Ohio History Journal

NEW   STOCK LAWMAKERS                                             117

To appreciate this phenomenon fully, it is necessary to understand

what such distinguished scholars as Arthur Link, Samuel Hays, and J.

Joseph Huthmacher have clearly established--that there was not just one

"Progressive Movement" but several simultaneous movements which

permeated all segments of society.² The impersonal forces of industrializa-

tion, immigration, and urbanization had intimately affected the lives of

every single individual in the United States, and had profoundly altered

the traditional social, economic, and political relationships. In order to

cope with the circumstances engendered by their new      environment

Americans in similar economic and social situations combined into trade

associations, labor unions, farmer cooperatives, civic associations, groups to

defend the Amercan way of life against the incursions of immigrants, and

organizations to protect racial and ethnic minorities against discrimina-

tion. Although their efforts were often directed at the private sector, these

groups eventually turned their attention to political action in the hope of

making common cause with the representatives of other discontented

segments of society. With so many people often working at cross purposes

to one another, any positive accomplishments were the result of temporary

working coalitions on specific issues, programs, or candidates. It was

precisely this discovery that politics could be made relevant to curing the

major maladies of the period which marked the beginning of the pro-

gressive era.

Human motivation, especially in politics, is exceedingly complex and

difficult to evaluate. The old stock, middle-class reformer saw himself as

entering politics primarily to effect the realization of certain principles

which he derived from his religious and cultural heritage. Historians have

also argued that he engaged in political activity because he felt his once

privileged status in society was threatened by the newly rich on one side

and the rising industrial working class on the other.³ The urban, new

stock wage earner and his representatives, on the other hand, usually had

in mind such concrete aims as a higher wage, better working and living

conditions, a maximum impact for his vote, and the defense of his cultural

heritage from nativist attack. The wellspring of his action was first-hand

experience and he was usually prone to seek specific remedies for indentifi-

able wrongs. At the same time, it is possible to argue that the new stock

politician also saw himself acting in defense of certain abstract principles--

the dignity of all men, political equality, the ideal of a pluralistic society.

The instances of clashes over ideals and interests between the old stock

middle class and the new stock working class were numerous during the

progressive era, but so too were incidents of their cooperation. Indeed

the success of progressive reform in most of the major industrial states

usually depended upon it.⁴

In Ohio, as elsewhere, the progressive era began in the cities. In Cleve-

land, the election of Tom L. Johnson as mayor in 1901 heralded the begin-

ning of progress in that city which was almost unequaled anywhere else

in the nation. During his four terms in office, Johnson challenged the

118                                                 OHIO HISTORY

street railway companies, fought for municipal ownership of basic utilities,

thoroughly reorganized the city's government, augmented its recreational

facilities, and reformed the penal and legal system. By the time Johnson

left office in 1910, Cleveland was thought to be a model city, acclaimed

even by such severe critics of urban affairs as Lincoln Steffens. Johnson

himself was a fairly typical old stock, middle-class reformer whose main

aim was to eliminate special privilege of all kinds and to implement the

social theories of the single-taxer Henry George. Most of his chief lieuten-

ants such as Newton D. Baker, Frederic C. Howe, and Harris R. Cooley

came from similar social backgrounds, and one of Johnson's major ac-

complishments was the arousing of the reform impulse in the city's middle

class.⁵

To attribute the success of reform in Cleveland solely to middle-class

dynamism, though, would be a serious mistake because the population

of the city was so overwhelmingly new stock in makeup. Nearly thirty-

five percent of Cleveland's population in 1910 was composed of people of

foreign birth, while another forty percent were but second-generation

Americans. Even though the census figures do not trace ancestry beyond

this point, it is also highly likely that a significant portion of the remain-

ing quarter of the population were descendants of those who had emigrated

to the United States in the early stages of the Industrial Revolution. Of

the nearly three-quarters who were of foreign stock, 28.6 percent were of

German descent and another 18.4 percent came from various portions

of the Austrian Empire. The remainder, in order of percentage, came from

Hungary: 10.9; Russia: 9.4; Ireland: 8.6; England: 6.3; Canada: 4.3; Italy:

4.0; Scotland: 1.5; and Wales: 0.8.6 All told, Cleveland was one the most

polyglot cities in the United States, and it is difficult to see how any re-

form movement could have succeeded without a broad appeal to these

various ethnic minorities.

That Johnson did receive much of his reform mandate from the city's

recent immigrants is apparent both from his programs and his voter support.

In his various campaigns Johnson carefully cultivated the immigrant

strongholds on Cleveland's west side, generally seeking to enlist the aid of

the local leaders rather than oppose them. His three thousand vote plu-

rality in the new stock wards was instrumental in his all-important first

victory in 1901, and his popularity in these areas steadily grew during

his successive administrations. By espousing such reforms as a three-cent

streetcar fare and public ownership of utilities and by refusing to crack

down on saloons and gambling establishments, Johnson clearly bid for the

support of the foreign stock voter and, conversely, often incurred the wrath

of the city's middle class. According to Fredric Howe, such issues as the

three-cent fare pitted "men of property and influence" against "the

politicians, immigrants, workers, and persons of small means," with him-

self and Johnson definitely favoring the latter groups. "His program," a

perceptive analyst of Cleveland's minority groups later wrote, "appealed

to the politically oppressed and to the underprivileged, and from  the

foreign wards came most of his support."⁷

NEW   STOCK LAWMAKERS                                          119

Although terms like "boss" and "machine" might seem inappropriate

to apply to a reformer of Johnson's stature, it must be acknowledged that

he owed a great deal of his success, both at the city and state level, to

the tightly disciplined organization which he constructed, an organization

based upon the city's predominantly foreign stock vote. Contemporary

newspapers often portrayed Johnson as a political boss, a judgment in

which the mayor himself gladly concurred. Two modern scholars of urban

affairs, Charles Glaab and Theodore Brown, have described the Cleveland

mayor as a "reform boss" who deliberately played for lower class votes and

pursued many policies more attuned to their desires than to those of the

old stock middle class. This interpretation is largely sustained by Hoyt

Landon Warner in his study of Ohio progressivism. Acknowledging that

"many of Johnson's methods were scarcely distinguishable from those of

his opponents," Warner asserts that the reformer gained control of party

committees, dictated to the state convention, drafted the platform, selected

the candidates and generally "transformed the loyal Democracy of Cleve-

land and Cuyahoga County into a party in his own image, dedicated to

social reform." Since so much of Cleveland's "loyal Democracy" was com-

posed of the city's new stock voters, office-holders and party functionaries,

it seems evident that their contribution to Johnson's success has not been

fully appreciated. By the progressive years, as we shall see, representatives

of these ethnic minorities had risen through the party's ranks and had

come to dominate the city's delegation in the General Assembly.⁸

Balked by the legal restrictions placed upon city government in such

areas as taxation and regulation of utilities by state law, the Cleveland

Democrats turned to state-wide politics where they hoped to effect reforms

through cooperation with progressives from other cities. Their original

aims were to reform Ohio's tax laws, to make structural changes in the

state's electoral and apportionment system, and to free the cities from the

direct control of the legislature. Later they turned their attention to

labor and welfare questions, the regulation of business, and a variety

of social questions. The high point of the progressive era on the state

level in Ohio came during the administrations of two Democratic governors,

Judson Harmon, from 1909 to 1913, and James M. Cox, from 1913 to 1915.

In 1912, a state convention wrote amendments to the constitution, which

made possible the passage of a myriad of economic and political reforms

during the Cox administration. By 1915 Ohio ranked with a handful of

other states as the most progressive in the nation.9

Without detracting in any way from the primacy of leadership exercised

at the state level by such old stock, middle-class reformers as governors

Harmon and Cox, mayors Tom Johnson, Brand Whitlock and Newton

Baker, the Cincinnati politician Herbert Bigelow and others, it is impor-

tant to note that many of Cleveland's new stock lawmakers also showed

in this leadership function by serving as committee chairmen, drafting and

introducing important legislation, guiding it through the required pro-

cedures, and rounding up the necessary votes. William A. Greenlund, a

120                                               OHIO HISTORY

second generation Danish-American who was in the real estate business,

for example, was the sponsor of such significant legislation as the Mothers'

Pension Act, the Liquor Licensing Act, and the repeal of the Smith One

Per Cent Tax Law. In addition, he served as chairman of two important

senate committees, and later presided over that body as lieutenant-governor

for much of the 1914 session. Lawrence Brennan, a second generation

Irish Catholic, worked mostly behind the scenes in 1913 but, according

to historian James Mercer, "his influence was felt upon all the important

legislation of the session." Robert Crosser, a Scottish immigrant, was the

author of the bill providing for municipal initiative and referendum and

was rewarded for his service by being picked to run for Congress in 1912,

where he represented Cleveland almost continuously until 1955. He and

Carl D. Friebolin, a second generation German-American, were disciples

of Johnson and, according to Warner, "played a much more aggressive

role in proposing and guiding legislation than their years of experience

seemed to warrant." In the 1913 session Friebolin advanced to the state

senate where he was chairman of the judiciary committee and functioned

as Johnson's liaison man to that body.

Maurice Bernstein, the son of Jewish immigrant parents from Poland,

served as chairman of the senate privileges and elections committee in

1913 and was often entrusted with the sponsorship of key legislation, in-

cluding the home rule tax bill and the resolution to ratify the Seventeenth

Amendment to the Federal Constitution. James A. Reynolds, an English

immigrant and executive of a machinists' union, was the author of a

number of labor and welfare measures and also led the fight for such

political reforms as woman suffrage. Another official of the machinists'

union, Harry F. Vollmer, a second generation German-American, was

so zealous in his sponsorship of such pro-labor proposals as a mandatory

eight-hour day that he occasionally ran ahead of the wishes of the middle-

class leadership of his own party. Herman Fellinger, born in Alsace-Lor-

raine chaired the insurance committee of the lower house, introduced

several important regulatory laws, and drafted a compromise amendment

which made possible the passage of a women's hours bill in the 1913 ses-

sion, while the Scottish-born T. Alfred Fleming authored five successful

measures during the second Cox administration, 1917 - 1921. Two second-

generation Irish Catholics, Representative John C. Smith and Senator

James S. Kennedy, were also productive legislators in the 1917 session,

with Smith introducing three key regulatory acts, and Kennedy, the

secretary-treasurer of the Plumbers' Union Local in Cleveland aiding many

pro-labor measures through his position as chairman of the senate labor

committee. The list could be extended, but it is evident from this brief

enumeration that Cleveland's new stock lawmakers often assumed posi-

tions of leadership.10

In addition, it has been acknowledged by most students of Ohio pro-

gressivism that the Cuyahoga County delegation turned in a good record

of support for the major reforms introduced during the era, but it has

126                                              OHIO HISTORY

to investigate welfare recipients, the Cuyahoga lawmakers abstained from

voting in this instance.¹⁴

Another cardinal achievement of progressivism in Ohio, the compulsory

workmen's compensation law, received strong backing from Cleveland's dele-

gates. The original bill in 1911 was introduced by William Green and pro-

vided for the creation of a state insurance fund financed primarily out of

employer contributions. It stipulated an automatic payment to the worker

without the necessity of proving negligence and also created a State Liability

Board of Awards. The measure passed both houses over the rather token

opposition of some rural Republicans and with the unanimous support of

Cleveland lawmakers. In 1913 Green received the backing of the Cuyahoga

delegation for his amendment which made workmen's compensation com-

pulsory, although it allowed some employers to provide for self insurance

outside the state system. When the Republican superintendent of insurance

Frank Taggart ruled that the private liability companies could cover self-

insurers, the State Federation of Labor sponsored a measure, via an initia-

tive petition, to prohibit this activity, and the Cuyahoga lawmakers voted

almost unanimously for it in the 1917 session.¹⁵

The regulation of working hours, especially for women, found similar

favor with the Lake City lawmakers. Once again it was William Green who

in 1911 introduced the original bill that provided for a nine-hour day and

a fifty-four hour week. Opposition to the measure in the house, however, in-

spired Herman Fellinger to amend the proposal to a ten-hour day and a

sixty-hour week over the objections of all of his colleagues, but on the final

vote the entire Cleveland group concurred. In 1913, Vollmer sought to lower

the limit to eight hours and to include women working in hotels and mer-

cantile establishments as well as factories. Under threat of a veto by Gover-

nor James Cox, Vollmer and his associates finally agreed to a nine-hour day

and certain other limitations, but not before they had demonstrated their

desire for the strongest possible law. As further evidence of their concern

for shorter working hours for women, the Cuyahoga delegation approved a

further extension of the law's provision in 1917 when it was introduced by

Tom Reynolds, an Irish Catholic labor leader and representative from Cleve-

land. Although the issue of maximum hours for male workers did not en-

gender much interest in the legislature, with the exception of Walsh, the

Cuyahoga delegates in attendance did back a bill drafted in 1913 by Percy

Tetlow of Columbiana County to provide for an eight-hour day for public

employees as an example for private industry.16

In a similar vein, Cleveland lawmakers were in the vanguard of those who

sought to establish a strong industrial code for Ohio and to provide for a

statewide commission to oversee it. They were unanimous in their support of

a measure drawn up by Senator James Reynolds in 1911 to require that em-

ployers report any serious accident which resulted in more than two days

absence to the Chief Inspector of Workshops and Factories. In the following

session, their backing was accorded to Vollmer's proposal to provide a fine of

from twenty-five to one hundred dollars for any violation of the statutes re-

NEW STOCK LAWMAKERS                                           127

garding abuses in sweat shops, as well as to Friebolin's bill requiring that

any business employing more than five people must report the number,

wages, hours and conditions of labor of any females or workers under

eighteen years of age. To oversee these laws Senator William Haas of Dela-

ware proposed the creation of a state industrial commission which would

assume the powers of all the existing labor boards and bureaus, as well as

have the general duty to regulate hours and conditions of labor in the in-

terest of the employee. Although some labor leaders reportedly feared that

the board would exercise too much control, it eventually received the com-

plete support of the Cleveland delegation as well as that of all the other

labor-oriented legislators. During the same session the Cuyahoga lawmakers

upheld an amendment to the Haas bill by Green stipulating that the newly

established commission would accede to all the powers of the State Board

of Awards.¹⁷

The wages of Ohio's industrial workers were also a matter of concern for

the state's new stock legislators. The constitutional convention of 1912

recommended the enactment of a minimum wage law, but Governor Cox

urged careful study of the proposal and recommended its limitation to wom-

en and children. In the end he prevailed upon the lawmakers to refer the

matter to the industrial commission for study. Although Ohio did not enact

a minimum wage law, as such, in this period, her labor-oriented lawmakers

did endeavor to protect workers' earnings in other ways. In 1913, the Cleve-

land delegation backed a law which required the semi-monthly payment of

wages and were successful in frustrating the attempts of conservatives to

riddle it with exceptions. Two years earlier they had generally agreed to the

licensing and regulation of wage loan corporations which were useful in

helping the worker to borrow money in emergencies. All but two of their

number, who did not vote, also supported a 1915 bill to further strengthen

the law's provisions.¹⁸

Among other disadvantaged groups singled out for special consideration

by the General Assembly were the state's public school teachers, and Cleve-

land's urban new stock lawmakers were also clearly sympathetic to the re-

form efforts. John Krause introduced a bill providing for retirement pen-

sions for teachers in 1911. The measure passed the senate by a 23-3 count in

which Green joined the opposition and Stockwell was absent but most other

Democrats voted in favor. In the lower house all the Cleveland lawmakers

present lent their support to passage, Joseph Greeves and Frank Calvey did

not vote. Similarly, in the 1914 special session, eleven of the thirteen Cuya-

hoga representatives in the lower house voted for the establishment of a forty

dollars a month minimum wage for teachers, with the state to make up the

difference if the local school district was unable to do so. Three of the five

Twenty-fifth District senators, Friebolin, Greenlund, and Bernstein, either

abstained or were absent, but the rest of their colleagues voted for passage.19

Cleveland's new stock politicians were likewise agreeable to the efforts of

Green and other labor leaders like Percy Tetlow and John J. Shanley of

Portage County to better the condition of the state's sizeable number of coal

128                                                OHIO HISTORY

miners. Chief among the proposals was one by Green which would have the

workers paid on a "run of the mine" basis rather than by the amount of coal

weighed after screening. After failing to obtain majority support in 1911,

the former miner reluctantly agreed to Governor Cox's suggestion that a

commission be appointed to study the matter in 1913. The following year

Green successfully guided his measure through both houses of the legisla-

ture, aided considerably by the unanimous support of the Cleveland delega-

tion. The latter also backed Green's bills providing for the use of acetylene

gas in mines and for the stationing of rescue cars in each shaft. Other mining

regulatory laws which merited their concurrence included the prohibition

of "solid shooting," the requirement that all men be cleared out of the mine

before blasting, the right of any next of kin to sue mine owners in the event

of wrongful death, and the mandatory enclosing of all mine shafts.²⁰

If anything, Cleveland's legislators were even more interested in the wel-

fare of Ohio's railroad workers than in the state's miners. Except for Don P.

Mills, Stephen M. Young, Terrell, and Walsh, who did not vote, they all

backed Vollmer's bill to provide for eight hours rest after fifteen hours

work. In the same session all but Fellinger, who was absent, voted in favor

of Doster's measure to require the use of air brakes on eighty-five percent of

all railroad cars. On two separate occasions during the period, they gave sub-

stantial support to full train crew bills sponsored by lawmakers with railroad

union approval. In 1917 John C. Smith, a son of an Irish-Catholic father

from Cleveland, introduced a bill requiring seats for railroad employees.

This passed with the support of his colleagues that were present. In addition,

everyone but the absent Virgil Terrell, Norman R. Bliss, Walsh, and Tom

Reynolds voted in favor of a bill providing for the appointment of a state

inspector of brakes and couplings.²1

The list of labor and welfare measures proposed and/or supported by

Cleveland's new stock lawmakers during the height of the progressive era

could be extended almost indefinitely. Only four of their number abstained

on a bill to regulate private employment agencies. Frank J. Kilrain, another

Irish-Catholic descendant from Cleveland, introduced a bill to prevent occu-

pational diseases among workers in plants producing noxious fumes with

special reference to lead poisoning, and it was endorsed by all but two of his

fellows, who were non-voting. Only two of their number, who were absent,

failed to support a bill proposed by James R. Clark, an Irish-American from

Cincinnati, to prohibit the use of prisoners as contract labor.²² All in all,

it would be hard to single out any other group in the legislature during the

period which sustained labor and welfare measures with a greater degree of

consistency than did the new stock Cleveland delegation.

Nor did the involvement of Cleveland's new stock lawmakers in Ohio

progressive reform end with their activities in the field of welfare legisla-

tion. They also made significant contributions in the vital area of business

regulation. With certain persons holding reservations, the Cleveland delega-

tion largely gave its support to the creation of a state Public Utilities Com-

mission. The primary objection in 1911, according to Warner, was to the

NEW STOCK LAWMAKERS                                          129

failure of the bill to ensure sufficient protection of the home-rule principle,

which allowed major cities to regulate their own utilities, since the power to

grant new franchises would be in the hands of the commission-not the in-

dividual city. In addition, John Stockwell and some of his colleagues wanted

rates to be based on physical valuation of property, rather than on capitaliza-

tion, as the measure originally stipulated. Balked on both these points, the

Cuyahoga delegation split in the final vote, with Stockwell and five repre-

sentatives voting against the bill. In the final vote the re-amended house

bill passed twenty-two to eight, all three of the senators from Cuyahoga

County voting nay.²³

Events in ensuing sessions of the legislature, however, amply demon-

strated that the reluctance of some Cleveland lawmakers to vote for the

Public Utilities Act of 1911 was due to concern for home rule and not to

any aversion to the principle of regulation. In 1913, Don Mills sponsored

legislation to increase the latitude of municipalities in dealing with public

utilites which was strongly supported by his fellow Democrats over the ob-

jections of many Republicans.

When Mills added a series of amendments designed to clarify the powers

and duties of the new commission in the special session of 1914, the entire

Cleveland delegation, except for Greenlund who had moved up to the post

of lieutenant-governor, voted in the affirmative. In 1915, the Republicans

sought to weaken the home rule principle by permitting municipal councils

to request the state Public Utilities Commission to review rates and prop-

erty valuations, and the Cuyahoga lawmakers generally refused to concur.

In the senate three voted nay while the other two abstained, and in the

house seven Cleveland representatives opposed and three others abstained.

Norman R. Bliss received the backing of all but three of his fellow Cleve-

landers for his bill which brought the railroads under the supervision of

the Public Utilities Commission in 1917.24

The Cuyahoga lawmakers were consistent in their support of home rule

with regard to efforts to curb the influence of private traction companies in

the state's municipalities. One of the hardest fought battles of the progressive

era in Ohio resulted when attempts were made to repeal the so-called Rogers

Law of 1896 which permitted cities to grant fifty-year franchises to street-

railway companies. Although the bill introduced dealt with the franchise in

Cincinnati and legislators from that city provided the leadership, the Cleve-

land lawmakers lent considerable support. In fact, they were unanimous in

their backing of the strongest possible measure introduced by Herbert S.

Bigelow of Hamilton County in 1913 which passed the lower house by a

69-42 margin. When the opposition of the traction companies forced the

introduction of a compromise bill by Thornton R. Snyder of Hamilton

County later in the same session, two Cleveland senators and two representa-

tives did not vote, while the remainder accepted the substitute.²⁵

The regulatory principle was also involved in the adoption of a Blue Sky

Law, which regulated the sale of bonds, stocks, and other securities, and of

real estate not located in Ohio. The measure was introduced by James R.

130                                                OHIO HISTORY

Clark of Cincinnati in the lower chamber and sponsored in the senate by

William Green. The bill passed the house by a 107-0 vote, supported by the

entire Cincinnati and Cleveland delegations. Two Republicans voted against

passage in the senate, but the measure received the votes of all the upper

chamber Democrats, with the exception of Carl Friebolin who did not

vote. Four years later, in 1917, the Cleveland lawmakers in both houses

backed the creation of the office of Commissioner of Securities who, in addi-

tion to having absolute authority in issuing and regulating licenses of con-

cerns selling securities within the state, was to regulate and license the loan-

ing of money, without security, upon personal property, and of purchasing

or making loans upon salaries.²⁶

In addition to these better known ventures into the area of business regu-

lation, Cleveland's new stock lawmakers were instrumental in several other

similar attempts. The regulation of the insurance business, for example,

was the peculiar province of Herman Fellinger, himself an official of the

German National Alliance Insurance Company. Among other things, Fell-

inger sponsored bills to supervise insurance companies other than life, to

regulate fire insurance companies and their agents doing business in the

state, and to create a state superintendent of insurance. In the main all these

bills were supported by his fellow Cleveland Democrats. Fellinger also in-

troduced a truth-in-advertising measure in 1913 which had their unanimous

backing. Regulation on various aspects of banking likewise came at the be-

hest of such young lawmakers as William Green and James Kennedy, and

had the complete concurrence of the Cuyahoga delegation in the senate

and all but two in the house. Kennedy also received the nearly universal

support of Cleveland's Democrats for the creation of a state inspector of

building and loan associations. Similar fealty was enjoyed by proposals

for establishing a Bureau of Markets and a State Superintendent of Public

Works.²⁷

If anything, the attitude of the Cleveland Democrats in the 1911 General

Assembly toward the vital question of taxation was even more forward-

looking than the view of many contemporaries, given the special nature

of the problems faced by urban, industrial America. They were particularly

concerned that the burden of taxes be apportioned according to the ability

to pay. Consequently they were unanimous in their support for the

ratification of the graduated federal income tax amendment in 1911, as

well as for the adoption of a statewide progressive inheritance tax in 1919.

In the latter case, the Cleveland delegation was also in the vanguard of

those who opposed conservative efforts to raise the minimum amount of

inheritance subject to the tax.²⁸ But the Cuyahoga lawmakers also had

another interest in tax reform, as Warner very astutely observes. Since

they were representatives of a large metropolis with many pressing and

expensive needs, they were especially anxious to resist any restrictions on

the ability of the city to raise the revenue necessary to provide necessary

social service to the urban populace. As a result, they favored special home

rule provisions for taxation, and fought against tax rate limitations on

NEW STOCK LAWMAKERS                                            131

municipalities. In 1911, for example, some Cleveland lawmakers in the

lower house led the fight against a provision in the Smith One Per Cent

Tax Law which placed an aggregate limit of ten mills on taxable property

(five mills for municipal corporations). Eventually, however, everyone

but Crosser, Evans, and Brewer, who did not vote, acquiesced in the final

passage of the bill. Although Senator Greenlund introduced a measure in

1913 to increase the amount of levy possible, which was endorsed by the

mayors of the state's largest cities, the bill was kept in committee and

the limitations remained on the books.²⁹

Nevertheless, the Cleveland representatives continued to press for tax

reform, and particularly for the type of adjustments best suited to an

urban, industrial society. A Bernstein proposal to introduce the home-

rule principle in taxation passed the senate in 1913, but did not come

to a vote in the house. Another bill in the same session which would have

made municipal bonds tax exempt and thus encouraged investment in

city projects passed the legislature but failed in a referendum vote, largely

due to rural opposition. Six years later, the Cleveland lawmakers supported

a joint resolution providing for the classification of property for the pur-

pose of taxation, and again took the lead in successfully resisting an amend-

ment which would have placed limitations on the amount of the levy.³⁰

The biggest taxation issue of the era, however, was the establishment

of a state tax commission in 1913, and the Cleveland Democrats were

again on the positive side. Previously, the evaluation of property had

been in the hands of local assessors, thus making for a wide variation

throughout the state. The Cox administration backed a measure introduced

by Milton Warnes, the house Democratic whip, to create a state tax com-

mission to insure uniform levies. The Republicans and some rural

Democrats fought the proposal vigorously, but in the end it prevailed,

24-8 in the senate, and 73-42 in the house. In both chambers the Cleve-

land contingent provided a solid phalanx of support, along with most

other urban lawmakers. The Republican administration of Governor Frank

Willis failed in an attempt to repeal the Warnes Law in 1915, but the

State Supreme Court found it to be unconstitutional in 1917, thus return-

ing authority to the local assessors and weakening the efforts of reformers

to raise the revenue needed to operate a modern state. The Cuyahoga law-

makers continued to support the cause of better methods of taxation and

were unanimous in their favor of the creation of a joint tax commission

to study the state's problems in 1917.31

As the Warnes tax commission bill effectively illustrates, the develop-

ment of an efficient system of administration was a cardinal aim of Ohio

reformers in the pre-World War I years. Much of this activity doubtless

sprang from the oft-expressed desire of the old stock, middle-class pro-

gressive for honest, proficient and economical government, but the fact

remains that Cleveland's new stock lawmakers were among the strongest

supporters of these changes. Chief among the reorganization efforts was

the setting up in 1911 of one centralized board of administration for the

132                                                OHIO HISTORY

state's penal institutions, charity hospitals, schools and homes which assumed

the functions of many separate governing boards. The bill passed the senate

on a nearly partisan 20-14 count, with the majority Democrats prevailing.

In the lower house, where the vote was 70-38, only the Republicans, John

Evans and F. M. Calvey, marred the perfect record of support for the

measure on the part of Cleveland's lawmakers.32

The establishment of a streamlined board of clemency in 1917 marked

a similar victory for the idea of improved method of handling requests

from prisoners. Introduced by John J. Kilbane, the bill was endorsed by

his fellow Clevelanders and passed over heavy Republican opposition. A

state board of rapid transit was the brainchild of Harry L. Federman, a

second generation German-American from Cincinnati. The 1917 bill was

backed by all of Cleveland's senators and three-fourths of her voting rep-

resentatives. Another Cincinnatian, Democrat Robert Black, proposed the

establishing of a legislature reference department and received the complete

backing of the Cleveland and Cincinnati delegations. All but three

Cuyahoga representatives--non-voting Mills, Terrell, and Walsh--voted for

the introduction of a state budget system in 1913, and nearly all of them

endorsed the various efforts of Carl Friebolin to reorganize the state court

system. Even on the highly explosive liquor question, the Cuyahoga

Democrats endorsed a centralized approach, backing the proposal of Wil-

liam Greenlund for the establishment of a state liquor licensing board.

Indeed, about the only measure designed for more centralized administra-

tion which encountered the active opposition of the Cleveland lawmakers

was the Republican sponsored bill to establish a state agricultural board.

Motivated either out of urban prejudice or in retaliation against rural

intransigence on matters of interest to the cities, all five Cleveland senators

and six of her representatives refused to concur, with four not voting, out

of a total of thirteen.³³

In addition, the Cleveland Democrats were extremely sympathetic to

the myriad of political reforms which comprised much of the solid achieve-

ments of Ohio progressivism. It is generally asserted that one of the key

desires of progressive reformers was to give the people a more influential

voice in government; that is, to purify and extend the ideal of democ-

racy.³⁴ Based upon their performance, the new stock lawmakers from Cleve-

land seemed to share this conviction, but it is probable that their adherence

was reenforced by a very practical political consideration. As representa-

tives of the state's most populous city, they naturally favored any measure

which would place a premium upon the mass vote. The more democratic

the political system became the greater the chance would be that candidates

sympathetic to the urban point of view could be elected and that laws

relating to the unique problems of the cities could be enacted. Whether

they were primarily motivated by the ideal or the practical is a moot

question, because both led ultimately to the same goals.

The desire of urban areas to take the selection of United States Senators

out of the hands of the often malapportioned state legislatures and elect

NEW STOCK LAWMAKERS                                           133

them by popular vote, led the Cleveland delegates to support the ratifica-

tion of the Seventeenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. In a

statewide election, the influence of urban voters would be clearly greater

than it was in the legislature. Consequently the entire senatorial delega-

tion and seven of the ten representatives voted for the adoption of the

so-called Oregon Plan in 1911, while the other three merely abstained. This

plan called for a binding pledge on the part of the legislator to vote for

the Senatorial candidate who carried his district. The introduction of the

Federal amendment rendered this approach obsolete, however, by permit-

ting direct popular vote. The ratification resolutions were entrusted to

Zmunt, Bernstein, and Robert Black of Cincinnati and carried both houses

easily, with all five Cleveland senators and twelve of the thirteen rep-

resentatives voting to ratify.³⁵

Their support for the woman suffrage amendment was not quite so

overwhelming but it did eventually develop. The antipathy to female vot-

ing among recent immigrant groups was regularly voiced by the foreign

language newspapers and by various religious organizations, notably the

Catholic Church, and this antagonism naturally reflected itself in the

attitude of Cleveland lawmakers. Some Cuyahoga legislators, especially

James Reynolds, however, were consistent advocates of the reform and

eventually nearly all their cohorts came to see the advantage in adding

large numbers of new stock females to the voting lists. As late as 1917,

though, five Cleveland representatives and two senators voted against

Reynold's bill to allow woman suffrage for presidential elections, and even

in 1919 Senator Charles Wagner and six representatives refused to agree

to a petition requesting the state's congressmen and senators to support

the proposed amendment to the Federal Constitution. When the amend-

ment was finally considered by the General Assembly, however, only one

of the city's legislators, Joseph S. Backowski, voted in the negative while

three others abstained.³⁶

Initiative and referendum in municipal elections also owed much of

its success to the efforts of Cleveland's new stock legislators. Here was

another innovation which would enable the city voter to amplify his

influence. It was Robert Crosser of Cleveland who introduced the enabl-

ing legislation in the 1911 session. The opponents of the measure sought

to weaken it by requiring the signatures of thirty percent of the registered

voters on any petition, but the Cleveland Democrats in both chambers

nevertheless granted the bill their full support. In 1913 they followed

through on their intent by supporting a measure to provide for municipal

initiative and referendum upon the petition of ten percent of the electorate.

In addition, the Cleveland delegation largely voted in favor of most ef-

forts to protect the petitions against possible abuses such as forgery and

fraud, particularly when it was revealed that the conservative Equity As-

sociation had sought to use the new method to eradicate the workmen's

compensation system and various tax reforms. Recall of officials, another

popular direct government idea of the era, failed of adoption, but did

134                                                OHIO HISTORY

receive considerable support from  the Cuyahoga lawmakers. Friebolin

introduced a recall proposal in 1911, and all five senators voted for the bill

which passed the upper house in 1913.37

In the same vein, most of the Cleveland contingent lent its backing

to the direct primary law passed in 1913. This is particularly noteworthy

inasmuch as the direct primary is singled out by historian George Mowry

as a reform which "left the usual immigrant from southern and central

Europe distinctly cold." Even so, the measure pased the lower house on

an 80-20 vote, over the objections of several rural legislators. Kilrain and

Vollmer abstained, but the remainder of their fellows voted for passage

including Doster, Fellinger, Lustig, Orlikowski, and Schaefer, all of recent

Central European derivation and representing districts with large con-

stituencies of similar ethnic origins. In the senate, where only Friebolin's

absence spoiled a perfect affirmative record for the Cleveland delegation,

the bill triumphed by a 23-3 margin.³⁸

Even the highly successful constitutional convention of 1912 owed a

great deal of its impetus to urban, working class liberalism. The resolution

calling for the selection of delegates on a non-partisan basis was introduced

in the senate in 1911 by William Green. It passed the upper chamber

by a decisive 27-1 vote, with all three Cleveland solons concurring. The

vote in the lower house was 74-24 and it reflected the special desire of the

state's cities for a more modern charter. The entire Cleveland contingent

and all but one Cincinnati lawmaker voted in favor, joined by the rep-

resentatives of Toledo, Dayton, Columbus, and the other largest cities.

The resultant constitutional changes updated the state's government by

adopting a series of specific amendments which were later implemented

by the legislature, such as initiative and referendum, woman suffrage,

municipal home rule, tax reform, direct primary, judicial reform, and

benefits for labor.³⁹

Perhaps most surprisingly of all, Cleveland's primarily new stock law-

makers proved themselves to be supporters of so-called good government

legislation. This type of reform was considered the special province of the

upper-middle-class progressive who often regarded honest government as

a panacea for all social ills. Generally speaking, the urban working class

politician put more emphasis on the positive role which government

should play in the social order and was often willing to allow a little

graft and favoritism now and then if it helped to lubricate the machinery.

He was often inclined to dismiss the reformer with such derisive sobriquets

as "goo-goos."⁴⁰ Within limits, however, the Cleveland lawmakers regard-

less of what might have been assumed from their origins, granted much

backing to good government.

Their attitude toward misconduct in the legislature, for example, was

generally progressive, although it varied in direct proportion to the

identity of the persons involved. The entire Cuyahoga delegation in both

houses voted in favor of the lobbyist registration act of 1913, requiring

special pleaders to work in the open. The senatorial contingent was also

NEW STOCK LAWMAKERS                                              135

unanimous in its support of a bill making it a crime to bribe a legislator.

When charges of soliciting bribes were levied against several senators in

the 1911 session, the Cuyahoga representatives supported vigorous prosecu-

tion of the accused, and Krause and William Green even refused to serve

on a committee which was generally regarded as being packed so as to pro-

duce a "whitewash." On the other hand, when one of their own people,

Frank G. Delehanty, was under suspicion of accepting a bribe in 1919, his

colleagues were less interested in vigorous prosecution. On the joint resolu-

tion calling for an investigation of the charges, four of the thirteen Cleve-

land representatives and two of the four senators abstained.41

By the same token, Cleveland lawmakers demonstrated a general interest

in preventing abuses in the electoral process. The legislators were in sub-

stantial agreement with the corrupt practices act of 1911 which sought

to place controls on campaign expenditures and prohibit coercion of

voters. Because the city's three senators desired a somewhat stronger law,

however, they abstained on the final vote. In the same session, the three

senators and six of the ten representatives voted in favor of a stronger

voter registration law. In the 1913 meeting of the General Assembly, the

Cuyahoga delegation gave nearly solid backing, three not voting, to several

bills introduced by Bernstein and Fellinger to guarantee an honest count

of the ballots by requiring that they be kept for a specified length of time

in sealed envelopes and that the returns be handed over promptly to the

county board of election or to the secretary of state. Two years later, all

but one senator and three representatives voted for a bill introduced by

Norman Bliss of Cleveland which provided for a fine for circulating false

rumors about candidates. In 1917, all but two members of the lower house

favored a joint resolution proposed by Charles Mooney of Cleveland to

create an electoral commission to investigate and suggest revisions in the

state's electoral laws. Only on the issues of filing election expenditures

and investigating the election of 1916 did they show any possible reserva-

tion, and even here it was expressed by the abstention of three senators

rather than open opposition.⁴²

What concerned the Cuyahoga delegates even more than electoral purity,

however, was the guarantee of the greatest possible participation in the

political process by the urban, new stock, working class voter upon whom

they relied. Consequently, they supported a bill introduced by floor leader

Lawrence Brennan which made a portion of election day a legal holiday,

thus enabling a greater number of wage earners to reach the polls. Bren-

nan's measure to insure longer poll hours also received support from his

fellow Clevelanders. There was a little more division of opinion on the

question of protecting employee rights from employer coercion, but most

of it was over details rather than principle. Bernstein's bill to forbid

employers to accompany workers to the polls received the unanimous

backing of his fellow Cleveland senators, but only that of two of the

city's representatives, labor leaders Terrell and Vollmer. In 1917, however,

all of the twelve assemblymen voted for a similar bill.⁴³ In the long run,

136                                                OHIO HISTORY

the fortunes of Cleveland's Democrats were best secured by guaranteeing

the freest possible elections since their stand an economic and social ques-

tions assured them of the mass vote, and this circumstance established their

position on most matters pertaining to the electorate.

New stock lawmakers also played a prominent role in the adoption of a

civil service system in Ohio. It was Friebolin who introduced the state-

wide civil service bill in 1913. He and three senatorial colleagues voted

for the measure on fina1 passage, but four Clevelanders in the lower

house--Doster, Lustig, Schaefer and Vollmer--abstained. According to

Warner, the bill did meet some opposition from labor leaders such as

William Green, and the opposition of three of the four labor-oriented

representatives probably emanated from mutually held sentiments. The

thirty-two votes cast against the measure in the lower house in 1913, how-

ever, were mostly rural Democrats and Republicans; while all but two

Cleveland Democrats voted against the opposition party's attempts to alter

the system in 1915, the bill, nevertheless, passed.⁴⁴

Taken as a whole, then, the attitude assumed by Cleveland's predominant-

ly "new stock" legislators on economic and political issues during the period

was consistent with the aims of progressive reform. The same could not

be said about their attitudes toward measures designed to effect the moral

regeneration of society. As Hofstadter and Mowry have correctly observed,

many of the old stock, middle-class reformers considered the latter to be

as crucial to the success of their programs as economic or political change.

Inasmuch as they traced much of the reason for the alleged moral decay

of America to the pernicious influence of the recent immigrant and there-

fore aimed their remedies largely in that direction, it was only natural

that the representatives of the new stock citizenry should take the lead

in resisting the "moral" reformers. When concern for the Sabbath on the

part of old stock, Protestant Ohioans led to the proscription of Sunday

baseball, Cleveland and Cincinnati delegations, instead, led the success-

ful fight for its legalization.⁴⁵ Doubtless the influence of the professional

baseball clubs in the two ciites somewhat dictated their stand, but so

too did the belief of their constituents in a Continental Sunday, in which

recreation was not considered in conflict with worship.

This cultural gulf between the new stock lawmakers and the old stock

reformers was especially evident on the issue of the prohibition of

alcoholic beverages. For the native, Protestant American, as represented

by the Anti-Saloon League and the Woman's Christian Temperance Union,

prohibition increasingly became the keystone for the moral regeneration

of the nation, and especially of the recent immigrant; but for the latter the

issue became the symbol of narrow-minded intolerance, and his representa-

tives resisted it ferociously. As previously noted, it was W. A. Greenlund

who introduced the 1913 law which provided for a statewide liquor li-

censing system. This innovation was clearly against the wishes of the power-

ful dry forces, but it might have proven a workable solution to the drink-

ing problem. When the Republicans overturned the law in 1915 and forced

NEW   STOCK LAWMAKERS                                             137

a return to the local control of licensing, the Cleveland delegation formed

a solid bloc of opposition. Together, the Cincinnati and Cuyahoga law

makers constituted about sixty percent of the votes cast against the

Eighteenth Amendment. Even after prohibition became the law of the

land, several Cleveland legislators still refused to vote in favor of the

statutes designed to enforce it.46 Contemporary opinion had no doubt

which was the progressive side of the issue, and the opponents of prohibi-

tion were branded as hopeless reactionaries and tools of the liquor interests.

Within a decade, however, repeal of the ill-starred social experiment be-

came one of the cardinal tenets of liberalism. In this context, it would

be difficult to fault Cleveland's new stock Democrats for their stand on

prohibition and Sunday blue laws.⁴⁷

Regardless of the merits of the prohibition controversy, it is clear that

Cleveland's new stock legislators were a vital element in the success of

progressive reform in Ohio. Their leaders helped to draft, sponsor and

guide some of the key legislation of the period, and their votes formed

a solid base upon which to build support for most progressive measures.

On some labor and welfare questions, the Cuyahoga lawmakers actually

took positions in favor of stronger laws than those desired by old stock,

middle-class leaders of their party. On most other issues these two groups

were able to engage in highly productive collaboration. If their refusal

to accept measures aimed at moral regeneration such as prohibition some-

times put Cleveland's representatives at odds with the native reformer,

the course of events often proved the wisdom of their stand. By assuming

their generally forward-looking attitudes, these new stock lawmakers were

providing themselves and their constituents with the concomitants neces-

sary to survive and prosper in the harsh reality of urban, industrial America,

and were operating in the same context as their counterparts in such other

great cities as New York, Chicago, Boston, Jersey City, and San Francisco.⁴⁸

Like them, also, Cuyahoga's legislators were helping to hasten the day

when the nation's ethnic and religious minorities would achieve the fulfill-

ment of their dream of equality.

THE AUTHOR: John D. Buenker is an

assistant professor in the history depart-

ment at Eastern Illinois University.