SAMUEL M. JONES TOLEDO'S. | NON-PARTISAN MOVEMENT By WENDELL F. JOHNSON, M.A. —— eee PRESS OF THE H. J. CHITTENDEN CO. TOLEDO, OHIO a teal PREFACE This study of Toledo’s Non-Partisan Movement was made in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the University of the City of Toledo. Because it contained a brief account of what has been the most interesting period of Toledo’s munici- pal history, and for the further reason that it concerned a subject that is still in controversy, not only in Toledo but elsewhere, a number of persons who read the study urged that it be made available to the general public in the form of a small booklet. With the assistance, there- fore, of several interested friends the author has under- taken to publish this monograph. Source material for the study was largely found in current newspaper accounts of the events herein narrated. Much of the material from this source was taken from a very complete collection of newspaper clippings loaned to the author for the purpose by Mr. Johnson Thurston. Owing to the fact that the history goes back only about twenty-five years, it was possible to supplement this material by interviewing men who were participants in or observers of the movement. Among those were Mr. William Roche, Mr. N. D. Cochran, Mr. John B. Merrell, Mr. Frank Geer, Mr. Lucas J. Beecher, Mr. Charles F. Weiler, Mr. John W. Dowd. Certain other facts were gleaned from “Forty Years of It’, by Hon. Brand Whitlock. To the men above mentioned the author is indebted for the material on which the study was based. The more recent events, particularly those occurring since the adoption of the new city charter, came under the author’s personal observation, as secretary of the mu- nicipal Commission of Publicity and Efficiency. For advice in analyzing and organizing the material gathered, the author is grateful to Dr. O. Garfield Jones, professor of Political Science in the University of the City of Toledo, and Dr. W. M. Leiserson, who formerly occu- pied that chair. Valuable suggestions as to the presenta- tion of the facts were given by Professor E. E. Troxell of the Department of Journalism of the University. WENDELL F. JOHNSON. 5 FOREWORD Spa, Belgium, September, 1922. Wendell Johnson, Esgq,., Toledo, Ohio. My Dear Mr. Johnson: I have read, with the interest the subiect could not fail to have for me, your narrative of the non- partisan political movement in Toledo, the manu- script of which you so kindly sent me. I congratulate you on the manner in which you have accomplished your task; the story is told with a sincerity and a simple directness that render it very clear. And you have resisted a temptation, which might have assailed any writer, to treat more extensively and perhaps more imaginatively the dra- matic and emotional elements of what was one of the most significant political phenomena of an epoch in which, in our country, and especially in our state, important experiments in municipal government and communal life were being made. Your method is the correct one since you have gone to the original sources for your material; that is the proper basis for any historical study, however slight. The facts, or those that relate to the period when I was connected with that movement, seemed to be accurately reported; as to certain incidents of the movements’ latter phase, and as to certain criti- cisms of persons, I am not competent to speak, for all that happened after I had gone abroad. I have no doubt that others that bore a part in the labors of those past times would be as much interested in a perusal of your pages as I have been and _ they wculd, I fancy, be grateful to you if you were to carry out your intention of publishing them and I wish you every possible success. Yours very sincerely, oe 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Foreworp BY BRAND W HITLOCK....-.---:-0---eeeeeseeeeeererereeeet 6 CHAPTER I. A Twenty-Year Experiment..........-------------+ 9 Il. “Golden Rule” Jomes..............--------:--sceeeeeerees il Ill. The Independents Orgamnize..........-.--------- 19 IV. Methods of the Independents.............-------+- 33 V. Under a Non-Partisan Charter..........---.-------- 37 VI. The Party System and Its Results...............- 51 VII. Achievements of the Non-Partisan Move- NOE REY Se Lee nL Penne een oo 55 VITI. What Is Ahead ?........-...---.0-c-ccccescencesneeesetsceenennese 59 APPENDIX Report of Republican Advisory Commiittee.........-----<- 64 Toledo Blade Comments on Repott.......-.------:-:---+- 66 Executive Committee’s Reply........------------:seseeeeeeeeeeeceeee 66 Toledo Blade on “Demopendent Defeat’’..............-------- 68 Rules of Procedure Followed by Independents............ 69 Platforms of the Independent Campaigns.............------ 70 Mathods of Machine Comte oii: wcccask creme ctecatenre acca ne- 71 aK ¥ ‘* al > . . ’ be . ri . ts ‘ +) ie ° ‘| —" as i ai, , 4 : P bY a 4 a j ’ ‘4 ‘ly : mere i : a ey ‘ Ls A - QU, we lal = wae CHAPTER I A TWENTY-YEAR EXPERIMENT In the thirty years or more that have elapsed since the wave of municipal reform first gained impetus in America, the cities of this country have been veritable laboratories in which numerous theories of municipal practice have been tested. Now, after these years of experimentation, students of municipal science are be- ginning to inquire as to the results of those tests. One of the most interesting theories upon which many cities have experimented is that of non-partisan elec- tions. Thirty years ago it was the rule to conduct city, as well as state and national elections, along national party lines. Today several of the large cities, such as Boston, Detroit and Cleveland, and numerous cities of ‘Toledo’s size and smaller, are using the non-partisan method. James Bryce, writing his “American Commonwealth,” in 1888, said this about partisan elections in Americar cities : “At present the disposition to run and vote for can- didates according to party is practically universal, al- though the duty of party loyalty is deemed less binding than in State or Federal elections. When both the great parties put forward questionable men, a_non- partisan list, or so-called ‘Citizens’ Ticket’ may be run by a combination of respectable men of both parties. Sometimes this attempt succeeds. However, though the tenets of Republicans and Democrats have absolutely nothing to do with the conduct of city affairs, though the sole object of the election, say, of a comptroller or auditor, may be to find an honest man of good business habits, four-fifths of the electors in nearly all cities give little thought to the personal qualifications of candidates, and vote the ‘straight-out’ ticket.” Toledo, Ohio, the subject of this study, was at that time a typical example of the cities described by Bryce. 9 It was ten years later, 1899 to be exact, that Toledo first elected a mayor running independent of the parties. But with that election the people of this city started a course of education in non-partisan city government which has been in progress ever since. Probably in no other American city has the non- partisan idea been more thoroughly tested. Toledo first tried it out under the old system of party tickets, when it was in direct competition with the national parties. This experiment was followed by the adoption of the non-partisan ballot, by which the idea received official recognition. Four elections have been held under the new system. Considering both phases of the experiment, it may be said that since the first plunge, in 1899, the development of the non-partisan idea in this city has been continuous. It is this fact which gives particular value to a study of Toledo’s experience. What conditions gave rise to the non-partisan move- ment in Toledo? What has been the character of that movement? What has it accomplished? Wherein did it fail of its objectives? These are the questions which this paper will attempt to answer. 10 CHAPTER Il “GOLDEN RULE JONES” The non-partisan movement in Toledo originated with Samuel M. Jones. Jones had made a success in the oil business in Ohio and later as a manufacturer of oil well supplies in Toledo. He was a “self-made man’, who had forged his way upward by sheer merit. He was a man of strong personality, with considerable inventive genius and a good deal of business ability. With this, however, he was possessed of broad, human sympathy, and it was his views on the labor question that first brought him into prominence in Toledo. His factory came to be known as the “Golden Rule” Factory, for he endeavored to follow the Golden Rule in its manage- ment. His first entry into politics came in the spring of 1897, when to settle a deadlock between several warring party factions, he was brought forward as a dark horse candidate in the Republican city convention, and was nominated for mayor. He ran as the candidate of the Republican party and was elected by a plurality of only 534 votes over Parks Hone, the Democratic candidate. During his first term as mayor, it became evident to the party leaders that Jones was undesirable. In fact it was early in his administration that Jones broke with “the organization” as the party leaders called the con- trolling group. Immediately after he became mayor those leaders began to give him instructions concerning appointments. They gave him a list of persons who had worked in the campaign and who they thought should be given city jobs. Mayor Jones was slow about acting on those instructions, and was inclined to inquire into the merits of the existing occupants of the positions before displacing them. The party leaders became impatient and informed hint 11 that they had nominated and elected him and that there- fore he should respect their wishes in such matters. He replied that they had nominated him but that the people of the city had elected him and that the voters of the city were the ones to whom he owed obedience. There- after he refused to make any appointments at their behest, and began to prepare for a fight at the next election. He was still a loyal Republican and had no thought of withdrawing from the party. His idea was to reform it from within. But preparations for the coming fight were also begun by the party leaders. The newspapers were induced to aid them and during the remainder of Mayor Jones’ first term it was their policy not to mention his name. The organization tried to manipulate the party primary at which delegates were elected to the city convention. Men who were thought to be Jones followers were denied the right to vote and force was necessary in some cases before those men were permitted to enter the booths. A new rule was inaugurated to the effect that no persons other than delegates would be admitted to the convention except by ticket issued by the central committee. The convention was held in Memorial Hall. Jones’ secretary, Reynolds Voit, was managing his campaign. He rallied together a party of loyal Jones men, who marched to the hall and forced an entrance by tearing the doors off their hinges. Police, stationed at the doors, were powerless. There was no other demonstration of violence, but Jones was assured a sympathetic lobby. The convention was opened and voting upon the mayoralty candidate was begun. There were 251 dele- gates present out of a total of 253. The first ballot showed 126 votes for Jones and 125 for Charles E. Russell, the machine’s nominee. Chairman T. P. Brown declared that another ballot would be necessary since 126 votes was not a majority of the total number of accredited delegates, although it was a majority of the delegates present. 12 Before another ballot was taken, several of the Jones delegates were “seen”. A reporter who was present, a man who may be trusted as a reliable witness, says that he saw several of those delegates being bought. At any rate the next ballot showed a sufficient majority for Russell, and he was declared nominated. Jones immediately mounted the platform, amid a storm of mingled jeers and applause, and asked to be heard. Backed by his supporters he was able to get a hearing. He made a brief statement in which he announced that he would not accept the decision of the convention and would appeal to the people as a non-partisan candidate. He prepared a written explanation of his position and took it to the newspapers to print. When they refused it as news he offered it as a paid advertisement. They refused to accept it even on that basis. One German language newspaper printed it as an advertisement. Undaunted, Jones had the statement printed on hand- bills and distributed them at his own expense. He then started a campaign of speeches in which he talked to workers at factories during noon hours, and made ad- dresses at neighborhood gatherings called in various parts of the city. The voters responded with enthusiasm. For several years they had been accumulating a growing discontent with the political practices of the day. They had tired of the plundering of public funds, the playing of favorit- ism by public officials, the paying of tribute to political bosses who were interested in government for revenue only. And on election day they registered that accumu- lated discontent by a tremendous vote of protest. The vote was: Jones, 16,773; Russell, 4,266; P. H. Dowling (Democratic candidate), 3,125. It should be remembered, however, that Jones was the only Independent running for office at that election. Under the system of government then in vogue in To- ledo, numerous other administrative officers were elected separately. The Republicans carried all the other offices, as had usually happened in previous years. 18 At various times during Jones’ career as mayor he was importuned by his friends to head a non-partisan ticket which would include independent candidates for the other elective offices. He always refused to do that. His answer was that if the people of a ward wished to elect an independent councilman they should do it, or if they wished to elect other independent officers they should nominate them, but that if he or any other man should make an organized attempt to elect a complete ticket, the organization would soon become a _ political party with the same methods, the same motives and the same disastrous results. Later developments showed that he was largely right. From that time forward Jones washed his hands of the political parties, and fought them at every point. He no longer sought the Republican nomination, and in 1900 when he was offered the Democratic nomination for Congress, he declined it, with the following comments: “Strange to say, in this year of 1900, with a future radiant with promise of the realization of the theories of liberty, equality and democracy, we are confronted with the theory that a select few shall possess the power to govern the many without their consent. It is a revival of the old heresy. They propose by force to govern a people who are weaker without their consent. When this gathering selects me, a man out of all parties, to repre- sent it as a candidate, then I say to you that conditions are changing’’.—-(Toledo Bee, September 21, 1900.) In 1901 he again ran as a non-partisan and was again elected, but by a smaller vote than in 1899. This year, through the influence of N. D. Cochran, editor of the Democratic paper, the Toledo Bee, the bulk of the Democrats voted for Jones. Their endorsement may have been a liability. At any rate he received only 12,576 votes against 9,433 for General William V. McMaken, Republican, and 398 votes for Henry Bowers, Socialist. That Jones’ doctrine of non-partisanship in local affairs was having its effect is shown in a striking way in an editorial in the Toledo Blade, always a loyal 14 Republican paper, on September 11, 1902. It is of sufficient importance to warrant quoting: “The con- duct of the affairs of a municipality is purely a business proposition. State or national issues have nothing to do with the affairs of a city or town. What difference does it make, for instance, if the auditor or solicitor or police judge of Toledo is a sound money man or a free silver- ite, whether he believes in a tariff for revenue or in the protective system, or what his views may be on the question of trusts and taxation?’ (1) But the organization was making inroads upon the Jones following. His lenient attitude toward law break- ers, to whom he had tried to apply the Golden Rule, had brought down upon him the unanimous disfavor of the clergy, and the “moral issue’ was seized upon by his political enemies. No attack could be made upon his personal character but he was charged with making Toledo a den of iniquity and a haven for criminals. Because he refused to adopt the easy method of driving the prostitutes out of town, he laid himself open to violent denunciation from the pulpits of the city, as a friend of vice. These attacks gradually had their effect. At his fourth and last election, two years later, he (1) The editorial quoted was occasioned by a pro- posed amendment to the Nash bill providing a Municipal Code for Ohio cities—an amendment drafted by Attor- ney Harold Fraser of Toledo. The measure proposed that all nominations for municipal offices be made by petition, that party conventions be eliminated, and that names of candidates be placed on the ballot without designation as to party affiliation. Quoting further from the same editorial : “Partisanship in the conduct of municipal affairs has cost the taxpayers of the cities of Ohio thousands and millions of dollars. It is prolific of rings and cliques, of incompetent officials, of bribery and boodle. It is the bane of municipal life and there is not a scintilla of reason for it all. By entirely eliminating politics from the selection of municipal officers, it will insure a busi- ness administration of city affairs and will give the voters an opportunity of choosing their agents free from political bias.” 15 won by a still narrower margin than before. He re- ceived only 10,350 votes, while John W. Dowd, Repub- lican candidate, received 7,491; C. M. Edsen, Democratic candidate, received 4,266; and T. A. Bragg, Socialist candidate, received 538. At this 1903 election the Republicans had practically a complete victory in the other offices, the principal ex- ception being the election of Lyman Wachenheimer, a Democrat, as Police Judge. For example, U. G. Denman was elected City Solicitor over John P. Manton, by a plurality of 1,475; the Republican candidate for City Auditor received 11,375 votes, against 7,330 for the Democratic candidate; H. M. Barfield, Republican, was elected City Treasurer by a vote of 11,157 against 7,330 for his Democratic rival. Three Republican members of the Board of Public Service were elected, three Re- publicans were chosen as Councilmen-at-large, and thirteen out of sixteen Councilmen elected were Repub- licans. With this victory to their credit, the Republican lead- ers sect about to bring to a permanent defeat this one thorn in their flesh, the independently-elected Mayor. Their attack took the form of an attempt to deprive him of his control over the police department. This would have crippled him badly, for practically the only departments under the control of the Mayor were those of police and fire. By means of influence brought to bear upon the state legislature through the party organization a special law was passed which vested control of the Toledo police force in a commission appointed by the governor of Ohio.—(Whitlock, “Forty Years of It,” page 135). Mayor Jones sought legal advice and then refused to turn over control of the police to the newly-appointed commission. Application was made to the Supreme Court of the State for a writ of mandamus to compel the Mayor’s abdication. The case was heard and the writ denied. The court’s decision held invalid the law under which the commission was appointed and even 16 reversed a former decision made in a similar case brought from Cincinnati. The decision was not only a victory for Jones. It was an important victory for the doctrine of Home Rule for cities, a doctrine which Jones had espoused as a necessary preliminary to the reform of city government. Whitlock, who was one of Jones’ attorneys in the case, declares it to have been “the beginning of a conflict which did not end until it had made Ohio cities free and autonomous.” It was during this term that the struggle over the renewal of franchise grants to the street railway com- pany began. Mr. Walter F. Brown, the acknowledged leader of the Republican machine, was attorney for the company. Brown’s closest associate, Charles Nauts, another influential member of the “cabinet” of seven*, which was credited with having absolute control of the narty in Toledo, was clerk of the Council. A majority of the Councilmen had been nominated by them and owed to them their election. It was natural, therefore, that the franchise ordinance desired by the company, extending their rights for twenty-five years, easily car- ried. The ordinance was promptly vetoed by Mayor Jones. The Council then prepared to pass it over his veto. This would have been done had not a large body of citizens, aroused by an editorial in the Toledo News- Bee, gathered in the street outside the Council Chamber and registered indignant protest. The ordinance was not passed. Not long after that, on July 12, 1904, Mayor Jones died. Probably the death of no other Toledoan has affected the people so deeply—has been met with so widespread and profound sorrow. Thousands gathered in front of his home and paid respect to his memory. * This “cabinet” was composed of Walter Brown, Charles Nauts, George P. Waldorf, David T. Davies, Sam Cohn, Frank Baird and Peter Parker. Davies later withdrew from the group. 17 Brand Whitlock, one of his closest friends, and one of his chief aides in his last campaign, says this concern- ing him: “T regard it as Jones’ supreme contribution to the thought of his time that, by the mere force of his own original character and personality, he compelled a dis- cussion of fundamental principles of government. To- ledo today is a community which has a wider acquaint- ance with all the abstract principles of social relations than any other city in the land, or in the world, since, when one ventures into generalities, one might as well make them as sweeping as one can. Jones’ other great contribution to the science oi municipal government was that of non-partisanship in local affairs. That is the way he used to express it; what he meant was that the issues of national politics must not be permitted to obtrude themselves into municipal campaigns, and that what divisions there are should be confined to local issues”. 18 CHAPTER III THE INDEPENDENTS ORGANIZE With the death of Sam Jones, the non-partisan move- ment in Toledo passed into a new phase. Theretofore it had centered around a single man and had had for its only objective the election of an independent mayor. Jones had become an apostle of the non-partisan idea in city affairs and his teachings had gradually been taking effect. But it was an immediate problem that caused the movement to go forward in somewhat different form. For the street car question came up again and demanded solution. Brand Whitlock is authority for the state- ment that the stock of the street railway company went up twenty-four points the morning after Mayor Jones died. At any rate, the president of Council, who had been elected by the organization, succeeded to the mayoralty, and success for the franchise appeared to be assured. A crisis had arrived for the followers of Jones, dis- ciples of municipal reform and believers in the non- partisan idea. Something had to be done and that quickly. Elisha B. Southard seems to have taken the lead. He called to his office in the Nasby building small groups of interested men, to discuss the situation and devise means of meeting the crisis. At one of these meetings there were present, besides Southard, Wm. J. McCullagh, Frank Geer, Oren Dunham and A. E. Overmyer. At-another meeting Johnson Thurston was present, along with Southard, McCullagh, Geer and Dunham. Various plans were suggested for organizing the Independents. Finally one of them had an inspira- tion. He said, “The trouble with these plans is that they would impose good government on the people from above. Let’s find a plan by which the initiative and the 19 control will come from the people themselves. Then our system will be really democratic”. The idea was approved and it was decided to work out a plan of organization on that basis. Each man then agreed to write a personal letter to a number of his friends who could be trusted, and this larger group made up in that way held a meeting a short time later. There the plan further developed, and then a still larger company was interested in the project. The plan as perfected provided that before each city election neigh- borhood meetings would be held in the various precincts for the purpose of selecting two delegates from each precinct to a city-wide meeting at which issues would be discussed and candidates selected. ‘The project was soon launched and a simple organiza- tion was effected. The time for city elections had been changed by state law from the spring to November. When the change was made it was provided that mem- bers of the Council should be elected that fall of 1904 but that the mayor should hold over until the following year. The Independents therefore tried out their strength first in the election of councilmen. Meanwhile, the effort to have a franchise passed by the existing Council was being hastened. An ordinance renewing the franchise of the company for twenty-five years had again been introduced into Council. It was approved by a committee on October 19 and was to be reported to the Council for adoption on Monday even- ing, October 24. Through the News-Bee a call was issued to Independent voters of the city to meet at a hall on Superior street, near Jefferson, before the Coun- cil session was to open. The people responded to the appeal in numbers too great for the capacity of the little hall. Elisha Southard presided. Johnson Thurston, an attorney who had now become active in the movement, outlined the program for an organized petition-in-boots. After drilling them in their part in that program, and cautioning them against disorder or violence, Thurston had them form in 20 column of fours in the street outside and at their head he marched with them to the Valentine Building, which housed the Council Chamber. A committee had been sent ahead to enter the chamber and keep the crowd outside apprised of the progress of events inside, and also to ask the Council for permission for a few words from their spokesman. The request was presented but was denied by President Clarence Willard. The marchers halted outside the Council Chamber and Thurston mounted a large box from which he addressed them again. He quoted the sections of the State and Federal Constitutions guaranteeing the right of as- semblage and the right to petition for redress of griev- ances, and then led them in a shout in unison in which the following message was roared from six hundred throats to the Council in session inside the hall: “This is Call Number One. Let Franchise Alone’. Three times that message was repeated. It was followed by this one: “We Retire to Our Hall, to Return Tonight if Necessary”. They then marched back in good order to the hall, having been gone only 30 minutes. There they proceeded with their meeting until word reached them that Council had adjourned without taking action on the franchise. A more remarkable demonstration of public opinion has rarely been recorded in an American city. It was an orderly, dignified, but tremendously impressive ex- pression of popular sentiment. One of the cbjectionable features of the franchise had been the provision for a fare of five cents with six tickets for a quarter. The opposition was contending for a lower fare. At the meeting of the committee on railroads and telegraph held on the following Friday, it was decided to amend the ordinance to provide for seven tickets for a quarter. This was done on the advice of Sam Cohn, Chairman of the Republican Central Com- mittee, who saw this means of saving the party candi- dates from defeat at the approaching election. No effort was made to learn whether the franchise would be 21 accepted by the company in this form and the officers of the company were conveniently out of town so that their attitude could not be ascertained. The move was evidently made with the idea of regaining popularity for the party, and with the knowledge that the company had only to reject the franchise as amended, to delay further action in the matter until after election. The franchise as amended was reported to Council the following Monday evening, October 31, and was car- ried by a vote of 13 to 3, in spite of a speech in opposi- tion made by Mayor Finch and in spite of another “netition-in-boots”, similar to the first but larger in numbers, which brought to Councilmen the direct message from a thousand men: “Let Franchise Alone. There is No Hurry. You Have Not Our Confidence”. The thirteen Councilmen who voted “Yes” were escorted home by policemen. Mayor Finch and the three Council- men voting “No” walked out unattended and were greeted with cheers. A few days later Mayor Finch sent a message to Council vetoing the ordinance. At the same time there was published a communication from the President of the Company declining to accept its terms on account of the low fare. The event was as anticipated by the or- ganization, but their move had been made too late to save them. The election that followed resulted in the defeat of every “traction”? councilman—the defeat of every machine candidate. By this time the Independent Voters’ campaign was in full swing. A platform had been adopted, consisting of the following three planks: “WE BELIEVE First: That municipal affairs should be separate from and independent of State and National politics, and Ee cities should have the fullest measure of Home ule. Second: That candidates for municipal offices should be selected solely on account of their honesty and ability to discharge official duties, regardless of any political party affliation. 22 Third: That no franchise for any public utility shall ever be granted or extended except by a direct vote of the people.” Petitions had been filed with the Board of Elections nominating candidates for Police Clerk, City Court Judge, Constable, Councilman-at-large, and Ward Coun- cilmen. The ballot of that day was a huge affair in which there was a column for the candidates of each party, with the name and insignia of the party at the head of the column. In an attempt to confuse the independent voters and divide their strength among two sets of candidates, the Republican leaders devised and carried out a plan for placing on the ballot another set of candidates under the head of the Independent Ticket. In proceedings brought before the Election Board by the original Independents, and in a later grand jury investigation, it was shown that Republican workers were active in circulating the petitions, that in several cases the candidates as well as the signers were duped into permitting the use of their names, and that many names were falsified. The Board refused to disqualify the rival ticket, however, and it went on the ballot adjoining that of the Independent Voters’ ticket. This ruse, too, failed to produce the desired result. The Independent Voters used to good advantage the disclosures they had made and it probably aided their campaign. Whatever the cause, the vote at that Novem- ber election, 1904, proved a body blow to the Republican organization’s influence in local affairs. The severity of that blow may be imagined when it is considered that while Roosevelt, then running for President, and leading the Republican ticket, carried Toledo with a plurality of 12,912 votes, Adam Schauss, Independent candidate for Councilman-at-large, the most important local office being voted upon, defeated Dr. Hobart, the machine’s pet candidate, by a plurality of 2,384 votes. The voters “scratched the ticket” with a vengeance. 23 The extent of this defeat, and the critical situation of the Republican organization may be realized further when it is pointed out that following the election a movement was started to purge the party of the ill repute into which its leaders had brought it. For the originators of the non-partisan defection were almost entirely Republicans, but men who had rebelled against the domination of the “Cabinet of Seven” and who de- plored the methods they were using in the control of municipal politics. In an effort to win back these straying members of the fold, the organization leaders proposed the appoint- ment of an advisory committee of eminently respectable Republicans outside of the executive committee, to make a survey of the situation and recommend measures by which to remedy conditions for the good of the party. The move is said to have originated within the cabinet itself, with the idea of saving some of its members from overthrow. It was conjectured that Walter Brown was to be sacrificed and that responsibility for the party defeat was to be laid upon him and his con- nection with the traction company. The advisory committee was appointed, and its re- port (7) was an admission of all the charges that had been made by the Independents. The report went fur- ther than had been contemplated by the executive com- mittee, for it attacked not only Brown but the entire ring. The report of the Advisory Committee was consider- able of a bombshell in the ranks of the cabinet and of the Executive Committee. The latter Committee asked time to consider it and the request was granted by the Advisory Committee. That public opinion approved of the report is indi- cated by an editorial in the Toledo Blade on December 8, 1904, in which the hope was expressed that the recom- mendations would be adopted.(3) The Executive Com- (7) See Appendix, page 64. (3) See Appendix, page 66. 24 mittee finally adopted resolutions embodying the recom- mendations with some minor alterations. (4) Another reform movement from within the party de- veloped about the same time. It took the form of a petition for direct nomination of candidates at a pri- mary election. Sentiment for the change was further crystallized at a mass meeting in Memorial Hall in March, 1905, following which a committee in charge of the movement addressed a letter to each member of the Advisory and Executive Committees in which the direct primary, then known locally as the “Straight Baber System’, was urged for use in the election of the fol- lowing fall. This letter listed the following reasons for the proposed change: “1. The Republican majority has been increasing until a nomination by that party is practically equivalent to election. Therefore the Republican voters should be permitted to themselves determine, by a popular vote before the election, those who in fact are to be elected next November. “2. There is a general belief among the Republican voters in this county that the management and control of all party matters and the election of all party candi- dates has been for some time past in the hands of a very few active politicians who call themselves ‘The Organi- zation’, but who in popular parlance are called “The Machine’. This belief has caused many members of the party to feel that it is useless for them to go to the polls to vote for delegates. Furthermore, the activities of the organization have become so offensive that popu- lar indignation has given rise’ to an Independent move- ment, which in all important matters defeated the regu- lar Republican ticket at the last election.” The two committees of the party considered the pro- posal but refused to adopt it. Their reasons were these: “1. It affords no opportunity for the adoption of party policies, or the pledging of nominees thereto. “2. It enables an organized minority to triumph over a disunited majority and makes it possible to place nomi- nees on the party ticket who are not in harmony with the party policy. (4) See Appendix, page 66. 25 “3. It is an expensive plan for candidates, compelling them to appeal by straight election to 162 election pre- cincts with all the expense of a regular canvass, prac- tically barring poor men from political preferment and encouraging the use of money in the securing of such nominations. “4. It encourages fraud by enabling electors belong- ing to other parties to participate in such nominating elections and tends to deceive or disfranchise electors who are unable to read. “5. It furnishes no practical means of insuring repre- sentation on the party ticket, of the various elements composing the party, or the various geographical por- tions of the county, and it is the easiest method which can be adopted to enable an official entrenched in office to perpetuate himself therein.” A month later, when the primary for election of dele- gates to the Republican convention was about to be held, it was announced that a modified “Baber” system had been adopted. The plan provided merely for placing the primary in the hands of the Board of Elections, in- stead of being conducted by the party itself as in the past. With the idea of healing the breach in the party membership the chairmanship of the convention was of- fered to Judge Isaac Pugsley, one of the committee which had petitioned for the “Straight Baber”. In the meantime things were more or less quiet in the city government. The 1904 election had put the quietus on the street car franchise and it was not brought up during 1905. The Independents had lost a skirmish at the very beginning of the year in the re-election of Charles Nauts as City Clerk. Nauts had been one of the most active members of the cabinet and had been the one member of that group to stand loyally by Walter Brown. Brown used all his influence to save Nauts from defeat and his effort was successful. Nauts re- ceived eight votes to his opponent’s seven. But individual triumphs such as those of Nauts and Brown were of very minor importance. The “machine” as a whole was rapidly losing its power. All of its efforts to appease the public and regain popular con- 26 fidence proved vain. The Independent revolt grew out of conditions of too long standing, and popular discon- tent with the machine methods was too deeply rooted in the minds of the people, to be so easily checked. It was not until! 1913, nine years later, that the Republican party was again victorious in municipal affairs. The series of party defeats that followed caused the party to become greatly disorganized. Its strong lead- ers were discredited or became the heads of warring fac- tions within the party. In 1912, Waiter Brown joined the Progressive forces and with Roosevelt’s defeat he was practically ostracized by the “regular” membership of the party. Less capable men were advanced to lead- ership in the organization and found themselves unable to weld together its discordant elements. The years from 1904 to 1913 were years of triumph for the Independents. There was a mayoralty election in the fall of 1905, and with Brand Whitlock as their candidate, they carried the city. Whitlock’s vote was 15,326 as against 10,517 for Finch, Republican. He re- ceived about 55 per cent of the total vote. The Inde- pendents elected the President of Council, two Council- men-at-large, a City Treasurer, City Auditor, City So- licitor, the entire Board of Public Service, a Judge of the City Court, County Treasurer, County Prosecuting Attorney, Infirmary Director, Coroner and six Council- men. Only the Sheriff, County Auditor and one County Commissioner were carried by Republicans. In 1906 the Independent Voters ran candidates for Circuit Judge and for Judges of the Common Pleas Court. Reynolds R. Kinkade was defeated for Judge of the Circuit Court by Judge Wildman, the Republican incumbent, although he carried Lucas County by a large plurality. John P. Manton, running as an Independent, was defeated by Bernard Brough, Republican, for Judge of the Common Pleas Court. The only Independent candidate elected was one County Commissioner. The Republican Party made a desperate effort to re- gain control of the city government in the campaign of 27 1907. As one means of gaining popular support and winning back their former strength they provided for direct nomination of candidates at a primary election. It was conducted by the regular county election author- ities, and the Australian ballot was used. This was just what had been demanded two years before by the “Straight Baberites”, and had been refused by the cen- tral committee. At that time the method of nomination was optional with the party organization. The Inde- pendents continued to use the convention method. The Republicans nominated R. A. Bartley, a prom- inent churchman, the biggest wholesale grocer of the city, a man well respected among the people. Whitlock was again nominated by the Independents. The cam- paign was a hot one in which on the one side the In- dependent administration was attacked for its loose handling of vice and crime, and on the other the party machine bugaboo was again raised, and the street car franchise was held to be in danger. Whitlock won by an increased majority, receiving 15,638 votes to Bartley’s 8,963. The Democratic can- didate received a bare thousand. The Independents elected also a City Solicitor, the entire Board of Public Service, the Police Judge, the President of Council, three Councilmen-at-Large, and seven out of thirteen ward councilmen. The following year the Independents ran a County ticket and candidates for the state legislature. They met with defeat with many of their candidates, although it was pointed out that all of their county candidates were elected except those endorsed by the Democrats. The opponents of the movement hailed the vote as pre- saging its complete downfall. An enthusiastic rally was held in December, however, and it was apparent that the group was still strong. The year of 1909 was again a year for municipal elections. By this time the state legislature had passed the Paine Bill, abolishing some of the boards and pro- viding for single-headed departments under the control 28 of the Mayor. The Auditor, Treasurer and Solicitor were still elected separately, however. The election was another victory for the Independents. Whitlock ran slightly over his 1907 figure with 15,642. Davies, Re- publican candidate, received 10,582. The Independents again elected the President of Council, three Council- men-at-Large, eleven out of thirteen ward councilmen, the City Treasurer, Auditor and Solicitor. Their vic- tory was even more decisive than at the previous city election. The outstanding feature of the 1910 campaign was the candidacy of Johnson Thurston, veteran Independ- ent leader, as a non-partisan candidate for Circuit Judge. He received the unanimous vote of the Independent con- vention and he headed the county ticket of the Inde- pendent voters. His campaign throughout not only Lucas county but Northwestern Ohio, which comprised the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, was conducted solely on the issue of a non-partisan judiciary. The state legislature a short time before had killed a bill which would have provided by law for non-partisan judicial elections. Thurston’s campaign was made largely as propaganda for that principle. He failed of election but the principle for which he stood was later recognized in Ohio law. Ohio’s non-partisan judiciary of today is a monument to the work of the Toledo Independents. A combination of Democrats and Independents had been effected to the extent that most of the candidates of the two parties were identical. Either in spite of this merger or because of it, the Demopendents, as they were called by the Republicans, were decisively trimmed all along the line. Only two Independents, a member of the legislature and a county commissioner, were elected. (°) However unsuccessful the Independents were in county and state elections, they continued to win in city elections. The following year, 1911, Whitlock was re- (5) See Appendix, page 68. 29 elected, altho he received fewer votes than before, the loss going to the Socialists and the Democrats. The vote was: Whitlock, 11,583; Carl Keller, Republican, 8,543; W. F. Ries, Socialist, 5,207; Charles Ashley, Democrat, about 3,000. Out of the 18 members of the City Council, the Independents had ten, the Republicans six, the Socialists and Democrats one each. This was Whitlock’s last campaign for Mayor. Shortly after the opening of his fourth term he an- nounced that he would not run again. There was a general feeling that when the time came he could be induced to run; but announcement of his retirement gave opportunity to ambitious members of the organi- zation to groom themselves for the Independent nomi- nation. Cornell Schreiber, the City Solicitor, became especially active, and the Independents saw for the first time one of their leaders seeking an office. It had been one of their cardinal principles that the mere fact of seeking an office should be sufficient cause to disqualify a man for the nomination, and many times men who sought nomination at the hands of the Independents were turned down for that reason. Former Independents of the present day point to the abandonment of that principle as the foundation cause for the disruption of the movement. The 1913 cam- paign certainly tends to support that view. Schreiber, through his official position in the City Hall, organized city employees in his behalf and with their aid captured the Independent convention. He was then nominated for mayor as the candidate of the Independent Voters. Those who opposed Schreiber’s candidacy hoped Whit- lock would permit himself to be nominated. They took out petitions, got them signed and filed them with the Election Board, naming Whitlock as the candidate on the Toledo Ticket. When Whitlock finally came out with a definite refusal to run, the backers of the Toledo Ticket substituted the name of Judge Charles E. Chit- tenden, who had been elected by the Independents to the office of Common Pleas Judge which he then held. 30 The existence of the two candidates divided the Inde- pendent vote, but even their combined strength proved less than that of Carl Keller, the Republican nominee. It is unsafe, however, to draw conclusions from this election because the campaign was beclouded by a re- ligious issue and the vote was far from being a clear- cut decision in favor of the Republican party as such. It happened to be a year when anti-Catholic senti- ment was strong throughout the country. That was the year when Thompson was first elected in Chicago, swept into office on a similar wave of religious feeling. Cer- tain of the fraternal organizations in which non-Catho- lics predominated began discussing the selection of a candidate for mayor and they decided to back Keller on those grounds. Other Protestant groups throughout the city joined them. That gave Keller the anti-Catholic stamp, altho he himself made no statement during the campaign committing himself on that or any other issue. It will be remembered that both Jones and Whitlock had antagonized the church group of the city by their liberal attitude toward vice and crime. It was this group which rallied around Keller, as against Schreiber and Chittenden, both of whom represented in some degree the Independent movement. This was the com- bination of circumstances that carried the election for Keller, without his having appeared in public during the campaign. The vote was 16,897 for Keller; 9,507 for Chittenden and 4,073 for Schreiber. The Republicans made a clean sweep, electing every city officer and the entire Council. Not an Independent survived the storm. Thus ended the so-called Independent Movement as an organized movement in Toledo. At this same elec- tion a charter commission, also largely Republican, was elected, and work was soon begun on the drafting of a new city charter. The charter worked out by this commission provided for non-partisan municipal elec- tions, and required that all franchises be submitted to a vote of the people. Consequently the primary purpose 31 of the Independent Movement was accomplished when that charter was approved at the 1914 election. Because of this feeling that their original objectives had been largely attained and in view of the split in their ranks that developed in 1913, with the terrific defeat that fol- lowed, leaders of the Independent movement decided not to continue their organization. 32 CHAPTER IV METHODS OF THE INDEPENDENTS. While Sam Jones gave the people of Toledo their first education in the non-partisan idea and paved the way for what was to follow, the Independent Move- ment, properly speaking, was not born until after Jones’ death. Jones had consistently opposed any organized attempt to elect a non-partisan ticket. He could see no especial difference between such a ticket and that of any other party. But the result of his observance of that prin- ciple had been that he alone was elected as a non- partisan and the party controlled the other city offices as much as ever. The form of government then ia vogue, with its divided responsibility and independently elected officers, had helped to bring about that result. It was logical, therefore, that those who gathered up the reins after the death of Jones should look about for a method by which control of the city government could be entirely taken out of the hands of the powerful ring which had until then been able, in every office except that of mayor, to manipulate city affairs as they would. They took into consideration the objections Jones had made to the organization of a formal party and they attempted to avoid the appearance of similarity to the regular organizations. In the first place they gave more emphasis to platform and issues than to candidates. The 1904 platform was adopted before a candidate was nominated. In every case the campaign was waged about a municipal issue. The street car controversy provided the chief material for such an issue. The principle that the office should seek the man was adhered to religiously during the early years of the movement. The control of the organization was a very democratic type of control, with candidates 33 and platforms suggested by the voters themselves in- stead of being dictated by the leaders. (6) The evil of party domination over government was avoided by the policy of disbanding after each election and retaining no permanent organization of any kind. The name “party” was shunned and the organization was kept as informal and as loosely knit as possible. The purity of the movement as it was originally planned is nowhere better illustrated than in the rules of procedure laid down by its founders. Those rules provided for calling the voters together prior to each election; for the adoption of a platform in plain, simple terms, which everyone could understand; for the calling together of neighborhood groups to suggest candidates and select delegates to a central convention; for the appointment of a committee to investigate suggested candidates as to their qualifications and their availa- bility and for the rejection of any persons who should seek nomination to any office. (7) It was a beautiful, idealistic plan, by which every citizen was to have a genuine share in the government of the town. The plan was ideal but men were still human, with the same selfish desires, the same personal ambi- tions, the same disregard for the common good which had brought the old parties into their decadent state. And so the Independent Movement developed into a political organization that was as much a party as were the Republican and Democratic systems. Like both of those organizations it started with the purest of mo- tives. Like those other parties its success proved its downfall. For success drew to it men who were polit- ically ambitious and who saw in the Independent (8) “We are misgoverned”, declared Whitlock, speak- ing in Golden Rule Hall in the summer of 1904, “because of the great body of stupefied men who walk up and vote the straight ticket. If men can get control of the central committee they can prepare any platform and name any ticket and depend on this body to vote for them.” (7) See Appendix, page 69. 34 Movement merely the opportunity to advance their own interests. To that may be attributed the disintegration of the movement within ten years after its birth. It must be remembered, however, that the evils which the Independent Movement was designed to remedy had arisen chiefly from the fact that the national parties, organized upon national issues and having no relation to municipal affairs, were dominating local government ; and that their main interest in local affairs revolved about the jobs which were available for party workers and the financial support which could be secured for the party from corporate interests seeking special priv- ileges. The city government was merely a means of support for the national parties. This was one evil from which a purely municipal party was free. The original platform of the Independent Voters has already been quoted. That platform contained the fun- damental principles of the movement. The three planks which comprised it formed the basis for all the plat- forms adopted by the movement during the next ten years. (8) Other planks were added from year to year, but with few exceptions they were corollaries of the original three. As the movement was extended to county and state elections, other issues appropriate to those broader fields were formulated into doctrines. Such were the later planks on a non-partisan judiciary and direct election of senators. But all were related to the broad, democratic principles laid down in the plat- form of 1904. By the time the movement was dissolved in 1913, those principles had been largely carried out or were assured of adoption. The city had secured the right of home rule through the Home Rule Amendment to the state constitution in 1912. The merits of non-partisanship in city affairs had become so largely recognized that even the charter com- mission, elected with “e backing of the Republican party, framed a charter which provided for non-partisan (8) See Appendix, page 70. 35 elections. The elimination of party judicial tickets throughout the state was the direct result of a move- ment started in Toledo by the Independents. Nomina- tion of Republican candidates at direct primaries was brought about by the machine Republicans themselves as a means of winning back public approval and re- gaining the strength lost to the Independents. More active participation in political affairs by the rank and file of the city’s voters was another noteworthy achieve- ment. Finally, the new charter, adopted in 1914, pro- vided that all general franchises must be submitted to a vote of the people. 36 CHAPTER V UNDER A NON-PARTISAN CHARTER. The first election under the new charter took place in the fall of 1915. The three candidates nominated at the primary election were Attorney Charles M. Milroy, who had been with the Independents but was Republi- can in national politics; Mayor Keller, the man who had been elected as the Republican anti-Catholic candidate two years kefore and was up for re-election, and George A. Murphey, a former police chief, whom Keller had retired in onder to name Henry Herbert, a Catholic. Murphey inherited the anti-Catholic support which Kel- ler had antagonized after becoming mayor. He was also looked upon as a friend of labor. There was litle participation in the campaign by the national parties. As a result of the non-partisan pri- mary, all three of the candidates nominated happened to be of Republitan persuasion. There was therefore no reason for party activity. The Republican organi- zation was not the force it had been and its leadership was mediocre. John O’Dwyer, Democratic leader, could do nothing but sit back and try to make a deal with the most proniisitz candidates. Consequently the cam- paign was detidediy non-partisan, with the exception of sonie ward fights over councilmanic positions. The elec- tion itself was of course the first one in many years in which no party designation appeared on the ballot. The most interesting feature of the vote was the effect of the preferential ballot, for which the new char- ter had provided. Murphey led the three in first choice votes with a total of 14,141. Milroy was second with 12,997 and Keller was a close third with 11,505. Of the second choices Keller received 4,139, Milroy 4,009 and Murphey 2,268. Milroy received fewer first choice votes than Murphey and fewer second choice votes than 37 Keller, and yet he was elected, because he received the greatest number of combined first and second choices. The small number of second choice votes is explained by the fact that the political leaders of the various groups foresaw that to vote a second choice was to vote against the first choice. They therefore advised their adherents to vote only for the one man. That one election was enough to kill the preferential ballot in Toledo. The next year the charter was amended doing away with the preferential system. But in drafting the amendment there was overlooked the fact that it would no longer be necessary to have three candidates nominated at the primary. This part of the charter was not changed. The result is that in subse- quent elections it has frequently occurred that the suc- cessful candidate for mayor has received much less than one-half of the votes cast. The three-candidate system has had the effect, too, of making the result of an election uncertain, and making it possible for a less desirable man to be elected, by the division of votes between two more desirable candidates. A movement was started in 1922 to amend the charter to reduce the number of candidates nominated at the primary from three to two. Toledo’s new charter gave the city the federal plan of government, with all administrative responsibility and authority centered in the mayor. , For the first time in the history of the city the mayor~=Aad the right to name all the administrative officers. Milroy’s appoint- ments indicated that he wished to abide by the spirit of the charter and make the administration non-partisan. He selected three Republicans and two Democrats as department heads, and the men appointed were in the main not identified in the public mind with those organi- zations. Each man appointed had distinct qualifications for the job. It was something new in Toledo to make appointments to public office purely on the basis of quali- fication and without reference to party affiliation. There were no wholesale changes made in the minor re i positions of the city. There were some political debts to be paid but there was probably less application of the spoils system than in previous years. The Milroy administration was pretty generally conceded to be non- partisan in letter and spirit. In fact Milroy’s defeat for re-election was attributed by many to his failure to obey the behests of political leaders on either side. Both sides became hostile and he failed-to win a nomination in the 1917 primary. The three men nominated were Cornell Schreiber, who had been defeated for mayor four years earlier ; George Murphey, who had been defeated by Milroy two years before, and Robert Haworth, Socialist. Haworth’s nomination was significant. He could not have received the heavy vote he did had his name appeared on the ballot under the heading “Socialist Party’. But although it was known that he had been selected by that party as their candidate, the mere fact that in theory he was running as a citizen without reference to any party permitted many to vote for him who were not Socialistic at all. He was a working man, a ma- chinist, and he drew a considerable labor vote. Murphey ran strong in the primaries. There was a feeling that he had been the victim of the preferential ballot in the previous election and that he should be elected as a matter of justice. Then, too, there was still a vestige of the anti-Catholic sentiment that had supported him before. Schreiber’s strength probably lay in his prior con- nection with the Independent Movement and his record as City Solicitor under Whitlock, when he had made many friends by his war on the loan shark. The street car question was still an issue, and his former attitude of opposition to the company undoubtedly had some weight. It is generally conceded that Murphey would have been elected, had he not died shortly after the primaries. His followers attempted to find a way of nominating a substitute, but it was discovered that the new city char- 39 ter had made no provision for such a contingency. With but two candidates in the race, and one of them a Socialist, Schreiber’s victory was assured. All the news- papers came to his support and urged his election as the only alternative possible in a year when a war was in progress, a war which was being opposed by the Socialist party throughout the country. The patriotic issue then became paramount. Schreiber’s vote was 27,883 against 14,903 for Haworth. Schreiber’s appointments, like Milroy’s, were non- partisan. He retained Milroy’s Service Director, an engineer of ability, who had won public confidence by his administration of this department. He appointed as Safety Director a Republican, a former fire chief, who knew the department thoroughly and who had _ since been successful in business. He named as Law Director a Democrat who had made an excellent record as Com- mon Pleas Judge. As Finance Director he appointed a Republican who had been for several years attorney for a financial concern that had specialized in municipal bonds. For Welfare Director he secured a Democrat who had been for years a leader of the Typographica! union, who had been a member of the state legislature and had been secretary of the District Draft Board during the war. It was, on the whole, a strong cabinet, and one that was not dictated by any party. Schreiber’s administration was certainly non-partisan so far as the national party organizations were con- cerned. He did develop, however, somewhat of a “per- sonal machine’, made up of city employees. When he ran for re-election, two years later, the employees were organized by wards according to their residence, and their aid had a material effect on the vote. Campaign funds, too, were collected from city employees, but there was no regular assessment made upon them. They were merely made to feel that loyalty to their superior should cause them to contribute, and that any man who was unwilling to give that sort of loyalty had no place in the administration. 40 Besides Schreiber there were nominated in 1919: Solon T. Klotz, the Socialist selection, and Edwin T. Lynch, candidate of the Democratic organization. For the first time since the adoption of the charter the Democratic boss, John O’Dwyer, put up a candidate and made an active campaign in his behalf. With the prestige of a Democratic control of the national gov- ernment the organization had been able to carry all the county offices at the previous election, along with the election of Cox as governor. This foothold in the Court House, with its patronage for county and state offices, had brought O’Dwyer to the zenith of his power. Under his leadership, therefore, the Democratic organi- zation prepared a slate for city offices, and circulated it throughout the city as the Democratic ticket. The Republican organization would undoubtedly have done likewise had it not been for the fact that they had not yet recovered from the defeat administered to them by the Independent defection, the further split in their ranks by Walter Brown’s espousal of the Progressive cause in 1912, and the national defeat of the party at the hands of Woodrow Wilson in 1912 and 1916. The Socialist party had from the very beginning made their own nominations within their own ranks, just as in the days when party designations were placed on the ballot. The result of the 1919 election was another victory for the non-partisan idea. The two party slates, Demo- cratic and Socialist, were defeated, and Schreiber, with no party backing, was re-elected. The vote was 17,676 for Schreiber, 15,212 for Klotz and 10,284 for Lynch. The heavy Klotz vote may be explained in part by the fact that he was a genteel, cultured gentleman, a founder of the Drama League, a member of the Shake- spearean Society, and one of the originators of the Civic Music League. He was an attorney of prominence, a member of the intelligenzia of the Socialist party. Schreiber’s second administration was as free from political domination as the first. But he ran into a crisis 41 during this term which made him enemies. The city was suffering from a so-called “crime wave”, along with all other large cities of America. There was great popular discontent with the way the police were handling the situation and there was an absolute lack of confi- dence in the Police Chief. The Safety Director stood by the chief, and since he, too, was liberal in his attitude toward the underworld he, ‘too, fell under suspicion. The matter came to a head when a joint committee from the Commerce Club and the various luncheon clubs cf the city demanded the removal of the Safety Direc- tor. The mayor capitulated and agreed to name as Director George P. Greenhalgh, the choice of the pro- testing group. Greenhalgh was appointed and made a great success of the job. The incident is mentioned here to show the freedom from party control in the city government. Had the mayor been subject to a party organization he would probably have defied the citizen group which demanded the change. We now come to the last municipal election in 1921. During the two years the political situation in Toledo had undergone a sweeping change. The Republican party had been victorious in the national campaign of 1920, and had swept into office, along with Harding, their candidates for state and county offices. Walter Brown, who had been discredited with the local Re- publican organization by his conversion to the Progres- sive cause in 1912, had regained sufficient power to become a delegate to the national Republican convention and was credited locally with engineering the coup that won the nomination for Harding. Harding’s election put the local Republican reins again into the hands of Brown, for it was foreseen that he would during the next four years have a considerable influence in the distribution of patronage. No longer under mediocre leadership, and with the strength that comes with victory and success, the local Republican organization took on a new lease of life. 42 Simultaneously the influence of the Democratic organi- zation waned. ‘The Republicans now controlled the county govern- ment. They began preparations at once to capture the City Hall. The first thing to do was to find a winning candidate. They picked Bernard F. Brough, a man who had been a judge on the Common Pleas bench of the county for ten years, with a good record. He had a pleasing personality, with a reputation for courage and fairness, and in the seclusion of the bench he had taken no part in those strenuous campaigns which make ene- mies. But Judge Brough demurred. He did not care for administrative duties. He liked the bench, its dig- nity, its judicial atmosphere, its prestige. The salary paid was almost as great as that of the mayor, so that there was no financial incentive for the change. He was finally persuaded to run. There were many surmises as to the method of persuasion used, but there has been no indication that Brough’s reason for con- senting to run was other than the one he claimed, namely, that as a civic duty he felt obliged to consent. There may have been in addition to that reason a sense of duty toward the Republican party and a feeling of obligation to its leaders. At any rate it may be said that the organization’s chief contribution toward getting Brough elected was their success in getting him to run. To be sure they raised a campaign fund and conducted his campaign for him, but the election returns do not show that their active support was wholly beneficial to him. The organization’s participation in the campaign was bolder and more open than that of any political party since the adoption of the charter. While Frank Dotson, respected attorney and church member, was made chair- man of the campaign committee, the active management was in the hands of Charles Nauts, Brown’s old lieu- tenant, and Harry Commager, now one of the recog- nized party leaders. The Brough campaign organization 43 was the ward and precinct organization of the Repub- lican party. A letter was sent to all Republican booth officials on the stationery of the Lucas County Republican Central Committee and signed by Frank Calkins, chairman of the committee, in which the following injunction was centained : “I feel it my duty to ask, as Chairman of said com- mittee, your cordial and loyal support for Republicans who are candidates at the coming election and with that end in view the officers of your regular party committee recommend for your support the following named can- didates, who in each instance are the only Republicans seeking election for the respective offices named: “For Mayor—Judge B. F. Brough. “For Vice-Mayor—Gilson D. Light. “For Judge of Municipal Court—Aaron B. Cohn, Charles W. Meck. “You will readily realize that if these Republicans secure the undivided and loyal support of every one affliated directly or indirectly with the Republican party, there can be no doubt of their successful election.” A sample ballot was handed to each voter by Repub- lican workers outside the various voting booths, in which were marked the four names endorsed by the central committee. The Democratic organization had put up no slate, but it was generally understood that the O’Dwyer following was quietly working for Brough and Light. The anti- O’Dwyer Democrats were solidly behind Clarence Bene- dict, who had been a member of Schreiber’s cabinet as Welfare Director and Service Director. He had always been a Democrat and had originally been a protege of O’Dwyer, but had refused to be dominated by him. His campaign was managed by John Higgins, a fellow member of the mayor’s cabinet, and a leader of the anti-O’Dwyer crowd. The Democratic boss could not afford to permit the opposition branch of the party to elect their candidates since that would enable them to wrest from him the leadership of the party. It was to his advantage to let their candidate be defeated. He 44 was content, therefore, to give what aid he could to Brough’s candidacy and take any crumbs that might be thrown to him after Brough’s election. Benedict was the nearest to being a non-partisan candidate of all three aspirants for the mayoralty. He had the aid of the Typographical union and the labor vote that they could swing to his support, and received some support from city employees, although they were divided into several camps and could not be delivered solidly to any one side. The Socialist candidate, Solon T. Kotz, again won the nomination at the primaries, running second to Brough with Benedict third. He received a consider- able labor vote, besides getting the votes of many Inde- pendents who refused to follow the lead of the Republican organization and who disliked to continue the existing city administration in power. The Socialist party, like the Republican party, had a pretty complete slate from mayor down to ward councilmen. The vice-mayoralty fight was important enough to warrant some attention. There were nominated at the primaries Gilson Light, the Republican organization can- didate: Edward D. Cullen, who had been a member of the city council for several years and was then filling an unexpired term as vice-mayor, and Frank Miller, a former councilman, and a Republican. The Republican organization induced Miller to withdraw from the race leaving a clear field for Light and Cullen. After Brough became mayor Miller was rewarded for his sacrifice by being named Commissioner of Water. With Miller out of the fight the organization made a determined effort to elect Light. Unlike previous elec- tions there was about as much attention given to the vice-mayoralty race as to the fight for mayor. Cullen had no political organization support. Although a Democrat he had long before become independent of O’Dwyer. Here was a real test of the organization strength. The test showed that the people preferred a non-partisan candidate to one backed by a political party. The vote was 31,607 for Cullen and 26,128 for Light. 45 Brough won the three-cornered mayoralty contest by much less than a majority of the votes cast. He re- ceived 26,933 votes, as against 20,214 for Klotz and 16,953 for Benedict. In personal qualifications, at least in ability, training and experience, he undoubtedly was superior to the other candidates. There is scarcely any auestion that if he had run as a non-partisan, as he always had in running for the bench, he would have received a much larger vote. The only grounds on which his opponents were able to attack him were based on the fact that he was brought out by the Republican organization. The public did not wish their mayor to be under obligations to that organization. Of the other two candidates endorsed by the Central Committee, Aaron B. Cohn and Charles W. Meck, Cohn was elected but Meck was close to the bottom of the list. (2) Cohn would have been elected without the Republican endorsement. He had been on the municipal hench four years and had become known as a capable, fair-minded judge, whose integrity was beyond question. He led the Judicial ticket, not because of the party sup- port, but in spite of it. The 1921 election indicated that a political party in Toledo can elect its candidates to office if it nominates strong men; but that it cannot put across weak or corrupt candidates merely because they have received the party endorsement. If the ballot were of the old type, with candidates arranged by party tickets and designated by party names, then it might be possible to swing knaves or weaklings into office by placing a strong man at the head of the ticket. This is not possible when the ballot is non-partisan. That appears to be the great- est value of the non-partisan ballot. (9) The vote on the Judicial Ticket was as follows: Aaron, 9B, hGOln 2 es ee eee 27,675 Samuel N. Yow ce eee 24,780 DeWittsHishery. eee 22,622 Ty. Parrells) 20 a eae 13,874 Charles) WerMiccket eee 11,149 Andrew Gallagher. .........1..---.-.0--- 6,125 Toledo has a highly centralized executive independent of the Council. The election of a Republican mayor gave the organization control of the entire administra- tion. It was the first election under the new charter in which a party candidate was elected. The conduct of the Brough administration has therefore given an ex- cellerit opportunity to observe the results of a partisan victory at a non-partisan election. The first appointments announced by the mayor-elect shortly before he took office had the appearance of being non-partisan. True, they were all Republicans. But they were not, speaking generally, closely identified with the activities of the organization. There were two exceptions, Frank Dotson, who had been chairman of the Brough campaign committee, was made Law Direc- tor, and Gilson Light, the defeated organization candi- date for Vice-Mayor, was made Safety Director. But neither of these men was of the typical machine poli- tician type. The other department heads were men of affairs, who had been successful in business and who were looked upon as being too independent financially and in temperament to be submissive to party dictation. The appointments were received with considerable enthu- siasm. Evidently Brough was going to carry out his campaign promise to give the city a “Business Adminis- tration’. Brough took office and then changes began to be made in the minor positions. Here it soon became apparent that the selection was being made from Republican head- quarters. With a few notable exceptions the appoint- ments were made from among active Republican work- ers. A regular procedure was established, by which applicants for city jobs would first get the endorsement of their precinct committeeman, and their ward chair- man, who in turn would forward his recommendation to the Executive Committee for final action. If an ap- plicant was endorsed by the Executive Committee, that endorsement was tantamount to appointment. In most 47 cases the department head would act upon the party en- dorsement. Even more clearly did the organization’s partisan attitude appear in an attempt to get control of the City Council. The defeat of the organization candidate for Vice-Mayor at the hands of a non-partisan had kept the party from getting control of Council Committees, for existing rules of Council provided for appointment of Council Committees by the Vice-Mayor in his capa- city as President of the Council. There were a majority of Republicans elected to the Council, but not all of them were subservient to the party leadership. It was considered important that the party control over the city government be made complete by getting the proper per- sonnel on the committees. Immediately after election the party leaders planned a move which promised to get them that control. The prearranged plan was sprung at the first meeting of the new Council when a resolution was passed appointing a committee to revise the rules of Council. When the com- mittee reported the new rules at the next meeting, it was discovered that they provided for the election of com- mittees by a majority vote of the Council. The party slate for those committees was presented at the same time and an attempt was made to get it approved. The President of Council ruled the motion out of order on the grounds that the existing rules required a two- thirds vote for an amendment of the rules. This ruling precipitated a fight which was finally carried into the courts. The Supreme Court of Ohio handed down an opinion, based on technicalities in the procedure, which resulted in permitting the committees named by the Vice-Mayor to stand. No big principle was evolved from the dispute, and the only result of the fight was the arousing of party animosity.* *An interesting parallel to the 1922 Council fight oc- curred in January, 1905, when the Independents con- trolled the membership of the City Council and the Re- publican machine controlled the Vice-Mayor. In other 48 For the first time since the adoption of the charter, Councilmen referred to themselves openly as Democrats and Republicans. For the purpose of this study the incident is important only as showing the extent to which the Republican organization, an outside body not responsible to the voters, was attempting to interfere with city government. Such interference might be justi- fied in state and national governments, where party con- trol has been the only successful method yet devised for keeping harmonious the relations between administra- tive and legislative branches. But in Toledo no party control is necessary. For under the Toledo Charter the Mayor can dominate the entire city government. Coun- cil has no power over his appointments and is specifically enjoined from interfering with administrative matters. True, Council has control of appropriations, but a strong Mayor can so easily appeal to the electorate of a city to back up a desirable project that he can usually win Council’s support. His right to be present at Council meetings, with members of his cabinet, is an additional aid in getting control. The situation is not at all an- alagous to that of a state or national government, and there is no need for outside control by a political organi- words the situation was just the reverse of that existing this year. The Vice-Mayor, or President of the Council was Clarence Willard, an unscrupulous tool of the or- ganization. His high handed methods are well illustrated by a ruling he made in December, 1904, in which he held that a Councilman who was absent should be re- corded as voting in the affirmative. With the purpose of curbing his power the Independ- ent Councilmen presented legislation to amend the rules so as to place the power of appointing committees in the hands of Council itself instead of in those of the Vice-Mayor. Willard ruled out of order a motion to adopt the new rules. An appeal was made from his de- cision and his ruling was reversed by a vote of 12 to 4. The committees were therefore selected by council. The only difference between the 1905 fight and that of 1922, was that in 1905 the majority had three-fourths of the votes, while in the more recent case there was but a bare majority opposing the Vice-Mayor. 49 zation. In fact, probably the most valid criticism against Toledo’s charter is that the power of the legisla- tive body is so largely overshadowed by the power of the executive. This attempt to build up a political control of the city government aroused public protest in a way that re- minded one of the days of the Independents. A Non- Partisan League was formed in several wards of the city to fight the re-entrance of political parties into municipal affairs. Protest meetings were held through- out the city at which demands were made upon council- men to pay less attention to the orders from Republican headquarters and more attention to the wishes of their constituents. These may be mere temporary flurries which will soon blow over. They may, on the other hand, have more permanent results. It is still too early to attempt a pre- diction on those points, but they are worth mentioning as symptoms, and considered together with the vote in the 1921 election they help to support the theory that the people of Toledo still believe in non-partisanship in city affairs, and that the spirit of rebellion against the domin- ation of professional politicians is still strong. 50 CHAPTER VI THE PARTY SYSTEM AND ITS RESULTS. The non-partisan movement in Toledo arose as a re- sult of certain very gross and very definite evils that had developed under the party system. Toledo was no differ- ent in that respect from other American cities and it will scarcely be necessary to do more than list those evils, with an occasional illustration from Toledo’s own his- tory. The existence of the parties had developed a group of professional political workers whose livelihood depended upon the success of their party at the polls. Success in elections meant that there were public jobs to be dis- tributed among loyal workers, and that with those work- ers taken care of they were prepared to deliver votes to state and national organizations. The parties had no local policies, but they used local government merely as their means of subsistence. Now the leaders of the parties, becoming skilled in handling party workers and hence being able to influence elections, began to use the power which that skill and in- fluence gave them for personal and private ends. Con- tractors who wished to do public work had to see party leaders in order to get their bids considered. Interests desiring special privileges of any kind from the city government must see the party leaders who controlled the administrative policies of the government and the votes of Council. This power became extremely lucra- tive and the leaders became all the more anxious to re- tain control. Thus a small ring or clique was built up in each party, which dictated the action of party con- ventions, nominated candidates that would be subservi- ent to the ring and elected them by any means, fair or foul. (1°) (10) See Appendix, page 71. 51 There was plenty of evidence of the domination of the Republican organization by a “cabinet of seven”. It was brought out, for example, in a formal complaint made to President Roosevelt in 1904 and 1905, charging George P. Waldorf, a member of the cabinet and Collector of Internal Revenue, with “pernicious activity” in local politics. It was shown that no person could secure the nomination for any office upon the Republican ticket in Lucas County without the approval of the cabinet. The situation was recognized by the party itself in the report of the Advisory Committee, appointed late in 1904 to renovate the organization and win back public confidence. Further testimony as to dictation by a “ring” was given by a special grand jury called by Judge Norris about the same time. “Honest dealings on the part of public servants”, the jury wrote in concluding its report, “can never be had while a political system or combination exists, to which officials owe their first allegiance. The grand jury would fail of its duty if it were not reported that the mem- bers believe that such a combination has existed and likely still does exist, in the City of Toledo. In the in- terest of good government, our hope is that the days of machine rule are ended.” Evidencing corrupt methods that were used as re- cently as 1902, is the report of a “business man’s jury” called by Judge R. R. Kinkade in that year to investi- gate city affairs. The jury reported an indictment against Ed Eckert, the traction company’s paid lobbyist. He was charged with the attempted bribery of Council- man J. C. Meissner. Meissner testified that Eckert had offered him $1,000 to vote for the sale of the city’s gas line. The Assistant Prosecuting Attorney who assisted the grand jury in its investigation was seeking the Re- publican nomination for Prosecuting Attorney. He drew un a faulty indictment, which was later nolled when Eckert came up for trial. During the time of his in- vestigation of the bribery charge the young prosecutor was seen in daily conference with Eckert at the Lincoln 52 Club. When questioned about this by the foreman of the jury, he replied, “I am a candidate for office. Eckert is a power in politics and I want his support.” One of the great evils that had developed was the secret agreement between the two party organizations in which they would sell out their own party for personal advantage. Since their livelihood depended upon political prestige and either one party or the other must lose at the elections, the professionals from the two parties would get together and agree to pool their profits, so that no matter which way the election went their position would remain secure. An instance of this occurred in 1901 when the Demo- cratic leader, P. H. Dowling, made a secret agreement with the Republican leaders to have the Democrats nomi- nate a weak candidate for mayor so that the Republican candidate, Charles Russell, would draw more votes and defeat Sam Jones. N. D. Cochran, editor of the To- ledo Bee, the Democratic paper, learned of Dowling’s agreement and planned to thwart it. Dowling had gone to New York, in order to be away from town at the time of the Democratic convention. Cochran quietly worked up sentiment among certain of the delegates to nominate Dowling himself. When the convention as- sembled, the Dowling men, ignorant of the secret agree- ment their chief had made, and thinking that his nom- ination would please him, fell in with the plan and he was nominated almost unanimously. Dowling could then do nothing but accept. Intrigue and corruption had become rampant. Public officers were growing rich from the public funds. By means of the fee system then in vogue, officials were ob- taining huge annual sums. An investigation showed that the oil inspector received $15,000 in one year; that the County Treasurer received $23,000; the County Auditor, $18,000; the Prosecuting Attorney, $10,000, and the City Clerk, $6,000. This particular condition was the cause of the plank in the Independent platform of 1905 de- nouncing as robbery the payment of compensation to a 53 public office holder in excess of $4,000. That plank was in reality an attack on the fee system. These are a few of the evils which had grown up as a result of party control of municipal affairs. The non- partisan movement had its origin in the popular discon- tent which those evils had aroused. 54 CHAPTER VII ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE NON-PARTISAN MOVEMENT. What has the non-partisan movement accomplished ? Probably its most important achievement is the suc- cess with which it has aroused public interest in city government. Under the old party system it was to the advantage of the machine to lull the voters to sleep and cause them to leave everything in the hands of the party leaders. From the time of Mayor Jones to the present, the people of Toledo have taken a more active part in their own government. As a result of that aroused interest have come many reforms in administra- tion and the elimination of graft from city affairs. The specific achievements of the old Independent Movement have already been outlined. With the com- ing of the non-partisan ballot, voting was forced to be- come more intelligent and no longer was it easy to get men elected merely because they had acquired the label of a political party. The elections since the adoption of the charter have proven the wisdom of the non-partisan ballot in municipal elections. Even in the 1921 election the parties failed to break down the non-partisan idea. The voters made their own choice from among the candi- dates and refused to follow the direction of any organi- zation. Advocates of the party system argue that a party, be- ing a continuous body, can be more easily held to ac- count for inefficient and corrupt administrations; that the non-partisan system fails to place responsibility for good government upon any group. There was some jus- tice in that argument when the city government was made up of a great many officers and boards elected in- dependently. Since responsibility could not be fixed upon any one officer, the only ones that could be held account- 55 able were the members of the party that had nominated and elected all of the city officers. But under Toledo’s present charter responsibility is centralized. It is fixed, not upon a voluntary association ” of citizens having no official status, an extra-legal body such as a political party is, but upon the Mayor, the city’s chief executive, the official representative of all the people. Under such a charter there is no need for an outside body on which responsibility can be placed. The old Independent movement degenerated into a political party, with control in the hands of a few men, and that control used by those men in advancing their own interests. When it had reached that stage the par- tisan ballot became as useful to that group as it had in the past to the other parties. But with the adoption of the non-partisan ballot that evil passed away. There has been less application of the “spoils system” under the new charter than under previ- ous administrations. With no outside organization con- trolling the city government, public utilities found it no longer necessary, as well as no longer possible, to win special privileges by corrupt methods. Instead, they be- gan employing experts and marshalling facts when they wished to sell a proposition to the city. City Councils ceased to be dominated by a clique of party leaders, and became responsive to the popular will. Paid lobbyists and party leaders were no longer to be seen loitering in the Council Chamber. There were lobbies at Council meetings, but they were made up of citizen groups. This is, with some exceptions, the situation today, and credit for it must be given to the non-partisan system of elections. WHEREIN HAS THE SYSTEM FAILED? Perhaps the most serious defect of the non-partisan election system as it has developed thus far, is its fail- ure to bring forward strong candidates for public office. When a party organization looks around for a candidate 56 and selects one honestly, it has a much better chance of getting a good man than exists when there is no organi- zation to invite candidates into the race and assist in their campaign. Under the present system it has come about that the men who run for office are usually of the office-seeking type. The most desirable men do not usually care to initiate their own candidacy and they shrink from the burden of conducting their own cam- paign. If a strong, reputable organization comes to them with an invitation to run and with the promise of support in the campaign, it is evident that men will run for office who would not do so under other circum- stances. The campaign of the present Mayor was an in- stance in point. He would not have become a candidate of his own volition. Toledo’s experience with the non-partisan ballot has demonstrated that the man without an organization of some kind back of him has little chance of success. This has been particularly true of the mayoralty campaigns. If a political party did not back the successful candidate, he had a strong personal organization, or an organiza- tion of city employees. In a city as large as Toledo, it is difficult if not impossible to carry an election single- handed. Of course it is sometimes possible to get along with- out an organization if one has newspaper support. In Toledo’s municipal history of the last twenty years there have been newspaper candidates. Chittenden was such a candidate in 1913, having been brought out by the News- Bee. But he failed to make any great showing with that backing. Jones, on the other hand, had won the mayoralty without the support of a single paper, and without any organization except the personal following which his leadership had built up. But Jones was phe- nomenal. He was a real political leader, whose equal Toledo has probably never seen. The non-partisan ballot has failed to prevent partici- pation by national parties in municipal elections. This was very forcibly demonstrated at the last election. - At 57 the present time, therefore, the non-partisan system would appear to be somewhat discredited in Toledo. The test will come however in the next two years. If the city government is wisely and honestly conducted, it will probably be approved by the people, whether the party organization appears to have dominated it, or whether it appears to have acted independently. But if it develops that because of party interference city government is less efficient, or less honest, or less amenable to public opin- ion, than it has been during the last six years of non- partisan government, the voters of Toledo may be de- pended upon to rise up and again eliminate party poli- tics from municipal affairs. For Toledo has had a thorough course of education in the non-partisan idea and its people are alert to the danger of party manipu- lation of government for selfish purposes. 58 CHAPTER VIII WHAT IS AHEAD? He would be daring indeed who would venture a pre- diction as to any future course of events over a period of years, in a time so characterized by change as the present... There seem to be safe grounds, however, for certain general statements as to what may reasonably be expected with regard to the immediate future of the non-partisan system in Toledo. Those predictions may be classified under two heads, namely, What results of the non-partisan movement may be expected to be permanent? and What modifica- tions of the present system are probable? In answering the first question it may be well to list again the achievements of the non-partisan movement. Such a list should include pre-eminently about five out- standing objectives that have been attained. First should be mentioned separation of municipal af- fairs from state and national politics. The establish- ment of separate municipal elections, while a state-wide move that cannot be credited wholly to the Toledo In- dependents, was consistently advocated by ‘them and when achieved was an invaluable asset to their cause. Home Rule for cities might well be placed next. For this too was the result of a state-wide campaign in which Toledo advocates of non-partisanship joined and to which they gave valuable support. While Toledo was only one of many centers of agita- tion throughout the United States in the interest of the short ballot with its principle of centralized responsi- bility, yet the recognition of that principle in Toledo’s charter may be largely credited to the propaganda in its behalf by the Independents, under such leaders as Jones and Whitlock. A popular referendum on all major franchises was 59 one of the original demands of the Independent Voters. The provisions of Toledo’s charter specifically requir- ing a referendum on franchises and on all bond issues over $500,000 are definite monuments to their efforts. Finally, the non-partisan ballot, provided in the new charter, was distinctly the achievement of the non-par- tisan movement. It had been advocated by Sam Jones and it was one of the three original planks of the Inde- pendent Voters. As to the first of these achievements, it is improbable that municipal elections will again be held at the same time as state and national elections. This means that it is not likely to again become possible for modiocre men or worse to be elected to municipal offices merely by virtue of an inconspicuous position on a ballot headed by a popular candidate for governor or president. Candi- dates for city offices must stand or fall on their own merits. Going before the people on their own merits, candi- dates for city offices will not, in the immediate future at least, be again able to win election simply by adopting a party label. Toledo voters have themselves acquired in an unusual degree the faculty of discrimination. Municipal elections in this city during recent years have demonstrated nothing more clearly than that. Whether or not a candidate is backed by a strong organization, he must appear to have some qualifications for the job if he is to have any chance of success. Home Rule for cities is without question a permanent achievement. In fact the tendency is toward more and greater Home Rule. This fact is significant in relation to the future of non-partisanship chiefly in that separa- tion of municipal affairs from state politics could not be perfected so long as the state legislature could dominate municipal activities. Freedom from state con- trol is a condition prerequisite to the development or re- tention of non-partisan city government. That condition Toledo has in a large degree and will in all likelihood continue to possess. 60 The short ballot, with its centralization of authority and responsibility, has eliminated one excuse for the party system, namely, that the party system was neces- sary in order to unify, harmonize and co-ordinate the work of the several independently elected officers. The short ballot was a necessary accompaniment of the non- partisan plan. The fact that it has proven effective and will probably be retained argues for the permanence of the non-partisan system. The value of the referendum in important matters of public policy such as the granting of a franchise has been well demonstrated in the recent vote on the Com- munity Traction grant. Had the same franchise been granted by the City Council there would always have been doubt as to the motives behind the vote. It might easily have happened that another petition-in-boots would have prevented its adoption. But it was put to a vote of all the people and was approved, and the decision so given was bound to be accepted without question. The long-standing street car question was not settled until this objective of the non-partisan movement was at- tained. The non-partisan ballot, judging by the city’s past history as well as by present indications, is here to stay. True, it has not accomplished all that was hoped by its advocates nor all that was feared by its opponents. But it has accomplished some things, and Toledo’s experience has justified its continued use. So long, at least, as memories of the old party ballot remain fresh in the minds of the voters, it is incredible that they will per- mit even the suggestion of a return to the old system. For even the most partisan of the politicians, some of the wisest of them at least, are beginning to throw their support to the movement for non-partisanship in city government. So eminent and so staunch a party leader as the late Boies Penrose opposed party interference in local affairs. In his analysis of the Philadelphia char- ter, written in 1919, he argued for non-partisanship in city government, not only for the sake of municipal 61 efficiency but for the party’s sake as well. “Municipal efficiency,” he wrote, “increases in the exact ratio in which it is divorced from partisan politics; and party efficiency increases in the exact ratio in which it disen- tangles itself from municipal affairs.’ But whether or not Toledo’s party leaders profit by this advice from Penrose and by their past experience, they are not likely to permanently succeed in interlocking national party machinery with Toledo’s city government. This does not mean, however, that no modifications of the present system are to be expected—which brings us to the second question raised at the opening of this chapter. Certain defects in the non-partisan system have developed. To meet these defects modifications of the system will probably have to be made. Recognition and analysis of the shortcomings of the non-partisan ballot constitute the first logical step to- ward a remedy for them. The Toledo experiment has reached a stage where those shortcomings can be so analyzed. Several of them have been noted; namely, the difficulty of getting desirable men to run for office, the hopelessness of running without organization sup- port, the impossibility of preventing participation in campaigns by the national parties. It may be that some form of municipal party will be organized to bring forward candidates for municipal office and to define the issues. It may be that a citi- zens’ league, such as those in operation in Cleveland and Detroit, will be established under honest, unbiased, intelligent leadership, to give backing to good candi- dates and to inform the public concerning undesirables. There is a need for some plan by which the weaknesses of the present system may be remedied without revert- ing to the discredited system in which national parties controlled the city government for the personal aggran- dizement of their leaders and for the furtherance of national party aims. But whatever direction future events may take, the non-partisan movement has up to the present time been 62 beyond question the most significant feature of Toledo’s municipal history. It has contributed immeasurably to the reform of city government and the education of the people in public affairs. 63 APPENDIX REPORT OF REPUBLICAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (December, 1904) The report of the Advisory Committee was as follows: “The popular dissatisfaction which has brought about the appointment of this Advisory Committee is DEEP SEATED AND JUST. We appreciate that the public resentment was not caused by any act of your commit- tee which has heretofore been merely nominal in the discharge of the duties belonging to it, but by the con- duct of a few persons who have arrogated to themselves the right to mark out the policy of the Republican party on local questions, to control the nomination of candi- dates for office, and the appointments to office, and to control caucuses and conventions to the exclusion of the rights of the mass of Republicans. “In view of the statement made by your Chairman yesterday in your presence as to the attitude of the executive committee, and the desire of that committee for the co-operation of the persons named by it as an advisory committee in the performance of the duties of the executive committee, we offer the following sugges- tions: “First—That your Committee admit the members of the Advisory Committee to full participation in the consultation and determination by vote of all questions coming before said Committee. “Second—That your Committee, in conjunction with the Advisory Committee, shall assume not merely the nominal but the actual functions belonging to it as the representative committee of the party. “Third—That from the members of the joint com- mittee there be elected a Chairman and First and Sec- ond Vice-President and Secretary. Meeting shall be called by the Chairman of the joint committee, or in his absence by the First or Second Vice-Chairman in 64 their order, or a meeting may be called by written notice signed by ten members of the joint committee, or whom five, at least, shall be members of the Advisory Com- mittee. “Fourth—That the Executive Committee and Advisory Committee shall jointly pledge themselves that all primaries shall be fairly conducted in the interest of all Republican voters; that the conventions shall be con- ducted in like manner, and the delegates to State, Judicial and Congressional conventions shall be selected by the delegates from the wards, and not by ward committee- men, and that the proceedings of the conventions shall be left to the control of the delegates. “Fifth—That these two committees give assurance to the voters that they will not, as a body or bodies, favor or oppose the nomination of any candidate for office; but as individuals shall have the right to exercise their choice and shall be eligible as delegates to any conven- tion. “Sixth—The members of both committees pledge them- selves that no one of them shall act as a member during the time he shall, as agent or attorney, for a compensa- tion be seeking to procure any legislation from the city Council or the State Legislature, or any action by any City Board. “Tf, upon consideration of the above suggestions, they meet your approval, and upon their adoption, with the accompanying resolution, those present who have been requested by your committee to act as advisory members will accept and heartily co-operate with you. “Joun H. Doyte, Chairman, “FH. C. VortriEpE, Secretary.” THE RESOLUTION “Resolved, By the County Republican Executive Com- mittee : “That upon the acceptance of the members of the Advisory Committee heretofore appointed by us, that we will and do hereby pledge ourselves as a body and individually to carry out all that is included in the resolu- tions passed at that time, and we also agree that in all meetings of this committee the adviscry members shall be received and treated as members of same and shall each have a vote in person or by proxy the same as members of this committee, and the result of such vote or votes shall always be made the ‘decision of the Executive Committee and carried into effect as such. 65 “And, further, that we adopt the suggestions of said committee set out in their statement to us.” TOLEDO BLADE ON ANSWER OF REPUBLICAN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE The editorial said in part: “The suggestions are practical. They work hardship upon no one. They bring the party back to the old- time methods by which the voters of the precincts and wards have an actual voice in the affairs of the party in whose principles they believe. Under the new plan delegates to the various conven- tions will do the work of the conventions. That duty will not be usurped by the few to the exclusion of the many. The wards and townships will have representa- tives who will represent, and will not be mere dummies meekly acauiescing to propositions prepared in advance without their knowledge or consent. The new plan provides that the managers of the party, as such, shall not favor or oppose the nomination of any candidate for office. In other words, there shall be free field for any one who desires to submit himself to the suffrages of the people. It will mot be necessary in future to humbly supplicate the favor of a few, but to merit the consideration of the masses of the party.” EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE’S REPLY The resolutions adopted by the Executive Committee December 12, 1904, were: “First—Members of the Advisory Committee shall be admitted to full participation in the consultation on and determination of all questions coming before the Executive Committee. “Second—The Executive Committee, in connection with the Advisory Committee, shall assume the actual func- tions belonging to it as the Representative Committee of the party. “Third—Meetings of the Joint Committee may be called by the Chairman, or in his absence, by the Vice- Chairman of either committee by giving written notice of the time and place of such meeting at least 72 hours previous to the time fixed therefor, personally to the Chairman or in the absence of the Chairman, to the Vice-Chairman of the other committee. Written no- tices shall also be mailed by the Secretary of the com- mittee whose chairman may call such meeting, to each 66 member of both committees at least 48 hours previous to the time fixed for such meeting. Meetings may also be called by any ten or more committeemen, provided, however, that calls therefor shall be signed by at least five members of each committee. Written notices of the holding of such meeting shall be mailed to each mem- ber of both committees at least 48 hours previous to the time fixed therefor. “Fourth—At meetings of the Advisory and Execu- tive Committees in the determination of all questions the following procedure shall be made: At such meetings the chairman of the Advisory Com- mittee shall preside. Opportunity shall be given for full consideration of all questions coming before the com- mittees, and after such consideration of any question a ballot shall first be taken, the members of both com- mittees voting jointly thereon, by yeas and nays upon roll call by the Secretary of the Advisory Committee. The Executive Committee shall thereupon be called to order by the Chairman thereof, and on roll call by the Secretary of the Executive Committee, said committee will formally adopt as its action the decision of both committees voting jointly and will carry it into effect as such. “Fifth—The Executive and Advisory Committees pledge themselves that all primaries shall be fairly con- ducted in the interests of all Republican voters; that the conventions shall be conducted in like manner, and the delegates to state, judicial and congressional conventions shall be selected by the delegates from the wards, and not by the ward committeemen, and in accordance with a call providing for the selection of such delegates, and that the proceedings of the convention shall be left to the control of the delegates. “Sixth—That the Advisory and Executive Commit- tees pledge themselves that they will not as a body or bodies favor or oppose the nomination of any candidate for office or make any public expression relative to the candidacy of any person, but as individuals shall have the right to exercise their personal choice, and shall be eligible as delegates to any convention. “Seventh—No member of either committee shall, as agent or attorney, directly or indirectly seek to procure or prevent any legislation in the City Council, or State Legislature, or any action by any state, county or city board or officer. Any deviation from the above rule by any member of either committee shall thereby dis- 67 charge such offending committeeman as a member of his committee. “On being informed that the Advisory Committee ap- proves the foregoing we, the Executive Committee, as a body and individually, pledge ourselves to carry out in perfect good faith the letter and spirit thereof. Signed: Sam Coun, Chairman, FrANK G. Crane, Secretary.” ‘TOLEDO BLADE ON “DEMOPENDENT” DEFEAT (November, 1910) The following comment in the Toledo Blade on this defeat and its causes is of interest, if qualified by consideration of the fact that the Blade was a hostile paper: “Toledo electors took Mayor Whitlock’s advice seri- ously and voted for men and principles instead of for birds or straight party tickets. “Voting for the best men and the highest principles, and having learned the gentle art of ballot scratching in the days of the Jones non-partisan campaigns, they scratched and scratched again, repudiating utterly and absolutely the bi-partisan Demopendent alliance. Not one Democrat was elected in Lucas County. Not one simon-pure, acid-tested Independent was elected in the county. One Demopendent on both tickets escaped the cataclysm of ballots. He is Frank Hillenkamp, Demo- pendent candidate for member of the House of Repre- sentatives. Early returns indicated election also of John Shaw, Domopendent candidate for County Com- missioner. Canvass of later returns from the country place his election in doubt. “Wednesday, the coroners of the Demopendent com- bination were busy making post mortems. Judson Har- mon, for Governor, carried Lucas County for Governor by 12,000. Yet the local Democratic and Independent tickets were defeated by discriminating voters—voters who candidly expressed the opinion that political re- formers who bought seats for themselves in the clouds should not stoop to the wiles and tricks of the practical politicians they had themselves denounced for forming an alleged bi-partisan alliance. ; “The people differentiated quickly between the patriot- ism of Samuel Jones, the non-partisan, Elisha B. South- ard, who promulgated the doctrine that no man has a 68 moral right to seek an office, and the ward politicians who connied with Democratic bosses for the sole pur- pose of obtaining office.” (A signed article by Lucas J. Beecher.) RULES OF PROCEDURE FOLLOWED BY THE INDEPENDENT VOTERS The rules of procedure referred to were published as follows in the “Independent Voter”, which was for sev- eral years the official organ of the movement: HOW TO PROCEED 1. Call a public meeting by notice in the press and adopt a platform or declaration of principles, not of great length, but plain and simple. 2. After adopting platform, order by vote of the meeting a call for precinct meetings to be held through- out the city and county for the election of delegates to a central committee which will meet at a time fixed upon by the first meeting. 3. After adopting the platform proceed to obtain as many signatures thereto as possible, and when the pre- cinct meetings assemble be careful to have all those who propose to take part in the movement to sign the plat- form, before an action is taken. 4. In the city 25 names should be secured before pro- ceeding with business, and in the county about 15. At this precinct meeting elect a Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer, and one delegate at least to the central body spoken of. This delegate may have an alternate and should be instructed as to the choice of the precinct, of nominees for any or all of the positions to fill. But he must go instructed to be unselfish in the matter and go with the majority. 5. The Central Committee shall meet according to the time set by the first assembly. They shall organize in the regular way with a chairman, secretary and treas- urer. They shall also provide for an Executive Com- mittee to conduct the campaign. They shall remain in control until all nominations are made, when the Execu- tive Committee shall assume all authority. 6. The delegates when perfectly organized shall pro- ceed to receive suggestions for nominees for official positions. The secretary shall take the names of all persons suggested and also the names of the parties making the suggestions so that they may be referred to if necessary. After suggestions shall have been received for all 69 the delegates shall then appoint a committee by wards of two f ach and one from each precinct in the county, whse duty it shall be :to meet within 24 hours to examine the names thus obtained, and the character and fitness of each. This confmittee may adjourn from day to day, but must complete its work and report to the central body within one week from the date of its appointment. 7. It is well to serve notice that applications for position will be plain notice of rejection by the commit- tee. 8 When nominations are all made, petitions should be circulated and sufficient names secured thereon to in- sure the admission of the Independent Voters’ Ticket up- on the official ballot. PLATFORMS OF THE INDEPENDENT CAMPAIGNS The first platform, that of 1904, contained three planks : One on the separation of local affairs from state and national politics, together with home rule for cities; one on the election of public officers without regard to party affiliation, and one on the submission of all franchises to a popular vete. The 1905 platform retained the original three planks and added the following: “4. That any net amount received by any official in Lucas County in excess of $4,000 per annum is robbery. “5. The people should be more active in selecting their officials and should not allow an office seeker to bring about his own nomination. “6. Machine and boss rule must be eliminated.” The 1906 platform eliminated plank No. 4 and added the following : “That nominations should be by petition and the pure Australian form of ballot should be adopted. “We believe in the initiative and referendum under proper limitations and in the right of recall in case of flacrant abuse. “That franchises for public utilities should be subject to public taxation. “That a public office is a public trust for the equal benefit of all the people. “That the judiciary should be relieved of the burden of party politics. ‘ officers = be elected (perhaps several names for each) 70 : - yy a! ’ é “That United States senators should bé bected by direct vote of the people.” It should be remembered that the 1906 catnpaign was a state, not a municipal campaign. ‘ The 1907 platform contained nine planks: One on the separation of local affairs from state and national politics, one against office seeking and against public emplovees participating in nominating conventions, one against excessive salaries and large payrolls, one favor- ing a non-partisan judiciary, one on the regulation of rates charged by public utilities, one on the initiative, referendum and recall, one on the city’s right to acquire and operate public utilities, one against the bi-partisan “printing graft”, aad one on a maximum street car fare of three cents with universal transfers and adequate service. The 1908 platform had nothing new in it except a plank for the abolition of bi-partisan election boards, and a definite plank for home rule for cities and coun- ties. The 1909 platform was similar to the 1907 plat- form but with five planks instead of nine. The 1910 campaign was upon state issues. The plat- form was slightly different, therefore, with planks pro- viding for laws against lobbying, emphasizing the im- portance of good men in the legislature and denouncing party politics and corrupt methods in the state govern- ment. The 1911 platform was similar to that of 1909. This was the last Independent platform. The split of 1913 caused the campaign to be conducted on personal and religious issues and many of the original tenets of the Independent movement were forgotten. METHODS OF MACHINE CONTROL Some of the methods by which a small group at the head of the party were able to control the organi- zation are described in the following story published in the Toledo Times on June 27, 1905: “How then does the machine secure this entire power which the party vests alone in the county central commit- tee? “The process is not difficult with an apathetic electo- rate, and once established, perpetuates itself. First, the machine, in one of those consultations over dinner in a private room of the Patterson or Tavern Cafes, selects the committeemen that it wants, one from each pre- cinct. The name of the committeeman will be placed at the bottom of the “administration” list of delegates. 71 - 2 yO Oo 0s tet) dee Da ee If there are several opposition lists, it will be so manipu- lated that the machine committeeman will be at the bot- tom of one or more of these lists. Under existing condi- tions he is sure of election. “The primary over, the new committeemen, in whom the Republican Party has reposed all political power, are called together. Entering one of those meetings, and there is usually only one in each year, you would imagine it was a convention of city employees. Nearly every man has a public job or office of some kind, and his position is entirely at the mercy of the machine. The machine is represented by Sam Cohn, and to him these patriotic American officeholders bow down. They better had. If there is any opposition some of them will be looking for a job the next day. “Probably Charlie Nauts or Frank Baird are present, not as members of the committee, but to lend. the full approval of the office-giving machine to the meeting. “Some one who has been notified of his duty solemnly arises and reminds the committee that it is too large and cumbrous to manage political affairs, that a smaller working body is essential, and he therefore moves that an Executive Committee be appointed to conduct the business of the party. To this the loyal little manikins cheerfully assent, and so there passes out of their hands the power with which the law and the Republican voters had endowed them for the good of the party, and their ‘so much per’ is safe for another year. “Now another committee is ready with the names of the Executive Committee, carefully prepared by the machine long in advance. They may or may not be members of the County Central Committee; they are elected anyway. That is what the members of the County Central Committee are there for, to do as they are told. “The members of the County Central Committee, elected but a few days before for a year’s service, are now politically dead, and they adjourn with dignity and return to the water works department, the street depart- ment, the courthouse, or whatever provision may have been made for them. They may possibly be called again during the year if the machine wishes the appearance of party unanimity, but they are not dangerous at anv time. What has hanpened? The control of the party has gone irremediably for the year to seven men who are not elected, who are not responsible. and who have been playing politics with the most reckless indifference to Republican wishes and the public weal.” 72 xr a” 9 ing ig 8 | TT WIT 3.2435 061 DEPOSITORY MN