Copyright by

Ira Ridgway Davis

1956 PARTY AND VOTING BEHAVIOR

IN THE

PORTSMOUTH ATOMIC ENERGY ESTABIASHMENT AREA

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State U niversity

By

IRA EIDGWAÏ DAVIS, B. A., M. A.

The Ohio State University 1956

Approved by:

^ -- Adviser Department of Political Science PREFACE

This study was made possible through a Fellowship in the

P o lit ic a l Science Department at Ohio State U n iversity, which

I held during the academic year, 1954-1955. Much of the research was completed during that time and frequent trips were made to southern Ohio to gather material.

I wish to acknowledge the advice and constructive criticisms of the professors who served on my graduate committee, Francis R.

Aumann, E. Allen Helms, and Harvey C. Mansfield of the Political

Science Department, and Eugene H. Roseboom o f the H istory Depart­ ment. I also wish to express my appreciation for the assistance and cooperation given me by officials in the office of the

Secretary of State of Ohio, local election board officials, the

Ohio State Museum library staff, and the many individuals who were interviewed in southern Ohio.

11 TABLE OF CONTEtITS

CHAPTER Page

I The Establishment of the Portsmouth Area Atomic Energy Plant ...... 1

II Background of the Four Counties; Jackson, Pike, Ross, and Scioto ...... 26

III Trends in Party and Voting Behavior: 1859- 1900 ...... 5 k

IV Trends in Party and Voting Behavior; 1900- 1952 ...... 93

V Election Law in Ohio; Legal Controls and Judicial Interpretations*...... lU l

VI Political Parties and the New Voters...-. 162

VII The 1951: General Election ...... 201

VIII A Survey of Seven Voting Precincts in the Atomic Counties ...... 236

IX Conclusion ...... 295

APPENDIX...... 313

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 3ll+

X l l LIST OF TABLES

I Total Population of Jackson,, Pike, Ross, and Scioto Countie s , 18 AO-195 0 ...... 29

II Percentage of Increase or Decrease in Population for Ohio and Jackson, Pike, Ross, and Scioto Countie s, I89O-I95O...... 30

III Population Characteristics of Jackson, Pike, Ross, and Scioto Counties, I950 ...... 33

IV Jackson County: Republican Percentages of Total Votes Cast for President, Governor, and U.S. Representative (1859-1900) ...... 56

V Pike County: Democratic Percentages of Total Votes Cast for President, Governor, and U.S. Representative (1859-1900) ...... 64

VI Ross County: Republican Percentages of Total Votes Cast for President, Governor, and U.S. Represents Ive (1859-1900) ...... 74

VII Scioto County: Republican Percentages of Total Votes Cast for President, Governor, and U.S. Representative (1859-1900)...... 83

VIII Jackson County: Republican Percentages of Total Votes Cast for President, Governor, U.S. Repre­ sentative, and Senator (1900-1952) ...... 95

IX Pike County: Democratic Percentages of Total Votes Cast for President, Governor, U.S. Repre­ sentative, and Senator (I9OO-I952) ...... 105

X Ross County: Republican Percentages of Total Votes Cast for President, Governor, U.S. Repre­ sentative, and Senator (1900-1952)...... 117

XI S cioto County: Republican Percentages of Total Votes Cast for President, Governor, U.S. Repre­ sentative, and Senator (1900-1952) ...... 125

XII General Characteristics of Persons Interviewed in Jackson Heights ...... 239

IV XIII Distribution of Political Pairty Preference of Persons Interviewed, in Jackson Heights ...... 239

XIV Political Preference by Geographical Distribution of Persons, Interviewed in Jackson Heights ...... 242

XV General Characteristics of Persons Interviewed in Waverly Heights ...... 247

XVI Distribution of Political Party Preference of Persons Interviewed in Waverly Heights ...... 247

XVII Political Preference by Geographical Distri­ bution of Persons Interviewed in Waverly H eights ...... 249

XVIII 1954 Registration Statistics of Newcomers in Waverly East Precinct, Pike County ...... 251

XIX General Characteristics of Persons Interviewed in Piketon Village ...... 255

XX Distribution of Political Party Preference of Persons Interviewed in Piketon Village ...... 256

XXI Political Preference by Geographical D istri­ bution of Persons Interviewed in Piketon V illa g e ...... 258

XXII 1954 Registration Statistics of Newcomers in Piketon Village Precinct, Pike County ...... 260

XXIII General Characteristics of Persons Interviewed in Seal Township ...... 263

XXIV Distribution of Political Party Preference and Geographical Distribution of Persons In­ terviewed in Seal Township ...... 265

XXV 1954 Registration Statistics of Newcomers in Seal Township Precinct, Pike County ...... 266

XXVI General Characteristics of Persons Inter­ viewed in Pike County ...... 269

XXVII Political Preference by Geographical D istri­ bution of Persons Interviewed in Pike County ...... 270 VI

XXVIII General Characteristics of Persons Inter­ viewed in Scioto Township, East Precinct ...... 273

XXIX P o litic a l Preference by Employment and Geo­ graphical Distribution of Persons Interviewed in Scioto Township, East Precinct ...... 275

XXX 1954 Registration Statistics of Newcomers in Scioto Township, East Precinct, Ross County ...... 277

XXXI General Characteristics of Persons Inter­ viewed in Chillicothe, Precinct ICC ...... 280

XXXII Distribution of Political Party Preference of Persons Interviewed in Chillicothe, Pre­ cin ct ICC...... 280

XXXIII Political Preference by Geographical Distri­ bution of Persons Interviewed in Chillicothe, Precinct ICC...... 282

XXXIV 1954 Registration Statistics of Total Number of Registered Voters in Chillicothe, Precinct ICC...... 284

XXXV General Characteristics of Persons Inter­ viewed in Valley Township, Precinct C, Scioto County...... 287

XXXVI P o litic a l Preference by Employment and Geo­ graphical Distribution of Persons Interviewed in Valley Township, Precinct C, Scioto County ...... 289

XXXVII 1954 Registration Statistics of Newcomers in Valley Township, Precinct C, Scioto County ...... 291 CHAPTER I

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PORTSMOUTH AREA ATOMIC ENbRGY PLANT

In the mid.~Twentieth Century the dramatic announcement of the construction of a huge Atomic Energy Installation in southern Ohio caused a stir in the otherwise quiet counties of this part of Ohio.

The size of the task, the billions of dollars involved, and the numerous problems such as housing, sch ools, recrea tio n a l f a c i l i t i e s , and other governmental services were apparent even to the casual observer. Arising from this situation was the question of the effect of this immense undertaking upon the already existing patterns of living of those in the area. It was certain that changes would occur, but it was more difficult to predict the extent of these changes. Would the "old timers" be able to resist the effects of th is great in flu x of newcomers upon th e ir liv e s or at le a s t to mold the new residents to their own liking?

The general problem of social change resulting from the impact of sudden large industrial installations raises questions for all the social sciences. A particular aspect of this problem that is of special interest to political scientists, and is the subject of this study, is the impact of the change upon party strength and party allegiance. The principal purpose of this work was to examine the immediate influence which the Atomic Energy Establishment might have upon the historic patterns of party and voting behavior in the area.

The long range effects of the influx cannot be fully analyzed until a

1 2 later time. But the movement of a mass of people into the area for

a three to four year period might be expected to pose a threat to

the existing political complexion if they voted. How far they

did, in the first General Election after the project was launched,

and the obstacles the newcomers faced if they tried to vote, will

be pointed out.

The geographical scope of the study extended over four counties,

Jackson, Pike, Boss, and Scioto. The historical part of the study

goes back to 1859 and traces election results and trends of party

activity since that date for the offices of President, Governor,

U.S. Senator, and U.S. Representative, in order to secure a view

of the political culture and tradition that was the subject of the

intrusion that began in 1952. The study then includes in more

detail an investigation of the General Election of 1954, and forms

the basis for such conclusions as could be reached at this stage of the Atomic Energy Establishment's development.

In this chapter the in itial phase of the establishment will

be considered, as well as the location of the new population

which came into the area in large numbers to build the plant,

and the smaller number which became engaged in the actual operation

of the plant. The next chapter presents a historical sketch of

the four counties, followed by an analysis of their party and

voting traditions. The legal obstacles to voting then precede an

analysis of party and voting behavior in the contemporary period,

with emphasis upon the 1954 General Election. 3 A. Annomiceitetit of the Nev< Atomic Energy Plant

In January, 1932, President Truman announced plans for a five to six billion dollar expansion of atomic energy facilities during the next five years. New plants were already under construction at Paducah, Kentucky and at Savannah R iver, South Carolina. In­ creased atomic energy facilities were needed to make possible the large scale production of fissionable material, establishment of mobile power units for military purposes, and creation of tools of research in colleges and private industry.^

Atomic Energy Commission Chairman, Gordon Dean, commenting upon President Truman's announcement, declared th at a program of expansion had been under advisement for the previous six or eight months. He emphasized the need for as much strength in atomic weapons as the United S ta tes could a tta in .^ Mr. Dean intim ated that a decision would be forthcoming in a few months whether the enlarged atomic energy program would be based upon the construction of new facilities or the expansion of existing plants. The Atomic Energy

Commission desired to forestall land speculation in the event that the former course was follow ed. The Commission was making prelim inary studies of possible sites and the amount of acreage which would be needed if an additional plant were built.^ However, the entire ven­ ture depended upon Congressional approval as well as appropriation

^Walter Isard and Vincent Whitney, Atomic Power - an Economic and S o cia l A nalysis (New York: The B lakiston Company, 1952), p. 22. ^Harold B. Hinton, "Atom Data Traded by U.S. and Canada," New York Times. Jan. 29, 1952, p. 10, col. 6. 3 L o c . c it . 4 of funds to carry it out.

On A pril 12, 1952, the Atomic Energy Commission announced plans for the construction of a new billion dollar Atomic Energy

Plant to produce uranium-235* The proposed plant would cost approxi­ mately one billion dollars, coyer five or six thousand acres, and use 1,800,000 k ilow atts of power when i t was running a t capacity.

Several sites in the Ohio Valley were being studied, primarily because of the availability of water there and the need for power at a reasonable c o st. Since the Atomic Energy Commission was reluctant to construct a government owned and operated community, i t was seek­ ing a s it e which would be near an estab lish ed in d u stria l community.

While the Commission i t s e l f was s ile n t concerning the areas under consideration, the New York Times reported th a t three general areas were under observation. These areas were in the vicinity of Louis­ v i l l e , Kentucky, Point Pleasant, West V irg in ia , and C incinnati, Ohio.^

During April, 1952, Frank J, Lausche, Democratic Governor of

Ohio, and James G. Polk, Democrat, from Ohio’s Sixth Congressional

District, met with Gordon Dean to urge that the plant site be in southern or southeastern Ohio. After their interview Mr. Polk said that eighteen sites were being surveyed in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio,

and West V irgin ia. In h is view a public announcement probably would not be made prior to Congressional approval of the President's plans for expanding the atomic energy program. ^

4"New Atomic Plant Will Cost a Billion," New York Times. April 12, 1952, p. 1, col. 6. 5"Fa.fth Huge Atomic Works," New York Times. April 12, 1952, p. 20, c o l .. 4 . 5 In the middle of May, 1952, fifteen u tilities in the Ohio Valley advanced proposals to the Atomic Energy Commission to pool th e ir f a c i l i t i e s in order to supply e le c tr ic power to the proposed Atomic

Energy Plant, since sites along the Ohio Valley were being con­ sidered.^ By June 2 , 1952, Ohio V alley u t i l i t i e s announced that they had made commitments to the Atomic Energy Commission to provide approximately 2,200,000 kilowatts of electric energy for the proposed

Atomic Energy Plant. While the specific location of the new plant

.was not publicly known, the above arrangements supported the conten- 7 tion that it would probably be located in southern Ohio.

On August 12, 1952, the Atomic Energy Commission issu ed a public announcement that the new Atomic Energy Plant would be constructed in

Pike County, Ohio. The actual site would encoapass approximately

6,500 acres, located on the Scioto River between Piketon and Wakefield in Pike County.® The impact of the new plant would be felt by four southern Ohio counties; Jackson, Pike, Ross, and Scioto. It was estimated that three or four years would be necessary to complete the construction phase. 9

Funds for the proposed Atomic Energy Establishment were provided in a supplemental appropriation measure passed by Congress and signed

&"15 Ohio U tilities Plan Atom Tie-In," New York Times. May 14, 1952, p. 45, col. 6. 7Thomas P. Swift, "15 U tilities to Aid Project of AEC," New York Times. June 2, 1952, p. 30, c o l. 2. Sc.P. Trussell, "$1,200,000,000 Atom Plant to be Built in Southern Ohio," New,York Times. Aug. 13, 1952, p. 1, c o l. 2. 9"Atomic Boom in Ohio," Economist (London), CLXVI (Jan. 3, 1953), p. 23. 6 by President Truman in mid-July. The principal aim of the expansion,

according to Gordon Dean, was to achieve minimum stockpile objectives established by the Department of Defense four and one half to five years earlier than would have been possible under the existing rate of prod action.T he new plant in the Portsmouth area would produce uranium-235, used in the manufacture of atomic weapons, and in the production of energy for peacetime industry.^

The Atomic Energy Commission spent months surveying various areas before selecting Pike County as the site. Probably the factor govern­ ing the choice of the Pike County site was the availability of water and la rg e amounts o f e le c tr ic power. Since the Pike County site was chosen problems such as housing, health, education, transpor­ tation, and recreation had to be met by a rural county with state and federal assistance.It was hoped that the nearby cities of

Portsmouth in Scioto County, Chillicothe in Ross County, and Jackson in Jackson County would a s s is t in solving these problems, by absorbing part of the influx of the new inhabitants.

Construction of the new plant was begun in November, 1952, by

Peter Kiewit Sons' Company of Omaha, Nebraska, the major construction contractor and one of the largest construction companies in the

United States. Organized labor played an important role since major labor unions, the American Federation of Labor and the Congress of

^(^Tr us se ll, loc. cit. Ill'Atomic Boom in Ohio," Economist (London), CLS.VI (Jan. 3, 1953), p. 22. 12l b i d .. p . 23. 7 Industrial Organization, organized the construction workers. After the construction phase was nearly completed, the operating personnel voted to ally themselves with the G.I.O, During the peak of the con­ struction period the A.F. of L., with its craft unions operating under the Pike County Atomic Trades Council, reported that they had organ­ ized 20,000 of the construction workers and 1,700 office personnel 13 at the Pike County Atomic P lant. The existence of a large industry, a huge construction company, and organized labor were foreign indeed to a small agricultural area such as Pike County.

The Atomic Energy Commission selected the Goodyear Tire and

Rubber Company of Akron, Ohio, as operating contractor of i t s new plant. Individual units of the plant were expected to go into opera­ tio n as they were completed. The Union Carbide and Carbon Corpora­ tion, operating contractor for the Atomic Plants of Oak Ridge,

Tennessee, and Paducah, Kentucky, assumed responsibility for training key Goodyear employees.The Goodyear Atomic Corporation, sub­ sid ia ry of th e Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, carried out the 15 actual operation of the plant.

In July, 1953, the Atomic Energy Commission reported construc­ tion of expanded production facilities on schedule. Land require­ ments for the Portsmouth Plant had been reduced from 6,500 acres to

"Goodyear Atomic Employees," Portsmouth Times. Nov. 10, 1954, p. 23, col. 1. 14"Goodyear S elected to Run Atomic P la n t," New York Times. Sept. 19, 1952, p. 6, col. 4. 15U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Thirteenth Semiannual Report of the Atomic Energy Commission (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govt. Printing Office, January, 1953), p. 12. 8

3)700 acres, seventy-three per cent of which had. been acquired. Peter

Kiewit Sons' Company, general construction contractor, had chosen the

major subcontractors, which were the Grinnell Corporation of Provi­

dence, Rhode Island, for the mechanical work, the Reynolds Electrical

and Engineering Company of El Paso, Texas, and the Newbury Electrical

Corporation -of-Los-Angeles, California, for the electrical work, and

George N. Koch Sons' Inc. of Evansville, Indiana, for the sheet metal work.l6 These companies were the principal employers of the workers vho surged into the area to seek employment. B. Influx of Population

(1) Early Estimates

Following the announcement of the new Atomic Plant estimates of the probable number of workers who would be needed for such an undertaking ranged from 30,000 to 40,000 for the construction force and 4,000 to 5,000 for the operating personnel.According to

Atomic Energy Commission estim ates an average o f 17,000 workers would be required and approximately 34,000 would be employed at the peak of the construction phase.

Two sources of labor supply were relied upon to meet the new demand. Only part of the necessary labor could be furnished by the four county local labor market, and the remainder would have to

^%.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Fourteenth Semiannual Report of the Atomic Energy Commission (Washington, D.C.: Govt. Printing Office, July, 1953), p. 10. 17Trussell, loc. cit. l®"Atojnic Boom in Ohio," Economist CLKVI (Jan. 3, 1953), p. 23. 9 migrate to the area. The Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland in March,

1953 , estimated that 58,800 persons were employed in the four county area in 1952 and predicted gradual increases to 63,000 by April, 1953, to 70,000 by December, 1953, and to 96,000 by January, 1955. Their estimate placed the Atomic Energy Commission's needs at 28,800 employees for construction and operation during this time.^9

Sufficient labor to meet the maximura demand of 96,000 workers would come from several sources. Approximately 76,000 would come from the local area, including 70,000 from Jackson, Pike, Ross, and

Scioto Counties and 6,000 from such nearby Ohio Counties as Adams,

Highland, and Vinton. The remaining 20,000 workers would have to m igrate to the area to meet th e t o t a l lab o r demand during the peak of the construction phase. After the completion of the Atomic Plant it was estimated that the permanent labor demand would be approxi­ mately 7,200 above the July, 1952, level. This increased number of workers was divided into three principal categories: (a) 3,990 perjianent staff of the Goodyear Atomic Corporation (b) 1,200 in transportation and utilities, and (c) 2,000 in trade and service industries. About 2,200 of the 7,200 workers would migrate to the area and the balance could be supplied from within the four counties.20 Since many of the temporary and permanent migrants to the area would bring their families, it was expected that 50,000

^^'•Ohio's New Atomic Plant," Monthly Business Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, Ohio, XXJiV, No. 3 (March, 1953), p. 8 . 20l b i d ., p. 9 . 10 mejtij vjomen, and children mould enter the area by January, 1955. By

1957 most of.these people undoubtedly mould leave the area.^l

(2) Revision of the Estimates. 1953

Early estimates of thirty to forty thousand construction morkers mere revised by the Atojnic Energy Commission during the latter part of 1953* At the end of December, 1953, the estimated peak fig u re for construction vorkers mas listed at approximately 26,000, but no change mas foreseen in the original estimate of permanent employees.

It mas assumed that the construction and operating personnel mould reach nearly 30% of the total number of people employed in the four county area late in 1954. Approximately 16,400 construction workers mere expected to jiiigrate to the area and about 1,9 0 0 of the permanent personnel mould come from outside the local labor market area.

The number of morkers employed at the Atomic Emrgy Plant mas matched mitti avid interest by those living in the four county area.

By the middle of may, 1953, it mas reported that 4,695 morkers mere employed at the p la n t . The prediction mas for an increase of 250 meekly until the end of 1953 , viien the figure mould reach about 19 ,000.23 Actual employment at the Atomic Plant by the end of 1953 totalled only 13,536, mhich consisted of 12,296 construction morkers

21lbid., p. 5. '^2'Ü.s. atomic Energy Commission, Fifteenth Semiannual Report of the atomic Energy Commission (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govt. Printing Office, January, 1954), p. 14* 23114^695 workers Employed a t A -P lan t," Waverly Watchman, may 14, 1953 , -p. 1, co l. 4 . 11

and 1,240 operating personnel. The General Manager of the Goodyear

Atomic Corporation, Albert J. Garcia, announced that limited opera­

tions at the plant might begin soon.^^

(3) The 1954 Population

At the end of June, 1934, the Atomic Energy Commission reported

the construction phase was proceeding satisfactorily, and the con­

struction peak was expected late in the summer.The Commission

once more revised its peak estimates for construction workers and

at this time predicted a maximum of 22,300 vrorkers. This repre­

sented a reduction of 3,300 from the figure reported in January,

1934 .^^ Actual employment at the Atomic Plant was listed at 22,622

in the latter part of July and of this number approximately 1,900 were

operating personnel. A substantial increase of 2,735 had occurred

since May, 1934, and an increase of 722 in the last two weeks of

June. Total employment at the peaJc was expected to reach the 23,000 mark.

On the second anniversary of the announcement of the new plant

23,000 persons were employed by the Portsmouth Atomic Establishment.

A total of 30,800 employees had taken the general orientation course

^^"Operations May Begin in 1934 at A-Plant," Jackson Herald, Jan. 8, 1934 , sec. B, p. 3, col. 6. 25u.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Sixteenth Semiannual Report of the Atomic Energy Commission (Wash., D.C.: U.S. Govt. Printing Office, July, 1934), p. 9. ^°Ib id .. p. 18. 27iiA-Plant Nears Second Birthday," Chillicothe Gazette. July 31, 1954 , p. 1, col. 2. 12 at the plant daring the two year period. The 7,800 difference between actual employment and the orientation figure was attributed in part to the completion of subcontracts and in part to turnover.

At this time the manager of the Portsmouth Plant declared that mrk was on schedule. Progress had been steady since there were no delays in the planning phase. This, in turn, permitted the procure­ ment of materials and equipment to remain on schedule. The absence of serious labor difficulties also speeded the progress of con­ struction. ^9

The anticipated increase in employment at the plant through the fall was not realized. On august 20, 1954, the Atomic Energy Com­ mission reported the peak of employment had been reached on July 24, when the figure stood at 22,622, 1,919 Goodyear employees and 20,703 construction workers. Early estimates proved too high by at least

10,000, while revised figures were about 3,000 above peak employment.

The official reason given for early attainment of maximum employment was not a modification of the construction phase, but rather a O Q result of good weather and "other favorable conditions."^ It had been possible to move construction along at a more rapid rate than had been anticipated in 1952. No sharp decline in employment was forecast during the next few months, but then a gradual decrease

^L.% . Burns, "A-Plant Rushes Toward Peak Employment," Ports­ mouth Times, August 12, 1954, p. 1, col. 7- S9"At 2-Year Mark, AEG Sums Up: 'Un Schedule'," Portsmouth Times. Aug. 12, 1954, p. 1, co l. 5- ^"Peak Reached in Employment," Jackson Herald. Aug. 20, 1954, sec. B, p. 4, col. 5. 13 would occur.

The official reason for early attainment of peak employment and fewer employees than originally estimated was certainly cast in vague terms and raises several questions. Were the early estimates high in order to induce large numbers of workers to move into the area?

Were they intended to stimulate private building in the area? Was it possible that the WECj despite its official reasoning, had reduced its original plans? In this connection it will be remembered that the number of acres needed was sharply reduced according to an AEC report of July, 1953• It would appear that more than a mere mis­ c a lc u la tio n was involved.

A s of October 16, 1954, employment figures for the Atomic Energy

Plant included 18,603 construction workers and 2,328 operating personnel. It vjas estimated that about 50^ of these persons had migrated to the area. This is in contrast to the Cleveland Federal

Reserve Bank's estimates which visualized a larger labor force for the Atomic Plant, and a smaller proportion of migrants,

A decline in the number of construction workers was noticeable by December, 1954. Operating personnel increases were not enough to offset the decrease in construction workers. Total employment by

December 31, 1954, was 18,547, of whom 15,926 were construction workers and 2,621 were Goodyear employees.The prospect, according

^^Ibid. 32iij^_P]_ant, Payroll," Portsmouth Times, Jan. 1, 1955, p. 1, col. 1. 14 to the Atomic Energy Coûimission, was for the construction vorkers' number to decrease to approximately 10,500 by June 30, 1955, and to 5,000 by the end of December, 1955-^^

The Goodyear Atomic Corporation and officials of the Atomic

Energy Commission s till expected the operating personnel to reach

4,000. Goodyear's general manager, Albert J. Garcia, announced in January, 1955, that the turnover of employees at Goodyear had been exceptionally low. His outlook on Goodyear employment was that it would increase to 3,400 by June 30, 1955, and to approxi­ mately 3,700 by January 1, 1956.^4

C. Geographical Location of the Potential Atomic Voter

The massive influx of construction workers into the four county area began in 1953, reaching its peak in July, 1954* Housing for these workers became a crucial problem in the early stages of con­ struction. It had important bearing on newcomers in relation to voting, since potential voters had to fulfill residence requirements.

In October, 1952, the Portsmouth-Chillicothe area was designated a critical defense housing area at the request of the Atomic Energy

Comuission.^^ Three p rin cip al types of housing accommodations, trailer camps, public housing p ro jects, and permanent housing projects, were

"Building at A-Plant to Taper Off," Portsmouth Times. Jan. 1, 1955,-p. 1, col. 6. 34"G.riT Employment to Go Up 1,100 During '55," Portsmouth Times, Jan. 1, 1955, p. 1, c o l. 7, 3 5y . s , Ato mi c En er gy C ommi a si o n, Thirteenth Semiannual iieport of the Atomi c Energy Commission (hash., D.C.: U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Ja^., 1953), p. 18. 15 utilized or built for the newcomers during the construction phase. In

addition^ any existing facilities that the individual counties could provide were used.

(l) Public Housing Projects and Government Trailers

The federal government, through the Federal House and Home

Finance Agency, approved and provided temporary houses and government

owned t r a i l e r s in Pike County to many of th e c o n stru c tio n workers who came into the area. An announcement was made in April, 1953, by the House and Home Finance Agency that the village of Piketon had been assigned five hundred temporary housing units, 150 homes

and 350 trailers.By August, 1954, the number of trailers in the

Piketon Public Housing Project, known as the Cissna addition, and located three nales east of the village, had increased to 750. In

November, 1954, it was estimated that 2,700 persons were living in

the Piketon housing addition. Fight hundred and five of the 900 unit project were occupied, and the rest of the units were to be ready for occupancy by December .1, 1 9 5 4 .In Waverly, the county

seat, the Public Housing Administration sponsored the Rivervale

addition in the southern section of the village. The Rivervale

Housing Project contained 250 temporary homes and 150 trailers which were government owned. Housing in these projects Vi/as restricted to

^^"Piketon to Get 150 Homes and 350 House Trailers," t^averly vVatciyaan. April 30, 1953, p. 9, col. 5* 37"Housing Job at Piketon Serves 2,700 Persons,” Portsmouth Times. Nov. 18, 1954, p. 23, col. 5- 16 employees of the Atomic Energy Plant, and was utilized largely by construction -workers.

Housing projects were established to meet the emergency housing needs and were to be closed when sufficient private housing became available in the area. The projects in Piketon and Waverly both reached their capacity in December, 19$1, but occupancy began to decline after that date. By March, 1955, the Rivervale addition at

Waverly had occupants in I 96 of th e 250 homes, and 117 t r a i l e r s of th e 150. Un March 21 the government announced the closing of part of this addition. The 250 temporary homes were scheduled to be closed entirely by June 1, 1955. The trailer homes were not considered in competition with private housing, and were retained at that time.

The Cissna addition in Piketon in March, 1955, was occupied to the extent of 133 of the I 5O homes and 568 of the 750 trailers. It was expected that the closing of the temporary homes in the Piketon addition would be announced later in the year.^^

(.2 ; T ra ile rs

Another principal type of housing for the construction workers was th e t r a i l e r camp. Many of th ese camps were e s ta b lish e d in the four county area by private individuals or groups. A substantial number of newcomers arrived in their own trailers or purchased trailers after coming into the area, and then selected their trailer

' "Waverly Leads in Homes Expansion," Portsmouth Times. Aug. 12, 1954, p. 38, col. 1. ^/"Rentals Halted in U.S. Waverly Home iirea, " Portsmouth Times. March 22, 1955, p. 1, col. 2 and 3. 17 camp.

Since trailer owners were subject to a yearly tax it was possible to obtain a fair estimate of the number of trailers in the four county

area. The trailer tax was comparatively new for Ohio, having been

approved by the State Legislature in 1949, to take effect on April 1,

1951. A yearly tax of #18 was levied with a #50 penalty for non­ payment.

It was in Pike County that the heaviest concentration of trailers was found. The growth of the county's trailer population may be

shown by a glance at the trailer taxes collected in Pike County between 1951 and 1954. In 1951, first year of the trailer tax,

collections amounted to $31.50 and in 1952 to $135.32. A tremendous increase was noted in 1953 when the figure reached $10,953. By

1954 the county ranked second in the state in trailer tax collec­ tions with $49 , 172. 50.40

The Ohio State Department of Health in August, 1954, released an estimate of 3,000 trailers in licensed trailer courts in the four counties. Pike County led with 2,267, and an additional 600 trailers were believed located outside the approved courts. The additional trailers were situated on private property which had been rented to the trailer occupants by rural residents. The other three counties were listed as having the following number of trailers: Scioto

^Owpike RanJcs 2nd in Collection of Trailer Tax," Waverly News, M arch-I5, 1955, p. 3, col. 4. 18

County, 353, Ross County, 221, and Jackson County, 16?.^^

Jackson County, with three trailer courts, had the smallest number of trailers in the four county area. According to the trailer licenses issued by the County Auditor in 1954, there was

an increase of 85 over the number issued in 1952. In 1952, 29 trailer licenses were issued compared with 59 in 1953 and 114 in

1954 .^^ Since Jackson County was not subject to a mass invasion of

construction workers it is not surprising that its trailer residents were relatively few compared with Pike County.

Trailer courts flourished in Pike County where the greatest number of construction workers settled to be near the Atomic Plant.

Trailers were located principally in Scioto and Seal Townships, and

Piketon Village. In November, 1954, there were thirty officially registered trailer courts in the county. An auditor's official esti­ mated there were from 2,500 to 3,000 trailers in these registered courts, and approximately 1,000 trailers on private lots. The phenomenal growth of trailer residents my be realized when it is remembered that the county had only about ten trailers prior to

A ugust, 1952 .

To systematize trailer tax collections in Pike County the auditor appointed a full time deputy in January, 1953*^^ The number of

^^"16,000 Live in Trailer Homes in Atomic Area," Portsmouth Times, Aug. 12, 1954 , p. 38, col. 6. 4pJackson County, Ohio, Records of Trailer Licenses. 1952-1954. ^^"Homer Ware Chosen as Deputy Auditor," Waverlv Watchman, Jan. 15, 1953 , p. 4, col. 3 . 19 trailer licenses issued in Pike County during the construction phase was as follows; 66 in 1952, 1,524 in 1953, and 2,816 in 1954.^^ The difference between the total number of licenses issued and the total estimated trailers in the county resulted from the delinquency of many trailer owners in the county in the payment of their taxes. A county auditor's official speculated that the county had lost the annual tax from about 1,600 trailers since the vast increase in trailers had taken place. The total number of trailers estimated here for Pike County does not include 900 government-owned trailers in the Piketon and Waverly Public Housing Projects, since the government trailers were not subject to the state trailer tax.

Ross County had nine trailer courts which were located primarily in Scioto Township. In 1954 the estimated number of trailers was 221, and the actual number of trailer licenses was 197* Prior to August,

1952 , the county had 8? licensed trailers and added 12 trailers by the end of the licensing year, giving it a total of 99 for 1952.

Trailer licenses issued in 1953 numbered 128 and rose to 197 in 1954.^^

While the Ohio State Department of Health estimated 353 trailers for Scioto County, only 307 licenses were issued for the entire trailer year.^^ Licensed trailers in Scioto County increased from 54 in 1952 to 132 i n 1953, and to 307 in 1954-^'^ The county had nine

^^Pike County, Ohio, Records of Trailer Licenses, 1952-1954. ^^Ross County, Ohio, Records of Trailer Licenses, 1952-1954. 4&The trailer licensing period runs from, April 1 to March 31- 47gcioto County, Ohio, Records of Trailer Licenses. 1952-1954. 20 registered, courts, six of which were located north of Portsmouth in

Clay and Valley Townships, near the Pike County line.

Trailers solved the housing problem for many construction workers. All four counties experienced a growth in trailer resi­ dents. Although Pike County received the majority, Scioto and Ross

Counties also witnessed a significant increase in trailer population.

Jackson County was least affected of the four by this type of temporary housing.

(3) Permanent Housing

The acute housing shortage in the four county area was p a r tia lly solved by permanent housing projects, erected in each of the counties.

The Federal Housing Administration and private companies worked together to provide the area with this type of housing, available only to Atomic Plant workers, both construction and operating personnel.

While these homes were available to the workers on a rental or pur­ chase basis, many were reluctant to buy homes at inflated prices, and as a result they preferred to rent.

In Jackson County construction began on a permanent housing project in 1953, which was ready for occupancy in March, 1954. The

Jackson Heights subdivision consisted of 145 units including 75 single units with two bedrooms and ?0 duplex units with three bed­ rooms. These homes were available to any worker who could obtain a certificate of eligibility for defense housing from his e m p l o y e r . 48

^^"New 145 Unit Housing Project Will Receive Renters Tomorrow," Jackson Herald. March 26, 1954, p. 1, col. 3. 21

During 1954 three housing projects -were constructed in Waverly,

Pike County. There were 115 homes in Waverly E s ta te s , 213 in

Waverly Heights, and a third project,Bristol Heiglits, then under construction, would contain 325 new homes. The first of the new subdivisions, Vïaverly Heights, was begun in May, 1953.^9 Owners of

Waverly Estates and Waverly Heights planned to expand their housing projects and Waverly officials predicted that 800 additional new homes would be constructed between 1954 and 1956.^^ Waverly was expanding rapidly and village officials hoped to lure permanent operating personnel to their community. An extension of the village corporation lim its took place in April, 1953, when the boundaries were expanded from 400 acres to about 2,500 a c re s.

The Federal Housing Administration in December, 1954, announced removal of controls from Waverly housing. The peak of construction at the Atomic Energy Plant had been reached in July, and the nevj homes in Pike County had relieved the housing situation. An estimated 1,299 homes had been constructed in Waverly during 1952-1954. The Ohio

Federal Housing Director, Forrest H. Smith, declared that FHA homes in Waverly could be sold, leased, or rented to anyone without a certificate from the Pike County Atomic Plant officials. Mr. Smith also stated that controls on Federal Housing Administration insured

^^"First Subdivision Gets Under Way,” Waverly Watchman. May 7, 4953, P" 1, col. 6. 50ii\iaverly Leads in Homes Expansion,” Portsmouth Times, Aug. 12, 1954,p. 38, col. 1. 51"Viaverly to Expand,” Waverly Watchman, April 23, 1953, p. 1, c o l. 6. 22 homes -would remain in Portsmouth, Chillicothe, and J a c k s o n . 52

In Ross County the Western H ills Apartment Development and

Chillicothe Manor were the two Federal Housing Administration pro­ jects constructed to accommodate the atomic workers. The Western

H ills Apartment Project, which contained 160 two bedroom units, was begun in June, 1953, and was completed by September, 1953 .^^

Chillicothe Manor, a project of 140 three bedroom homes, was begun in February, 1954, and opened in July of that year. Both projects were decontrolled by the Federal Housing Administration in January,

1955, and were available for rent or sale to the general public,

Scioto County did not experience as large a building boom as

Pike County although, at the close of 1953, 282 new housing units were listed in the county. These included 240 Federal Housing Administratif

Project units, under construction in Portsm outh. ^5 The FHA p ro je c ts in Scioto County, completed early in 1954, consisted of Scioto Trail

Manor, 106 apartments, and Forest Heights, 134 units. Construction slowed down in Scioto County by ilugust, 1954. The county added 540 new homes and apartments between 1952 and 1954 .^^

^^"F.H.A. Controls Taken Off Waverly Housing," Jackson Herald. DGc»g24, 1954 , p. 5, col. 1. ^^"Western Hills Apartments," Chillicothe Gazette. Feb. 26, 1955, seCt 2, p. 20, col. 1. 5^"Chillicothe Manor," Chillicothe Gazette. Feb. 26, 1955, sec. 2, p. 18, col. 3. 55"Housing To Be Big Problem in Coming Tear," Portsmouth Times. Jan. 1, 1954, p. 15, col. 1. 56"Waverly Leads in Homes Expansion," Portsmouth Times. Aug. 12, 1954, p. 38, col. 1. 23 D. Conclusion

The announcement in August, 1952, brought hopes of a higher

economic status and an upsurge of population in southeastern Ohio.

The actual number of migrants to the area, and the exact number of

persons in each of the four counties -was not known and could not be

ascertained short of a systematic census. Chamber of Commerce

officials in Portsmouth requested the federal government to conduct

such a census in 1955. but the federal government refused to pay for it and the local units were not ready to meet the expenses of such an undertaking. Unfortunately, most of the temporary population will have left the area by I960, and the regular census will not reflect the

tremendous increase in population at the height of the construction phase.

Construction workers availed themselves of trailer camps and temporary housing facilities, as well as permanent subdivisions, after these were completed. Permanent workers tended to select homes in the new permanent subdivisions, or to build in the older, well established subdivisions in the area. Homes in the subdivisions were for rent or sale, although through the end of 1954 most of the operating personnel, and those construction workers moving into these homes, chose to rent rather than buy. Prices were high, and the newcomers vjho planned to remain probably preferred to survey the area before selecting their final place of abode.

Population estimates in August, 1954, shortly after the peak of the construction phase, placed the total increase at about 21,000, 2k

The county seats of the four counties had increased in the following manner between 1950 and 1954* Waverly^ Pike County, from 1,6?9 to

5,500; Chillicothe, Ross County, from 20,133 to 26,700; Portsmouth,

Scioto County, from 36,790 to 46,790.^^ Jackson, Jackson County, had increased from 6,504 to 7,800.^^ The rapid rise in population was startling when compared with the rate of population increase in the United States from 1950 to 1954. Un a nationwide basis the percentage of population increase was approximately 8.26^, while the percentage of increase for the four county seats from 1950 to

1954 was 3 3 .32^. In the village of Piketon in Pike County, where several trailer camps and the public housing project were located, it was estimated that the population had advanced between 3,600 and

4,000 above the 768 population in the 1950 c e n s u s . ^9 These fig u re s must be viewed with caution, since they are approximations. They reflect not only the presence of Atomic Plant personnel, but also the numerous persons who came into the area to provide the atomic workers with services.

These figures represent a phenomenal growth of population in the four county area within the short span of two years. Certainly the population and economic outlook were considerably brighter than they

67ii^piant, Two Years Old Today - half Finished," Chillicothe G azette, Aug. 12, 1954, p. 1, co l. 1. 58"Latest Estimates Place Jackson's Population at Slightly over 8,000," Jackson Herald, Sept. I 7 , 1954, p. 1, col. 1. 59"PopulationV, For Sure it's Up in .^Area," Portsmouth Times. Aug. 12, 1954 , p.' 38, col. 8. 25 had been only two years previously. Whether this swollen population would have an immediate effect upon party and voting behavior posed a crucial problem. A look at the past will show how startling the

AEG influx was, and also suggests that difficulties may be expected in accommodating the mass of newcomers to the settled political order in the four counties. ÜHAi^TW I I

BAGKGRUUNO ÜF THb FüüR CüUMTIÜS: JaüüSÙN, PIKà, ROSS, SCIOTü

Before looking at the contemporary scene in the four counties it vjould be prudent to examine their background. In the historical treatment, undertaken in this chapter, a general survey of the back­ ground of the early residents, of population trends, and economic conditions precedes a more detailed analysis of each county's organization, composition of the early settlements, and the economic status of the area.

A. General Features

(1) Background of the Itarly Residents

Migration to the four county area can be traced from V irg in ia ,

Pennsylvania, and Kentucky. By the 1880's people from these states were located in the four county area. Virginia, Pennsylvania, and

Kentucky were the la rg est contributors to Jackson, Pike, and Ross

Counties, while Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Virginia provided the largest influx into Scioto County.^ Immigrants settling in the four counties can be divided into four principal groups on the basis of national origin: English and

Welsh, Irish, German, and French. In 1870 the bulk of the foreign born population of Jackson County could be classified in the above groups, with the English and Welsh having the largest representation.

The la r g e s t immigrant group in Pike County was the Germans who numbered 782 of 899 of the foreign born population. Ross and Scioto Counties each had a foreign born population of over 3,000

Compendium o f the Tenth Census (1880), P a rt I , Table KICII, pp. 525- 526. 27 with the Germans contributing over 2,000 of these in both cases.

The Irish were second, and the English and Welsh third. Pike and

Jackson Counties had fevj residents of French origin while Scioto

County recorded 261 and Ross County 70.^ A similar pattern was noticed in the 1880 census.^ However, the foreign born population was small compared with the number of native born, since only a few thousand foreign born persons were listed for Scioto, Ross, and

Jackson Counties, and seven to eight hundred for Pike County in the

1870 and 1880 census reports, compared with native born populations of approximately 30,000 each in Ross and Scioto Counties, 22,000 in

Jackson County, and 17,000 in Pike County.

In contrast to earlier census reports, 1950 census figures recorded only a few persons of foreign nativity in the four county area. A few English, Welsh, and Germans were living in Jackson and

Pike Counties, while the principal nationality groups represented in

Ross and Scioto Counties were the Germans, Italians, Greeks, English, and Welsh.^

(2) Population

On the basis of population from 1810 to 1900 the four counties stood in the following positions: Ross County, first, Scioto County, second, Jackson County, third, and Pike County, fourth. In 1840

Compendium of the Ninth Census (1870), Table XVIII, pp. 430-431. Compendium of the Tenth Census (1880), Part I, Table XlKl, pp. 525- 526. ^United States Census Report, 1950, II, Part 35, Ohio, 17th Census, pp. 63-64. 28 populations ranged from 27,460 in Ross County to 7,626 in Pike County.

The four counties steadily increased in population until 1900. As

Table T indicates, it was in 1900 that Scioto County became the largest of the four counties, overtaking Ross County by forty-one persons. By I 95 O the population of Scioto County surpassed that of

Ross County by approximately 29,000 persons. According to the 1950 census, the population of the four counties varied from 14,607 in

Pike County to 82,910 in Scioto County.

In Table II the percentages of population increase or decrease in Ohio and the four atomic counties have been arranged for the years

1900 to 1950 . On the statewide level the population increased at a steady rate until 1930. In 1930 the rate of increase dropped to

15. 4^, and by 1940 it had fallen to an all time low of 3 . 9 %. This represented the smallest increase of population on the state level in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, The state did not experience an increase in its population through migration in the decade, 1930-1940, but only through an excess of births over deaths.

Since the excess of births over deaths was 286,300 and the increase in population was 260,915, there was a net balance of 25,385 persons who must have left Ohio to make room for the newborn. It was assumed that Ohio's population increases due to migration had leveled off.^ The slight gain on the county level in the 1930's was

R andolph C. Downes, "Ohio Population Trends: I 92 O-I94 O," Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society Quarterly. 11 ( 1942 ), pp. 219 - 220. 29

T4BLE I TOTAL POPULATION OF JACKSON, PIKE, ROSS, AND SCIOTO COUNTIES, 1840-1950

YEAR JACKSON PIKE ROSS SCIOTO

1840 9,744 7,626 27,460 11,192

1850 12,719 10,953 32,074 18,428

1860 17,941 13,643 35,071 24,297

1870 21,759 15,447 37,097 29,302

1880 23,686 17,927 40,307 33,511

1890 28,408 17,482 39,454 35,377

1900 34,248 18,172 40,940 40,981

1910 30,791 15,723 40,069 48,463

1920 27,342 14,151 41,556 62,850

1930 25,040 13,876 45,181 81,221

1940 27,004 16,113 52,147 86,565

1950 27,767 14,607 54,424 82,910

SOURCE; United States Census Reports, 1840 to 1950. 30

TiBLE I I PERCENTAEÜ OF INCREASE OR DEoRbASE IN POPULATION FOR OHIO AND JACKSON, PIKE, ROSS, AND SCIOTO COUNTIES, 1890-1950

OHIO /1 3 .2 # /1 4 .7 # /2 0 .8 # / 15. 4# / 3 . 9 # / 15.O#

JACKSON /20.b% -10.1# -11.2# - 8.1# / 7.8# / 2.8#

PIKE / 3.9% - 13. 5# -10.0# - 1 . 9 # /16.1# - 9 . 3#

ROSS / 3.8# - 2 . 1 # / 3.7# / 8 . 7# /I 5.4# / 4 . 4#

SCIOTO /I 5. 8 # /I 8 . 3# /29.7# /29.2# / 6.6# — 4 . 2#

SOURCE; United States Census Reports. 1890 to 1950. 31 attributed in part to a back to the farm movement.^

I t VJÜ1 be noted in Table II that the four counties increased their population until 1910, when Jackson, P ik e, and Ross Counties

suffered losses ranging from -2% in Ross County to -13^ in. Pike

County. By 1920, however, Ross County registered an increase of

3%. Scioto County reported its greatest increase in 1920, while

Pike and Jackson Counties exhibited further decline. The reports followed the same pattern in the next decade. Scioto County indi­ cated another substantial increase, again surpassing the percentage of increase on the statewide level. Portsmouth, county seat of

Scioto County, recorded its greatest growth in 1930. The upsurge of population in Portsmouth may be explained by the fact that the iron and steel industry reached its greatest development during that period.7

In 1940 all foui’ counties demonstrated population increases above the statew ide average of 3.9%. Pi!(e and Ross Counties experienced the largest gains, with increases of 16^ and 15% respectively, while Jackson and Scioto Counties had increases of

7% and 6.6% respectively. During the next decade, 1940-1950, Pilie and Scioto Counties suffered a population decline, while small gains were recorded in Ross and Jackson Counties. The losses in

Pil

&Ibid.. p. 223. 7Frank H. Rowe, History of the Iron and Steel Industry in Scioto County, Ohio (Columbus, Ohio; The Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, 1938), p. 73. 32

labor in the war industries^ which beckoned vorkers from these counties. It is interesting to note that 1950 was the first year since I 84 O in which Scioto County did not exhibit an increase in population.

The population trend of Ross County has been a slowly rising one throughout the period^ with the exception of a striall loss in

1910 . The population of Ross County in 1950 stood at 54,424.

Scioto County’s peak population was reached in 1940, when it recorded 86,565. Even though it declined to 82,910 in 1950 i t was the most tliickly populated county in the four county area. Pike and Jackson Counties reached their peak in I 9 OO with populations of 1 8,172 and 34, 24s respectively. Then these counties eopierienced a downward trend. In the last two decades Jackson County increased, but in 1950 it registered only 27,767, far below the all time high reached in I 9 OO. While Pike County's population increased between

1930 and 1 9 4 0 , it declined again during the next decade. By 1950 i t s t o t a l population was only 14,607»

Table III indicates the urban, rural non-farm, and rural farm 33

TABLE I I I POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS CF JACKSON, PIKE, ROSS, AND SCIOTO COUNTIES, 1950

TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION URBAN RURAL NON-FARM RURAL FARM

JACKSON 27,767 43.9% 29.8% 26.2%

PIKE 14,60? 51.4% 48,6%

ROSS 54,424 37.0% 40.4% 22.6%

SCIOTO 82,910 53.3% 31.8% 14.9%

SOURCE: United States Census Reports, 1950. 34 populations of the four counties in 1950.® Pike County had no urban pop u latio n and was c la s s if ie d by th e U.S. Census Bureau as 51.1% rural non-farm and 48.6% rural. Pike County had the largest rural population in the four county area. Jackson County was 43.9% urban and the remainder was fairly evenly divided between rural non-farm and rural farm population. In Ross County 40.4% of the population was classified as rural non-farm, 37% as urban, and the remaining

22.6% as rural farm population. Scioto County was classified 53.3% urban, and 51. 8 % rural non-farm. The rural farm population of

Scioto County in 1950 was 14.9%, which was the lowest rural percen­ tage in the four counties.

(3) Economics of the Area

Agriculture, mining, commerce, and manufacturing were developed in Ohio between 1830 and 1850 during which time the state's popula­ tion and wealth increased at a rapid rate. In the 1830's construction of one thousand miles of canals in Ohio linked the Ohio River and

Lake Erie, with Portsmouth at the southern end and Cleveland at the northern terminus. Counties along the canal route, and those close

®The U.S. Census Bureau definition of urban, rural non-farm, and rural farm is as follows: (a) Urban population - all persons living in (l) places of 2,500 or more incorporated as cities, boroughs, and villages \2 ) incorporated towns of 2,500 or more except in New England, New York, and Wisconsin where "towns" are simply minor civil divisions of counties ( 3 ) the densely settled urban fringe around cities of 50,000 or more and ( 4) unincorporated places of 2,500 or more outside any urban fringe. (b) Rural non-farm - all persons living outside urban areas who do not live on farms. (c) Rural farm - all persons living on farms - excludes urban farm population, but virtually all the farm population is located in rural areas. U.S. Census Bureau, County City Data Book (Vfashington, B.C.: U.S. Govt. Printing Office, 1952), p. xvi. 35 bjTj reaped the benefits of this transportation system. In the south­ eastern part of the state the canals aided salt mining and afforded inexpensive transportation for the shipment of coal from the mines.

In a study undertaken in the early 1940's Irvin Shannon analyzed the economic characteristics of fourteen counties comprising south­ eastern Ohio. Among the fourteen counties studied were Jackson,

Pike, and Scioto. The data analyzed in that study included per capita income and wealth, density of population, old age assistance rates, rates paid dependent children, retail sales, value of land per acre, population, percentage on relief, birth and death rates, number of persons per hospital bed, and unemployment statistics.

These counties were ranked on the basis of their economic standing from highest to lowest. Scioto County held first place among the fourteen counties. Pike County, seventh, and Jackson County, th irteen th .T h is gradual economic decline of the area may be attributed to a decrease in resources and production, to soil erosion, and to the closing of several coal mines in the area.^

The Shannon study i.ndicated southeastern Ohio had a low density of population with a high percentage of the children and aged persons receiving public assistance. Furthermore, the average gross cash income per farm was much lower than in the more prosperous

^Robert E. Chaddock, Ohio Before 1850. Columbia University Studies in History, Economics and Public Law (New York: Eong^ans, Green and Company, 1908), XXXI, No. 2, pp. 23-25. Tirvin V. Shannon, Southeastern Ohio in Depression and War (Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, 1943/^ pp. 6-7» H i bid.. pp. 3-9* 36 agricultural counties, and a higher rate of delinquent taxes was found in the region than in counties elsewhere in the state. A concluding statement declared:

The dominant fact about southeastern Ohio is the economic impoverishment of the area and of its people. Widespread unemployment, malnutrition, wretched hous­ ing, inadequate health and medical services, poor school­ ing, irregular and low incomes, the shock of one economic disaster after another, a losing struggle against economic adversity - these and other condi­ tions associated with poverty are the manifestations of th i s f a c t . 12

The area apparently had been left by the wayside as other areas of the state developed. As a result it was a problem, particularly in Pike County, to provide adequate employment for its residents.

The 1930 depression period only aggravated the situation. Vihat were the prospects for employment in the post war period? As the follow­ ing survey indicated these did not look promising.

At the close o f World War I I the Ohio Bureau of Unemployment

Compensation distributed 32,000 questionnaires to employers of three or more persons who were covered by the Unemployment Compensation

L a w . 13 These questionnaires sought information about probable employment figures in April, 1946, by industry and by county.

Approximately $1,000 employers answered the request. On a state­ wide basis employers estimated that they wuld eaaploy 120,000 more persons in April, 1946, than they had in September, 1945.^^

12lbid., p. 12. 13Those excluded from the Unemployment Compensation Law in 1946 were agricultural laborers, domestic servants, government, servants, employees of nonprofit organizations, railroad workers, and newsboys. I'^HOhio Bureau of Unemployment Compensation and U nited S ta te s Employment Service in Ohio, Post War Employment Survey (Columbus, Ohio; March, 1 946), p. 1 . 37 Employers* questionnaires in three of the four counties under con­

sideration predicted the following increases by April, 1946: Jackson

County, Pike County, '7.8%, and Scioto County, 4.1$. However,

Ross County employers reported an anticipated decrease of 3.8% .

In Jackson County 153 employer units, representing 2,938 employees in September, 1945^ responded. The anticipated increase would swell the employment figure to 3,08? by April, I 946 . A majority of the employers contacted were in mining and manufacturing, quarrying, wholesale and retail trade, transportation, and utili- 15 ties. The Pike County representation was small, with only forty employer groups. This is not surprising since Pike County was largely an agricultural county and very few persons employed in the county were covered by the Unemployment Compensation Law. The total number of persons employed by the forty employers in September,

1945 , was 244. It was estimated that the figure would rise to 263 persons by April, 1946. Principal employers were in manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade, transportation, and utilities.

In Scioto County 414 employer groups, representing wholesale and retail trade, manufacturing, service groups, finance, insurance and real estate, transportation, and utilities employed 14,841 persons in September, l%-5. An increase to 15,452 by April, 1946, was expected.

Ross County's 230 employer units, with a total employmoit figure

15 Ibid.. appendix. Chart of Ohio Counties showing increase or decrease in employment by April 15, 1946, and Jackson County c h a r t. 3 8 of 5,114 for September, 1945, expected a decline in employment to

4,919 persons by April, 1946. Industries -whicii foresaw probable losses were manufacturing and service groups. Small increases were anticipated in wholesale and retail trade, finance, insurance and real estate, transportation, utilities, and construction.^^

It was against this economic background that the atomic announce­ ment was made and viewed w ith enthusiasm in th e area. The upsurge in population would come, and with it new economic development was expected. While it was realized that the atomic boom would be transitory, the counties hoped this huge undertaking might stimulate private industries to move into the area.

B. The Counties

(1) Jackson County

(a) Organization

Washington County was established in July, 1?88, after the organization of the Northwest Territory and the arrival of Governor

St. Glair. The first known settlers came into the area while Jackson 17 County was part of Vifashington County. The first surveying of the county was undertaken by Elias Langdon in May, 1798.^®

In IS I5 a group of inhabitants submitted a petition to the Ohio

Legislature requesting a new county be created. A principal reason for the request was the desire to establish a county seat of justice

^^Ibid., Charts of increase and decrease in employment by A pril 15, 1946 for Pike, Scioto, and Ross Counties. 1?D.W. Williams. A History of Jackson County. Ohio (Jackson, Ohio: 1900 ), I , p. 49 . -^Ibid.. p. 90. 39 in proximity to the salt works.The Ohio Legislature passed an act early in 1816 creating Jackson County. Within a few months the first election of county officials took place in which the voters chose a sheriff, a coroner,and three county commissioners. The five town- sliips in the county, Bloomfield, Franklin, Lick, Madison,and

îk'lilton, cast a total vote of 220 for these officers.

(b) Early Inhabitants

Many early migrants to Jackson County came from Western

Virginia and Pennsylvania.^ Although no complete list is in existence, it has been claimed that a substantial number of these pO settlers were veterans of the Revolutionary War.

An early attraction for many of the new residents was the old salt works, and salt boilers became an integral part of the county.

They were instrumental in having the county seat placed in Jackson.

One historian considered the salt boilers a liability to the community and stated:

The salt boilers reigned then (.from 1803-1826) and shaped the organization of the new county and the ^ laying out of the county seat at Jackson. They (the salt boilers) lacked in administrative capacity and the county has suffered to this day on account of their shortcoming.

Jackson County was one of the centers of early Welsh immigration

^ÿbid., p. 95. g^Ibid., p. 103. Charles B. Oalbreath, history of Ohio (Chicago and New York: The Anerican Historical Society, Inc., 192$), I, p. 369. 22v/iiiiams, op. c it., p. 70. ^•^Eugene B. W illard , A Standard History of th e Hanging Rock Region of Ohio (The Lewis Publishing Company, 1916), I, p. 345. 40 in Ohio. In 1818 six Welsh families settled near the village of

Centerville, which later was included in Jackson County, This Welsh colony remained fairly small for a fifteen year period, since the only a d d itio n s to the colony stemmed from a few v is ito r s from o th er

Welsh settlements.^^

Between 1835 and 1845 Jackson County experienced a large influx of Welsh immigrants, who came principally from Cardiganshire, South

Wales.The population of the county increased by approximately

6,500 persons between 1830 and 1850, a large portion of which has been attributed to the Welshmen, who settled in Madison, Bloomfield, and Franklin Townships.

Manj'- of the Welsh immigrants had lived in agricultural com­ munities in their native country and continued to follow agri­ cultural pursuits in Jackson County. Second generation Welsh sought positions in an all towns, and in the coal mines and blast furnaces of neighboring counties. In the 1840's, however, many workers returned when several furnaces were built in Jackson County. Two of the large furnaces, the Jefferson and Cambria, were owned exclusively by Welshmen.

(c) Political Complexion

William Jones indicated two characteristics of the Welsh people

^^William Harvey Jones, "Welsh Settlements in Ohio," Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society Quarterly. XVI ( 1907 ) , p. 21?.

^°Willard, op. c it.. p. 413. Jones, op. cit.. p. 218. 41 in his study of Welsh communities in Ohio. He noted these as

clannishness and love of liberty, which meant religious liberty,

freedom of conscience, and the right to think.These charac­ teristics may account, in part, for their interest in politics,

since the Welsh became prcioinent in the political activities of the

county. Regarding their early role in politics Eugene Willard

stated*

Politics as now (I 9 I 6) played was not known in the life of the pioneers. They voted against the men they did not like and for their friends, and this was almost the sum total of county politics until the slavery issue became prominent and the Republican Party sprang into existence.^9

Thirty-four men sponsored the Republican Party in Jackson County in I 855 . The Welshmen supported th e a b o litio n is ts and u n ite d almost in a body within the Republican Party.The German element, which lived in Scioto Township, usually returned a Democratic majority, but their vote was not sufficient to place the Democratic Party in c o n tro l.

Naturalization of many Welshmen and the issue c£ the protective tariff added to the Republican Party's strength in Jackson County between 1855 and 1860.^^ Quantities of iron ore were found in the h ills of Jackson County and, with the ensuing development of the county’s iron industry, tariff protection for home producers became a principal political issue. Iron manufacturers of southern Ohio

^Ibid. , p. 1 9 4 . Πillard, op. cit. . p.p . 430. 30lbid^ p. 439 . 3^Ibid.. p. 557. 42 and Kentucky held a convention in I860 at Portsmouth, Scioto County, to memorialize Congress for a specific duty on foreign iron.^^

(d) Indu stry

The Scioto salt ivorks was the most important industry in the county during its early developiiient. Later the coal and iron resources were developed. By I 89 I Jackson County was one of the great mining counties of Ohio, and in coal mining was second only to Perry County.

Jackson, largest cojnmunity in the county, grew rapidly after the construction of the railroad in 1853- There were small coal mines in the hills, two blast furnaces, and a pipe foundry which provided the town with its economic livelihood. Jackson was the center of the Welsh settlement. Wellston, the second largest com­ munity, was a manufacturing town. Metal containers, furniture, and wood products were still produced there in 1940 »^^

I n 1950 the population of the county was approximately 27,800, over two fifths of whom resided in Jackson and Wellston. Of the

8,200 persons employed in the county, one fourth were engaged in manufacturing, and one sixth each in trade, service, and agriculture.

The county's leading employers were an apparel manufacturer, a ra il­ road, and several iron works. Approximately six per cent of all

^^Eugene H. Roseboom, The Civil War Era» 1850-1873 (Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, 1944), P* 30. 33Henry Howe, Historical Collections of Ohio (Columbus, Ohio: Henry Howe and Son, 1891), II, p. 238. 34pederal Writers' Project of Ohio, The Ohio Guide (New York: Oxford University Press, 1940), p. 315. 43 re sid e n ts employed in the county were engaged in mining and quarrying.35 (2) Pike County

(a) Organization Pike County was formed from parts of Ross, Highland, Adams,

Scioto, and Jackson Counties in 1815. Nearly two tlairds of Pike

County was once a part of Ross County.^ The Scioto River divides the county into not quite equal parts.37 With the exception of rich bottom lands of the Scioto and its tributaries, the surface of the area is generally hilly. (b) Early Settlers The earliest settlement in what is now Pike County was estahlisried in 1796. At that time Pil

Pennsylvania were largely of German extraction, and they arrived soon after the Clienoweth brothers.A m ong the settlers in 1816

35"Ohio's New Atomic Plant," Monthly Business Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, Ohio, XXX.V, No. 3. Ofarch, 1953), p. 7- 3°interstate Publisiii.ng Company, H istory o f Lower Sc io to V alley. Ohio (Chicago, 111.: Interstate Publishing Co., I 884 J , p. 696 . -^71 bid., p. 703. 38lbid.. p. 689. 3/Galbreath, op. c it., p. 410. 40%nterstate Publishing Company, History of Lower Scioto Valley, Ohio, ,p . 690 . 44 ■were the parents of James Emniitt.^^ In later years James Emmitt

became one of the most prominent men in Pike County. Robert Lucas, who later became the first Jacksonian Democrat elected Governor of

Ohio, moved into Pike County from Scioto County soon after it was organized. He was still a resident of Pike County when elected

Governor in 1831. Governor Lucas served as President of the first

National Political Convention which nominated Andrew Jackson for

President in 1832.

(c) Waverly. the County Seat

Uniontown, Oiiio, later named Waverly, was founded in 1829 by

James Emmitt and Mesheck Downing. The area was settled rather quickly, since construction of the canal through Pike County was begun the same year.^^ By 1830 several families were living in or about the town plot and Uniontown became Waverly.One author wrote the following comment about the construction of the canal:

The building of the canal gave employment to an army of men, put into circulation six million dollars and opened up a line of communication and transportation from the Ohio River to the Lakes... And yet the great anticipation of sudden increase in wealth and popula­ tion which it was supposed would follow as a result of access to a market, were not entirely realized.

One reason given for these disappointing results was the farmers' refusal to sell their land.^^ A parallel may be drawn with the

ALm.J. Carrigan, Life and Reminiscences of Hon. James Emmitt (chilliCOthe, Ohio: Peerless Printing and Mfg. Co., 1888), p. 41* 4 ^ 1 n te rsta te P u b lish in g Company, H isto ry of Lower S cioto V alley , Ohio, pp. 692 - 694 . 43Carrigan, op. cit., p. 116. 44lnterstate Publishing Company, History of Lower Scioto Valley. O hio, p. 736. 4?Carrigan, op. cit., p. 125. A&ibid. ------45 Twentieth Century when Pike County once again experienced a boom during a major construction project.

A large German group settled in Waverly between 1840 and 1860.

Germans headed the list of foreign born residents of Pike County in

1870 and 1880. In a local census, taken in 1875, it was reported that of the $16 persons of foreign nationalities or descendants of same, 474 were Germans. The total population of Waverly was 1,279.^?

Anti-Negro sentijnent in the Waverly area around 1835 became so intense that Negroes were forced from the community.As few as

1,140 Negroes resided in the entire county by the 1870's.49 As late as 1912 no Negro was permitted to live in Waverly.

The village of Piketon, founded in 1815, lies five miles south of Waverly and served as county seat from 1815 to 186l.^^ A sense of rivalry grew up between Piketon and Waverly and a dispute arose over the proper location for the county seat, Piketon's prestige suffered when Robert Lucas and other landoviners in and around

Waverly succeeded in having the canal routed through Waverly.

The county seat question became a political issue in 1836 and

1859' In I 859 James Emmitt of Waverly led the movement to shift

^'^Interstate Publishing Company, History of Lower Scioto Valley. Ohio, p , 736. ^oprancis P, Weisenburger, The Passing of the Frontier: 1823- 1850 (Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, 1941), p, 44. 49Roseboom, op, cit.. p, 8. 50prank U, Q u illin , The Color Line in Ohio (Ann Arbor, M ich,: George Vfahr, 1913), p . 112. ^iFederal Writers' Project of Ohio, The Ohio Guide, p, 573. 52ibid. 46 53 the county seat to V/averly. In October, 1861, voters gave a majority of 310 for removal. The total vote on the question was

2,704, with 1,507 in favor of removal and 1 ,197 against the move.^^

The issue of county seats was not an unusual one in those days.

According to one author:

The issue over the founding of counties and county seats was something to fight about in those days and it continued to be for many years. Waverly and Piketon, to mention just one example, waged a comic war for the honor in Pike County. Piketon got it, but Waverly ruined Piketon in a road building game, "downed" her and stole the county seat.55

(d) Economic Situation

Agriculture was Pike County's chief source of income, the rich soil along the Scioto River being suitable for the growing of wheat and corn. The hills were rich in freestone, which was shipped to many points for building purposes. In the 1880's industry in the county was confined to a few lumber yards, flour m ills, and leather works.

The economic situation of the county in 1950 had altered very little since the 1880's. Two tiiirds of the area consisted of farms and approximately two fifths of the employed residents were engaged in agriculture. The principal agricultural pursuits were livestock and livestock products. Manufacturing in the county was mainly

^^Howe, op. c i t . . I l l , p. 86. 54interstate Publishing Company, History of Lower Scioto Valley. Ohio, p. 707. ^Harlan Hatcher, The Buckeye Country (New York: H.D. Kinsey and Company, I n c ., 194o), p. 99* 56Howe, op. cit.. Ill, p. 86. 47 confined to the output of savjmills and -woodwork shops. Many workers commuted to jobs in the outlying cities of Portsmouth and

Chillicothe.57

(3) Ross County

(a) Organization and Early Inhabitants

In 1793 a revolutionary war veteran, Nathaniel Massie, surveyed the area which later became Ross County, and it was he who persuaded early settlers to come into the Scioto Valley. He won them over with his description of the rich lands and his assurance of pro­ tection from Indian attacks.^8 Many of the settlers came from

Kentucky and Virginia. One group, under the leadership of Reverend

Robert W. Finley, was willing to undertake the journey to the

Scioto Valley for two reasons: hatred of slavery, and uncertainty existing with regard to the validity of land titles in Kentucky.59

In 1798 Ross County was formed from part of Adams County.The county was named in honor of a friend of Governor St. Clair despite the fact that local residents favored the name Massie.

(b) The County Seat. Chillicothe. Ohio

Chillicothe, first capital of Ohio, is the county seat of Ross

County. In 1797 Chillicothe had approximately 100 residents within

57nohio’s New Atomic P lant,” Monthly Business Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, Ohio, XXXV, No. 3- (March, 1953), p. B. 5 Federal W riters' Project of Ohio, Chillicothe and Ross County (Columbus, Ohio; F.J. heer Printing Company, 1938), p. 10. 59nowe, op. cit.. Ill, p. 164. Federal W riters' Project of Ohio, Chillicothe and Ross County, P* I h °-^Howe, op. c i t . , I I I , p . 163. 48 i t s l i m i t s , I t grew rapidly daring the early period of its

development. Most of the settlers came from other parts of the

United States, although a fairly large group of Germans also

settled there as well as a smaller number of Frenchmen.

In IB70 the Negro population of Ross County numbered about

3, 2.3 0 , more than triple the Negro population in Jackson County in

this period, and considerably more than that of Pike and Scioto

Counties.By 1938 Ross County's Negro population had decreased

to 2,000 of whom 1,800 were residing in Chillicothe.^^

(c) Industry and Agriculture

In the early 1800's the county prospered, since the soil was

fertile and agriculture the principal occupation. 65 The areas

surrounding Scioto and Paint Creek were faaous for their corn

crops.Ross County was noted for its fine cattle during these years, and Chillicothe was a beef raising center.

Chillicothe became a port town with the completion of the Ohio to Erie Canal in the 1830's. The final link of the canal from

Chillicothe to Portsmouth was completed in 1832. Since products

could then move readily from Chillicothe to the great trade centers

shipbuilding was a profitable business in the town during the

^^Federal W riters' Project of Ohio, Chillicothe and Ross County,

^^Roseboom, op. c it., p. 8. °^Federal Writers' Project of Ohio, Chillicothe and Ross County. P" 2 2 '. °2Galbreath, op. c it.. p. 416. 66Howe, op. c i t . . I l l , p . 153. 49 1830 ' 8 .6?

 principal industry since 1812 has been paper manufacturing.

In the 1930's the Mead Corporation had affiliated units in eight other states and employed about 1,350 persons in Chillicothe.^®

The Chillicothe Paper Company was a smaller concern and employed only 225 persons during th e p erio d . A large proportion of the working people of Chillicothe worked in these M ils.^9 addition to the paper mills there was a branch of the U.S. Shoe Corporation which, during its peak in 1930, provided a livelihood for 1,080 persons. A canning company afforded seasonal employment to workers of the town.

Ross County is the largest of the four counties in the atomic area and is better suited for farming than the other three. In

1949 Ross County's farmers produced more than one half the farm products sold in the four county area. Nevertheless, manufacturing was the county's chief means of support, followed by the service trades and agriculture. Leading employers in the county in 1949 were the two paper m ills, a shoe factory, and a Veterans Hospital.

(4) Scioto County

(a) Organization and Early Settlers

Prior to its organization Scioto County was part of the

°^Federal W riters' Project of Ohio, Chillicothe and Ross County. P • 4% • °°lbid., p. 2 3 . 6 9 l b i d . yOlbid.. p. 24 . V4"0hio s New Atomic Plant," Monthly Business Review, Federal Reserve Banlt of Cleveland, Ohio, XXXV, No. 3 (March, 1953), p. 6. 50 Northwest Territory and was included within the boundaries of

Yifashington and Mams Counties. A small French colony, consisting of approximately one hundred families, was established in the

1790 ‘s in the upper part of what is now Scioto County.Other early settlers came mainly from Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New

Jersey, but the county was not subject to large increases in population until 1810.

Scioto County was organized in 1803 by act of the General

Assembly, and the county government established in May of that year. With the exception of Lawrence County, Scioto County is the southernmost county in the state.

(b) Portsmouth, the County Seat

Portsmouth, largest city in the four county area, is situated on the Ohio River just above the mouth of the Scioto River and was founded in 1803 by Major Henry Massie, a Virginia land speculator.

He had first settled at Alexandria on the west bank of the mouth of the Scioto River, but, upon realizing the scope of the flood problem, moved to higher ground. By 1814 Portsmouth was well established as a permanent settlement and trading post, and

Alexandria was practically deserted.7^ Portsmouth prospered in the early period due to the river tra ff ic .I n addition to being a

^^Interstate Publishing Co., History of Lower Scioto Valley. Ohio, pp. 106-10?. TjRowe, op. cit., p. 3 . 74Howe, op. c i t . . I l l , p. 236. 51 port town it was an important center of the iron industry. The first forge was built in Portsmouth in 1832. However, in the latter part of the Nineteenth Century Ironton surpassed Portsmouth in the iron industry, since it provided better rail facilities with' the east, and was on higher ground.

Portsmouth experienced an enormous upsurge in population between 1840 and 1880 when it grew from 1,800 to over 11,000 p e r s o n s . Newcomers to the community came p rin c ip a lly from

Virginia, Kentucky, and West Virginia. The number of foreign born persons was relatively sm a ll.In 1830 the Negro residents of

Portsmouth, numbering approximately eighty, were forcibly ejected from the town.?^ By 1870 the Negro population of the county numbered slightly over one thousand.In contrast to the above, in the 1940's there were about 1,500 Negroes in the city of

Portsm outh alone.®*^

By 1912 Portsmouth was rapidly rising to an industrial peak.

Eight industries, the boot and shoe, steel, stove and iron foundry, gas engine, lumber, flour and feed, paving and fire brick, and furniture and cabinet industries provided employment for the townspeo p ie.

75 Rowe, op. c i t . , p. 23. 7bHowe, op. c i t . . I l l , p. 231. 77pederal Writers' Project of Ohio, The Ohio Guide, p. 454« 'î’'®Quillin, op. c it., p. 32. 79%oseboom, op. c i t . . p. 8. ^Federal IWriters' Project of Ohio, The Ohio Guide, p. 454. ^^Rowe, op. c it.. p. 60 . 52

(c) Economic View

While Scioto County is very hilly, the land around the river is well adapted to the growing of corn, wheat, and oats. The county is rich in iron ore, coal, and freestone.In the early 1800's the eastern portion of the county was engaged in the manufacture of iron.Mineral development of the county resulted in wealth and employment for many residents of the area and fostered population growth. For example, from 1810 to I 85 O the population increased five fold, from 3,300 to 18,400.

Completion of the canal in 1832 provided additional transpor­ tation facilities and resulted in an increase in the rural popula­ tion, since agricultural products could easily be shipped by canal and the river. Growth of the rural population surpassed that of th e towns.

In 1950 Scioto County was the most populous of the four counties. Its average of 136 persons per square mile, however, was well below the average for the state of Ohio, which was 194 persons per square mile, according to the 1950 census. Manu­ facturing was the leading occupation and principal employers were two shoe companies, a steel mill, and a railroad yard. Approxi­ mately one third of the employed workers were engaged in trade

®%owe, op. c i t . . I l l , p. 231. ®2Galbreath, op. c it.. p. 420. ^%/illard, op. c it., pp. 120-121. 53 and service industries, with about 8 ^ o f the workers in agricul­ ture.® ^

C. Conclusion

The foregoing b rie f h is to r ic a l survey has shown Jackson, Ross, and Scioto Counties to be industrial as well as agricultural.

However, Pike County was entirely agricultural.

After the organization of the counties they developed at a rapid pace. However, Pike and Jackson Counties were overshadowed by Ross and Scioto Counties in population as well as industrial development. After 1900 Pike and Jackson Counties suffered significant declines in population and economic status. By 1952

Jackson and Ross Counties were experiencing only small population gains, while Pike and Scioto Counties suffered losses. At the threshold of the atome announcemnt the future of these counties was uncertain. The atomic period revived hopes in the area and plans were set in motion to stimulate private industrial develop­ ment after the atomic construction phase was over.

Against the general historical background of the four counties, it will be advisable to turn next to an analysis of party and voting behavior in the four county area from 1859 to 1952.

SSnQhio's New Atomic Plant," Monthly Business Review. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, '^hio, XX jCV, No. 3 (llarch, 1953), P» 6. CHAPTER I I I

TRENDS IN PARTI AND VOTING BEHAVIOR: I 859 -I 9 OO

An analysis of party and voting behavior in the four county area from 1859-1952 has been undertaken in Chapters III and IV in in order that trends, and significant deviations from such trends, could be discovered against which the results of the 1954 election might be evaluated.

Chapter III begins with the Gubernatorial election of 1859 and ends with the Gubernatorial election of 1899. This is the era of the Civil War, Reconstruction, depression of the 1870's, rise of the Labor Movement, and the Populist Revolt. The 1859 election was chosen as a starting point since it was the last Gubernatorial election prior to the outbreak of the Civil War and provides a basis for comparing the outcome of elections held during the war years and the Reconstruction period. Also, the Republican Party first submitted national candidates for election in 1856 and by

1860 was firmly established as one of the two major parties.

Voting statistics for the offices of President, Governor, and

U.S. Congressional Representative have been compiled for all pertinent elections held between 1859 and 1900. Tables IV, V, VI, and VII indicate the percentages of total votes received by candi­ dates of the party which won a majority of the elections. Tables

IV, VI, and VII indicate the Republican percentages in Jackson,

Ross, and Scioto Counties respectively, while Table V illustrates the Democratic percentages in Pike County. The general pattern of

54 55 voting in each county w ill be discussed, followed by an analysis of the years of deviation from customary party support.

A. Jackson County

(1) Republican Consistency

Between 1Ô59 =md 1900, in the contests for President, Governor, and U.S. Representative Jackson County returned Republican m ajorities in every election but three. Exceptions were the 1859 Gubernatorial race, and the 1862 and 1874 Congressional contests.

On Table IV the percentages of the total vote received by

Republican candidates in Jackson County for the offices under dis­ cussion are indicated. Republican percentages of the total vote cast for President were consistently high during this period. In a majority of the elections the Republican candidates polled more than 55/0 of the total popular vote in the county. In only four

Presidential elections, I860, 1888, 1892, and 1896 did the

Republican percentage fall below the 55^ mark, and in three of these years the percentage was closer to 55%' than to 50%.

Balloting for Governor took place in odd numbered years during this period. In a majority of the elections percentages received by Republican candidates for Governor were lower than those for

President, the Gubernatorial candidates receiving between 51% and

55% of the total vote. The highest percentage received by a

Republican Gubernatorial candidate was 62.7% in 1863. Lowest percentages received by successful Republican candidates for

Governor occurred in 1887 and 1889, when they polled a little over 56 ■ TABLE IV JACKSON COUNTY: REPUBLICAN PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL VOTES CAST FOR PRESIDENT, GOVERNOR, AND U.S. REPRESENTATIVE (1859-1900)

YEAR PitESIDENT GOVERNOR U.S. REPRESENTATIVE

1859 -—— 49*1^ — 52.1# 51.3% 1861 ————— 56. 3% ————— 1862 ——— _____ 48.1% IS63 ———— 6 2 .7% ———- 1864 59 .7# ; 61. 3% 1865 _____ 58 . 5% _____ 1866 ______53. 3% 1867 ___— 50. 4% _____ 1868 56. 3% —------52. 9 % 1869 _____ 50. 3% _____ 1870 — 52. 5% 187 1 _____ 52. 0% _____ 1872 58.8% 58.0% 1873 — 52. 6% ——— 1874 —-- _____ 4 8 .1% I 87 5 — 52. 7 % —— 1876 56. 2% —-—- 54. 6% 1877 —__— 51.5% — — 1878 ------53.7% IÔ7 9 1880 57. 0% 54. 5% 1881 _____ 57.8/0 _____ 1882 — ----- ——— 56. 1% 1833 — 55. 3% ------— 1884 55.8% 55. 0% 1885 ———— 56. 2% _____ 1886 ------53.0% 1887 _____ 50. 0% _____ 1888 53. 6% _____ 55. 4% 1889 _____ 50. 3^ _____ 189 0 ----- _____ 53. 1% 189 1------52. 6% — 1892 5 1 .3% 54.99 'o 1893 _____ 5 5 . 3% _____ 1894 - — - _____ 59 .1% 1895 _____ 53.8% ———— 1896 53.4% ——— 54.0% 1897 _____ 51.8% _____ 1898 ______— _ 53.9% 1899 —— 52.4% ------

SOURCE; Secretary of State of Ohio, Report of the Secretary of State, I 87 O-I9 OO; New York Herald Tribune -illnianac. 1861, 1863, 1865, 1867. 57

^0% of the total vote cast.

Contests for U.S. Congressman indicated the greatest fluctua­

tions. Highest percentages were registered in 1864, 1872, and

1894, when Republican candidates p o lle d above 55 % of the total

vote cast. For the most part, the percentages received by Republican

Congressional candidates stood between 50^ and 55^. lowest per­

centages of the total vote received by Republican Congressional

candidates occurred in 1862 and 1 8 7 4 , and resulted in their defeat.

The Democratic Party did not pose a significant threat to the

Republican Party organization in Jackson County for the three

offices under consideration during this period. All Republican

candidates for these offices carried Jackson County between 1875

and 19 0 0 . The three deviations from customary support, discussed in the following pages, occurred early in the .period.

( 2 ) Republican Election Defeats in Jackson County

(a) The E le c tio n of 1859

Candidates in the Gubernatorial election were William Dennison,

Republican, and Rufus P. Ranney, Democrat. Dennison, a lawyer, had

served a term in the Ohio State Senate. He engaged in the fight to

repeal the Black lavjs and was one of the first political leaders in

Ohio to join the Republican Party in 1856.^ Ranney was also a

lawyer who had been a member of the Ohio Constitutional Convention

in 18 5 0 . He had run for Congress in 1846 and 1848, but was defeated.

^Homer Carey H ockett, "W illiam D ennison," D ictio n ary of American Biography, V (1930), p. 241. 58 In 18$1 Ranney became a member of the Ohio Supreme C ourt, which position he held until 1856, when he retired from public life and resumed private law practice in Cleveland.

The Republican platform endorsed repeal of the Fugitive Slave

Act of 1850, while the Democratic Party opposed granting any political rights to the Negro, and stood staunchly behind the

Fugitive Slave Act.^ Dennison, who was little known to the public at the tLne of his nomination, was successful in his bid for the

Gubernatorial office. However, in Jackson County he was defeated by Ranney, who carried the county with 50.8# of the total vote cast.

The county voters preferred to support the Ohio jurist, rather than a comparative newcomer to the public scene.

The Jackson Standard attributed the Republican defeat in

Jackson County to the thorough organization of the Democrats, and asserted many Republicans failed to vote.^ The newspaper also charged that the Democrats made colored persons, who were nearly w h ite, vote the Democratic ticket.^ However, the Democratic victory was shortlived. The Republicans demonstrated their strength in the county in 1860 when Abraiiam Lincoln received a p lu r a lity of over three hundred votes,

^George H. Porter, Ohio P olitics During the Civil ti>ar Period (Mew York: Longmans, Green and Co., I 9 II); pp. 25-26. 3"Jackson County Election” (editorials, ^ackson Standard. Oct.-13, 1859, p. 2, col. l.~ 4"How the Democrats Hate Negroes” (editorial), Jackson Standard. O c t.-20, 1859, p. 2, co l. 1. 59

(b) Congressional Elections of 1862 and ISIU

In 1862 candidates for Congress from the Eleventh Congressional

D istrict vvere H.S. Bundy, Republican, and Wells A. Hutchins,

Democrat. The Jackson Standard reported, however, that Jackson

County Democrats did not support Hutchins at the Convention and urged Democrats to vote for Bundy.^

Hutchins was labeled a Peace Democrat by the Republican nevjs- paper in Jackson County, which linked him with the Vallandigham faction of the Democratic Party.^ However, Nelson Evans, in his

History of Scioto County. Ohio, upheld Hutchins stating that, in the summer of 1852, he favored a more vigorous prosecution of the war, and was nominated for Congress on that platform.?

H.S. Bundy, the Union candidate, must have been dubious about the outcome of the election, since he reportedly stated the

President's Emancipation Proclamation might serve the country, but it might defeat him and every other Union Congressional candi­ date along the border.^

Bundy's fears were substantiated, since the Democrats carried the county. Wells Hutchins polled $1.8/6 of the total vote, while

^"H.S. Bundy Nominated" (editorial), Jackson Standard. Sept. 4, 1862, p. 2, col. 2. b'lyiFells A. Hutchins" (editorial), Jackson Standard. Sept. 2$, 1862, p. 2. col. 3• ?It vjas in 1863 that Hr. Hutchins’ views indicated a change, because he feared the South could not be subdued and that the country was about to become a military despotism. Nelson W. Evans, A History of Scioto County. Ohio (Portsjnouth, Ohio: Nelson W. Evans, 1903), p. 182. SPorter, op. cit., pp. 105-106. 60

Bundy received 48.1^. The Union press in Jackson County explained the failure of Union candidates to carry the election as due in part to the large number of Union voters who were in the army and could not vote, and criticized the state legislature for having failed to provide for a soldiers' vote. Another factor con­ tributing to the Republican defeat may have been the course of the war itself. Jin editorial comment in the Jackson Standard read as follow s;

It is a painful truth that the present administra­ tion is in some measure a failure. The war has been conducted strictly upon what are known as "conservative", that is Democratic principles. This has discouraged the earnest Union men. The miserable failures of licClellan, Buell, Hallack, and others, who are still retained at the head of our armies, cause many to regard the cause of the Union as hopeless, unless the President should be taught a lesson that would induce him to put his earnest Generals at the head of our A r m ie s.9

As Wood Gray pointed out in his study, 1862 was the only year during the Civil War that the m ilitary outlook was not bright for the

Union armies at election time.The Union forces under General

Pope had just suffered defeat at the second battle of Bull Run on

August 30 at the hands of General Robert E. Lee. The military situation affected the political scene, and was detrimental to the political fortune of the Union candidates. In tiiis instance the

Jackson County Congressional election reflected a nationwide trend.

^"Result of the Election - Its Cause" (editorial), Jackson Standard, Oct. 23, 1862, p. 2, col. 2. lOi/Vood Gray, The Peace Movement in th e Old Northwest; 1860-1865. Private edition (Chicago, 111.: distributed by the Univ. of Chicago Libraries, 1935), p. 17* 61

A Republican Congressional candidate was not defeated again in

Jackson County until the election of 1874^ which took place against a national background of reconstruction excesses, scandals of

President Grant's administration,and a depression. H.S. Bundy, the

Republican nominee, who was running for reelection, was expected to carry the district by a majority of five thousand votes.John

Luther Vance, the Democratic nominee, had seen service as an officer in the Civil War. After the war he dabbled for a time in steamboating and also began publication of the Gallipolis Bulletin. 1 ? In 1SÔ5 Vance lost his bid for a seat in the Ohio General Assembly.

Bundy, on the other hand, had been elected to the Ohio Legislature twice, but had been defeated by Hutchins in the 1862 Congressional c o n te st.

A central issue in the 1874 Congressional election was the

Civil Rights B ill, supported by the Republican candidate and press and denounced by their Democratic opponents. A week prior to the election a scathing attack was made on the Democratic Party by the

Jackson Standard. The following excerpts from the editorial indicate the intense feeling of the editors, and perhaps reveal their fear of the outcome of the election:

The Democratic Party is a necessity and it will never die. It is the organized ignorance and vice of the entire country and so long as vice and ignorance

^^Jackson Standard, Sept. 3, 1874, p. 2, col. 1. ^^Evans, op. cit.. pp. 191-194. ^^Ibid.. p. 185. 62

prevail to a considerable extent, just so long will the Democratic Party flourish... And today if there is anything that your ignorant vicious Democrat hates worse than he does a "nigger", it is a preacher or a consistent member of the church... Two years ago at the Democratic Convention the party passed a resolu­ tion wiriich recognized the equality of all men before the law. But now the Democracy have thrown off their mask and their hatred and persecution of the negroes i s more b i t t e r th an ever.^^

The election resulted in a victory for the Democratic candi­ date, John Luther Vance, in Jackson County and in the district.

In Jackson County he won by a majority of seventy-seven votes and received 50.1^ of the total vote cast. Bundy received IS.Vfo of the vote.^^ Jackson County and the Ohio Eleventh Congressional

D istrict reflected a nationwide trend as they had in 1862. A substantial Democratic majority was returned to the House of

Representatives in 1874.

Between 1859 and I 9 OO Jackson County cast its vote in favor of all Republican candidates for President. Only once did it fail to support a Republican Gubernatorial candidate, and only twice a

Republican Congressional candidate. Even in these elections the results indicated a slim Democratic majority. In no instance did the Democratic candidates for these offices poll more than slightly above 51% of the total vote cast for the office. Jackson County was a consistently Republican county in this period.

^^I'The Democratic Party," Jackson Standard. Oct. 8, 1874, p. 2, c o lj 2. ^The remainder of the vote, 1.7%, was received by D. Locke, Prohibition Party candidate. 63 B. Pike Go lint y

(l) A Democratic Stronghold

During the early years of the period 1859-1900 Pike County

supported the Democratic candidates for President, Governor, and

Congress. Table V sets forth the Democratic percentages of the total votes cast for these candidates. Democratic Presidential

candidates polled fairly high percentages in the county between

I860 and 1888, In 1892, however, Grover Cleveland carried the

county with ^0.8% of the vote to defeat Benjamin Harrison,

Republican. Although the county's Democratic vote began to

diminish in 1884, it did not adversely affect the outcome of a

Democratic Presidential race until I 896 . During this period Pike

County was as consistently Democratic as Jackson County was

Republican.

The Gubernatorial vote demonstrated slightly more variation.

As Table V indicates the Democratic Gubernatorial candidate in

1859 received 61.8% of the total vote cast, liiile in 1863 he received only 51.5$» A decrease in the Democratic Gubernatorial vote began in 1861 when the candidate for that office polled 56. 5^ of the vote. This may be explained in pai't by the fact that, during the war years, the Democratic Party suffered rifts in its ranks due to the division between War Democrats and the Peace

Democrats. Shortly after the Civil War, in 186?, the Democratic

Gubernatorial candidate, A.G. Thurman, received strong support, p o llin g 64. 5% of the vote against Rutherford B. Hayes, Republican. 64 TABLE V PIKE COUNTY; DEMOCRATIC PERCENTAŒS OF TOTAL VOTES CAST FOR PRESIDENT, GOVERNOR, AND U.S. REPRESENTATIVE (1859-1900) YEAR PRESIDENT GOVERNOR U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 1859 —— 61 «8^ — 1860 56.0% —— — 58.6% 1861 ————— 56. 5% ————— 1862 ------——— 69 . 5% 1863 51*5^ - — - 1864 58.7% ---- 6 0 . 4% 1865 ————— 59»5% ————— 1866 ————— ————— 59*2% 1867 ————— 64»5% ————— 1868 59 . 9 % ------: 62. 6% 1869 ———— 60. 1% ———— 187 0 —— ——— 56*3% 1871 ————— 57*2% ———— 1872 54*9% - - - - - 55*1% 1873 — 56. 8 % 1874 - ——— ——- 58 . 2% 187 5 ———_— 59*3% —--— 1876 58 * 8 % —-——— 58 . 0% 1877 ————— 58 .7% ————— 1878 ———— —-—— 55* 8 % 1879 “— — 56. 0% ——— 1880 55. 1%------56. 5% 1881 ———— 54*5% ———— 1882 ———— ————— 55*0% 1883 ———— 55*8% ————— 1884 54*6% — 56. 5% 1885 ————— 52* 8 % ———— I 880 —— — — 52. 9 % 1887 ——— 52. 0% ———— 1888 53. 6%------56. 2% 1889 ————— 55*2% ------— 1890 ———— ————— 56. 5% 189 1 ————— 47*4% ————— 1892 50. 8 %------52*1% 1893 ———— 52* 8 % ————— 1894 43*2% 1895 ——— 44*6% ———— 1896 48*7% ------48.5% 1897 ——- 45*3% — 1898 42* 9 % 1899 — — 45*0% - - - - -

SOURCE: Secretary of State of Ohio, Report of the Secretary of S ta te , I 87 O-I9 OO; New York Herald Tribune Almanac, 1861, 1863, 13657^1867. ------65 Although he failed to carry the state, Thurman's percentage was the highest received by a Democratic Gubernatorial candidate in Pike

County during this period. A Democratic Gubernatorial candidate suffered the first defeat of the period in 1895, although in 1891 the Democratic candidate carried the county with only kl»k% of the total, and in 1893 the Democratic candidate received 52. 8 & of the total vote. Althougti 1895 was the first loss suffered by a

Democratic Gubernatorial candidate in the period it was not the last. Democratic Gubernatorial candidates failed to carry the county in 1897 and 1899.

In a majority of the elections for U.S. Representative held during this period the Democratic candidates polled above 55^ of the vote. In 1892 the Democratic Congressional candidate received only 52.1^ of the vote, and in 1894 he was defeated in Pike

County. A series of defeats followed in 1896, 1898, and 1900.

In Pike County Democratic candidates for all three offices under consideration received substantial majorities in most of the elections until the 1890's. In 1894 the Republican candidates were successful and continued to receive the county's support during the next eight years. This short span of years was one of anxiety for the Democratic organization in Pike County.

(2) Years of Deviation from the Democratic Columns

(a) 1894 and 1895

The Congressional race of 1894 was the first time a Democratic candidate for Congress failed to carry Pike County since I860. 66

Lucien J. Fenton, Republican, received 53.3^ of the vote and John 0.

Tates, Democrat, received only 43.2/S of the vote. The remainder

■went to candidates of the Prohibition Party and the Peoples Party.

Fenton carried the Tenth Congressional D istrict by the substantial majority of about 10,000 votes. The 1894 election followed on the heels of the Panic of 1893 and the Republican candidates made significant gains in the House of Representatives. Pike County voted with the nation.

Candidates in the Gubernatorial election of 1895 were Asa S.

Bushnell, Republican, and James E. Campbell, Democrat. Bushnell, a manufacturer of harvesting machinery, had served as a captain in the infantry during the Civil War. He acted as Joseph B. Foraker's campaign manager in Foraker's successful bid for the governor's office in 1885. Under Governor Foraker Bushnell was Quartermaster

General. His nomination in 1895 has been attributed to the strength of Foraker forces who gained control of the state con­ vention.^^ The Waverly Watchman, local Democratic newspaper, clairaed that Buslmell was nominated through the united efforts of large city bosses in order to gain control of state patronage.

Pike County Democrats extended an invitation to James

Campbell to open liis campaign for Governor there as he had done

^^Hockett, "Asa Smith Businnell," Dictionary of American Biography, III (1929), pp. 347-348. 17"Voice of th e People" ( e d it o r ia l ) , V/averly Watchman. Aug. 29, 1895,-p. 2, col. 2. 67 several years previously when he was successful in his bid for that

office.^® Campbell delivered his first speech in Pike County in

October, 1895. His remarks included an eoÿose of alleged corrop­

tion in Governor iloKinley's administration and the disgraceful

conduct of some of the employees of state institutions.The

attack on the Republican administration failed to gain the county's

support, since Campbell received only 4 4 .6)0 o f the vote in Pike

County. Bushnell polled 49.7% of the vote and minor party candi­ dates received the remainder. Bushnell also carried the state by

the largest plurality received by an Ohio Governor since John

B rough's d efea t of Vailandigham in 1863.^0 A fter the election one of the principal causes of the Democratic Gubernatorial candidate's defeat in Pike County was attributed to the failure of the local

Democratic Party organisation to reform itself. I t was contended that people had lost confidence in the p a rty , and that scandalous conduct o f th e leaders had removed loyalty and patriotism from the party.^^ (b) The Ele ctio n s of 1896 and 1897

Presidential candidates i n I 896 were william LlcKinley,

Republican, and Vdlliaai Jennings Bryan, Democrat. mcKinley, a law yer from Ohio, had been active in politics for many years.

IS "A Boom for Campbell, " Viaverly Viatchman, Aug. 22, 1895, p. 2, c o l.q 2 . ^"The Great M eeting," averly watcnnan . O ct. 3, 1895, p. 2, col;^^ 5. '^^'^Hockett, "Asa S m th B ushnell," D ictio n ary o f American Biography, 111^(1929), p .,348. iliiThe Result of th e Election, " Waverly watchman. Nov. 7, 1895, p. i.,col. 1. 68

In 1869 he was elected prosecuting attorney of Stark County. He supported Rutherford B. Hayes for the office of Governor in 1875, and became Congressman from the Seventeenth Ohio D istrict in 1876.

From 1891-1895 McKinley served as Governor of Ohio. Largely through the efforts of Mark Hanna, McKinley was nominated for the

Presidency in 1896.^^

William Jennings Bryan had served in Congress in 1890 and identified himself with the silver interests. At the Democratic

National Convention in I 896 he was supported by tie se interests and electrified the convention delegates with his famous "cross of gold" speech. He received the nomination on the fifth ballot.

Bryan toured the country making speeches while McKinley resorted to a front porch campaign from his home in Ohio.

The local Democratic newspaper predicted that the chances for

Mr. Bryan's victory were bright despite the split over the gold and silver question witiiin the Democratic Party. An editorial reasoned that for all the gold Democratic votes which Bryan might lose, he

P I would gain ten silver Republican votes. During the campaign

McKinley was branded as an ex-free silver supporter by H.S. Weal, former Republican Congressman. Neal contended that McKinley had

22j>rederick Logan Paxson, "Viilliam McKinley, " Dictionary of American Biography, XII (1933), pp. IO6-IO7 . All en Johnson, "William Jennings Bryan," Dictionary of American Biography, III (I 929 ), pp. 191-192. 24iiProgress of Campaign" (editorial), Waverly Courier Watchraan, Aug. 1 3 , I 896 , p. 4, col. 3 . 69 been a strong free silver man, but that he had surrendered to the

"gold bugs" and had betrayed the farmer and the laboring man.^^

Congressional candidates in the Tenth D istrict in I 896 were

Lucien Fenton, Republican, and T.S. Hogan, Democrat. The Con­ gressional campaign failed to receive adequate coverage in the local newspaper. There were merely brief announcements of the

speaking engagements of the Democratic Congressional candidate.

Prior to the election it was reported that Hogan, an advocate of free silver, was mailing a gallant fight against fearful odds, but expected to emerge victorious.

Republican Presidential and Congressional candidates carried the county. In the Congressional race Mr. Fenton polled ^l,k% of the vote, while Hogan polled 48.5# of the vote. In the

Presidential contest McKinley received 50.6# and Bryan 48.7# of the total vote cast . 27 McKinley received only a ninety-three vote margin. In this instance Pike County supported an Ohio resident for President, and its choice coincided with that of the nation.

The 1897 Gubernatorial race found Asa Bushnell, Republican, running for reelection against Horace L. Chapman, the Democratic candidate. The Democratic platform supported free silver and denounced national banks. The Democratic State Convention refused

^^liVaverly Courier 1/Vatchiflan. O ct. 8, I 896 , p. 8, col. 1. ^6][javerlv Courier Watchman. Oct. 29 , I 896 , p. 5, col. 1. 27Joshua Levering, Prohibition Party candidate, received .2%, John M. Palmer, National Democratic Party candidate, received .1%, and Charles E. Bentley of the National Party received .2%, 70 to give the Populists and Free Silver Republicans a place on the ticket. Claims were made that the Convention was controlled by

John R. McLean, of Cincinnati, who supported Chapman and desired a U.S. Senate seat for himself.^® Throughout the campaign articles on McLean's wealth, home, and business activities appeared in the

Waverly News. He was la b e le d an a r is to c r a t who a c tu a lly re sid e d in

Washington, and therefore was not a bona fide resident of Ohio.^^

Prior to the election the Republican paper praised the Bushnell administration, crediting it with conducting business in the interest of the taxpayers.30

Governor Bus tine 11 was returned to office carrying with him the approbation of Pike County voters for a second time. He polled

53.5/â of the vote in Pike County while Chapman received 4$.3%.

Governor Bushnell had increased his vote in Pike County since 1895*

In that year he carried the county by 215 votes, while in 1897 he received a 351 vote plurality. Minor party candidates for Governor received only a few votes in Pike County. The Waverly News stated that free silver was dead and that, despite Democratic boodle and

William Jennings Bryan as a speaicer the Saturday before the elec­ tion, the Republican Gubernatorial candidate carried the county by a handsome m ajority.31

28i(j^,icLean Controls State Convention," 'Waverly News. July 1, 1897, p. 1,-Col. 3, 2y>bki Aristocrat - John R. McLean Lives in Washington," Waverly News..July 15, 1897, p. 1, col. 5« 3u"$l,099,732.87 Amount in State Treasury at This Time," Waverly Mews. ■'Oct. 14, 1897, P« 1, c o l. 2. 31iia Great Victory - Pike County Goes Overwhelmingly Republican," Waverly News, Nov. 4, 1897, P» 1, c o l. 1. 71 (c) Elections of 1898 and 1899

Stephen Morgan, Republican, and Alva Crabtree, Democrat,

opposed each other in the Tenth D istrict Congressional race of 1898.

Morgan was a resident of Jackson County who had taught in its public 32 school system. Even though the Pike County candidate. Judge

James, lost the nomination at the Republican Convention, Republicans pledged themselves to give Morgan a substantial majority in the

November e le c tio n .33 ^ month prior to the election Morgan predicted a Republican victory. His optimism was based in part upon the benefits of the Dingley Tariff Act and the successful prosecution of the Spanish-American War.3^

The election tabulation in Pike County substantiated Morgan's optimism. He won by a majority of $28 votes, which represented

51 % of the total vote cast. Crabtree, the Democratic candidate, polled 12.9% of the vote. The Republican victory of I 898 marked the peak of Republican Party control in Pike County. The vote received by the Democratic Congressional candidate was the smallest recorded in Pike County for any of the three offices under con­ sideration during the entire period of 1859 to I 9 OO. Both parties recorded a light vote, amounting to only 3,700 compared with 4,200 in 1897.

Principal candidates in the Gubernatorial election of 1899 were

3^Evans, op. cit., p. 200. 33>'It’s All Over," liiaverly News. April 21, 1898, p . 1 , c o l. 3* 34L 'P olitical G ossip," Waverly News. S ept. 22, I 8 9 8 , p . 1, c o l. 5. ^ 72 George K. Nash, R epublican, and John R. McLean, Democrat. According to the Republican Press of Pike County, McLean's nomination was accomplished by bribery and corruption, and an attempt was made to lure dissatisfied Democratic voters into the ranks of the Republican

P a rty .25 Rumors of s t r i f e w ith in the co u n ty 's Democratic organiza­ tion appeared in the Waverly News prior to the election. It vjas reported that the Waverly group of Democrats, led by Dr. Rye,- con­ trolled the organization.2^

Nash carried the county and received 53.2/ù of the total vote cast. John R. McLean polled 45^^27 These were approximately the same percentages received by Republican and Democratic Gubernatorial candidates in 1897» The parties maintained their positions without a noticeable increase or decrease in strength. A few weeks after the election the Republican press accused the Democratic Party of vote buying. The charge was as follows;

The Democracy had a campaign fund of $4,000 and as high as $10 and $15 was paid for single votes. Rot gut whiskey flowed as water, filthy campaign literature filled the air and voters were intimidated while in the very act of marking their ticket.

However, no action on the accusation was noted during the remainder of the year.

25"Boss McLean" ( e d ito r ia l) , Waverly News, Aug. 31, 1899, p. 1, c o l. 2. 36"Nominated," Waverly Mews, Oct. 5^ 1899, p. 1. col. 3. 27seth H. Ellis of the Union Reform Party received .7$ of the v ote, George M. Haramell of th e P ro h ib itio n P a rty received .2%', and Samuel M. Jones received .6^ of the vote. 38"iW“terwards" (editorial), Waverly News. Nov. 16, 1899, P* 1, co l. 1. 73 Pike County gave strong support to the Democratic Party between

1859 and 1894. In that year Republican victories began which

lasted until 1903. Newspaper accounts of elections held during

the decade of Republican control intimated Democratic intra-party

strife, since several leaders of the Democratic county organiza­

tion were mentioned. The county Democratic organization was

undoubtedly in the process of reorganization during these years,

and this may have cost them many votes. A few votes were lost to

candidates of the Peoples Party and the Prohibition Party but

they were too few to be decisive.

Pike County voters from 1894 to 1900 were reflecting the national trend by supporting Republican candidates. These years produced losses for Democratic candidates as the nation was faced with a depression, a growing dislike of President Cleveland, the

silver question, and a schism in the Democratic Party. McKinley proved popular during his first administration and the 1898

Congressional elections followed on the heels of victories in the

Spanish-ilm erican War, Pike County v o te rs may well have been

swept along with this general trend.

C. Ross County

(l) Variable Pattern of VotinK

In contrast to Jackson and Pike Counties, Ross County failed to

support either major party consistently between 1859 and 1900.

Table VI illustrates the Republican percentages of the total votes

cast in Ross County for President, Governor, and U.S. Representative. 74 TABLE VI ROSS COUNTY; REPUBLICAN PERCENTAGES Oi?‘ TOTAL VOTES CAST POR ERESIÜËNT, GOVERNOR, AND U.S. REPRESENTATIVE (1859-1900) year president GOVERNOR U.S. REPRESENTATIVE

1859 - 49*0^ ----- 1860 47 *3% ———— 49*4% 186 1 ————— ^6.9^ ————— 1862 —- —— ———— 42. 6% 1863 ————— 56. 5% ————— 1864 51. 3% - - — 51. 4% 1865 ———— 49*1^ ———— 1866 ————— ——-—— 49*2^ 1867 ———— 42. 9 ^ ——— 1868 4o»9^ —— 45*2^ 1869 ————— 42. 8 ^ ————— 1870 ———— —— 4 8 . 0% 187 1 ————— 48.0$d ————— 1872 49«5% ——— 48 .4^ 1873 —-— 44»5% 1874 - ——— —_— 46 . 0% I 87 5 ——— 48 . 6/6 ————— 4a . 4# 49 . 6% 1877 ------45.1% ------1878 ------50. 5% 1879 “— *" 49*3E 1880 50.8 % 50. 3% 1881 ————— 50. 3% ————— 1882 ------4 7 . 2% 1883 ————— 48 .1^ ————— 1884 50. 2# 50. 1# 1885 ————— 50. 8 % ————— 1886 ——-— —------51 • 1% 1887 ————— 50.0^ ————— 1888 50. 7% 49 . 2% 1889 ——— 50. 1^ ———— 1890 ------— ——— 47»^^ 1891 —— 49*5^ — 1892 49*1^ - - - - - 49*3/° 1893 ------52. 4% ——— 1894 ------55» 9^ 1895 ------52. 5% ------1896 52.3% —-— 52. 3% 1897 — — 53"2% ------1898 —— - —— 51»3/^ 1899 ------50. 3% ------SOURCE: Secretary of State of Ohio, Report of the Secretary of S ta te . I 87 O-I9 OO; New York Herald Tribune Almanac. 1861, 1863, 1865 , 1867 » 75 In most of the Presidential elections Ross County supported the

Republican candidates. However, in 1868, 18?2, and 18?6 the county supported the Democratic candidates who were Horatio Seymour in

1868, Horace Greeley in 1872, and Samuel J. Tilden in 1876. In these instances the county voters did not reflect the national choice for President. Republican percentages of the total vote cast did not demonstrate sharp fluctuations, but remained close to the 50^ mark. The lowest Republican percentage was in 1868 when General Grant received 46.9^ of the vote. After the losses sustained in 1872 and 1876 the Republican Presidential candidates proved successful throughout the remainder of the period. The highest percentage polled by a Republican Presidential candidate in

Ross County was in 1896 when V/illiam McKinley received 52.3^ of the total vote.

Republican Gubernatorial candidates won eleven of the twenty- one contests held between 18$9 and I 9 OO. As Table VI indicates, there were sharper fluctuations in the Republican percentages in these elections than in the Presidential elections. Highest percentages for the period were obtained in I 86 I and I 863 by

David Tod and John Brough, Union candidates, who received 56.9^ and 56. 5% of the vote respectively. The lowest percentages received by Republican candidates were polled in 18 67 and I 869 . Republican percentages continued to remain below the 50% mark during the succeeding five Gubernatorial elections, but in 1881 the

Republican candidate, Charles Foster, cai-ried the county with 76 50,3^ of the total vote. The Democratic candidate carried the county in 1883, which was the last victory for a Democratic Gubernatorial candidate during this period. Republican percentages after 1883 hovered around the 50 % mark, although a slight upward trend was n o tic e a b le in 1893*

Results of the Congressional elections held between 1859 and

1900 in Ross County were evenly divided between the two major parties, the Republi.cans and the Democrats each winning ten. From

I 860 through 1876 Democratic Congressional candidates carried the county with the exception of 1864, when the Union candidate,

Stevenson, carried Ross County, but lost the Twelfth Congressional

D istrict. After 1S?6 Republican Congressional candidates were victorious during the remainder of the period, except in 1832 and

I 89 O. The highest percentage received by a Republican Congressional candidate was in 1894, after the Panic of 1893, when Charles H.

Grosvenor c a rrie d th e county w ith 55*9/“*

(2) The Elections of 1882. 1883. and 1890

The elections of 1882, 1883, and I 89 O were the last three

Democratic victories during this period. In the Congressional election of 1882 Lawrence T. Neal was the Democratic candidate and Alphonse Hart the Republican noaiinee. In accepting the nomina­ tion Neal stated:

The Republican majorities have been the result of appeals to the passions and prejudices of the people, and not the expression of their impartial judgment upon questions of governmental policy that have divided the two great parties of the country... 77 The cry of the bloody shirt and the solid south with the accompaniment of the rebel brigadiers, have ceased to be the potent engines of political power that they have been for seventeen years past.39

Neal came to Chillicothe as a youth and practiced law in that com­ munity. He served as city solicitor, prosecuting attorney for

Ross County, and as a member of Congress for two terms. However, the district had been reorganized and was purported to have a

Republican majority of about 1,200.^^

During the campaign i t was charged by the Democratic newspaper in the county that Hart thought Negroes unfit to serve as jurors.

It was also claimed that the Republican Party was willing to have

Negroes vote for their candidates, but was unwilling to let

Negroes share in the offices. The Chillicothe Advertiser stated:

This outrageous treatment has become intolerable and the colored voters are beginning to see that tiiere is no hope of their political advancement from the party who claims to own them body and soul.^^

Prior to the election a prediction designated Neal the winner by a majority of 400 votes. This speculation was based upon a report that Republican leaders in Ross County had not given Hart adequate support.

Election results confirmed this prediction. Neal received a plurality of 431 votes, or 52.6^ of the total vote cast in Ross

39nspeech of Hon. L.T. Neal,” Chillicothe Advertiser. Aug. 11, 1882,-p. 1, col. 7. 4uEditorial, Chillicothe Advertiser, Aug. 11, 1882, p. 2, col. 2. ^^Editorial, Chillicothe Advertiser, Sept. 22, 1882, p. 2, col. 1. 42Editorial, Chillicothe Advertiser. Sept. 15, 1882, p. 2, col. 1. 43j)ditorial, Chillicothe Advertiser, Sept. 22, 1882, p. 2, col. 1. 78 County. However, Neal lost to his opponent in the Congressional

D istrict by a margin of ten votes. The Democratic newspaper

suggested that large gains had been made by their candidate in the

county p a r tly because many German R epublicans had jo in ed th e ranks of the Democratic Party.^ The M vertiser. a week later, reprimanded Pike County Democrats for failing to go to the polls in larger numbers, contending that Ross County Democrats had provided fifty votes above its promised majority while Pike County, a normally Democratic County, had polled a light vote.^^

On the national level the election of 1882 resulted in

Democratic control of the House of Representatives. Chester Arthur had risen to the Presidency after the death of Garfield in 1881, and the Congress had been lax in instituting his suggested reforms, Ross County may have registered its disapproval of the party in power in this off-year election.

Gubernatorial aspirants in 1883 were Joseph B. Foraker,

Republican, and George Hoadly, Democrat. Foraicer, a captain in the Civil War, had been admitted to the Ohio bar in 1869. He served as a Judge of the Superior Court of Cincinnati from 1879 to 1882. In the 1883 Gubernatorial campaign Foraker favored the taxation and regulation of liquor traffic.George Hoadly, also

j^ditorial, Chillicothe Advertiser. Oct. 13, 1882, p. 2, col. 1. ^^Editorial, Chillicothe Advertiser, Oct. 20, 1882, p. 2, col. 1. ^“Reginald C. McGrane, "Joseph Benson Foraker," Dictionary of American Biography, VI ( 1931 ), p . 303. 79 a lawyer, had acted as city solicitor for Cincinnati and was

elected Judge of the Superior Court of Cincinnati in 1859 and 1864.

He resigned in 1866 to join a private law firm. In his youth

Hoadly had been a Democrat, later shifted to Republican ranks, and s till later reentered the Democratic Party because of dissatisfaction with the Republican Party's reconstruction and tariff policies. He served as counsel for Tilden in the

Presidential contest of 18?6. Since he was ill during most of the

1833 campaign he delivered only a few sp eech es.47

At a reunion of Negro soldiers early in the campaign Foraker appealed to' the group to realize their power and to bolt the

Democratic Party.Rumors of Republican intra-party strife were found frequently on the pages of the Democratic newspaper, although no names were .mentioned.A week before the election a report was published in the Chillicothe Advertiser that $3,500 had been sent into the county to carry it for the Republican ticket, and stated that the Republican cause in Ross County was a forlorn one without the use of money to corrupt the ballot.

Regardless of the veracity of the charge, George Hoadly, the

Democratic candidate, won the election in Ross County by a plurality of 323 votes, and received 51*6% of the total vote cast,

47Hockett, "George Hoadly," Dictionary of American Biography. IX (1932), pp..84-85. ^^Editorial, Chillicothe Advertiser. Aug. 31, 1883, p. 2, col. 4» ^%ditorial, Chillicothe Advertiser, Sept. 14, 1883, p. 2, col. 4. 50iiLook Out for Corruption" (editorial), Chillicothe Advertiser, Oct. 5, 1883, p.. 2, col. 2. 80

Joseph Foraker polled 1+ 8,1$ of the vote.^^ Hoadly was elected on

the statewide level by a majority of 13,000.Ross County reflec­

ted the statewide trend in this election. Many Republicans

opposed the liquor tax and bolted party ranks.It has been

contended th a t German Republicans in Ross County s h ifte d th e ir

support to Hoadly.

The Republican candidate for the Tenth Congressional D istrict

f a ile d to carry Ross County in 1890. Principal candidates were

J.Q. Smith, Democrat, and R.E. Doan, Republican. The first

Republican Convention in the district failed to nominate a candi­

date. The Chillicothe Advertiser intimated that General Hurst,

Republican of Ross County, was the favorite, but that he failed

to receive the support of leaders in his own county.55 The

second Republican Convention chose R.E. Doan of Clinton County, whom the Democratic paper termed a compromise candidate.

The Democratic Congressional Convention nominated J.Q. Smith who received the backing of the Ross County Democratic newspaper

prior to his selection. However, the paper vjas pessimistic about

51 Ferdinand Schumacher, Prohibition candidate, received .19^ and Charles Jenkins, Greenback candidate, received .01^ of total vote c a s t. 52iiThe Result" (editorial), Chillicothe Advertiser. Oct. 12, 1883, p. 2,.col. 3. i^3McGrane, lo c . c i t . 54H ockett, "George Hoadly," Dictionary of American Biography. IX C1932), p. 85. 55iiFailed to Nominate," Chillicothe Advertiser. Aug. 1, 1890, p. l,,col. 1. ^ "Hurst Gets the Knife," Chillicothe Advertiser. Sept. 26, 1890,-p. 1, col. 1. 81 the outcome of the election*

The nomination for Congress in a district with about 7,000 adverse majority is not especially invi­ ting, nor does it present a very flattering prospect for success, but the people need to be educated on tariff and revenue reform... and the man who will lead the apparently forlorn hope and spread the doctrine will be making a sacrifice and doing a good work for which he will receive at least the good opinion of his fellow citizens.^'

Smith, a farmer, had formerly been a Republican, and had held the position of Consul General at Montreal by appointment of

President Garfield. He left the ranks of the Republican Party because of his dissatisfaction over its support of a high tariff.

A few weeks before the election Doan, the Republican candidate, was alleged to have engaged in questionable business dealings. No proof vias offered to back up these charges which appeared in the

Democratic newspaper.

The election resulted in victory for Doan in the Tenth Con­ gressional D istrict, although Sinith carried Ross County by the narrow margin of 135 votes. In Ross County Smith received 49*1^ of the v o te, and Doan receiv ed k 7 of the total vote. R.

Rathburn, the Prohibition Party candidate, polled 3.1^. The

Republican vote in the county may have been impaired by the failure of Ross County Republicans to nominate their candidate, General

^^Editorial, Chillicothe Advertiser, Aug. 15, 1890, p. 4; col. 3. 58iiparmer, John Q. Smth," Chillicothe Advertiser. Aug. 29, 189Q,-p. 6, col. 1. 2711001. Doan's Rotten Record,” Chillicothe M vertiser. Oct. 17, 1890, p. 1, col* 1. 82

Hurst, at the Convention. In any event Ross County's vote coincided

with the national trend which gave the Democratic Party a majority

in the House of Representatives.

Ross County may be termed a variable county in respect to

party support between 1859 and 1900. Democratic candidates held

the balance in the earlier part of the period, and Republican

candidates won the later elections. In very few instances can it

be said that the victories were substantial ones for either party

in respect to percentages of the vote cast. This is in contrast

to the fairly high percentages received by Republican candidates

in Jackson County, or the fairly liigh percentages received by

Democratic candidates in Pike County.

D. Scioto County

(l) A Predominantly Republican Area

Table VII illustrates the pattern of Republican victories in

Scioto County between 1859 and 1900 for the three offices under

consideration. Scioto County voted Republican in all the

Presidential elections in this period. In nine instances

Republican Presidential candidates received 55^ or more of the

total vote cast. William McKinley, with 59*4^ of the vote in

1896 , obtained the highest percentage polled by a Republican

Presidential candidate. Abraham Lincoln, in I860, secured the

lowest percentage of the total vote received by a Republican

Presidential candidate, 5O.5#. Republican Presidential candidates

polled larger majorities than did Republican Gubernatorial or 83 TABLE VII SCIOTO COUNTY: REPUBLICAN PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL VOTES CAST FOR PRESIDENT, GOVERNOR, AND U.S. REPRESENTATIVE (1859-1900) YEAR PRESIDENT GOVERNOR U.S. REPRESENTATIVE

1859 —— 53*0^ 50.5# ------50.7# 1861 55*3# ————— 18o2 ———— 36 . 7# 1863 “ —— 62.^# ———— 1864 57*7# —— 55. <0 1865 ————— 53o2# ——— 1866 ———- ———— 55*2# I 667 ———— A7•8% ————— 1868 56. 9 # ———— 54. A# 1869 ————— 52. 5# — —— 1870 - —— 50. 9 # 1871 ———— 52. 1# ------— 1872 57.5#------56.2% 1873 — — 4 9 . 2% —— — 1874 ------43 . 1# 1875 ———— 52. 0# ——-— 1876 52. 5# —— 50. 5# 1877 —— — 47 . 2# — — 1878 ————— ————— 52. '0 1879 — - - 52. 1# — 1880 55. 0%------49.0% 1881 ——— 54.3%' — — 1882 ———— ———— 51. 7# 1883 ———— 52. 6% ———— 1884 57*4% —— 56. 5# 1885 ———— 56. 1% ——— 1886 ————— — 56. 0% 1887 “ ——— 51. 4% ———— 1888 55. 0% ------56 . 3% 1 889 ———— 53*5# ——— 1890 58.1% 1891 ————— 55*7% ———— 1892 55.8% ------56. 5# 1893 — — 59 . 9 # —------18 94 ——— — — 68 . 9 % 1895 ————— 6 2 . 3# ————— 1896 59*4% —-— 59*9% 1897 ——— 56. 7# ———— 1898 ———— ——— 59*0% 1899 — —— 53*5% ——— SOURCE: Secretary of State of Ohio, Report of the Secretary of S ta te , I 87 O-I9 OO; Nevj York Herald Tribune Almanac. 1861, 1863, 1865, 1867. 84 Congressional candidates.

Republican Gubernatorial candidates carnied Scioto County in all but tiAio elections, 186? and 1877. In 1867 Rutherford B. Hayes was defeated by illen G. Thurman, and in 1877 William West lost to Richard Bishop. The highest percentage received by a

Republican Gubernatorial candidate was in 1863 when John Brough,

Union candidate, received 62.4% of the total vote.

The outcome of the Congressional races in Scioto County was similar to that of the Gubernatorial contests, since Republican candidates lost only three of the twenty Congressional elections,

1862, 1874, and 1880. The lowest percentage polled by a

Republican candidate for any of the three offices under considera­ tio n was i n 1862 when H.S. Bundy received only 36.7% of the t o t a l vote cast. Wells A. Hutchins, the Democratic candidate, received

63. 2%. Republican Congressional candidates polled percentages above 55% from 1884 until I 9 OO. The highest percentage polled by a Republican candidate for any of the three offices under consi­ deration in Scioto County was in 1894. Lucien J. Fenton defeated

John 0. Yates by more than 2,600 votes, and received the substan­ tial percentage of 68 . 9 %. It will be remembered that this was the election following the Panic of 1893, and the national trend was to replace the Democratic lawmakers with Republicans.

Republican candidates in Scioto County were able to attain victory by fairly substantial margins. In only five instances were the Democratic candidates able to defeat their opponents in 85 the elections of President, Governor, or U.S. Representative.

Between 1859 and I 9 OO Scioto County could be counted upon to sup­ port the Republican candidates, as could its neighbor, Jackson

County.

(2) Ueraocratic Victories in Scioto County

(a) Congressional Election of 1862

Scioto County v;as part of the Eleventh Congressional D istrict in 1862; as was Jackson County, and th e outcome of the e le c tio n was the same in both counties, wells A. Hutchins, Democrat, was the successful candidate, polling 63.2/b of the vote and a majority of

839 votes in Scioto County. Bundy received on ly 36.7% of the vote.

Reverses suffered by the Union forces and dissatisfaction through­ out the country over the Republican administration's handling of the Civil war cost the Republican Party votes in 1862.

(b) Gubernatorial Election of 1S6?

The next defeat of a Republican candidate in Scioto County was suffered by Rutherford 3. Hayes, Republican Gubernatorial candidate, in 1867, who lost to alien G. Thurman, Democrat. Hayes, a lawyer, entered local politics as a whig in 1851 and in 1855 was a delegate to the State Republican Convention. In 1864 and 1866 he was elected

Congressman from the Second Ohio D is tr ic t, from which o f fic e he resigned to run for Governor in I867. He carried on a vigorous campaign in the state and favored the proposed amendment to the Ohio 86

C o n stitu tio n fo r u n iv e rsa l maniiood su ffrag e.

Thurman was Secretary to Governor Robert Lucas in 1834, and was admitted to the Ohio bar in 183$. He was elected Associate

Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court in 18$1, and served as Chief

Justice from 18$4 to 1856. Upon refusing renomiaiation to this post, he resumed his private law practice. In I860 Thurman actively supported Stephen A. Douglas for President, and through­ out the Civil War was a Peace Democrat.The Negro suffrage amendment became a p rin c ip a l campaign iss u e . I t was opposed by the Democratic Party and press in Scioto County.

Thurman carried Scioto County with ^2.1% of the vote. Although

Hayes lost the county, he carried the state and was elected

Governor by a narrow m argin. The Negro su ffrag e ajiiendjuent was defeated by about 50,000 votes in the state.In Scioto County th e amendment vms d efeated by more than 800 v o te s, wliich was not surprising considering the county borders on a southern state,

(c) Congressional Election of 1874

The Congressional election of 1874 resulted in a Democratic victory in Scioto County as well as in Jackson County. The

^*^ilLlan Nevins, "R utherford B irchard H ayes," D ictio n ary of American Biography,.VIII (1932), pp. 447-448. - ^-^McGrane, , "Allen Cranberry Thurman," Dictionary of American Biography. XVIII (1936), p. 515. 62tijjegro Suffrage" (editorial), Portsmouth Times. Aug. 31, 1867, p. 2,^ col. 2. “3iiThe Result in the State," Portsmouth Times. Oct. 12, 1867, p. 2. col. 1. 64iiVote of the 11th D istrict on the Amendment," Portsmouth Times, Nov. 16, 1867, p . 2, c o l. 2. 87 Republican candidate, H.S. Bundy, was chosen by acclamation by the

Republican Nominating Convention.The selection of John L. Vance as the Democratic candidate was praised by the Democratic press of

Scioto County, While the editors recognized the campaign might be difficult, they believed Colonel Vance could win.^° An edi­ torial predicted that Bundy could expect no soldier support since

Vance had served with the Union annies as evidence of his patriotism, and charges against the Democratic Party's peace wing would no longer sway the thinking of the electorate.^?

Colonel Vance carried Scioto County by 666 votes, and received

56.1/0 of th e t o t a l vote c a s t. Bundy received 43.1%^ w hile th e remainder, .68^ went to D. Locke, Prohibitionist. Vance also carried the district by approximately 2,000 votes. The reason for the Democratic victory, according to the Democratic press, was the unpopularity of the Civil Rights Bill and the corruption associated with President Grant's administration.^^ The Republican press in Scioto County attributed the defeat of its candidates to

"hard times," resulting from the Panic of 1873, as well as

Democratic promises of decreased taxation, increase in currency^ and an abundance of work and m o n e y . ^9

65,"Bundy Nominated," Portsmouth Times. Aug. 29, 1874, p. 2, col. 3. 6b 'JFor Congress - Col. John L. Vance," Portsmouth Times. Sept. 5, 1874^-p. 2, col. 2, 67nii, Review of the Union Republican Congressional Committee Address" (editorial), Portsmouth Times, Sept. 12, 1874, p. 2, col. 2-3. 68iiResult in the 11th District" (editorial), Portsmouth Times, Oct. 17, 1874, p. 2, col. 1. ü9"Elect!on News - A Waterloo Defeat" (editorial), Portsmouth Tribune, Oct. 14, 1874, p. 2, col. 2. 88

(d) Gubennatorial Election of 1877

In 1877 Richard M. Bishop, Democratic Gubernatorial candidate, opposed William H. West. In Scioto County the Democratic press attacked the Registration Law, which it deemed too costly to operate, and which, it claimed, would not prevent fraudulent voting.

The newspaper urged the repeal of the law, which it termed troublesome, expensive, and u s e le s s .I t later accused Republican legislators of passing the law not to prevent fraud, but to deprive poor men who were forced to move about, of their elective franchise.

The costliness of the operation of the lav; in Scioto County was then estimated at from $800 to $1,000 per year.^^'

Richard M. Bishop carried Scioto County and the state. In

Scioto County he received a plurality of 294 votes and 52.5^ of the total vote cast. His opponent, V'/illiara H. West, polled 72 47.2^. A week after the election Democratic voters were com­ mended by the Democratic press for having turned out in large noia- bers in Scioto County, thereby proving their strength against the

Republicans v;ho had been entrenched in p o w e r . 73

(e) Congressional Election of 1880

Candidates in the Eleventh D istrict Congressional race in 1880

^^"kegistry Law - Expensive and Useless" (editorial), Portsmouth Times. Sept. 8, 1877, p. 2, col. 2. YlÉditorial, Portsmouth Times, Sept. 29, 1877, P. 2, col. 3. 72Lewis H, Bond receiv ed .1% of th e vote and Henry A. Thompson, Prohibition Party candidate, received .09# of the total vote. 73"Scioto County - How Our Victory Was Obtained," Portsmouth Times. Oct. 20, 1877, p. 2, col. 2. 89 were Henry S. Neal, Republican, and Wells A. Hutchins, Democrat.

Neal was running for a third term in Congress.Hutchins had formerly served as a Congressman in the 1860's, but had been defeated in 1864.^^ The Democratic Congressional Convention chose Hutchins by acclamation. The Portsmouth Times was optimistic about the Democratic candidate's chances, and speculated that he would receive not only Democratic support, but also the support of thousands of Republicans in the district who were tired of Neal and the rule of the "ring.

A month before the election Hutchins sent a letter to the

Portsmouth Times in which he maintained that he would not be con­ trolled by the platform of any political party, that he favored a tariff to protect the American manufacturer and laborer, aid to the merchant marine, improvements along the Ohio River, and the

T h irte e n th , F o u rteen th , and F ifte e n th Amendments to th e fe d e ra l

Constitution.77

When the votes were counted Hutchins carried Scioto County by a ninety-one vote plurality, and received 50.3/^ of the total vote cast. Although Neal received only 49^ of the vote cast in Scioto

County, he carried the Congressional district by 2,000 votes. The

Democratic press ciiarged that Hutchins had lost many votes in the

7^»Neal's Candidacy," Portsmouth Times, Aug. 14, 1880, p. 2, col. 2. 75Svans, op. cit., p. 182. 7biiHon. Wells A. Hutchins" (editorial), Portsmouth Times, Aug. 21, 1880, p . 2, c o l. 2. 77 iimt. Hutchins' Letter," Portsmouth Times, Sept. 11, 1880, p. 2, c o l. 4- 90 county because someone had circulated forged handbills on the day preceding the election, stating that the Democratic candidate had withdrawn from the ticket. However, nothing further appeared about this in the Portsmouth Times during the remainder of the year.This was the year James Garfield was elected President over his Democratic opponent, Winfield Hancock. Although control of the House of Representatives was in doubt until Congress met, the Republicans were able to obtain a majority. The 1880

Congressional election was significant to this study because it was the final Democratic victory in Scioto County for any of the candidates for the three offices under consideration.

E. Conclusion

Between 1859 and I 9 OO Jackson, Pike, and Scioto Counties con­ sistently supported one of the major political parties. Jackson and Scioto Counties supported the Republican Party with very few exceptions. Both counties supported the Democratic Congressional candidate in 1862 and both reacted against the Republican Con­ gressional candidate in 1874 when Republican support of a Civil

Rights B ill, evils of the Reconstruction pei'iod, scandals involving President Grant, and the Panic of 1873 were central political issues. In both instances these counties mirrored a national trend.

Although Jackson County voters supported the Democratic

V^HDepravity in Politics," Portsmouth Times. Oct. 16, 1880, p. 2, col. 2. 91 Gubernatorial candidate in 1859, Scioto County voters did not deviate from their support of a Republican Gubernatorial candidate until the post Civil VJar period. Jackson County voters endorsed all Republican candidates for the three offices under considera­ tion between 1875 and 1900, In no election during this period did Jackson or Scioto County voters support a Democratic

Presidential candidate.

Pike County was predominantly a Democratic county between

1859 and 1894. From 1894 to 1900 the county favored Republican candidates in the Presidential, Gubernatorial, and Congressional elections. While the contests were very close the Republicans were able to carry the county, and hoped to retain their control.

Local Democratic intra-party strife, the currency question, and a nationwide depression beginning with the Panic of 1893 weakened

Democratic support in Pike County during these years.

Ross County was the most variable of the four counties in its party support. In the Presidential contests the electorate definitely favored the Republican candidates, since they sup­ ported Republican Presidential candidates in seven of the ten contests held between 1859 and 1900. However, in the Gubernatorial and Congressional elections there was a more even balance in the support of Republican and Democratic candidates. The end of the period revealed a distinctly Republican trend. Republican

Gubernatorial candidates carrying the county from 1883 to the end of the period, and Republican Congressional candidates carrying 92 the county from. 1890 until the end of the period.

In conclusion, therefore, it may be said that the pattern of

voting and party activity demonstrated two counties, Jackson and

Scioto, as firmly entrenched in the Republican camp. Ross County,

the most variable of the four, also supported Republican candidates

during the last ten years of the period. Pike County, strongly

Democratic early in the period, cast its vote for the Republican

candidates during the last six years of the century. As the

century drew to a close all four counties were supporting

Republican candidates for the offices of President, Governor, and

Congressman. CHAPTER IV

TRENDS IN PARTY AND VOTING BEHAVIOR: I 9 OO-I952

Balloting in Jackson, Pike, Ross, and Scioto Counties during the last half of the Nineteenth Century indicated several trends in the four county area. In this chapter general elections held between I 9 OO and 1952 will be considered. This is the era of the

Progressive Movement, World V/ar I, the great depression, the New

Deal, World War II, the Fair Deal, and the Republican resurgence.

These events have influenced party and voting behavior in the four county area. U.S. Senatorial contests, as well as the contests for President, Governor, and U.S. Congressional Representative by district will be considered. Each county will be discussed in the light of its general record, with attention to principal shifts from its historic party support.

A. Jackson County

(1 ) A Pattern of Republicanism

The general pattern of voting in Jackson County indicates once again a great degree of consistence in support of the candidates sponsored by the Republican Party. During this period all

Presidential contests were carried by the Republican candidates except in 1912 when Theodore Roosevelt, Progressive Party candi­ date, carried the county. The mnning percentages of the

Republicans, on the other hand, show a marked degree of variability.

The lowest winning percentage was in 1916 when Charles Evans Hughes,

Republican, carried Jackson County with only 49.6% of the vote.

93 94 Woodrow Wilson, Dejaocrat, polled 47.6# of the vote.^ In contrast to this narrow margin of victory, Herbert Hoover, 1928 Presidential candidate, received the highest percentage, 71.3# of the total vote cast. His opponent, A1 Smith, received 27.7# of the vote.^ During this period successful Republican Presidential candidates polled

55# or more of the vote in a majority of the elections. As Table

VIII demonstrates, the voting pattern in Presidential races was subject to greater fluctuation in this period than in the previous period.

In the Gubernatorial contests Jackson County supported the

Republican candidates except in 1912, 1924, and 1930. Table VIII indicates that Republican percentages of the total votes cast for

Gubernatorial candidates were lower than Republican percentages for Presidential, Senatorial, and Congressional candidates between

1900 and 1932. The highest percentage received by a Republican candidate for Governor was in 1903, near the end o f Mark Hanna's influence on the Republican Party, when Myron T. Herrick received

65.9# of the vote. Tom L. Johnson, Democrat, received 31.8#.^

The smallest percentage received by a winning Republican Guber­ natorial candidate was in 1914 when Frank B. W illis received

^ h e remainder of the vote was p o lled by A llen L. Benson, Socialist, 2# and J. Frank Hanley, Prohibitionist, .6#. ^The remainder went to Norman Thomas, Socialist, .39#, Verne L. Reynolds, Socialist Labor, .03#, William E. Varney, Prohibitionist, . 38#, and W illiam Z. F oster, Yn'orkers Communist, .01#. 3The r est went to Nelson D. Creamer, P r o h ib itio n ist, 1 .8#, Isaac Gowen, Socialist, .23#, and John D, Goerke, Socialist Labor, .15#. 95

TABLE VIII JACKSON COUNTY: EEPUBLICAN PERCKNTAC2iS OF TOTAL VOTES CAST FOR PRESIDENT, GOVERNOR, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE, AND SENATOR (1900-1952)

YEAR PRESIDENT GOVERNOR U.S. REPRESENTATIVE SENATOR

1900 58.8^ ■ w a a M to i iw 59. 6% 1901 59.3% 1902 60.7% 1903 65.9% gmmrnmmwmtm 1904 69.1% ------——— 72. 3% 1905 51.6% 1906 54. 8% 1908 55.8% 54.6% 52. 0% 1910 51.5% 53. 5% 1912 30.0% 29.8% 32. 2% 1914 — — 48.7% 51. 3% 52. 2% 1916 49.6% 51. 5% 51. 9% 52. 9% 1918 53. 4% * ■■ — 1920 54.4% 51.6% 57. 5% 55. 3% 1922 50. 0% 58.8% 55. 3% 1924 61.4% 46.2% 69. 9% 1926 54. 6% 59. 2% 57.8% 1928 71.3% 56. 9% 67.5% 63.1% 1930 47. 1% 61.2% 56.1% 1932 55.0% 55. 1% 57.0% 54.9% 1934 57. 0% 58.6% 52. 8% 1936 50.0% 53. 4% 57.2% 1938 57. 3% 66.1% 58.3% 1940 54.1% 55. 6% 59. 0% 56.0% 1942 64.2% 65. 2% 59.8% 1944 59.2% 60.1% 63.7% 1946 57. 4% 62.9% 61.2% 1948 53.3% 50. 7% 56. 8% 1950 56.3% 65. 0% 56.8% 1952 59.1% 51. 3% 69. 4% 62.2%

SOURCE; Secretary of State of Ohio, Ohio Election Statistics. 1900-1952; Jackson Son. Nov. 9, 1922, p. 1, col, 1.

*Republican candidate unopposed. 96 48.7/0 of the total vote. Janies k. Cox, Democrat, polled 35.2/ci

and James R. Garfield, Progressive, polled 11.5%.^ Republican Senatorial candidates have alivays carried Jackson

County. In a majority of the Senatorial elections, tlie Republican

candidates received more than 35% of the total vote cast. In the

early part of the period the Senatorial vote ran below tiiat re­

ceived by the Presidential and Congressional candidates. Since

1938, however, the percentage received by Republican Senatorial

candidates has been exceeded only by that received by Congressional candidates. The highest percentage cast for a Senatorial candidate

was in 1928, durirg a period of financial prosperity, when Simeon

D, Fess received 63.1% of the vote and Charles V. Truax, Democrat, received 36.8%. Fess was also the Republican Senatorial candidate

to receive the lowest percentage of the vote, when, in 1934 , he polled 52.8%. his opponent, Vic Donahey, obtained 47.1%.^

Republican Congressional candidates carried Jackson County in

every election during this period except 1912. Since 1920

Republican Congressional candidates have polled above 55% of the

total vote cast. Since 1930 they have polled a larger percentage

of the vote than any of the candidates for the offices under study, henry Bannon received the highest percentage polled by a Republican Congressional candidate in 1904 when he polled 72.3%

of th e v o t e . 6 Tiie lowest winning percentage received by a

^Scott hilkins. Socialist Party cai/didate, polled 4.4%. 5The remainder was received by b.G. Sandberg, Communist, .03%. 6The remainder went to Latthevj S. kerriiaan. Democrat, 24.9%, George P. Taubrûan, P ro h ibitionist, 1.3%, and iC.J. Ziegler, S o cialist, 1.3%. 97 R epublican C ongressional candidate was i n 1914 vjhen R.M. Sw itzer

poJled 51o 3/o 01 the total vote (2) Democratic Victories (a) Election of 1912

In 1912 üie Republican candidates lost all three of the maj or

contests under consideration. It was a tri-partite race due to

tiie split in the Republican Pai'ty^ with the resulting formation of

the Progressive Party under the leadership of Theodore Roosevelt.

Principal Presidential candidates were woodrow wilson^ Democrat,

hilliatii Howard Taft, Republican, and Theodore Roosevelt, Progressive.

william hovjard Taft, an Ohioan, had been admitted to the Ohio

Bar by 1880 and in 1887 'was appointed Judge of the Superior Court

of Ohio by Governor Foral-cer. Taft received administrative experience

as President of the Philippine Commission, Secretary of bar under

Theodore Roosevelt in 1904, and as President of the United States

from 1908 - 1912 .^ Theodore Roosevelt's political experience

included the offices of Assistant Secretary of the havy under

McKinley, Governor of New Torn in 1899, and President of the United

States from I 9 OI to 1908.^ Woodrow Ailson, a college professor and

one time President of Princeton University, had been elected

'^The rest went to G.L. uartzoff. Democrat, 36.11 and Ragar nrvin. Progressive, 12.41. ^Henry F. Pringle , "william Howard Taft," Dietionary of American niograohy, XVIII (I 936 ) , p . 266. VFrederick Logan Paacson, "Theodore Roosevelt," Dictionary of American Biography, XVI (193$), pp. 137-141. 98 Governor of New Jersey in I 9 IO

Prior to the division in the Republican ranks Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft competed for delegates to the Republican

National Convention, and both spoke in Jackson County during the latter part of May. The Jackson Standard Journal, which axpported

Roosevelt, paid scant attention to President Taft’s speech.On the other hand, Roosevelt's speech, although only fifteen minutes in length, was given full coverage,In his speech ex-President

Roosevelt denounced the bosses and referred to the tariff issue.

He s ta te d ;

I aai in favor of protection, but I do not want all the profits to stop in the office. I want a part to go into the pay envelope... We are opposed by 95^ of the office holders, by all the bosses and those interested in special privileges and there are none with us except the p e o p l e .

The Tenth Congressional D istrict, in which Jackson County was located, sent its two delegates pledged to vote for Theodore

Roosevelt.Ohio delegates to the Republican National Convention pledged to vote for Roosevelt numbered thirty-four, compared to e ig h t fo r TaftWhen the Republican Convention renominated Taft

l^Charles Seymour, "Woodrow Wilson," Dictionary of American Biouraphy, XX (1936), pp. 353-55. ^"The Taft Meetings," Jackson Standard Journal, May 15, 1912, p. 5,^col. 4. 12"Roosevelt I s Coming F rid ay ," Jackson Standard Jo u rn al. May 15, 1912 , p. 1, col. 1. 13"De-lighted," Jackson Standard Journal. May 22, 1912, p. 1, c o l. 1. 14"The people Speak," Jackson Standard Journal, May 22, 1912, p. l.-col. 3 . -L5Francis R. Aumann, "Ohio Government in the Tvjentieth Century," in Harlow Bindley, ed., Ohio in the Twentieth Century: 1900-1930 (Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, 1942 ) , p . 17. 99 the Roosevelt faction split with the party and formed the

Progressive Party. Ohio delegates pledged to vote for Roosevelt refused to vote for Taft, and protested the unseating of seventy- eight Roosevelt delegates by the Republican National Committee.

The Jackson Standard Journal denounced the outcome of the

Convention declaring that Roosevelt, not President Taft, was the

choice of the electorate. 17 Roosevelt had carried the twelve states holding Presidential preference primaries. The voters had given him 1,157,397, Taft 761,716, and LaFollette 351,043 in the primaries.

The friendship of Taft and Roosevelt ended in the bitter fight between the two for the noiiiination. Although the rift cannot be attributed to one particular reason. President Taft and

Roosevelt's conservative friends disapproved of Roosevelt's sup­ port of initiative, referendum, ard. r e c a l l . l i e campaign was a vigorous one with Republican and Progressive candidates denouncing each other.

The Democratic National Convention at Baltimore followed the

Taft-Roosevelt disagreement, and the nomination of a candidate assumed utmost importance. William Jennings Bryan threw his

l6iiRoosevelt and Taft," Jackson Standard Journal. June 26, 1912, p. 1. col. 1. 17"The Story in a Nutshell," Jackson Standard Journal. June 26, 1912.-p. 1, col. 1. ^“Victor Rosewater, Back Stage in 1912 (Philadelphia, Pa.: Dorrance and Co., I n c ., 1932), p . 119* l9 P rin g le , "W illiam Howard T a ft," D ictio n ary o f American Biography. XVIII (1936), p. 270. 100 support to Woodrow Vifilson after the latter stated he would not run for the Presidency if it dependea on the Tammany vote. Wilson was nominated on the l6th ballot.

In the Gubernatorial contest the principal candidates were

James M. Cox, Democrat, Robert B. Brown, R epublican, and Arthur L.

Garford, Progressive. Cox, a former Congressman, was nominated by acclamation at the Ohio State Democratic Convention. An atmosphere of optimism pervaded the Convention, since the rupture had ali’eady occurred in the Republican Party.^ The Republican can d id ate, Robert B. Brovm, a Z an esv ille newspaper e d ito r, was nominated after Judge Dillon declined to run. Judge Dillon had resigned, since he had consented to run only if the Republican

Party remained united in the state.^2

Congressional candidates in the Tenth D istrict were Robert M.

Switzer, Republican incumbent, Charles M. Caldvjell, Pike County

Democrat, and William E. Pricer, Progressive. Switzer was currently serving his first term in Congress, and had previously been a county prosecutor in Gallia County. However, the Democratic newspaper in Jackson County foresaw victory for Caldwell because of the division of the opposition and the poor record of the

20Seymour, "Woodrow Wilson," Dictionary of American Biography.. XX (1936), p. 356. 21james M. Cox, Journey Through My Years (New York:- Simon and Schuster, 1946), pp. 126-127. 22"Dillon Declines Republican Nomination for Governor," Jackson Standard Journal, July 31, 1912, p. 1, col. 5. 101 incum bent.

When the votes were tabulated it was a victory for the Democratic

Party in Jackson County, as well as in the nation. Woodrow Wilson

polled 33*1^ of the vote to carry the county. William Howard Taft,

Republican, polled 30% while Theodore Roosevelt, Progressive,

received 23.6% of the vote.^A- TRe split in the Republican Party

had materially aided Wilson's victory. This was the first time

in the period under discussion that a Democratic candidate for

President had carried Jackson County.

In the Gubernatorial contest James M. Cox, Democrat, won with

33»9%j while his major opponents received the following vote;

Robert B. Brown, Republican, 29.8% and A rthur L. G arford,

Progressive, 24 . 9 %.^5 Cox was the first victorious Democratic

Gubernatorial candidate in Jackson County since 1859«

The Congressional contest in Jackson County was won by the

Democratic candidate, Charles M. Caldwell, who received 34.1% of

the vote. Robert M. Switzer, Republican, polled 32.2% and William

E. Pricer received 23.2% of the to t a l vote.^^ However, Sw itzer

carried the Congressional D istrict by the narrow margin of 182 v o tes.

23iiTake Your C itizen sh ip S e rio u sly ," Jackson H erald. Sept. 25, 1912. p. 4, col. 1. 24The remainder went to Eugene V. Debs, Socialist, 9.8%, Eugene W. Chafin, Prohibitionist, .8%, aid Ai'thur E. Reimer, Socialist Labor, .4%. 255.E. Ruthenberg, Socialist, received 9.6%, Daniel A. Poling, Prohibitionist, 1.1%, and John Kircher, Socialist Labor, .4%. 26william M iller, Socialist, polled 10.3%. 102

The election over^ Jackson County settled dovm to airvey the results. The Progressive ne;vspaper claimed the returns had proven that a great fraud was perpetrated at Chicago, since Theodore

Roosevelt had carried more states than had William Howard Taft.^?

However, the paper failed to mention thai\Progressive Party candi­ dates for President, Governor, and U.S. Representative trailed the Democratic and Republican candidates in Jackson County. The

Democratic sweep of Jackson County was most unusual, but i t was also shortlived.

(b) Gubernatorial Elections of 1921 and 1930

From 1912 to 19% no Republican candidate for any of the offices under consideration failed to carry the county. In 1924 the

Gubernatorial candidates were Vic Donahey, Democrat, and Harry L.

Davis, Republican. Donahey, the incumbent, had formerly been

State Auditor of Ohio and a member of the Oino Constitutional

Convention in 1912. Davis, a former Mayor of Cleveland, had served a term as Governor in 1920 by defeating Vic Donaiiey. The 1924 election proved a victory for Donahey in the county and in the 28 state. He polled 5 3 ‘ 2% of the vote, vjhile Davis received

The popular Donaiiey was able to carry the county despite the victories of Republican presidential and Congressional candidates.

In 1930 George White, Democrat, faced % ers Y. Cooper,

27"The Fraud at Chicago" (editorial), Jackson Standard Journal. Nov. 13, 1912 , p. 2. col. 1. Virgil D. Allen, Communist, received ,3% aiü Frank J. Catlin, Socialist Labor, ,2%, 103 Republican, in the Gubernatorial election. White, an oil producer, had been a member of the Ohio General Assembly and a Congressional

Representative for three terms. In 1920 he headed the Democratic

N ational Committee.In 1928 Cooper, who was in the real estate business, was successful in his bid for the Governorship of Ohio and was seeking reelection in 1930.

During a campaign speech in Jackson County V/hite expressed resentment over the charge that the Democrats were attempting to ride into office on the cry of hard times. Hovjever, he added that the Republicans should in large measure be held responsible for the stock r;iarket crash and the depression which followed. White claimed Governor Cooper failed to fu lfill his proaiise of economy in governmentGovernor Cooper relied on the record of his administration. His principal accomplishments were farm relief, special assessments for highways, revision of election laws, con­ struction of a state office building, and reduction in the cost of governnentNevertheless, the voters supported White, who polled

52.S/& of the vote, while Cooper received 47.1^ of the total vote in the county. The depression, which began shortly before the election was held, may have contributed to Cooper's defeat in the county and in the state.

^9;Uimann, op. cit., p. 55• 30iiTriumphant Tour of the Tenth District Led by White and P ic k r e l," Jackson Herald. Nov. 1, 1930, p. 1, c o l. 1. 3lHarvey Walker, Constructive Government in Ohio - The Administration of Myers Y. Cooper (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio History Press, 1948), p. 223. 104 (3) Suflunary

Betvjeen 1900 and 1952 Jackson County continued to support the

Republican candidates. They suffered defeat only three times during the half century. In 1912 Democratic candidates for

President j Governor^ and Congress carried the county due to the

Republican split. The other years of d eviation , 1924 and 1930, involved the office of Governor. As noted earlier, in the period

1859 to 1900 voters also supported one Democratic Gubernatorial candidate and two Congressional candidates. While the financial crisis of 1929 may have influenced the balloting in favor of the

Democratic Gubernatorial candidate in 1930, Jackson County voters did not continue this practice during subsequent depression year elections. Not once since 1930 has a Democratic candidate for any of the offices under consideration carried the county. Entering the era of the local atomic boom Jackson County's voting record was one of staunch Republican support.

B. Pike County

(1 ) Democratic Stronghold

During the second period Pike County recovered from the series of Republican victories which it experienced between 1894 and 1902.

Table IX shows the Democratic percentages of the total votes cast for candidates under consideration. The highest percentage polled by a Democratic Presidential candidate was o4.5%' for Franklin D. 105

TABLE IX PIKE COUNTY: DEMOCRATIC PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL VOTES Cast FOR PRESIDENT, GOVERNOR, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE, AND SENATOR (1900-1952)

YEAR PRESIDENT GOVERNOR U.S. REPRESENTATIVE SENATOR

1900 45.1$ 45.6% 1901 ------50.1% 1902 — —— — 48 .8% 1903 52. 4% 1904 52. 5^ 53.6% 1905 — — — —— 53.6% I 9O6 53.8% I 9O8 52.8% 52. 2% 52. 8% 1910 57. 1% 56. 9% 1912 49.1% 50.3% 51. 2% 1914 49. 9% 53.2% 48.7% 1916 55.7% 53.5% 54.7% 54. 4% 1918 — —— — “ 55.1% 55.2% 1920 47. 4% 48.7% 46. 9% 47.2% 1922 — 54. 5% 53.2% 53.5% 1924 54. 3% 58 .1% 54.7% 1926 56. 9% 56. 5% 56. 3% 1928 45. 4% 54. 5% 56. 1% 53.6% 1930 61. 6% 60. 3% 59. 1% 1932 64. 5% 63. 8% 65. 2% 64. 3% 1934 65. 3% 66. 4% 67. 3% 1936 64. 1% 63.2% 64.4% 1938 — —— — 65. 9% 67. 0% 65. 6% 1940 61 . 0% 61.0% 65. 9% 62.9% 1942 61 . 1% 65. 9 % — 1944 56. 0% 58.7% 59 . 2% 59 . 1% 1946 6 1 . 8 % 60. 4% 59 . 5% 1948 63. 1% 64. 4% 64. 0% — — — 1950 64. 8% 64. 3% 60. 8 % 1952 56 . 6% 65. 8% 64. 8% 58.1%

SOURCE: Secretary of State of Ohio, Ohio Election Statistics. 1900-19525 Portsmouth Tiines, Nov. 15, 1922, p. 9, col. 4. 106 32 Roosevelt in 1932. The lowest winning percentage received by a

Democratic candidate was in 1912 when 'Woodrow Wilson polled 49.1^ of the vote. His principal opponents, William Howard Taft,

Republican, and Theodore Roosevelt, Progressive, received 3k»k% and 12.8% respectively.^^ Democratic Presidential candidates lost only three elections in Pike County during this period, 1900, 1920, and 1928.

In the Gubernatorial contests the highest Democratic percentage was polled in 1938 by Charles Sawyer who received 65.9% of the vote. His opponent, John W. Briciter. Republican, obtained 34% of th e v o te. The low est winning Democratic percentage was th e 49.9% polled by James M. Cox in 1914* His chief opponents received the following vote: Frank B. W illis, Republican, 46.5% and James R.

Garfield, Progressive, 2.3%.^^ The only defeat suffered by a

Democratic Gubernatorial candidate in this period was in 1920.

Successful Democratic Congressional candidates polled between

50% and 55% of the vote between 1904 and 1926, with the exception of 1910 and 19 18, when they received more than 55%. From 1930-

1952 the percentages received were 60% or above, except in 1944 when the winning percentage was 59.2%. The highest percentage was

67%, p o lled by James G. Polk in 1938. His opponent, Emory F.

32%'he remainder went to Hei'bert Hoover, 34.6%, Norman Thomas, S o c ia lis t, .39%j and W illiam Upshaw, P ro h ib itio n is t, .34%. 33'rhe rest of the vote went to Eugene V. Debs, Socialist, 2.3%, Eugene Vii. Chafin, Prohibitionist, .9%, and Arthur Reimer, Socialist Labor, .1%. 34The rest went to Scott Wilkins, Socialist, 1.1%. 107 Sinith, Republican, received 32.9^. The lowest winning percentage,

51.2$, was polled by Charles M, Caldwell, Democrat, in 1912. Other

major candidates, Robert M. Switzer, Republican, and William E.

Pricer, Progressive, received 38.5$ and 8$ respectively.^^

In the first popular election of Senators in 1914 the Democratic

Senatorial candidate carried the county. Timothy S. Hogan, Democrat,

polled the lowest winning percentage of 48.7% at that time, while

his political adversary, Warren G. Harding, Republican, received Q / 47*5%. The Democratic percentage began to increase noticeably

in 1930, and by 1932 it was above the 60% mark, where it remained,

with two insignificant exceptions, until 1952. The highest

Democratic Senatorial percentage was polled by Vic Donahey who

received 67.3% of the total vote in 1934. The only loss handed

a Democratic Senatorial candidate in Pike County was in 1920.

(2) Republican Inroads Upon Pike County

(a) The E le c tio n s of 1900 and 1902

As noted in the preceding chapter. Republican candidates had

carried the county from 1894 to 1899. These were the years of

Hanna-McKinley popularity in the state. In 1900 the Democratic

candidates for President and Congress were again defeated in Pike

County. The Democratic newspaper, th e Waverly Courier v'jatchjnan.

warned of a dictatorship by McKinley, if he were reelected, and

35fhe remainder went to William M iller, Socialist, 2.1%. 38_Ârthur L. Garford, Progressive, received 2.5% and E.L. Hitchens, Socialist, received 1.2%. 3?The rest went to Simeon D. Fess, Republican, 32.5% and W.C. Sandberg, Communist, .08%. 108 condemned the alleged mismanagement, corruption, recklessness, and

extravagance of the Republican Party.Optimism of the local

Democratic organization was heightened by the report that the "gold democrats" would not make a nomination for President. It was predicted that 80$ of the Palmer Party of I 896 vould support the regular Democratic candidates in the fall election. William

Jennings Bryan, the Democratic candidate for President, made a brief speech in Pike County during the campaign in vlich he attacked imperialism and trusts.

The election resulted in the defeat of William Jennings Bryan by McKinley. In the county McKinley polled 53.9^ of the vote, wfiile Bryan received 45.1$.^^ In the Congressional contest

Stephen Morgan, Republican, polled 54*3$ of the vote and his opponent, James K. McClung, Democrat, received 45.6$ of the vote.

The Pike County Democratic newspaper attributed the Democratic defeat to strife within the Democratic organization and to the barrels of "boodle" which the Republicans had poured into the county.Prior to the election the newspaper had made a plea for the Democrats to stop fighting among themselves and to join forces

^^Editorial, Waverly Courier Watchman, June 6, 1900, p. 4. col. 1. 39"Will Make No Nomination" (editorial), Waverly Courier watciygan, Aug. 8, I 9 OO, p. 4, col. 1. "Outpouring of People to Greet the Great Leader," Vaaverly C ourier Watchman, O ct. 17, 1900, p . 1, c o l. 1. W-The remainder went to Seth H, E llis, Union Republican, .3$, John G. Wooley, Prohibitionist, .2$, Wharton Baker, Peoples, .02$, and Eugene V. Debs, Socialist, .2$. 42"1 I s Lost" ( e d ito r ia l) , Waverly C ourier Watchman. Nov. 7, 1900 , ,p. 1, col. 1. 109 against their Republican opponents.

In the 1902 Congressional election Pike County again supported

Stephen Morgan, Republican. In May Morgan was nominated fo r a third term by the Tenth D istrict Congressional Convention. The

Pike County delegation aided Morgan by withdrawing support from its favorite son, S.L. Patterson, and shifting to Morgan.

Throughout the campaign the Republican newspaper stressed the strife existing within the Democratic Party and denounced the povjerful "Waverly gang" who failed to give party support to potential candidates from the back townships.The Congressional contest resulted in the reelection of the incumbent Republican candidate who received 50.3^ of the total vote. His Democratic adversary, C.E. Belcher, polled 18.8^ of the vote.^° It is possible that the personal popularity of Theodore Roosevelt affected the outcome of the Congressional contests in Pike County and in the n atio n .

By th e I 903 Gubernatorial election the local Democratic Party was well organized and carried the county for Tom L. Johnson,

Democrat, who received 52.4^ of the total vote cast. Myron T.

Herrick, Republican, received 46^ of the vote.^? The Republican

^% ditorial, Waverly Courier Watchman. June 13, 19C0, p. 4, col. 1. 44nMorgan," waverly News, May 1, 1902, p. 1, col. 1, 4$Editorial, Waverly News, Jan. 2, 1902, p. U, co l. 1, A-bihe remainder of tlie vote went to George P. Taubman, P ro h ib itio n is t, .?%. 47The r e s t 'went to Isaac Cowen, S o c ia lis t, .2%, Nelson D. Creamer, Prohibitionist, 1.2%, and John D. Goerke, Socialist Labor, . 02%. 110 newspaper expressed disappointment over Pike County's vote, stating that, if it hadn't been for Pike County, Herrick's victory on the state level woul,d have been unanimous.^®

(b) Election of 1920

Democratic candidates did not lose again until 1920. The

Presidential candidates. Senator Warren G. Harding, Republican, and

Governor James M. Cox, Democrat, were both Ohioans. Harding, a newspaper owner and editor from Marion, Ohio, had aligned himself with Joseph B. Foralcer in the 1890's and was elected to the State

Senate in 1898. He served a term as Lieutenant Governor of Ohio in 1902 and ran for Governor in 1910, at which time he was defeated by Judson Harmon. At the 1912 Republican National Convention

Harding p resen ted W illiam Howard Taft's name as a candidate and supported him during the campaign of that year. In 1914 Harding was elected U.S. Senator and has been characterized as a "safe and conservative" member who was a strong prohibitionist, supported

World War I measures, and opposed liigh taxes on war profits.

Selected as the Republican Presidential nominee in 1920, Harding conducted a front porch campaign and supported such measures as a high tariff, restriction of immigration, and rehabilitation of railroads.^9

Cox, another nevjspaperman, had been a member of Congress fo r two terms where he supported lower tariffs, control of trusts, and

"The Election" (editorial), Waverly Mews, Nov, $, 1903, p. co l. 1, Allan Nevins, "Warren Gamaliel Harding," Dictionary of American Biography. VIII (1932), pp. 252-257* I l l

regulation of railroads.He was also elected Governor of Ohio

for three ternis.

Harding decried the League of Nations tl’iroughout the campaign,

and declared that President Ndlson had scrapped h is own League by

refusing to accept certain reservations.^^ Senator Hardirg later

asserted that the entire League Covenant should be abandoned, but

stated he favored a world association based on principles in

harjiiony vdth the Constitution. He endorsed farm assistance,

a "return to normalcy," popular with the people who were tired of 53 thinicLng about war, and tiie protective tariff. The Republican

Congressional candidate, Charles Kearns, also spoke openly against

the League Covenant and what lie called "wdlsonian autocracy.

Governor Cox, the Democratic Presidential candidate, supported

tiie League Covenant, arguing that it was a pledge to Americans who had fougiit in war and a medium for moral and m aterial betterment for Americans and the world. He also urged settlement of industrial d isp u te s by public opinion.Cox interpreted the Republican slogan

5^Cox, op. cit., p. 117. 51"Hard;Lng D eclares P resid en t L ilso n Scrapped H is Ov;n League o f Nations, " Portsmouth. Sunday Times. Oct. '3> 1920, p. 1, col. S. "Scrap the League Says Harding," Portsmouth Times. Oct. 7, 192Q^-p. 1, col. 7. ^•^"Harding Laines Fine Impression at Jackson," Portsmouth Times, Oct. 21, 1920 , p . 9, co l. 1 . "League of Nations Scored by Congressman Kearns,” Portsmouth Times. Oct. 17, 1920, 0 . 10. col. 1. d5"Cox i'iell Pleased with Results of Nestern Trip - is Confident of Llection to Presidency," Portsmouth Sunday Times. Oct. 3, 1920, p. 1, col. 5 . 112

"back to normalcy" as the long day of labor and the small amount of pay.

During the campaign President Wilson supported Cox and appealed to the voters to uphold the League by voting for the Democratic candidates. Wilson denied there was anything in the League Covenant which TOuld interfere with or impair the right of Congress to declare war. He charged as false the assertion that other nations under the League Covenant would be in a position to lead the United States in to w a r. 57 He later asserted the only way to assure world peace was by making it so dangerous to break the peace that no other nation would have the audacity to attempt it.

In this election the county reflected the nationwide trend by returning pluralities for the Republican candidates. In Pike

County Warren G. Harding, Republican, won by 2?6 votes and polled

52% of the total vote. James M. Cox, Democrat, polled 47.4/^ of the vote.59 In the Gubernatorial contest Harry L. Davis, Republican, won w ith 50.8% o f the vote and Vic Donahey, Democrat, received

U S.7% .^^ The Congressional contest gave Charles Kearns,

Republican, a plurality of 355 and 53%' of the vote, while Cleona

Searles. Democrat, polled 46.9^ of the vote. The Republican

^^H.W. iiugust, "D on't Go Back to Old Long Day of Labor," Portsmouth Times. Oct. 2?, 1920, p. 1, col. 1. 5T"Wilson Urges Voters to Endorse the Nation's League," Portsmouth Times, Oct. 4, 1920, p. 1, col. 4. ^ "Wilson Appeals for Completion of Great Moral Achieverrents of War,"-Portsmouth Times, Oct. 27, 1920, p. 1, col. 7. 59The remainder went to Eugene V. Debs, ,5%. The rest vvent to Frank B. Hamilton, Socialist, ,3% and Earl H. F oote, Single Tax, .01%. 113 Senatorial candidate also carried the county with Frank B. Willis receiving 52.7^ of the vote and W.A. Julian, Democrat, polling

47.2K^1 K

(c) The E le c tio n o f 1928

In the 1928 Presidential campaign Herbert Hoover, Republican, ran against Alfred E. Smith, Democrat. Hoover had served as United

States Food ^Viministrator during World War I and as Secretary of

Commerce under Presidents Harding and Coolidge. Alfred E. S/nith had served in the New York State Assembly, and also as Governor of

New York.

A vicious whispering campaign was carried on against Governor

Smith wiriich received wide coverage in the Portsmouth Times of

Scioto County. It involved liis religion, his alleged addiction to alcoh ol, and his tieup with New York city bosses. Hoover denounced these personal attacks, especially regarding Smith's religion. While the Democratic newspaper approved Hoover's action, it criticized him for waiting so long. The editori^ol read in p a rt:

Mr. Hoover was a little late in disavowing Church attacks upon Governor Smith but it is better late than never... These attacks upon Governor Sinith, because of his Church affiliation, have been going on every­ where ever since his nojuination and even before his nomination, kîr. Hoover w aited many a long month before he opened his mouth about them.^^

^^The remainder was polled by Henry B. Strong, Single Tax, .01^. Hoover's Belated Disavowal" (editorial), Portsmouth Times. Oct. 1, 1928, p. 16, col. 1. 114 On the other hand, Hoover was also subject to a vliispering campaign, even though its effect was not as telling as that waged against A1

Smith, During the pre-convention campaign it was reported that

Hoover's jkiiericanism was questionable, and that his wealth had been acquired none too scrupulously. However, the Portsmouth

Times scoffed at the above accusations.^^

The Republican Party won a sweeping victory in the nation, and

Hoover carried Pike County with 54»5^ of the total vote cast.

Smith, the Democratic candidate, received 45.4^ of the vote. The defeat of the Democratic Presidential candidate was due in part to the prosperity of the times, tiie prohibition question, and religious bitterness. In Pike County although Smith lost the election, the Democratic candidates for Congress, Senator, ard

Governor won w ith p l u r a l i t i e s ran g in g froJii 443 to 747 v o te s. As

Table IX indicates, tte other Democratic candidates fared as well as had fomer candidates of their party. In the Congressional race George D. Nye, Democrat, received $6.1^ and Charles C.

Kearns, Republican, received 43<>8/à. In the Senatorial contest

Charles V. Truax, Democrat, polled 53.6^ of the vote and Simeon D.

Fess, Republican, obtained 46.3^. The Governor's race found

Martin L. Davey, Democrat, receiving 54.5^ of the vote and Myers

Y. Cooper, Republican, 45*4/^* Although these candidates carried

Pike County, none was elected to office due to large Republican

^^iiRepublican 'whispers' against Mr. Hoover" (editorial), Portsmouth Times, Sept. 20, 1928, p. 16, col. 1. 115 majorities in other areas of the state.

(3) Summary

While Democratic candidates suffered defeat in Pike County in

I 9 OÛ and 1902 , the Democratic Party had regained its voting

s tre n g th by I 903 . Since 1903 Democratic candidates have won

every election except in 1920 and 1928. In 1920 their defeat was

a party failure^ with all major candidates losing. The voters of

Pike County may well have been swept along with the national

trend, a desire to return to normalcy and forget the war. As one

author viewed it, such circumstances as the end of the war,

repudiation of the League of Nations by the Senate, and the success of Republicans in the election of I 9 I 8 were hardly conducive to

continued control of the Presidency by the Democratic Party.

In 1928 the failure of Governor Sinith to carry Pike County in the Presidential election was doubtless based upon factors in his background, such as his religious faith, since the remainder of the Democratic ticket carried the county. Smith's defeat was the last one suffered in Pike County during this period by any of the

Democratic candidates for the offices under consideration.

Democratic strength has been illustrated by the high percentages which winning Dejnocratic candidates polled.

C. Ross County

(1) General Pattern Republican candidats' percentages of the total votes cast in

^^Harold F. Gosnell, Champion Campaigner - Franlclin D. Roosevelt (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1952), p . 62. 116

Ross County between I 9 OO and 1952 for the offices under study are found in Table X. Republican candidates won nine of the fourteen

Presidential contests held during these years. The largest majority polled by a Republican Presidential candidate was in 1928 when

Herbert Hoover received a plurality of more than 5,000 votes and

64. 5% of the total vote cast. Smith received 35^*^^ Another occasion when a Republican Presidential candidate polled over 60^ of the total vote was in 1952. Dwight D. Eisenhower obtained 61^ of the vote \tiile Adlai E. Stevenson, Democrat, polled 38.9^ of the total vote. The closest margin of victory for a Republican candidate occurred in I 9 O8 when William Howard Taft won with 49*6^ of the total vote. William Jennings Bryan received 48 .7^.^^

Republican Gubernatorial candidates defeated their opponents in sixteen of the twenty-six contests held between I 9 OO and 1952 .

In only two contests did the Republican candidates poll above

55^ of the vote. The highest percentage was polled in 1942 by

John W. Bricker, Republican, and popular vote getter, who received

60.2^ of the total vote. His opponent, John McSweeney, Democrat, obtained 39*7^ of the vote. The lowest winning percentage was re c e iv e d by Myron T. H errick , R epublican, in 1905 when he p o lled

^^The remainder went to Norman Thomas, Socialist, »YJ%, Verne L, Reynolds, Socialist Labor, ,0 k% , 'Williajn Varney, Prohibitionist, . 16^, and V'Jilliara Z. Foster, Workers Communist, .005/p. bbThe rest went to Eugene W. Chafin, Prohibitionist, .68%, Eugene V. Debs, Socialist, .81%, Thomas Hisgen, Independence, . 03%, Thomas E. Watson, Peoples, .01%, and August Gillhaus, S o c ia lis t Labor, ,03%. 117

TABLE X ROSS GOUi'iTY: REPUBLIüAl\l PERGEIMTAGES OF TOTAL VO'iLS CAST FOR PRESIDENT; GOVERNOR; U.S. REPRESENTATIVE; AND SENATOR (1900-1952)

Y ear PRESIDENT GOVERIVOR U.S. representative SENATOR

1900 51. 6^ ^ W W» w * 51.8 % 1901 — ------—— 51. 7% 1902 — “ — — 52. 3% 1903 " 53.5% 1904 54.5^ 54. 4% 1905 49 . 5% 1906 51. 2% 1908 49 .6^ 47. 0% 46.7% 1910 — —— ^ — 43. 4% 40. 1% 1912 36.7^ 3 6. 6% 43.5% 1914 49 . 8 % 45.2% 52. 5% 1916 47.7% 50. 0% 49 . 0% 48.7% 1918 53. 7% 54. 5% 1920 56.4% 54.5% 56.2% 55.9% 1922 51.3% 52.4% 52. 3% 1924 53. 8 % 47. 2% 48 . 6% — — — — — 1926 —— 52.6% 51.8% 53.6% 1928 64.5% 55. 8 % 55.1% 58 .0% 1930 46.9% 43. 9 % 47.8% 1932 47. 3% 48.7% 42. 6% 46. 1% 1934 51.9% 46. 9 % 44.0% 1936 43. 7% 49 . 1% 44. 1% 1938 — — — — 52.2% 46. 4% 53.7% 1940 48 . 6% 52.5% 44. 1% 51.1% 1942 60. 2% 56.1% — — — — — 1944 53.5% 54.3% 51.1% 53. 4% 1946 54. 2% 57. 9 % 59.3% 1948 52.1% 49.3% 53. 1% — — — — — 1950 49.4% 52.4% 57. 6% 1952 61.0% 46. 3% 54. 2% 59 . 9 %

SOURCE: Secretary of State of ûhio; Ohio Election S t a t i s t i c s , 1900-1952; Scioto G azette, Nov. â , 1 9 2 2 , p. 8, c o l. 1. 118 only 49 . 50# of the total vote. John M. Pattison^ Democrat, received

4 9 . 07 #.

Republican Congressional candidates won fifteen of the twenty- seven races between I 9 OO and 1952. The highest winning percentage received by a Republican Congressional candidate was polled in

1946 when V/alter E. Brehm, Republican, received 57.9# of the vote.

Other elections in vjhich 55^ or more of the vote was Republican occurred in 1920, 1928, and 1942. The lowest winning percentage v;as also p o lle d by V/alter E. Brehm, R epublican, in 1944, when he received 51.1# of the vote. His opponent. Mall G. Underwood, Jr.,

Democrat, received 48.8#.

Candidates sponsored by the Republican Party won eleven of the fifteen Senatorial contests. The highest percentage was obtained by John VV. Bricker, Republican, in 1952, vho received 59«9# of the vote. Itlchael V. DiSalle, Dejiiocrat, polled 40# of the vote.

Bricker's percentage topped his former Ross County record of 59.3# se t i n 1946 .^^ The low est winning percentage was received in 1940 b;

Harold H. Burton, Republican, who polled 51.1# of the vote. John

McSweeney, Democrat, received 48.8#.

(2 ) Democratic Victories

Between I 9 OO and 1952 Ross County Democratic candidates for the offices of President, Governor, U.S. Representative, and Senator

°^The remainder was received by Isaac Cowen, Socialist, .45#, Aaron S. V/atkins. Prohibitionist, .88#, and John E. Steiger, Socialist Labor, .08#. James V/. Huffman, Democrat, polled 40.2# of William Farkas, Socialist Labor, received the remainder of the vote, .32%. 119 vjon thirty-one of eighty-tvo contests. Democratic Presidential candidates won five of the fourteen contests. Democratic

Gubernatorial candidates carried the county ten times in the course of twenty-six contests. Democratic Congressional candidates were victorious in twelve of the twenty-seven elections, and Senatorial candidates defeated their Republican counterparts in four of the fifteen elections.

I t was n o t p ro fita b le to discuss individually every Democratic election victory in Ross County during this period. Two elections were selected for further attention. The I 9 O8 election was chosen primarily because it inarked the first victory for Democratic

Gubernatorial and Congressional candidates during the period. The election of 1938 was selected, since it was an off year election which tested the strength of the Roosevelt administration, and was the last election prior to the outbreak of World War XI.

(a) The E le c tio n o f 1908

vilthough the Republican Presidential candidate, William Howard

Taft, carried Ross County by a narrow margin in 1908, the election was a victory for* the Democratic Gubernatorial and Congressional candidates. Gubernatorial candidates were Andrew Harris, Republican, and Judson Harmon, Democrat. Candidates for Congress from the

Eleventh D istrict were Albert Douglas, Republican, and L.A. Sears,

Democrat.

Andrew Harris, a lawyer, former state legislator, and

Lieutenant Governor had assumed the Governor's office in I 9 O6 upon 120 the death of Governor Pattison.^^ Judson Harmon, an attorney, had been a Common Pleas Judge in Cincinnati, Ohio. In 1895 President

Cleveland, appointed him Attorney General, in which position he directed prosecutions under th e Sherman Anti-Trust Act. He was nominated at the Democratic State Convention in I 9 O8 over the protests of party leader Tom L. Johnson. 70

During the campaign reports were circulated in the local press that Governor Harris was worried over political conditions in Ohio, due to the attitude of organized labor toward the Republican state and national ticket.Samuel Gompers and th e E xecutive Council of the American Federation of Labor issu ed an appeal to trade unionists in the country. The statement, as quoted in a local newspaper, read in part;

The Republican P a rty definitely lin e s up w ith the corporate interests of the country and d e fie s the people to help themselves. The Democratic Party endorses labor's demands and pledges itself to carry them into effect if it is put into power... The feeling of outrage and indignation which prompted the decision of the workers to use their political power to protect themselves vdll. guide you as to how to cast your vote.72

Another article indicated that railroad men in Ohio supported Judson

Harmon, the Democratic Gubernatorial candidate, because of his sympathetic attitude toward labor while he was acting as receiver

^^Aumann, op. c i t . , p. 8. 70jlrthur C. Cole, "Judson Harmon, " Dictionary of American Biography. VIII (1932), p. 276-277. 71"Governor Harris Discouraged," Ross County Register. June 2, 1908..p. 5, ool. 5. 72tiAll Union Men Asked to Support Democratic Ticliet, " Chillicothe Advertiser, August 13, 1908, p. 5, col. 5. 121 for the Cincinnati^ Hamilton, and Dayton Railroad.

Judson Harmon denied rumors that he was supported by liquor

interests, declaring that he would not take orders from the liquor interests nor from the Anti-Saloon League. He countered that the

Republicans were only attempting to use the issue of temperance

as a Smoke screen to cover their neglect and misconduct in o ffic e

The election resulted in Harmon's carrying the county by 490 votes and $1.$# of the total vote cast. Harris received U7% of the t o t a l v o t e . on th e statew ide le v e l Harmon was ele c te d

Governor by a majority of more than 19,000 votes.

In the Congressional contest L.A. Sears, the Democratic candi­ d a te , carried the county, receiving 52% of the total vote cast.

His opponent, Albert Douglas, p o lled 46.7% of th e v o te . 77 However,

Douglas, the incumbent, defeated Sears in the Eleventh Congressional

D is tr ic t.

(b) Election of 1938

In 1938 the Republican Congressional candidate, Tom P. White, opposed the incumbent Democrat, Harold K. Claypool. Claypool, a

73iiRailroad Men Like Harmon," Chillicothe A d v ertiser. Aug. 13, 1908,,p. 5, col. 6. 74"Judge Harmon's Letter on Temperance Issue," Ross County Register. Sept. 1, 1908, p. 5 , c o l. 1. 75The remainder of the vote went to Robert Bandlow, Socialist, ,73%, John B. M artin, P r o h ib itio n is t, .37%, Andrew F. O tte, Independence, .04%, and John Kircher, S o c ia lis t Labor, .06%. 7°"Governor Harris Concedes Ohio," Chillicothe Advertiser. Nov. 6, 1908._p. 1, col. 1. 77q'he rest went to Leroy Elswich, Socialist, .64% and Hiram L. Baker, P r o h ib itio n is t, .34%. 122 native of Ross County, had been active in the flood control program

in the Eleventh D istrict, which called for an expenditure of more

than eight million dollars, part of which would be spent for flood 78 prevention in the Hocking Valley. During the campaign he was

endorsed by Labor's Non-Partisan League, which supported all

Democratic candidates for state offices, U.S. Senate, and the

nineteen Democratic candidates for C o n g r e s s . ^9

The Congressional race resulted in the election of Claypool

who received 53<>5% of the total vote cast in Ross County. Tom P.

White polled 46.4%' of the vote. In the Gubernatorial and Senate rial

contests, however, the Republican candidates won. In the Guberna­

torial race John W. Bricker, Republican, defeated Charles Sawyer,

Democrat, to become the first Republican Governor of the state since

1928.^0 In Ross County Bricker received 52.2% of the total vote

cast.^^ In the Senatorial race Robert A. Taft, Republican, defeated

Robert J. Bulkley, Democrat. Taft received 53.7% of the total vote

cast in Ross County.

(3) Summary

Ross County varied more in its party support between 1900 and

1952 than did Jackson and Pike Counties. However, in a majority

"Interest Roused in Flood Control Plans Here, Claypool Seeks .Action," Chillicothe News Advertiser, Oct. 7; 1938, p. 14, col. 1. 79"Labor League OK's Savjyer, Claypool," Chillicothe News Advertiser, Oct. 6, 1938, p. 1, col. 5» 8ÜiiRepublicans Make Sweeping Gains," Chillicothe News Advertiser. Nov. 9, 1938, p. 1, col. 3 . SlThe remainder, 47.7%, went to Charles Savjyer, Democrat. 82Robert J . BulidLey, Democrat, p o lled 46.2%. 12jl of instances it cast its votes for the Republican candidates. In the Presidential contests Ross County voted Democratic only fiv e times, tvdce for V/oodrow Wilson and three times for Franklin D.

Roosevelt. In all of these elections Ross County reflected the national trend. Republican Gubernatorial candidates failed to carry tte county between 1908 and 1912, but their next loss did not occur u n til 1924 * They also lost three electiorjs durirg the depression period; 1930, 1932, and 1936. Republican Gubernatori aL candidates carried Ross County between 1938 and I 946 , but in 1948, 1950, and

1952 the voters of the county supported Frank J. Lausche, Democrat, and popular vote getter. Republican candidates lost the Congressional contests from I 9 O8 through 1916, as well as in 1924. A series of defeats occurred during the depression period, 1930 to 1940. Ross

County voters supported Democratic candidates, as did the rest of the nation. Republican Senatorial candidates carried Ross County except in 1916, 1930, 1932, and 1934.

A definite Republican trend was in evidence in Ross County during the last fifteen or twenty years of this period. Republican candi­ dates for Congress and the Presidency did not lose an election from

1940 to 1952 . Republican Senatorial candidates have won consistently since 1934 and Republican Gubernatorial candidates have been defeated only three times since 1936 .

D. Scioto County

(1) Republican Trends The votes polled by Republican candidates fo r President, Governor, 124 U.S. Congressional Representative, and U.S. Senator from I 9 OO to

1952 in Scioto County appear in Table XI. Republican candidates

■won si>cty-one of the eighty-two contests during this period. As

Table XI demonstrates, in the Presidential elections the

Republican percentages ran high in the first tvjo elections of the

cen tu ry , and then began a downward tre n d i n I 9 OS. The Republican

tide reached its ebb in 1912 , after which it began to rise

rapidly, reaching its peak in 1928. Herbert Hoover received a

plurality of 13, 572, which was 73* 5% of the total vote cast.®^

Hoover’s vote was the highest percentage ever received by a

Presidential candidate in the four county area. The lowest winning percentage received by a Republican Presidential candidate in

S cioto County was in 1912 when W illiam Howard T aft o b tained 34*2%.

Other major candidates received the following percentages:

Woodrovj Wilson, Democrat, 33.2% and Theodore Roosevelt,

Progressive, 19%.^^

In the Gubernatorial contests Republican candidates carried the county with 49 % of tie vote in three instances, although in a majority of the elections winning Republican candidates polled

between 50% and 55% of the total vote. Twice they polled above

60% of the total vote. The highest percentage received was 63.4%,

B^The remainder went to Â1 Sirdth, Democrat, 26%, Norman Thomas, S o c ia lis t, .24%, Verne L. Reynolds, S o c ia lis t Labor, .02%, and William E. Varney, Pro hibitionist, .10%. 84The rest went to Eugene V. Debs, Socialist, 11.5%, Eugene W. Ghafin, Proiiibitionist, 1.5%, and Arthur E. Reimer, Socialist Labor, .26%. 125

TÆŒ. XI SCIOTO COUNTY; HERJBLICm BiRCSNTXGBS OF TOTÀL VOTES CAST FOR PRESIDENT, GOVERNOR, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE, AND SENATOR (1900-1952)

YEAR PRESIDENT GOVERNOR U.S. REPRESENTATIVE SENATOR

1900 60 . 1% ------— 61 . 3% 1901 —— —— 6 2 . 1^ — — — 1902 62. 5% 1903 ——— — 59 * 7% ————— I 9 OA 62. 5% ——— 61.7% 1905 4 9 .7% ------1906 ————— ————— 53*5% 19 O8 53*5% 49 . 5% 49.0% 1910 — 44*1% 45* 5% 1912 34. 2% 32. 6% 3 6. 1% 1914 50. 4% 52. 7% 56. 3% 1916 53.8% 53.8% 55. 0% 54.7% I 9 I 8 ' ——— 51* 5% 58 . 2% ——- 58.9% 54.2% 61.4% 60.1% 1922 47. 5% 51. 0% 53.1% 1924 62. 8 % 58.9% 59 . 2% ------1926 55. 8 % 59 . 8 % 56.7% 1928 73.5% 6 3 . 4% 63. 4% 67. 0% 1930 53.0% 53.6% 52.7% 1932 51. 2% 49 . 1% 48 . 8 % 50. 5% 1934 49.9% 47.7% 44.6% 1936 44. 2% 45. 7% 47. 0% 1938 54. 7% 55.2% 53.8% 1940 47.0% 48.8% 47.9% 48.8% 1942 58.9% 52.7% — — 1944 50.5% 51*2% 49.9% 49.5% 1946 54.2% 55.8% 56.3% 1948 48*3% 49.2% 46.5% —— “ 1950 52.7% 51*2% 53.3% 1952 52.9% 43. 5% 49.3% 54.7%

SOURCE: Secretary of State of Ohio, Ohio Election Statistics, I 9 OO-I952 ; Portsmouth Times, Nov. 9, 1922, p. 2, col. 4, 126 polled by I'lyers I. Cooper, Republican, in 1928. His opponent,

M artin L. Davey, Democrat, received 3 6 .2^ . The low est vdnning

Republican percentage was received in I 9 O8 by Andrew L. H arris

who carried Scioto County with 49.5# of the vote. Judson Harmon

p o lle d 44. 8 # of the total vote.®^ The closest Gubernatorial

contest in this period was in 1934 when Clarence J. Brown,

Republican, won by the narrow margin of seventeen votes and

obtained 49. 94# of the total vote. Martin L. Davey was the lo sin g

candidate in the county with 49.88#, although he was victorious

on the statewide l e v e l .

Republican Congressional candidates in Scioto County won

twenty of the twenty-seven contests held between I 9 OO and 1952.

The higJriest percentage was polled by Charles C. Kearns in 1928, when he receiv ed 6 3 .4# of the total vote. George D. Nye, Democrat,

p o lle d 3 6 . 5#. The lowest winning percentage received by a

Republican Congressional candidate occurred in 1912. Robert M.

Switzer received a plurality of sixty-nine votes and 36.1# of PS the vote; Charles M. Caldwell, Democrat, received 35.5#.

Republican Senatorial candidates defeated their rivals in

8 5 The rest went to Joseph 1/V, Sharts, Socialist, .15#, John D. Goerke, Socialist Labor, .02#, Frank b. Stanton, Prohibitionist, . 04# , and William Patterson, Workers Communist, .02#. éoThe remainder went to Robert Bandlow, Socialist, 4.7#, John B. Martin, Prohibitionist, .74#, Andrew F. Otte, Independence, ,009#, and John Kircher, Socialist Labor, .06#. B7ln Scioto County I.Û. Ford, Communist, received the remainder which was .16#. 88'phe remainder went to William M iller, Socialist, 11.7# and Vifilliam E. Pricer, Progressive, 16.5#. 127 twelve of the fifteen contests between I 9 OO and 1952. Simeon D.

Fess received 6?^ of the vote and a plurality of 8,932 in 1928,

which was the highest percentage received by a Republican Sena­

torial candidate in Scioto County during the period. Charles V.

Truax, Democrat, received 32. 9# o f th e v o te.^9 low est

winning Republican percentage was received by Gilbert Bettman

who polled 50. 5^ in the depression year of 1932. Robert J.

Bulkley received 48.8^ of the vote in the county, although he was

elected on the statewide l e v e l . 90

( 2) Democratic Victories

Democratic candidates for the offices under consideration vron

approximately one fourth of the elections held in Scioto County

between I 9 OO and 1952, having won twenty-one of the eighty-two

contests. Democratic Presidential candidates won only three times: 193b, 1940, and 1948. The popularity of Franklin D.

Roosevelt carried this county in 193b and 1940.

Democratic Gubernatorial candidates carried the county eight tim es in the course of twenty-six elections, fivo of these eight elections occurred early in the period, I 9 IO and 1912. Other victories were recorded in 1922 , the depression years of 1932 ,

1936 , and 1940 , and more recently 1948 and 19 5 2 .

Democratic Congressional candidates have won only seven of the

B^The r e s t went to James Goward, S o c ia lis t Labor, .03% and J, liïetherell Hutton, Prohibitiordst, .04“^. 90Frank M. McCartney, Prohibitionist, received .53^ and I.O. Ford, Communist, .02%. 128 tiventy-seven contests. These occurred in 1932, 1934, 1936, 1940,

1944, 1948, and 1952. Only three o f the fifteen Senatorial con­

tests were Democratic victories. These occurred in 1934, 1940,

and 1944 .

A few elections have been selected for closer analysis. The

early Gubernatorial elections of I 9 IO and 1912, when the Democratic

candidates defeated their Republican rivals for the first time

since 1877, will be discussed, followed by the elections of 1932 ,

1934, and 1936.

(a) Gubernatorial Elections of 1910 and 1912

Principal Gubernatorial contenders in I 9 IO were Judson Harmon,

Democrat, and Warren G. Harding, Republican. Governor Harmon, the incumbent Democrat, endorsed regulation of public utilities, d irect election of U.S. Senators, and a non-partisan ju d ic ia ry .

During his first term as Governor, Harmon had waged war on graft 92 and corruption and had brought a businesslike administration.

The Republican state platform endorsed President Taft and pledged support to him at tiie I 9 I 2 Convention. The p latfo rm endorsed the administration's prosecution of the sugar frauds, the prevention of an increase in railroad rates, and the reduction of

government expenditures. On the state level the Republicans favored employers' liability, worlmen' s compensation,' home rule for

91"Govemor Harmon is Renominated," Portsmouth Blade. June 25, 1910LG.. .p. 1, col. 1. 92cole,9^Cole, "Judson H;Harmon, " Dictionary of American Biography, VIII (1932), p. 277. 129 municipalities^ and publicity of campaign contributions. ^3 The

Democratic newspaper in Scioto County commented that, while regular

Republicans were satisfied with Harding and tiie state platform, the Democrats hoped to win over many Republican Progressives.^^

During the campaign Governor Harmion was criticized for iiis failure to remove the Mayor of Columbus from office after the state capital had experienced a street railway strike in which v io len ce had o c c u rre d .^3 Governor Harmon sent troops in to the city to restore order, but refused to put pressure on the street railway company to submit to arbitration. The Democratic press defended his position.Harding astutely turned the issue to his political advantage by mailing speeches urging compulsory arbi- tration in disputes between capital and labor. 97 The Republican newspaper in Scioto County carried an editorial declaring that

Governor Harmon was losing support of organized labor due to his role in the Columbus street car strike.

Toward th e end of th e campaign charges of g r a ft and gross incompetency were released concerning the Republican c o n tro lle d

93"Harding Wins on Third Ballot," Portsmouth Blade. July 30, 1910 ,,p. 1, col. 1. 94iiC onf licting Views on Harding Ticket," Portsmouth Times. Ju ly 30, 1910 , p. 1, c o l. 8. 93"Wanted - A Man" (editorial), Portsmouth Blade, Aug. 6, 1910, p. 2, col. 2. 9biiiin Even Balance" (editorial), Portsmouth Times, Sept. 10, 1910 , p. 4; c o l. 1 . 97"A Chance" (editorial), Portsmouth Times. Oct. 1, 1910, p. k, c o l. 2. 98wHarmon and Labor," Portsmouth Blade, Sept. 28, 1910, p. 2, c o l. 3 . 130 Board of Public Works. These charges were leveled against

Republican canal employees who were alleged to have padded pay- rolls and misused funds.Republicans99 contended that the attack was merely a political dodge, which was being used by the

Democrats to draw unpopular a tte n tio n away from Governor Harmon.

In November Governor Harmon, th e incumbent, receiv ed 48.8^ of the total vote cast and 'barren G. Harding, Republican, polled

44.1%.^^^ The Republican press attributed the Democratic victory in Scioto County to a general desertion of the Republican Party all over the country, and to the "wets" on the local level, who supported the Democrats. 102 The Democratic newspaper agreed with the first reason, but added others such as graft in state offices.

Governor Harmon’s record, and, on the local level, a defeat of

"bossism and gangism."^^^

The 1912 Gubernatorial election was a tri-party contest.

Principal candidates were James M. Cox, Democrat, Robert B. Brown,

Republican, and Arthur L. Garford, Progressive. General Robert

B. Brown was nominated by the Republican State Central Coaimittee to replace Judge Dillon who, as has previously been pointed out,

99"Startling Graft Revealed in Board of Public Works,." Portsmouth Times, Oct. 15, 1910, p. 7, col. 1. lO'üitpolitical Dodge" (editorial), Portsmouth Blade, Sept. 21, 1910 , .p. 2, col. 3. lOlThe remainder went to To{p Clifford, Socialist, 6.I/o, Henry A. Thompson, Prohibitionist, .61^, and J.R. Malley, Socialist Labor, .22^. 102iiScioto County" (editorial), Portsmouth Blade, Nov. 12, I 9 IO, p. 2. col. 1. 103ii]/îhy We 'Won" (editorial), Portsmouth Times, Nov. 12, I 9 IO, p. 4,"'Col. 2. 131 resigned in August. Brown, a Taft supporter, received the appro­ bation of Taft followers on the Republican State Central Com­ m itte e .

The Democratic Party in Ohio endorsed Governor Harmon's administration, favored a separate ballot for state and national officers, home rule for cities and villages, reduction in the hours of labor for women, initiative and referendum, regulation of liquor traffic by licenses, and continued reform of penal institutions.^^3

The Progressive Party platform in Ohio endorsed Theodore

Roosevelt and denounced the bosses and machines. It pledged enactm ent of le g is la tio n concerning a minimum wage fo r working women, industrial research laboratories, reorganization of high­ ways, agricultural extension work, and the short ballot.

James M. Cox carried Scioto County with 3^»k% of the vote while Robert B. Brown, Republican, received 32.6/S, and Arthur L. 107 Garford, Progressive, obtained 17.9^- Democratic Presidential and Congressional candidates failed to carry the county. William

Howard Taft, Republican, received the winning plurality of 34*2% in the Presidential contest, while Robert M. Switzer carried the county in the Congressional contest with 36.1# of the total vote.

lOAiiQeneral Brown for Governor" (editorial), Portsmouth Blade, ilug. 14, 1912 , p. 8, col. 1. 105”Cox i s Named f o r Governor, Harmon Gets J i l l Delegates," Portsmouth Times. June 8, 1912, p. 6, ool. 1. 406"guqq Moose Party Najiisd Full Ticket for the State Offices," Portsmouth Times, Sept. 7, 1912, p. 1, col. 1. 107The remainder went to G.E. Ruthenberg, Socialist, 11.3#, Daniel A. Poling, Prohibitionist, 2.3#, and John Kircher, Socialist Labor, ,26#. 132 (b) The Election of 1932

In 1932 the Democratic candidates defeated their Gubernatorial

and Congressional opponents in Scioto County. Gubernatorial candi­

dates were George White ^ Democratic incumbent, and David S. Ingalls,

Republican, and former Assistant Secretary of the Navy under

President Hoover. Congressional candidates were James G. Polk,

Democrat, and Mack Sauer, Republican. During the campaign Ingalls

charged Governor White with favoring the u tilities and building roads with "gold bricks." White retorted that Ingalls had mis­

construed the facts concerning the financial condition of the

state. The Republican candidate set forth a plan for reducing tax burdens by increasing the percentage of voters necessary to pass bond issues and by providing an installment payment of current property and delinquent taxes.

The election resulted in victory for Governor White in the state and in the county. He carried Scioto County by 153 votes and 49*6^ of the total vote.^^^ Janies G. Polk, Democratic Con­ gressional candidate, carried the county with 51*1^ of the total vote. His opponent. Mack Sauer, whose home was Scioto County, p o lle d L^B.8% of the vote. Despite the Democratic successes in these two contests, the county did not endorse the Democratic

Presidential candidate as did the r e s t of the nation. Hoover

^^%.H. Daugherty, "Air Filled With Smoke as Politics Sizzle in State," Portsmouth Times, Oct. 9, 1932, p. 1 , c o l, 6 . 109The remainder went to David S. Ingalls, Republican, 49.1^, Joseph W. Sharts, Socialist, .86#, William Woodhouse, Socialist Labor, .01#, and Aaron Watkins, Prohibitionist, .37#. 133 defeated Franklin D. Roosevelt in Scioto County by 1,408 votes and

31. 2# of the total vote.

(c) The Election of 1934

The election of 1934 was the first test of the NeiAi Deal at the hands of the electorate. Democratic candidates for Congress and

United States Senate were James G. Polk and Vic Donahey. Republican candidates were Albert L. Daniels for Congress and Simeon D. Fess for Senate. During the campaign Daniels denounced regimentation, inflation of currency and credit, price fixing, and private profit in time of war. He favored relief for home owners, economy in government, and a balanced b u d g e t . Polk stood for reelection on his record and endorsed the Roosevelt administration.

During the Senatorial campaign Simeon D. Fess, the incumbent, remai'ked in a speech before a Scioto County Republican r a lly th a t the results of the New Deal administration had been detrimental to the average laboring man. He objected to what he termed the intrusion of government into business, to expenditures which were piling up a tremendous tax load, and to the high cost of living.

Fess alleged that the Presidency was verging on a dictator ship.

Vic Donahey, the Democratic candidate, endorsed the Roosevelt administration's policies at a r a lly in Portsmouth, Ohio. He

^^^"School Relief Placed F irst by Candidate," Portsmouth Times. Oct. 11, 1934 , p. 1, col. 5. ^l"V ast Spending by Roosevelt Topic for Fess," Portsmouth Tiiues. Oct. 24, 1934 , p. 1, col. 4 . 112iiSparks Fly in Political Talks," Portsmouth Times. Oct. 30, 1934, p. 3, col. 3. 134 cited his om record as Governor as qualifying him for U.S. Senator.

He declared there should be no relinquishing of debts owed us by

European nations and opposed any increase in federal taxation unless a real emergency existed.

Several days preceding the election an editorial in the local

Republican newspaper demanded a return to conservative policies of government. The editorial stated that the reelection of Fess would be a step in that direction since he disapproved of Hew

Deal policies. It was alleged that the Democratic administration disliked him because of his vigorous opposition of New Deal poli­ cies in the previous C o n g r e s s . ^^4

Despite the Republican plea the voters supported Vic Donahey who received 55*2^ of the vote and a plurality of 3,101 votes.

*j *( r Simeon Ü. Fess received 44.6/i. ^ In the Congressional race James

G. Polk was reelected with 51»4%' of the vote, while Albert Daniels received 47*7% of tte total vote cast in the county.

(d) Election of 1936

The Presidential, Gubernatorial, and Congressional candidates of the Democratic Party made a clean sweep in Scioto County in

1936 . Democratic candidates for the above offices were Franklin

D. Roosevelt, Martin L. Davey, and James G. Polk respectively.

Republican candidates were Alfred M. London, John W. Bricker, and

113iiDonahey Takes Stand Against Tax Increase," Portsmouth Times, Oct. 26, 1934 , p. 1, col. 4 . 114"Reelect Simeon D. Fess" (editorial), Portsmouth Times. Nov. 2, 1934 , p . k , c o l. 2. ll^The remainder went to V».C. Sandberg, Communist, .15$. 135 Emory F. Smith. During the course of the campaign President

Roosevelt emphasized the winning battle which Democrats were waging against the depression and predicted that the federal budget would soon balance.In the 1936 campaign Roosevelt ran on liis record of performance.On October 31; 1936, in a speech at New York

City, the President promised the nation four more years of the

New Deal which included support of labor, the farmer, the unemployed, and home ovners.^^

Landon attacked New Deal politics throughout the campaign. He pledged balance of the federal budget. Attacking New Deal fiscal policies, Landon declared that the federal government had become a sieve through which taxpayers' money was being poured in constantly increasing volume. 119 In his final speech of the campaign he stated that the United States could not continually borrow from its children and remain united with one fifth of the working population dependent upon the government.However,

Landon was fighting a losing battle. His speaking voice was untrained and, according to one author, he seldom made a good speech. Furthermore, he was probably hindered by the constant

^^"Roosevelt Says Budget O.K.; A1 (Smith) Favors Landon," Portsmouth Times, Oct. 2, 1936, p. 1, col. ?• 117Edgar Eugene Robinson, They Voted for Roosevelt (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1947), P. 14. llÔDouglas B. Cornell, "Candidates Give Final Blasts in Torrid Campaign," Portsmouth Times. Nov. 1, 1936, p. 1, col. 7 and 8. ll9Hugh h'ilson, "Landon Pledges to Balance U.S. Budget," Portsmouth TimeSj_ Oct. 10, 1936, p. 1, col. 7* l20Cornell, "Candidates Give Final Blasts in Torrid Campaign," Portsmouth Times. Nov. 1, 1936, p. 1, col. 7 and 8. 136 publicity representing him as a plain, average man. l 2 l

On November 1 th e Republican newspaper in Scioto County p u b lish ­ ed an editorial appeal to the voters, wherein Roosevelt was presented as the champion of radicalism, sudden reform, class warfare, and adaptation of European collectivism to American methods. Landon was represented as a firm supporter of free government and indivi­ dual rights. ^22

In the Gubernatorial contest John V». Bricker, Republican, was nominated without opposition. He continually charged Governor

Davey's administration vith corruption.In a speech at

Portsmouth, Ohio, on October 14, he claimed that liquor interests were paying as high as $3 a case tribute to the Democratic high command for the privilege of doing business in Ohio.^^^

Governor Davey, the Democratic candidate, supported President

Roosevelt and his administration. V»hen reviewing the 1936 Guber­ natorial contest one author coinmented that Davey relied on his state machine and the high tide of the New Deal to sweep him back into office, but he ignored the charges hurled at him by the

Republican c a n d i d a t e .

In a speech at Portsmouth, Ohio, James G. Polk, Democratic

121d .v/. Brogan, Roosevelt and the New Deal (London: Oxford University Press, 1952), p. 142. l22iifBe Country is in Your Hands" (editorial), Portsmouth Times. Nov. 1, 1936 , p. 6, pol. 1. 123Karl B. Pauley, Bricker of Ohio - The Man and His Record (New York; G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1944), P* 80. l^li'Liquor Tribute Hit by Nominee in Speech Here," Portsmouth Times,-Oct. 15, 1936, p. 1, col. 3. 125Pauley, loc. cit. 137 Congressional candidate^ praised Governor Davey’s record and

endorsed the Nevj Deal program. Polk stressed the use of Federal

funds to build and modernize the Scioto County fairgrounds and

the V/.P.A. reconstruction of the municipal stadium. He also

called attention to the City Hall building and schools constructed in Portsmouth.

On election day the Democrats carried the county. Roosevelt receiv ed a p lu ra lity of 4,383 votes and 55/^ of the total vote cast.

Alfred M. Landon, Republican, obtained 44*2^ of the vote.^^^ In the Gubernatorial contest Martin L. Davey carried Scioto County by 3,369 votes and polled 34.1^ of the total vote. John h. Bricker,

Republican, received 45-7/j of the vote.^28 the Congressional

contest James G. Polk, Democrat, won by 2,308 votes and received

52. 9 ^ of the total vote cast. His Republican adversary, Lmory F.

Sjnith, received 47% of the vote. Scioto County r e fle c te d the

Democratic landslide which swept the n a tio n .^^9

(3) Summary

Scioto County remained in Republican control during a majority of years between 1900 and 1952. Democratic Gubernatorial candidates won in 1910, 1912, and 1922, although Democratic candidates for

President, Congress, and United States Senate were not victorious

126npresilent and Davey Praised During Rally," Portsmouth Times, Oct. 22, 1936 , p. 2, c o l. 3 . 127The remainder went to Earl Browder, Communist, .05% and Viiilliam Lemke, Union, . 63%. 128fhe r e s t went to Andrew R. Onda, Communist, .02%. 129"Roosevelt Gets A ll but Two S ta te s; Davey In, Democrats Win County," Portsmouth Times. Nov. 4, 1936, p. 1, c o l. 7 - ]J8 in Scioto County until the depression period. President Roosevelt's

victory in 1936 was the first time in the history of Scioto County

th a t the voters had endorsed a Democratic Presidential candidate.

Roosevelt won again in 1940 and Harry Truman c a rrie d the county in

194 s. À Democratic Senatorial candidate has not carried Scioto

County since 1944* Democratic Congressional candidates^ on the

other hand, were successful in 1 9 4 0 , 1944 , 1948, and 1952 , although

they lost the off-year elections to their Republican foes.

Democratic Gubernatorial candidates carried the county in 1940,

1948 , and 1952 . Gubernatori aL and Congressional offices have

thus proven to be more fertile ground for the Democratic Party in

recent years than have Presidential and Senatorial offices.

E. Conclusion

The general n ature of major party support which existed in

the four county area during the period 1859 to I 9 OO did not alter

during the second period. Jackson and Pike Counties have not

deviated from their historic party support since 1930 and 1928

respectively. Jackson County went Democratic in 1912 but even

then the margin of victory was a narrow one, and was doubtless

assisted by the rift in the Republican Party and the resulting

formation of the Progressive Party. Jackson County's only reaction

to the depression period was its support of the Democratic Guberna­

torial candidate in 1930. Pike County followed the Republican

trend in all contests in 1920 and in the Presidential contest of

1928 . Aside from these two years, and the Republican victories 139 daring the first two years of the century. Pike County has maintained strict loyalty to the Democratic Party.

Ross and Scioto Counties were more variable than Jackson and

Pike Counties, although Ross County was the most variable of the four. Ross and Scioto both p o lled Democratic m ajorities in

1912 . They supported Democratic candidates in the 1930's and endorsed Franklin D. Roosevelt in his bid for a third term. A return to the Republican fold is noticeable after 1940. In 1948,

1950 , and 1952 the Democratic Gubernatorial candidate was sup­ po rted i n Ross County. Scioto County supported P resid en t Truman in his bid for reelection in 1948, as well as the other Democratic candidates for the offices under study in 1948.

Jackson and Pike Counties would fall under the classification of modified one party systems as characterized by Professors Ranney and Kendall in their article "The American Party Systems.In these counties the electorate supported one major party, but the opposition party was able to poll a substantial percentage of the vote for the offices under consideration in most instances. Scioto

County would barely meet the two party classification set up by

Ranney and Kendall, since the opposition party was within less than

^30According to Ranney and Kendall, modified one party systems are those in which the second party, while winning less than 2$^ of all elections, has won over 30^ of the vote in more than 70^ of all elections and over 40/a of the vote in more than 30% of all elections under study. Austin Ranney and Willmoore Kendall, "The American Party Systems," American Political Science Revievj, XLVIII (June, 1954), pp. 483 —484 . 140

1% o f winning 2.% of all elections for the offices under considera- 131 tion. Ross County easily meets the requirements of a two party county, since in the Presidential, Gubernatorial, and Con­ gressional contests held between 1859 and 1952 it exhibited almost an even division in party support.

The pattern of voting behavior and party affiliations have been well established during the century prior to the establish­ ment of the Portsmouth vlrea Atomic Plant. The effect which the large influx of atomic workers and personnel has had or will have upon party and voting bejriavior in Jackson, Pike, Ross, and

Scioto Counties w ill be considered in the remaining chapters.

^^^Two party systems were defined as those in which the second parÿy has won more th an 25$ of all elections studied. Ibid., p. 484. CHa PïïïR V

ELKliïIüN Wii IH ÜHIU; LRGa L CONTROLS ;ÛTl) JUDICIAL INÏLRPRLÏAllÜLS

Political parties ard voting in the four southern counties

are governed, as elsewhere in Ohio, by the Ohio Constitution and

by election laws. These regulations have been subject to change

and judicial interpretation through the years. Before discussing

local party organisations and partisan behavior in the 1954

General Llection, it is relevant to examine the basic political

right, the right to vote.

The settled residents of the four counties were but little

affected by the general voting requirements such as age, resi­

dence, and citizenship, and registration, but the newcomers

attracted by the Atomic Inergy 1stablishment found in these

requirements immediate and often insuperable barriers to partici­

pation in voting during the period covered in this study. Voting

regulations and interpretations wiich affected the new v o ters

included the voting qualifications, registration, election adminis­

tr a tio n , political party regulations, and b a llo t form.

A. d u a lif ic a tio n s

(1) Citizenship and Âge

Newcomers had to f u l f i l l b a sic q u a lific a tio n s of voting among which were U.S. citizenship and a minimum age of twenty-one.^

Iphio Const., Art. V, sec. 1 (luend. 1923).

141 142 According to Ohio election laws any voter may be challenged on his

citizenship. If challenged, he or she mast answer questions under

oath relating to place of b irth , and whether native born or

naturalized. In the latter case the person must either produce a

naturalization certificate or state when and where naturalized,

and that he once had a certificate, but that it was lost, destroyed,

or beyond his power to produce to the election judges. If the person became a c itiz e n through h is p a re n ts' n a tu ra liz a tio n , he or

she must state under oath when and where his parents were naturalized.

A question arose over the statement of age in a test case in

1920 . A female voter, having the qualifications of an elector, refused to state her exact age despite provisions of the election law. When questioned by election officials she merely retorted th a t she was over twenty-one, and was denied th e rig h t to r e g is te r .

The Ohio Supreme Court upheld the statute as merely prescribing reasonable rules of evidence relating to proof of age.^ However, the election code has been revised to allow a citizen, who may be challenged on this point, to sign an affidavit that he or she i s twenty-one or over.^

Age and citizenship qualifications did not pose significant barriers to the newcomers in the four county area since persons employed on a government project o f t h is type were generally able to fu lfill these requirements.

^State ex rel. Klein vs. Hillenbrand (I 920 ), 101 O.S. 371. ^Ruling of the Secretary of State of Oiiio, 1930, in respect to Sec. 3503. 14, Subdivision G. 143 (2) Residence

(a) Length of Residence and Rules for Determining Residence

Residence requirements, on the other hand, confronted all newcomers and in many instances proved a real barrier. The

Constitutional residence requirement reads as follows:

Every citizen of the United States, of the age of twenty-one years, who shall have been a resident of the state one year next preceding the election, and of the county, township, or ward, in which he resides, such time as may be provided by lavif, shall have the qualifications of an elector, and be entitled to vote at all elections.^

The length of residence in the county and voting precinct was left to legislative discretion. There has been a noticeable increase in the required length of local residence over the years. In 1857 the legislature provided for thirty days in the county and twenty days in the voting p r e c in c t.^ By 1939 the General Assembly changed this to thirty days in the county and twenty-eight days in the precinct.^ The present law, passed in 1947, requires forty days in the county and forty days in the precinct.?

In order to guide registrars and election officials the

General Assembly in 1953 set forth rules for determining residence, which differed little from those in effect toward the close of the

Nineteenth Century. In summary these rules provided: (a) a fixed habitation of a person is one to vhich, whenever he is absent, he

4phio Const., Art, V, sec. 1 (Amend. 1923). 554 Ohio Laws 136 (1857). 61I 8 Ohio Laws 223 (1939). 7122 Ohio Laws 325 (1947). 144 has the intention of returning (b) a person does not lose residence by leaving the state or county for temporary purposes only^ or if he i s engaged in the service of the United States government

(c) a person does not gain residence by entering a county of th is state for temporary purposes only (d) the place where a family of a married man or woman resides shall be considered his place of residence except when they have separated (e) a person will lose his residence if he moves to another state with the intention of making such place h is permanent residence, or if he remains there an indefinite time, or if he votes in another state. The "temporary" purposes" clause was construed to permit an absence not in excess of three years.®

(b) Obstacles to the Newcomers

It is not unusual that the interpretation of residence has given rise to more litigation over the years than the interpretation of age and citizenship. Decisions of the courts, rulings of the

Secretary of State, and opinions of the Attorney General have clarified this section of the election laws.

A series of obstacles encountered by newcomers under the resi­ dence requirements involved their intention to permanent residence, th e ir tr a ile r homes, separation of workers from wives and family., and possible movement within the county prior to an election.

These problems and their legal in terp retatio n w ill be considered next.

®Ohio Election Lavjs Annotated (Brown, 1954), sec. 3503.02, p. 28. 145' (l) "Intention" of the New Voters

In order to fulfill the residence provision in Ohio a citizen

must qualify as a permanent resident. For the atomic workers this

entailed proof of permanence, Â ruling handed down by a Common

Pleas Judge in 1932 played an important p art in interpreting th is provision. The case involved a man who claimed his voting residence

as his father's home while Ms family lived elsewhere. The court stated that the determination of residence rested in part upon

"intention". Intention, according to this jurist, could be proved in two ways: (l) by testimony of the person himself, and (2) in- ferentially or inductively, by proof of other facts, physical and external, which might indicate the mind of the person.^ The opinion stated that, while intention was an important factor in- determining residence, it was not conclusive and could not control when inconsistent with actualities. The avowed intention deserved serious consideration only when the facts were ambiguous and susceptible to more than one construction. The court determined that the facts indicated the person lived /iiost of the tltie with his family and only occasionally ate and slept at his father's home, where he claimed his voting residence. There was no evidence that the husband and wife were separated, and in this case the avowed intention of the voter was insufficient to sustain his claim of residence. The surrounding factors and a section of the

*^In re Aver (1932), 29 llisi Prius Reports, Kew Series 325. 146 election laws brought forth an adverse ruling.

In the atomic period if "intention" were judged on the first grounds cited in the above case, that is, personal testimony, po tential voters would have l i t t l e to fear. However, if the second grounds were s tr ic tly applied, p o ten tia l newcomer voters might lose th eir franchise due to the temporary nature of the construction job,

(2) Trailer Residents

Prior to the arrival of tiie atomic workers Ohio had struggled with the problem of balloting of trailer residents. The question involved was whether such occupants should be considered temporary or permanent residents. I f they were classified as permanent residents they could qualify to vote. Otherwise, they would be disfranchised.

In 1937 the Ohio Secretary of State issued a ruling on whether a person living in a trailer could claim his voting residence in the precinct where the trailer was located. The Secretary of State contended that the section on residence entailed two prime con­ siderations; (a) the fact of residence and (b) the intention of the elector of maintaining same at a fixed place. He ruled in part;

"Fixity and permanency" of residence cannot be established through the ownership and occupation of a "trailer." Therefore a "trailer" cannot be con­ sidered as a place of residence as,such term is used in the election laws of Oliio. An elector living in a trailer will be permitted to vote at the place wherein his right to vote had been previously

10Ib id . 147 exercised, should he maintain that his absence from such place is of a teaporary character.

Persons living in trailers vdth an intention of making such place th eir periiianent abode would lo st th e ir right to vote under this ruling. Any sharp increase in the number of trailer residents in the state vould result in the disfranchisement of large groups of people. Tills ruling was especially significant to this study since many of tiie atomic miiergy Establishment construction workers were trailer residents and such a precedent would have been a formidable barrier.

However, the Ohio Attorney General was submitted a similar question in 1943 and ruled in a d iffe r e n t manner. He contended that if a person lived in a certain precinct the proper length of time and considered such precinct as his place of fixed habitation and not as a place of temporary abode, i t was, for the purposes of voting, his residence. It mattered not whether the structure housing him was a c a s tle , cottage, mansion, or t r a i l e r . The

Attorney General went on to state; No doubt tr a ile r s were o rig in ally intended to afford temporary housing accojiunodations to tourists and are now generally used for such purposes... If it is the in­ tention of the occupant of the trailer to regard the place where such a tr a ile r is located as the place of his fixed habitation and not as a temporary abode, it would appear th at such place should be regarded as his residence for voting purposes .1-^ In this opinion the intent of the person was of paramount importance.

^^Qhio Gen. Code (Page, 1943), sec. 4783.31, p. 2 0 , note 1. ^^1943 Ohio Attorney General 6087 (May, 1943)• 13Ibid. l i s But, as the court had done in the case of In re Aver, the Attorney

General did add that such "intent" must be considered in the lig h t of surrounding circumstances. Nevertheless, trailers could serve as permanent residences for p o tential voters, which was a reversal of the Secretary of State's ruling in 1937. It was on the basis of th is 1943 ruling that trailer residence was interpreted in the

1954 General Election.

(3) Husband and Wife - Separated and Living Apart

According to the rules for determining residence, the place where the family of a married man or woman resides was considered his place of residence except when they have separated. Tills rule could have presented an obstacle to the atomic workers who had to leave their families in another state. If the rule had been interpreted s tr ic tly such workers would not have been able to vote in the atomic area.

A broad interpretation of this rule by the Ohio Appellate

Court in 1948 favored the newcomers. The opinion read in part:

As we view it in order to effectuate the purpose of the law, the phrase "separated and living apart from his wife" should be given a broad practical interpretation. If the husband actually lives separate from Ills wife, he may acquire at the actual place of living a residence for voting purposes under the provisions of the statute.

The ruling in this case, therefore, allowed a husband and wife who were separated to each claim residence for voting at the place where

e t a l. vs. Village of Union City e t a l. (1948), #4 Ohio A ppellate 279. 149 he or she resided for the proper length of time, even though there

■was no evidence of m arital discord.

(4) Move Within the County Prior to An Election

According to Ohio election laws, i f a person moved within the

county subsequent to the fortieth day preceding an election he

could vote in his former precinct without changing his registra- 15 tio n , vjhere required. This m u ld apply to atomic vorlcers in the

event they moved to a new trailer camp within one of tte counties,

or to a new home. It was not unusual for the atomic workers to make moves of this type.

The rule has been interpreted to permit a person to be a

qualified elector in his former precinct for forty days whether or not an election were held during that time. In a case before the Ohio Supreme Court in 1951 u candidate file d a nominati. ng petition after he had moved within the county. His statement listed his new address as his mailing address and his previous address as his voting address. At the time of filing forty days had not lapsed. The candidate was therefore correct in using his former residence as his voting address. The court added th a t, on

the reg istratio n form prescribed by the General Assembly, there was a distinction between a "voting residence" and a "post office

address.

15ohio Election Laws Annotated (Brown, 1954), sec. 3503.01, p. 26. Instate ex rel. Ehring vs. Bliss (1951), 155 O.S. 99« 150 B. R e g istra tio n

Registration serves in part as a means of checking potential

voters' qualifications. For the neivcomers registration was

another hurdle. As a prelude to a discussion of registration

and the atomic markers in Chapter VI, a survey of Ohio's past experience with registration will be considered. Other features to be examined include a comparison of 1954 Ohio registration requirements with a model law, and ju d ic ia l interpretation of registration systoiis.

(l) Experience with Registration in Ohio

Ohio shifted from a system of periodic registration in the

1880's to permanent registration in 1930. By 1900 two of the c itie s in the atomic area, Portsmouth and C hillicothe, had quadrennial registration in Presidential years. The 1930 electio n law required registration in every city with a population of 16,000 or more. The county boards of elections were responsible for providing for and supervising registration of voters in these areas. Any city with less than 16,000 could, by ordinance, choose to become a registration city. A board of elections, when it deemed necessary, was empowered to establish registration in areas contiguous or adjacent to a registration area. Once a registration area was in operation no person living in the area was entitled to vote or to sign any nominating, initiative, referendum, or recall petition unless duly registered. However, once registered, the voter was not required to register again unless his registration 151 vjere cancelled through failure to vote at least once in two calen­ dar years. In order to enforce these provisions of the law, boards of elections were granted full authority to conduct investigations, summon witnesses, and take testimony under oath, regarding regis­ tration of any voter or the accuracy of registration lists in any registration precinct.

The Ohio registration law has not been altered significantly'- since 1930. The 1933 revision of Ohio election laws and the Ohio code still required registration in every city with a population of 16,000 or over and optional registration for any other city.

The same provisions applied to the extension of registration by county boards of elections in contiguous areas or areas adjacent to a registration city or county as those listed in 1930.^^

(2) Comparison of Ohio Law v/ith a Model Law

Registration has been considered a necessary safeguard to prevent fraud at the polls. As one writer declared:

One of the important technical problems of election administration is the determination of what persons are qualified to vote... The requiremœt that all voters shall be registered prior to the day of the election is one of the most important safeguards of the purity of the ballot box. It constitutes the very foundation upon which an honest election system must rest, and if properly administered, prevents many of the more serious frauds which have marked the conduct of elections in the past.^9

ITsiection Laws of Ohio (1930), sec. 1785.34-4785.53. l^Ohio Election Laws Annotated (Brown, 1954), sac. 3503.06, pp. 30-31. 19joseph P. Harris, Registration of Voters in the United States ('iiVashington, D.C.î The Brookings Institution, 1929), p. 4. 1$2 Registration laws have been instituted to prevent voting of names on tombstones, names of persons who have moved or died, or of unqualified persons, or persons who voted under the names of qualified electors.

In tlie late 1920's a special committee on election adminis­ tration of the National Municipal League studied and reported on a model registration law. The committee ev o lv ed three p r in c ip a l criteria to be considered when dealing with the problem o f registration: (a) prevention of election frauds (b) econoirdcal operation, and (c) convenience to the voter.The argument tliat the cost of administering a registration g/stem was too h ig h was frequently voiced by opponents of registration, and its extension on the countywide level in Scioto County was fought on these grounds in the early 1950's.

In many ways the provisions of the registration system operat­ ing in Ohio in 1954 were in harmony with the model registration lavj published by the committee. For example, the Ohio re g istra ­ tion system contained the following recommended features: (a) re­ gistration was on a permanent basis except under certain conditions such as failure to vote in a two year period (b) registration applied to all elections, national, state, and local (c) registra­ tion records for each voter were in the form of loose leaf cards which were kept in duplicate (d) contents of the forms provided

^Report of the Committee on Election Administration, '11 Model Registration System," National Municipal Review, XVI (J a n ., 192?) , p. 45. 153 such information as name, address, sex, over twenty-one years of age, when and where naturalized (e) persons could register any time the board of elections was open except a few weeks prior to an election (f)the l i s t s were corrected by such procedures as a canvass and death reports, and (g) there was signature comparison on election day when the voter was required to sign the p o ll book.

The Oliio law also differed in certain fundamental aspects from the model law. These differences lay in the coverage of registration and the officials in charge of the system. In Ohio registration was mandatory for all cities with a population of

16,000 and was optional for some other areas, while the model law provided for a statewide system. As authors of the model law observed, election frauds might occur in rural areas as well as in urban areas. Under Ohio election law in 1954, bipartisan county boards of elections administered voter registration, vfhile the model law called for the administration of registration in a single o ffice, and a special o ffice to have charge in c itie s or counties of over 300,000 people. Responsibility in smaller areas v»uld be under the city or county clerk. The office force sluould be selected without regard to party affiliation or nominations by party organizations, and these persons would be placed under a 21 civil service system. This would result in the removal of the

^National Municipal League. Committee on Election Administra­ tio n , A Model R egistration System (New York: National Municipal League, 1939), PP* 31-38. 154 election office from the patronage system.

Although the Ohio re g istra tio n law in 1954 did not conform

exactly to the model law, it was essentially a sound one. Perma­

nent re g istra tio n was on a countyvjide basis in Pike, Ross, and

Scioto Counties by 1954, although Jackson County remained outside

the fold.

(3) Leaal Interpretation of Registration

Since the Ohio Constitution did not contain a registration

provision, litigation developed over the constitutionality of

early registration laws. The Massachusetts Supreme Court had

ruled on the legality of the state's first registration law, and

its decision v/as followed by other state courts, including Ohio's, when registration laws were contested in their states. The

Massachusetts Supreme Court declared in the case of Gapen vs.

Foster, in 1932, that it was id.thin constitutional limits of

leg isla tiv e power to adopt any reasonable and uniform regulations in regard to the time and mode of exercising the right of suffrage.

The court added, however, that tiie legislature siiould not, under pretense and color of regulation, restrain or impair the exercise op of the right of suffrage.^ The Capen decision defined registration

not as an additional qualification for voting, but a means of

determining whether a potential voter had the proper qualifica­

tions. Furthermore, in the absence of any Constitutional power,

a state legislature had the right to make reasonable and uniform

^^Capen vs. Foster (Mass., 1832), 12 Pickering, 485. 155 23 regulations. What was "reasonable and uniform" was left to judicial interpretation. A door was left open for striking down a registration law if the court considered that it seriously injured or impaired the right of suffrage.

In Daggett vs. Hudson tte Ohio Supreme Court reviewed the Ohio

Registration Act of 188$. It agreed that the legislature could pass a re g istra tio n lavj under i t s general powers and explained the purpose of registration as follows:

Registration is one of the modes in which purity in elections may be attained and every honest and qualified voter has an interest in securing the integrity of the ballot and exclu^ng the ballots of the dishonest and unqualified. ^

Although the Ohio Supreme Court recognized the legality of a regis­ tra tio n system, it seized the opening wedge found in the opinion of the massachusetts Court in the Gapen case, and declared the

Act of 1885 unconstitutional on the grounds that it was injuriously impairing the righ t of suffrage itself. The feature of the act to which the Ohio Supreme Court objected was the provision of only seven days in the year when voters could register.^5

Under the registration law in 1954 no such problem ex isted , since voters could register at boards of elections any time up to forty days preceding an election. Some boards of elections p rovid ed other places, usually precinct polling p la ces, where voters could register at various times during the year. The questions of

23%bid. 24paggett vs. Hudson (1885), 43 O.S. 54Ô. 2 5 % b i d . 156 time and place of re g istra tio n were significant issues in Ross and

Pike Counties in 1954, and will be discussed in the following chapt er.

C. Election Administration

In 1954 the conduct of elections was regulated by the election code and administered by local bipartisan election boards which were subject to rulings of the Secretary of S ta te , the chief election official in Ohio.^^ iktininistration of newcomer voting, including registration, checking on voting qualifications, and estimating probable numbers of newcomer voters, was in the hands of these officials. A look at Ohio election administration demon­ strates the manner in which these boards and the chief election official operated and serves to clarify the power of th ese o ffi­ cials who, in 1954 , dealt d irectly with the problem of newcomer suffrage.

As chief election officer of the state of Ohio, duties of the Secretary of State included: (a) appointing all members of boards of elections, usually upon recommendation of a party county executive committee (b) advising members of election boards about proper methods of conducting elections (c) prepaid.ng rules, regulations, and instructions for the conduct of elections.

(d) compelling the observance by election officers in the several counties of the requirements of the election laws (e) investigating

^^Ohio Election Laws Annotated (Brovjn, 1954), sec. 3501.04, p. 4. 157 any fraud, irre g u la rity , and adm inistration of elections in any 27 counties.

In every county of the state there was a bipartisan board of elections, composed of four qualified electors in the county and

appointed by the Secretary of State, to serve a term of four 28 years. These election boards had many duties such as establishing and rearranging election precincts, fixing and providing places for registration, primaiâes and general elections, printing of ballots, investigating irregularities, and investigation and deter­ mining residence qualifications of electors.^9 Althou,gh the

Secretary of State was responsible for the appointment of election board members, he merely approved the recommendations of party county executive commi.ttees. However, an important control of the

Secretary of State was his authority to cast the deciding vote in case of a tie vote of the members of tiie se boards. Section 3501.11 of the Ohio Election Laws stipulated;

In all cases of a tie vote or a disagreement in the board, if no decision can be arrived at, the clerk shall subjnit the m atter in controversy to the secretary of state, who shall summarily decide the question and his decision shall be final.30 In the four county atomic area there was evidence of bitterness over this authority of the Secretary of State, since some felt the chief election officials had wielded this power to partisan advantage

27l b l d .. sec. 3501.05, pp. 4-5. 2&ibid., sec. 3501.06, p. 5- ^?Ibid.. sec. 3501.11, pp. 8-9. ^^Ibid.. p. 9. 158 D. Legal Regulation of Political Parties

Newcomers wishing to participate in the political life of the

four county area under study had to work through the established

party organizations, since the state law had set up formidable

obstacles to the rise of any third party to ballot status. The

statutory requirement read:

A p o litic a l p a rty ... is any group of voters which at the last preceding regular state election, polled for its candidate for governor in the state at least ten per cent of the entire vote cast for governor...^

There was a provision for a new group to qualify as a political party by filing with the Secretary of State, at least ninety days

before an election, a petition signed by qualified electors equal

in number to at least fifteen per cent of the total vote cast for

Q 0 Governor at the last preceding election.The statute declared further tnat if any party did not receive at least ten per cent of the total vote cast for Governor at an election, it ceased to be a p o litic a l party in the eyes o f the state. The statute was weighted in favor of the two major parties.

Controlling committees of a political party and the manner in which they were to be chosen were also regulated by statute. A

state central committee consisting of one man and one woman from each congressional district was provided for. On the county level

there was a county central committee, which consisted of one member

from each election precinct in the county or one manber from each

^^Ibid., sec. 3517-01, o. 143- 159 ward in each city, and from each township in the county, as the outgoing coinmittee decided.The members of these controllirg

conmattees were elected by direct vote of party members at party primaries in even numbered years. Committee members had to be residents and qualified voters of the district, ward, or precinct which they were elected to representParty controlling committees each elected an executive coiiimittee to vhich they granted powers.

If any vacancies occurred durirg the two year term of irembers of the party controlling committees, the executive committee could fill said vacancies by a majority vote of its mejubers.

E. Tlie Ballot

The form of the ballot used in Ohio was undoubtedly unfamiliar to many newcomers to the atomic area. Since 1949 Ohio has operated under an office type ballot. This system, adopted by a Constitu­ tio n a l amendjient, places the names of all candidates for an o ffice in a group under the title of the office. The nanes on the ballot are rotated as fa r as possible, so that each candidate's name appears an equal number of times at the beginning, end, and at each intermediate place under the office for which he is running.

Discussing progress under the office type ballot in Ohio, one w riter commented in 1951: The Ohio public, haviig voted for the anendaent, seems to have proceeded uncomplaingly to mark ballots in the new way. But, as was to be expected, there

^^Ibid.. sec. 3517.03, p. 143 . 35ibid.. sec. 3517.0 2 , p. 143. 36lbid.. sec. 3517.03, p . 144. 160

■was more split ticket voting and also, an increased disposition to get tired of following the party label down the lo% ballot leaving minor offices unmarked altogether.^'

The office type ballot was an attempt to reduce the influence of a popular Gubernatorial candidate, like Lausche, upon candidates for oth er offices, since i t eliminated th e p arty c ir c le which permitted straight ticket voting.

F. Conclusion

Inasmuch as the Constitution of Ohio maices only general reference to a g e, c it iz e n s h ip , and residence, the General Asseiiibly has enacted election laws which control party activities and provide fo r the ad­ ministration of elections. The election code in 1954 contained such modern features as a permanent registration system and r e g u la tio n of political parties.

Very few cases involving judicial interpretation of the election code have reached the higher co u rts from the four county area. How­ e v e r , th e interpretation of such provisions as residence and registra­ t i o n have had an important effect on these counties. Residence quali­ fications in relation to trailer iriiabitants and the intention of permanence of tiie area received careful scrutiny of election officials, and caused concern among party leaders. The bipartisan makeup of

Ohio county aLection boards did not expedite the solution of some of these election problems.

Against this general interpretation of election laws, an

37iigffects of Ohiio' s Hew Ballot Form," National Municipal Review, %L (July, 1951), p. 367. 161 analysis of party leadership and organization and the practical effects of voting requiï-anents in the four counties in 195 A w ill be undertaken next. CHAPTER VI

POLITICAL PARTIES AND THE NEW VOTERS

By 1954 there was a large bloc o f potential voters which the major political parties in the four county area had to consider

seriously. Atoiïiic Plant construction workers and permanent per­

sonnel had been moving into the area since late in 19)2, and local

Republican and Democratic Party organizations were faced with the problem of gauging the possible effect of this great influx of population upon party and voting behavior in the area. In this chapter the party leadership and organizations will be considered, as well as threats, prospects, and action taken by the Republican and Democratic organizations in 1954.

Potential voters were confronted with the problem of meeting legal requirements under Ohio law, which was analyzed in the preceding chapter. A discussion of the specific local problem is undertaken in the concluding section of this chapter.

A. Party Leadership and Organization

(1 ) Jackson County

In 1954 leadership of the Jackson County Republican organization was in the hands of tvo men, Fred Rice and James J. McKitterick.

Rice was Republican Party campaign manager for the 1954 election and had served as Chairman of the Republican County Executive Com­ mittee. He was president of the local Rotary Club, and formerly was president of the Southeastern Ohio Regional Council and the

Jackson County Fair Board. McKitterick was Chairman of the Republican

162 163 County Executive Committee in 1954. There seemed to be a close vjorking relationship between them which might lead to the assump­ tio n that Rice had only nominally re tire d as head of the local

Republican Party organization.

Harold E. Rowe was Chairman of the Democratic County Executive

Committee and of the County Central Committee and had retained these positions for over twenty years. He was also the State Central

Commiitteaman for the Tenth Congressional D istrict.

Rice attributed the strength of the Jackson County Republican organization to tight party organization and capable candidates which the party supported for election. The party organisation was backed by three of the four newspapers in the county. However, two of these were published by the same company which controlled the only Democratic newspaper.

The opposition party leader, Harold Rowe, also commended the

Republican organization, adding that it had at its disposal adequate financial resources to run its campaigns. Neither Republican nor

Democratic Party leaders were well satisfied with newspaper support received by th eir p artie s during an election campaign.

Local leadership of both major parties was in the hands of individuals long experienced in their roles. The Republican Party was well entrenched as the majority party, while the Democratic

Party organization, through its leader, evidenced a defeatist attitude. This was not at all surprising in view of the county's voting record noted in the preceding chapters. 164 (2) Pike County

Leadership of the Democratic Party organization revolved for

the most part around the County Court House. Vdien questioned

about local Democratic leadership residents of Pike County usually

mentioned a prominent local attorney, the County Prosecutor, the

County Auditor, the Common Pleas Judge, and the Probate Judge.

George Nye, the prominent local attorney, was very much in

the political limelight. He was a son o f Dr. Wye, P ik e County

Democratic leader in the 1890's and early 1900's, who was instru­

mental in overcoming the Democratic slump of 1894 to 1903. George

D. Nye had extensive p o l i t i c a l experience on the local and state

levels. He was a candidate for U.S. Representative in 1928, but was defeated in the district. He la te r served as Pike County

Prosecuting Attorney and County Judge. Un the state level he was

Lieutenant Governor from 1944 to 1946, and from 1948 to 1952, during which time Frank J. Lausche was Governor. Nye was defeated in h is

b id fo r reelection to t h is o ffic e in 1946 and 1952. While he did

not hold an official party position in 1954 , he was running for

Lieutenant Governor on the Democratic ticket, and was active in the

county's Democratic Party organization.

The Democratic Party's County Executive Committee Chairman in

1954 was Wray Sevens. A longtime resident of th e county, he had

been graduated from Beaver High School in 1925 and subsequently

received his law degree from the Ohio State University Law School.

After serving as Executive Secretary to Governor Davey in 1937, he 165 became the head of the Division of Aid for the Aged in Ohio. In

1954 he was the County Prosecuting Attorney^ a post vhich he had held since 1948.

Wilbur M. Cool was Secretary of the Democratic Executive Com­ mittee as well as precinct captain for one of the twoprecincts in

Aaverly Village. A native of Pike County, he had served as County

Auditor since 1935.

Leadership of the Democratic organisation was intertwined with the county office holders. While it would be speculation to single out the most influential individual in the organisation, it was discernible that the small group at the Court House, plus the guiding hand of a former county official, constituted the core of the party.

The Republican Party organisation was under the leadership of

John W. Sword, County Ciiairman of the Republican Party Executive

Committee, at the time of the November, 1954, election. Although a property owner in the county since 1920, he did not take up permanent residence tie re until 1938, when he retired from active duty with the United States Army. He served on the County Republi­ can Executive Coramittee from 1938 to 1942, and became Chairman of this committee in 1944 .

Another influential person in the County Republican organiza­ tion was Russell A. Malrick, who moved into Pike County in 1952.

Although originally from Michigan, he came to the county from

Dayton, Ohio. A local attorney, v;ith offices in Waverly aid Piketon, he received his law degree from Toledo University Law School. 166

Despite his recent arriva], on the local scene Malrick was deeply involved in Republican politics by the 1964 c a m p a i g n . He served as a Republican member o n t h e County Board of Elections, and was

Chairman o f the C o m m it t e e for the Sixth District Republican Con­ gressional candidate, Leo Blackburn. There was some c r i t i c i s m of his holding the two positions sim ultaneously, b u t t h i s vould not s e e m t o be a v a l i d complaint in view of the fact that his County

Election Board p o s i t i o n was recognized as a partisan o n e , as n oted in Chapter V.

The general consensus of Pike County Democratic Party leaders was that their s t r e n g t h could be attributed t o a record o f s a t i s ­ factory administrators, their active and cohesive political o r g a n i ­ z a t i o n , and to their winning over to Democratic Party ranks many f o r m e r Republicans. kith t h i s last reason the Republican leader.

Sword, agreed. It w a s a particularly unpleasant fact to him that th e Democratic organization was able to induce Republicans to join their fold. No specific reason was given f o r this phenomenon, alth ough o n e may hazard the guess that i t was caused by p a r t y rewards, or possibly a mere desire to be on the w i n n i n g s id e . To a l l appearances the Pike County Democratic group w a s a sjuooth running, alert, active organization.

The R epublican organization was hainpercd by a d e f e a t i s t a t t i ­ tu d e, apathy among i t s members, and th e lack of sufficient fin d s to combat successfully the Democratic organization. The Republican l e a d e r s ' ta sk was far from easy, since Republicans were outnumbered 167 two to one in the county, and the Democratic organization had an

impressive record of victories as noted in Chapters III and IV.

This defeatist attitude was similar to the attitude of the Demo­

cratic organization in Jackson County, where Republicans had scored the greatest number of victories. The long series of victories b y one p a r t y in Jackson and Pike Counties led to a loss of driving

spirit on the p a r t o f t h e m in o r ity p a r t y organizations. One optimistic note in the Pike C o u n t y Republican organization was the active role of Russell Malrick, a newcomer on the scene, who desired to make the local Republican Party into an effective organization.

W h e t h e r o r n o t t h i s could be accomplished remained to be seen, but i t was a h e a l t h y sign for the Republican organization.

(3 ) Ross County

The Democratic organization in R oss County was headed by G erald

E. Radclixfe. He was new to the party leadership, having served as

Chairman of tire Democratic Executive Committee o n l y since the spring o f 1951* P r i o r t o tliat time he h a d been Secretary of the County

Executive Committee. Radclifi'e was a practicing a t t o r n e y i n the c o u n t y .

Another Democratic P a r t y leader was Burton Stevenson, also a local attorney. A longtime resident of the c o u n t y , Stevenson had m o v e d away and returned to C hillicothe after 1950. In October,

1954, h e was Mayor of C hillicothe, the first Democratic mayor of th a t c i t y sin ce 1937 . While he did not hold an official position i n th e Democratic organization, he was c l o s e l y allied vdth R a d c l i f f e 168

and an active leader in the organization.

The Chairman of the Republican Party E x ecu tiv e Conn nit tee y;as

Josef E. Clark. He had been active in politics for many years,

was currently serving as County Engineer, and had become Republican

State Central Conuiâtteaman from the Sixth D istrict in the spring of

1954* Another Ross Count!an, Mrs. Madeline Hoyt, shared the

Republican linelight with Clark. She was th e Republican State

Central Comraitteevjoman from th e Sixth D istrict, and was regarded

as a competent leader of the women's organization in Ross County.

Mrs. Hoyt's entrance into politics came about as a favor to Mrs.

Martha Tai't, wife of the late Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio.

The local Democratic Party had been reorganized in May, 1954, when th e old painty leaders were replaced by a group of forty-five inSLu-gents, -,ho had become dissatisfied with the older loaners' manageJiient of the jxirty's affairs. The reorganization undoubtedly caused b itte r f e e l i n g w ithin tie group. Party leaders complained o f meagre fin a n cia l r e s o u r c e s which hampered the conduct of a successful campaign . In a d d itio n , i t was d if f ic u lt for tiie newly constituted group to build a strong organization, and organize precinct worlcers q u ic k ly enough to counter the well trained Republi­ can group. Furthermore, the Democratic organization suffered the disadvantage of being the m in o rity party, as indicated in Chapter

IV, Ross County had polled Republican majorities since 1940, except in Gubernatorial co n tests.

In contrast to the Democratic group, the Republican Party 169

leadership vjas tvell established. It w a s a s m o o t h running organiza­

tio n , w h o s e leaders were satisfied with the efficiency of their

group. Opposition party leaders, deploring their lack o f funds,

claimed t h e Republican organization was w e l l established finan­

cially. Republican l e a d e r s appeared confident of success at t h e

forthcoming election.

(4 j Scioto County

Tiie Democratic Party was under the leadership of Dan n. B r u s h a r t , who was e m p l o y e d by the N o r f o l k and western Railway Company in Ports­

mouth. Brushart held t h e chairmanship o f both county committees,

the Central Committee and the Executive Committee. He reasoned that

th is dual chiairraanship was established in order t o f o r e s t a ll

friction between t h e two principal county committees and t h e r e b y

achieve a more efficiently operating group. This arrangement was

sim ilar to tiie one noted in the Democratic Party i n Jackson County, where Harold R ow e served as Chairman o f both county com mittees.

Brushart w a s a l s o one of the Democratic meabers of th e S cioto

County Board of Elections.

w hile Dan Brushart was Chairman o f t h e p arty committees, Carson

Barklow also had an active role in the party leadership. A lif e lo n g

r esid en t o f t h e county, B a r x lo w was the County Engineer in 1954.

He was Chairman of th e p a r t y cojiuiittees f r o m 1946 t o 1954, a t w hich

time he gladly relinquished them to the present chairman, because

th e p o s i t i o n s consuraed too m u ch o f h i s t i m e . However, he was w e ll

versed on his party's activities, and was far from a retired leader. 170

The leader of tte Republican Party organization ',vas Roy Martin, who was associated with Portsmouth branch of a life insurance company. He was Ciiairman of the Republican Party County Executive

Committee and acted as campaign manager for his party in the 1954 election. The Chairnan of the County Central Committee was Harry

0. Potts, who also iield the position of Deputy County Auditor in

Scioto County. To the observer he appeared to be a nominal leader oixly.

Republican and Democratic Party organizations were both well organized in Scioto County in 1954. As noted from patterns of voting in the past, Scioto County was a variable county in respect to party support. The organizations were certainly more evenly matched in Scioto County than in Pike or Jackson Counties. Of the four counties under study in the 1954 General Election, Scioto

County stood out as one in which a strong two party system prevailed. Both organizations were cautious and aware of th e ir adversaries' strength.

B. Tiireats and Prospects

The presence of the many new residents posed various threats to existing political organizations in the area. These could materialize or rejuain dormant, but the very possibility that some of them could materialize made the political parties keenly aware of th eir exis­ tence. Party leaders and the organizations gave serious consideration to these problems, and then decided whether any direct action was necessary to meet them. Three key issues were involved: (l) the 171 politics of the nevj voter (2) possible alteration of traditional patterns of voting^ and (3) infiltration of established party organizations.

(l) The Politics of the New Voter

One problem in the atoMc area vms to ascertain the probable p o litic a l lo y alties of the newcomers. I t was desirable to know whether either major party would benefit from the population in­ crease. Attention was focused upon the construction workers in the

1954 election, since many were eligible to vote. On the other hand, the permanent workers, whetever their political beliefs, had only begun to move in to the area and most of them were not eligible to participate in the 1954 election.

The general consensus of the Republican and Democratic leaders in the area was that the construction workers would support the

Democratic Party. A Pike County Democratic leader approximated 74/i of the construction workers had come from the South, and vould probably vote Democratic. A Republican leader of Pike County estimated that about 80% of the construction workers were Democratic.

Several Republican leaders in the four county area believed that the Goodyear permanent workers would support th eir party, while these leaders expected slight help in 1954, in the long run the permanent workers were considered beneficial to their party.

Republican leaders in Pike County hoped for a possible revitaliza­ tion of th eir party, if they received support of permanent personnel. A Dejuocratic leader in Pike County and one in Ross 172 County countered that this was an erroneous assumption, and that

Republicans could rely only upon top executives and those in supervisory positions for party support. The reraainder of the permanent personnel, as union laborers, would probably be Demo­ cratic. This position undoubtedly had some fle.rit.

If the general assumption concerning the construction w riters were correct, it was the Democratic Party in the area that might look for an increase in its voting power in the 195A e le c tio n .

At the same time the Republican Party organizations might be wary of any move by the construction workers to take part in the

General Ele ction.

(2) Possible Alteration of Traditional Patterns of Votina

The second threat was the possibility that the newcomers vould affect traditional patterns of voting in the four counties. As already indicated, Jackson and Pike Counties had consistent patterns, whereas Ross and Scioto Counties were more variable in their support.

On the basis of the above assumption, Pike County would remain

Democratic and, if anytiiing, be strengthened by the construction newcomers' vote. This vjas also the a ttitu d e of the Pike County

Democratic leaders, although there was a difference of opinion con­ cerning the extent to which the construction workers would actually participate in the 1954 election.

The pattern of voting in Jackson County would, in aH probabil­ ity, also remain unchanged, since very few construction vorkers had 173 migrated to the county. It would have taken a tremendous influx

of construction workers to overcome the Republican advantage.

Therefore, it was not too surprising to find party leaders in

Jackson County complacent about the atomic workers.

Ross and Scioto Counties had demonstrated less staunch support

for Republican candidates than Jackson County and might be affected more seriously by balloting of the construction workers. In recent years Ross County voters had shown a tendency to support Democratic

Gubernatorial candidates and Scioto County had exhibited such

tendencies in respect to Democratic Gubernatorial and Congressional

candi dates.

The Goodyear permanent personnel posed a long range turoblem.

They were very few in number compared with the construction workers

in 1954 j arjd woulu not be a la rg e enough group to deserve careful

scrutiny u n til 19$6.

(3) Infiltration of Old Party Organisations

The third threat was the possibility that many of the newcomers might actively participate in party organizations. If enougti of them

did so, they could pose a threat to the established leadership,

wnile the party chieftains could probably re ta in control, i t jnight

be prudent to make some concessions to the new element. The p arties could g arable on widespread political apathy among the new

residents, but th is would be a risk, since a relatively small group

of active newcomers might cause dissension within the party ranks.

As has been noted, the organizations of both parties were 174 firm ly established in Jackson County. In Pike and Scioto Counties

the Democratic Party organizations were under strong leadership.

The Republican Party organization in Pike County was one of long

standing, but was relatively wealc, while the Republican group in

Scioto County was comparatively new. Ross County Republicans were

well organized and strong, while the Democratic organization was

suffering growing pains. Newly reorganized political groups might

have more trouble coping with the situation than those which were

firmly entrenched.

C. Action by the Parties

The General Election of November, 1954, was the f ir s t te st of

the p o litic a l consciousness of the newcomers. In the face of

possible heavy newcomer participation, each organization had to

determine what type of action was advisable to ire et its particular problems. The parties desired to increase their strength, if

possible, or at le a st to maintain the status quo. Ttiis was a

unique experience for the party organizations in the area, since the population of the area had remained sta tic fo r so many years.

Scioto County Republican leadership expressed concern over the large number of construction residents, and foresaw probable trouble

ahead if they voted in large numbers. The Democratic leaders were divided on the is sue, one believin g the new corner s were too apathetic regarding the franchise, wnile the other expressed great interest in the newcomers and was anxious that no obstacles be placed in the way of th is group of potential friendly voters. 175 Pike County Democratic leaders exhibited. the most intense interest in the construction mrkers and were prepared to make use of them, if possible. Pilce County Republican leaders expected no iamedi ate advantage and were only in terested in the possible effect of Goodyear personnel in later elections.

Four courses of action were noted in the study of the area.

These were assim ilation of new residents, passive acceptance of tiie newcomers, active use of the newcomers, and the placing of obstacles in the path of new residents demonstrating a desire to vote or taiæ part in the political process. The canvass and the principal courses of action followed by the party organisations in each of the counties in the atomic area w ill be considered next.

(1) Canvass of the Hew Voter

The first action taken by some of the party organizations in the area was to determine the eligibility of tiie newcomers to vote.

Potential voters were canvassed to gain this information. The organizations were interested in obtaining an estim ate of the probable voting strength of the new residents, and such data as the last voting residence of these persons, their u su al party support, and their probable length of residence in the atomic area. In

Jackson County the Republican Party canvassed a portion of the atomic vorkers and determined th at many lacked the necessary voting qualifications. The Republican leadership seemed happy to learn th at some of the pe mane nt workers were locating in the county.

However, most of the permanent personnel were unable to vote in 176 1954, since they fa ile d to meet the residence requirement. The

Democratic Party in Jackson County put forth l i t t l e effort to

ascertain the p o litic s of the newcomers. There was no indication

of any widespread canvass of the atomic workers.

In Pike County the Democratic Party organization carried out

the most vigorous and extensive canvass of any party in the area.

This p o litic a lly active group had i t s workers canvass as many of

the newcomers as possible. Vihen staunch Democrats were located

among Atomic Energy Plant workers these persons were enlisted by

the party organization to conduct a canvass in their particular

neighborhood. In this manner the regular Democratic organization

was able to collect information concerning the newcomers with

greater facility. Since the Republican organization was weak,

lacking in money, and did not expect to gain support from construc­ tion workers anyivay, it did not undertake an extensive canvass.

The Republican organization did canvass two of the Federal Housing

Administration projects and one of the trailer courts in an e ffo r t to solicit support of any who might be favorable to their cause.

In Ross County neither the Republican nor the Democratic organization undertook an extensive canvass of the new voters. The

Republican Party probably surmised that it would not gain much

support from the construction workers. However, it did canvass the atomic Energy EstabLisiiment executives and the Goodyear workers.

The Democratic Party was too concerned over its internal problems,

and also lacked the trained organization to conduct a proper canvass 177 of the atomic construction personnel.

In Scioto County the Republican Party organization canvassed

several areas in v;hich construction workers resided, but di.scon­ tinued the project when the results tended to indicate that the newcomers did not favor their party's interests. The Republican organization did attempt to seek supporters ajnong the permanent workers who were eligible to vote. The Democratic Party organiza­ tion of Scioto County canvassed the atomic voters, but did not carry on as dynamic a campaign as the Pike County Democratic organization.

(2) Direct Action

(a) Assimilation of the hew Residents

As a result of its canvass, the Republican Party of Jackson

County decided that there were not enough construction v»rkers to pose a threat to the organization, even if they should become active politically. On the other liand, there was a group of perma­ nent workers moving into the county, whom the Republicans hoped to woo to their cause. The plan was to a.ssiniilate these new residents into the community and to gain their support when they became eligible to participate in future elections. Many of the Goodyear personnel had already become active in local social clubs and in community a c tiv itie s.

(b) Passive Acceptance of the Nev,'comers

Democratic organizations of Jackson and Ross Counties pursued a policy of passive acceptance of the newcomers. They did not go out 178 to solicit their support. In Jackson County there -were not enougi'i

construction w rkers to stimulate the Democrats to take positive

action. Possibly this lethargic attitude also stemmed from the

fact that the Democratic organization had been the m inority party

for so long. In Ross County the Democratic Party did not make a

concerted drive to bring out the newcomers. I f the newcomers made overtures to vote their support was accepted. A more positive

stand on the part of the Democratic Party in Ross County might

have strengthened its standing in the county.

(c) Active Use of the Newcomers

In both Pike and Scioto Counties the approach used by the

Democratic organisations was active use of the newcomers. In Pike

County an extensive canvass of the Atomic Energy Plant workers had revealed a large number of construction vorkers who favored tiie

Democratic Party. The party organisation sent out workers to inform the eligible voters of the voting requirements^ and a c tiv e ly sought their support at the polls. For its self-protection the

Pike County Democrats chose tiiis method of direct contact. The new residents would have outnumbered the regular party supporters in the county had most of them chosen to vote. For example, it was estimated that in the village of Aaverly alone, the atomic workers outnumbered the natives by two to one.

In Scioto County the Democratic organization sought active support from the atomic w rkers, although not as thorough a pro gram was undertaken as in Pike County. The Democratic program to get out 179 the vote may have been carried out in a haphazard manner, but the

Republican organization vjas clearly viorried about the vote of the new residents.

(d) Obstacles to Prevent the Newcomers from Voting

In several instances the technique of forestalling the voting of the newcomers by placing obstacles in th eir way was employed.

These obstacles took the form of challenging qualifications of new voters during registration or at the polls, a scare campaign to keep them away from the po lls, legal loopholes in the election laws, and the hostility of lesser officials. These were put into effect because of fear of the strength of the newcomers' party support.

Examples of tiiis type of a ctiv ity were manifested in Ross and

Scioto Counties. They may have been carried out with the tacit consent of the Republican organizations, although no proof o f this contention was found.

D. Registration

(1) Jackson County

There was no voter registration in Jackson County. Political leaders of both parties declared that registration had not been an issue in their county, and that a system of permanent registration was unnecessary. It was contended that precinct election judges personally knew the voters in their precincts and a system of registration would be a waste of time and money. The influx of nev)comers was comparatively small, and since many of them had settled in the Federal Housing Project, they could be checked at the polls 1 8 0 if the party watchers so desired. Newcomers could easily be

recognized, and th eir neighbors would remember how long they had lived in the precinct. Party watchers were ready to challenge newcomer voters who possibly lacked the proper qualifications.

It was highly improbable that a system of registration vjould be instituted in the county in the foreseeable future.

Prior to the influe-: of the Atomic Energy Installation workers the average number of voters going to the polls on election day in recent years in Jackson County was appro:-uLmately 12,000. For example, 11,175 voters cast their ballots in the Gubernatorial election of 1950, and 11,811 persons voted for this office in 1952.

An even larger number of voters participated in the Presidential election of 1952 when 12,206 persons cast ballots.

(2) Pike County

(a) The Fight for Registration

Pike County did not institute a registration system until 1953*

The pressure for commencing registration was exerted by the Republi­ can organization in th is county, and was opposed by the Democratic organization. The movement for a registration system began early in 1950, but was rejected by a tie vote of the Election Board and an adverse vote of a Democratic Secretary of State. Upon the election of a Republican Secretary of State in 1950, the registra­ tion issue was again brought up in Pike County. In March, 1951, a resolution for countywide registration was supported by the two

Republican members of the Board of Elections and opposed by the 1 8 1 Democratic members.^ The Republican Secretary of State, Ted V/.

Brovm, as chief election official, broke the tie and voted in

favor of registration. A taxpayer's suit held up registration in

1951 and 1952 .

The Republican organization claimed registration was necessary

to prevent fraudulent voting. The Democratic leaders vigorously

denied th is, and stated they were opposed to the idea primarily

because it was too costly, A Pike County Democratic leader claimed

th at Pilîe County, with approximately 7,000 voters, did not need

reg istratio n any more than neighboring Jackson County, with about

12,000 voters.

Final approval of reg istratio n came in December, 1952, when the

Election Board voted unanimously in its favor.^ Pike County

Democrats resigned themselves to the system of registration, declaring that the Republicans were mistaken if they thought they could outmaneuver the Democratic organization in a canvass to line up the voters.

(b) Registration in 1953 and 1951

In February, 1953 , the Pike County Election Board unanimously passed a motion to request aid from the Secretary of State in establishing an effective registration qystem.-^ The weekly news­ paper reported that reg istratio n had been discussed at the Election

Board meeting along with such other questions as additional election

^Pike County Board of Elections, Minutes of Meeting, March 28, 1951. ^I b id .. December 31, 1952. ^I b id ., February 25, 1953. 182 precincts and the problem of tr a ile r home voters, which had arisen

as a result of atomic workers moving into the county.^

In April, 1953, the Pike County Board of Elections met with

the Secretary of the Scioto County Election Board to deteimiine the

costs and procedures necessary for a countywide registration

system. The prediction was made that the voting strength of Pike

County might increase 3,000 in the November, 1953, election, raising the number of voters in the county from 7,000 to 10,000.

At this meeting the desirability of increasing the number of voting precincts in Pike County from nineteen to twenty-six was also 5 discussed.^ At the April meeting of the Board of Elections the cost of registration for Pike County was discussed and approximated at $6,500, which amount the Board requested from the Pike County

Commis sion ers. ^ By unanimous consent at their may iieeting, this amount was appropriated for a system of permanent reg istratio n on 7 a countywide basis.

The Secretary of the State of Ohio v isited the atomic area counties in July, 1953, to inspect voting facilities and aid in the preparation of plans for the registration of voters. He declared that a preliminary survey of Pike County led him to believe regis­ tra tio n would run between 8,000 and 10,000.^ James Drenrien,

^"Election Board Studies Effect of More Voters Here," Waverly Viiatchman, Feb. 26, 1953, p. 1, c o l . ? . 5"PÎke County Election Board Plans for 26 Precincts," waverly 'watchman, April 9, 1953, p. 1, col. 7. ^Pike County Board of Elections, Minutes of Meeting, April 13, 1953. 7l b i d . . May 27, 1953. Si'Brown Conducts Survey in Pike County to Anticipate Needs," baverly Watchman, July 23, 1953, p. 1, col. 6. 183 Democrat and Chairman of the Election Board, estimated the figure to be closer to 8,000.^ The first registration in tte history of the county took place on August 20, 22, and 26 in a ll nineteen voting p r e c i n c t s . registrars had attended a one day school conducted by state election officials on ilugast 18. After

August 26 all voters desiring to register had to appear at the office of the Board of Elections any time p rio r to forty days before the election.

The to ta l number of persons registering during the first tvio days of registration vjas very small compared with the county's normal voting strength. A f t e r two days of precinct registration the total number registered was only 2,250.^ By the end of the reg istratio n period in September, however, i t had risen to 12 6,079. This vjas far below the early predictions of 8,000 or

10,000 voters, and even below the 7,032 voting strength in tte 1952

General Election, hhile there were 6,079 registered voters, only

4,291 voters went to the polls in November, 1953.^^ Probably th is can be attrib u ted to the fa c t that there were only a few contests among village officials, and therefore little interest

9"Brown Expects Pike County Atomic iirea Voting Facilities to be Adequate," Aaverly 'watchman, Aug. 6, 1953, sec. 2, p. 2, col. 3. ^Ojij^ggistration at Régulai' Voting Place," baverlv News. Aug. 13, 1953 , p. 1, col. 1. ^^"Registration Lags in i'lll Precincts," waverly News. Aug. 27, 1953 , p. 1, col. 8. L2"6,079 Voters Eligible to Vote in Tuesday's Election," >

In July, 1954, the Pike County Board of Elections provided

for special registration in five areas of the county on five

different days.^^ By the end of the special registration period,

the total number of registered voters vms 6,586, an increase of

Only 507 over the 1953 reg istration f i g u r e . Registration vjas

continued at the County Election Board o ffic e u n til September 22.

Tt'O vjeekends prior to the closing date, this office vjas open

additional hours on Friday evening and Saturday afternoon. On the tvjenty-first and tvienty-second of September the office remained open u n til 9 P.E. Long lin es of voters waited to register on these last days of registration.

The final registration figure in Pike County fo r the November,

1954 , election was 7,680, an increase of 1,600 over the 1953 election figure and 642 registered voters above the to ta l vote cast in 1952.

The result proved only a an a 11 turnout in the heart of the atomic area. In 1954 the newcomers were either unable to meet reg istratio n requirements or indifferent to voting in tiie election.

(3) Ress County

(a) Registration Extended in 1952

A perjricU'jent system of voter registration had been instituted in Chillicothe in 1931- In 1952 it was extended to the rural areas of the county after a battle in which Republicans favored the move,

^^"Voters May Register at Five Branches," Aaverly News, July 13, 1954, p. 7, col. 6. 15iiVoters Slow to Register," Waverly News, Aug. 24, 1954, p. 1, col. 8. 18f> and Democrats opposed i t . The vote of the County Election Board resulted in a tie, vhich vjas broken by the Republican Secretary of

State. Since countywide registration had been established in Ross

County in time for the I 952 Presidential election, there had been some experience with its operation before the problem of registering the newcomers arose.

(b) Registration and the Newcomers

(1) The Contest over Registration at the Ross County Fair

In August, 1954 , Gerald E. Radcliffe, Chairman of the Democratic

Executive Committee, wrote to the Ross County Election Board requesting the establishing of a branch registration o ffic e at the county fair to be held in jiugust, 1954. he contended that, due to the increased population of Ross County and the large number of elig ib le but unregistered voters, the county fair j.light be an excellent place for these people to register to vote. The Cliief Clerk of the Board of Elections, Manning G. Coultrap, Republican, opposed the move on economic and leg al grounds.He declared that branch registration had been held previously in ten places and that in one of the branches not even one person had registered. I t was la te r ascer­ tained that the Ohio Election Laws could be broadly interpreted to permit registration at the f a ir if the Election Board so desired.

Under method (a) in Section 3503.12 of the Ohio Election Laws new registration branches could be established by the Board at

^^"Registration of Voters at Fair is Urged," Chillicothe Gazette. Aug. 6, 1954, ?• 1, col. 1. 186 convenient locations in diL’ferent parts of the county, yjhere

qualified persons might register or transfer their registration.""^

The local newspaper carried an editorial favoring registra­ tion at the fair because many thousands of persons would be

attracted to the fair and a large percentage of these persons would be from rural areas where registration was a fairly new experience. It was recognized, however, that i t might not be easy to establish proper registration procedures at the county fair.^ ^

The Board of Elections ruled against Radcliffe's suggestion, stating that the county fair was not a proper place for registration, since t h e persons in charge of registration would not be trained election officials, a n d would not be fa n ilia r with the mechanics of reg istratio n .^^ Furthermore, i t was argued, such a system of registration w o u l d be costly to jiiaintain, aid many duplications in re g istra tio n ad ght occur, which would only increase the work of election officials. A final plea was made by the Democratic

Chairman a week la te r, in which he urged that such reg istratio n would be leg al, and that r e g u l a r employees of the Board of

Elections could be utilized at tir e fair* grounds. He added that those from rural areas would find i t more convenient to reg ister at the fa ir than at the County Court House. Furthermore, the Atomic

^'^Ohio Election Laws Annotated (Brown, 1954), sec. 3503*12, p. 34. -^S"Register at Fair" (editorial), Chillicothe Gazette. Aug. 7, 1954 , -p. 6, col. 1. lyi'Board Against Registering Voters at Fair," Chillicothe Gazette, Aug. 9, 1954, p. 1, co l. 4. 187 Energy w rk ers •vvould have to take time from work to reg ister, and might suffer a loss of wages if fair registration were not per­ mitted.^'^ The plea was to no avail, and, when the decision of the

Election Board was appealed to the Secretary of State, he upheld the local Board's decision.

(2) Trouble with the Newcomers

During the registration period the Ross County Election Board did not decide upon a course of action in dealing viith trailer registrants. From observing election activities in November, one would surmise that the policy of Ross County electio n o ffic ia ls had been one of "wait and see".

vin incident involving one of the newcomers aroused the ire of several occupants of one trailer court. A wife of a construc­ tion vjori-cer at the iitoiiiic Plant, who had arrived in Ohio in

September, 1953, went to the office of the County Board of Elec­ tions to register to vote in the fall of 1954 « lifter stating her address, which was a local tr a ile r court, the Registrar cojiimented that here was another newcomer. Another clerk at the Board of

Elections challenged her right to vote. The potential voter was asked i f she were a permai-jent resident of Ohio, to which she replied that she was as permanent as anyone else in the county. The

Election clerk coun.tered that the newcomers were in the area for tejaporai'j purposes and had no right to take part in the elections.

^'^"Registration at Fair Urged Anew by Radcliffe," Chillicothe Oazette, iiug. 17, 1954, p. 1, col. 3- 188 Finally the newoomer was permitted to register^ with the remark that

her card would be kept aside, since the Board hadn't decided what to

do about such cases. The newcomer, thoroughly angered over the

treatment received, spread her story through the trailer camp. Her

husband had registered a few days prior to th is incident, and had

not encountered any d ifficu lty . He had given a ru ral address,

however, which did not indicate that ije lived in a tra ile r court.

The Election Board did not g i v e the new registrant any notice of

action on her reg istratio n , and she did not know u n til a p p e a r i r g at

the polls whether or not her registration would be honored.

The above incident was the only one of this type noted in Boss

County, but it demonstrated the bias h e l d by some of the officials t O M a r d the newcomers. Tte half-hearted challenge and the brandish­ ing of election laws in the face of a potential registrant might have frightened a less forceful person than this woman in the example from registering and going to the po lls. Another person in the same trailer court stated that she did not register because it was not vjorth the f i g h t with election o ffic ia ls . The few newcomers who did register, however, were permitted to vote, and were not challenged at the polls. The Chief Cleric of the Ross County Board of Elections declared that the cards of trailer registrants were kept aside until the Secretary of State's election division was contacted regarding the proper course of action. They were notified that registrations should be accepted as valid in this instance and no further action should be taken unless formal protests were lodged. 189 As mentioned in Chapter V, trailer residents were permitted to

vote as long as they claimed the trailer homes were their permanent

abode. The interpretation rested upon the "intent" of the nev;

registrants. So long as the newcomers considered themselves permanent reg istran ts and vould sv;ear to the validity of statements on registration cards, they were permitted to vote. One election o f f ic ia l stated that he always reminded nev; registrants of the penalties involved in making false statements.

(3) The Final Figures for 1954

A t the close of the re g istra tio n period in Ross County 24,818 persons were eligible to vote in the November, 19% , election com­ pared with 24,573 who were registered in 1952. Thus the number of registrants increased only 245 between 1952 and 1954. However, it must be considered that after each General E lection a number of voters lose their eligibility to vote through failure to exercise the franchise within a two year period. The actual number of new reg istratio n s handled by the Ross County Board of Elections in

1954 was about 1,200.^

(4) Scioto County

(a) Count?/wide Registration

(l) The Contest over E^ctension

As already noted, Portsmouth had instituted a periodic reg is­ tration systciiL as early as 1900. with tiie revision of the election

2T"24,818 E ligible to Vote in Ross County," Chillicothe Gazette, Oct. 2, 1954, p. 1, col. 1. 190 laws In 1930 Portsmouth came under a system of pemianent reg istra­

tion. The move toviai-d countywide registratio n began in January,

1931 , when the Scioto County Board of Elections requested #9,800

from the County Commissioners to defray the expenses of establish- 22 ing a system of permanent reg istratio n on a countyn^jide basis.

At the February meeting, the Board of Elections, by unanimous

decision, passed a resolution to extend permanent reg istratio n to

all areas of the county not previously affected. The extension

of registration was considered necessary since rural precincts had become densely populated, and election officials could not, with reasonable diligence, check on all persons presenting themselves to vote. The Republican member who submitted the resolution also declared countywide reg istratio n would prevent fraud and irregu­ larities in elections . 23

In April, 1931, the Board of Elections passed a motion by unanimous vote that a le tte r be sent to the County Commissioners asking for a formal reply to their January r e q u e s t . xhe County

Commissioners, having a Democratic majority, replied that they w ere unable to give a position or a negative answer to the n atter at present, but that there were insufficient funds to defray the cost of registration. 25

The necessary funds were still not appropriated by larch,

09 Scioto County Board of Elections, iHnutes of Meeting. Jan,^29, 1931, p. 703. f^^Ibid., Feb. 13, 1951 , p. 707, ^^Ibid., April 30, 1951, p. 71^ 2>I b id .. May 28, 1951, p. 723. 191 1952.26 At the March meeting of the Scioto County Board of Elec­

tions Dan Brushart, one of the Democratic members, submitted a

resolution th at, since funds for countyivide re g istra tio n had not

been appropriated and could only be made available at the curtail­

ment of normal operating funds of other county offices, the idea

of extending registration be dropped for 1952. The subsequent vote

was a tie , with the Democrats sustaining the aiotion, and tlie Repub­

lican members opposing i t . Tiie matter was submitted to the Secretary 27 of state for his decision. ‘ Ted W. Brown, Republican, voted

against the resolution and asked the Board to proceed immediately

to set up a countywide reg istratio n system. 28

At the April ?th meeting a Republican member of the Board,

Mr. Johnley, presented a resolution that the Board of Elections

ask the Conmon Pleas Court of Scioto County to fix the amount

necessary to be appropriated for permanent registration. The Prose­

cuting Attorney was requested to file this application, and to do

any and all things necessary toward a final determination of the

problem. There was another tie vote, with the Republicans voting 29 in favor of and the Democrats against the measure. The Secretary

of State again broke the tie by voting in favor of the resolution

along with the Republican members.

"^The County Comnission was composed of three men, two Democrats and one Republican. ^Scioto County Board of Elections, linutes of Meetinjx March 2i+, 1952* p. 820. ^ Ibid., April 7, 1952, p. 821. "^^ibid., p. 822. .192 (2) Court Action

The Coirimôn Pleas Court of Scioto County fixed the estimated cost at #9,067 rather than $9^800, since ^>733 already had been spent for registration. When the County Cominis si oners s t i l l fa ile d to act the Election Board sued for a va-i t of niandamus in the Fourth

District Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals allovjed the vjrit, ordering the County Commissioners to appropriate the amount stipu­ lated by the Common Pleas Court for county,vide reg istratio n .

The County Commissioners appealed the decision of the Court of Appeals to the Ohio Supi’eme Court. In the case of The State ex re l. Ball et a l.. Board of Elections of Scioto County vs. Board of

County Commissioners of Scioto County, the Supreme Court rendered i t s decision in favor of the Board of E lections. The County Com­ missioners had set forth as its principal defense that it ivas impossible to appropriate the necessary money for registration, since there were insufficient unappropriated funds available. The Supreme

Court of Ohio declared the record clearly established that, after the Board of Commissiomrs had appropriated the available money, there was still sufficient cash in the treasury to meet the expenses 30 of countywide permanent registration. The opinion quoted Sec.

4785.20 of the Ohio General Code, which provided in p a rt:

The expenses of the board in each county shall be paid from the county treasury, in pursuance of appro­ priation s by the county commissioners. .. I f the county

30The State ex rel. Ball et al. . Board of Elections of Scioto County vs. Board of County Commissioners of Scioto County (1953)j 159 O.S. 114. 193 coiiuîiissioœrs fail to appropriate an amount sufficient' to provide for the necessary and proper expenses of the board, the board may apply to the court of common pleas vdtiiin the county, which shall f ix the amount necessary to be appropriated and such amount shall be appropriated.31

The Supreme Court stated that the above provision was mandatory

and affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Countywide reg istra tio n became operative in time for the

November, 1953, election. Opposition to the extension of regis­ tra tio n had stemmed from the Democratic organization, which termed it a waste of money, and also thought that many of its supporters would lose the franchise. The Republican organization endorsed the extension of registration as necessary to prevent fraudulent voting. This was denied by Democratic leaders who declared, as had th e ir Pike County p o litic a l counterparts, that there was little, i f any, ille g a l voting in the county. Republican election offi­ cials reasoned that with new families coming into the area as a result of the Atoinic Energy Plant, countywvide registration was essential to the proper conduct of elections. Furthermore, it was stated that rural precinct workers, who, many years ago, i-uiew a ll the voters in their jorecinct, no longer knew all their neighbors due to the increase in population.33

(b) Trailer Contests

(1) Formal P rotests Lodged Against Trailer Registrants

33-lb id . 3^Ibid. 33"Supreme Court Upholds Registration of Voters," Portsmouth Times., March 11, 1953, p. 1, col. 6. 194 In several of the rural precincts a number of trailer resi­ dents registered to vote in the November^ 1954, election. The

Democratic organization was encouraged by the political interest shown, and expected support from these new registrants. On the other hand, the Republican organization was worried over the number of trailer registrants, and desired to frighten as many away from the polls as possible.

Objections were file d by two longtime residents of Valley

Township against a group of trailer residents, charging that the newcomers fa ile d to meet the one year residence requirement in Ohio.

The p ro tests were file d against eleven of the trailer residents, each of whom was notified by registered jnail to appear before a special session of the Board of Elections to justify his retention on the re g istra tio n lis ts .

(2) Special Meeting of Scioto County Board of Elections,

Oct. 29, 1954.

The Board of Elections held a special evening meeting on the

Friday night preceding the 1954 General Election to hear formal protests against the trailer registrants. Objections were based upon trailer license records, which indicated that the tr a ile r residents had arrived in the county less than one year before. The cases involving the eleven persons were heard and determined as follows: (1 and 2) LIr. and Mrs. Buddie R. S itch ler proved th eir

34ii'jï>ailer Folk to be Heard on Vote R ights,” Portsmouth Times. Oct. 27, 1954, p. 13, col. 6. 195 residence by declaring that they had rented a trailer in August,

1953 , when they first arrived, and had purchased one of their own

in 1954 . They also subjnitted the report card of their daughter,

who had entered the Valley Township School in the fall of 1953.

(3) Marvin Edwards was also able to substantiate his length of

residence by presenting his original registration at Sun Valley

Trailer Court dated October 18, 1953 . He had reregistered on

May 19 , 1954 . (4) William Dixon produced acceptable proof tlirough

a trailer park receipt, which showed his date of arrival as

Novonber 1, 1953. (5 and 6) Mr. and Mrs. P hilip McCreary were

retained on the registration lists when they affirmed that, vjhile

they arrived i n Scioto County on June 16, 1954, they had resided

in Licking County, Ohio, five months p rio r to that date. This was long enough to f u lf i l l the residence requirement in Ohio.

(7) Robert Hagler could not appear before the Board, but appeared before the Cleric of the Board of Elections on Friday morning.

He produced a union receipt dated September 28, 1953, and was passed by the Board as a qualified elector. These seven persons were all retained on the votirg lists.

In the other four cases the trailer residents were declared

ineligible to vote. These cases involved the following persons

and facts; (1 and 2) Mr* and Mrs. Harvey London faile d to appear

at the hearing. The trailer license records showed that they had

•^^Scioto County Board of E lections, Minutes of Meeting , Oct. 29, 1954 , pp. 1152- 1153. 196 arrived January 20, 1954, and that Mr. London had been employed at the Atomic Plant on the same day. The objection was sustained.

(3) Thomas E. Fleming appeared at the office, but could not be located when called to testify. His trailer record indicated th at he had arrived on Mai’ch 1, 1954. The challenger stated tiiat

Fleming had told him, when polling the precinct, that he had not been in the area long enough to vote. (4) Dorothy Discs Barber also did not appear at the hearing. Evidence was introduced that, on an automobile insurance application, she had listed that she came to Ohio in December, 1953. The objection to her re g istra tio n was sustained.

The protests raised by the Republicans were sustained in four cases out of eleven. The principal purpose of the protests was to frighten as juany of the trailer registrants as possible from appearing at the p o lls on election day. One of the challenged persons reported later, in an interview with tiie author, that the hearings had been fairly conducted, but that she and her husband did not intend to be cheated out of their lawful right to vote.

During the hearing the challenger accused these people of beirg temporary residents of the state. A member of the Election Board replied that this vjas not an is sue, and the Board could determine merely if die se persons had lived in the state long enough to vote.

The protests received publicity, but it is doubtful whether they achieved their purpose. Instead of frightening trailer registrants

36Ib id . 197 away from the polls, these challenges merely served to antagonise those who had lawfully registered.

(c) 1951 Registration Figures

The 1951 reg istratio n figure in Scioto County was 10,935, an increase of 3,717 voters over 1953, when the to ta l number of reg is­ tered voters was 37,218. Greatest gains were made in rural precincts, where the increase was 3,538 above the 1953 figure. It must be remembered, however, that registration had been in e ffe c t in the rural areas for only one year, and many of tlie new regis­ trants included old timers, wiio had not registered to vote in

1953 , as well as newcomers to the area.

E. Conclusion

In the four county atomic area local political leaders tried to determine whether the newcomers would constitute a threat to the established political organizations. Jackson County Democratic and Republican organizations made no further move than to conduct a b rief canvass of the newcomers in the county.

In Ross County tile Republican Party organization was uncon­ cerned about the newcomers, due to the lack of initiative on the part of the Democratic organization to interest atomic workers in registering and voting.

The leaders of the Democratic Party in Pike and Scioto Counties exhibited an enthusiastic attitude toward the newcomers and strove to gain their allegiance. The Republican Party organization in

Pike County was too weak to malæ a counter move to block the active 198 program of the Democratic organization. On the other hand, the

Republican Party organization in Scioto County made direct attempts to capture supporters from the ranks of the permanent workers, and was openly concerned over the construction w riters in the county who might re g iste r and vote.

The difference in the type of direct action pursued by the political party organizations in the four county area was based upon the strength of the organization in the past, the apparent effectiveness of the opposing organization, and the potential voting strength of the newcomers in each county.

The Jackson County Party organizations could afford to ignore the newcomers. Republicans expected no support from the construction workers. Democratic leaders surmised that there were not enough newcomers to override the Republican advantage, even i f the newcomers all supported the Democratic candidates at the November election.

Ross County Republican leaders were cognizant of the fact th at the newly reorganized Democratic group had not undertaken an active drive to solicit the construction workers' support. It might be speculated that the Democratic leaders in Ross County thought county fair registration would aid their cause by adding newcomers to the registration lists. This move was blocked, however, and Democratic precinct workers were either unable or unwilling to make a concerted drive through the trailer courts. As a result, the Republican organization in Ross County had nothing to fear from unregistered newcomers on election day. There might have been a considerable 199 difference in party activity on both sides had the Republican organi­ zation been confronted by a united and thriving Democratic Party organization, since the voting record in Ross County has exhibited a variable pattern in political party support.

The Pike County Democratic organization \'ias the stronger political party in the county, and was confronted with the largest influx of construction uorkers in the four county area. In order to strengthen the party and gain cooperation of the newcomers, it cultivated support of the construction workers. The Republican organization was too weak to offer effective resistance, and even had it been in a position to do so, it is doubtful that many of the construction workers would have voted for Republican candidates.

V ariab ility in p o litic a l party support in Scioto County prompted both party organizations to take d irect action. The Democratic

Party organization solicited votes among the construction vorkers, while the Republican organization attempted to place obstacles in the way of this potential voting group. Trailer residents were the only ones challenged in S cioto County, prim arily because i t was in the trailer courts that so many of the construction workers resided, and it was the construction workers whom the Republicans feared.

Registration of voters took place in Ross, Pike, and Scioto

Counties. The dilatory tactics employed by Democratic Party organi­ zations against countywide re g istra tio n were abandoned by the middle of 1953 . This change in attitu d e may have stemmed in part from the sudden .increase in population caused by the establishment of the 200

Atojîâc Plantj and the rulings of the lower courts in Scioto County against the anti-registration forces.

The number of potential new voters in the atomic counties in

1951 could be estimated at 12,000 to 13,000. This figure was based upon total employment at the Atomic Plant in October, 1953, and the report of Atomic Energy Commission officials that about one half of these vjorlærs were new to the area. An estimated 1,800 to 2,000 of these newcomers availed themselves of registration in the three registration counties. Evidently the impact of the newcomers on the politics of the area would be felt only slowly.

Their role in the General Election of 1954 will be discussed in the following chapter. CHÜPTüR VII

THE 1954 (mmUL EIECnOK

Employees of the Atomic Plant who were residing in Ross, Pike,

and Scioto Counties were eligible to vote in November, 1954, if

they had registered. In Jackson County, where registration was

not required, all qualified voters had only to appear at the

polling places. Politicians and oldtimers alike were interested in

the possible effect of the new residents upon traditional voting

patterns in the four county atomic area.

In November, 1954, Gubernatorial, Senatorial, and Congressional

elections were held. The Senatorial election was necessary to

choose a person to complete the unexpired term of Senator Robert

A. T aft, who died in o ffice. Both tine Sixth and Tenth Congressional

District Elections were pertinent to this study since Pike, Ross,

and Scioto Counties were part of the Sixth Congressional District

and Jackson County was in the Tenth Congressional D istric t.

A. Gubernatorial Race

(l) Candidates

Gubernatorial candidates were Frank J. Lausche, Democratic incumbent, and James A. Rhodes, Republican, who aspired to the office for the first time. Campaign literature, circulated by party workers in the four county area, provided the voters vith capsule descriptions of these men and their careers, although both men were prominent p o litic a lly and well known to voters in the state.

201 202 Frank J. Lausche received his legal education at the John

Marshall School of Law. The extensive political career of the

fifty -e ig h t year old Governor included the o ffices of Municipal

Judge in Cleveland, Ohio, from 1932-1936, Judge of the Court of

Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County from 1937-1941, and Mayor of

Cleveland from 1941-1945. Lausche also served four terns as

Governor of Ohio; 1944-1946 and 1948-1954. He was defeated in his bid for this office only once, in 1946, when he lost to Thomas

J. Herbert. In 1944 Lausche carried only one of the four counties,

Pike County; in 1948 he carried Pike, Ross, and Scioto Counties; in 1950 he was victorious in Pike and Ross Counties. In 1952

Lausche once again carried Pike, Ross, and Scioto Counties. Of the four counties in the atomic area, Jackson County alone never supported

Governor Lausche.

James R. Rhodes was a native of Coalton in Jackson County. The forty-four year old Republican Gubernatorial aspirant attended local schools and studied at Ohio State University. He began his public career as a member of the Columbus Board of Education, and served as a member of i t s Finance Committee from 1937 to 1939. In 1939 he was elected City Auditor of Columbus. He retained th is o ffice from

1939 to 1943 , when he was elected Mayor of Columbus, He was twice re-elected to this position. In 1952 he was elected State Auditor.

In this, his first bid for a statewide office, Rhodes carried

Jackson, Ross, and Scioto Counties. 203 (2) The Campaign

(a) Rhodes' Attack Upon Governor Lausche and His .Administration

Since James A. Rhodes was a native of Jackson County he opened his campaign at Coalton with a mammoth p o litic a l ra lly .^ "Jim

Rhodes Day" was o ffic ia lly proclaiired in Jackson County for August 5, and local papers gave wide publicity to the forthcoming event.

In h is o ffic ia l opening speech Rhodes denounced the record of his opponent as one of deceit and political maneuvering. He also stated th at several engineering authorities had agreed Ohio's highways were among the nation's worst, and that more than sixteen thousand miles of highway in Ohio were le s s than twenty feet wide. He claimed that tax dollars were financing Democratic patronage, since the highway department was filled with political appointees.3 Rhodes devised the campaign slogan "Better Roads with Rhodes," which adorned the billboards along Ohio's highways.

A month earlier, on July 6, Rhodes had issued a statement con­ cerning a highway program blunder. He released a photograph from tl® State Auditor's office, showing that an error in construction had caused a three inch difference in the highway level where two

Route 23 projects met. A State Highway Department o ffic ia l admitted the error in plans, but charged Hr. Rhodes with trying to capitalize

^"Campaign To Kick Off Here," Jackson Herald. March lo, 195k, sec.-B . p. 6, col. 4. "Jim Rhodes Day Planned for August 5th," Jackson Herald. July-13, 1954, p. 1, col. 6. 3"More than 400 Hear Rhodes at Coalton," Jackson Herald. Aug.-6, 1954, p. 4, col. 4. 204 on a small error in ti-Jo projects costing more than two million

d o lla r s, in an effort to smear the Democratic administration at

the state capital.^

The Republican Gubernatorial candidate denounced the fifth

term principle, calling upon Ohio voters to reject the unprecedented

fifth term appeal of Governor Lausche,5 Rhodes accused Lausche of

receiving campaign contributions from out of state firms doing business with Ohio and from state em ployees. ° Rhodes contended he

had documented evidence that "the governor's slush fund had totaled approximately 07$,000." The collector of the fund was not identified in the public release of the charge, nor was there

a listing of contributors.?

An attem pt was jiiade to sow dissension within the ranlcs of the

Democratic P a rty . Rhodes declared that Governor Lausche was

destroying the Democratic Party in Ohio by gathering too much power for himself and added that, in the past, Lausche had been e le c te d at the expense of other Democratic candidates on the state ticket.^ Throughout the campaign Rhodes promised to correct the highway situation, carry out reform in the State Liquor Department,

^"Slip on 23 Hit as Failure to Make Ends Meet." Ghillicothe Gazette, July 6, 1954, p. 1, col. 1. 51ïpifth Term fjrong, Rhodes Contends," Ghillicothe Gazette, Sapt^ 28, 1954, p. ID, col. 3. ^"Rhodes Attacks Lausche Again," Ghillicothe Gazette, Sept. 22, 1954, p. 7, col. 4. <"Rhodes Makes New Charges," Portsmouth Times, Sept. 20, 1954, p. 2, c o l. 1. ^"Rhodes Declares Lausche Destroying Dems in Ohio," Ghillicothe Gazette, Oct. 28, 1954, P* 4, .col. 2. 205 sponsor conservation measures, provide proper schools and teaching facilities in urban and rural areas, and conduct a thorough over­ hauling of Ohio’s mental institutions.

(b) Governor L ausche's Campaign

Governor Lausche did not attempt to counter the charges hurled at him by Rhodes in the early stages of the campaign. Instead, he permitted the heads of the state departments and institutions attacked to refute Rhodes' public denunciations. At a Democratic

State Convention in Columbus, held in October, Lausche began his campaign by outlining the policies which he would follow, if reelected.9 His program included a proposed twenty-five million dollar appropriation for long range construction of mental insti­ tutions, fair enployment legislation, and legislation to enable local governmental units to develop navigation facilities along Lake

Erie and the Ohio River. This latter was considered essential due to th e expected in c re a se in commerce from th e S t. Lavjrence Seaway.

During the remainder of the campaign Governor Lausche defended his record. He claimed that the controversial axle aille truck tax was a fair one, because trudiers were at last paying a fair share for their use of state highways.He contended that large trucking concerns were the principal contributors to Rhodes'

^"Governor Lausche Breaks Silence Pledge," Fortsmouth Times, O c t.-6, 1954, p. 1, col. 4. ^^"Lausche 'Free as Birds,' If Reelected," Ghillicothe Gazette. O c t.-.6, 1954, p. 2, col. 3. lI"Lausche Stands By Truck Tax," Ghillicothe Gazette. Oct. 15, 1954, p. 5, col. 4. 206 campaign fund. 1 P

The Governor defended the mental health program enacted during his tenure of office. He declared that there were no receiving h o s p ita ls in Ohio when he became Governor, since which time nine receiving hospitals had been established. He added that twenty- two clinics were operating in the state and that the number of state employees engaged in mental health work had increased from 2,700 to 8,400. He remarked that there was still much to be done in this field, and that, if reelected, he would support advances in the mental health program.

(c) Final Campaign Pleas and Predictions

Toward the close of the campaign the Jackson County Republican organization, through political advertisements in the Jackson Herald, urged voters to elect James Rhodes, a favorite son candidate.

However, an editorial in this Democratic newspaper prophesied that

Rhodes would not be elected Governor;

It is certain that they (the voters) will not choose a man whose only claim to distinction in public life is that he has spent two years inves­ tigating Girls' Industrial Schools and Public Tavern L icenses.

In Pike County the Waverlv Hews and the haverly Watchman sup-

^^"Truckers Aid Foe, Lausche Claims," Ciiillicothe Gazette, O ct. 23, 1954 , p. k, c o l. 6 . ^3"bausche Points with Pride to Gains in Mental Health," Ghillicothe Gazette, Oct. 28, 1954, p. 4, col. 2. -*-^Republican Party Political Mvertisement, Jackson Herald. Oct. 26, 1954, sec. B, p. 7, co l. 2-8. ^^Editorial, Jackson Herald. Oct. 29, 1954, p.. 1, col. 1. 207 ported the Democratic candidates and were unfailing in their praise

of George D. Nye, a fa v o rite son and one of Pike County's p o litic a l

leaders, viio v;as the Democratic candidate for Lieutenant Governor.

Nye had predicted that Governor Lausche would win by a landslide

vote of 500,000 in the November election and, in a personal plea,

requested that he be elected to the post of Lieutenant Governor in

order to assist the Democratic Governor with his program.

An editorial i n th e Vi averly k’atciiman towai-d the close of the

campaign emphasized the desirability of electing George Nye

Lieutenant Governor, but aid not enumerate Lausche's merits.

The reason for focusing attention on George Nye may have been that

Governor Lausche was expected to be reelected, while the election of Nye was le s s c e rta in .

In Ross County the Republican organization was confident of victory for the en tire Republican ticket and conducted its campaign accordingly. The local newspaper, the Chillicothe Gazette, gave extensive coverage to tine highlights of the Gubernatorial caiipaign, although it took no position editorially. The Republican organiza­ tion inserted a full page advertisement in the Gazette endorsing

Rhodes and denouncing the fifth term principle a few days prior to the election. 18 The Democratic Party organization inserted a plea

"Lausche Landslide Forecast by Nye," Chillicothe Gazette, O ct. 25, 1954 , p. 3, col. 4. 17''Running Mates Again" (editorial) V/averly Watchman. Oct. 28, 1954 a *>P* 1, col. 4* Republican Party Political Advertisejient, Chillicothe Gazette, Oct. 30, 1954, p. 5, col. 1-8. 208 for its candidates on the following day.

In Scioto County the Portsmouth Times gave extensive coverage to the Gubernatorial campaign, although editorially Rhodes received ■ only m ild endorsement. An editorial stated that Lausche had a commendable record as Governor and had demonstrated much indepen­ dence of thought and action. There v;as a note of distaste for the Rhodes' campaign in the follovjing comiamt:

Rhodes has searched the records diligently for reasons why Lausche should not be retained. He has come up with some vjhidi he feels are valid - and they may be - but th e re has been co nsiderably more fanfare than on the table proof, and there is doubt that the Governor* s candidacy has been even slightly damaged thereby.^9

On the other liand, the editorial concluded with the claim that Rhodes would make an able Governor and, if elected, would handle the state's affairs in a capable and businesslike manner. PO

As the campaign drew to a close, signs pointed toward a Demo­ cratic victory in Pike and Scioto Counties. Pike County, with its favorite son running for Lieutenant Governor on the Democratic ticket, 'Was likely to endorse Lausche for a fifth term. Lausche's popularity ran high in Scioto County and, as noted, even the daily newspaper supporting the Republican candidates displayed a lack of enthusiasm for Rhodes. A Republican victory seemed likely in

Jackson County, since Rhodes was a favorite son and the county's record was staunchly Republican.

19itThe Race for Governor" (editorial), Portsmouth Times. Oct. 15, 19 5 4 ,,p . 6 , c o l. 1 , ZOibid. 209 (3) Outcome of the G abernatorial E le c tio n

Frank J. Lausche was reelected. Governor^ defeating James E.

Rhodes by a plurality of 213,119 votes on the statewide level and winning an unprecedented fifth term. 21 However, Governor Lausche was the only Democratic candidate elected to a statewide office 22 in this election.

In the four county area Governor Lausche carried Pike and Scioto

Counties, but lost Jackson and Ross C o u n t i e s . ^3 In Pike County

Lausche received a plurality of 1,836 votes vhich was 147 votes less than his jmajority in 1950, the preceding off-year election. The total number of votes cast for the office was 5,810, approzdmiat el y

800 less than the total number cast in 1950 .

Scioto County voters gave the Governor a plurality of 1,106 votes, far less than the 4,740 plurality he had polled in 1952 .

Regardless of the size of las plurality, he carried the county, thereby surpassing his 1950 record, when he lost to the Republican candidate.

In Jackson County the voters returned a plurality of 952 votes for James A. Rhodes. Although a local man, he received a smaller plurality than had the 1950 Republican Gubernatorial candidate,

^^"Lausche, Bender Victorious in Governor and Senate Races," Portsmouth Times, Nov. 3, 1954, p. 1, co l. 1 . 22iiLausche Wins," Chillicothe Gazette, Nov. 3, 1954, p. 1, c o l, 8 . ^ In the race for Lt. Governor George D. Nye lost to John V.'. Brown on the statewide level. Nye carried Pike County by 2,026 votes and Scioto County by 275 votes. He was defeated in Jackson and Ross Counties. 210 Don H. Ebright, vjho received, a 1,409 vote margin. The total vote cast in Jackson County was very light. Only 9,000 voters went to the polls, compared with 12,000 in 1952 .

Governor Lausche lost Ross County for the first time since

1946. He received k9% of the vote, while Rhodes p o lled 50.9%' and a plurality of 302 votes. In 1950 Lausche had won by a small plurality of 223 votes, and in 1952 he carried the county by a plurality of 1,573 v o tes,

B. The S e n a to ria l Contest

(1) Candidates

Thomas A. Burke, Democratic candidate for the Senate, was seeking election to that office for the first time. However, he was then serving as a U.S. Senator, having been appointed to the post by Governor Lausche to f ill the seat made vacant by the death of the late Senator Robert A. Taft, until a general election could be held. Burke had extensive experience in public affairs in

Cleveland. After completing his early education in the Cleveland,

Ohio, school system, he received an A.B. degree from Holy Cross

College and an LL.B. from Western Reserve University Law School in 1923* He served as assistant county prosecutor of Cuyahoga County from 1930 to 1936 , and in 1937 was a special assistant to the Ohio

Attorney General. From 1941 to 1945 he was Director of Law for the city of Cleveland, during which tine Frank J. Lausche served as

Mayor of that city. When Lausche was elected Governor in 1944,

Burke succeeded him as Mayor of Cleveland. He held that post until 211 November, 1953j when he became U.S. Senator.

George H. Bender emerged as the Republican Senatorial candidate after defeating William Sax.be, Speaker of the Ohio House of Repre­ sentatives, in a bitter Primary election. He ivas fifty-seven years old, and was educated in the Cleveland public school system.

Bender's public career included service in the Ohio General Assembly, in which he served as state Senator from 1921 to 1931.

Unlike Burke, Bender was w ell known to v o ters in th e s ta te , having been elected United States Representative at large for s ix terms in Congress. He carried Jackson and Ross Counties in all these statewide Congressional elections and lost Scioto County only once, in 1910. Pike County was the only one of the four counties studied which failed to support Bender in any contest. His only defeat in Congressional statewide elections between 1938 and 1950 was in 1948. In that year he carried Jackson County, but lost the other three counties in the area. The 1950 election resulted in substantial majorities for him in Jackson, Ross, and Scioto Counties, where he received $8Jo, 55%, and 54% of the vote respectively. He lost only Pike County, where he polled 35% of the vote.

In 1952 Bender was elected Congressman from the Twenty-third

Congressional D istrict. During the Eighty-third Congress he was

Chairman of the yinti-Racketeering Subcommittee, a member of the

Committee on Governmental Operations and the Committee on Insular

Affaii-s, and was Chairman of the House Public Accounts Subcommittee. 212 (2) The Campaign

(a) George H. Bender's Campaign

Even though he had been an ardent Taft supporter in 1952, during the 1954 campaign Bender relied principally upon his record of sup­ port of President Eisenhower and the Eisenhower program. At a meeting of the Scioto County Men's Republican Club Bender warned that the Republican Party faced a major c r is is in the Nov ember election, since failure to give the President a mrking majority in

Congress would be interpreted as a repudiation of the Eisenhower administration.

Bender also raised the issue of Communism during the campaign.

In Scioto County he declared that Communists, left wingers, and fellow travelers vould be supporting the Democratic candidates for

Congress, and would not campaign for a single Republican. Bender recognized that Democrats probably did not welcome support from such sources, but claimed that the Communists believed they could count on a more favorable atmosphere from the Democratic Party than 25 from the Republican Party. During the course of the campaign he attacked the Democratic Party fo r fa ilin g to prevent Communist infiltration of the government and charged that anyone who regarded

Cojimunism as a "red herring" could not be trusted with the reins of government. Bender later accused the Democratic Party in Ohio of

^^"Bender Urges GOP Majority for Congress," Portsmouth Times. Aug. 28, 1954, p. 1,. col. 6. ^5lb id . 2b"Bender, Rhodes Combine in Joint Blast at Dems," Chillicothe Gazette, Oct. 5; 1954, p. 5, col. 1. 213 soliciting the support of Dayton and Cleveland Communists in i t s campaign, against him.

Bender asked voters to send him to the United States Senate in order that Senator Bricker's vote would not be cancelled, which would probably occur if a Democratic Senator were elected.During the campaign Bender accused Burke of protecting racketeers and charged that racketeers were financing Burke's radio t i m e . ^9 Burke challenged Bender to produce evidence in support of these charges, but none was forthcom ing.

The McCarthy censure question became a campaign issue when

Bender was asked to state his position on this question. Burke had declared that, in view of the evidence available, he would vote for censure, although he was reserving final judgment until

McCarthy appeared before a special session of the Senate on Novem­ ber 8.^0 Bender sidestepped the question, stating that it was Burke's responsibility to vote on the censure, not his, since Burice would serve as Senator until the end of trie year. Bender added that, while he did not approve of the methods of the Wisconsin Senator, he did believe Senator McCarthy had performed a valuable service

^^"Bender Calls for 'Solidarity'," Portsmouth Times. Oct. 14,

■^“"Don't Cancel Bricker Vote,' Bender Pleads," Ghillicothe Gazette, Oct. $, 1954, P* 4, col. 3. ^9"Bender Says Burke Backed by Racketeers," Chillicothe Gazette, Oct. 23, 1954, p. 4, col. 5. 30"Burke Says He Will Vote for Censure of McCarthy," Chillicothe Gazette, Oct. 18, 1954, p. 3, col. 5. 214 by focusing the nation's attention upon Communists and fellow travelers in government agencies and important industries.

In reply to the Democratic Party's charge of widespread unem­ ployment and unfavorable economic conditions, Bender prophesied improved economic conditions within two months. He also declared that, if the President were given a Republican Congress, the F ederal budget would be balanced in a year.^^

In the atomic area the Portsmouth Times editorially endorsed the Republican candidate. Bender was praised for his thorough

Knowledge of political affairs as a member of the Republican organi­ zation since 1920. The editorial also stated that Bender had the confidence of the late Senator Taft and had worked diligently in the unsuccessful campaign to obtain the Presidential nomination for

Taft in 1952.33

(b) The Burke Campaign

Early in 1954 Burke received favorable publicity in the atomic area when he notified Jackson school officials that Federal furds had been allocated for school construction p u r p o s e s . 3^ In Ross

County it was also reported that Federal funds had been made avail­ able for the Chillicothe and Huntingdon School D istricts. Burke remarked that this demonstrated the need of Federal support to

3^ Ib id . 32iiBetter Days Soon Seen by Bender," Chillicothe Gazette. Oct. 20, 1954, p. 20, col. 2. 33iigender For Senator" (editorial), Portsjnouth Times. Oct. 9, 1954, p. 4, col. 1 . -^■4"iip241,800 Grant for New Jackson School," Jackson Herald. Jan. 26, 1954, p. 1, col. 7. 215 areas a ffected by expanding school enrollments due to a Federal

instrument ality .^ ^

Adlai E. Stevenson, the 1952 Democratic Presidential candidate,

spoke at the opening of Burke's campaign in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Urging the voters of Ohio to support Burke, Stevenson criticized

the Republican Senator from Ohio, John b'. Bricker, and denounced

th e proposed B ricker amendment as "a dangerous attack on the

traditional constitutional and indispensable poners of the o ffic e

of President.

Senator Henry Li. Jackson, Deaiocrat from the state of Washington,

spoke in Burke’s behalf at a district meeting of Southeastern Ohio

Democrats in Jackson County. At th e saiae m eeting Senator Burke

declared farm income had declined 15/o under the Republican adminis­

tration, and unemployment had risen above the three million mark.

He claimed the Democratic Party vias the only party representing

all segments of our society, and charged that Republican candidates did not offer a positive prograra.^?

In Scioto County Senator Burke, speaking at a picnic for the

Portsmouth CIO Council, pointed out that many of labor's gains in the preceding years had been secured under Democratic administra­ tions. He contended that with maturity came responsibility and

31 Funds Promised For School Construction," Chillicothe Gazette, July 31, 1954, p. 1, c o l. 5. 36%.H. Lawrence, "Stevenson Terms the GOP ’A Brawl'," Hew York Times, Sept. 16, 1954, P» 1, col. 2. 37"Southeastern Ohio Democrats Hear Washington Senator at D istrict Dinner Here," Jackson Herald. Sept. 1?, 1954, p. 1, c o l. 4 * ' 216

■Marned lab or to vjeed oat the Communists.

Daring the campaign Senator Burke claimed a large portion of the Eisenhower program had been passed with the aid of Democrats in the Eighty-third Congress.He challenged Bender's slogan

"Vote for me to help Ike," stating that it failed to agree with

Bender's voting record. Senator Burke pointed out that Bender had voted to reduce the foreign aid bill by two billion dollars and also had voted to lim it defense spending.^^

"Presidential Coattail" riders were attacked by Senator Burl-s

Mho remarked that the Republican Party had only one popular candi­ date, President Eisenhower, and that "Ike" was running in forty- eight states. He stated further that "Mr. Bender was a man who suddenly had learned the magic trick of squealing 'I Like Ik e'."^

Senator Burke reminded the voters that the Republican Congress, and not President Eisenhower, v;as running for office in the

November e le c tio n .

(c) Final Pleas of the Senatorial Candidates and Predictions

The Senatorial contest in Ohio was forecast as a close one.

Industrial unemployment and dissatisfaction among farirers over

^®"Burke, Polk Laud Labor as Worth 'Better Government'," Portsmouth Times, Sept. 7, 1954, p. 1, col. 5. "Bender and Burke in Quiet Match," Chillicothe Gazette. Oct. 4, 1954, p. 15, col. 6 . 40irgurloe Attacks B ender's V oting," Portsmouth Times, Oct. 16, 1954,.p. 17, col. 5. 41 "Burke, Bender Mix. it Up in Ohio Senatorial Debate," Ghillicothe Gazette, Oct. 11, 1954, p. 3, col. 4. 44"Burke Says Ike Not I s s u e , % Portsmouth Times, Oct. 29, 1954, p. 24, col. 5. 217 farm policies were considered assets to the Democratic candidate.

In addition, the popular Governor Lausche had endorsed Senator

Burke, and it was believed this might be an important factor in the

final result. However, one source predicted Bender to be a slight favorite over Burke.

On October 2? an announcement was made that President Eisenhower

would make a one day, four state tour, in support of Republican

candidates, and in an effort to stimulate voters to go to the polls.

The P resid en t planned to visit Cleveland, Ohio, Detroit, Michigan,

Louisville, Kentucky, and 'hilraington, Delaware, where he would make

airport speeches.^ His visit to Ohio was interpreted as a move to

help secure the election of Bender. Senator Burke quicJcly retorted

that the President's trip to Ohio was a desperate move to woo the

voters to the Republican cause.

At the Cleveland ;4irport on October 29, 1954, the President

spoke to a small crowd. He paid trib u te to the late Senator Robert

A. Taft, called attention to the end of the Korean war, and the

e ffo r ts being made to secure world peace. He contended that the farm program was still operating under rigid price supports,

^^Lawrence, "Ohio Senate Race Near Photo Finish," New York Times, O ct. 22, 1954, p. 16, col. 3. '^^"Cleveland on Itinerary of Ike's 4-State Tour," Chillicothe Gazette, Oct. 28, 1954, p. 2, col. 2. 46"Desperation Tactics,' - Burke," Chillicothe Gazette. Oct. 29, 1954,-p. 5, col. 5. 218 established by a Democratic administration. He also announced that unemployraent had decreased almost 400,000 in tte previous month and stood at 2,741,000.^^ He pledged his administration to do everything possible to find positions for the unemployed, but contended that the solution to this problem viould not be based upon a vjar economy.

ÎH'JO days later the prediction vjas made that the Democratic

Senatorial candidate would carry Oiiio. This was based on the poor attendance of President Eisenhower's brief speech and failure of the President to mention Bender by name in iiis speech. Further­ more, the state of Ohio had approximately 150,000 to 200,000 unemployed.

Despite the small crowd appearing at the airport, the Presi­ dent's speech was \ddely^ publicised in the newspapers in the atomic area counties. The Ghillicothe Gazette in Ross County carried an editorial stating that the report of decreasing unemployment was encouraging, as well as an asset to Republican candidates, who had been subject to attack on tiûs issue throughout the caaipaign.^'^

The Portsmouth Times endorsed Bender, praised the Eisenhower administration, and declared that a Republican Congress was

46"Transcript of President Ei sen how er ' s Remarks in Whirlwind Air ^ Tour to Get Out Vote," Hew York Times, Oct. 30, 1954, p. 8, col. 1. ^7"Ike in Cleveland Vows No Viar for Jobs' Sake," Chillicothe Gazette, Oct. 29, 1954, p. 1, col. 8 . 48Poster Hailey, "Republican Loss in Ohio," Hew York Times, Oct. 31, 1954, p. 75, col. 3. 49"Cheerful News" (editorial), Chillicothe Gazette. Nov. 1, 1954, p. 6 ,- co l. 1 . 219 essential to aid the President in executing his program.The suggestion vms advanced that the office type ballot might aid

Bender's election. With the elimination of straight ticket voting, persons could cast their vote for Governor Lausche and still easily vote for the Republican Senatorial candidate.

(3) Senatorial Race Results

George H. Bender vion tie Senatorial race on tie statevâde level.

In the Atomic Energy Establishment Area Jackson, Ross, and Scioto

Counties supported Bender, but Pike County cast its majority for

Burke.

In Jackson County Bender received a plurality of 1,192 votes, which was larger than that received by Rhodes, the Republican

Gubernatorial candidate. However, it was less than Senator Robert

A. Taft's plurality in 1950 , which was 1,538.

Bender carried Ross County by 2,002 votes, 1,700 votes above the plurality of James A. Rhodes, By comparison, in 1950 Senator

Robert A. Taft received a plurality of 2,919 in Ross County, and

Senator John W. Bricker was reelected by a 4,069 vote plurality in 1952.

Pike County gave Thomas Burke a plurality of 1,749 votes, approximately 100 votes less than Governor Lausche's plurality.

Burke fared better than had Joseph T. Ferguson, Democratic candidate

50|i>i>hree Big Issues" (editorial), Portsmouth Times, Oct. 30, 1954 , p. 1, co l. 2 . 5iReed Smith, "Office-Type Ballot May be Aid to Bender," Portsmouth Times, hOct. 27, 1954, p. 10, co l. 1-3. 220 for the U.S. Senate in 1950, viio received a 1,415 vote plurality, and Michael V. DiSalle, 1952 Democratic candidate, who received a plurality of 1 , 026.

The outcome of the Senatorial contest in Scioto County was a victory for Bender who received the small plurality o f 183 votes.

In contrast, Taft had carried the county by 2,116 votes in 1950 and Bricker by 3,340 votes in 1952.

Burks did not concede defeat to Bender, but prepared to request a recount of the vote in certain counties. Burke lost on the state level by a mere 6,860 votes out of a statewide total of 2, 312, 778 .

The Chairman of the Burke for Senator Committee sent telegrams to

Democratic Chairmen in Ohio's eighty-eight counties requesting them to recheck the unofficial returns and to advise if any discrepancies were noted.After the official count was released Burke requested a recount in twenty-five of Ohio's eighty-eight counties. Ross and

Scioto Counties were among those in which a recount was requested.

Tte recount in Ross County was simplified since the county had used voting machines in every precinct for the first time in the 1954 election. Burke gained only two votes as a result of the recount, and these resulted from errors in absentee paper ballots.

In Scioto County the recount was undertaken through a formal request to the County Board of Elections. The amount of ^1,250 was delivered to the Board of Elections, representing a deposit

^^"Burke Camp Begins Cheoi-c of Ohio Vote," Portsmouth Times. Nov. 5, 1954 , p. 19, col. 1. 221 of #10 per precinct as required by the election code. The Board of E le c tio n s began the reco u n t on November 2 9 . It was completed the next day vdtli the results as follows: 22 votes gained by

Bender, 49 votes gained by Burke. Therefore, Burke received a net gain of only 27 votes. The official count stood at 13,805 for

Bender and 13,649 for Burke. Although Bender remained the winner, his margin of v ic to ry was narrowed to 156 votes in Scioto County.

The total cost of the recount in Scioto County was #610 w ith Burke receiving a #640 refund.He received this refund because the

E le c tio n Board charged fdm the miniiiium rate of #5 per precinct.

The recount in Scioto County cost Burke about #22 a vote.^5 On the state level the official recount narrowed Bender's lead from

6,860 to 2,970 votes.56 57 C. Sixth D istrict Congressional Contest

(l) Candidates

James G. Polk, the incumbent, was the Democratic c a: did ate for r e e le c tio n . The fifty -s e v e n y ear old Highland County re sid e n t was graduated from Ohio State University in 1919 and received a Master of Arts degree from Wittenberg College in 1923. Polk was High School

Principal in New Vienna from 1919-1920, and Superintendent of the

53scioto County Board of Elections, Minutes of Meeting. Nov. 22, 1954, 54lb id ., Nov. 29-30, 1954. 55iiRecount Costs Burke #610," Portsmouth Times. Dec. 7, 1954, p. 11, col. 1. . 56iigender Election Certified; Sen. Burke Accepts Defeat," Chillicothe Gazette, Dec. 7, 1954, P* 1, col. 6 . 57piice, Ross, and Scioto were part of the Sixth Congressional D istrict. Other counties in tte district include Adams, Highland, Brown, Clermont, Pickaway, and Fayette. 222 Mew Vienna Schools from 1920-1922. From 1923-1928 he was High

School Principal at Hillsboro, Ohio. Since 1928 he had engaged in

farming in Highland County.

Polk served as United States Congressman from the Sixth Con­

gressional D istrict from 1930 through 1940, at which time he retired

from the political arena. In 1948 he again ran for Congress,

declaring that he had returned to political life because of his

disappointment over the record of the Eightieth Congress.

Winning that election, he had been the Siocth D istrict's represen­

tative from 1949 to I954j and had served a to ta l of sixteen years

in Congress. In 1954 he was seeking his ninth term in Congress

and had the enviable record of no defeats in a Congressional elec­

tio n . In 1952 he carried both Pike and Scioto Counties, receiving

04% and 50. 6% of the vote respectively.

The Republican candidate for the Sixth D istrict Congressional

seat was Leo Blackburn. Blackburn, a resident of Portsmouth, was

owner and president of a Portsmouth business college. He received

a Bachelor of Science in Education degree from Wilmington College,

Wilndngton, Ohio. In the political sphere he served one term in

the Ohio Senate (I 95 I-I 952 ) , where he was a member of the Ohio

Un-American A ctivities Commission.

Blackburn had run against Polk in 1952 and was defeated by the

narrow margin of 324 votes. Of the three atomic area counties

^®"Polk Seeks Ninth Term in Congress, Veteran Legislator's Record Lauded," Waverly Watchman, Feb. 4, 1954, sec. B, p. 1, c o l. 6 . 223

Blackburn carried only Ross County, with 54.2% of the vote. He p o lled 35% of the total vote in Pike County, although in Scioto

County he received 49.3^ of tiie total vote and vjas defeated by only 479 votes. His defeat in Scioto County was particularly bitter since it was his home county. Blackburn hoped to increase his vote sufficiently in 1954 to defeat the incumbent.

(2) The Campaign

(a) Leo Blackburn's Campaign

Leo Blackburn opened his campaign early in May at a rally in

Highland County. Albert Daniels and S.A. Ringer, defeated Republican candidates in the May primary, were present to lend their support to Blackburn, who outlined a seven point program vhich he would follow, if elected. He declared that he would be instrumental in obtaining for the Atomic Energy Establisliment area adequate aid for schools, health, sanitation facilities, and highways, and that he would act as an effective liaison between official Washington and the Atomic Plant. He expressed concern over the pending decrease in employment at the Atojnic Plant and pledged himself to malce an effort to help bring industry into the Sixth District. He made specific reference to the atomic workers at a rally in Ross County,

.when he stated he was worried about Pike County due to tte influx of workers from the "Solid South.

59iiLeo Blackburn Opens Campaign," Waverly Hews. May 18, 1954, p . 11, , -col.'Col. 2. 2. bOiiGOP60"GOP Congress V ital, RallyR= Told," Chillicothe Gazette. Aug. 20, 1954, p. 1, c o l. 2. 224 At a Republican rally in Pike County, Blackburn stressed the need for a Republican Congress and predicted that the strongest points of the Republican Party in the fall would be peace and prosperity, tax decreases, an effective anti-conimunist program, and a reduction of the Truman budget.

During the campaign Blackburn stated his views on Communism and unemployment and reviewed the record and associations of his opponent. Blackburn contended that he had fought Communism in the

Ohio Senate and was ready to do the same in Congress.In his opinion tiie problem of unemployment was overstated by the Demo­ cratic Party since, in 1950, there were 4,500,000 unemployed and under President Eisenhower's administration, after the Korean War had ended, there were only 2,700,000 unemployed.Blackburn stated that more jobs were the answer to southern Ohio's economic problems and repeated his projnise to strive to bring new industry into the area.

Blackburn's attack on Polk was set forth in political speeches, political advertising in newspapers, and ca/apaign literature. He accused Representative Polk of abusing the franking privilege by sending a series of letters to his constituents which Blackburn

"Republicans Plan Campaign in Pike County," Chillicothe u-azette, July 22, 1954, p. 1, col. 1. 62political Advertisement, Leo Blackburn, Waverly News, Oct. 26, 1954. &3political Advertisement, Leo Blackburn, Chillicothe Gazette, Oct. 29, 1954, p. 24, col. 6. 225

termed "political letters.

The Republican Congressional aspirant criticized the program

of the Americans for Democratic Action -which called for abolition

of the House of Representatives' Un-American A ctivities Committee

and charged that the jlDA stood for non-interference with Communists

in our midst. He claimed that Polk had supported twelve of thirteen

measures in Congress which had received ;djA endorsement.^^ Blackburn

termed the group "left wing" Democrats who were seeking to lead tire 66 country tovjai-d fu rth e r Socialism . Polk denied memibership in th is

organization but firmly stated that the ADA had no tie with the

Communists.

In an attem.pt to capture the labor vote Blackburn advertised

the names of several union members who supported his candidacy,

listing their union office or local n u m b e r . The following day

the CIO Political Action Committee of Local 2116 in Portsmouth

ran a notice in the Portsmouth Times stating that union members

were free to vote for candidates of their choice and that Local

Union 2116 did not support Leo Blackburn for Congress.

^^Political Advertisement, Leo Blackburn, Chillicothe Gazette. Oct. 25, 1954, p. 5, col. 6. °5political Advertisement, Leo Blackburn, Chillicothe Gazette. Oct.^30, 1954, p. 3, col. 1. oopolitical Advertisement, Leo Blackburn, Portsmouth Times. Oct. 30, 1954, p. 10, col. 6. °7political Advertisement, Leo Blackburn, Portsmouth Times. Oct. 30, 1954, p. 13, col. 6. ^P olitical Advertisement, Leo Blackburn, Portsmouth Times. Nov. 1, 1954, p. 9 , c o l. 4" 226

(b) James G. Polk* s Camp aim

During 1954 Polk released announcements concerning the appro­ priation of Federal funds for schools in Ross and Pike Counties, and for an airport in Portsmouth, Scioto County. In July Polk announced that $46,150 would be available for the Latham School

D istrict in Pike County as soon as the school district complied with construction requirem ents. ^9 He also stated, as had Senator Burke, that two Ross County School D istricts were slated to receive

$174,850 and $64,350 for school construction.^^ Polk reported that the airport in Scioto County would receive $400,000 of the §22,000,000 appropriated by the Senate Appropriations Committee for airport construction throughout the country. Since the Scioto County Air­ port would be near the Atomic Plant, Polk considered it a deserving applicant for Federal aid."^^

Polk made public his views on taxes, farm program, unemployment, and his plans concerning needed legislation. He criticized the

Republican-controlled Congressional tax measure, stating that i t benefited wealthy families, while providing little relief to the 72 average American family. Criticizing the Eisenhower farm program he argued that middle men, including manufacturers, processors, packers, and distributors of farm commodities, were benefiting and

69iipolk Announces Allocation for Latham School," waverly News, Ju ly 13, 1954 , p. 7, col. 6. /Oi'U.S. Funds Promised for School Construction," Chillicothe Gazette, July 31, 1954, p. 1, col. 5» 7 4"400,000 Set for Airport at Portsmouth," Chillicothe Gazette. Aug. 6, 1954 , p. 1, col. 5. . f^iipolk Criticizes Republican Tax Reduction," Chillicothe Gazette, Sept. 4, 1954, p. 2, c o l. 5. 227 were represented on fifty agricultural advisory committees.Polk

pointed out the sharp increase in unemployment which had risen 40%' since 1952.

In his campaign advertisements Polk sought reelection on the

basis of his valuable experience as a member of Congress for six-,

teen years. He stressed that he was the only Ohioan on the House

Committee on Agriculture and that his service on th is Committee was

most beneficial to farmers in his district who, otherwise, might

not have enjoyed such programs as rural electrification, agri­

cultural price supports, soil conservation, and watershed pro grans.

Polk defended his voting record in Congress stating that, in most

instances, he had cast his votes in favor of President Eisenhower's program.?^

In answer to his opponent's accusation that he had served too

, long Polk sponsored an advertisement listing seven Republican Con­

gressmen who had served as long as or longer than he. The

advertisement also claimed that Polk's e ffo r ts in bringing the

billion dollar Atomic Plant to the area had been invaluable to

southern Ohio.?^ The next day Thomas A. Jenkins, Republican Repre­

sen at ive from the Tenth District, speaking at a political rally in

?^"Polk Claims Farmers Given 'The Business'," Chillicothe G azette, Aug. 19, 1954, p. 2, c o l. 2. '^Political Advertisement, James G. Polk, Chillicothe Gazette. Oct. 30, 1954, p. 13, col. 1. <5npoik Says His Record Maligned," Chillicothe Gazette. Aug. 25, 1954,-p. 1, col. 6. ‘‘^Political Advertisement, James G. Polk, Portsmouth Times. Oct. 29, 1954, p. 32, col. 6. 228 Scioto County on behalf of the Republican candidate, re je c te d the idea that Representative Polk deserved credit for the location of the Atome Energy Plant.

(c) Candidates' Final Plea. Endorsements, and Predictions

Leo Blackburn, in a final political advertisement, declared th a t he represented the thinking of the late Senator Taft and

President Eisenhower. Furthermore, with the varied background of farmer, educator, legislator, and veteran he was well qualified for the position. He claimed the incumbent Congressman represented the political thinking of Adlai Stevenson and Harry Truman, the

Ai'aericans for Democratic Action, CIO labor leaders, and the Farmers

Union.

During the campaign national Republican political figures visited the sta te to endorse Congressional candidates. Joseph L.

Martin, Jr., Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, stated that the Si>:th D istrict, with its farming , industrial, and atomic interests needed a Congressman who was in close contact with Repub- 79 lican leaders in Washington. Senator George D. Aiken, Republican

Senator from Vermont, and member of the Senate Committee on Agri­ culture and Forestry, visited the Sixth D istrict encouraging farxrers to support Blaclcburn. He claimed that a sharp decline in, agriculture

^^"Jenkins, Honored Here, Boosts GOP,” Portsmouth Times. Oct. 30, 1954 . p. 1, col. 6. 7ôpoliticaL Advert! sene nt, Leo Blackbui'n, Chillicothe Gaaette, Nov. 1, 1954, p. 8, c o l. 1. 79"Martin Plugs for Blackburn at GOP Rally," Chillicothe Gazette, Oct. 11, 1954, p. 2, col. 1. 229 had begun before Dwight D. Eisenhower took o ffic e and th a t Repre­ sentative Polk had not voted in the interest of the fanners.®^

In the atomic area Blade burn was endorsed by the Portsmouth

Times, which published two editorials in his behalf. Polk received no endorsements of newspapers in Ross or Scioto Counties. While papers in Pike County did not publish an editorial specifically urging his reelection, they did submit a general plea to the voters to support Democratic candidates at the election.

Polk received endorsement of labor leaders because, in twenty- seven key labor issues in Congress, he voted "right" according to labor. The Congressional Quarterly drew up a list of issues upon which six labor organizations had taken a definite stand, and then tabulated the votes of individual Congressmen on these issues.

Among the measures Polk supported were aid to education, filibuster curb, and a study commission on Communists in labor unions. He opposed flexible farm supports, dividend tax relief, the Bricker amendment, state control of tidelands oil, and private rights in

CSp public grazing lands.

S*^"Aiken Urges Farmers Here to Support Ike's Pragrain," Portsmouth Times, Oct. 29, 1954, p. 1, col. 6. G^The s i} : labor organizations were: Labor's League for Poli­ tical Education (AF of L), C.I.O's Legislative Department, International Association of Machinists (AF of L), United Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural Implement Workers (C.I.O.), International Union of Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers (C.I.O.), and Labor's Hon-partisan League (United Mine Workers). 82iipoik Achieves Perfect Score in Labor Votes," Portsmouth Times, Oct. 27, 1954, P* 28, col, 5. 230 (3) Results in the Sixth Congressional District

James G. Polk, the Democratic incumbent, carried the Sixth

D istrict by a margin o f over 4,500 votes. Polk carried seven of

the nine counties in the district.^3 in the atomic area Polk

carried Pike and Scioto Counties, but lost Ross County to

Blackburn.

Polk received a plurality of 1,843 votes in Pike County which

represented thirty-four votes less than he had received in 1952.

Scioto County gave Polk a margin o f 1,568 votes over Blackburn.

This was a marked gain over P o lk 's slim lead o f 479 votes i n the

1952 election in Scioto County. In Ross County Blackburn polled a plurality of 1,406 votes. Even so, this represented a loss of 291 votes compared with his 1952 pi un al it y in the county.

D. Tenth District Congressional Contest

(1) Candidates and Campaign

In 1954 Jackson County was one of eight counties cojnprising the

Tenth Congressional D istrict of Ohio.^^ The Republican candidate was Thomas A. Jenkins, who was seeking his sixteenth term in Con­ gress. Jenkins' career included that of teacher, lawyer, s ta te

Senator, and Congressman. In the Eighty-third Congress Jenkins served on the House V/ays and lie ans Committee, the Joint Senate and

House Committee on Atomic Energy, and the Joint Committee on

^^"6th D istrict Retains Dem Congressman," Chillicothe Gazette. Nov, 3, 1954 , p. 1, col. 4* Brother counties in the Tenth D istrict were Athens, Fairfield, Gallia, Hocking, Lawrence, Heigs, and Vinton. 231 Internal Revenue Taxation.

Jenkins had not been defeated in a Congressional race since he first ran in 1924» In all fifteen of these contests he carried

Jackson County. In 1952 Jenkins polled a plurality of 4,301 votes in Jackson County and received 69.4$ of the vote. His opponent,

Delmar A. Canaday, Democrat, received only 30.5^ of the vote.

In 1954 Jenkins was opposed by Truman A. Morris, Democrat.

Morris was the general manager of radio stations in Gallipolis,

Jackson, and Chillicothe, and was a newcomer to the Congressional contest.85 During the campaign it was rumored that Morris had the backing of three Republican chairmen in the Tenth Coz-gressional

D istrict, althougli the Jackson County Chairman and other county chairmen in the district emphatically denied this ruinor. The county chairmen involved released a statement that they had not been con­ tacted by Moiris, nor had they made an effort to help him defeat Je n k in s.88

Congressman Jenkins notified Jackson County officials of the

Federal grant for school construction purposes, as had Senator Burke.

In August, 1954, Jenkins stated he believed Congress would appropriate two million dollars to begin work on a sixty million dollar dam on the Ohio River near Greenup, Kentucky, which would improve navigation along the Ohio River.Later, in iris campaign literature, he

^^"korris versus Tom Jenkins,” Jackson Herald, Feb. 9, 1954, p. 1 ,.col. 3. 86”Morris Help Denied by G.O.P.,” Jackson Herald. March 19, 1954, , sec. B., p. 7, c o l. 6. 8?"Expect OK on Ohio Dam,” Jackson Herald, Aug. 10, 1954, p. 1, co l. 4. 232 assumed credit for securing funds for tills dam.

Jenkins declared that no one person could take credit for bringing the Atomic Energy Plant to southern Ohio. He contended that Army Engineers had recommended the Pike County site to the

Atomic Energy Commission^ which had accepted it. He also praised the Eisenhower taoc measures and said the Republicans had already cut taxes $7*4 billion dollars.

Morris campaigned very little in Jackson County through news­ paper advertising, nor did the county's Democratic newspaper carry many articles concerning his campaign. A few days prior to the election the Jackson Herald mentioned Morris' candidacy along w ith th a t of otJrier Democrats, and recomxiienied th a t Jackson County voters support these p e r s o n s . ^9

(2) Predictions

The incumbent Congressman, Jenkins, was favored to win. In fact the Congressional election in this district was not even con­ sidered a contest. A Democratic official in Jackson County declared th a t he d id n 't eop>ect Truman M orris to d efeat Jenkins and he doubted th a t JenlcLns would ever be defeated by anyone. The Portsmouth

Times in Scioto County endorsed Jenkins in tiie neighboring Tenth

D istrict, crediting the Congressman with serving the entire Ohio

Valley. The Cor^ressional contest was referred to as a one-sided

^^"Jenicins Honored Here, Boosts GOP," Portsmouth Times. Oct. 30, 1954,-p. Ij col. 6. 8V"'Charter is Top Election Issue," Jackson Herald, Oct. 29, 1954,-p. 1, c o l . 4* 233 race. 90

(3) Results in the Tenth Congressional D istrict

Thomas A. Jenkins, veteran Republican Congressman, was reelected 91 to Congress. In Jackson County Jenkins polled a plurality of

2,073 votes. Jenifins received 62.2% of the total vote, while Morris received 37.7%. Jenkins' plurality in the county was less than it had been in 1950 and 1952, when he polled pluralities of 3,281 and

4,301 respectively.

E. Cone 111 à. on

The 1954 election in the atomic area counties demonstrated the consistency of voting patterns and behavior in Jackson and Pike

Counties. Ross County returned wholeheartedly to the Republican fold, and Scioto County split its support in the three contests under consideration.

Although the Republican candidates won all tiiree contests in

Jackson County, it was the lightest vote recorded in the county since

1946 . Many Republicans failed to vote even though a favorite son was candidate for Governor. Indeed, the voters demonstrated little interest in the election. Atomic workers were too few in number to cause an upset in the normal voting pattern, and had not even been urged to vote by the Democratic Party organization. The atomic population did not have a significant effect upon voting results in

"Tom JenidLns Is Needed" (editorial), Portsmouth Times. Oct. 23, 1954 , .p. 6, col. 1 . 91 Art Parks, "GOP and Dems in Stand Off in Ohio Congress Con­ tests," Chillicothe Gazette, Nov. 3, 1954, p. 5, col. 5. 234 Jackson County. There was little reason for the settled Republican residents of Jackson County to fear that their absence from the polls would influence the outcome of the election. In the Governor's race the

Republican candidate was a local man, and no Republican Senatorial candidate had ever failed to carry Jackson County. Jenkins, the

Republican Congressional candidate, had never lost and was running against a newcomer in a normally Republican district. These con­ ditions were not conducive to a heavy vote in Jackson County.

The Pike County p o litic a l scene remained unchanged by the newcomers. Voting was light and pluralities received by winning

Democratic candidates in the Gubernatorial and Congressional races were about three hundred below 1932 figures. On the other hand, in the Senatorial contest, the plurality received by the Democratic candidate was la rg e r th an in 1950 and 1952. Newcomers who had registered and voted doubtless added support to the Democratic

Party organization, vjhich had been active in soliciting th eir vote.

Despite a light turnout in 1952, Pike County polled substantial pluralities for the victorious Democratic candidates.

Tte Ross County Republican organization succeeded in securing pluralities for its candidates. However, the number of voters participating in the election was five to six thousand below tiie normal turnout in 1948, 1950, and 1952. Governor Lausche was defeated by a slim majority, but Republican Senatorial and Con­ gressional candidates polled sizeable margins of victory. The 235 the Republican organization of the county. The Democratic organi­ zation's failure to capitalize on tiie presence of the new voters made the Reimblican Party's victory an easier one.

Democratic candidates for Governor and Congress were victorious in Scioto County, althougii the Democratic Senatorial candidate was defeated by a narrow margin. While the Democratic organization probably did not send to the polls all atomic workers favoring their cause, tiiose construction vorkers who did vote probably gave tiieir support to the Democratic candidates. The total vote of

28,500 in Scioto County was far below the 1952 figure of about

36,000, and the 1950 figure of approximately 32,000.

On a countyi^'Jide basis the 1954 e le c tio n r e s u lts did n ot in d i­ cate a substantial deviation in Jackson or Pike Counties' traditional political support. Ross County's endorsement of tlie Republican

Gubematorial candidate halted, temporarily at least, the trend toward supporting the Democratic Gubernatorial candidate. Scioto

County voters still showed an unwillingyi.e ss to vote for a Demo­ cratic Senatorial candidate, although they supported the Democratic

Gubernatorial and Congressional candidates, as they had in 1952.

Since the influence of the new voters was not strong enough to be distinguishable in the county results for Gubernatorial,

Congressional, and Senatorial offices, it must be sought in more restricted local areas. CHAPTER VIII

SURVEY OF SEVEN VOTING PRECINCTS IN THE ATOMIC COUNTIES

The atomic population settled principally in trailer camps,

public housing projects, and Federal Housing Administration projects

in the four county area.^ A survey of seven precincts in the four

county area, where large numbers of the atomic workers resided,

vjas undertaken in March, 1955^ to determine what effect, if any,

these newcomers had upon the voting behavior of these individual precincts. While the sample was possibly too small to be con­

clusive, the results were suggestive. It has already been pointed out that newcomers had little effect upon political behavior on a countywide basis.

Precincts selected included permanent housing, trailer courts, and public housing projects. Two hundred and twenty-seven persons were interviewed in the four county area. The interviewees were chosen at random within the area selected and included a few s e ttle d residents of the area, although the majority were connected with the Atomic Energy Installation.

Individuals interviewed were questioned regarding occupation, length of residence, voting in 1952 and 1954, party preference, home state, and future residence plans. A sample questionnaire is found in the appendix. One precinct was surveyed in Jackson County, one in Scioto County, two in Ross County, and three precincts in

^3ee Chapter I.

236 237 Pike County.

In Pike, Ross, and Scioto Counties the official registration records of the precincts surveyed were perused. From these records th e approximate number of newcomer r e g is tr a tio n s was a scertain ed .

The records also revealed the previous voting residence of these persons, if they had voted in the past, and indicated whether the registrants had cast a vote in the 1954 General Election.

Election statistics for 1950 and 1952 were consulted and were compared with 1954 election results in these precincts in order to determine the effect upon the voting behavior of the precincts which resulted from the presence of the newcomers.

A. Jackson County

(1) Jackson Heights (Jackson City, Precinct IB)

(a) Canvass of the Area

As mentioned in Chapter I, Jackson Heights was a new 145 unit subdivision constructed by private contractors with the aid of

F ederal Housing A dm inistration funds. The f i r s t fa m ilie s moved in late in March, 1954. The subdivision was outside the corpora­ tion lim its of Jackson City, but County Commissioners had approved a petition for annexation in March of that year. 2 The p ro je c t was located south of Jackson on the Oak Hill Pike. It recpired twenty- two acres of tlie 164 acre s it e , so fu tu re expansion was p ossib le.^

^"New 145 Unit Housing Project Will Receive Renters Tomorrow," Jackson Herald, March'26. 1954, p. 1, col. 3. 5"Expect Early Occupancy of All 145 Units," Jackson Herald, April 13, 1954, sec. B, p. 4, col. 6. 238 By May fifty families were living in the development and the

Jackson City Council was called upon to pass the annexation

ordinance.^ At the June Council meeting the application of Jackson c Heights, Inc., for annexation to Jackson was approved.

Jackson H eights was made a p a rt o f P re c in c t IB in th e southern portion of Jackson. The Election Board did not contemplate

establishing a separate precinct since a brief check of the area by an election official indicated that very few persons in this

subdivision would qualify to vote in the 1954 election.

In liis survey of the area the author interviewed thirty-five persons on Lewis Street, Florence Avenue, and Dawson Street in

Jackson Heights. Table XII indicates the results of the survey in respect to occupation, residence, voting, and contact by party workers. The tabulations demonstrated that, of tiie persons con­ tacted, fifteen were construction workers and nineteen were

Goodyear Atomic Corporation employees. One person did not rork at the Atomic Plant and was classified as other under the employ­ ment column.

Thirty-tw o of the thirty-five persons interviewed did not qualify to vote in the 1954 election, since they failed to fulfill the one year residence requirement. Three persons were q.ialified to vote in Ohio because they had migrated from other parts of

^John Lair, "Council Purchases 600 Acres," Jackson Herald, May 11, 1954, p . 1, c o l . .7* ■ 2"City Council Passes Five Ordinances," Jackson Herald. June 15, 1954, p. 1, col. 8. 239 TABLE X II GENlARiiL CHARACTEaiSTICS CF BEHSOI'B lOTERVIEiïED IN JACKSON HEIGHTS EMPLOYMENT Construction workers 15 Goodyear Atojriic C orporation workers 19 O thers 1 35 RESIDENCE More than one year in Ohio 3 Less than one year in Ohio 32 VOTING 1952 Voted in Ohio 2 Voted in other state 21 D id n 't vote 12

1954 Voted in Ohio 2 (1 absentee) Voted in other state 3 (absentee) Didn't vote 30

CONTACT BY PARTY WORKER IN 1954 Yes 5 No 30

FUTURE RESIDENCE PLjiNS Remain in county 9 Leave Ohio 5 Move closer to Atomic Plant 7 Move to other part of Ohio I In d e fin ite 13

TABLE X III DISTRIBUTION OF POLITICAL PARTY PREFEtB3NGE OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED IN JA3KSÛN HEIGHTS PARTY GONS'TldJCTION kORKERS GOODYEAR EMPLOYEES OTHEftS Democratic 8 7 1 Republican 4 10 Inde pendent 3 2 15 19 1 TOTALS Democratic Party I 6 Republican Party 14 Inde pendent 5 35 240 the state. Construction of the subdivision had not been completed, in time for persons coming into the area from outside tlrie state to q u a lify .

In th 8 1952 General Election twenty-one of the thirty-five had voted in other states, two had voted in Ohio, while twelve did not v o te. The 1954 fig u re s on e le c tio n p a r tic ip a tio n were much smaller. Only five acknowledged voting in the election, one of whom had voted in Precinct IB. The others had voted by absentee ballot in other parts of Ohio or in other states. The remaining thirty persons did not vote.

In order to determine the extent of activity of party workers in the subdivision prior to the 1954 election, persons interviewed were asked if they had been contacted by p a rty workers a f te r coming to Jackson County. Only five acknowledged such contact, while t h i r t y expressed no recollection of contact by party workers. It is possible that party canvassers may have stopped at these homes, lear'ned the length of residence, and passed on without a p lea fo r party support upon the realization that these persons were not qualified to vote in 1954 »

In Table XIII distribution o f party preference of tlie inter­ viewees is tabulated according to three categories of employment:

Goodyear permanent workers, construction worlsrs, and other per­ sons who were not affiliated with the Atomic Plant. Sixteen classified themselves as Democrats, fourteen as Republicans, and five as Independents. 241 Construction workers who expressed a preference for the Demo­ cratic Party numbered eigiit, while those favoring the Republican

P arty numbered fo u r. The Goodyear Atomic Corporation employees included ten Republicans and seven Democrats. Republican leaders in Jackson County classified the Goodyear workers as over­ whelmingly Republican. Among those contacted this thesis was not borne out, although there was a larger number of Republican adherents than Democrats in this group, and m ore Republicans than were found among employees of the construction companies. However, this group of Goodyear employees gave only a slight advantage to the Republican ranks.

The liome s ta te s o f the persons in terv iew ed appear in Table XIV.

According to a regional distribution the Southern states led with n in eteen . The la r g e s t number of these caiie from best V irg in ia , with Texas and Tennessee following. The Northeast accounted for ten persons, and there were three each from the Northcentral and

'western regions.

Party preferences of Atomic Plant employees on a home state basis revealed eighteen persons from the South, seven of whom were

Republicans, nine Democrats, and two Independents. The one person in another occupation was also from the South. T\")elve Goodyear

Atomic Corporation workers had ^nigrated from the South compared with six construction workers.

The Northeast accounted for a total of six Republicans, three

Democrats, am one Independent. Five of the Republicans and two 242

TABLE XIV POLITICAL HiBFLxiLNGE BY GEOGRiLYlIGAL DISTRIBUTION OF PERSONS INTERVIEi.ED IN JACKSON HEEGHTS,

HOLE STATES

NORTHCENTRAL SOUTH

Ohio 2 Kentucky I W isconsin North Carolina 1 3 Oklahoma 1 Tennessee 2 NORTHEAST Texas 3 West V irg in ia 11 Maine 1 19 Massachusetts 1 New York 1 WEST Pennsylvania JL. 10 Colorado 2 New Mexico 1

GOODYEAR EMPLOYEES CONSTRUCTION WORKERS OTHERS REP. DEM. IND. REP. DEM. IND. DEi,i.

Ohio 1 1 W isconsin 1

Maine 1 Massachusetts 1 New York 1 Pennsylvania 4 1 1

Kentucky 1 North Carolina Oklahoma 1 Tennessee 1 1 Texas 1 2 West Virginia 4 4 1 1

Goloi'ado Nevj Me:d.co 1 To" 243 of the Democrats were employed by the Goodyear Atomic Corporation

■while one Republican, one Democrat, and one Independent were con­ struction workers.

The Northcentral states supplied three of the interviewees, all of whom were construction vorkers. Ti'Jo were Democrats, while one was an Independent. The West also provided three construction workers, one Democrat, one Republican, and one Independent.

To aimmariae, a majority of tlie Goodyear Atomic Corporation workers interviewed came from Southern states and the remainder from tiie Northeast. On 'the otiier hand, construction woriærs mi­ grated from the four major regions of the nation. However, a few more had migrated from the South than from other parts of ttie country.

Persons interviewed in Jackson Heights were questioned about their future residence plans. Table XII indicated the variety of answers to this question. Only nine declared their intention of remaining in Jackson County while thirteen expected to leave the county. Of tnis number five intended to move out of the state, seven planned to move closer to the Atomic Plant, and one expected to move to another part of Oiiio. Thirteen of the persons inter­ viewed were indefinite about their future plans.

(b) Election Results

Precinct IB cf Jackson City had a voting strength of about

295 persons. In the 1950 Gubernatorial race the precinct gave the

Republican candidate 72^ of the vote and in the 1952 Gubernatorial contest Charles P. Taft, the Republican contender, won with 66.3% 244 of the vote. The precinct polled its largest vote in a Presidential race in 1952 when Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Republican candidate, receiv ed 77.6# o f the total vote.

In the 1950 and 1952 Senatorial contests Republican candidates

carried the precinct. In I 95 O Senator Robert A. Taft carried the precinct with 79.4# of the vote and in 1952 Senator John Bricker won with 79 . 5# of th e v o te.

Congressional races in 1950 and 1952 were resounding victories fo r Thomas a . Jenkins, the Republican incumbent. Jenkins received a higher percentage of the vote in these elections than did Repub­ lican Gubernatorial, Presidential, and Senatorial candidates. He p o lle d 85 . 6# in 1950 and 87.2# in 1952. It was to this predominantly

Republican precinct, where it could do the Republicans least harm, that the new subdivision, Jaclcson Heights, was attached in 1954. Election returns in the precinct in 1954 again resulted in substantial pluralities for Republican candidates in Gubernatorial,

Senatorial, and Congressional contests. Rhodes polled 69 . 6#,

Bender received 75.9#, and Thomas Jenkins polled 77.2# of the vote. The number of persons going to the polls in the precinct in 1954 Was thirty to thirty-five less than in 1952, and twenty less than in 1950. There was no discernible change in the voting behavior of Precinct IB due to the addition of the new housing development in

1954 . (c) Summary In Jackson County the survey of persons in the new housing sub­ division revealed that few were qualified to vote. Republican and 245 Democratic organizations had nothing to gain or lo s e i n th e November

election through the presence o f this group.

The Republican contention that the majority of the Goodyear

vjorkers were Republican adherents was not borne out in the group of persons contacted. It is probable that the future influence of

this group of interviewees, regardless of their political affilia­ tion, will be very slight, since many indicated a desire to move

out of the state or closer to the Atomic Plant.

Many of the persons interviewed were dissatisfied with their living conditions, due primarily to high rent. The reasons for moving into the subdivision in the first place included a desire to be away from tiie rush and crowded conditions close to the Atojidc

Plant, a desire to have their children attend regular sessions in school, rather than go in shifts as the children were required to do in Pike County, and lastly, because tliere were no other housing developments available to them when they ai^rived in April and hay of 1954. B. Pike County

(1) Waverly East Precinct

The village of b'averly was divided into two election precincts.

East and west. Included in Waverly East Precinct were two new housing subdivisions, haverly Heights and waverly Estates. These became a part of the village when the corporation boundaries were extended in 1953. In the 1954 General Election the new residents who had registered voted with the settled residents in baverly 246 East Precinct.

(a) The Survey of VJaverly Heights

Waverly Heigiits, a Federal Housing Administration sponsored project, vjas begun in April, 1953. The first families began to move into the 115 home subdivision in October, 1953. Homes in this subdivision were sold for #10,500 to $11,500 or rented by the occupants for $75 to $85 a month. Twenty-one persons, living on Salisbury Road and Dean Street in V/averly Heights, were inber- viewed.

Table XV indicates the general characteristics of this group.

Twenty of the twenty-one were connected with the Atomic Energy

Plant, thirteen with the construction phase and seven with the

Goodyear Atomic Corporation. In this group there was a larger number of persons who fulfilled tiie residence requiranent than in the Jackson Heights group. Nine met the residence requirement, while twelve did not qualify. None could remetaber having been contacted personally by party workers.

In the 1952 General Election four had voted in Ohio, while ten had voted in other states. Five had not voted and two refused to answer the question. In tlie 1954 election four voted in Pike

County, two in other states by absentee ballots, and fifteen did not vote. It is interesting to note that five of the nine persons who had lived in the area long enough to qualify to vote did not talce par-t in the election.

Table XVI denotes the political party preference of the group 247 TiffiLh, XV GSIfliîLAL Qi ARAGTiiRISTIGS OF PERSONS IK^ERVIE»aED IN iWWEBIJ HEIGHTS aLPLOIMENT Construction viorkers I 3 Goodyear Atomic Corporation vjorkers 7 üth ers 1 21 RESIDENCE More than one year in Ohio 9 Less than one year in Ohio 1 2

VOTING 1952 Voted in Ohio 4 Voted in other state 10 Didn't vote 5 Undi sclosed 2

1954 Voted i n Ohio Voted in other state 2 (absentee) Didn't vote 15 CONTACT BY PARTY JORKER IN I 954 Yes No 21 FUTUIE RESIDENCE PLANS Remain in county 6 Move c lo se r to Atomic Plant Leave Ohio 7 Move to other part of Ohio 2 Indefinite 6

TABIE XVI DISTRIBUTION Or' POLITICAL PARTY PREFERENCE OF PERSONS INTER'TIEAED IN oaVERLY HEIGHTS

PARTY CONSTRUCTION CORKERS GOODIEaR EMPLOYEES OTHERS

Democratic 5 2 Republic an 2 1 Independent 5 4 1 Undisclosed i 13 T TOTALS Democratic Party Republican Party 3 Independent 10 Undisclosed 248 interviewed in Waverly Heights. Seven expressed a preference for the D%iocratic Party and three for the Republican Party. Ten called themselves Independents and one refused to answer tlie question. Of those employed in the construction of the Atomic Plant, five ex­ pressed preference for the Democratic Party and five were Indepen­ dents. Tv'/o were Republicans and one refused to state his political preference. Among the Goodyear employees two classified themselves as Democrats, one as a Republican, and four as Independents.

In Table XVII the geographical distribution of persons inter­ viewed in Waverly Heights is presented by region and by state.

The Wo id, he entrai region accounted for eleven of the interviewees, seven of whom were from Ohio. Eight persons came from the South, one from the Northeast, and one from the West. An analysis on the basis of employirent disclosed that the construction workers came from the South and Worthcentral regions. Six came from each of these regions, while one came from the West. There were four permanent workers from the worthcentral region and two had migrated from the South. One had come from the Northeast. Ohio provided the largest number of newcomers in this group. These workers could satisfy the residence qualification for voting more easily than the others, since their residence in other parts of Ohio counted tovjard the one year minimum specified in the election code.

(b) Registration of Newcomers in Waverly East Precinct

In 1954 the total number of registrants in Waverly East Precinct was 581. A check of the registration records revealed 143 new 249 TiiBLE XVII POIXTIGAL Pml'EiiBHUB BY GUOG&APHIG^L DISTRIBUTION OF PBRSONS li^TBriVIBlilD IN v.AVBRLY HEIGHTS

HOME STATE

NORTHGENTRAL SOUTH

In d ian a 3 Alabama 1 N orth Dakota 1 F lo rid a I Ohio 7 Maryland 1 II Tennessee 2 V irg in ia I best Virginia 2

NORTHEAST WEST

Pennsylvania I New Mexico _1_ 1

GOODYEAR EMPLOYEES GONSTiUGTLON WORKERS OTHERS REP. DEn. IND. REP. DEi... IND. UND.i^ IND.

Indiana 1 1 I North Dakota I Ohio 1 1 I I

Pennsylvania 1

Alabama 1 F lo rid a I Maryland 1 Tennessee 1 1 V irg in ia 1 West Virginia , 1 I

New Mexico

1 4 1

■"'Undi sclosed 250 registrants vjho were drawn to the area by the Atomic Plant. These nevj registrants had filled out tlieir registration cards primarily in the September prior to the election, as Table XVIII indicates.

Only forty-thr-ee of these persons had registered before that time.

The new registrants lived in the housing subdivisions of

Waverly Heights and Waverly Estates and in the older sections of the village of Waverly. Among th e 113 new registrants there were forty-seven living in Waverly Heights, siscty-eight in Waverly

Estates, and twenty-eight in the other sections of the precinct.

Table XVIII also indicates the previous voting residence of these persons by region and by state. The Northcentral region accounted for tiie greatest number, with a total of eighty-five.

Sixty-five of these persons last voted in Ohio. Registration re­ cords demonstrated, as did the direct canvass, that a considerable number of the newcomers moving into Waverly East Precinct had migrated from other sections of Ohio. Thirty new registrants were from the South, with Tennessee ard Kentucky providing ten and nine respectively. It is not surprising that so many new registrants last voted in these states, since many of the atomic workers had moved into Ohio after completion of the atomic installations at Oak

Ridge, Tennessee, and Paducah, Kentucky. The Western states pro­ vided sixteen of the newcomers, with California and New Mexico supplying five and four respectively. Those from New Mexico had been employed at the atomic installation at Los Alamos. The North­ east supplied only six of tliese new registrants. Six new registrants 251 TABIE XVIII 1954 PEGE STRATI ON STATISTICS OF imiCOIIRRS IN AAVERLY EAST PRECINCT, PIKE COUNTY TOTAL REGISTRANTS IN THE PRECINCT, 1954 : 581 NEACOllEfiS WHO REGISTERED IN THE PRECINCT, I 954 ; I 43

DATE OF NEVIOOMER REGISTRATION January 2 February 4 March 20 May 3 Ju ly 3 August 11 September 100 REVIOUS VOTING RESIDENCE

NORTH CEMTR;iL SOUTH

I ll i n o i s 3 Alabama 1 Indiana 4 Arkansas 1 Kansas 3 F lo rid a 1 M ichigan 2 Kentucky 9 M innesota 2 North Carolina 2 M issouri 2 Tennessee 10 Ohio 65 V irg in ia 3 North Dakota 1 West V irg in ia 3 South Dakota 3 30 85 NORTHEAST \4jST

Massachusetts 1 C alifo rn ia 5 New York 1 Colorado 2 Pennsylvania 4 New Mexico 4 6 Oregon 2 Washington 3 16 NEVER VOTED: 6 HOUSING PROJECTS NUEBER OF REGISTRANTS V/averly Estates 68 iVaverly Heights 47 O thers (Newcomer r e g is tr a n ts liv in g 28 in old. sections of the village)

SOURCE; 1954 Voter Registration Records, waverly East Precinct, Pike County, Ohio. 252 stated that tiiey had never voted.

A substantial majority of the nevjcomers viio registered voted on election day. One hundred and nineteen persons^ or 83.2%, cast their ballots. The remaining twenty-four, or 16.7%, failed to go to the polls on ele ction day.

(c) Ele ction Result s

The voting strength of Waverly East Precinct in 1950 and 1952, prior to the institution of registration in Pike County, ranged from 510 to 520. V/hen viewed in this perspective the 581 total registration in 1954 did not, at first glance, indicate much gain due to the newcomers. Plow ever, ttie se figures are misleading because, upon perusal of registration records, the names of 143 newcomers were found. An explanation for this seeining inconsistency is that many settled residents in the precinct had undoubtedly failed to register under the registration law.

In 1950 and 1952 Governor La us die. Democratic incumbent, polled

67% and 68%.of the vote against his opponents, Don Ebright, and

Charles P. Taft. In 195 4 Governor Lausche again carried Waverly

East Precinct, but by the smaller percentage of 64.8% of the total vote. Rhodes received 35.1%. In 1954 484 persons turned out on election day, which was slightly below the 1950 and 1952 figures.

The 1952 Presidential race proved a victory for neither major party candidate. In an unusual result the precinct cast its vote in equal parts for Eisenhower, the Republican candidate, and

Stevenson, the Democratic candidate. The final tabulation gave 253 each Presidential candidate 260 votes. Tire personal popularity

of the Reijublican Presidential candidate may -vieil have accounted

for this tie vote.

Democratic Senatorial candidates carried haverly East Precinct in 1950 and 1952. In 1950 Joseph Ferguson polled 53.1/a to defeat

Senator Robert À. Taft. The 1952 oonbest vias anottier Democratic victory, as Liichael DiSalle carried tiie precinct with 51.6# of the vote to defeat his opponent, John h. Bricker. In the Con­ gressional race James G. Polk received the winning percentages of

64# in 1950 and 63.2# in 1952 to defeat his Republicai opponents.

In 1954 the precinct endorsed Democratic Senatorial and

Congressional candidates as well as the Democratic Gubernatorial candidate. Thomas Burke, Democratic Senatorial aspirant, polled

59 . S# o f the vote and George Bender, Republican, received 40.1#.

The Congressional contest in 1954 resulted in another vie to ly for James Polk in Waverly East Precinct. His winning percentage was 63. 3# while his opponent, Leo Bladcburn, received 36 . 6# of the vote.

( 2) Piketon Village Voting Precinct

(a) A Survey of Riverviev,’ and Piketon Trailer Courts

Piketon Village lies south of the village of waverly on

Route 23. In 1954 tlie en tire v illa g e c o n stitu te d one voting p re c in c t. Newcomers s e ttle d la r g e ly in t r a i l e r courts w ith in the boundaries of triis community. There ware approximately 558 trailers with the village limits late in 1954. Most of these were 2% located in large trailer courts, although Jiiany were on private lots.

Parts of two of these trailer courts, the Riverview Court and the

Piketon Trailer Court, were surveyed in March, 1955.

Riverview Trailer Court was located in the south end of the village on old Route 124 and consisted of 108 trailers. The Piketon

Trailer Court was situated in the southeastern part of the village, on Route 23, and contained 236 licensed trailers. Thirty-three persons were contacted, sixteen in the Riverview Trailer Court and seventeen in Piketon Trailer Court.

Table XIX presents the compilation of information regarding employment, residence, voting, and future plans of the persons interviewed in the two trailer courts. Of the thirty-three persons contacted thirty-two were construction workers, while the one other person was not associated with the Atomic Plant. Among this group there were no permanent workers. Fifteen of the interviewees ful­ filled the residence requirement while eighteen did not.

Eighteen of those interviewed in the two trailer courts were non-voters in 1952 and twenty-five were non-voters in 1954* One factor in the low incidence of voting was the migratory nature of these persons. Several stated that they had been unable to vote in

1952 and 1954 because they failed to fu lfill the residence require­ ment. However, five persons did vote in Ohio in 1954, while three voted absentee in another state.

Distribution of political party preference of the interviewees is listed in Table XX. Thirty-two of the thirty-three interviewed 255

TiiBLE XIX GEI^RXL CHARACTERISTICS OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED IN PIKETON VILLAGE

RIVERVIEW TRAILER PIKETuN TILAILER TOTALS COURT COURT EMPLOYMENT Construction vo rkers 15 17 32 Others 1 16 U 33 RESIDENCE More than one year in Ohio 6 9 15 Less than one year in Ohio 10 8 18

VOTING 1952 Voted in Ohio 1 1 2 Voted in other state 9 4 13 Didn't vote 6 12 18

1954 Voted in Ohio 4 1 Voted in other state 2 1 3 Didn't vot e 10 15 25 contact by PARTY YORKER IN 1954 Yes 4 4 No 12 17 29 FUTURE RESIDENCE PLANS Remain in county 1 1 Leave Ohio 6 15 Move closer to Atomic Plant Move to other part of Ohio 2 2 4 Indefinite 7 6 13 256

TdBlE XX DISTRIBUTION OF POIITIGAL PARTY PKbFüRüNG& OF PbRSONS INTFRVm&D IN PIKÜTÜN VILLAGL

RIVKRVIEA TRAILER COURT PIKLTON TRAILLR COURT

PARTY CONSTRUCTION oORiCiRS OTKcRS CONSTRUCTION CORKERS

Democratic 11 9 Republican 1 1 3 Independent 2 5 Undis closed 1 15 17 TOTALS Deaiocratic Party- 20 Republican Party 5 Independent 7 Undisclosed 1 33 257 were construction workers . T^.venty of ttem expressed a preference for the Democratic Party, while five of the group favored the

Republican Party. One of the latter was the outsider, not directly connected with the Atomic Plant. Seven of the group listed them­ selves as Independents and one refused to disclose his preference.

On a percentage basis 6l/j of those contacted expressed a preference for the Dejnocratic Party.

Table XXI portrays the p olitical preference by geographical distribution of persons contacted in Riverview and Piketon Trailer

Courts. On a regional basis the Southern states accounted for the largest number of this group, with seventeen persons. The North- central states contributed eleven persons, and the remainder came from the Northeast and west.

Twelve Democratic Party adherents in this group caiie from the

South. The residue of Democratic supporters consisted of six from

Northcentral states and one each from the Northeast and whst.

Those preferring the Republican P arty consisted of two each from the Southern and Northcentral states and one from the Northeast.

There were three Independents from the South, three from the Worth- central region, and one from the Northeast. On a state basis Ohio and Pennsylvania accounted for nine of thirty-three persons, five coming from Ohio and four from Pennsylvania.

Future residence plans revealed that nineteen intended moving out of the state or to another part o f Ohio. Thirteen were in­ d e f i n i t e concerning future residence plans and only one expressed 258 TABIE XXI POLITICAL PliLFLPÉWGL BY üfiüGAAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OP PERSONS INTLRVLiLLD IN PIKETON VILLaGE

HOLE STATE

NORTHCENTRAL SOUTH

I l l i n o i s 1 Alabama 1 I n d ia n a 1 G e o r g ia 1 Iow a 1 K en tu ck y 2 K ansas 1 Louisiana 1 M ic h ig a n 2 Mississippi 1 O hio _5 North Carolina 2 11 Oiclahoma 2 South Carolina 2 Tennessee 1 Texas 2 West Virginia __2_ 17 NORTHEAST WEST

Pennsylvania C a lif o r n ia 4 CONSTRUCTION WORKERS OTHERS DEM. IND UNO.REP. RbP. DEM,

I ll i n o i s 1 In d ian a 1 lav a 1 Kansas 1 Michigan 1 1 Ohio 1 2 1 1 Penns ylv ania 1 1 1 1 Alabama 1 Georgia 1 Kentucky 1 1 L ouisiana 1 Mississippi 1 North Carolina 2 Oklahoma 2 South Carolina 1 1 Tennessee 1 Texas 2 West Virginia 2 C alifo rn ia 1 4 20 7 1 1 2$9 the intention of remaining in the area. He was the one not con­ nected with the Atomic Energy Plant.

(b) Registration Records

Total registration in the Piketon Village Precinct was 731 in 1954. This was an in crease of 306 over the 1953 fig u re .

Table X kll shows the number of trailer and public housing resi­ dents who registered in 1954. One hundred and twenty-nine new registrants from the trailer courts and public housing in the precinct were noted. Trailer courts in this precinct included the

Riverview and Piketon Trailer Courts, h'hile a few persons also registered from Hunter' s Trailer Court and Scliriddt's Trailer Court, the majority of these persons voted in Seal Township. Riverview

Trailer Court had the largest number of i’egistrants, eighty-two, and Piketon followed with tiiirty-nine registrants. Only four persons listed Üie Piketon Public Housirg Cissna Addition as their home address. Since tMs project was not completed until late in 1954, as mentioned in Chapter I, tiriis may account for the fact that few persons registered from this housing project.

In the group of 129 new registrants discussed above the greatest number, seventy-four, registered in September, while others regis­ te re d in January, February, July, and August. These persons indi­ cated their past voting residence in ninety-eight instances, while thirty-one persons stated they had never voted. Eighty-nine of the new registrants had last voted in Southern or Northcentral states.

Kentucl

PREVIOUS VOTING RESIuhi-iCE NORTHCENTRAL SOUTH

I ll i n o i s 8 Alabama 5 Indiana 4 Arkansas 1 Iowa 2 F lo rid a 4 Kansas 1 Georgia 3 Mi chi gan 4 Kentucky 14 M issouri 1 Mississippi 2 Nebraska 2 North Carolina 2 North Dakota 1 Oklahoma 6 Ohio 19 Tennessee 5 42 Texas 2 West Virginia 3 47 NORTHEAST WEST

Pennsylvania 3 C a lifo rn ia 3 3 New Mexico 1 Washington 1 'Wyoming 1

NEVER VOTED; 31 TRAILER COURTS OR HOUSING PROJECT NUMBER OF REGISTRANTS Hunter's Trailer Court 2 Piketon Trailer Court 39 Public Housing Project 4 Riverview Trailer Court 82 Schmidt's Trailer Court 2 129

SOURCE: 1954 Voted Registration Records, Piketon Village Precinct, Pike County, Ohio. 261 in the South. Ohio contributed nineteen, the highest figure from the Worthcentral states, as well as the entire group. Three last voted in the Northeast while six last voted in the West.

In tlie November e le c tio n 81% o f the 129 new r e g is tr a n ts , or

104 persons, voted. The percentage of these registrants who voted compares favorably with the number voting in the Waverly East group, which was also above 80%.

(c) Election Results

Voting strength of Piketon Village ranged from 447 to 456 in

1950 and 1952 . In the 1950 and 1952 Gubernatorial elections

Governor Lausche, Democrat, carried the precinct with 55% and 54.3% respectively. In the I 952 Presidential contest Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Republican candidate, received 54% of the vote to defeat his opponent, Adlai E. Stevenson.

In 1954 , 589 votes were cast for the Gubernatorial candidates and Governor Lausche increased his winning plurality to 151 votes.

Lausche received 62.8% of tire vote, wiiile his Republican opponent,

Riiodes, received 37.1% of the vote. Rhodes' percentage was lower than that received by either Don Ebright in 1950 or Charles P. Taft in 1952 .

The Democratic Senatorial candidate won in 1950 and the Repub­ lican candidate was victorious in 1952. In 1950 Joseph Ferguson received 50.9% of the vote while his opponent, Robert A. Taft, received 49% of the w te. Senator John i«. Bricker, Republican incum­ bent, cai'ried tlie precinct in 1952 with 55% of the vote while Michael 262

DiSalle, the Doiiocratic candidate, received kh-^%- In 1954 the precinct once more supported the Democratic candidate, Thomas

Burke, vjho polled 63.2%' of the vote. This was a wide margin of victory compared with the 1950 election.

James G. Polk, Democratic Congressman, carried the precinct in 1950 , 1952 , and 1954 . He received 54.5%i of the vote in 1950,

52. 9 % in 1952 , and 64.7% in 1954. The latter was the highest winning percentage received by a candidate for the three offices under consideration in the 1954 election in Piketon Village. The newcomers had slgnificantly strengthened the Democratic showing in tills precinct.

(3) Seal Townsliip V oting P recin ct

(a) Survey of Nelson Trailer Court

Seal Township is south of waverly and includes Piketon Village.

For purposes of voting, however, Piketon Village comprised a separate precinct. Approximately 350 to 400 trailers were located in Seal

Townsliip outside Piketon Village. Mel son Trailer Court, one of the largest trailer courts in the township, contained ninety-six to one hundred trailers in 1954 .

Tv'jelve persons were contacted in Nelson Trailer Court in March,

1955 . In Table XAIII the political characteristics of this group are indicated. Eleven construction workers were interviewed and one other person who was not directly connected with the Atomic Plant.

Two of the persons interviewed fulfilled the residence requiranent, w hile ten did not qualify. The voting habits of these persons revealed 263

TABIE m i l GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OT PERSüWS Ii^ERVIEuED IK SEAL DLNaiIP

EMPLOYLENT Construction norkers 11 Others 1 12 RÉSinENGE. More than one year in Ohio 2 Less than ore year i n Ohio 10

VOTING 1 9 5 2 Voted i n Ohio Voted in other state A Didn't vote 8

1 9 5 A Voted i n Oliio 2 Voted in other state 1 Didn't vote 9

CONTACT BY PARTY WORKER IN 195A Yes 1 No 11 .

FUTURE RESIDENCE PLANS Remain in county 1 Leave Ohio 7 Indefinite A 264 eight non-voters in 1952, and nine in 1954. In the I952 e le c tio n

four voted in states other than Ohio. In 1954 one person voted in

another state by absentee ballot and two voted in Seal Township.

The political party preference expressed by those contacted

is set forth in Table KvIV. Seven Democratic and one Republican

construction worker were interviewed. Two of the construction workers listed themselves as Independents and one construction worker refused to disclose h is preference.

In regard to geographical distribution, the Southern states were the home states of seven Democratic supporters aid one

Independent. i'Jorthcentral étates accounted for one Republican, one Democrat, and one Independent. One person was interviewed from th e West whose political preference was undisclosed.

(b) Registration Records

Seal Township registration records for 195 4 revealed I 60 new registrants who lived in nine trailer courts in the Township.

Table XXV indie at es the 00 ucts where these persons were located and cites voting information about this group. The Schmidt Court,

Sunset Court, Nelson's, and Hunter's Trailer Courts provided the greatest number of registrants. As in the other precinct registra­ tion records consulted, most of these persons registered during

September.

Only twenty-two declared that they had not voted previously, while 138 stipulated their last voting residence. Sixty-five of the 138 last voted in the Northcentral region. Ohio was again the 265

TiBlÆ :aiV DISTRIBUTION OF POLITICAL PARTY PHLFLRLKGL AiTD G^OCRAPHIGAL DISTRIBUTLOM OF PERSONS IKTLRVIELLD IN SEAL TüAsiSHIP

PARTY CONSTRUCTION ,ORRLR: OTHERS

Democratic 7 Republican 1 Independent 2 Undi sclosed 1 11 1 HOkL STATE

mtTHGLimiAL SOUTH

I l l i n o i s 1 Mississippi 2 In d ian a 1 South Carolina 2 M issouri 1 Tennessee 1 Texas 2 West Virginia 1

WEST

Nev/ Mexico 1 1

CONSTRUCTION v.oRNERS OTiERS REP. DEivi. i m . UM). REP. DEL.

I ll i n o i s 1 In d i ana 1 Mis so u ri 1

Mississippi 2 South Carolina 2 Tennessee Texas 1 1 West V irginia 1

New Mexico 1 7 2 1 1 266

TiBIE XXV 1954 REGISON STàlTSÏICS OF NLViCOI.iFRS IN SEAL TOVïNSHIP H-LEOEWCT, PIKE COUNTY TOTAL KEGHSTRAiWS IN THE PRECINCT, I 954 : 416 m,COMERS m o REGISTERED IN THE PRECINCT, I 954 : 160 DATE OF MAVCQMER REGISTRATION January 1 August 14 February 34 September 99 Ju ly 12 PREVIOUS VOTING RESIDEI'ICE

mRTHCEl\iTRAL SOUTH

I l l i n o i s 13 Alabama 4 Mississippi 2 Indiana 6 Arkansas 2 North Carolina 3 Iowa 7 Delaware 2 Oklahoma 4 Kansas 1 Florida 1 Tennessee 2 Michigan 4 Kentucky 13 Texas 10 M innesota 2 Louisi ana 3 V irginia 2 M isseu ri 2 Maryland 1 west V irginia 2 North Dalcota 3 26 25 Ohio 25 / 26 South Dalcota 2 T otal 51 65 NORTHEAST WEST New York 2 Ari zona 2 New Mexico 2 Pennsylvania Ô California 1 Washington 2 10 Colorado 4 Wyoming 1 7 5 / 7 ÆYiud VOTED: 22 Total 12 TRAILER COURTS imAER OT' REGISTRAM6 Atomic Trailer Court 1 Brooklyn Acres Court 2 Cunningham's Court 4 Hunter's Trailer Court 24 Nelson Trailer Court 33 Sanrniy Key's Court 2 Schmidt' s Trailer Court 36 Sunset Trailer Court 47 Wright' s Trailer Court 9 Private lots 2 160

SOURCE: 1954 Voter Registration Records. Seal Township Precinct, Pike County, Ohio. 267 state in vvhich the largest number of persons, twenty-five, had la s t voted. The Southern states provided fifty-one, Kentucky and

Texas leading with th irteen and ten respectively. Ten persons had last voted in the Northeast and twelve last voted in the West.

In ti'ie 1954 General Election 118, or 73.7% o f the l60 new registrants, participated. Forty-two, or 26,2% did not vote. The nujiibsr of new registrants failing to vote in Seal Township was higher than in Waverly East or Piketon Village Precincts.

(c) Election Results

The voting strength of Seal Township ranged from 260 to

265 in the 1950 find 1952 General Elections. In 1954 the number of persons voting for candidates for the offices under study ranged from 270 to 279 . In the Gubernatorial contest Governor Lausche received 61.5% in 1950 and 59*6% in 1952. In 1954 he increased liis winning percentage to 72% of the total vote. Janes A. Rhodes,

Republican, polled 27.9% of tiie vote.

In tlie 1952 Presidential contest Seal Township voters sup­ ported the Republican candidate, as did voters of Piketon Village.

Eisenhower received 52% of the vote, while Stevenson polled 17 «9%»

Seal Township Precinct supported the Democratic Senatorial candidates in 1950 and 1952. In 1950 Ferguson received 58.1% of tiie vote to defeat Robert A. Taft. Michael V. DiSalle, 1952

Democratic candidate, won by the close margin of 50.6% of the vote and defeated John Bricker. The precinct results in 1954 demon­ strated a sound victory for Burke, the Democratic candidate, who 268 received cf the vote lAile Bender polled 24.8%.

Congressman James G. Polk, Democratic candidate in 1950,

1952 , and 1954 vas also successful in Seal Township Precinct. His

iiighest Tdnning percentage was received in 1954 when he obtained

76.7% of the vote and defeated Leo Blackburn. In 1950 and 1952

Polk c a rrie d the p re c in c t by 62.6% and 56.6% re sp e c tiv e ly to d efeat

R epublicans ilcCowen and Blackburn.

(4) Summary

In the survey of three voting precincts in Pike County sixty-

six persons were contacted who resided in three trailer courts and

one housing project. Of tiiis group fifty-six were construction

workers, seven were Goodyear employees, and three were erg aged in

other occupations. Twenty-six o f these persons had liv e d in Ohio

and the county long aiough to vote and nearly one half, or twelve,

of this number did vote in Pike County. Table 5GLVI signifies the

employirent, voting, and party preference of all those interviewed

in Pike County. A large percentage supported candidates of the

Democratic Party, while there were only nine Republican adherents

in the group. Nineteen were classified as Independent and timee

refused to state their party preference.

Table XXVII lists the political affiliation of Pike County inter­

viewees according to tlie type of employment and geographical lo c a tio n .

Thirty-three of the sixty-six listed Southern states as their home

state. Twenty-two of those from the South favored the Democratic

P a rty , thi'ee were Republican supporters, and eight were Independents. 269

TÜBIii. IXVI GbimOL CfiâtlaCTjJÜÎISTICS ÜF PFESüi© i m w m m lü tïKE æUNTY

TiUiILGR HOUSING TOTALS COURTS PROJLCT aiP L o m N ï Gons tr u ct i o n vjo r k e r s 43 13 5 6 Goodyear employees 7 7 O th e r s 2 1 4 5 21 66 mSIDLNCh, More than one year in Ohio 17 9 26 Less than one year in Ohio 2 8 12 40 VO m m 1 9 5 2 Voted in Ohio 2 4 6 Voted in other state 17 10 27 Didn't vote 26 5 31 Undi 8 c l o s e d 2 2

1 9 5 4 Voted in Ohio 4 12 Voted in other state 4 2 6 Didn't vote 33 15 48 GODT;UJT BY .LliiOiL IL 19)4 Y es p ■ 5 No 40 21 61 FUÏU4B iLBSIDEiiGD FLLiiS Remain in county 2 o 8 Leave Oiiio 22 7 29 Move closer to Atomic Plant Move to other part of Ohio 4 2 6 I n d e f i n i t e 17 6 23

TRAILLR UOURTS HOUSING PRülüGT CON.. OTHMRS CON. GAÏ. O'jHiiLS Deniocrati c 27 1 2 2 3 5 R e p u b lic a n 5 1 2 1 9 Independent 9 5 4 19 Undisclosed 2 1 _2_ 43 13 66 270

TABLE XXVII ■ POLITICAL PBEEEHENGL BY GLOGdAPHIG^ DISTEIBU'HON OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED IN PIKE COUNTY HOLE STATE

NORTH CENTRAL SOUTH I l l i n o i s 2 Alabama 2 North Carolina 2 Indiana 5 F lo rid a 1 Oklahoma 2 Iowa 1 Georgia 1 South Carolina 4 K ansas 1 Keritucl^y 3 Tennessee 3 Michigan 2 Louisiana 1 Texas 4 iai 880 u ri 1 Maryland 1 V irg in ia 1 North Dakota 1 M ississippi 3 west Virginia _ ? Ohio 12 L2 21 23 / 12 KOEIHEAIT ,iE5T 33 Pennsylvania ? California 1 5 NevJ Mexico 2 3 GOODYEAR EMPLOYEES CONSTRUCTION kORKEiuS OTHERS REP. DEI:. I 111. REP. DEiv:. IND. UND. R. - D. I . I ll i n o i s 1 1 In d ian a 1 1 1 2 low a 1 Kansas 1 Michigan 1 1 Misso u ri 1 North Dakota 1 Oiiio I 1 1 3 3 1 Pennsylvania 1 1 1 1 1 Alabama 1 1 F lo rid a 1 Georgia 1 Kentucl^y 1 1 1 L ouisiana 1 Maryland 1 Mississippi 3 North Carolina 2 Oklahoma 2 South Carolina 1 3 Tennessee 2 1 Texas 3 1 V irg in ia 1 West V irg in ia 1 2 2 California 1 New Mexico i 1 1 2 4 7 32 14 111 271 North central states accounted for the second largest group of those

interviewed in Pike County. Twenty-five came from this reg io n .

Eleven of these persons were Democrats, five were Republicans,

eight were Independents, and one refused to answer the question.

The Northeast accounted for fiv e o f the interviewees and the West fo r th re e .

Thirty-two of ttie fifty-six construction workers interviewed

preferred the Democratic Party, seven the Republican Party,

fourteen were Independents, and three refused to disclose their

p o litic a l preference. Tiiis sampling supports the contention of

party leaders that a large number of construction workers came

from the South, since Southern sta tes were the home states of twenty-

one Democratic construction workers. However, tic is particular sample

d id not in d icate as many as Q0% from Southern sta te s, which was the

estimate arrived at by Pike County Democratic leaders after their

ex ten siv e survey.

In Pike County seven permanent workers were interviewed. Tvo

favored the Democratic Party, one the Republican Party, and four

classified themselves as Independents. Only a few permanent workers were contacted due to the fact tiiat the construction workers

greatly outnumbered the permanent personnel. Another factor was

that only one housing subdivision was contacted where permanent

personnel usually settled, compared with three trailer courts,

which were generally patronized by the construction workers.

During the survey of tlie s ix ty -s ix persons in Pike County 272 only five admitted or remembered that they had been contacted by party -workers. Many of these persons were reluctant to admit having been approached. This may have been due in part to the fact that the Democratic political organisation had secured the services of residents of trailer courts to carry out -fciieir can­ vass, and this neighborly contact might not have been construed as a direct contact by a party worker.

C. Hoss County

(1) Scioto Township, East Precinct

( 5) A Survey of Haas and Mas si e Trailer Courts

In Scioto Township, East Precinct, which lies east of the

Chillicothe city lim its, were two trailer courts in which atomic workers resided. A total of forty persons were interviewed in

Massie Trailer Court and Haas Trailer Court.

Table }C1VI1I denotes the characteristics of these persons according to employaient, voting, and future residence. Thirty- five were constiuction workers, one was a Goodyear employee, and four were in other occupations. The group included twenty-one persons 'who had resided in Ohio and Ross County long enough to vote in 195A« The remaining nineteen had not resided in Ohio long enough to fulfill the residence requirement.

‘Ti'ienty-three of those interviewed in the two trailer courts were non-voters in 1952, vhile seventeen had voted in Ohio or in other states. In 1954 eight persons voted, six in Scioto Township,

East Precinct, one by absentee ballot in another county in Ohio 273

TABLE XXVIII GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF TLRSONS INTERVIEALD IN SCIOTO TOVJkSHIRj ùaST PRECINCT

HiLiS TRAILER MASSIE TRAILER TOTALS COURT CCURT EMPLOYMENT Construction ivoriier; 15 20 35 Goodyear employees 1 1 O thers 1 -_4_ 18 40 RESIDENCE More than one year in Ohio 12 9 21 Less than one year in Ohio 6 13 19 VOTING 1952 Voted in Ohio 5 5 Voted in other state 4 8 1 2 Didn't vote 9 14 23 1954 Voted in Ohio 5 1 7 Voted in otter state 1 1 Didn't vote 12 20 32 CONTACT BY PARTY „ORhLR, 19$4 Yes No 18 22 40 FUTURE RESIDENCE PLANS Remain in county 5 10 Leave Ohio 8 13 Move closer to Atomic Plant Move to other part of Ohio 2 7 In d e fin it e 7 10 274

aiid one by absentee ballot in . another state.

The future residence plans of ten were indefinite, while ten

others disclosed that they planned to remain in Ross County. The

remaining twenty persons expected to move, thirteen to otter

states and seven to other parts of Ohio.

Table XXIX demonstrates the p olitical preference of those

su r v e y e d by auployment and geographical origin. The Democratic

Party had twenty-one supporters in this group, eighteen of whom were construction workers. Five were Republicans, eight were

Independents, and six persons refused to answer the question.

Seventeen listed Southern states as their home, while seventeen others were from the Nortiicentral states. Twelve Democrats were among those coming from the South, compared with five frojii the

Northcentral states. Republican Party supporters were more evenly divided, with two from the South and three from Horthcentral states. The South accounted for only one Independent and two whose political preference was undisclosed, whereas ilorthcentral states provided six Independents and th re e undisclosed party preferences.

The states of F lo r id a and Ohio accounted for the largest number of the sampling, with six from Florida and eight from Ohio. The

Northeast provided only six, four of whom were Democrats, one an

Independent, and one undisclosed preference. Pennsylvania was the home state of four of the six from this area. No Westerners were found in this group. 275

TABIE XXIX POLITICAL PREFERENCE BY EÜPLOYKEKT AND GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED IN SCIOTO TOwNSHIP, EAST PRECINCT HAAS TRAILER COURT MASSIE TRAILER COURT TOTALS PiiRTY CONS. GAT. OTÜERS CONS. GAT. OTHERS Democratic 7 1 11 1 1 21 Republican 3 1 1 5 Indep endent 3 1 4 Ô Undisclosed 4 6 15 20 1 40 HOIvE STATE miTHCEPTRviL SOUTH

Indiana 3 Alabama 2 Kansas 2 F lo rid a 6 M ichigan 1 Geo rg ia 1 M issouri 3 Kentucky 4 Ohio 3 Tennessee 1 17 Texas 1 best Virginia 2_ 17 NORTHEAST Neiv York 2 Pennsylvania _L

GOODYEAR EMPLOYEES CONSTRUCTION WORKERS OTHERS REP. DEki. IND. HEP. DEL. IND. UND. R. D. I , Indiana 1 1 1 Kansas 1 1 Michigan 1 Mis so u ri 2 1 Ohio 3 1 1 Nevj York 1 1 Pennsylvania 3 1 Alabama 1 1 F lo rid a 5 1 Georgia 1 Kentucky 2 Tennessee Texas 1 West V irg in ia _1_____1 1 4 18 1 2 1 276 (b) Re J33.S t ra tio n Records

Scioto Township, East Precinct, had 580 registered voters in

1954- A check of the registration records revealed sixteen new registrants from the trailer courts. Table XKX indicates the date

of registration and v oting information concerning these sixteen registrants. Eight of them had registered by June, 1954, while eight registered in September. In the November e le c tio n th ir te a i of these new registrants voted, vhile tlree failed to cast their b a llo ts .

The previous votirg residence of six of the r e g is tra n ts was another part of Oitio. Tvo had formerly voted in Paducah, Kentucky, while three listed Pennsylvania as their last voting address. Tt'JO of the registrants had last voted at Los /tlamos, New Mexico. This was an instance where persons iad voted :hile on former construction jobs and were ready to taice part in the election process a f te r moving to Ohio on a new construction job.

(c) Election Results

Scioto Township, East P recinct, cast i t s vote in favor of Frank

Lausche, Democratic candidate for Governor, in 1950 and 1952. Governor

Lausche won vdth 55»S/o of tlie vote in 1950 and increased his winning percentage to oO,3% in 1952. The precinct supported Dvight D.

Eisenhower in 1952. He received 53.4% of the vote while Stevenson polled 46.5%.

In the 1950 Senatorial contest Ferguson, Democrat, won over

Senator T aft v;ith 50.9% of the vote. However, in 1952 Senator 277

TABLE XXX 1954 REGISTRATION STATISTICS OF NAwGOkERS IN SCIOTO TONNSHIF, EAST PRECINCT, ROSS COUNTY

TQÎüL REGISTkWfTS IN TNE PRECINCT, 1954: 580 NEUCOÜLR TRAILER REGISTRANTS, I 954 : '16

DATE OF NEwOOkER REGISTRATION Larch 7 June 1 September 8

PREVIOUS VOTING RESIDENCE

NORTHCENTRAL

Ohio 6

NORTHEAST

Pennsylvania 3

SOUTH

Kentucky 2

LEST

Nevj Lexico 2

NEVER VOTED; . 3 e i a I aer courts Haas Trailer Court 13 Massie Trailer Court 3

SOURCE: 1954 V o te r Registration Records, Scioto Township, East Precinct, Hoss County, Ohio. 278 Bricker^ Republican, carried the precinct v;ith 51.6% of tiie vote to d efeat Michael V. DiSalle. The Congressional race was non by

James G. Polk, the Democratic candidate, in 1952, when he received

52. 7% of the vote in the precinct.^

Scioto Township, East Precinct, supported the Democratic candidates in the three contests under study in the 1954 General

E le c tio n . Frank J. Lausche received 57.7^ of the vote to defeat

James Rhodes in the Gubernatorial contest. Thomas Buries obtained

55.3/0 of the vote to defeat George Bender in the precinct and p o ll a larger margin of victory than either of the two previous vic­ torious Senatorial candidates had received. James Polk carried the precinct for the Democrats in the Congressional race and in­ creased his vdming percentage to 54^ of the vote. Leo Blackburn,

Republican candidate, received 45.94 of the total vote. Rpproivi- m ately 300 of the 580 registered voters participated in the

November , 1954, e le c tio n .

( 2) Chillicothe, Precinct ICC (Brewer Heixhts)

(a) Survey of Precinct ICC

Chillicothe, Precinct ICC, was located in the western part of tiie c ity in a wealthy residential subdivision, known as Brewer

Heigi'its, consisting of approximately two hundred homes. I t was into this subdivision th at many Atomic Energy Coituidssion executives and Goodyear Atomic Corporation executives moved in 1953 and 1954.

^Statistics for the 1950 Congressional race by precinct were not available, 279 A survey of Bremer H eights mas undertalcen in Larch, 1955, mhen thirty-nine persons mere interviewed. Table XXXI indicates the general characteristics of this gi'oup. Nineteen of the persons mere connected with the ^itoniic Energy Establishment. T h irteen were employed by the Goodyear Atomic Corporation, viiile fiv e v.ere con­ nected with the Atomic Energy Commission, ünly one was allied with the construction phase of the p la n t. The remaining twenty persons interviewed were engaged in other occupations.

The residence recpiretient was met by tl'iirty-five of the group and only four di.d not qualify. This was the largest number of persons to qualify in the precincts surveyed in the four county a r e a . Voting records of those interviewed signified that thirty- t h r e e had participated i n t h e 1952 General E lection. Of this number twenty-seven had voted i n O hio and s ix in other states. In 1954 there was a larger number of non-voters in this group. Fifteen f a i l e d to vote, w h i le twenty-four voted in C hillicothe, Precinct ICC.

Only four of those interviewed remembered being contacted by a party v;ori;ar concerning the Nov ember election. However, i t was discovered that others were appioached by friends in the neighborhood and were reluctant to classify this type of contact as one on behalf of a political p arty.

I n T ab le XiQLII the political preference of those c o n t a c t e d indicates tnat eignteen preferred the Republican Party wiiile e ig h t supported the Democratic Party. In the group there were eleven

Independents and two whose party preference was undisclosed. Among 280

TüBIÜ XXXI GENERAL CHXtEiClERISTICS OF PERSONS INTEEVIEi.ED . IN CHILLICOTHE, PkLCINGT 1 CC

EXPLOYMGNT Construction tvorkers 1 Goodyear employees 13 Atomic Energy Commission personnel 5 O thers 20 39 RESIDENCE More than one year in Ohio 35 Less than one year in Ohio 4

VOTING 1952 Voted in Ohio 2? Voted in other state 6 Didn't vote 6

1954 Voted in Ohio 24 Voted in other state Didn't vote 15

CONTACT BY PARTY ^ORLLR IN 1954 Yes 4 Wo 35

FUTURE RESIDENCE PLANS Remain i n county 39

TABLE XXXII DISTRIBUTION OF POLITICAL PARTY PREFERENCE OF PERSONS IN'TERVImv.ED IN CHILLICOTHE, PiiECINCT 1 CC

PEITY CONSTHU CTION a .E.C. GOODYEAR OTHERS TOTALS

Democratic 1 2 5 8 R epublican 1 2 5 10 18 Independent 2 4 5 H Undisclosed ______2______2 . . 1 5 13 39 281 the five employees of the Atoiïiic Energy’’ Commission one favored

tte Democratic Party, two the Republican Party, and two were

Independents.

Goodyear Atomic Corporation employees were classified as tv^o

Democrats, five Republicans, four Independents, and two refused to

disclose dieir preference. Those employed in other occupations

favored the Républicain Party by two to one, since five were Demo­

crats and ten were Republicans. Five classified themselves as

Independents. Future residence plans of the entire group were

to remain in Brewer Heights.

P o litic a l preference by geographical distribution appears in

Table iuGCIII. Morthcentral states were the home states o f t h i r t y -

two of those interviewed. Twenty-seven were from Ohio and the remaining four from four other states. Four were from the Soutli, two from th e Northeast, and one from the Vjest.

All but two of the permanent workers had migrated to Ross

County from other parts of Oiiio. The o th e r two were from Michigan and Nebraska. P o litic a l preference o f permanent Goodyear employees included two Democrats, three Republicans, four Independents, and two undisclosed preferences from Ohio. The other two Goodyear personnel favored the Republican Party.

The Atomic Energy Commission personnel in tiiis group consisted of two from Tennessee, one Republican and one Democrat, one Repub­ lican from Ohio and two Independents, one of whom came from W isconsin

and one from Illinois. Those in other occupations were primarily 282

TABÜ: XXXIII P üLITIG a L HüiFimNŒ 31 Güû GR a PHICjX. DISTRIBUTION ON PXHSOilS INTNRVIA,!!) IN OHIDiTCOIBB, PRECINCT 1 CC HüiÆ: STATE

NORTHCENTRAL SOUTH

I l l i n o i s 1 F lo rid a 1 M ichigan 1 Tennessee M innesota 1 4 Nebraska 1 Ohio 27 W isconsin 1 32

NÜRïHEiiST ïjEST

Massachusetts 1 California 1 ■ Nevj York 1 1

CONSTRUCTION A • ill • o • OaT OTHEi^ iüup . liEP.DEIs.INu. '. Li.... IxiJJ. Ü I'M. lïEP. DE1.1.IND.

I l l i n o i s M ichigan 1 M innesota 1 Nebraska 1 Ohio 3 2 4 2 7 4 4 W isconsin 1

Massachusetts 1 Wevi York 1

F lo rid a 1 Tennessee 1 1 1

California ^ 1 2 1 2 283 Ohioan s j since fifteen of the twenty gave Ohio as their home state.

The remaining five came from Tennessee, Florida, Mew York,

Massachusetts, and Minnesota. Ten of those in ottez* occupations favored the Republican Party, five were Democrats, and five

classified themselves as Independents. The lone coretraction worker was a Republican from California.

(b) Registration Records

One hundred and ninety-two persons were r e ^ ste r e d in Precinct

ICC, Approximately fifty-si>: of the 192 persons were connected with the Atomic Plant.

As Table XXXIV indicates there were 192 registered voters in this precinct in 19%. The previous voting residence of 160 of the 192 was listed as Ohio. In addition there were five from other

Northcentral states, twelve from the South, eight from tiie w est, am two from the Nortiieast. Five of the registrants had not voted previously. In 1954, 174 of the 192 voted, while eighteen failed to cast their ballots. The percentage of registered voters viio voted in Nov aiiber, 1954; %as 9û.ô^û, vhile non-voters accounted fo r 9 *3/0 of tiie total number of registrants i n the p recin ct.

(c) Election Results

Precinct ICC was established as a new voting precinct in 1953 when Brewer Heights became a part of Chillicothe. Therefore there are no comparative statistics of earlier elections in respect to voting behavior in tiiis precinct. The November, 1954; election was tie first test of voting of Precinct ICC. Prior to this time 284

TÆLli; ZXXIV 1954 HEGaiSl'RATIOÎ^ STATISTICS UF TW.Üj lULBEil UF RFGISTAEAD VÜTFRS IM CHILLIÜüTfih, PiüLCII'jCT 1 CC

TJI.ijLlÜLGISTA.AJTSIN TtiF FltSCINCT, 1954: 192

PZiliVlOUS VOTING KSSIDFNCE

NÜKIH CENTRAL SOUTH

In d ian a 1 G eorgia 2 Kansas 1 Kentii cky 2 Liiciiigan ? Tennessee 6 Ohio 160 Lest Virginia 2 165 12

NORTHEAST LEST

Mew York Ari zona 1 Colorado 5 Montana 2 8 mVER VOTED; 5

SOURCE: 1954 Voter Registration Records, Precinct ICG, Chillicothe, Ohio. 28$

Brewer H eights was a part of Scioto Township, West Precinct, which

had supported the Republican candidates for the four offices under

study in 19$0 and 1952 vdth the exception of Governor Lausche, who

carried the precinct in 1952.

Results of the General Lie ction in 1954 demon st rated a strong

Republican precinct, since all three offices under consideration were captured by the Republican candidates by substantial margi ns.

Rhodes, tlie Republican Gubernatorial candidate, received 61.7L ard defeated Governor Lausche. Bender, Republican Senatorial candi­ date p o lle d 72L of the vote to defeat Burke. In tlie Congressional contest Leo Blackburn, the Republican candidate, received 72.5% to defeat tlie incumbent Democratic Congressman, James G. Polk.

(3) Summary

Atomic construction wo n o r s i n Ross County did not register or vote in large numbers in 1954 in Scioto Townsliip, Last P recinct.

Twenty-one, or one h alf , of tiie number interviewed, qualified on the basis of residence in Ohio, but only six voted i n Ross County. I n the group interviewed tlie re was no one who remembei'ed being con­ tacted by a party vo rxer prior to the 1954 election. As has been m e n t i o n e d e a r lie r Ross County p o l i t i c a l leaders did not undertaice a dynamic campaign to encourage potential voters in the trailer coLU’ts to v o te. T h e r e f o r e there was no visible effect upon t i e voting pattern of Scioto Township, Last Precinct, as a r e su lt o f tlie presence of trailer inhabitants in the precinct.

On tie other liand, in tiie new precinct, ICG, new residents 286 registered arid voted. Brewer Heights attracted tiro se holding execu­ tive positions with tire Atomic Energy Commission and the Goodyear

Atomic Corporation. The I 95 A election results indicated a pre­ ponderantly Republican precinct. Mew comers who settled in this precinct joined with the old time residents in establishing a

Republican precinct.

D. S cio to County

(1) Va.'ll ey Tow nshi p, Pre c inc t C

(a) Survey of Pre ci net C

V alley Township j P re c in c t 0^ lies in Scioto County north of

Portsmouth and just across the Pike County l i n e . In this precinct were located several trailer courts ^ wilch sprang up to accommodate

Atomic Energy Plant construction workers . In March, 1955^ persons in two of the se tr a ile r oourts. Sun V alley and Comjiiunity, were interviewed. Several trailer residents of tiiis precinct who attempted to r e g is te r were challenged.

Table IDKV denotes tiie character i at ics of the group contacted in respect to employment, residence, and voting. Thirty-seven of the thirty-eight contacted were construction workers while one was employed elsewhere. In the two trailer courts fourteen persons co n tacted f u lf ille d the year residence requirement prior to the

1951 General Election, vhile twenty-four had not lived in the state long enough to q u a lify .

The previous voting record o f the se interviewees in d icated th a t eighteen had voted in 1952, seventeen of whom voted in otlier states. 287

TABlù XjŒV Üi^^iÜTiLKISTICS OF F^i80i\lS INTücVïiLViLD IR VALJûEY lOwKSHIF, Hü^GINCT C, SCIüTü CuUMTY

3U1J VÆ'_üa CüUiUiaTY TOTALS Tx^iilLFxi CuURT COURT

FiæiDYijUi'IT Construction vioriers 18 1^ 37 Otti ers 1 1 20 38

RÜSIDRNCE More than one year i n Ohio 9 5 14 Less than one year in Ohio 15 24 VOTING 1952 Voted in Oliio 1 1 Voted in other state 8 9 17 Didn't vote 10 10 20

1954 Voted in Ohio 6 4 10 Voted in other state 1 1 Didn't vote 11 16 27

CONTLCT BY F^^TY ^0R4 IN 1954 Yes 5 10 15 No 13 10 23

FUTUxi nLSIDLhCL FL;nB Remain in county 1 1 Leave Ohio 4 9 13 Move to other part of Ohio 1 1 In d e fin ite 12 11 23 288

Twenty had not voted. While fourteen qualified to vote in Ohio i n 1954, only te n o f these registered and voted. One cast h is ballot in another state and the remaining twenty-seven failed to v o t e .

Future residence plans of the group included only one who planned to rejuain in Scioto County, lienty-ttiree were in d e fin ite ab out th e it ’ future residence, while thirteen expected to leave Ohio.

One intended t o move to anotlsr part o f O h io .

Party preference by employment and geographical distritution i s found in Table ZDLVl. Iwenty-five of the construction workers favored the Democratic P a r t y , m ile o n ly Üiree vjere he public ans. nine classified themselves a s Independents. The one person ii the other employment category preferred the Democratic Party.

On a gao grapixLcal basis the Southern states co nt rim ted a majority, or twenty-eigiit. In tiie southern gro u p Texas, K en tu ck y , and South Carolina accounted for sixteen of tlie twenty-eight.

Twenty were Democrats, two were Republicans, and six were Independents.

jaiglit construction workers migrated from the Northcentral s t a t e s o f Michigan, Indiana, Illin ois, and from other p arts of O h io . I n this category five were Democrats, one a Republican, and two w ere

Independents. No persons i n t h i s group w ere from the Northeast, but two cane from th e Ivestern s t a t e s o f New M e x ic o and ’Wa sh in g to n .

One was a Democrat and one an Independent.

(b ) Registration R e co rd s

Registration records of Valley Township, Precinct G, revealed 289

TÆUÜ BDLVI POLITIC,iL Pmr'LÏ&NGE BY LivlPLOYkLÎTÏ ÜLOŒ,lPHIG,iL UISTiilBÜÏTÜiV 01^' PLiiSONS INTLrtVILhLD IM VvLLLY TO'.wWSHIP, PBLGII'JGT G, SGIOÏO GüUNTY

SUN VviLLÜY OjUiiT GOAmUiCTY COURT TOTALS PÆTY CONSÏPUGÏION woi^CùiiS C0N8THJGTIUi\1 OTHLHS Democratic 11 14 1 26 Republican 2 1 3 r Independent 4 ...... 9 18" 19 1 38 Hüll; STATli NORTH GLlTiiÜ'iL SOUTH I l l i n o i s 1 F lo rid a 1 South Carolina 4 Indiana 2 Kentucky 4 Tennessee 2 Miciûgan 2 Mississippi 2 Texas 8 M issouri 1 No. Carolina 3 V irg in ia 2 Ohio 2 Oklahoma 1 Lest Virginia 1 8 11 17 / _11_ 28 LEST Nevj Mexico 1 Washington 1 2 CONSTRUCTION wURiEluS OTiiiitS RejP. DE.,., iInD. -EP. DE.„. IND. I l l i n o i s 1 In d ian a 1 1 M ichigan 1 1 M issouri 1 Ohio 2 F lo rid a 1 Kentuciqy- 3 1 Mississippi 2 North Carolina 2 1 Oklahoma 1 South Carolina 3 1 Tenne ssee 1 1 Texas 5 2 1 V irg in ia 1 1 West Virginia 1 New Mexico 1 Washington 1 3 23 9 1 290

100 trailer registrants who were living in three trailer courts in tlie area. Total registration in Precinct G in 1954 was 298.

Thereforej one-third, of the precinct's registered voters were nevjcoraer registrants. For the most part these new registrants had waited until Septanber to register^ as Table XXXVII indicates.

Among tiie 100 registranttw elve iiad not voted in the past, while 88 listed taeir previous voting residence. Southern states accounted for fifty persons having a previous voting residence with

Texas, Kentuclcy, and Mississippi contributing thirty-one. iilmost twice as many had formerly voted in the South as in the Northcentral region. Twenty-six of the new registrants had formerly voted in thjis section of the nation. Ohio was the previous voting residence of fourteen of tie twenty-six, vith the remainder scattered among eight other states. Seven had formerly voted in the w'est and five in the Northeast. In 1954 89^ of the one hundred new registrants voted. This compares favorably with the percentage of newcomer registrants wlio voted in the precincts under study in Pike County.

( c ) Election he suits

Precinct G in Valley Township was estabLished in 1953 when die number of voters became too large in Precincts A and B. No com­ parative statistics are available for Valley C Precinct, since tiB 1954 election was the first time balloting for Governor,

Senator, am Congressman iiad occurred in this precinct.

Valley Township, Precincts A and B, supported tiie Republican

Gubemato]±al candidates in 1950 am 1952. In the 1952 Presidential 291

ïm lü XXXVII 1954 mGISTKAlIÜl\i STAÏISÏICS üf IM VALLEY ÏÜ.ÿiSHIP, PilLGILCT G, SCIÛTü GOUNTY

TüïAL ilLGISTk.ù'iTS IL liiE PREGILGÏ, 1954: 298 i'BLGO'ÂLR TRAIim KcGISTiwLi'S, 1954: lüO

DA.T1, ΠKEGESTRiGIGE January 3 L arch 4 August 1 September 92

PiiüVIOUS VÜÏILG AESÏuELGl

SOUTH I l l i n o i s 2 Alabama 2 Indiana 2 F lo rid a 1 Iona 1 Kentucky S Kansas 1 Louisiana 2 M ichigan 2 Maryland. 2 M issouri 1 Mississippi 8 Nebraska 1 North G arolina 1 Ohio 14 Oklahoma 4 South Dakota 2 South Garolina 2 26 Tennessee 4 Texas 15 V irg in ia 1 50

NOHTlILfiST ÜEST

New York 3 Arizona 2 Pennsylvania 2 G a lifo rn ia 4 Wevj Mexico 1

mVLH VOTmD: 12

TrO-tCLEHj_ia.il.wkvvav COUHT"^ j.»-» iULHtlt uF icnGISTR.MT Community T ra ile r Court 39 Fairground Trailer Court 7 Sun Valley Trailer Court _ik_ 100

SOURCE: 1954 Voter Registration Records, V alley Tovjnsiiip, Precinct G^ Scioto County, Oiiio. 292 contest Dvdght D. Eiserihovjer carried, the precincts. Republican

Senatorial and Congressional candidates also carried tlie precincts in 195 Ü and I 952 .

In 1954 Vallqy- Township, Pre ci ret G, supported the Democratic candidates for the three offices under study, binning percentages in both instances were over 6ü/j of the vote. In the Gubernatorial contest Frank Lausche received 61.9a. In the Senatorial race Thomas

Burke polled 6 1 , to defeat George Bender. Poll:, the Danocratic

Congressional candidate, received the highest vanning percentage in the p recinct, 64.74.

( 2) Summary

In Scioto County trie precinct surveyed demonstrated that Demo­ cratic Party norivoi’s had been active in tlie se trailer co u rts.

F ifte e n of tne thirty-eight persons interviewed stated they iiad been contacted by p arty workers, hewcoriers constituted 100 of tiie

154 increase in registrations in this precinct from 1953 to 1954 .

The Southern background of this group was dominant and sup­ ported the contention of party leaders. The trouble over r e g is tr a - tion cnallenges did not keep registered voters from the polls on election day, since only eleven of tlie one hundred stayed away.

Support of newcomer construction workers undoubtedly added the

Democratic complexion of Valley G Precinct in 1954.

L. Conclu sion

In the four county atomic area, of the 22? persons interviewed,

1$1 were construction workers, 41 were Goodyear employees, 5 were 293 Atomic Energy Commission personnel, and 30 viere in other employment categories not connected uith the Atomic Pltuib.

most of the construction vjorkers liv ed in tra ile r courts, vihile the p ormanenb employees vjere located in housing subdivisions.

Tlie five Atomic Energy Gomcdssion executives lived in a housing subdivision, and those not directly connected vdth the Atomic Plant vjere mainly in housing subdivisions.

Fifty-three of tie 22? interviewees voted in the fow county ai’ea in 1934 . Tiiirteen interviewees voted outside tlie atomic area counties in other states or in other parts of Ohio by absentee ballot. Party preference of the t o t a l number was as follows;

111 Democrats, pO Republicans, pp Independents, and 11 undisclosed.

Tie party preference of the construction workers rev ealed

88 Democrats, 20 Republicans, 34 Independents, and 9 whose p re­ ference was undisclosed. In tiie group aiiployed by the Goodyear

Atomic Corporation tiie party preference was as follows: 12 Demo­ crats, 16 Republicans, 11 Independents, and two whose preference was not disclosed. Among the five atomic Energy Commission personnel preferences were one Democrat, two Republicans , and two

Independents. In tlie group surveyed in tiie atomic Energy E stablish­ ment area over half tie construction workers favored the DaiDcratic

Party aM only twenty supported tho Republican Party. Permanent workers, on tiie other hand, tended to favor the Republican Party.

In each aiiployment category the Independents farmed a large group.

Registration records in the precincts studied in Pike and Scioto 294

Counties revealed a lar^e number of newcomer registrants. Ross

County records disclosed, only a few nev; registrants in the precincts in which the trailer co u rts were located. How'ever, tiB housing subdivision of Brewer H eig h ts co n tr ib u ted a much h ig h er number of new r egistranbs.

Election results in Jackson City, Precinct IB, indicated no ciiange due to tiio newcomers. In Pike County the precincts'

Democratic percentages were higher than in recent years, parti-

Guli.ui.3- in Piketon Village and Seal Township Precincts. In Ross

County, Scioto Township, East Precinct did not s h ift i t s party support in 1954. The newly established Precinct ICC in Ghillicothe p o lle d a heavy Republican vote. In Scioto County th e new P recin ct

C in Valley Township demonstrated a Democratic trend in 1954*

Of the seven election precincts stu d ied , newcoiners influenced results in four. Three of these precincts supported Democratic candidates, while one endorsed Rep ublic an candidates. The rem aining three precincts did not dsj.ionstrate any significaiit change due to the newcomers in the area.

The saiiipliri,g taken in s e v e r a l key p r e c in c t s of tlie atomic area counties touched upon a very Si.iall number of th e thousands who moved in to the area. The f ig ir e s must therefore be viewed with caution.

However, the results did indicate that in certain' precincts, where newcomers had s e t t l e d and participated in the election, the r e s u lt s were affected substantially. CHàPÏ^Ü IX

CONCLUSION

An analysis of party and voting behavior in Jackson, Pike,

Ross, and. Scioto Counties from I860 to 1952, when construction began on the Portsmouth Area Atomic anergy Plant, revealed con­ sistent ioatteriis in two co u n ties and v a ria b le p a tte rn s i n two o th e rs, Jackson County was a staunch Republican county, while Pike

County endorsed an overwhelming majority of Democratic candidates for

President, Governor, Congress, and United States S en ate . Ross and

S c io to Counties exhibited inconstant tendencies in th e ir v o tin g behavior, although both supported candidates of the Republican Party more frequently than those of the Democratic Party.

In Jackson County the consistent Republican record over tte years is remarkable. Despite such outside pressures as the de- pression of the 1 9 5 0 ' s , when Democratic Party candidates p o lle d landslide victories throughout the nation, the county retained its

Republican completion. One can only speculate about the reasons f o r t h i s loyalty to the Republican P arty , sin c e no one factor in the h is t o r y of tiie county was responsible for i t s dominance. Perhaps the belsh background of the residents, and tradition were in ­ f l u e n t i a l in strengthening the Republican character of the county.

L ost o f the Welshmen, who immigrated to the county in th e ea rly

Nineteenth Century, supported the Republican P arty and were num­

bered among i t s e a r ly le a d e r s . A lso, the support o f one pai’t y ' s

295 2 9 6 candidates becaïue tra d itio n a l in Jackson County.

■ Pike County vjas as thoroughly Democratic in its support as

Jackson County v;as Republican. E le c tio n results in üie county from the 1360's through 1954 indicated only a lev; years of deviation from support of Democratic candidates for President, Governor,

U.S. Senate, and Congress. These deviations occurred in the late

1890 ' s and e a rly 1900's, v.ten the county Democratic organisation nas itself harassed by internal strife. Several of the principal f a c t o r s contributing to Democratic strength nere the influence of the early settlers from th e South, a d ec lin in g population, the welfare a s p e c ts of the Democratic Party organization, the effective winning over of the opposition, and tradition.

The early settlers of Pike County, '.no migrated from th e South, brougiït w ith them their Democratic h e r it a g e . Since Pike County failed to increase its population through migration, and in fact began to decline in 1910, tiie settlers from the South and their descendants did not experience political competition.

The sm all agricultural county was economically impoverished fo r many years, and tiie Democratic Party organization performed an im portant welfare function, n id to o k such fca'j;.s as a.ssl s ta n c e i n securing employment and financial assistance for higher ed u ca tio n .

These favors made an enduri ng im p ressio n upon the recipients, and served to further the cause of the Democratic P arty .

Another factor was the ability of the county's Democratic Party o r g a n iz a tio n to viiri a c t iv e opposition party members over to its side. 297

This coused bitter resentment among Republican Party leaders.

W ithin the active ranks of tiie Democratic organization o f Pike

County i n 1954 were sev e ra l former embryo R epublican le a d e r s.

Perhaps tradition also played a role in the Democratic voting behavior of Pilce County. The long tradition of Democratic P arty adherence becam e a source of considerable pride to Pike County residents.

Ross and Scioto Counties indicated a vaiiiole pattern of support of candidates for President, Governor, U.S. Senate, and Congress.

Prior to the entrance of atomic voricers into the four county poli­ tical area, Ross County \ias increasing its Republican margins of v ic to r y . In part this night be attributed to the weakness of the

Democratic Party organization.

..nils Ross County, in recent years, had polled Republican m ajorities, except in Gubernatorial elections, the outcome of e le c ­ t io n s i n S c io to County had become more d if f ic u lt to predict. In

Scioto County recen t e le c t io n s de;,:onEtrated alternating support of

Republican and Democratic Party candidates.

The establishment of a one b il l i o n , tvio hundred m illio n d o lla r

Atomc Energy Plant in Pike County was announced by the Atomic Energy

Commission in August, 1952. I t was then estimated that, at tiie peak of the construction phase, 30,0u0 to 4u,00C construction \.orkers would be employed. However, when tne peak was actually attained in July,

1954, 22,622 persons were employed at the Atonic Plant, including

2 ,000 permanent w orkers. In 1954 the nwfiber o f p o te n tia l voters 298

anioiig Atojiiic Plant v.orkers viio had corae into the area vjas estim a ted

at between 12,000 and 13, 000.

Local political p a rty leaders, in their approach to the new­

comers, recognised two principal groups, construction workers and

perm mi it ewiploy-es. Democratic organiz atio n s relied upon support

from the construction worners. The samplings "cakon in p r e c in c ts where tiie construction vci’kers resided substantiated this theory.

On tiie otlier iiand, the pensaient workers, employed by the Goodyear

Atomic Corporation, wore wooed by the Republican organizations, especially in Scioto County.

In t ie four county atomic area tiie Democratic Party o r g a n iza ­ tions in Jackson, Pike, Ross, and Scioto Counties reacted differently to the surge o f p o te n tia l voters ihicii poured into the area as a result of tiie Portsmouth Atomic mnergy DstalfLishmait.

In Jackson County a minimum of effort was exerted by D em ocratic leaders to get o ut the vote on election day. Tiie hypothesis of the leaders was that relatively few newcomers had settled in Jackson

County and most o f th o se who had did not qualify to vote in 1951«

The lack of sufficient funds to conduct a thorough canvass of the

area was an o th er reason for a less positive program, a fundamental

cause of the lack of initiative was undoubtedly the realization that

the oLitcoiie of the 1931 e le c tio n i n tills Republican stronghold could n ot be sufficiently altered to warrant an activ e program.

In Ross County the recently reorganised. Democratic Party group was torn by intra-party strife. It welcomed the newcomers' support. 299 if that support were obtained without any exertion on its part.

Howeverj the new potential voters of Ross County were not sought

after through a concerted drive. The one move to encourage regis­ tration, by requestion the provision of facilities at the County

Fair, failed. The Ross County organisation was so busily engaged in resolving its intra-party diquutes th a t i t was unable to cope w ith the large group of newcomers. As a result, the Democratic P arty organisation assumed a n e g a tiv e p o sitio n i n 1954 regarding the p o li­ t i c a l l i f e of the new r e s id e n t s .

Scioto County Democratic leaders assumed an active role in dealing with the atoaiic vjorhers. The organiz,ation attempted to g e t -o u t-th e - v o te and in c r e a s e Democratic strength in rural areas.

Although Democratic P arty leaders were divided regard in g the value o f contacting the new residents, an attem pt was made to capture th e atomic construction v.'orkers' support. The Deiaocratic organisa­ tio n had much to gain by a concerted e ffo rt to solicit the new- cojiiers' vote since the county's political support was variable and, w itli the assistance of tiie construction workers, the Daiiocrats had a good chance of carrying the county.

The Pike County Democratic organization also undertook a positive program to determine the political preference of its . , inflated population. A plan to sound out the newconers was con­ ceived and ta c tic s employed were carefully thought out and w ell executed. In f a c t, they were so well executed that many o f tiie atom ic workers did not realize they were being contacted by party 300 vjprkers . The extensive canvass was umertaJ

Republic an leaders in the area were co g n isa n t of the possible th re a t of the newcomers if tney voted, in large numbers in th e four c o u n tie s . An underlying assumption was that atomic construction

\;oil:erSj viiich comprised the bulk of the Atomic Plant employees, would not support tiie Republican Party's candidates at tiie polls.

In Jackson County the Republican organisation assumed a com­ placent attitude toward tie newcomers. Previous elections in tin

county had r e s u lte d i n such an overwhelmingly EeputxLican response th a t a v a st swarm of "outsiders" would bo req u ired to upset

Republican pluralities in favor of tiie Democratic candidates.

Fui'thermore, the Democratic organisation had not taken p o s it iv e

s te p s to solicit tiie newcomers' support.

As a minority p arty o f long sta n d in g i n Pike County, the

Republican organization was unable to execute an effective plan

to deterrilne the political beliefs and potaitial voting strengtii

of the newcomers. It was believed that the presence of the vast

number of construction woricers in the county wuld hinder, rather 301

than h elp , the Republican organization in 1954. However, these

woiecers were viewed as a tem porary plienoHenori. The dei'eati st

attitude assumed by the Pine County Republican organization was

sij'iâlar to the position oi the Democratic organization in Jackson

County.

The Ross County Republican organisation was dominant i n the

county at tiie time of th e aino un cement of the Portsmouth liu-ea Atomic hnergy b s t a b li s riment i n jiumi at, 1952. The newcomers right con­

ceivably have precipitated a change in the Republican trend . How­ ever, tiie inability of th e Democratic organisation to act quickly and efficiently to g e t out the v o te was of great significance in maintaining the tre n d of Republican support in Ross County. After the registration deadline in September, 1954, Republican leaders assumed a complacent attitude, regarding the atomic workers as a passing interlude, which would not upset Republican majorities in th e county.

Scioto County Republican leaders foresaw no advantage to be gained from the construction workers' vote, although the ijormanent workers were openly sougiit by this organization. The presence o f la r g e numbei-s of c o n stru ctio n workers i n the county, and the fact th a t th e opposition's party organization was striving to add tiB se persons to its lists, caused grave concern Uiiong leaders of the

Republican P-ai’ty. The Scioto County R epublican o r g a n is a tio n was the only Republican organization i n the area dubious about the result s of tiie November, 1954, e le c t io n . 302

Registration statistics in Pike, Ross, and Scioto Counties revealed little increase over 19?2 registration figures. Only a lim ite d number o f newoomers availed themselves of the oppor- tunity to register and vote in the three counties. Although thei-e vas no official occupational breakdown of registrants, i t vas estim a ted th a t as i'ev; as 1,600 to 2,000 Atoi;iic Plant employees registered in the th r e e counties vhere registration vas required.

This estimate was based upon a check of registration records of several precincts in the three counties, and upon estimates of the party leaders in these counties. On a countywide basis, registra- tio n o f iievcojaers was l i g h t .

Several reasons why the atoiidc workers failed to r e g is te r and vote in 1954 included general apathy duo to their temporary status in the area, failure on the part of several political organizations to g e t o u t th e vote, and the fact that it was an o ff year election.

Vïhile many q u a lifie d nowcojiiers did not register, o ther newcomers might have voted but had not lived in the state long enough to f u l- fill the residence requirement.

Altiiough newcomer registration was negligible on the countywide l e v e l , newcoiiier registrations of sizeab le proportions occurred in several individual precincts. In Pike County, for example, total registration in piketon Village for the November, 1954, ekction was

731, an increase of 305 over the I 953 figure. A check of the regis- tra tio n records revealed at least 129 of these were newcomer registrants. Also, one th ird o f the total registrants of Valley 303

Township, Precinct C, in Scioto County were employed by the Atomic

Energy Plant.

In Ross County, Scioto Township, East Precinct, onl)' sixteen newcomers were included in the 580 persons registered to vote in that precinct in 1934. However, registered newcomers in Chilli cot he,

Precinct ICC, comprised 294 of the total registered voters. An explanation f o r th e v a r ia b ility in newcomer registration and voting may be that in Scioto Township, East Precinct, the newcomers were construction workers who were not encouraged to vote by the Demo­ c r a tic organisation, while those registering in Giiillicothe,

Precinct ICC, held, executive and managerial positions at the Atomic

Energy Establishment, and were permanent residents. In this instance th e permanent re sid e n ts were more interested in exercising the fran ch ise in th e community tiian ..ero th e temporary r e s id e n ts .

O b sta cles to the registration of construction wozkors were noted in Ross and Scioto C ounties. In Ross County one isolated incident, which aroused the i r e of several trailer residents, was uncovered by the author. However, the cm llenge did not evoke increased trailer registration in the precinct . Instead, the hostile attitude of election officials succeeded in keeping aome aw^y f:n%% ihie polls.

In Scioto County registration protests were embodied in tlie issuance of a foruial challenge to eleven newcomers, residing in trailer courts, to prove that they fulfilled tiie residence qualification, and th a t th e ir r e g is tr a tio n was vclid. at a public hearing of tiie

Board of Elections of Scioto County seven of the eleven newcomers 304

challenged, were declared qualified registrants, and were entitled to vote. The Republican organisation's expectation tliat the challenges would frig h te n other trailer registrants from the p o lls on election day was not fulfilled. Instead, as evidenced in Valley

Townsiiip, Precinct C, vdere fa'9/o of the new registrants voted, they were aircious to cast theii' b a ll o t s .

In the four counties there was. little evidence of widespread interest in the 1954 campaign for Governor, Senator, and Congressman.

The political organisations and the cai^di dates relied principally upon publicity of tiie press and radio, the party canvass, and several political rallies, to inform tne v o t e r s .

The most e x te n s iv e coverage of the canpaign was found in the

Chillicothc Gauette of Ross County and the Portarioutii Times of

Scioto County, which had wide circulation in the four oounty area,

'weekly newspapers i n Jackson and Pike Counties contained only b rie f a r tic le s concerning the forthcoming election until the week preceding the election, when political advertisements sponsored by the parties extolled the virtues of the candidates in glowing terms.

The fa c t th a t " fa v o r ite sons" were candidates in several iri- stances failed to engender enthusiasm in the form of large turnouts of election day. The "favorite sons" were James A. Rhodes,

Republican Gubernatorial candidate from Jackson County, leo

Blackburn, Republican Sixth D istrict Congressional candidate from

Scioto County, and George Rye, Democratic lieutenant Gubernatorial candidate from Pike County. All of these candidates failed to be dlectoj 305 to the offices to -which they aspired.

A small turnout of voters vias recorded in all four of the atomic counties. The factor of an off year election certainly con­ tributed to the meager turnout. Hovjever, in several of the voting precincts surveyed in Pike, Ross, and Scioto Counties, more than

80/b of the new registrants went to the polls. Most of the new­ comers who had registered exercised th eir fra n c h ise .

Election results in November, 1954, indicated the newconers had a negligible effect upon voting behavior in the four county area. Jackson County remained a Republican stronghold and Pike

County a Democratic one. Republican candidates for tte offices under study carried Ross County. Even the Republican Gubernatorial candidate received a substantial plurality, viiich was a surp risin g departure from recent Gubernatorial results in the county. Scioto

County voters supported the Republican candidate for the U.S.

Senate by a sLim margin, while Democratic Gubernatorial and Con­ gressional candidates easily carried the county. In the light of past voting records of these counties there was no discernible change due to the presence of th e newcomers.

The newcomers affected election results of several precincts in the atomic counties. In Pike County there was a notable in­ crease of Democratic strength in Piketon V illage and Seal Township

Precincts. On the basis of 1950 and 1952 precinct election tabulations tiB newcomers who voted undoubtedly strengthened the

Democratic vote. In Scioto County, Valley Township. Precinct C, 306 established in 1953, Atomic Energy Plant employees helped to poll a Democratic victory in 1951.

Although the effect of the newcomers upon party and voting behavior in the four county a re a was s lig h t in 1954, it is interes­ ting to project That might have resulted had the newcomers chosen to vote in substantial numbers. An influx of 20,000 or more persons into a hitherto poor rural area of 180,000 presented interesting consequences. Certainly a group comprising 10^ of the total population was worthy of serious attention.

In the ^ring of 1954 there were predictions of mass voting of the newcomers, the Secretary of State was interested in regis­ tration, and the political organizations mapped out their plans, however, by the end of September, 1954, Then the registration period ended in three of the counties, a check of the lists revealed relatively few newcomers and the political leaders were no longer enthusiastic or apprehensive, whatever tiie case may have been, about the role of the newcomers in November.

If large numbers of the newcomers had registered, the political organizations had potentiaj. weapons which they could have utilized.

They could have undertaken dynamic campaigns to vin over the new­ comers as Pike and Scioto County Democratic organizations sought to do, or they could have erected formdable barriers in an effort to reduce the number of adiierents to the opposition party. For example, the political organizations could have contested the

Attorney General's 1943 opinion permitting trailers to be considered 307 permanent residences, in the hope that the earüer adverse posi­ tion of a former Secretary of State muld be accepted again.

Since the ruling of the At bo me y General vjas subject to revision, and was made prior to an infime of trailer residents such as occurred in th e atomic ai’ea, a change might have been accom­ pli died and a substantial percentage of the newcomers disfran- cl'iised.

Mother obstacle could have been a strict interpretation of one of the rules of residence in the Ohio election laws, stating th a t persons entering the state for temporary purposes would n o t be considered eligible to vote in the state. The question of

"intention" and "surrounding circumstances" could have caused extensive legal battles since it was recognized by the Atomic Energy

Commission itse lf that the construction phase was a temporary one, the mass of workers was recruited specifically to accomplish that purpose, and these nevjcomers were in the state for a temporary purpose.

bhat the results of the election .might have been is pure con­ jecture, but in all probability exercise of the franchise by large numbers of construction workers would have increased Democratic strength in Pilce and Scioto Counties. In Pike County their vote would not have altered the results. However, in Scioto County the results jiiight have had significant repercussions, since the Demo­ c r a tic Senatorial candidate lost tin state by a very narrow margin.

The atomic w orkers' vote might have been substantial enough to 308

turn the Donocratic Senatorial defeat into a victory on a statewide

basis. Ross County Democratic leaders would have had to tighten

their orgaiiaation to make any extensive gains^ but the closely

knit Republican organization would have waged a hard fight. In

Jackson County the results would have remained substantially the

same. If all the newcomers^ who were few in number, had voted

and. voted Democratic, the Republican candidates would still have

carried the county.

What are the future prospects of party and voting beliavior in

the four county area? Construction wrksrs who migrated to the

four county area vU l move along as quickly as they came after the

construction phase ends. In April, May, and June of 1955 it was observed that many trailer residents had already departed and layoffs at the Atomic Plant were becoming more frequent. Among those interviewed in March, 1955, many indicated they would soon move on to other large construction projects. Since the construc­ tion vrorkers comprised the bulk of the population influ>:, only the permanent personnel w ill remain in the area by 1956.

The permanent workers will locate in the four county area and may have an e f f e c t upon voting patterns in subsequent elections.

Their political preference could not be determined on the basis of

1954 elections results since limited operations at the Atomic Plant

had only recently begun, and too few of the category qualified to

vote. This group was not permanently settled, and there were

indications among the few interviewed that they would move from 309 their present housing closer to the Atomic Plant. Should this occurj the Pike County political organisations wuld be challenged to seek supporters among the permanent employees in 1956 .

Republican leaders in Jackson, Pike, and Scioto Counties foi-esavj an increase in the strength of their organizations by I 956 as a r e su lt of permanent vjorkers in the area. This may prove to be an erroneous assumption in view of the fact that the Goodyear

Atomic Corporation employees affiliated with the CIO late in 1954, and were thus members of a major labor union not prone to sup­ porting Republican Party candidates.

The Democratic organizations of Pike and Scioto Counties probably will be in a more advantageous position to increase their stre n g th i n 1956 than their Republican counterparts. The method of actively seeking the Good^^ear Atojiàc Corporation workers' support, absorbing a few of their number into the party organisation, and rewarding them with party positions would be most effective. The

Pike County Democratic group employed thin method in 1954 and w ill, in all probability employ it again.

The Scioto County Republican organization probably w ill be in a better position to counter the overtures of the opposition than the Pike County group, since the former was an effective organiza­ tio n in 1954 , while Pike County Republicans were struggling to establish a dynamic organization. In the event of forceful leadership and support of some of the permanent workers, they might become a more e ffe c tiv e opposition. There is a possibility that 310 some of the permanent workers might support the Pike County

Republican organization, since they were not subject to the force

of Democratic tradition in tiie oounty. Furthermore, tiie se

workers represent a new element in the county which, if dis­

satisfied, with Democratic political leaders, could enter the ranks

of the opposition.

In Ross and Jackson Counties one might predict little change

in p a rty organizations or voting patterns due to the Goodyear

personnel. Unless the Democratic organizations increase tteir

strength in the future, Republican organizations w ill have no

difficulty carrying the county for its candidates. Many Goodyear

personnel contacted in Ross County in 1954 were on the managerial

staff and resided in an overwhelmingly Republican precinct.

Vihile the direct effects of the atomic workers upon party and

voting behavior were negligible, the in d irect effects of other

newcomers may prove to be positive in nature. The Atomic Energy

Establisl'uiient during tiie construction phase not only brought

thousands of atomic workers into the four county area, but also

attracted an undetermined number of trade, service, and professional

persons who came in the wake of the new plant to provide services

for the atomic workers and to establish businesses. After the

construction phase some of these persons undoubtedly will remain in

the area and become activ e v o te rs.

Political party organizations in future elections will have to

cope with this group of persons, who were not directly connected 311 w ith th e Atomic Energy Plant. Here might arise a significant threat to established party organisations. It was noted by the author that persons engaged in business activity or professional woA had already begun to take an interest in the political problems of the area. In Pike County two new professional persons had actively entered the political arena, one as a member of the Board of

Elections, and tiie otter as Mayor of Piketon Village. While these were meagre beginnings, they did mark the initial stage of infil­ tration into political organizations.

Returning to the main these of the study, party and voting behavior of the four counties in the Portsmouth Atomic Energy

Establishment Area, southern Ohio's first political encounter with

Atomic Energy Plant employees and tiie 1954 election resulted in apathy on the part of several political party organizations as well as on the part of the voters. In summary the results denoted:

(1) the large number of migratory worters did not affect election results in the contests for U.S. Senator, U.S. Representative, and Governor on a countywide basis (2) a brief survey did indicate a positive effect of the newconers in a few isolated precincts

(3) there was definitely a lack of interest on tiie part of all voters and a small turnout in this off year election (4) political leaders were unconcerned about tiie newcomers ad'ter registration ended and they had failed to register (5) p oten tial new voters participated only to a lim ite d extent when prodded by p o litic a l organizations, as the Pike and Scioto County Democratic 312 organisations' e ffo r t proved, and (6) the potential threat did not materialize and political party leadership remained untouched by the newcomers. It is probable that p o litic a l participation of the atom ic workers would have been more substantial had 1954 been a

Presidential election year.

The study emphasized two perennial problems, tlie problem of non-voting and the plight of the migratory worker. In the 1954

General Election it was not only the newcomers wiio failed to exercise the franchise but also many settled residents. The other issue brought to the fore was th a t many newcomers la ck e d th e length of residence necessary to vote in Ohio. It i s unfortunate that such groups of people who work on construction projects, e n t a ilin g many changes in residence, are faced with such an obstacle. Possibly there should be a relaxation of the residency laws of a state in order to permit such persons to vote at least for representation in the Congress and for Presidential and Vice-

Presidential electors. A change in state constitutional provisions

and law s would be necessary. Even s o , a mere mechanical change would not necessarily stimulate voters to participate in aLections.

If the settled residents eopected their area to return to the

s ta tu s quo of the pre-utomic period, they would be mis talc en. Althougli

constiuction workers liad caused no significant changes in party and

v o tin g patterns of the area in tlie November, 1954, General Election,

they left a revitalized area, a core of permanent operating personnel,

p lu s th e numerous others in trade and service industries, who might

in flu e n c e party and voting behavior in the future. SÆPIB QuBSÏIOm.AIRE UStï) IN SURVISY ÜF FOUR OOUNTY . AÏOIEC ÆNA, liÆtCHj 1%$ DA'TN:______

NAS:

ADDKNSS:

COUNTI:______VOTING PRNCINCT:_

OCCUPAl'IÜN OF HEÆ üF HOUSEliOID:

CÜÏÏSÏRÜCTIOx'J lOmSR______GÜODYBvAi ^iTOLHÜ CORPORATION LMPLOYIS ATOmc FNùRGY COLkISSIÜN Pii3SüNN2L______Ü T I i O R ______

ImPLû ï NR:

DATN CF TAKING UP RSSIDRNCS lü THF ATÜLÆC ASji: AI PRESENT xDûRESS:______'

HOLE STATE: wIFE HUSBAND

ARE YOU A REGISTERED VOTER IN.THIS COUNTY? YES NO WIFE OR HUSBAID? . YES NO______

DID YOU VOTE IN NOVEiJBER; 1952? YES NO STvOE WIFE OR liJSBAND? YES HO STAiE_____

DID YOU VOTE IN NOVEbiBERj 1954? ]^ËS NO STAïÉ ïffFE OR HUSBAND? YES NO STAIE______

VISRE YOU WJESTIONEÜ BY A PARTY wORKER PRIOR TO THE 19^4 ELECTION? YES NO_____

MAT IS YOUR PARTY PREFERENCE? REP._ DEL:. IND._ UNDISCLOSED_____ VEFE OR HUSBAND? REP. DE^. IND. UMISCLOSED

FUTURE RESIDENCE PLANS: REMAIN IN COUiVTY_ 1EÆE OHIO MOVE CLOSER TO ATOMIC PLr%_ MOVE TO OTHER PART OF ûHIÜ_ INDEFItETE.

3 1 3 BIBIlOGRjiPHY

BOOKS

Benton, Elbert J. The Movement for Peace Without Victory. Cleveland, Ohio: Western Reserve Historical Society, 1918. 80 pp.

Bond, Beverley W., Jr. The Foundations of Ohio. Golinibns, Ohio: Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, 1941. I.

Brogan, D.W. Roosevelt and the Hevi Deal. London: Oxford Univer­ sity Press, 1952 . 245 pp.

Cai-rigan, M.J. Life and Reminiscences of Hon. James Smmitt. C h illi GO the, Ohio: P eerless Printing and I-Ianuf acturing Company, 1888. 624 pp.

Chaddockj Robert E. Ohio Before 1850. ColLinibia University Studies in History, Economics and Public Lavj. Heiw York: Longmans, Green and Company, 1908. XiCKI, No. 2, 155 pp.

Cox, James J. Journey Through My Years. Nevj York: Simon and S chuster, 1946. 447 pp.

Duffy, H erbert S. W illiam Howard T a ft. New York: M inton, Balch and Compar^y, 1930. 331 pp.

Eckenrode, H.J, Rutherford B. Hayes. New York: Dodd, Mead and Co., 1930 . 363 pp.

Evans, Nelson V/. A History of Scioto County, Ohio. Portsmouth Ohio: Nelson V/. Evans, I903 . 1302 pp.

Federal Viriters' Project of Ohio. Chillicothe and Ross County. Columbus, Ohio: F.J. Hear Printing Company, 1938. 91 pp.

The Ohio Guide. New York: Oxford University Press, 1940. 596 pp.

Galbreath, Charles B. History of Ohio. Chicago and New York: The American Historical Society, Inc., I 92 5. I .

G osnell, Harold F. Champion Campaigner- Franklin D. Roosevelt. New York: The MacmiHan Company, 1952. 225 pp.

O14 315

Gray, lïood. The Peace Movement in the Old Morthvjest: 1860-1865. . Private Edition. Chicago, 111.: Distributed by the University of Chicago L ib ra rie s, 193>• 18 pp.

Harris, Joseph P. Election Administration in the United States. Vï'ashington, B.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1934. 453 pp.

Registration of Voters in the United States. Washington, B.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1929. 390 pp.

Hatcher, Harlan. The Buckeye Country. New York: H.D. Kinsey and Co., Inc., 1940 . 325 pp.

Holt, Edgar iJ-len. Party Politics in Ohio: I 84 O-I85 O. Columbus, Ohio; F.J. Heer Printing Co., 1930. 449. PP.

Howe, Henry. H istorical Collections of Ohio. Columbus, Ohio: Henry Howe and Son, I 89 I. I, II, and III.

Interstate Publishing Company. History of Lower Scioto Valley, Ohio. Chicago, 111.: Interstate Publishing Company, 1884. 8?5 pp.

Isard, Walter and Vincent Whitney. Atomic Power- an Economic and Social Analysis. New York: The B lakiston Company, 1952. 221 pp. ilcGrane, Reginald Charles. William A llen. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State archaeological and Historical Society, I 925 . 279 pp.

National Municipal League, Committee on Election Administration. A model Registration System. New York: N ational Municipal League, 1939. 73 pp.

Pauley, Karl 3. Bricker of Ohio- The Man and His Record. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1944. 215 pp. p o llo ck , James K ., J r . Absentee Voting and Registration. Washing- ton, B.C.: American Council on Public Affairs, 1940. 19 pp.

Porter, George H. Ohio Politics During the Civil War Period. New York: Longinans, Green and Co., I 9 I I . 255 pp.

Quillin, Frank U.. Color Line in Ohio. Ann Arbor, Michigan: George Wahr, 1913. 1?8 pp.

Robinson, Edgar Eugene. They Voted for Roosevelt. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1947. 207 pp. Roosevelt, Theodore. Progressive Principles. London; Effingham Wilson, 1913 . 330 pp. 316 Roseboom, Eugene H. The Civil War Era; 1850-1873. Columbus, Ohio; Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, 19AA. 485 pp.

and Francis P. Heisenburger. A History of Ohio. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, 1953. 412 pp.

Roseviater, Victor. Back Stage in 1912. Philadelphia, Pa.; Dorrance and Company, Inc., 1932. 222 pp.

Rowe, Frank H. History of the Iron and Steel Industry in Scioto County. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State Archaeological and Historical S ociety, 1938. 129 pp.

Shannon, Irvin V. Southeastern Ohio in Depression and Aar. Columbus, Ohio; Ohio State University, 1943. 54 pp.

Smith, Donnai V. Chase and Civil War Politics. Columbus , Ohio; F.J. Heer Printing Co., 1931. 181 pp.

Walker, Harvey. Constructive Government in Ohio- The Adminis- tration of Myers Y. Cooper. Columbus, Ohio; The Ohio History Press, 1948. 237 PP.

Walters, Everett. Joseph Benson Foral-cer. Columbus, Oiiio; The Ohio History Press, 194 S. 315 pp.

V'ieiseriburger, Francis P. The Passing o f the Frontier; 1823-1850. Columbus, Ohio; Ohio State Archaeological and H istorical Society, 1941. 479 pp.

W illard, Eugene B. A Standard History of the Hanging Rock Iro n Region of Ohio. The Lewis P ublishing Company, I 9 I 0 . I and II.

Williams, D.W. A History of Jackson County, Oliio. Jackson, Ohio; 1900 . I .

New York Herald Tribune Almanac. 1861, 1863, 1865, 186?.

Speeches of J.B. Foraker. II (1891-1899). n.p., and n .d . 475 pp.

ÆTICÏES

Aumann, Francis R. "Ohio Government in tlie Twentieth Century," in Harlow Bindley, ed., Ohio in the Twentieth Century: 1900- 1930 . Columbus, Ohio; Ohio State Archaeological and H istorical Society, 1942. 1-93. 317 Cole, iii'thur G. "Judson Harjuon^ " Dictionary of Jinierican Biograph.y, VIII (1932), 276- 278 . ^ .

Committee on Election Administration, Report o f. "A Model Regis­ tr a tio n System," National Municipal Review. XVI (Jan., I 927 ), 45-86.

Downes, Randolph C. "Ohio Population Trends: 1920-1940," Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society Quarterly. II (1942 ), 219 -232.

F e sle r, Mayo. "New E lec tio n Code for Ohio," National Municipal Review, XVllI (June, 1929), 427-426.

Harris, Joseph P. "Permanent Registration of Voters," American P o litic a l Science Review, XXII (May, 1928), 349-353.

"The Progress of Permanent Registration of Voters," American Political Science Review. XXIII (Nov., 1929), 9 O8 - 914 .

H ockett, Homer Carey. "Asa Smith Bushneli," Dictionary of American Biography, 111 (I 929 ), 347-348..

"George Hoadly," Dictionary of American Biography, IX ( 1932 ) , 84-85.

"iïilliajïi Dennison," Dictionary of American biography. V (1930), 241- 242.

Johnson, Alien. ".Villiani Jennings Bryan," Dictionary of American Biography. 111.(1929), 191-197.

Jones, blLliam Harvey. "Welsh Settlements in Ohio," Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society Quarterly, XVI (1907), 194 - 227. ivicGrane, Reginald C. "Alien Cranberry Thurman," Dictionary of American Biography, .XVII1 (1936), 515-516.

"Joseph Benson Foraker," Dictionary of American Biography, VI.(1931 ) , 502- 504. Moore, Clifford H. "Ohio in National Politics: 1865-1896," Ohio State ikrchaeological and Historical Society Q uarterly, SGlVTI (19284 220- 422.

Nevins, ;LLlan. "Rutherford B irchard Hayes," D ictionary of Anerican Biography, VI11 (1932), 446-451. 318

"Warren Gamaliel Harding, " Dictionary of A erie an Biography, VIII (1932), 252- 257.

Hoyes, Edward. "The Ohio G.A.R. and Politics from 1866 to I 9 OO," Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society Quarterly, . LV (1946 ) , 79 - 105.

Paxson, Frederick Logan. "Theodore Roosevelt," Dictionary of M eric an Biography, XVI (1935),.135-144.

"William McKinley," Dictionary of American Biograohy, XII (1933 ), 105-109 . Pollock, James K., Jr. "Absent Voting with Particular Reference to Ohio's Experience," National Municipal Review, XV (May, 1926 ) , 282 - 292 .

P rin g le , Henry F. "William Howard T a ft," D ictio n ary of M e ric an Biography. XVIII,(1936). 266-272.

Ranney, M stin and Willmoore K endall. "The American Party Systems," American Political Science Review, XLVIII (June, I 954 ) , 477 - 485. ■

Seymour, Charles, "Woodrow Wilson," Dictionary of American Biography, XX (1936), 352-368.

"Atomic Boom in Ohio," Economist (London), CLXVI (January 3, 1953 ) , 22- 24.

"Effects of Ohio's New Ballot Form," National Municipal Review, XL (July, 1951 ) , 367- 68 .

"Ohio 'Office Type' Ballot Receives M ajority," National Municipal Review. XXXVIII (Dec., 1949), 558.

"Ohio's New atomic Plant," Monthly business Review, Federal . Reserve Bank of Cleveland, Ohio, XXXV, No. 3 (March, 1953), 5- 1 3 .

"The Atom Roots Out Corn," Business Meek. September 20, 1952, p. 162.

NEvaSPMERS Chillicothe Advertiser, J u ly-0c t ., 1882. Aug.-Oct., 1883. Aug.-Nov., I 89 O. June-Nov., 1908. 319 Gliillicothe Gazette. July, 1954-March, 1955.

Chillicothe News Advertiser, Sept.-Nov., 1938.,

Jackson Herald. S ep t.-N ov. . 1912. Jiug.-Nov., 1930 . Jan.-Dec., I 954 .

Jackson Standard. Sept.-Oct., 1859. Nov . , 1860. Sept.-Oct., I 862 . Sept.-Oct., 1874. Aug.-Oct., 187 5 .

Jackson Standard Journal, Hay-November, 1912.

Jackson Sun, Oct. 7-November, 1922.

New York Tiiaes, Jan.-Nov., 1952. Jan.-Oct., 1954 .

Portsmouth Blade. June-November, I 91 O, July-November, 1912 .

Portsmouth Sunday Sun. 0ct.-Nov., 1928.

Aug.-Nov., I 867 . Feb.-N ov., 1868. Aug.-O ct., 1874. Oct.-Nov. , 1875. . Sept.-Dec., 1877. June-Nov., 1880. June-Nov,, 1910 . May -Nov., 1912 . O ct.-N ov., 1920 . Nov., 1922 . Sept.-Nov., 1928 . Oct.-Nov., 1932 . Oct.-Nov., 1934 . Oct .-Nov., 1936 . March, 1953 . J a n ., 1954 -i larch, 1955 .

Portsmouth Tribune, Sept.-Dec., Sept.-Oct., 187$.

Ross County Register, June-Nov., 1908.

Scioto Gazette, Nov., 1922. 320

V/averly Courier Watchman, Aug.-Nov., IÔ 96 . June-Nov., 1900.

Waverly News. June-Nov., 1897. Jan.-Nov., 1898 . July-Nov., 1899. Jan.-Dec., 1902. Jan.-Nov., 1903. Feb.-Nov., 1904. July-Nov., 1953 . Jan.-Dec., 1934. March, 1933.

Waverly Vjatchmati, Aug. -Nov ., 189$. Jan.-Oct., 1953 . Jan.-Dec., 1954-

DOCUMENTS

Capen vs. Foster (Mass., 1832), 12 Pickering, 48$.

Circuit Courts of Ohio.

Election Laws of Ohio (1886, I9OO, 190$, I9II, 1930).

Jackson County, Ohio. Hecards of Trailer Licenses, 1952-I 954 .

Ohio. Secretary of State. Ohio Election Statistics. 1900-1954. Ohio. Secretary of State. Report of the Secretary of State. 1870-1900. '

Ohio Appellate Reports.

Ohio Attorney General. Opinions.

Ohio Bureau of Unemployment Compensation and United States Employment Service in Ohio. Post War Employment Survey. Columbus, Ohio; March, 1946.

Ohio Constitution.

Ohio Election Laws Annotated (Brown, 1954).

Ohio General Code (Page, 194$).

Ohio G eneral Code (Page, 1954). 321

Ohio Lÿiw R eporter.

Ohio Laws.

Ohio Nisi Prius Reports.

Ohio Official Election Abstracts.

Ohio Revised Code (Baldwin^ 1953)•

Ohio Saprejue Court He ports.

Pike County, Ohio. Records of Trailer Licenses, 1952-1954.

Pike County Board, of Elections, Minutes of Meetings. March 28, 1951; December 31, 1952; February 25, 1953; April 13, 1953; May 27, 1953.

Ross County, Ohio. Records of Trailer Licenses. 1952-1954.

Scioto County, Ohio. Records of Trailer Licenses, 1952-1954.

Scioto County Board of Elections. Minutes of Meetings. February 13, 1951; April 30, 1951; May 28, 1951; March 24, 1952; April 7, 1952; October 29, 1954; November 22, 1954; November 29-30, 1954.

United States Atomic Energy Commission. Atomic Energy and trie Physical Sciences. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1950. 228 pp.

Eleventh Semiannual Report o f the Atomic Enerav Commission. Washington, D.G.; U.S. Government Printing O ffice, January, 1952. 211 pp.

Thirteenth Semiannual Report of the Atomic Energ.y Commission. Washington, D.G.: U.S. Government P rin tin g O ffice, January, 1953. 210 pp.

Fourteenth Semiannual Report of the Atomic Energy Commission. Washington, B.C.; U.S. Government Printing Office, July, 1953. 97 pp.

Fifteenth Semiannual Report of the Atomic Energy Commission. Washington, B.C.: U.S. Government P rin tin g O ffice, January, 1954. 151 pp. Sixteenth Semiannual Report of the Atomic Energy Commission. Washington, B.C.: U.S. Government P rin tin g O ffice, July, 1954. 137 pp. 322 Seventeenth Semiannual Report of the Atomic Energy Commission. Washington^ D.C.; U.S. Government Printing O ffice, January, 1955. 138 pp.

United States Census Bureau. County City Data Book. Washington, D.C.! U.S. Government Printing Office, 1952.

United States Census Reports. 1840 to 1950.

Voter Registration Records (1954)

East Precinct, Scioto Township, itoss County, Ohio. Piketon Village Precinct, Pike County, Ohio. Precinct ICC, Chillicothe, Ross County, Ohio. Precinct C, Valley Township, Scioto County, Ohio. Seal Township Precinct, Pike County, Ohio. Waverly East Precinct, Pike County, Ohio. iÜTOBIüGR^HÏ

I ; I r a Ridgway D avis, was born on May 18, 1923, in V.lldvnod,

KevV Jersey. My secondary education was acquired in the public school system of that city. I matriculated at Yale University in the fall of 1912, where I remained for one semester. In

February, 1913, I entered the United States Armj^ and served until January, 1916. I resumed my undergraduate training at

Yale University and received the degree Bachelor of /irts in 1919.

Graduate studies were undertaken at the University of Pennsylvania and the degree Master of Arts received in 1951. In September,

1951 ,' I was appointed graduate assistant in the Department of

Political Science at Ohio State U n iv ersity. This position was held until 1954; when I received an appointment as Fellow in tiie

Political Science Department for th e academic year 1951- 1955.

During this time I was pursuing a program leading to the degree

Doctor of Philosophy. In September, 1955; I was appointed

Instructor in the Department of Government and International

Relations at the University of Connecticut, vhich position I presently hold.

323