Ohio History Journal

STANLEY L. SWART

 

Early Efforts at State-Level Law

Enforcement: The Failure of

Ohio's Supervision of Local

Police Authorities, 1902-1925

 

 

At the time of its founding in 1803, Ohio placed responsibility for

enforcing its criminal statutes and maintaining public order in the

hands of traditional local officials, and did little to change this prac-

tice for ninety-nine years.¹ County sheriffs, township constables,

city and village mayors and marshals, and city watches carried the

burden until 1859. The modern concept of"police" authorities estab-

lished explicitly for these purposes first appeared in Cincinnati dur-

ing that year; exercising its power, the state abolished the offices of

city marshal and city watch in favor of this new alternative.

Throughout the remainder of the nineteenth century the central

government gradually imposed the police idea upon municipal gov-

ernments, and by 1902 police departments-marked by the centra-

lization of power in the hands of one agency, a primary focus upon

combatting crime and public disorder, preventative policing, and

the permanence of staff as opposed to a periodic turnover of person-

nel-existed in all cities.²

 

Stanley L. Swart is Associate Professor of Criminal Justice at the University of

North Florida.

 

 

1. For the first century of Ohio policing, see Stanley L. Swart, "The Development

of State-Level Police Activity in Ohio, 1802-1928" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,

Northwestern University, 1974), Chaps. 1-2, cited below as Swart, "Ohio, 1802-

1928"; and Samuel Walker, A Critical History of Police Reform, The Emergence of

Professionalism (Lexington, Mass., 1977), 40-43, cited below as Samuel Walker,

Police Reform. For a general background of police reform in the United States during

the nineteenth century, see Samuel Walker, Police Reform, Part I; Barbara Raffel

Price, Police Professionalism, Rhetoric and Action (Lexington, Mass., 1977), Chaps.

1-2, cited below as Price, Police Professionalism: and James F. Richardson, Urban

Police in the United States (Port Washington, N.Y., 1974), Chaps. 1-4, cited below as

Richardson, Urban Police.

2. Swart, "Ohio, 1802-1928," Chaps. 1-2.

• 1
 

142                                                OHIO HISTORY

 

State imposition of contemporary police concepts was not followed

by direct supervision of local officers. On several occasions Ohio took

nominal control of the police in major metropolises, but such

domination proved short-lived, save in Cincinnati where a state-

appointed board ruled from 1886 to 1902. But even in the Queen

City local management was a fact, as the political machine of"Boss"

George B. Cox dominated law enforcement as well as other matters.3

Sheriffs, constables, and village mayors and marshals received no

formal oversight at all. Until 1902, therefore, the state exercised

little control over local law enforcement. Whether modern city

police or traditional county and small-town officers, police officials

were free of the state's watchful eye.

This situation began to change in 1902. In that year the Ohio

General Assembly passed the first of a series of laws authorizing the

governor to remove from office certain classes of officials who failed

to carry out their duties properly. The statutes targeted upon local

law enforcement and its agents. This innovation lacked universal

approval, conflicting as it did with both strong traditions of local

self-government and (after 1920) a general dislike of all policing

engendered by attempts to enforce prohibition laws. As a result, the

intensity and frequency of gubernatorial supervision declined after

1924, and overall this early attempt at state control over local police

authorities must be judged a failure. But the concept of a strong

state executive empowered to supervise local law enforcement agen-

cies reflected, and was supported by, contemporary political and

intellectual movements, and the legal authority to do so survived

the unpopularity of its initial use.⁴

 

Political and Intellectual Bases for State Supervision

 

Progressivism, which dominated American politics during most of

this period, called for positive governmental action at all levels-

federal, state, and local.⁵ In addition to proposing a large number of

 

 

 

3. Ibid, Chap. 2; for Cincinnati, see Zane L. Miller, Boss Cox's Cincinnati, Urban

Politics in the Progressive Era (New York, 1968), Chaps. 5-6; and John R. Doggette,

"Nineteenth Century Law Enforcement in Cincinnati" (unpublished M.A. thesis,

University of Cincinnati, 1966), Chap. IV.

4. Swart, "Ohio, 1802-1928," Chaps. 3-4. Later notes will provide more detailed

documentation.

5. For the nationwide Progressive movement in favor of positive government ac-

tion, see Robert H. Wiebe, The Search for Order, 1877-1920 (New York, 1967), pas-

• 2
 

State Level Law Enforcement                                   143

 

new government programs, many of which involved regulatory con-

trols over portions of social and economic life, the Progressives con-

tinually stressed the need for elective implementation of the result-

ing laws. This meant that a strong executive authority became a

necessity. Such a belief in the virtues of active government had

important implications for Ohio law enforcement. The logic behind

Progressivism called inevitably for the state to expand the very

tentative and limited supervisory role it had developed vis-a-vis

county, township, and municipal police authorities during the

nineteenth century. Above all, the powers vested in the governor

would have to be expanded.

However, such ideas were not acceptable to all Progressives. The

urban element often emphasized the attainment of "municipal home

rule." Ohio Progressivism, which originated in large cities under

the leadership of Toledo Mayor Samuel Jones and Cleveland Mayor

Tom L. Johnson, sought this goal with even greater desire than

most Progressives.⁶ It represented salvation from the yearly "ripper

bills," as contemporaries called the specialized municipal legislation

often passed by the General Assembly. Understandable as such a

goal could be, it conflicted with the notion that the state government

should play a larger part in political life, and it could become a

hindrance to any effort directed at implementing state supervision

of municipal policing.

Such a conflict quickly developed. In 1912 the Ohio Constitutional

Convention proposed, along with a large number of other revisions

to the now-dated 1852 constitution, a new Article XVIII which

would establish "home-rule." The voters accepted this particular

proposal in the fall, along with thirty-three other amendments, and

the General Assembly passed the appropriate enabling legislation

in 1913. It appeared that urban Ohio had won a decisive victory over

the state government.⁷ However, judicial interpretation of Article

 

 

sim, esp. Chaps. 6-8, cited below as Wiebe, Search for Order. For urban Progressivism

in particular, see Charles N. Glaab and A. Theodore Brown, A History of Urban

America, 2nd ed. (New York, 1976), Chaps. 9-10; and Blake McKelvey, The Urba-

nization of America, 1860-1915 (New Brunswick, N.J., 1963), Chaps. 6-7. For these

developments in Ohio, see Hoyt Landon Warner, Progressivism in Ohio, 1897-1917

(Columbus, 1964), passim, esp. Chaps. II and XII-XV, cited below as Warner, Ohio

Progressivism.

6. For the effort to establish municipal home rule, see Warner, Ohio Progressiv-

ism, Chaps. V and XVI; and Francis L. Aumann, "Ohio Government in The Twen-

tieth Century: From Nash to White (1900-1931)," in Ohio in the Twentieth Century,

1900-1938, ed. Harlow Lindley, Vol. VI of The History of the State of Ohio, ed. Carl

Wittke (Columbus, 1942), 11-16, cited below as Auman, "Ohio 1900-31."

7. For Article XVIII, see Ohio, Constitutional Convention, Constitution of Ohio,

• 3
 

144                                                    OHIO HISTORY

 

XVIII's key provision produced the opposite result. This proviso

stated:

 

Sec. 3. Municipalities have authority to exercise all powers of local self-

government and to adopt and enforce within their limits such local police,

sanitary and other similar regulations, as are not in conflict with general

laws.⁸

 

As early as 1917 the Ohio Supreme Court complained that "local

self-government" lacked a legally useful definition. Therefore, over

a period of years the court supported a strong supervisory role for

the state in all fields, and it specifically determined that the central

authorities possessed a special position in matters of policing and

public safety. Until the late 1940s, when a change in legal philoso-

phy permitted cities and villages more freedom, the Supreme Court

upheld a series of statewide standards on such matters as the crea-

tion of pension funds and educational requirements for policemen.

Most of these requirements were imposed through the state's civil

service laws and, except for the pension funds, did not become im-

portant until the 1930s. However, the prevalent attitude of the court

meant that the General Assembly could continue to dictate a wide

variety of standards to municipal police departments and, if it chose,

could grant the governor authority to enforce them.⁹

A second movement which surfaced at this time, combining polit-

ical and intellectural overtones, also had a bearing upon Ohio's role

in law enforcement. A body of police reformers appeared during the

latter part of the nineteenth century and the first years of the twen-

tieth. Many of the people involved in this campaign, trained in

public administration and concerned primarily with urban law en-

forcement, did not show much interest in the role of the American

states.10 However, as early as 1893 the first meeting of what is today

 

with Amendments ... Approved by the People September 3, 1912 (Columbus, 1912),

41-44, cited below as Ohio, 1912 Amendments. For the contemporary politics in-

volved, see Warner, Ohio Progressivism, Chaps. V, XII, and XVI.

8. Reprinted in Ohio, 1912 Amendments, 41. For the discussion below, see Warner,

Ohio Progressivism, 456-59; Albert Henry Rose, Ohio Government, State and Local

(St. Louis, 1953), 75-78; and Donovan F. Emch, et al., "Home Rule and Local Govern-

ment in Ohio," in An Analysis and Appraisal of the Ohio State Constitution, 1851-

1951, ed. Harvey Walker (Cincinnati, 1951), passim.

9. For examples of these later guidelines imposed by the state, see, in addition to

the references in note 8 above, Ohio, The General Code of the State of Ohio (Cincinna-

ti, 1910-1952), Secs. 17-1 and 17-la.

10. For the national movement in this area, see Samuel Walker, Police Reform,

Part II; Price, Police Professionalism, Chaps. 3-4; and Richardson, Urban Police,

Chap. 5.

• 4
 

State Level Law Enforcement                                  145

 

the International Association of Chiefs of Police called for the

formation of state bureaus of criminal identification, agencies which

would maintain records on all known criminals who had been

arrested within their respective states.11 In addition, during 1909

two leading national spokesmen for police reform offered brief but

comprehensive programs for state governments to adopt in order to

better enforce the criminal statutes. These men were Leonard Felix

Fuld, a civil service administrator in New York City, and Augustus

Raymond Hatton, a professor of political science at Western Reserve

University in Cleveland.

Fuld proposed the formation of a "state police department" con-

sisting of three bureaus: "rural constabulary," "criminal investiga-

ton," and "city police." The constabulary, to be modeled upon the

uniformed force created by Pennsylvania in 1905, would possess

general police powers throughout the state and could be employed in

cities when necessary. The investigation bureau, a detective unit,

would pursue known criminals and assist municipal police while so

doing. The last of the three subdivisions would inspect urban police

departments to see if they met certain prescribed standards and

would award financial subsidies to those which did. Significantly,

this bureau could also remove local police officials found to be

corrupt. 12

Hatton limited himself to recommending a "state bureau of

police" which paralleled Fuld's city police unit except that Hatton's

proposed office would inspect and fund rural agencies-meaning

sheriffs' departments-as well as urban ones. Like Fuld's proposed

city agency, Hatton's proposed organization would be able to remove

city and county officers for failing to enforce the law. Finally, Hat-

ton's bureau was to possess a small force of detectives who would

assist in enforcing unpopular laws and also function in an intelli-

gence capacity.¹³

Fuld and Hatton's proposals, drawn together, offered guidelines

for the American states to follow; they also constituted a set of

standards by which the performance of a given state could be

judged. Only one other element needed to be added. Both Fuld and

 

11. For the bureau of criminal identification movement, see John L. Thompson,

"National Identification Bureau is IACP Pioneers' Legacy," The Police Chief, XXXV

(Jan., 1968), 10-42 passim; and John P. Kenney, The California Police (Springfield,

Ill., 1964), 21-23, 36-37, cited below as Kenney, California Police.

12. Leonard Felix Fuld, Police Administration, A Critical Study of Police Orga-

nizations in the United States and Abroad (New York, 1909), 416-25.

13. Augustus Raymond Hatton, "The Control of Police," in the Proceedings of the

Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the National Municipal League (n. p., 1909), 157-71.

• 5
 

146                                                OHIO HISTORY

 

Hatton were blind to the identification bureau concept, which is

somewhat surprising since California had established such a bureau

in 1905, and this idea was to become a vital part of state-level

policing.¹⁴ In addition, these two contemporary authorities differed

on a vital point: the role a state should undertake in policing rural

regions. Fuld advocated direct action through a uniformed state

police which would supersede the traditional local officers; Hatton

favored, or at least tolerated, the office of sheriff and advocated

strengthening it.15 The conflict between these two approaches would

be fought out in many state capitols during the subsequent decades.

In Ohio, generalized Progressive desires for a stronger state ex-

ecutive and specific suggestions for state supervision of rural and

municipal police officials did not necessarily lead directly to in-

creased control over local law enforcement. However, Hatton con-

tinued to support police reform within the Buckeye State and Fuld's

proposals found recognition in at least one obscure Ohio study of

policing; thus it is reasonable to assume that the ideas which the

two men proposed had some impact.¹⁶ More importantly, the reform-

ers' specific concepts together with Progressivism, the predomi-

nant political-intellectual movement of the time, provided a favor-

able atmosphere for acceptance of the idea that the central govern-

ment could authorize direct controls over the police authorities in its

subdivisions and could charge the governor with the duty of super-

vising these individuals.

 

The Imposition of Supervision

 

For a number of years the Ohio Supreme Court had demonstrated

increasing hostility towards the General Assembly's evasion of the

1852 constitutional mandate requiring general municipal incor-

poration laws. In June, 1902, the judges finally acted and ruled that

the legislature must follow the constitution's dictates. The judges

thus forced the governor to call a special legislative session to rem-

edy this situation.17 A new municipal code, the principal product of

 

 

14. See Kenney, California Police, 21-23, 36-37, for the early activity in California.

15. See the references in notes 12 and 13 above.

16. Bliss Magley, "State Control of Police in the United States" (unpublished M.A.

thesis, Ohio State University, 1917), 46-55, is a thin rewrite of what Fuld and Hatton

proposed.

17. For an account of the court decision and the writing of a new municipal code,

see Warner, Ohio Progressivism, Chap. V; and Aumann, "Ohio 1900-31," 5-6.

• 6
 

State Level Law Enforcement                                         147

 

TABLE I

LAWS AUTHORIZING THE GOVERNOR TO REMOVE LOCAL

AND MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS IN OHIO, 1902-1925

 

Date               Officials

Passed             Affected          Details and Commentary

1902              Mayors           Part of 1902 municipal code. Governor could oust

any mayor on charges of "misconduct in office, or

bribery, or any gross neglect of duty, gross immoral-

ity, or habitual drunkenness." The governor had to

file public charges and to hold a public hearing be-

fore removing anyone; if the chief executive then

chose to dismiss a mayor, the former had to provide

a public written statement of his reasons for doing

so. No appeal from the governor's decision existed,

and a mayor might be suspended from office pending

the hearing. This law was changed in 1951, and such

hearings were placed under the supervision of

judges rather than the governor.

 

1910        Sheriffs    Governor could remove a sheriff if a prisoner in the

latter's custody "had been lynched or suffered bodily

harm" because of the sheriffs failure to protect the

prisoner. Charges could only be brought by five or

more electors of the sheriffs county. As in the 1902

statute, the sheriff might be suspended pending the

hearing, the hearing had to be in public, and an

explanation had to be offered if the governor chose to

remove the man from office. Those summoned to tes-

tify could receive witness fees. This law is still in

effect.

 

1921         "Any                    Governor could remove an official-defined in prac-

Official"         tice as an elective officeholder or a senior appointee

such as a safety director or police chief-for failure

"to enforce the laws relating to intoxicating liquor."

Procedural details were basically those of the 1902

statute. This law was repealed in 1933.

 

1925      (Amendment           Authorized payment of witness fees to anyone sum-

to 1902,         moned to testify at a gubernatorial hearing called

1921 laws)       under either the 1902 or the 1921 statutes. This law

is still in effect as it pertains to the 1906 measure

and its later amendments.

• 7
 

148                                                OHIO HISTORY

 

the 1902 session, produced one major departure in matters pertain-

ing to local law enforcement: the introduction of systematic guber-

natorial supervision of municipal officers.¹⁸ The 1902 law, which

granted Ohio's governors the power to remove mayors under certain

specified conditions, became the first of four statutes enacted be-

tween 1902 and 1925 which extended and codified this authority.

Table I summarizes these laws.¹⁹

In the past, the legislature, acting under authority conferred by

the 1852 constitution, had occasionally permitted governors to oust

municipal officials from office. However, this sudden decision on the

part of the General Assembly to grant such authority on a statewide

basis was unexpected. There is no conclusive evidence to explain

why this step was taken, but apparently this action reflected a grow-

ing belief among the legislators that the executive branch of state

government should have greater authority. Further evidence of the

acceptance of this belief was furnished in 1903 when the governor

finally received the veto power via a constitutional amendment

proposed by the legislature itself.²⁰ It also indicates that the 1902

General Assembly, forced by the court to yield its former right to

intervene directly in municipal governance, was searching for

alternative methods by which to maintain the power of the state.

Of the four laws extending the authority of the governor, those of

1902, 1910, and 1921 involved substantive powers. All three posses-

sed certain common traits. First, they placed the authority to dis-

miss officeholders in the hands of the governor; other state officials

were not involved. Second, they limited the chief executive's role to

that of removing men from office; he could not appoint new indi-

viduals to the resulting vacancies, and thus local self-government

was not seriously threatened. Third, their primary stress was upon

the conduct of municipal officials in policing. Although the 1902

removal statute permitted ousters of mayors for other reasons, all

recorded removal hearings during these years grew from charges of

 

 

 

18. The code was 96 Ohio Laws 20 (1902); Ohio Laws will be cited below as OL, and

the date will not be given unless it is not present in the text.

19. For Table I, the relevant laws are: 1902-96 OL 20 (1902), 124 OL 154 (1951);

1910-101 OL 109 (1910); 1921-109 OL 4 (1921), 115-lPt. 2 OL 118 (1933); 1925-

111 OL 264 (1925). For the modern versions of these laws, see Ohio, Ohio Revised

Code, Annotated (Cincinnati, 1953-  ), passim.

20. For the 1903 amendment, see Issac Franklin Patterson, comp., The Constitu-

tions of Ohio, and Proposed Amendments . . . With Historical Data, Records of the

Votes Cast, Contemporary Newspaper Comment, Detailed Comparisons and Historical

Introduction (Cleveland, 1912), 282-84.

• 8
 

State Level Law Enforcement                                         149

 

TABLE II

RECORDED GUBERNATORIAL OUSTERS OF LOCAL AND

MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS FROM OFFICE IN OHIO, 1908-1924

 

 

Governor                                     Incidents

Judson Harmon                            1909-1913: removal of "a few" mayors for failure to

(Democrat, 1909-1913)               enforce the Rose Local Option Law

1910: forced resignations (by formally instituting re-

moval proceedings) of Licking County sheriff and

Newark mayor for their joint failure to protect a

prisoner, who was lynched

 

James M. Cox                              1919: removal of the mayor of Canton for failure to

(Democrat, 1913-1915,                suppress disorders growing from the steel strike of

1917-1921)                              that year

 

Harry L. Davis                             1921-1923: removal of a mayor for failure to enforce

(Republican, 1921-1923)             prohibition

 

Vic Donahey                                1923: removal of the mayor of Massillon for failure

(Democrat, 1923-1929)               to enforce both prohibition and the criminal law;

mayor unsuccessfully challenged his dismissal be-

fore the Ohio Supreme Court on grounds of unconsti-

tutionality

1923-1924: removal of the mayor of Canton, the

safety director of Canton, and the police chief of

Youngstown for failure to enforce prohibition

 

failure to enforce the criminal laws or to maintain public order, as

shown in Table II.21

While Ohio embarked on a new path through the passage of these

statutes, they did not provide comprehensive powers for the gov-

ernors. The 1902 law applied strictly to mayors, while the 1910

measure permitted the dismissal of a sheriff only in the event of one

unlikely occurrence. The 1921 statute applied, in theory, to "all

officials," an undefined phrase which in practice came to mean

mayors and senior police officers. But, though based upon a 1912

 

 

 

21. For Table II, the relevant sources are: Harmon-James Lee Burke, "The Public

Career of Judson Harmon" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State Uni-

• 9
 

150                                                  OHIO HISTORY

 

constitutional amendment which had otherwise clarified and

broadened the state's right to dismiss officeholders without resort-

ing to the impeachment process, this last law covered only failure to

enforce prohibition. Thus county and township law enforcement offi-

cials remained largely unregulated, as did the elective village

marshals.²²

In addition, the failure to extend state controls over the subordi-

nates of mayors further weakened the whole supervisory effort, as

Governor Vic Donahey (Democrat, 1923-1929) noted in 1925 when

he asked the legislature to remove police chiefs from civil service

protection. Civil service, a positive factor in ensuring job security

and permanence, also provided a convenient screen behind which

the corrupt and inefficient could hide. Donahey commented that

almost all of his investigations into slothful municipal policing re-

sulted in a mayor asserting that he could not control his police chief.

The legislators ignored the governor's request, which strongly sug-

gests that they were not interested in further increasing either his

powers or those of the mayors.²³

The internal details of the laws also demonstrated certain weak-

nesses. The 1910 statute, which regulated sheriffs, came closest to

judicial standards; it identified a specific offense, ordered that

charges be brought by citizens from the sheriffs home county, and

assigned to the governor only a quasi-judicial role. The 1902 and

1921 laws, however, placed the governor in the position of being

both prosecutor and judge, loosely defined the charges (as in the

1902 measure) or the offices regulated (as in the 1921 law), and

failed to provide for the compensation of witnesses summoned to

testify at the governor's hearings. The compensation problem was

rectified by passage of the 1925 statute, but the other difficulties

remained.

 

 

 

versity, 1969), 216-24, cited below as Burke, "Harmon;" James Lee Burke, "The

Gubernatorial Campaign of 1910 in Ohio" (unpublished M.A. thesis, The Ohio State

University, 1963), 51-55; Cox-James M. Cox, Journey Through My Years (New

York, 1946), 196 and Chap. XIX; James T. Walker, "Ohio Needs State Police Force,

Events of Past Winter Prove Necessity of Better Protection," The Michigan State

Police Journal [shortly renamed The State Trooper], I, (March, 1920), 13-14, 29;

Davis-James K. Mercer, ed., Ohio Legislative History, Vol. IV (Columbus, 1921),

204-06, cited below as Mercer, Ohio [Vol. no.]; Donahey-Mercer, Ohio, V, 343; Mer-

cer, Ohio, VI, 25.

22. See, in addition to the references in notes 19 and 21 above, Ohio, 1912 Amend-

ments, 17, for the new amendment regulating the removal of officials from office,

which became Art. II, Sec. 38 of the constitution.

23. Mercer, Ohio, VI, 25-26.

• 10
 

State Level Law Enforcement                                        151

 

These measures, challenging as they did traditions of local self-

government, aroused considerable opposition in the 1920s. A reac-

tion against strong, centralized, governments appeared among

Americans in the aftermath of World War I, and the unpopularity of

prohibition reinforced an increasing reluctance to trust govern-

ments with much power.²⁴ In 1923 the Ohio Supreme Court upheld

the legality of both the 1902 and 1921 removal statutes, but it did so

hesitantly and with an openly expressed doubt about inadequate

procedural safeguards regarding the admissibility of evidence, thus

adding fuel to the critics' fire.²⁵ A bill proposed in 1925 would have

restricted the comprehensiveness of the 1921 law by granting to city

mayors the exclusive right to remove their police chiefs from office

and by forbidding any application of the 1921 statute to subordinate

police officers. Although this measure did not pass, the fact that it

was proposed indicates continuing opposition to the concepts of

gubernatorial removal of local officials.²⁶

Ohio's governors did not permit their supervision of local law

enforcement to rest exclusively upon these four statutes. They be-

gan to employ two administrative tactics. The first, initiated in 1919

by Governor James M. Cox (Democrat, 1913-1915, 1917-1921), em-

ployed an old medium of communication-the public proclama-

tion-in a new manner.²⁷ Previous governors had occasionally

issued proclamations during times of disorder, but had directed

them to the citizens of a specific locality and had limited the con-

tents to calls for the cessation of violence.²⁸ Cox, witnessing

 

24. For the general distrust of strong government at this time, especially as it

appeared in connection with prohibition policing, see George E. Mowry, The Urban

Nation, 1920-1960 (New York, 1965), Chaps. 1-3; Wiebe, Search for Order, Chaps. VI

and XI passim; and Andrew Sinclair, Prohibition, The Era of Excess (Boston, 1962),

passim, esp. Chap. 10, which deals with enforcement methods, cited below as Sin-

clair, Prohibition. For the situation in Ohio, see Aumann, "Ohio 1900-31," 33-47; and

Roy T. Wortman, "The IWW in Ohio, 1905-1950" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,

The Ohio State University, 1971), Chap. IV.

25. See the opinion of the court in 108 Ohio State Reports 440 (1923); this set

(commonly cited OSR) has been published since 1852 but has appeared in different

series.

26. For the 1925 proposal and its fate, see House Bill 493, 86th General Assembly,

Regular Session, 1925, in Ohio, Legislative Service Commission, Bill Files; and Ohio,

General Assembly, Journal of the House of Representatives, Vol. 122 (1925;) (Co-

lumbus, 1925) 5, 276, and 387.

27. For Cox's issuance of this innovative proclamation, see Mercer, Ohio, III, 55-

57.

28. For earlier samples, see Leonard L. Richards, "Gentlemen of Property and

Standing," Anti-Abolition Mobs in Jacksonian America (London, 1970), 128, for an

incident dating from 1841; for an 1884 situation, consult Ohio, Executive Documents,

Annual Reports for 1884 . . . Columbus, 1885), "Annual Message," Pt. 1, 12-15.

• 11
 

152                                                  OHIO HISTORY

 

statewide confusion over how to police the 1919 national steel

strike, decided that a new type of proclamation could solve this

problem. On October 17 of that year the governor issued a document

which his office, immodestly but correctly, labeled "without prece-

dent." Addressed to all mayors and sheriffs, this proclamation pro-

vided specific definitions and directions for them to follow in dealing

with the strike. Cox explained what they could not do, such as

leading strikebreakers into a factory, and what the law compelled

them to do, such as stopping strike-related violence. He also defined

"picketing" and urged the authorities to communicate with both

sides in this labor dispute as often as possible so as to avoid mis-

understandings. He closed by referring to his power to remove offi-

cials from office and by issuing a thinly-veiled threat to employ this

authority if the officeholders did not do their duty. Shortly thereaf-

ter, he ousted the mayor of Canton because of the latter's failure to

maintain order.²⁹

Governor Vic Donahey carried this method much further. In his

six years in office he issued over one hundred formal proclamations,

most of which were innocuous but several of which bore a direct

concern to policing. The best example of the latter was a proclama-

tion of May 23, 1923, on "Gambling." Denouncing all forms of this

vice, above all the open betting which went on in baseball parks,

Donahey concluded by awarding himself the title of "Chief Police

Officer of Ohio" and saying:

I call upon mayors and sheriffs throughout the state to lend themselves

zealously to arrests and prosecutions. If they do not do so it is a time when

weak or unwilling magistrates and police officers will be replaced by those

who enforce the law.³⁰

 

Later proclamations by Donahey regarding law enforcement in-

cluded a March 10, 1924, statement on "Prohibition Enforcement."³¹

In it the governor introduced a third tactic which chief executives

 

 

 

29. See James M. Cox, Journey Through My Years (New York, 1946), 196 and

Chap. XIX; and David Brody, Labor in Crisis, The Steel Strike of 1919 (Philadelphia,

1965), 152. The Canton mayor had refused to act in this crisis, ignoring pleas for help

from various groups.

30. Donahey's proclamation regarding gambling appears in Mercer, Ohio, V, 124-

45; the quotation is from 125. For a general commentary on his use of this method of

communication, see Howard Foster, "A History of the Ohio Executive, 1923-1929"

(unpublished M.A. thesis, The Ohio State University, 1934), Chap. VII, cited below as

Foster, "Donahey."

31. Donahey's proclamation on prohibition policing is in Mercer, Ohio, V, 141-42.

• 12
 

State Level Law Enforcement                                153

could employ in addition to their power of removal and the issuance of proclamations: the assignment of state employees to check con- tinuously the effectiveness of local and municipal officials. Donahey's predecessor, Harry L. Davis (Republican, 1921-1923), also employed this technique to enforce prohibition, but Donahey became the first to publicly warn that he would do so. Donahey's 1924 action came just after he had dismissed his Pro- hibition Department's 110 "temporary inspectors." Commonly cal- led "card men" (from the identification cards they carried), in reality they were privately-paid detectives holding public commissions. The governor explained in the proclamation that he had released these men because of a negative ruling by the state attorney general regarding the legality of their employment, and noted that their   For a commentary on the following situation and how it developed, see Ohio Prohibi- tion Commissioner, Fifth Annual Report of the ... (Columbus, 1925), 3-4, cited below as 1925 PC Report; and The (Columbus) Ohio State Journal, Mar. 22, 1924, 1, 16, cited below as Journal. For Davis' administration, see the description below; refer- ences on it are in note 36.

• 13
 

154                                               OHIO HISTORY

 

dismissals left only twenty regular inspectors. In his opinion,

Donahey continued, these surviving twenty officers were too few to

be effective by themselves. Therefore, he was ordering the depart-

ment's director to employ the remaining inspectors in a coordinat-

ing role by assigning them to work with municipal and county offi-

cials. Part of the state officers' activity, the governor made clear,

would consist of investigating local officials as well as assisting and

directing them. City and county officers found to be inadequate in

prohibition enforcement might well be removed. Thus the use of

state employees to supervise local police officials, like the use of

public proclamations to provide explicit directions from the gov-

ernor to local officeholders, ultimately depended upon the gov-

ernor's power to oust inefficient or corrupt local officials.

 

The Effectiveness of Supervision

 

State supervision of local officials was the only significant area of

possible state police activity in which Ohio attempted an active

course during these years. As late as 1925 the state lacked any form

of a uniformed state police or detective unit save for the prohibition

inspectors, whose duties were very specialized. Though Ohio estab-

lished a very small "Bureau of Criminal Identification and Inves-

tigation" in 1923 for the purpose of maintaining criminal records

(investigations were not conducted until a later date), at no time did

the state even consider the adoption of the financial subsidy propos-

als advocated by both Fuld and Hatton.³² By comparison, between

1902 and 1925 Ohio moved from a mere legislative imposition of

legal dictates upon these subordinate officials, with the hope that its

orders would be obeyed, to a position in which the governor could

partially oversee and discipline city and county officials should they

fail to carry out their duties properly.

Evaluating the effectiveness of Ohio's governors in this area is

hindered by the lack of accessible information regarding the num-

ber of times that various chief executives either actually ousted

officials from office or forced them to resign by instituting removal

proceedings. Table II summarizes the known occasions when gov-

 

 

32. Swart, "Ohio, 1802-1928," Chaps. 3-5. For the formation of the Ohio bureau,

see Mercer, Ohio, V, 318; Ohio, Department of Public Welfare, 3rd Annual Report of.

. . for the Year Ending June 30, 1924 (Columbus, 1924), 55-58; and Swart, "Ohio,

1802-1928," 111-24.

• 14
 

State Level Law Enforcement                                     155

 

ernors acted, but even these cases cannot reveal situations in which

threats of gubernatorial action sufficed to persuade a local official to

change his ways or, perhaps, to leave office by a decision not to run

for reelection.³³

Evidence indicates that governors did not begin to take strong

action until James M. Cox issued his proclamation regarding the

policing of the 1919 steel strike. Prior to Cox, Judson Harmon

(Democrat, 1909-1913) had forced the resignations of a mayor and

sheriff involved in a dramatic lynching and removed a few mayors

for failing to enforce adequately a local option law. But he acted

because he believed that he had no alternative; not a political in-

novator, Harmon made no attempt to offer positive gubernatorial

guidance to the state's sheriffs or mayors.³⁴ Even in the 1919 strike,

Cox removed only one mayor from office and resisted demands that

he replace the mayor of Cleveland when that official openly sided

with the strikers.³⁵

Harry Davis's two years as governor were marked by a positive

policy regarding prohibition; Ohio's Prohibition Department came

into existence under his sponsorship, the first such state-level de-

partment in the country.³⁶ In the twenty-one months that this de-

partment served Davis, it was instrumental in gaining a number of

resignations and indictments of local officials who failed to enforce

prohibition adequately. But the fact that Davis formally removed

only one individual (a mayor) during his term in office indicates a

reluctance to become directly involved in supervising police author-

ities.

Vic Donahey most closely approached systematic state supervi-

sion of local officials. During 1923 and 1924 he removed four men

from office. These dismissals represented only the tip of the iceberg,

for the chief executive threatened to dismiss many others and thus

achieved a greater degree of obedience to the laws, primarily to the

 

 

33. Harvey Walker, personal interview with the author, Columbus, June 25, 1969,

noted that over the years some men reformed or left office under such pressure, cited

below as Harvey Walker Interview. Foster, "Donahey," 78, says the same about the

1923-29 era.

34. See Burke, "Harmon," passim, esp. 216-24, for this observation on the gov-

ernor's conservative outlook as well as an account of the actions he took in 1908-1910.

35. See the references in note 29 above. Ironically, Cleveland mayor Harry L.

Davis became the next governor.

36. The prohibition department was founded by 109 OL 4 (1921). References to its

being the first state-level agency of its type in the country are contained in Mercer,

Ohio, IV, 94; and Mercer, Ohio, IV, 124-25. The report on its first two years (actually

twenty-one months) of existence under Davis is in Mercer, Ohio, IV, 204-06.

• 15
 

156                                                    OHIO HISTORY

 

prohibition statutes.³⁷ At the same time, Donahey combined this

direct control with his proclamations regarding law enforcement

issues and the imposition of regular oversight of mayors and sher-

iffs, thus producing the most comprehensive supervision Ohio was

to witness for many years.

However, after 1924 Donahey's interest in overseeing local offi-

cials abruptly ceased. He did not remove anyone from office after

that date; indeed, as early as 1924 he had refused to dismiss the

mayor of Niles when that official failed to make any effort to stop a

major riot. Nor did Donahey continue his proclamations on policing.

He issued his last notable edict, "Destruction of Highways," on

February 18, 1925.38 Supervisory activity had reached its peak so far

as the governor's office was concerned. After a final prohibition-

based ouster of a mayor by Governor Myers Y. Cooper (Republican,

1929-31) in 1929, the removal powers granted as part of the anti-

liquor statutes vanished in 1933. The remaining removal authority

vested in the governor's office was not used again until 1949.³⁹

The explanation for this sudden shift away from gubernatorial

supervision of subordinate police officers is complex. Clearly the

unpopularity of prohibition cast a pall over all methods used in the

attempt to enforce it; elective officials were reluctant to pay the

political price of effective enforcement.⁴⁰ In addition, Donahey's re-

treat from supervision is probably related to the political embar-

rassment he suffered after ousting Mayor Herbert H. Vogt of Mas-

sillon in 1923.41 Donahey filed charges in this case just a few days

after becoming governor, citing as his justification both the 1902

and 1921 statutes and charging the mayor with failing to enforce

 

 

37. In addition to the references to Donahey in notes 21-22 and 30-31 above, see

Foster, "Donahey," passim.

38. The governor's refusal to oust the Niles mayor is mentioned in John A. Cooley,

"Use of the National Guard in 1924 Ku Klux Klan-Knights of the Flaming Circle

Riot in Niles, Ohio" (unpublished seminar paper, The Ohio State University, 1970),

15. Donahey's statement on highway preservation appears in Mercer, Ohio, VI, 120-

21; the general decline in the number of proclamations issued during the last years of

his governorship may be seen in Foster, "Donahey," Chap. VI.

39. 115-Pt. 2 OL 118 repealed this portion of the governor's removal powers as part

of the general abolition of prohibition. Harvey Walker Interview mentioned Cooper's

1929 removal, and also that the next governor to take such action was Frank J.

Lausche (Democrat, 1945-47, 1949-57), who did so during his second term in office.

40. Sinclair, Prohibition, Chap. 10, demonstrates that such unpopularity was a

national problem faced by enforcement officials. In Ohio, the Journal, Jan. 19, 1921,

4, had predicted this problem at an early date; the 1925 PC Report, 4-5, indicated that

Ohio's prohibition officials also recognized its existence.

41. For the account below, see the references to Donahey in notes 21 and 25 above.

• 16
 

State Level Law Enforcement                             157

 

regular criminal laws as well as permitting open violations of pro-

hibition. Donahey then dismissed Mayor Vogt. The mayor reacted

by attempting to have the Ohio Supreme Court declare these laws

unconstitutional. Though the justices voted six to one to uphold the

statutes, they openly questioned both the law's lack of procedural

safeguards and the governor's judgment. Above all, they challenged

Donahey's heavy reliance upon complaints which were based on one

of the mayor's earlier terms in office. Newspapers generally endorsed

the judges' decision; they reluctantly agreed that Donahey had

acted within his authority but questioned both his wisdom and that

of the statutes.⁴²

Donahey apparently decided to avoid future dismissal con-

troversies by limiting his use of the removal powers. His example

was followed by later governors; as has been noted, Donahey's im-

mediate successors made little use of this authority. John W. Brick-

er, a young Ohio assistant attorney general during this era and

later a Republican governor between 1939 and 1945, stated years

later that he witnessed Donahey's problems and decided to forego

any use of this authority if he ever became chief executive of the

state. He held to that decision while in the governor's chair.⁴³

 

Conclusion

 

State supervision of local police officials, first established on a

systematic basis in 1902, became important during a period of

approximately four years between 1921 and 1924. During that brief

era it approached the level of activity recommended by Fuld and

Hatton. However, the two governors who conducted this supervisory

activity-Davis and Donahey-largely confined their efforts to an

attempt to enforce statewide prohibition. Evidence indicates that

they persuaded local officials to enforce the anti-liquor statutes, or

at least to pretend to do so, and in the process obtained formal public

acceptance of prohibition. But the very success of their work ulti-

mately weakened the position of the state goverment within the law

enforcement realm. Ohio's leaders, fearful of public reaction to such

positive actions in support of an unpopular cause and operating in

an area of government traditionally left in county and municipal

hands, avoided direct supervision of local policing after 1924.

 

42. See, for example, Journal, Mar. 29, 1923, 1, 4; and The Columbus Citizen, Mar.

29, 1923, 2.

43. John W. Bricker, personal interview with the author, Columbus, August 5,

1969.

• 17