STANLEY L. SWART
Early Efforts at State-Level Law
Enforcement: The Failure of
Ohio's Supervision of Local
Police Authorities, 1902-1925
At the time of its founding in 1803,
Ohio placed responsibility for
enforcing its criminal statutes and
maintaining public order in the
hands of traditional local officials,
and did little to change this prac-
tice for ninety-nine years.1 County
sheriffs, township constables,
city and village mayors and marshals,
and city watches carried the
burden until 1859. The modern concept
of"police" authorities estab-
lished explicitly for these purposes
first appeared in Cincinnati dur-
ing that year; exercising its power, the
state abolished the offices of
city marshal and city watch in favor of
this new alternative.
Throughout the remainder of the
nineteenth century the central
government gradually imposed the police
idea upon municipal gov-
ernments, and by 1902 police
departments-marked by the centra-
lization of power in the hands of one
agency, a primary focus upon
combatting crime and public disorder,
preventative policing, and
the permanence of staff as opposed to a
periodic turnover of person-
nel-existed in all cities.2
Stanley L. Swart is Associate Professor
of Criminal Justice at the University of
North Florida.
1. For the first century of Ohio
policing, see Stanley L. Swart, "The Development
of State-Level Police Activity in Ohio,
1802-1928" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Northwestern University, 1974), Chaps.
1-2, cited below as Swart, "Ohio, 1802-
1928"; and Samuel Walker, A
Critical History of Police Reform, The Emergence of
Professionalism (Lexington, Mass., 1977), 40-43, cited below as Samuel
Walker,
Police Reform. For a general background of police reform in the United
States during
the nineteenth century, see Samuel
Walker, Police Reform, Part I; Barbara Raffel
Price, Police Professionalism,
Rhetoric and Action (Lexington, Mass., 1977), Chaps.
1-2, cited below as Price, Police
Professionalism: and James F. Richardson, Urban
Police in the United States (Port Washington, N.Y., 1974), Chaps. 1-4, cited below
as
Richardson, Urban Police.
2. Swart, "Ohio, 1802-1928,"
Chaps. 1-2.
142 OHIO HISTORY
State imposition of contemporary police
concepts was not followed
by direct supervision of local officers.
On several occasions Ohio took
nominal control of the police in major
metropolises, but such
domination proved short-lived, save in
Cincinnati where a state-
appointed board ruled from 1886 to 1902.
But even in the Queen
City local management was a fact, as the
political machine of"Boss"
George B. Cox dominated law enforcement
as well as other matters.3
Sheriffs, constables, and village mayors
and marshals received no
formal oversight at all. Until 1902,
therefore, the state exercised
little control over local law
enforcement. Whether modern city
police or traditional county and
small-town officers, police officials
were free of the state's watchful eye.
This situation began to change in 1902.
In that year the Ohio
General Assembly passed the first of a
series of laws authorizing the
governor to remove from office certain
classes of officials who failed
to carry out their duties properly. The
statutes targeted upon local
law enforcement and its agents. This
innovation lacked universal
approval, conflicting as it did with
both strong traditions of local
self-government and (after 1920) a
general dislike of all policing
engendered by attempts to enforce
prohibition laws. As a result, the
intensity and frequency of gubernatorial
supervision declined after
1924, and overall this early attempt at
state control over local police
authorities must be judged a failure.
But the concept of a strong
state executive empowered to supervise
local law enforcement agen-
cies reflected, and was supported by,
contemporary political and
intellectual movements, and the legal
authority to do so survived
the unpopularity of its initial use.4
Political and Intellectual Bases for
State Supervision
Progressivism, which dominated American
politics during most of
this period, called for positive
governmental action at all levels-
federal, state, and local.5 In
addition to proposing a large number of
3. Ibid, Chap. 2; for Cincinnati, see Zane L. Miller, Boss
Cox's Cincinnati, Urban
Politics in the Progressive Era (New York, 1968), Chaps. 5-6; and John R. Doggette,
"Nineteenth Century Law Enforcement
in Cincinnati" (unpublished M.A. thesis,
University of Cincinnati, 1966), Chap.
IV.
4. Swart, "Ohio, 1802-1928,"
Chaps. 3-4. Later notes will provide more detailed
documentation.
5. For the nationwide Progressive
movement in favor of positive government ac-
tion, see Robert H. Wiebe, The Search
for Order, 1877-1920 (New York, 1967), pas-
State Level Law Enforcement 143
new government programs, many of which
involved regulatory con-
trols over portions of social and
economic life, the Progressives con-
tinually stressed the need for elective
implementation of the result-
ing laws. This meant that a strong
executive authority became a
necessity. Such a belief in the virtues
of active government had
important implications for Ohio law
enforcement. The logic behind
Progressivism called inevitably for the
state to expand the very
tentative and limited supervisory role
it had developed vis-a-vis
county, township, and municipal police
authorities during the
nineteenth century. Above all, the
powers vested in the governor
would have to be expanded.
However, such ideas were not acceptable
to all Progressives. The
urban element often emphasized the
attainment of "municipal home
rule." Ohio Progressivism, which
originated in large cities under
the leadership of Toledo Mayor Samuel
Jones and Cleveland Mayor
Tom L. Johnson, sought this goal with
even greater desire than
most Progressives.6 It
represented salvation from the yearly "ripper
bills," as contemporaries called
the specialized municipal legislation
often passed by the General Assembly.
Understandable as such a
goal could be, it conflicted with the
notion that the state government
should play a larger part in political
life, and it could become a
hindrance to any effort directed at
implementing state supervision
of municipal policing.
Such a conflict quickly developed. In
1912 the Ohio Constitutional
Convention proposed, along with a large
number of other revisions
to the now-dated 1852 constitution, a
new Article XVIII which
would establish "home-rule."
The voters accepted this particular
proposal in the fall, along with
thirty-three other amendments, and
the General Assembly passed the
appropriate enabling legislation
in 1913. It appeared that urban Ohio had
won a decisive victory over
the state government.7 However,
judicial interpretation of Article
sim, esp. Chaps. 6-8, cited below as Wiebe, Search for
Order. For urban Progressivism
in particular, see Charles N. Glaab and
A. Theodore Brown, A History of Urban
America, 2nd ed. (New York, 1976), Chaps. 9-10; and Blake
McKelvey, The Urba-
nization of America, 1860-1915 (New Brunswick, N.J., 1963), Chaps. 6-7. For these
developments in Ohio, see Hoyt Landon
Warner, Progressivism in Ohio, 1897-1917
(Columbus, 1964), passim, esp.
Chaps. II and XII-XV, cited below as Warner, Ohio
Progressivism.
6. For the effort to establish municipal
home rule, see Warner, Ohio Progressiv-
ism, Chaps. V and XVI; and Francis L. Aumann, "Ohio
Government in The Twen-
tieth Century: From Nash to White
(1900-1931)," in Ohio in the Twentieth Century,
1900-1938, ed. Harlow Lindley, Vol. VI of The History of the
State of Ohio, ed. Carl
Wittke (Columbus, 1942), 11-16, cited
below as Auman, "Ohio 1900-31."
7. For Article XVIII, see Ohio,
Constitutional Convention, Constitution of Ohio,
144 OHIO HISTORY
XVIII's key provision produced the
opposite result. This proviso
stated:
Sec. 3. Municipalities have authority to
exercise all powers of local self-
government and to adopt and enforce
within their limits such local police,
sanitary and other similar regulations,
as are not in conflict with general
laws.8
As early as 1917 the Ohio Supreme Court
complained that "local
self-government" lacked a legally useful
definition. Therefore, over
a period of years the court supported a
strong supervisory role for
the state in all fields, and it
specifically determined that the central
authorities possessed a special position
in matters of policing and
public safety. Until the late 1940s,
when a change in legal philoso-
phy permitted cities and villages more
freedom, the Supreme Court
upheld a series of statewide standards
on such matters as the crea-
tion of pension funds and educational
requirements for policemen.
Most of these requirements were imposed
through the state's civil
service laws and, except for the pension
funds, did not become im-
portant until the 1930s. However, the
prevalent attitude of the court
meant that the General Assembly could continue
to dictate a wide
variety of standards to municipal police
departments and, if it chose,
could grant the governor authority to
enforce them.9
A second movement which surfaced at this
time, combining polit-
ical and intellectural overtones, also
had a bearing upon Ohio's role
in law enforcement. A body of police
reformers appeared during the
latter part of the nineteenth century
and the first years of the twen-
tieth. Many of the people involved in
this campaign, trained in
public administration and concerned
primarily with urban law en-
forcement, did not show much interest
in the role of the American
states.10 However, as early
as 1893 the first meeting of what is today
with Amendments ... Approved by the
People September 3, 1912 (Columbus,
1912),
41-44, cited below as Ohio, 1912
Amendments. For the contemporary politics in-
volved, see Warner, Ohio
Progressivism, Chaps. V, XII, and XVI.
8. Reprinted in Ohio, 1912
Amendments, 41. For the discussion below, see Warner,
Ohio Progressivism, 456-59; Albert Henry Rose, Ohio Government, State
and Local
(St. Louis, 1953), 75-78; and Donovan F.
Emch, et al., "Home Rule and Local Govern-
ment in Ohio," in An Analysis
and Appraisal of the Ohio State Constitution, 1851-
1951, ed. Harvey Walker (Cincinnati, 1951), passim.
9. For examples of these later
guidelines imposed by the state, see, in addition to
the references in note 8 above, Ohio, The
General Code of the State of Ohio (Cincinna-
ti, 1910-1952), Secs. 17-1 and 17-la.
10. For the national movement in this
area, see Samuel Walker, Police Reform,
Part II; Price, Police
Professionalism, Chaps. 3-4; and Richardson, Urban Police,
Chap. 5.
State Level Law Enforcement 145
the International Association of Chiefs
of Police called for the
formation of state bureaus of criminal
identification, agencies which
would maintain records on all known
criminals who had been
arrested within their respective
states.11 In addition, during 1909
two leading national spokesmen for
police reform offered brief but
comprehensive programs for state
governments to adopt in order to
better enforce the criminal statutes.
These men were Leonard Felix
Fuld, a civil service administrator in
New York City, and Augustus
Raymond Hatton, a professor of political
science at Western Reserve
University in Cleveland.
Fuld proposed the formation of a
"state police department" con-
sisting of three bureaus: "rural
constabulary," "criminal investiga-
ton," and "city police."
The constabulary, to be modeled upon the
uniformed force created by Pennsylvania
in 1905, would possess
general police powers throughout the
state and could be employed in
cities when necessary. The investigation
bureau, a detective unit,
would pursue known criminals and assist
municipal police while so
doing. The last of the three
subdivisions would inspect urban police
departments to see if they met certain
prescribed standards and
would award financial subsidies to those
which did. Significantly,
this bureau could also remove local
police officials found to be
corrupt. 12
Hatton limited himself to recommending a
"state bureau of
police" which paralleled Fuld's
city police unit except that Hatton's
proposed office would inspect and fund
rural agencies-meaning
sheriffs' departments-as well as urban
ones. Like Fuld's proposed
city agency, Hatton's proposed organization
would be able to remove
city and county officers for failing to
enforce the law. Finally, Hat-
ton's bureau was to possess a small
force of detectives who would
assist in enforcing unpopular laws and
also function in an intelli-
gence capacity.13
Fuld and Hatton's proposals, drawn
together, offered guidelines
for the American states to follow; they
also constituted a set of
standards by which the performance of a
given state could be
judged. Only one other element needed to
be added. Both Fuld and
11. For the bureau of criminal
identification movement, see John L. Thompson,
"National Identification Bureau is
IACP Pioneers' Legacy," The Police Chief, XXXV
(Jan., 1968), 10-42 passim; and
John P. Kenney, The California Police (Springfield,
Ill., 1964), 21-23, 36-37, cited below
as Kenney, California Police.
12. Leonard Felix Fuld, Police
Administration, A Critical Study of Police Orga-
nizations in the United States and
Abroad (New York, 1909), 416-25.
13. Augustus Raymond Hatton, "The
Control of Police," in the Proceedings of the
Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the
National Municipal League (n. p.,
1909), 157-71.
146 OHIO HISTORY
Hatton were blind to the identification
bureau concept, which is
somewhat surprising since California had
established such a bureau
in 1905, and this idea was to become a
vital part of state-level
policing.14 In addition,
these two contemporary authorities differed
on a vital point: the role a state
should undertake in policing rural
regions. Fuld advocated direct action
through a uniformed state
police which would supersede the
traditional local officers; Hatton
favored, or at least tolerated, the
office of sheriff and advocated
strengthening it.15 The conflict between
these two approaches would
be fought out in many state capitols during
the subsequent decades.
In Ohio, generalized Progressive desires
for a stronger state ex-
ecutive and specific suggestions for
state supervision of rural and
municipal police officials did not
necessarily lead directly to in-
creased control over local law
enforcement. However, Hatton con-
tinued to support police reform within
the Buckeye State and Fuld's
proposals found recognition in at least
one obscure Ohio study of
policing; thus it is reasonable to
assume that the ideas which the
two men proposed had some impact.16
More importantly, the reform-
ers' specific concepts together with
Progressivism, the predomi-
nant political-intellectual movement of
the time, provided a favor-
able atmosphere for acceptance of the
idea that the central govern-
ment could authorize direct controls
over the police authorities in its
subdivisions and could charge the
governor with the duty of super-
vising these individuals.
The Imposition of Supervision
For a number of years the Ohio Supreme
Court had demonstrated
increasing hostility towards the General
Assembly's evasion of the
1852 constitutional mandate requiring
general municipal incor-
poration laws. In June, 1902, the judges
finally acted and ruled that
the legislature must follow the
constitution's dictates. The judges
thus forced the governor to call a
special legislative session to rem-
edy this situation.17 A
new municipal code, the principal product of
14. See Kenney, California Police, 21-23,
36-37, for the early activity in California.
15. See the references in notes 12 and
13 above.
16. Bliss Magley, "State Control of
Police in the United States" (unpublished M.A.
thesis, Ohio State University, 1917),
46-55, is a thin rewrite of what Fuld and Hatton
proposed.
17. For an account of the court decision
and the writing of a new municipal code,
see Warner, Ohio Progressivism, Chap.
V; and Aumann, "Ohio 1900-31," 5-6.
State Level
Law Enforcement 147
TABLE I
LAWS
AUTHORIZING THE GOVERNOR TO REMOVE LOCAL
AND MUNICIPAL
OFFICIALS IN OHIO, 1902-1925
Date Officials
Passed Affected Details and Commentary
1902 Mayors Part of 1902 municipal code. Governor could oust
any mayor on
charges of "misconduct in office, or
bribery, or
any gross neglect of duty, gross immoral-
ity, or
habitual drunkenness." The governor had to
file public
charges and to hold a public hearing be-
fore removing
anyone; if the chief executive then
chose to
dismiss a mayor, the former had to provide
a public
written statement of his reasons for doing
so. No appeal
from the governor's decision existed,
and a mayor
might be suspended from office pending
the hearing.
This law was changed in 1951, and such
hearings were
placed under the supervision of
judges rather
than the governor.
1910 Sheriffs Governor could remove a sheriff if a prisoner in the
latter's
custody "had been lynched or suffered bodily
harm"
because of the sheriffs failure to protect the
prisoner.
Charges could only be brought by five or
more electors
of the sheriffs county. As in the 1902
statute, the
sheriff might be suspended pending the
hearing, the
hearing had to be in public, and an
explanation
had to be offered if the governor chose to
remove the man
from office. Those summoned to tes-
tify could
receive witness fees. This law is still in
effect.
1921 "Any Governor could remove an official-defined in
prac-
Official" tice as an elective officeholder or a
senior appointee
such as a
safety director or police chief-for failure
"to
enforce the laws relating to intoxicating liquor."
Procedural
details were basically those of the 1902
statute. This
law was repealed in 1933.
1925 (Amendment Authorized payment of witness fees to anyone sum-
to 1902, moned to testify at a gubernatorial
hearing called
1921 laws) under either the 1902 or the 1921
statutes. This law
is still in
effect as it pertains to the 1906 measure
and its later
amendments.
148 OHIO HISTORY
the 1902 session, produced one major
departure in matters pertain-
ing to local law enforcement: the
introduction of systematic guber-
natorial supervision of municipal
officers.18 The 1902 law, which
granted Ohio's governors the power to
remove mayors under certain
specified conditions, became the first
of four statutes enacted be-
tween 1902 and 1925 which extended and
codified this authority.
Table I summarizes these laws.19
In the past, the legislature, acting
under authority conferred by
the 1852 constitution, had occasionally
permitted governors to oust
municipal officials from office.
However, this sudden decision on the
part of the General Assembly to grant
such authority on a statewide
basis was unexpected. There is no
conclusive evidence to explain
why this step was taken, but apparently
this action reflected a grow-
ing belief among the legislators that
the executive branch of state
government should have greater
authority. Further evidence of the
acceptance of this belief was furnished
in 1903 when the governor
finally received the veto power via a
constitutional amendment
proposed by the legislature itself.20
It also indicates that the 1902
General Assembly, forced by the court to
yield its former right to
intervene directly in municipal
governance, was searching for
alternative methods by which to maintain
the power of the state.
Of the four laws extending the authority
of the governor, those of
1902, 1910, and 1921 involved
substantive powers. All three posses-
sed certain common traits. First, they
placed the authority to dis-
miss officeholders in the hands of the
governor; other state officials
were not involved. Second, they limited
the chief executive's role to
that of removing men from office; he
could not appoint new indi-
viduals to the resulting vacancies, and
thus local self-government
was not seriously threatened. Third,
their primary stress was upon
the conduct of municipal officials in
policing. Although the 1902
removal statute permitted ousters of
mayors for other reasons, all
recorded removal hearings during these
years grew from charges of
18. The code was 96 Ohio Laws 20
(1902); Ohio Laws will be cited below as OL, and
the date will not be given unless it is
not present in the text.
19. For Table I, the relevant laws are:
1902-96 OL 20 (1902), 124 OL 154 (1951);
1910-101 OL 109 (1910); 1921-109 OL
4 (1921), 115-lPt. 2 OL 118 (1933); 1925-
111 OL 264 (1925). For the modern
versions of these laws, see Ohio, Ohio Revised
Code, Annotated (Cincinnati, 1953-
), passim.
20. For the 1903 amendment, see Issac
Franklin Patterson, comp., The Constitu-
tions of Ohio, and Proposed
Amendments . . . With Historical Data, Records of the
Votes Cast, Contemporary Newspaper
Comment, Detailed Comparisons and Historical
Introduction (Cleveland, 1912), 282-84.
State Level Law
Enforcement 149
TABLE II
RECORDED GUBERNATORIAL
OUSTERS OF LOCAL AND
MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS
FROM OFFICE IN OHIO, 1908-1924
Governor Incidents
Judson Harmon 1909-1913: removal
of "a few" mayors for failure to
(Democrat, 1909-1913) enforce the Rose Local Option Law
1910: forced
resignations (by formally instituting re-
moval proceedings) of
Licking County sheriff and
Newark mayor for their
joint failure to protect a
prisoner, who was
lynched
James M. Cox 1919: removal of
the mayor of Canton for failure to
(Democrat, 1913-1915, suppress disorders growing from
the steel strike of
1917-1921) that year
Harry L. Davis 1921-1923: removal
of a mayor for failure to enforce
(Republican,
1921-1923) prohibition
Vic Donahey 1923: removal of
the mayor of Massillon for failure
(Democrat, 1923-1929) to enforce both prohibition and
the criminal law;
mayor unsuccessfully
challenged his dismissal be-
fore the Ohio Supreme
Court on grounds of unconsti-
tutionality
1923-1924: removal of
the mayor of Canton, the
safety director of
Canton, and the police chief of
Youngstown for failure
to enforce prohibition
failure to enforce the
criminal laws or to maintain public order, as
shown in Table II.21
While Ohio embarked on
a new path through the passage of these
statutes, they did not
provide comprehensive powers for the gov-
ernors. The 1902 law
applied strictly to mayors, while the 1910
measure permitted the
dismissal of a sheriff only in the event of one
unlikely occurrence.
The 1921 statute applied, in theory, to "all
officials," an
undefined phrase which in practice came to mean
mayors and senior
police officers. But, though based upon a 1912
21. For Table II, the
relevant sources are: Harmon-James Lee Burke, "The Public
Career of Judson
Harmon" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State Uni-
150 OHIO HISTORY
constitutional amendment which had
otherwise clarified and
broadened the state's right to dismiss
officeholders without resort-
ing to the impeachment process, this
last law covered only failure to
enforce prohibition. Thus county and
township law enforcement offi-
cials remained largely unregulated, as
did the elective village
marshals.22
In addition, the failure to extend state
controls over the subordi-
nates of mayors further weakened the
whole supervisory effort, as
Governor Vic Donahey (Democrat,
1923-1929) noted in 1925 when
he asked the legislature to remove
police chiefs from civil service
protection. Civil service, a positive
factor in ensuring job security
and permanence, also provided a
convenient screen behind which
the corrupt and inefficient could hide.
Donahey commented that
almost all of his investigations into
slothful municipal policing re-
sulted in a mayor asserting that he
could not control his police chief.
The legislators ignored the governor's
request, which strongly sug-
gests that they were not interested in
further increasing either his
powers or those of the mayors.23
The internal details of the laws also
demonstrated certain weak-
nesses. The 1910 statute, which
regulated sheriffs, came closest to
judicial standards; it identified a
specific offense, ordered that
charges be brought by citizens from the
sheriffs home county, and
assigned to the governor only a
quasi-judicial role. The 1902 and
1921 laws, however, placed the governor
in the position of being
both prosecutor and judge, loosely
defined the charges (as in the
1902 measure) or the offices regulated
(as in the 1921 law), and
failed to provide for the compensation
of witnesses summoned to
testify at the governor's hearings. The
compensation problem was
rectified by passage of the 1925 statute, but the other
difficulties
remained.
versity, 1969), 216-24, cited below as
Burke, "Harmon;" James Lee Burke, "The
Gubernatorial Campaign of 1910 in
Ohio" (unpublished M.A. thesis, The Ohio State
University, 1963), 51-55; Cox-James M.
Cox, Journey Through My Years (New
York, 1946), 196 and Chap. XIX; James T.
Walker, "Ohio Needs State Police Force,
Events of Past Winter Prove Necessity of
Better Protection," The Michigan State
Police Journal [shortly renamed The State Trooper], I, (March,
1920), 13-14, 29;
Davis-James K. Mercer, ed., Ohio Legislative
History, Vol. IV (Columbus, 1921),
204-06, cited below as Mercer, Ohio [Vol.
no.]; Donahey-Mercer, Ohio, V, 343; Mer-
cer, Ohio, VI, 25.
22. See, in addition to the references
in notes 19 and 21 above, Ohio, 1912 Amend-
ments, 17, for the new amendment regulating the removal of
officials from office,
which became Art. II, Sec. 38 of the
constitution.
23. Mercer, Ohio, VI, 25-26.
State Level Law Enforcement 151
These measures, challenging as they did
traditions of local self-
government, aroused considerable
opposition in the 1920s. A reac-
tion against strong, centralized,
governments appeared among
Americans in the aftermath of World War
I, and the unpopularity of
prohibition reinforced an increasing
reluctance to trust govern-
ments with much power.24 In
1923 the Ohio Supreme Court upheld
the legality of both the 1902 and 1921
removal statutes, but it did so
hesitantly and with an openly expressed
doubt about inadequate
procedural safeguards regarding the
admissibility of evidence, thus
adding fuel to the critics' fire.25
A bill proposed in 1925 would have
restricted the comprehensiveness of the
1921 law by granting to city
mayors the exclusive right to remove
their police chiefs from office
and by forbidding any application of the
1921 statute to subordinate
police officers. Although this measure
did not pass, the fact that it
was proposed indicates continuing
opposition to the concepts of
gubernatorial removal of local
officials.26
Ohio's governors did not permit their
supervision of local law
enforcement to rest exclusively upon
these four statutes. They be-
gan to employ two administrative
tactics. The first, initiated in 1919
by Governor James M. Cox (Democrat,
1913-1915, 1917-1921), em-
ployed an old medium of
communication-the public proclama-
tion-in a new manner.27 Previous
governors had occasionally
issued proclamations during times of
disorder, but had directed
them to the citizens of a specific
locality and had limited the con-
tents to calls for the cessation of
violence.28 Cox, witnessing
24. For the general distrust of strong
government at this time, especially as it
appeared in connection with prohibition
policing, see George E. Mowry, The Urban
Nation, 1920-1960 (New York, 1965), Chaps. 1-3; Wiebe, Search for
Order, Chaps. VI
and XI passim; and Andrew
Sinclair, Prohibition, The Era of Excess (Boston, 1962),
passim, esp. Chap. 10, which deals with enforcement methods,
cited below as Sin-
clair, Prohibition. For the
situation in Ohio, see Aumann, "Ohio 1900-31," 33-47; and
Roy T. Wortman, "The IWW in Ohio,
1905-1950" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
The Ohio State University, 1971), Chap.
IV.
25. See the opinion of the court in 108 Ohio
State Reports 440 (1923); this set
(commonly cited OSR) has been
published since 1852 but has appeared in different
series.
26. For the 1925 proposal and its fate,
see House Bill 493, 86th General Assembly,
Regular Session, 1925, in Ohio,
Legislative Service Commission, Bill Files; and Ohio,
General Assembly, Journal of the
House of Representatives, Vol. 122 (1925;) (Co-
lumbus, 1925) 5, 276, and 387.
27. For Cox's issuance of this
innovative proclamation, see Mercer, Ohio, III, 55-
57.
28. For earlier samples, see Leonard L.
Richards, "Gentlemen of Property and
Standing," Anti-Abolition Mobs
in Jacksonian America (London, 1970),
128, for an
incident dating from 1841; for an 1884
situation, consult Ohio, Executive Documents,
Annual Reports for 1884 . . . Columbus, 1885), "Annual Message," Pt. 1,
12-15.
152 OHIO HISTORY
statewide confusion over how to police
the 1919 national steel
strike, decided that a new type of
proclamation could solve this
problem. On October 17 of that year the
governor issued a document
which his office, immodestly but
correctly, labeled "without prece-
dent." Addressed to all mayors and
sheriffs, this proclamation pro-
vided specific definitions and
directions for them to follow in dealing
with the strike. Cox explained what they
could not do, such as
leading strikebreakers into a factory,
and what the law compelled
them to do, such as stopping
strike-related violence. He also defined
"picketing" and urged the
authorities to communicate with both
sides in this labor dispute as often as
possible so as to avoid mis-
understandings. He closed by referring
to his power to remove offi-
cials from office and by issuing a
thinly-veiled threat to employ this
authority if the officeholders did not
do their duty. Shortly thereaf-
ter, he ousted the mayor of Canton
because of the latter's failure to
maintain order.29
Governor Vic Donahey carried this method
much further. In his
six years in office he issued over one
hundred formal proclamations,
most of which were innocuous but several
of which bore a direct
concern to policing. The best example of
the latter was a proclama-
tion of May 23, 1923, on
"Gambling." Denouncing all forms of this
vice, above all the open betting which
went on in baseball parks,
Donahey concluded by awarding himself
the title of "Chief Police
Officer of Ohio" and saying:
I call upon mayors and sheriffs
throughout the state to lend themselves
zealously to arrests and prosecutions.
If they do not do so it is a time when
weak or unwilling magistrates and police
officers will be replaced by those
who enforce the law.30
Later proclamations by Donahey regarding
law enforcement in-
cluded a March 10, 1924, statement on
"Prohibition Enforcement."31
In it the governor introduced a third
tactic which chief executives
29. See James M. Cox, Journey Through
My Years (New York, 1946), 196 and
Chap. XIX; and David Brody, Labor in
Crisis, The Steel Strike of 1919 (Philadelphia,
1965), 152. The Canton mayor had refused
to act in this crisis, ignoring pleas for help
from various groups.
30. Donahey's proclamation regarding
gambling appears in Mercer, Ohio, V, 124-
45; the quotation is from 125. For a
general commentary on his use of this method of
communication, see Howard Foster,
"A History of the Ohio Executive, 1923-1929"
(unpublished M.A. thesis, The Ohio State
University, 1934), Chap. VII, cited below as
Foster, "Donahey."
31. Donahey's proclamation on
prohibition policing is in Mercer, Ohio, V, 141-42.
State Level Law Enforcement 153 |
|
could employ in addition to their power of removal and the issuance of proclamations: the assignment of state employees to check con- tinuously the effectiveness of local and municipal officials. Donahey's predecessor, Harry L. Davis (Republican, 1921-1923), also employed this technique to enforce prohibition, but Donahey became the first to publicly warn that he would do so. Donahey's 1924 action came just after he had dismissed his Pro- hibition Department's 110 "temporary inspectors." Commonly cal- led "card men" (from the identification cards they carried), in reality they were privately-paid detectives holding public commissions. The governor explained in the proclamation that he had released these men because of a negative ruling by the state attorney general regarding the legality of their employment, and noted that their
For a commentary on the following situation and how it developed, see Ohio Prohibi- tion Commissioner, Fifth Annual Report of the ... (Columbus, 1925), 3-4, cited below as 1925 PC Report; and The (Columbus) Ohio State Journal, Mar. 22, 1924, 1, 16, cited below as Journal. For Davis' administration, see the description below; refer- ences on it are in note 36. |
154 OHIO HISTORY
dismissals left only twenty regular
inspectors. In his opinion,
Donahey continued, these surviving
twenty officers were too few to
be effective by themselves. Therefore,
he was ordering the depart-
ment's director to employ the remaining
inspectors in a coordinat-
ing role by assigning them to work with
municipal and county offi-
cials. Part of the state officers'
activity, the governor made clear,
would consist of investigating local
officials as well as assisting and
directing them. City and county officers
found to be inadequate in
prohibition enforcement might well be
removed. Thus the use of
state employees to supervise local police
officials, like the use of
public proclamations to provide explicit
directions from the gov-
ernor to local officeholders, ultimately
depended upon the gov-
ernor's power to oust inefficient or
corrupt local officials.
The Effectiveness of Supervision
State supervision of local officials was
the only significant area of
possible state police activity in which
Ohio attempted an active
course during these years. As late as
1925 the state lacked any form
of a uniformed state police or detective
unit save for the prohibition
inspectors, whose duties were very
specialized. Though Ohio estab-
lished a very small "Bureau of
Criminal Identification and Inves-
tigation" in 1923 for the purpose
of maintaining criminal records
(investigations were not conducted until
a later date), at no time did
the state even consider the adoption of
the financial subsidy propos-
als advocated by both Fuld and Hatton.32
By comparison, between
1902 and 1925 Ohio moved from a mere legislative
imposition of
legal dictates upon these subordinate
officials, with the hope that its
orders would be obeyed, to a position in
which the governor could
partially oversee and discipline city
and county officials should they
fail to carry out their duties properly.
Evaluating the effectiveness of Ohio's
governors in this area is
hindered by the lack of accessible
information regarding the num-
ber of times that various chief
executives either actually ousted
officials from office or forced them to
resign by instituting removal
proceedings. Table II summarizes the
known occasions when gov-
32. Swart, "Ohio, 1802-1928,"
Chaps. 3-5. For the formation of the Ohio bureau,
see Mercer, Ohio, V, 318; Ohio,
Department of Public Welfare, 3rd Annual Report of.
. . for the Year Ending June 30, 1924
(Columbus, 1924), 55-58; and Swart,
"Ohio,
1802-1928," 111-24.
State Level Law Enforcement 155
ernors acted, but even these cases
cannot reveal situations in which
threats of gubernatorial action sufficed
to persuade a local official to
change his ways or, perhaps, to leave
office by a decision not to run
for reelection.33
Evidence indicates that governors did
not begin to take strong
action until James M. Cox issued his
proclamation regarding the
policing of the 1919 steel strike. Prior
to Cox, Judson Harmon
(Democrat, 1909-1913) had forced the
resignations of a mayor and
sheriff involved in a dramatic lynching
and removed a few mayors
for failing to enforce adequately a
local option law. But he acted
because he believed that he had no alternative;
not a political in-
novator, Harmon made no attempt to offer
positive gubernatorial
guidance to the state's sheriffs or
mayors.34 Even in the 1919 strike,
Cox removed only one mayor from office
and resisted demands that
he replace the mayor of Cleveland when
that official openly sided
with the strikers.35
Harry Davis's two years as governor were
marked by a positive
policy regarding prohibition; Ohio's
Prohibition Department came
into existence under his sponsorship,
the first such state-level de-
partment in the country.36 In
the twenty-one months that this de-
partment served Davis, it was
instrumental in gaining a number of
resignations and indictments of local
officials who failed to enforce
prohibition adequately. But the fact
that Davis formally removed
only one individual (a mayor) during his
term in office indicates a
reluctance to become directly involved
in supervising police author-
ities.
Vic
Donahey most closely approached systematic state supervi-
sion of local officials. During 1923 and
1924 he removed four men
from office. These dismissals
represented only the tip of the iceberg,
for the chief executive threatened to
dismiss many others and thus
achieved a greater degree of obedience
to the laws, primarily to the
33. Harvey Walker, personal interview
with the author, Columbus, June 25, 1969,
noted that over the years some men
reformed or left office under such pressure, cited
below as Harvey Walker Interview.
Foster, "Donahey," 78, says the same about the
1923-29 era.
34. See Burke, "Harmon," passim,
esp. 216-24, for this observation on the gov-
ernor's conservative outlook as well as
an account of the actions he took in 1908-1910.
35. See the references in note 29 above.
Ironically, Cleveland mayor Harry L.
Davis became the next governor.
36. The prohibition department was
founded by 109 OL 4 (1921). References to its
being the first state-level agency of
its type in the country are contained in Mercer,
Ohio, IV, 94; and Mercer, Ohio, IV, 124-25. The report
on its first two years (actually
twenty-one months) of existence under
Davis is in Mercer, Ohio, IV, 204-06.
156 OHIO HISTORY
prohibition statutes.37 At
the same time, Donahey combined this
direct control with his proclamations
regarding law enforcement
issues and the imposition of regular
oversight of mayors and sher-
iffs, thus producing the most
comprehensive supervision Ohio was
to witness for many years.
However, after 1924 Donahey's interest
in overseeing local offi-
cials abruptly ceased. He did not remove
anyone from office after
that date; indeed, as early as 1924 he
had refused to dismiss the
mayor of Niles when that official failed
to make any effort to stop a
major riot. Nor did Donahey continue his
proclamations on policing.
He issued his last notable edict,
"Destruction of Highways," on
February 18, 1925.38 Supervisory
activity had reached its peak so far
as the governor's office was concerned.
After a final prohibition-
based ouster of a mayor by Governor
Myers Y. Cooper (Republican,
1929-31) in 1929, the removal powers
granted as part of the anti-
liquor statutes vanished in 1933. The
remaining removal authority
vested in the governor's office was not
used again until 1949.39
The explanation for this sudden shift
away from gubernatorial
supervision of subordinate police
officers is complex. Clearly the
unpopularity of prohibition cast a pall
over all methods used in the
attempt to enforce it; elective
officials were reluctant to pay the
political price of effective
enforcement.40 In addition, Donahey's re-
treat from supervision is probably
related to the political embar-
rassment he suffered after ousting Mayor
Herbert H. Vogt of Mas-
sillon in 1923.41 Donahey filed charges
in this case just a few days
after becoming governor, citing as his
justification both the 1902
and 1921 statutes and charging the mayor
with failing to enforce
37. In addition to the references to
Donahey in notes 21-22 and 30-31 above, see
Foster, "Donahey," passim.
38. The governor's refusal to oust the
Niles mayor is mentioned in John A. Cooley,
"Use of the National Guard in 1924
Ku Klux Klan-Knights of the Flaming Circle
Riot in Niles, Ohio" (unpublished
seminar paper, The Ohio State University, 1970),
15. Donahey's statement on highway
preservation appears in Mercer, Ohio, VI, 120-
21; the general decline in the number of
proclamations issued during the last years of
his governorship may be seen in Foster,
"Donahey," Chap. VI.
39. 115-Pt. 2 OL 118 repealed
this portion of the governor's removal powers as part
of the general abolition of prohibition.
Harvey Walker Interview mentioned Cooper's
1929 removal, and also that the next
governor to take such action was Frank J.
Lausche (Democrat, 1945-47, 1949-57),
who did so during his second term in office.
40. Sinclair, Prohibition, Chap.
10, demonstrates that such unpopularity was a
national problem faced by enforcement
officials. In Ohio, the Journal, Jan. 19, 1921,
4, had predicted this problem at an
early date; the 1925 PC Report, 4-5, indicated that
Ohio's prohibition officials also
recognized its existence.
41. For the account below, see the
references to Donahey in notes 21 and 25 above.
State Level Law Enforcement 157
regular criminal laws as well as
permitting open violations of pro-
hibition. Donahey then dismissed Mayor
Vogt. The mayor reacted
by attempting to have the Ohio Supreme
Court declare these laws
unconstitutional. Though the justices
voted six to one to uphold the
statutes, they openly questioned both
the law's lack of procedural
safeguards and the governor's judgment.
Above all, they challenged
Donahey's heavy reliance upon complaints
which were based on one
of the mayor's earlier terms in office.
Newspapers generally endorsed
the judges' decision; they reluctantly
agreed that Donahey had
acted within his authority but
questioned both his wisdom and that
of the statutes.42
Donahey apparently decided to avoid
future dismissal con-
troversies by limiting his use of the
removal powers. His example
was followed by later governors; as has
been noted, Donahey's im-
mediate successors made little use of
this authority. John W. Brick-
er, a young Ohio assistant attorney
general during this era and
later a Republican governor between 1939
and 1945, stated years
later that he witnessed Donahey's
problems and decided to forego
any use of this authority if he ever
became chief executive of the
state. He held to that decision while in
the governor's chair.43
Conclusion
State supervision of local police
officials, first established on a
systematic basis in 1902, became
important during a period of
approximately four years between 1921
and 1924. During that brief
era it approached the level of activity
recommended by Fuld and
Hatton. However, the two governors who
conducted this supervisory
activity-Davis and Donahey-largely
confined their efforts to an
attempt to enforce statewide
prohibition. Evidence indicates that
they persuaded local officials to
enforce the anti-liquor statutes, or
at least to pretend to do so, and in the
process obtained formal public
acceptance of prohibition. But the very
success of their work ulti-
mately weakened the position of the
state goverment within the law
enforcement realm. Ohio's leaders,
fearful of public reaction to such
positive actions in support of an
unpopular cause and operating in
an area of government traditionally left
in county and municipal
hands, avoided direct supervision of
local policing after 1924.
42. See, for example, Journal, Mar.
29, 1923, 1, 4; and The Columbus Citizen, Mar.
29, 1923, 2.
43. John W. Bricker, personal interview
with the author, Columbus, August 5,
1969.
STANLEY L. SWART
Early Efforts at State-Level Law
Enforcement: The Failure of
Ohio's Supervision of Local
Police Authorities, 1902-1925
At the time of its founding in 1803,
Ohio placed responsibility for
enforcing its criminal statutes and
maintaining public order in the
hands of traditional local officials,
and did little to change this prac-
tice for ninety-nine years.1 County
sheriffs, township constables,
city and village mayors and marshals,
and city watches carried the
burden until 1859. The modern concept
of"police" authorities estab-
lished explicitly for these purposes
first appeared in Cincinnati dur-
ing that year; exercising its power, the
state abolished the offices of
city marshal and city watch in favor of
this new alternative.
Throughout the remainder of the
nineteenth century the central
government gradually imposed the police
idea upon municipal gov-
ernments, and by 1902 police
departments-marked by the centra-
lization of power in the hands of one
agency, a primary focus upon
combatting crime and public disorder,
preventative policing, and
the permanence of staff as opposed to a
periodic turnover of person-
nel-existed in all cities.2
Stanley L. Swart is Associate Professor
of Criminal Justice at the University of
North Florida.
1. For the first century of Ohio
policing, see Stanley L. Swart, "The Development
of State-Level Police Activity in Ohio,
1802-1928" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Northwestern University, 1974), Chaps.
1-2, cited below as Swart, "Ohio, 1802-
1928"; and Samuel Walker, A
Critical History of Police Reform, The Emergence of
Professionalism (Lexington, Mass., 1977), 40-43, cited below as Samuel
Walker,
Police Reform. For a general background of police reform in the United
States during
the nineteenth century, see Samuel
Walker, Police Reform, Part I; Barbara Raffel
Price, Police Professionalism,
Rhetoric and Action (Lexington, Mass., 1977), Chaps.
1-2, cited below as Price, Police
Professionalism: and James F. Richardson, Urban
Police in the United States (Port Washington, N.Y., 1974), Chaps. 1-4, cited below
as
Richardson, Urban Police.
2. Swart, "Ohio, 1802-1928,"
Chaps. 1-2.