While the number of immigrants to the Reserve did not meet the expectations of the Connecticut Land Co., towns such as Warren had begun to grow significantly. In all of the Reserve, according to the federal census of 1800, there were 1,500 people. Ten years later, the number had grown to 17,000 in the Reserve, but to only 10 families in Cleveland. The reasons for this discrepancy are found in the pattern of migration from the East and in the problems with the site. Land in the Western Reserve was owned by residents of Connecticut, but most of them were content to remain landholders rather than become colonists in the new territory. Therefore, northeastern Ohio was not settled wholly by or even by a majority of settlers from Connecticut. Many residents were from other New England states, and 20% were from New York. Apparently, those in upper New England (Vermont and New Hampshire) as well as those from western Massachusetts were more likely to move in the early years of the century. These areas had been opened for settlement after the Revolutionary War, and many who went there did not find the prosperity they had hoped to achieve. Therefore, they were willing to move. Sometimes they moved to New York State first, and then on to the Reserve.
Fortunately, there were positive signs that Cleveland would be a political center, which helped bolster long-term prospects. First, the entire Western Reserve was declared part of the U.S. in 1800, which opened the way for formal political organization. The same year, Trumbull County was created to encompass the Reserve, with Warren as its county seat. Significantly, Cleveland was made one of the 8 townships in the county. Of course, it would have been proper to name Cleveland the county seat, but because there was little population at the site, there was little need for a county seat in the area. It was also likely that new counties would be created quickly. Just 5 years later, Geauga County was formed from a portion of Trumbull, which included Cleveland. In 1807, the state legislature created Cuyahoga County, and after some debate, Cleveland was named the county seat in 1809 over the objections of its more populous neighbor, NEWBURGH. One additional form of recognition came when the federal government made Cleveland a port of entry in 1805 and appointed a collector to monitor trade from Canada as well as lake and river traffic. Each of these political changes added formal government responsibilities and officers to implement them. Throughout this early period, the primary political divisions were the township and county: no formal offices were created for the hamlet itself. The earliest positions insured that local elections were properly run and that the basic rules of government were observed. Because there were relatively few adult males in the entire township, many of them served in several offices simultaneously.
All this conscious political activity changed the nature of officeholding gradually during the canal era. It did not, however, change the ethnicity of officers, who remained native despite rising numbers of Germans and Irish in the community. Prior to 1836, village officers seemed to continue the tradition of public service by serving several years: JOHN W. ALLEN served 4 consecutive years as mayor; T. P. May was a trustee for 5; and David Worley served 5 years as treasurer. After Cleveland became a city, the mayor and city council, consisting of a president, 3 aldermen, and 3 councilmen from each of the 3 wards, formed the government. Over the next 9 years, there was no consistent pattern of officeholding. No officer served as mayor, alderman, or councilman more than 2 years, for instance. Perhaps a writer to the Herald on 25 Aug. 1837 correctly observed that Cleveland had "a central aristocracy composed of capitalists, [paper mill owners], and speculators" that shared offices among its members. A brief analysis of these men shows that virtually all were wealthy businessmen, and many were deeply involved in the land speculations of the mid-1830s. It is possible that they did not need to have long-term officers, since the increasing population brought many qualified men to the city. In any case, local leaders did begin to affiliate with political parties, according to Cleveland newspapers. In 1844, the Herald suggested that since local Democrats and Whigs had each nominated a candidate for mayor, and since both were old residents, well-qualified, and popular, the election of either would be good for the city. Later the same year, the newspaper put the local election into perspective when it stated that the Democrats had won the mayoralty by 32 out of 1,100 votes cast, but the spoils belonged to the Whigs, who held 9 of the 12 council seats. The paper continued that over the last 4 years, these mayoral elections had been so close that the Whigs had won by only 14 in 1841, and then the Democrats won by margins of 12, 45, and 32. Politics in the city were partisan, it seems, but the rival factions were drawn from the same ruling group before 1845.
Several ward-level political bosses achieved notoriety in the last quarter of the 19th century. In the 1870s, Silas Merchant emerged as a ward level-politician and dredging contractor dominant in the Republican party. In the 1880s and 1890s, William H. Gabriel, William Crawford, ROBERT E. MCKISSON, and HARRY "CZAR" BERNSTEIN were powerful Republican figures with their political base in the wards and their financial support from those who did business with the city. With the backing of the ethnic vote loyal to Bernstein, McKisson became mayor in 1895. On the strength of his political influence in the city Republican party, McKisson attempted unsuccessfully to unseat Ohio Republican boss Marcus A. Hanna in a state senatorial primary. The old boss settled scores in 1899 when McKisson sought a second term as mayor. Hanna contributed $20,000 to McKisson's Democratic opponent, "Honest" JOHN FARLEY, a sum that one Farley supporter claimed was the margin of victory. Farley, a Democratic example of a Cleveland ward boss, was described by Frederic C. Howe as a "big raw boned, profane Irishman of substantial wealth, who made his money as a contractor" doing business with the city he served as a public official. This group was representative of the professional politicians who attempted to broker the interests of the low-tax, right-to-work, honesty-in-government New England element; the industrial and professional elite with their demands for efficiency in government and their antilabor and environmental-reform concerns; and the demands of the ethnic and native-born newcomers for favors, city contracts, jobs, and lax enforcement of laws restraining saloon operations, and other activities. The New England element, especially those wealthy members with holdings in Cleveland real property, were unyielding advocates of low taxes. These sentiments were shared by frugal, taxpaying immigrants. Here their influence was felt, for Cleveland remained throughout the entire period (1870-1900) one of the nation's low-tax cities. In this multicultural city, the New England element also expressed fears for the sanctity of property, law and order, right to work, and the enforcement of vice laws. Their right-to-work sentiments dovetailed with the antiunion sentiments of the industrial elite. The city's operating budget suggests that much of this agenda was met. Police and fire department expenditures steadily expanded during the period, and by 1900 the CLEVELAND FIRE DEPARTMENT was regarded as one of the nation's best. Local reformers and union officials frequently charged that CLEVELAND POLICE were used as scabs and strikebreakers. The operating budgets reveal that during years of labor strife, expenditures for police, courts, and the operation of correctional facilities increased as much as 33% and then declined in years of labor tranquility.
The other piece of the sanctions that we announced yesterday is an additional set of license requirements and licensing policy for items in the Energy sector. We will have a regulation likely published early next week that will provide the details. What I can tell you is that the licensing policy for items that currently require a license to Russia, because they are on the multilateral regime list, this will be now taken into account. If they are going to be used in deep water, arctic offshore or shale oil production, we'll have a policy of denial and the rationale of that is set out in the statements and is essentially that we are looking to impact Russia's future ability to produce crude oil. We are not looking to impact their current ability to produce crude oil or their ability to sell petroleum refined products to foreign customers or domestic customers. We are looking to impact their future ability. 2b1af7f3a8