Ohio History Journal

James R. Garfield: the making of a progressive     by JACK M. THOMPSON     One of the leaders in the movement to bring Theodore Roosevelt back to the presidency in 1912 was a now rather obscure Ohioan named James R. Garfield. The second son of President James A. Garfield, he was Roosevelt's secretary of the interior from 1907 to 1909 and the Progressive candidate for governor of Ohio in 1914. A prominent figure on the Ohio and national scenes at the height of the progressive movement, he found the ascent to that position a rough and uncertain one.   NOTES ARE ON PAGES 143-145

• 1
 

80                                                  OHIO HISTORY

 

As a young man in the 1890's Garfield conceived of himself both as a

political reformer who would change the very character of the Republican

party in Ohio, and as a political comer who some day might even follow

his father from Lawnfield, the family homestead in Mentor, to the White

House. Partly because of temperament and partly because of the nature

of Republican politics in Ohio, the younger Garfield failed in his first

efforts toward those goals. In the first place and most important, Repub-

lican leaders in the state proved either hostile or indifferent to his mug-

wumpish reforms. Secondly, the G.O.P. rank and file found him starchy

and inflexible. And lastly, national leaders of the party were unimpressed

by his homilies on political rectitude. By the end of the decade the would-be

reformer seemed at the end of his political rope, as party professionals

ceased to take him seriously.1

Garfield commenced his political career at the lowest of grass root levels

in 1889, eight years after his father's death.² A twenty-four year old

attorney fresh from two years of study at the Columbia University Law

School, he ran for, and was elected to, the town council of Mentor.³ Immedi-

ately, he sought to revive interest in the lagging town meeting, served

enthusiastically on the school and library boards, and constantly urged

his "respectable" Republican friends to take greater interest in local

affairs.⁴

In the early 1890's Garfield was a delegate to political meetings of his

county, district, and state. This participation, plus the attraction of the

Garfield name, led several Republicans to suggest that he announce as a

candidate for the state senate from his district.⁵ But Garfield naively

believed that the office should seek the man and refused either to work

directly for a position or to cast his lot with those who promoted his

candidacy.⁶

Ultimately, in 1895, the realization that political independence had

gained him nothing caused Garfield to move toward the Hanna-McKinley

wing of the Republican party, which supported him for state senator

from the combined twenty-fourth-twenty-sixth senatorial district.⁷ But

he did not rely upon this affiliation exclusively. He traveled extensively

throughout his senatorial district and acquired support from several

newspapers.⁸

Campaigning came hard to Garfield. He was aloof and privately dis-

dainful of the many small-town politicians whose support he curried.

For their part, many of the latter thought him stuffy and condescending.

Despite these difficulties, he was nominated on July 2, 1895. Nomination

was tantamount to election as the district had not voted Democratic since

1856.⁹

Garfield began his legislative career in the heavily Republican domi-

nated seventy-second general assembly. The Republican legislators, how-

ever, were by no means united. One faction was headed by Mark Hanna

and William McKinley; the other by two Cincinnatians, former governor

Joseph B. Foraker and George B. Cox, the city's boss. Since Foraker's fol-

• 2
 

JAMES R. GARFIELD                                              81

 

lowing had gained control of the party machinery in the spring of 1895, its

members held the important committee posts. With this advantage they

planned to elect Foraker to the United States Senate. Though the Hanna

faction was hardly satisfied with this situation, it momentarily acquiesced

for a pledge by the Forakerites to support McKinley's presidential ambi-

tions. Garfield heartily disliked the cynical Foraker and would have pre-

ferred to oppose him openly. But Hanna and McKinley convinced him that

the presidency was more important than personal animosity toward any

one man.10

Garfield never publicly condemned Foraker, but during the opening days

of the legislature he became involved in a controversy with the latter's

supporters. Joseph P. Smith, state librarian and close political associate of

McKinley, was up for reappointment. The Foraker faction opposed Smith

because of his public criticism of its leader. Garfield, in charge of the

pro-Smith forces, vigorously defended the librarian on the senate floor.

The issue grew so heated that both the McKinley and Foraker groups

sought a compromise rather than risk a serious schism prior to the party's

national convention.11 The compromise, which the McKinley side was more

than happy to accept, involved Smith's reappointment, the passage of a

bill providing for a state library commission to select the state librarian,

and Smith's resignation when the bill became law. Garfield introduced

the bill. Although the Garfield library law was motivated more by political

considerations than reform, Garfield considered it a substantial accomp-

lishment.12

The expenditure of large sums of money to obtain political positions

and demands on candidates for loans, frequently not repaid, figured prom-

inently in Ohio political life in the 1890's. On January 15, 1896, Garfield

introduced a corrupt-practices bill limiting the amount of money which

could be expended by a candidate and providing penalties for those who

failed to comply.13 Surprisingly, the bill encountered very little opposition,

with the senate passing it without a dissenting vote. Only three members

opposed it in the house. As Garfield noted in presenting the bill, it afforded

a convenient escape for politicians weary of being badgered for money.

Most likely the legislators saw the bill protecting themselves rather than

guarding against the lavish use of money to gain votes. Whatever the

thinking, it was acclaimed as a constructive measure, and Ohio newspapers

praised Garfield and the new law.14

During his first term in the legislature, Garfield sponsored legislation

to preclude the establishment and proliferation of colleges which had

neither the funds nor the facilities to maintain respectable standards.

Presidents of the larger academic institutions, contending that many of

the colleges were little more than diploma mills, requested Garfield to

introduce a bill that would establish a state college council. Its function

would be to investigate the financial status of new institutions and their

fitness to award degrees.15 The bill also contained a provision that exist-

ing institutions must have a fixed income of at least seventy-five hundred

• 3
 

82                                                OHIO HISTORY

 

dollars if they wished to be accredited.16 The college council bill stirred up

such a furor among the alumni and officers of the small colleges that it

was allowed to die.17

For years Garfield had looked forward to the time when an effective

civil service system would replace political patronage. Upon coming to

Columbus he quickly identified himself with those who were of a like mind.18

Unfortunately for him, those favoring civil service legislation in the

seventy-second general assembly were in a minority. Faced with insur-

mountable opposition and aware that a law establishing a state system

would fail, Garfield and his friends lowered their sights and supported a

local option bill, prepared by the Ohio Civil Service Association. The bill

allowed cities to adopt a merit system by popular vote. But even this

modest proposal was defeated. Garfield blamed Foraker and the "powerful

city bosses." If some of the leaders of the McKinley wing of the party were

equally guilty, he did not see fit to mention it.19

In seeking to improve Ohio's moral tone, Garfield wished to curb the

whiskey traffic. He was not an exponent of total prohibition, since he

knew most Ohioans were not in favor of doing away completely with alco-

holic beverages. Consequently, he opposed the passage of laws that "would

be neither enforced nor obeyed."20 At the time Garfield entered the senate,

Ohio levied a tax of two hundred dollars on saloons under the provisions

of the Dow law. This tax, a lucrative source of revenue and a mild deterrent

to the multiplication of saloons, placated all but the more militant pro-

hibitionists. The persistence of the Anti-Saloon League, however, led to an

attempt to increase the Dow tax to three hundred and fifty dollars. Garfield

went even further and proposed that the law would be more effective if

the levy were raised to five hundred. The legislature turned him down,

and his stand satisfied no one. The saloonkeepers were unhappy in any

case, and when Garfield failed to support the increase to three hundred

and fifty dollars he was criticized by the Anti-Saloon League.21

Garfield early acquired the reputation of being an outspoken and mili-

tant champion of municipal home rule. Contrary to constitutional pro-

visions, the Ohio General Assembly yearly passed a number of special bills

on local matters which needed no approval by the communities affected.

Garfield embarked on a one-man crusade against this practice, but with

few exceptions he was unsuccessful. Although many of Garfield's fellow

legislators admitted the correctness of his position, they maintained such

legislation was needed for their own areas and therefore had no alterna-

tive but to support the bills of others.22

A common practice in the Ohio General Assembly in the 1890's per-

mitted the majority party to pass legislation affecting a city that would

give their party a political advantage. Usually referred to as "ripper legis-

lation," this procedure was clearly a violation of the right of local govern-

ment. A "ripper" measure, known as the Bosler bill, came before the

senate in March 1896. It was designed to alter the political structure of

Dayton in order to get rid of a Democratic administration.23 After a lengthy

• 4
 

JAMES R. GARFIELD                                               83

 

fight, Garfield was instrumental in the defeat of the bill. Although he had

antagonized many Republicans, the Cleveland Plain Dealer and a citizens

group hailed him as a champion of home rule and good government.24

But issues of good and evil were not always so clear-cut, and in the

waning days of his first senate term Garfield was confronted with the

Rogers bill, which many reformers condemned. Introduced in February

1896, this bill allowed municipal governing bodies to grant street railway

franchises for a period of fifty years.25 In light of his record, Garfield

seemed the logical man to oppose it, and the Cleveland Plain Dealer asked

him not to miss this "golden opportunity." A sizable number of persons

also urged him to fight the bill and work for short-term grants, competitive

bidding, and popular approval of franchise extensions.26

The Rogers bill placed Garfield in a most difficult position. Mark Hanna,

who was vitally concerned because of his traction interests, requested the

freshman senator to support the bill. Hanna argued that it was equitable

in light of the business future of the street railways.27 Recognizing the

political power of Hanna and yet desiring to protect his reputation as a

reformer, Garfield avoided an early decision by indicating that he could

not support the bill until certain objectionable features had been removed.28

This tactic led to approximately two weeks of hearings on changes in the

bill. Several of Hanna's close friends and advisers contacted Garfield and

urged him to back the bill. Senator-elect Foraker also arrived in Columbus

and lobbied for the measure. Although Foraker's presence annoyed Gar-

field, he finally agreed to favor the measure and defended it on the floor

of the senate on April 21, 1896.29 He stated that the bill's evils had been

mitigated and that it was made equitable to both the railway companies

and the people of Ohio. The positive changes, according to Garfield, in-

cluded provisions which forbade a railway company to charge more than

five cents per fare within the corporate limits of a municipality, pro-

hibited the consolidation of two railway lines unless naturally connected,

and called for the revision of rates, taxes, and license fees at the end of

a twenty-year period and every fifteen years thereafter.30

While the amendments to the Rogers bill may have convinced Garfield

that it was a reasonable piece of legislation, many Ohio newspapers saw

in it a victory for the traction magnates.31 Garfield's support of the Rogers

bill could be attributed to his conservatism and Republican orthodoxy

rather than to sympathy with the street railway interests.

After adjournment of the seventy-second general assembly in late

April 1896, Garfield took an active part in the presidential canvass. He

attended the Republican national convention in St. Louis in June and

spoke in behalf of McKinley. During the campaign he described Bryan

and the Democrats as dangerous radicals who would undermine property

rights and foment class discord.32 Despite his reform efforts, Garfield

revealed his true colors as a conservative by accepting without question

the gold standard, the tariff, and the Republican platform.

Garfield was reelected to the Ohio Senate in 1897, though by a smaller

• 5
 

84                       OHIO HISTORY

 

margin than in 1895. Like most other state Republicans, he pledged

support to Mark Hanna for the United States Senate. Hanna's election

seemed a foregone conclusion until unexpected opposition developed among

disaffected G.O.P. groups in Cleveland and Cincinnati.33 Garfield, disturbed

by the anti-Hanna sentiment, worked diligently to head off any open revolt

that might lead to his defeat.34 Ultimately Hanna was elected by a close

margin, but his victory was clouded by charges that one of his agents had

offered a bribe to a member of the house. Placed on a committee to

investigate the validity of the charges, Garfield submitted a minority

report when the other members decided that a bribe had been offered. He

believed the committee was stacked against Hanna and that the whole

affair had been hatched by enemies in the party and by the Democrats.35

Although Garfield publicly defended Hanna and believed him innocent,

he regretted that Hanna neither had appeared before the Ohio committee

nor later had the charges investigated when they were forwarded to the

United States Senate.36

The Hanna election and bribery hearing created such bitterness that

the seventy-third general assembly passed virtually no significant legis-

lation. Garfield's civil service bill met defeat and he had to battle des-

perately to prevent repeal of the corrupt practices act.37 The young senator

from Mentor continued to oppose wholesale passage of special bills. But

most of this legislation passed by large majorities; Garfield often cast

the only negative vote.38

Garfield's contention that a local constituency could decide what best

constituted its welfare did not extend to women suffrage. In February

1898 he opposed a bill which provided for a statewide referendum on the

question. Asserting that the referendum would not be approved, he com-

plained that it would waste approximately forty thousand dollars of the

taxpayers' money. According to Garfield, women were too inexperienced in

public affairs to be entrusted with the vote.39 Voting, he said, represented

the highest duty of government and was to be conferred only upon those

who were fitted for it. He applauded the senate's defeat of the bill.40

Garfield had gained the dubious distinction of being a political maverick

who would follow his convictions despite criticism and ridicule. He did

nothing to dispel this reputation when the Ohio Senate momentarily sus-

pended work on domestic legislation to take cognizance of events in Cuba.

On January 26, 1898, when the senate passed a resolution memorializing

the federal congress to recognize Cuban belligerency, Garfield was one of

four who opposed it. He cautioned his colleagues that such a move might

well complicate the nation's relations with foreign countries and eventu-

ally lead to the annexation of Cuba.⁴¹ When the "Cuban Patriots" finally

forced the resolution through, Garfield spoke contemptuously of "kin-

dergarten politics." Maintaining that nations and civilizations should be

past waging war as a means of settling differences, he was pleased that

the national administration had been impervious to the pressures of the

"so-called patriots and sensational journalism.^"42

• 6
 

JAMES R. GARFIELD                                              85

 

When war did come, Garfield grieved that hundreds, possibly even

thousands, of men might have to give their lives. He seriously contemplated

joining the army but decided against it, not only because of his family

but also because he believed the war would be of short duration. He

eventually convinced himself that history would justify American inter-

vention, particularly after he heard Dr. Washington Gladden rationalize

the war on moral and religious grounds.43

Garfield's second term as a state senator ended on April 26, 1898. View-

ing the entire session as something of a holding action, Garfield felt that

Ohioans were fortunate in not having more bad legislation passed than

was the case. "The possibilities for bad laws were great," he wrote in

his journal, "but we held things in check. . . . The senatorial fight

engendered so much factional bitterness that affirmative action was well

nigh impossible.44

Even before Garfield was nominated for a second term as a state

senator, he had made a serious bid for the congressional nomination in

the twentieth district, which consisted of Lake and Medina counties,

the west-side wards of Cleveland, and the townships of Cuyahoga County.

But his desire to go to Washington and to emulate the career of his father

encountered determined opposition. Initially, opposition was local, but

eventually Hanna and the national administration found him intractable

and hence unacceptable.

As early as January 1897 Garfield was making plans to enter the

congressional race which was to be decided in the summer of 1898.⁴⁵ He

received Hanna's blessing and his chances seemed excellent until opposi-

tion began to brew in Lake County.⁴⁶ It was centered around Jacob A.

Beidler, a wealthy ore and iron dealer. Beidler's candidacy represented a

maneuver by Mayor Robert E. McKisson of Cleveland and Charles L.

Kurtz, influential members of the anti-Hanna wing of the party, in the

hope of splitting the Lake County vote and electing their candidate. Beidler,

claiming ill health, withdrew from the race in the early summer of 1898.

Garfield's opponents, including Beidler, then urged State Representative

A. J. Reynolds to seek the nomination.47 Reynolds consented, and a dead-

lock in the district convention led to the nomination of Judge F. O. Phillips

of Medina County. Garfield took his defeat philosophically, blaming it on

the perfidy of Beidler and the egotism of Reynolds. But he was determined

to obtain the office when it became open again.48

In Ohio Republican circles it was traditional to let a congressman have

two terms before allowing the office to pass on to another party member.

Yet Garfield, after what he considered a careful canvass, concluded that

Judge Phillips would lack Lake County support when he came up for

renomination. Early in January 1900 he informed Phillips of his intention

to oppose him when the convention met in the summer of 1900.49 Within

two weeks Garfield's old political nemesis Beidler announced he too would

seek the post. Garfield was positive he acted out of personal animosity.50

Had Beidler been the only obstacle, Garfield might have obtained the

• 7
 

86                                                OHIO HISTORY

 

nomination without difficulty. But there were other more subtle forms of

opposition. Many of his friends urged him to observe Republican tradition

and allow Phillips to serve his second term unmolested. The McKisson

faction of Cuyahoga County had not forgotten his obstructive tactics in

the Ohio Senate and was not loath to make trouble for him. Worst of all,

Hanna was clearly displeased with his attitude toward a Cincinnati "rip-

per" bill introduced in the general assembly early in 1900.

Hanna supported the Cincinnati municipal bill as a political favor to

Governor George K. Nash and George B. Cox, both anxious to redistrict

the city of Cincinnati and thereby regain political control from the Demo-

crats. Garfield, having earlier fought a similar bill aimed at Dayton, took

a public stand against the bill. In spite of newspaper stories suggesting

punishment for his recalcitrancy, he pledged an unrelenting fight not only

against the Cincinnati bill but also for the congressional nomination.51

If Garfield had any doubts concerning Hanna and the Cincinnati bill,

they were soon clarified by a letter from Washington in early February

1900. "It is reported to me," wrote Hanna,

 

that you are attempting to influence Speaker [A. J.] Reynolds to vote

against the Cincinnati Municipal Bill. All the Republican leaders I

have heard from, including the Governor himself, heartily approve

of the bill on party grounds, and feel that it is the only way we can

gain control in Hamilton County. I am sorry if it is true that you feel

called upon to actively oppose the bill, and hope that if you cannot

agree with the general opinion of the bill that you will at least

leave Mr. Reynolds free to do what he may see best for the party.52

 

Hanna's letter failed to move Garfield. His tenacity prompted another

letter from Washington. "It would be a misfortune to the party," wrote

Hanna, "if the bill failed to pass."53

Two weeks later Garfield's aspirations took still another turn for the

worse when it was rumored that B. F. Crofoot, secretary of the Lake

County Republican committee, had received a letter from General Charles

F. W. Dick, secretary of the national Republican committee, opposing

Garfield's bid for the congressional seat.54 Garfield hesitated to believe

or to trust Crofoot. He was momentarily relieved upon hearing from his

brother-in-law that Dick and Hanna were not seeking to thwart his can-

didacy.55 In Ohio, however, the rumor persisted, and Garfield was moved

to announce to the local newspapers that he was in the race to stay.56

Persistence of the rumor prompted Garfield to go to Washington and

confront Hanna. The latter assured him that the rumors were "bosh."⁵⁷

Garfield returned home reassured.

The congressional ambitions of Jim Garfield all but collapsed on April

19, 1900, when his brother Harry, who obviously thought Phillips ought

to have a second term, suggested that he propose to Beidler that they both

give up the race. His first reaction was to ignore Harry's advice. How-

• 8
 

JAMES R. GARFIELD                                              87

 

ever, when political backers and friends concurred with his brother, he

submitted.58

Garfield's willingness to withdraw from the congressional race with

Beidler was clearly influenced by the fact that his supporters opposed his

disregard of Republican precedent. Moreover, although Hanna had assured

him that he was perfectly acceptable, indications were that the national

Republican committee wanted the congressional seat in the twentieth

district decided with a minimum of intra-party strife. But the conjecture

of the Cleveland Press must also be considered. It stated that Garfield's

capitulation was influenced by discouraging reports from Lake County,

and that he sought to avoid defeat gracefully by offering to hand the

nomination to Phillips.59

For his part, Garfield explained that he had announced his candidacy

only after being assured that Phillips would be unable to obtain renom-

ination. Subsequent developments convinced him, however, that Phillips

had an excellent chance provided he and Beidler withdrew. Garfield con-

fided to his journal that his withdrawal proposal to Beidler would leave

him in an excellent position and in line with his original proposal. Beidler

announced on April 23, 1900, that he had accepted Garfield's suggestion,

and an uneasy peace settled over the twentieth congressional district.⁶⁰

Despite Beidler's public statement that he was no longer a candidate,

his political backers quietly continued to work for his nomination. When

the congressional convention met on May 10, 1900, the wealthy coal

dealer won the nomination over Phillips by six votes.⁶¹ Beidler protested

that he was unaware of the move on the part of his backers, but did not

refuse the nomination. Garfield was furious. Though he seriously con-

sidered offering himself as an independent candidate, his financial status

would not permit him to engage in a long and vigorous campaign with-

out party backing.⁶²

On May 22, 1900, he went to Washington again to report the whole

affair to Hanna. According to Garfield, Hanna was indignant--but in-

sufficiently so to sanction an independent race on the part of Garfield or

anyone else. Hanna, the political professional, feared an independent might

split the Republican vote and result in the election of a "democratic-

populistic candidate." Beidler might be undesirable, but since he had

been nominated by a regular convention he had to be supported. Garfield

was instructed to survey the sentiment of the people and report his find-

ings to Hanna.63

Almost immediately upon his return from Washington, Garfield con-

tracted typhoid fever and was in bed for almost a month. Not until

September could he return to work and political activity. Meanwhile, a

petition movement was under way for the nomination of Judge Phillips,

as an independent. It prompted Hanna to pledge public support to Beidler.

He also passed the word along that talk of a bolt to an independent must

cease immediately.⁶⁴ Garfield, well informed on the progress of the move-

ment, refrained, upon advice of friends, from taking an active part in it,

• 9
 

88                                                OHIO HISTORY

 

"All agree," he said, "that I should have nothing to do with the independent

movement so that no one can accuse me of personal animosity toward

Beidler."65

By late September 1900 the independent movement had gathered the

necessary signatures to get his name on the ballot and Phillips agreed to

run. Many party regulars called on Garfield and urged him to state

publicly his opposition to the independent movement. He refused to come

out for Beidler despite threats of punishment. But neither did he publicly

endorse Phillips. To himself he rationalized this silence as necessary since

the strength of the movement lay in an "uprising of decent Republicans"

who could not be accused of personal bias against Beidler.66

Though Garfield maintained a discreet silence, local and national party

members were convinced that he had influence in the Phillips camp. As

the independent movement gathered momentum and Phillips seemed to

pose a real threat to Beidler, Garfield received an ultimatum from Hanna:

 

I think that you had better come out and say that you intend to

support the regular ticket and advise your friends to do so. I have

seen some of my friends from the West side and they say that such

a course is the only one for you to take if you expect support from this

section in the future. I am of that opinion in your own interests. . . . I

wish you to quote me in Lake county as saying that this is no time for

loyal Republicans to punish anyone.67

 

Garfield refused to heed these instructions and so informed Hanna:

 

I regret I cannot agree with you that I should support Mr. Beidler. I

feel so strongly that he is unworthy of support that I cannot vote for

him, and hence cannot urge my friends to do so. The personal dishon-

esty of a candidate over-balances party considerations. The anti-Beid-

ler movement. . . has not been moved by his enemies but is the result

of careful consideration by the best Republicans in the district."68

 

Three days after this exchange of letters, Garfield and Hanna conferred

in Cleveland and had a "full and candid" discussion of the Beidler affair.

Garfield sought to convince Hanna that Beidler could not be elected, but

the G.O.P. chief insisted that party considerations came before the per-

sonal integrity of any man. Garfield left the conference disappointed with

Hanna. In his journal he wrote that he hoped that he "would never be

induced to abandon truth and principles for expediency or personal bene-

fit."⁶⁹ Hanna's attitude almost convinced Garfield that he should enter the

campaign and speak in behalf of Phillips. But his mother and brother

Harry strongly advised against such action and he acquiesced.

As the campaign moved into its final stages additional pressures were

applied to Garfield. President McKinley took him aside to urge him to

support Beidler when they attended the funeral of John Sherman.70 General

Dick sent him an ad horrendum letter which emphasized the perils of a

• 10
 

JAMES R. GARFIELD                                               89

 

Democratic victory. He warned that the election of a Democrat could mean

the difference in organizing the congress, seriously hamper the adjustment

of problems arising out of the Spanish-American War, and cause the

disruption of business. "Would you," asked Dick, "care to bring want and

poverty to seventy million Americans?"71

The concern of Hanna and his henchmen proved unnecessary; Beidler

was elected by a wide margin and the Republican machine proved its supe-

riority over the elements that dared to challenge it.72

One day before the election, the Cleveland Plain Dealer predicted, not

inaccurately, that Garfield's attitude in the congressional fight would mean

the end of his political career in the twentieth congressional district. The

paper concluded that the Republicans would not forget his quiet rebellion.

If Garfield wanted to seek office, said the Plain Dealer, he would have to

look for more congenial political territory or purge himself of his apostasy.73

Garfield's failure to comply with the wishes of Hanna eliminated his last

hope of a possible political career in Ohio, for the time being. He had long

been on the wrong side of the Foraker element, and now the Hanna faction

found his insistence on "upright" politics unacceptable. Ohio was not the

type of state which would support an independent candidate in 1900, and

so Jim Garfield found himself in political limbo.

Although disgusted and lacking party influence, Garfield continued for

the next two years to work in the interest of municipal reform in Ohio.

He was a member of a committee of the Ohio Bar Association which

approved a municipal code bill in 1901, and in July of that year he made

the major address to the association, in which he called for an end to special

legislation. And when the municipal code bill came before the Ohio

legislature in 1902, he lobbied in its behalf. He even tried to get Hanna to

endorse the bill, but was informed by the Cleveland boss that it might be

detrimental to his street railway interests and that he therefore could not

support it until certain changes were made.74

While working on behalf of better municipal government in Ohio in

1902, Garfield received a request from President Theodore Roosevelt to

serve on the United States Civil Service Commission. He accepted it with

alacrity. In Washington he could work to achieve the type of reform in

which he was interested. Once in the national capital he became a devoted

follower and friend of President Roosevelt and soon played a significant

role in the Roosevelt administration as the first commissioner of corpora-

tions and later as secretary of the interior.

 

 

THE AUTHOR: Jack M. Thompson is

an assistant professor of history at the

University of Massachusetts.

• 11