« 上一頁繼續 »
believe that he will be the strongest man in 1888.” The narrow margin and the peculiar circumstances of Mr. Blaine's defeat made it plausible that, if Mr. Sherman had been the candidate in 1884, he would have been elected. Throughout the next few years the project of nominating Mr. Sherman grew upon Mr. Hanna. The idea appealed to him because of its apparent practicability, because of its peculiar desirability, and because the work demanded for its realization was suited to his opportunities and abilities. At that time he had no ambition or hope of personal preferment. He was a business man with a collateral interest in politics. As a business man he could not afford the time for a slow and steady climb up the political ladder. Nevertheless he wanted to be associated with large political events and achievements. If he was going to interest himself in electing other men to office, why not the biggest man he knew and the highest office in the land 2 Such a job would be more interesting than electing mayors or governors; and, if successful, he would obtain by virtue of the personal association an amount of prestige and power which he could not acquire in any other way. I do not mean by the foregoing description of Mr. Hanna's motives that his work on behalf of Mr. Sherman was merely selfish. On the contrary, his motives in this as in the other large projects of his life were primarily disinterested. It was his disposition to do things for other people. But mixed with his disinterestedness was a large amount of ambition — a keen desire for personal prestige and power. He seems at this time to have reached a fairly definite conclusion that the fulfilment of any personal political ambition must be dependent upon the contribution, which he could make to the political success of men like Foraker or Sherman. He could become a national political luminary only by attaching himself to a star of the first magnitude and shining by reflected light. In the spring of 1888 he wrote to Mr. Foraker and urged the Governor to persuade Russell A. Alger to retire in favor of Sherman. Mr. Alger's general position in politics was similar to his own : “Can you not,” he said, “persuade Alger, if his strength is not encouraging, to go over to Sherman on the second ballot? Better for his future to be prominent in making a candidate than in leading a forlorn hope. Better be a power with a man like Sherman than merely a prominent citizen of Michigan.” He might have added from his own point of view “or of Ohio.” He was actively working on Mr. Sherman's behalf from 1885 to 1888. Soon after the Convention of 1884 Mr. Sherman told Mr. Foraker that he would be glad to make Mr. Hanna's acquaintance. A meeting soon followed. Mr. Hanna was frequently in Washington, and he used these and other opportunities to become still better acquainted with Mr. Sherman. In 1885, probably owing to the latter's influence, Mr. Hanna was appointed by President Cleveland one of the government directors of the Union Pacific Railroad." By 1887 the two men had become intimate enough to correspond freely and to exchange visits between Cleveland and Mansfield. The basis of this intimacy undoubtedly was Mr. Hanna's interest in Sherman's nomination. As the meeting of the Convention approached he gave more and more of his time to the work, and he not only contributed liberally to the expenses himself but he raised money among his business associates. Finally he was selected by the candidate as the manager of the campaign and as Mr. Sherman's personal representative at the Convention; but although almost all of Mr. Sherman's supporters approved of the selection, it was made practically by Mr. Hanna himself. He was more interested in Mr. Sherman's nomination and election than was any man in the country, Mr. Sherman alone excepted; and that interest had earned him his appointment. He had selected himself to be the leader of the Sherman forces by virtue of hard, enthusiastic and competent work. A united delegation from Ohio was practically assured from the start. The President being a Democrat, there was no Republican candidate backed by the administration; and James G. Blaine, the only man who might have divided the allegiance of Ohio, was not allowing the use of his name. The way was
* This appointment was an incident of his business, rather than of his political, career —although it was of course a recognition of political service. His duties as director took a great deal of his time, and his knowledge of the coal business resulted in his being placed at the head of a committee, which took special charge of the coal interests of the railroad. Its President, Mr. Charles Francis Adams, wrote with the warmest praise of his services in this matter to the railroad.
clear, consequently, for “favorite sons” throughout the Republican states. John Sherman was the “favorite son” of Ohio, and while he had never aroused very much enthusiasm in the part, he had been cast for it so often that a very strong man would have been required to take it away from him. Moreover, the politicians of Ohio had good reason to be united on his behalf, because he had apparently a better chance for the nomination than any other one candidate. The situation in Ohio presented only one doubtful aspect. The partisans of Mr. Sherman, and apparently Mr. Sherman himself, began to suspect the good faith of Governor Foraker. A number of small matters had served to breed suspicion. Mr. Foraker had privately opposed the indorsement of Sherman's candidacy by the State Convention of 1887, which renominated him for governor, and had yielded to the demand only on compulsion. The action of some of Mr. Foraker's friends in the district conventions in the spring of 1888 had aroused uneasiness and criticism, and stirred Mr. Hanna to remonstrate with the Governor. If we may judge, however, from the tone of Mr. Hanna's letters up to the last moment, he did not share in the suspicions of Mr. Foraker's good faith. I know of no conclusive evidence to justify these suspicions, and for a long time their effect remained subterranean. The district and state conventions elected a united Sherman delegation, and in its proceedings there were no symptoms of any lack of harmony. William McKinley, Jr., Benjamin Butterworth, James B. Foraker and Charles Foster were named delegates-at-large. Mark Hanna was sent to the Convention from Cleveland together with Myron T. Herrick. Mr. Herrick, like Mr. Hord in 1884, was elected by the young Republicans, and Mr. Hanna escaped defeat by only a very narrow margin. During the month of May the friction between Senator Sherman and Governor Foraker increased. It was openly hinted in the newspapers that the Governor was not acting loyally, and that consequently he would not be allowed to make the speech placing Mr. Sherman's name in nomination. The latter's friends feared, or pretended to fear, that like General Garfield in 1880, Mr. Foraker would make so eloquent a speech nominating Sherman that the Convention would bestow the honor on the advocate. The hints became so explicit that Mr. Foraker gave out several interviews stating that he was not a candidate either for first or second place on the ticket; but whether a candidate or not he was thoroughly disgruntled. On May 10 he wrote to Mr. Hanna : “I do not like the outlook for our cause. It may be it is only because no one deems it appropriate to give me any information about it. At any rate I am wholly ignorant as to Mr. Sherman's plans and wishes, hopes and prospects.” Whether or not Mr. Foraker was seriously considering the possible results to himself of the nomination of another candidate, the distrust of Senator Sherman was at least explicable. At that time the Governor was at the height of his popularity and power. He had been twice elected Chief Executive of his state. His ability and his usefulness to the party were generally recognized. No other Ohio Republican had apparently as much of a following and could look forward to a probably more brilliant future. He had, moreover, a number of extremely zealous friends, who, unlike Mr. Hanna, did not divide their allegiance between Foraker and Sherman. It was generally expected that an attempt would be made to stampede the Convention for Blaine; and if such an attempt were successful Mr. Foraker looked like the best possible choice for second place on the ticket — particularly in view of the fact that the Democrats had nominated for Vice-President Allen G. Thurman of Ohio. With whatever justification the friction continued to increase, and affected the relations between Governor Foraker and Mr. Hanna. They were still friendly, and the latter continued to write in a cordial and confidential way to the Governor, telling about the apparent obstacles to Sherman's nomination and asking for his assistance in removing them. But Mr. Foraker could not be placated by Mr. Hanna. He felt that he was being denied the influence to which his prominence entitled him. He resented the choice of Mr. Hanna as leader of the Sherman forces and his own relegation to a subordinate position. The impression that he was being treated with scant courtesy was confirmed by the rooms assigned to him at the hotel in Chicago. As quartermaster of the delegation, Mr. Hanna had engaged accommodations at the Grand Pacific. The rooms selected for the Governor were on the floor above the Ohio, headquarters instead of adjoining them; whereupon he wrote to Mr. Hanna and protested bitterly and indignantly. Mr. Hanna explained at length the reasons for the assignment, and in the end Mr. Foraker accepted the arrangement and tacitly acknowledged he had been hasty. Their final exchange of letters before the Convention was more friendly, but manifestly peace had not really been patched up. Mr. Hanna winds up his last letter with the following sentence, “Good-by, until we meet on the battlefield and my Ohio comes out victorious.” Mr. Hanna firmly believed in the probable success of the Sherman candidacy, and his anticipations were far from unreasonable. Senator Sherman was the most eminent Republican whose name was placed formally in nomination. The candidates offered by other states, such as Depew of New York, Rusk of Wisconsin, Alger of Michigan, Gresham of Illinois, and Harrison of Indiana, had no advantage over Sherman in availability, and their titles to the nomination were wholly inferior. The thundercloud of a Blaine stampede looked ominous; but if that danger could be escaped, it seemed like plain sailing. A few days before the meeting of the Convention, Mr. Hanna gave to the newspapers the following numerical estimate of Sherman's probable strength. “We hope,” he said, “to have three hundred delegates. Two hundred of them will come from the South and the remainder from the West and East. Massachusetts and Pennsylvania are with us. We shall probably get the entire delegation from the latter state on the third or fourth ballot. If we get Pennsylvania and our other friends are steadfast, nothing can prevent Sherman's nomination. In the sober thought of the delegates, he better represents the wishes of the Republican party than does any of the other candidates.” The phrase “sober thought” betrays the fact that the supporters of Sherman feared more than anything else a stampede for Blaine. When the Convention assembled the outlook for Sherman continued to be favorable. The voting began on Friday, June 22, and on the first ballot Sherman received 229 votes, which was twice as many as his nearest competitor. On the second ballot the number of his supporters ran up to 249, certain