OHIO'S CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF
1912
by LANDON WARNER
Assistant Professor of History and
Political Science,
Kenyon College
A constitutional mandate requires the
submission to Ohio's
electorate in 1952 of this question:
"Shall there be a convention to
revise, alter, or amend the
constitution."1 Provision for periodic
review dates from the constitution of
1851. It was introduced as a
democratic reform based on Thomas
Jefferson's oft-quoted dictum
that no law should be in effect longer
than a generation, roughly
twenty years, unless reenacted. Until
1912 submission of the ques-
tion was optional with the legislature;
an amendment at that time
made it mandatory.
The last time the voters of Ohio gave
an affirmative answer was in
1910, the first step leading to the
constitutional convention which
convened in 1912. Although historical
analogies are suspect when
pressed too far, something of profit
can be learned from a study
of that charter-making body. What
created the demand for con-
stitutional change in 1910-12? What was
the character of the con-
vention? Was it dominated by extremists
of either the right or the
left, a fear expressed by those
opposing a call today? What
were its objectives and how
successfully were they realized? What
educational value did it have for the
people of the state? These are
some of the points which a study of
Ohio's constitutional convention
of 1912 may illuminate.
At the end of the first decade of the
twentieth century the
majority of Ohioans were eager to
revise their fundamental law.2
1 Art. XVI, sec. 3 of the Ohio
Constitution of 1851 as amended in 1912.
2 The following historical narrative is a compressed version of Chapters
XI-XIII
of the author's doctoral dissertation,
Ohio's Crusade for Reform, 1897-1917 (Harvard
University, 1950). Since the thesis
manuscript contains footnote references to every
important statement and is available
upon loan to the student, the author has agreed
to the editors' request to conserve
space by keeping footnote citations to a minimum
and listing the most important sources
in this bibliographical note.
The conditions in 1910 and the vote on
the question of holding the constitutional
convention are discussed by Henry W.
Elson, "Making a New Constitution for Ohio,"
11
12 Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
The timetable for submitting the call
for a convention was advanced
one year to 1910 from 1911. Both the
Republicans and the Demo-
crats endorsed the question and were
permitted by special statute to
certify that a straight party vote
constituted approval of the con-
stitutional convention. The results
were overwhelmingly favorable:
693,263 supported the call and 67,718
opposed. We may well suspect
this ten to one margin, since no doubt
many who cast a straight-
ticket ballot gave only perfunctory
attention to the question. Still
the militant opposition as reflected in
the negative vote was sur-
prisingly small.
Review of Reviews, XLVI (1912), 83-86; Ernest I. Antrim, "The Ohio
Constitutional
Convention," Independent, LXXII
(1912), 1423-1426; and Robert E. Cushman,
"Voting Organic Laws: Action of the
Ohio Electorate in the Revision of the State
Constitution of 1912," Political
Science Quarterly, XXVIII (1913), 207-229.
A wealth of autobiographies have been
published documenting the philosophy and
work of the leading Ohio reformers and
the influence of Henry George and Henry D.
Lloyd upon them: Tom L. Johnson, My
Story (New York, 1911); Samuel M. Jones,
Letters of Love and Labor (2 vols., Toledo, 1900-1901), and The New Right (New
York, 1899); Brand Whitlock, Forty
Years of It (New York, 1914); Washington
Gladden, Recollections (Boston,
1909); and Frederic C. Howe, The Confessions of a
Reformer (New York, 1925).
To reconstruct the campaign to elect
delegates to the constitutional convention
newspapers were consulted almost
exclusively: Cleveland Plain Dealer, Ohio State
Journal (Columbus), Toledo Blade, Toledo News-Bee, Youngstown
Vindicator,
Dayton News, and Cincinnati Enquirer. The one important
exception was an article
stressing Herbert Bigelow's role: Frank
Parker Stockbridge, "Ohio Wide Awake,"
Everybody's, XXVII (1912), 696-707.
The sources for the constitutional convention
are extensive. Proceedings and Debates
of the Constitutional Convention of
Ohio, 1912 (2 vols., Columbus, 1912)
contain
the official transcript, supplemented by the Journal
of the Constitutional Convention of
the State of Ohio, 1912 (Columbus, 1912). The comments of a number of delegates
are printed in James K. Mercer, ed. and
comp., Ohio Legislative History (6 vols.,
Columbus, [1914-26]), I. Four others
published special articles: those by Antrim
and Elson cited above; another by Elson,
"The Fourth Constitutional Convention of
Ohio," Review of Reviews, XLV
(1912), 337-340; Robert Crosser, "The Initiative
and Referendum Amendment in the Proposed
Ohio Constitution," American Academy
of Political and Social Science, Annals,
XLIII (September 1912), 191-202; Charles
B. Galbreath, "Vote on the Ohio
Constitution," Independent, LXXIII (1912), 1407-
1410. The newspapers listed above
provided material on the work of committees.
Interviews with Herbert Bigelow, H. P.
Boynton, and John D. Fackler supplemented
the printed data.
The campaign and vote on the amendments
is covered in the newspapers and the
Galbreath and Cushman articles
previously cited. James M. Cox tells of his share
in Journey Through My Years (New
York, 1946). Two appraisals of the results
are: Daniel J. Ryan, "The Influence
of Socialism on the Ohio Constitution," North
American Review, CXCVI (1912), 665-672, which expresses the
ultra-conservative
viewpoint; and a rebuttal from the
progressive side, Charles Sawyer, "The Ohio Con-
stitution. A Reply and a
Rejoinder," North American Review, CXCVII (1913),
275-279.
Ohio's Constitutional Convention of
1912 13
The poll was taken at a most favorable
psychological time. Con-
servatives as well as progressives-a
new label for radical advocates
of change which had just come into
popular parlance-determined
the moment was at hand to strike for
their pet panaceas. Urban
capitalists, led by the Ohio State
Board of Commerce, wanted to
rewrite the taxation article in order
to abolish the rule of taxing
all property, tangible and intangible,
at a uniform rate and to
permit classification. The liquor
interests sought to eliminate the
constitutional injunction against the
licensing of saloons in the hope
that regulation would head off
state-wide prohibition. Most im-
portant, though, were the demands of
the progressives which had
accumulated over the past decade for
such varied reforms as
municipal home rule, direct primaries,
the initiative and referendum,
equal suffrage, improvements in the
court system and procedures,
and legal protection of workers.
This pent-up pressure for progressive
changes was part of a fer-
ment at work in many other states of
the Union and in the national
government as well. In this same year
two notable reform governors
were elected, Woodrow Wilson in New
Jersey and Hiram Johnson
in California; and the house of
representatives was in revolt against
tyrannical conservative control.
Although this leftward movement
was a response to certain common
influences, the component of these
forces differed from state to state.
Ohio reformers found inspiration
particularly in the teachings of
Henry George and Henry Demarest Lloyd.
George's vivid portrayal
of poverty amidst progress, his message
joining Christian brother-
hood with equality, as well as his
specific panacea for the elimina-
tion of want, the single tax, had made
converts of a number of
Ohioans. Tom L. Johnson, the great
Cleveland mayor, is the best
known. Others who followed him down the
Damascus road were
Peter Witt, Frederic C. Howe, Herbert
Bigelow, and Brand Whit-
lock. Lloyd's influence was less
pervasive, but his expose of monopo-
listic practices, notably those of the
Standard Oil trust, stimulated
the thinking of the Toledo crusader
Samuel Milton Jones. Another
current which stirred Ohioans generally
was the literature of the
Muckrakers, whose factual accounts of
graft and corruption in
14
Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
government and industry created
disaffection for the existing sys-
tem. One of their star performers,
Lincoln Steffens, was a friend
and champion of the Ohio reformers. At
the political level there
was the influence of other state
leaders who gave encouragement
by their example in routing the forces
of reaction and introducing
specific reforms: Hazen W. Pingree in
Michigan, Joseph W. Folk in
Missouri, W. S. U'Ren in Oregon, and
Robert F. La Follette in
Wisconsin. More directly influential
than these were two national
figures, William Jennings Bryan, who
commanded the allegiance
of a large segment of Ohio Democracy,
and Theodore Roosevelt,
who began espousing doctrines congenial
to the radical wing of the
Ohio Republican party.
Important as these larger influences
were, they would not have
made as deep an imprint on Ohio had it
not been for the local
leadership of a devoted coterie of
reformers headed by Jones in
Toledo, Johnson in Cleveland, and
Washington Gladden, a Social
Gospel preacher, in Columbus. Municipal
reformers first, these men
entered the state field to free the
cities from the leading strings of
the legislature. Through their state
campaigns they broke the ground
and planted the seeds of reform. Though
Jones had been dead five
years in 1910 and Johnson was mortally
ill, their harvest was reaped
by a group of young men of great
ability who had been attracted
to their cause: Brand Whitlock and
Negley Cochran in Toledo;
Newton Baker, Peter Witt, John
Stockwell, Robert Crosser, and
Carl D. Friebolin in Cleveland; and
Herbert Bigelow in Cincinnati.
In 1911 these young crusaders, joined
by other progressives, led a
spirited campaign to elect their
partisans as delegates to the con-
stitutional convention. The most active
was Bigelow, who founded
the Progressive Constitution League to
support the cause. He and
the league concentrated on pledging
candidates to the initiative and
referendum, since this reform was
considered by him and many other
single taxers the key to the
introduction of the Georgian land-tax.
The Joseph Fels Fund, established by
the wealthy manufacturer of
Naptha soap, a George disciple, aided
his campaign financially.
Further assistance came from the
Scripps-McRae newspapers, which
directed their reporters to circulate
through the rural counties and
Ohio's Constitutional Convention of
1912 15
secure public committments from
candidates to vote for an effective
initiative and referendum amendment.
As support for this movement began
rolling like a snowball,
alarmed conservatives began a
counterattack. The director of the
Ohio State Board of Commerce dispatched
"boilerplate" articles
to the rural press attacking the
proposal as communistic, assessed
business to defray the expense, and
organized support for conserva-
tive candidates.
Nevertheless, not all of the commercial
and industrial class took
alarm. The Ohio Manufacturers
Association announced they would
adopt a neutral stand. Bigelow,
furthermore, had already succeeded
in creating enthusiasm for the initiative
and referendum among the
liquor interests. While the
legislature, he pointed out, tended to
favor the "drys" because of
the preponderant strength of the
prohibition-minded rural counties in
the lower house, a popular
referendum would give full weight to
the "wet" urban electorate
under-represented in the assembly. This
piece of political oppor-
tunism did not, however, signify a real
alliance between the op-
ponents of prohibition and the
advocates of the initiative and referen-
dum. Not all "wets" were for
direct legislation, nor all "drys" op-
posed.
Bigelow and the league concentrated
their efforts in the country
districts, since strong sentiment
already existed for their program
in the cities. A branch of their
organization in Cuyahoga County,
representing one hundred and fifty
civic and labor organizations,
nominated a slate of ten candidates
pledged exclusively to this issue.
Although three other groups, the
Municipal Conference, Socialists,
and Democrats, prepared separate
tickets, all of their nominees
were likewise committed to the
principle of the initiative and
referendum. Since the Cleveland
advocates of this reform believed
that with its adoption other ills, such
as taxation evils and the lack
of municipal freedom, could be cured,
their tendency was to con-
centrate on it alone.
In Columbus a different plan for the
selection of candidates led
to less emphasis on direct legislation,
though an endorsement was
not neglected. At a meeting on July 25,
1911, presided over by
16 Ohio State
Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
Washington Gladden, the representatives
of more than a hundred
civic, professional, farm, and labor
organizations formed the United
Constitution Committee of Franklin
County. The assembled group
listened to an address by Bigelow,
voted to allow labor, agriculture,
and business each to select one
candidate to the constitutional con-
vention, and planned public forums on
the commission government
for cities, taxation, the initiative
and referendum, reform of judicial
procedure, and nonpartisan elections.
The best organized of all the
preconvention movements in the cities,
the United Committee held
open discussions at regular intervals,
nominated candidates repre-
senting each of the three major economic
classes, and committed
them to a platform of direct
legislation, municipal home rule, and
reform in judicial procedure.
In Cincinnati an organization bearing
the same title as the
Columbus one was formed to name a slate
of candidates and adopt
a platform. Representing almost every
civic, social, and business
organization in the city, it selected a
panel of nine, including union-
labor, business, and professional men,
and Herbert Bigelow,
pledging them to the initiative and
referendum, municipal home
rule, licensing of saloons, and
classification in taxation. The Per-
sonal Liberty League, an organization
of "wets," also endorsed a
ticket of candidates, four of whom had
also been sponsored by the
United Constitution Committee.
Not in every city, however, was there
the same well-developed
support and interest in the selection
of delegates. Candidates in
Toledo and Youngstown had to depend
mainly on newspaper back-
ing. In Dayton the three successful
candidates received no press
endorsement whatsover, though the Dayton
Daily News editorially
praised direct legislation, to which
they were committed.
When the nominations were completed,
the Toledo News-Bee
computed that of the four hundred and
nineteen candidates, two
hundred and eighty-six were declared
progressives, one hundred and
twenty were known conservatives, and
thirteen had not expressed
their opinions. Despite this
substantial majority there was still
danger in the situation, the editor
believed, for the reactionaries
under the leadership of the Ohio State
Board of Commerce were
Ohio's Constitutional Convention of
1912 17
centering their efforts on the smallest
number of candidates in the
hope of sliding in their men through a
split in the progressive vote.3
Such fears proved unwarranted, since
the election returns in
November 1911 brought victory to the
friends of change. The
newspapers, by dramatizing the epochal
nature of the occasion, had
generated a strong interest among the
electorate. Three counties
polled a larger vote for constitutional
delegates than they did the
year before for governor, and the count
was almost as large in
several others, though in the state as
a whole it was smaller. Bigelow,
who had contributed more than any other
person to the progressive
triumph, was elected as a delegate, and
sixty others were pledged
to his kind of an
initiative-and-referendum amendment. In addition,
twenty-six more had spoken in favor of
the principle of this reform.
It was estimated that only twenty-five
percent of the one hundred
and nineteen members elected were
conservatives, nearly all from
the rural districts. Since the attitude
toward direct legislation was
the popular norm for judging the
political temper of a state, Ohio,
it was contended, had gone radical.4
Left-wing progressives en-
visioned the success of their extreme
doctrines; conservatives feared
the worst.
On the morning of January 9, 1912, the
fourth Ohio constitutional
convention assembled in the hall of
representatives at the capitol,
dedicated to the task of framing a new
charter which would reflect
"the improved and progressive
conditions" of a twentieth-century
world.5 The oldest member,
eighty-two-year-old Judge Dennis Dwyer
of Dayton, was chosen temporary
chairman, the roll was called, and
the delegates sworn in by the chief
justice. In the opinion of a
veteran newspaper correspondent, it was
"the most inspiring body"
that he had observed in his forty
years' experience with Ohio legis-
lative assemblies.6
Included among them were strong,
serious men of ability and
experience, representing most of the
major occupations. Lawyers
3 Toledo News-Bee, October 11, 1911.
4 Editorial in the Cleveland Plain
Dealer, November 10, 1911.
5 Speech of Judge Dennis Dwyer, printed
in Proceedings and Debates, I, 24.
6 Statement of H. R. Mengert,
correspondent for the Cincinnati Enquirer, quoted
by Cox, Journey Through My Years, 123.
18 Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
predominated with forty-six members,
seven of whom played an
outstanding part. Farmers were the next
largest occupational group
with twenty-five. Adopting generally a
middle-of-the-road position,
they acted as a balance wheel. Bankers
and businessmen numbered
fourteen. Ten delegates were drawn from
the ranks of labor, four
of whom were prominent throughout the
proceedings. The pro-
fessions outside of law were well
represented: six educators, two
editors, four ministers, and four
physicians. Particularly influential
in this group were Presidents Simeon D.
Fess of Antioch College
and George H. Colton of Hiram,
Professors George W. Knight of
Ohio State University and Henry W.
Elson of Ohio University, and
Herbert Bigelow. The nine remaining
members represented mis-
cellaneous occupations.7
By national affiliations the Democrats
predominated with sixty-
five, followed by forty-eight
Republicans, three Independents, and
three Socialists, but party alignments
were obliterated on roll calls.
The real division was between
conservatives and progressives, be-
tween "those," in the words
of Macaulay, "who cling to the
past, distrusting change; and those who
instinctively challenge
precedent."8 Conservatives
felt their numerical disadvantage. One
wrote in retrospect, "An
enthusiastic reformer with a brand new
banner of many colors always got a
hearing, and a loyal veteran
with the 'old flag' did well to keep it
still afloat."9 Another delegate
more accurately described the
convention "as a body of progressives
possessing some conservative
tendencies."10
The assembly gave immediate proof of
this temper in the selection
of officers. The radical Bigelow was
elected president after a stiff
fight; the moderate Simeon D. Fess, a
born compromiser, was chosen
vice president; and the post of
secretary went to Charles B. Gal-
breath, a Republican and former state
librarian. In the organization
of the assembly the progressives
compromised with the conservatives,
7 The
name, address, and occupation of each delegate is listed in the Journal,
921-922.
8 Quoted by Herbert Bigelow in remarks
on the constitutional convention, printed
in Mercer, Ohio Legislative History, I,
410.
9 Remarks on the constitutional
convention by E. L. Lampson, printed in ibid.,
I, 420.
10 Antrim, "The Ohio Constitutional
Convention," 1426.
Ohio's Constitutional Convention of
1912 19
extending the number and scope of
committees to meet the latter's
views and fairly sharing committee
assignments. Bigelow, whom the
convention reluctantly permitted to
discharge this delicate duty,
acquitted himself well. For example, he
placed on the initiative-and-
referendum committee some of its most
militant opponents as well
as friends, and he made a fair division
of the chairmanships of the
most important ones, the conservatives
and moderates receiving
three to the progressives' seven.
During the first two months the
delegates spent long hours
listening to the speeches of visiting
dignitaries. Since it was an
election year, potential presidential
candidates were eager to talk.
So long was the list of speakers that
one wag proposed that the
official title of the convention be
changed to the "oratorical as-
sembly."11 The conservative to
reactionary point of view was pre-
sented by an ex-senator from Ohio,
Joseph B. Foraker, an Old Guard
Republican, and by Governor Judson
Harmon, who in voicing his
conscientious scruples against the
initiative and referendum virtually
read himself out of the Democratic
presidential race. The most
eloquent speakers for the progressive
cause were Hiram Johnson,
William Jennings Bryan, and Theodore
Roosevelt. It was a fateful
day for the ex-president. To a group of
his partisans he announced
that "on Monday next--to use his
own language, he . . . [would]
'throw his hat into the ring and
continue the bout until he is either
declared the winner or takes the
count.'"12 Yet by reiterating in his
address his proposal for the popular
review of judicial decisions, an
heretical opinion in the eyes of
conservative Republicans, he had
disastrously jeopardized his chance of
receiving the party's nomi-
nation.
The appearance of these men cast the
national spotlight on the
convention, but they were not the only
reason for the strong public
interest in the proceedings. Both the
county weeklies and metro-
politan dailies of Ohio extensively
reported the debates; Saturday
night meetings became popular in some
of the towns, people of all
11 Ohio State Journal, February
23, 1912; Proceedings and Debates, I, 416.
12 A. L. Garford to E. W. Sims, February
22, 1912. Garford Collection, Ohio State
Archaeological and Historical Society
Library.
20
Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
classes gathering to discuss the issues
argued before the convention
during the preceding week. Whatever
else it accomplished, the
constitutional assembly was of great
educational value. Not only
in the newspapers at home but in the
national weeklies and scholarly
journals the work of the convention was
reported with absorbing
interest. Special articles were penned
by four delegates.13 Practical
legislators and reformers were eager to
observe how Ohio dealt
with the leading progressive issues of
the day.
Press reports and the pages of the
official transcript disclose that
the work of the convention was
conducted on a high plane. Com-
mittees were diligent in collecting and
sifting evidence; floor man-
agers were well informed on the history
of their particular pro-
posals, their adoption by other states,
and argued cogently the prin-
ciples involved; the convention debates
were generally of superior
quality. Although emotional arguments
inevitably crept in, rancor
seldom marred the proceedings. The most
highly charged issue,
the licensing of saloons, was disposed
of first. Later, however, the
specter of the liquor question rose
again to becloud the debate on
woman suffrage and municipal home rule.
Still the bulk of the
amendments were considered on their
merits. The character of the
convention proceedings, the spirit of
compromise which prevailed,
can best be illustrated by a few
examples.
Drafting an initiative-and-referendum
amendment consumed the
longest time of any proposal, and next
to the liquor issue, aroused
the greatest intensity.14 In
the expectation of compromise the pro-
gressives advanced their most radical
proposal first. Introduced by
Robert Crosser, a leading advocate,
this initial draft specified a fixed
number of signatures on petitions with
no requirement for geo-
graphical distribution over the state,
and provided for the direct
as well as the indirect initiative.
Opponents, convinced that they
lacked the votes to defeat an
initiative and referendum amendment
outright, sought to surround these
processes with "safeguards" to
make them as innocuous as possible.
This appeal for protective
13 For titles, see footnote 2.
14 The
initiative and referendum were no novelties, having been adopted by eleven
states to 1912.
Ohio's Constitutional Convention of
1912 21
devices was also attractive to the
moderates. Before the measure
reached the floor, the progressives had
begun to yield ground. A
compromise was agreed upon providing
for a percentage system of
signatures and specifying that the
names had to be obtained from
half of the counties of the state equal
in number to half of the
percentage requirements.
The debate occupied most of the
remainder of the month. Friends
of the reform argued that the people of
Ohio had lost faith in
representative government because of
the corruption and irrespon-
sibility of the legislature and were
determined to have a larger
direct share in policy determination by
means of the initiative and
referendum. Opponents, in addition to
making frontal attacks,
raised the bogey of the single tax,
seeking to discredit the proposal
by linking it with this radical
doctrine. This was easy to do because
of the publicized activities of the
Fels Fund in financing campaigns
for the initiative as a device to
introduce the single tax. One of the
conservatives proposed to prohibit its
use to initiate either a law
or a constitutional amendment imposing
Henry George's reform
on Ohio. The presentation of this
proposition created a near crisis
when Bigelow tried to stave it off by
ruling that a motion had carried
to recess the convention despite the
clamor for "vote," "division,"
on the question. As the president left
the chair, shouts for "Vice
President Fess" brought that
officer to the rostrum; Bigelow's ruling
on the recess motion was overruled; and
the hostile amendment was
submitted for discussion. Although
Bigelow apologized the next day,
the episode continued to rankle with
his opponents.15
As the debate dragged on, it became apparent
that general senti-
ment was not sympathetic to the low
percentages proposed or to
the direct initiative. On March 26
Bigelow appointed a special
committee to redraft the proposal in
order to meet many of the ob-
jections raised in debate. The
following day this revision was pre-
sented and ably explained by John R.
Cassidy of Bellefontaine.
In his major oratorical effort at the
convention Bigelow supported
the work of the committee. His speech
had the quality of a sermon.
Garnishing his arguments with vivid,
emotional language, parables,
15 Proceedings and Debates, I, 807-808,
810.
22 Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
and Biblical quotations, he insisted
that the initiative and referendum
was necessary, first for the sake of
the representative, to protect him
from temptation; and, secondly, it was
needed for the good of the
people, their education in democracy.
"Oh! my friends," he con-
cluded, "we are striking down
tyranny. We are forging the greatest
tools democracy ever had. We are
building grander institutions for
freedom and for humanity than the world
has ever known. We are
engaged not only in an important civic
work. Our task is a pro-
foundly religious one."16
This burst of oratory carried the
initiative and referendum across
the line, the convention voting 97 to
15 to accept the Cassidy amend-
ment. Before the final vote further
changes were made. Though
Bigelow rejoiced at the culmination of
a fifteen-year fight, Crosser
was disgruntled by the results, for the
radicals had to give ground
on every controversial point: the
percentage figures were higher
than they had proposed, the direct
initiative for laws was eliminated,
and the use of the device was
prohibited for proposing laws enact-
ing classification of property or the
single tax.17 Bigelow defended
this last provision to his friends,
assuring them that it would not
interfere with the adoption of land-tax
reform whenever public
opinion was ready, since the path had
been left clear for changes
by constitutional amendment.
Another issue of a similarly
controversial nature was judicial
reform. Members of the state bar,
progressives, and labor groups
had long been demanding that the court
structure and certain pro-
cedures be revamped, though not always
in the same fashion nor
for the same reasons. Judge Hiram Peck
took charge of the major pro-
posal to reconstruct the state courts,
a happy choice from the pro-
gressives' standpoint, for he possessed
an intimate knowledge of the
faults and virtues of the existing
system and favored radical change.
The Peck amendment proposed to replace
the "antiquated and
16 Ibid., I, 942.
17 For
the text of the amendment on final passage, see ibid., II, 1941-1943.
The
percentages were: on the indirect
initiation of laws, three percent to obtain con-
sideration by the legislature and
another three percent to present the bill to the people
should the general assembly amend it or
fail to act, ten percent for the direct initiation
of constitutional amendments, and six
percent for the referendum of laws.
Ohio's Constitutional Convention of
1912 23
cumbersome" Ohio judicial
organization with a new setup which
would shorten judicial proceedings in
most cases to one trial and
one review, eliminating the expense of
long delays and two appeals,
and the overcrowding of the supreme
court docket.
While most delegates conceded the
necessity for this reform,
conservatives spiritedly protested a
second part of the Peck pro-
posal. This would have required a
unanimous vote of the supreme
court to declare an act of the
legislature unconstitutional except in
affirming a decision of the court of
appeals holding a law void, in
which case a majority was sufficient.
It was attacked by Judge
William Worthington, a fellow delegate
from Cincinnati, as a
revolutionary reversal of an historic
American judicial tradition;
others who clung to the old ways shared
his resentment.18 Yet the
feeling among the majority was strong
that some curb should be
placed on the power of the courts to
interfere with the legislature.19
Although one extremist would have gone
further than Peck-
abolishing judicial review
altogether-others regarded the unanimity
requirement as too exacting.20 After
a week of debate an amend-
ment was offered to require the
concurrence of all but one judge.
In this form the proposal passed.
A third reform which was warmly
contested was municipal home
rule. As was the case with the
initiative-and-referendum proposal,
much of the preliminary work of
formulating the amendment was
done before it reached the floor of the
convention. Cleveland pro-
gressives took the lead in preparing a
draft, which was first approved
by a convention of representatives from
one hundred and eight-three
Ohio municipalities who met in Columbus
January 23 to 25 before
it was presented to the constitutional
convention. There it was re-
ferred to the municipal-government
committee. The committee
chairman, George W. Harris of
Cincinnati, was hostile to the Cleve-
land draft. Lobbyists of the
public-service corporations tried to
18 Ibid., I,
1047-1048. It was also opposed by Judge Edmund B. King and George
W. Harris. Ibid., II, 1107-1113.
19 Speeches in favor of curbing the
power of the courts to interfere with the legis-
lature were made by D. F. Anderson, J. A. Caldwell, J.
M. Earnhart, George A. Knight,
S. A. Hoskins, and Simeon Fess. Ibid., II,
1088-1130.
20 This
was favored by Harry Thomas, although he also supported the Peck pro-
posal. Ibid., II, 1147, 1163.
24 Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
impair the ability of cities to finance
municipal utilities. Newton
Baker, who was frequently called to
Columbus, did his most effec-
tive work in the hearings before this
committee in preserving as much
of the original plan as possible.
Through his knowledge of the
subject and his tact in presenting his
arguments he won confidence
for his ideas. Still he had to yield on
freedom in financial affairs,
conceding the authority of the general
assembly to limit the power
of municipalities to tax and incur
debts.
Late in April the convention began a
two-day debate on the
amendment. Professor George Knight, a
member of the committee,
expressed the three aims of the
proposal: to allow a diversity of
charters and thus enable Ohio cities to
have the form of govern-
ment they desired; to give
municipalities all powers not specifically
denied them, reversing the existing
condition whereby they pos-
sessed only such authority as the
legislature granted them; and to
permit cities to construct, own, and
operate all public utilities
serving the municipality.21
Opposition stemmed from four sources.
Rural members looked askance at the
measure as a plot by the cities
to free themselves from all state
regulation.22 "Drys," on the one
hand, were suspicious because it tended
to break down state liquor
control. "Wets," on the
other, were annoyed because it did not give
cities complete freedom in the matter.23
But the chief assault came
from
spokesmen for the public-service corporations who argued
that the amendment threatened to
destroy their interests by failing
to restrain unfair competition by
municipally owned utilities. Their
argument carried some weight until they
overplayed their hand by
proposing an amendment which would
practically have nullified
the municipal ownership provisions.
This the convention rejected
by a large majority and refused to
reconsider. The home-rule pro-
posal passed with an insignificant
opposition vote.
The most radical and one of the most
controversial labor amend-
ments proposed was one to permit the
general assembly to fix mini-
21 Ibid., II,
1433.
22 See speech and proposed revision
presented by James Halfhill, a conservative
lawyer from Lima, who frequently
expressed the rural viewpoint. Ibid., II, 1463-1475.
23 D. F. Anderson raised what a radical home ruler called the "bugaboo
of Wet
vs. Dry." Ibid., II,
1463-1475.
Ohio's Constitutional Convention of 1912 25
mum wages as well as set maximum hours
and to provide for the
health, safety, and general welfare of
all employees. Thomas S.
Farrell, listed as a Cleveland waiter,
who introduced the measure,
declared he had once opposed such
legislation but had been con-
verted to the legislative approach by
the failure of trade-union
methods to establish minimums and by
the writings of Sidney and
Beatrice Webb, whom he quoted.24 The
most forceful defense came
from the moderate conservative Judge
Dennis Dwyer, who stated
that this was a proper exercise of the
state's police power and was
as socially desirable as fixing maximum
interest rates. When ques-
tioned as to the necessity for the
amendment, he insisted on a posi-
tive grant of power to forestall an
unfavorable court decision.25
Although a conservative manufacturer
argued that a minimum wage
would be ruinous to Ohio industry and
the radical George W. Harris
branded it "economic
insanity," the proposal passed by an over-
whelming majority.26
Altogether the convention approved
forty-two amendments. The
decision to submit separate amendments
instead of a general re-
vision presented as a unit was reached
near the outset. The telling
arguments were two: the gloomy
precedent of 1874 when the Ohio
electorate voted down a newly revamped
constitution, and the popu-
lar sentiment that the document of 1851
needed only tinkering not
radical revision. The list included many
of the progressives' prin-
cipal demands. Some were of a
legislative nature but were given
constitutional status because the
general assembly had refused to
act or the supreme court had handed
down an adverse opinion or
threatened to do so.27
One category embraced reforms designed
to strengthen and extend
democratic controls: the direct-primary
system of nominating elec-
24 Ibid., II,
1328-1332.
25 Ibid., II, 1332-1336.
26 Ibid., II, 1332-1338.
27 For
example, the legislature had refused to establish a state-wide direct-primary
system or state civil service. The Ohio
Supreme Court had held unconstitutional the use
of voting machines, mechanics' and
builders' lien laws, and the eight-hour day on
public works. Labor wanted a mandatory
workmen's compensation provision for fear
the courts would find such a statute
unconstitutional without an express grant of
power in the fundamental law.
26
Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
tive officers, voting machines, woman
suffrage, simplification of the
regular amending procedure, as well as
the initiative and referendum
and municipal home rule. A
civil-service system was made manda-
tory in order to increase the
efficiency of administration. In addi-
tion to the judicial reforms previously
mentioned other substantive
and procedural changes were adopted.
One amendment proposed
to alter the jury system in civil cases
by authorizing a three-fourths
instead of a unanimous verdict of the
jurors; another directed the
legislature to prescribe the size of
the grand jury, the number
necessary to concur in an indictment,
and modified criminal pro-
cedure in other respects; a third
empowered the general assembly
to regulate the use of expert
witnesses; a fourth proposed to abolish
capital punishment; and a fifth
modified equity procedures by curb-
ing the use of the writ of injunction
in labor disputes and providing
for a jury trial for contempt committed
elsewhere than before the
court.
In a fourth category were proposals to
regulate business, such
as the strengthening of legislative
control over the entire banking
system, the sale of securities, and the
regulation of insurance rates;
the imposing of double liability on
bank stockholders; and the pro-
hibiting of outdoor advertising.
Classification of property for tax
purposes, which urban businessmen and
progressives favored, was
defeated, but the legislature was given
a specific grant to levy
income, inheritance, excise, and
franchise taxes, as well as to assess
the production of oil, coal, gas, and
other mineral deposits.
Labor received a constitutional
guarantee of some of its most
insistent demands: compulsory workmen's
compensation, mechanics'
and builders' lien laws, the eight-hour
day on public works, and the
abolition of prison contract labor.
Finally, three general-welfare
amendments were approved. An education
proposal vested in the
general assembly power over the schools
while permitting each
urban school district limited home
rule. Another recommended a
state bond issue to finance good roads.
The third, a comprehensive
conservation measure, conferred
authority on the legislature to en-
courage reforestation, protect lakes
and streams, control water
power, and regulate the mining,
weighing, and marketing of coal,
Ohio's Constitutional Convention of
1912 27
oil, gas, and other minerals.28
Impressive as these gains were, it was
not the extremists but the
moderate progressives who had
triumphed. Not only had individual
amendments been watered down to gain
approval but certain radi-
cal proposals had been defeated. Among
the casualties in the con-
vention were the recall of officials,
the short ballot, the elimination
of judicial review, and a specific
guarantee of the right of labor to
organize and strike.
In the campaign for ratification
friends of the amendments pos-
sessed certain advantages. The
convention approved the distribution
to every voter of the state of a
pamphlet listing the short title and
full text of each amendment, followed
by a brief explanation of its
purport. With certain exceptions the
delegates favored the work
they had done and spoke on behalf of
the proposals. Bigelow formed
the New Constitution League to educate
the public on the initiative
and referendum as well as to urge the
adoption of all the amend-
ments. The convention's handiwork
received the blanket endorse-
ment of the state Democratic convention
and of the Roosevelt
Progressives. Because of the generous
treatment granted working-
men, union labor and Socialists were
enthusiastic advocates. The
character of the men who stumped the
state endorsing the amend-
ments inspired confidence: James M.
Cox, the Democratic nominee
for governor; Mayors Baker, Whitlock,
and Henry Hunt of Cin-
cinnati; and Herbert Bigelow, then at
the height of his popularity.
Important work for the cause was done
locally by several of the
Roosevelt Progressives: John Fackler of
Cleveland, Judge R. M.
Wanamaker of Akron, and Washington
Gladden in Columbus.
Strong press support existed in
Cleveland, Dayton, and Toledo,
though only the Scripps-McRae papers
were favorable to the pro-
posals in Columbus and Cincinnati.
Overt opposition did not arise until
late in the campaign. Ap-
pearing under an anonymous guise, it
was led by Allen Ripley
Foote, president of the Ohio State
Board of Commerce, and sup-
ported by the public utilities. The
opposition's tactics were not to
28 This
is not a complete list of all the amendments proposed. Minor, non-con-
troversial proposals have been omitted.
28
Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
employ speakers and hold public forums
but first to deluge the
rural press with
"boilerplate" articles crassly attacking the work
of the convention. When the editors
balked at publishing this ma-
terial because their readers protested
against its distortion and out-
right falsification, these opponents
turned as a final resort to pamph-
lets and dodgers, tons of which were
circulated.
As the campaign came to a close, the
Ohio State Board of
Commerce spread the word, "When in
doubt, vote no."29 This
slogan was turned into a boomerang when
friends of constitutional
change urged everyone when in doubt to
vote yes. The question
then became, wrote a Cleveland
Leader correspondent, whether those
in doubt should follow the advice of
Allen R. Foote, the voice of
the special interests, or that of such
men as Washington Gladden
and President William O. Thompson of
Ohio State University,
who pointed out that the amendments
were the product of five
months of diligent work by a
nonpartisan body and merited the
confidence of the voters.30
The day after Labor Day, September 3,
was selected for the
election to permit labor orators to
make a last minute appeal to
workingmen. Despite the warm, sunny
weather, favorable to a
record ballot, the voting was light as
had been predicted. The voters
were more absorbed in the
three-cornered presidential race than
in changes to their fundamental law.
The woman-suffrage amend-
ment polled the highest, 586,295, or
63.4 percent of the vote for
governor in 1910; the liquor-license
proposal the lowest, 462,186,
or 50 percent.
Although there was no marked difference
in the size of the poll
between urban and rural areas,
geography was significant in the
distribution of the vote for and
against the amendments. In the
twelve principal urban counties the
city population favored almost
every one and, in the aggregate,
approved of all except woman
suffrage and voting machines.
Columbiana, Lucas, and Summit
29 Allen
R. Foote to the members of the Ohio State Board of Commerce, August 20,
1912. Uncataloged material on the Ohio
Constitution of 1912, Western Reserve His-
torical Society Library. See also the Cleveland
Leader, September 1, 1912.
30 Ibid., September 1, 1912. See
also open letter signed by Gladden and Thompson
containing the motto, "When in
doubt, vote yes," published in the Ohio State Journal,
August 15, 1912.
Ohio's Constitutional Convention of 1912 29
actually supported every amendment. The
northern cities were more
consistently and decisively committed
to change than the southern
ones, and spread their influence to
adjacent counties where the rural
population voted generally as did
Cleveland, Akron, Youngstown,
Canton, and Toledo. In striking
contrast is the poll in rural counties
farthest away from the influence of the
northern progressive cities.
Seven voted no on every amendment, nine
others opposed all except
the licensing of saloons. Had it not
been for the heavy favorable
vote in the twelve urban counties,
nineteen of the amendments
which passed would have failed.
Of the forty-two submitted, the
electorate rejected eight. Among
them were woman suffrage, the abolition
of capital punishment,
modification of injunction procedures,
voting machines, and elimi-
nation of the word "white"
from the suffrage clause to make it
conform to the fifteenth amendment of
the federal constitution.31
A spokesman of the conservatives,
Daniel J. Ryan, expressed the
outrage felt by his side at the
outcome. He condemned the direct-
legislation and labor-welfare measures
as "vicious and revolu-
tionary," gloomily prophesying
that they were "part of a plan
adroitly consummated ... to strike a
fatal blow at the stable property
and business interests of Ohio."
Furthermore, he alleged that these
"socialistic" amendments had
been railroaded through and that the
vote did not reflect the sensible,
mature judgment of a naturally
conservative state.32
Despite such allegations, Ohio's desire
to be progressive was not
the result of any sinister plot.
Through the able discussions in the
press and public forums all of the
electorate had had an oppor-
tunity to be informed, and in the
opinion of many observers were
well briefed in those amendments which
conservatives found most
objectionable.33 Moreover,
the radical workingmen's vote had no
disproportionate effect on the outcome,
as conservatives contended.
31 The other three amendments defeated
were concerned with the eligibility of
women for certain offices, the
regulation of outdoor advertising, and a bond issue for
good roads.
32 Ryan, "The Influence of
Socialism on the Ohio Constitution," 667.
33 This was the opinion of leading
newspaper correspondents and also of Charles
Sawyer of Cincinnati in his article,
"The Ohio Constitution. A Reply and a Re-
joinder," 275-279.
30
Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
Several papers commented on the light
poll in the labor and
Socialist wards in Columbus,
Cincinnati, Dayton, Springfield, and
Toledo. The leftward swing of the
pendulum was a product of the
times, a product of the same forces
which had produced the victory
of the progressive Wilsonian wing of
the Democratic party and the
splintering of the Republicans when the
Roosevelt Progressives
broke off rather than submit to
conservative domination. The psy-
chological climate was right for
reform.
What conclusions can be drawn from
Ohio's experience in con-
stitution-making in 1912 which might
profitably serve us on the
eve of the present call. It points up
some of the advantages of the
convention method. The constitutional
assembly of 1912 was com-
posed of men representative of a
variety of occupations and of a
caliber well above that of the average
legislative body. It reflected
the opinion of the state on the major
issues of the day in fair pro-
portion. It was not dominated by
selfish pressure groups of either
the extreme left or the extreme right.
Moderate progressives, im-
bued with the spirit of compromise and
committed to the public
interest, controlled. Committee
hearings and debates permitted the
presentation of varying points of view
on each issue and full dis-
cussion. The proceedings, which were
well publicized in the daily
press, in a series of magazine
articles, as well as in the ratification
campaign, stimulated thinking among the
electorate and contributed
to their political education. Finally,
each citizen was assured the
opportunity, at least, of understanding
the pros and cons of the
changes presented.
Another point which this experience
underscores is the necessity
of agreement on objectives. If a
convention call is to succeed, it is
not sufficient to urge people to vote
for a vague, general revision.
They respond best when convinced of the
need for specific change.
Furthermore, the nomination of
delegates should be nonpartisan in
spirit as well as in form, and the
campaign to elect them should be
centered on issues rather than
personalities.
Are there objectives today comparable
in importance to those
which aroused Ohio to action in
1910-12? Partisans of a consti-
tutional call have already presented
some fundamental problems
Ohio's Constitutional Convention of
1912 31
worthy of consideration. There is the
serious need to increase the
efficiency of the executive branch by
reducing the number of elective
officers and concentrating greater
responsibility in the governor.
Court procedures again need simplifying
and strengthening. Many
feel that the present system of
selecting judges could be improved
by the adoption of the California or
Missouri plan. Reapportion-
ment of the seats in the general
assembly and the larger issue of
bicameralism versus unicameralism are
other critical problems. A
fourth major question is municipal home
rule. What is desired is a
redrafting of the home-rule amendment
to restore the original
spirit and intent of the framers and to
permit cities to exercise more
control over their own fiscal
affairs.34
Were a convention to be called to
consider these basic demands,
it could also profitably extend its
attentions to a general overhaul
of the constitution, to changes of a
housekeeping nature which the
men of 1912 ignored. The present
document, written one hundred
years ago, could be reduced in length
by deleting provisions that are
obsolete or of a statutory nature,
clarified in wording, and rearranged
in a logically consistent pattern. The
purpose would be to increase
its flexibility and to eliminate costly
litigation to which these in-
adequacies give rise.
It is an axiom of democracy that good
government is best con-
served by keeping political
institutions abreast of new conditions
in the economy and society. With
democratic rule under attack the
world over it behooves us to show by
example that our faith in free
inquiry-in free discussion of our
methods and techniques-is un-
dimmed, and that democratic government
can be strengthened to
meet the new demands made upon it. Let
Ohio once more bespeak
its democratic faith as it did in 1912
and join the vanguard of pro-
gressive states.
34 These
were some of the important issues discussed at a meeting held in Columbus
on April 28, 1951, sponsored by the
Citizens Committee on the Ohio Constitution and
the League of Women Voters. For a brief
report of the meeting, see the Cleveland
Plain Dealer, April 29, 1951. These points are also emphasized in the
Report of the
Committee on Revision of the Ohio State
Constitution, Social Science Section, Ohio
College Association, adopted April 9,
1948. This is a very useful summary of the
need for constitutional changes. The
most forceful arguments for unicameralism have
been presented by William H. Hessler, Ohio
Needs a New Legislature, a pamphlet
reprinting five articles which first
appeared in the Cincinnati Enquirer, June 30-
July 4, 1947.