Ohio History Journal

JAMES H. LEE

The Ohio Agricultural

Commission, 1913-1915

When James M. Cox assumed the governorship for the first time, in 1913, Ohio

agriculture was passing through a period of rapid transition. The demographic

expansion of the late nineteenth century had inflated land values and crop prices,

a trend which converted agriculture into a potentially highly profitable enterprise.

Ohio farmers responded by gradually transforming themselves into rural business-

men; they specialized, developed more efficient managerial techniques, and utilized

more intelligently the total resources of their farms.¹ This transformation of farm-

ing was accompanied by the expansion of government activities designed to aid

agriculture. The State Board of Agriculture, created in 1846 as an information

agency for farmers, had by 1910 assumed considerable responsibility for the regula-

tion and promotion of agriculture in Ohio. The board, in addition to collecting and

disseminating crop and cattle statistics, also enforced plant and stock quarantine

laws and regulated the sale of fertilizers and foodstuffs within the state.² These

developments in agriculture, and parallel ones in other sectors of the economy,

often generated jurisdictional conflicts, duplication of activities, and confusion in

government since the state had assumed new responsibilities for regulating and

promoting economic development, but its administration was rather haphazard.

This was the situation when James M. Cox entered office in January 1913. The

new governor hoped to eliminate these problems by introducing into government

the principles of efficiency that businessmen had developed over the years. Success

in this pioneer endeavor depended in large part, he believed, on the consolidation

of government bureaus, to avoid waste, and on the selection of trained experts to

staff the reorganized agencies. Soon after entering office, therefore, Cox introduced

in the legislature a broad program of administrative reorganization.³

The agricultural section of Governor Cox's reform program was embodied in a

bill passed April 15, 1913, creating the Ohio Agricultural Commission. Cox pro-

1. W. A. Lloyd, J. I. Falconer, C. E. Thorne, The Agriculture of Ohio, Bulletin 326 of the Ohio

Agricultural Experiment Station (Wooster, 1918), 15.

2. Robert Leslie Jones, "Ohio Agriculture in History," Ohio Historical Quarterly, LXV (July 1956),

254-255; General Code of Ohio, 1910, Part 1, p. 231, 232, 233, 239, 241.

3. James M. Cox, Journey Through My Years (New York, 1946), 137. Cox's views are set forth in

his first message to the General Assembly in 1913, see James K. Mercer, Ohio Legislative History,

1913-1917 (Columbus, 1918), 30-58.

Mr. Lee is a doctoral candidate in history at The Ohio State University.

Agricultural Commission                                                           221

posal as a significant step toward the introduction of efficiency into this branch of

government service.⁵ The editors of the prestigious Ohio Farmer, on the other hand,

cautiously questioned the advisability of the plan. They favored coordination of the

state's agricultural activities in order to eliminate duplication but felt that the best

way to achieve such efficiency was through creation of an advisory commission

composed of the heads of the state agricultural institutions. The editors, who were

spokesmen for the Ohio farmers, also questioned the ability of such a small group

of men that would head the commission to handle competently the disparate respon-

sibilities assigned them in the legislation, especially in view of the fact that the bill,

as originally submitted, established no qualifications for members of the commission.6

Other rural elements also raised objections to Governor Cox's reorganization

plan. Many farmers were simply reluctant to abandon a familiar and, to them,

satisfactory system of management, especially in favor of one that initially would

cost more to operate.⁷ Furthermore, during a period when laissez faire attitudes

were still quite strong some farmers, at least, regarded the agricultural bill as part

of a concerted effort to centralize excessive power in the traditionally rather weak

office of the governorship.⁸ Probably the most important single reason that many

rural leaders, especially the executive council of the Ohio Grange, opposed the

governor's plan was the related fear that it would lead to the injection of politics

into the state agricultural institutions.⁹ This concern undoubtedly arose in part from

the fact that the bill originally established no qualifications for membership on the

commission, that jurisdiction of the agricultural educational institutions would be

divided between the commission and the institutions, and from the conviction that

the considerable power and generous salaries attached to the office of commissioner

would attract ambitious politicians. These considerations help explain the Grangers'

satisfaction with the old part-time unsalaried Board of Agriculture--an arrange-

ment which ensured the farmers that control over agricultural policy would remain

in the hands of actual farmers and that only truly dedicated men would seek mem-

bership on the board.¹⁰

Other groups that the reorganization proposal affected were also disturbed over

the prospect of losing some or all of their board's autonomy. Some veterinarians

were disturbed because they thought they would lose control over appointments to

their board of examiners, which power was transferred to the commissioners in

the Cox bill. At its annual meeting the Ohio State Veterinary Medical Association

issued a statement that indicated the basis of its opposition to the Cox plan: "We

feel that the veterinarians of this state should have some voice in the selection of

the personnel of that office [the board of examiners], because certificates should be

5. Cleveland Plain Dealer, February 17, 1913. While criticizing the Grange's opposition to the bill,

both the Ohio State Journal (Columbus) and the Cincinnati Enquirer endorsed the measure, the form-

er's endorsement being unqualified while the latter's was somewhat critical of Cox. Ohio State Journal,

March 6, 1913; Enquirer, May 4, 1913.

6. Ohio Farmer, February 1, 1913, p. 136; February 22, 1913, p. 202; March 1, 1913, p. 296; March

8, 1913, p. 346.

7. This was implied by the Master of the Grange in his speech to that organization's annual con-

vention in 1913. Journal of the Proceedings of the Ohio State Grange (Lima, 1913), 16, 17. The editors

of the Ohio Farmer also shared this sentiment; see March 8, 1913, p. 346.

8. See R. H. Triplett to James M. Cox, March 8, 1913, Cox Papers, Ohio Historical Society. Triplett,

while he opposed Cox's efforts to increase the power of the governor, was nevertheless a Democrat.

9. Ohio State Journal, March 13, July 15, 1913; Journal, Ohio State Grange (1913), 16, 17; Cox to

M. J. Lawrence, May 31, 1913, Cox Papers.

10. This point was made explicitly by the editors of the Ohio Farmer in March 8, 1913, p. 346.

222                                                                   OHIO HISTORY

granted only to those who are eminently qualified and not to pay political debts."11

Also, in June 1913, Dr. Louis P. Cook, Democrat state senator from the first dis-

trict in Cincinnati and ex-president of the Ohio State Veterinary Medical Associa-

tion, sent out form letters to the state's veterinarians opposing the law that had

just been passed and supporting a referendum campaign started by the Ohio State

Grange. His opposition was based on the ground that "the State certificates to

practice Veterinary Medicine will be in the hands of machine politicians. . . . A

certificate will be issued to every quack who has a political pull."¹² These remarks

were made even though the law specifically stated that "The agricultural commis-

sion shall appoint three men who shall be graduates of reputable, but different,

veterinary schools or colleges, and . . . skilled in their professions. . . ." to conduct

the qualifying examinations, and that the applicant must pass a written examina-

tion covering specified subjects with a grade of seventy percent or better.¹³

Similar considerations prompted pharmacists to question certain provisions of

the Cox agricultural commission law. In their case it removed the Pharmacy Board's

power to enforce the laws against sale of drugs by persons lacking a pharmacist's

license.14 By including the Pharmacy Board in the Agriculture Commission, the

commission assumed responsibility for the protection of druggists in the control

of illicit sale of drugs, but it had no authority over the licensing of pharmacists.

Even so, a highly respected member of the profession, Dr. J. H. Beal, echoed the

sentiments of many pharmacists when he declared several years later that "I have

never believed that the laws relating to pharmacy and medicine should be enforced

by an agricultural commission composed wholly of farmers. To my mind, there

would be just as much, or even greater, reason for giving the Board of Pharmacy

the right to administer the laws which related particularly to agriculture."¹⁵

The veterinarians and pharmacists, however, lacked the numerical and organi-

zational strength to threaten seriously the commission plan, but Governor Cox

could not ignore the widespread discontent in rural areas over certain provisions

in his original bill. He consequently called a conference of agricultural leaders to

iron out the difficulties. A committee of four of these men introduced into the bill

the changes they thought were necessary, and the governor accepted all of the

important amendments. One of the most significant of these alterations required,

before the April passage of the bill, that all members of the commission be men

"directly identified with agriculture or agricultural education." This stipulation,

coupled with the recent enactment of a state civil service law, seemed to eliminate

the danger that "politicians" would gain control of the state agricultural institutions.

In return for this accommodation Cox secured the pledge of the farm leaders not

to further oppose passage of the bill.¹⁶ The attitude of these men understandably

convinced the governor that his consolidation plan, also, would encounter no fur-

11. Proceedings of the Ohio State Veterinary Medical Association (1914), 59.

12. Louis P. Cook to "Dear Doctor," June 23, 1913, Cox Papers.

13. Laws of Ohio, CIII, 328.

14. Ibid., 306.

15. Midland Druggist and Pharmaceutical Review, XLIX (June 1915), 260.

16. John Cunningham to M. J. Lawrence, June 4, 1913; clipping from July 5, 1913 issue of the

National Stockman and Farmer, both in Cox Papers (Cunningham was not the senate sponsor of the

bill but editor of Ohio Farmer, and Lawrence was publisher of the journal); Ohio Farmer, March 22,

1913, p. 423. W. I. Chamberlain, associate editor of the National Stockman and Farmer, was present at

the conference of agricultural leaders and Cox. He claimed that T. C. Laylin, Master of the Grange,

pledged not to oppose passage of the bill, but Laylin's later opposition, culminating in a referendum

movement, demonstrates that he was never reconciled to the bill, even in its amended form.

Agricultural Commission                                                           223

ther opposition from rural groups. "You have doubtless noticed that the farmers

who were opposed to the Agricultural Commission have endorsed it," he wrote in

response to a letter from an antagonistic farmer. "They came here in a two or

three days' session, and the bill was so changed in shape as to meet their cordial

endorsement."¹⁷ Even the editors of the Ohio Farmer agreed that, in its amended

form, the bill was generally acceptable to agricultural interests.¹⁸ Not surprisingly,

therefore, both houses of the General Assembly passed the measure by large

majorities.¹⁹

Governor Cox, nonetheless, continually was made aware of persistent rural un-

easiness over the membership of the commission. The bill's senate sponsor John

Cunningham informed him: "Several parties have written to me, stating their con-

cern of the make-up of this important commission and I have always assured them

that you had promised that no one would be appointed who would be in any way

hostile to our State Agricultural Institutions. . . ."²⁰ The question of control of the

institutions had been one of the principal reasons behind the amendment estab-

lishing qualifications for membership on the commission. The governor sought to

banish the last traces of this concern by appointing as commissioner A. P. Sandles,

former Secretary of the Board of Agriculture; S. E. Strode, former Dairy and Food

Commissioner; and Professor C. G. Williams, member of the staff at the Agricul-

tural Experiment Station. Williams had been specificially mentioned as acceptable

by W. I. Chamberlain, associate editor of the National Stockman and Farmer, and

by T. C. Laylin, Master of the Ohio State Grange. The fourth member, Dean

Homer C. Prince of the College of Agriculture, was appointed by the trustees of

the Ohio State University, as stipulated in the law.21 The announcement of these

appointments helped to persuade the Grange leaders to abandon the referendum

campaign, and by late July 1913 it was clear that the Agricultural Commission

would get a trial period of operation.22

One year later, in April 1914, Governor Cox declared optimistically, "Today . . .

there isn't a single person in Ohio who denies that the coalition [of state agricul-

tural agencies] not only promoted the efficiency of the service, but its economy as

well."²³ Unfortunately for the governor, this statement was not precisely accurate.

17. Cox to R. H. Triplett, March 18, 1913, Cox Papers.

18. Ohio Farmer, March 29, 1913, p. 460.

19. Ohio General Assembly, House Journal, 1913, p. 1021; Ohio General Assembly, Senate Journal,

1913, p. 387.

20. John Cunningham (state senator) to Cox, April 29, 1913, Cox Papers.

21. John Cunningham (editor) to M. J. Lawrence, July 30, 1913, Cox Papers. Cunningham did not

criticize the selection of Sandles and Strode, but he, Lawrence, and the Grange leaders all thought

Williams was the best man. Of Sandles and Strode, Cunningham wrote, in the letter cited, that ". . .

each man was appointed largely for political reasons and neither can be said to be a real strong man

from the standpoint of agriculture. Both are capable . . . but I cannot help feel that it is their own

interests that are uppermost in their minds rather than the general cause of agriculture." (Emphasis is

in the original.) Cunningham, who was an editor of the Ohio Farmer, would later make this charge

against Sandles publicly in the columns of his magazine.

For the preference of Grange leaders for Williams, see T. C. Laylin to Cox, July 3, 1913, Cox

Papers. Sandles was not himself a farmer, although he had been involved in agricultural activities for

the state since 1902. Strode was a farmer. Mercer, Ohio Legislative History, 1909-1913, p. 192, 205.

22. Cincinnati Enquirer, April 16, June 24, 1913; Representative William A. Hite to Cox, June 30,

1913, Cox Papers. The pharmacists, despite their dislike of the law, decided not to join the referendum

movement, contenting themselves for the present with drawing up amendments they hoped Cox would

accept. Ohio State Journal, June 30, 1913; Ohio Farmer, June 28, 1913, p. 782.

23. Ohio State Journal, April 25, 1914.

Agricultural Commission                                                       225

the details of their work. When the popular and respected Professor A. B. Graham,

who was deeply involved in the agricultural extension work of the college, resigned

his position in July 1914, the editors of the Ohio Farmer claimed that the action

was a protest against the confusion and conflict of authority resulting from the

commission's policy.²⁵ The commission's "interference" with the activities of the

College of Agriculture was not a minor irritant in the view of these rural spokes-

men. The seriousness of the issue is suggested by the frequency with which they

returned to the question.²⁶ Their concern was probably due in part to the conviction

that since agricultural progress depended significantly on the educational activities

of the College of Agriculture and the Experiment Station, these institutions should

be administered by educators and not by politicians.

A second general charge which the editors of the Ohio Farmer leveled against

the commission was that it had become involved in politics. As early as January

1914, the editors accused Governor Cox of trying to force farm institute lecturers,

who were under the Agricultural Commission, to support his policies in their con-

tacts with farmers.²⁷ Then, in late 1914, without mentioning names, they criticized

the commission:

One commission (especially its president and a few employes not members of the commis-

sion) has been devoting time to political work that should have been devoted to the work

that the commission is supposed to do. Not only has the literature of this particular com-

mission been made a sort of advertising service for its president, but the men employed

to travel over the state, in some instances, devoted too much time to partisan politics and

spreading statements that were probably expected to be useful in future political campaigns.

In the following months, the editors repeated their charges, although again in

vague, imprecise terms, and demanded that control of the state agricultural activi-

ties be placed in the hands of actual farmers who were not involved in politics,

men whose principal concern would be the advancement of agriculture rather than

their own personal political fortunes.²⁸ These rural spokesmen never explicitly

advocated abolishment of the commission, but their editorials left little doubt that

they believed the experiment with the Agricultural Commission had failed.

Grange leaders shared this conviction. Despite the civil service law and the

amendment establishing qualifications for membership on the commission, some

members of the executive council had feared from the beginning that the com-

mission might become involved in politics.²⁹ Although the Grangers did not explic-

itly state that these fears had been realized, at their annual convention in Decem-

ber 1914, they did demand that the state return control of agricultural institutions

to actual farmers. They went further than the editors of the Ohio Farmer, however,

and advocated decentralization of these institutions and the re-creation of the old

non-salaried State Board of Agriculture.³⁰ It is impossible to prove, but it seems

probable, that one reason the Grangers advocated decentralization was their belief

that only in this way could the farmers regain effective control over agricultural

25. Ohio Farmer, February 21, 1914, p. 244; July 11, 1914, p. 22-23; and August 1, 1914, p. 78.

26. Ibid., January 9, 1915, p. 6.

27. Ibid., January 24, 1914, p. 98; January 31, 1914, p. 128. In the latter issue, the editors claim to

have received several letters from readers supporting their position that the lecturers should not become

involved in politics.

28. Ibid., November 14, 1914, p. 444; January 9, 1915, p. 34; January 23, 1915, p. 94.

29. This can be inferred from the speech of Grange Master, T. C. Laylin at the Grange's annual

convention in 1913. Journal, Ohio State Grange, (1913), 16, 17.

30. Ibid. (1914), 59, 61.

226                                                                  OHIO HISTORY

institutions. The rural leaders found that in practice, centralization entailed the

transference of real power to the salaried bureaucrats, the men charged with the

daily execution of agricultural policy.³¹

Rural sentiment concerning the commission, however, was not unanimous. The

editor of one local farm journal strongly opposed elimination of the Agricultural

Commission, maintaining that the new bureau had increased efficiency and that

those who attacked it were really jealous of the popularity president Sandles en-

joyed among many farmers.³² This was almost certainly a minority view, and the

Grange, as the principal farm organization in the state, probably reflected more

accurately the opinion of the majority of farmers who cared about the issue one

way or the other.³³

The Republican nominee for governor in 1914, Frank Willis, capitalized on this

rural opposition in his attack on Cox's record. The general theme of the Repub-

lican's campaign was a repudiation of the centralization and bureaucratization of

government that had characterized his opponent's administration. "The fight is on

in Ohio," he declared, "between the machine and the people, between appointive

government and elective government, between centralization of power in the execu-

tive and retention of power by the people. . . ."34  "One of the methods whereby

much power has been placed in the hands of the executive in recent years has been

through the gradual increase in the number of Commissions appointed by the Gov-

ernor." Willis was plainly disturbed by the proliferation of state bureaus and by

the extension of government intervention into many areas of the economy and so-

ciety. This concern is reflected in his belief that it was "costing too much to run the

government of the state. . . ."35 He did not believe that the solution to the prob-

lems of his day lay in an expansion of the government's role or in centralization

of power in the state house. Even though he won a narrow victory in the election,

Willis felt that a majority of Ohio voters shared his concern over the growth of

government, and this attitude almost certainly foretold the abolishment of the Agri-

cultural Commission.³⁶

In his first message to the General Assembly, the new governor recommended

that the commission be replaced by a bi-partisan state board of agriculture, whose

members would serve without compensation. He said, in making appointments to

the board, "the principle should be constantly borne in mind that actual practical

farmers should be appointed to all positions having to deal especially with the

agricultural interests of the state." Willis also suggested an administrative decen-

tralization of the state agricultural institutions. In short, the governor was proposing

the abandonment of his predecessor's plan of consolidation and bureaucratization

of these institutions.³⁷

Prominent rural groups, as has already been shown, were quite favorable toward

31. The Grangers also undoubtedly hoped decentralization would reduce the operating costs of the

Department of Agriculture. See the speech of the Grange Master in Journal, Ohio State Grange (1914),

16; he, least, felt the present operating costs were too high.

32. Tri-County Farmer, February 1, 1915. For a similar opinion, see Holmes County Farmer, Febru-

ary 11, 1915. The editor of the latter paper supported the Democrats.

33. Grange opposition to the commission was determined by vote of the entire organization; it was

not a decision merely of the executive council. Journal, Ohio State Grange (1914), 59, 61.

34. Ohio State Journal, July 19, 1914.

35. Mercer, Ohio Legislative History, 1913-1917, p. 115, 107.

36. Gerald Ridinger, "The Political Career of Frank B. Willis" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The

Ohio State University, 1957), 75.

37. Mercer, Ohio Legislative History, 1913-1917, p. 116.

Agricultural Commission                                                        227

Willis' proposals. The same cannot be said of two other groups affected. The vet-

erinarians had originally opposed the subordination of their examining board to

the commission because they feared that they would lose control over their pro-

fession and that, as a consequence, unqualified men would be permitted to enter

it. They may have changed their attitude by 1915 because they discovered that

the dreaded decline in standards had not in fact occurred. The state association's

legislative committee did not, in any case, criticize the commission in its annual

report for 1915, although the committee still did want the profession to control

appointments to the examining board. "If these appointments could be made for

a number selected by this body to pick from, it might remove it further from poli-

tics." The committee warned against abolishing the commission itself, however.

"We wish to refer this Association to the danger of changing from the Agricultural

Commission, possibly back to Board Rule, as there was danger when changing

from Board to Commission. . . . We are sorry that the Veterinary profession is

subject to the whims of political disturbance."³⁸ Thus, the uncertainty attending the

changes in the bureaus that controlled the examining board apparently disturbed

the committee more than the mere existence of such control. It is not clear whether

the rest of the state association shared the views of the legislative committee, but

the veterinarians did not repudiate their colleagues' report, and the association did

not take an official stand in favor of abolishment of the Agricultural Commission.

The attitude of the pharmacists is somewhat easier to determine. The Ohio State

Pharmaceutical Association had never been enthusiastic over the provision of the

1913 act that deprived the Board of Pharmacy of authority to enforce the laws

against sale of drugs by unqualified persons. The legislative committee of that

body, however, did not enter the campaign for repeal of the 1913 law until it learned

that such repeal formed a part of Governor Willis' program. State agricultural

leaders agreed with the legislative committee that the Board of Pharmacy should

enforce the pharmacy laws, and the committee drew up a bill restoring these en-

forcement powers to the Pharmacy Board. The committee also supported the effort

to repeal the Agricultural Commission act and apparently contributed to the suc-

cess of that endeavor. The General Assembly passed the committee's own act soon

after the agricultural bill became law, but Governor Willis vetoed the former meas-

ure for reasons unrelated to the subject of this essay. The enforcement of the

pharmacy laws, consequently, remained the responsibility of the new Board of

Agriculture, and the pharmacists' spokesman, the Midland Druggist, advised mem-

bers of the profession to employ their influence to secure appointment of at least

one pharmacist to the agricultural board.³⁹ Frustrated in the attempt to regain

direct control over the enforcement of the laws that protected the profession from

unscrupulous competitors, pharmacists sought to obtain representation on the board

that did enjoy such control.⁴⁰

The bill abolishing the Agricultural Commission passed the General Assembly

38. The committee's report is in Proceedings of the Ohio State Veterinary Medical Association (1915),

70, 71.

39. Midland Druggist and Pharmaceutical Review, XLIX (August 1915), 255; XLIX (June 1915), 231,

255, 266; XLIX (June 1915), 266-267.

40. This paragraph is based partially on the assumption that the actions of the Ohio State Pharma-

ceutical Association accurately reflected the views of Ohio pharmacists, but such was not necessarily

the case. The president of the association, himself, admitted that no more than one-third of the state's

druggists were members of the organization. Since it was the only organization in Ohio representing

pharmacists at that time, it is the best bellwether of opinion available for that profession.

228                                                               OHIO HISTORY

in April 1915 by an overwhelming majority in the house, and by a vote of twenty

to twelve in the senate. In the house, twenty-four of the twenty-eight farmer mem-

bers voting, including six Democrats, favored the measure, and all four of those

opposed were Democrats; Republicans, regardless of occupation, voted solidly for

the bill. Voting in the senate was strictly along party lines.41

The new law re-creating the Board of Agriculture provided that the ten mem-

bers of the board would serve without compensation and stipulated that at least

six members of this bi-partisan board be actual farmers.⁴² The law made no pro-

vision for coordination of the activities of the board, the Experiment Station, and

the College of Agriculture, each of which was to have a separate managerial heir-

archy. The board did, however, retain the power to appoint the Board of Veterinary

Examiners, which provision did not provoke any opposition from the Ohio State

Veterinary Medical Association.⁴³

The repeal of the Agricultural Commission act did not terminate efforts to re-

organize the Department of Agriculture. In 1917 James Cox regained the gover-

norship, and a law was then passed creating an agricultural advisory board com-

posed of the Secretary of the Board of Agriculture, the Dean of the College of

Agriculture, and the Director of the Agricultural Experiment Station; the law em-

powered the board to coordinate the activities of the institutions its members

headed.⁴⁴ The law, however, also reduced the Board of Agriculture's control over

its secretary by requiring that the board's nominee, from outside its membership,

receive the governor's approval. This was a significant erosion of the farmers' direct

control over the activities of the Department of Agriculture because the law also

authorized the secretary to act as the board's agent in performing most of the

functions earlier laws assigned to that body as a whole. Both the Grange and the

editors of the Ohio Farmer, nevertheless, approved the law; they supported its

method of achieving coordination of state agricultural activities, and they recognized

that the Board of Agriculture still had the power to veto the secretary's acts and

to remove him from office.⁴⁵

In 1921, however, farmers lost direct control over the Department of Agriculture.

The General Assembly adopted a new administrative code for the state which re-

duced the Board of Agriculture to a purely advisory role and placed administrative

power in the hands of a Director of Agriculture who owed his appointment to the

governor and not the board, but at the same time the code provided that the direc-

tor should be a man actively identified with agriculture. This stipulation furnishes

the clue why rural spokesmen did not oppose too strenuously the new reorganiza-

tion plan.⁴⁶ The editors of the Ohio Farmer had never strongly opposed bureau-

cratic centralization in principle, but they had always demanded that true repre-

sentatives of the farmer control agricultural agencies. The new code seemed to

ensure that this requirement would be met, but the editors nevertheless warned

newly-elected Governor Davis that the farmers' attitude toward the reorganized

department would depend largely on whom he appointed to the position of direc-

41. House Journal, 1915, p. 651; Senate Journal, 1915, p. 416.

42. Laws of Ohio, CV, 143-177.

43. The annual report of that organization's legislative committee contains no criticism of this pro-

vision of the law. Proceedings of the Ohio State Veterinary Medical Association (1915), 70-73.

44. Laws of Ohio, CVII, 460-495.

45. Journal, Ohio State Grange (1917), 15-16; Ohio Farmer, February 3, 1917, p. 140; March 17,

1917, p. 396.

46. The new code was simply ratifying a change that had actually occurred in 1917.

Agricultural Commission                                                   229

tor. This was essentially the same message that John F. Cunningham had delivered

to James Cox in 1913, but the governor had failed to select the man whom the

principal rural leaders considered to be the most qualified. Davis, however, shrewdly

eliminated potential opposition by selecting L. J. Taber, Master of the Ohio State

Grange, as director.⁴⁷ This was the man who, in his capacity as leader of the Grange,

had in 1920 strongly opposed any reorganization of the Department of Agriculture.⁴⁸

The Grange did not, like the editors of the Ohio Farmer, officially approve the

reorganization code, but its silence on the question was eloquent--the organization

could hardly criticize the creation of a position to whom its own leader had been

appointed. Harry L. Davis thus achieved his predecessor's goal of bureaucratic cen-

tralization by ensuring the farmers that they would continue to enjoy some control

over what they considered to be their institutions.

A final word is due here on post-1915 organizational changes that affected vet-

erinarians and pharmacists. Subsequent legislation did finally return to the Phar-

macy Board responsibility for enforcement of the pharmacy laws, and appointment

of members of the Board of Veterinary Examiners became the responsibility of the

governor.⁴⁹

In conclusion, it can be stated that efforts to reorganize the Department of Agri-

culture involved two different conceptions of the proper relationship between gov-

ernment and private interest groups. Governor Cox subscribed to the Progressive

ideal of government-controlled bureaus staffed largely by public-spirited experts,

men whose specialized training and lack of identification with any interest group

would permit them to handle expanding responsibilities of government in such a

way as to promote the general welfare. To achieve this goal, Cox centralized func-

tions in a number of appointive commissions and supported the passage of a civil

service law.⁵⁰

Some farmers, veterinarians, and pharmacists, however, did not share the gov-

ernor's vision of a thoroughly bureaucratized government. Their skepticism was due

to the fact that the United States was just emerging from a period when political

corruption, in both national and state governments, had reached unprecedented

levels, and many Americans traditionally tended to believe that men who made a

career of government service were naturally corrupt or at least self-seeking. Conse-

quently, these groups felt certain that only their own members could manage com-

petently those state institutions that affected their interests.

The clash between these two viewpoints resulted in a compromise between Cox

and the most powerful of the interest groups concerned, the farmers. The governor

was able to centralize control of agricultural institutions in the Agricultural Com-

mission, but the farmers succeeded in securing the appointment of rural representa-

tives to the positions on the commission. This compromise eventually proved

unsatisfactory, however, partially because farm leaders concluded that several of

the commissioners, despite their close connections with agriculture, were more inter-

ested in advancing their own political fortunes than in serving farmers. Cox's suc-

cessor, Davis, was more successful in his reoganization efforts because he selected

the man to be director of agriculture whom prominent rural spokesmen regarded

47. Ohio Farmer, May 7, 1921, p. 620; July 9, 1921, p. 28.

48. Journal, Ohio State Grange (1920), 33.

49. Service Edition of Page's Ohio Revised Code (Cincinnati, 1953), III, 48, 76.

50. For a more general discussion of the Progressive concept of government, see Robert Wiebe,

The Search for Order, 1877-1920 (New York, 1967), 159-163.

230                                                             OHIO HISTORY

as nonpolitical and as the best representative of their interests.

This concession to rural demands, however, should not obscure the fact that by

1921 farmers had accepted a modified version of Governor Cox's concept of govern-

ment. In 1913 the Department of Agriculture was under the control of a part-time,

unsalaried Board of Agriculture composed wholly of actual farmers. After 1921 that

board played a purely advisory role while effective power lay in the hands of a

Director of Agriculture, appointed by the governor, and his subordinates. Even

though the director might be a representative of the farmers, his limited term (two

years) meant that he would have to rely heavily on the officials who were permanent

employees. Farmers could still exert substantial influence over the officials who

formulated and executed state agricultural policies, but they had yielded direct

control of their state institutions to the career bureaucrats.