MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT IN AN AVERAGE
CITY:
CLEVELAND, 1876-1900
by JAMES B. WHIPPLE
Instructor in History, Western
Reserve University
I
Studies of municipal politics have
tended to emphasize the best
governed city, or the worst. In many
ways this may be an accurate
reflection of the national scene, where
contemporaries were pre-
occupied with the same extremes.
Cleveland, between 1876 and 1900,
does not fall into either of these
classifications. Nevertheless, taken
as an average city, it might be more
representative of American
urban politics than Lincoln Steffens'
cities of shame or the Cleveland
which he admired under the
administration of Tom L. Johnson.
Cleveland serves as an excellent
typical city because in almost
every sense it fits the
urban-industrial pattern of the nineteenth cen-
tury and thus faced the problems which
were coincident with our
municipal growth. The Forest City began
the century as a frontier
community where its population of about
six hundred made it one
of the smallest towns on the Western
Reserve. Isolated from the
main path of commerce and westward
migration along the Ohio
River, it faced a dim future. All this
changed, however, after the
Erie Canal and the Ohio canals placed
Cleveland astride the new,
more vital lines of American
communication. Clevelanders pros-
pered and their city flourished first
as a market place. By midcentury,
commerce began to yield to
manufacturing, and Cleveland became
one of the centers of industrialization
which gained momentum
during the Civil War and shattered much
of our agrarian culture in
the last quarter of the century. By
1900 factories, warehouses, stores,
amusement resorts, and homes spread out
fan-like from Public
Square. Its population of over 380,000
made it the largest city in
Ohio and the eighth largest in the
United States. Thus Cleveland,
like so many other American towns,
underwent a rapid transforma-
tion from a rural to an
urban-industrial way of life. The change
demanded adjustments in practically
every aspect of community
1
2 Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
living--adjustments which frequently
were complex and difficult
to make.
The political implications of these
adjustments are summarized
by James Bryce's well known comment to
the effect that municipal
government was America's most
conspicuous failure. Certainly this
would apply to Cleveland as well as New
York--the major differ-
ence being one of degree. Furthermore,
Clevelanders themselves
recognized their political inadequacy;
in 1896, a centennial year
devoted to boasting of achievements, a
local historian lamented:
But if Cleveland has achieved this
splendid material prosperity, its civic
accomplishments are far less
impressive. . . . Although peopled and con-
trolled commercially and industrially
by some of the most highly endorsed,
successful and commanding executive
minds in the country, ward poli-
ticians-products of the caucus and the
saloon-made its laws and farcically
executed them. In the midst of towering
structures, where scores and
hundreds of millions of dollars were
annually received and disbursed, a lot
of cheap politicians, scarcely able to
more than make a living, in a rented
city hall, went through the motions of
conducting and controlling a huge
city.... Its commercial and private
magnificence was equalled only by its
municipal squalor.1
Although the criticism was probably
influenced by and directed
against the unpopular administration of
the incumbent mayor,
Robert E. McKisson, it was far from an
original discovery. Through-
out the quarter century others had been
pointing to the same failure.
Indeed it was quite obvious to any
superficial observer that civic
accomplishments were far less
impressive than material prosperity.
The major significance of such comments
lies, not in the admission
of political inefficiency, but in the
inability to understand all the
complicated ramifications of the
problem which explain why munic-
ipal government failed.
In the first place, the complex urban
population made the city
subject to control by minorities who
misused their power in the
interests of privileged groups-the
saloonkeeper, the prostitute, the
gambler, the businessman, or the
office-seeking politician. It is most
1 The Cleveland World, comp., "The
World's" History of Cleveland (Cleveland
1896), 159-160.
Municipal Government in
Cleveland 3
significant that respectable elements
in the community were among
those who wanted special favors from
the government--an infre-
quently recognized fact and one which
made reform incalculably
more difficult. Secondly, this same
respectable element never under-
stood the needs and problems of the new
immigrants who were be-
coming members of the community in
increasing numbers. Thirdly,
Clevelanders became reconciled only
gradually to the idea that urban
government must assume additional
responsibilities and provide
additional services--responsibilities
and services which were foreign
to their rural heritage. Finally, the
problem was complicated by the
inadequate machinery under which the
Forest City attempted to
operate. Modifications of the municipal
charter, which were neces-
sary to reconcile it to the changing
community, came very slowly.
The Cleveland failure resulted from an
oversimplified diagnosis
which neglected one or several of these
factors. Well-meaning citi-
zens separated the political objectives
of legitimate and illegitimate
activities, reluctant to assume that
"good" businessmen might cor-
rupt or weaken municipal government.
All politicians were bad and
immigrants were their tools. The vague
term, businessman's govern-
ment, justified a multitude of failures
to provide reasonable public
services. Thus for the most part,
solutions never went further than
improving the charter and thinking
rather vainly of replacing
"cheap politicians" with
"good men." Obviously such thinking was
not indigenous to Cleveland alone. The
city was average rather
than extreme in the effect these
attitudes had on municipal politics.
Cleveland never had a corrupt
government comparable to those
of New York, Philadelphia, or
Cincinnati. Nor was it ruled by an
absolute political czar. Nevertheless,
on a smaller scale most of the
same weaknesses and failures existed.
If there was no boss of the
city there were a number of individuals
who gained considerable
political power at least on the ward
level; and occasionally someone
like McKisson was able to extend his
control over much larger sec-
tions of the community. In theory party
lines were sharply drawn
in municipal elections, but in practice
they tended to be shattered.
City government belonged to the
business interests, the most im-
portant being public utilities and
other companies dependent on
4 Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
municipal contracts. According to Tom
L. Johnson, "the campaign
funds came largely from businessmen who
believed in a 'business-
man's government,' and who couldn't or
wouldn't see there was any-
thing radically wrong with the
system." 2 Although Johnson's re-
forming zeal might have led him to
exaggerate, his own connections
with street railways placed him in a
position to know, and further-
more the economic activities of a
number of important bosses justi-
fied his analysis. In the early
eighties there was Silas Merchant, a
dredging contractor who was the
dominant figure in Republican
affairs.3 Between 1885 and
1890 William H. Gabriel played an im-
portant role in local Republican
politics. He was involved finan-
cially in the municipal night soil
contract and in 1890 organized a
paving combination which aspired to
city contracts.4 Often accused
of being Democratic boss, and
unquestionably of considerable in-
fluence, was John Farley, whom Frederic
Howe described as a "big
raw-boned, profane Irishman of
substantial wealth, who made his
money as a contractor." 5
Undoubtedly the most conspicuous power
behind the city government was M. A.
Hanna. Ultimately his
strength was based on influence over
the state government; never-
theless he was an important factor in
Cleveland, where there were
Hanna Democrats as well as Hanna
Republicans. Never an en-
throned boss in the strict sense of the
word, his generous campaign
contributions and his backing among the
more important business
leaders, made his word feared and
respected. Although he had no
political machine, he controlled
candidates and helped dictate local
party politics.6 Like the
others, Hanna had economic interests to
protect--his were valuable street
railway franchises.
There were other bosses who were less
well known for their busi-
ness activities. Charles P. Salem,
Democratic leader, was a notable
example. Never the top man, his
stronghold was the ninth ward,
2 Tom L. Johnson, My Story, edited
by Elizabeth J. Hauser (London, 1913), 114-
115.
3 Cleveland Press, January 3, 1885.
4 Ibid., April 12, 1890.
5 Frederic C. Howe, The Confessions
of a Reformer (New York, 1925), 85.
6 The Workman, September-October, 1885, passim; Herbert Croly, Marcus
Alonzo
Hanna, His Life and Work (New York, 1912), 114, 127, 147; Johnson, My Story,
114-115.
Municipal Government in
Cleveland 5
where he worked with Farley and later
with Tom Johnson. He held
a few minor offices, and his record as
a public servant was good.
Nevertheless, he never quite overcame
the stigma of being a "boss"
and was always unpopular with
conventional reformers. Less savory
bosses were men like William Crawford,
who dominated the fourth
councilmanic district, and whose
organization arbitrarily selected
candidates and dictated to the voters.
According to Howe he worked
closely with the biggest business
interests in the city.7 One of the
most effective bosses who came with the
newer immigrants was
"Czar" Harry Bernstein, a
Polish immigrant himself, who con-
trolled a neighborhood of Russian Jews,
Italians, and Negroes,
where he could deliver the number of
votes promised almost to a
man.8
In general, the methods of control
followed the usual pattern.
Politicians provided aid and advice for
the great mass of less for-
tunate Cleveland citizens, and in
return they received political
allegiance. A machine dominated the
selection of candidates and
later foisted them on a poorly informed
but grateful electorate. The
leaders were well known in their
neighborhoods and often be-
friended their constituencies in many
ways which seemed far afield
from politics. This was particularly so
with immigrants, who were
watched over from the train to the
grave. Met at the immigrant
trains, each new group of
citizens-to-be was greeted and guided
through the early confusing days of
house and job hunting. Later
there might be loans and participation
in family celebrations or
funerals. The program obviously
included hastening and aiding
naturalization to increase the vote
from recipients of so many favors
from the boss.9
With the possible exception of the
Irish, no particular immigrant
group was dominated by either party. On
the other hand, prominent
compatriots did have some importance
among fellow citizens of the
7 Howe,Confessions of a Reformer, 85.
8 Ibid., 93; "Goldenes
Jubilaum," in Wachter und
Anzeiger, August 9, 1902; Well-
ington G. Fordyce, "Nationality
Groups in Cleveland Politics," Ohio State Archae-
ological and Historical Quarterly, XLVI (1937), 102-127.
9 Frederic C. Howe, "A City Finding
Itself," World's Work, VI (October 1903),
3988-3999.
6 Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
same national origin. Strictly
speaking, these men were not party
bosses, but their opinions did carry a
certain amount of weight in
elections. Jacob Mueller, as a
successful German-American poli-
tician and newspaper publisher, was
typical of this sort of influence,
and Hungarian-Americans like Conrad
Mizer or Joseph and Louis
Black had similar popularity among
their people. In another sense
a foreign name often helped as a vote
getter. The roster of the
city council was generously sprinkled
with names such as Reilly,
Schellentrager, and Ptak.
Other methods of control were less
reputable, each party accusing
the other of using floaters, cemetery
votes, or bribes.10 To some
extent these charges can be explained
in terms of factional journal-
ism, identical complaints being part of
every campaign. At the same
time, they were verified in part by
fairly respectable Republican
politicians like Orlando J. Hodge, who
maintained that both Wil-
liam G. Rose and George W. Gardner had
been nominated by
carting men from one polling place to
another.11
The candidates offered to the
electorate varied in ability and back-
ground. The mayors were generally
businessmen or lawyers who
had acquired respectable reputations in
the community. They were
men like Rose, a real estate operator,
or like Gardner, who had a
long record and an excellent reputation
as a provision merchant.
Although at times the council included
such able and high-minded
individuals as Dr. G. C. Ashman and
Morris Black, for the most
part the membership verged on the
disreputable. Particularly dur-
ing the early years of the era,
saloonkeepers, brawlers, and nonenti-
ties were the representatives of the
people of Cleveland. Drunken
and unintelligible orations with
frequent maudlin interruptions were
ordinary occurrences which reflected
the low morale of the chamber.12
The objectives of control were no
different in Cleveland from
those elsewhere. In part it was purely
politics as a business involv-
ing the municipal spoils system, which
in 1883 amounted to one
10 Cleveland Leader, October 14,
1880, October 11, 1884, October 20, 1894; Cleve-
land Press, July
2, 1884; Cleveland Plain Dealer, April 3, 1885.
11 Orlando J. Hodge, Reminiscences (2 vols., Cleveland, 1902-10),
II, 21.
12 Cleveland Press, May 18, 1880; Cleveland Leader, February 18,
1876, March 17,
1884, November 7, 1885.
Municipal Government in
Cleveland 7
hundred and ten jobs with annual
salaries ranging from $3,500 to
$480.13 In 1885 the city payroll
amounted to more than $99,000
a month.14 Although many of
the jobs were not subject to spoils
of office, political pull might aid
aspirants for jobs in such non-
partisan offices as the police or fire
departments.15 Another impor-
tant objective was to make it a
businessman's government. There
was considerable talk of businesslike
efficiency in municipal affairs
during most of the era, but it was more
of a campaign slogan or a
comforting myth than a deep-seated
concern. So long as nothing
too shocking occurred, the community
was satisfied if more material
objectives were achieved. These
included economy to keep taxes
low even at the expense of the
essential needs; maintenance of law
and order, which meant protection of
private property and the "right
to work"; and opportunities to
secure public contracts or valuable
franchises, which demanded a minimum of
responsibility to the city.
Lesser politicians also had their
objectives, such as violation of
saloon laws or operation of illegal
gambling dens and houses of
ill-fame. In short the general spirit
was reflected in the often-
quoted letter from Mark Hanna to David
K. Watson: "You have
been in politics long enough to know
that no man in public office
owes the public anything." 16
It would be incorrect, however, to
assume that the municipal
authorities paid no attention to the
essential needs of the commun-
ity or that the government was totally
incompetent and irrespon-
sible. To some extent the failure to
provide satisfactory solutions
could be traced to the antiquated
charter of 1852, which served as
Cleveland's constitution until 1892.
Scarcely adequate for the Cleve-
land of 1876, it became increasingly
less effective during the suc-
ceeding fifteen years. The major
weakness lay in the impotence of
the executive. The mayor was a
figurehead with little influence in
the council and only indirect control
over administration. Each new
problem resulted in the creation of a
new board, whose member-
13 Cleveland Leader, April 7, 1883.
14 City of Cleveland, Annual Report . . . 1885 (Cleveland, 1886),
xxiii-xxiv.
15 Cleveland Leader, February 6, 1884.
16 Quoted in Philip D. Jordan, Ohio
Comes of Age, 1873-1900 (History of the
State of Ohio, V, Columbus, 1943), 212.
8 Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
ship was variously responsible to the
mayor, to the people, or to the
council, and sometimes to all three.
The result was inefficiency,
jurisdictional conflicts, and lack of
coordination, "without intelligent
direction from any central
source." 17 Many of the city officers re-
ceived no pay or inadequate
remuneration, demanding an unusual
amount of public spirit or increasing
the temptation to use the posi-
tion for personal gain, perhaps at
public expense.18
II
Municipal government under the old
charter was not marred by
major political scandals, but there was
a steady stream of minor
irregularities involving misuse of
political power for special inter-
ests, corruption, and carelessness or
inefficiency. Evidence of misuse
was disclosed in connection with the
employment of political in-
fluence to obtain paving or dredging
contracts.19 Similar relation-
ships existed between merchants and
municipal officeholders. On
occasion the practice involved such
high officials as Mayor Gardner,
whose firm sold Cleveland over ten
thousand dollars worth of pro-
visions in defiance of state laws
prohibiting such transactions by an
official or firm with which he was
associated. The vouchers had
been made out to false names; when
accused, Gardner admitted the
charges were correct, but glibly
explained that he had made arrange-
ments whereby he would have no
connection with the business his
firm did with the city.20 Although
at the time of the disclosure the
ex-mayor was serving on the council, no
attempt was made to in-
vestigate these illegal activities.
Although there were a few minor cases
of peculation, the most
sensational was the Axworthy
defalcation in 1888. Thomas Ax-
worthy, the city treasurer, was a
highly respected citizen who had
been prominent in Cleveland's business,
political, and social life. In
17 Elroy M. Avery, "Federal Plan of Municipal Government as
Illustrated by the
City of Cleveland," Lehigh Quarterly, June
1892, 4.
18 F. D. Wilcox, "Municipal Government in Michigan and Ohio," in
Columbia
University Studies in History,
Economics, and Public Law, V (New
York, 1896),
131-146.
19 Cleveland Leader, January 9, 1881, August 3, 1886.
20 Ibid., April 20-22, 1881.
Municipal Government in
Cleveland 9
October 1888 he disappeared, leaving a
shortage of over half a
million dollars. Most of it represented
city funds which he had
loaned in his own name and which he
could not produce on demand.
Apparently becoming panic-stricken, he
withdrew additional funds
and departed for Canada. A few weeks
later a letter to the mayor
explained what he had done, and naively
closed with, "Good bye
and may God bless the City of
Cleveland."21 Subsequent investiga-
tion did not probe too deeply, but it
did disclose that all treasurers
had been using municipal funds as their
own with the tacit under-
standing that it was all right, and
that bookkeeping methods had
been careless and inaccurate to the
point of juggling figures to make
the balance correct.22 Ultimately
the Forest City recovered its money
from Axworthy or his bondsmen, and
three years later Mayor
Gardner believed the defalcator should
be permitted to return, hav-
ing been sufficiently punished by his
exile.23 The suggestion was
never carried out, but it was
indicative of the rather lax standards
of public servants who would welcome
home a fugitive from justice,
a robber of public funds which had been
placed in his trust.
The operation of the financial
department was only one example
of the possibility for inefficiency and
flagrant abuse under the old
charter and under a system which
tolerated self-interest at the ex-
pense of public service. Periodically
newspapers complained of in-
numerable others. There were the filthy
streets, improperly cleaned
both because of negligence and
niggardly appropriations. Careless,
if not corrupt, officials accepted
short-weighted deliveries of coal
from unscrupulous dealers.24 The
most persistently mismanaged
departments, however, were the
infirmary and workhouse. Waste,
extravagance, lack of discipline,
inaccurate records, abuses practiced
on patients at the infirmary and
inmates at the workhouse, toleration
of unsanitary conditions--such charges
reappeared in city reports
with almost monotonous regularity. Each
new administration
21 Cleveland Leader, October 23-24, November 13, 1888.
22 Ibid., December 11, 1888, January 3, 1890.
23 Ibid., March 2, 1891.
24 Cleveland Leader, November 11, 1881, October 5, 1893; Cleveland Town Topics,
February 27, 1897.
10
Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
usually discovered that its predecessor
turned over these depart-
ments "in a very unsatisfactory
condition."25
The problem of favors and special
privileges was always in evi-
dence. In 1896 Mayor McKisson gave the
members of the chamber
of commerce a mild lecture on the
subject, condemning the practice
of selfish interests in demanding this
right or that privilege, based
on the prevailing philosophy that if
they did not receive the bene-
fit, "somebody else will get the
right or somebody else will spend
the money."26 The
favors included minor ones, such as the tendency
to supply better services to the
wealthier neighborhoods. This sort
of favoritism covered a wide variety of
municipal activities, from
more adequate school facilities to
better street lighting, in spite of
the fact that the poor and more
populous sections had greater
needs.27
Another form of protection went to the
criminal element--gamb-
ling, prostitution, and violations of
the saloon laws were always
tolerated in Cleveland during this era.
Law and order leagues and
church reformers were ceaseless in
their crusades; most of the press
gave them nominal support, but nothing
happened. In part the ex-
planation lies in the simple fact that
many Clevelanders patronized
these illicit activities; but equally
important, they were protected by
the police department and condoned by
the city government as a
whole. Numerous unofficial
investigations and one official one, the
Lewis investigation, all told the same
sordid story. Houses of ill-
fame, houses of assignation, and
gambling dens existed and were
known officially to the police. In the
Lewis investigation, conducted
by the city council in 1880, policemen
testified that certain places
were not molested because of a
"tacit understanding" among the
officers. One patrolman explained he
could uphold any ordinance
on his own responsibility except those
involving prostitution, where
specific instructions from his superior
were required. On one oc-
casion he had entered a house of
ill-fame in the interests of a dis-
25 City of Cleveland, Annual Report .
. . 1895 (Cleveland, 1896), xviii; Annual
Reports . . . 1876-1899 (Cleveland, 1877-1900), passim.
26 Cleveland Chamber of Commerce, Annual,
1896 (Cleveland, 1896), 144.
27 Cleveland Press, June 3, 1882.
Municipal Government in
Cleveland 11
traught wife who was hunting her
spouse. The operator was out-
raged and threatened to fix the
offending officer who dared enter
his house of prostitution. A few days
later the policeman was trans-
ferred to another precinct. Other
members of the force verified his
story and related similar experiences
involving gambling. In spite
of the evidence, the final report of
the council committee buried the
question of protection, merely
condemning A. H. Lewis, the police
prosecutor, for neglect of duty in
keeping certain court records and
of bad language and temper in court.28
Perhaps the most complacent form of
favoritism was reserved for
public utilities, notably the street
railways. Originally grants had
been given to a number of individuals,
but gradually three groups
achieved dominance in Cleveland
transportation. Headed by respect-
able businessmen--M. A. Hanna, Henry
Everett, and Tom L. John-
son--nevertheless among the methods
used in their fierce compe-
tition and in their later attempts for
special privileges there was
much which militated against the best
interests of the public. As
Johnson put it, "just as soon as a
man becomes the owner of stock
in a public service corporation, he has
an interest absolutely opposed
to the interest of the city."29
The potential operator actually faced
two problems: the first was the control
of franchises, a highly com-
petitive operation where personal
interest and rivalries often were
directly opposed to public interest;
and the second involved protec-
tion of the franchise where renewals or
excessive supervision might
have imposed hampering obligations on
the railway companies. In
both cases the solution involved
control of the city council and to
some extent influence with the state
legislature.
Councilmanic control was obtained by
entering politics and back-
ing friendly candidates. During the
early years of rivalry this meant
attempting to win a majority over
competing operators. Councilmen
were dubbed Johnson men or Elias Simms
men; or the newspapers
announced that Johnson had a majority.30
As Johnson later admit-
28 Cleveland Leader, September
24, 30, October 1, 5, 6, November 30, 1880.
29 Johnson, My Story, 25-26.
30 Ibid., 23-24; Cleveland
Leader, March 21, 1885. Elias Simms was an early oper-
ator who had been allied with Hanna until the latter
forced him out of street railway
control.
12
Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
ted, "it was a case of playing
politics or getting out of business."31
Often an extensive lobby and a gallery
packed with employees
helped hold the city representatives in
line. A Cleveland Leader
comment might apply to many sessions of
the city council: "A dozen
of the over-familiar faces of the
street railway men decorated the
lobby of the council last
evening."32 Accusations of bribes were
mentioned frequently, but never proved.
As in other cases, the
council displayed no interest in
pursuing such investigations. At any
rate Johnson quoted Simms as
complaining that "all councilmen
want is money. Just have to go around
with my pocketbook in my
hand all the time."33
In addition to giving aid in obtaining
grants, a complaisant city
government permitted the operators to
carry on their struggle for
supremacy over each other or tolerated
numerous operating abuses,
regardless of the effect on Cleveland
streetcar riders. At one time
the Hanna-Simms clique forced Johnson's
customers to transfer and
to pay additional fares, a thing which
was possible through their
control of a crucial half mile section
between the West Side and
Public Square.34 One rider, protesting in an open
letter to the
Leader, pointed not only to the expense but to the delay,
where in
the dead of winter it took him an hour
and a half to go home, al-
though he lived only two miles from the
square.35 Lack of concern
for the public was evident in the
continuous complaints received
from all sections of the city.
Insufficient service, lack of safety de-
vices, no precautionary measures to
protect other traffic, failure to
pay a share of road maintenance,
excessive fares--these were some
of the most frequent criticisms leveled
at the operators.36 Utilities
almost always face a hostile public;
nevertheless, even the chamber
of commerce, which was generally
sympathetic to business interests,
at least tacitly admitted the justice
of the complaints when their in-
31 Johnson, My Story, 21.
32 Cleveland Leader, February 20, 1883.
33 Johnson, My Story, 17.
34 Ibid., 21-22.
35 Cleveland Leader, January 11,
1881.
36 Ibid., September
20, 1878, March 30, December 4, 1880, December 13, 1885;
Cleveland Press, January 6, March 8, 1881.
Municipal Government in
Cleveland 13
vestigating committee promised that the
railway companies would
endeavor to remedy many of the existing
evils.37
III
Clevelanders had not accepted their
inefficient government with
absolute apathy. Only a very small
minority, however, advocated
any changes which did more than scratch
the surface. One of the
most fascinating reformers in the
Forest City during the last quarter
of the century was Dr. L. B. Tuckerman.
Contrary to the accepted
belief that all left-wing leaders were
immigrants, the doctor was
thoroughly American. Coming from a
family which was Protestant
and had lived here since the
seventeenth century, his ideas were in-
spired by America and Jefferson, not
Europe. Tuckerman was no
radical but a pioneer progressive in
the days when the spirit of the
robber baron was rampant and
progressivism was not fashionable.
In no sense an exclusive American
phenomenon, he was the Cleve-
land representative of a vigorous
minority who began agitating pro-
gressive reform almost twenty years
before it was in vogue. It was
a progressivism rooted in the
humanitarian impulses of a kindly
physician from Ashtabula. Moving to
Cleveland, he observed iniq-
uities which accompanied the rapid
urbanization of so many Amer-
ican cities, and unlike so many of his
compatriots, he was unable to
remain complacent in the face of the
violations of human rights
which had been traditional in agrarian
America. Dr. Tuckerman
was interested primarily in local
affairs; as a participant in politics
he saw abuses of power which he could
not accept in silence; as a
physician, and particularly as a public
health officer, he was acutely
conscious of hardships and suffering
which reflected an outrageous
lack of concern for the welfare of the
underprivileged. Since he
represented a distinct minority,
discretion might have been the bet-
ter part of valor, but Dr. Tuckerman
possessed a different sort of
courage and fought against malignant
sores which accompanied
urban industrialization--fought in
spite of discouraging failures and
in spite of the abuse and ridicule
heaped upon him and his entire
37 Cleveland Chamber of Commerce, Reports
and Proceedings: 46th Annual Meet-
ing, April 17th, 1894 (Cleveland, 1894), 24.
14
Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
family. Sincere, unassuming, without
personal ambition, and an
effective orator, the doctor became the
leader of a small coterie of
reformers. He was admirably fitted for
the role for two other rea-
sons: a sense of humor helped him
maintain his perspective, and a
disciplined mind influenced the often
confused, inarticulate think-
ing of the men who formed the core of
the early revolt against the
old order.
Dr. Tuckerman became the leader of a
perennial third party
which differed from many of the other
independent political move-
ments of the time in that the
inspiration for its platform was almost
exclusively local. The Forest City had
its share of labor parties and
prohibition parties, and Tuckerman
often cooperated with labor
leaders, but essentially he was
interested in correcting abuses in
municipal politics. The platform for
1885, which was typical of his
interests, advocated better hospital
facilities, more adequate health
service, labor representation on the
police board, public ownership
of utilities, and an improved school
system.38 Although the little
party often drew large audiences, it
collected few votes. Undoubt-
edly many enjoyed hearing the bold
campaigners call a spade a
spade. In the campaign of 1889 a
Tuckerman address ended in a
near riot when the doctor's caustic
remarks aimed at the Democrats
resulted in a stoning. In the election,
however, the reformers polled
only about one hundred and seventy
votes, indicating how few were
induced to desert the major parties.
A second and perhaps more effective
reform organization was Dr.
Tuckerman's Franklin Club. Organized in
1889, it was a free forum
without enrolled membership where
anyone was permitted to partici-
pate in discussions ranging from
municipal to national subjects. A
small gathering of progressive spirits
met faithfully every Sunday
afternoon and the club became a
Cleveland institution. The domi-
nant personality in the Franklin Club
was Dr. Tuckerman, the
Leader commenting that the "club never attempts to do
anything but
talk in the absence of the doctor. When
the head center did arrive
the discussion ceased."39 Since
the doctor's major interest was mu-
38 The Workman, October 31, 1885.
39 Cleveland Leader, May 18, 1891.
Municipal Government in
Cleveland 15
nicipal affairs, he frequently
interrupted more general discussions
to lead the group back to the Cleveland
scene. Flagrant abuses by
officeholders, necessity for more
adequate health measures, greater
municipal control of public
utilities--such ideas were generally sup-
ported by club petitions or delegations
to the city council.40 The im-
mediate success of the club is
difficult to measure. The newspaper
reports in the conservative Leader reflected
a spirit of amused toler-
ance for a collection of crackpots. Dr.
Tuckerman, on the other
hand, maintained his following was
responsible for some progressive
measures such as the reduction of gas
rates in 1891.41 Undoubtedly
the major contribution of this pressure
group was a long range one--
it helped prepare minds for subsequent
acceptance of its reform pro-
gram. Perhaps of more immediate
importance was the fact that the
little doctor attracted a group of able
reformers, many of whom
played vital roles in the labor
movement or as progressives in Cleve-
land at the turn of the century. He
undoubtedly inspired them with
his own idealism, his unselfish
humanitarianism, his patience and
persistence, his faith in people and
democracy, and his loyalty to
reform which stayed within the limits
of American traditions.
Although the left-wingers were unable
to make headway, it did
not mean that more conservative
Clevelanders accepted their ineffi-
cient government with apathy. Their
criticism, however, was less
realistic; and it was unrealistic in
the apparent inability to compre-
hend all the factors which made their
government fail. They be-
lieved the weakness was due to the
cumbersome, inadequate machin-
ery or dirty politics-or both.
Boodlers, bummerism, and bossism
discouraged the better element from
running for office, or even
voting. In his novel The
Breadwinners, John Hay's description of
politics in Buffland reflected the
typical reaction of the "better" ele-
ment. At the time of its anonymous
publication Hay was living on
Cleveland's Euclid Avenue, and Buffland
is clearly identifiable as
the Forest City. His hero, Captain
Farnham, attempted to reform
politics by running for a seat in the
city council, only to be defeated
by the neighborhood butcher, Jacob
Metzger, who controlled the
40 Ibid., March 6, 17, 25, June 23, 1890.
41 Ibid., May 11, 1891.
16
Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
saloon vote and Farnham's own tenants.
Later he was appointed
to the library board and discovered he
had been selected as a figure-
head who was always outvoted by the
machine tools. Later in the
novel, Hay took time from his
anti-union diatribes to provide a
description of Buffland's mayor, whom
he made an uneducated,
boorish Irish-American.42
Apart from the patent class snobbery,
Hay's comments reflected
a failure to penetrate beneath the
superficial abuse and inefficiency,
and many citizens agreed. For them the
answer lay in a new charter
which would encourage participation by
the respectable element. In
1891, after many years of agitation,
Cleveland received a new consti-
tution, incorrectly named the Federal
Plan. Essentially simple, it
eliminated all the old boards,
consolidating executive power in the
hands of the mayor, assisted by his
appointed cabinet of six directors.
Furthermore, by giving the mayor and
cabinet voteless seats in the
council, the charter provided for
executive leadership in legislation.43
The new plan was received with great
enthusiasm. Elroy Avery
was convinced that there was
"honor now [in serving] in the coun-
cil," and agreed with the Leader
that it was due mainly to the "sub-
stitution of strict business methods
for the often corrupt jobbery that
characterized the conduct of municipal
affairs under the old board
system."44 The Press
celebrated the new municipal constitution with
a cartoon showing triumphant gladiators
returning with the docu-
ment while politicians in chains bring
up the rear. Atrocious verse
added the final touch to this
expression of Cleveland sentiment:
The heelers, boodlers, and ward bummers
they;
No wonder that they wish to break away;
Their occupations gone, their pockets
drained,
'Tis natural that they must needs be
chained,
Else for the plan that knocked them
gaily west
They would not be marching with the
rest.45
For the first administration the
respectable and popular William
42 John Hay, The Breadwinners (New
York and London, 1916), 55-58, 186, 195.
43 Wilcox, "Municipal Government in
Michigan and Ohio," 146-151.
44 Avery, "Federal Plan of
Municipal Government," 15.
45 Cleveland Press, February 26, 1891.
Municipal Government in
Cleveland 17
G. Rose was recalled from retirement to
serve as mayor, and a num-
ber of sincere, public-spirited men
were elected to the council. All
indications pointed toward more
efficient municipal government
operating in the interests of the
people. Streets were actually
cleaned, and road builders were forced
to comply with the terms of
contracts.46 The vigorous
law director, Edward S. Meyer, brought
the Cleveland Gas Light and Coke
Company to terms which were
more favorable to the public. Rates
were lowered and the city was
guaranteed a share of the gross
receipts.47 Such success, however,
turned out to be most transitory. Four
years later Cleveland was sub-
jected to the most thoroughgoing kind
of bossism and irregular ma-
chine politics of the entire
quarter-century--a striking indication of
the extremely naive analysis by sincere
Clevelanders who never under-
stood the relationship between
bosses-and-boodle and the material-
istic industrial urbanization of
post-Civil War America. These re-
formers failed because their outlook
rarely extended beyond the
New England immigrants to the city.
They ignored the interests of
great masses of Clevelanders, not
merely in political objectives, but
in the daily problems which preoccupied
the machine bosses. They
asked ward heelers to withdraw but made
no effort to satisfy the
human wants of the immigrant, such as
advice, aid, encouragement,
or friendship, all of which were
important functions of the machine.
They looked with horror at the idea of
giving these common folk
any political favors and they expected
the larger privilege-seekers
would retire. The naive image
prevailed: "good men" would leg-
islate and administrate with a sort of
public-spirited detachment.
There simply were not enough of their
sort of good men who were
prepared to make the sacrifices
demanded of them. They ignored
the role of the city as dispensator of
privileges which were sought
and expected by both large fry and
small. They persisted in ap-
proaching urban problems with a village
mind. The result was that
bossism and the political machine were
adapted to the new form of
government. Indeed, the new, more
centralized constitution en-
hanced the opportunities for efficient
bossism.
46 Cleveland Leader, July 15, August 9, 1891.
47 Ibid., August 18, 1891.
18
Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
The individual who was most responsible
for the new machine
politics was a young lawyer named
Robert E. McKisson. Born in
Pennsylvania in 1863, he was a relative
newcomer who had become
permanently associated with the Forest
City around 1887. Entering
politics, his rise to power was
meteoric; by 1894 he had won a seat
on the city council, and the following
year he was elected mayor.
Reelected in 1897, he served four years
and in that time he con-
structed a machine which employed
almost all the schemes in a
politician's bag of tricks, and which
committed most of the usual
abuses, again on a relatively small
scale. McKisson was a man with
political ambitions, not a professional
grafter, and this was for-
tunate for Cleveland because it meant
the irregularities were re-
stricted to the necessary
accompaniments of the machine rather than
being the primary objective of
officeholding.
As usual the organization began at the
ward level. It was a period
when Czar Bernstein and his brilliant
young lieutenant, Maurice
Maschke, were busy controlling votes,
and when "free beer, free
lunch, and a free concert were
essential to every well-conducted cam-
paign."48 If necessary,
the regular vote was increased by illegal
voters: absentees, dead men, and
criminals with fictitious addresses
which placed them in saloons, vacant
lots, or empty houses.49 Party
funds were collected ruthlessly, with
assessments of five to seven per-
cent of the officeholder's salary.50
Money was extorted from appli-
cants for jobs on the public payroll.51
A typical report involved an
ex-policeman who testified that
McKisson considered his restoration
to the force worth five hundred
dollars; an offer of two hundred was
refused.52 The McKissonites
also made free use of the spoils system.
There were numerous exposures of
patronage and disregard for the
principles of civil service in the
machine's attempt to fill offices with
its following.53
48 Malcolm B. Vilas, "The Citizens'
League of Cleveland," National Municipal
Review, XIX (1930), 684.
49 Municipal Association of Cleveland, Third
Annual Report, 1899, 112.
50 Cleveland Press, February 20, 1899; Cleveland Leader, December
31, 1898;
Cleveland Plain Dealer, February 17, 1899.
51 Cleveland Plain Dealer, February 17, 1899.
52 Cleveland Leader, May 31, June
15, 1898.
53 Municipal Association of Cleveland, Third
Annual Report, 1899, 4.
Municipal Government in
Cleveland 19
Other irregularities, which helped keep
the machine well oiled,
had an adverse effect on the operation
of the city government. Legal
violations by the saloonists were
ignored. Evil resorts were wide
open, brazenly flaunting the law and
the righteous protests of well-
meaning church leaders.54 When
policemen were asked why they
turned their backs on these illegal
activities, they explained "they
did not want to chase butterflies in
the surburban precincts."55 The
Citizen complained that under the shadows of Dr. Hiram Haydn's
church on Public Square there were
"bawdy houses, gambling hells,
opium joints, and rum holes running in
full blast, night and day ...
in defiance of the law. No policeman in
the Tenderloin would think
of making himself ridiculous by denying
it."56 Contractors and pro-
vision houses, selling goods and
services to the city, took advantage
of political pull and lax, extravagant
methods of operation to obtain
business on favorable terms--and at
public expense. Investigations
by the Municipal Association, often
verified by council investiga-
tions, disclosed overpayments on
garbage disposal and sewer con-
tracts, and payments for supplies which
were never received. It
further charged that favoritism in
letting contracts had cost the city
thousands of dollars--and
mismanagement, juggling of figures, and
incomplete records of financial
transactions made it impossible to
render an accurate statement covering
expenditures of street clean-
ing or paving funds.57
McKisson's power was broken in 1899 due
to a number of dis-
parate factors which coalesced long
enough to throw the rascals out
of office. The flagrant disregard for
principles of good government
shocked a growing number of
Clevelanders. Some may have been
especially conscious of the abuses
because they followed so rapidly
on the heels of the enthusiastic
reception of the Federal Plan. For
54 Cleveland Plain Dealer, May 24,
1896; Cleveland Town Topics, June 8, 1895, 5;
Cleveland Press, February 20, 1899; Municipal Association of Cleveland, Third
Annual
Report, 1899, 9-10.
55 Cleveland Plain Dealer, May 24, 1896.
56 Cleveland Citizen, March 28, 1896.
57 Municipal Association of Cleveland, Third Annual Report, 1899, 4-5,
10-11;
Cleveland Plain Dealer, February 16, May 6, August 23, December 9, 189; Cleveland
Leader, May 18, December 8, 1898; City of Cleveland, Annual
Report . . . 1899,
xiv, 421.
20
Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
many, however, it was a reflection of a
growing national resentment
against the activities of selfish
interests, many of which appeared to
be centered in municipal mismanagement.
For perpetual reformers
like the city ministers or the
left-wingers, McKisson was the target
for a vigorous onslaught almost from
the beginning. Ministers like
L. A. Banks or William Knight fought
the mayor's tolerance toward
saloons and evil resorts. The Franklin
Club attacked corruption and
mismanagement, and the
Citizen--representing Cleveland labor--
joined both clerical and lay
opposition.
Their persistence was at times an
annoyance to McKisson, who
responded with blustering and rather
undignified replies. Undoubt-
edly these groups added to the clamor
of the opposition, but they
were not very successful in effecting
reform or overthrowing the
regime. Perhaps more influential was
the Municipal Association of
Cleveland, formed in 1895 under the
leadership of Harry Garfield
and other idealists, such as Frederic
C. Howe. Its voice carried
greater weight for two reasons: first,
its membership was drawn
from eminently respectable
Clevelanders; and second, it was part of
a national movement. Other cities were
building similar associa-
tions to fight for municipal reform,
and the first annual conference
of a National Municipal League for Good
City Government met in
Cleveland during the same year.58 The
organizers of the local group
"felt it was time for a permanent
organization which should stim-
ulate attention to public affairs on
the part of private citizens."59 Non-
partisan, it investigated candidates,
fought for such reforms as War-
ing's White Wings or the elimination of
the smoke nuisance. Mu-
nicipal government was observed, and
abuses of political power
were investigated and exposed. Mayor
McKisson was not the in-
spiration for the Municipal
Association--at least not the only one--
but it was inevitable that he became
the symbol of municipal mis-
management and corruption for this
group as well as for other re-
formers.
A second factor which played a role in
the McKisson downfall
was the street railway problem. By the
nineties further consolida-
58 Cleveland Chamber of Commerce, Annual,
1896, 95-96.
59 Municipal Association of Cleveland, First
Annual Report, 1897, 4.
Municipal Government in
Cleveland 21
tions had narrowed control, and two
companies dominated Cleve-
land's public transportation--one
headed by M. A. Hanna and the
other, by Henry Everett. These concerns
continued their sometimes
high-handed activities, public
interests to the contrary notwithstand-
ing. They opposed necessary extensions
by outside organizations
and at the same time refused to build
themselves.60 In addition
there was the steady stream of petty
annoyances, such as poor serv-
ice, ordering motormen to speed in
defiance of the law, cheating on
transfer privileges, failure to perform
their share of road maint-
enance, and excessive fares.61
If railway control over the city council
was less complete than it had been in the
earlier decades, under the
new government it remained sufficient
to frustrate any effective pub-
lic regulation.
As public resentment mounted, the
situation approached a crisis
over the question of franchise renewals
which were required in 1904.
The important issues were three: first,
there was the debate over
fares; second, there was the demand
that the railways pay the city
a share of their income in return for
the franchise privilege; and
third, there was the question of
maintaining sufficient public control
over railway activities. Reluctant to
accept any sort of control, the
operators were particularly alarmed at
the suggestion of lower fares
or payment to the city; they insisted
they could not afford it. Oppon-
ents, however, pointed to the unsound
capital structure of the two
companies. Capitalized at twenty-six
million dollars, according to
W. R. Hopkins, the bona fide investment
was about twelve millions
and the replacement cost, about seven
millions; thus they were pay-
ing interest or dividends upon fourteen
millions in excess of their
actual investment.62 The
strategy of the operators was to rush the
renewals through the council, extending
grants for fifty years at the
most favorable terms possible. Hanna's
influence with the legis-
60 Cleveland Plain Dealer, August
23, 29, 1893; Cleveland Leader, August 19, 1893;
Cleveland Citizen, August 12, 1893.
61 Cleveland Plain Dealer, August
25, 29, 1895; Cleveland Leader, August 21, 23,
1893, June 7, 1897; Cleveland Press, April
18-20, 1899.
62 William R. Hopkins, "The
Street Railway Problem in Cleveland, a Statement of
Existing Conditions, and a Discussion of the Policy
Which the City Should Pursue
with Regard to Its Street Railways," American
Economic Association, Economic Studies,
I, New York, 1896, 311.
22
Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
lature--along with other state street
railway men--enabled the op-
erators to obtain authority for the
long franchise, but they faced
more determined opposition at home.63
McKisson's position on the issue was
somewhat equivocal. He
gave Big Consolidated, one of the
companies, a number of valuable
privileges without demanding anything
for the city, and Henry
Everett supported McKisson publicly and
"in friendly arguments at
the Union Club."64 On the other hand, in public
addresses the
mayor condemned the railway operators,
and in office he cooperated
with groups who were frustrating the
hasty renewal of the charters.
Town Topics, always loyal to privilege, accused the mayor of per-
sonal enmity to Hanna, but it was more
likely that he was merely
susceptible to public opinion.65 Other
conservatives were less
anxious to support the street railways
than the editor of the Forest
City's society weekly. The chamber of
commerce refused to con-
demn them, but it did scold the
operators for their arbitrary reject-
tion of all conciliatory measures, and
Malcolm S. Greenough, pres-
ident of the chamber, pointed to the
harmonious relationship be-
tween his gas company and the city.66
The Municipal Association
took a definite stand in behalf of the
public, opposing renewal be-
fore 1904 and demanding a thorough
investigation in defense of
city interests.67 Thus,
although not exclusively associated with
Mayor McKisson, the railway issue was
an important aspect of the
reform program. In 1899, when the
Municipal Association agreed
to support John Farley, it extracted a
promise from him that he
would oppose the renewal of street
railway grants.68
A third factor in the defeat of
McKisson was his rivalry with
Hanna in the state political arena. In
an exciting primary in 1899
the mayor's machine withstood
Republican attempts to unseat him
as the party candidate, but in the
election a large number of voters
deserted and helped elect a Democratic
mayor. Once again the re-
63 Ibid., 313.
64 Cleveland Plain Dealer, April 1, 1899; Cleveland Press, March 29, 1899.
65 Cleveland Town Topics, September 11, 1897, 3.
66 Cleveland Chamber of Commerce, Fiftieth Year, 1898 (Cleveland,
1898), 61-63.
67 Municipal Association of Cleveland, Third Annual Report, 1899, 6-9.
68 Howe, Confessions of a Reformer, 85.
Municipal Government in
Cleveland 23
formers claimed a great victory. In
part some of the credit was
justified, but in the final analysis
McKisson appears to have lost be-
cause he made one serious blunder--he
challenged the power of
M. A. Hanna. Perhaps the gamble was a
reasonable one. Hanna's
activities had alienated a number of
Republican politicians, not only
in Cleveland, but throughout the state,
including such influential
men as Joseph B. Foraker and Governor
Asa S. Bushnell. McKisson,
faced with the alternatives of fighting
Hanna or cooperating with
him, elected to join the
Foraker-Bushnell faction. Already possess-
ing his own machine, he was further
strengthened in his position by
the alliance, which gave him control of
state patronage in Cuyahoga
County.69 Thus armed, the
faction attempted to challenge Hanna's
senatorial ambitions. The struggle to
control the state convention
resulted in a victory for Hanna, and
the campaign cost McKisson
more than a seat in the United States
Senate. It alienated influential
Republicans in the city, enough of them
to cost him the mayoralty
election in 1899. Without a machine
Hanna could not dictate the
nomination, but his influence carried
more weight in the struggle
with Farley.
Obviously it is impossible to state
with absolute finality what made
Cleveland Republicans vote for John
Farley. Unquestionably some
of them were convinced by the
reformers, but in 1897, although al-
ready well organized, these anti-McKissonites
were unable to con-
vince enough Republicans to desert the
party. Thus the final balance
appears to have rested with Hanna, who
found this young Cleveland
politician challenging his political
power and perhaps threatening
his street railway interests. Hanna's
strength did not rest solely on
personal appeal. Although without a
machine in Cleveland, there
was a Hanna wing which included ward
politicians like William
Wenfeld, an immigrant boss who
controlled some of the Polish-
American vote.70 This meant
countless immigrants went to the polls
to vote the way they were told by
Wenfeld and Hanna--against
McKisson. Finally, the Democrats
themselves gave greater credit to
factionalism among the Republicans than
to aid from the Municipal
69 Cleveland Plain Dealer, November 7, 1896.
70 Fordyce, "Nationality Groups in
Cleveland Politics," 14.
24
Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
Association; there still were Hanna
Democrats as well as Hanna
Republicans. One of Farley's aides told
Howe that they 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 twenty thousand
dollars to the campaign."71
At the turn of the century Cleveland
still had a long way to go
if it was to solve the basic problems
which were enervating its
municipal government. The campaign for
a new charter and good
men had culminated in McKissonism. When
the voters threw the
Republican rascals out, they put
Democratic ones in. "Honest John"
Farley kept his campaign promise to
Hanna, but he blithely ignored
his understanding with the Municipal
Association. Once in office
he did everything in his power to jam
an ordinance through the
council which would have extended
railway franchises.72 It would
be wrong to assume that the Cleveland
government provided no
services or solved none of its urban
problems, but it might have done
more, and the failures seem more
striking than the successes. Per-
haps the citizens could feel some
satisfaction from the absence of
colossal scandals and nationally
notorious bosses. In the final anal-
ysis, however, in these unsuccessful
experiments to provide adequate
municipal government and in the
avoidance of extremes, Cleveland
was typical of many American cities,
and perhaps more typical of
the effect of the rise of the city on urban
politics than the more sen-
sational developments of a city like
New York.
71 Vilas, "The Citizens' League of
Cleveland," 85-86.
72 Ibid., 85.