one who was sick recovered in time to vote for Mr. Hanna. Another was the John C. Griffith who had been drugged and almost kidnapped. Two others, Representatives Joyce of Cambridge and Manuel of Montgomery, announced before Saturday that they would return to the fold. There remained only the six Representatives and the one Senator who voted for McKisson on the first ballot and Mr. Charles F. Droste.

In the meantime the friends of Mr. Hanna were busily circulating a paper, absolutely pledging its signers to vote for him. The great majority of the signatures were readily obtained; but the pledges of the last two or three men, necessary to assure his election, came hard. A negro Representative from Cleveland, named Clifford, gave a great deal of trouble, and required constant solicitation and surveillance, although he finally signed and voted true to his signature. By one or two o'clock in the morning previous to the day of the ballot the pledges of seventytwo legislators had been secured, including that of Senator Voight of Hamilton County. Excluding the Representatives who had definitely announced that they would not vote for Mr. Hanna, the only other possible adherent was Mr. Droste. The election of Mr. Hanna on the first ballot depended on the ability of his friends to obtain Mr. Droste's consent on Tuesday morning.

Mr. James R. Garfield had from the start attended to the negotiations with the delegation from Hamilton County; and he it was who finally induced Mr. Droste to sign. The latter is described as a man who was acting in obedience to his personal convictions and pledges. He had never promised to support Mr. Hanna. He had on the contrary pledged his support to Colonel Jeptha A. Gerrard, a lawyer of Cincinnati and a bimetallist. It was hoped that Colonel Gerrard might, with Mr. Droste's vote, be elected, for he was a "Silver Republican" by conviction and had a title to consideration, in case the allies had been united on any basis of principle. He was offered the short term in return for his support of McKisson for the long term; but Colonel Gerrard refused to consent to any such bargain. If he had consented, the combination might have gone through. On the other hand, the action of the Democratic caucus in selecting McKisson for both the short and long terms, and the conse

quent hopelessness of Colonel Gerrard's candidacy, released Mr. Droste. He immediately promised to give his vote to Mr. Hanna, and his vote was the one which was needed in order to make up the required majority of seventy-three.

On Tuesday, January 11, the two Houses balloted separately; Mr. Hanna received seventeen votes in the Senate and fifty-six in the Assembly. On that day the total number of McKisson supporters was only sixty-eight,—one Democrat being absent and three bolting the caucus nominee. But the anxiety was not over yet. It required a joint ballot to assure the result, and one deserter could upset everything. The seventy-three Hanna legislators went to the State House under the protection of Mr. Hanna's friends. Armed guards were stationed at every important point. The State House was full of desperate and determined men. A system of signals was arranged and operated so that Mr. Hanna and his friends at the Neil House could be informed of the progress of the ballot. The seventy-three voted as they had voted the day before against seventy for McKisson. A white handkerchief waved violently by a man on the steps of the State House gave notice to Mr. Hanna, who was watching anxiously at a window, that he was elected.

One aspect of this fierce contest remains to be considered. During the days of suspense charges of bribery were freely made on both sides. An election which turned on only a few doubtful votes and which aroused such violent passions was bound to create a cloud of mutual suspicions, and no serious or impartial attempt would be made to verify the reports. Men's attitude towards them would be determined by their sympathy with or their antipathy against Mr. Hanna. One of these charges, however, became public. On Sunday, January 9, the newspapers published a specific accusation that an agent of Mr. Hanna's had attempted to bribe Mr. J. C. Otis, the "Silver Republican" Representative from Cincinnati, and that an attorney named Thomas C. Campbell was a witness to the attempt. The charge, coming as it did at a critical moment of the struggle, produced the utmost consternation among Mr. Hanna's supporters. They feared for its effect on public opinion. The charge, however, was never taken very seriously by the public. Popular opinion had decided for Mr. Hanna, and the

accusation was discounted as merely a desperate attempt to stem the tide of sentiment in the Senator's favor. Mr. Hanna vigorously denied that the man accused of bribery was any agent of his, and stigmatized the whole story as a lie.

The accusation failed of the immediately beneficial effect which had been hoped for it; but even though it did not prevent his election, his enemies naturally pushed it home for his subsequent embarrassment. They controlled the state Senate. On the very morning of the day dedicated to the decisive joint ballot a resolution was passed constituting a Committee of Investigation. The membership of the Committee, however, was such as to make it appear a prosecuting rather than an investigating body. Its chairman was Vernon H. Burke, the malcontent from Cuyahoga County who was Mr. Hanna's one personal enemy in the Senate. He was assisted by three Democrats and by Senator Garfield - who declined to serve, but was not excused. An investigation conducted by such a body, which refused to permit the representation of the accused by counsel, could not be anything but extremely prejudiced. Mr. Hanna was advised by his attorneys to ignore the Committee, to refuse to recognize its jurisdiction, and neither to testify himself nor allow any of his friends and agents to testify. The consequence was that all the evidence unearthed by the Committee was dug up among Mr. Hanna's accusers. These witnesses were never sufficiently cross-examined, and their testimony was never supplemented and corrected by that of his agents said to be implicated. The report of the Committee claimed to prove (1) that an attempt was made to bribe J. C. Otis to vote for Mr. Hanna, (2) that an agent of Mr. Hanna's was the perpetrator of the attempt, and (3) that Mayor E. G. Rathbone, Charles F. Dick and H. H. Hollenbeck, Mr. Hanna's lieutenants, were implicated therein.

This report was sent to the Senate of the United States and was referred to its Committee on Privileges and Elections. The report of the United States Senate Committee declared (1) that the evidence failed wholly to prove that Mr. Hanna was elected Senator through bribery, (2) that any agent was authorized by him to use corrupt methods, (3) or that he had any personal knowledge of the facts of the Otis case. The

only question upon which the Committee had any doubt was whether it should conduct an independent investigation of its own; and this it decided not to do, because Mr. Hanna's title to his seat was not impeached, and because no demand for the prosecution of any further inquiry had been received from the state of Ohio. The Democratic Senators on the Committee urged that a further investigation ought to be made, but did not claim any proof of Mr. Hanna's implication in the affair.

So the matter has rested until this day. Only on one occasion was the incident used by Mr. Hanna's political opponents. The dubious nature of the testimony which was supposed to prove Mr. Hanna's connection with the alleged attempt to bribe Otis prevented its exploitation. There is as much doubt to-day as fourteen years ago concerning what actually occurred. The true story can never be ascertained because certain essential witnesses, including the alleged agent, are dead. Our only interest in the matter relates to the attempt to make Mr. Hanna responsible for the mission which took the man to Cincinnati.

Mr. Hanna's published repudiation of any connection with the business was contained in the following words: "I deny having authorized any agent or representative of mine to make any offer to Representative Otis or any other member of the Assembly. I never sent any man to Cincinnati to see Mr. Otis. I have never known or seen this particular man in my life, and have had no transactions with him." Alongside of this comprehensive repudiation may be placed the concluding paragraphs of an affivadit of the supposed agent signed by him in Boston on March 12, 1898, and attested by Justin Whitney, Notary Public. "I did not go to Ohio by request of Senator Hanna directly or indirectly. I did not represent him, and never for a moment assumed to do so, but on the contrary I repeatedly stated that I did not act for either him or his Committee. Whatever I did there was upon my own judgment, based upon good legal advice, and for the good of the cause as I saw it. I am not now, and never have been, the agent of the agent or representative of Senator Hanna, and as I have never been introduced to him he would have no means of recognizing me if I should meet him on the street." These statements are confirmed by

the testimony before the Senate Committee both of J. C. Otis and the lawyer, Thomas C. Campbell. They both state explicitly that the man denied that he knew or represented Mr. Hanna.

The Committee of the Ohio Senate attempted to prove Mr. Hanna's connection with the alleged attempt at bribery by the testimony of various detectives, amateur and professional, who shadowed the supposed agent and others and overheard telephone conversations between the man in Cincinnati and the Hanna headquarters in Columbus. The United States Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections did not dismiss this testimony as entirely unworthy of belief. "It raises suspicions," so they say, "that Mr. Hanna's representatives in Columbus knew what the alleged agent was doing." Those suspicions were justified. Major Rathbone did know of the mission to Cincinnati. The precise nature of the connection between the Hanna headquarters and the emissary remains dubious; but the following statements are corroborated by a sufficient number of witnesses to be considered as facts. The man went to Columbus at the request of Mr. C. C. Shayne, a furrier in New York, an ardent protectionist and a notorious busybody. Mr. Shayne called up the Hanna headquarters from New York and recommended him as an able talker and negotiator. Mr. Hanna probably heard about the matter, but had nothing to do with it personally. The man was turned over to Major Rathbone, and after an interview with Rathbone in Columbus he went to Cincinnati. From there he did have conversations over the telephone with Rathbone in Columbus. The testimony as to what occurred in Cincinnati is hopelessly conflicting. If there is any truth in the affidavit, the only inducements offered by him to Otis to vote for Mr. Hanna were the "cordial approval of his party and the rewards which that would naturally bring to him." He admits having offered Thomas C. Campbell, during a later interview, a "retainer," which he says Mr. Campbell demanded in return for advising Otis to vote for Mr. Hanna. After the exposure he promptly quitted the state.

It would be futile to indulge in any theories as to what actually occurred. The probability is that the emissary was the victim of the men with whom he was negotiating rather than