruption. Early in 1929, for example, Bert Buckley, the state's treasurer, was convicted of vio- lating the prohibition laws. Despite the great sums of money which were being spent, Ohio reportedly had a poor record of enforcement in comparison with other states. Enforcement was uneven, and ineffective in the cities. In some places, such as Cleveland, the dry ordinances were not enforced. The general conditions were given wide notice in a controversial article in Plain Talk magazine entitled, "Ohio, Lawless and Unashamed." Public debates on prohibition were common, and some attracted famous participants. One in Cleveland in early 1930 featured Fiorello LaGuardia, a wet, and Senator Smith Brookhart, an ardent dry.3 The lack of uniform acceptance of prohibition in Ohio perhaps can be better un- derstood if some background events are examined. Even though the state was re- garded as dry, the facts show the people had been equivocal in their endorsement of prohibition. The voters approved a state prohibition amendment in 1918, and the General Assembly ratified the Eighteenth Amendment in January 1919 by a healthy margin. The Crabbe Act for the enforcement of prohibition was then passed. But in the November 1919 election voters rejected ratification of the Eight- eenth Amendment and the Crabbe Act in a referendum vote, but decided to keep the state prohibition amendment. At the same time they rejected an initiated pro- posal legalizing alcoholic beverages having an alcoholic content of 2.75 percent or less. This confusion was straightened out the next year when voters approved a     3. Akron Beacon Journal, June 10, 1930; Cleveland Plain Dealer, February 8, June 10, 1930; H. L. Mencken, Making a President (New York, 1932), 15; U.S. Senate, Official Records of the National Com- mission on Law Observance and Enforcement Pertaining to Prohibition (Washington, 1931), V, 26, 783-801; Owen P. White, "Setting Them Up in Ohio," Colliers, November 9, 1930. p. 38.

• 2
 

172                                                                 OHIO HISTORY

 

modified version of the Crabbe Act and refused to repeal the state prohibition

amendment. Also in 1920 the United States Supreme Court (Hawke v. Smith)

ruled that the General Assembly's ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment was

valid.

Given the vascillating attitude of Ohio's voters towards prohibition in 1919 and

1920, it may appear strange that the state was nevertheless regarded by many as a

center of dry strength. In 1930, for example, the Chicago Daily Tribune called Ohio

the "stronghold of the drys," and this attitude was quite common. The reasons for

this are many. Prohibition had been a potent political issue since at least the Civil

War. Ohio was the center of the nationally famous women's temperance crusade of

1873-1874. The state provided leadership for the Woman's Christian Temperance

Union and was a center of that group's strength. It was also important to the Prohi-

bition party, was the home of the Anti-Saloon League, and was the source of the

league's leadership. In 1920 the state provided three presidential candidates, and

they were all politically dry. After United States Senator Atlee Pomerene was de-

feated by "Driest of the Drys" Simeon Fess in 1922, every aspirant for major na-

tional office from Ohio was a dry until Bulkley declared his candidacy in June 1930.

When Bulkley became a candidate, according to the New York Times, he was con-

fronting the "hitherto unquestioned dry majority of the Buckeye state." During the

summer and fall Ohio became a national debating ground with attention fixed on

Bulkley's campaign to determine the extent of popular support for and against

prohibition.⁴

There were two pervasive currents of thought prevalent during the 1920's regard-

ing national prohibition. The first was the claim that it was a major stimulus to

prosperity, but the events following the stockmarket crash of 1929 made this idea

untenable. The other was that the Eighteenth Amendment was permanent.⁵ Men

like Bulkley felt this was not true, and late in the spring of 1930 he decided to enter

the Democratic primary to test this theory.

Bulkley was from one of Cleveland's most economically and socially prominent

families. He attended Harvard University (where he became a close friend of

Franklin D. Roosevelt), successfully practiced law, was a loyal associate of Tom

Johnson, and was one of Ohio's leading Progressives before World War I. He

served in the United States House of Representatives from 1911 to 1915 where he

gained recognition for his work on the reserve section of the Federal Reserve Act

and the Federal Farm Loan Act. During World War I he served on the War In-

dustries Board. Once peace was restored he returned to Cleveland and remained

active in community affairs. In 1928 Bulkley served as the chairman of the Cuya-

hoga County Committee for Alfred E. Smith. It is not possible to determine defi-

nitely whether Smith's opposition to national prohibition motivated Bulkley to ac-

tively work for him, but it is very likely.⁶

 

4. Chicago Daily Tribune, October 17, 1930: New York Times, June 6, October 26, 1930.

5. Bartlett Jones, "The Debate over National Prohibition, 1920 1933" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,

Emory University, 1961), 1; Samuel Unger, "A History of the National Woman's Christian Temperance

Union" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1933), 96.

6. Biographical information on Robert Johns Bulkley can be found in Dennis Jenkins, "Robert J.

Bulkley: A Progressive Profile" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Case-Western Reserve University,

1969); Edward Peltz, "The Senatorial Career of R. J. Bulkley, 1930-1938" (unpublished M.A. thesis, The

Ohio State University, 1968); Dennis Harrison, "Robert J. Bulkley, A Register of His Papers

(1886-1967)" (Bulkley Papers in The Western Reserve Historical Society); Hoyt L. Warner, Progressivism

in Ohio, 1897-1917 (Columbus, 1964); Biographical Directory of the American Congress, 1774-1971

(Washington, 1971), 664.

• 3
 

Robert J. Bulkley Election                                             173

 

In early January 1930 only one Democrat was expressing interest in the upcoming

August primary. Even though most prominent men in the party were shunning the

contest, George Myers declared himself a candidate. Myers was an East Cleveland

attorney, a former state representative, and the unsuccessful candidate for lieuten-

ant governor in 1928. Unemployment relief was his chief plank. The seat in con-

tention was that held by the Republican incumbant, Roscoe McCulloch, and it had

a peculiar history. Warren G. Harding had held it until he resigned in 1921. He

was replaced by Frank B. Willis, an appointee, who was elected in his own right in

1926; but Willis died in 1928 and Cyrus Locher took over until the election of 1928.

In that election Locher was defeated by Theodore Burton, who died in 1929. At

that point McCulloch was appointed to serve until the election of November 1930.⁷

In March other Democrats joined Myers in seeking this "jinxed" seat. John

McSweeney was one. He was a Wooster man, a former Congressman, popular

among some Democrats, and known throughout the state. Prosperity was his main

campaign issue. William W. Durbin and Charles Truax declared their candidacies

five days later. Both had statewide followings. Durbin, of Kenyon, was the best

known of the candidates, especially among party workers. He had been a leading

Democrat since 1905, having helped elect governors Pattison, Cox, and Donahey.

He also had strong backing in big counties, such as Hamilton, Franklin, and Mont-

gomery. Truax, a Bucyrus farmer, had won the Democratic senatorial nomination

in 1928 for the United States Senate, and he based his campaign on tariff reform

and farm relief. The Akron Beacon Journal felt he would be the one that would face

McCulloch in November.8

Of these four candidates, only McSweeney took a forthright stand on prohibi-

tion-as a dry. The Cleveland Plain Dealer editorially bemoaned the silence of the

others, and urged all politicians to take honest stands on the issue. The paper

thought the Democratic party had the responsibility of nominating a man of posi-

tive convictions and one knowledgeable about national affairs. The men who were

best qualified were James M. Cox, Newton D. Baker, Atlee Pomerene, and Brand

Whitlock, but none of these was willing to declare himself a candidate. Some Dem-

ocrats felt a strong candidate could defeat McCulloch, but the problem was finding

one willing to risk his reputation in the attempt.9

In an endeavor to seek out possible strong candidates for the Senate race as well

as for other offices, the Cuyahoga County Democratic organization named Bulkley

to head a scanning and drafting committee. By late May many of Bulkley's friends

were urging him to run in the primary on a wet plank, but he was not sure he

wanted to do so until he knew how Cox felt about the race. The party chiefs met

frequently with Bulkley between May 31 and June 3, and it apparently was then

that he decided to become a candidate as Cox refused to run. Bulkley was told that

he would have the support of the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo, and Akron Demo-

cratic organizations. This may have been a determining factor in his decision to en-

ter the contest, but he did not make his declaration immediately known. The Dem-

ocrats held a pre-primary "victory dinner" and rally on June 5 in Columbus. It was

 

 

7. Akron Beacon Journal, January 27, August 4, 1930; Cincinnati Enquirer, August 9, 1930; Cleveland

Plain Dealer, January 27, February 25, 1930; Peltz, "Senatorial Career of R. J. Bulkley," 22-23; bio-

graphical sketch, Box 1, folder 1, Bulkley Papers.

8. Akron Beacon Journal, March 28, June 13, July 25, 1930; Cincinnati Enquirer, August 10, 1930;

Cleveland Plain Dealer, March 15, 23, 28, 30, July 13, 15, August 12, 13, 1930.

9. Cleveland Plain Dealer, May 17, 18, 27, 1930.

• 4
 

174                                                               OHIO HISTORY

 

there that Bulkley announced his intention to enter the race. On June 6 the Plain

Dealer's headline gave Bulkley's decision: "Bulkley in Race; Cox is Out."  Bulkley

was now faced with two tasks: winning the nomination and the fall election, and

keeping the repeal question from   destroying party unity.  By June 10 he had

enough signed petitions so he then officially filed as candidate.¹⁰

During the primary and fall campaigns in 1930 the issue Bulkley discussed most

and the one that attracted the most attention was prohibition. He was able to dis-

cuss the issue and present arguments for repeal in a conservative and unemotional

manner. This was important in a state where popular opinion on prohibition was

mixed. The Toledo News Bee noted this fact and claimed Bulkley's non-emotional

approach even appealed to conservative drys. He touched upon the following two

points frequently during his campaigns: one, disrespect for laws generally was en-

couraged because so many persons willingly disobeyed the nation's prohibition

laws; and, two, those involved in the illegal sale of intoxicating beverages were mak-

ing large sums of money. The economic benefits of the Eighteenth Amendment

were going to criminals while honest businessmen, farmers, and workers derived no

financial advantages from it. Due to the amendment corruption was "unprece-

dented" among public officials, enforcement agents, and the general public. This

moral approach was carried further when Bulkley expressed his opinion on temper-

ance; he was all for it. In fact, he said the wets and drys were not far apart in that

both groups sought true temperance, but by differing means. Real temperance

could only be achieved through education, not legislation. He suggested that the

drys resume the moral teaching of temperance. Also, Bulkley urged that there be

"a willingness on all sides to forget past acrimonious differences in an effort to agree

on forward steps leading to a more adequate solution of the age-old question of li-

quor control."11

Even though national prohibition had brought about one permanent worthwhile

result, the end of the open saloon, Bulkley contended that the Eighteenth Amend-

ment represented a dangerous encroachment of federal power on state functions

and reduced the power and prestige of state governments. It also limited human

liberty-the only federal amendment to do so. Since totalitarian governments were

on the rise in several countries during the late 1920's, many opponents of prohibi-

tion were alarmed by the increased centralization of government in the United

States. In this regard, Bulkley insisted that the Eighteenth Amendment was espe-

cially risky because it necessitated the use of federal police power to enforce it. To

maintain American constitutional jurisdiction he felt it was necessary to always

"protect the rights and authority of the sovereign states." Since Ohioans were wary

of what repeal would do in terms of liquor control, Bulkley pointed out that repeal

would not effect enforcement because the state had its own prohibition amendment.

Any change in Ohio's liquor laws would come about only in an orderly fashion.

Also, with local control returned nationally, laws could be enacted in various parts

of the country that would fit the needs and desires of the diverse citizenry. These

 

10. Akron Beacon Journal, June 6, 1930; Cleveland Plain Dealer, April 19, May 27, June 4, 5, 6, 1930;

New York Times, August 17, 1930; Oregon Daily Journal, November 6, 1930; Bulkley to F. Seither, May

31, 1930, Bulkley to J. Fogarty, June 11, 1930, Box 19, folder 2, Bulkley Papers; Mrs. R. J. Bulkley inter-

viewed by Jenkins, October 12, 1968, in Jenkins, "Robert J. Bulkley," 296.

11. Akron Beacon Journal, July 23, 1930: Toledo News Bee, November 25, 1933; Cleveland Plain

Dealer, August 8, 1930; Bulkley to R. Cross, October 31, 1930, Box 20, folder 3, Bulkley Papers; speech in

Akron, July 17, 1930, speeches in Columbus, August 7, September 16, 29, 1930, Box 36, folder 5, Bulkley

Papers.

• 5
 

Robert J. Bulkley Election                                                  175

 

pieces of legislation would have the "public respect, confidence and moral support"

in the states and communities in which they were in force.¹²

Even though prohibition was an important issue in the summer of 1930, espe-

cially in Ohio cities, there were other questions that attracted the attention of Bulk-

ley and the other candidates in the primary campaign. For example, Bulkley criti-

cized McCulloch and the Republican party in general for supporting the

nomination of Judge John Parker of North Carolina to the United States Supreme

Court. Since the judge had exhibited anti-Negro behavior on the bench, the na-

tion's Blacks let it be known he was offensive to them. Considerable controversy

was aroused before the Senate refused to accept his appointment in May. Ohio

NAACP leaders had been in the forefront of the fight, and they were determined to

defeat McCulloch's reelection bid. The other question, next to repeal, was that per-

taining to the nation's economic woes. This was a multifaceted issue with unem-

ployment, farm relief, and the recently passed Hawley-Smoot tariff all coming into

the discussion. The tariff, a piece of legislation McCulloch had supported, espe-

cially received Bulkley's criticism.¹³

During the primary campaign Bulkley criss-crossed the state and spent most of

his time in the larger cities. He also delivered radio addresses, and sent out cam-

paign literature and letters to all Democratic county chairmen, members of the state

Democratic committee, bankers, editors, and attorneys. Carl E. Moore, a Cleve-

land businessman and reporter, was Bulkley's main assistant in running the cam-

paign (Newton D. Baker served as his official campaign manager) and was in-

strumental in seeing that it functioned smoothly. Moore made direct advertising

appeals to the voters through the daily newspapers, ran Bulkley's Cleveland office

when the candidate was out of town, and was the campaign's chief fund raiser.

Bulkley also maintained an office in Columbus. One of the most important sources

of support for his bid for office came from important Democrats. Graham P. Hunt

(Cincinnati), Martin Davey (Kent), Alfred Allen (Cincinnati), Dow Harter (Akron),

Newton D. Baker (Cleveland), Hugh Nichols (Cincinnati), John Key (Marion),

Frank Merrick (Cleveland), Atlee Pomerene (Cleveland), Bulkley's law partners

and other prominent Ohio attorneys all worked in his behalf. He also cooperated

with the Crusaders, a Cleveland-based group opposed to national prohibition and

linked to the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment. Bulkley and his

campaign committee spent more money than his four opponents all together.

Leading Ohio newspapers supported Bulkley's candidacy: Cleveland Plain Dealer,

Cleveland Press, Akron Press, Youngstown Vindicator, Youngstown Telegram, To-

ledo News Bee, Columbus Citizen Journal, Cincinnati Post, Cincinnati Enquirer,

Hamilton Journal, and many smaller dailies. Even though Bulkley entered the

campaign late and was behind his competitors in preparations at the outset, he and

his associates were able to put together a well run effort in a short period of time.

Bulkley's stand for repeal made the Democratic senatorial contest one of the hardest

fought in years, according to the Plain Dealer, but he felt a definite trend in his fa-

vor existed from about the fourteenth of July.¹⁴ He was correct. Ohio's Democrats

 

12. Speech in Cincinnati, September 1, 1930, speech in Youngstown, October 1, 1930, Box 36, folder 5,

Bulkley Papers.

13. Cleveland Plain Dealer, May 8, July 29, August 11, 1930.

14. Bulkley and his committee spent $21,048; Durbin spent $3,593; McSweeney spent $2,594; Myers

spent $756; Truax spent $200. Akron Beacon Journal, August 22, 1930; Cleveland Plain Dealer, August

23, 1930; Bulkley to Judge T. Conway, June 30, 1930, Moore to T. Kremer, July 23, 1930, Bulkley to C.

Brawley, July 24, 1930, Box 19, folder 2, Bulkley Papers.

• 6
 

176                                                                  OHIO HISTORY

 

chose him on August 12 to be their candidate in the November election.

Bulkley finished first with 81,219 votes; Durbin second with 40,807; Truax third

with 37,203; McSweeney fourth with 35,208; and Myers fifth with 19,093 votes.

The following data show the rank of the candidates' votes in Ohio's eighty-eight

counties: 15

First                      Second                Third        Fourth                            Fifth

Bulkley                     32                      29                       26                       1                          0

Durbin                     26                      25                       19                       13                        5

Truax                       22                      26                                                 28                        6            6

McSweeney             8                          9                       6                         33                        32

Myers                     0                          0                       8                         35                        45

These figures indicate that the candidate that won the most first place finishes also

won the largest number of votes. That is, Bulkley, who was first in total votes, also

won the most counties of anyone in the contest. And so on. Another point worthy

of note is that Bulkley won 35 percent of the counties, representing diverse back-

grounds and socio-economic makeup. For example, large urban counties sup-

ported him (some by overwhelming margins) and so did rural areas with small pop-

ulations. Even though it is impossible to determine exactly what motivated the

electorate, this voting pattern shows that Bulkley was supported for more reasons

than his stand against prohibition. One way to determine how widely based an ap-

peal Bulkley enjoyed is to make an analysis of the counties in terms of their voting

records on prohibition issues. A thirty year study reveals that there were three

counties that can be classed as moderate, seven that were wet, and seventy-eight

dry. In the primary, all of the moderate counties supported Bulkley, six of the wet

counties voted for him, and, significantly, twenty-three dry counties favored him.16

Bulkley's campaign against prohibition and his victory were front page news in

the New York Times, and his success was interpreted as a victory for the wet forces

by that and other newspapers. But it has been shown that Ohio's Democrats did

not choose him merely because he opposed prohibition. More evidence for this can

be found in a comparison of the Democratic votes cast for Bulkley and for the can-

didates for the gubernatorial nomination. George White of Marietta was favored

by the Anti-Saloon League while "Dare-devil" Stephen M. Young, who was also

seeking the nomination, was an outspoken wet. Young's stand against prohibition

was more or less the same as Bulkley's, yet he was soundly defeated by White.

Young received 36 percent of the vote in comparison to White's 63 percent, and he

won only seven counties comparied to thirty-two for Bulkley. The New York Times

also reported that White and Bulkley won many of the same precincts, and a com-

parison of the election returns reveals that there was little similarity between the

number of votes Bulkley and Young received in the counties. If, as the Plain

Dealer believed, Young's supporters represented the die-hard wets, it is plain that

 

15. Bulkley and Truax were tied in Coshocton County and both are given credit for second place fin-

ishes. This explains why second place finishes total eighty-nine and third place finishes total eighty-

seven. Ohio, Secretary of State, Election Statistics, 1930 (Cleveland, 1931), 28-29.

16. There were eleven times between 1913 and 1922 when the electorate had the opportunity to express

itself on the question of prohibition and its enforcement. If a county voted wet on no more than four oc-

casions, it was classed as dry. Counties that voted dry on at least four occasions and wet no more than

four times were considered moderate. Any county that voted wet at least eight times was classified as

wet. The three moderate counties were Ottawa, Scioto, and Shelby. The wet ones were Auglaize, But-

ler, Cuyahoga, Erie, Hamilton, Lucas, and Montgomery; the remaining counties were dry. Bulkley won

six of the wet counties (Auglaize was the exception) and received from them a total vote of 35,385.

• 7
 

Robert J. Bulkley Election                                                   177

 

Bulkley received votes from people other than those simply opposed to the Eigh-

teenth Amendment and that the question of repeal alone did not determine the pri-

mary, despite all the rhetoric.¹⁷

Bulkley and his fellow Democrats formally opened their fall campaigns at Mar-

ietta (George White's hometown) on September 29, 1930. Thereafter Bulkley,

White and many other Democratic candidates toured every congressional district in

an automobile caravan. According to the New York Times, the Ohio Senate race

overshadowed all others. Bulkley again flooded the state with campaign materials

from his Cleveland and Columbus offices, and contacted influential individuals in

every county in an effort to solicit their support. Also, he corresponded and met

with members of the national Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. From

them he received advice and assistance. Various wet organizations worked in his

behalf. The Congressional Districts Modification League and the Women's Organ-

ization for National Prohibition Reform worked for his election. Bulkley made

contributions to, and cooperated with, the Crusaders. He also corresponded and

joined forces with the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment, and Carl

Moore would be the secretary of the Ohio branch by 1931.18

During his campaign McCulloch was supported by leading drys. The Anti-Sa-

loon League, the Dry Maintenance League, the United Presbyterian Synod of Ohio,

the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, the Eighteenth Amendment League,

the Methodist Episcopal Church, and Simeon Fess as well as other prominent Re-

publicans endorsed McCulloch's dry stand and worked for his election. McCulloch

also received the support of W. E. ("Pussyfoot") Johnson and Billy Sunday, nation-

ally known revivalist-prohibition preachers, who campaigned for him and the dry

cause in Ohio. The Anti-Saloon League sponsored their speaking tours and report-

edly made every effort to defeat Bulkley. Ohio was also vital to the GOP. Fess

personally directed the campaigns in his home state to keep it in his party's ranks.

He spent more time in Ohio working for McCulloch than in Washington after the

campaign began. Of all Republican candidates for the Senate around the nation in

1930, McCulloch received the most aid from the national GOP.19

Perhaps the most novel aspect of the campaign was the revival of Christian Citi-

zenship Sunday by the drys. This tactic was used before the enactment of prohibi-

tion but infrequently after that. It meant that ministers devoted the Sunday before

the election urging their parishioners to support only dry candidates at the polls.

According to the Plain Dealer, some Ohio Democrats felt Senator Fess had unseated

Atlee Pomerene in 1922 because of the hostile preaching on a Christian Citizenship

Sunday. Because his candidacy inspired dry leaders to call ministers to action,

Bulkley naturally took precautionary steps. He sent letters to clergymen around the

state asking for fair and impartial treatment and explaining his positions on the var-

ious issues. These letters pointed out that he believed the pastors were right in ex-

 

 

17. Cincinnati Enquirer, August 10, 1930; Cleveland Plain Dealer, August 5, 14, 1930; New York

Times, August 13. 14, 1930; letter, Stephen M. Young to the author, January 18. 1973.

18. Annual Report to the Directors, Members and Friends of the Association Against the Prohibition

Amendment, 1931 (Washington, 1932), 2; Leslie Gordon, ed.. The New Crusade (Cleveland, 1932), xii; E.

Halsey to Bulkley, August 13, 1930, Moore to H. Curran, October 14, 1930, A. Kummer to Moore, Octo-

ber 14, 1930, P. Collins to Bulkley, October 27, 1930, A. Kummer to Bulkley, October 29, 1930, Box 19,

folder 3, Bulkley Papers.

19. Akron Beacon Journal, September 27, 1930; Cincinnati Enquirer, October 9. 11, 1930; Cleveland

Plain Dealer, August 18, September 7, 15, October 2, 11, 15, 19, 29, 1930; New York Times, October 17,

November 9, 1930; "The Trend of Events," Outlook and Independent, November 12, 1930, p. 404.

• 8
 

178                                                                 OHIO HISTORY

 

pressing their views on questions and candidates. But he urged them not to hurt

their religious image by allowing themselves to become voting blocs for the Anti-Sa-

loon League and the Republican party. The Crusaders and the Association Against

the Prohibition Amendment also sent letters to their members suggesting that they

confer with their ministers and urge that politics and prohibition not be brought up

on Christian Citizenship Sunday.²⁰

McCulloch dealt with four main topics during his campaign: the depression, im-

migration, prohibition, and the tariff. Except for the second, he did not approach

these issues on his own. He was forced to deal with them in response to Bulkley's

positions. In regard to the depression, McCulloch's opinion was that it was an un-

avoidable phenomenon that could be coped with best by the Republicans, himself

included. Restricted immigration, he maintained, was needed to protect American

labor during hard times. His first major speech in the Senate (June 10, 1930) had

been in support of the super-protectionist Hawley-Smoot tariff, a piece of legislation

that was extremely unpopular among many groups across the nation. Once passed,

the act was even more vitriolicly attacked, and McCulloch was forced to defend his

vote in favor of it. In terms of prohibition, McCulloch replied to an Anti-Saloon

League questionnaire by saying, "I voted for the resolution referring the Eighteenth

Amendment to the states for ratification and for the Volstead Act while a member

of the House of Representatives. I favor the enforcement of the present prohibition

law."  He opposed any "backward step" on the "great moral question" of prohibi-

tion, claimed repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment was impossible at that time, and

thought Bulkley's attack on prohibition was a mere political gesture.²¹

It was difficult for McCulloch to deal with Bulkley's campaign for repeal because

his party, nationally and in Ohio, had declared that prohibition was not an issue in

1930. This position was not very popular among some Ohio Republican leaders,

though. For example, the state GOP convention's resolution committee was racked

by demands for planks calling for repeal and endorsement of a referendum in Ohio

on the prohibition question. But the committee defeated these proposals, and in

the end the delegates unanimously passed a plank calling for the enforcement of all

laws. Even though vague, the statement satisfied the majority (drys) at the conven-

tion. The wets, on the other hand, accepted it quietly for the sake of party unity.

Also, they acquiesced because the enforcement plank was not as dry as it could have

been. To them an out-and-out dry plank would have tended to make prohibition a

partisan political issue, something they did not want. The Republicans, never-

theless, were being identified as dry and Democrats as wet, and a victory by either

party was interpreted as an endorsement of their stand on the prohibition question.

The Plain Dealer maintained that the GOP felt the defeat of McCulloch would rep-

resent a repudiation of President Hoover's stand in favor of prohibition, and the

 

 

 

20. Cleveland Plain Dealer, October 20, 29, 30, 1930; Bulkley to R. Cross, October 31, 1930, Box 20,

folder 3, Bulkley Papers; speech at Akron, October 29, 1930, Box 36, folder 5, ibid.

21. Akron Beacon Journal, September 11, 1930; Cleveland Plain Dealer, June 11, July 25, October 31,

November 1, 2, 1930.

22. Cleveland Plain Dealer, September 12, 13, 14, 26, October 30, 1930; New York Times, August 12,

September 13, 1930; Joseph Gusfield, "Prohibition: The Impact of Political Utopianism," in John Brae-

man, Robert Bremner, and David Brody, eds.. Change and Continuity in Twentieth Century America; The

1920's (Columbus, 1968), 302; David Kyvig, "In Revolt Against Prohibition: The Association Against the

Prohibition Amendment and the Movement for Repeal, 1919-1933" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,

Northwestern University, 1971), 260.

• 9
 

Robert J. Bulkley Election                                              179

 

Anti-Saloon League was making a nationwide effort to keep the Republican party

dry.22

The Republicans were not alone in their unwillingness to accept prohibition as a

political issue in 1930. Ohio's Democrats were equally unsure of the voters' atti-

tudes and were not of one mind on the question of repeal. The Plain Dealer re-

ported that their September convention was the most harmonious and enthusiastic

in years, and this was true largely because the candidates had decided beforehand

to leave the prohibition question out of the platform. The convention was dis-

turbed only once by the repeal issue. This was when Charles Hubble (a candidate

for the Ohio Supreme Court) criticized the party for straddling the prohibition ques-

tion. He was shouted down by the delegates for his efforts. Harmony was the rule

of order and everyone was working to stifle any discord in order to enhance the

chances of victory for the whole ticket in November. As for the Democrats from

Cuyahoga County, their county leader, W. B. Gongwer, said his followers were

pledged to prohibition reform even though they acquiesced in the party's official si-

lence.²³

The fact that the Democratic party openly avoided the prohibition issue and that

one of its leading candidates (George White) was known to be dry naturally caused

problems for the party and Bulkley, who wanted his party to come out for repeal or

at least take a definiteposition on the prohibition question. But he decided not to

press the issue in order to avoid splitting the party. Bulkley met with party leaders

several times between the primary and the state convention, and reached agreement

regarding the role prohibition was to play in the upcoming campaigns. It was de-

cided that both White and Bulkley could run on the same ticket and campaign to-

gether by simply saying prohibition was a national issue and not a state problem.

Thus, Bulkley was able to demand repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment while

White was not forced to yield ground in his support of prohibition.²⁴

Bulkley wrapped up his formal campaign on November 1, 1930 with a speech at

Toledo. The rhetoric between the senatorial candidates had become more vitriolic

as election time approached, but Bulkley remained confident he would win. Major

newspaper polls in Ohio confirmed his popularity. On the eve of election the Co-

lumbus Dispatch and the Cincinnati Enquirer expressed the opinion that he was

ahead by 75,000 to 280,000 votes. The Plain Dealer followed suit in a headline of

November second: "Bulkley and Victory is Forecast." On election day Bulkley, in

fact, received a majority of 182,571 out of a total of 1,910,649 votes cast, and other

Ohio Democrats emerged victorious. According to the New York Times, the elec-

tions of 1930 caused the most spectacular Democratic upset of the GOP nationwide

since 1912. This time Bulkley finished first in forty counties with 54.8 percent of the

total vote cast in the state. Again he won large counties as well as small, and his to-

tal was increased by big majorities in urban Cuyahoga, Franklin, and Hamilton

counties.25

In general, the nation's drys attributed Bulkley's success to the tendency of voters

 

 

 

23. Cleveland Plain Dealer, September 17, 1930; New York Times, September 17, 1930.

24. Cleveland Plain Dealer, August 28, 1930; New York Times, August 27, September 1, 1930; Bulkley

to J. Guffy, August 16, 1930, Box 19, folder 3, Bulkley Papers.

25. Bulkley's total was 1,046,610, and McCulloch's was 864,039. Cincinnati Enquirer, November 2,

1930; Cleveland Plain Dealer, October 13, November 2, 1930; New York Times, October 17, November

9, 1930; Ohio, Election Statistics, 1930, pp. 58-59.

• 10
 

180                                                                 OHIO HISTORY

 

to associate the depressing economic situation with the Republican party. The wets

claimed he won because of rising sentiment in favor of repeal. Various historians of

the period also adhere to the latter view.²⁶ Bulkley, more than twenty years after

the fact, felt his repeal stand was the main reason for his election. However, as was

shown for Bulkley's Democratic primary victory, the wet issue could not have been

the most important question in the minds of the voters then or in the general elec-

tion since his support was so widespread. Perhaps the drys were correct in claiming

the most important consideration was the depressed economy. Taxes in the state

had increased 37 percent since 1922. Unemployment in Ohio reached 250,000 in

August 1930. Also, farm production was far below normal due to a long drought,

and the farmers were unhappy with the GOP for inadequate relief measures. Tied

in with the depression was dissatisfaction with the Hawley-Smoot tariff. This was

an issue in rural areas and many farmers blamed it for their financial difficulties.²⁷

Other factors, however, were important to Bulkley's success, such as his effective

campaign tactics and his influential supporters. He waged a vigorous and far

reaching campaign. He spoke in every congressional district and in most counties,

and traveled with the confident and harmonious caravan of Democratic candidates.

He was also able to spend a relatively large amount of money on his campaign.

His own fund had spent $9,617 by October 26; added to this were expenditures of

over $9,000 by the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment and $5,000 by

the Crusaders. The national Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, headed

by Millard Tydings (a Maryland wet), provided advice and campaign materials.

Probably also of importance was the influence leading Democrats had on the voters

when they campaigned for Bulkley. Newton D. Baker, James M. Cox, Martin

Davey, "Veto Vic" Donahey, and Stephen M. Young all took to the stump.²⁸

There were other sources from which Bulkley derived support and endorsements.

The Chicago Daily Tribune reported that most of Ohio's leading newspapers again

endorsed Bulkley, including some that were Republican, such as the Akron Beacon

Journal, the Cleveland News, the Massilon Independent, the Toledo Blade, and the

Toledo Times.²⁹ Another important source of support apparently came from Ohio's

Negro voters. On October 5 the NAACP voted to actively campaign against

McCulloch's election bid. The group did not formally endorse Bulkley, but senti-

ment for him among Negroes was strong. Like the Blacks, labor groups were op-

posed to McCulloch because he had voted for Parker's nomination. Labor also

generally approved of Bulkley's repeal stand. Yet another important source of sup-

 

 

 

 

 

26. For examples, see Harlow Lindley, ed., Ohio in the Twentieth Century, 1900-1938 (Columbus,

1942), 55; Peltz, "The Senatorial Career of R. J. Bulkley," 17; Eugene Roseboom and Francis Weisen-

burger, A History of Ohio (Columbus, 1964), 345.

27. Cleveland Plain Dealer, July 19, 31, August 9, September 15, 1930; New York Times, August 24,

September 3, October 19, 1930; the President's Research Committee on Recent Social Trends, Recent So-

cial Trends in the United States (New York, 1933), 1336.

28. As of October 25, 1930, Bulkley had received a total of $16,040 for his campaign. This contrasted

sharply to McCulloch's receipts of $10,000 and expenditures of $1.594. Cleveland Plain Dealer, October

26, 1930; Halsey to Bulkley, August 13, 1930, Box 13, folder 3, Bulkley Papers; Bulkley to G. Nye. Chair-

man of the Senate Select Committee on Campaign Expenditures, November 20. 1930, Box 19, folder 4,

ibid.

29. Akron Beacon Journal, October 8, 1930; Cincinnati Enquirer, October 12, 1930; Cleveland News,

October 8, 1930; Cleveland Plain Dealer, November 3, 1930; New York Times, October 9, 1930: Paul

Block to Bulkley, November 26, 1930, Box 19, folder 2. Bulkley Papers.

• 11
 

Robert J. Bulkley Election                                                   181

 

port for Bulkley came from the wet organizations which continued their support af-

ter the primary victory.³⁰

Even though McCulloch was a hard campaigner, he apparently was not as much

of a threat to Bulkley's election as Republican leaders had hoped he would be. The

Akron Beacon Journal considered McCulloch "perhaps the weakest candidate his

party could have nominated," and when considering the various factors contrib-

uting to his opponent's victory, it is necessary to note McCulloch's weakness. Ac-

cording to the New York Times, McCulloch was not very popular around the state.

He had never demonstrated any great vote-getting abilities, and he was a strict par-

tisan. The Plain Dealer and Akron Beacon Journal voiced displeasure with his serv-

ice in the Senate. The Cincinnati Enquirer considered him to be a tool of the Anti-

Saloon League. Members of his own party were not overjoyed with the prospect of

seeing him serve six years in the Senate. For example, Maurice Maschke and other

Republicans around the state reportedly were still angry that Governor Cooper had

appointed McCulloch in in the first place. Maschke had wanted a wet to oppose

Bulkley. The Cuyahoga County organization had been in a difficult position be-

cause it had endorsed changes in the prohibition laws and McCulloch had

steadfastly stood by the Eighteenth Amendment and the Volstead Act. Maschke

had rightfully feared that McCulloch's stand would hurt his candidates' chances for

election by causing a possible political realignment in favor of Bulkley and the

Democrats. Also, the Republican party nationally was having trouble making a

united stand. It had suffered through an internal struggle during the summer that

had resulted in the ouster of Claudius Huston as chairman of the national com-

mittee. The appointment of Simeon Fess, a "bone dry," to that position angered

many wets. Fess quickly showed the nation where the party officially stood on the

prohibition question when he chose Mrs. Ellis Yost to head the women's division of

the party. She was the president of the District of Columbia Woman's Christian

Temperance Union.31

In his stand for prohibition McCulloch found that strong support was lacking

from the two groups that traditionally had been among prohibition's most ardent

supporters-the Anti-Saloon League and the Ku Klux Klan. Ohio had been one of

the Klan's great centers of numerical strength during the 1920's. One of the group's

cardinal tenets had been the support of prohibition. But, by 1930, the Klan in Ohio

was operationally defunct. Also by 1930, the Anti-Saloon League was no longer

the great power it had been. Once the league had been the nation's and state's

foremost pressure group, but success had caused complacence among its adherents.

The league could no longer recruit active young men, and its most aggressive lead-

ers were dead. The depression caused severe financial problems for the league, es-

pecially because most funds came from numerous small contributors and nearly all

of its big benefactors discontinued their payments. The annual income of the Anti-

 

 

30. Joseph Breitenstein of Cleveland felt McCulloch's vote for Parker cost him a great part of the Ne-

gro vote in 1930. Walter White, the acting secretary of the NAACP, said that for the first time Negroes

abandoned their traditional party affiliation on the national level when they voted against McCulloch.

Akron Beacon Journal, August 19, October 31, November 24. 1930; Cincinnati Enquirer, October 4. 1930;

Cleveland Gazette, October 11, 1930; Cleveland Plain Dealer. February 20, June 4, August 20, October 6,

1930; New York Times, October 23, November 1, 1930; T. Donnelly (Ohio State Federation of Labor) to

Moore, October 14, 1930, Box 19, folder 3, Bulkley Papers; Breitenstein to James Farley, April 6. 1932,

Box 582, Democratic National Committee Papers, Franklin D. Roosevelt Library.

31. Akron Beacon Journal, March 21, 27, August 14, October 7, 1930; Cleveland Plain Dealer, March 8,

September 11, October 12, November 2, 1930; New York Times, September 11, 1930.

• 12
 

182                                                             OHIO HISTORY

 

Saloon League of America dropped from about $930,000 in 1919 to $265,000 in

1929. The Ohio branch's annual income declined from $173,754 in 1922 to $80,811

in 1930, and most of this was spent in behalf of McCulloch and Myers Cooper, the

candidate for governor.³²

Included in an analysis of Bulkley's victory should also be an examination of

what happened around the state to other candidates. The election statistics indicate

that 1930 was a good year for Democrats. When 1930 figures are compared with

the Republican landslide of 1928, it can be seen that the proportion of Republicans

to Democrats elected was altered significantly and the number of counties voting

Republican slipped to fifty-three from eighty. In 1930 Democrats won the follow-

ing offices: United States Senator, governor, lieutenant governor, nine of twenty-two

seats in the United States House of Representatives (compared with three in 1928),

fourteen of thirty-two state senator seats (compared with none in 1928), and fifty-

eight of one hundred twenty-eight state representative seats (compared with eleven

in 1928). Bulkley carried thirty-three Democratic and seven Republican counties,

including Cuyahoga and Hamilton counties, that voted wet, and four that had voted

dry in the past.

As a political issue, repeal elicited the most interest in the state, and Bulkley's

campaign attracted nationwide attention. Yet, it is difficult to pick out repeal as the

most important deciding factor in the election. To those who watched the voting in

1930 the results in Ohio were revealing, if not shocking. The "Mother of Prohibi-

tion" had chosen a wet to take a seat in the United States Senate. The fact that the

repeal movement was riding the crest of the wave of reaction against the Republi-

cans escaped many observers. What this suggests, then, is that perhaps prohibition

was repealed not because voters purposefully voted for wets, but because many saw

the election only in terms of opposition to the depressing economic conditions. The

elected officials, nevertheless, were sincere in their campaign promises and repeal

was effected within three years, with knowing support of the electorate.

 

32. Ohio Anti-Saloon League Reports of Audit, 1922, 1930, Box 3, Ohio Council on Alcohol Problems,

Papers, Michigan Historical Collections, Ann Arbor, Michigan; The American Issue (Ohio edition), Feb-

ruary 20, 1931, pp. 2-3: New York Times, November 9, 1930.

• 13