Cleveland's Johnson: Elected Mayor
By EUGENE C. MURDOCK*
One day in the early fall of 1897 thirty
friends of Henry George
closeted themselves with the great
single-taxer in Tom L. Johnson's
New York offices. The question before
them was: Should George
be a candidate in the approaching New
York mayoralty election?
Some of those present observed that
their leader's health was not
good and that an exhausing campaign
could render permanent
damage to him. An eminent doctor had
only recently advised that
the exertions of a political canvass
might hasten George's death.
George himself admitted that he did not
want to enter the lists.
Nevertheless, he refused to consider his
health and argued that only
one point should be debated: Would his
candidacy further "the
cause"? With weighty misgivings the
group agreed that it would.
After Tom L. Johnson escorted the
failing George to the Cooper
Union platform on the night of the
nomination, there was no turn-
ing back. A hard, wearying campaign
worsened his condition as the
final week approached. Although the
night of October 28 was cold
and wet, George drove himself
relentlessly on, making five speeches
in far apart sections of Manhattan.
Obviously tired and dispirited,
he rambled incoherently over many
subjects. Returning to his head-
quarters in the Union Square Hotel, he
fell unconscious, and a
hurried call summoned friends and
relatives to the bedside. When
Johnson was aroused he sensed what was
happening and, according
to a friend, "writhed as one
writhes who has been pierced by a
sword." Early in the morning George
died. That same day midst
the heavy gloom at campaign
headquarters, "poor Tom Johnson"
* Eugene C. Murdock is chairman of the
department of social science and assistant
dean of the college at Rio Grande
College, Rio Grande, Ohio. Two previous articles
of his on Tom L. Johnson have been
published in the Quarterly: "Cleveland's
Johnson," in the October 1953 issue
(Vol. LXII, pp. 323-333), and "Cleveland's
Johnson: At Home," in the October
1954 issue (Vol. LXIII, pp. 319-335).
CLEVELAND'S JOHNSON: ELECTED
MAYOR 29
was seen walking through the corridors,
"tears streaming down his
face."1
* * *
Ever since his first meeting with
George back in 1885, Johnson
had been troubled by serious doubts.
Whereas he had made millions
through monopolistic maneuverings in
street railways and steel com-
panies, George taught that monopoly was
morally wrong. Johnson
had never learned the meaning of
"equal rights for all and special
privileges for none," but now that
the truth had been revealed, he
wanted to atone for his sins.
Money-making no longer appealed to
him, so he suggested that he retire
from business. George said no.
Stay in business. Make all the money you
can, even if you do not believe
in the methods of getting riches; for
in your case these same riches taken
from the people by the laws giving
special privileges will be used for the
common good, in overthrowing those same
laws.2
Hence Johnson remained in business and
made more money. He
was not happy, however, and looked
forward to the day when he
could chuck it all.
At the same time he commenced to apply
his wealth to "the
cause." He assisted George in his
campaigns for mayor of New
York in 1886 and 1897, and for
secretary of state for New York
state in 1887. He subsidized single-tax
newspapers such as The
Standard, The Recorder, and The Public, as well as George's final
volume, The Science of Political
Economy. When George's health
broke in 1890, Johnson and August Lewis
sent him and his family
to Bermuda. In addition to financial
help, Johnson became a public
speaker, and while not too effective at
first, was soon spreading the
gospel throughout the East and Midwest.
Under George's prodding he entered
politics,3 running on the
Democratic ticket for congress in
Ohio's twenty-first district. De-
feated in 1888, Johnson triumphed in
1890, subduing Theodore
1 Anna Angela De Mille, Henry George,
Citizen of the World, edited by Don C.
Shoemaker (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1950),
226-236.
2 The Public (Chicago), V (1902-3), 91.
3 Tom L. Johnson, My Story, edited
by Elizabeth J. Hauser (New York, 1911),
59-61.
30
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
Burton, who had won two years before.4
He served two uneventful
terms in Washington, holding but several
minor committee posts.
Furthermore, with only five other
single-taxers on hand, he was help-
less to promote "the cause" by
legislative means. In his fight against
the Wilson-Gorman tariff, perhaps the
most celebrated measure of
his four-year stay, he argued for free
trade. "Hypocrisy," cried his
fellow congressmen at once, and while
the charge was unfair, it
must be admitted that a monopolistic
single-taxer was a unique
specimen, which a member of the house of
representatives should
not be expected to understand.5
At any rate, congress was a
disillusioning experience for Tom
Johnson, and when he was washed out of
office in the Republican
deluge of 1894, he had few regrets.
"I have been in Congress," he
later confided to Frederic C. Howe,
"but there isn't much to be done
there. The place to begin is in the
city."6 He now carried on his
business as before and continued to help
the single-tax movement.
Obviously he would sell out when the
proper moment arrived, but
as long as George lived and provided
leadership for "the cause,"
he would mark time. And while he
disposed of his Cleveland street
railways in 1894 and 1895, Johnson still
possessed far-flung prop-
erties--the steel plant in Lorain, a
ten-mile interurban between
Lorain and Elyria, and a street railroad
in Johnstown, Pennsylvania.
Moreover, during the mid-nineties,
brother Al Johnson and an asso-
ciate, R. T. Wilson, induced him to
purchase street railway lines in
Detroit and Brooklyn, New York.
This was the situation when George's
death deprived the single-
taxers of their originating genius, and
gave Johnson his long-awaited
pretext. He resolved to abandon business
and apply the full measure
of his time and effort to George's
principles. He sold the Lorain
plant to Federal Steel in 1898, and
peddled off the Brooklyn, De-
troit, and Johnstown lines within
another year. He did retain con-
4 Cleveland Plain Dealer, September 30, October 3, November 7, 1888; September 3,
21, 22, 26, October 3, 16, 22, 24, 29,
31, November 3, 4, 5, 1890.
5 For a more complete account of
Johnson's years in congress, see the author's
doctoral dissertation, "A Life of
Tom L. Johnson" (Columbia University, 1951),
37-51.
6 Frederic C. Howe, The Confessions
of a Reformer (New York, 1925), 97.
CLEVELAND'S JOHNSON: ELECTED
MAYOR 31
nections with the interurban until 1905,
but controlling interest
passed from his hands five years before.7
With the slate rubbed clean, would
Johnson now return to
politics? Here he had no specific plans,
although he did attend the
Democratic national convention of 1900
as a delegate, keeping alive
his party interest. Apparently he never
considered becoming mayor
of Cleveland until a few months before
the 1901 election. Yet
Johnson was now available, and as it
turned out, circumstances did
arise in Cleveland during 1900-1901
which made his nomination for
mayor logical.8
* * *
Robert E. "Curly-headed Bob"
McKisson became mayor of Cleve-
land in April 1895. Graduated from
Oberlin College with honors,
McKisson began his legal studies under
the experienced eye of
Theodore Burton. Having established his
own law practice in De-
cember 1889, he won election to the city
council the following year.
It was in McKisson's second term in
council, during the adminis-
tration of Mayor Robert E. Blee,
1893-95, that he gained a repu-
tation for his opposition to the
"street railway ring." This was the
opprobrious epithet applied to the close
alliance between the city
administration and traction magnates
like Tom Johnson, Mark
Hanna, and Henry Everett. McKisson
fought this combination by
opposing the traditional policy of
granting franchises to the highest
bidder. Acquiring a sizable following,
he was elected mayor on
the Republican ticket in 1895, despite
the antagonism of Hanna.
McKisson retained his reputation for a
time, but during his
second term he became so immersed in
scandal that his political
career abruptly ended. The conservative
Municipal Association
charged McKisson with (1) the creation
of a personal political
machine through misuse of public
patronage, (2) exacting political
assessments from city employees, (3)
juggling city accounts, (4)
7 The final chapter of Johnson's
business career is described in "A Life of Tom L.
Johnson," 52-60.
8 "It was chance," he wrote,
"that made me a candidate for mayor of Cleveland."
Johnson, My Story, 108.
32
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
gross favoritism in letting contracts,
and (5) debauching election
machinery.9
With McKisson's star in rapid descent
the cry for reform was
again heard. In the spring of 1899
"Honest John" Farley, Demo-
cratic mayor from 1883 to 1885, and
director of public works under
Mayor Blee, was returned to the city's
executive office. A large and
wealthy contractor, Farley had for
years ruled the local Democracy.10
He campaigned for economy and clean
government, and won the
Municipal Association's support by
agreeing to oppose the street
railway "franchise grabbers."
However, shortly after winning the
election, Farley too abandoned his
promises and went over to the
street railways. The secretary of the
Municipal Association, Frederic
Howe, who had collected data to
discredit the McKisson adminis-
tration, was shocked to hear the remark
of a Farley confidant on
election night: "Of course we were
glad to have the support of the
Municipal Association, but you know
that didn't elect us. We should
have been beaten but for Mark Hanna's
contribution of $20,000 to
the campaign."11
In the summer of 1900 an ordinance
proposing to grant the
Hanna-controlled Cleveland City Railway
Company a twenty-five-
year blanket franchise renewal caused
such a public outcry that
council tabled the matter. Yet on
February 18, 1901, Mayor Farley,
who had already been repudiated at the
Democratic primaries, sent
to council the "Farley
ordinance," a measure similar to the objection-
able one of the preceding summer. Again
the city rose in a rage.
"Why now?" was the heated
query from all quarters. "Why an
extension now when the grants still
have years to run and when
there is no demand for renewals except
from the companies?"
Charles P. Salen, the Democratic
leader, charged that Hanna had
ordered passage of the ordinance before
any "new-fangled" admin-
istration, unfriendly to the street
railways, might take office. The
Plain Dealer was curious to know
9 Plain Dealer, March 25, May 18, 1901, May 22, 1902; Johnson, My
Story, 22-24;
Carl Lorenz, Tom L. Johnson, Mayor of
Cleveland (New York, 1911), 21-22.
10 A brief sketch of Farley may be found
in Charles E. Kennedy, Fifty Years of
Cleveland (Cleveland, 1925), 119-124.
11 Howe, Confessions of a Reformer, 86.
CLEVELAND'S JOHNSON: ELECTED
MAYOR 33
why Mayor Farley is so urgent for the
franchise extension . . . Mayor Farley
has posed as an implacable enemy to the
"grasping monopolies" whose fran-
chises have yet several years to run,
yet now he is bent on making a new
twenty-five year contract with one of
those monopolies, on terms it is eager
to accept, but which the people
vehemently repudiate.12
The first move against the Farley
ordinance was a mass anti-
franchise meeting, which was followed
quickly by a statement from
the chamber of commerce opposing any
franchise extension "at this
time." By the end of the week it
seemed clear that popular sentiment
would not tolerate the Farley ordinance.
The mayor grasped this
fact, because a few days later he
announced that he would report
adversely on it.13 Nevertheless,
Farley had disappointed the city as
conclusively as had his curly-headed
predecessor. The political stage
was set for a man of spirit, a man who
understood the street railway
business and street railway men, a man
unafraid to fight the street
railway interests and to defend the
city's rights.
* * *
The franchise controversy loomed
significantly in the background
as the several clans of greater
Cleveland Democracy gathered Jan-
uary 8, 1901, to pay homage to Andrew
Jackson. The old Kennard
House, hosting two hundred members of
the Cuyahoga Association
of Democratic Clubs, was the scene of
the largest meeting. At 9:00
P.M. the doors opened and a profusion of
stars and stripes struck
the eye; portraits of Jackson and Bryan
were suspended above the
speakers' table. Two hours later, with
supper demolished, young
Harry Payer rapped for order. Patrick
Calhoun spoke briefly, fol-
lowed by Liberty E. Holden, Charles P.
Salen, and the youthful
Newton D. Baker. Tom L. Johnson now
arose. No longer the em-
barrassed novice who bungled his first
speech in New York's Cooper
Union thirteen years earlier, Johnson
was the confident millionaire
single-taxer, ready to take up the
cudgels against "privilege":
The past of the Democratic party was
built upon a great principle--a
12 Plain Dealer, February 19, 20, 1901.
13 Ibid., February 22, 25, 26,
1901.
34
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
principle enunciated by Thomas
Jefferson--that of equal rights and exact
justice to all and special privileges to
none. It is the office of the Democratic
party that every privilege granted by
law to any individual should be stricken
from the statute books. I believe that
the Democratic party has its future in
that principle. It shall be the means of
breaking down these evils. I am today
free from every business venture in the
world. . . . So help me God, the
balance of my life will be given to
fighting for the principles of Democracy.
I want no office, I'll accept none. I
expect to be in your ranks fighting for
the cause.14
Towards the end of January the Leader
suspected that Johnson
might enter the race for mayor at the
last minute. It reported that
the Wilson faction, a Democratic
splinter group, "view with great
suspicion the petitions which are now in
circulation in the interest
of Tom Johnson."15 Would
Johnson abandon his pledge and be-
come a candidate? The Public thought
not. However, considering
the anxiety his philosophy of the
three-cent fare and municipal
ownership was causing in street railway
circles, The Public specu-
lated that
if the street car ring doesn't want him
to be mayor and evidently its feelings
that way are very strong, the people of
Cleveland could hardly do better than
elect him whether he wishes to be
elected or not. . . . Tom L. Johnson would
come nearer than any other mayor to
settling the street car question in Cleve-
land in favor of the people.16
On the evening of February 6, 1901,
fifty members of the Asso-
ciation of Democratic Clubs assembled in
the Stillman House to
endorse a giant petition drafting
Johnson as their candidate for
mayor.17 Fifteen thousand
signatures filled hundreds of sheets of
paper, pasted end to end. A statement,
introduced by Chairman
Payer, requesting the nomination, was
enthusiastically adopted. It
was next decided to present the petition
to Johnson that very night
in his home a few blocks down Euclid
Avenue. The party marched
14 Cleveland Leader, January 9, 1901; Plain Dealer, January 9, 1901.
15 Leader, January 28, 1901.
16 The Public, III (1900-1901), 659.
17 Harry Payer states that Charles P.
Salen was largely responsible for originating
the Johnson-for-mayor movement. Since it
had been decided to petition Johnson even
before the Kennard banquet, the only
question remaining was whether or not he would
accept the offer. Conversation with
Payer, March 4, 1949.
CLEVELAND'S JOHNSON: ELECTED
MAYOR 35
in a body, cheering like a group of
college students. As they neared
East 24th Street the Johnson mansion
rose up ahead, brilliantly
aglow. A butler received their hats and
coats as the rotund and
smiling Johnson descended the stairs.
Greeting his guests, he led
them into the ballroom, admitting that
he was not unprepared for
their call. The visitors found stations
where they could, as Johnson
sat on a piano stool. Payer read the
statement requesting Johnson to
run for mayor. Then, standing by the
east wall, he flung out the
huge roll; as it unfolded across the
wide room, the delegation
cheered. After speeches by committee
members, Johnson read a
typewritten statement:
I have up to the last hoped that this
situation would not arise. I much
prefer my original plan of being active
in politics without running for office.
At the same time, I feel deeply sensible
of the honor of being asked to stand
as a candidate for mayor of this city. .
. . I will be your nominee for mayor
if the Democratic primaries so will
it.18
With Johnson committed, opposition
within the Democratic party
soon vanished. George B. McKay, leader
of the Unity Club, who
had been endorsed for mayor earlier,
withdrew his name on Feb-
ruary 5, even before the petitioners
called at the Johnson mansion.
Later the Tammany Tigers, foes of
Johnson, decided not to oppose
him. To mollify the discredited Farley
administration, however,
Tammany declined to support anyone.
Hence Johnson's nomination
appeared certain, and he won easily at
the February 19 party pri-
maries.19 Within three
weeks' time the remaining Democratic fac-
tions climbed aboard the bandwagon,
leaving only the disgruntled
Farleyites outside. On February 26
Tammany endorsed Johnson, and
the Hickory Club, after an abortive
effort by McKisson to win it
over to the Republicans, came into the
fold on March 4. The Seneca
Club, an ancient political group,
followed suit March 8 with a
thumping resolution supporting Johnson.
Farley had already come
18 Leader, February 7, 1901; Plain Dealer, February 7,
1901; conversation with
Payer, March 4, 1949. Johnson later
wrote, "It would have been cowardly for me to
refuse to run simply because I had publicly announced
that I had no intention of
doing so." My Story, 109.
19 Plain Dealer, February 6, 15, 20, 1901.
36
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
out for William Akers, proprietor of the
Forest City House, who
carried off the honors in the Republican
primaries, February 21.20
* * *
The liberal Plain Dealer asked
Johnson a few questions concern-
ing the policies he proposed to adopt if
elected mayor. His answers,
published as the lead article on
February 25, were apparently satis-
factory, for the next day the paper
endorsed him:
Mr. Johnson is a man of unquestioned
business ability and unimpeached
honesty. His capacity for managing large
undertakings has been frequently
demonstrated. His abilities to handle
men as well as great business enterprises
has been shown by his popularity with
his employees and with workingmen
everywhere. . . . Those who have known
him best and watched him most
closely have good reason for believing
that, if elected, he would be the actual
mayor of Cleveland and not the puppet of
any party faction or clique using
his occupancy of the position for their
advantage.
The newspaper was unsympathetic to the
single tax, municipal
ownership, and the three-cent fare, but
felt that Johnson would
either have no opportunity to try them,
or would not dare try them
if he had the opportunity.21 The Press
also supported Johnson, but
the Republican Leader was in
vigorous opposition.
Some two thousand animated Clevelanders,
assembled in the
Washington Armory on March 12, heard
Johnson outline a program
foreshadowed in numerous speeches during
the preceding two years.
He stood for the three-cent fare,
municipal ownership of all public
utilities, equal tax assessments, public
improvements, home rule, and
clean government. While impressed by all
of this, the audience was
more interested in some of the charges
which Republicans were
making against Johnson. "Do you
live in Cleveland or New York?"
"Why don't you pay your own taxes
before you start talking about
20 Ibid., February 22, 28, March
5, 7, 9, 1901.
21 Ibid., February 25, 1901. The managing editor of the Plain
Dealer, Charles
Kennedy, reported that "the Plain
Dealer urged his election as a man of ideals in city
government, with a wealth of successful business
experience to strengthen his adminis-
tration. Our plea . . . was on higher
grounds than partisanism." Fifty Years of Cleve-
land, 138.
CLEVELAND'S JOHNSON: ELECTED
MAYOR 37
other people's taxes?" "Why
didn't you try the three-cent fare when
you owned street railways?"22
This criticism was not without some
foundation. Although he had
purchased his Euclid Avenue home in
1895, Johnson had spent little
time there, leasing it to Leonard Hanna,
and on one occasion even
proposing to sell it to Hanna.23 On
the second point, the "tax in-
quisitor"24 had charged
that Johnson owed well over $100,000 in
back taxes on his home, covering the
years 1894-99. Johnson got an
order restraining the city from
collecting the sum, and the case was
in court at the time of the 1901
campaign.25 Whenever a questioner
coupled the charges of foreign residence
with local tax delinquency,
Johnson answered, "Why should I pay
taxes here if I live in
Brooklyn? Well, the fact is, I live in
Cleveland and I pay taxes in
Cleveland." Why had he never tried
the three-cent fare himself?
"First, I was not wise
enough," came the reply, "and second, in-
ventions had not progressed far enough
to make three-cent fares pos-
sible up to the time I ceased to own a
street railway in Cleveland."
Johnson amplified this position often
during the campaign. It was
true that he had not introduced the
three-cent fare when he was
director of the Big Con, but then it was
not until later that Mayor
Hazen Pingree of Detroit first developed
the idea. Johnson had re-
duced the fare on his Coney Island line
from a quarter to five cents.
The fundamental reasons for his recent
conversion to the three-cent
fare were twofold: (1) the decreased
cost of street railway opera-
tions since the introduction of
electrified lines, and (2) the rapid
growth of urban populations.
Democratic rallies continued for another
week before the Re-
publicans opened their campaign. Johnson
attended four meetings
on March 13, driving through mud a foot
deep to reach them. At
the Harvard Street Armory he promised to
devote all his energies to
his office, and before three hundred
approving Polish workers he re-
viewed his policy toward organized
labor. The following Saturday
22 Plain Dealer, March 13, 1901.
23 Conversation with William R. Hopkins,
August 6, 1949.
24 On the role of the "tax
inquisitor," see Ernest L. Bogart, "Recent Tax Reforms
in Ohio," American Economic
Review, I (1911), 505-506.
25 Plain Dealer, May 2, 1907. In 1907 the courts finally held Johnson
liable for
$4,400.20, which he paid, although he claimed
he never owed it.
38
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
night he spoke on tax and transit
questions, asserting that the Little
Con franchises, instead of having eight
years to run, had only three
and a half. He discussed saloons,
insisting that he would not tolerate
a wide open town.26
At several preliminary rallies during
this same week, the Repub-
lican leadership clarified its position.
Akers favored a three-cent fare
if it were possible, but since it was
not possible there was no sense
in talking about it. On Friday night he
observed, "They say Tom L.
stands for the single tax; I believe on
the other hand that he stands
for no taxes at all, so far as he
himself is concerned." The next night
the Republican candidate stated that he
had been a poor boy once,
and "surely you would rather side
with a poor boy than a million-
aire." He attacked Johnson for
making his fortune in Cleveland and
spending it elsewhere. "I have
always lived in Cleveland and stayed
in Cleveland."27 The
formal opening of the Republican campaign
took place March 19, with six rallies
sparking the occasion. John-
son, of course, was thoroughly picked
apart. He was a New Yorker;
he was worth $10,000,000 but paid only
$200 in taxes; he was in-
sincere in his three-cent fare
propaganda, for he had instituted the
three-cent fare in Detroit to get a
franchise, and later raised it back
to five cents.28 The
Republicans poked fun at him in a little ditty
sung to the tune of "Yankee
Doodle":
Tommy Johnson, Tommy Johnson, you're the
worst of fakers,
You may wish to be our mayor, but we'll
have Billie Akers.29
Akers' ties with McKisson became public
knowledge on Thursday,
March 21, when the Plain Dealer asked
the Republican candidate
who his supporters were. His evasive
response prompted the paper
to publish stern charges against him.
Akers, it was stated, had origi-
nally favored McKisson's nomination, but
when the former mayor
26 Ibid., March 14, 16, 17, 1901.
27 Ibid.
28 Assaults on Johnson's sincerity began
as far back as his congressional days and
were destined to continue until his
retirement from public life. That they were mis-
taken appears obvious from any fair
study of the record.
29 Plain Dealer, March 20, 1901;
Burton Papers, Western Reserve Historical Society,
Cleveland.
CLEVELAND'S JOHNSON: ELECTED
MAYOR 39
considered it advisable to remain on
the sidelines, Akers was urged
to run. He refused. Finally, under
strong pressure from McKisson
and the McKisson-controlled Republican
executive committee, he
consented. His chief adviser, W. P.
Chard, was deputy director of
public works in McKisson's last
administration. Two men in Chard's
department had been sent to the
penitentiary for fraud. Various
others, active under McKisson, were
listed among Akers' coun-
selors.30 These charges hurt
Akers, for the city was sick of McKisson,
and was distrustful of Akers' alliance
with him.
As the final week neared, Akers learned
that Congressman Theo-
dore Burton was returning from
Washington to assist in victory.
One of Johnson's oldest political foes,
Burton was to come back to
Cleveland and help his party fight
Johnson in every remaining cam-
paign. In fact, he headed the
Republican ticket himself in 1907. The
party leaders felt that a man of
national repute, such as Burton,
would influence independent voters. A
member of the executive
committee acknowledged that
"Burton is the only man who can
talk with Johnson. We know Akers can't
talk, but when Burton
arrives---" Reaching Cleveland,
Saturday, March 23, Burton went
on the stump that same night,
addressing three meetings. Conceding
that Johnson was honest and genial, he
said the danger was that
he might aspire to be governor,
senator, or even president. As for
the three-cent fare, that was too
absurd to require comment. Burton
reviewed Johnson's congressional
career, observing that "no bill ever
passed the House which Mr. Johnson
sponsored."31
On March 26, Johnson, unable to speak
because of a cold, at-
tended a Republican rally in a hall on
East 105th Street at Euclid.
Burton was the featured speaker.
However, when Johnson and two
friends dismounted from their carriage,
guards posted at the door
barred their passage. The party then
traveled to another Republican
rally at East 40th and Groton, and
finding the entrance free, filed
in unobtrusively and sat in the rear.
Someone remarked with sur-
prise, "There's Tom Johnson."
The chairman, hearing the com-
30 Plain Dealer, March 21, 1901.
31 Ibid., March 23, 24, 1901.
40
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
motion, excitedly moved to the center of
the platform and reminded
everyone that it was a Republican
meeting. Johnson answered that
he was merely a spectator, but offered
to leave if the chairman so
desired. This was the latter's wish,
whereupon Johnson departed.
To the consternation of the program
committee, fully three-quarters
of the audience noisily left with him.
The Plain Dealer reproved the
Republican managers for barring Johnson,
and Burton later ex-
pressed regret over the incident. The
party at this late date needed
all the good will it could muster. On
the same night, Akers' meet-
ings drew poor crowds, and he retired at
ten with an annoying cold.
He continued to deny McKisson's support,
and to tell boyhood
reminiscences.32
Shortly before the election,
undercurrents of factionalism in
Akers' party came to the surface. On
March 28, General Ed Meyer,
a Republican, came out strongly for
Johnson. It was soon learned
that McKisson had interceded with Meyer,
and precipitated the
break. Furthermore, McKisson allegedly
remarked that Akers' head-
quarters was merely a bluff, and that
the Republican campaign was
actually being conducted from McKisson's
own offices. The same
day it was rumored that William H. Boyd,
a prominent Republican
attorney, might desert Akers' ship.33
Even the Municipal Association
came out against Akers and
McKissonism.34
Saturday morning, March 30, the Leader
tossed a potential bomb-
shell. Under a three-column head it
charged that Johnson paid $300
to a barber, Augustus Hubbell, for
assistance as a ward worker. On
the same morning Johnson brought suit
against Hubbell and the
publishers of the Leader for
criminal libel. Hubbell was immediately
arrested, and at a public hearing in the
afternoon only confounded
the confusion about his alleged dealings
with Johnson. Character
witnesses testified against him.
Johnson, for his part, called the story
utterly false, admitting only that
Hubbell had asked him for money
32 Ibid., March 27, 28, 1901.
33 Although Boyd was Johnson's
unsuccessful Republican adversary in the 1905
election, he sided with the mayor in the
traction war.
34 Plain Dealer, March 28, 29, 1901. While the Municipal Association
opposed
Akers, it would not support Johnson.
When it urged everyone to vote, it did not say
for whom.
CLEVELAND'S JOHNSON: ELECTED
MAYOR 41
but had been refused. He characterized
it all as an "eleventh hour
Republican plot."35
The Democrats held their final monster
rally at Gray's Armory
Saturday night. The 3,000 excited
people who gathered there formed
the "largest crowd ever to
assemble in Cleveland to hear a municipal
candidate." The Plain Dealer reporter
wrote:
When Johnson was introduced the scene
was one of the greatest enthu-
siasm. Half the audience stood up. Men
waved their hats, women their
handkerchiefs, while the cheers of the
audience were fairly deafening. For
several minutes Mr. Johnson could not
speak on account of the tumultuous
applause. He started to speak but the
audience broke out afresh. One en-
thusiast called for three cheers for Mr.
Johnson and the tumult which re-
sulted was tremendous. The cheering
continued for several more minutes.
The noise crescendoed when Johnson
mentioned the roorback:
I knew what the Leader proposed
to publish before yesterday. I had re-
ceived notice of it in writing from a
member of the Republican Executive
Committee of 15. They held it for two
weeks and then the Leader published
it on the last day of the campaign,
thinking that if they held it until the last
day it would be too late to deny it. . .
. Secretary John Goldenbogen of the
Republican Committee is the real
criminal.
Burton addressed twelve hundred in
seven separate meetings, plead-
ing for a straight Republican ticket.
Akers spoke to twelve hundred
and fifty in six meetings, concluding
the Republican campaign.36
* * *
Obviously this had been a rousing,
stimulating canvass. Johnson
injected the unusual into a contest
which had long been cut and
dried. It was not surprising that on
election night, Monday, April 1,
crowds of people began to gather early
around the Plain Dealer's
huge bulletin screen, facing on East
Third Street. By nine o'clock
both East Third and Superior were
jammed with a noisy, expectant
35 Ibid., March 31, 1901. The hearing was continued until after
the election, and
Johnson later dropped both suits.
36 Ibid. Akers lost his temper with one young heckler and told
him it was none of
his business whether he was backed by
the McKisson machine or not.
42
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
throng. Traffic was suspended. A tumult
arose when the first bulletin
was flashed on the screen at
seven-thirty, and the excitement in-
creased steadily until eleven o'clock.
From the beginning a Johnson victory
appeared certain. With only
half of the precincts in, the Republican
command conceded defeat,
and as the proportions of a Johnson
victory swelled, the gloom in
the Forest City House deepened. Akers
was losing in precincts where
large Republican majorities were
customary. Johnson received the re-
turns in the city hall with a
good-humored crowd of friends. His
satisfaction was undisguised when at
eleven o'clock, with victory as-
sured, he said:
I knew the people would win this fight.
The tactics pursued by the op-
position in this campaign were enough to
augur its defeat. The arguments
advanced by our side were not refuted by
the opposition. The opposition
having no argument resorted to abuse and
mud-slinging, which kind of cam-
paign is very rarely successful. I think
the Republicans can hold the Cleve-
land Leader responsible for the
overwhelming defeat of the Republican
candidate.
The election board figures released
Tuesday morning gave Johnson
35,791 votes, and Akers 29,758, a
plurality of 6,033.37
How does one explain Cleveland's mandate
for a new political
order? Was progressivism catching up
with the city, or was this
merely a cyclical rejection of
corruption? Perhaps it was a little of
both. The Plain Dealer attributed
Johnson's election to
first, a general recognition of his
eminent fitness by experience and ability to
fulfill the duties of his office, and
second, a determination on the part of our
citizens, irrespective of party affiliations,
to prevent a return to official power
of the discredited political machine
with which Mr. Akers was unfortunate
enough to be associated.
One active McKisson worker commented:
"The Plain Dealer did
it. . . . If the Plain Dealer had
been neutral in the fight, we would
have won." Another Akers man said,
"McKisson, Farley's support,
37 Ibid., April 2, 1901. The official tally gave Johnson 35,817 and
Akers 29,761, a
plurality of 6,056.
CLEVELAND'S JOHNSON: ELECTED
MAYOR 43
the most objectionable of the Hanna
element, and the Leader were
too much of a load for any man to stand
up under." McKisson him-
self cited numerous errors, such as
Farley's support and the Hubbell
affair. One disgusted ward worker was
heard to remark, "Why even
the Republicans we hauled to the booths
voted for Johnson."38
In view of all this, it seems safe to
say that Johnson won not so
much because of his own strength as
because of his opponent's
weakness. Had Theodore Burton opposed
Johnson in 1901 instead
of 1907 he might have been victorious.
Once Johnson was in office,
however, his record of accomplishments
grew to such proportions
that only failing health could in the
end drive him out.
38 Ibid., April 2, 3, 1901.