Ohio History Journal

LLOYD SPONHOLTZ

 

 

The 1912 Constitutional

Convention in Ohio:

The Call-up and

Nonpartisan Selection of Delegates

 

 

 

Until recently, little scholarly interest has been shown in the nonpartisan system

and its place in the American election process; neither advocates of the reform nor

students of politics have examined the actual effect of elimination of partisanship

from the ballot in Ohio.¹ In the 1910-1911 period an opportunity for an analysis of

the nonpartisan system and the resulting process of recruiting and nominating can-

didates on the community level is provided. At that time voters in the Buckeye

state selected delegates to a constitutional convention to be held in 1912. As out-

lined by the legislature, candidates were to run on a nonpartisan ballot--an electoral

innovation to Ohio voters.

Two mutually antagonistic pressure groups were chiefly responsible for the call-

ing of the convention, the Ohio State Board of Commerce (OSBC), which assumed

the more significant role, and the Ohio Direct Legislation League. Organized in

1893, the OSBC had an active membership of 1721 individual businessmen by 1911,

down from 2039 in 1909. Possibly as an effort to counteract the abrupt loss of

members, the organization in late 1910 broadened its base to include corporations,

farmers, teachers, and nonprofit associations. Dues were assessed on the basis of

ability to pay.

The self-proclaimed record of impressive legislative accomplishments announced

by the Board of Commerce indicated the existence of a permanent state organiza-

tion, well versed in the art of political pressure. After 1900, the OSBC focused

attention on the issue of state tax reform. Ohio operated under a uniform rule of

general property taxation in which real property such as buildings and land were

assessed at the same rate as more easily concealed intangible property, such as

stocks and bonds. In 1903 and again in 1908 the Board of Commerce sponsored

an amendment to the state constitution which would have substituted a classifica-

 

1. One of the earliest scholarly assessments of the nonpartisan election was J. T. Salter, The Non-

Partison Ballot in Certain Pennsylvania Cities (Philadelphia, 1928); a more recent study is Phillips Cut-

right, "Nonpartisan Electoral Systems in American Cities," Comparative Studies in Society and History,

V (January 1963), 212-226.

Mr. Sponholtz is assistant professor of history at The University of Kansas.

• 1
 

tion system with uniform assessments within each class. Although in both cases the amendments received an overwhelming plurality of votes, they failed to meet the constitutional requirement of a majority of all votes cast at that election. Unsuc- cessful at the polls, the OSBC then began to seek an alternate means of attaining its objective.2 The Ohio Direct Legislation League was the second pressure group interested in the calling of a constitutional convention, and its goal was to achieve the state- wide adoption of the initiative and referendum. Attempts to secure incorporation of this electoral reform involved many approaches by a large number of successive organizations. One individual repeatedly linked with this movement was the Rever- end Herbert Bigelow, whose path tending toward reform had been long and ardu- ous. Fleeing his home at the age of nine, he was adopted by a childless couple who gave him his name and later his education. After attending a preparatory school, Oberlin College, and Adelbert College of Western Reserve University, Bigelow 2. Ohio State Board of Commerce, Proceedings, 1910, pp. 85-86, 97-98, 383; Hoyt Landon Warner, Progressivism in Ohio, 1897-1917 (Columbus, 1964), 295.

• 2
 

Delegate Selection                                                       211

 

entered Lane Theological Seminary in 1895. The following year he accepted an

offer to serve as pastor of the Vine Street Congregational Church in Cincinnati.

His pro-Bryan stance and his views on poverty and race soon precipitated dissen-

sion among his parishioners, and many left his congregation only to be replaced

by others more sympathetic to his outlook. At this same time, Bigelow reread Henry

George's Progress and Poverty and, encouraged by reformer Tom Johnson of Cleve-

land, became a convert to the single tax theory. The pulpit of the Vine Street church

soon was opened to the leading social and economic reformers of the day, and the

basement served as headquarters in Bigelow's campaign to secure the Democratic

nomination for secretary of state in 1902.³

As early as 1899 Bigelow had advocated direct legislation. In the first years of

the twentieth century he had served as secretary of a number of organizations

dedicated to educating the public on initiative-referendum (I-R), and in 1906 he

took a leave of absence from his Vine Street charge "to stump the state for this

reform." Bigelow was joined in his effort by such reformers as Cleveland's mayor

Tom Johnson and Frederic Howe, another Cleveland reformer, and by distiller

George Harris of Cincinnati, later a colleague of Bigelow's at the constitutional

convention. Although their aim was to use the I-R to introduce the single tax into

Ohio, this objective was not stressed so as not to alienate farmers who might fear

the single tax would shift the tax burden entirely to their shoulders. As an accom-

plished speaker, Bigelow served the effort well in securing the endorsement of many

organized farmers and laborers. By 1908 he was joined in legislative lobbying efforts

by representatives from the Ohio State Grange and from the Ohio Mine Workers.

By that time the Direct Legislation League had become the major vehicle of the

I-R advocates. The league had tried unsuccessfully to persuade the state legislature

in 1906 and 1908 to pass a constitutional amendment providing for I-R and to sub-

mit it to the people in a referendum. Failure again in 1910 prompted the league

to abandon political action in favor of a broad educational program to fan demand

for I-R at the grass roots. Financing came from two main sources, and both were

connected with Bigelow. The Joseph Fels Fund, established in 1909 by the soap

manufacturer to promote the single tax, spent over $3000 in Ohio during its first

year of operation to promote I-R. The chairman of the fund was Bigelow's closest

associate, Daniel Kiefer, and its first treasurer was Tom Johnson. Bigelow's congre-

gation provided a second source of income by selling its church site and by con-

tributing the proceeds to the campaign. Thereafter the People's Church and Town

Meeting Society, as the congregation called itself, met Sunday evenings in Cin-

cinnati's Grand Opera House. Bigelow's plan to educate the public envisioned the

establishment of social centers for discussion in the city's school buildings. The

Cincinnati School Board rejected the idea, however, and I-R advocates returned to

their original program of political action on a statewide basis.⁴

Thus, by 1910 two pressure organizations, thwarted in previous attempts to attain

their respective aims, were casting about for alternate means. Opportunity came

from an unexpected source. The Ohio constitution of 1851 provided that the ques-

tion of holding a constitutional convention be submitted every twenty years. A con-

vention had been held in 1873-74, but the voters turned down every proposal; and

 

 

3. Ibid., 122-124.

4. Ibid., 195-196, 295-296; Arthur Nichols Young, The Single Tax Movement in the United States

(Princeton, 1916), 163-166.

• 3
 

212                                                               OHIO HISTORY

 

in 1891 they rejected the call for another convention. The Board of Commerce was

determined not to allow either of these failures to be repeated.

The OSBC began its campaign for a constitutional convention simultaneously

with the 1910 legislative session, one year earlier than the mandatory date. The

bill authorising the question be put to the voters passed both houses by more than

the required two-thirds margin. When the bill became law on April 26, it contained

the provision that "if the party conventions endorsed the call for the constitutional

convention all straight party ballots [would] be counted for the convention."⁵ This

meant that possible voter apathy could be turned to the advantage of those favor-

ing the call. Both major political parties endorsed the referendum, and in Novem-

ber 1910 it was approved by a ten-to-one margin. Voter enthusiasm for the con-

vention, however, was restrained; at least twenty percent of those balloting failed

to vote on this question, though this figure might even be higher because of the

provision concerning the straight ballot.⁶

Once the voters had elected to call a constitutional convention, it remained for

the General Assembly of 1911 to pass a bill specifying the procedure for nominat-

ing and electing delegates. Several issues came under debate. In keeping with the

constitution of 1851, the proposed legislation specified that the size and apportion-

ment of the convention were to mirror those of the Ohio House of Representatives,

which had 119 members in 1911, with at least one delegate from each of the eighty-

eight counties. The bill outlined that candidates be nominated by petition and elec-

ted at large on a nonpartisan ballot.

Some controversy arose over what was intended by "nonpartisan." Throughout

the state two of the most controversial issues were state licensing of liquor and

initiative-referendum. Allen R. Foote, president of the Ohio State Board of Com-

merce, indicated in February 1911 that he feared the liquor issue would endanger

the nonpartisan selection of delegates because candidates would be elected solely

on the basis of their position on this one issue. If this were to be the case, he said,

he preferred that candidates be elected on the basis of their party affiliation, thus

insuring party responsibility. In March the Board of Commerce announced that

it stood for unpledged delegates to the convention. This was in response to efforts

of the Ohio Direct Legislation League to secure voters' pledges agreeing to favor

only those candidates pledged to support the initiative-referendum. The board was

unsuccessful, however, in its attempts to control the procedure of delegate selection.

When the bill became law on May 31, 1911, it provided for the nonpartisan ballot

but included a provision that a candidate could if he wished submit with his peti-

tion a pledge to support or not to support the separate submission of the liquor

licensing question in the convention, thus opening the way for pledging delegates.⁷

In June the executive committee of the Board of Commerce authorized the crea-

tion of a "Constitution Education Fund" with a special finance committee to super-

vise expenditures. Financial aid was to be solicited from corporations based on

their capitalization, and professional men and wage earners were encouraged to

contribute a minimum of three dollars per year. Funds were used to attack the

I-R with press releases and feature articles dispatched largely to small town and

5. Ohio State Journal (Columbus), April 20, 1910; Ohio General Assembly, House Journal, 1910,

p. 709.

6. Ohio, Annual Report of the Secretary of State, 1910, p. 135, 156. The vote was 693,263 to 67,718

out of a total vote of 932,262.

7. Ohio Journal of Commerce, February 25, March 18, 1911; Ohio General Assembly, Senate Journal,

1911, pp. 376-378.

• 4
 

Delegate Selection                                                       213

 

rural newspapers. The board repeatedly cautioned the unwary that the I-R would

be used to enact the single tax, and the two proposals were closely identified in

their literature. Furthermore, support was organized for those candidates opposed

to I-R or in favor of tax classification--the principal concern of the OSBC.⁸

After passage of the legislation regulating the selection of delegates, Bigelow and

other members of the Direct Legislation League organized the Ohio Progressive

Constitutional League (PCL) in June 1911, with Toledo's mayor Brand Whitlock

as president and Bigelow as secretary. Officers included a professor, an editor of a

labor journal, and two officials of the Ohio State Grange. The platform emphasized

three issues: initiative-referendum, recall, and municipal home rule, with I-R receiv-

ing by far the greatest stress. A press bureau was established in July to handle

publicity. The PCL devoted its efforts to the establishment of county-wide branches,

with emphasis on the urban counties. Throughout the summer Bigelow canvassed

the state seeking endorsements of the I-R. The league received tremendous assist-

ance from the Scripps-McRae newspapers which dispatched reporters to cover the

state in behalf of the PCL and pro-I-R candidates. The syndicate's newspapers in

Cincinnati, Columbus, Toledo, and Cleveland maintained a constant barrage of

favorable propaganda.⁹

One effect of the campaign for the nonpartisan ballot was to nullify the influence

of established political organizations. Pressure groups gained considerably from this

situation because greater opportunity was allowed for direct political involvement

on the part of political novices. In the first place, there was the opportunity to con-

trol the nomination of candidates by the creation of ad hoc committees as a sub-

stitute for the party convention or caucus. Secondly, party loyalty could be sub-

ordinated to the advancement of a particular issue or to the protection of a specific

interest. The business community was well aware of these possibilities. In his presi-

dential address before the annual convention of the Ohio State Board of Commerce

in 1910, Allen R. Foote had urged chambers of commerce, boards of trade, or

nonpartisan organizations to take the lead in selecting the most "desirable" men.10

At this time Foote had in mind that the OSBC would be initiating and directing

the selection of delegates. A study of the politics in the selection of delegates in

three major Ohio cities, however, reveals the success of the forces favoring the I-R.

Early in July 1911 an invitation was sent to some forty business and civic organi-

zations in and around Cincinnati (Hamilton County) to send delegates to an assem-

bly that would nominate convention candidates. This initial action was the product

of the joint efforts of the Federated Improvement Associations, composed of over

two dozen neighborhood improvement and welfare associations, including the City

Club, the Business Men's Club, and the Central Labor Council. The associations'

influence is clearly seen in the selection of officers and the executive committee of

the assembly. The chairman was a delegate of the Business Men's Club; the first

vice-chairman and the treasurer represented separate improvement associations;

the secretary was from a suburban civic league; and the second vice-chairman

represented the Central Labor Council. A similar situation existed in the executive

committee, composed of one delegate each from the City Club, a neighborhood

 

 

 

 

8. Ohio Journal of Commerce, June 17, 1911; Warner, Progressivism in Ohio, 297-298.

9. Ibid., 150-151, 297; Cincinnati Enquirer, July 3, 1911.

10. OSBC, Proceedings, 1910, p. 77.

• 5
 

214                                                               OHIO HISTORY

 

business club, the Real Estate Exchange, and the Cincinnati Chamber of Com-

merce.11

By the end of August, 270 individuals representing local businessmen's clubs,

trade associations, and trade unions, among others, had aligned to form the United

Constitution Committees (UCC), as the assembly called itself. The first half-dozen

weekly meetings were concerned with the admission of new delegates and a dis-

cussion of the platform on which the committees' candidates were to run. The pro-

gram finally adopted called for the indirect initiative and referendum, municipal

home rule, and tax reform.

In September the committees were ready to nominate a slate of candidates, and

on the 20th the nominating committee presented its recommendations. Labor was

represented by officers of the local carpenters, the printing trades, the bottlers and

bottled beer drivers' unions, respectively. Three additional candidates were lawyers

--one Democrat and two Republicans. One of the lawyers, the Democrat, had un-

successfully sought the office of mayor of Cincinnati in a recent election. The slate

also named the secretary of the Receivers' and Shippers' Association, and George

Harris, Bigelow's wealthy distiller associate. The initial list included, instead of

Bigelow, another lawyer, Hiram Peck, who had served on the bench in Cincinnati.

Some difficulty was encountered in getting Bieglow's name on the slate. He refused

to replace one of the three labor delegates, while members of the nominating com-

mittee were unwilling to have him substitute for the socially and politically prom-

inent Judge Peck. The committee reluctantly gave way and the final slate omitted

Peck and included Bigelow.12

Despite its efforts to arrive at a slate agreeable to all, the United Constitution

Committees did not satisfy every faction. The Interdenominational Convention

Committee, a group of local ministers, refused to endorse any of the candidates

because of their pledge to make liquor licensing a separate issue. In order to avoid

the bitter controversy surrounding the question of state licensing of the liquor traf-

fic, the UCC, like many candidates for the convention, found it prudent to advocate

the submission of the license issue to the voters on a ballot separate from any other

amendments recommended by the convention. Also in opposition, Judge Peck shortly

after the 20th became a candidate independent of the UCC, and the trustees of

the Cincinnati Real Estate Exchange circulated a petition for one of their own who

had been passed over by the nominating committee. The Personal Liberty League

also nominated a separate slate, three of whom, however, were sponsored by the

UCC.13

Even though other slates were presented, the influence of the UCC remained

dominant, as seven of its nine candidates-including Bigelow who was later chosen

president of the convention-were elected in the fall municipal election to represent

Hamilton County. Two Republicans, an attorney and the Receivers' and Shippers'

Association delegate, were defeated; in their place voters chose Hiram Peck and

another jurist, a Republican.

The selection of delegates in the capital city of Ohio, Columbus (and Franklin

County), was also influenced by Herbert Bigelow's leadership. In mid-July prelim-

inary steps were taken to organize a Franklin County Progressive League to act in

conjunction with the Ohio Progressive Constitutional League in order to secure the

 

11. Cincinnati Enquirer, July 12, 1911.

12. Ibid., August 3, 24, September 7, 21, 1911.

13. Ibid., September 26, 1911; Warner, Progressivism in Ohio, 299.

• 6
 

Delegate Selection                                                       215

 

initiative and referendum plank. All political parties were represented, including

the Socialists and the Prohibitionists. The Reverend Bigelow, as guest speaker rep-

resenting the United Constitution Committees of Cincinnati, outlined a plan call-

ing for Franklin County's three convention delegates to be apportioned among the

State Grange, union labor, and business-professional segments. Two weeks later the

United Constitution Committees of Franklin County was formally organized, with

an estimated 350 delegates in attendance. The Reverend Dr. Washington Gladden,

pastor of the First Congregational Church in Columbus and a well-known political

and social reformer, acted as temporary chairman. At Bigelow's suggestion, each

group-labor, agriculture, and business-professional--elected its own delegate. Once

delegates were selected, the committee circulated petitions for their legal nomina-

tion and began an educational program for their election. In the interim, the UCC

held weekly meetings to discuss needed constitutional reforms.¹⁴

Agriculture representatives were the first to select their candidate. Edward A.

Peters won the nomination in a meeting attended by members of the Franklin

County Grange, the Farmers' Union, and the Farmers' Protective Association as

well as unaffiliated farmers. Peters, a Republican, was a legislative agent for the

Ohio State Grange. Though he was not the unanimous choice of those present, he

was the choice of two-thirds of those casting votes.15

Labor encountered some difficulty in selecting its representative. At its first

meeting in early September the unions chose J. W. Harbarger, a real estate agent

as well as a member of the Iron Moulders' Union and vice-president of the county

UCC. Two weeks later at the joint meeting of the committees, the Socialist element

of the Columbus Federation of Labor raised strenuous objections to his nomina-

tion. The federation in late July had favored a member of the carpenters' union,

just nominated by the Socialist party, as one of its three candidates. The basis for

the criticism of Harbarger was that his nomination had been irregular in some way,

referring to the fact that the meeting in which he had been elected had been at-

tended by less than half of the delegates. Opposition to Harbarger became so vocal

that he resigned as candidate. His resignation was not acted upon at that time,

however, and several days later, with most delegates present, the unions again

selected him.16

The selection of George W. Knight, professor of constitutional law at Ohio State

University, as the business-professional representative also involved some difficulty.

Besides him there were five other candidates. Among these were Rev. Gladden, who

had earlier submitted Knight's name for nomination, and two of the professor's

former students. Each of the forty-three member organizations present was allotted

one vote on each ballot. The two candidates with the fewest votes after each ballot

were dropped from the slate, except for the next-to-last after which only one was

dropped. Knight and Gladden fared about equally until the fourth ballot, when

Gladden was dropped. On the fifth and final ballot, Knight with Gladden's support

defeated his former student Joseph M. Howard to win the nomination.17

The platform adopted by the Franklin County UCC embraced municipal home

rule, I-R, and reorganization of Ohio's court structure to eliminate the huge back-

log of cases. Despite the temporary withdrawal of the Columbus Federation of

 

14. Ohio State Journal, July 23, July 26, 1911.

15. Ibid., August 20, 1911; Ohio Farmer, August 26, 1911.

16. Ohio State Journal, July 23, September 2, 13, 16, 1911.

17. Ibid., September 12, 1911.

• 7
 

216                                                                OHIO HISTORY

 

Labor in protest over the rejection of the judicial recall,18 all three UCC candidates

won handily in the November election.

The contest for the constitutional convention delegation from Cleveland in Cuya-

hoga County was the most heated in the state. Many organizations were active in

promoting more candidates there than in any other county, and the balance of

power seemed to be held by a politically vibrant labor organization. A nonpartisan

ballot seemed ideally suited to Cleveland's Municipal Association. Organized in

1896 to clean up corrupt city politics, the association had turned its attention to

fighting Mark Hanna's street railway franchises. Just before the time for selecting

convention candidates it had taken a prominent role in the campaign for municipal

home rule. The association had published regularly its bipartisan recommendations

for Cleveland's elective offices, and the nonpartisan ballot offered an opportunity

for it to exert an even more direct political influence.19

In June 1911 the association sponsored a meeting to draw up a platform, and

more than a score of organizations responded by sending representatives. Ten issues

were agreed upon, including I-R, judicial recall, municipal home rule, labor reform,

a nonpartisan judiciary, woman suffrage, and licensing of saloons. Agreement, how-

ever, was a difficult achievement. Representation at the June and July meetings

reflected the potential antagonisms within the assembly. Members were present

from the local bar association, Builders' Association, Employers' Association, Fed-

erated Churches, Ministers' Union, Catholic Federation, Personal Liberty League,

and Anti-Saloon League. No doubt the Cleveland Federation of Labor (CFL) had

one eye on this membership list when, on the recommendation of secretary Harry

Thomas, the federation declined the invitation of the association to join its civic

conference. The CFL, despite the labor planks, had no desire to endorse corpora-

tion men for delegates. As Thomas phrased it, Cleveland labor was tired of being

a tail to the "plutocratic kite." Despite this setback, the association named its slate

of ten candidates on August 9. Each member organization had previously submitted

a list containing no more than three names, and the completed list had been mailed

to the delegates before this meeting. Nine ballots were required before a full slate

was named. Strangely enough, Harry Thomas headed the slate, even though his

recommendation had kept the Cleveland Federation of Labor from joining the

association's conference.²⁰

Agreement on the slate, however, proved to be fragile. Within a week three of

those nominated, including Thomas, submitted their resignations. Withdrawals con-

tinued until one editor ruefully remarked that there were more vacancies than

candidates. It was not until September 19, over five weeks after the original slate

had been nominated, that the association finally was able to announce that ten

candidates had accepted its endorsement.²¹

The most successful organization to enter the candidate contest in Cleveland was

the Cuyahoga County branch of the Ohio Progressive Constitutional League, di-

rectly associated with the work of Herbert Bigelow and his followers. In late July

letters were sent to all civic, industrial, labor, and church organizations inviting

them to send representatives to a joint meeting. Within a month a list of possible

18. Ibid., September 9, 13, 1911.

19. Warner, Progressivism in Ohio, 330; Citizens League files, Cleveland. The Citizens League is

successor to the Municipal Association, and it continues to publish a monthly bulletin.

20. Cleveland Plain Dealer, July 8, 1911; pamphlet on Constitutional Convention Conference, June

1911, Citizens League files; Cleveland Citizen, July 22, 1911. [The Citizen was a weekly labor paper.]

21. Cleveland Plain Dealer, September 20, 1911.

• 8
 

Delegate Selection                                                       217

 

candidates had been filed and labor had been guaranteed three of the ten nomina-

tions. All delegates were pledged to the platform adopted, which was similar to

that of the Municipal Association. One important difference between the two

groups, however, was that the association planned to present their reforms directly

to the voters in the form of a popular referendum, while the PCL advocated changes

in the constitution itself.²²

No membership list of the league's federation is available, but a key factor in

its eventual success unquestionably was the decision of the Cleveland Federation

of Labor to endorse the league and to send three representatives. One of them was

the business agent of the waiters' union, and another represented the building

trades union. The third, although an active member of the painters' union, was also

a deputy clerk in the city courts.²³ The league's slate was selected September 1 and

consisted of four Democrats, five Republicans, and one Independent. Among them,

in addition to the three union members, there were an iron manufacturer, a former

state legislator, a public accountant, a lawyer, a former clerk of the Ohio House of

Representatives, a rabbi-turned-lawyer, and a businessman.

In Cleveland political parties ignored the spirit, if not the letter, of a nonparti-

san election by participating openly in the campaign. Although Democratic Mayor

Newton D. Baker declined to lend his support to any convention candidate, mem-

bers of his party nominated a slate of ten in the fall, six of whom had already been

endorsed by the Progressive Constitutional League. Socialists fielded ten nominees,

but the Republicans, who tended to favor the Municipal Association ticket, did not

run a slate of candidates.

The strength of the PCL is shown by its success in electing nine of its ten can-

didates. The three representatives from the Cleveland Federation of Labor, sup-

ported by the league, were all successful. Only one of the Municipal Association's

candidates, John D. Fackler, won. He had not been on the original slate but had

been endorsed previously by the PCL.²⁴

The weakness at the polls of the Municipal Association might be attributed to

its gradual decline, the roots of which went back several years. In 1909 the asso-

ciation had failed to endorse Tom Johnson in his biennial run for reelection as

mayor; thereafter in its recommendations candidates for mayor were strictly avoided.

Harry Thomas' resignation from the association slate was only one surprise in the

campaign for delegates. Another was the defeat of Western Reserve University pro-

fessor Augustus Hatton. He had been most active in the association's good gov-

ernment activities, and his esteem was indicated by the many organizational

endorsements he received as candidate; yet he lost. James R. Garfield's electoral

fate was just as remarkable. Son of the former President, he had served in the

Roosevelt administration as Secretary of the Interior and as head of the newly-

created Bureau of Corporations. His ties with the Municipal Association date from

its founding in the law office which he and his brother Charles shared. Garfield

was still active in the association as recently as the previous spring, serving with

Thomas on the Short Ballot Committee. As candidate for representative from sub-

urban Lake County, he was defeated by a relatively unknown lumber dealer.25

Ohio's preparation for the 1912 constitutional convention, as has been shown,

 

22. Ibid., July 29, August 5, 1911.

23. Cleveland Citizen, September 2, 1911.

24. Cleveland Plain Dealer, October 8, 1911.

25. Citizens League files.

• 9
 

218                                                                   OHIO HISTORY

 

provides an opportunity to view the formation of a nonpartisan ballot at the local

level. Pressure groups seized upon the convention as a way to go directly to the

electorate to circumvent obstructions placed in the way of tax reform, liquor con-

trol, and other reforms of various kinds by powerful party interests. Although the

Ohio State Board of Commerce spent much effort and money in connection with

the passage of key legislation authorizing the nonpartisan election, it had little suc-

cess in directing the delegate selection process.²⁶ Pressure groups, both economic

and issue-oriented, were ideally situated to dominate the nominating process once

elections were placed on a nonpartisan basis. Here the dynamism of issue-orientation

topped the professionalism of the OSBC as the I-R forces sponsored the winning

slate in three of the state's largest cities.

 

26. After the fall election, the Ohio State Board of Commerce invited the delegates for the up-coming

constitutional convention to its annual banquet. Only nine out of the 119 attended. Cincinnati Enquirer,

November 23, 1911.

• 10