O'Brien's Desk. Ona Russell

discrete incidents into dramatic narrative stirred his journalistic juices. Something in him instinctively searched for the general in the particulars, and in the context of a developing story, even the most seemingly extraneous particular had the potential of becoming an important link in the general chain of events.

      This kind of literary sensibility in fact prompted Mitchell to save his examination of the marriage articles for last, going so far as to initially read nothing beyond the headlines. This way he would enhance his anticipatory experience, much as an author who has ordered the pages of a book to achieve a maximum, emotional effect. Indeed, in the spirit of a novelist, he began to peruse these other pieces with the certain belief that some intriguing plot would emerge that would ultimately lead him to formulating an equally intriguing denouement.

      Starting with January of 1923, six months prior to the marriage, he thus began the task of combing the papers for anything regarding Judge O’Brien O’Donnell. Articles on the judge would be easy to come by, as his activities had been recorded in the papers nearly every day for years. Much of the coverage naturally involved his court cases, but during this specific period, only a couple of these struck Mitchell as having any possible significance for the election. The first was the Ann Arbor Railroad case, which, though opening in February of 1923, only recently was decided in favor of the railroad:

      Grade Crossing Case in Court: Ann Arbor Railway Sues City for Right to Lay Tracks. “The case of the Ann Arbor Railroad Company against the city of Toledo, seeking permission to lay a new track in the North End was opened in probate Judge O’Donnell’s court yesterday,”

      Mitchell read.

      After O’Donnell ruled against the railroad, the case had been relegated to the Court of Appeals where his decision was overturned. This came as a blow to O’Donnell and all those who believed the crossing would be a safety hazard. The potentially interesting aspect of this case, however, was that O’Donnell had remained vocal in his opposition to the railroad, and had received criticism from some members of the business community for being so. Whether those same individuals had forgiven him now that the crossing was a certainty remained to be seen. One thing was for sure, however, the attorney with whom O’Donnell had formed an alliance on this issue, his former law partner Charles Northrop, was seen as an enemy of business. A Progressive’s Progressive, Northrop’s litigative reform efforts had cost many companies a fortune. Though O’Donnell was also a reformer, he typically stated his cause, the railroad case notwithstanding, in such a way as not to alienate the business community. Mitchell opened a fresh pack of cigarettes. Political grudges could surely rear their ugly heads at any time, and especially during elections. Perhaps, he thought, turning his attention to another set of articles, I have been a bit hasty in my assessment of the judge’s base of support.

      The articles on which Mitchell now focused, dated several months later, followed a case which came to be known as the “Love Cottage Cult,” so-called because it involved groups of young people who regularly rendezvoused in vacant cottages in the Harbor View area. Depending on to whom one listened, what took place there was anything from simple petting to out and out sexual orgies. O’Donnell, the presiding judge, strongly believed in the latter characterization, as the quotation from him that Mitchell now read indicated:

      “I fear that before I complete my investigation the public will be shocked and ashamed by the facts and confessions I now possess . . .” “In many of the cottages there have been found shocking aftermath of all night parties. Cigarette stubs, whiskey bottles, tattered and torn clothing, face powder, underclothing and the like have been left by members of these parties.”

      Everyone in Toledo was, of course, morally outraged over the discovery, but what caught Mitchell’s eye was that in making his final decision, O’Donnell set a new precedent by blaming and ultimately fining the parents of the youths involved. Justifying this move by invoking the law against contributing to the delinquency of minors, he later, in one of his many talks on the subject, boldly asked: “What right have parents to sleep when their children are out until two and three in the morning? It is the duty of the parents to watch over their children.”

      Many in the city agreed with the judge. But most of the parents who were charged not surprisingly felt that he had overstepped his bounds, trying to dictate how they should raise their children. In fact, if Mitchell remembered correctly, some were so incensed that they briefly attempted to join forces with the Housewives League in their efforts to oust the judge from office. Asserting that in both cases O’Donnell was abusing his power, the two groups for a time made quite a noise, providing fodder as well for John O’Dwyer, who had been hell bent on bringing O’Donnell down.

      Since then, O’Dwyer had inexplicably become one of O’Donnell’s most ardent supporters. And, the Housewives League had tempered their attacks, somewhat appeased by the judge’s inquiry into the allegations by that poor, young woman, Lulu Carey, that her husband had been physically abusing her. Although Mrs. Carey was ultimately committed to the psychiatric hospital, the allegations were proven to be true, and her husband was currently on trial, which the League viewed as a minor victory in their efforts to stiffen commitment criteria. Yet, it was nevertheless becoming clear that any of these individuals might still harbor resentment toward O’Donnell, that these were avenues to explore, and that others may exist about which Mitchell had simply forgotten.

       As it turned out, details surfaced about the judge that the articles helped him to remember, but most of them only seemed to confirm O’Donnell’s high moral character and commitment to the Toledo citizenry. For instance, the judge’s abiding and endearing support for the Toledo Mud Hens. Every year the papers chronicled his trip to spring training, where, sporting a team uniform, he would assess their chances and sometimes even serve as umpire. As a former minor leaguer himself and a close friend of Roger Bresnahan and Casey Stengel, his opinions on this matter were completely trusted. If he said, as he did in the article Mitchell had before him, that the team looked good, then by God the people of Toledo expected a good season. Then there were O’Donnell’s continuous contributions to underprivileged groups such as the Newsies. The judge gave an endless amount of time and energy to these young boys, organizing and overseeing the annual picnics among other things.

      As Mitchell continued to thumb through the newspapers, he was, in fact, above all else reminded of the outstanding accomplishments of this singular individual. On one page was a description of O’Donnell’s efforts to form an intrawall correspondence course at the Ohio State Penitentiary; on another his proposal for an opportunity farm, a place where homeless boys and girls would learn skills to enable them to enter the workforce. If a social cause that would benefit the city existed, rest assured O’Donnell would be a central figure in the promotion of it. And whether the venue was the Rotary Club, the site of a newly erected building, a lake, ballfield or church, the press would be there to record his every word.

      The next paper contained one such example that though high-lighting the judge’s dedication to social justice, suggested another group perhaps not so eager to reelect him.

      Holier Than Thou Reformers Rapped by Probate Judge. “Women of the holier than thou type of reformer are a menace to Toledo, Probate Judge O’Brien O’Donnell told members of the Civics and Philanthropy Department of the Women’s Educational Club at a luncheon in the women’s building on Thursday noon: ‘If you go in for social work in needy homes, as a lot of Toledo women do, treat the people as your equal, or for God’s sake stay out of their homes,’ he said. ‘There is no place in social work for the self-satisfied woman who says to some overworked mother: Your floors must be scrubbed. Why don’t you wash your windows?, the minute she enters that house.’”

      Mitchell smirked. He knew exactly the kind of self-righteous individuals to whom O’Donnell was referring, and he admired the judge for taking them to task, especially because many of them came from his own social circle. But surely, some of these women would be indignant over the judge’s reprimand, so much so that they might very well seek revenge in the ballot box. So too, no doubt, would some members of the community do the same in response to other strong stands O’Brien had taken, such as his support, reported on the following page, of a ban on the showing of a bigoted film entitled Nigger. That, as Mitchell himself wrote in a piece last week, would at least