Читать книгу The Jacksonian Conservatism of Rufus P. Ranney - David M. Gold - Страница 13

FOUR

Supreme Court Judge

ON MARCH 11, 1851, one day after the constitutional convention closed, the Ohio Senate and House of Representatives received notice from Governor Reuben Wood that Edward Avery had resigned his seat on the state supreme court.¹ The constitution just adopted by the convention, with its provisions for the popular election of judges, would not take effect unless and until it received approval from the electorate. Therefore, the task of choosing Avery’s successor fell to the General Assembly.

The lawmakers had many posts to fill besides the seat on the supreme court: lower court judgeships, generals of militia, state auditor, acting commissioner of the canal fund, state librarian, register and receiver of the state land office, and, most significantly, United States senator.² On March 13 the senators trooped down to the representatives’ hall in the old statehouse and a joint meeting of the members set to work. It was difficult business. The legislature was evenly divided between Whigs and Democrats, with Free Soilers holding the balance of power. The previous session of the General Assembly had been paralyzed by the failure of the two major parties to agree on the seating of members from Hamilton County and by bargaining for the support of the Free Soil contingent. The acrimony carried over to the 1850–51 session. The legislators took ten ballots to elect the state auditor and twenty-seven to elect a U.S. senator.³

On March 17 the lawmakers finally got around to the supreme court seat. The Whigs nominated Charles C. Convers, Speaker of the Senate, while the Democrats put forward Urbana lawyer John A. Corwin, “a very eccentric man, and not possessed of good habits.”⁴ Convers received thirty-eight votes from the seventy-eight legislators present, two shy of the required majority, to just twenty for Corwin. Eight members voted for Ranney, five for Toledo lawyer John Fitch, and seven cast blank ballots or voted for other men. Ranney’s limited support might have been due to the fact that he was unaware of Avery’s recent resignation and therefore expressed no interest in the position.⁵

The Democrats needed someone other than Corwin. Ranney had been a Democratic stalwart for years, had been prominent at the constitutional convention, and could attract Free Soil support. The Democratic tide shifted from Corwin to Ranney. According to the House and Senate journals, Ranney won on the second ballot. However, the Ohio State Journal, the state’s leading Whig paper, presented a different picture. In the newspaper’s account Convers and Corwin remained the party nominees. Convers led the second round of balloting with thirty-seven out of seventy-nine votes, but Corwin’s figure dropped to ten while Ranney’s rose to nineteen. At this point the Democrats withdrew Corwin’s name and officially nominated Ranney. Two members left the hall before the third vote was taken, leaving no more than seventy-seven members present. Round three, at first count, produced a 37–37 tie, with five blanks. Obviously, too many votes, including abstentions, had been cast. A revote resulted in thirty-eight votes for Ranney, thirty-seven for Convers, and five blanks. Again there were too many votes. The third ballot had to be taken a third time. Now Ranney appeared to win with thirty-nine votes to thirty-six for Convers and two blanks. According to the Journal Ranney had triumphed with Free Soil assistance because he had pledged to support their position on the constitutionality of the federal Fugitive Slave Law, whereas Convers had refused to make any pledges “on the eve of an election.”⁶

The Whigs would not yet concede. Representative Ephraim R. Eckley claimed there had been a mistake in the last vote and demanded another do-over. “Great commotion” followed Eckley’s demand. The Journal did not report the basis for Eckley’s claim, but it may have been that the total number of ballots cast was seventy-seven, leaving one ballot unaccounted for. If there were in fact seventy-eight members present, Ranney’s total was one short of a majority. Democrats called out for Whig senator Harvey Vinal, occupying the Speaker’s chair, to “announce the result . . . or leave the chair” and threatened a walkout if the vote were retaken. Vinal was at a loss; he knew the rules in the Senate, but not in a joint session of the legislature. Convers finally ended the confusion by graciously requesting that Vinal announce the result “as it now stands.” Vinal declared Ranney the winner.⁷

Ironically, Ranney, who had so strenuously demanded the popular election of judges at the constitutional convention, thus became the last supreme court judge to be chosen by the General Assembly. The lawmakers elected Ranney to a seven-year term, but when the voters approved the new constitution in a special election in June, they subjected all judges to popular election that fall and terminated existing terms of office as of the second Monday in February of 1852. In August the Democratic state convention nominated candidates for the five supreme court judgeships created by the constitution. Ranney led the vote-getters, followed closely by William B. Caldwell. Corwin, Thomas W. Bartley, and Allen G. Thurman rounded out the slate.⁸

Ranney and Caldwell were also nominated by the Free Democrats, the name taken by the former Free Soilers whom Salmon P. Chase had been trying unsuccessfully to unite with the Democratic Party. Ranney’s nomination provoked a “spirited discussion” at the Free Democratic state convention. One member thought Ranney was “too ultra—too much of a party man”; that is, more committed to the Democratic Party than to the antislavery cause. However, B. F. Hoffman urged the convention to endorse the best judicial candidates put forward by the Democrats and Whigs, “independent of party considerations.” Ranney received his nomination by a “fair majority.”⁹

Caldwell, like Ranney, was essentially running for reelection. He had been placed on the court in 1849 after serving as prosecuting attorney and common pleas judge for Hamilton County. At forty-three years of age, he was by nearly five years the oldest of the Democratic candidates. Bartley, of Mansfield, was one of Ohio’s most prominent antibank Democrats, a former prosecutor, state representative, state senator, governor, and United States attorney. Thurman, too, was an influential Democrat, but his public career, which would culminate in the Democratic nomination for vice president, did not begin in earnest until his election to the supreme court.¹⁰

The Democrats swept to a crushing victory in 1851, capturing the governor’s chair, both houses of the legislature, and all five seats on the supreme court. The Whigs never recovered and soon disappeared as a party. Historians disagree over the cause of the Whigs’ demise, with some blaming primarily the sectional crisis and the defection of antislavery Whigs and others stressing the rise of prohibition and nativism, which sympathetic Whigs embraced at the peril of losing their German constituents. Whatever the reasons, there was “no denying the fact,” as a Whig newspaper moaned, that the Whigs were “used up.”¹¹

The constitution provided for five-year terms of office for supreme court judges. However, it required that the initial terms of the five judges be of one, two, three, four, and five years, with the judges deciding by lot who got which term. The General Assembly then created a rotating chief judgeship by mandating that the judge with the shortest time to serve would be chief. Ranney drew the five-year term, which meant that he would not have to run for reelection for five years but would have to wait four years to head the court.¹²