Table XLIII
Distribution of Nationality in Twenty-nine Precincts in Cleveland
| ——— | |
| ——— | |
| Native born | 10 |
| Czech | 3 |
| Magyar | 3 |
| Polish | 3 |
| Jugo-Slav | 3 |
| Italian | 4 |
| Jewish | 3 |
| ——— | |
| Total | 29 |
| ——— | |
| ——— | |
Eight elections were covered by the inquiry, comparing the votes for:
| Mayor | 1911—Baker vs. Hogen. |
| Mayor | 1913—Baker vs. Davis. |
| Mayor | 1915—Witt, Davis, Ruthenberg. |
| Mayor | 1917—Stinchcomb, Davis, Ruthenberg. |
| President | 1916—Wilson, Hughes, Debs. |
| Governor | 1916—Cox vs. Willis. |
| Governor | 1918—Cox vs. Willis. |
| Congressman | 1918—Candidates differing in different districts. |
The returns were examined also for indications as to attitudes about woman suffrage and the question of no-license and prohibition, in elections between 1912 and 1918.
Of the native-born precincts, so called, five indicated almost straight Democratic tendencies; three were consistently Republican; and two were of varying complexion as between the two great parties. It should be remembered that the prevailing general complexion of the city of Cleveland in recent years, and regardless of the “landslide” of 1920, has been Democratic. Therefore the districts selected to show the tendencies of the native born were fairly representative of the situation.
The first election, 1911, was a straight partisan contest between Mr. Baker, a Democrat, and Mr. Hogen, a Republican. In 1913, the city tried, for the first time, its municipal nonpartisan ballot; but in that year the old political parties were as powerful as ever. In the election of 1915, Mr. Baker was not a candidate, but Peter Witt, long associated with Mayor Tom L. Johnson, was the Democratic candidate. This election exhibits circumstances and results significant not only of the attitude of the foreign-born voter and his responsiveness to political cross-currents, but of the extreme difficulty of isolating particular factors as especially influential upon these voters.
Mr. Witt had just completed four years of service as Street Railway Commissioner, and among the business and professional classes of the town had won a rather reluctant recognition for efficiency, the reluctance being largely due to the fact that in days when he was campaigning for Tom Johnson he had been regarded as ultra-radical. But his opponent in this campaign had no recognized record of administrative capacity, and the Republicans themselves acknowledged some doubt as to his ability, compared with the known ability of Witt, to fulfill the duties of the mayoralty. Both candidates were regarded without opposition by the “wet” element, though Mr. Davis was perhaps more circumspect in his utterances on the liquor question. The campaign did not touch the questions involved in the European War until the very end, when, on the Sunday before election, some supporter of Davis published and widely circulated among the Bohemians (Czechs), Russians, and Italians a pamphlet in which Witt was bitterly accused of being pro-German.
Now the results of the election in the wards dominated by those nationalities might rationally be held to show a pronounced effect of that propaganda, but it was no secret, the old “aristocratic” wards were presumably as keen about pro-Germanism as those inhabited by voters of alien origin, and there, if anywhere, would be the seat of the prejudice against Witt on the ground of alleged radicalism. Why, then, did the native-born conservatives waive their prejudices against Witt, the supposed radical, and overlook the charges of pro-Germanism? And why did the foreign born, who are conventionally expected to be radical, suddenly turn and vote against the only candidate who was accused of being radical? Why did Mr. Witt gain nothing in the heavily German wards (as in fact he did gain nothing) from his German name, his remote German ancestry, and the accusation of pro-Germanism? It was further noted at the time that among the Russian Jews the attack upon Witt turned many normally Democratic votes to the Davis Republican candidate. Why?
The following tables show what happened in the precincts studied: