Ohio History Journal

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT IN AN AVERAGE CITY:

CLEVELAND, 1876-1900

 

by JAMES B. WHIPPLE

Instructor in History, Western Reserve University

 

I

Studies of municipal politics have tended to emphasize the best

governed city, or the worst. In many ways this may be an accurate

reflection of the national scene, where contemporaries were pre-

occupied with the same extremes. Cleveland, between 1876 and 1900,

does not fall into either of these classifications. Nevertheless, taken

as an average city, it might be more representative of American

urban politics than Lincoln Steffens' cities of shame or the Cleveland

which he admired under the administration of Tom L. Johnson.

Cleveland serves as an excellent typical city because in almost

every sense it fits the urban-industrial pattern of the nineteenth cen-

tury and thus faced the problems which were coincident with our

municipal growth. The Forest City began the century as a frontier

community where its population of about six hundred made it one

of the smallest towns on the Western Reserve. Isolated from the

main path of commerce and westward migration along the Ohio

River, it faced a dim future. All this changed, however, after the

Erie Canal and the Ohio canals placed Cleveland astride the new,

more vital lines of American communication. Clevelanders pros-

pered and their city flourished first as a market place. By midcentury,

commerce began to yield to manufacturing, and Cleveland became

one of the centers of industrialization which gained momentum

during the Civil War and shattered much of our agrarian culture in

the last quarter of the century. By 1900 factories, warehouses, stores,

amusement resorts, and homes spread out fan-like from Public

Square. Its population of over 380,000 made it the largest city in

Ohio and the eighth largest in the United States. Thus Cleveland,

like so many other American towns, underwent a rapid transforma-

tion from a rural to an urban-industrial way of life. The change

demanded adjustments in practically every aspect of community

1

• 1
 

2        Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly

 

living--adjustments which frequently were complex and difficult

to make.

The political implications of these adjustments are summarized

by James Bryce's well known comment to the effect that municipal

government was America's most conspicuous failure. Certainly this

would apply to Cleveland as well as New York--the major differ-

ence being one of degree. Furthermore, Clevelanders themselves

recognized their political inadequacy; in 1896, a centennial year

devoted to boasting of achievements, a local historian lamented:

But if Cleveland has achieved this splendid material prosperity, its civic

accomplishments are far less impressive. . . . Although peopled and con-

trolled commercially and industrially by some of the most highly endorsed,

successful and commanding executive minds in the country, ward poli-

ticians-products of the caucus and the saloon-made its laws and farcically

executed them. In the midst of towering structures, where scores and

hundreds of millions of dollars were annually received and disbursed, a lot

of cheap politicians, scarcely able to more than make a living, in a rented

city hall, went through the motions of conducting and controlling a huge

city.... Its commercial and private magnificence was equalled only by its

municipal squalor.¹

Although the criticism was probably influenced by and directed

against the unpopular administration of the incumbent mayor,

Robert E. McKisson, it was far from an original discovery. Through-

out the quarter century others had been pointing to the same failure.

Indeed it was quite obvious to any superficial observer that civic

accomplishments were far less impressive than material prosperity.

The major significance of such comments lies, not in the admission

of political inefficiency, but in the inability to understand all the

complicated ramifications of the problem which explain why munic-

ipal government failed.

In the first place, the complex urban population made the city

subject to control by minorities who misused their power in the

interests of privileged groups-the saloonkeeper, the prostitute, the

gambler, the businessman, or the office-seeking politician. It is most

1 The Cleveland World, comp., "The World's" History of Cleveland (Cleveland

1896), 159-160.

• 2
 

Municipal Government in Cleveland            3

significant that respectable elements in the community were among

those who wanted special favors from the government--an infre-

quently recognized fact and one which made reform incalculably

more difficult. Secondly, this same respectable element never under-

stood the needs and problems of the new immigrants who were be-

coming members of the community in increasing numbers. Thirdly,

Clevelanders became reconciled only gradually to the idea that urban

government must assume additional responsibilities and provide

additional services--responsibilities and services which were foreign

to their rural heritage. Finally, the problem was complicated by the

inadequate machinery under which the Forest City attempted to

operate. Modifications of the municipal charter, which were neces-

sary to reconcile it to the changing community, came very slowly.

The Cleveland failure resulted from an oversimplified diagnosis

which neglected one or several of these factors. Well-meaning citi-

zens separated the political objectives of legitimate and illegitimate

activities, reluctant to assume that "good" businessmen might cor-

rupt or weaken municipal government. All politicians were bad and

immigrants were their tools. The vague term, businessman's govern-

ment, justified a multitude of failures to provide reasonable public

services. Thus for the most part, solutions never went further than

improving the charter and thinking rather vainly of replacing

"cheap politicians" with "good men." Obviously such thinking was

not indigenous to Cleveland alone. The city was average rather

than extreme in the effect these attitudes had on municipal politics.

Cleveland never had a corrupt government comparable to those

of New York, Philadelphia, or Cincinnati. Nor was it ruled by an

absolute political czar. Nevertheless, on a smaller scale most of the

same weaknesses and failures existed. If there was no boss of the

city there were a number of individuals who gained considerable

political power at least on the ward level; and occasionally someone

like McKisson was able to extend his control over much larger sec-

tions of the community. In theory party lines were sharply drawn

in municipal elections, but in practice they tended to be shattered.

City government belonged to the business interests, the most im-

portant being public utilities and other companies dependent on

• 3
 

4        Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly

 

municipal contracts. According to Tom L. Johnson, "the campaign

funds came largely from businessmen who believed in a 'business-

man's government,' and who couldn't or wouldn't see there was any-

thing radically wrong with the system." 2 Although Johnson's re-

forming zeal might have led him to exaggerate, his own connections

with street railways placed him in a position to know, and further-

more the economic activities of a number of important bosses justi-

fied his analysis. In the early eighties there was Silas Merchant, a

dredging contractor who was the dominant figure in Republican

affairs.³ Between 1885 and 1890 William H. Gabriel played an im-

portant role in local Republican politics. He was involved finan-

cially in the municipal night soil contract and in 1890 organized a

paving combination which aspired to city contracts.⁴ Often accused

of being Democratic boss, and unquestionably of considerable in-

fluence, was John Farley, whom Frederic Howe described as a "big

raw-boned, profane Irishman of substantial wealth, who made his

money as a contractor." 5 Undoubtedly the most conspicuous power

behind the city government was M. A. Hanna. Ultimately his

strength was based on influence over the state government; never-

theless he was an important factor in Cleveland, where there were

Hanna Democrats as well as Hanna Republicans. Never an en-

throned boss in the strict sense of the word, his generous campaign

contributions and his backing among the more important business

leaders, made his word feared and respected. Although he had no

political machine, he controlled candidates and helped dictate local

party politics.⁶ Like the others, Hanna had economic interests to

protect--his were valuable street railway franchises.

There were other bosses who were less well known for their busi-

ness activities. Charles P. Salem, Democratic leader, was a notable

example. Never the top man, his stronghold was the ninth ward,

 

2 Tom L. Johnson, My Story, edited by Elizabeth J. Hauser (London, 1913), 114-

115.

3 Cleveland Press, January 3, 1885.

4 Ibid., April 12, 1890.

5 Frederic C. Howe, The Confessions of a Reformer (New York, 1925), 85.

6 The Workman, September-October, 1885, passim; Herbert Croly, Marcus Alonzo

Hanna, His Life and Work (New York, 1912), 114, 127, 147; Johnson, My Story,

114-115.

• 4
 

Municipal Government in Cleveland                5

where he worked with Farley and later with Tom Johnson. He held

a few minor offices, and his record as a public servant was good.

Nevertheless, he never quite overcame the stigma of being a "boss"

and was always unpopular with conventional reformers. Less savory

bosses were men like William Crawford, who dominated the fourth

councilmanic district, and whose organization arbitrarily selected

candidates and dictated to the voters. According to Howe he worked

closely with the biggest business interests in the city.⁷ One of the

most effective bosses who came with the newer immigrants was

"Czar" Harry Bernstein, a Polish immigrant himself, who con-

trolled a neighborhood of Russian Jews, Italians, and Negroes,

where he could deliver the number of votes promised almost to a

man.⁸

In general, the methods of control followed the usual pattern.

Politicians provided aid and advice for the great mass of less for-

tunate Cleveland citizens, and in return they received political

allegiance. A machine dominated the selection of candidates and

later foisted them on a poorly informed but grateful electorate. The

leaders were well known in their neighborhoods and often be-

friended their constituencies in many ways which seemed far afield

from politics. This was particularly so with immigrants, who were

watched over from the train to the grave. Met at the immigrant

trains, each new group of citizens-to-be was greeted and guided

through the early confusing days of house and job hunting. Later

there might be loans and participation in family celebrations or

funerals. The program obviously included hastening and aiding

naturalization to increase the vote from recipients of so many favors

from the boss.⁹

With the possible exception of the Irish, no particular immigrant

group was dominated by either party. On the other hand, prominent

compatriots did have some importance among fellow citizens of the

 

7 Howe,Confessions of a Reformer, 85.

8 Ibid., 93; "Goldenes Jubilaum," in Wachter und Anzeiger, August 9, 1902; Well-

ington G. Fordyce, "Nationality Groups in Cleveland Politics," Ohio State Archae-

ological and Historical Quarterly, XLVI (1937), 102-127.

9 Frederic C. Howe, "A City Finding Itself," World's Work, VI (October 1903),

3988-3999.

• 5
 

6       Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly

 

same national origin. Strictly speaking, these men were not party

bosses, but their opinions did carry a certain amount of weight in

elections. Jacob Mueller, as a successful German-American poli-

tician and newspaper publisher, was typical of this sort of influence,

and Hungarian-Americans like Conrad Mizer or Joseph and Louis

Black had similar popularity among their people. In another sense

a foreign name often helped as a vote getter. The roster of the

city council was generously sprinkled with names such as Reilly,

Schellentrager, and Ptak.

Other methods of control were less reputable, each party accusing

the other of using floaters, cemetery votes, or bribes.¹⁰ To some

extent these charges can be explained in terms of factional journal-

ism, identical complaints being part of every campaign. At the same

time, they were verified in part by fairly respectable Republican

politicians like Orlando J. Hodge, who maintained that both Wil-

liam G. Rose and George W. Gardner had been nominated by

carting men from one polling place to another.11

The candidates offered to the electorate varied in ability and back-

ground. The mayors were generally businessmen or lawyers who

had acquired respectable reputations in the community. They were

men like Rose, a real estate operator, or like Gardner, who had a

long record and an excellent reputation as a provision merchant.

Although at times the council included such able and high-minded

individuals as Dr. G. C. Ashman and Morris Black, for the most

part the membership verged on the disreputable. Particularly dur-

ing the early years of the era, saloonkeepers, brawlers, and nonenti-

ties were the representatives of the people of Cleveland. Drunken

and unintelligible orations with frequent maudlin interruptions were

ordinary occurrences which reflected the low morale of the chamber.12

The objectives of control were no different in Cleveland from

those elsewhere. In part it was purely politics as a business involv-

ing the municipal spoils system, which in 1883 amounted to one

 

10 Cleveland Leader, October 14, 1880, October 11, 1884, October 20, 1894; Cleve-

land Press, July 2, 1884; Cleveland Plain Dealer, April 3, 1885.

11 Orlando J. Hodge, Reminiscences (2 vols., Cleveland, 1902-10), II, 21.

12 Cleveland Press, May 18, 1880; Cleveland Leader, February 18, 1876, March 17,

1884, November 7, 1885.

• 6
 

Municipal Government in Cleveland              7

 

hundred and ten jobs with annual salaries ranging from $3,500 to

$480.13 In 1885 the city payroll amounted to more than $99,000

a month.14 Although many of the jobs were not subject to spoils

of office, political pull might aid aspirants for jobs in such non-

partisan offices as the police or fire departments.¹5 Another impor-

tant objective was to make it a businessman's government. There

was considerable talk of businesslike efficiency in municipal affairs

during most of the era, but it was more of a campaign slogan or a

comforting myth than a deep-seated concern. So long as nothing

too shocking occurred, the community was satisfied if more material

objectives were achieved. These included economy to keep taxes

low even at the expense of the essential needs; maintenance of law

and order, which meant protection of private property and the "right

to work"; and opportunities to secure public contracts or valuable

franchises, which demanded a minimum of responsibility to the city.

Lesser politicians also had their objectives, such as violation of

saloon laws or operation of illegal gambling dens and houses of

ill-fame. In short the general spirit was reflected in the often-

quoted letter from Mark Hanna to David K. Watson: "You have

been in politics long enough to know that no man in public office

owes the public anything." 16

It would be incorrect, however, to assume that the municipal

authorities paid no attention to the essential needs of the commun-

ity or that the government was totally incompetent and irrespon-

sible. To some extent the failure to provide satisfactory solutions

could be traced to the antiquated charter of 1852, which served as

Cleveland's constitution until 1892. Scarcely adequate for the Cleve-

land of 1876, it became increasingly less effective during the suc-

ceeding fifteen years. The major weakness lay in the impotence of

the executive. The mayor was a figurehead with little influence in

the council and only indirect control over administration. Each new

problem resulted in the creation of a new board, whose member-

 

13 Cleveland Leader, April 7, 1883.

14 City of Cleveland, Annual Report . . . 1885 (Cleveland, 1886), xxiii-xxiv.

15 Cleveland Leader, February 6, 1884.

16 Quoted in Philip D. Jordan, Ohio Comes of Age, 1873-1900 (History of the

State of Ohio, V, Columbus, 1943), 212.

• 7
 

8        Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly

 

ship was variously responsible to the mayor, to the people, or to the

council, and sometimes to all three. The result was inefficiency,

jurisdictional conflicts, and lack of coordination, "without intelligent

direction from any central source." 17 Many of the city officers re-

ceived no pay or inadequate remuneration, demanding an unusual

amount of public spirit or increasing the temptation to use the posi-

tion for personal gain, perhaps at public expense.¹⁸

 

II

Municipal government under the old charter was not marred by

major political scandals, but there was a steady stream of minor

irregularities involving misuse of political power for special inter-

ests, corruption, and carelessness or inefficiency. Evidence of misuse

was disclosed in connection with the employment of political in-

fluence to obtain paving or dredging contracts.¹⁹ Similar relation-

ships existed between merchants and municipal officeholders. On

occasion the practice involved such high officials as Mayor Gardner,

whose firm sold Cleveland over ten thousand dollars worth of pro-

visions in defiance of state laws prohibiting such transactions by an

official or firm with which he was associated. The vouchers had

been made out to false names; when accused, Gardner admitted the

charges were correct, but glibly explained that he had made arrange-

ments whereby he would have no connection with the business his

firm did with the city.²⁰ Although at the time of the disclosure the

ex-mayor was serving on the council, no attempt was made to in-

vestigate these illegal activities.

Although there were a few minor cases of peculation, the most

sensational was the Axworthy defalcation in 1888. Thomas Ax-

worthy, the city treasurer, was a highly respected citizen who had

been prominent in Cleveland's business, political, and social life. In

 

17 Elroy M. Avery, "Federal Plan of Municipal Government as Illustrated by the

City of Cleveland," Lehigh Quarterly, June 1892, 4.

18 F. D. Wilcox, "Municipal Government in Michigan and Ohio," in Columbia

University Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law, V (New York, 1896),

131-146.

19 Cleveland Leader, January 9, 1881, August 3, 1886.

20 Ibid., April 20-22, 1881.

• 8
 

Municipal Government in Cleveland                9

 

October 1888 he disappeared, leaving a shortage of over half a

million dollars. Most of it represented city funds which he had

loaned in his own name and which he could not produce on demand.

Apparently becoming panic-stricken, he withdrew additional funds

and departed for Canada. A few weeks later a letter to the mayor

explained what he had done, and naively closed with, "Good bye

and may God bless the City of Cleveland."²¹ Subsequent investiga-

tion did not probe too deeply, but it did disclose that all treasurers

had been using municipal funds as their own with the tacit under-

standing that it was all right, and that bookkeeping methods had

been careless and inaccurate to the point of juggling figures to make

the balance correct.²² Ultimately the Forest City recovered its money

from Axworthy or his bondsmen, and three years later Mayor

Gardner believed the defalcator should be permitted to return, hav-

ing been sufficiently punished by his exile.²³ The suggestion was

never carried out, but it was indicative of the rather lax standards

of public servants who would welcome home a fugitive from justice,

a robber of public funds which had been placed in his trust.

The operation of the financial department was only one example

of the possibility for inefficiency and flagrant abuse under the old

charter and under a system which tolerated self-interest at the ex-

pense of public service. Periodically newspapers complained of in-

numerable others. There were the filthy streets, improperly cleaned

both because of negligence and niggardly appropriations. Careless,

if not corrupt, officials accepted short-weighted deliveries of coal

from unscrupulous dealers.²⁴ The most persistently mismanaged

departments, however, were the infirmary and workhouse. Waste,

extravagance, lack of discipline, inaccurate records, abuses practiced

on patients at the infirmary and inmates at the workhouse, toleration

of unsanitary conditions--such charges reappeared in city reports

with almost monotonous regularity. Each new administration

21 Cleveland Leader, October 23-24, November 13, 1888.

22 Ibid., December 11, 1888, January 3, 1890.

23 Ibid., March 2, 1891.

24 Cleveland Leader, November 11, 1881, October 5, 1893; Cleveland Town Topics,

February 27, 1897.

• 9
 

10      Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly

 

usually discovered that its predecessor turned over these depart-

ments "in a very unsatisfactory condition."²⁵

The problem of favors and special privileges was always in evi-

dence. In 1896 Mayor McKisson gave the members of the chamber

of commerce a mild lecture on the subject, condemning the practice

of selfish interests in demanding this right or that privilege, based

on the prevailing philosophy that if they did not receive the bene-

fit, "somebody else will get the right or somebody else will spend

the money."²⁶ The favors included minor ones, such as the tendency

to supply better services to the wealthier neighborhoods. This sort

of favoritism covered a wide variety of municipal activities, from

more adequate school facilities to better street lighting, in spite of

the fact that the poor and more populous sections had greater

needs.²⁷

Another form of protection went to the criminal element--gamb-

ling, prostitution, and violations of the saloon laws were always

tolerated in Cleveland during this era. Law and order leagues and

church reformers were ceaseless in their crusades; most of the press

gave them nominal support, but nothing happened. In part the ex-

planation lies in the simple fact that many Clevelanders patronized

these illicit activities; but equally important, they were protected by

the police department and condoned by the city government as a

whole. Numerous unofficial investigations and one official one, the

Lewis investigation, all told the same sordid story. Houses of ill-

fame, houses of assignation, and gambling dens existed and were

known officially to the police. In the Lewis investigation, conducted

by the city council in 1880, policemen testified that certain places

were not molested because of a "tacit understanding" among the

officers. One patrolman explained he could uphold any ordinance

on his own responsibility except those involving prostitution, where

specific instructions from his superior were required. On one oc-

casion he had entered a house of ill-fame in the interests of a dis-

 

25 City of Cleveland, Annual Report . . . 1895 (Cleveland, 1896), xviii; Annual

Reports . . . 1876-1899 (Cleveland, 1877-1900), passim.

26 Cleveland Chamber of Commerce, Annual, 1896 (Cleveland, 1896), 144.

27 Cleveland Press, June 3, 1882.

• 10
 

Municipal Government in Cleveland              11

traught wife who was hunting her spouse. The operator was out-

raged and threatened to fix the offending officer who dared enter

his house of prostitution. A few days later the policeman was trans-

ferred to another precinct. Other members of the force verified his

story and related similar experiences involving gambling. In spite

of the evidence, the final report of the council committee buried the

question of protection, merely condemning A. H. Lewis, the police

prosecutor, for neglect of duty in keeping certain court records and

of bad language and temper in court.²⁸

Perhaps the most complacent form of favoritism was reserved for

public utilities, notably the street railways. Originally grants had

been given to a number of individuals, but gradually three groups

achieved dominance in Cleveland transportation. Headed by respect-

able businessmen--M. A. Hanna, Henry Everett, and Tom L. John-

son--nevertheless among the methods used in their fierce compe-

tition and in their later attempts for special privileges there was

much which militated against the best interests of the public. As

Johnson put it, "just as soon as a man becomes the owner of stock

in a public service corporation, he has an interest absolutely opposed

to the interest of the city."²⁹ The potential operator actually faced

two problems: the first was the control of franchises, a highly com-

petitive operation where personal interest and rivalries often were

directly opposed to public interest; and the second involved protec-

tion of the franchise where renewals or excessive supervision might

have imposed hampering obligations on the railway companies. In

both cases the solution involved control of the city council and to

some extent influence with the state legislature.

Councilmanic control was obtained by entering politics and back-

ing friendly candidates. During the early years of rivalry this meant

attempting to win a majority over competing operators. Councilmen

were dubbed Johnson men or Elias Simms men; or the newspapers

announced that Johnson had a majority.³⁰ As Johnson later admit-

 

28 Cleveland Leader, September 24, 30, October 1, 5, 6, November 30, 1880.

29 Johnson, My Story, 25-26.

30 Ibid., 23-24; Cleveland Leader, March 21, 1885. Elias Simms was an early oper-

ator who had been allied with Hanna until the latter forced him out of street railway

control.

• 11
 

12      Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly

 

ted, "it was a case of playing politics or getting out of business."³1

Often an extensive lobby and a gallery packed with employees

helped hold the city representatives in line. A Cleveland Leader

comment might apply to many sessions of the city council: "A dozen

of the over-familiar faces of the street railway men decorated the

lobby of the council last evening."³² Accusations of bribes were

mentioned frequently, but never proved. As in other cases, the

council displayed no interest in pursuing such investigations. At any

rate Johnson quoted Simms as complaining that "all councilmen

want is money. Just have to go around with my pocketbook in my

hand all the time."³³

In addition to giving aid in obtaining grants, a complaisant city

government permitted the operators to carry on their struggle for

supremacy over each other or tolerated numerous operating abuses,

regardless of the effect on Cleveland streetcar riders. At one time

the Hanna-Simms clique forced Johnson's customers to transfer and

to pay additional fares, a thing which was possible through their

control of a crucial half mile section between the West Side and

Public Square.³⁴  One rider, protesting in an open letter to the

Leader, pointed not only to the expense but to the delay, where in

the dead of winter it took him an hour and a half to go home, al-

though he lived only two miles from the square.³⁵ Lack of concern

for the public was evident in the continuous complaints received

from all sections of the city. Insufficient service, lack of safety de-

vices, no precautionary measures to protect other traffic, failure to

pay a share of road maintenance, excessive fares--these were some

of the most frequent criticisms leveled at the operators.³⁶ Utilities

almost always face a hostile public; nevertheless, even the chamber

of commerce, which was generally sympathetic to business interests,

at least tacitly admitted the justice of the complaints when their in-

 

31 Johnson, My Story, 21.

32 Cleveland Leader, February 20, 1883.

33 Johnson, My Story, 17.

34 Ibid., 21-22.

35 Cleveland Leader, January 11, 1881.

36 Ibid., September 20, 1878, March 30, December 4, 1880, December 13, 1885;

Cleveland Press, January 6, March 8, 1881.

• 12
 

Municipal Government in Cleveland               13

vestigating committee promised that the railway companies would

endeavor to remedy many of the existing evils.³⁷

III

Clevelanders had not accepted their inefficient government with

absolute apathy. Only a very small minority, however, advocated

any changes which did more than scratch the surface. One of the

most fascinating reformers in the Forest City during the last quarter

of the century was Dr. L. B. Tuckerman. Contrary to the accepted

belief that all left-wing leaders were immigrants, the doctor was

thoroughly American. Coming from a family which was Protestant

and had lived here since the seventeenth century, his ideas were in-

spired by America and Jefferson, not Europe. Tuckerman was no

radical but a pioneer progressive in the days when the spirit of the

robber baron was rampant and progressivism was not fashionable.

In no sense an exclusive American phenomenon, he was the Cleve-

land representative of a vigorous minority who began agitating pro-

gressive reform almost twenty years before it was in vogue. It was

a progressivism rooted in the humanitarian impulses of a kindly

physician from Ashtabula. Moving to Cleveland, he observed iniq-

uities which accompanied the rapid urbanization of so many Amer-

ican cities, and unlike so many of his compatriots, he was unable to

remain complacent in the face of the violations of human rights

which had been traditional in agrarian America. Dr. Tuckerman

was interested primarily in local affairs; as a participant in politics

he saw abuses of power which he could not accept in silence; as a

physician, and particularly as a public health officer, he was acutely

conscious of hardships and suffering which reflected an outrageous

lack of concern for the welfare of the underprivileged. Since he

represented a distinct minority, discretion might have been the bet-

ter part of valor, but Dr. Tuckerman possessed a different sort of

courage and fought against malignant sores which accompanied

urban industrialization--fought in spite of discouraging failures and

in spite of the abuse and ridicule heaped upon him and his entire

 

37 Cleveland Chamber of Commerce, Reports and Proceedings: 46th Annual Meet-

ing, April 17th, 1894 (Cleveland, 1894), 24.

• 13
 

14      Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly

 

family. Sincere, unassuming, without personal ambition, and an

effective orator, the doctor became the leader of a small coterie of

reformers. He was admirably fitted for the role for two other rea-

sons: a sense of humor helped him maintain his perspective, and a

disciplined mind influenced the often confused, inarticulate think-

ing of the men who formed the core of the early revolt against the

old order.

Dr. Tuckerman became the leader of a perennial third party

which differed from many of the other independent political move-

ments of the time in that the inspiration for its platform was almost

exclusively local. The Forest City had its share of labor parties and

prohibition parties, and Tuckerman often cooperated with labor

leaders, but essentially he was interested in correcting abuses in

municipal politics. The platform for 1885, which was typical of his

interests, advocated better hospital facilities, more adequate health

service, labor representation on the police board, public ownership

of utilities, and an improved school system.38 Although the little

party often drew large audiences, it collected few votes. Undoubt-

edly many enjoyed hearing the bold campaigners call a spade a

spade. In the campaign of 1889 a Tuckerman address ended in a

near riot when the doctor's caustic remarks aimed at the Democrats

resulted in a stoning. In the election, however, the reformers polled

only about one hundred and seventy votes, indicating how few were

induced to desert the major parties.

A second and perhaps more effective reform organization was Dr.

Tuckerman's Franklin Club. Organized in 1889, it was a free forum

without enrolled membership where anyone was permitted to partici-

pate in discussions ranging from municipal to national subjects. A

small gathering of progressive spirits met faithfully every Sunday

afternoon and the club became a Cleveland institution. The domi-

nant personality in the Franklin Club was Dr. Tuckerman, the

Leader commenting that the "club never attempts to do anything but

talk in the absence of the doctor. When the head center did arrive

the discussion ceased."³⁹ Since the doctor's major interest was mu-

38 The Workman, October 31, 1885.

39 Cleveland Leader, May 18, 1891.

• 14
 

Municipal Government in Cleveland             15

 

nicipal affairs, he frequently interrupted more general discussions

to lead the group back to the Cleveland scene. Flagrant abuses by

officeholders, necessity for more adequate health measures, greater

municipal control of public utilities--such ideas were generally sup-

ported by club petitions or delegations to the city council.⁴⁰ The im-

mediate success of the club is difficult to measure. The newspaper

reports in the conservative Leader reflected a spirit of amused toler-

ance for a collection of crackpots. Dr. Tuckerman, on the other

hand, maintained his following was responsible for some progressive

measures such as the reduction of gas rates in 1891.41 Undoubtedly

the major contribution of this pressure group was a long range one--

it helped prepare minds for subsequent acceptance of its reform pro-

gram. Perhaps of more immediate importance was the fact that the

little doctor attracted a group of able reformers, many of whom

played vital roles in the labor movement or as progressives in Cleve-

land at the turn of the century. He undoubtedly inspired them with

his own idealism, his unselfish humanitarianism, his patience and

persistence, his faith in people and democracy, and his loyalty to

reform which stayed within the limits of American traditions.

Although the left-wingers were unable to make headway, it did

not mean that more conservative Clevelanders accepted their ineffi-

cient government with apathy. Their criticism, however, was less

realistic; and it was unrealistic in the apparent inability to compre-

hend all the factors which made their government fail. They be-

lieved the weakness was due to the cumbersome, inadequate machin-

ery or dirty politics-or both. Boodlers, bummerism, and bossism

discouraged the better element from running for office, or even

voting. In his novel The Breadwinners, John Hay's description of

politics in Buffland reflected the typical reaction of the "better" ele-

ment. At the time of its anonymous publication Hay was living on

Cleveland's Euclid Avenue, and Buffland is clearly identifiable as

the Forest City. His hero, Captain Farnham, attempted to reform

politics by running for a seat in the city council, only to be defeated

by the neighborhood butcher, Jacob Metzger, who controlled the

40 Ibid., March 6, 17, 25, June 23, 1890.

41 Ibid., May 11, 1891.

• 15
 

16      Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly

 

saloon vote and Farnham's own tenants. Later he was appointed

to the library board and discovered he had been selected as a figure-

head who was always outvoted by the machine tools. Later in the

novel, Hay took time from his anti-union diatribes to provide a

description of Buffland's mayor, whom he made an uneducated,

boorish Irish-American.42

Apart from the patent class snobbery, Hay's comments reflected

a failure to penetrate beneath the superficial abuse and inefficiency,

and many citizens agreed. For them the answer lay in a new charter

which would encourage participation by the respectable element. In

1891, after many years of agitation, Cleveland received a new consti-

tution, incorrectly named the Federal Plan. Essentially simple, it

eliminated all the old boards, consolidating executive power in the

hands of the mayor, assisted by his appointed cabinet of six directors.

Furthermore, by giving the mayor and cabinet voteless seats in the

council, the charter provided for executive leadership in legislation.⁴³

The new plan was received with great enthusiasm. Elroy Avery

was convinced that there was "honor now [in serving] in the coun-

cil," and agreed with the Leader that it was due mainly to the "sub-

stitution of strict business methods for the often corrupt jobbery that

characterized the conduct of municipal affairs under the old board

system."⁴⁴ The Press celebrated the new municipal constitution with

a cartoon showing triumphant gladiators returning with the docu-

ment while politicians in chains bring up the rear. Atrocious verse

added the final touch to this expression of Cleveland sentiment:

The heelers, boodlers, and ward bummers they;

No wonder that they wish to break away;

Their occupations gone, their pockets drained,

'Tis natural that they must needs be chained,

Else for the plan that knocked them gaily west

They would not be marching with the rest.⁴5

For the first administration the respectable and popular William

42 John Hay, The Breadwinners (New York and London, 1916), 55-58, 186, 195.

43 Wilcox, "Municipal Government in Michigan and Ohio," 146-151.

44 Avery, "Federal Plan of Municipal Government," 15.

45 Cleveland Press, February 26, 1891.

• 16
 

Municipal Government in Cleveland             17

 

G. Rose was recalled from retirement to serve as mayor, and a num-

ber of sincere, public-spirited men were elected to the council. All

indications pointed toward more efficient municipal government

operating in the interests of the people. Streets were actually

cleaned, and road builders were forced to comply with the terms of

contracts.⁴⁶ The vigorous law director, Edward S. Meyer, brought

the Cleveland Gas Light and Coke Company to terms which were

more favorable to the public. Rates were lowered and the city was

guaranteed a share of the gross receipts.⁴⁷ Such success, however,

turned out to be most transitory. Four years later Cleveland was sub-

jected to the most thoroughgoing kind of bossism and irregular ma-

chine politics of the entire quarter-century--a striking indication of

the extremely naive analysis by sincere Clevelanders who never under-

stood the relationship between bosses-and-boodle and the material-

istic industrial urbanization of post-Civil War America. These re-

formers failed because their outlook rarely extended beyond the

New England immigrants to the city. They ignored the interests of

great masses of Clevelanders, not merely in political objectives, but

in the daily problems which preoccupied the machine bosses. They

asked ward heelers to withdraw but made no effort to satisfy the

human wants of the immigrant, such as advice, aid, encouragement,

or friendship, all of which were important functions of the machine.

They looked with horror at the idea of giving these common folk

any political favors and they expected the larger privilege-seekers

would retire. The naive image prevailed: "good men" would leg-

islate and administrate with a sort of public-spirited detachment.

There simply were not enough of their sort of good men who were

prepared to make the sacrifices demanded of them. They ignored

the role of the city as dispensator of privileges which were sought

and expected by both large fry and small. They persisted in ap-

proaching urban problems with a village mind. The result was that

bossism and the political machine were adapted to the new form of

government. Indeed, the new, more centralized constitution en-

hanced the opportunities for efficient bossism.

 

46 Cleveland Leader, July 15, August 9, 1891.

47 Ibid., August 18, 1891.

• 17
 

18      Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly

 

The individual who was most responsible for the new machine

politics was a young lawyer named Robert E. McKisson. Born in

Pennsylvania in 1863, he was a relative newcomer who had become

permanently associated with the Forest City around 1887. Entering

politics, his rise to power was meteoric; by 1894 he had won a seat

on the city council, and the following year he was elected mayor.

Reelected in 1897, he served four years and in that time he con-

structed a machine which employed almost all the schemes in a

politician's bag of tricks, and which committed most of the usual

abuses, again on a relatively small scale. McKisson was a man with

political ambitions, not a professional grafter, and this was for-

tunate for Cleveland because it meant the irregularities were re-

stricted to the necessary accompaniments of the machine rather than

being the primary objective of officeholding.

As usual the organization began at the ward level. It was a period

when Czar Bernstein and his brilliant young lieutenant, Maurice

Maschke, were busy controlling votes, and when "free beer, free

lunch, and a free concert were essential to every well-conducted cam-

paign."⁴⁸ If necessary, the regular vote was increased by illegal

voters: absentees, dead men, and criminals with fictitious addresses

which placed them in saloons, vacant lots, or empty houses.⁴⁹ Party

funds were collected ruthlessly, with assessments of five to seven per-

cent of the officeholder's salary.⁵⁰ Money was extorted from appli-

cants for jobs on the public payroll.⁵¹ A typical report involved an

ex-policeman who testified that McKisson considered his restoration

to the force worth five hundred dollars; an offer of two hundred was

refused.⁵² The McKissonites also made free use of the spoils system.

There were numerous exposures of patronage and disregard for the

principles of civil service in the machine's attempt to fill offices with

its following.⁵³

 

48 Malcolm B. Vilas, "The Citizens' League of Cleveland," National Municipal

Review, XIX (1930), 684.

49 Municipal Association of Cleveland, Third Annual Report, 1899, 112.

50 Cleveland Press, February 20, 1899; Cleveland Leader, December 31, 1898;

Cleveland Plain Dealer, February 17, 1899.

51 Cleveland Plain Dealer, February 17, 1899.

52 Cleveland Leader, May 31, June 15, 1898.

53 Municipal Association of Cleveland, Third Annual Report, 1899, 4.

• 18
 

Municipal Government in Cleveland                19

 

Other irregularities, which helped keep the machine well oiled,

had an adverse effect on the operation of the city government. Legal

violations by the saloonists were ignored. Evil resorts were wide

open, brazenly flaunting the law and the righteous protests of well-

meaning church leaders.⁵⁴ When policemen were asked why they

turned their backs on these illegal activities, they explained "they

did not want to chase butterflies in the surburban precincts."⁵⁵ The

Citizen complained that under the shadows of Dr. Hiram Haydn's

church on Public Square there were "bawdy houses, gambling hells,

opium joints, and rum holes running in full blast, night and day ...

in defiance of the law. No policeman in the Tenderloin would think

of making himself ridiculous by denying it."⁵⁶ Contractors and pro-

vision houses, selling goods and services to the city, took advantage

of political pull and lax, extravagant methods of operation to obtain

business on favorable terms--and at public expense. Investigations

by the Municipal Association, often verified by council investiga-

tions, disclosed overpayments on garbage disposal and sewer con-

tracts, and payments for supplies which were never received. It

further charged that favoritism in letting contracts had cost the city

thousands of dollars--and mismanagement, juggling of figures, and

incomplete records of financial transactions made it impossible to

render an accurate statement covering expenditures of street clean-

ing or paving funds.57

McKisson's power was broken in 1899 due to a number of dis-

parate factors which coalesced long enough to throw the rascals out

of office. The flagrant disregard for principles of good government

shocked a growing number of Clevelanders. Some may have been

especially conscious of the abuses because they followed so rapidly

on the heels of the enthusiastic reception of the Federal Plan. For

 

54 Cleveland Plain Dealer, May 24, 1896; Cleveland Town Topics, June 8, 1895, 5;

Cleveland Press, February 20, 1899; Municipal Association of Cleveland, Third Annual

Report, 1899, 9-10.

55 Cleveland Plain Dealer, May 24, 1896.

56 Cleveland Citizen, March 28, 1896.

57 Municipal Association of Cleveland, Third Annual Report, 1899, 4-5, 10-11;

Cleveland Plain Dealer, February 16, May 6, August 23, December 9, 189; Cleveland

Leader, May 18, December 8, 1898; City of Cleveland, Annual Report . . . 1899,

xiv, 421.

• 19
 

20      Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly

 

many, however, it was a reflection of a growing national resentment

against the activities of selfish interests, many of which appeared to

be centered in municipal mismanagement. For perpetual reformers

like the city ministers or the left-wingers, McKisson was the target

for a vigorous onslaught almost from the beginning. Ministers like

L. A. Banks or William Knight fought the mayor's tolerance toward

saloons and evil resorts. The Franklin Club attacked corruption and

mismanagement, and the Citizen--representing Cleveland labor--

joined both clerical and lay opposition.

Their persistence was at times an annoyance to McKisson, who

responded with blustering and rather undignified replies. Undoubt-

edly these groups added to the clamor of the opposition, but they

were not very successful in effecting reform or overthrowing the

regime. Perhaps more influential was the Municipal Association of

Cleveland, formed in 1895 under the leadership of Harry Garfield

and other idealists, such as Frederic C. Howe. Its voice carried

greater weight for two reasons: first, its membership was drawn

from eminently respectable Clevelanders; and second, it was part of

a national movement. Other cities were building similar associa-

tions to fight for municipal reform, and the first annual conference

of a National Municipal League for Good City Government met in

Cleveland during the same year.⁵⁸ The organizers of the local group

"felt it was time for a permanent organization which should stim-

ulate attention to public affairs on the part of private citizens."⁵⁹ Non-

partisan, it investigated candidates, fought for such reforms as War-

ing's White Wings or the elimination of the smoke nuisance. Mu-

nicipal government was observed, and abuses of political power

were investigated and exposed. Mayor McKisson was not the in-

spiration for the Municipal Association--at least not the only one--

but it was inevitable that he became the symbol of municipal mis-

management and corruption for this group as well as for other re-

formers.

A second factor which played a role in the McKisson downfall

was the street railway problem. By the nineties further consolida-

 

58 Cleveland Chamber of Commerce, Annual, 1896, 95-96.

59 Municipal Association of Cleveland, First Annual Report, 1897, 4.

• 20
 

Municipal Government in Cleveland                  21

tions had narrowed control, and two companies dominated Cleve-

land's public transportation--one headed by M. A. Hanna and the

other, by Henry Everett. These concerns continued their sometimes

high-handed activities, public interests to the contrary notwithstand-

ing. They opposed necessary extensions by outside organizations

and at the same time refused to build themselves.⁶⁰ In addition

there was the steady stream of petty annoyances, such as poor serv-

ice, ordering motormen to speed in defiance of the law, cheating on

transfer privileges, failure to perform their share of road maint-

enance, and excessive fares.⁶¹ If railway control over the city council

was less complete than it had been in the earlier decades, under the

new government it remained sufficient to frustrate any effective pub-

lic regulation.

As public resentment mounted, the situation approached a crisis

over the question of franchise renewals which were required in 1904.

The important issues were three: first, there was the debate over

fares; second, there was the demand that the railways pay the city

a share of their income in return for the franchise privilege; and

third, there was the question of maintaining sufficient public control

over railway activities. Reluctant to accept any sort of control, the

operators were particularly alarmed at the suggestion of lower fares

or payment to the city; they insisted they could not afford it. Oppon-

ents, however, pointed to the unsound capital structure of the two

companies. Capitalized at twenty-six million dollars, according to

W. R. Hopkins, the bona fide investment was about twelve millions

and the replacement cost, about seven millions; thus they were pay-

ing interest or dividends upon fourteen millions in excess of their

actual investment.⁶² The strategy of the operators was to rush the

renewals through the council, extending grants for fifty years at the

most favorable terms possible. Hanna's influence with the legis-

 

60 Cleveland Plain Dealer, August 23, 29, 1893; Cleveland Leader, August 19, 1893;

Cleveland Citizen, August 12, 1893.

61 Cleveland Plain Dealer, August 25, 29, 1895; Cleveland Leader, August 21, 23,

1893, June 7, 1897; Cleveland Press, April 18-20, 1899.

62 William R. Hopkins, "The Street Railway Problem in Cleveland, a Statement of

Existing Conditions, and a Discussion of the Policy Which the City Should Pursue

with Regard to Its Street Railways," American Economic Association, Economic Studies,

I, New York, 1896, 311.

• 21
 

22      Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly

 

lature--along with other state street railway men--enabled the op-

erators to obtain authority for the long franchise, but they faced

more determined opposition at home.⁶³

McKisson's position on the issue was somewhat equivocal. He

gave Big Consolidated, one of the companies, a number of valuable

privileges without demanding anything for the city, and Henry

Everett supported McKisson publicly and "in friendly arguments at

the Union Club."⁶⁴   On the other hand, in public addresses the

mayor condemned the railway operators, and in office he cooperated

with groups who were frustrating the hasty renewal of the charters.

Town Topics, always loyal to privilege, accused the mayor of per-

sonal enmity to Hanna, but it was more likely that he was merely

susceptible to public opinion.⁶⁵ Other conservatives were less

anxious to support the street railways than the editor of the Forest

City's society weekly. The chamber of commerce refused to con-

demn them, but it did scold the operators for their arbitrary reject-

tion of all conciliatory measures, and Malcolm S. Greenough, pres-

ident of the chamber, pointed to the harmonious relationship be-

tween his gas company and the city.⁶⁶ The Municipal Association

took a definite stand in behalf of the public, opposing renewal be-

fore 1904 and demanding a thorough investigation in defense of

city interests.⁶⁷ Thus, although not exclusively associated with

Mayor McKisson, the railway issue was an important aspect of the

reform program. In 1899, when the Municipal Association agreed

to support John Farley, it extracted a promise from him that he

would oppose the renewal of street railway grants.⁶⁸

A third factor in the defeat of McKisson was his rivalry with

Hanna in the state political arena. In an exciting primary in 1899

the mayor's machine withstood Republican attempts to unseat him

as the party candidate, but in the election a large number of voters

deserted and helped elect a Democratic mayor. Once again the re-

63 Ibid., 313.

64 Cleveland Plain Dealer, April 1, 1899; Cleveland Press, March 29, 1899.

65 Cleveland Town Topics, September 11, 1897, 3.

66 Cleveland Chamber of Commerce, Fiftieth Year, 1898 (Cleveland, 1898), 61-63.

67 Municipal Association of Cleveland, Third Annual Report, 1899, 6-9.

68 Howe, Confessions of a Reformer, 85.

• 22
 

Municipal Government in Cleveland            23

 

formers claimed a great victory. In part some of the credit was

justified, but in the final analysis McKisson appears to have lost be-

cause he made one serious blunder--he challenged the power of

M. A. Hanna. Perhaps the gamble was a reasonable one. Hanna's

activities had alienated a number of Republican politicians, not only

in Cleveland, but throughout the state, including such influential

men as Joseph B. Foraker and Governor Asa S. Bushnell. McKisson,

faced with the alternatives of fighting Hanna or cooperating with

him, elected to join the Foraker-Bushnell faction. Already possess-

ing his own machine, he was further strengthened in his position by

the alliance, which gave him control of state patronage in Cuyahoga

County.⁶⁹ Thus armed, the faction attempted to challenge Hanna's

senatorial ambitions. The struggle to control the state convention

resulted in a victory for Hanna, and the campaign cost McKisson

more than a seat in the United States Senate. It alienated influential

Republicans in the city, enough of them to cost him the mayoralty

election in 1899. Without a machine Hanna could not dictate the

nomination, but his influence carried more weight in the struggle

with Farley.

Obviously it is impossible to state with absolute finality what made

Cleveland Republicans vote for John Farley. Unquestionably some

of them were convinced by the reformers, but in 1897, although al-

ready well organized, these anti-McKissonites were unable to con-

vince enough Republicans to desert the party. Thus the final balance

appears to have rested with Hanna, who found this young Cleveland

politician challenging his political power and perhaps threatening

his street railway interests. Hanna's strength did not rest solely on

personal appeal. Although without a machine in Cleveland, there

was a Hanna wing which included ward politicians like William

Wenfeld, an immigrant boss who controlled some of the Polish-

American vote.⁷⁰ This meant countless immigrants went to the polls

to vote the way they were told by Wenfeld and Hanna--against

McKisson. Finally, the Democrats themselves gave greater credit to

factionalism among the Republicans than to aid from the Municipal

69 Cleveland Plain Dealer, November 7, 1896.

70 Fordyce, "Nationality Groups in Cleveland Politics," 14.

• 23
 

24      Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly

 

Association; there still were Hanna Democrats as well as Hanna

Republicans. One of Farley's aides told Howe that they were "glad

... to have the support of the Municipal Association, but you know

that didn't elect us. We should have been beaten but for Mark

Hanna's contribution of twenty thousand dollars to the campaign."⁷1

At the turn of the century Cleveland still had a long way to go

if it was to solve the basic problems which were enervating its

municipal government. The campaign for a new charter and good

men had culminated in McKissonism. When the voters threw the

Republican rascals out, they put Democratic ones in. "Honest John"

Farley kept his campaign promise to Hanna, but he blithely ignored

his understanding with the Municipal Association. Once in office

he did everything in his power to jam an ordinance through the

council which would have extended railway franchises.⁷² It would

be wrong to assume that the Cleveland government provided no

services or solved none of its urban problems, but it might have done

more, and the failures seem more striking than the successes. Per-

haps the citizens could feel some satisfaction from the absence of

colossal scandals and nationally notorious bosses. In the final anal-

ysis, however, in these unsuccessful experiments to provide adequate

municipal government and in the avoidance of extremes, Cleveland

was typical of many American cities, and perhaps more typical of

the effect of the rise of the city on urban politics than the more sen-

sational developments of a city like New York.

 

71 Vilas, "The Citizens' League of Cleveland," 85-86.

72 Ibid., 85.

• 24