網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

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. 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 reëlected 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 years later charges of favoritism in the deposit of the county funds with the various banks were again made; but these charges made no particular mention of the Union National Bank. They were denied and did not prevent Mr. Kimberley's reelection. During these years Mr. Hanna became probably as influential in local politics as any other one man in Cleveland. He was accused by the Plain-Dealer of being the local Republican “boss”; but the accusation was merely the natural partisan abuse of a man whose aggressive personality gave emphasis to his actual influence. He was in no sense of the word a “boss,” although he may have been politically the most influential private citizen of Cleveland. Even the foregoing statement of his standing is probably an exaggeration. Whatever power he possessed in local politics was due, not to the building up of a personal machine, but to the fact that behind him were the more important business men of Cleveland. Among the professional politicians he had a few friends and many enemies. The politicians needed him, because he was personally a generous contributor and an unexcelled collector of funds; but they never recognized him as their leader. The Republican organization in Cleveland was always unruly. The success of the party in local campaigns was continually being compromised by factional fights, revolts against regular nominations, and unexpected ebullitions of popular independence. In the spring of 1887, for instance, the Republicans nominated, apparently under Mr. Hanna's influence, William M. Bayne as their candidate for Mayor. Mr. Bayne was described to be a very honest man, but one who made his living out of politics. He proved to be a weak candidate and was decisively defeated. Later in the same year Mr. Bayne was instrumental in altering the nominating machinery of the Cleveland Republicans in a manner which would now be considered most praiseworthy. As a means of stopping the abuse of packed caucuses a system of direct primaries was proposed and accepted by the Republican voters. The system had originated in Crawford County, Pennsylvania, and was named after its place of origin. Later many attempts were made to abolish the plan, but they were unsuccessful. Mr. Hanna himself came eventually to oppose it; but when it was first introduced he probably approved of it. Its sponsor, Mr. Bayne, was so closely associated with him that the two men presumably were agreed upon the desirability of the reform. It unquestionably served its intended purpose of doing away with packed caucuses; but it made the Republican party of Cleveland more than ever unruly. Whatever advantage Mr. Hanna may have derived from his association with Mr. Foraker did not last very long, because in the spring of 1888, soon after Mr. Foraker's second inauguration, the association itself was broken. Mr. Foraker states that the rupture of their personal and political friendship was brought about by a disagreement over the distribution of patronage; but while there developed a disagreement of this kind, which both divided Mr. Hanna from the Governor and brought him closer to Mr. McKinley, other causes contributed substantially to the break. Before coming, however, to these other and more important causes, an account must be given of the incident to which Mr. Foraker himself attributes the dissolution of their friendship. The most lucrative office within the gift of the Governor of Ohio at that time was the oil inspectorship — an official who was paid by the fees of the oil refineries whose product he inspected, and who had the appointment of deputies to do the work throughout the state. When Mr. Foraker was first elected both Mr. Hanna and Mr. McKinley had a candidate for the job, the former's being Mr. W. M. Bayne and the latter's a Captain Smithnight. Mr. Hanna was for a while more energetic in opposing Mr. McKinley's candidate than he was in urging the claims of his own; but later he moderated his tone. In November, 1885, he wrote to the Governor-elect: “I had a call from Major McKinley and his oil inspector candidate. The Major is never behind-hand with his claims. I tell him he ‘wants the earth,’ and it looks as if I were getting about where I generally do in politics — ‘left” with no asset except my reputation of being a good fellow and always accommodating. However, I told McKinley I only cared for you in this matter.” This letter was a prelude to the appointment of Captain Smithnight. It looks as if Mr. Hanna had withdrawn his claims, in order to relieve the Governor from an embarrassing situation. The same matter came up after Mr. Foraker's second election. Mr. McKinley considered himself entitled to Smithnight's reappointment. The Governor, who had been dissatisfied with his first appointee, was resolved this time to give the office to his own part of the state. Mr. Hanna thought the patronage should remain in Cleveland, but urged the claims of his own candidate, Bayne. Finally the Governor appointed George Cox, subsequently the Cincinnati “boss,” to the inspectorship, without even notifying Mr. Hanna of his intention; and when the deputy-inspectorships came to be passed around, Bayne was as usual pushed aside for the benefit of Smithnight. Mr. Hanna was so much chagrined that he ran away from Cleveland, and he wrote to the Governor that he would scarcely dare to return, in case his recommendation was ignored in the matter of another . deputyship. The whole incident must have been a blow to his local political prestige. There is no evidence, however, that this incident alone would have been sufficient to sever the friendship between the two men. 2. At most, it indicated that Mr. Foraker was looking elsewhere for the support which the satisfaction of his political ambition required. After the incident Mr. Hanna continued to write to the Governor in a friendly, almost an affectionate, manner. The final break did not take place until after the Convention of 1888; and it was due to disagreements which occurred during the meeting of the Convention. While the complete story of this disagreement cannot be told, the substance of it, which concerns Mr. Foraker's attitude towards the campaign on behalf of John Sherman's nomination, is well known and not at all obscure. Mark Hanna's conviction that John Sherman could and should be nominated and elected to the presidency had not been shaken by the poor showing made by his candidate in the Convention of 1884. The result of the election of that year confirmed his belief in the desirability of Mr. Sherman's nomination in the interest of party success. Immediately after the defeat of James G. Blaine he had written to Mr. Foraker: “I feel sure now in looking back over the results of the campaign that John Sherman would have been the strongest candidate; and I K

« 上一頁繼續 »