Ohio History Journal

GEORGE E. STEVENS

THE CINCINNA TI POST AND

MUNICIPAL REFORM,

1914-1941

City government in Cincinnati underwent a drastic overhaul in the 1920's. Once

called the worst governed city in the United States by Lincoln Steffens,¹ Cincinnati

became a model of good government so quickly that the transformation amazed

even the most idealistic reformers. "The new regime showed so complete a reversal

of form from the old that it left observers dazed," wrote Alvin F. Harlow.²

This reversal of form was made possible in 1924 when voters ended bossism by

amending the city charter to provide for two basic changes in municipal government:

the election of a nonpartisan city council by the Hare system of proportional repre-

sentation and the hiring of a city manager. During a period when many Ohio cities

were cleaning house, Cincinnati became the third large city in the state to adopt

a city manager form of government, following Dayton and Cleveland, and one of

the first large cities in the United States to make proportional representation work.

The changes were so successful that Cincinnati soon enjoyed what many regarded

as "the best government in any of the larger cities of the country."³

Reformers credited the Cincinnati Post (now the Post and Times-Star) with the

successful advocacy of good city government. In 1924 the Post stood alone among

the city's dailies to support extensive revision of the city charter. In the years that

followed, it remained a steadfast advocate of the reform-minded Charter party and

of proportional representation. Murray Seasongood, a leader of the reform move-

ment and Cincinnati's first mayor under the revised charter, called the Post the one

unfailing newspaper champion of good government in Cincinnati, "like the shadow

of a great rock in a weary land."⁴ Russell Wilson, who followed Seasongood as

mayor, said the Post was "one of the most important factors in the rehabilitation

of our beloved city."⁵

One of Ohio's largest newspapers, the Post had a reputation as a reforming,

crusading newspaper which dated back to 1883, two and one-half years after its

1. Lincoln Steffens, "Ohio: A Tale of Two Cities," McClure's, XXV (July 1905), 293.

2. Alvin F. Harlow, The Serene Cincinnatians (New York, 1950), 415.

3. George H. Hallett, Jr., Proportional Representation--The Key to Democracy (New York, 1950), 2.

4. "Civic Achievements of Cincinnati Post Praised at Jubilee Dinner," Editor and Publisher, Jan-

uary 17, 1931, p. 12.

5. Ibid.

Mr. Stevens is assistant professor of communication at Purdue University.

232                                                              OHIO HISTORY

founding, when Edward Wyllis Scripps became its owner. Scripps set the Post on

a course of public service to improve the lot of the common people and at the same

time build circulation. A combination of local crusades, short and easy-to-read local

news stories, and a low price gave the Post by 1886 the largest newspaper circula-

tion in Cincinnati. For most of the next fifty-five years it kept this lead.

In politics the Post was independent and prided itself on being free to advocate

only what it believed to be in the best interests of the majority of the people;

the Times-Star and the Commercial Tribune were staunchly Republican; and until

the 1930's the Enquirer was Democratic, but conservative, and often silent on local

affairs. The city's most liberal daily, the Post, concentrated on state and local issues,

supporting a variety of fusion tickets and reformers in both major political parties.

During the early years of the twentieth century the Post was the only Cincinnati

daily which consistently battled Boss George B. Cox and vigorously backed state

constitutional reform.⁶

During the closing days of the Cox era, political reformers in Cincinnati were in

a hopeful mood. One of the 1912 amendments to the Ohio constitution allowed

cities to adopt their own charters free from restraint by the state legislature. In

1914, therefore, reformers in Cincinnati tried to get a charter adopted which included

provisions for a nonpartisan city ballot and a city council elected at large instead

of by wards. The Post campaigned for this proposal with enthusiasm. The news-

paper was an old friend of the nonpartisan city ballot idea, believing that bossism,

which it despised, would be seriously hurt if party labels were removed from the

ballot. No longer would political machines be able to round up illiterate voters and

pay them to vote for candidates listed under party emblems. The Post also believed

that an "at large" system of balloting was a step in the right direction since the

ward system was important to machine control of city government. For six weeks

prior to the 1914 vote the Post ran a series of "charter talks," listed civic leaders

who favored the proposal, and gave the charter strong editorial support. But the

proposal was defeated. Its foes had argued successfully that an "at large" council

would take away effective representation of citizens.

The Post was the only Cincinnati daily that had supported this proposal and

had been quick to point out why the Commercial Tribune and the Enquirer were

against the charter and why the Times-Star was neutral. Under existing law public

advertising had to appear in three city newspapers, and usually the Post was left

out. According to its figures, from 1908 to the middle of 1914 the other three

large dailies in Cincinnati were paid a total of $127,499 for public advertising while

the Post had received only $5,237. The charter proposal had called for publication

of a City Bulletin in which all official advertising would appear, and the Post sus-

pected that the city's other dailies did not like the prospect of losing income.⁷

In 1917 the Post was silent when another charter proposal, supported by the

Commercial Tribune, the Times-Star and the Republican machine, came before

Cincinnati voters. The Post's only effort was an unsuccessful attempt to elect the

paper's stockholder Alfred G. Allen mayor. On April 11, seven months before the

vote, the newspaper simply presented the credentials of each of the forty-five can-

6. The Cincinnati Post's crusades for good local and state government are discussed in Hoyt Landon

Warner, Progressivism in Ohio, 1897-1917 (Columbus, 1964), 150-151, 159, 188, 305. For an account of

the history of the newspaper, see George E. Stevens, "From Penny Paper to Post and Times-Star: Mr.

Scripp's First Link," Cincinnati Historical Society, Bulletin, XXVII (1969), 207-222.

7. Post, July 2, 1914.

234                                                             OHIO HISTORY

did as he wished, as the Post revealed the following year. On November 26, 1921,

city council voted against an increase in the natural gas rate but quickly reversed

the vote after receiving instructions from Hynicka. The Post got a copy of a tele-

gram he had sent to local Republican leaders and printed it across seven columns

of the front page on November 28:

Understand Council committee with help of our friends working out most equitable gas

contract ordinance. Very essential that Republican councilmen agree and that organization

get behind Council and share responsibility. I assume measure will represent concessions

and compromises. While we should aim for best obtainable we must not permit unfriendly

influences stampede. They will pick anything to pieces. You are authorized to discreetly

make any use of this you see fit.⁹

Just how the Post was able to get a copy of the telegram is not clear. Columnist

Alfred Segal wrote that a Western Union operator, realizing that he was violating

Federal law but feeling that he had a duty higher than the law, brought the tele-

gram to the Post.10 Reporter Charles Rentrop believed that a copy of the telegram

may have been secured through the contacts of Post city editor David S. Austin.¹¹

The paper made the most of this opportunity, no matter how the telegram was

obtained. On November 29, it asked in a front page editorial: "Who are 'Our

Friends?' " and pointed out that Hynicka had no right to dictate what should be

done by city council.¹²

The council, thirty-one Republicans and only one Democrat, voted as ordered.

On November 29 it passed the gas ordinance. The next day the Post commented,

"To the everlasting shame of the municipal legislative body, the deal was put over

in this steam roller fashion with all details in keeping with the secrecy and effrontery

that have marked the entire handling of the gas matter."13

There were several problems confronting the Cincinnati Republican machine in

the early 1920's in addition to those revealed by the Post and those criticized by the

Times-Star. The facts show that the city, generally, was in pretty bad shape. Its

per capita indebtedness was among the highest in the nation, services were poor,

taxes were high, and crime and vice flourished. The time was right for another

reform movement, and it was not long in coming.

On October 10, 1923, Cincinnati newspapers carried accounts of a speech given

by Murray Seasongood at a meeting of the Cincinnatus Association the night before.

The association, founded in 1920 to discuss matters of public concern, heard the

forty-five year old attorney call the GOP machine "a blot on our city" and ques-

tion whether voters should approve a three-mill levy the local Republican organiza-

tion had placed on the November ballot to cover the city's financial deficit. The

time had come, he said, "to cut out every tax levy, bond issue or anything else

that will give this bunch a chance to squander money."¹⁴ This speech by Season-

good, a respected Republican and a member in good standing of the Cincinnatus

Association, started a campaign to rid the city of bossism and change the charac-

ter of Cincinnati city government. Seasongood found two eager allies on the Post

9. Post, November 28, 29, 1921.

10. Ibid., August 5, 1948.

11. Interview with Charles Rentrop, March 20, 1968.

12. Post, November 29, 1921.

13. Ibid., November 30, 1921.

14. Agnes Seasongood, Selections from Speeches (1900-1959) of Murray Seasongood (New York,

1960), 52-54.

Cincinnati Post                                                           235

for his battle against the machine. One was Elmer P. Fries, editor of the news-

paper and a friend of reform. Fries joined the Cincinnatus Association and liked

what he found there. The other was the idealistic Alfred Segal, who had been

using his public service "Cincinnatus" column on the Post's front page to promote

better government. (Segal was not a member of the Association. The fact that his

column bore that title appears to have been a coincidence since Segal referred to

himself as Cincinnatus.)

The day after Seasongood's speech the Post summarized his remarks without

comment, but on October 11 Segal led off his column with the following statement:

Cincinnatus is glad to hear other voices joining his to cry out against the political evils that

afflict the city. He likes especially to be joined by a good, clear voice like that of Murray

Seasongood, a former member of the Republican Executive Committee, who has called

public attention to the tax spenders at the City Hall who now are asking for millions more

to spend.

But merely to cry out is to be as ineffective as the giant who thought he could crumble

a mountain with the thunder of his echo. But when all the giants in the land combined,

not their voices, but their mental and physical forces, they succeeded in moving the mountain.

It seems to Cincinnatus that the time is at hand for a union of independent men to wreck

the political machine that is the government of Cincinnati; an organization of Republicans

and Democrats to plan for the municipal campaign of 1925 and, when the time comes, to

nominate and elect a competent mayor.

Let us make an end to crying out and commence the doing. Who will lead in the doing?

Strong young men are needed for leadership, zealous young men who are not afraid.15

For the time being, the "doing" fell to Seasongood. The machine felt that criti-

cisms from respected Republicans should be answered, so Vice-Mayor Froome

Morris and Seasongood countered one another in a series of joint appearances

before civic groups. Seasongood also made other speeches alone to support his

position. All Cincinnati newspapers gave the speeches good coverage, especially

when the two men appeared together. In Seasongood's opinion, city officials would

have been wiser to have ignored his charges. "Had they done nothing the matter

would doubtless have ended right there," he later wrote.16 But the attacks and

counterattacks made news and the controversy was kept before the public.

The Post had little sympathy for the Republican side. Typical was this report.

after Morris talked to the City Club: "Froome Morris, vice mayor, spoke before

Seasongood. He painted a picture of civic poverty and destitution with the city

administration battling desperately with its army of officeholders to keep the wolf

away from the door at City Hall. . . ." Almost daily, Segal praised Seasongood's

position. On October 20 the columnist suggested that a citizen's charter committee

be formed to draw up a type of government under which "the business of the city

may be conducted for the benefit of the citizens instead of for the benefit of a

political organization."17

The Times-Star, meanwhile, was taking a dim view of the whole business. "The

time to effect changes in party or government control is at the primaries or at an

election," the Taft newspaper argued. "It does not help to strike at the city by refus-

ing to give those, to whom the voters have entrusted the business of running the

15. Post, October 11, 1923.

16. Murray Seasongood, Local Government in the United States (Cambridge, Mass., 1933), 23.

17. Post, October 20, 1923.

236                                                               OHIO HISTORY

municipal government, funds necessary for carrying out their work."¹⁸ The Post

also had some concern about what the levy's defeat would mean to citizens in

terms of curtailed services. An alternative was suggested:

Popular resentment indicates a pretty general feeling that the incompetents at City Hall

should be kicked out. . . . Those who feel that way about it and still believe that the city

should have the funds it asks, so that important public services may not be further crippled,

are embarrassed.

To them The Post offers the suggestion that by voting for the tax measures, and thus

relieving their consciences, they may do the city a great service if at the same time they

pledge themselves to vote out the ruling crowd at the first opportunity and declare for a

new deal at City Hall.19

Disregarding the newspapers' appeals, the voters rejected the three-mill levy by

14,000 votes. The Post immediately issued a call for a nonpartisan form of govern-

ment to restore public confidence in city hall. An editorial, probably written by

Segal, was printed in the Post November 7, the day after the levy's defeat. It read,

in part:

The results of Tuesday's vote on the proposed city tax levy . . . give evidence that the peo-

ple have lost faith in the political management of the city government. . . .

But merely to cry out on election day is bootless; to protest one day of the year and to

shut our eyes on the other 364 days to the political evils that afflict the city is worse than

folly. So on this day after election The Post repeats its call for courageous citizens to orga-

nize to make an end of the rule of politics and to put in its place a government without

politics and without politicians--Democratic or Republican; a government that knows no

party and is conducted for the benefit of the community and not for a political machine. . . .

What is needed is not a governmental house-cleaning, but a new house-a new form of

government! A non-partisan form of government, a new governmental house built on the

model that progressive cities in Ohio have adopted.20

The Hamilton County Republican executive and advisory committee, sensing

trouble ahead, soon appointed its own study group, headed by Lent D. Upson,

director of Detroit's Bureau of Governmental Research. While Seasongood, the

Cincinnatus Association, and other reformers continued to point out the need for

better municipal government, the GOP-sponsored study group went about its work

gathering information on the good and bad in city politics. The Post kept an inter-

ested eye on the activities. In May 1924, the Post ran a series of civic progress

articles, and in his column Segal continued to call for the adoption of nonpartisan

city government. Meanwhile, the status of the incumbent mayor and council was

shrinking fast. Real estate taxes had to be redistributed to meet city expenses and

services were seriously curtailed. Sewer construction was virtually stopped, police

were laid off, fire stations were closed, and street cleaning became less frequent.

The Upson Report, the work of the special study committee, was released to the

press on July 28, 1924. It contained several recommendations, including sugges-

tions for a nonpartisan ballot, a nine-man council elected at large by proportional

representation, and the hiring of a city manager. "Cincinnati's situation is to-day

unique in the completeness of organization control and the degree of helplessness

18. Times-Star, October 20, 1923.

19. Post, November 5, 1923.

20. Ibid., November 7, 1923.

Cincinnati Post                                                        237

of council," the committee observed.²¹ Although the report was not entirely satis-

factory, this type of reorganization was what the Post and other reformers were

seeking.

The Post liked the city manager idea. On May 28 it had asked supporters of

nonpartisan government and the city manager idea to unite. On July 29, the day

following the release of the Upson Report, the Post editorial again called on Cin-

cinnatians to support proportional representation and the city manager form of

government, stating, "Adoption of the city manager plan will be equivalent to

exile for life-a fitting punishment for the parasitical politicians, dominated by a

New York boss, who have brought distress and shame upon the great city of Cin-

cinnati."²² The Times-Star interpreted the Upson Report in a different way. It

argued that like other human institutions, local government in Cincinnati was a

mixture of good and bad, and "It has been our opinion that the good predominates."²³

As a result of the recommendations made in the report and the work of a non-

partisan city charter committee, Cincinnati voters in November 1924 were given

the option of choosing one of three possible amendments to the city charter, or

they could reject all three. Under amendment one city government would remain

essentially the same except for two changes: the number of councilmen would be

reduced to nine and they would be elected from the city at large. Amendment two

called only for reducing the number of councilmen to nine, but they would still

be elected from districts. The third proposal was long and complicated and was

supported by those who sought basic changes in the structure of city government.

Under this amendment the charter would be changed to provide for nine city

councilmen to be elected at large on a nonpartisan ballot by the Hare system of

proportional representation. Candidates for council could be nominated by petition

only, not directly by parties. A mayor would be selected by the councilmen, from

their number, but his powers would be limited; and a city manager would be hired

to be the city's chief administration officer. Amendment three also authorized city

council to appoint a commission to study the charter thoroughly and submit other

revisions to the voters.

The Post liked amendment three the best. During the late summer and early

fall of 1924, the paper backed this proposition in a variety of ways. Editorials favor-

ing this amendment were run frequently, as were letters to the editor in support

of a city manager and proportional representation. Editor Fries knew how to make

the most of news in the campaign. Speeches by Cincinnatus Association members

were covered, other reformers were interviewed, and articles were printed describing

the experiences of cities that had adopted city manager government. Seasongood

saw the Post's contributions as primarily educational. Calling the newspaper a

"potent ally," he remarked that it "helped familiarize the people with what we

were trying to accomplish and what our opponents were trying to prevent. . . ."24

Segal, of course, threw the weight of his column behind amendment three and also

covered many of the speeches discussing the controversy.

The city's other dailies were divided on the various proposals. The Times-Star,

which recognized that some changes were needed in city government, liked amend-

ment one and called proposition three "complicated, experimental and probably

21. Lent D. Upson, ed., The Government of Cincinnati and Hamilton County (Cincinnati, 1924), 191.

22. Post, July 29, 1924.

23. Times-Star, July 29, 1924.

24. Seasongood, Local Government, 26.

238                                                               OHIO HISTORY

futile."²⁵ The Commercial Tribune, which depended on public advertising for much

of its income when the machine was in control, did not particularly care for any

of the proposals and remained silent on its amendment choice, repeating only the

Republican charge that proportional representation might lead to "Sovietism."²⁶ The

Enquirer favored amendment two and felt that the city manager proposal, if adopted,

would only strengthen the Hynicka machine since a small council and a city man-

ager with broad powers would be easier for a political boss to control. Calling

upon Republicans to purge themselves of "alien and reprehensible. leadership,"

the Enquirer told voters, "Form means nothing; men everything."²⁷

On November 3, the day before the voting, the Post summed up its feelings in

a page one editorial which declared:

A vote against the city manager charter would be a vote:

For Hynicka

For holes in the streets

For 10-cent car fare

For higher gas rates

For secrecy in government

For closed sessions of public officials' negotiations on public utility contracts

For financial mismanagement that constantly requires more bond issues and more tax

levies than come out of the taxpayer's pocket

For all the other evils that result from incompetent political mismanagement²⁸

The hard work of the Post and reformers paid off. The city manager charter

amendment won easily, receiving twice as many yes votes as amendments one and

two combined, and more than twice as many yes votes as no votes. The Post de-

clared, "The people have won a great victory over government by politicians, and

by privilege. . . ."29

The next obstacle was to get candidates of the newly-formed Charter party

elected to city council in November 1925. Six Republicans and three Democrats,

all pledged to reform, filed for council under the sponsorship of the Charter party,

and the Post endorsed all nine of them. "There are 39 candidates running for

Council, but The Post believes that only by the united vote of all the friends of

good government can there be elected a solid block of good government candidates,"

the newspaper explained.³⁰ For nine days immediately prior to the election, the

Post ran the name of one Charter candidate each day in large type over its name-

plate and asked voters to "Memorize This Name!" On the day before the election,

the Post ran a seven column drawing by Claude Shafer showing "Cincinnati"

escaping the fog of "Boss Rule" by climbing a mountain labeled "City Charter

Ticket" to look into the sun of "Good Government." The Post added to the draw-

ing: "The eyes of the nation are upon Cincinnati in this election. By its votes will

be written a message that will proclaim its desire to be bossed and bled or free and

forward looking."³¹

The Times-Star endorsed six Republicans and four Charterites, asking voters to

25. Times-Star, November 3, 1924.

26. Cincinnati Commercial Tribune, November 2, 1924.

27. Cincinnati Enquirer, November 2, 1924.

28. Post, November 3, 1924.

29. Ibid., November 5, 1924.

30. Ibid., October 29, 1925.

31. Ibid., November 2, 1925.

Cincinnati Post                                                             241

Buildings in Washington, D.C., as Cincinnati's first city manager. Segal also en-

dorsed this choice, saying "He will have no friends to reward here and no enemies

to punish. The great fault of city government in Cincinnati has been that it has

been government by favor and government for reward of insiders."35

The election of 1925 proved to be "one of the great turning points of the Queen

City's history."³⁶ The power of the Hynicka machine in Cincinnati was broken,

and its boss retired in 1926. That same year the charter was revised again to clarify

the city's home rule powers. The Charter party and Sherrill put the city back on

its feet swiftly. Bond issues were passed for a number of improved services, the

city's debts were paid, civil service was reorganized, taxes were lowered, and out-

side investments flowed in as a result of restored confidence in government.

The Charter party held a majority in city council until 1941, and its efforts, along

with those of the talented city managers who succeeded Sherrill, kept the govern-

ment running efficiently. When the GOP recaptured control of council in 1941, it

was no longer boss-ridden and was pledged to continue what the Charter party

had started.

After the 1925 election, other newspapers than the Post soon began to support

the city manager government and the Charter party. The least enthusiastic was the

Commercial Tribune. Although it praised Sherrill for his "unsurpassed service,"

this paper considered many Republican reformers to be "malcontents" who had

deserted the GOP only because they could not have their way.³⁷ The Enquirer paid

tribute to Sherrill and the Charterites as early as 1927 but still felt that men were

more important than form.³⁸ The Times-Star felt much the same way, but in 1931

indicated it was for continuance in power of the Charter party only "as long as

things go as well as they have been going." In the same editorial it was also ad-

mitted that the Charter party had given Cincinnati "a good city administration."³⁹

The Post continued to be a steadfast friend of the new city government and pro-

portional representation. While the city's other dailies endorsed a mixture of can-

didates for city council during the 1930's, the Post endorsed all nine Charter

candidates at every city election until 1941, when two Republican candidates were

added to its list. Proportional representation was the most controversial provision

of the new city charter. Neither the Times-Star nor the Enquirer liked the system,

and other foes thought it was too complicated or was based on appeals to minority

blocks. In 1936 and 1939 attempts were made to eliminate this provision from the

charter, but the Post vigorously defended it both times. When it was under siege

in 1936, the Post literally borrowed a page from the 1936 PR Speaker's Manual to

editorialize: "The PR system is the finest and most democratic system of election

that Cincinnati has ever had. . . . The PR system has given union labor, the Negroes,

every minority able to muster a quota vote, genuine representation in council with-

out overrepresenting the majority."⁴⁰ In 1939, when another proposal to kill "PR"

was on the city ballot, the Post sent a staff member to Kansas City, where there

35. Post, November 14, 16, December 4, 5, 1925.

36. Louis Leonard Tucker, Cincinnati's Citizen Crusaders: A History of the Cincinnatus Association,

1920-1965 (Cincinnati, 1967), 142.

37. Commercial Tribune, November 4, 1927. The Commercial Tribune went out of business on

December 3, 1930. It had been existing on political subsidies for several years, and after Republican

defeats in Cincinnati and Hamilton County it suspended publication.

38. Enquirer, November 6, 1927.

39. Times-Star, November 2, 1931.

40. Post, March 2, 1936.

242                                                                     OHIO HISTORY

was a city manager but not proportional representation, to report on the Pendergast

machine's control of the city. As a result of its study, the newspaper issued the

warning that those seeking repeal of proportional representation in Cincinnati were

trying to reestablish bossism in the Queen City. This Post campaign was credited

with turning possible defeat of "PR" into victory.⁴¹

The Post won the lasting gratitude of reformers for its part in starting the re-

forms and keeping watch to see that they were successful. After the newspaper's

1939 defense of proportional representation, civic leaders recommended the paper

for a Pulitzer prize. In a letter to the Pulitzer committee, reformer and civic leader

Ed F. Alexander called the Post's defense "extremely effective" and pointed out:

"For at least forty years [the Post] has been the spearhead of every reform move-

ment in the city of Cincinnati. Practically always it has fought alone among local

newspapers."42

The paper's local government crusades from 1914 to 1941 gave the Post's staff

members a feeling of great satisfaction. In 1931 Segal said that the staff considered

themselves "not merely hired hands, but the bearers of a flaming spirit and the

voices of a brave and warm heart."⁴³ Taking pride in what the newspaper helped

to accomplish, the columnist wrote, "The motto which The Post flies from its mast-

head is: 'Give light and the people will find their own way.' The Post rejoices that

the people by the light it has offered have found their way."44

41. Ralph A. Straetz, PR Politics in Cincinnati (New York, 1958), 246. Proportional representation

was finally voted out in 1957 after two other attempts to kill it and was replaced by a "9X" voting

system. The Post defended PR vigorously until the end.

42. Ed F. Alexander to Carl W. Ackerman, January 25, 1940, Box 2, Folder 9, Ed. F. Alexander

Papers, Cincinnati Historical Society. Civic leaders had also recommended the Post for a Pulitzer Prize

in 1931 after a crusade for county government reform. On neither occasion did the newspaper win

the award.

43. Address by Segal to the Golden Jubilee Celebration of the Cincinnati Post, January 12, 1931.

Located in Post and Times-Star library.

44. Post, November 5, 1930.