|
Cleveland's New Stock Lawmakers and Progressive Reform by John D. Buenker |
During the highly productive progressive era of the early 1900's Ohioans enacted a myriad of reforms designed to cope with the serious political, economic, and social problems of the day. Included in their efforts was the updating of the state constitution more attuned to the complexities of twentieth century life. The contributions made to this record by such eminent reformers as Tom L. Johnson, Samuel "Golden Rule" Jones, Brand Whitlock, James M. Cox, and Judson Harmon have been discussed by a variety of scholars. These leaders, with few exceptions, came from families of long residence in the United States, were well-educated, of comfortable circumstances, and were influenced by the humanitarian and religious philosophies of traditional America; that is, they were in the category of the genteel reformers identified by such historians as Richard Hofstadter and George Mowry.1 A careful consideration of the era in Ohio also reveals that the reform impulse emanated from another, but far different source; namely, from the representatives of Cleveland's large recent immigrant population. Like many of their constituents, the Lake City's lawmakers were preponderantly either immigrants themselves or descended from fairly recent arrivals, were of other than English ancestry, professed religions which were largely unknown in colonial times, and came from working class environments. Yet, they made a highly significant contribution to the success of pro- gressive reform in the Buckeye State. NOTES ON PAGE 154 |
NEW
STOCK LAWMAKERS 117
To appreciate this phenomenon fully, it
is necessary to understand
what such distinguished scholars as
Arthur Link, Samuel Hays, and J.
Joseph Huthmacher have clearly
established--that there was not just one
"Progressive Movement" but
several simultaneous movements which
permeated all segments of society.2
The impersonal forces of industrializa-
tion, immigration, and urbanization had
intimately affected the lives of
every single individual in the United
States, and had profoundly altered
the traditional social, economic, and
political relationships. In order to
cope with the circumstances engendered
by their new environment
Americans in similar economic and social
situations combined into trade
associations, labor unions, farmer
cooperatives, civic associations, groups to
defend the Amercan way of life against
the incursions of immigrants, and
organizations to protect racial and
ethnic minorities against discrimina-
tion. Although their efforts were often
directed at the private sector, these
groups eventually turned their attention
to political action in the hope of
making common cause with the
representatives of other discontented
segments of society. With so many people
often working at cross purposes
to one another, any positive
accomplishments were the result of temporary
working coalitions on specific issues,
programs, or candidates. It was
precisely this discovery that politics
could be made relevant to curing the
major maladies of the period which
marked the beginning of the pro-
gressive era.
Human motivation, especially in
politics, is exceedingly complex and
difficult to evaluate. The old stock,
middle-class reformer saw himself as
entering politics primarily to effect
the realization of certain principles
which he derived from his religious and
cultural heritage. Historians have
also argued that he engaged in political
activity because he felt his once
privileged status in society was
threatened by the newly rich on one side
and the rising industrial working class
on the other.3 The urban, new
stock wage earner and his
representatives, on the other hand, usually had
in mind such concrete aims as a higher
wage, better working and living
conditions, a maximum impact for his
vote, and the defense of his cultural
heritage from nativist attack. The
wellspring of his action was first-hand
experience and he was usually prone to
seek specific remedies for indentifi-
able wrongs. At the same time, it is
possible to argue that the new stock
politician also saw himself acting in
defense of certain abstract principles--
the dignity of all men, political
equality, the ideal of a pluralistic society.
The instances of clashes over ideals and
interests between the old stock
middle class and the new stock working
class were numerous during the
progressive era, but so too were
incidents of their cooperation. Indeed
the success of progressive reform in
most of the major industrial states
usually depended upon it.4
In Ohio, as elsewhere, the progressive
era began in the cities. In Cleve-
land, the election of Tom L. Johnson as
mayor in 1901 heralded the begin-
ning of progress in that city which was
almost unequaled anywhere else
in the nation. During his four terms in
office, Johnson challenged the
118 OHIO HISTORY
street railway companies, fought for
municipal ownership of basic utilities,
thoroughly reorganized the city's
government, augmented its recreational
facilities, and reformed the penal and
legal system. By the time Johnson
left office in 1910, Cleveland was
thought to be a model city, acclaimed
even by such severe critics of urban
affairs as Lincoln Steffens. Johnson
himself was a fairly typical old stock,
middle-class reformer whose main
aim was to eliminate special privilege
of all kinds and to implement the
social theories of the single-taxer
Henry George. Most of his chief lieuten-
ants such as Newton D. Baker, Frederic
C. Howe, and Harris R. Cooley
came from similar social backgrounds,
and one of Johnson's major ac-
complishments was the arousing of the
reform impulse in the city's middle
class.5
To attribute the success of reform in
Cleveland solely to middle-class
dynamism, though, would be a serious
mistake because the population
of the city was so overwhelmingly new
stock in makeup. Nearly thirty-
five percent of Cleveland's population
in 1910 was composed of people of
foreign birth, while another forty
percent were but second-generation
Americans. Even though the census
figures do not trace ancestry beyond
this point, it is also highly likely
that a significant portion of the remain-
ing quarter of the population were
descendants of those who had emigrated
to the United States in the early stages
of the Industrial Revolution. Of
the nearly three-quarters who were of
foreign stock, 28.6 percent were of
German descent and another 18.4 percent
came from various portions
of the Austrian Empire. The remainder,
in order of percentage, came from
Hungary: 10.9; Russia: 9.4; Ireland:
8.6; England: 6.3; Canada: 4.3; Italy:
4.0; Scotland: 1.5; and Wales: 0.8.6 All
told, Cleveland was one the most
polyglot cities in the United States,
and it is difficult to see how any re-
form movement could have succeeded
without a broad appeal to these
various ethnic minorities.
That Johnson did receive much of his
reform mandate from the city's
recent immigrants is apparent both from
his programs and his voter support.
In his various campaigns Johnson
carefully cultivated the immigrant
strongholds on Cleveland's west side,
generally seeking to enlist the aid of
the local leaders rather than oppose
them. His three thousand vote plu-
rality in the new stock wards was
instrumental in his all-important first
victory in 1901, and his popularity in
these areas steadily grew during
his successive administrations. By
espousing such reforms as a three-cent
streetcar fare and public ownership of
utilities and by refusing to crack
down on saloons and gambling
establishments, Johnson clearly bid for the
support of the foreign stock voter and,
conversely, often incurred the wrath
of the city's middle class. According to
Fredric Howe, such issues as the
three-cent fare pitted "men of
property and influence" against "the
politicians, immigrants, workers, and
persons of small means," with him-
self and Johnson definitely favoring the
latter groups. "His program," a
perceptive analyst of Cleveland's
minority groups later wrote, "appealed
to the politically oppressed and to the
underprivileged, and from the
foreign wards came most of his
support."7
NEW
STOCK LAWMAKERS 119
Although terms like "boss" and
"machine" might seem inappropriate
to apply to a reformer of Johnson's
stature, it must be acknowledged that
he owed a great deal of his success,
both at the city and state level, to
the tightly disciplined organization
which he constructed, an organization
based upon the city's predominantly
foreign stock vote. Contemporary
newspapers often portrayed Johnson as a
political boss, a judgment in
which the mayor himself gladly
concurred. Two modern scholars of urban
affairs, Charles Glaab and Theodore
Brown, have described the Cleveland
mayor as a "reform boss" who
deliberately played for lower class votes and
pursued many policies more attuned to
their desires than to those of the
old stock middle class. This
interpretation is largely sustained by Hoyt
Landon Warner in his study of Ohio
progressivism. Acknowledging that
"many of Johnson's methods were
scarcely distinguishable from those of
his opponents," Warner asserts that
the reformer gained control of party
committees, dictated to the state
convention, drafted the platform, selected
the candidates and generally
"transformed the loyal Democracy of Cleve-
land and Cuyahoga County into a party in
his own image, dedicated to
social reform." Since so much of
Cleveland's "loyal Democracy" was com-
posed of the city's new stock voters,
office-holders and party functionaries,
it seems evident that their contribution
to Johnson's success has not been
fully appreciated. By the progressive
years, as we shall see, representatives
of these ethnic minorities had risen
through the party's ranks and had
come to dominate the city's delegation
in the General Assembly.8
Balked by the legal restrictions placed
upon city government in such
areas as taxation and regulation of
utilities by state law, the Cleveland
Democrats turned to state-wide politics
where they hoped to effect reforms
through cooperation with progressives
from other cities. Their original
aims were to reform Ohio's tax laws, to
make structural changes in the
state's electoral and apportionment
system, and to free the cities from the
direct control of the legislature. Later
they turned their attention to
labor and welfare questions, the
regulation of business, and a variety
of social questions. The high point of
the progressive era on the state
level in Ohio came during the
administrations of two Democratic governors,
Judson Harmon, from 1909 to 1913, and
James M. Cox, from 1913 to 1915.
In 1912, a state convention wrote
amendments to the constitution, which
made possible the passage of a myriad of
economic and political reforms
during the Cox administration. By 1915
Ohio ranked with a handful of
other states as the most progressive in
the nation.9
Without detracting in any way from the
primacy of leadership exercised
at the state level by such old stock,
middle-class reformers as governors
Harmon and Cox, mayors Tom Johnson,
Brand Whitlock and Newton
Baker, the Cincinnati politician Herbert
Bigelow and others, it is impor-
tant to note that many of Cleveland's
new stock lawmakers also showed
in this leadership function by serving
as committee chairmen, drafting and
introducing important legislation,
guiding it through the required pro-
cedures, and rounding up the necessary
votes. William A. Greenlund, a
120 OHIO HISTORY
second generation Danish-American who
was in the real estate business,
for example, was the sponsor of such
significant legislation as the Mothers'
Pension Act, the Liquor Licensing Act,
and the repeal of the Smith One
Per Cent Tax Law. In addition, he served
as chairman of two important
senate committees, and later presided
over that body as lieutenant-governor
for much of the 1914 session. Lawrence Brennan,
a second generation
Irish Catholic, worked mostly behind the
scenes in 1913 but, according
to historian James Mercer, "his
influence was felt upon all the important
legislation of the session." Robert
Crosser, a Scottish immigrant, was the
author of the bill providing for
municipal initiative and referendum and
was rewarded for his service by being
picked to run for Congress in 1912,
where he represented Cleveland almost
continuously until 1955. He and
Carl D. Friebolin, a second generation
German-American, were disciples
of Johnson and, according to Warner,
"played a much more aggressive
role in proposing and guiding
legislation than their years of experience
seemed to warrant." In the 1913
session Friebolin advanced to the state
senate where he was chairman of the
judiciary committee and functioned
as Johnson's liaison man to that body.
Maurice Bernstein, the son of Jewish
immigrant parents from Poland,
served as chairman of the senate
privileges and elections committee in
1913 and was often entrusted with the
sponsorship of key legislation, in-
cluding the home rule tax bill and the
resolution to ratify the Seventeenth
Amendment to the Federal Constitution.
James A. Reynolds, an English
immigrant and executive of a machinists'
union, was the author of a
number of labor and welfare measures and
also led the fight for such
political reforms as woman suffrage.
Another official of the machinists'
union, Harry F. Vollmer, a second
generation German-American, was
so zealous in his sponsorship of such
pro-labor proposals as a mandatory
eight-hour day that he occasionally ran
ahead of the wishes of the middle-
class leadership of his own party.
Herman Fellinger, born in Alsace-Lor-
raine chaired the insurance committee of
the lower house, introduced
several important regulatory laws, and
drafted a compromise amendment
which made possible the passage of a
women's hours bill in the 1913 ses-
sion, while the Scottish-born T. Alfred
Fleming authored five successful
measures during the second Cox
administration, 1917 - 1921. Two second-
generation Irish Catholics,
Representative John C. Smith and Senator
James S. Kennedy, were also productive
legislators in the 1917 session,
with Smith introducing three key
regulatory acts, and Kennedy, the
secretary-treasurer of the Plumbers'
Union Local in Cleveland aiding many
pro-labor measures through his position
as chairman of the senate labor
committee. The list could be extended,
but it is evident from this brief
enumeration that Cleveland's new stock
lawmakers often assumed posi-
tions of leadership.10
In addition, it has been acknowledged by
most students of Ohio pro-
gressivism that the Cuyahoga County
delegation turned in a good record
of support for the major reforms
introduced during the era, but it has
not been sufficiently recognized that the Cleveland contingent was heavily dominated by lawmakers of recent immigrant origins. Of the three senators who represented the county in 1911, only one, John N. Stockwell, Jr., was of old stock lineage. The other two were the English-born Reynolds and John Krause, a German-American druggist born in Cincinnati. Of the eight Democrats in the lower house only Nelson Brewer was descended from a family of long residence in the United States. Besides Fellinger, Crosser, Friebolin, and Brennan, Cuyahoga County was represented by the three immigrants--Joseph F. Sawicki, born in German Poland, a Roman Catholic, and an official of a number of Polish national societies; Joseph J. Greeves, a native Irishman and editor of a Catholic newspaper; and Ralph Wigmore Edwards, a native of Wales. Even the two Republican members from Cuyahoga County were of recent residence in America-- John Evans, a Welsh immigrant with a working class background and Frank M. Calvey, a second generation Irish-American.11 The same general pattern prevailed in 1913. The senators were, in the main, lawyers by profession and consisted of Bernstein, Greenlund. |
Friebolin, E. J. Hopple, native born, and Vincent Zmunt, the son of an Austrian immigrant and a Roman Catholic. The number of representa- tives had risen to thirteen under the new apportionment system and only two of these, Stephen M. Young and Don Parmenter Mills, could be con- sidered old stock Americans. Brennan and Fellinger were reelected and the remainder of their colleagues constituted a fairly good cross section of the city's ethnic minorities. Three were second generation German- Americans--George F. Doster, a member of the carpenters and joiners union, Vollmer, and Henry L. Schaefer. Four others were Irish Catholic-- Frank J. Kilrain, Martin L. Sweeney, Virgil J. Terrell, and Michael J. Walsh, a bridge builder and the former deputy sheriff of Cuyahoga County. Bernard E. Orlikowski, a paving contractor as well as in the wholesale grocery and liquor trade, was a Polish immigrant and a Roman Catholic, while Joseph Lustig was the son of Bohemian immigrant parents. Of the twenty-eight men who represented Cuyahoga County during the 1911- 1913 crucial period in the Progressive Era, eight were immigrants, thirteen were the sons of immigrants, and two were Irish-Catholics of older American origins, leaving only five who were descendants of traditional native American stock. The percentages were not quite so impressive from 1915 through 1919, but the Cleveland delegation continued to be dominated by representatives of the city's minority groups, most of whom were no more than second generation Americans.12 As might be expected from their origins, these new stock legislators were especially concerned about the enactment of labor and welfare measures. In these issues they found natural allies among the representa- tives of organized labor from other parts of the state, particularly from William Green of Coshocton, the future head of the American Federation of Labor. The son of English immigrant parents, Green had worked in the coal miners since boyhood and hence had much in common with many of the new stock Cuyahoga Democrats. During the 1911 and 1913 sessions he was one of the most effective members of the senate, drafting and guiding a number of bills designed to better the lot of working men in general and coal miners in particular. Occasionally Green even branched into other legislative areas, introducing the measure to call the momentous |
124 OHIO HISTORY constitutional convention in 1911, and was rewarded for his effectiveness by being elected president pro tempore of the upper chamber in 1913. On most labor and welfare issues the forces of organized labor and their Cuya- hoga allies could count upon the support of the old stock, middle-class pro- gressives, especially if the measure in question were aimed at protecting the defenseless, such as women and children. When the more ardent of the pro-labor lawmakers such as Green, Vollmer, or Reynolds sponsored measures to aid able-bodied male workers, though, the middle-class re- formers like Johnson and Cox sometimes fought this legislation as a form of special privilege.13 On the whole, however, the impressive array of labor and welfare laws enacted in Ohio during the progressive years was the result of effective cooperation between the middle-class reformers, the leaders of organized labor, and the representatives of the state's urban, |
NEW STOCK LAWMAKERS 125 new stock wage earners, with the Cuyahoga delegation clearly in the forefront. The so-called Mothers' Pension Law, for instance, considered one of the major achievements of the period in this area, was drafted by Senator William Greenlund in the 1913 session. This measure represented a comprehensive attempt to reorganize the state's welfare program for indi- gent mothers with dependent children. Besides providing for pensions, the law also regulated the conditions of child labor and stipulated com- pulsory education until the age of fifteen for boys and sixteen for girls, and was known as the "Magna Carta of the children of Ohio." As such it had the unanimous backing of the entire Cleveland delegation in both houses of the General Assembly. When the Republican administration in 1915 tried to weaken the intent of the measure by allowing county sheriffs |
126 OHIO HISTORY
to investigate welfare recipients, the
Cuyahoga lawmakers abstained from
voting in this instance.14
Another cardinal achievement of
progressivism in Ohio, the compulsory
workmen's compensation law, received
strong backing from Cleveland's dele-
gates. The original bill in 1911 was
introduced by William Green and pro-
vided for the creation of a state
insurance fund financed primarily out of
employer contributions. It stipulated an
automatic payment to the worker
without the necessity of proving
negligence and also created a State Liability
Board of Awards. The measure passed both
houses over the rather token
opposition of some rural Republicans and
with the unanimous support of
Cleveland lawmakers. In 1913 Green
received the backing of the Cuyahoga
delegation for his amendment which made
workmen's compensation com-
pulsory, although it allowed some
employers to provide for self insurance
outside the state system. When the
Republican superintendent of insurance
Frank Taggart ruled that the private
liability companies could cover self-
insurers, the State Federation of Labor
sponsored a measure, via an initia-
tive petition, to prohibit this
activity, and the Cuyahoga lawmakers voted
almost unanimously for it in the 1917
session.15
The regulation of working hours,
especially for women, found similar
favor with the Lake City lawmakers. Once
again it was William Green who
in 1911 introduced the original bill
that provided for a nine-hour day and
a fifty-four hour week. Opposition to
the measure in the house, however, in-
spired Herman Fellinger to amend the
proposal to a ten-hour day and a
sixty-hour week over the objections of
all of his colleagues, but on the final
vote the entire Cleveland group
concurred. In 1913, Vollmer sought to lower
the limit to eight hours and to include
women working in hotels and mer-
cantile establishments as well as
factories. Under threat of a veto by Gover-
nor James Cox, Vollmer and his
associates finally agreed to a nine-hour day
and certain other limitations, but not
before they had demonstrated their
desire for the strongest possible law.
As further evidence of their concern
for shorter working hours for women, the
Cuyahoga delegation approved a
further extension of the law's provision
in 1917 when it was introduced by
Tom Reynolds, an Irish Catholic labor
leader and representative from Cleve-
land. Although the issue of maximum
hours for male workers did not en-
gender much interest in the legislature,
with the exception of Walsh, the
Cuyahoga delegates in attendance did
back a bill drafted in 1913 by Percy
Tetlow of Columbiana County to provide
for an eight-hour day for public
employees as an example for private
industry.16
In a similar vein, Cleveland lawmakers
were in the vanguard of those who
sought to establish a strong industrial
code for Ohio and to provide for a
statewide commission to oversee it. They
were unanimous in their support of
a measure drawn up by Senator James
Reynolds in 1911 to require that em-
ployers report any serious accident
which resulted in more than two days
absence to the Chief Inspector of
Workshops and Factories. In the following
session, their backing was accorded to
Vollmer's proposal to provide a fine of
from twenty-five to one hundred dollars
for any violation of the statutes re-
NEW STOCK LAWMAKERS 127
garding abuses in sweat shops, as well
as to Friebolin's bill requiring that
any business employing more than five
people must report the number,
wages, hours and conditions of labor of
any females or workers under
eighteen years of age. To oversee these
laws Senator William Haas of Dela-
ware proposed the creation of a state
industrial commission which would
assume the powers of all the existing labor
boards and bureaus, as well as
have the general duty to regulate hours
and conditions of labor in the in-
terest of the employee. Although some
labor leaders reportedly feared that
the board would exercise too much
control, it eventually received the com-
plete support of the Cleveland
delegation as well as that of all the other
labor-oriented legislators. During the
same session the Cuyahoga lawmakers
upheld an amendment to the Haas bill by
Green stipulating that the newly
established commission would accede to
all the powers of the State Board
of Awards.17
The wages of Ohio's industrial workers
were also a matter of concern for
the state's new stock legislators. The
constitutional convention of 1912
recommended the enactment of a minimum
wage law, but Governor Cox
urged careful study of the proposal and
recommended its limitation to wom-
en and children. In the end he prevailed
upon the lawmakers to refer the
matter to the industrial commission for
study. Although Ohio did not enact
a minimum wage law, as such, in this
period, her labor-oriented lawmakers
did endeavor to protect workers'
earnings in other ways. In 1913, the Cleve-
land delegation backed a law which
required the semi-monthly payment of
wages and were successful in frustrating
the attempts of conservatives to
riddle it with exceptions. Two years
earlier they had generally agreed to the
licensing and regulation of wage loan
corporations which were useful in
helping the worker to borrow money in
emergencies. All but two of their
number, who did not vote, also supported
a 1915 bill to further strengthen
the law's provisions.18
Among other disadvantaged groups singled
out for special consideration
by the General Assembly were the state's
public school teachers, and Cleve-
land's urban new stock lawmakers were
also clearly sympathetic to the re-
form efforts. John Krause introduced a
bill providing for retirement pen-
sions for teachers in 1911. The measure
passed the senate by a 23-3 count in
which Green joined the opposition and
Stockwell was absent but most other
Democrats voted in favor. In the lower
house all the Cleveland lawmakers
present lent their support to passage,
Joseph Greeves and Frank Calvey did
not vote. Similarly, in the 1914 special
session, eleven of the thirteen Cuya-
hoga representatives in the lower house
voted for the establishment of a forty
dollars a month minimum wage for
teachers, with the state to make up the
difference if the local school district
was unable to do so. Three of the five
Twenty-fifth District senators,
Friebolin, Greenlund, and Bernstein, either
abstained or were absent, but the rest
of their colleagues voted for passage.19
Cleveland's new stock politicians were
likewise agreeable to the efforts of
Green and other labor leaders like Percy
Tetlow and John J. Shanley of
Portage County to better the condition
of the state's sizeable number of coal
128 OHIO HISTORY
miners. Chief among the proposals was
one by Green which would have the
workers paid on a "run of the
mine" basis rather than by the amount of coal
weighed after screening. After failing
to obtain majority support in 1911,
the former miner reluctantly agreed to
Governor Cox's suggestion that a
commission be appointed to study the
matter in 1913. The following year
Green successfully guided his measure
through both houses of the legisla-
ture, aided considerably by the
unanimous support of the Cleveland delega-
tion. The latter also backed Green's
bills providing for the use of acetylene
gas in mines and for the stationing of
rescue cars in each shaft. Other mining
regulatory laws which merited their
concurrence included the prohibition
of "solid shooting," the
requirement that all men be cleared out of the mine
before blasting, the right of any next
of kin to sue mine owners in the event
of wrongful death, and the mandatory
enclosing of all mine shafts.20
If anything, Cleveland's legislators
were even more interested in the wel-
fare of Ohio's railroad workers than in
the state's miners. Except for Don P.
Mills, Stephen M. Young, Terrell, and
Walsh, who did not vote, they all
backed Vollmer's bill to provide for
eight hours rest after fifteen hours
work. In the same session all but
Fellinger, who was absent, voted in favor
of Doster's measure to require the use
of air brakes on eighty-five percent of
all railroad cars. On two separate
occasions during the period, they gave sub-
stantial support to full train crew
bills sponsored by lawmakers with railroad
union approval. In 1917 John C. Smith, a
son of an Irish-Catholic father
from Cleveland, introduced a bill
requiring seats for railroad employees.
This passed with the support of his
colleagues that were present. In addition,
everyone but the absent Virgil Terrell,
Norman R. Bliss, Walsh, and Tom
Reynolds voted in favor of a bill
providing for the appointment of a state
inspector of brakes and couplings.21
The list of labor and welfare measures
proposed and/or supported by
Cleveland's new stock lawmakers during
the height of the progressive era
could be extended almost indefinitely.
Only four of their number abstained
on a bill to regulate private employment
agencies. Frank J. Kilrain, another
Irish-Catholic descendant from
Cleveland, introduced a bill to prevent occu-
pational diseases among workers in
plants producing noxious fumes with
special reference to lead poisoning, and
it was endorsed by all but two of his
fellows, who were non-voting. Only two
of their number, who were absent,
failed to support a bill proposed by
James R. Clark, an Irish-American from
Cincinnati, to prohibit the use of
prisoners as contract labor.22 All in all,
it would be hard to single out any other
group in the legislature during the
period which sustained labor and welfare
measures with a greater degree of
consistency than did the new stock
Cleveland delegation.
Nor did the involvement of Cleveland's
new stock lawmakers in Ohio
progressive reform end with their
activities in the field of welfare legisla-
tion. They also made significant
contributions in the vital area of business
regulation. With certain persons holding
reservations, the Cleveland delega-
tion largely gave its support to the
creation of a state Public Utilities Com-
mission. The primary objection in 1911,
according to Warner, was to the
NEW STOCK LAWMAKERS 129
failure of the bill to ensure sufficient
protection of the home-rule principle,
which allowed major cities to regulate
their own utilities, since the power to
grant new franchises would be in the
hands of the commission-not the in-
dividual city. In addition, John
Stockwell and some of his colleagues wanted
rates to be based on physical valuation
of property, rather than on capitaliza-
tion, as the measure originally
stipulated. Balked on both these points, the
Cuyahoga delegation split in the final
vote, with Stockwell and five repre-
sentatives voting against the bill. In
the final vote the re-amended house
bill passed twenty-two to eight, all
three of the senators from Cuyahoga
County voting nay.23
Events in ensuing sessions of the
legislature, however, amply demon-
strated that the reluctance of some
Cleveland lawmakers to vote for the
Public Utilities Act of 1911 was due to
concern for home rule and not to
any aversion to the principle of
regulation. In 1913, Don Mills sponsored
legislation to increase the latitude of
municipalities in dealing with public
utilites which was strongly supported by
his fellow Democrats over the ob-
jections of many Republicans.
When Mills added a series of amendments
designed to clarify the powers
and duties of the new commission in the
special session of 1914, the entire
Cleveland delegation, except for
Greenlund who had moved up to the post
of lieutenant-governor, voted in the
affirmative. In 1915, the Republicans
sought to weaken the home rule principle
by permitting municipal councils
to request the state Public Utilities
Commission to review rates and prop-
erty valuations, and the Cuyahoga
lawmakers generally refused to concur.
In the senate three voted nay while the
other two abstained, and in the
house seven Cleveland representatives
opposed and three others abstained.
Norman R. Bliss received the backing of
all but three of his fellow Cleve-
landers for his bill which brought the
railroads under the supervision of
the Public Utilities Commission in
1917.24
The Cuyahoga lawmakers were consistent
in their support of home rule
with regard to efforts to curb the
influence of private traction companies in
the state's municipalities. One of the
hardest fought battles of the progressive
era in Ohio resulted when attempts were
made to repeal the so-called Rogers
Law of 1896 which permitted cities to
grant fifty-year franchises to street-
railway companies. Although the bill
introduced dealt with the franchise in
Cincinnati and legislators from that
city provided the leadership, the Cleve-
land lawmakers lent considerable
support. In fact, they were unanimous in
their backing of the strongest possible
measure introduced by Herbert S.
Bigelow of Hamilton County in 1913 which
passed the lower house by a
69-42 margin. When the opposition of the
traction companies forced the
introduction of a compromise bill by
Thornton R. Snyder of Hamilton
County later in the same session, two
Cleveland senators and two representa-
tives did not vote, while the remainder
accepted the substitute.25
The regulatory principle was also
involved in the adoption of a Blue Sky
Law, which regulated the sale of bonds,
stocks, and other securities, and of
real estate not located in Ohio. The
measure was introduced by James R.
130 OHIO HISTORY
Clark of Cincinnati in the lower chamber
and sponsored in the senate by
William Green. The bill passed the house
by a 107-0 vote, supported by the
entire Cincinnati and Cleveland
delegations. Two Republicans voted against
passage in the senate, but the measure
received the votes of all the upper
chamber Democrats, with the exception of
Carl Friebolin who did not
vote. Four years later, in 1917, the Cleveland
lawmakers in both houses
backed the creation of the office of
Commissioner of Securities who, in addi-
tion to having absolute authority in
issuing and regulating licenses of con-
cerns selling securities within the
state, was to regulate and license the loan-
ing of money, without security, upon
personal property, and of purchasing
or making loans upon salaries.26
In addition to these better known
ventures into the area of business regu-
lation, Cleveland's new stock lawmakers
were instrumental in several other
similar attempts. The regulation of the
insurance business, for example,
was the peculiar province of Herman
Fellinger, himself an official of the
German National Alliance Insurance
Company. Among other things, Fell-
inger sponsored bills to supervise
insurance companies other than life, to
regulate fire insurance companies and
their agents doing business in the
state, and to create a state
superintendent of insurance. In the main all these
bills were supported by his fellow
Cleveland Democrats. Fellinger also in-
troduced a truth-in-advertising measure
in 1913 which had their unanimous
backing. Regulation on various aspects
of banking likewise came at the be-
hest of such young lawmakers as William
Green and James Kennedy, and
had the complete concurrence of the
Cuyahoga delegation in the senate
and all but two in the house. Kennedy
also received the nearly universal
support of Cleveland's Democrats for the
creation of a state inspector of
building and loan associations. Similar
fealty was enjoyed by proposals
for establishing a Bureau of Markets and
a State Superintendent of Public
Works.27
If anything, the attitude of the
Cleveland Democrats in the 1911 General
Assembly toward the vital question of
taxation was even more forward-
looking than the view of many
contemporaries, given the special nature
of the problems faced by urban,
industrial America. They were particularly
concerned that the burden of taxes be
apportioned according to the ability
to pay. Consequently they were unanimous
in their support for the
ratification of the graduated federal
income tax amendment in 1911, as
well as for the adoption of a statewide
progressive inheritance tax in 1919.
In the latter case, the Cleveland
delegation was also in the vanguard of
those who opposed conservative efforts
to raise the minimum amount of
inheritance subject to the tax.28 But
the Cuyahoga lawmakers also had
another interest in tax reform, as
Warner very astutely observes. Since
they were representatives of a large
metropolis with many pressing and
expensive needs, they were especially
anxious to resist any restrictions on
the ability of the city to raise the revenue
necessary to provide necessary
social service to the urban populace. As
a result, they favored special home
rule provisions for taxation, and fought
against tax rate limitations on
NEW STOCK LAWMAKERS
131
municipalities. In 1911, for example,
some Cleveland lawmakers in the
lower house led the fight against a
provision in the Smith One Per Cent
Tax Law which placed an aggregate limit
of ten mills on taxable property
(five mills for municipal corporations).
Eventually, however, everyone
but Crosser, Evans, and Brewer, who did
not vote, acquiesced in the final
passage of the bill. Although Senator Greenlund
introduced a measure in
1913 to increase the amount of levy
possible, which was endorsed by the
mayors of the state's largest cities,
the bill was kept in committee and
the limitations remained on the books.29
Nevertheless, the Cleveland representatives
continued to press for tax
reform, and particularly for the type of
adjustments best suited to an
urban, industrial society. A Bernstein
proposal to introduce the home-
rule principle in taxation passed the
senate in 1913, but did not come
to a vote in the house. Another bill in
the same session which would have
made municipal bonds tax exempt and thus
encouraged investment in
city projects passed the legislature but
failed in a referendum vote, largely
due to rural opposition. Six years later,
the Cleveland lawmakers supported
a joint resolution providing for the
classification of property for the pur-
pose of taxation, and again took the
lead in successfully resisting an amend-
ment which would have placed limitations
on the amount of the levy.30
The biggest taxation issue of the era,
however, was the establishment
of a state tax commission in 1913, and
the Cleveland Democrats were
again on the positive side. Previously,
the evaluation of property had
been in the hands of local assessors, thus
making for a wide variation
throughout the state. The Cox
administration backed a measure introduced
by Milton Warnes, the house Democratic
whip, to create a state tax com-
mission to insure uniform levies. The
Republicans and some rural
Democrats fought the proposal
vigorously, but in the end it prevailed,
24-8 in the senate, and 73-42 in the
house. In both chambers the Cleve-
land contingent provided a solid phalanx
of support, along with most
other urban lawmakers. The Republican
administration of Governor Frank
Willis failed in an attempt to repeal
the Warnes Law in 1915, but the
State Supreme Court found it to be
unconstitutional in 1917, thus return-
ing authority to the local assessors and
weakening the efforts of reformers
to raise the revenue needed to operate a
modern state. The Cuyahoga law-
makers continued to support the cause of
better methods of taxation and
were unanimous in their favor of the
creation of a joint tax commission
to study the state's problems in 1917.31
As the Warnes tax commission bill
effectively illustrates, the develop-
ment of an efficient system of
administration was a cardinal aim of Ohio
reformers in the pre-World War I years.
Much of this activity doubtless
sprang from the oft-expressed desire of
the old stock, middle-class pro-
gressive for honest, proficient and
economical government, but the fact
remains that Cleveland's new stock
lawmakers were among the strongest
supporters of these changes. Chief among
the reorganization efforts was
the setting up in 1911 of one
centralized board of administration for the
132 OHIO HISTORY
state's penal institutions, charity
hospitals, schools and homes which assumed
the functions of many separate governing
boards. The bill passed the senate
on a nearly partisan 20-14 count, with
the majority Democrats prevailing.
In the lower house, where the vote was
70-38, only the Republicans, John
Evans and F. M. Calvey, marred the
perfect record of support for the
measure on the part of Cleveland's lawmakers.32
The establishment of a streamlined board
of clemency in 1917 marked
a similar victory for the idea of
improved method of handling requests
from prisoners. Introduced by John J.
Kilbane, the bill was endorsed by
his fellow Clevelanders and passed over
heavy Republican opposition. A
state board of rapid transit was the
brainchild of Harry L. Federman, a
second generation German-American from
Cincinnati. The 1917 bill was
backed by all of Cleveland's senators
and three-fourths of her voting rep-
resentatives. Another Cincinnatian,
Democrat Robert Black, proposed the
establishing of a legislature reference
department and received the complete
backing of the Cleveland and Cincinnati
delegations. All but three
Cuyahoga representatives--non-voting Mills,
Terrell, and Walsh--voted for
the introduction of a state budget
system in 1913, and nearly all of them
endorsed the various efforts of Carl
Friebolin to reorganize the state court
system. Even on the highly explosive
liquor question, the Cuyahoga
Democrats endorsed a centralized
approach, backing the proposal of Wil-
liam Greenlund for the establishment of
a state liquor licensing board.
Indeed, about the only measure designed
for more centralized administra-
tion which encountered the active
opposition of the Cleveland lawmakers
was the Republican sponsored bill to
establish a state agricultural board.
Motivated either out of urban prejudice
or in retaliation against rural
intransigence on matters of interest to
the cities, all five Cleveland senators
and six of her representatives refused
to concur, with four not voting, out
of a total of thirteen.33
In addition, the Cleveland Democrats
were extremely sympathetic to
the myriad of political reforms which
comprised much of the solid achieve-
ments of Ohio progressivism. It is
generally asserted that one of the key
desires of progressive reformers was to
give the people a more influential
voice in government; that is, to purify
and extend the ideal of democ-
racy.34 Based upon their
performance, the new stock lawmakers from Cleve-
land seemed to share this conviction,
but it is probable that their adherence
was reenforced by a very practical
political consideration. As representa-
tives of the state's most populous city,
they naturally favored any measure
which would place a premium upon the
mass vote. The more democratic
the political system became the greater
the chance would be that candidates
sympathetic to the urban point of view
could be elected and that laws
relating to the unique problems of the
cities could be enacted. Whether
they were primarily motivated by the
ideal or the practical is a moot
question, because both led ultimately to
the same goals.
The desire of urban areas to take the
selection of United States Senators
out of the hands of the often
malapportioned state legislatures and elect
NEW STOCK LAWMAKERS 133
them by popular vote, led the Cleveland
delegates to support the ratifica-
tion of the Seventeenth Amendment to the
Federal Constitution. In a
statewide election, the influence of
urban voters would be clearly greater
than it was in the legislature.
Consequently the entire senatorial delega-
tion and seven of the ten
representatives voted for the adoption of the
so-called Oregon Plan in 1911, while the
other three merely abstained. This
plan called for a binding pledge on the
part of the legislator to vote for
the Senatorial candidate who carried his
district. The introduction of the
Federal amendment rendered this approach
obsolete, however, by permit-
ting direct popular vote. The
ratification resolutions were entrusted to
Zmunt, Bernstein, and Robert Black of
Cincinnati and carried both houses
easily, with all five Cleveland senators
and twelve of the thirteen rep-
resentatives voting to ratify.35
Their support for the woman suffrage
amendment was not quite so
overwhelming but it did eventually
develop. The antipathy to female vot-
ing among recent immigrant groups was
regularly voiced by the foreign
language newspapers and by various
religious organizations, notably the
Catholic Church, and this antagonism
naturally reflected itself in the
attitude of Cleveland lawmakers. Some
Cuyahoga legislators, especially
James Reynolds, however, were consistent
advocates of the reform and
eventually nearly all their cohorts came
to see the advantage in adding
large numbers of new stock females to
the voting lists. As late as 1917,
though, five Cleveland representatives
and two senators voted against
Reynold's bill to allow woman suffrage
for presidential elections, and even
in 1919 Senator Charles Wagner and six
representatives refused to agree
to a petition requesting the state's
congressmen and senators to support
the proposed amendment to the Federal
Constitution. When the amend-
ment was finally considered by the
General Assembly, however, only one
of the city's legislators, Joseph S.
Backowski, voted in the negative while
three others abstained.36
Initiative and referendum in municipal
elections also owed much of
its success to the efforts of
Cleveland's new stock legislators. Here was
another innovation which would enable
the city voter to amplify his
influence. It was Robert Crosser of
Cleveland who introduced the enabl-
ing legislation in the 1911 session. The
opponents of the measure sought
to weaken it by requiring the signatures
of thirty percent of the registered
voters on any petition, but the
Cleveland Democrats in both chambers
nevertheless granted the bill their full
support. In 1913 they followed
through on their intent by supporting a
measure to provide for municipal
initiative and referendum upon the
petition of ten percent of the electorate.
In addition, the Cleveland delegation
largely voted in favor of most ef-
forts to protect the petitions against
possible abuses such as forgery and
fraud, particularly when it was revealed
that the conservative Equity As-
sociation had sought to use the new
method to eradicate the workmen's
compensation system and various tax
reforms. Recall of officials, another
popular direct government idea of the
era, failed of adoption, but did
134 OHIO HISTORY
receive considerable support from the Cuyahoga lawmakers. Friebolin
introduced a recall proposal in 1911,
and all five senators voted for the bill
which passed the upper house in 1913.37
In the same vein, most of the Cleveland
contingent lent its backing
to the direct primary law passed in
1913. This is particularly noteworthy
inasmuch as the direct primary is
singled out by historian George Mowry
as a reform which "left the usual
immigrant from southern and central
Europe distinctly cold." Even so,
the measure pased the lower house on
an 80-20 vote, over the objections of
several rural legislators. Kilrain and
Vollmer abstained, but the remainder of
their fellows voted for passage
including Doster, Fellinger, Lustig,
Orlikowski, and Schaefer, all of recent
Central European derivation and
representing districts with large con-
stituencies of similar ethnic origins.
In the senate, where only Friebolin's
absence spoiled a perfect affirmative
record for the Cleveland delegation,
the bill triumphed by a 23-3 margin.38
Even the highly successful
constitutional convention of 1912 owed a
great deal of its impetus to urban,
working class liberalism. The resolution
calling for the selection of delegates
on a non-partisan basis was introduced
in the senate in 1911 by William Green.
It passed the upper chamber
by a decisive 27-1 vote, with all three
Cleveland solons concurring. The
vote in the lower house was 74-24 and it
reflected the special desire of the
state's cities for a more modern
charter. The entire Cleveland contingent
and all but one Cincinnati lawmaker
voted in favor, joined by the rep-
resentatives of Toledo, Dayton,
Columbus, and the other largest cities.
The resultant constitutional changes
updated the state's government by
adopting a series of specific amendments
which were later implemented
by the legislature, such as initiative
and referendum, woman suffrage,
municipal home rule, tax reform, direct
primary, judicial reform, and
benefits for labor.39
Perhaps most surprisingly of all,
Cleveland's primarily new stock law-
makers proved themselves to be
supporters of so-called good government
legislation. This type of reform was
considered the special province of the
upper-middle-class progressive who often
regarded honest government as
a panacea for all social ills. Generally
speaking, the urban working class
politician put more emphasis on the
positive role which government
should play in the social order and was
often willing to allow a little
graft and favoritism now and then if it
helped to lubricate the machinery.
He was often inclined to dismiss the
reformer with such derisive sobriquets
as "goo-goos."40 Within
limits, however, the Cleveland lawmakers regard-
less of what might have been assumed
from their origins, granted much
backing to good government.
Their attitude toward misconduct in the
legislature, for example, was
generally progressive, although it
varied in direct proportion to the
identity of the persons involved. The
entire Cuyahoga delegation in both
houses voted in favor of the lobbyist
registration act of 1913, requiring
special pleaders to work in the open.
The senatorial contingent was also
NEW STOCK LAWMAKERS
135
unanimous in its support of a bill
making it a crime to bribe a legislator.
When charges of soliciting bribes were
levied against several senators in
the 1911 session, the Cuyahoga
representatives supported vigorous prosecu-
tion of the accused, and Krause and
William Green even refused to serve
on a committee which was generally
regarded as being packed so as to pro-
duce a "whitewash." On the
other hand, when one of their own people,
Frank G. Delehanty, was under suspicion
of accepting a bribe in 1919, his
colleagues were less interested in
vigorous prosecution. On the joint resolu-
tion calling for an investigation of the
charges, four of the thirteen Cleve-
land representatives and two of the four
senators abstained.41
By the same token, Cleveland lawmakers
demonstrated a general interest
in preventing abuses in the electoral
process. The legislators were in sub-
stantial agreement with the corrupt
practices act of 1911 which sought
to place controls on campaign
expenditures and prohibit coercion of
voters. Because the city's three
senators desired a somewhat stronger law,
however, they abstained on the final
vote. In the same session, the three
senators and six of the ten
representatives voted in favor of a stronger
voter registration law. In the 1913
meeting of the General Assembly, the
Cuyahoga delegation gave nearly solid
backing, three not voting, to several
bills introduced by Bernstein and
Fellinger to guarantee an honest count
of the ballots by requiring that they be
kept for a specified length of time
in sealed envelopes and that the returns
be handed over promptly to the
county board of election or to the secretary
of state. Two years later, all
but one senator and three
representatives voted for a bill introduced by
Norman Bliss of Cleveland which provided
for a fine for circulating false
rumors about candidates. In 1917, all
but two members of the lower house
favored a joint resolution proposed by
Charles Mooney of Cleveland to
create an electoral commission to
investigate and suggest revisions in the
state's electoral laws. Only on the
issues of filing election expenditures
and investigating the election of 1916
did they show any possible reserva-
tion, and even here it was expressed by
the abstention of three senators
rather than open opposition.42
What concerned the Cuyahoga delegates
even more than electoral purity,
however, was the guarantee of the
greatest possible participation in the
political process by the urban, new
stock, working class voter upon whom
they relied. Consequently, they
supported a bill introduced by floor leader
Lawrence Brennan which made a portion of
election day a legal holiday,
thus enabling a greater number of wage
earners to reach the polls. Bren-
nan's measure to insure longer poll
hours also received support from his
fellow Clevelanders. There was a little
more division of opinion on the
question of protecting employee rights
from employer coercion, but most
of it was over details rather than
principle. Bernstein's bill to forbid
employers to accompany workers to the
polls received the unanimous
backing of his fellow Cleveland
senators, but only that of two of the
city's representatives, labor leaders
Terrell and Vollmer. In 1917, however,
all of the twelve assemblymen voted for
a similar bill.43 In the long run,
136 OHIO HISTORY
the fortunes of Cleveland's Democrats
were best secured by guaranteeing
the freest possible elections since
their stand an economic and social ques-
tions assured them of the mass vote, and
this circumstance established their
position on most matters pertaining to
the electorate.
New stock lawmakers also played a
prominent role in the adoption of a
civil service system in Ohio. It was
Friebolin who introduced the state-
wide civil service bill in 1913. He and
three senatorial colleagues voted
for the measure on fina1 passage, but
four Clevelanders in the lower
house--Doster, Lustig, Schaefer and
Vollmer--abstained. According to
Warner, the bill did meet some
opposition from labor leaders such as
William Green, and the opposition of
three of the four labor-oriented
representatives probably emanated from
mutually held sentiments. The
thirty-two votes cast against the
measure in the lower house in 1913, how-
ever, were mostly rural Democrats and
Republicans; while all but two
Cleveland Democrats voted against the
opposition party's attempts to alter
the system in 1915, the bill, nevertheless,
passed.44
Taken as a whole, then, the attitude
assumed by Cleveland's predominant-
ly "new stock" legislators on
economic and political issues during the period
was consistent with the aims of
progressive reform. The same could not
be said about their attitudes toward
measures designed to effect the moral
regeneration of society. As Hofstadter
and Mowry have correctly observed,
many of the old stock, middle-class
reformers considered the latter to be
as crucial to the success of their
programs as economic or political change.
Inasmuch as they traced much of the
reason for the alleged moral decay
of America to the pernicious influence
of the recent immigrant and there-
fore aimed their remedies largely in
that direction, it was only natural
that the representatives of the new
stock citizenry should take the lead
in resisting the "moral"
reformers. When concern for the Sabbath on the
part of old stock, Protestant Ohioans
led to the proscription of Sunday
baseball, Cleveland and Cincinnati delegations,
instead, led the success-
ful fight for its legalization.45
Doubtless the influence of the professional
baseball clubs in the two ciites
somewhat dictated their stand, but so
too did the belief of their constituents
in a Continental Sunday, in which
recreation was not considered in
conflict with worship.
This cultural gulf between the new stock
lawmakers and the old stock
reformers was especially evident on the
issue of the prohibition of
alcoholic beverages. For the native,
Protestant American, as represented
by the Anti-Saloon League and the
Woman's Christian Temperance Union,
prohibition increasingly became the
keystone for the moral regeneration
of the nation, and especially of the
recent immigrant; but for the latter the
issue became the symbol of narrow-minded
intolerance, and his representa-
tives resisted it ferociously. As
previously noted, it was W. A. Greenlund
who introduced the 1913 law which
provided for a statewide liquor li-
censing system. This innovation was clearly
against the wishes of the power-
ful dry forces, but it might have proven
a workable solution to the drink-
ing problem. When the Republicans
overturned the law in 1915 and forced
NEW
STOCK LAWMAKERS 137
a return to the local control of
licensing, the Cleveland delegation formed
a solid bloc of opposition. Together,
the Cincinnati and Cuyahoga law
makers constituted about sixty percent
of the votes cast against the
Eighteenth Amendment. Even after
prohibition became the law of the
land, several Cleveland legislators
still refused to vote in favor of the
statutes designed to enforce it.46 Contemporary
opinion had no doubt
which was the progressive side of the
issue, and the opponents of prohibi-
tion were branded as hopeless
reactionaries and tools of the liquor interests.
Within a decade, however, repeal of the
ill-starred social experiment be-
came one of the cardinal tenets of
liberalism. In this context, it would
be difficult to fault Cleveland's new
stock Democrats for their stand on
prohibition and Sunday blue laws.47
Regardless of the merits of the
prohibition controversy, it is clear that
Cleveland's new stock legislators were a
vital element in the success of
progressive reform in Ohio. Their
leaders helped to draft, sponsor and
guide some of the key legislation of the
period, and their votes formed
a solid base upon which to build support
for most progressive measures.
On some labor and welfare questions, the
Cuyahoga lawmakers actually
took positions in favor of stronger laws
than those desired by old stock,
middle-class leaders of their party. On
most other issues these two groups
were able to engage in highly productive
collaboration. If their refusal
to accept measures aimed at moral
regeneration such as prohibition some-
times put Cleveland's representatives at
odds with the native reformer,
the course of events often proved the
wisdom of their stand. By assuming
their generally forward-looking
attitudes, these new stock lawmakers were
providing themselves and their
constituents with the concomitants neces-
sary to survive and prosper in the harsh
reality of urban, industrial America,
and were operating in the same context
as their counterparts in such other
great cities as New York, Chicago,
Boston, Jersey City, and San Francisco.48
Like them, also, Cuyahoga's legislators
were helping to hasten the day
when the nation's ethnic and religious
minorities would achieve the fulfill-
ment of their dream of equality.
THE AUTHOR: John D. Buenker is an
assistant professor in the history
depart-
ment at Eastern Illinois University.
|
Cleveland's New Stock Lawmakers and Progressive Reform by John D. Buenker |
During the highly productive progressive era of the early 1900's Ohioans enacted a myriad of reforms designed to cope with the serious political, economic, and social problems of the day. Included in their efforts was the updating of the state constitution more attuned to the complexities of twentieth century life. The contributions made to this record by such eminent reformers as Tom L. Johnson, Samuel "Golden Rule" Jones, Brand Whitlock, James M. Cox, and Judson Harmon have been discussed by a variety of scholars. These leaders, with few exceptions, came from families of long residence in the United States, were well-educated, of comfortable circumstances, and were influenced by the humanitarian and religious philosophies of traditional America; that is, they were in the category of the genteel reformers identified by such historians as Richard Hofstadter and George Mowry.1 A careful consideration of the era in Ohio also reveals that the reform impulse emanated from another, but far different source; namely, from the representatives of Cleveland's large recent immigrant population. Like many of their constituents, the Lake City's lawmakers were preponderantly either immigrants themselves or descended from fairly recent arrivals, were of other than English ancestry, professed religions which were largely unknown in colonial times, and came from working class environments. Yet, they made a highly significant contribution to the success of pro- gressive reform in the Buckeye State. NOTES ON PAGE 154 |