JAMES H. LEE
The Ohio Agricultural
Commission, 1913-1915
When James M. Cox assumed the
governorship for the first time, in 1913, Ohio
agriculture was passing through a period
of rapid transition. The demographic
expansion of the late nineteenth century
had inflated land values and crop prices,
a trend which converted agriculture into
a potentially highly profitable enterprise.
Ohio farmers responded by gradually
transforming themselves into rural business-
men; they specialized, developed more
efficient managerial techniques, and utilized
more intelligently the total resources
of their farms.1 This transformation of farm-
ing was accompanied by the expansion of
government activities designed to aid
agriculture. The State Board of
Agriculture, created in 1846 as an information
agency for farmers, had by 1910 assumed
considerable responsibility for the regula-
tion and promotion of agriculture in
Ohio. The board, in addition to collecting and
disseminating crop and cattle
statistics, also enforced plant and stock quarantine
laws and regulated the sale of
fertilizers and foodstuffs within the state.2 These
developments in agriculture, and
parallel ones in other sectors of the economy,
often generated jurisdictional
conflicts, duplication of activities, and confusion in
government since the state had assumed
new responsibilities for regulating and
promoting economic development, but its
administration was rather haphazard.
This was the situation when James M. Cox
entered office in January 1913. The
new governor hoped to eliminate these
problems by introducing into government
the principles of efficiency that
businessmen had developed over the years. Success
in this pioneer endeavor depended in
large part, he believed, on the consolidation
of government bureaus, to avoid waste,
and on the selection of trained experts to
staff the reorganized agencies. Soon
after entering office, therefore, Cox introduced
in the legislature a broad program of
administrative reorganization.3
The agricultural section of Governor
Cox's reform program was embodied in a
bill passed April 15, 1913, creating the
Ohio Agricultural Commission. Cox pro-
1. W. A. Lloyd, J. I. Falconer, C. E.
Thorne, The Agriculture of Ohio, Bulletin 326 of the Ohio
Agricultural Experiment Station
(Wooster, 1918), 15.
2. Robert Leslie Jones, "Ohio
Agriculture in History," Ohio Historical Quarterly, LXV (July
1956),
254-255; General Code of Ohio, 1910, Part
1, p. 231, 232, 233, 239, 241.
3. James M. Cox, Journey Through My
Years (New York, 1946), 137. Cox's views are set forth in
his first message to the General
Assembly in 1913, see James K. Mercer, Ohio Legislative History,
1913-1917 (Columbus, 1918), 30-58.
Mr. Lee is a doctoral candidate in
history at The Ohio State University.
|
posed that the new bureau coordinate the activities of the State Board of Agricul- ture, Board of Control of the State Agricultural Experiment Station, the State Dairy and Food Commissioner, the State Board of Veterinary Examiners, the Commission of Fish and Game, and, to a lesser extent, the State Board of Pharmacy. The new commission's duties would thus extend beyond the scope of strictly agriculturally related activities and would include enforcement of hunting and fishing laws, ap- pointment of members to the Board of Veterinary Examiners, and application of the pure food and drug laws. Unlike the 1908 amended law relating to the Board of Agriculture, the members of the commission could not be removed by the gov- ernor, but only by provisions of the law; the commission was to have four full-time paid members that would hold office for six years rather than have ten members who were paid only their expenses and worked on a part time basis; but both laws limited membership to persons directly identified with agriculture or agricultural education.4 Public reaction to the bill was somewhat mixed, as of February 17, before final amendments were added. The editor of the Cleveland Plain Dealer hailed the pro- 4. Laws of Ohio, XCIX, 592a-592c; CIII, 304-341. |
Agricultural Commission 221
posal as a significant step toward the
introduction of efficiency into this branch of
government service.5 The
editors of the prestigious Ohio Farmer, on the other hand,
cautiously questioned the advisability
of the plan. They favored coordination of the
state's agricultural activities in order
to eliminate duplication but felt that the best
way to achieve such efficiency was
through creation of an advisory commission
composed of the heads of the state
agricultural institutions. The editors, who were
spokesmen for the Ohio farmers, also
questioned the ability of such a small group
of men that would head the commission to
handle competently the disparate respon-
sibilities assigned them in the
legislation, especially in view of the fact that the bill,
as originally submitted, established no
qualifications for members of the commission.6
Other rural elements also raised
objections to Governor Cox's reorganization
plan. Many farmers were simply reluctant
to abandon a familiar and, to them,
satisfactory system of management,
especially in favor of one that initially would
cost more to operate.7 Furthermore,
during a period when laissez faire attitudes
were still quite strong some farmers, at
least, regarded the agricultural bill as part
of a concerted effort to centralize
excessive power in the traditionally rather weak
office of the governorship.8 Probably
the most important single reason that many
rural leaders, especially the executive
council of the Ohio Grange, opposed the
governor's plan was the related fear
that it would lead to the injection of politics
into the state agricultural
institutions.9 This concern undoubtedly arose in part from
the fact that the bill originally
established no qualifications for membership on the
commission, that jurisdiction of the
agricultural educational institutions would be
divided between the commission and the
institutions, and from the conviction that
the considerable power and generous
salaries attached to the office of commissioner
would attract ambitious politicians.
These considerations help explain the Grangers'
satisfaction with the old part-time
unsalaried Board of Agriculture--an arrange-
ment which ensured the farmers that
control over agricultural policy would remain
in the hands of actual farmers and that
only truly dedicated men would seek mem-
bership on the board.10
Other groups that the reorganization
proposal affected were also disturbed over
the prospect of losing some or all of
their board's autonomy. Some veterinarians
were disturbed because they thought they
would lose control over appointments to
their board of examiners, which power
was transferred to the commissioners in
the Cox bill. At its annual meeting the
Ohio State Veterinary Medical Association
issued a statement that indicated the
basis of its opposition to the Cox plan: "We
feel that the veterinarians of this
state should have some voice in the selection of
the personnel of that office [the board
of examiners], because certificates should be
5. Cleveland Plain Dealer, February
17, 1913. While criticizing the Grange's opposition to the bill,
both the Ohio State Journal (Columbus)
and the Cincinnati Enquirer endorsed the measure, the form-
er's endorsement being unqualified while
the latter's was somewhat critical of Cox. Ohio State Journal,
March 6, 1913; Enquirer, May 4,
1913.
6. Ohio Farmer, February 1, 1913, p. 136; February 22, 1913, p. 202;
March 1, 1913, p. 296; March
8, 1913, p. 346.
7. This was implied by the Master of the
Grange in his speech to that organization's annual con-
vention in 1913. Journal of the
Proceedings of the Ohio State Grange (Lima, 1913), 16, 17. The editors
of the Ohio Farmer also shared
this sentiment; see March 8, 1913, p. 346.
8. See R. H. Triplett to James M.
Cox, March 8, 1913, Cox Papers, Ohio Historical Society. Triplett,
while he opposed Cox's efforts to increase
the power of the governor, was nevertheless a Democrat.
9. Ohio State Journal, March 13, July 15, 1913; Journal, Ohio State Grange (1913),
16, 17; Cox to
M. J. Lawrence, May 31, 1913, Cox Papers.
10. This point was made explicitly by
the editors of the Ohio Farmer in March 8, 1913, p. 346.
222 OHIO
HISTORY
granted only to those who are eminently
qualified and not to pay political debts."11
Also, in June 1913, Dr. Louis P. Cook,
Democrat state senator from the first dis-
trict in Cincinnati and ex-president of
the Ohio State Veterinary Medical Associa-
tion, sent out form letters to the
state's veterinarians opposing the law that had
just been passed and supporting a
referendum campaign started by the Ohio State
Grange. His opposition was based on the
ground that "the State certificates to
practice Veterinary Medicine will be in
the hands of machine politicians. . . . A
certificate will be issued to every
quack who has a political pull."12 These remarks
were made even though the law
specifically stated that "The agricultural commis-
sion shall appoint three men who shall
be graduates of reputable, but different,
veterinary schools or colleges, and . .
. skilled in their professions. . . ." to conduct
the qualifying examinations, and that
the applicant must pass a written examina-
tion covering specified subjects with a
grade of seventy percent or better.13
Similar considerations prompted
pharmacists to question certain provisions of
the Cox agricultural commission law. In
their case it removed the Pharmacy Board's
power to enforce the laws against sale
of drugs by persons lacking a pharmacist's
license.14 By including the
Pharmacy Board in the Agriculture Commission, the
commission assumed responsibility for
the protection of druggists in the control
of illicit sale of drugs, but it had no
authority over the licensing of pharmacists.
Even so, a highly respected member of
the profession, Dr. J. H. Beal, echoed the
sentiments of many pharmacists when he
declared several years later that "I have
never believed that the laws relating to
pharmacy and medicine should be enforced
by an agricultural commission composed
wholly of farmers. To my mind, there
would be just as much, or even greater,
reason for giving the Board of Pharmacy
the right to administer the laws which
related particularly to agriculture."15
The veterinarians and pharmacists,
however, lacked the numerical and organi-
zational strength to threaten seriously
the commission plan, but Governor Cox
could not ignore the widespread
discontent in rural areas over certain provisions
in his original bill. He consequently
called a conference of agricultural leaders to
iron out the difficulties. A committee
of four of these men introduced into the bill
the changes they thought were necessary,
and the governor accepted all of the
important amendments. One of the most
significant of these alterations required,
before the April passage of the bill,
that all members of the commission be men
"directly identified with
agriculture or agricultural education." This stipulation,
coupled with the recent enactment of a
state civil service law, seemed to eliminate
the danger that "politicians"
would gain control of the state agricultural institutions.
In return for this accommodation Cox
secured the pledge of the farm leaders not
to further oppose passage of the bill.16
The attitude of these men understandably
convinced the governor that his
consolidation plan, also, would encounter no fur-
11. Proceedings of the Ohio State
Veterinary Medical Association (1914), 59.
12. Louis P. Cook to "Dear
Doctor," June 23, 1913, Cox Papers.
13. Laws of Ohio, CIII, 328.
14. Ibid., 306.
15. Midland Druggist and Pharmaceutical Review, XLIX (June 1915),
260.
16. John Cunningham to M. J. Lawrence,
June 4, 1913; clipping from July 5, 1913 issue of the
National Stockman and Farmer, both in Cox Papers (Cunningham was not the senate sponsor
of the
bill but editor of Ohio Farmer, and
Lawrence was publisher of the journal); Ohio Farmer, March 22,
1913, p. 423. W. I. Chamberlain,
associate editor of the National Stockman and Farmer, was present at
the conference of agricultural leaders and
Cox. He claimed that T. C. Laylin, Master of the Grange,
pledged not to oppose passage of the
bill, but Laylin's later opposition, culminating in a referendum
movement, demonstrates that he was never
reconciled to the bill, even in its amended form.
Agricultural Commission 223
ther opposition from rural groups.
"You have doubtless noticed that the farmers
who were opposed to the Agricultural
Commission have endorsed it," he wrote in
response to a letter from an
antagonistic farmer. "They came here in a two or
three days' session, and the bill was so
changed in shape as to meet their cordial
endorsement."17 Even the
editors of the Ohio Farmer agreed that, in its amended
form, the bill was generally acceptable
to agricultural interests.18 Not surprisingly,
therefore, both houses of the General
Assembly passed the measure by large
majorities.19
Governor Cox, nonetheless, continually
was made aware of persistent rural un-
easiness over the membership of the
commission. The bill's senate sponsor John
Cunningham informed him: "Several
parties have written to me, stating their con-
cern of the make-up of this important
commission and I have always assured them
that you had promised that no one would
be appointed who would be in any way
hostile to our State Agricultural
Institutions. . . ."20 The question of control of the
institutions had been one of the
principal reasons behind the amendment estab-
lishing qualifications for membership on
the commission. The governor sought to
banish the last traces of this concern
by appointing as commissioner A. P. Sandles,
former Secretary of the Board of
Agriculture; S. E. Strode, former Dairy and Food
Commissioner; and Professor C. G.
Williams, member of the staff at the Agricul-
tural Experiment Station. Williams had
been specificially mentioned as acceptable
by W. I. Chamberlain, associate editor
of the National Stockman and Farmer, and
by T. C. Laylin, Master of the Ohio
State Grange. The fourth member, Dean
Homer C. Prince of the College of
Agriculture, was appointed by the trustees of
the Ohio State University, as stipulated
in the law.21 The announcement of these
appointments helped to persuade the
Grange leaders to abandon the referendum
campaign, and by late July 1913 it was
clear that the Agricultural Commission
would get a trial period of operation.22
One year later, in April 1914, Governor
Cox declared optimistically, "Today . . .
there isn't a single person in Ohio who
denies that the coalition [of state agricul-
tural agencies] not only promoted the
efficiency of the service, but its economy as
well."23 Unfortunately
for the governor, this statement was not precisely accurate.
17. Cox to R. H. Triplett, March 18,
1913, Cox Papers.
18. Ohio Farmer, March 29, 1913,
p. 460.
19. Ohio General Assembly, House
Journal, 1913, p. 1021; Ohio General Assembly, Senate Journal,
1913, p. 387.
20. John Cunningham (state senator) to
Cox, April 29, 1913, Cox Papers.
21. John Cunningham (editor) to M. J.
Lawrence, July 30, 1913, Cox Papers. Cunningham did not
criticize the selection of Sandles and
Strode, but he, Lawrence, and the Grange leaders all thought
Williams was the best man. Of Sandles
and Strode, Cunningham wrote, in the letter cited, that ". . .
each man was appointed largely for
political reasons and neither can be said to be a real strong man
from the standpoint of agriculture. Both
are capable . . . but I cannot help feel that it is their own
interests that are uppermost in their minds rather than the
general cause of agriculture." (Emphasis is
in the original.) Cunningham, who was an
editor of the Ohio Farmer, would later make this charge
against Sandles publicly in the columns
of his magazine.
For the preference of Grange leaders for
Williams, see T. C. Laylin to Cox, July 3, 1913, Cox
Papers. Sandles was not himself a
farmer, although he had been involved in agricultural activities for
the state since 1902. Strode was a
farmer. Mercer, Ohio Legislative History, 1909-1913, p. 192, 205.
22. Cincinnati Enquirer, April
16, June 24, 1913; Representative William A. Hite to Cox, June 30,
1913, Cox Papers. The pharmacists,
despite their dislike of the law, decided not to join the referendum
movement, contenting themselves for the
present with drawing up amendments they hoped Cox would
accept. Ohio State Journal, June
30, 1913; Ohio Farmer, June 28, 1913, p. 782.
23. Ohio State Journal, April 25,
1914.
By February 1914, charges of inefficiency were already being leveled against the commission; other criticisms would soon follow.24 One of the principal reasons for creating the commission had been the desire to eliminate duplication of tasks by different agricultural institutions, but in Feb- ruary 1914 the editors of the Ohio Farmer began to accuse the commission of fail- ing to achieve this goal. Specifically, they charged that the commissioners were asserting partial control over agricultural extension education, an activity which before 1913 had been the responsibility solely of the College of Agriculture. The editors argued that the commission should confine itself to supervising in a general way the activities of the institutions under its control, rather than intervening in 24. The commission's report to the governor on its activities contains a record of the meetings of the commission, but that record is too skimpy to be of any value in assessing the performance of the agricultural bureau. Other sources, however, do provide some examples of clashes between the com- mission and private groups, such as the Cattle Breeders Association and the State Veterinary Department over a veterinary appointee and the conflict between the Ohio Farmer and the secretary, A. P. Sandles. See John Welty to Cox, October 12, 1914; Welty to George Burba, October 14, 1914; Burba to Welty, October 13, 1914; A. P. Sandles to Cox, December 8, 1914 (on the problem of diseased cattle), all in Cox Papers; and The Midland Druggist and Pharmaceutical Review, XLVIII (June, 1914), 244-249. |
Agricultural Commission 225
the details of their work. When the
popular and respected Professor A. B. Graham,
who was deeply involved in the
agricultural extension work of the college, resigned
his position in July 1914, the editors
of the Ohio Farmer claimed that the action
was a protest against the confusion and
conflict of authority resulting from the
commission's policy.25 The
commission's "interference" with the activities of the
College of Agriculture was not a minor
irritant in the view of these rural spokes-
men. The seriousness of the issue is
suggested by the frequency with which they
returned to the question.26 Their
concern was probably due in part to the conviction
that since agricultural progress
depended significantly on the educational activities
of the College of Agriculture and the
Experiment Station, these institutions should
be administered by educators and not by
politicians.
A second general charge which the
editors of the Ohio Farmer leveled against
the commission was that it had become
involved in politics. As early as January
1914, the editors accused Governor Cox
of trying to force farm institute lecturers,
who were under the Agricultural
Commission, to support his policies in their con-
tacts with farmers.27 Then,
in late 1914, without mentioning names, they criticized
the commission:
One commission (especially its president
and a few employes not members of the commis-
sion) has been devoting time to
political work that should have been devoted to the work
that the commission is supposed to do.
Not only has the literature of this particular com-
mission been made a sort of advertising
service for its president, but the men employed
to travel over the state, in some
instances, devoted too much time to partisan politics and
spreading statements that were probably
expected to be useful in future political campaigns.
In the following months, the editors
repeated their charges, although again in
vague, imprecise terms, and demanded
that control of the state agricultural activi-
ties be placed in the hands of actual
farmers who were not involved in politics,
men whose principal concern would be the
advancement of agriculture rather than
their own personal political fortunes.28
These rural spokesmen never explicitly
advocated abolishment of the commission,
but their editorials left little doubt that
they believed the experiment with the
Agricultural Commission had failed.
Grange leaders shared this conviction.
Despite the civil service law and the
amendment establishing qualifications
for membership on the commission, some
members of the executive council had feared
from the beginning that the com-
mission might become involved in
politics.29 Although the Grangers did not explic-
itly state that these fears had been
realized, at their annual convention in Decem-
ber 1914, they did demand that the state
return control of agricultural institutions
to actual farmers. They went further
than the editors of the Ohio Farmer, however,
and advocated decentralization of these
institutions and the re-creation of the old
non-salaried State Board of Agriculture.30
It is impossible to prove, but it seems
probable, that one reason the Grangers
advocated decentralization was their belief
that only in this way
could the farmers regain effective control over agricultural
25. Ohio Farmer, February 21, 1914, p. 244; July 11, 1914, p. 22-23; and
August 1, 1914, p. 78.
26. Ibid., January 9, 1915, p. 6.
27. Ibid., January 24, 1914, p.
98; January 31, 1914, p. 128. In the latter issue, the editors claim to
have received several letters from
readers supporting their position that the lecturers should not become
involved in politics.
28. Ibid., November 14, 1914, p.
444; January 9, 1915, p. 34; January 23, 1915, p. 94.
29. This can be inferred from the speech
of Grange Master, T. C. Laylin at the Grange's annual
convention in 1913. Journal, Ohio
State Grange, (1913), 16, 17.
30. Ibid. (1914), 59, 61.
226
OHIO HISTORY
institutions. The rural leaders found
that in practice, centralization entailed the
transference of real power to the
salaried bureaucrats, the men charged with the
daily execution of agricultural policy.31
Rural sentiment concerning the
commission, however, was not unanimous. The
editor of one local farm journal
strongly opposed elimination of the Agricultural
Commission, maintaining that the new
bureau had increased efficiency and that
those who attacked it were really
jealous of the popularity president Sandles en-
joyed among many farmers.32 This
was almost certainly a minority view, and the
Grange, as the principal farm
organization in the state, probably reflected more
accurately the opinion of the majority
of farmers who cared about the issue one
way or the other.33
The Republican nominee for governor in
1914, Frank Willis, capitalized on this
rural opposition in his attack on Cox's record.
The general theme of the Repub-
lican's campaign was a repudiation of
the centralization and bureaucratization of
government that had characterized his
opponent's administration. "The fight is on
in Ohio," he declared,
"between the machine and the people, between appointive
government and elective government,
between centralization of power in the execu-
tive and retention of power by the
people. . . ."34 "One of the
methods whereby
much power has been placed in the hands
of the executive in recent years has been
through the gradual increase in the
number of Commissions appointed by the Gov-
ernor." Willis was plainly
disturbed by the proliferation of state bureaus and by
the extension of government intervention
into many areas of the economy and so-
ciety. This concern is reflected in his
belief that it was "costing too much to run the
government of the state. . . ."35
He did not believe that the solution to the prob-
lems of his day lay in an expansion of
the government's role or in centralization
of power in the state house. Even though
he won a narrow victory in the election,
Willis felt that a majority of Ohio
voters shared his concern over the growth of
government, and this attitude almost
certainly foretold the abolishment of the Agri-
cultural Commission.36
In his first message to the General
Assembly, the new governor recommended
that the commission be replaced by a
bi-partisan state board of agriculture, whose
members would serve without
compensation. He said, in making appointments to
the board, "the principle should be
constantly borne in mind that actual practical
farmers should be appointed to all
positions having to deal especially with the
agricultural interests of the
state." Willis also suggested an administrative decen-
tralization of the state agricultural
institutions. In short, the governor was proposing
the abandonment of his predecessor's
plan of consolidation and bureaucratization
of these institutions.37
Prominent rural groups, as has already
been shown, were quite favorable toward
31. The Grangers also undoubtedly hoped
decentralization would reduce the operating costs of the
Department of Agriculture. See the
speech of the Grange Master in Journal, Ohio State Grange (1914),
16; he, least, felt the present
operating costs were too high.
32. Tri-County Farmer, February
1, 1915. For a similar opinion, see Holmes County Farmer, Febru-
ary 11, 1915. The editor of the latter
paper supported the Democrats.
33. Grange opposition to the commission
was determined by vote of the entire organization; it was
not a decision merely of the executive
council. Journal, Ohio State Grange (1914), 59, 61.
34. Ohio State Journal, July 19,
1914.
35. Mercer, Ohio Legislative History,
1913-1917, p. 115, 107.
36. Gerald Ridinger, "The Political
Career of Frank B. Willis" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The
Ohio State University, 1957), 75.
37. Mercer, Ohio Legislative History,
1913-1917, p. 116.
Agricultural Commission 227
Willis' proposals. The same cannot be
said of two other groups affected. The vet-
erinarians had originally opposed the
subordination of their examining board to
the commission because they feared that
they would lose control over their pro-
fession and that, as a consequence,
unqualified men would be permitted to enter
it. They may have changed their attitude
by 1915 because they discovered that
the dreaded decline in standards had not
in fact occurred. The state association's
legislative committee did not, in any
case, criticize the commission in its annual
report for 1915, although the committee
still did want the profession to control
appointments to the examining board.
"If these appointments could be made for
a number selected by this body to pick
from, it might remove it further from poli-
tics." The committee warned against
abolishing the commission itself, however.
"We wish to refer this Association
to the danger of changing from the Agricultural
Commission, possibly back to Board Rule,
as there was danger when changing
from Board to Commission. . . . We are
sorry that the Veterinary profession is
subject to the whims of political
disturbance."38 Thus, the uncertainty attending the
changes in the bureaus that controlled
the examining board apparently disturbed
the committee more than the mere
existence of such control. It is not clear whether
the rest of the state association shared
the views of the legislative committee, but
the veterinarians did not repudiate
their colleagues' report, and the association did
not take an official stand in favor of
abolishment of the Agricultural Commission.
The attitude of the pharmacists is
somewhat easier to determine. The Ohio State
Pharmaceutical Association had never
been enthusiastic over the provision of the
1913 act that deprived the Board of
Pharmacy of authority to enforce the laws
against sale of drugs by unqualified
persons. The legislative committee of that
body, however, did not enter the
campaign for repeal of the 1913 law until it learned
that such repeal formed a part of
Governor Willis' program. State agricultural
leaders agreed with the legislative
committee that the Board of Pharmacy should
enforce the pharmacy laws, and the
committee drew up a bill restoring these en-
forcement powers to the Pharmacy Board.
The committee also supported the effort
to repeal the Agricultural Commission
act and apparently contributed to the suc-
cess of that endeavor. The General
Assembly passed the committee's own act soon
after the agricultural bill became law,
but Governor Willis vetoed the former meas-
ure for reasons unrelated to the subject
of this essay. The enforcement of the
pharmacy laws, consequently, remained
the responsibility of the new Board of
Agriculture, and the pharmacists'
spokesman, the Midland Druggist, advised mem-
bers of the profession to employ their
influence to secure appointment of at least
one pharmacist to the agricultural
board.39 Frustrated in the attempt to regain
direct control over the enforcement of
the laws that protected the profession from
unscrupulous competitors, pharmacists
sought to obtain representation on the board
that did enjoy such control.40
The bill abolishing the Agricultural
Commission passed the General Assembly
38. The committee's report is in Proceedings
of the Ohio State Veterinary Medical Association (1915),
70, 71.
39. Midland Druggist and
Pharmaceutical Review, XLIX (August 1915), 255; XLIX (June 1915), 231,
255, 266; XLIX (June 1915), 266-267.
40. This paragraph is based partially on
the assumption that the actions of the Ohio State Pharma-
ceutical Association accurately
reflected the views of Ohio pharmacists, but such was not necessarily
the case. The president of the
association, himself, admitted that no more than one-third of the state's
druggists were members of the
organization. Since it was the only organization in Ohio representing
pharmacists at that time, it is the best
bellwether of opinion available for that profession.
228 OHIO
HISTORY
in April 1915 by an overwhelming
majority in the house, and by a vote of twenty
to twelve in the senate. In the house,
twenty-four of the twenty-eight farmer mem-
bers voting, including six Democrats,
favored the measure, and all four of those
opposed were Democrats; Republicans,
regardless of occupation, voted solidly for
the bill. Voting in the senate was
strictly along party lines.41
The new law re-creating the Board of
Agriculture provided that the ten mem-
bers of the board would serve without
compensation and stipulated that at least
six members of this bi-partisan board be
actual farmers.42 The law made no pro-
vision for coordination of the
activities of the board, the Experiment Station, and
the College of Agriculture, each of
which was to have a separate managerial heir-
archy. The board did, however, retain
the power to appoint the Board of Veterinary
Examiners, which provision did not
provoke any opposition from the Ohio State
Veterinary Medical Association.43
The repeal of the Agricultural
Commission act did not terminate efforts to re-
organize the Department of Agriculture.
In 1917 James Cox regained the gover-
norship, and a law was then passed
creating an agricultural advisory board com-
posed of the Secretary of the Board of
Agriculture, the Dean of the College of
Agriculture, and the Director of the
Agricultural Experiment Station; the law em-
powered the board to coordinate the
activities of the institutions its members
headed.44 The law, however,
also reduced the Board of Agriculture's control over
its secretary by requiring that the
board's nominee, from outside its membership,
receive the governor's approval. This
was a significant erosion of the farmers' direct
control over the activities of the
Department of Agriculture because the law also
authorized the secretary to act as the
board's agent in performing most of the
functions earlier laws assigned to that
body as a whole. Both the Grange and the
editors of the Ohio Farmer, nevertheless,
approved the law; they supported its
method of achieving coordination of
state agricultural activities, and they recognized
that the Board of Agriculture still had
the power to veto the secretary's acts and
to remove him from office.45
In 1921, however, farmers lost direct
control over the Department of Agriculture.
The General Assembly adopted a new
administrative code for the state which re-
duced the Board of Agriculture to a
purely advisory role and placed administrative
power in the hands of a Director of
Agriculture who owed his appointment to the
governor and not the board, but at the
same time the code provided that the direc-
tor should be a man actively identified
with agriculture. This stipulation furnishes
the clue why rural spokesmen did not
oppose too strenuously the new reorganiza-
tion plan.46 The editors of
the Ohio Farmer had never strongly opposed bureau-
cratic centralization in principle, but
they had always demanded that true repre-
sentatives of the farmer control
agricultural agencies. The new code seemed to
ensure that this requirement would be
met, but the editors nevertheless warned
newly-elected Governor Davis that the
farmers' attitude toward the reorganized
department would depend largely on whom
he appointed to the position of direc-
41. House Journal, 1915, p. 651; Senate
Journal, 1915, p. 416.
42. Laws of Ohio, CV, 143-177.
43. The annual report of that
organization's legislative committee contains no criticism of this pro-
vision of the law. Proceedings of the Ohio State
Veterinary Medical Association (1915), 70-73.
44. Laws of Ohio, CVII, 460-495.
45. Journal, Ohio State Grange (1917),
15-16; Ohio Farmer, February 3, 1917, p. 140; March 17,
1917, p. 396.
46. The new code was simply ratifying a
change that had actually occurred in 1917.
Agricultural Commission
229
tor. This was essentially the same
message that John F. Cunningham had delivered
to James Cox in 1913, but the governor
had failed to select the man whom the
principal rural leaders considered to be
the most qualified. Davis, however, shrewdly
eliminated potential opposition by
selecting L. J. Taber, Master of the Ohio State
Grange, as director.47 This
was the man who, in his capacity as leader of the Grange,
had in 1920 strongly opposed any
reorganization of the Department of Agriculture.48
The Grange did not, like the editors of
the Ohio Farmer, officially approve the
reorganization code, but its silence on
the question was eloquent--the organization
could hardly criticize the creation of a
position to whom its own leader had been
appointed. Harry L. Davis thus achieved
his predecessor's goal of bureaucratic cen-
tralization by ensuring the farmers that
they would continue to enjoy some control
over what they considered to be their
institutions.
A final word is due here on post-1915
organizational changes that affected vet-
erinarians and pharmacists. Subsequent
legislation did finally return to the Phar-
macy Board responsibility for
enforcement of the pharmacy laws, and appointment
of members of the Board of Veterinary
Examiners became the responsibility of the
governor.49
In conclusion, it can be stated that
efforts to reorganize the Department of Agri-
culture involved two different
conceptions of the proper relationship between gov-
ernment and private interest groups.
Governor Cox subscribed to the Progressive
ideal of government-controlled bureaus
staffed largely by public-spirited experts,
men whose specialized training and lack
of identification with any interest group
would permit them to handle expanding
responsibilities of government in such a
way as to promote the general welfare.
To achieve this goal, Cox centralized func-
tions in a number of appointive
commissions and supported the passage of a civil
service law.50
Some farmers, veterinarians, and
pharmacists, however, did not share the gov-
ernor's vision of a thoroughly
bureaucratized government. Their skepticism was due
to the fact that the United States was
just emerging from a period when political
corruption, in both national and state
governments, had reached unprecedented
levels, and many Americans traditionally
tended to believe that men who made a
career of government service were
naturally corrupt or at least self-seeking. Conse-
quently, these groups felt certain that
only their own members could manage com-
petently those state institutions that
affected their interests.
The clash between these two viewpoints
resulted in a compromise between Cox
and the most powerful of the interest
groups concerned, the farmers. The governor
was able to centralize control of
agricultural institutions in the Agricultural Com-
mission, but the farmers succeeded in
securing the appointment of rural representa-
tives to the positions on the
commission. This compromise eventually proved
unsatisfactory, however, partially
because farm leaders concluded that several of
the commissioners, despite their close
connections with agriculture, were more inter-
ested in advancing their own political
fortunes than in serving farmers. Cox's suc-
cessor, Davis, was more successful in
his reoganization efforts because he selected
the man to be director of agriculture
whom prominent rural spokesmen regarded
47. Ohio Farmer, May 7, 1921, p.
620; July 9, 1921, p. 28.
48. Journal, Ohio State Grange (1920),
33.
49. Service Edition of Page's Ohio
Revised Code (Cincinnati, 1953), III, 48, 76.
50. For a more general discussion of the
Progressive concept of government, see Robert Wiebe,
The Search for Order, 1877-1920 (New York, 1967), 159-163.
230 OHIO
HISTORY
as nonpolitical and as the best
representative of their interests.
This concession to rural demands,
however, should not obscure the fact that by
1921 farmers had accepted a modified
version of Governor Cox's concept of govern-
ment. In 1913 the Department of
Agriculture was under the control of a part-time,
unsalaried Board of Agriculture composed
wholly of actual farmers. After 1921 that
board played a purely advisory role
while effective power lay in the hands of a
Director of Agriculture, appointed by
the governor, and his subordinates. Even
though the director might be a
representative of the farmers, his limited term (two
years) meant that he would have to rely
heavily on the officials who were permanent
employees. Farmers could still exert
substantial influence over the officials who
formulated and executed state
agricultural policies, but they had yielded direct
control of their state institutions to
the career bureaucrats.
JAMES H. LEE
The Ohio Agricultural
Commission, 1913-1915
When James M. Cox assumed the
governorship for the first time, in 1913, Ohio
agriculture was passing through a period
of rapid transition. The demographic
expansion of the late nineteenth century
had inflated land values and crop prices,
a trend which converted agriculture into
a potentially highly profitable enterprise.
Ohio farmers responded by gradually
transforming themselves into rural business-
men; they specialized, developed more
efficient managerial techniques, and utilized
more intelligently the total resources
of their farms.1 This transformation of farm-
ing was accompanied by the expansion of
government activities designed to aid
agriculture. The State Board of
Agriculture, created in 1846 as an information
agency for farmers, had by 1910 assumed
considerable responsibility for the regula-
tion and promotion of agriculture in
Ohio. The board, in addition to collecting and
disseminating crop and cattle
statistics, also enforced plant and stock quarantine
laws and regulated the sale of
fertilizers and foodstuffs within the state.2 These
developments in agriculture, and
parallel ones in other sectors of the economy,
often generated jurisdictional
conflicts, duplication of activities, and confusion in
government since the state had assumed
new responsibilities for regulating and
promoting economic development, but its
administration was rather haphazard.
This was the situation when James M. Cox
entered office in January 1913. The
new governor hoped to eliminate these
problems by introducing into government
the principles of efficiency that
businessmen had developed over the years. Success
in this pioneer endeavor depended in
large part, he believed, on the consolidation
of government bureaus, to avoid waste,
and on the selection of trained experts to
staff the reorganized agencies. Soon
after entering office, therefore, Cox introduced
in the legislature a broad program of
administrative reorganization.3
The agricultural section of Governor
Cox's reform program was embodied in a
bill passed April 15, 1913, creating the
Ohio Agricultural Commission. Cox pro-
1. W. A. Lloyd, J. I. Falconer, C. E.
Thorne, The Agriculture of Ohio, Bulletin 326 of the Ohio
Agricultural Experiment Station
(Wooster, 1918), 15.
2. Robert Leslie Jones, "Ohio
Agriculture in History," Ohio Historical Quarterly, LXV (July
1956),
254-255; General Code of Ohio, 1910, Part
1, p. 231, 232, 233, 239, 241.
3. James M. Cox, Journey Through My
Years (New York, 1946), 137. Cox's views are set forth in
his first message to the General
Assembly in 1913, see James K. Mercer, Ohio Legislative History,
1913-1917 (Columbus, 1918), 30-58.
Mr. Lee is a doctoral candidate in
history at The Ohio State University.