1901 Chicago mayoral election

1901 Chicago mayoral election

←  1899 April 2, 1901 1903  →
Turnout	74% 11 pp [1]
Nominee Carter Harrison Jr. Elbridge Hanecy Party Democratic Republican Popular vote 156,766 128,413 Percentage 52.69% 43.16%
Mayor before election Carter Harrison Jr. Democratic Elected mayor Carter Harrison Jr. Democratic

In the Chicago mayoral election of 1901, Democrat Carter Harrison Jr. was reelected to a third term, defeating Republican nominee Elbridge Hanecy by a 9.5% margin of victory.

The election took place on April 2. ^{[2] [3] [4]} Until 2019, no subsequent election had more candidates running on its ballot.

Ahead of the election, there were competitive races to receive the two major party's nominations at their municipal nominating conventions. Mayor Harrison was challenged for the Democratic Party nomination by former governor John Peter Altgeld. However, Altgeld was politically weaker than he once had been, and Harrison easily fended him off. In the March indirect primary to elect the delegates to the city's nominating convention, delegates supporting Harrison won a broad majority. At the convention, Harrison received the party's nomination by acclamation. The Republican Party had a large field of candidates seeking its nomination. Along with Hanecy (who was a judge on the Circuit Court of Cook County), the two other front-running contenders for the Republican nomination were Sanitary District of Chicago president William Boldenweck and former alderman John Maynard Harlan. Other contenders that Henry beat were Judge Marcus Kavanaugh, Aldermen William Mavor, Frank T. Fowler, and former alderman Walter J. Raymer.

Democratic nomination

Contenders

• Carter Harrison Jr., incumbent mayor
• John Peter Altgeld, former governor and third-party candidate for mayor in 1899

Convention proccess

Incumbent mayor Carter Harrison Jr. was renominated by the Democratic Party. ^[5] Harrison's opponent for the nomination was former governor John Peter Altgeld, who had been a third-party challenger in the previous election. Atgelds 1901 candidacywas not considered a serious threat to Harrison, as Altgeld had lost much of his influence over the preceding two years. ^[5] There had been rumors that Roger Charles Sullivan and John Patrick Hopkins might recruit a candidate of their own to challenge Harrison, but this never materialized. ^[5]

In the March primary to elect delegates to the city nominating convention, Harrison-supporting delegate candidates won a large majority. ^[5] At the convention, Harrison was renominated by acclamation. ^[5]

Republican nomination

Contenders

• William Boldenweck, ^[6] board president of the Chicago Sanitary District
• Frank T. Fowler ^[6]
• John Maynard Harlan, ^[6] former alderman on the Chicago City Council
• Elbridge Hanecy, ^[5] judge of the Cook County Circuit Court and candidate for governor in 1900
• Marcus Kavanaugh ^[6]
• William Mavor, ^[6] alderman on the Chicago City Council
• Walter J. Raymer, ^[6] alderman on the Chicago City Council

Convention proccess

The Republican Party nominated Cook County Circuit Court judge Elbridge Hanecy at its city convention on March 2. ^{[5] [6]} He captured the nomination on the eighth round of balloting. ^[5] The top three contenders for the nomination were Hanecy, Harlan, and Boldenweck. ^[7] Machine Republicans largely backed Hanecy. Independent Republicans largely backed Harlan. German Republicans largely backed Boldenweck. ^[7]

Hanecy had been a judge on the Cook County Circuit Court for a number of years. ^[6] The previous year, Hanecy had sought the gubernatorial nomination, being defeated by Richard Yates Jr. at the state convention by a thin margin. ^[6] Hanecy was politically allied with William Lorimer, being Lorimer's candidate both in this mayoral election and in the previous year's gubernatorial election. ^{[5] [8]}

Despite speculation, Harlan denied any intentions of running as an independent if he lost the nomination. ^[9]

Third-party nominations

The Prohibition Party nominated Avery E. Hoyt. Ahead of their city nominating convention (held February 21 at Willard Hall), those discussed as possible nominees included Hoyt, J. P. Tracey, and John H. Leslie. ^[10]

The Social Democratic Party nominated Guy Hoyt., the Socialist Party nominated John Collins, and the Socialist Labor Party nominated John R. Peptin.

The Single Tax Party nominated Thomas Rhodes. The Single Tax Party was a national organization. ^[11] It championed Georgism.

General election

Campaigning

Henacy campaigned actively, delivering many speeches. ^[12] Henacy aimed to present himself as a positive alternative to Harrison. He advocated changing the fee system practiced by some city officials and also proposed stronger measures to regulate the streetcar companies. ^[5] However, his attempts to adopt reformist policies were weakened in their effectiveness by his association with William Lorimer. ^[5] Reform-minded Republicans were upset that the seedy Lorimer managed to get his preferred candidate nominated by the Republican Party over reformist favorite John Maynard Harlan. ^[5] Some Republicans unsuccessfully sought to persuade Harlan to run as an independent. ^[5]

The Republican Party's platform criticized the Harrison administration as "inefficient", "notorious", "scandalous", "dishonest", and cowardly negligent in its,

manner of defending correct and dishonest damage suits against the city, its prostitution of our public schools, its pernicious effect upon the realty and industrial values whereby the property of the individual has been depreciated in value while manufacturing and other industrial interests have been driven from our city. ^[13]

The traction issue surfaced in this election. The Democratic platform advocated for municipal ownership of street railways. ^[13] The Democratic platform did not advocate for immediate public ownership, however, making provisions in its platform for the extension of franchises. ^[13] The Democratic platform advocated for,

Twenty years as the maximum of franchises pending the final ownership by the city with the percentage of the gross receipts as compensation, lower fares in rush hours and better facilitites, and weaver of rights claimed under the 99-year act. ^[13]

Not only did Henacy propose stronger measures to regulate streetcar companies, ^[5] but the Republican convention had declared that,

The franchise question must be settled fairly, honestly and promptly between all parties. Long franchises will not be granted. Full and fair compensation must be paid for special privileges in all streets, alleys, and public grounds. The extension of street railway franchises and lowering of the tunnels are questions which demand the immediate attention of the city and must be promptly and fearlessly met. These question should be settled and adjusted simultaneously with each other, and all interests should receive fair and honest treatment. ^[13]

The Democratic platform also advocated municipal ownership of other public utilities, including gas, electricity, and water. ^[13]

Harrison took his Republican challenger serious, and campaigned vigorously against him. ^[5]

Results

By the standards of the era in Chicago politics, Harrison's margin of victory was viewed as a decisive one. ^[5]

Harrison carried 26 wards while Hanecy carried the remaining nine. ^[14]

In some of the most Republican parts of the city, Hanecy only managed to win a plurality of the vote, and in others he lost the vote to Harrison. ^[14] However, Harrison, likewise, suffered in some of the city's Democratic strongholds. ^[14]

1901 Chicago mayoral election ^{[1] [2]}

Party		Candidate	Votes	%
	Democratic	Carter Harrison Jr. (incumbent)	156,766	52.69
	Republican	Elbridge Hanecy	128,413	43.16
	Socialist	John Collins	5,284	1.78
	Prohibition	Avery E. Hoyt	3,328	1.12
	Social Democratic	Guy Hoyt	2,043	0.69
	Single Tax	Thomas Rhodes	1,028	0.35
	Socialist Labor	John R. Peptin	679	0.23
Turnout			297,541

Harrison received 72.96% of the Polish-American vote, while Hanecy received 23.54% and Collins received 2.74%. ^[15]

References

1. Hewitt, Oscar (March 28, 1923). "Election Results Shows Accuracy of Tribune Poll" . Newspapers.com. Oscar Hewitt. Retrieved October 23, 2022.
2. The Chicago Daily News Almanac and Year Book for 1912. Chicago Daily News, Incorporated. 1911. p. 464. Retrieved May 12, 2020.
3. Mayor Carter Henry Harrison IV Biography
4. Currey, Josiah Seymour (1912). Chicago: Its History and Its Builders, a Century of Marvelous Growth. S. J. Clarke publishing Company. p.  335.
5. Morton, Richard Allen (June 29, 2016). Roger C. Sullivan and the Making of the Chicago Democratic Machine, 1881-1908. McFarland. p. 133. ISBN   9781476623788 . Retrieved May 11, 2020.
6. "CHICAGO MAYORALTY CONTEST.; Judge Elbridge Hanecy Nominated by the Republicans". The New York Times. March 3, 1901.
7. "San Francisco Call 3 March 1901 — California Digital Newspaper Collection".
8. Tarr, Joel A. (1966). "J. R. Walsh of Chicago: A Case Study in Banking and Politics, 1881–1905". Business History Review. 40 (4): 451–466. doi:10.2307/3112123. JSTOR   3112123. S2CID   154701950 . Retrieved May 15, 2020.
9. "William Boldenweck support for mayor in Chicago Inter Ocean 21 Feb 1901 pg 5". The Inter Ocean. February 21, 1901. p. 5.
10. "Not An Independent". The Inter Ocean. February 21, 1901. p. 5. Retrieved December 15, 2024– via Newspapers.com.
11. McKee, Thomas Hudson (1901). "The National Conventions and Platforms of All Parties, 1789-1901: Convention, Popular, and Electoral Vote. Also the Political Complexion of Both Houses of Congress at Each Biennial Period".
12. Marden, Orison Swett; Devitt, George Raywood (1907). "The Consolidated Library".
13. "The World Review: An Illustrated Weekly Magazine". The World Review: An Illustrated Weekly Magazine. Vol. 1. World Review Company. 1901. pp. 7–8. Retrieved May 15, 2020.
14. "Indianapolis Journal 3 April 1901 — Hoosier State Chronicles: Indiana's Digital Historic Newspaper Program". newspapers.library.in.gov. Retrieved May 15, 2020.
15. Kantowicz, Edward. “The Emergence of the Polish-Democratic Vote in Chicago.” Polish American Studies, vol. 29, no. 1/2, 1972, pp. 67–80. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/20147849.