ePub 版

accessions having been made in Pennsylvania. But his strength never equalled Mr. Hanna's estimate of 300 votes. Massachusetts only gave him 9 out of a total of 28, Pennsylvania 53 out of 60, Ohio 46, and the rest came from the South. On the subsequent ballots Mr. Sherman's strength slowly declined. He continued to lead his competitors until and including the sixth ballot, but in the meantime Benjamin Harrison had been gaining steadily. The latter was nominated on the eighth ballot, and in selecting him the Convention had nominated the next best man to Mr. Sherman. The official proceedings of the Convention were tame enough, but behind them was a seething caldron of negotiation and intrigue. It exhibited at its worst the regular method of nominating presidential candidates, because, in the absence of a strong popular preference for any one man, free opportunity was provided for the use of dubious methods and the action of equivocal motives. During the first two days the most active subterranean intrigue was being carried on in favor of Blaine; but Mr. Blaine never gave it open and authoritative countenance. While a considerable part of the Convention was ready to be stampeded, the sentiment in Mr. Blaine's favor was not general enough to afford sufficient body to the project. Until Sunday, however, the hopes of the supporters of Mr. Blaine ran high. On Sunday they vanished, and the delegates who had been waiting for a possible Blaine stampede began really to consider whom they could gain most by nominating. In spite of the fact that Sherman had been losing since the second ballot, he is said still to have had a fair chance on Sunday. New York was hesitating between Harrison and Sherman, and it would not have taken much to make the tide set towards Ohio. More remarkable was the sudden and unexpected strength developed by William McKinley. In spite of the fact that he was not a candidate, a few delegates persisted in voting for him, and for a while on Sunday his candidacy developed a subterranean strength which was never represented in the ballot. McKinley was, indeed, assured by the delegates of several states that Ohio might get the nomination in his person — provided Sherman would withdraw. These representations were telegraphed to Sherman, but he refused to release any of his supporters. Mr. McKinley had protested on Saturday during the session of the Convention against the unauthorized use of his name. His scrupulous loyalty to Senator Sherman was a matter of very favorable comment in Republican newspapers after the close of the Convention. Senator Theodore E. Burton in his “Life of John Sherman” in the series of “American Statesmen” makes the following comment on the defeat of Mr. Sherman: “At this Convention (1888) the delegation from Ohio was for the first time unanimous for him. There were, however, rumors of lack of cordiality on the part of some leading members of the delegation, which did much to diminish support from other states.” One of the delegates involved by these rumors was Governor Foraker. He was openly accused of treachery by the supporters of Sherman. He vehemently and indignantly denied the accusation, but he never convinced his colleagues, and his behavior had certain dubious aspects. On Sunday an interview with him appeared in the newspapers, stating that Sherman was no longer a possibility, and that on Monday he would vote for Blaine. This interview he subsequently repudiated, but if he had not given it out, why should it be fabricated ? It is significant also that members of the Columbus Club had paraded the streets of Chicago waving aloft portraits of the Governor and wearing his badges on their coat. It is stated that the name of Blaine could be read on the other side of these badges. These circumstances are mentioned, not because they afford conclusive proof that Mr. Foraker was playing a double game, but merely to explain the conviction of his colleagues that he was not loyal to John Sherman. In his statement Mr. Foraker admits the existence of bad feeling in the delegation, but attributes it to another cause. He says: “A great many colored delegates from the South, as is their custom, had tickets to the Convention which they desired to sell. They brought their tickets to our rooms at the hotel, and Mr. Hanna, in the presence of us all, bought them. I protested against such methods, saying that it would bring scandal on the entire delegation and hurt Sherman's cause. Mr. Hanna and I had a spirited discussion over the matter, and it resulted in my leaving the rooms and seeking apartments on another floor.” There is some truth in the foregoing statement. Other members of the Convention state that Mr. Hanna had in his trunk more tickets to the Convention than he could have obtained in any way save by their purchase from negro delegates. Such practices were common at the time; but they were indefensible, and if they evoked a protest from Mr. Foraker, he deserves credit for the protest. The split in the delegation must, however, be traced to a wholly different cause. Rightly or wrongly, not only Mr. Hanna, but the other leading members of the delegation believed that Mr. Foraker was secretly hostile to Senator Sherman's nomination, and that this hostility ruined Mr. Sherman's chance of success. The intimate association between the two men ended in June, 1888. After the Convention they exchanged a few acrimonious letters in respect to the distribution and settlement of the expenses incurred at Chicago. Their correspondence ceased. It was not renewed for many years, and then only on rare occasions and for purposes in which, as the two Senators from Ohio, they had a joint official interest. The story of Mark Hanna's friendship with Mr. Foraker and its rupture has been told at some length, because the incident did much to determine the course of Mr. Hanna's subsequent political career. In case he had remained intimately associated with Mr. Foraker, he might never have become so intimately associated with Mr. McKinley. Mr. Foraker himself ventures the opinion that their break resulted indirectly in the nomination of McKinley. However that may be, the continuation of his intimacy with Mr. Foraker would probably have prevented him from attaching himself thereafter so ardently and so exclusively to Mr. McKinley's political advancement. The rupture of his first political friendship did more, however, than clear the path for the formation of the second. His more intimate association with Mr. McKinley was in a measure the immediate result of his break with Mr. Foraker. The behavior of Mr. McKinley at the Convention made a deep impression on Mr. Hanna. The essential fabric of his own life consisted of personal relationships. He instinctively placed a higher value on loyalty than on any other moral quality. He could overlook almost any human failing, except disloyalty. Erroneously or not, he considered that Mr. Foraker had been secretly hostile to the candidacy of Senator Sherman. He knew that Mr. McKinley had been scrupulously faithful under a peculiarly severe and unexpected personal temptation. In subsequent conversations about McKinley, he often referred with the utmost admiration to Mr. McKinley's refusal to consider the possible purchase of the highest American political honor by the desertion of the candidate to whom he was pledged — even when that candidate had lost all chance of success. Thus the new political friendship was in a sense founded on the ruins of the old. The rupture with Mr. Foraker resulted, not merely in the creation of new friendships, but also in the creation of new enmities. He and the Governor, in ceasing to be friends, became active opponents. Thereafter the Republican party of Ohio was, until Mr. Hanna's death, divided into two factions. On Mr. Hanna's side were ranged the whole group of Republicans who had been interested in Senator Sherman's nomination. It contained Mr. Sherman himself, Mr. McKinley, Benjamin Butterworth, Charles Foster and Mark Hanna. On the other side, Mr. Foraker was the only Republican of ability and prominence. He was a proud, self-contained and self-confident man, whose nature it was to play a lone hand. He himself states that he never afterwards had a political ally, with whom he was as closely associated as he had been for a while with Mr. Hanna. It speaks well for his skill in political management that he should have been able to hold his own against such a combination of popularity, effective power and political ability as Mr. McKinley and Mr. Hanna eventually constituted. There resulted one of the most extraordinary factional fights offered by the history of American politics. Its existence was notorious. There was great bitterness of feeling. The two factions frequently came to open blows in the primaries, in the state conventions and in the legislature. Yet it was rarely, if ever, carried so far as to imperil party success. From 1888 until 1904 the Republicans of Ohio were victorious with one exception, in all the state and national elections. In spite of charges and countercharges of treachery on election day, the two factions kept their fight on the whole within the party and presented a sufficiently united front to the Democrats. Neither of them felt strong enough to push the disagreement to a finish and by risking a Democratic victory to endanger their own political plans as well as those of their adversaries. They subordinated their personal quarrels for the most part to Republican success. They spoke during the campaign from the same platforms, and they divided the offices. Nevertheless at almost every critical moment of Mr. Hanna's subsequent career he was embarrassed and at times almost defeated by the personal ill feelings consequent on his rupture with James B. Foraker.

« 上一頁繼續 »