Ohio History Journal

JOHN L. NETHERS

 

 

"Driest of Drys": Simeon D. Fess

 

 

 

The struggle was long and hard fought, but the final victory was short-lived for

the national prohibition movement in the United States. Temporary success came

with the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment in 1919, but the drys had to admit

defeat with adoption of the Twenty-first Amendment in 1933. One contemporary

historian has noted that the "most importunate of all the crusades of this generation

was that against Demon Rum."1

Many persons and organizations had been caught up in the persistent temper-

ance crusade which had its roots in the colonical period and included the Woman's

Christian Temperance Union and Frances Willard, temperance orators such as

Neal Dow and John Gough, the Anti-Saloon League, the Temperance Society of

the Methodist Episcopal Church--the most active of the religious denominations in

denouncing alcohol--and Carry Amelia Nation of Kansas whose hatchet symbolized

her personal vendetta against the saloon. Among the Ohioans who played a part

in this vexing economic, social, and political drama was Simeon D. Fess, educator,

politician, and statesman.

Fess was born in 1861 on a farm near West Newton, Allen County, Ohio, to

Henry and Barbara Herring Fess. The father, born in 1808, probably in Berne,

Switzerland, had emigrated during the early thirties with other members of his

family to the United States where the family settled in Westmoreland County,

Pennsylvania. During his early manhood, Henry moved to Cincinnati, where in

1847 he met and married Barbara Herring. The family remained in Cincinnati

until around 1859 when they moved northward to Allen County, probably because

Barbara had relatives there.²

Simeon's father died in 1866 leaving his widow and seven children destitute.

The family depended upon the older children for economic support, but Simeon,

being the sixth born and only four years old at the time of his father's death,

remained at home. When he was ten, he went to live with his older and only sister,

Elizabeth, who had recently married a farmer by the name of George Brown. At

sixteen, he began working for the local farmers from whom he received his lodging;

 

 

 

1. Samuel Eliot Morison and Henry Steele Commager, The Growth of the American Republic (New

York, 1962), II, 463.

2. The only biographies of Fess are John Lewis Nethers, "Simeon D. Fess: Educator and Politician"

(unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1964) and Lehr Fess, "The Most Unforget-

table Character I have ever Known," Northwest Ohio Quarterly, XXXIII (1961), 154-159.

Mr. Nethers is professor of history, Ashland College.

• 1
 

however, he intermittently made his home at the Browns until he married in 1890.3 Fess attended one-room rural schools and, after completing high school at Alger in 1879, passed the county examination for teachers. He found employment at "Flea Harbor" school a few miles south of West Newton.4 In 1881, a year after he began teaching, Fess entered Ohio Normal University (now Ohio Northern) at Ada, only a few miles from West Newton. He became regularly employed in 1887 at the university as a tutor and instructor, and continued as a student, graduating in 1889 with highest honors. Upon graduation he remained at his alma mater as an instructor of history, political science, and constitutional law. In 1899 Fess was 3. Information on Fess's ancestry, birth, early education, and youthful activities, as well as those of his wife, was obtained from many sources, especially from personal interviews, private papers, and cor- respondence with this author. Lehr Fess, Fess's eldest son, who died in 1965, provided valuable informa- tion through interviews and the loan of his father's personal papers and memorabilia. The bulk of the Simeon D. Fess papers are now deposited at the Ohio Historical Society. See also Nethers, "Fess," 1-9. 4. Rhoda Brown to Lehr Fess, April 23, 1959, Lehr Fess private papers; Lehr Fess, interview held at Toledo, October 18, 1963. See also Nethers, "Fess." 8-11, 14-15.

• 2
 

180                                                             OHIO HISTORY

 

selected as vice-president and secretary of the university, while continuing as a

lecturer.⁵

A year after graduation from college, he married Eva Caudas Thomas, daughter

of Dr. Benjamin Allen and Ella Thomas of Rushville, Fairfield County, Ohio. Dr.

Thomas was a general practitioner in that community for many years. Eva had

graduated from Ohio Northern in 1887 and immediately became a member of the

faculty, teaching Latin.⁶

Wishing to attain a doctorate of philosophy in history and law, Fess in 1902

left Ohio Northern and became a graduate student and lecturer at the University

of Chicago. Mainly because of financial problems (by then the couple had three

sons), he left Chicago in 1907 to assume the presidency of Antioch College, Yellow

Springs, Ohio, where he remained as president and professor of history until 1917,

when he resigned to devote full time to his political responsibilities in the United

States House of Representatives.⁷ Until his death in 1936 he continued to make

his home in Yellow Springs.

Even though his two attempts for public office were unsuccessful while he was

still at Ohio Northern, he was elected as a delegate to the Ohio Constitutional

Convention of 1912, where he served as vice-president. Caught up in the fever of

politics, later in 1912, he ran successfully for the United States House of Repre-

sentatives from the Sixth District, and was then reelected for four successive terms

from the Seventh District. In 1922 he defeated the Democratic incumbent, Atlee

Pomerence, for the United States Senate and was reelected in 1928 by a huge

majority.

Fess became known as an apostle of prohibition, isolationism, protectionism,

and Americanism. In the House he opposed the Underwood tariff, and for the

remainder of his life adhered to the policy of high protection. He was an opponent

of Wilsonian domestic policies, although he firmly supported United States en-

trance into World War I. Along with the Old Guard he denounced the League of

Nations but supported President Harding when he called for United States par-

ticipation in the World Court and when he favored world conventions aimed at

the preservation of peace through restriction of armaments. Being a strong believer

in "Americanism" and women's rights, he voted for stricter immigration laws, for

measures to prevent "un-American activities," and he actively favored the Woman's

Suffrage Amendment. There are no legislative acts designated by the congressman's

name, but Fess introduced and promoted legislation concerned with vocational

education, the Library of Congress and the National Archives. He was greatly inter-

ested in the creation of a National University and introduced a bill for such a pur-

pose in several congresses.

As a loyal conservative Republican, the Ohio legislator firmly supported the

Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover administrations, especially defending the Harding

administration against the charges of corruption and scandal. He was one of the

leaders in the movement to draft Coolidge for a third term. Other party activities

included the chairmanship of the Republican National Congressional Campaign

Committee in 1918, 1920, and 1922; in 1928 he served as temporary chairman

 

 

5. Lehr Fess, interview, October 18, 1963; Herald (Ada), March 24, 1893, May 26, October 20, 1899.

See also Nethers, "Fess," 27-29, 38, 40-42.

6. Herald, March 1890; Lehr Fess, interview, October 18, 1963; News (Yellow Springs), December

25, 1925. See also Nethers, "Fess," 28-31.

7. Lehr Fess, interview, October 18, 1963. See also Nethers, "Fess," 47-50, 56-60.

• 3
 

Simeon D. Fess                                                            181

 

and keynote speaker of the Republican National Convention; and he served as

chairman of the Republican National Committee for the period 1930-1932. Along

with other members of the Old Guard, Fess was unable to sense the developing

tides of social and economic change in the twenties and thirties, and the depression

of the 1930's ended the influence of his particular conservative group. With emer-

gence of the New Deal in 1933, he became reactionary and he bitterly denounced

the new philosophy in the Senate, in the press, and in his public speeches. Even

though he realized his reelection chances were slim, he ran for a third term in 1934

but was overwhelmingly defeated. He died two years later, greatly disturbed by

the "trend towards socialism" in America.

Little information is known concerning Fess's formal religious background prior

to the time he enrolled at Ohio Northern. His parents evidently were Christian,

and both probably were affiliated with one of the Pennsylvania Dutch religious

sects. As a boy Fess may have attended the local Methodist Church at West New-

ton, but records show that in "the winter of 1887 he united with the M. E. [Meth-

odist Episcopal] Church" in Ada. He remained active in this denomination the rest

of his life, as did his wife. He infrequently taught Sunday School, attended con-

ferences and conventions, and for a few years served as church superintendent.⁸

In a discussion in the Senate in 1933, on the repeal of prohibition, Fess helped

explain why he had developed a strong opposition to the liquor trade.

It was my misfortune to spend most of my minority years near a little town [Ada] where

there was no police regulation whatever. The institution in that town [that] gave us more

concern and was productive of more evils than all other things that we knew of in the

community was the saloon. I think if there could been something like police regulation

so that the unlimited run of evil that flowed out of such an institution could have been

controlled, I might not have had such intense opposition to it.⁹

Fess's candidacy for the Ohio Constitutional Convention of 1912 was looked

upon with favor by the Anti-Saloon League. Wayne B. Wheeler, then superintendent

and attorney for the league, upon hearing that Fess was a candidate for member-

ship in the convention, wrote that he had heard the people of Greene County were

enthusiastic about his candidacy and predicted that Fess would be a power therein.10

As a member of the convention, Fess spoke in behalf of prohibition, opposing the

license system in any and all forms; but his ideas did not prevail. Because the wets

and drys could not agree, the committee on liquor traffic returned two reports to

the convention: the majority report favored unrestricted license; the minority fa-

vored restricted license. Fess concurred with neither, but voted, however, with the

minority on the ground that it was the better of the two. The Greene County Tribune

of March 21, 1912, reported that Fess had been a power in Ohio for the temperance

cause and added that he had been called all over the state where he had "appealed

to the sound sense of men," and had "never failed to make votes for the temper-

ance cause."11

In connection with his election later in 1912 to the Sixty-third Congress, he

received letters of congratulations from several of the Ohio Anti-Saloon districts,

 

8. Lehr Fess, interview, October 18, 1963; Herald, July 16, 1897, September 30, 1898; Nethers, "Fess,"

36-38. The Herald from 1897-1901 contains several references to his involvement in local church affairs.

9. Congressional Record, 73rd cong., 1st sess., 533-535.

10. Wayne B. Wheeler to Fess, July 14, 1911, Box 4, Fess Papers.

11. Greene County Tribune, March 21, April 4, 1912.

• 4
 

182                                                                  OHIO HISTORY

 

including one from C. W. Eldredge, superintendent of the Cincinnati district:

Let me congratulate you on this splendid victory, and you know from your own observa-

tion that we did everything in our power to elect you. I sent out 4000 letters in your behalf

and answered many inquiries in person and over the phone. I also sent a special letter to

every co-operating preacher in the District.¹²

Although it was frequently suggested that Fess was a member of the Anti-Saloon

League, he never did join the organization or receive campaign contributions, but

he endorsed its cause and often spoke in its behalf. In denying personal member-

ship in the organization, in 1933 he stated:

While I have never been what would be called a propagandist on the subject [prohibition],

never having joined any parade or organization, notwithstanding the usual report that the

Senator from Ohio is identified with this or that sort of organization, not a word of it con-

taining any element of truth.

Upon being selected chairman of the Republican congressional nominating com-

mittee in 1918, Fess received letters of congratulations from several of the local

and state Anti-Saloon leagues, including those in Illinois and Maryland. The league

no doubt saw in Fess a champion and promoter of its interest. George W. Crabbe,

superintendent of the league in Maryland, added in his congratulations that he

hoped to see Fess elected Speaker of the House.¹³

In December 1917, Congress passed the Eighteenth Amendment which was later

ratified by the states. Fess voted for the proposed amendment in the House. In

defending the need for national prohibition, Fess reviewed the efforts that had

been tried to make control of the liquor traffic effective. He stated that after great

deliberation he had come finally to the conclusion that "there was no way effectively

to deal with liquor except by forbidding both its manufacture and sale.^"14 Congress

enacted the Volstead law of October 28, 1919, which defined intoxicating liquor as

any beverage containing over one-half of one percent alcohol and provided stringent

regulations for enforcement of the measure. Representative Andrew J. Volstead of

Minnesota, chairman of the judiciary committee, had been selected in January 1919

to draw up the act (H.R. 6810), but Lehr Fess believed that his father. Senator

Fess, who was then chairman of the committee on education, had been consulted

by Wayne B. Wheeler and Alben Barkley, the leading Democratic advocate of

prohibition in the House, with regard to the act. Lehr said that "the meeting with

Wheeler and Barkley was held in father's office in the House Office Building and

here they had studied a draft of the Volstead Act."15

The Federal Government made spasmodic efforts to enforce the Volstead act

from 1920 to 1930, and Fess readily approved of any measure proposed or passed

for stricter enforcement. Writing in reply to a Mr. R. E. Brennan of Washington,

 

12. C. W. Eldredge to Fess, November 7, 1912, Box 6, Fess Papers.

13. Congressional Record, 73rd cong., 1st sess., 533-535. There is much correspondence in the Fess

Papers relative to the Anti-Saloon League, especially letters of congratulations from members of the

league. See Crabbe to Fess, September 4, 1918, Box 13, Fess Papers.

14. Congressional Record, 65th cong., 2d sess., 469-470.

15. Lehr Fess, interview, October 18, 1963; letter, Lehr Fess to author, March 19, 1964. Lehr Fess

said that he definitely remembered the meeting. Research did not indicate that Fess played a part in

drafting the Volstead act, but since he was one of the leading Prohibitionists in the House he no doubt

was consulted. Elton R. Shaw, Prohibition: Going or Coming (The Eighteenth Amendment and the Volstead

Act) (Berwyn, Illinois, 1924), does not mention Fess.

• 5
 

Simeon D. Fess

 

D. C., in 1925 concerning the question of a modification of the act to permit 1

return to light wines and beers, Fess asserted that he was then and always h

been opposed to the traffic in intoxicating liquors. In his opinion "the amazi

tendency among otherwise good citizens to ignore the law is not a ground nor ev

a suggestion that the law should be either repealed or modified, but it is conclus?

on the needs of education in citizenship as well as patriotism."¹⁶

He informed Brennan furthermore that no single movement (prohibition) h

resulted "in such lessening of family privations and the multiplying of home co

forts by turning the pay check toward the home rather than the saloon." F,

stressed the fact that if the citizens clamoring for the return of liquor "would e

ploy the same time and energy to induce the violator of the law to obey the lay

the problem would be solved "by building up a public opinion that would not tol

ate disobedience of law and resistance of the government."17

Fess was also deeply concerned and involved in the appointment of prohibiti

enforcement officers, especially in Ohio. In 1921 Major Roy A. Haynes, promine

Methodist and Republican newspaper editor of Hillsboro, Ohio, was appoint

Federal Prohibition Commissioner by President Harding. The appointment h

been involved in controversy, especially between Attorney General Harry

Daugherty and the Republican organization in Ohio on the one side, and Fra

B. Willis and the Ohio Anti-Saloon League on the other. Later, in 1923, when t

efforts to enforce prohibition were ineffective, Commissioner Haynes came unc

criticism from many sources. Haynes had the support of Senators Willis and Fe

as well as Wayne B. Wheeler and Ernest H. Cherrington, who was secretary of t

executive committee of the Anti-Saloon League of America.18

During the controversy in 1923, Senator Fess wrote President Coolidge stati

that he was glad the President had backed Haynes against "the onslaughts of o

tain newspapers." Fess then added: "I want to express my deep appreciation

the public assurance you have given for the enforcement of law in which you inte

to sustain the efforts of the enforcement officers."¹⁹ Coolidge replied that he w

glad to get Fess's endorsement in behalf of Haynes and added, "it is always

pleasure to hear from you, and especially in this instance."20

In 1925 an administrative change by President Coolidge placed General Linc?

C. Andrews, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, in charge of prohibition enfore

ment. Haynes, however, remained as a political advisor to Andrews, even thou

he was virtually stripped of all authority. At this time Fess wrote to Andrews th

he was deeply concerned that no consideration of political or personal preferer

should unduly influence the appointment of prohibition officers in Ohio. In ref

ence to effectual enforcement, the Ohio Senator assured Andrews, "I shall lea

nothing undone to assist you in my position in this effort."²1

A year later, in 1926, another administrative change created a Bureau of Pi

hibition. Willis, Fess, and Wheeler brought pressure to bear upon President Co,

 

16. Fess to R. E. Brennan, August 15, 1925, Box 26, Fess Papers.

17. Ibid.

18. Ernest H. Cherrington to Coolidge, October 3, 1923, Folder 21 D, Coolidge Papers, Library

Congress.

19. Fess to Coolidge, September 13, 1923, ibid.

20. Coolidge to Fess, September 17, 1923, ibid.

21. Fess to Lincoln C. Andrews, June 18, 1925, Box 25, Fess Papers. For further details on this c?

troversy, see Gerald E. Ridinger, "The Political Career of Frank B. Willis" (unpublished Ph.D. disser?

tion, The Ohio State University, 1957), 225-230.

• 6
 

184                                                             OHIO HISTORY

 

idge, Andrew Mellon, and Andrews to have Haynes made head of this new agency.

The New York Times of March 24, 1927, reported that Haynes loomed as the

new "dry chief" in the reorganization act which was to become effective April 1,

and that the postion was won as a result of efforts of the Anti-Saloon League and

other dry organizations, including the Methodist Board of Temperance. According

to the Times, Secretary of Treasury Mellon and Andrews had favored John D.

Pennington, the prohibition administrator in Pittsburgh, but after a conference of

Mellon, Haynes, and Coolidge on March 23, the report was that Haynes "was in."

Haynes, however, did not become commissioner at that time, but on March 25,

1927, he was made acting commissioner while Mellon was in Europe. The New

York Times of May 11 referred to his being made acting commissioner and reported

that informed opinion indicated he would not be appointed permanent prohibition

commissioner in spite of pressure being exerted by Fess, Willis, and the league for

his appointment. Since there was much opposition to Haynes, he finally was relieved

of his position.

In the senatorial election of 1922, Fess ran against Atlee Pomerene, the incum-

bent Democrat and a wet. There can be little doubt that at this time a contributing

factor to Fess's victory was his support of prohibition and temperance which gained

him many votes among the women, religious groups, and educators. The Anti-

Saloon League of Ohio pledged its support to him, and Wayne B. Wheeler, by

then General Counsel and Legislative Superintendent of the Anti-Saloon League

of America, also endorsed his candidacy. Wheeler, in a letter to Fess before the

primary, stated that his own personal feeling was that Fess should be a candidate

and that he would be available for further conference since "we are tremendously

interested in having a Republican candidate in Ohio who stands right on the pro-

hibition issue and who can win against Senator Pomerene."²² Upon winning, Fess

received several thousand letters and telegrams of congratulations, many of which

referred to his stand on temperance. One such letter from Rev. S. L. Boyers, a

Methodist minister who had been an acquaintance when both were attending Ohio

Northern, stated:

After your nomination in the primary I happened to see a comment by one of the Balti-

more papers which was, "Simeon D. Fess is as dry as hell." I told my congregation that

that was one of the highest commendations a Methodist could receive.23

In 1925 Fess predicted that there would be no backward step on the saloon

question and that if there was to be any modification of the Volstead act, such

change should be toward making enforcement more rigid. He believed that "nothing

is more certain than the indictment by this country of the evil of the traffic in

intoxicating liquors and the mere suggestion of its return will certainly stir still

deeper the people's determination not to tolerate its existence."²⁴ Reaffirming his

views on the enforcement of the Volstead act and the Eighteenth Amendment in a

letter to Mr. E. R. Tweedie of Columbus, Senator Fess needed five pages for his

reply, which included the remark "The 18th Amendment is in the Constitution and

it will never come out. No man not a simpleton will deny the truth of that state-

ment." He pointed out that "the citizen who insists that a law he does not like

 

22. Miscellaneous letters, Boxes 14-18; Wheeler to Fess, March 31, 1922, J. A. White To Fess, April 1,

1922, Box 14, Fess Papers.

23. S. L. Boyers to Fess, November 9, 1922, Box 20, Fess Papers.

24. Fess to Brennan, August 15, 1925, Box 26, Fess Papers.

• 7
 

should be violated is, whether he means it or not, an anarchist and as such an enemy of the Government and should be so treated." In very strong language he informed his constituent that the greatest problem confronting America was dis- regard of the law: Difficult as is the alien problem it is not nearly so hard to deal with as the un-American American who is a citizen voter which renders the offence so much the greater. The im- mediate problem is not how to Americanize the alien, but rather how to treat the un- American who denounces a public official, sworn to uphold the Constitution and enforce the law of the land.25 On January 16, 1926, a sharp interchange took place in the Senate between Senator Edwin S. Broussard of Louisiana and Fess over the enforcement of the prohibition amendment. The debate illustrates the Ohioan's persistent call for coercive means to enforce the measure. Broussard: Does the Senator advocate penal servitude for a man who violates the prohi- bition law? 25. Fess to E. R. Tweedie, November 5, 1925, Box 27, Fess Papers.

• 8
 

Fess:      I will very quickly vote for imprisonment. Broussard: Would the Senator advocate capital punishment? Fess:      Oh, not necessarily. Broussard: Not necessarily? Fess:      I do in some cases. Broussard: In some cases the Senator would? Fess:      Yes. Broussard: . . . if we should follow the Senator from Ohio, we would hang people for violating the prohibition law. Fess:      Oh, that is no argument. Broussard: . . . if the Senator will advocate an amendment of this law, we will gladly vote for it; but he is advocating the infliction of more severe penalties for a viola- tion of the law. Fess:      That is the sort of an amendment I would be willing to vote for.26 On August 7, 1930, Fess was elected chairman of the Republican National Committee; he then had to deal with both the wets and drys in his party. In spite 26. Congressional Record, 69th cong., 1st sess., 2226-27.

• 9
 

of difficulties, he retained the position until after the national convention at Chicago in June 1932. During his chairmanship he received constant criticism from the wets and the more liberal wing of the party who disagreed with his views on the de- pression, especially after the election in November 1930 when the Democrats made substantial gains in Congress. Also, attacks from anti-prohibition quarters were directed at his warning, which was issued after the November election, against repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment. Representative Fred A. Britten, Republican from Illinois, said that "when Senator Fess says 'prohibition is here to stay,' he is talking for himself and not as Chairman," and added that even though Fess was an ardent Republican, he was also an intolerant dry. Britten then expressed the view that future Republican success would hinge largely upon party leadership which rightfully senses public opinion in the northern states. Former Senator James A. Wadsworth, Jr., Republican of New York, another severe critic, asserted, "the trouble with Senator Fess is he cannot see what is going on in this country. Tears dim his sight."27 By mid-November it was reported by the inner circles of the GOP that Fess 27. Toledo Morning Times, November 11, 1930; Cincinnati Enquirer, November 10, 11, 12, 15, 1930.

• 10
 

188                                                               OHIO HISTORY

 

would quit and would be replaced "within the next 15 days," because of his No-

vember 11 ultimatum that the Republican party must remain dry. The ultimatum

was judged by Republican liberals to have ended his usefulness as chairman. At

this time it was even threatened that if the Republican drys did not swing into

line for repeal or modification of prohibition a liberal nationalist party would be

organized for the 1932 presidential campaign.²⁸ At a meeting with the President

on November 15 the GOP chiefs, however, denied that Fess was "on the spot."²⁹

Because the attacks persisted, ex-President Coolidge, who was now a "columnist,"

came to the defense of Fess, remarking that the Senator had been drafted at a

difficult time. "He is an honest and conscientious man of high character with a

record for disinterested service. . . . As chairman and senator he is entitled to

respectful consideration. . . . There are some in this party who disagree with him.

That would be true of anyone. . . ." Coolidge further surmised that he was not

"likely to be driven out by attacks." Criticism of Fess continued as long as he was

chairman, and possible replacement was frequently rumored. No doubt one cause

for the rumors was the belief that Fess had been selected on a temporary basis.³⁰

As mentioned previously, from its passage in 1918 until its repeal in 1933 prohi-

bition came under continuous and increasing criticism, and by 1932 it was evident

in the national conventions and platforms of both parties that legislation relative

to national prohibition was to be changed. The Democratic platform recommended

unequivocally repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment and immediate legalization of

the manufacture and sale of beer. The drys attempted a substitute but were de-

feated. The Republicans, after compromising differences of opinion, recommended

in their platform that the people be given an opportunity to pass upon a proposed

amendment allowing the states to deal with the problem, reserving to the Federal

Government the power to protect the dry states and "safeguard our citizens every-

where against the return of the saloon and attendant abuses."³¹

This was in part what Fess had asserted in November 1930, when he said the

people would never stand for the return of the saloon, nor would they give up

the Eighteenth Amendment; yet he acknowledged that the increased penalties

imposed for liquor violators had failed. To him the bootlegger was without char-

acter and did not mind going to jail to be supported by the public. "We are filling

the jails, but I am afraid that is not the necessary deterrent," he observed.³²

Speaking in April 1932 to three delegates from the Woman's Organization for

National Prohibition Reform, Fess informed them that his position on prohibition

was unchanged. Admitting that prohibition was not a complete success, he added

that until somebody could show him something better than the Eighteenth Amend-

ment, he was going to stand by that measure. He emphasized he had just returned

from a three-day speaking trip in Ohio and that he "had not seen a drunken person

on the streets."³³

As the June 14 Republican convention neared, Fess came to realize there would

be some modifications of the prohibition amendment, yet in an interview a few

28. Cincinnati Enquirer, November 13, 14, 1930; Toledo Morning Times, November 19, December 5,

1930. The controversy made the front page in the Enquirer.

29. Toledo Morning Times, November 19, 1930. Fess did not attend this meeting.

30. Ibid., November 16, 19, December 5, 1930. See also Nethers, "Fess," 291-296.

31. Eugene H. Roseboom, A History of Presidential Elections (New York, 1959), 433, 437.

32. Newspaper (unknown) clipping of November 10 or 11, 1930, Lehr Fess private papers.

33. Chicago Daily Tribune, April 14, 1932. The three women delegates were from Ohio and pre-

sented statistics to show that Ohio was getting "wetter." Fess informed them that he "did not think much

of figures" and certainly was not afraid of them.

• 11
 

weeks prior to the convention he refused to discuss the ticklish issue. When asked what the platform would say on prohibition he replied: "I cannot discuss that. Personally, I am  a dry."34 With the adoption of the Republican platform plank which recommended that the people be given an opportunity to pass upon an amendment allowing the states to deal with the problems, but reserving to the Federal Government the power to protect the dry states, Fess accepted the plank and somewhat reluctantly announced that he would support the Republican platform.35 In regard to this ambiguity, Fess, in November after the general election, received a letter from the Reverend Horace Hyde Russell of Westerville, who was the founder of the Anti-Saloon League. Russell rebuked him for his accord with the terms of the Republican platform, saying that he was trying to "ride two fast horses running in opposite directions." In his reply Fess was rather resentful. He quoted 34. An interview with Fess by George S. Viereck, "What the Republican Platform Must Stand for this Year," Liberty Magazine, June 4, 1932, pp. 34-38. 35. Fess to Rev. Howard Hyde Russell, November 18, 1932, Box 30, Fess Papers; Cleveland Plain Dealer, November 21, 1932.

• 12
 

190                                                             OHIO HISTORY

 

the plank in the Republican platform and asserted that it represented the best

solution of a problem which was rapidly reaching the point of complete nullification

of the law in most of the eastern states. He maintained that the local governments

were not enforcing the Eighteenth Amendment, hence the Republican plank

attempted to solve the problem. Since he thought the people in general were still

opposed to the liquor traffic, Fess further defended his vote on the plank by saying,

"I could not now maintain a character of integrity to my own conscience and refuse

to support a resubmission on the basis of the plank adopted. The Democrats will

want to submit an out-and-out repeal plank." Fess reiterated that he was opposed

to the Democratic solution and maintained that its adoption would produce a state

of chaos, as "it would open the flood gates to liquor which would so stir the

American people that they would sweep it out of existence by a torrential flood of

righteous indignation. . . ." Fess then reminded Russell:

It will not do for you to assail men who are just as dry as you are, not only in public life

but in private life as riding two horses or voting both ways. . . . You and I had no respect

for that sort of narrow-mindedness. You condemned it just as I did and it will not do now

as leader of the temperance forces to charge me and others who are as anxious to solve

the problem in favor of the dry cause as you are, with voting both wet and dry when we

are doing what we think is best for the temperance cause without regard to any political

results.

I deeply regret that you have taken the attitude as announced in your letter. The tem-

perance cause will not succeed under the leadership representing a spirit of that sort. On

the other hand it will succeed if the friends of good Government and opponents of the

liquor traffic will consider the cause free from any personal abuse.³⁶

 

Not only had Fess voted for the plank, but he had also been consulted when it

was written. According to Herbert Hoover, on May 10, 1932, Senator William E.

Borah of Idaho, a Republican and the leader of the drys, had been told that both

the Eighteenth Amendment and the Volstead act could not be enforced. Hoover

then suggested that the liquor question should be left up to the states but with

Federal protection of the dry states, and Borah concurred. After the meeting with

Borah, the President suggested that former Interior Secretary from Ohio, James R.

Garfield, be made chairman of the resolutions committee at the convention. This

was done and Hoover presented his suggestions on the platform to Garfield, who

conferred with the leaders of both the wet and dry elements in the party. After-

wards, Garfield reported that Senators Borah and Fess on the dry side and Senator

David A. Reed of Pennsylvania and others on the wets side agreed to the prohibi-

tion plank. Hoover stated that he had little confidence in such two-man political

agreements, and he therefore suggested to Garfield that he arrange a joint meeting

with Senators Borah and Fess, Secretary of Treasury Ogden L. Mills, Secretary of

Interior Ray L. Wilbur and Postmaster General Walter F. Brown, that they might,

in one another's presence, agree upon the precise wording of the plank. Garfield

held the meeting and reported that they all agreed upon the proposed plank.³⁷

As it turned out, Fess was irritated by the conduct of the delegates at both the

Republican and Democratic national conventions in 1932, and, in writing to his

son Sumner on July 8, he stated that it was difficult to spell out any definite results

of the conventions. He thought it was disgraceful, in a time of depression "when

 

36. Ibid.

37. Herbert Hoover, The Memoirs of Herbert Hoover (New York, 1952), III, 318-320.

• 13
 

Simeon D. Fess                                                           191

 

every human being ought to be concerned about how to start the flow of capital

into industry for the employment of labor," the maximum interest in the conven-

tions "would circulate about the question of a legal glass of beer." In his opinion

both conventions, if measured by the character of the delegates, were up to stan-

dard; but "measured by the hoodlumism that flowed in from the slums of the cities,

which made the galleries the next thing to a madhouse, they were a disgrace that

must be blotted out if conventions were to continue." He ended his remarks with

the opinion that "the interest in the two platforms seemed to be lost except in the

one question--liquor."³⁸

Even with the victory of the Democrats in November 1932, Fess was still hopeful

that modifications of prohibition could be made, avoiding out-and-out repeal advo-

cated by the Democrats. Soon after the election, he admitted that there was no

clear solution to the problem created by repeal, but hoped that the Democrats

would remain an enemy of the saloon. Emphasizing that some sort of control was

imperative, he observed that there were "dozens of forms being recommended."

He concluded that it was largely a case of starting all over again with the problem.³⁹

His hope however was not realized, and in February, after the new president

and Congress took office, a Senate joint resolution (211) was introduced proposing

an amendment to the Constitution to repeal prohibition. The measure passed the

Senate on February 16, but Fess did not vote. On the previous day he had offered

an amendment which would have permitted Congress broader authority, granting

it the power to prevent the return of the saloon. In his remarks before the Senate,

he stated that he had voted against taking up the joint resolution, not because he

was opposed to anything being done, but because he thought it was not the time

to act. In defending his position against out-and-out repeal, he explained to his

colleagues: "I cannot vote for straight repeal, because if I should do that it would

mean to me utter chaos in the handling of this problem, and I would be doing a

thing that my whole conscience would revolt against."⁴⁰

On March 16, 1933, in a discussion in the Senate on the repeal of prohibition,

Fess presented an eloquent speech in which he gave a brief summary of prohibition,

the origin of his views, and his consistent demand for strict prohibition enforcement.

Then he defended his vote and action on the problem:

 

Whenever the time comes that on a moral question I will first see how the current runs

before I vote, and then vote in accordance with that current, though I feel it my duty to

prevent the current running in that direction as far as possible, then I will change my

views also, but I want it understood here and now that on a question of right and wrong

I propose to do what, in my judgment, my people ought to want me to do; and I am not

going to undertake to be like a bird of passage, perhaps flying in one direction at this hour

and in another direction the next hour . . . . I am an enemy of the saloon. I shall fight it,

as long as God gives me breath to fight it, as the most un-American institution that ever

cursed this land.⁴¹

In 1934, Fess ran for reelection for his third term in the Senate against former

Ohio Governor Vic Donahey, a Democrat, who had retired from politics after leav-

ing the governorship in 1929. Although prohibition was supposedly a "dead issue,"

 

38. Fess to his son Sumner, July 8, 1932, Box 30, Fess Papers.

39. Springfield Sun, November 17, 1932.

40. Congressional Record, 72d cong., 2d sess., 4166-68.

41. Ibid., 73rd cong., 1st sess., 533-535.

• 14
 

192                                                                OHIO HISTORY

 

Fess still felt compelled to discuss the matter in the campaign since he received

many letters relative to prohibition and felt obliged to reply. Lehr, disturbed by

his father's behavior, suggested in a letter on May 23, 1934, that to refer to the

prohibition question in his speeches was a mistake and that his remarks on the

issue might cause some wets to oppose him who otherwise would support his legis-

lative record.⁴² Fess immediately replied, "I never touch on the liquor question in

my correspondence except under the following circumstances, where anyone writes

me mentioning it in any way . . . ." He then informed his son:

If it ever becomes necessary for me to speak on the liquor question publicly, I shall make

it clear that I have not changed my view, which was to the effect that regulation was not

effective, and to the degree that public opinion would back it, prohibition would be the

method.

In closing, he vowed that "if I cannot win on the position of that sort, I do not

want to win on any kind of deception."⁴³

Although Fess was defeated by Donahey by a plurality of over 400,000 votes,

the liquor question, according to the political analysis, was not the main cause for

his defeat; his attitude toward the New Deal and his essential conservatism were

more important factors.⁴⁴ His defeat also shows that even though times had changed,

Simeon Fess remained steadfast, refusing to compromise his fundamental principles.

 

42. Lehr Fess to Fess, May 23, 1934, Box 31, Fess Papers.

43. Fess to Lehr Fess, May 25, 1934, ibid.

44. Columbus Dispatch, November 7, 1934; Cleveland Plain Dealer, November 8, 1934.

• 15