Ohio's Constitutional Convention of 1912

Warner, Landon “Ohio’s Constitutional Convention of 1912,” Ohio State Archaelogical and Historical Quarterly vol. 61, n. 1 (January 1952): 11-31. OHIO'S CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1912 by LANDON WARNER Assistant Professor of History and Political Science, Kenyon College A constitutional mandate requires the submission to Ohio's electorate in 1952 of this question: "Shall there be a convention to 1 revise, alter, or amend the constitution." Provision for periodic review dates from the constitution of 1851. It was introduced as a democratic reform based on Thomas Jefferson's oft-quoted dictum that no law should be in effect longer than a generation, roughly twenty years, unless reenacted. Until 1912 submission of the question was optional with the legislature; an amendment at that time made it mandatory. The last time the voters of Ohio gave an affirmative answer was in 1910, the first step leading to the constitutional convention which convened in 1912. Although historical analogies are suspect when pressed too far, something of profit can be learned from a study of that charter-making body. What created the demand for constitutional change in 1910-12? What was the character of the convention? Was it dominated by extremists of either the right or the left, a fear expressed by those opposing a call today? What were its objectives and how successfully were they realized? What educational value did it have for the people of the state? These are some of the points which a study of Ohio's constitutional convention of 1912 may illuminate. At the end of the first decade of the twentieth century the 2 majority of Ohioans were eager to revise their fundamental law. 1 Art. XVI, sec. 3 of the Ohio Constitution of 1851 as amended in 1912. 2 The following historical narrative is a compressed version of Chapters XI-XIII of the author's doctoral dissertation, Ohio's Crusade for Reform, 1897-1917 (Harvard University, 1950). Since the thesis manuscript contains footnote references to every important statement and is available upon loan to the student, the author has agreed to the editors' request to conserve space by keeping footnote citations to a minimum and listing the most important sources in this bibliographical note. The conditions in 1910 and the vote on the question of holding the constitutionalconvention are discussed by Henry W. Elson, "Making a New Constitution for Ohio," 11 12 Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly The timetable for submitting the call for a convention was advanced one year to 1910 from 1911. Both the Republicans and the Demo- crats endorsed the question and were permitted by special statute to certify that a straight party vote constituted approval of the constitutional convention. The results were overwhelmingly favorable: 693,263 supported the call and 67,718 opposed. We may well suspect this ten to one margin, since no doubt many who cast a straight- ticket ballot gave only perfunctory attention to the question. Still the militant opposition as reflected in the negative vote was sur- prisingly small. Review of Reviews, XLVI (1912), 83-86; Ernest I. Antrim, "The Ohio Constitutional Convention," Independent, LXXII (1912), 1423-1426; and Robert E. Cushman, "Voting Organic Laws: Action of the Ohio Electorate in the Revision of the State Constitution of 1912," Political Science Quarterly, XXVIII (1913), 207-229. A wealth of autobiographies have been published documenting the philosophy and work of the leading Ohio reformers and the influence of Henry George and Henry D. Lloyd upon them: Tom L. Johnson, My Story (New York, 1911); Samuel M. Jones, Letters of Love and Labor (2 vols., Toledo, 1900-1901), and The New Right (New York, 1899); Brand Whitlock, Forty Years of It (New York, 1914); Washington Gladden, Recollections (Boston, 1909); and Frederic C. Howe, The Confessions of a Reformer (New York, 1925). To reconstruct the campaign to elect delegates to the constitutional convention newspapers were consulted almost exclusively: Cleveland Plain Dealer, Ohio State Journal (Columbus), Toledo Blade, Toledo News-Bee, Youngstown Vindicator, Dayton News, and Cincinnati Enquirer. The one important exception was an article stressing Herbert Bigelow's role: Frank Parker Stockbridge, "Ohio Wide Awake," Everybody's, XXVII (1912), 696-707. The sources for the constitutional convention are extensive. Proceedings and Debates of the Constitutional Convention of Ohio, 1912 (2 vols., Columbus, 1912) contain the official transcript, supplemented by the Journal of the Constitutional Convention of the State of Ohio, 1912 (Columbus, 1912). The comments of a number of delegates are printed in James K. Mercer, ed. and comp., Ohio Legislative History (6 vols., Columbus, [1914-26]), I. Four others published special articles: those by Antrim and Elson cited above; another by Elson, "The Fourth Constitutional Convention of Ohio," Review of Reviews, XLV (1912), 337-340; Robert Crosser, "The Initiative and Referendum Amendment in the Proposed Ohio Constitution," American Academy of Political and Social Science, Annals, XLIII (September 1912), 191-202; Charles B. Galbreath, "Vote on the Ohio Constitution," Independent, LXXIII (1912), 1407- 1410. The newspapers listed above provided material on the work of committees. Interviews with Herbert Bigelow, H. P. Boynton, and John D. Fackler supplemented the printed data. The campaign and vote on the amendments is covered in the newspapers and the Galbreath and Cushman articles previously cited. James M. Cox tells of his share in Journey Through My Years (New York, 1946). Two appraisals of the results are: Daniel J. Ryan, "The Influence of Socialism on the Ohio Constitution," North American Review, CXCVI (1912), 665-672, which expresses the ultra-conservative viewpoint; and a rebuttal from the progressive side, Charles Sawyer, "The Ohio Con- stitution. A Reply and a Rejoinder," North American Review, CXCVII (1913), 275-279. Ohio's Constitutional Convention of 1912 13 The poll was taken at a most favorable psychological time. Con- servatives as well as progressives-a new label for radical advocates of change which had just come into popular parlance-determined the moment was at hand to strike for their pet panaceas. Urban capitalists, led by the Ohio State Board of Commerce, wanted to rewrite the taxation article in order to abolish the rule of taxing all property, tangible and intangible, at a uniform rate and to permit classification. The liquor interests sought to eliminate the constitutional injunction against the licensing of saloons in the hope that regulation would head off state-wide prohibition. Most important, though, were the demands of the progressives which had accumulated over the past decade for such varied reforms as municipal home rule, direct primaries, the initiative and referendum, equal suffrage, improvements in the court system and procedures, and legal protection of workers. This pent-up pressure for progressive changes was part of a fer- ment at work in many other states of the Union and in the national government as well. In this same year two notable reform governors were elected, Woodrow Wilson in New Jersey and Hiram Johnson in California; and the house of representatives was in revolt against tyrannical conservative control. Although this leftward movement was a response to certain common influences, the component of these forces differed from state to state. Ohio reformers found inspiration particularly in the teachings of Henry George and Henry Demarest Lloyd. George's vivid portrayal of poverty amidst progress, his message joining Christian brother- hood with equality, as well as his specific panacea for the elimina- tion of want, the single tax, had made converts of a number of Ohioans. Tom L. Johnson, the great Cleveland mayor, is the best known. Others who followed him down the Damascus road were Peter Witt, Frederic C. Howe, Herbert Bigelow, and Brand Whit- lock. Lloyd's influence was less pervasive, but his expose of monopo- listic practices, notably those of the Standard Oil trust, stimulated the thinking of the Toledo crusader Samuel Milton Jones. Another current which stirred Ohioans generally was the literature of the Muckrakers, whose factual accounts of graft and corruption in 14 Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly government and industry created disaffection for the existing system. One of their star performers, Lincoln Steffens, was a friend and champion of the Ohio reformers. At the political level there was the influence of other state leaders who gave encouragement by their example in routing the forces of reaction and introducing specific reforms: Hazen W. Pingree in Michigan, Joseph W. Folk in Missouri, W. S. U'Ren in Oregon, and Robert F. La Follette in Wisconsin. More directly influential than these were two national figures, William Jennings Bryan, who commanded the allegiance of a large segment of Ohio Democracy, and Theodore Roosevelt, who began espousing doctrines congenial to the radical wing of the Ohio Republican party. Important as these larger influences were, they would not have made as deep an imprint on Ohio had it not been for the local leadership of a devoted coterie of reformers headed by Jones in Toledo, Johnson in Cleveland, and Washington Gladden, a Social Gospel preacher, in Columbus. Municipal reformers first, these men entered the state field to free the cities from the leading strings of the legislature. Through their state campaigns they broke the ground and planted the seeds of reform. Though Jones had been dead five years in 1910 and Johnson was mortally ill, their harvest was reaped by a group of young men of great ability who had been attracted to their cause: Brand Whitlock and Negley Cochran in Toledo; Newton Baker, Peter Witt, John Stockwell, Robert Crosser, and Carl D. Friebolin in Cleveland; and Herbert Bigelow in Cincinnati. In 1911 these young crusaders, joined by other progressives, led a spirited campaign to elect their partisans as delegates to the constitutional convention.

Load more