Constitution—Yes Constitution—No Minority representation— Yes Minority representation —No Railroad aid—Yes Railroad aid—No License—Yes License—No

102,885 250,169 73,615 259,415 45,416 296,658 172,252 179,538

The schedule provided that any of the three separate propositions submitted, if ratified by popular vote, should become a part of the new constitution. All three failed, but even if they had received a majority of the votes cast, the result would have been the same. Their failure would have been involved in the failure of the new constitution of which they would have become a part. CHAPTER VIII MEN OF THE THIRD (1873-1874) CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF OHIO Practice of the law has generally been regarded as the stepping stone to official position. This was especially true in the period antedating the advent of "the business man in politics." While a relatively large proportion of the delegates to the third constitutional convention of Ohio were lawyers, the number who previously or subsequently held important official positions was considerably less than in the previous convention. Possibly the public service had become less attractive as the practice of the law became more remunerative. Be this as it may, of the delegates to this convention only thirty-six had been or subsequently were members of the General Assembly and thirteen members of Congress, while the corresponding numbers for the second constitutional convention were respectively fifty-seven and twenty-two. The disparity cannot be charged to any decline of confidence in lawyers ; the large number of the profession chosen as delegates to this convention by vote of the people would refute such an assumption. Preeminent among the men of the convention was its first president, Morrison R. Waite, who while he held this position was appointed chief justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, a position which he filled for many years with distinguished ability. To the vacancy occasioned by this appointment was elected Rufus King, an eminent lawyer and scholar of Cincinnati and grandson of the Revolutionary statesman of Massachusetts who served in the Continental Congress as member of the convention that framed the constitution of the United States, as United States senator from New York and as minister to England. He was also grandson of Thomas Worthington, a member of the first constitutional convention of Ohio, United States senator from and governor of that state. Lewis Campbell, vice president of the convention, in Congress had won a national reputation in the stormy days preceding the Civil war. He figured prominently in the threatened duel between Anson Burlingame and Brooks of South Carolina who had made the brutal assault on Charles Sumner in the United States Senate. When war finally came he donned the uniform of blue to sustain the principles that he had advocated in Congress. He was son-in-law of John Reily, who helped to frame Ohio's first constitution, and uncle to James E. Campbell, congressman and governor of Ohio. In this convention sat Judge George Hoadly, a leading member of the Cincinnati bar, former judge of the Superior Court of that city and later governor of Ohio. He was of distinguished ancestry. His mother was great-granddaughter of the eminent divine, Johnathan Edwards. She was a neice of President Dwight, of Yale College, sister to President Woolsey, of Yale College and aunt to Theodore Winthrop and Miss Sarah Woolsey known in literature as "Susan Coolidge." One of his instructors in Yale College was the famous Judge Story. Richard M. Bishop was held in high esteem as a public spirited and successful business man of Cincinnati who had been mayor of that city when Abraham Lincoln was entertained there on his way to Washington, - 80 - CONSTITUTIONAL EVOLUTION OF OHIO - 81 in 1861. He was a communicant and liberal supporter of the Disciple Church and became governor of Ohio. From Cincinnati also came two able lawyers, Samuel F. Hunt and John W. Herron. The daughter of the latter became the wife of William Howard Taft. Judge William H. West, who a short time before resigned from the supreme bench of Ohio because of failing eyesight, came as delegate from Logan County. He was afterward candidate of the republican party for governor but was defeated by Bishop. This reverse did not diminish his fame as one of the great lawyers of the state. He added to his reputation as an orator in the effective speech that he delivered in the national republican convention of 1844 when he placed in nomination for the presidency the name of James G. Blaine. Thomas Ewing, of distinguished Ohio ancestry, son of Senator Thomas Ewing, and afterward a member of Congress, represented Fairfield County. He had an honorable record of service in Kansas in the ante bellum days and as an officer in the Civil war. He was subsequently the nominee of his party for governor but was defeated by Charles Foster. Judge John McCauley who succeeded Dr. John D. O'Connor, deceased, as delegate to the convention was a graduate of Ohio Wesleyan University, had served his county as prosecuting attorney later became common pleas judge in his district, a position which he resigned to accept appointment by Governor Charles Foster on the Supreme Court commission. He was the only one of the ten surviving members of this convention who visited the fourth constitutional convention. His remarks before that body were confined chiefly to the judiciary system. Other delegates who previously or subsequently became members of Congress are noted in the sketches following. Among those who served in the General Assembly were William Adair and F. B. Pond whose names were identified with important laws enacted for the regulation of the liquor traffic. Among the officers and employes of the convention were Allen 0. Myers, who afterward became a state representative and John R. Mallory who subsequently served as clerk of both houses of the General Assembly and became an able parliamentarian and a familiar figure in the activities of the republican party. An examination of the list of delegates shows that all but about twenty were professional men. Of those listed as bankers, merchants and farmers a goodly number had liberal educational advantages. In no previous constitutional convention of the state, it is frequently declared, was the average intellectual equipment higher. MEMBERS OF THE THIRD CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION WHO HAD BEEN OR BECAME MEMBERS OF CONGRESS CHARLES JEFFERSON ALBRIGHT Charles Jefferson Albright was born at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, May 9, 1816, the son of Frederick Albrecht, who was a native of Prussia ; came to Guernsey County, Ohio, in 1832 ; learned the trade of harness maker ; taught school ; owned and published the Guernsey Times, 18401845, 1848-1855 ; elected as a republican to the Thirty-fourth Congress (March 4, 1855-March 3, 1857) ; delegate to state republican convention in 1855 and to first and second national republican conventions, 1856 and 1860; in convention of 1860 was one of the Ohio delegates that changed from Chase to Lincoln and assured the nomination of the latter ; appointed internal revenue collector by Lincoln and served 1862-1869 ; delegate to the third constitutional convention of Ohio ; member state board of charities, 1876-1878 ; member of school board, councilman; clerk and mayor of Cambridge ; died in Cambridge October 21, 1883. 82 - HISTORY OF OHIO SHERLOCK J. ANDREWS Sherlock J. Andrews was a delegate to the third constitutional convention of Ohio, also delegate to second constitutional convention of Ohio. See sketch on other pages. LEWIS DAVIS CAMPBELL Lewis Davis Campbell was born in Franklin, Ohio, August 9, 1811 ; attended the public schools ; apprenticed to learn the art of printing 1828-1831 ; published a Clay whig newspaper in Hamilton, Ohio, 18311836 ; studied law, was admitted to the bar, and commenced practice in Hamilton ; elected as a whig to the Thirty-first, Thirty-second, Thirty-third and Thirty-fourth congresses (March 4, 1849-March 3, 1857);; prsented credentials as member-elect to the Thirty-fifth Congress and served from March 4, 1857, to May 25, 1858, when he was succeeded by Clement L. Vallandigham, who contested his election ; served in the Union army as colonel of a regiment of volunteer infantry 1861-1862; resigned on account of ill health ; elected as a democrat to the Forty-second Congress (March 4, 1871-March 3, 1873) ; member of the third constitutional convention of Ohio, serving as vice president ; died in Hamilton, Ohio, November 26, 1882. THOMAS EWING, JR. Thomas Ewing, Jr., was born in Lancaster, Ohio, August 7, 1829 ; was graduated from Brown University in 1849 ; studied law, was admitted to the bar and practiced in Cincinnati, Ohio ; removed to Leavenworth, Kansas, in 1856 ; member of the peace conference from Kansas in 1861 ; chief justice Supreme Court of Kansas 1861-1862 ; served in the union army as colonel of the Eleventh Kansas Infantry Volunteers August, 1862 ; brigadier general United States volunteers September, 1863 ; brevet major general United States volunteers March, 1865 ; delegate to the third constitutional convention of Ohio, having returned to that state at the close of the Civil war ; elected as a democrat to the Forty-fifth and Forty-sixth congresses (March 4, 1877-March 3, 1881) ; candidate for governor of Ohio ; moved to New York City in 1881, where he engaged in the practice of law ; died in New York City January 21, 1896. MARTIN AMBROSE FORAN Martin Ambrose Foran was born in Choconut, Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania, November 11, 1844 ; received a public school and collegiate training ; served in the Fourth Pennsylvania Cavalry from April, 1864, to July, 1865, as a private ; moved to Ohio ; delegate to the third constitutional convention of Ohio ; studied law and was admitted to the bar in 1874 ; prosecuting attorney for City of Cleveland from April, 1875, to April, 1877 ; elected as a democrat to the Forty-eighth, Forty-ninth and Fiftieth congresses (March 4, 1883-March 3, 1889) ; resumed the practice of law in Cleveland ; judge of the Court of Common Pleas, 19111921 ; died in Cleveland, June 28, 1921. MILLS GARDNER Mills Gardner was born in Russellville, Ohio, January 30, 1830 ; moved to Fayette County in 1854 ; received a limited schooling ; studied law and in 1855 was admitted to the bar ; prosecuting attorney of Fayette County ; state senator 1862-1864 ; presidential elector on Lincoln ticket in 1864; state representative 1866-1868 ; delegate to the third constitutional convention of Ohio ; elected as a republican to the Forty-fifth CONSTITUTIONAL EVOLUTION OF OHIO - 83 Congress (March 4, 1877-March 3, 1879) ; resumed the practice of law died in Washington Court House, Ohio, February 20, 1910. JOHN WESLEY MCCORMICK John Wesley McCormick was born in Gallia County, Ohio, December 20, 1831 ; attended the Ohio Wesleyan University, Delaware, Ohio, and the Ohio University, Athens, Ohio ; engaged in farming near Gallipolis ; delegate to the third constitutional convention of Ohio ; elected as a republican to the Forty-eighth Congress (March 4, 1883-March 3, 1885) ; returned to his farm ; trustee of Rio Grande College; died June 25, 1917. HENRY SAFFORD NEAL Henry Safford Neal was born in Gallipolis, Ohio, August 25, 1828 ; was graduated from Marietta College in 1847 ; studied law and was admitted to the bar in 1851 ; state senator 1862-1865 ; commenced practice of law in Ironton, Ohio ; appointed consul to Lisbon, Portugal, in 1869 ; by the resignation of the minister became charge d affaires in December, 1869 ; in July, 1870, resigned and returned to Ohio ; delegate to the third constitutional convention of Ohio ; elected as a republican to the Forty-fifth, Forty-sixth and Forty-seventh congresses (March 4, 1877-March 3, 1883) ; appointed solicitor of the treasury by President Arthur, which position he held until a successor was appointed by President Cleveland ; died in Ironton, Ohio, July 13, 1906. JOSEPH MOSLEY ROOT Joseph Mosley Root was born in Brutus, New York, October 7, 1807; pursued classical studies ; studied law, was admitted to the bar and in 1829 began practice in Norwalk, Ohio ; held various local offices ; state senator 1840-1841, 1870-1871 ; elected as a whig to the Twenty-ninth, Thirtieth, and Thirty-first congresses (March 4, 1845-March 3, 1851) ; Lincoln presidential elector 1860 ; United States district attorney, 1861- 1865 ; delegate to the third constitutional convention of Ohio ; died in Sandusky, Ohio, April 7, 1879. JOHN ARMSTRONG SMITH John Armstrong Smith was a delegate to the third constitutional convention of Ohio, also delegate to the second constitutional convention of Ohio. For sketch see other pages. AMOS TOWNSEND Amos Townsend was born in Fayette County, Pennsylvania, in 1831 ; moved at an early age to Cleveland, Ohio ; member of City Council ten years, serving as president seven years ; delegate to the third constitutional convention of Ohio ; elected as a republican to the Forty-fifth, Forty-sixth and Forty-seventh congresses (March 4, 1877-March 3, 1883) ; died in St. Augustine, Florida, March 17, 1895. COOPER KINDERDINE WATSON Cooper Kinderdine Watson was born in Jefferson County, Kentucky, June 18, 1810 ; educated in the common schools ; studied law, was admitted to the bar and practiced ; prosecuting attorney of Marion County, Ohio ; moved to Tiffin where he practiced law for twenty years ; elected as a free-soiler to the Thirty-fourth Congress (March 4, 1855-March 3, 1857) ; moved to Sandusky, Ohio ; delegate to the third constitutional 84 - HISTORY OF OHIO convention of Ohio ; appointed judge of the Court of Common Pleas in 1876; was elected to the position and served until his death in Sandusky, Ohio, May 20, 1880. CHILTON ALLEN WHITE Chilton Allen White was born in Georgetown, Ohio, February 12, 1826 ; received a limited schooling ; served in the Mexican war ; studied law, was admitted to the bar and in 1848 began practice in Georgetown ; prosecuting attorney of Brown County; state senator 1859-1860; elected as a democrat to the Thirty-seventh and Thirty-eighth congresses (March 4, 1861-March 3, 1865) ; defeated for reelection ; delegate to third constitutional convention of Ohio ; died in Georgetown, Ohio, October 7, 1900. RICHARD M. BISHOP Richard M. Bishop was born in Fleming County, Kentucky, November 4, 1812 ; in 1848 removed to Cincinnati, Ohio, and entered the wholesale grocery business in which he became successful and wealthy ; mayor of Cincinnati 1859-1861 ; declined renomination tendered by both political parties ; made a patriotic address to the members of the legislatures of Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky and Tennessee on the occasion of their visit to Cincinnati in January, 1860 ; in February, 1861, delivered address of welcome to President-elect Abraham Lincoln on his way to Washington ; prominently identified with the Disciple Church and its missionary enterprises ; successor to Dr. Alexander Campbell in the presidency of the General Christian Missionary Convention ; a delegate to the third constitutional convention of Ohio ; a prime mover in the development of the Cincinnati Southern Railroad ; governor of Ohio 1878-1880; died at Jacksonville, Florida, March 2, 1893. GEORGE HOADLY George Hoadly was born in New Haven, Connecticut, July 31, 1825 ; he was of distinguished ancestry ; his mother was great-granddaughter of Mary Edwards, daughter of the famous minister of the Gospel ; she was a niece of President Dwight of Yale College and sister of President Woolsey of that institution ; was graduated in 1844 from the Western Reserve College at Hudson, Ohio ; studied law at Harvard under Judge Story and Simon Greenleaf ; admitted teethe bar in 1847; practiced law with Salmon P. Chase ; elected in 1851 by the Legislature to the office of judge of the Superior Court of Cincinnati ; in 1859 elected under the. new constitution judge of the Superior Court of Cincinnati ; resigned and resumed law practice in 1866 ; delegate to the third constitutional convention of Ohio ; for ten years professor in the Cincinnati Law School ; moved to New York City in 1887 and practiced law there with eminent success ; represented the interests of Samuel J. Tilden before the electoral commission in the Hayes-Tilden controversy ; died at Watkins, New York, August 26, 1902. EMINENT JURISTS WHO WERE MEMBERS OF THE THIRD CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF OHIO JOHN MCCAULEY John McCauley was born in Columbiana County, Ohio, December 9, 1834 ; went with his father's family to Wood County, Ohio, and afterwards moved to Hancock County ; attended public school ; prepared for college in the academy at Republic, Seneca County, Ohio ; graduated from Ohio Wesleyan University, at Delaware, in 1859 ; taught school while CONSTITUTIONAL EVOLUTION OF OHIO - 85 in college and studied law ; admitted to the bar in 1860 ; practiced law in Tiffin, Ohio ; prosecuting attorney of Seneca County, 1866-1869 ; delegate to the third constitutional convention of Ohio to fill a vacancy occasioned by the death of Dr. John D. O'Connor ; judge of the Court of Common Pleas, 1880-1883 ; resigned to accept appointment on the Supreme Court commission of Ohio, where he served the full term, April 17, 1883-April 16, 1885 ; the only surviving member of this convention to visit the fourth constitutional convention; died MORRISON R. WAITE Morrison R. Waite was born at Lyme, Connecticut, November 29, 1816; was graduated from Yale College in 1837 in a class with William M. Evarts, Benjamin Sillman, Edwards Pierrpont and Samuel J. Tilden ; studied law at Maumee City, Ohio ; admitted to the bar in 1839 ; moved to Toledo in 1850, where he continued the practice of law ; state representative, 1849-1850; unsuccessfully opposed the election to Congress of James M. Ashley in 1862; selected by President Grant with William M. Evarts and Caleb Cushing to represent the United States before the Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva ; the ability with which he performed his mission at Geneva led President Grant to nominate him for chief justice of the Supreme Court of the United States in 1874; for years a trustee .of the Peabody Educational Fund; honored with degree of Bachelor of Laws by Kenyon College in 1874 and by Ohio University 'in 1879 ; died in Washington, D. C., March 23, 1888. WILLIAM H. WEST William H. West was born at Millsborough, Washington County, Pennsylvania, February 9, 1824; came with his father's family to Knox County, Ohio, in 1830 ; entered Martinsburg Academy in 1840.; was graduated from Jefferson College, Pennsylvania, in 1846 ; taught school near Lexington, Kentucky, and later had charge of the school for boys in that city ; while in Kentucky became acquainted with the Clay and Breckinridge families ; returned to Ohio and studied law in the office of Judge William Lawrence at Bellefontaine ; admitted to the bar in 1851; elected prosecuting attorney of Logan County ; state representa- tive 1858-1859, 1862-1863 ; state senator 1864-1865 ; attorney general of Ohio 1866-1870 ; nominated by President Grant and confirmed by the Senate as consul to Rio Janiero in 1869, but declined ; judge of the Supreme Court of Ohio, 1872-1873; resigned because of failing eyesight; delegate to the third constitutional convention of Ohio; delegate to national republican convention in 1860 and aided in the nomination of Abraham Lincoln ; delegate to national republican convention in 1884 and delivered notable address in presenting the name of James G. Blaine for president of the United States ; known as "Ohio's blind man eloquent"; died in Bellefontaine in 1911. MEMBERS AND OFFICERS OF THE THIRD OHIO CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

M. R. WAITE RUFUS KING Presidents

LEWIS D. CAMPBELL, Vice President JAMES B. WILBUR, Sergeant-at-Arms

D. W. RHODES, Secretary J. G. ADEL, Official Reporter

No	Names of Delegates	County	Post Office	Place of Nativity	Years in State	Age	Occupation	Married Or Single
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22	Wm. Adair Charles J. Albright S. J. Andrews Isaac N. Alexander Llewellyn Baber J. W. Bannon David Barnet Thomas Beer R. M. Bishop, John H. Blose Perry Bosworth Barnabas Burns Absalom P. Byal John L. Caldwell Joseph P. Carbery. Harlow Chapin S. W. Clark Milton L. Clark Adam Clay John B. Coats Asher Cook D. D. T. Cowen	Carroll Guernsey Cuyahoga Van Wert Franklin Scioto Preble Crawford Hamilton Clarke Lake Richland Hancock Pike Hamilton Washington Jefferson Ross Montgomery Union Wood Belmont	Leesville Cambridge Cleveland Van Wert Columbus Portsmouth Camden Bucyrus Cincinnati Fremont Painesville Mansfield Findlay Beaverstown Cincinnati Harmar Richmond Chillicothe Miamisburg Marysville Perrysburg St. Clairsville	Ohio Pennsylvania Connecticut Ohio Virginia Ohio Pennsylvania Ohio Kentucky Ohio Ohio Pennsylvania Ohio Ohio Ireland Ohio Ohio Ohio Pennsylvania Vermont Pennsylvania Ohio	37 42 48 41 30 32 70 41 29 35 46 53 52 30 24 69 57 54 41 32 51 48	37 58 72 41 47 32 73 41 61 35 46 56 52 30 47 69 57 54 51 52 52 48	Lawyer Printer Lawyer Lawyer Lawyer Lawyer Farmer and Miller Lawyer Merchant Farmer and Merchant Lawyer Lawyer Farmer Physician and Surg'n Merchant Civil Engineer Farmer & Minister Lawyer Lawyer Lawyer Lawyer Lawyer	Married Married Married Married Single Married Married Married Married Married Married Married Married Married Married Married Married Married Married Married Married Married
CONSTITUTIONAL EVOLUTION OF OHIO - 87
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48	T. E. Cunningham R. De Steiguer A. W. Doan G. Volney Dorsey Thomas Ewing M. A. Foran Julius Freiberg Mills Gardner T. J. Godfrey Jacob J. Greene S. O. Griswold John J. Gurley *Harvey Guthrie John C. Hale John W. Herron George Wm. Hill Peter Hitchcock George Hoadly Joseph D. Horton J. C. Hostetter Samuel Humphreville Samuel F. Hunt Lyman J. Jackson E. H. Johnson W. P. Kerr A. Kraemer	Allen Athens Clinton Miami Fairfield Cuyahoga Hamilton Fayette Mercer Defi'ce and Paul'g Cuyahoga Morrow Shelby Lorain Hamilton Ashland Geauga Hamilton Portage Stark Medina Hamilton Perry Hamilton Licking Ottawa	Lima Athens Wilmington Piqua Lancaster Cleveland Cincinnati Washington C. H. Celina Defiance Cleveland Mt. Gilead Sidney Elyria Cincinnati Ashland Burton Cincinnati Ravenna Minerva Medina Cincinnati N. Lexington Ross Granville Oak Harbor	Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Pennsylvania Germany Ohio Ohio Ohio Connecticut New York Virginia N. Hampshire Pennsylvania Virginia Ohio Connecticut Ohio Pennsylvania Massachusetts Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Germany	43 46 49 61 30 6 25 44 42 53 32 31 44 16 32 40 56 44 41 53 41 28 38 57 51 43	43 46 49 61 44 30 50 44 42 53 50 53 46 42 46 42 56 47 41 54 60 28 38 57 51 63	Lawyer Lawyer Lawyer Physician & Banker Lawyer Cooper Merchant & Mfgr Lawyer Lawyer and Banker Editor Lawyer Lawyer Farmer Lawyer Lawyer Physician Farmer Lawyer Lawyer Farmer Lawyer Lawyer Lawyer Farmer   Teacher Lawyer	Married Married Married Married Married Married Married Married Married Married Single Married Married Married Married Married Married Married Married Married Married Single Married Single Married Married
88 - HISTORY OF OHIO
49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75	Josiah L. Keck W. V. M. Layton John K. McBride John McCauley John W. McCormick Ozias Merrill George D. Miller §John L. Miner Charles H. Mitchener Jacob Mueller Thomas J. Mullen Henry S. Neal **John D. O'Connor William Okey Henry F. Page Anson Pease Charles Phellis William H. Philips F. B. Pond Thomas W. Powell Albert M. Pratt J. W. Reilly John J. Rickly J. M. Root Charles W. Rowland Daniel A. Russell Charles C. Russell	Hamilton Auglaize Wayne Seneca Gallia Fulton Darke Hamilton Tuscarawas Cuyahoga Adams Lawrence Seneca Monroe Pickaway Stark Madison Hardin Morgan Delaware Williams Columbiana Franklin Erie Hamilton Meigs Muskingum	Cincinnati Wapokaneta Wooster Tiffin Gallipoliss Ai Greenville Cincinnati NPhiladelphia Cleveland West Union Ironton Tiffin Woodsfield, Circleville, Massillon Rosedale Kenton   McConnelsville Delaware Bryan Wellsville Columbus Sandusky Cincinnati Pomeroy Zanesville	....... Ohio Pennsylvania Ohio Ohio Maine Ohio Ohio Pennsylvania Germany Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Pennsylvania New York Wales Massachusetts Ohio Switzerland ........... Kentucky Ohio Indiana	...... 45 58 39 42 35 48 62 35 24 50 45 51 64 50 54 59 36 32 53 23 45 ...... 40 24 33 48	....... 45 59 39 42 46 55 62 57 51 50 45 51 64 50 54 59 49 48 77 48 45 ..... 60 41 33 49	....... Lawyer Lawyer Lawyer Farmer & Mfgr Farmer Farmer Lawyer Lawyer Lawyer Farmer & Lawyer Lawyer Physician Lawyer Lawyer Lawyer Farmer Physician & Surgeon Lawyer Lawyer Lawyer Lawyer Banker ........ Merchant Lawyer Banker	....... Married Married Married Married Married Married Married Married Married Married Married Married Wid 'wr Married Married Single Married Single Married Married Single Married ....... Married Married Single
CONSTITUTIONAL EVOLUTION OF OHIO - 89
76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103	Wm. Sample W. E. Scofield C. H. Scribner John D. Sears John Shaw E. Shultz John A. Smith *Edmund Smith t James B. Steedman T. F. Thompson  Amos Townsend Thos. P. Townsley James Tripp R. S. Tulloss Geo. M. Tuttle A. H. Tyler Jas.S. VanValkenburgh Daniel Van Voorhis Carolus F. Voorhes Alvin C. Voris W. G. Waddle Cooper K. Watson S. P. Weaver Harvey Wells Wm. H. West Chilton A. White A. White D. M. Wilson	Coshocton Marion Lucas Wyandot Clermont Montgomery Highland Shelby Lucas Warren Cuyahoga Greene Jackson Knox Trumbull Henry Sandusky Muskingum Holmes Summit Harrison Huron Putnam Vinton Logan Brown Hocking Mahoning	Coshocton Marion Toledo Upper Sandusky New Richmond Miamisburg Hillsboro Sidney Toledo Lebanon Cleveland Xenia Jackson C. H. Utica Warren Napoleon Fremont Nashport Millersburg Akron New Athens Norwalk Leipsic .......... Bellefontaine Georgetown Logan Youngstown	Pennsylvania Ohio Connecticut New York Ohio Pennsylvania Ohio Ohio Pennsylvania New Jersey Pennsylvania Ohio Pennsylvania Ohio Connecticut New York Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Ohio Ohio Kentucky Ohio ......... Pennsylvania Ohio Ohio Ohio	61 36 37 37 64 35 59 44 37 56 20 56 40 54 34 32 35 62 51 46 39 47 54 ....... 43 48 71 49	63 36 47 53 64 54 59 55 55 60 41 56 48 54 57 54 37 67 54 46 39 63 54 ...... 50 48 71 49	Lawyer Lawyer Lawyer Lawyer Farmer Manufacturer Lawyer Lawyer Printer Lawyer Merchant Merchant Lawyer Farmer Lawyer Physician Editor & Publisher Farmer Lawyer Lawyer Minister Lawyer Farmer ......... Lawyer Lawyer Farmer Lawyer	Married Single Married Married Married Married Married Married Single Married Married Married Married Single Married Married Married Wid'rw Married Married Married Married Married ......... Married Married Married Married
1. Resigned. 2. President, vice M. R. Waite, resigned *Vice Smith of Shelby, deceased. t Resigned. + Vice O’Connor, deceased. § Vice Keek, resigned. ** Deceased 90 - HISTORY OF OHIO
104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125	H. B. Woodbury John H. Young William J. Young M. R. Waite, President Rufus King, President Lewis D. Campbell,VP J. G. Adel, Official Reporter Dudley W. Rhodes, Secretary Robt. F. Hurlbutt, 1st Asst. Sec. D. S. Fisher, 2d Asst. Sec. Joseph Gutzwiller, 3d Asst. Sec Allen O. Myers, 4th Asst. Sec James B. Wilbur, Serg't-at-Arms t James Morgan, 1st Assistant. § Frederick Blankner, 2d Asst  Charles Rhodes, P. M. Jno. R. Malloy, Page James D. Beamis Emery Wells John W. Cloud Glenn M. Grant II W. A. Cool	Ashtabula Champaign Noble Lucas Hamilton Butler Franklin Delaware Delaware Allen Hancock. Pickaway Cuyahoga Hamilton Franklin. Jackson Greene. Lorain. Franklin Franklin. Franklin Franklin	Jefferson Urbana Sarahsville Toledo Cincinnati Hamilton Columbus Delaware Delaware Lima Findlay Circleville Cleveland Cincinnati Columbus Jackson C. H Xenia Elyria Columbus Columbus Columbus Columbus	Ohio Ohio Rhode Island Connecticut Ohio Ohio Pennsylvania Ohio Virginia Scotland Pennsylvania Ohio New York Ireland Germany Maryland Connecticut Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio	40 60 48 ....... 56 62 35 48 15 30 19 26 39 26 31 16 9 16 16 15 13 19	40 60 58 ...... 56 62 43 48 31 35 31 26 56 38 37 33 17 16 16 15 13 19	Lawyer Lawyer Farmer & Broker Lawyer Lawyer Farmer Reporter Insurance Agent Lawyer Printer Clerk Journalist Merchant Manufacturer None Printer	Married Married Single Married Married Married Married Married Married Married Married Single Married Married Single Married

* Deceased. t Tice WAITE, resigned. + Resigned. § Resigned. Vice COOL, resigned. II Resigned. CHAPTER IX AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION METHODS TO ACCOMPLISH THIS The defeat of the constitution of 1873-1874 left the Supreme Court in a rather unfortunate position. As already stated, it was far in arrears with its work. The aid offered by the new constitution now seemed to be indefinitely postponed. Up to this time no amendment had been adopted to the constitution of 1851, and the prospect for relief from that source was anything but encouraging. The need was so apparent, howewer, that the General Assembly once more submitted an amendment to the constitution. This provided for a Supreme Court Commission of five members, appointed by the governor for three years, "to dispose of such part of the business then on the docket of the Supreme Court as shall, by arrangement between said commission and said court, be transferred to such commission." This commission was to have "like jurisdiction and power in respect to such business as are or may be vested in said court." The General Assembly was also given power to create once every ten years a similar commission for a similar purpose, to serve two years. The two leading political parties united in an effort to pass this amendment. Practically all the newspapers of the state favored it and the speakers of both parties, in the stirring campaign of 1875, paused long enough in their partisan appeals to urge all voters to support it. Success crowned the efforts of the friends of the amendment, which now appears as Section 22 (21) Article IV of our constitution. Following is the vote by which it was adopted October 12. 1875 :

Whole number of votes cast. Necessary to carry  For the amendment  Against the amendment

595,248 297,625 339,076 98.561

Nor was our constitution amended only once, "except through the devious device of the now repealed Longworth law," as editorially declared by a prominent newspaper of the state. Article IV, providing for the judiciary, was materially and extensively modified by amendment October 9, 1883. This amendment abolished District courts, established Circuit courts and authorized the General Assembly to increase the number of judges of the Supreme Court, declare their salaries and fix the term of office for any period not less than five years. The number of circuit judges, their salaries and terms of office, were likewise to be fixed by law. This amendment, materially changing sections 1, 2 and 6 of Article IV, and repealing sections 5 and 11 of the same article, while not adopted under the Longworth law, was made a part of the constitution by methods not less "devious," as we shall presently see. The amendment was but little discussed in the campaign of 1883. Popular interests centered in two other amendments, relating to the prohibition and regulation of the liquor traffic, and yet the amendment relating to the judiciary carried easily, while those relating to the liquor traffic failed. The following extract from an editorial in the Ohio State Journal explains why the judiciary amendment had such "plain sailing" : - 91 - 92 - HISTORY OF OHIO "The constitutional amendment proposing a change in the state judiciary has had pretty plain sailing thus far, and arrangements having been made whereby `Judicial amendment, Yes' appears on the ticket of both parties, it will doubtless be adopted. The State Bar Association, after a discussion of the proposed measure, decided to adopt it and advocate it, and lawyers generally have pronounced in favor of it, as far as they have taken any position at all in regard to it." This reveals the plan to catch the indifferent and uninformed voter at an election before the present modified Australian system was adopted. Instead of writing on the ballot Judicial amendment, Yes Judicial amendment, No and permitting the voter to express his preference by striking out one of the two, by mutual arrangement the political parties placed on each ballot Judicial amendment, Yes. For obvious reasons this plan was about as effective as that authorized by the Longworth act. The scheme was exposed and denounced by the venerable Judge Rufus P. Ranney in a letter to the Cleveland Leader a few days before the election, in which among other things he said : "I do not now propose to enter upon an examination of it [the amendment], and content myself with simply saying, I can see no good in it. It undertakes to create an entirely new court, with an unlimited number of judges and a large increase in office holders, with a corresponding increase in the expenses of the judicial system. "But worse than all that, it completely destroys the present independent position of the judges of the Supreme Court, as well as the courts to be created. Among the most effectual means for securing this, a fixed term and compensation have always been regarded as indispensable, while in the scheme proposed everything is set afloat and the Legislature is at liberty to make the terms of the supreme judges five years or twenty, the circuit judges one year or twenty, as they see fit or the exigencies of political parties seem to require. But leaving all this aside, I certainly should not have felt myself called upon to more than deposit my vote against the scheme, if an equal opportunity were afforded those who favor or oppose it to express their wishes at the ballot box in accordance with the legislative resolution submitting it, which expressly requires the affirmative or negative to be placed upon the ballot as the elector may desire to vote. "I am now, however, inf armed (whether correctly or not I can not say) that an understanding between the committees of the several political parties exists, by which affirmation only is to be printed upon the ballots to be used at the election. If such a conspiracy really exists and is attempted to be carried out, I have no hesitation in declaring it a base fraud and imposition upon the electors and an attempt to change the constitution by a species of juggling without the free consent of the majority of them. * * * "If I need any apology for calling the attention of the electors to the subject, I hope it will be found in the fact that I am one of the very few surviving members of the convention that framed the constitution and was chairman of the committee on future amendments." The revelation of the clever arrangement of the political leaders did not affect the result of the election, and the judicial amendment easily prevailed, the vote standing :

Total vote cast.  Necessary to carry For the amendment Against the amendment

731,310 365,656 400,919 144,335

CONSTITUTIONAL EVOLUTION OF OHIO - 93 In spite of Judge Ranney's criticism of this amendment and his denunciation of the scheme by which it was ratified, it must be admitted that time proved the modification of the constitution thus effected wise and satisfactory. There was no disposition on the part of the General Assembly to abuse the authority conferred upon it and the judicial system was made so flexible that. it could be adjusted to meet new demands without calling a convention to revise the constitution. As we have seen, the conventions of 1850-1851 and 1873-1874 were brought about chiefly for the purpose of revising the judicial system. Until the meeting of the constitutional convention of 1912 there was practically no further demand for a change in this department. The constitution was still further amended October 13, 1885, changing the time of electing county and state officers from the second Tuesday of October to the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November, and authorizing the General Assembly to determine the time and manner of holding township elections. These amendments were popular, especially those changing the time of the fall election to correspond with the Presidential election. They were all submitted in the same manner as the judiciary amendment of 1883, and by mutual agreement of political parties only the affirmative votes were printed on the ballots. These amendments carried by substantial majorities. Following is the record : Total votes cast - 733,967 Necessary to carry - 366,984 Election of senators and representatives in November : Yes - 538,858 No - 53,177 Election of state officers in November : Yes - 536,273 No - 53,223 Election of county officers in November : Yes - 534,669 No - 53,629 Election of township officers : Yes - 469,113 No - 59,929 THE LONGWORTH ACT In 1902 the Longworth act was passed. It virtually gave legal form and sanction to the practice of 1883 and 1885 as then applied„ to the judicial and election amendments. It provided that political parties might "take action in favor of or against the adoption of such constitutional amendments to be submitted at the next succeeding annual election and certify such action to the secretary of state in the manner provided for certifying nomination for state offices, whereupon said action shall be printed upon the regular ballot at said election as a part of the party ticket of said party." Briefly stated, it authorized a political party to include as part of its ticket an affirmative or a negative vote on a constitutional amendment,, and every elector who put his cross under the party emblem voted accordingly. Under this law amendments that had the support of the two political parties (and in one instance that had the support of one political party) readily passed and were incorporated in the constitution. They were as follows: ELECTION OF 1903 Total vote cast - 877,203 Necessary to carry - 438,602 Governor's veto : Yes - 458,681 No - 338,317 94 - HISTORY OF OHIO County representation : Yes - 757,505 No - 26,497 Stockholders' single liability : Yes - 751,783 No - 30,988 ELECTION OF 1905 Total votes cast - 961,505 Necessary to carry - 480,753 Bond exemption : Yes - 655,508 No - 139,062 Biennial elections : Yes - 702,699 No - 90,762 With the exception of next to the last (bond exemption) in the foregoing list, these amendments have proven fairly satisfactory. There has been no disposition to return to the old order. There was, however, considerable latent opposition to the veto amendment which led, in the constitutional convention of 1912, to a material modification of that section of the constitution as we shall see later. But the exception above noted and the possibility that party leaders might- shape the constitution to their will and to the detriment of the people aroused opposition to the Longworth act and led to its repeal in 1908. The repealing act provided that constitutional amendments should be designated in the first column of the official ballot and that on the line below each should be printed the word "yes" and on the next line should be printed the word "no." As it required a majority of all the votes cast at the election to carry an amendment, for reasons already explained, the indifferent and uninformed voter who failed to notice the amendment was again counted against its adoption as certainly as if he had voted "no." No constitutional amendment was adopted after the repeal of the Longworth act until 1912. The principle of this act, however, was invoked in the law which provided for submitting to the electors of the state the question, "Shall there be a convention to revise, alter or amend the constitution ?" This act went into effect May 11, 1910. While neither of the two leading political parties assumed responsibility for the work of the constitutional convention of 1912, both of them went on record in favor of holding it and included "constitutional convention, yes," as part of their respective tickets in the fall election of 1910. While it is very doubtful whether the proposition would have carried if placed in a separate column of the ballot, with the endorsement of the two parties as above described, the result was as follows : Total vote - 932,262 For the convention - 693,263 Against the convention - 67,718 MODIFICATION OF CONSTITUTION BY AMENDMENT INDEPENDENT "PROPOSITION" Amendments to the constitution of Ohio may now be submitted to the people in three ways : 1. By a constitutional convention. 2. By the General Assembly. 3. By initiative petition. The first of these methods was authorized by the constitution of 1802 ; the first and second by the constitution of 1851; and all three by the constitution as amended in 1912. With the constitution of 1851, as we have seen, was submitted a CONSTITUTIONAL EVOLUTION OF OHIO - 95 separate "proposal" or "proposition" to license the sale of intoxicating liquors. This was done in order that the adoption of the constitution itself might not be endangered by the contest over the liquor problem. As previously stated, the submission of the proposition in separate form helped to insure the adoption of the constitution. A few words of explanation may be necessary. Had a provision authorizing the license system been included in the constitution itself, the temperance people would have voted against its adoption. A provision forbidding license would have arrayed against it the liberal or liquor element. When the license proposition was submitted separately, the temperance people naturally favored the new constitution, opposed license, and voted accordingly. They wished the new constitution to prevail for, if it should fail, they would continue under the old constitution and the license system. Their purpose was to carry the new constitution and vote into it as a separate proposition the anti-license clause. The liberal element believed that they could carry license and while they were, perhaps, not so enthusiastic as their opponents in support of the constitution, their faith that they would be able to vote down the anti-license proposition influenced them generally not to oppose the adoption of the constitution. In short, the temperance people felt that they had everything to gain and nothing to lose in the adoption of the new constitution and voted for its adoption. The liberals did not realize that the result would adversely effect their interests and did not antagonize adoption. At that time the lines between the wets and drys were not so sharply drawn as in later years. This combination of conditions materially aided the friends of the constitution and contributed thousands of votes to its adoption. When the constitution of 1874 was submitted, conditions were different. With it were referred to the people three independent propositions "minority representation," "railroad aid" and "license." The first two were overwhelmingly defeated, and the last by a majority of only 7,286, in a total vote of 351,790. The constitution itself went down by a vote of more than two to one. The contest was most vigorously waged over the license question. The friends of the system the liberal or liquor element, as they were called, had everything to gain and nothing to lose by voting not only for the license proposition but for the constitution as well. In fact, the latter received its most substantial support from that source. On the other hand, opponents of the license system who had everything to lose and nothing to gain in the adoption of the proposed constitution, arrayed themselves "against it in united battle line, and the majorities that they rolled up in the rural districts against the two objects of their wrath were paralyzing. It should be added that opposition to "minority representation" and "railroad aid," the former of which was not understood and the latter very unpopular, helped, in lesser degree, to make sure the defeat of the constitution. Reason and experience clearly show that the fate of a proposed constitution is dependent, in no small degree, upon the independent propositions submitted with it. A provision that will endanger the adoption of the constitution, when included as a part of it, will usually have, to a marked degree, the same influence if submitted with it as an independent proposition. In Ohio, provision from the beginning has been made for the modification of the constitution by amendment. Prior to 1851, this could be effected only in a constitutional convention. After the adoption of the constitution of 1851 amendments could be proposed by three-fifths of each branch of the General Assembly, but bef ore becoming a part of the constitution they must be submitted to the people at the next regular election for state senators and representatives, and must receive the votes of a majority of all the electors voting at such election. As has 96 - HISTORY OF OHIO frequently been explained, an amendment may receive a majority of all the votes cast for and against it and still not have a majority of all the votes cast in the election at which it was submitted. This has been illustrated by the votes on the first amendments submitted after the adoption of the constitution of 1851. It may be further exemplified by the votes cast on taxation amendments in years preceding 1912 :

Year	Affirmative	Negative	Total votes cast
1891 1893 1903 1905 1908	303,177 322,422 326,622 655,508 339,747	65,041 82,281 43,563 139,062 95,867	795,631 835,604 877,203 961,505 1,123,198

The only one of these that carried was that submitted in 1905, and it prevailed only because it had the endorsement of both of the leading political parties under the Longworth act. When it is remembered that the demand for tax reform was, perhaps, the most powerful influence originally exerted in favor of the calling of the constitutional convention of 1912, it is readily seen that recourse is had to a constitutional convention when efforts to amend the constitution though the General Assembly fail. After the constitution of 1874 was voted down, a number of the reforms that it embodied were, by amendment, voted into the constitution under the Longworth act and other devices that applied the same principle with like results. The Longworth act was repealed and there is pronounced opposition to turning over to political conventions the power to initiate and, by concerted action, virtually to adopt amendments to the constitution. A need was recognized for a rational system of amendment that would encourage among the electors a more general and intelligent interest in the questions submitted to them for approval or rejection at the polls. The tendency in the past has been to exalt the name of the party leader to the exclusion of interest in almost everything else. Take, for instance, the vote on the amendment authorizing the classification of property for purposes of taxation, submitted in 1908. Voters to the number of 1,125,198 were interested in the election of the candidates for president and governor, but only 435,614 were sufficiently concerned to cast their ballots on an amendment authorizing legislation that might affect the tax levy on every dollar's worth of property in the state. Singular as it may seem, the difficulty experienced in adopting amendments to which there was and could be no serious opposition did not, for many years, result in well directed effort toward a satisfactory method of amendment. It was proposed in the constitutional convention of 1912 that only the ballots of those voting on the amendment should be considered, and that a majority of those should be sufficient to carry such amendment. It was urged that when voters are so indifferent as to overlook a measure submitted to them at the ballot box they should be left entirely out of consideration in determining the result. To the argument in favor of authorizing the adoption of amendments by a majority only of the votes cast thereon, the answer is made that a matter so important as changing the constitution should require an affirmative vote of a majority of all citizens casting their ballots at the election. This consideration did not, however, prevail in the constitutional convention of 1912, and amendments to our state constitution are now ratified by "a majority of those voting thereon." This greatly facilitates change in the fundamental law of the state. CHAPTER X CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1912 The demand for a constitutional convention had its origin in the difficulty experienced in amending the organic law of the state. Had the framers of the constitution in 1851 provided that constitutional amendments should be ratified by a majority of "those voting thereon," it is more than probable that the two subsequent conventions would not have been held. Three classes of persons were actively interested in calling the convention of 1912: 1. Those who favored the classification of property for purposes of taxation. 2. Those who favored the initiative and referendum. 3. Those who favored the licensing of the traffic in intoxicating liquors. The subject of taxation has been discussed since the founding of the state government. Citizens are naturally interested in the size of their tax bills. This interest is intensified by the politicians, usually those temporarily out of power who would have the voters believe that the party in power is responsible for high taxes and that a change of officers would lower them. In other words the appeal is often to the pocketbook. The prospect of a diminishing contribution to the tax gatherer is difficult of realization, but always alluring. The classification of property for purposes of taxation was not a new subject in Ohio. An effort was made to provide for this in the convention of 1873-1874. It failed and the uniform rule remained in force. The Ohio State Board of Commerce, through the Ohio Journal of Commerce, advocated classification. The General Assembly had submitted at different times amendments providing for the proposed change. While these received substantial majorities of votes cast for and against each, they did not receive a majority of all the votes cast for officers at the elections when they were submitted and were therefore lost. The friends of classification naturally concluded that if the change which they advocated could be submitted, at a special election, as part of a new constitution or as a separate proposal, it would easily carry. They therefore favored the calling of a convention. In the early part of this new twentieth century agitation in favor of direct legislation through the initiative and referendum had made considerable progress in some parts of the United States, notably in the State of Oregon. About the year 1906 the advocates of direct legislation began to organize and make their influence felt in Ohio. It was favored by organized labor, single taxers, small progressive and radical groups, and influential citizens outside of all these. Appeals had been made to the General Assembly to submit to the people an initiative and referendum amendment, but without success. The advocates of this change thought they saw in the call for a constitutional convention the opportunity to elect delegates pledged to this amendment and marshalled their forces for the fray. INTERESTS FAVORING CALL OF CONVENTION Now if these two classes—those favoring the classification of property for taxation and those advocating the initiative and referendum—could - 97 - 98 - HISTORY OF OHIO have agreed upon a "log-rolling" program on the reciprocal policy of ‘`you-help-me-and-I'll-help-you" they might have carried their "reforms" with big majorities. It so happened, however, that they could agree on only about one thing—the calling of a constitutional convention. Both favored that and helped to roll up the majority in its favor. For the most part those favoring the classification of property belonged to the conservative class and included manufacturers, bankers and merchants, with interests assumed to run counter to the welfare of those advocating the initiative and referendum. They could not unite on the changes to be worked out by the convention that their united influence had brought into existence. The liquor interests of the state favored the calling of the convention in the hope that a license provision might be placed in the constitution to supersede the anti-license provision of the constitution of 1851, under which much restrictive legislation had been enacted against those engaged in the liquor traffic. They sought relief in a constitutional license system. The act providing for the election of delegates to the convention authorized a declaration by the candidate, if he so desired, of his position on the separate submission to the people of, the alternative questions : "Shall the constitution provide for the licensing of the traffic in intoxicating liquors ?" or "Shall the constitution prohibit the licensing of the traffic in intoxicating liquors ?" One might conclude from reading the act that the main question to be decided by the convention was the submission of a liquor license amendment. While the wet and dry issue entered into the choice of delegates, it was by no means the dominant one of the election. The progressive movement which had inscribed on its banner, "The initiative and referendum," was sweeping through the country and rapidly gaining adherents in Ohio. People's power clubs, labor organizations, single taxers, and in many localities the Grange were active in its support. They conducted a vigorous campaign and conservative citizens, including those who set out to get an amendment providing for the classification of property for purposes of taxation, began to view the situation with alarm and to fear that they had opened a Pandora box in the support they had given to the calling of a convention. CHOICE OF DELEGATES Delegates were nominated by petition, signed by at least two per cent of the electors who voted at the preceding general election. Any qualified voter who complied with this requirement could be a candidate. There was no limit to the number. The names were placed on the ballot without party designation. In a general way the result of the election brought few surprises. It soon was known that the forces back of the movement for the initiative and referendum had won. On the face of returns their victory was decisive and it was predicted that they would promptly and with but little opposition organize the convention. As the date for the meeting of the delegates approached, however, there were multiplying evidences of a lively contest. It is somewhat difficult to organize, at a state capital, without a contest, a body of men elected by the people, and this is especially true in Ohio. The delegates had been elected on non-partisan ballots and some had supposed that the organization would be conducted with unusual decorum and little activity on the part of candidates and their friends. It can hardly be said that this expectation was realized. ORGANIZATION In the organization of the convention party lines were ignored, but that did not prevent a lively contest. Some days before the delegates CONSTITUTIONAL EVOLUTION OF OHIO - 99 assembled the struggle for supremacy began, and the corridors of the Neil House took on the familiar aspect of a political convention, an organization of the General Assembly, or a contest for the position of United States senator in the olden times before that office was filled by direct vote of the people. There were headquarters and candidates and managers, and the race for principle and place waxed warm in spite of editorial expostulation and the chilling blasts of a very wintry January. When the delegates assembled in the hall of the House of Representatives, January 8, 1912, they were called to order by the temporary chairman, Judge Dennis Dwyer, the oldest delegate that ever sat in an Ohio constitutional convention. He had reached his majority when the constitution of 1851 was adopted and his review of important state events covered by the long period of his active life made a deep impression on all who heard his address. The election of a president was next in order. After a spirited contest Rev. Herbert S. Bigelow of Cincinnati, an independent democrat in politics and for years a recognized leader of the movement for direct legislation in Ohio, was elected on the eleventh ballot, receiving sixty-two votes out of a total of 116 for all candidates. He promptly assumed the duties of the office and the election of a secretary followed. On the second ballot Charles B. Galbreath, a republican, was chosen, receiving seventy-two votes out of a total of 115 for all candidates. The election of a sergeant-at-arms completed the organization. The rules adopted provided for a vice president of the convention. On the fourth day Dr. Simeon D. Fess, a republican, president of Antioch College, was elected to this position on the second ballot, receiving sixty-one votes out of a total of 114 for all candidates. The significance of the organization as seen by the news writers is thus set forth in the leading news item of the Ohio State Journal, January 10, 1912 : "The fourth constitutional convention of Ohio organized yesterday under indisputably progressive, even radical leadership. It elected as its two principal officers, president and secretary, men identified with the Progressive Constitution League, which carried on the successful campaign for the election of the delegates pledged to the initiative and referendum. "This organization was effected by the election to the presidency of Rev. Herbert S. Bigelow of Hamilton County, democrat, agitator for a decade for the initiative and referendum and a disciple of the theory of single tax, the election to the secretaryship of Charles B. Galbreath of Columbus, republican, former state librarian and advocate of the initiative and referendum, and election as sergeant-at-arms of J. C. Sherlock, democrat of Fairfield County, who is assistant sergeant-at-arms of the House of Representatives. "Potent in the result was what John D. Fackler of Cuyahoga, in his speech presenting Mr. Bigelow to the convention, referred to as the ever present liquor problem. The dry forces are credited with the victory of Secretary Galbreath and Sergeant-at-arms Sherlock." The standing committees of the convention and the number of members on each were as follows: Agriculture, 17. Arrangement and Phraseology, 9. Banks and Banking, 17. Claims against the Convention, 17. Corporations, other than municipal, 17. County and Township Organization, 17. Education, 17. Employes, 5. Equal Suffrage and Elective Franchise, 21. Good Roads, 21.