網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

subsequent election. But he did not obtain the office without a spirited contest; and the opposition was led by his personal enemies in his own city. Something more, however, than personal motives were involved in the contest. Mark Hanna was known to favor the nomination of John Sherman as Republican candidate for the presidency. The Convention and the Ohio Republicans whom it represented were split between James G. Blaine and Sherman, so that it sent to Chicago a divided delegation. Mr. Hanna was supported by the delegates from Cincinnati and others favorable to Sherman. The delegates favorable to Blaine nearly all voted against him.

In the Convention of 1884 Mr. Hanna first came into practical political association with two men who in very different ways were to have a profound effect upon his subsequent life. Two of the delegates-at-large from Ohio were William McKinley, Jr., and James B. Foraker — both of them young men whose careers were very much in the ascendant. McKinley must have been already known to Mr. Hanna, because he was prominent in a part of the state adjacent to Cleveland, in which Mr. Hanna operated coal mines. Foraker hailed from Cincinnati and may not have been known to Mr. Hanna except by reputation. Nevertheless, when the Convention was over, it was Foraker rather than McKinley with whom Mr. Hanna had entered into more intimate relations.

A superficial reason for the intimacy which grew up between Mr. Foraker and Mr. Hanna after the Convention may be traced to their joint support of John Sherman's candidacy and McKinley's support of Blaine. But in all probability this difference of opinion did not cause any alienation between Mr. Hanna and Mr. McKinley. Sherman was the latter's second choice; and Sherman's name was presented to the Convention more as a public tribute to Ohio's greatest statesman than with any expectation of success. Sherman was much more seriously supported and made a much better showing in the Conventions of 1880 and of 1888 than in that of 1884. McKinley was rather for Blaine than against Sherman, and Foraker, as the event proved, was really about as much for Blaine as was McKinley.

The delegation from Ohio was divided almost in half. Twentytwo out of the forty-six delegates voted for General Powell Clayton, the Blaine candidate for chairman. On the first ballot twenty-one votes from Ohio went to Mr. Blaine against twenty-five for her "favorite son." Mr. Sherman's name attracted only five additional supporters from all the rest of the country. Subsequently he did even worse. The division in the delegation from his own state made the support of Sherman look Platonic. The opponents of Mr. Blaine made frantic efforts to concentrate all the "dark horse" and "favorite son" delegates on any available candidate, including Mr. Sherman, but all to no effect. Blaine was unquestionably the choice of a majority of the Republican voters and would have been nominated on the first ballot, had not President Arthur been able to concentrate all the Southern delegates on himself. As it was, the supporters of most of the "favorite sons" were merely waiting for a good chance to board the Blaine triumphal car.

Certain of the supporters of Mr. Sherman in Ohio were assuredly practising in their own minds a spectacular yielding to the magnetism of Mr. Blaine's personality. Mr. Foraker made the speech, placing John Sherman's name before the Convention; but in this very utterance one may discern verbal vistas looking toward a victorious waving plume. After the third ballot the magnetic attraction proved to be irresistible. Mr. Foraker made a sudden but apparently premature and unsuccessful attempt to carry the Convention by acclamation for Blaine. The nomination nevertheless went to Mr. Blaine on the fourth ballot — chiefly because Illinois and the entire delegation from Ohio rallied to his name.

Probably the result was not much more of a disappointment to Mr. Hanna than it was to Mr. Foraker; but he was none the less earnest in his advocacy of John Sherman's nomination. It represented on his part a genuine and a positive choice. He did not favor Sherman because he objected seriously to the nomination of Blaine. The reasons which made Mr. Blaine so obnoxious to the independents carried little weight with Mr. Hanna; and there was much about Mr. Blaine's personality and career which might well have had a strong attraction for a man of his wilful and adventurous disposition. On the other hand Mr. Sherman's personality was distinctly and notoriously deficient in warm and sympathetic qualities. If Mr. Hanna favored and continued to favor John Sherman as the Republican nominee for the presidency, he must have been and was acting in obedience to unusually strong instinctive preferences. licans of Ohio. He was recognized as a very effective stump speaker and as an ingenious and forcible official pleader for the nominees and policy of his party. He had no superior in the art of pursuading Republican conventions of the truth of Republican principles, the desirability of Republican policies, the impeccability of Republican administrations, and of the ability and patriotism of Republican candidates. He had been nominated for the governorship in 1883 and although beaten had made a favorable impression by the vigor of his canvass. His speech nominating John Sherman in the Convention had established his reputation as a party orator, while at the same time his eagerness to be converted to the successful candidate had been favorably noticed in Augusta, Maine. He paid a visit to the party nominee immediately after the Convention and was conspicuous on the stump during the campaign.

Mark Hanna favored John Sherman's nomination because of two reasons very different one from the other, but closely associated in his mind. In the first place Mr. Sherman lived in Ohio and at this time Mr. Hanna was not likely to be interested in any candidate who lived anywhere else. His anchorage in politics as in business was local and personal. Distant stars, like Mr. Blaine, no matter how luminous, did not fascinate him. He could not bestow his allegiance on any leader with whom he was not by way of being personally intimate; and he could not support such a leader for the presidency unless the latter's public career aroused his warm approval. For the presidency as an office he had an almost superstitious respect. For Mr. Sherman as a statesman he had an unequivocal admiration. As a business man he understood how much Mr. Sherman had contributed towards the adoption by the government and the carrying out of a sound financial policy, and how valuable the service was. No man in the country was better equipped for the presidential office by varied and prolonged legislative and administrative experience, and no man was better entitled to it on the record of his public life. That Ohio should possess a statesman eminently qualified for the presidency but denied as yet the opportunity of being a candidate was more than unfortunate; it was unjust. His national patriotism and his local pride were both aroused by the project of placing so eminent a man in so high an office. Thereafter the idea fermented in his mind.

In Mr. Hanna's life one step along a line of natural selfexpression always led to another. His attendance at the Convention of 1884 sharpened his relish for politics and resulted directly in the formation of new personal political ties. He entered immediately into very close relations with Mr. James B. Foraker. In 1884 Mr. Foraker was considered to be the ablest and most promising of the younger Repub

As a result of their association at the Convention, Mr. Hanna conceived a lively admiration and warm friendship for Mr. Foraker. Writing to him as soon as the Convention was over, Mr. Hanna said: "Among the few pleasures I found at the Convention was meeting and working with you. I hope soon to have the pleasure of renewing the acquaintance under more peaceful and comfortable circumstances. I feel that the occasion was one which will be a great benefit to you in the future, for I hear nothing but praise for you on all sides, all of which I heartily endorse and will hope to be considered among your sincere friends." A few days later he adds, "I assure you, my dear fellow, it will not be my fault if our acquaintance does not ripen, for I shall certainly go for you whenever you are within reach."

As a matter of fact, the acquaintance did ripen very quickly. The two men became fast personal and political associates. Foraker was renominated for governor in the summer of 1885 and elected. Mark Hanna served on the executive campaign committee and became Mr. Foraker's most effective ally in Cleveland and its neighborhood. He made a good showing on election day both for the local and the state ticket and was very much gratified at the result. Even at this time he was prominent enough in state politics to have his own name mentioned for the gubernatorial nomination, but he was not tempted by the deceptive glitter of any such prize. He was seeking political power by means of close association with popular leaders; and for the time being Mr. Foraker was the man of his choice.

Mr. Hanna evidently expected that his association with the new Governor would strengthen him as a local political leader. In all probability it did, but if so, the help which he received from this source was due rather to an increase of prestige than any control over the distribution of patronage. He was consulted about important appointments, but his advice appears to have been taken more in relation to small than to large matters. His disappointment, however, in obtaining from the Governor the recognition which he expected did not affect their intimacy or his interest in Mr. Foraker's political fortunes. The latter was renominated and reelected in 1887; and, if one may judge from the tone of their correspondence, Mr. Hanna was as enthusiastic a supporter of Mr. Foraker in 1887 as he had been in 1885. During the second campaign he assisted Mr. Foraker with money at a time when, to judge from the warmth of the latter's thanks, such assistance was extremely necessary.

In the meantime Mr. Hanna was becoming more of a power in local politics. In March, 1885, he sold out the Herald, and this judicious piece of backsliding served at once to allay the enmity of Mr. Cowles. Thereafter Mr. Hanna was as amiably treated by the Leader as was any other good Republican, and the personal attacks on him were transferred to the Plain-Dealer. Mr. George W. Gardner, who had been defeated for Mayor in the spring of 1883, was elected to that office in the spring of 1885; and Mr. Gardner was a close associate of Mr. Hanna's in politics. In the fall of 1885 Mr. Hanna took a lively interest in the election of the County Treasurer. The Republican candidate for that office was the Mr. David H. Kimberley, mentioned above; and Mr. Hanna contributed liberally to his campaign expenses. The story of the contribution is so characteristic that it will be told at length in another connection. It was openly charged in the Plain-Dealer at the time that Mr. Kimberley was being run chiefly in the interest of the Union National Bank. Nevertheless Mr. Kimberley was elected by an unusually large majority. When he was renominated two

« 上一頁繼續 »