them would have interfered with any but a subordinate interest in the career of the other. The close political and personal association which began after the convention of 1888 between Mr. Hanna and Mr. McKinley blossomed suddenly, but its roots had been slowly growing for a period of over ten years.

The startling and unforced growth of McKinley's presidential candidacy in the Convention of 1888 was due probably to his prominence as an advocate of high protection. His amiable disposition and his winning demeanor undoubtedly contributed to his popularity, and the fact that he hailed from a centrally situated state like Ohio contributed to his availability. But the chief reason why a certain number of Republicans turned almost instinctively towards him was due to his association with the policy of protecting American manufacturers to the limit. President Cleveland's message in December, 1886, and his renomination had made it certain that the campaign of 1888 would be fought and decided on the tariff issue. The Republicans were glad to accept the challenge and turned naturally towards the man who was considered to be the ablest advocate of the party's policy.

Major McKinley had been a Representative in Congress from the Mahoning Valley district since 1877, one term only excepted. He had gradually secured the confidence of his party associates by his tact, his attractive personality, his industry and his ability as a speaker. His congressional reputation had been associated almost from the start with an advocacy of high protection. When Garfield retired from the Ways and Means Committee, before his nomination to the presidency, McKinley became the member of that body from Ohio. He had a good deal to do with framing the tariff act of 1883, and increased his reputation during the debates on that measure. In the Republican Convention of 1884 he was chairman of the Committee on Resolutions and was associated with the writing of the party platform. During the succeeding years he added to his fame by his able opposition to the several proposals introduced by Democrats, looking towards tariff revision. He became in fact the leading Republican protectionist debater, and when the Republican Convention assembled in 1888 with a fight on the tariff ahead, McKinley had become the inevitable man for

the chairmanship of the Committee on Resolutions. The definite establishment of the tariff issue as the dividing line between the two parties was bound to increase the political prestige of the man who had earned recognition as the most conspicuous exponent of the high protectionist idea. If Mr. Hanna had not possessed a hundred other reasons for a peculiar interest in McKinley, the latter's association with protectionism might in itself have been sufficient to create it.

A coalescence can be plainly traced at this point between Mark Hanna's dominant personal political interest and his dominant impersonal political interest. He had always represented in politics the point of view of a business man; and now for the first time a national campaign was about to be waged on an issue involving in his opinion the business prosperity of the country. The appearance of such an issue was a challenge to him to become more than ever interested in active political work particularly in view of the fact that every victory of protection was a contribution towards the possible victorious candidacy of his personal friend, Major McKinley.

Previous to the campaign of 1888 the issue between the parties had never been definitely made on the tariff. The Democrats had shown a strong leaning towards tariff reform, but there had always been a minority of protectionist Democrats. The great majority of Republicans had been extreme protectionists, but until the secession of the independents in 1884, there had always been a minority of tariff reform Republicans. President Cleveland's message in 1886 had established the issue; and his plea for revision was based upon arguments which could not be ignored. Quite apart from any economic theory for or against protection, the existing tariff was piling up a surplus in the Treasury which for various reasons could no longer be used, as in the past, to reduce the national debt. Its accumulation was an embarrassment to the money market and an unnecessary drain on the economic resources of the country. Some revision of the tariff was necessary, and a revision in the direction of lower duties looked like the only possible way of getting rid of the surplus. The Democrats, however, advocated lower duties, not merely to reduce the income of the government, but because they proposed to destroy protectionism

as the American fiscal policy. While none of the measures of revision introduced by them were framed on the basis of a tariff for revenue only, their arguments were based upon the intrinsic desirability of free trade and the iniquity of protectionism.

Business men in any way associated with protected manufacturing industries rallied with enthusiasm and determination to the fiscal policy of the Republican party. Among them Mark Hanna was not the least enthusiastic and determined. He had never known any but a protectionist fiscal system. He accepted it as the foundation, not merely of American industrial expansion, but of industrial safety. Depending as he always did upon his personal experience as his guide, he identified protectionism with the traditional American fiscal system - the system which sought to give the American producer exclusive control of the home market, and which practically allowed the beneficiaries of the tariff to draw up the schedules. The serious attack made upon the system seemed to give him as a representative in politics of the business interest a new duty to perform. Certain conditions which he considered essential to business prosperity were being threatened by political agitation. He and other business men must rally to their defence.

Thus the campaign of 1888 first brought clearly to light an underlying tendency in American political and industrial development which until then had remained somewhat obscure. Since the Civil War the national economic system had been becoming relatively more industrial and relatively less agricultural. The increasing proportion of the population dependent on industry lived, not merely in New England and in the Middle States, but throughout the Middle West. The rapid growth of industry had been partly dependent upon legislative encouragement. It had given to the people interested in the protected industries a reason for demanding helpful legislation and a reason for fearing adverse legislation. This encouragement, moreover, had not taken the form merely of protecting manufacturers against foreign competition. The large business interests of the country had been encouraged, also, by the utmost laxity in the granting of corporate privileges and the utmost freedom from state and national administrative regulation.

There had been a general disposition to grant to the business interests what they wanted, because American public opinion was substantially agreed upon the desirability in the public benefit of the utmost possible stimulation of business activity. The result had been to make business vulnerable at a hundred different points to dangerous political attacks, and thus to make business prosperity immediately dependent upon political conditions.

The first serious attack upon the traditional system made by a national party was President Cleveland's antiprotectionist campaign. The protected industries defended themselves with their natural weapons. They subscribed more liberally than ever before to the Republican electoral expenses. In 1888 more money was raised than in any previous national campaign, and it was raised more largely from business men. Its ability to obtain increased supplies from such sources was a Godsend to the machine, because the spread of the movement towards Civil Service Reform had diminished its collection from office-holders, while at the same time the constant increase of political professionalism was making electoral campaigns more than ever expensive. Large expenditures for political purposes thereafter became the rule; and the needs of professional politicians, like other parasites, soon increased up to the level of their means of subsistence.

Mark Hanna, as a representative in politics of the business interest, was necessarily connected with this increased raising and expenditure of money for political objects. The one way at that time in which he could fight the political battles of the business interests was to provide the men on the firing-line with ammunition and food; and that way he took. He became one of an auxiliary committee to the Republican National Committee whose specific duty it was to solicit campaign contributions.

Mr. Hanna was entitled to ask other Republicans for contributions because he himself set them a good example. He himself had always been a liberal contributor to the funds of his party. His own experience had taught him how far the successful conduct of a campaign under American political conditions depends upon a free expenditure of money. He knew that

L

the expenses of speakers had to be paid, halls rented, literature distributed, impecunious candidates helped, the registration and the vote pulled out and the polls watched. He knew that much of this work had to be done by men who were accustomed to be rewarded, and that they could not all be rewarded at the public expense with offices. Some of them had to be employed. He knew that the campaign committees were always short of funds, and he knew that he could not show a more effective practical interest in politics than by helping to pay expenses. Whenever he did anything, he did it thoroughly. Probably no man in the country contributed more liberally, considering his means, to the war-chest of his party than did Mr. Hanna.

A political associate describes him as a "cheerful giver." This gentleman, who was a member of the Republican committee of Cuyahoga County for twenty-five years, states that Mr. Hanna was the only Republican in the city of Cleveland who would voluntarily draw his check for campaign purposes. Many of his business associates could be induced by personal solicitation to make contributions, but Mr. Hanna never needed to be dunned. He would say to the committee as he handed to them his first contribution: "Boys, I suppose you'll need some money. If you run short, you know where my office is." During the Garfield campaign he sent four different checks for $1000 each to the State Committee in Columbus; and this was merely one incident among a hundred. In the fall of 1887, for instance, the local campaign committee of Cuyahoga County found itself after election with a debt of $1260 on its hands. An attempt was made to collect the money from prominent Republicans, but with no success. One morning several of the committee were in their room, talking over the futile efforts. Mr. Hanna came in, and noticing the air of gloom, said: "It looks pretty blue here! What's the matter?" They told him, and much to their surprise and joy he sat down at the table and drew his own check for the whole amount. "There," he said, "pay your debts and look cheerful."

He gave as freely to individual political associates as to committees. Almost all his political friends were at one time or another in debt to him. We have already seen that he rendered to Mr. Foraker some assistance at a moment when the