A Toledo Trade Union and
The Arizona Constitution of 1910
By PAUL G. HUBBARD*
THE PERSISTENT DEMAND FOR REFORM in American government
was running strong in 1911. On the local
level many cities were
experimenting with the commission form
of government, which was
supposed to eliminate some of the
weaknesses of the mayor-council
system and to thwart the
"bosses." Following the lead of South
Dakota in 1898 several states adopted
the initiative and referendum
to afford the people "direct"
legislation. Oregon in 1908 adopted
another popular device for controlling
the "interests," the recall,
and other states fell in line. For the
reformers, the national govern-
ment inspired no especial awe. To them
it seemed some of its
controls were too far removed from the
people's hands. The senate,
particularly, was assailed as the
stronghold of "privilege," and the
remedy proposed was to elect the
senators by direct popular vote
instead of through the state
legislatures. Government could be
made truly democratic by nominating
candidates by the direct
primary and by permitting women to
vote.
Reform, then, was aggressive. Both
major political parties had
their "insurgents" looking
toward the election of 1912. Among the
Democrats the name of Woodrow Wilson was
stirring speculation,
and certain Republicans had met at
Senator Robert M. La Follette's
Washington home on January 21, 1911,
and organized the National
Progressive Republican League, whose
object was "the promotion
of popular government and progressive
legislation." Popular gov-
ernment had been thwarted and
progressive legislation strangled,
they said, by "the special
interests."1
* Paul G. Hubbard is associate professor
of history at Arizona State College at
Tempe.
1 Henry Steele Commager, ed., Documents
of American History (New York, 1949),
II, 239.
110
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
The eyes of the progressives peered
into every corner of the land
for foes to smite, and in the far
Southwest they saw democracy
chained and they found a cause.
Territorial government, they
pointed out, denied the people the
power to govern themselves,
because the governors, other executive
officials, and judges were
appointed in Washington. The cause of
statehood for Arizona and
New Mexico was not new in the Taft
administration--the agitation
had been going on for years and getting
nowhere--but these were
the last two territories attached to
the other forty-six states and
they no longer could be denied. Both
major parties favored state-
hood in their platforms in 1908,2 and
on June 16, 1910, congress
passed an act to enable Arizona and New
Mexico to form constitu-
tions and state governments.3
Constitutional conventions met in the
fall of 1910 in the two
territories and drew up organic
instruments of government. The
New Mexico convention was conservative,
and so was the docu-
ment it wrote. But in Arizona the
friends of "direct" government
controlled the writing of the
constitution. The president of the
Arizona convention was George W. P.
Hunt, leader of the pro-labor
faction of the Democratic party in
Arizona, and this dominant group
produced a constitution which was
highly "progressive" and favor-
able to labor. Of course it contained
the initiative, referendum, and
recall; and the latter particularly
caused complications. President
Taft had strong feelings about the
independence of the judiciary,
and there was good reason to believe he
would take a dim view of
any recall provisions which included
recall of judges. Despite
the threat of presidential disapproval,
the people of Arizona never-
theless voted overwhelmingly on
February 9, 1911, to accept the
constitution as it was written.4
Now the battle returned to congress,
where the question of state-
hood for Arizona and New Mexico became
one of the big issues
of the special, or first, session of
the sixty-second congress. The
chief bone of contention was the recall
of elected officers. The
conservatives were ready to accept the
Arizona document provided
the recall features did not extend to
judges, and the president
2 Rufus Kay Wyllys, Arizona: The History of a Frontier State (Phoenix, 1950), 303.
3 Congressional Record, 61 cong., 2 sess., 8237.
4 Wyllys, Arizona, 309.
A TOLEDO TRADE UNION 111
seemed to be in their camp. The
progressives, the announced friends
of the working man, made the
initiative, referendum, and recall
their symbols of democracy and took up
the cudgels for them. They
saw no reason why judges should not be
subject to recall like any
other elected officer.
The stage was now set for the
organization of the Arizona Con-
stitutional Petition League of
Typographical Union No. 63, Toledo,
Ohio.
Ohio by 1910 was a state where labor
could speak with a strong
voice and expect to be heard, because
progressives believed in
unionism and progressives were vigorous
there. A new spirit in gov-
ernment showed up in the municipal
reform movement in the 1890's
and 1900's. Leaders were Tom L.
Johnson, Newton D. Baker,
Frederic C. Howe, and Peter Witt in
Cleveland; and in Toledo
Samuel M. "Golden Rule" Jones
and Brand Whitlock.5 While these
men did not enjoy unlimited success,
they did have great influence
on state and municipal government. They
saw an age bright with
promise, a new Enlightenment based on
"direct" government, and
they operated in a stimulating
intellectual climate.
Beginning in 1908 the forces of
progressivism won real victories
on the state-wide level in Ohio. Judson
Harmon, a Democrat with a
reform program, was elected governor in
1908 in the face of Repub-
lican William Howard Taft's 50,000-vote
margin in the popular
vote for president. Although the
Republicans won all other state
offices except the state treasurer, it was nevertheless a
significant
Democratic triumph. In 1910 Harmon won
reelection with a decisive
100,000-vote majority over Warren G.
Harding. Under Harmon's
leadership such progressive measures as
the following were enacted:
ratification of the sixteenth
amendment, direct nomination of United
States senators, the initiative and
referendum for city government,
creation of a tax commission, corrupt
practices legislation, and a
workmen's compensation law.6
5 For an excellent short study of
Jones's influence, see James H. Rodabaugh,
"Samuel M. Jones--Evangel of
Equality," Historical Society of Northwestern Ohio,
Quarterly Bulletin, XV (1943), 17-46. For Whitlock, see his
autobiographical Forty
Years of It (New York, 1916) and Allan Nevins, ed., The Letters
and Journals of
Brand Whitlock (New York, 1936).
6 Eugene H. Roseboom and Francis P. Weisenburger, A History of Ohio (Colum-
bus, 1956), 321-323; Harlow Lindley,
ed., Ohio in the Twentieth Century, 1900-1938
(Carl Wittke, ed., The History of the
State of Ohio, VI, Columbus, 1942), 9-10.
112
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
The enactment of these laws was
accompanied by a demand for
reform of the state constitution. This
demand came at the right time,
because the constitution of 1851
contained a provision that at
twenty-year intervals the people should
vote on whether they desired
to have a constitutional convention or
not. The vote in 1871 resulted
in the calling of a convention in 1873
which drew up a new organic
law. The proposed document was defeated
by over two to one when
put to the voters, partly because it was
presented in its entirety
rather than in separate proposals. The
vote in 1891 on the question
of calling a convention was negative.
Now with the progressive era approaching
its zenith, another
vote on the question of holding a
convention was scheduled for
1911. But because of the need for tax
reform, the vote was taken
in 1910 instead of in the regularly
designated year. The vote was
positive. A convention would be elected
in the fall of 1911 to meet
early in 1912.
The sentiment for a new constitution,
says Professor Francis
R. Aumann, "was encouraged by
various pressure groups."7 One
of these pressure groups was the Arizona
Constitutional Petition
League of Typographical Union No. 63.
This organization was
the brain child of Henry R. Wollerman,8
business agent for that
printers' local and one of the vice
presidents of the Toledo Central
Labor Union.9 He was the chairman, while
the other members of
the committee-in-charge were Maurice H.
Cole, H. George Diebold,
Harry E. Marker, Clarence E. Benedict,
and George Kuemmerle,
business agent of the Central Labor
Union. The so-called advisory
7 Lindley, Ohio in the Twentieth
Century, 13.
8 Henry R. Wollerman was born July 19,
1884, in Cleveland, Ohio, and at the
age of thirteen began his apprenticeship
in the printing trade. In 1910 he moved to
Toledo, where he soon became active in
Typographical Union No. 63. Four years
later he began a lifelong association
with the Hines Printing Company of Toledo,
and at this writing he holds the
position of secretary-treasurer in that firm. Wollerman
to the author, December 11, 1957.
9 Arizona Republic (Phoenix), March 21, 1954. Clipping in a scrapbook in
the
Arizona State Department of Library and
Archives containing letters, newspaper
clippings, petitions, etc., documenting
the activities of the Arizona Constitutional
Petition League personally presented to
Mulford Winsor, director of the library and
archives, by Wollerman on March 17,
1954. This collection will hereafter be cited
as Wollerman Scrapbook. The late Mulford
Winsor was a member of the Arizona
constitutional convention and a leading
authority on Arizona history. The Toledo
Central Labor Union was organized in
1882, and in 1911 had "about 65 local unions"
and approximately 5,000 members. Toledo
Blade, February 18, 1911.
A TOLEDO TRADE UNION 113
committee included such distinguished
men as Brand Whitlock;
Isaac R. Sherwood, a member of
congress; Harry T. Batch, a council-
man-at-large; R. T. Gosline, a judge of
the city court; W. H.
DeWitt, president of Typographical
Union No. 63; and James P.
Egan, president of the Central Labor
Union.10
Under the interrogative headline
"Arizona to Lead Ohioans to
New Constitution?" the Toledo
News-Bee explained what the
league was doing. Its primary object,
the News-Bee said, was to
circulate petitions asking the United
States Senate to indorse
the constitution of Arizona in order to
enlighten the voters of
Ohio in the principles of progressive
government "with a view of
creating interest in the Ohio
constitutional convention to be held in
January."11 More immediately, its
purpose was to bring about the
passage of House Joint Resolution 14
approving the constitutions
formed by the constitutional
conventions of the territories of New
Mexico and Arizona.
When President Taft called the
sixty-second congress into special
session on April 4, 1911, one of the
measures introduced that same
day was House Joint Resolution 14. It
was sent to the house com-
mittee on territories and was to become
known as the Flood Resolu-
tion after the name of the
representative who submitted it, Henry
D. Flood, Democrat from Virginia and
chairman of the committee.12
This measure was to be one of the major
issues of the special
session.
As congress reassembled, the Toledo Blade could not
resist a sly
editorial dig when it remarked,
"It may take congress several days
to get in shape to do any harm."13
Yet, more seriously, it saw that
the new congress, elected in 1910, had
considerable progressive
strength. The vote on the Arizona
organic instrument would spot-
light the division between
reactionaries and progressives, and
party lines would disappear.14 Papers
in Arizona, with much more
at stake, viewed the impending session
cautiously or confidently,
depending on their editorial policy.
10 Letterhead on league stationery in
Wollerman Scrapbook.
11 Toledo News-Bee, June 8, 1911.
12 Congressional Record, 62 cong., 1 sess., 28.
13 Toledo Blade, April 6, 1911.
14 Ibid., April
7, 1911.
114 THE OHIO HISTORICAL
QUARTERLY
The Arizona Republican pointed
out that President Taft was a
good deal more interested in a bill
establishing tariff reciprocity
with Canada than he was in Arizona
statehood, and that while the
house probably would accept the Arizona
and New Mexico consti-
tutions, the real fate of statehood for
Arizona would be decided in
the senate, and the senate was
Republican by a majority of eight.15
The Arizona Gazette, a
progressive paper, exuded confidence as the
special session opened: "So many
members of both lower and upper
house in the new Congress have
expressed their friendliness to
Arizona . . . that the indications now
are that they [the constitu-
tions] will go through both houses like
unto the proverbial 'streak
of greased lightning.'"16
As it turned out, "greased
lightning" hardly described the way
the legislation went through. Senate
passage of the statehood
resolution did not come until August
and then was delayed several
days by Taft's veto and the necessity
of giving the president his
way on the matter of the recall.
House Joint Resolution 14 made easy
progress through the lower
chamber of the congress and was passed
by a voice vote on May
23.17 Two days later it came to the
senate and was referred to the
committee on territories.18 The
Arizona Republican was right; the
issue of statehood was to be decided in
the upper house. In the
summer months of 1911 the battle was
joined, and the partisans
of progressive politics in Ohio rallied
round.
Although it was not directly concerned
with statehood for Ari-
zona, there was another Ohio
organization which was fighting the
same battle as the Toledo typographers'
Arizona Constitutional
Petition League. Early in June an
organizational meeting was held
in Columbus sponsored by the Ohio
Federation of Labor, the Ohio
State Grange, and the Ohio Direct
Legislation League at which
the Progressive Constitutional League
of Ohio was formed. Brand
Whitlock, Toledo's reform mayor, was
honored with the presidency,
15 Arizona Republican (Phoenix),
April 5, 1911.
16 Arizona Gazette (Phoenix), April 5, 1911.
17 Congressional Record, 62 cong., 1 sess., 1528-1529.
18 Ibid., 1561.
A TOLEDO TRADE UNION 115
and among the Toledo delegates present
was James P. Egan, head
of the Central Labor Union. The purpose
of the league was to
work for the initiative, referendum,
and recall in the Ohio constitu-
tion by educating the voters to elect
delegates to the coming consti-
tutional convention who would seek
those reforms. Plans laid at the
initial meeting expressed its
determination to establish a branch
in every Ohio county.19 The
Lucas County branch was formed in
late July with Toledo organized labor
playing a conspicuous role.
At a meeting Friday evening, July 28,
Henry W. Ashley was
chosen president. James P. Egan was
elected first vice president,
after being nominated by Brand
Whitlock. Henry R. Wollerman
spoke to this meeting about the work of
his Arizona Constitutional
Petition League, and the Arizona
instrument was held up as a
good example to follow.20
Mayor Whitlock's views on the new
Arizona document were
featured in a News-Bee story in
which he was quoted as saying:
I favor the Arizona constitution for two
reasons; first, because it was
adopted by the people of Arizona
themselves and no doubt expresses their
wishes, and secondly because it seems to
be a fundamentally democratic
constitution in that it provides for the
initiative, the referendum and the
recall, and because it has excellent
articles in the interests of the laboring
classes, providing for the eight-hour
day, the regulation of the employment
of children and women and deals
effectively with the subject of the safety
of employees in hazardous occupations,
employers' liability, convict labor, etc.
These things should commend it to all
those who believe in fundamental
democracy, that is to all those who
believe with Lincoln, that labor is
superior to capital and that people are
of more importance than property.21
In the meantime, the typographers'
Arizona Constitutional Peti-
tion League, with Wollerman directing
its activities, was busy circu-
lating and sending petitions,
corresponding with statehood leaders
in Arizona and senators in Washington,
and seeking publicity.
19 Toledo Blade, June 5, 1911; Toledo News-Bee, June 5, 1911. The
News-Bee,
under the direction of its editor,
Negley D. Cochran, was strong for reform. See
James H. Rodabaugh, "The Reform
Movement in Ohio at the Turn of the Century,"
Ohio State Archaeological and
Historical Quarterly, LIV (1945), 51.
20 Toledo Blade, July 29, 1911.
21 Toledo News-Bee, July 1, 1911.
116 THE OHIO HISTORICAL
QUARTERLY
The petitions were addressed to the two
Ohio senators, Theodore
E. Burton and Atlee Pomerene,22 and
read as follows:
We, the undersigned, citizens of the
United States and duly qualified
electors of the City of Toledo, County
of Lucas, and State of Ohio, in accord-
ance with a resolution adopted by Toledo
Typographical Union No. 63, on
the 10th day of May, 1911,
and endorsed by Central Labor Council May
25th, 1911, hereby petition you as our
representatives in the Senate of the
United States, to use your influence and
votes to secure the approval and
adoption of the constitution recently
adopted by Congress in the Territory
of Arizona for the State of Arizona.23
Mayor Whitlock must have been one of the
first signers of the
petition because only eight days after
the union decided on their
campaign he wrote to Wollerman, "I
have today written Mr.
Hunt24 telling him that I had
signed your petition . . . and that
I am
anxious to do anything I can to help the adoption of this
fundamental law for the new state."25 Out in Arizona, Hunt was
doing what he could to help Wollerman
and was grateful for the
aid the Toledo group was extending to
the cause of statehood.
In a long letter to Wollerman, Hunt
spoke well of Brand
Whitlock, saying, "Your good mayor
. . . has I believe a national
repetation [sic] and I have for
several years noted with interest
his work in behalf of the uplift of
humanity." He also declared
that he was mailing to Wollerman
"several copies of the New
Declaration of Independence" and
thanked him for his support.26
22 Burton
was a Republican from Cleveland, who had been elected to the senate
in January 1909. He was a Taft man,
having placed Taft's name in nomination at
the Chicago convention in 1908.
Pomerene, the junior senator, came from Canton
and served as a Democrat. He had been
elected lieutenant governor of Ohio on the
ticket with Judson Harmon in 1910, and
was just beginning the first of two terms
in the senate.
23 Petition
bearing four signatures in Wollerman Scrapbook. Beginning June 30
the Toledo Union Leader carried
the petition in a box on its front Page with the
question "Have You Signed
This?" The Union Leader was a weekly edited by James
P. Egan, president of the Toledo Central
Union, and was the official organ of the
C. L. U.
24 Wollerman credits Hunt with first
stimulating his interest in the Arizona con-
stitution. He says that he had read an
article in the Cincinnati Enquirer by Hunt which
impressed him so much with the writer's
sincerity that he wrote Hunt requesting
several copies. Wollerman to the author,
December 11, 1957.
25 Whitlock to Wollerman, May 18, 1911,
in Wollerman Scrapbook. All letters
and telegrams cited hereafter are in
this scrapbook.
26 Hunt to Wollerman, May 21, 1911. The
"New Declaration of Independence"
was a phrase invented by its strong
partisans to mean the Arizona constitution.
Wollerman used the term in an article in
a Phoenix paper in which he urged
Arizona's citizens to elect progessive
officers. Arizona Gazette, December 6, 1911.
A TOLEDO TRADE UNION 117
A folded leaflet carrying the heading
"The Noblest Work is for
the Public Good" was printed and
circulated by Typographical
Union No. 63. It cited some of
Lincoln's remarks on labor and
boosted the Arizona constitution as a
model to be followed by
Ohioans when they made their new
constitution in 1912 and urged
its adoption by petition. On the inner
leaf there were several
extracts from the Arizona document.27
The printers were preparing
the public mind, and on May 29 the
drive for signatures on the
petitions began.
A small item in the Toledo News-Bee carried
the information
that Wollerman had placed placards in
the city's store windows
bearing the heading "Arizona
Constitution Petition: Sign Here for
Good Government."28 All
the union halls throughout the city had
been covered, according to the Toledo
Union Leader, and mention
was made of the good "hand"
Wollerman received when he talked
before the typographical union on May
25 in favor of his petition
movement.29 The Daily
Globe of Globe, Arizona, ran an editorial
about the petitions, describing the
movement started by the Toledo
typographers and saying they were
motivated by a wish to promote
a more progressive constitution in
Ohio. It stated that those circulat-
ing the petition thought they would get
five to eight thousand sig-
natures.30 As the campaign
developed momentum, the estimates on
the number of signers went up.
Workers for Wollerman's movement
enjoyed considerable success.
They expected to have over ten thousand
names on the lists when
they sent them to Washington. According
to Wollerman their plan
was to forward the petition on June
17.31 By the time the News-Bee
reported that the lists of advocates of
the Arizona constitution had
27 Leaflet in Wollerman Scrapbook. The Toledo Union Leader of June
30, 1911,
referred to 5,000 pamphlets having been
printed but did not describe them. Since
only one folder appears in the Wollerman
Scrapbook, it is reasonably safe to assume
that the 5,000 pamphlets were the same
as the folder mentioned above. The some-
what inaccurate Lincoln quotation used
was from his annual message to congress of
December 3, 1861, in which Lincoln
talked of labor preceding and being superior
to capital and meriting "higher
consideration." Roy P. Basler, ed., The Collected
Works of Abraham Lincoln (New Brunswick, N. J., 1953), V, 52.
28 Toledo News-Bee, May 29, 1911.
29 Toledo Union Leader, June 2, 1911.
30 Daily Globe (Globe, Arizona),
June 5, 1911. Clipping in Wollerman Scrap-
book with name and date of issue in
pencil.
31 Toledo News-Bee, June 3, 1911.
118
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
been shipped off, the number of signers
had swelled to four times
that number.32 Although the
figures cited in the papers cannot be
accepted as having much historical
reliability, the fact that the
petition was given to the senate in
June is a matter of record. The
Congressional Record for June 28, 1911, shows that "Mr. Burton
presented a petition of sundry
citizens, of Typographical Union No.
63, and of the Central Labor Union, of
Toledo, Ohio, praying for
the adoption of the proposed
constitution of the Territory of
Arizona, which was referred to the
Committee on Territories."33
This was only the first batch of
signatures; the work went on.
Little stories appeared in the Toledo
Union Leader about the devo-
tion of the leaders of the movement.
Under the "Typographical"
column Wollerman was mentioned as
"kicking up such a fuss over
that Arizona petition and demanding
that others do some work
that he is being dubbed 'the slave
driver.'"34 Other members of the
committee were active, too. Maurice H.
Cole, called "Kid" Cole by
the men in the union, claimed he had
personally secured almost
1,400 signatures; and George Diebold
was getting to be quite an
"agitator," they said. The
carpenters' section told how "Brother
Wallerman [sic] of the
Typographical union spoke on the Arizona
constitution, and urged our members to
sign the petition to Ohio
senators."35 To many of
the partisans of Arizona statehood, this
period, late June and early July, was a
time of crisis in the struggle.
In Arizona one of the most vigorous
voices of progressivism, the
Gazette in Phoenix, carried a story on June 29 that the Taft
men
were trying to persuade the chairman of
the senate committee on
territories, William Alden Smith of
Michigan, to hold off reporting
on House Joint Resolution 14. Rumors
were abroad that only twenty
percent of the voters in Arizona went
to the polls in the ratification
vote. The paper urged all the people to
send telegrams to Senator
Smith to show him the true sentiment
for statehood.36 The Gazette's
rival in Phoenix, the Republican, took
a calmer view and one which
showed a clearer understanding of the
true state of affairs.
32 Ibid., June 28, 1911.
33 Congressional Record, 62 cong., 1 sess., 2581.
34 Toledo Union Leader, June 30,
1911.
35 Ibid., July 7,
1911.
36 Arizona Gazette, June 29, 1911.
A TOLEDO TRADE UNION 119
The Gazette insisted all along
that there was always the possi-
bility that Taft would not veto an
Arizona constitution which
incorporated the recall of judges,37
while the Republican was sure
he would. So while the latter journal
was properly concerned about
the possibility of delay, it believed
the delegate to congress from
Arizona, Ralph H. Cameron, a
Republican, had his eye on the real
problem when he said the president
would veto the Arizona consti-
tution with the recall.38 As
to the alleged plot to delay the report
of the resolution, the Republican gave
space to the claims of Arizona
lobbyists in Washington that someone
was sabotaging the resolution,
but went on to say that "the Flood
resolution is menaced by neither
Arizonians nor the
administration." While there perhaps was some
delay, it was not critical. The paper
quoted Senator Smith as saying
that the only thing holding up the
report was the necessity of getting
it written.39 This proved to
be the true situation, because if there
was delay it was only for a few days.
The committee on territories submitted
its report to the senate
on July 11. The chairman stated openly
that the recall feature of
the Arizona constitution was going to
be challenged in the senate
before it ever got to Taft. Senator
Smith said he was personally in
favor of prompt statehood for Arizona
and New Mexico but went
on to state that "it may be deemed
expedient, in order to accomplish
that end at the present session, that
certain amendments shall be
considered, and I desire to give notice
of my intention to offer an
amendment later upon the question of
the judicial recall respecting
the constitution of Arizona."
Speaking for the minority of the
committee, Senator Knute Nelson
of Minnesota said they had no quarrel
with New Mexico's constitu-
tion but were "utterly opposed to
the admission of Arizona with
the constitution that they present to
Congress."40 So the fight would
go on. There was still work for the
Arizona Constitutional Petition
League.
In addition to continuing the drive for
signatures on petitions,
37 Ibid., July 3, 1911.
38 Arizona Republican, June 25,
1911.
39 Ibid., June 30, 1911.
40 Congressional Record, 62 cong., 1 sess., 2792.
120
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
the league presented its position to the
membership of the senate
through an editorial from the Toledo
Blade and a letter. The edi-
torial appeared in the Blade on
July 1, 1911. The tone of the piece
was that the Blade was by no
means sold on the recall, feeling the
device would cause "an unstable
Central American form of govern-
ment." Yet it would support
Arizona's right to have the "constitu-
tion it thinks it desires and
needs." No form of government was so
perfect that the Blade would
endorse it unequivocally:
Political science, like chemical
science, or mechanics, or education, pro-
ceeds through experiment. The people of
Arizona have the bravery to
undertake an experiment which will be
valuable to all the world. After its
adoption and after a season or so of
practice, the country will know whether
an all-embracing system of recall works
toward official efficiency and political
purity, whether it makes honesty in high
places more certain and makes
the better men seek preferment, or
whether it invites trickery and demagogy,
weakness and rule under mediocre
office-holders. If Arizona loses, it is
for Arizona to pay. The territory has
been settled by strong men. We believe
that these men, should their experiment
prove a failure, will admit it
freely and take the proper steps to
rectify it. Let Arizona have the consti-
tution it wishes.41
Copies of the editorial were sent to
every senator, together with
a covering letter from Wollerman in the
name of the league. He
called the senate's attention to the
high rank the Blade held in the
nation "and particularly to its
position as a steadfast and highly
esteemed advocate of Republican
principles." Then he appealed to
the members as follows:
We are hopeful that you are already
committed to the principle that the
people of Arizona, or indeed the people
of any state, have the right, and
that they only have the right to decide
upon a Constitution under which
they are to govern themselves, but on behalf
of the principle to which this
League is devoted, we invite your study
of this editorial, and we hope that
you will find the attitude it voices
worthy of your support, and that you
will lend your vote to the adoption of
the Constitution decided upon by
the people of Arizona, for the State of
Arizona.42
41 Toledo Blade, July 1, 1911.
42 Copy
of
form letter on Arizona Constitutional
Petition League letterhead sta-
tionery, undated, in Wollerman
Scrapbook.
A TOLEDO TRADE UNION 121
The appeal of this letter and editorial
brought a response from
several senators. Wollerman reported he
had twelve replies and that
a number of the legislators felt the
Arizona constitution would be
approved. Of several senators quoted in
a story in the Toledo Blade,
July 26, 1911, as having written to
Wollerman, only one was hostile
to the recall. He was "Henry R.
Burman" [Henry E. Burnham],43
Republican of New Hampshire, who said
that while he approved
the Arizona constitution generally, he
could not favor the clause
which provided for recall of judges.
Democratic Senator J. W. Kern
of Indiana could not resist a thrust at
the political opposition when
he said, "I hold the view of the
Democratic party in regard to the
right of the people to rule themselves
and I am glad to find that a
Republican paper is willing to trust
the people to rule themselves."
One of the senate's leading
progressives, Moses E. Clapp of
Minnesota, stated that he had been in
the fight for Arizona from
the start and thought the statehood
resolution would pass. He said
he was pleased that "a strong
paper like the Toledo Blade has
taken up the cause of the Arizona
constitution, even though it be
upon the limited ground that the people
of that territory have the
right to frame their own
constitution." Other senators quoted in
the Blade were Robert M. La
Follette of Wisconsin and Charles F.
Johnson, Democrat from Maine.44 The
Toledo group of course
was most interested in the attitude of
Ohio's two senators.
Atlee Pomerene, the Democrat, was in
the progressive ranks, but
Theodore E. Burton was of a more
conservative stripe. The Toledo
Blade described him as a "senator who stands well with
the con-
servative element and yet is friendly
with the insurgents. He occupies
a sort of middle ground."45 In
a letter to Wollerman, George W. P.
Hunt said he thought Pomerene was
"all right" as far as the state-
hood group was concerned, but he had
reservations about Burton.
As Hunt put it, "The other senator
[Burton] is as you say and it
will take a good deal to persuade one
of his makeup to vote for the
43 There is no record of a Burman in the
senate, but there was a Henry E.
Burnham of New Hampshire in the upper
house in 1911. Biographical Directory of
the American Congress, 1774-1949 (Washington, 1950), 921.
44 Toledo Blade, July 26, 1911.
45 Ibid., May 12, 1911.
122
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
liberal Constitution that Arizona is
battling for."46 Replies sent by
these two senators to the Arizona
Statehood Committee bear these
judgments out.
On May 5, 1911, this committee sent a
letter to every senator,
urging support for the new states. The
responses of the Ohio law-
makers were quoted in the Arizona
Gazette, and Pomerene was for
letting Arizona have its own way. He
personally felt the principle
of the recall of judges was wrong but
that it was a "question
wholly to be settled by the people of
your territory, and I shall do
anything I can to aid in securing the
admission of Arizona, whether
it is with or without the recall
provision as applied to the judiciary."
Burton was more cautious in his letter
to the statehood committee.
While he said he was inclined to favor
admission of the new states,
he did not want to commit himself until
he had viewed the question
from all angles.47 The Ohio
senators were busy answering the
entreaties of their constituents on
behalf of Arizona, too.
The Toledo News-Bee carried a
short story in the middle of June
which quoted a Pomerene letter to Mayor
Whitlock in which the
legislator said, "You need pay no
attention to me on this matter."
Then he went on to explain that
anything the people of Arizona
wanted in the form of a constitution
was all right with him. Burton,
however, wrote to the typographical
union that he would "probably"
approve statehood if the Arizona voters
would consent to a few
changes which congress might recommend.48
Henry R. Wollerman,
as head of the Arizona Constitutional
Petition League in Toledo,
was the recipient of several letters
from Senator Burton during the
height of the statehood fight in the
summer of 1911.
The lawmaker acknowledged a letter from
Wollerman on July 5
and offered to send a copy of the
senate report on the admission of
Arizona and New Mexico.49 To
this Wollerman replied that he
would be pleased to have a copy of the
report and that he was
enclosing a clipping of the Blade editorial
of July 1. Then he got
to the central question: "What
position do you take on the Flood
Resolution? Are you opposed or in favor
of the same. This voices
46 Hunt to Wollerman, May 21, 1911.
47 Arizona Gazette, May 24, 1911.
48 Toledo News-Bee, June 16, 1911.
49 Burton to Wollerman, July 5, 1911.
A TOLEDO TRADE UNION 123
the sentiment of thousands of citizens'
[sic] in Ohio, with whom we
have come in contact."50 The
typographical union kept the pressure
on the senior senator with several
letters and a telegram.
Finally, in a letter to Wollerman dated
July 26, Burton defined
his position, saying that it was his
intention to vote for the admission
of Arizona, "requiring them,
however, to take a separate vote on
the question of the recall of
judges."51 As it turned out, this was
substantially the form in which the
Flood Resolution finally passed
the senate.
Senator Burton not only had to keep up
his correspondence with
Ohio, he had more petitions to present
to the senate in July. On
the twenty-fourth he wrote to Wollerman
acknowledging the re-
ceipt of additional petitions and
saying that he would "take pleasure
in presenting these petitions on the
floor of the Senate."52 And he
did it the very day he wrote the
letter.53
August 1911 saw the long statehood
battle end. The senate
opponents of the judicial recall had
brought in an amendment in
the name of Knute Nelson of Minnesota,
second ranking Republi-
can member of the senate committee on
territories. The Nelson
amendment, simply stated, provided that
before the people of
Arizona could achieve statehood they
must consent to change their
constitution so that the recall
provision would not apply to the
judiciary.54 It was Tuesday,
August 8, when the senate voted on
House Joint Resolution 14, the Flood
resolution, and the progres-
sives carried the day.
The Nelson amendment was defeated
forty-three nays to twenty-
six yeas, with twenty-one not voting.
Senator Burton was paired
against the amendment with Senator
Frank B. Brandegee of Con-
necticut and was absent when the vote
was taken. Atlee Pomerene
was counted as voting against the
amendment. On the vote on the
Flood resolution the yeas had
fifty-three to eighteen nays and nine-
teen not voting. Pomerene was recorded
as voting yea, while Moses
E. Clapp of Minnesota rose on behalf of
Senator Burton to state
50 Wollerman to Burton, July 8, 1911.
51 Burton to Wollerman, July 26, 1911.
52 Burton to Wollerman, July 24, 1911.
53 Congressional Record, 62 cong., 1 sess., 3191.
54 For the full amendment, see Congressional
Record, 62 cong., 1 sess., 3633.
124
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
that he was unavoidably detained but
that if he were present, he
would vote yea.55 The next
move was up to the president.
William Howard Taft had decidedly
strong feelings about recall
of judges, and those who thought he
would let the resolution be-
come law with that feature in it were
whistling in the dark. The
whistlers were mostly in Arizona, with
the Arizona Gazette insisting
to the last that he might not veto.56
Even the Arizona Republican,
which all along had warned of a
presidential veto if the recall
were retained in the constitution,
expressed a hope the president
would sign and mentioned talk going
around that he might allow
the resolution to become law without
his signature.57 In Ohio, the
Toledo Blade had no delusions. Its story the day after the
resolution
passed the senate carried the blunt
headline "Taft Will Veto State-
hood Bill."58
House Joint Resolution 14 was presented
to the president on
August 11, 1911, and his veto came back
to the house on August 15.
Taft's position was strongly put:
This [recall] provision of the Arizona
constitution, in its application to
county and State judges, seems to me so
pernicious in its effect, so destruc-
tive of independence in the judiciary,
so likely to subject the rights of the
individual to the possible tyranny of a
popular majority, and, therefore,
to be so injurious to the cause of free
government, that I must disapprove a
constitution containing it.59
But this was not the last word. There
was still work for the
Arizona Constitutional Petition League
of Typographical Union
No. 63. They once more circularized the
senate with a form letter
on league letterhead stationery.
In a letter dated August 17 which
Senator Burton addressed to
55 Congressional Record, 62 cong., 1 sess., 3741-3743. The joint resolution as
passed is printed in full on pp.
3742-3743. On the vote on the Nelson Amendment,
Brandegee only reported that he was
paired with Burton, neither for nor against,
but Brandegee voted nay on the Flood
Resolution.
56 Arizona Gazette, August 9, 1911.
57 Arizona Republican, August 9,
1911.
58 Toledo Blade, August 9, 1911.
59 Congressional Record, 62 cong., 1 sess., 3829, 3964. The veto was printed as
House Document No. 106, 62 cong., 1
sess., and also appears in the Congressional
Record, 62 cong., 1 sess., 3964-3966.
A TOLEDO TRADE UNION 125
Wollerman he said, "I do not think
it best to vote for the passage
of the bill over the presidential veto,
especially as the President
is from my own state." He went on
to speak of a way around the
impasse--the one which was adopted.
"I trust there will be some
solution so that Arizona and New Mexico
can be admitted before
the adjournment of this session, and
then either state can take up
any constitutional provision
desired." 60
This was the pragmatic course to
follow--let the president have
his way, let him save his principle,
but let the people of Arizona
abandon theirs temporarily until they
had statehood securely in
their hands. And of course it was only
a matter of principle. Taft
knew as well as the next man that once
Arizona was a state it
would put the recall back in its
constitution. An editorial in the
Toledo Blade summed up the practical situation the day after the
veto:
Congress, having now forced the veto on
the President, should cease
playing politics with this question and
pass the resolution introduced in
the senate, admitting Arizona and New
Mexico to statehood on condition
that the recall feature shall be
eliminated from the constitution of Arizona
. . . . If Arizona is as desirous of
having the recall as it is of becoming a
state it can achieve both ends by first
complying with the President's wishes
and then amending its constitution with
the recall or anything else it
wants to put into it.61
The Toledo News-Bee's comments on
the veto brought out its
more progressive character. Its
editorial on August 15 expressed
the hope that "the friends of
progress" could marshal enough
votes to overide the veto. Whether they
did or not, Taft's action
was "insult and outrage upon a
young and growing common-
wealth . . . . It practically serves
notice on the people of a sovereign
state that they are not qualified to
make laws for themselves, and
that they do not know what is good for
them."62 In an even more
indignant editorial the next day the News-Bee
stated that the main
point was not the recall of judges:
"The important thing is that
60 Burton to Wollerman, Washington,
August 17, 1911. Italics are the author's.
61 Toledo Blade, August
16, 1911.
62 Toledo News-Bee, August 15, 1911.
126 THE OHIO HISTORICAL
QUARTERLY
President Taft by his veto has
'recalled' the citizenship and right of
self-government." The piece
charged the "interests" with seeking
to frustrate democracy every step of
the way in the statehood fight.
Then Taft vetoed and said the recall
had to go despite its over-
whelming popular support. "That is
the act of an autocratic czar,
rather than of the elected president of
a free republic."63 Once the
president's veto was on record, events
moved swiftly in congress,
and in six days he had signed a
statehood resolution requiring
Arizona to remove the recall from its
constitution during the time
it was coming into the Union. The next
day congress adjourned.64
The Arizona Gazette referred to
the news of the president's
signing as the "Message of
Emancipation" and related the details
of the historic occasion. Taft,
surrounded by congressmen and the
delegates from the two territories and
several citizens of New
Mexico and Arizona, signed the document
at 3:08 using "three
different pens in order that some relic
hunters might be satisfied."
He was a careful man, the president:
"When the resolution was
laid on his desk he looked at the crowd
and asked, 'Has anybody
read this?' Nobody answered and to make
certain of it, Taft read
the resolution. 'Well, gentlemen, it's
done,' he said as he put the
last stroke on the parchment.' "65
With this "last stroke" of
Taft's pen the reason to be of the
Arizona Constitutional Petition League
of Toledo Typographical
Union No. 63 was gone. Henry Wollerman,
writing in the Union
Leader August 25, expressed satisfaction with the petition
campaign
which had just closed. "Never
before has organized labor been so
successful in creating public sentiment
as now," he wrote.66
An epilogue to the story is seen in
Wollerman's genuine interest
in Arizona politics and his continuing
friendship for George W. P.
Hunt. Hunt was nominated for governor
by the Democrats in the
Arizona primary for state and national
offices on October 24, 1911.67
During the campaign preceding the
election on December 12, 1911,
63 Ibid., August 16, 1911.
64 Congressional Record, 62 cong.,
1 sess., 4381, 4382.
65 Arizona Gazette, August 21, 1911.
66 Toledo Union Leader, August 25, 1911.
67 Arizona Gazette, October 25, 1911.
A TOLEDO TRADE UNION 127
Hunt had some Toledo support from Wollerman and Brand
Whitlock.
The Arizona Gazette carried a
lengthy article with a Wollerman
by-line and included a cut of him
looking not unlike young Herbert
Hoover in his high starched collar. The
article sounded the tocsin
against the "interests" and
urged the people of Arizona to elect
Hunt, "tried and true,"
champion of all the people, serving no
interest.68
Two days after Wollerman's article
appeared in the Gazette that
paper printed a letter from Mayor Brand
Whitlock on its front
page. The Toledo reformer also urged
the election of George
W. P. Hunt as governor of the new
state. Whitlock explained his
unusual conduct by saying, "It
were presumption in me to intrude in
an election outside my own state, and
my respect for democracy and
for home rule is such that, under no
circumstances would I do such
a thing, but the election in Arizona
seems to me to be more than
local, because there are involved in it
principles . . . to which all the
friends of progress all over the United
States are entirely devoted."
To those who saw in the Arizona
constitution "a new hope for
humanity" it was imperative, he
wrote, that "Mr. Hunt and his
associates be elected."69
Mr. Hunt and his associates were
elected, and just a little over
two months later, on February 14, 1912,
Arizona became the forty-
eighth state. The story of the part
played by the Arizona Constitu-
tional Petition League of Toledo
Typographical Union No. 63 can
end with Henry R. Wollerman's
congratulatory telegram to Hunt
on that occasion and Governor Hunt's
gracious reply.
Wollerman's wire of February 15 said in
part: "My heart goes
out to you and the people of Arizona[.]
Best wishes and con-
gratulations[.] At last the bondage has
been lifted and a truly repre-
sentative government established."
70 Hunt dispatched a telegram
in response the next day: "Your
congratulatory message received.
I am particularly grateful to you for
your remembrance and for
the efforts you exerted in bringing
about the splendid results ob-
68 Ibid., December 6, 1911.
69 Ibid., December
8, 1911.
70 Wollerman to Hunt, February 15, 1912.
128
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
tained. I shall endeavor to aid in
justifying the faith you express in
Arizona people."71
In the years that followed, despite the
control of Arizona's affairs
by "Mr. Hunt and his
associates,"72 the "interests" were not hand-
cuffed and politics was politics. Yet
the progressive movement, of
which the Arizona constitution and the
Arizona Constitutional
Petition League were a part, did
enhance the form of democracy.
71 Hunt to Wollerman, February 16, 1912.
72 Hunt was elected governor seven times, serving in that office for
fourteen years,
although not consecutively.