Ohio History Journal

FRANK P. VAZZANO

 

Martin Davey, John Bricker and

the Ohio Election of 1936

 

 

"There's something wrong in Columbus." With those words John W.

Bricker, the Republican nominee for governor of Ohio, opened the 1936 cam-

paign against his Democratic opponent, Martin L. Davey. Bricker's declara-

tion, more an accusation than a challenge, initiated a contest destined to be-

come one of the meanest in the history of Ohio. But the campaign did more

than that; it generated a bitter personal feud between two of the state's politi-

cal giants, a feud that lasted long after the election itself faded from memory.

Such a canvass seemed appropriate to the times. Nineteen-thirty-six was

also a presidential election year, and one of the most curious of those. First,

Ohio dominated the nominating season. Not only had the Republicans held

their national convention in Cleveland, but so too had several fringe groups:

the Townsendites, the Socialist National Party and the National Union for

Social Justice, blocs born out of the despair, anger and occasional zaniness of

the Great Depression.

This was also the election in which Al Smith, the Democrats' failed presi-

dential candidate of 1928, stood before an audience of Republicans in Carnegie

Hall and proclaimed, "I firmly believe that the remedy for all the ills that we

are suffering from today is the election of Alfred M. Landon."^l Certainly

many Americans could appreciate Smith's disappointment over his party's

snubbing in 1932, but the Happy Warrior's apostasy must have caused a few

Tammany sachems to rumble in their graves.

No less curious was Literary Digest magazine's misreading of the political

auguries of 1936. A scant two months before the presidential election, a

Digest poll showed Landon leading Franklin D. Roosevelt by fifty-six to

thirty-seven percent.² Democrats could rightly scoff on election night when

their man gave the Republican nominee one of the worst drubbings in the

 

 

Frank P. Vazzano is a Professor of History at Walsh University in North Canton, Ohio.

 

1. The Ravenna (Ohio) Evening Record and Daily Courier-Tribune, October 2, 1936.

2. "Through a Century in Repository Files," Canton (Ohio) Repository, September 2, 1986.

The remaining seven percent of those polled chose William Lemke of the Union Party.

Literary Digest selected names and addresses from old telephone books. Most of the

people who could afford phones and had not been forced to move during the Great Depression

supported Landon. Consequently, the Digest poll was badly skewed. See Frank Friedel,

America in the Twentieth Century, 3d ed., Alfred A. Knopf (New York, 1970), 339.

• 1
 

6                                                     OHIO HISTORY

 

history of American electoral politics.

Whatever the presidential contest may have lacked in high drama was more

than made up for in the Ohio gubernatorial campaign. Davey, just finishing

his first term as governor, ran on his record of a balanced budget, adequately

funded old-age pensions and relief programs and the promise of no new taxes.³

But Bricker knew that there was more to Davey's first term than budgets,

pensions, relief allotments and freedom from new taxes. He hammered Davey

with charges of corruption involving shakedowns and a million-dollar slush

fund.⁴ Anybody doing business with the state had to, in Bricker's opinion,

"lay it on the line" in order to get a contract.⁵

Anyone who knew Martin L. Davey recognized that Bricker was now in for

the political fight of his life. When in good humor Davey was petulant and

pugnacious; when in bad humor he was mean, vengeful and utterly unforgiv-

ing. For instance, in his January 1935 inaugural address, a speech Ohioans

might reasonably expect to be conciliatory to the defeated Republicans, Davey

proclaimed that he was going to make partisan appointments.⁶ Claiming po-

litical spoils at a time when the victor should as a matter of form extend an

olive branch to his vanquished foe was unnecessary, ungracious and mean.

Yet among his friends he was the picture of charm. On one occasion, dur-

ing a Columbus rally in the middle of the 1936 campaign, the governor de-

layed his speech until he had personally greeted several hometown supporters

from Kent. After seeing to their comfort, he insisted that they meet him

right after his address.  Davey finished his remarks and then invited the

Kentites to ride with him in his private car to dinner and music at Columbus'

Neil House.⁷

His local newspaper, the Ravenna-Kent Evening Record and Daily

Courier-Tribune, described him as a "master showman," acutely aware of

the art of keeping his name on the public's lips. In 1939, the year he left the

governorship, he mailed Christmas cards to nearly 180,000 people.⁸ Ever the

cultivator of image, he dressed meticulously, drawing from an extensive

wardrobe he carried even on trips. And, whenever traveling on official

business, the governor screeched off in sleek automobiles accompanied by

two state highway patrol motorcycles, sirens screaming.⁹

Bricker paled next to the flamboyant Davey. While Davey strutted like a

 

 

3. Martin L. Davey to William D. Overman, October 19, 1936, VFM 412, Martin L. Davey

Papers, Ohio Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio.

4. Karl B. Pauly, Bricker of Ohio: The Man and His Record, G. P. Putnam's Sons (New

York, 1944), 80.

5. Cleveland Plain Dealer, November 4, 1936.

6. Ibid., April 1, 1946.

7. Ravenna Evening Record and Daily Courier-Tribune, October 19, 1936.

8. Ravenna-Kent Evening Record and Daily Courier-Tribune, April 1, 1946.

9. Cleveland Plain Dealer, April 1, 1946.

• 2
 

Ohio Election of 1936                                      7

barnyard rooster, Bricker was subdued. Davey, with his slick pompadour and sartorial resplendency, had the look of a speakeasy owner; Bricker, with a shock of white hair and mild temperament, appeared courtly, even presiden- tial. His friends, and some foes, called him "Honest John." No one ever called Davey "Honest Martin." And, while Davey enjoyed fast cars and mo- torcycle escorts, Bricker eschewed them. Once, during his second term as governor, Bricker's chauffeur followed a motorcycle policeman into the Ohio State Fair. When the escort turned on his siren and flashed his lights the crowds parted, leaving a path for the governor's car. Bricker, embarrassed by it all, ordered his driver to turn away from the throng. The police motorcycle continued ahead, clearing the way for no one.10 Such behavior was typical of Bricker. After winning the governorship later in 1938, he would practice the austerity he had preached during the campaign. Because Ohio was twenty million dollars in debt in 1939, Bricker refused any elaborate inaugural ceremonies, opting instead for a quiet swearing-in without         10. Columbus Dispatch, March 26, 1986.

• 3
 

8                                                     OHIO HISTORY

 

even an honor guard present.11 Noble though the gesture may have seemed,

there was at least a hint of the political in it. During his first week in office,

Bricker fired more than a thousand state workers.¹² Discharging a thousand

employees on the heels of an elaborate inauguration would have been callous

and impolitic in the extreme.

Bricker may have been less flamboyant than Davey, but he too knew the art

of politics. Chalmers Wylie, a Republican congressman from Columbus, re-

called in 1986 the advice Bricker had offered him in 1953: "Shake hands with

as many people as you can," the sixty-year-old Bricker told the younger man

scarcely half his age. "That is something I still do-doorbell campaign-

ing."¹³ Wylie never forgot Bricker's advice and used it to forge his own

successful political career.

Bricker and Davey followed separate paths to their nominations in 1936.

Bricker, who had earlier won a number of local and state offices, including the

state attorney generalship, had scaled the political ladder without controversy.

He was an easy choice for the Republicans in 1936 and was unopposed in the

primary election. Davey, on the other hand, fought bitterly for the nomina-

tion with fellow Democrat Stephen Young, an Ohio congressman, who had

attacked Davey as "Ohio Democracy's Public Liability No. 1."¹⁴ In Davey's

first year of office, Young charged, government costs rose $19,200,000, with

more than a million of that in the Tax Commission office alone.¹⁵ So

much, Young claimed, for Davey's boast of economy in office.

What angered Davey the most, however, were Young's attacks where the

governor was most vulnerable-in matters of integrity. On May 4, 1936,

only eight days before the gubernatorial primary, Young and Davey clashed in

Cleveland during a noontime meeting of the Women's City Club and the

League of Women Voters. There, before that politically sophisticated audi-

ence, Young charged Davey with running a partisan machine fueled by forced

contributions from state employees. Young then dared Davey to defend his

record in debate at any time in any place. Davey ignored the challenge.16

Davey seethed through the rest of the day and by evening could no longer

contain himself. In a speech broadcast over Cleveland radio station WHK,

Davey struck back at Young. Obviously trying to deride his opponent, the

governor proclaimed, "There is no contest of any consequence in the pri-

maries; in fact, there is not the slightest reason or excuse for the existence of

any opposition at all." Davey said his opponent had sunk to the mudslinging

 

 

11. Cleveland Plain Dealer, March 23, 1986.

12. Ibid.

13. Columbus Dispatch, March 23, 1986.

14. Cleveland Plain Dealer, May 13, 1936.

15. Ibid., May 5, 1936.

16. Ibid. As an example, Young declared that many state workers in Toledo were forced to

buy at least four tickets at fifty cents each to a Davey rally in that city.

• 4
 

Ohio Election of 1936                                                    9

 

tactics of a demagogue and later that night predicted he would be renominated

by a five-to-one margin in the primary.¹⁷

Young's challenges could be sloughed off as typical campaign rhetoric, but

Davey faced others as well. On May 4, the same day that Young charged

Davey with extorting contributions from state workers, the Consumers

League of Ohio blasted the governor's staff, particularly Ora B. Chapman, di-

rector of the State Industrial Relations Department, and Elaine Sheffler, super-

intendent of the department's minimum wage division, for failing to enforce

Ohio's industrial minimum wage law for women and minors. The

Consumers League quickly linked Davey to the accusations by claiming the

governor had broken his promise to enforce the law and had fired an able min-

imum wage superintendent in order to provide a job for the unqualified

Sheffler.18

None of the imputations mattered, though. Davey won renomination, al-

though by nowhere near the boastful five-to-one margin he had predicted.

Davey beat Young by little more than a hundred thousand votes, an easy win

for the governor but a creditable showing for the Ohio congressman who had

entered the primary late. By the time he did, most of the Democratic machin-

ery had already lined up behind Davey.¹⁹ Late on election night, with the

outcome no longer in doubt, a gracious Young urged Democrats to unite be-

hind Governor Davey.

Bricker opened the general campaign with a radio broadcast from

Cincinnati. In it he announced that newspapers across the state, including

traditionally Democratic ones, were universally calling for Davey's defeat.

That was true even for the Cleveland Plain Dealer, which Bricker gladly

pointed out had for the past ninety-one years endorsed Democrats for gover-

nor.²⁰ The press' aversion to Davey was easy to understand, Bricker claimed,

because "they [the press] are the first to detect hypocrisy in public officials. . .[,]

and they know that the hope for honest, efficient and good government in

Ohio demands the present governor's defeat."²¹

 

17. Ibid. It was not surprising that Davey used the radio to attack Young. He liked the

medium, employing it for years to promote his family's business in Kent, Ohio, the Davey Tree

Expert Company. In the general election, Bricker tried to nullify Davey's broadcasting skill by

claiming that the governor had spent $66,000 on radio campaigning, with most of the money

coming from contractors, other firms doing business with the state and from civil service em-

ployees. See Cleveland Plain Dealer, October 21, 1936.

18. Cleveland Plain Dealer, May 5, 1936.

19. Ibid., May 14 and 13, 1936.

20. The Plain Dealer in 1935 exposed serious irregularities in the Davey administration's

handling of relief. A series of sensational Plain Dealer articles in March attracted the attention

of Federal Emergency Relief Administration chief Harry Hopkins in Washington, D.C.

Hopkins' attempts to bring Davey into line precipitated a bitter feud between the two men.

Davey hated the Plain Dealer for its role in the dispute, and the Cleveland paper had no affec-

tion for Davey.

21. Cleveland Plain Dealer, October 4, 1936.

• 5
 

10                                                    OHIO HISTORY

 

Nothing energized Davey like an attack on his integrity, and Bricker's

broadcast had done exactly that. Davey devised an interesting strategy; if

Bricker attempted to capitalize on Davey's disfavor in the press, he would re-

turn the favor by claiming his opponent was a mere minion of Harry P.

Wolfe, publisher of the Columbus Dispatch and the Ohio State Journal.

Never one to mince words when affronted, Davey in a broadcast of his own

claimed that Wolfe owned Bricker "body and soul." "He controls my oppo-

nent," Davey continued, "just as completely as though he had a ring in his

nose." It was Wolfe, Davey claimed, who told Bricker he could not run for

governor in 1934 but could do so in 1936. Wolfe's influence was so vast,

Davey contended, that he and a few other Republican bosses had ensured

Bricker's uncontested nomination as the party's standard bearer in 1936.

Davey asserted that Wolfe's "ownership" of Bricker was the "most important

issue" in the campaign.²²

Later in the campaign, Davey broadened his charges. Bricker was not sim-

ply in Wolfe's hip pocket but was also beholden to a slew of political bosses

who would collect their IOUs after they maneuvered their man into the gover-

norship. Heading the list of political bosses manipulating Bricker, according

to Davey, were Maurice "Boss" Maschke, a long-time Republican national

committeeman and Cuyahoga County party boss, and Ed Schorr of

Cincinnati, the state Republican chairman.²³ Such men, Davey contended,

served their own selfish interests and let the public be damned. Bricker would

let them have their way because he was a "first class yes-man."²⁴

Davey's accusations rang hollow because the governor had one of the most

questionable alliances in Ohio politics himself-with Francis Poulson, the

Ohio Democratic Party chairman in the 1930s. Nothing involving Martin L.

Davey passed unnoticed on Poulson's watch, particularly where fund raising

was concerned. Bricker claimed that Poulson was the power behind the throne

in Ohio and extracted kickbacks for the Davey machine from every contractor,

supplier and liquor dealer doing business with the state.²⁵ In a series of ad-

dresses in Cleveland four days before the election, Bricker predicted the people

of Ohio would vote out of office these two "princes of public plunder."²⁶

Bricker's comment was remarkable because Poulson was not an elected of-

ficial. Yet the relationship between Davey and Poulson was so strong that

 

22. Ibid., October 7, 1936.

23. Ibid., October 28, 1936; Inventory of the Maurice Maschke Papers, Ohio Historical

Society, Columbus, Ohio; Ravenna Evening Record and Daily Courier-Tribune, October 16,

1936. Others on Davey's list were Rees H. Davis, a Cleveland lawyer; Nolan Boggs and

Walter Brown of Toledo; Dan Brower from Dayton; and D. C. Pemberton of Columbus, whom

Davey described as the "greatest lobbyist in Columbus." See Cleveland Plain Dealer, October

28, 1936.

24. Cleveland Plain Dealer, October 27, 1936.

25. Ibid., October 28 and November 4, 1936.

26. Ibid., October 29, 1936.

• 6
 

Ohio Election of 1936                                               11

 

voters could hardly think of one without the other. The New York Times had

described them as "Damon and Pythias" in 1935, and although both men de-

nied so close a relationship, it was common knowledge in Ohio that anyone

wanting to do business with the state had to "see Poulson."²⁷ But Poulson

was not solely responsible for the Davey administration's unsavory reputa-

tion. The governor, too, was accused of questionable dealings. In December

1934, for example, Davey, in his suite in Cleveland's Hollenden Hotel,

pulled $500 from his pocket to reward one of his myrmidons, Lee Bradley, al-

legedly for arranging kickbacks from companies doing business with the

state.28

Davey was especially vulnerable to attacks on his integrity in two Ohio de-

partments, highway and liquor. Early in the campaign he tried to defuse

Bricker's accusations of rampant corruption in the Highway Department. In a

radio broadcast heard over several stations, Davey protested his innocence

against charges that he had politicized the State Highway Department. It

would be impossible to do that, the governor claimed, because funds for the

department were so protected by competitive bidding and civil service laws

that only four percent of the department's monies were available to hire so-

called "friends" of the administration. Rather than turning the highway de-

partment into a partisan auxiliary, Davey argued that he had exercised consid-

erable restraint over it. Because of Davey's frugality, the State Highway

Department was now saving $2,500,000 a year.²⁹ Furthermore, the depart-

ment was an exemplar of excellence. It had developed a new low-cost method

of resurfacing roads, created an award winning new bridge design and re-

sponded most notably in keeping the roads clear during the heavy snows of

1935-36.³⁰

Davey's response, intended to disarm Bricker and other critics who were cer-

tain that the governor indeed had turned the State Highway Department into a

partisan auxiliary, skirted the real issue. Bricker was not concerned that

Davey favorites had been hired en masse by the department. What angered

Bricker was that Francis Poulson and other Davey operatives could use the

department's vast purchasing power to "shakedown" contractors wanting to do

business with it. According to Bricker, the Davey administration smartly

avoided outright extortion by asking vendors to subscribe to the Ohioan, a

 

 

27. New York Times, March 18, 1935; Cleveland Plain Dealer, October 31, 1936.

28. Transcripts of Proceedings Before the Sub-committee of the Senate Investigating

Committee in the Cleveland Public Auditorium, Thursday, February 17, 1938, MSS 3799,

Container 22, Marvin C. Harrison Papers, Western Reserve Historical Society, Cleveland,

Ohio. Charges and accusations were one thing; hard evidence was another. Without concrete

proof of criminality, there could be no indictments. See Cleveland Plain Dealer, April 1, 1946.

29. Ravenna Evening Record and Daily Courier-Tribune, October 7, 1936; Cleveland Plain

Dealer, October 7, 1936.

30. Cleveland Plain Dealer, October 7, 1936.

• 7
 

12                                                         OHIO HISTORY

 

Democratic party newspaper.³¹ Vendors knew how the game was played-if

they wanted to do business with the state, they had to subscribe to the

Ohioan. Subscription monies would then, of course, be funneled to the

Davey machine.

Equally repugnant to Bricker was Davey's practice of asking thousands of

state highway department workers for campaign donations. The Cleveland

Plain Dealer claimed that the State Democratic Committee received more

than $80,000 in "contributions" from state employees in 1936. Of that total,

almost $32,000 had come from highway department workers.³²

Bricker's insinuations of impropriety enraged Davey. In 1940, while

locked in another gubernatorial campaign against his old foe, Davey protested

his innocence in a letter to now governor Bricker. Never, Davey said, did we

tell "our people" to "solicit any of the poorly-paid employees, such as high-

way laborers." In the same letter, Davey accused Bricker of doing the very

same thing that Bricker had accused him of doing-getting state employees to

contribute to a reelection campaign. Davey's anger was evident: "What a

sanctimonious pretender you have turned out to be! Like a sneaky little boy,

you have falsely charged that the other boy was naughty, and now you are

caught with your own fingers in the jam."³³

Bricker felt that he had Davey by the throat in matters of integrity and re-

fused to let go. If charges of corruption in the State Highway Department

were true, Davey was even more vulnerable to similar accusations involving

the state liquor department. Herbert S. Duffy, Davey's own party candidate

for state attorney general in 1936, described a typical liquor department sce-

nario under the governor: In 1935, Duffy, a lawyer, sought a liquor license

for a Cleveland client. His client was directed to Democratic state chairman

Francis Poulson, who in turn sent the man to the governor's office. After

four more visits to Columbus, the applicant was told by a Davey spokesman

that he would have to "see Poulson" and pay a "sizable fee" if he wanted the

license.³⁴

Bricker continued his attacks. On October 23, before a cheering throng of

1200 crammed into the Ashtabula High School gymnasium, the attorney

 

 

31. Ravenna Evening Record and Daily Courier-Tribune, October 24, 1936.

32. Cleveland Plain Dealer clipping, July 8, 1937, enclosed in Marvin C. Harrison to Harry

Hopkins, July 8, 1937, General Correspondence, 1933-1940, Container 89, Harry Hopkins

Papers, Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, Hyde Park, New York.

33. Martin L. Davey to Governor John W. Bricker, August 2, 1940, VFM 1491, Martin L.

Davey Papers, Ohio Historical Society. Seething with derision and spite, Davey concluded his

letter with, "When you have finished with this one, we will have a few other sweet morsels for

the attention of Your Excellency."

34. Cleveland Plain Dealer, October 25, 1936. Such reports were so common that the Ohio

House of Representatives in 1935 considered a resolution to investigate the liquor department.

The measure failed only because of the fierce opposition of Davey loyalists. In March 1936,

the Ohio Senate entertained a similar resolution, but it suffered the same fate. See Ibid.

• 8
 

Ohio Election of 1936                                          13

 

general challenged Davey to authorize a criminal investigation of the Ohio

Department of Liquor Control. To underscore his determination, Bricker held

aloft an affidavit signed only three days earlier by the manager of a Cleveland

area state liquor store. The manager swore the supervisor of state liquor

stores in the Cleveland district had telephoned him demanding that he con-

tribute four percent of his salary to Davey's campaign fund. His employees

were expected to make similar donations. Failure to comply, Bricker claimed,

would cost the man his job. To prove he was telling the truth, Bricker

showed the affidavit to reporters in the audience.³⁵

The attorney general leveled more specific charges six days later.

Campaigning in Lakewood, he claimed cronyism was rampant in the depart-

ment and named the favored liquor dealers. The Plain Dealer reported that

the Davey administration had bought $1,975,000 worth of liquor from the

governor's friend Samuel Ungerleider; $2,900,000 worth was purchased

through Jack McCombe, formerly the campaign fund collector for Poulson;

$440,000 from still another Poulson friend, Colby Hubbard; $347,000 worth

came from Poulson crony Bill Goggin, and $1,600,000 from a Democratic ward

heeler in Cleveland, Edward C. Jakab. Taking care of the administration's

friends so generously, Bricker averred, tied up state monies that were supposed

to go to old age pensions. Instead, state liquor stores were so overstocked

with some brands that it would be years before they could clear their shelves.

The state's generosity toward "friendly" liquor dealers was easy to explain,

said Bricker. It had generated a half-million-dollar slush fund for the Davey

campaign.³⁶

After Bricker's October 23 accusations, the governor shot back from

Columbus: ". . . the attorney general made the reckless and malicious charge

that it cost $3 a case to sell liquor to the state. [I] demanded proof....

What was the attorney general's reply? He says he doesn't have any .. ."37

Bricker's charges were nothing more than a "political fishing expedition."

The liquor department, Davey insisted, was run honestly and efficiently. Its

profits, Davey contradicted Bricker, paid Ohio's old age pensions. Given the

lack of hard evidence of corruption from the attorney general, Davey refused to

authorize an investigation of the state liquor department.³⁸

To his enemies, Davey's indignation was a classic example of "the gentle-

man doth protest too much." Rumors about his iron-fisted control of the

state liquor department were too rampant not to raise some suspicions. Even

national Works Progress Administration agent Lorena Hickok, from far out in

the field, complained to her boss Harry Hopkins in Washington that Davey

 

 

35. Cleveland Plain Dealer, October 24, 1936.

36. Ibid., October 29, 1936.

37. Ibid., October 26, 1936.

38. Ibid.

• 9
 

14                                                          OHIO HISTORY

 

was forcing liquor dealers to buy licenses to sell in Ohio. All this had larger

implications, Hickok explained, because Davey was sabotaging the entire

Democratic organization in the state, and that boded ill for Roosevelt in the

election of 1936. Because of Davey's foul reputation, Hickok speculated that

Roosevelt's chances of carrying Ohio were only fifty-fifty.³⁹

Indeed, suspicions of corruption in the Department of Liquor Control were

so pervasive that a dozen Democrats joined five Republicans in the Ohio

Senate to conduct an official investigation in 1938. Their conclusion reeked

of despair: ". . . it is the judgment of this committee that the entire situation

[in the state liquor department] is so shot through with forgery, corruption,

graft, false reports, faked statistics, pretended 'buys' and maladministration as

to be hopeless of cure."⁴⁰ Driving right to the heart of long-standing accu-

sations that the state liquor department was little more than an extension of

Davey's political machine, the commission added, ". . . there appears to be a

general feeling that if political service is rendered to the [Davey] administra-

tion, that is all that is really required ...."⁴¹ The committee's recommenda-

tion was draconian: "The only possible remedy-as it appears to this com-

mittee-is to wipe the slate clean and rebuild anew."⁴²

Despite the Ohio Senate's assessment, suspicions and feelings were not

hard evidence, so Davey escaped indictment. However, when Bricker finally

captured the governorship in 1938, housecleaning in the state liquor depart-

ment began immediately. Bricker had scarcely warmed the governor's chair

when he replaced Davey's liquor chief, George Eppley, with Jacob B.

Taylor.⁴³ The Ohio Senate in a day confirmed the new governor's choice.

Although political changes ordinarily accompany a new administration, it was

probably no accident that Taylor's name headed the list of new cabinet mem-

bers.⁴⁴

Certainly Bricker's charges against Davey were politically motivated, but

they were nonetheless substantive. Ohioans had only to examine the gover-

nor's record to recognize his instinct for politicizing any bureau, department

 

 

39. Lorena Hickok to Harry Hopkins, October 10, 1935, Lorena Hickok Reports to Harry

Hopkins, 1935, Box 11, Lorena Hickok Papers, Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, Hyde Park,

New York.

40. Preliminary Report of Senate Investigating Committee Appointed by Senate Resolution

104, February 28, 1938, MSS 3799, Container 22, Folder 468, Harrison Papers, Western

Reserve Historical Society.

41. Ibid.

42. Ibid.

43. John W. Bricker to the Ohio Senate, January 9, 1939, MSS 340, Appointments File 1939,

Box 12, John W. Bricker Papers, Ohio Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio. Eppley was

Davey's assistant relief director during the governor's first term. Charles C. Stillman, the

Federal Emergency Relief Administration's midwest liaison, fired him in 1935 during Harry

Hopkins' investigation of corruption in Ohio's relief system.

44. Thomas E. Bateman [Clerk of the Ohio Senate] to John W. Bricker, January 11, 1939,

MSS 340, Senate Approvals 1939, Box 12, Bricker Papers, Ohio Historical Society.

• 10
 

Ohio Election of 1936                                       15

or commission. He even saw Ohio's relief program as a convenient target, quickly moving to make the administration of a public dole an extension of the Davey machine. Simply put, Governor Davey tried through patronage to turn Ohio's relief organization into a partisan auxiliary. What better way to control Ohio's massive relief machinery than through the appointment of Davey favorites throughout the vast relief network. Davey's politicization of Ohio relief stirred powerful men in Washington. Harry Hopkins, the director of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, responded to the governor's action by firing Davey operatives and turning over control of Ohio relief to federal agents. The dispute between Davey and Hopkins stigmatized the governor and commanded the attention of the na- tion's press in the spring of 1935. At one point, Davey even swore out a warrant for Hopkins' arrest, charging the FERA director with criminal libel for his criticisms.45     45. Frank P. Vazzano, "Harry Hopkins and Martin Davey: Federal Relief and Ohio Politics During the Great Depression," Ohio History, 96 (Summer-Autumn 1987), 133.

• 11
 

16                                                          OHIO HISTORY

 

Although the two men patched up their quarrel, neither ever really liked the

other. In Hopkins' mind, Davey was nothing more than a slippery, selfserv-

ing politician, and to Davey, Hopkins was simply a Washington bureaucrat

whose relief programs were rife with inefficiency and fraud. Davey had re-

ceived reports of widespread corruption in Ohio work relief as early as 1934,

and Ohio Democratic Senator Robert J. Bulkley's files were full of similar

complaints about unruly and underworked WPA laborers.⁴⁶ Even the relief

system's defenders recognized how bad its image was. The whole program

and its undergirding philosophy would have to be "re-sold to the public,"

commented one.⁴⁷

Bricker knew he had a campaign issue in relief. Citing Davey's problems

with Hopkins, Bricker called the administration of relief in Ohio a "miserable

failure." Governor Davey's claims of economical relief administration were

patently false. While Davey wanted to saturate the relief system with his

own hacks, Bricker promised a network operated by employees protected under

civil service.⁴⁸ Such reform, of course, would undo the patronage that helped

sustain the governor's political machine.

On this issue Bricker received help from a surprising source, a staunch

Democrat, Marc J. Grossman, former chairman of the Cuyahoga County re-

lief committee. Speaking on Cleveland's WGAR radio, Grossman called the

Davey administration's handling of Ohio relief "a program of political vandal-

ism unparalleled in Ohio history." Only the federal government's direct in-

tervention in Ohio relief in 1935 saved one-million Ohioans from starvation,

Grossman charged. While claiming to save millions of dollars through effi-

ciency, all Davey had done was dump responsibility for relief on the counties.

That policy had failed miserably and forced federal intervention in Ohio's re-

lief program.⁴⁹ Davey had done nothing more than perpetrate a cruel account-

ing trick at the expense of Ohio's destitute.

 

46. B. I. Susong to Martin Davey, November 20, 1934, MSS 339, Box 5, File 14, Davey

Papers, Ohio Historical Society; E. L. Pucel and 16 other Cleveland city councilmen to Senator

Robert J. Buckley [sic], February 4, 1936, MSS 3310, Box 22, Folder 1, Robert J. Bulkley

Papers, Western Reserve Historical Society, Cleveland, Ohio; William F. Thompkins [Chief

Regional Engineer for the Lakefront Boulevard Project, Cleveland, Ohio] to Wayne Coy

[Works Progress Administration Field Representative], January 16-17, 1936, MSS 3310, Box

34, Folder 4, Bulkley Papers, Western Reserve Historical Society; Waldo F. Walker [Director,

District Six WPA in Ohio] to Robert J. Bulkley, February 6, 1936, MSS 3310, Box 22, Folder 1,

Bulkley Papers, Western Reserve Historical Society.

47. Waldo F. Walker to Maurice L. Klynn [Director, Ohio Division of Employment],

February 3, 1936, MSS 3310, Box 34, Folder 4, Bulkley Papers, Western Reserve Historical

Society.

48. Cleveland Plain Dealer, October 13, 1936.

49. Ibid., October 29, 1936. Years later Davey continued to dispute relief issues with

Bricker. In an angry letter to now Governor Bricker, Davey contended that his administration,

operating with far less revenue, spent more on relief in 1936 than Bricker had in 1939 and

1940. See Martin L. Davey to John W. Bricker, August 10, 1940, VFM 1491, Davey Papers,

Ohio Historical Society.

• 12
 

Ohio Election of 1936                                            17

 

In Davey's defense, it was hard to administer any multi-million-dollar pro-

gram involving so many people, ranging all the way from recipients to case

workers to relief bureaucrats in Columbus and Washington. Clearly the pro-

gram was unwieldy. The Roosevelt administration was constantly tinkering

with ways to aid America's unemployed, and to Davey's credit, so was he.

On May 12, 1935, the Ohio General Assembly had passed Governor

Davey's measure calling for county relief bonds which were to be financed by

a one-percent excise tax on public utilities.⁵⁰ But this plan proved only par-

tially successful because the relief problem was so vast. Davey's next ap-

proach allowed Ohio's counties to levy their own taxes for relief. The gover-

nor believed this grass roots approach would prove more efficient and eco-

nomical.⁵¹ Yet nothing stemmed the tide until World War II revived the na-

tional economy, and Bricker had plenty of ammunition to fire against Davey

during the campaign of 1936.

The challenger's strategy seemed to be one of setting several brushfires that

Davey would have to douse, thereby keeping him constantly on the defensive.

Consistent with that strategy, Bricker assailed Davey's system of school fund-

ing. In a speech in Youngstown, Bricker claimed the Ohio public school sys-

tem was in financial crisis. Because Governor Davey had no plan for paying

Ohio's annual school bills, the public school system faced an immediate

$12,000,000 deficit. Adding to Ohio's woes, the interest on that debt was

$351,000 a year.⁵²

Davey, naturally, disputed the claim. The schools were efficiently run, the

governor rejoined, and were so without the imposition of new taxes. The

public school foundation law, a plan drawn up and administered by the Davey

administration, had worked miracles in Ohio education. Prior to the law,

Davey argued, 10,000 teachers were not paid and many schools were closed or

curtailing their operations. The Davey administration's school foundation

law had corrected that. Despite his confidence, Davey hedged a bit; if there

were a shortfall in the school fund, the governor told a packed house in

Lima's Allen County Memorial Hall, it could be easily covered by shifting

state funds to meet the need. The governor was confident that Ohio's econ-

omy would improve and extra monies could then be diverted to schools.

Cleverly, Davey linked Bricker with the failed school funding plan of

Governor Alf Landon in Kansas. Bricker's demands for a balanced budget

conjured up images of Landon's fiscal problems in Kansas. Landon had bal-

anced his budget at the expense of teachers' salaries, currently at $25 a month

 

 

 

50. Carl Wittke, ed., The History of the State of Ohio: Ohio in the Twentieth Century, 1900-

1938 (Columbus, 1942), VI, 80.

51. Ibid., 81.

52. Cleveland Plain Dealer, October 23, 1936; Ravenna Evening Record and Daily Courier-

Tribune, October 29, 1936.

• 13
 

18                                                          OHIO HISTORY

 

in the Sunflower state. What more could one expect from a state that pro-

vided eighty-four cents for each pupil in its schools? Even that eighty-four

cents, Davey claimed, came from a dog license tax.⁵³

There seemed to be no end to the twists and turns of this campaign. Not

even race was spared. In mid-October, as Bricker campaigned in the north-

western part of the state, he learned that Davey forces had circulated letters

charging that he wanted Negroes driven out of the Republican party.⁵⁴

Fuming over the accusation, Bricker challenged the authors to "come out into

the open." The letters, he said, were "lying and cowardly." He quickly

blamed Davey and Poulson for instigating them.⁵⁵

Davey's introduction of race into the campaign may have been mean-spir-

ited, but it revealed his political acumen. Bricker was potentially vulnerable

on the issue, and Davey was quick to smell blood, particularly that of a man

who by now had become more an enemy than a mere political rival.

Specifically, in 1933, as attorney general, Bricker had supported the Ohio

State University's trustees in a controversial decision involving one Doris

Weaver. Weaver, a black student, had sued the trustees to get them to let her

live with white classmates in the home economics management house at

Ohio State. Influenced by misguided notions against racial mixing, the

trustees had refused. Bricker supported their decision on the technical grounds

that as attorney general he was sworn to defend state officials in their conduct

of official business, and the Ohio Supreme Court unanimously upheld the

trustees' action.⁵⁶ Republican campaign managers defused the situation by

claiming that Weaver, now on the faculty at Wilberforce University, intended

to vote for Bricker.⁵⁷

Ordinarily, tactics even so despicable as race baiting might be explained

away in a heated campaign. In Bricker's case, his response to the Weaver

"problem" could have been an overreaction. But he was in the fight of his

life. Davey was obviously willing to use every ploy to win in November.

His political ingenuity and his capacity for scheming seemed boundless.

 

 

53. Cleveland Plain Dealer, October 22, 1936. Davey claimed too much credit for the

school foundation bill. He disliked its provisions calling for consolidating small school districts

and tried to get the legislature to alter the measure. It refused and sent the bill to the governor.

Many thought he would refuse to sign it, but he did. See Cleveland Plain Dealer, October 28,

1936.

There were allegations that Davey had even politicized the State Department of Education.

Those charges surfaced when school board members and teachers throughout Ohio received

letters from E. L. Bowsher, state director of education, praising Davey's school funding.

Bowsher denied the allegations. See Cleveland Plain Dealer, October 12, 1936.

54. Ravenna Evening Record and Daily Courier-Tribune, October 16, 1936.

55. Ibid.; Cleveland Plain Dealer, November 3, 1936. Davey campaigners also claimed that

Bricker was anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish. See Ravenna Evening Record and Daily Courier-

Tribune, October 16, 1936 and Cleveland Plain Dealer, October 19, 1936.

56. Cleveland Plain Dealer, October 26, 1936.

57. Ibid.

• 14
 

Ohio Election of 1936                                             19

 

An excellent case in point occurred in late October. Under cover of dark-

ness, trucks from the Davey Tree Expert Company backed into loading docks

at the state sales tax office in Columbus and carted off four tons of addresso-

graph plates to company offices in Cleveland. The plates, worth $30,000,

contained the names and addresses of Ohio sales tax vendors. There was no

better way to have at the ready full lists of people who could be hit with a fi-

nal hour electioneering pitch. Speaking in several Cleveland wards on

October 29, Bricker charged that the removal of state property demonstrated

that Davey had sunk to a new low.⁵⁸

Davey tried to explain away the episode, but his excuse was lame. The

plates, he said, were being "used to address some envelopes."⁵⁹ The governor

squirmed: "I have been out campaigning all the time and cannot be expected

to handle the details of the campaign ..." Then, as if this excused the sin,

he continued, "No state employees were used to operate the addressing equip-

ment and state trucks were not used to transport [it] to Cleveland. The state

hasn't lost a thing and has not been harmed."⁶⁰

Bricker, speaking at Cincinnati's Music Hall, derided Davey's explanation:

"I suspect that if any ordinary citizen of Ohio backed some trucks up to the

State Office Building and started to move out $30,000 worth of equipment

under the cover of darkness, he would be thrown into jail for burglary and

larceny."⁶¹ Never before, Bricker added, had he "known of a political cam-

paign waged on such a low plane of deceit and with such a wanton disregard

of truth and decency .. ."62

Davey's reprehensible tactics indicated that he was in deep political trouble.

But the governor had another card to play. He had been strengthening his

hand by linking his political fortunes to those of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Apart from the Literary Digest's faulty forecast, most Americans expected

Roosevelt to sweep to victory in 1936. Certainly the president's coattails

would be wide, and no one could better profit from a Roosevelt triumph than

Martin L. Davey. This was especially true because Ohio's presidential and

state tickets were printed on a single ballot.⁶³ Voters would have to make a

special effort to split their tickets between president and governor, and many

erroneously feared that doing so would negate their votes for Roosevelt, a

concern that Davey capitalized on during the campaign.⁶⁴

 

 

58. Ibid., October 30, 1936.

59. Ravenna Evening Record and Daily Courier-Tribune, October 29, 1936.

60. Ibid.; Cleveland Plain Dealer, October 30, 1936.

61. Cleveland Plain Dealer, October 31, 1936.

62. Ibid.

63. Wittke, History of Ohio, VI, 48; Pauly, Bricker of Ohio, 80.

64. Pauly, Bricker of Ohio, 80-81; Daniel E. Morgan to William A. Mason, January 8, 1937,

MSS 3069, Container 1, Folder 2, Correspondence 1933-1949, Daniel E. Morgan Papers,

Western Reserve Historical Society, Cleveland, Ohio.

• 15
 

20                                                       OHIO HISTORY

 

Davey's marriage to Roosevelt was no eleventh-hour strategy. The gover-

nor had plotted it long in advance. At the Democratic nominating convention

in June, Davey delivered the Ohio speech seconding Roosevelt's nomination.

And an impressive speech it was. Davey's voice resonated through

Philadelphia's Convention Hall:

 

Just go back three and a half years. Memory is our chief witness, bitter, an-

guished, pleading memory. Just let memory take you back. Fifteen millions

walking the streets, seeking work. Farmers on the verge of bankruptcy. Hundreds

of thousands sold out .... That period was the darkest in the history of the

Republic. No hope was left. Banks crashing all around us. Fear gripped the souls

of the American people. Our morale was gone. And then on the fateful 4th of

March, 1933, 120,000,000 pairs of eyes turned anxiously to Washington, and on

the shoulders of one man rested the responsibilities of the nation.

 

It was stump oratory at its best, and thousands cheered when Davey con-

cluded with, "Ohio rises gladly to second the nomination of that great humane

president, Franklin D. Roosevelt."⁶⁵

Davey did not stop here. When the fall campaign opened, he continued to

tie himself to Roosevelt. To his critics who wondered how a governor who

swore out an arrest warrant against Roosevelt's alter ego, Harry Hopkins,

could now embrace the national administration, Davey responded: "It was not

necessary to approve everything. . . to support a man for high public office."

All one had to do was recall his "high percentage of good results."⁶⁶

Although it required no special genius to recognize the wisdom of Davey's

strategy, the governor had to be applauded for the way he had turned a huge li-

ability, the bitter feud with Hopkins, into an asset, a healing of the breach

with Roosevelt. When the gubernatorial campaign began, Davey was a cer-

tain loser; now with only a week to go, he and Bricker were neck and neck.

The Republicans knew they were in trouble, and Davey made the best of it.⁶⁷

Roosevelt was stronger than Davey everywhere in Ohio. The Cleveland

Plain Dealer speculated that the president would have to carry the state by

150,000 votes or more for Davey to win: the president's margin in 1932 was

less than 75,000.68 Consequently, as the contest wound down, Davey cam-

 

 

65. Cleveland Plain Dealer, June 27, 1936. Even the anti-Davey Plain Dealer conceded that

the governor's speech ended the 1935 relief quarrel between Ohio and the national adminis-

tration.

66. Typed copy of a radio speech by Governor Martin L. Davey, October 8, 1936,

President's Personal File (PPF 4348), Franklin D. Roosevelt Papers, Franklin D. Roosevelt

Library, Hyde Park, New York; Cleveland Plain Dealer, October 9, 1936.

67. Lamenting the president's immense popularity, one Republican commented that he would

like to see Bricker run for governor when "Santa Claus" [Roosevelt] did not head the opposi-

tion ticket. Claude C. Waltermire to Daniel E. Morgan, November 19, 1936, MSS 3069,

Container 1, Folder 1, Correspondence 1933-1949, Morgan Papers, Western Reserve

Historical Society.

68. Cleveland Plain Dealer, October 25, 1936.

• 16
 

Ohio Election of 1936                                          21

 

paigned harder for Roosevelt than he did for himself. In the twilight of the

race, Davey's chief foe was not Bricker but Landon and even Herbert

Hoover.⁶⁹

Bricker knew that Landon was a liability and tactfully tried to distance him-

self from the Republican presidential nominee. That left him, of course, in

the difficult position of campaigning as a Republican but currying the sup-

port of pro-Roosevelt, anti-Davey Democrats. Evidently Bricker's tactics

worried Republicans at national campaign headquarters in Chicago. Their

concern was serious enough to prompt Daniel E. Morgan, chairman of the

Cuyahoga County Republican central committee, to assure national

Republican leaders that Ohio Republicans were "running a campaign for the

whole ticket, emphasizing the head of the ticket [Landon] .. ." Then, in

minor contradiction of his assurance, Morgan, knowing Landon's cause was

lost, added: "Be assured that we shall do what we can for the national

ticket."⁷⁰ The promise was less than ringing.

Bricker tried to ignore the national ticket. While stumping the Akron area

in late October, the attorney general moved in and out of crowds, shaking

hands with as many as he could. Never once did he utter the name Alf

Landon. He left the task of promoting the presidential nominee to others,

thinking certainly that it was best not to have his own name linked to a sure

loser's. When Bricker finally mentioned Landon, it was only after the day's

campaigning was almost over, and even then his praise was for Landon the

Kansas governor, not Landon the presidential candidate.⁷¹ A few days later,

while speaking at Cleveland's City Club, Bricker averred that he was a

"Republican and for the Republican ticket from top to bottom." However,

when he was asked, "If Roosevelt and Bricker are elected[,] will Bricker play

ball with Roosevelt?" the attorney general, all but acknowledging a Roosevelt

win, replied: "No one is elected to serve the Republican or Democratic party,

but to serve the people. It shall be my determined policy to cooperate com-

pletely with. .. whomever the people of the United States select as their pres-

ident."⁷²

Davey, quick to sense Bricker's fresh vulnerability, denounced his opponent

for "throwing Landon overboard" in a desperate attempt to win Democratic

votes.⁷³ Bricker, Davey charged, was panicking "like a boxer with his eyes

swollen shut," flailing about. In the very next breath he described him as an-

other Saul of Tarsus finally seeing the light. After maligning the president,

"he [Bricker] now tells people it's all right to vote for Roosevelt, it's all right

 

69. Ibid.

70. Daniel E. Morgan to James L. E. Jappe, October 15, 1936, MSS 3069, Container 1,

Folder 1, Correspondence 1933-1949, Morgan Papers, Western Reserve Historical Society.

71. Cleveland Plain Dealer, October 22, 1936.

72. Ibid., October 25, 1936.

73. Ibid., October 24, 1936.

• 17
 

22                                                       OHIO HISTORY

 

to vote for others on the Democratic ticket if you want to. But for Heaven's

name, please give me some votes, too."⁷⁴ Bricker's tactics would fail, the

governor claimed, because "Roosevelt will carry Ohio by at least [a] 250,000

majority, and I will not be far behind."⁷⁵

Others were not so optimistic. Clearly worried about the controversial

Davey's possible harm to the national ticket, Hopkins telephoned Ohio WPA

administrator Carl Watson four days before the election to gauge the state's

mood. Watson assured Hopkins that Ohio was safely for Roosevelt and pre-

dicted the margin would be about 75,000 votes.⁷⁶ Neither Davey's nor

Watson's guess was even close.

Davey's chicanery continued to the end. On election day itself, November

3, Republican precinct workers in Cincinnati received telegrams from

Columbus telling them "to forget Bricker and Landon and concentrate on

county candidates." The telegrams were signed "Ed Shore," an obvious mis-

spelling of the name of Ed Schorr, the Republican state chairman. Despite

Republican suspicions, there was no provable link between Davey and the

telegrams; they had been sent by a "mysterious stranger." Bricker and Schorr

immediately denounced the wires as forgeries.⁷⁷ With the election still in

doubt, Davey strategists were certainly capable of such bold-faced trickery.⁷⁸

Those last minute machinations proved superfluous. Roosevelt swept to a

massive popular and electoral majority, carrying Ohio by more than 600,000

votes. Davey, riding on the president's broad coattails, beat Bricker by nearly

127,000. The governor's win was comfortable but considering the enormity

of the Democratic victory it was disappointing. Not only had Roosevelt and

Davey won, their party elected twenty-two of Ohio's twenty-four congress-

men and captured huge majorities in both houses of the state legislature.⁷⁹

The results were similar at the national level. The House of Representatives

went Democratic, 334-89, and so did the Senate, 75-17. No party had ever

before experienced such an utter triumph. The Democrats so dominated the

Capitol that some of them had to sit on the Republican side of the aisle.⁸⁰

But Bricker had run 300,000 votes ahead of Landon, meaning thousands of

Ohioans had split their tickets.⁸¹ The implication was clear: Had Roosevelt

 

 

74. Ibid., October 29, 1936.

75. Ibid.

76. Transcripts of Telephone Conversations With State Relief Directors and Other Officials,

Ohio-South Dakota, October 29, 1936, Container 77, Harry Hopkins Papers, Franklin D.

Roosevelt Library.

77. Cleveland Plain Dealer, November 4, 1936.

78. Davey worried about Bricker's strength in Cincinnati's Hamilton County. As it turned

out, only Cuyahoga County gave the attorney general a wider margin than Hamilton County's

ten-thousand votes. See Cleveland Plain Dealer, November 5, 1936.

79. Wittke, History of Ohio, VI, 84-85. Davey had 1,540,093 votes to Bricker's 1,412,780.

80. Ted Morgan, FDR: A Biography, Simon and Schuster (New York, 1985), 441.

81. Pauly, Bricker of Ohio, 81.

• 18
 

Ohio Election of 1936                                                  23

 

not roared through Ohio, Davey would have lost. The governor's success was

not really his own; it was Roosevelt's.

In a way, Davey's victory was a defeat and Bricker's defeat was a victory.

Davey's was clearly a descending star.⁸² Bricker's stock, on the other hand,

was soaring. His remarkable showing against the Democratic landslide of

1936 promised every success for the future. Ohio Republicans could hardly

contain their enthusiasm. Cleveland Mayor Harold Burton virtually gushed:

". . . the vote for John W. Bricker is a demonstration that there is plenty of

strength in the party when the candidates are right."⁸³ Daniel E. Morgan, the

Cuyahoga County Republican chairman, crowed about Bricker, ". . . the re-

sult speaks for itself."⁸⁴ The Cleveland Plain Dealer was no less sanguine

in proclaiming that Bricker's popularity in the face of a Democratic landslide

meant that the gubernatorial nomination in 1938 was his for the asking.⁸⁵

He got it, won the governorship that year and again in 1940 and 1942.

Davey, meanwhile, began an inevitable slide into obscurity. Impelled by un-

restrainable fighting instincts, he was a politician too fiery and crafty for his

own good. His own party refused to renominate him for the governorship in

1938, and he would have to wait until 1940 for another chance at John W.

Bricker.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

82. Ohio Democrats nominated Charles Sawyer over Davey for governor in 1938. Davey

won his party's nomination in 1940 but was beaten soundly by Bricker. He retired to the family

business in Kent, where he died in 1946.

83. Harold H. Burton to Daniel E. Morgan, November 15, 1936, MSS 3069, Container 1,

Folder 1, Correspondence 1933-1949, Morgan Papers, Western Reserve Historical Society.

84. Daniel E. Morgan to Claude C. Waltermire, November 20, 1936, MSS 3069, Container 1,

Folder 1, Correspondence 1933-1949, Morgan Papers, Western Reserve Historical Society.

85. Cleveland Plain Dealer, November 8, 1936.

• 19