JOSEPH B. FORAKER AND THE STANDARD OIL
CHARGES1
by EARL R. BECK
Instructor in History, Ohio State
University
In 1908 Joseph Benson Foraker, then
serving his second
term in the United States Senate, was
one of the outstanding
figures in politics in the nation.
Foraker had won national notice
for his aggressive, uncompromising fight
against the Hepburn
Rate Bill of 1906 and for his strident
attacks upon the executive
action of President Theodore. Roosevelt
which led to the discharge
without honor of a battalion of Negro
soldiers involved in a shoot-
ing affray at Brownsville, Texas. The
latter issue aroused the
personal ire of the President and he and
Foraker had met in a
heated discussion at the Gridiron Dinner
of 1907. To these diffi-
culties between the two men was shortly
to be added a further
cause for rancor, the opposition of
Roosevelt to Foraker's presi-
dential aspirations.
During Foraker's long career in politics
his pathway to a
presidential nomination by the
Republican Party was constantly
blocked by superior claims for
recognition upon the part of some
other Ohio statesman. Thus in 1884 and
1888 it was John Sher-
man who demanded the solid vote of the
Ohio delegation at the
Republican National Convention as a
guerdon for thirty years of
faithful service. In 1892, 1896, and
1900 William McKinley, Jr.,
came to the fore, receiving Ohio's vote
in 1892 in an effort to avert
the renomination of Benjamin Harrison
and in the two succeeding
campaigns as the result of a political
compromise with the Foraker
forces. In 1903 Mark Hanna was
considered the great man of
politics in the Buckeye State and
Foraker averted his possible
nomination for the 1904 campaign only
by springing to the staunch
1 This article is based largely upon
the author's unpublished doctoral dissertation,
written at the Ohio State University,
1942.
154
JOSEPH B.
FORAKER 155
defense of Theodore
Roosevelt. Now, in 1908, Sherman, Mc-
Kinley, and Hanna
were gone. Foraker
remained as the last of
the "old
guard." Twenty-five years of
faithful Republicanism
were behind him. It
seemed as if at last he might receive the
coveted honor of
recognition as "Ohio's favorite son." But once
again a Buckeye
competitor appeared to frustrate his
hopes and
to participate in his
ejection from public life in complete disgrace.
This new rival was
the favorite of the White House, William
Howard Taft.
Nevertheless,
Foraker's failure to obtain the presidential
nomination in 1908
is not to be laid entirely at the door of the
burly Secretary of
War. Foraker had left behind him a long
series of factional
conflicts with his fellow Republicans of the
Buckeye State. And in
the vital period preceding this last effort
to attain the highest
political distinction of the country, Foraker
added to his list of
opponents the names of Myron T. Herrick,
whose renomination to
the governorship he opposed in 1904;2
George B. Cox, who
had been won to Herrick by the Governor's
favorable attitude to
Cox's supporters, the liquor dealers of south-
ern Ohio;3 Theodore E. Burton, who coveted Foraker's seat in the
Senate;4 and Harry M.
Daugherty, who was vying with Foraker
for political
influence in the State.5 In addition the Scripps-
McRae newspapers and
the newspapers of R. F. Wolfe of Colum-
bus had developed a
settled antagonism to the Senator.6 And,
although Foraker was
to forge an alliance with the political ma-
chine of Junior
Senator Charles Dick, the strength of the opposi-
tion forces
eventually proved decisive.7
2 Discussion of the points at issue between Foraker
and Herrick are revealed in
letters of Foraker
to J. P. Bradbury of Pomeroy, Ohio,
February 24, 1904, to Thomas H.
Tracey of Toledo,
March 6, 1904, to W. S.
Cappeller of Mansfield, November 9, 1904.
Manuscript copies of all
letters are in the library of the Historical and Philosophical
Society, Cincinnati,
unless otherwise stated.
3 W. S.
Cappeller to Foraker, January 19, 1905; C. H. Grosvenor to Foraker,
May 21, 1905; Foraker to
John A. Sleicher, President of the Judge Company, August 29,
1905.
4 Foraker to C. H.
Grosvenor, September 6, 1906.
5 Ibid.
6 Foraker to
Clarence Brown of Toledo, January 5, 1907. Foraker to C. H.
Grosvenor,
September 6, 1906, to C. H. Galbreath, October 31, 1906. See also Foraker's
Notes of a Busy Life (Cincinnati, 1916), II, 380.
7 New York
Times, February 4, 1907.
This clipping and many of the others
cited may be found
conveniently by reference to the Scrapbook Collection which Mrs.
Julia B. Foraker, the wife
of the Senator, kept and which is owned by the Ohio State
Archaeological and
Historical Society, Columbus. There are 21 large volumes of clip-
pings from a wide variety
of newspapers and periodicals, the clippings reflecting adverse
as well as
favorable comment.
JOSEPH B. FORAKER 157
Foraker lost his best opportunity to
obtain Ohio's endorse-
ment of his candidacy when he failed to
seek that action at the
State Republican Convention in Dayton in
1906. Dick's political
machine controlled this assembly of the
party and Foraker could
have had the endorsement if he had
requested it.8. Foraker, how-
ever, chose to avoid the weakness of a
campaign launched so long
before the meeting of the National
Convention. But the follow-
ing year saw the entry of Taft into open
competition for the pres-
idential nomination, Taft's relatives
and President Roosevelt join-
ing to break down Taft's reluctance to
launch a candidacy for
the presidential office. Foraker's
announcement of his candidacy
followed a few days on the heels of
Taft's action and the stakes
were set by both candidates as "all
or nothing," with the Senator-
ship consituting a source of contention
along with the presidential
nomination.9
On his side Taft had many sources of
strength. His can-
didacy derived greatest prestige from
the full approval accorded it
by President Roosevelt. In January 1907
Representative Nich-
olas Longworth of Cincinnati declared
that the President would
not seek a third term, but that the
executive was determined that
his successor should not be a
"reactionary"--he must be a man
who could carry on the Roosevelt
policies.10 Taft's shrewd
brother, Charles, editor of the Cincinnati
Times-Star, lost no time
in taking advantage of the opening made
by Longworth. "This is
a direct contest," proclaimed the
editor, "between the friends of
the administration of President
Roosevelt and his opponents."11
Taft's effort to align himself with the
President were aided by
warnings from the White House of a
"rich man's conspiracy" to
prevent the continuance of Rooseveltism
with Foraker as a prom-
inent suspect.12 The
principal exhibit in regard to Foraker's anti-
8 See Foraker's interview in Cincinnati
Enquirer, August 27, 1906, republished in
Speeches of J. B. Foraker (n. t. p., Cincinnati?, 1917?), V, 11-24; Cincinnati
Enquirer,
September 12, 1906; Cincinnati
Commercial Tribune, September 13, 1906; Telegram of
J. B. Foraker, Jr., to Mrs. Foraker,
September 12, 1906; in Mrs. Foraker's Scrapbooks,
VI; Notes, II, 376-377.
9 Cincinnati
Commercial Tribune, March 26, 1907; Washington
Evening Star,
March 27, 1907; New York Herald, March
28, 1907.
10 Cincinnati Enquirer, January
26, 1907.
11 Cincinnati
Times-Star, March 30, 1907.
12 Anon., "A Review of the
World--Foraker's Fight Against Taft," in Current
Literature, XLII (May 1907), 469-471.
158
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
Rooseveltism was, of course, his fight
on the Hepburn Rate Bill,
to which measure Taft had shown
consistent favor.
Foraker's weapons against Taft were not
inconsiderable.
Roosevelt's advocacy of Taft's
nomination was denounced as
"Presidential Interference in Our
Ohio Politics" and portrayed
in one instance as designed to destroy
both Foraker and Taft so
that Roosevelt might launch a third term
candidacy.13 Foraker
continued to defend his position on the
Hepburn Rate Bill, assert-
ing that this act had weakened the
effect of the Elkins Law by
imposing imprisonment as a penalty for
violations, a punishment
which courts were reluctant to
prescribe. And the insertion of
the word "knowingly" with
respect to violations of the Hepburn
Law, stated the Senator, was an
emendation which would have
saved the Standard Oil Company the heavy
fine it had to pay
under the original Elkins Law.14 To this
justification of his own
action with respect to the Hepburn Bill
Foraker added a strong
assault upon Taft's tariff revision
views, knowing that protec-
tionist sentiment was still very strong
in Ohio in spite of the advent
of Rooseveltism.15 Moreover, Foraker had
available a reputation
as a fighter in politics, as a man of
courage. Under the caption,
"The Greatest Bulldog in American
Politics," one writer indi-
cated that during his entire career
Foraker "has always been 'the
man on horseback,' always militant,
always with red spurs, always
erect and martial and splashed with
mud."16 And last but not least
Foraker had at his disposal oratorical
powers of the highest order.
Had there been a regular state party
convention in 1907, Foraker
might well have swept the meeting as he
had the year before and
might have gone to the National
Convention with a large number
of Ohio votes. But it was at this time
that Ohio dispensed with
"off-year" elections for state
officials and hence there was no
state-wide convention in 1907. The only
state-wide party organ-
ization in existence during that year
was the State Central Com-
mittee, whose action was to spell defeat
to Foraker's hopes.
13 J. H. Woodward, "The
President in Ohio Politics," in Saxby's
Magazine,
XVIII (1907), 49-51; Marion
Daily Star, May 18, 1907, editorial
(W. G. Harding).
14 Cincinnati Commercial Tribune,
August 21, 1907.
15 American Economist, July 26, 1907;
Cincinnati Enquirer, August 2, 1907.
16 Anon.,
"The Greatest Bulldog in American Politics," in Current
Literature,
XLII (May 1907), 506-508; cf.
Samuel G. Blythe, "Taft and Foraker," in Saturday
Evening Post, May 11, 1907;
Anon., "Who's Who and Why," in
Saturday Evening Post,
February 16, 1907.
JOSEPH B. FORAKER 159
This State Central Committee had been
chosen by the Dayton
Convention of 1906 and consisted of 21 members, one
from each
congressional district. Its duties were
simply those of dealing with
routine party business until the call
for the next state convention.
There was, accordingly, believed
Foraker, no authority vested in
this committee to declare the party will
on presidential candidacies.
When the Senator learned, in July 1907,
that the committee pro-
posed to endorse Taft as Ohio's
candidate for the presidency, he
made public protest, but in vain. The
committee met and Taft
was endorsed. Strangely enough, however,
this position favor-
able to Taft was taken at the specific
behest of George B. Cox of
Cincinnati, who had been vigorously
denounced by Taft in 1905
as a political boss.17 The
probable explanation of Cox's favor for
Taft at this time lies in the boss's
recognition of editorial support
by the candidate's brother.18 In
any event the loss of Cox's sup-
port was a bitter and unexpected blow to
Foraker, for the Sen-
ator well knew the power of the
political combine which the munic-
ipal boss had constructed. Later,
Foraker was to declare that Taft
owed his nomination to Cox more than to
any other single individ-
ual, because by his efforts Taft was
given almost a solid Ohio
delegation at the Republican National
Convention.19
In spite of the endorsement of Taft by
the State Central
Committee Foraker remained in the race
for presidential nomina-
tion. He was endorsed in turn by the
Ohio Republican League
with Warren G. Harding as the
outstanding figure at the meeting.20
But the Foraker candidacy had been from
the beginning a rather
hopeless one, and the action of the
State Central Committee as-
sured his rejection in Ohio. Even
Harding deserted the Foraker
standard early in 1908 and recommended
the nomination, of
Taft.21 At the Republican National
Convention Foraker received
only four votes from Ohio and a total of
sixteen from the entire
country. There were some efforts upon
the part of Charles W.
Fairbanks, Philander C. Knox, Joseph G.
Cannon, and Foraker to
17 Foraker to C. B. McCoy, July
29, 1907, in Speeches, V, 504-510; Notes, II,
383-384.
18 Blythe, "Taft and Foraker," loc. cit.
19 Notes, II, 384.
20 Cincinnati Enquirer, November 21 and 30, 1907; proceedings in Speeches,
V,
584-596.
21 Notes, II, 393.
160 OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND
HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
unite to head off Taft's nomination, but
this was in vain.22 Taft
received 702 votes from a total
of 979 and was thereafter nom-
inated unanimously.
During the summer of 1908, following
Taft's nomination for
the presidency, Foraker continued to be
openly unenthusiastic
about his candidacy. The Republican
nominee deemed the Sena-
tor's lukewarmness a serious hindrance
to the progress of his cam-
paign. Finally in July Taft appealed to
Nelson W. Aldrich of
Rhode Island, conservative captain of
the party, to bring influence
upon Foraker to be more discreet in
opposing the Roosevelt poli-
cies, which Taft considered "our
whole stock of trade in this cam-
paign." Heeding the candidate's
plea, Aldrich wrote to Foraker
and entreated him to take an important
part in the campaign, leav-
ing the settlement of differences
between the President and himself
to the verdict of history.23 Subsequent
to this letter of Aldrich,
Foraker made several speeches in behalf
of Taft, appearing with
him in "love-feast" at Toledo
on September 2 and concluding
arrangements shortly thereafter to act
as chairman of a Taft meet-
ing at Music Hall in Cincinnati on
September 22 at which Taft
was to deliver the principal address.24
Although Taft assured
Roosevelt that no bargain had been made
with Foraker, he in-
formed another associate that Foraker's
aid might be valuable
with the Negro vote and the Grand Army
of the Republic ele-
ment.25 Undoubtedly Taft would have
allowed Foraker to fill the
engagement at Cincinnati if the Standard
Oil disclosures had not
intervened.
At this point, however, events took a
most unexpected turn.
Every assault upon Foraker before this
time had been directed
against his political convictions rather
than against his personal
integrity. On September 17, 1908, a frontal attack upon the
Senator's character as a public servant
was launched by one of the
most enigmatic personalities in American
history, William Ran-
22 ames E.
Watson, As I Knew Them (Indianapolis, c1936), 125.
23 Taft to Aldrich, July 12, 1908; Aldrich to Foraker,
August 21, 1908, cited by
Nathaniel Wright Stephenson, Nelson W.
Aldrich. A Leader in American Politics
(New York, 1930), 336.
24 Notes, II, 395; Anon., "The Love-Feast in Ohio," in Literary
Digest, XXXVII
(September 19, 1908), 376-377.
25 Taft to Roosevelt, September 4,
1908, to W. R. Nelson, September 4, 1908,
cited by Henry F. Pringle, The Life and Times of William Howard
Taft. A Biography
(New York, c1939), 1, 371.
JOSEPH B. FORAKER 161
dolph Hearst. Hearst's career had marked
the popularization of
yellow journalism to a degree which
shocked respectable citizens.
After defeating Pulitzer in the campaign
for sensational news
stories which preceded the
Spanish-American War, Hearst was
the recognized champion of the art of
exploiting public and private
scandal to boost newspaper circulation.
When mere editorializing
upon political affairs palled upon him,
Hearst entered the radical
wing of the Democratic Party and was
elected to Congress in
1902. While in Congress, Hearst was
candidate for Mayor of
New York City in 1905 and for Governor
of New York the
following year. By 1908 the New York
editor had repudiated
the regular political parties and placed
himself among the leader-
ship of a third party, the
"Independence League," dedicated to
political reform. Accordingly, it was
possible for Hearst, while
speaking for Thomas L. Higsen, the
presidential candidate of the
Independence League, to attack both
Democrats and Republicans
in his expose of the influence of the
Standard Oil upon politics
and to declare that both of the old
parties were hopelessly cor-
rupt and inextricably enmeshed in the
toils of self-aggrandizing
corporations.26 Hearst's
denunciations of the leaders of the old
parties rendered him worthy of the
appellative, "the last of the
Muckrakers," but in the Standard
Oil revelations as in other of
his efforts in the realm of exposure,
Hearst differed from the
reputable muckrakers in his substitution
of imagination and mere
assertion for documentary evidence and
tireless research.27
Hearst's first presentation of charges
against Foraker was in
full consonance with the style of
journalism which he had devel-
oped. To his Columbus auditors the New
York editor proclaimed
with dramatic effect his intention to
disclose astounding infor-
mation:
I am not here to amuse you and entertain
you with oratory, but I am
here to present to you as patriotic
American citizens some facts that should
startle and alarm you and arouse you to
a fitting sense of the genuine danger
that threatens our republic.
26 For a general account of Hearst's career see John K.
Winkler, W. R. Hearst,
An American Phenomenon (New York, 1928); Ferdinand Lundberg, Imperial Hearst, A
Social Biography (New York, c1936); Oliver Carlson and Ernest Bates, Hearst, Lord
of San Simeon (New York, 1936).
27 Carlson and Bates, op. cit., 164.
162
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
I am not here either with empty
assertions but with legal evidence
and documentary proof. I ask you to
rally to your country's needs, to
rescue your country from the greatest
danger that can threaten a republic-
the danger that is within the gates--the
corrupting power of unscrupulous
and criminal wealth.
I am now going to read copies of letters
written by Mr. John Arch-
bold, chief agent of the Standard Oil,
an intimate personal representative of
Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Rogers. These
letters have been given me by a
gentleman who has intimate association
with this giant of corruption, the
Standard Oil, but whose name I may not
divulge lest he be subjected to
the persecution of this monopoly.28
Hearst then proceeded to read six
letters addressed to Foraker
and signed "John D. Archbold."
Two of these epistles, dated
March 27 and April 17, 1900, referred to
monetary payments to
Foraker of $15,000 and $14,500
respectively. Two others, writ-
ten during February and March 1900,
pointed out objectionable
legislation against which Archbold
requested Foraker's influence,
the bills in question being later
identified as proposals advanced in
the Ohio General Assembly. The remaining
two items of cor-
respondence dealt with individuals. On
December 19, 1902, the
corporation vice-president had solicited
Foraker's support for the
candidacy of Judge Jacob Burket for
reelection to the Ohio Su-
preme Court and on March 20, 1903, had
requested the Senator's
opposition to the candidacy of Smith
Bennett for the Ohio attor-
ney generalship.29
The effect of these letters was dynamic.
The Columbus
audience did not applaud or cheer, but
remained quiet as if
stunned. The newspapers, however,
reacted more vigorously.
The sensation was emblazoned in the
headlines of the papers ap-
pearing the following morning, and
Hearst found a small army
of reporters awaiting him when he
arrived for his next evening's
engagement at St. Louis.30
The close time sequence between the
letters read by Hearst
which referred to monetary payments and
those which directed
attention to objectionable legislation
naturally created the impres-
28 Ibid., 166-167.
29 Ibid., 167.
30 Winkler, op. cit., 232.
JOSEPH B. FORAKER 163
sion that Foraker was paid by the
Standard Oil to watch over its
interests in politics. This impression
Foraker sought immediately
to offset by a statement hastily
prepared and given out to the
newspapers on the afternoon of the same
day on which had ap-
peared the reports of Hearst's Columbus
speech. Although he did
not recall the specific letters which
the New York editor had
read, stated Foraker, it was quite
probable that they were bona
fide, for he had been employed at the
time when they were written
in a legal capacity for the Standard Oil
corporation. It was not
at that time, he asserted, considered
discreditable to be an attorney
for such a corporation. He had not
sought to conceal his em-
ployment, for he was proud of the honor
accorded by a retainer
in such an important capacity. This
employment, continued For-
aker, had been concluded before the
expiration of his first term
in the Senate and had not been renewed
at any subsequent time.
Nor had he, the Senator stated, had any
employment which had
reference to matters pending in Congress
or in which the federal
government had any interest.31
Speaking at St. Louis the following
night, Hearst made fur-
ther revelations of Foraker's connection
with the Standard Oil
Company. The editor admitted that
Foraker's statement was "a
good answer" to the letters which
he had read previously, but
asserted that the Senator would have
denied the whole affair if
he had known the full extent of the
letters in Hearst's possession.
The orator for the Independence League
then read one letter from
Archbold to Foraker dated January 27, 1902, which
mentioned a
payment to the latter of $50,000 and
another, dated February 25
of the same year, which protested
against a "vicious" anti-trust
bill introduced in the Senate. The
juxtaposition of the two implied
a causal connection between the receipt
of the money and the
action against, undesirable
legislation, an implication reinforced
by Hearst's statement that Foraker's
defense failed to convince
him that the correspondence had nothing
to do with legislation
before the Senate.32
Again Foraker drafted a complete answer
to Hearst's allega-
31 Notes, II,
329.
32 Ibid., 329-330;
Cincinnati Enquirer, September 19, 1908.
164 OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL
QUARTERLY
tions and released it in time for
publication in the afternoon papers.
The payment of $50,000 mentioned in
Archbold's letter had not,
he asserted, been a payment to his
personal credit at all. On the
contrary, it had been a loan advanced
for the purchase of the
Ohio State Journal as a party organ. The proposed purchase of
the Journal had not been
consummated, and Foraker had returned
the entire sum to Archbold. As for the
message concerning legis-
lation before the Senate, this appeal
had not been connected with
any pecuniary payment of the corporation
and had only the status
of a letter written by any private
citizen. Neither the Standard
Oil nor any other corporation,
asseverated Foraker, had ever paid
him a cent on account of the attitude
which it wished him to take
in regard to any proposed legislation.33
Up to this point Foraker had furnished a
legitimate reason
for each payment of money made to him by
Standard Oil. Al-
though his remarks with regard to the
legislation referred to in
Archbold's letters were not completely
convincing, his defense
as a whole was sufficiently well
constructed and seemingly frank
and straightforward enough to have
caused impartial observers to
withhold judgment until Hearst had
completed his exposures and
Foraker had finished his replies. But
many of Foraker's contem-
poraries were unwilling to wait for
explanations or to examine
them carefully when they did appear.
Outstanding among those
who reached a conclusion by the time
Hearst made his second
speech was Theodore Roosevelt.
Roosevelt's verdict of
"guilty" was reached by the day fol-
lowing the appearance of reports of
Hearst's Columbus speech,
and the President lost no time in
confiding his judgment to his
friends. To the scholarly Massachusetts
Senator, Henry Cabot
Lodge, the President wrote, "Those
revelations about Foraker are
very ugly. They of course show, what
everyone on the inside
knew, that Foraker was not really
influenced in the least by any
feeling for the Negro, but that he acted
as the agent for the cor-
33 Notes, II, 331-332; Subcommittee of the
Committee on Privileges and Elections,
United States Senate, Sixty-Second
Congress, Campaign Contributions.
Testimony
. . . , 1312-1313 (Hereafter this document will be referred
to as Clapp Committee
Investigations in accordance with name
of the chairman of the committee, Moses E.
Clapp of Minnesota.)
JOSEPH B. FORAKER 165
porations."34 To Taft he declared
that the Hearst letters re-
vealed "the purchase of the United
States Senator to do the will
of the Standard Oil Company" and
averred that if he were run-
ning for President, he would decline to
appear upon the platform
with Foraker. "I would have it
understood in detail," Roosevelt
informed his favorite,
what is the exact fact, namely, that
Foraker's separation from you and
from me has been due not in the least to
a difference of opinion on the
Negro question, which was merely a
pretense, but to the fact that he was
the attorney of the corporations, their
hired representative in public life,
and that therefore he naturally and
inevitably opposed us in every way.
. . . I think it is essential, if the
bad effect upon the canvass of these dis-
closures is to be obviated, that we
should show unmistakably how com-
pletely loose from us Mr. Foraker is. If
this is not shown affirmatively
there is danger that the people will not
see it and will simply think that
all Republicans are tarred with the same
brush.35
In this hasty judgment by Roosevelt two
motives were dominant.
The President was a shrewd politician
and knew well how to
gauge the temper of public feeling. He
realized that the public
formed its convictions upon headlines,
that it would never pause
to read explanations or extenuations
once Foraker had admitted
the authenticity of the Hearst letters.
It was therefore essential
to free the party of the incubus of an
unpopular and discredited
leader. But it is impossible to avoid
the conviction that Roose-
velt pounced upon the Hearst charges as
a complete vindication
of his own actions in the Brownsville
affair. The President's
statement that Foraker's opposition in
the Brownsville matter had
been due to corporate affiliations did
not change one whit the
weight of the arguments advanced by the
Senator against Roose-
velt's action. It would, however, create
in the popular mind the
impression that Foraker's criticism had
been a matter trumped up
to discredit the President. Roosevelt
was anxious, therefore, to
make the most of the Hearst disclosures.
Taft's position was not so simple as
that of his political
mentor. Only two weeks before, he had
engaged in an exchange
34 Roosevelt to Lodge, September
19, 1908; Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot
Lodge, Selections from the
Correspondence of . . . , 1884-1918 (New York, 1925),
II, 316.
35 Roosevelt to Taft, September 19, 1908, cited by Mark Sullivan Our
Times.
The United States, 1900-1925 (New York, 1926-35), II, 224.
166
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
of reconciliation greetings with Foraker
and had announced that
he would make use of Foraker's
assistance in the campaign.
Moreover, a long debt of gratitude to
Foraker was charged up
against Taft. Foraker had appointed him
to his first public office
as judge on the Superior Court of
Cincinnati, had recommended
him to the Supreme Court in 1889, had
heartily approved McKin-
ley's proposal to make him Governor of
the Philippines, and had
defended him against senatorial attacks
upon his management of
affairs in the Islands. But that
gratitude obligated Taft to condone
corruption in public service no one
would contend. And on the
same day on which Roosevelt suggested
that Taft refuse to appear
with Foraker, the nominee replied that
he, too, was convinced that
the Senator had deviated from the course
of rectitude in office.36
Nevertheless it might be remarked that
Taft was very quick
to accept the statments of Hearst, whom
he had characterized in
1906
with such words as "dealer in filth," "hideous product of yel-
low journalism," and "immoral
monstrosity."37 Foraker believed
afterwards that Taft must have become
convinced of his innocence
or he could not have accorded his former
antagonist the respect
which he displayed towards him in later
years.38 In 1908, how-
ever, Taft was a presidential candidate
and his whole stock in
trade was opposition to the
corporations. He did not dare
take chances with public opinion. Accordingly on Septem-
ber 20 the Republican nominee
made it known to Murray Crane,
Foraker's manager during the contest for
the presidential nom-
ination; that it would be embarrassing
for him to appear on the
same platform with Foraker. The latter
immediately withdrew
from his scheduled engagement at Music
Hall in Cincinnati two
days later and cancelled other speaking
arrangements. If the
meeting at Cincinnati had been carried
out as scheduled, Foraker
was to have been allowed to speak last
in order to present a de-
fense of his career against the Hearst
charges.39
Taft's gentle method of eliminating
Foraker from the Cin-
cinnati engagement was not at all
satisfactory to Roosevelt. "He
36
Pringle, op. cit., I, 372.
37 Taft to Elihu Root,
November 10, 1906, in ibid., 319.
38 Notes, II, 348.
39 Cincinnati Enquirer, September 20, 1908.
JOSEPH B. FORAKER 167
ought to throw Foraker over with a
bump," declared the President.
"I have decided to put a little vim
into the campaign by making
a publication of my own."40 The
fruit of this decision was an
interview released from Oyster Bay, New
York, September 21.
Commenting on the Hearst letters,
Roosevelt declared:
Senator Foraker has been a leader among
those members of Con-
gress of both parties who have
resolutely opposed the great policies of
international [internal?] reform for
which the Administration has made
itself responsible. His attitude has
been that of certain other public men,
notably . . . Governor Haskell of
Oklahoma.
There is a striking difference in one
respect, however, in the present
positions of Governor Haskell and
Senator Foraker. Governor Haskell
stands high in the councils ofr [sic]
Mr. Bryan. . . . Senator Foraker
represents only the forces which, in
embittered fashion, fought the nomina-
tion of Mr. Taft, and which were
definitely deprived of power within the
Republican party when Mr. Taft was
nominated.
. . . The great and sinister moneyed
interests, which have shown such
hostility to the Administration and now
to Mr. Taft, have grown to oppose
the Administration on various matters
not connected with those which
mark the real point of difference.
For instance, the entire agitation over
Brownsville was, in large
part, not a genuine agitation on behalf
of the colored man at all, but merely
one phase of the effort by the
representatives of certain law-defying cor-
porations to bring discredit upon the
Administration because it was seeking
to cut out the evils connected, not only
with the corrupt use of wealth, but
especially with the corrupt alliance
between certain business men of large
fortunes and certain politicians of
great office. . . .
Mr. Taft has been nominated for the very
reason that he is the anti-
thesis of the forces that were
responsible for Mr. Foraker.
To bolster his statement that nominee
Taft had been consistently
opposed to Foraker as a matter of
political principle, the President
quoted a letter written by the candidate
during July 1907 to "a
friend in Ohio, prominent in Ohio
politics." In this communica-
tion Taft had repelled a suggestion of a
compromise with Foraker
by which Foraker would withdraw his own
presidential candidacy
and assist Taft to a nomination if Taft
would agree to support
Foraker's reelection to the Senate. Taft
had stated in the letter
that his refusal was due to the fact
that Foraker had "opposed
40 Pringle, op. cit., I,
372.
168
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
the vital policies and principles of the
Administration" and had
employed "without scruple, a blind
race prejudice to accomplish
his main purpose."41
Roosevelt's obloquy of Foraker was
received in many quar-
ters as interference in a task which
Taft himself should have
assumed. As the President's aide
explained, "Mr. Roosevelt gets
the credit of 'butting in,' but the fact
is that Mr. Taft made the
appeal to Mr. Roosevelt to help his
cause. Mr. Taft did not want
the odium of expelling Foraker from the
Republican ranks and
nothing would give the President more
pleasure."42 Taft's only
commentary upon Roosevelt's interview
was the statement that he
could not indulge in abuse of Foraker
because "I will not strike a
man when he is down."43
But Foraker was not yet ready to admit
that he was "down."
In an extended statement on September
26, which resembled a
legal brief for a complicated case in
court, the Senator complained
that Roosevelt had accepted Hearst's
charges as fully proved as
soon as made without waiting for an
explanation or accepting the
explanation when offered. Foraker
followed this charge of hasty
judgment upon the part of Roosevelt with
a detailed explanation
of every letter read by Hearst up to
that time, emphasizing that
he had received money only for legal
services concluded before
1901 and for the purchase of the Journal.,
As for Archbold's
letters in regard to bills in the Ohio
legislature, Foraker submitted
a statement by the author of these bills
denying that Foraker had
communicated with him in regard to them
and asserting that he
had withdrawn his proposals from
consideration at the behest of
Governor Nash. The letter in regard to
the Jones Bill, which
Hearst had used to show Standard Oil
influence on Foraker's ac-
tion in the Senate, was revealed by its
very language, declared
Foraker, to be an appeal and not an
order to oppose the bill
and had no status above that of other
letters written by private
citizens to express their convictions
upon pending legislation. And
certainly, felt the Senator, if the
Standard Oil were guiding his
41 Cincinnati Enquirer, September
22, 1908.
42 Archie Butt to his mother, September 25, 1908, in Cincinnati
Enquirer, Janu-
ary 20, 1924.
43 Julia Bundy Foraker, I Would Live
It Again (New York, 1932), 311.
JOSEPH B. FORAKER l69
legislative action, the company would
have regarded very unkindly
his efforts to secure the enactment of
the Elkins Law, under the
provisions of which it was later
assessed a heavy fine. Finally,
said Foraker, "Notwithstanding what
the President says . . .
that I was the representative and
champion and defender of corpo-
rations in the Senate, there is not a
word of truth in any such
statement, whether made by him or
anybody else."44 Thus For-
aker consigned Roosevelt to a prominent
niche in the President's
own "Ananias Club."
In several meetings held after the above
exchange of sallies
by Foraker, Roosevelt, and Taft, Hearst
read further letters from
Archbold to the Senator. None of these
added new information
regarding the matter beyond a more
complete indication of the
total sum paid the Senator. And Foraker,
upon his part, con-
tinued to issue detailed explanations
and defenses, all of them
calculated to show that he had received
money only for legitimate
services rendered as attorney and none
as legislator. In spite of
the bulk of the material issued by the
opposing camps, journal-
istic opinion was rendered upon the
basis of only partial evidence,
for the full story of the Standard Oil
letters did not become
public property until four years later.
Editorial opinion for the most part was
one of strong
censure restrained only by a realization
that Foraker's activities
in behalf of Standard Oil were not
dissimilar from those of other
public servants. Thus the World's
Work declared, "There has
never been any code of ethics,
commercial or political, approved
by American public sentiment, which
excused a man who sat as a
Senator of the United States while he
received money from any
client who wrote him to 'look after'
proposed legislation, either
State or National, however vicious the
proposed legislation may
have been."45 And the
liberal New York Nation agreed, re-
marking:
Senator Foraker's long statement helps
him but little. No one has
supposed that he vulgarly took
bribes--$14,500 for this vote and $15,000
44 Cincinnati Enquirer, September 26, 1908.
45 Editor, "The Archbold-Foraker Letters," in World's Work, XVII
(November
1908), 10851-10853.
170
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
for that. But he is an old enough hand
in politics, State and national, to
know exactly what the Standard Oil
Company is and what he has been
doing in the galley with it. . . .
Moreover, the letters of Mr. Archbold show
that the Standard Oil was desirous of
securing Mr. Foraker's backing or
opposition, as the case might be, for
certain measures and policies. It was
therefore grossly improper for him to
accept retainers from the Standard
Oil and to borrow $50,000 from it.46
More friendly and perhaps sounder
judgments were rendered
by several other journals. Thus the Washington
Herald summed
up the case against Foraker in such a
way as to condone while it
condemned him:
That he erred in entering the service of
the Standard Oil Company in
his state while a United States Senator,
and doubly erred in failing to be-
come an attorney of record, once he took
such employment, none will attempt
to gainsay. And that he erred later, and
still more grievously, in interesting
himself in the rehabilitation of a party
newspaper through the use of
Standard Oil money, is all too plain to
leave room for argument. But
Senators great as Foraker fixed the ethics
guiding him in his law practice,
and party men without number, no less
distinguished than he, the country
over, have not hesitated to put
corporation money into party organs for
political ends. . . .
Foraker is still fortunately able to
offer acceptable documentary proof
that he did not serve the Standard Oil
Company at Washington in his capac-
ity as United States Senator. The charge
against him to the contrary, in
the face of the evidence, falls to the
ground.
Pilloried as he has been, Foraker yet
impresses us as quite as good as
the party that repudiates him. And
generally speaking, we think he has
kept quite as good company.47
Likewise the New York Times averred, "There is no
evidence
whatever that in his course in respect
to Administration meas-
ures he has followed any other guide
than that of his con-
science and his convictions of what the
public welfare demands."
But the Times, too, agreed that
the Standard Oil had no business
to retain a Senator as its attorney and
that the Senator had no
business to accept such employ.48 The Saturday
Evening Post,
while accepting Foraker's statement that
he was paid no money
46 Editor, "The Week," in Nation, LXXXVII (October 1, 1908), 301.
47 September 26, 1908.
48 September 26, 1908.
JOSEPH B. FORAKER 171
for the purpose of influencing
legislation, pictured him as "the
Corporation's Nursemaid."
"Interests of which the Standard Oil
Company is typical," pointed out
the Post, "need not bother to
influence legislation. It is sufficient
for their purposes to in-
fluence legislators merely. That a
Senator with a pocketfull of
corporation money must have a high sense
of the corporation's
utility seems quite obvious."49
Some of Foraker's long established
friends of the newspaper
world found nothing reprehensible in his
activities. The New
York Sun proclaimed Foraker fully vindicated and justified and
recommended his return to the Senate.50
The Dayton Journal, the
Sandusky Register, and the Toledo Times, Ohio papers always
staunch supporters of the Senator, now
demanded his vindication.51
This persistence of strong sympathy and
support even after the
crushing blow of the Hearst revelations,
and the Roosevelt and
Taft repudiations was a remarkable
phenomenon.
Back to the Foraker fold at this time
came also one lost sheep.
Warren Gamaliel Harding, whose life was
to end in tragedy be-
cause he loved his friends well but not
wisely, wrote to express his
unshaken faith in the old Senator.
"If you are a candidate to
succeed yourself," stated the
Marion editor, "any influence I may
have will be gladly exerted in your
behalf. My faith in your
honesty and integrity have never been
impaired in the slightest de-
gree, and my reverence for your ability
is abiding."52
By the time he received this helpful
message from Harding,
Foraker had determined to seek
reelection to the Senate. To the
Marion editor Foraker wrote that the
Hearst charges left him no
other choice. In the pending contest the
Senator anticipated great-
est competition from the candidacy of
Charles P. Taft, the Presi-
dent-elect's half-brother, who had so
effectively managed the Taft
campaign in Ohio.53 It did
appear for some time that the Tafts
might place another member of the family
in the public service.
The President-elect had consistently
refused during the campaign
49 October 31, 1908.
50 November 20, 1908.
51 See clippings in Mrs. Foraker's Scrapbooks, IX.
52 November 6, 1908.
53 Foraker to Harding, November 7,
1908.
172
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
to compromise with Foraker and had
hinted that he would oppose
Foraker's efforts to retain his seat.54
Late in December adminis-
tration influence was thrown against
Foraker as Charles P. Taft
emblazoned the front page of the Times-Star
with the headlines,
"Roosevelt Believes to Support
Foraker is Party Treason." The
story accompanying this caption stated
that Taft would exert his
influence to prevent the reelection of
Foraker.55 It is well known,
however, that William Howard was not so
pleased with his
brother's senatorial candidacy.
Eventually Charles P. Taft, facing
certain defeat by Burton, retired from
the race before the vote was
rendered by the assembly. Foraker also,
seeing the impossibility
of gaining reelection, withdrew his
candidacy. Theodore E. Bur-
ton of Cleveland was chosen to fill his
seat in the Senate and
served there until 1914.56
Thus in the short space of five months
Foraker had been
converted from a feared and potent
insurgent chieftain of the Re-
publican Party to a despised and
proscribed ex-Senator whose in-
fluence was quite negligible. The manner by which this trans-
formation was accomplished remained a
natter for comment in
the years following Foraker's enforced
retirement. The outstand-
ing questions for speculation were,
"Where and how did Hearst
obtain the letters which he read?"
and "Are there more?" Dur-
ing the year 1912 Hearst made a
complete summation of the
"Lesson of the Standard Oil
Letters" in his magazine, including
the majority of the letters in his
possession.57 Partially due to this
resurrection of the Standard Oil affair,
which touched upon the
public careers of many politicians
besides Foraker, and partially
because of more general comments on
corporate contributions to
party treasuries in the presidential
campaigns'of 1904, 1908, and
1912, the Senate of the Sixty-Second
Congress set up a subcom-
mittee of its Committee on Privileges
and Elections to hear testi-
mony relating to the financing of those
campaigns. This subcom-
mittee, under the chairmanship of Moses
E. Clapp of Minnesota,
54 Roosevelt to H. C. Lodge, June 27,
1907, Roosevelt and Lodge, op. cit., II,
272; Pringle, op. cit., I, 322.
55 December 30, 1908.
56 Notes, II,
351-352.
57 William Randolph Hearst, "The Lesson of
the Standard Oil Letters," in
Hearst's Magazine, XXI (May 1912), 2204-2204c.; Anon. ("J. E."),
"The History of
the Standard Oil Letters," in Hearst's
Magazine, XXI (May 1912), 2204d-2216.
JOSEPH B. FORAKER 173
sat from June 14, 1912, to February
25, 1913, taking 1,596 pages
of testimony. Of this total about 300
pages dealt with the Hearst
disclosures and provided a much better
background for these
revelations than had existedin 1908.58
When Hearst declared in his speech at
Columbus on Septem-
ber 17, 1908, that the letters he
proposed to read had been handed
to him only that afternoon, he was not
telling the whole truth.
The Standard Oil correspondence had been
delivered to the Hearst-
owned New York American by
December 1904, probably with
Hearst's knowledge. Although the letters
may have been brought
to Hearst at the time of the Columbus
speech by John Eddy,
former managing editor of his New York paper,
as Hearst
claimed, the speaker had been prepared
in advance for their re-
ception. Thus Hearst had withheld for
over three years the pub-
lication of the letters which disclosed
"the genuine danger that
threatens our republic."59
The letters had been obtained by the
Hearst interests in the
following manner. Late in 1904 two
employees of John D. Arch-
bold, vice-president of the Standard Oil
Company, conceived a
scheme for making some "easy
money." One of these, William
W. Winfield, was the file clerk,
messenger, and door tender for
Archbold. The other, named Charles
Stump, was a clerk. It was
Willie Winfield who was the instigator
of the plot. The stepson
of Archbold's aged and trusted butler,
Willie had a desire to
gamble and indulge his natural talent
for the social graces. So it
was decided that the two of them should
remain after the other
employees had left, abstract interesting
letters from the files, and
sell them to the highest bidder.
Eventually a third man was
brought in as agent, disposing of the
letters in batches to various
editors of Hearst's New York
American, the first of those receiv-
ing letters being John Eddy, who brought
them to Hearst on the
day he spoke in Columbus. Each of the
batches of letters was
taken by the agent to the editorial
offices of the New York Ameri-
can, photographed during the night, paid for according to
the
value of their contents and returned the
next morning to the
58 Clapp Committee Investigations.
59 Hearst
testimony, Clapp Comm. Invest., 1253, 1261; Wm. W. Winfield's
statement, ibid., 1395.
174
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
Standard Oil offices. In all the two
received about eight or nine
thousand dollars (possibly more)
fortheir perfidy. All this, of
course, tends to lessen the impression
that Hearst was a super-
patriot in making his disclosures, but
does not influence in the
slightest the judgment which should be
placed upon Foraker's
relationship to the Standard Oil
Company.60
During the course of the Clapp Committee
investigations
Hearst made public all the letters which
he had in his possession
concerning the Standard Oil Company and
its affairs. Likewise
at this time Foraker made his last
public statement (aside from
his biography) in vindication of his
personal integrity. It is,
therefore, possible upon the basis of a
careful examination of this
testimony and collateral evidence to
render a reasonably fair judg-
ment concerning Foraker's rectitude with
respect to his employ-
ment by that great and powerful
corporation.
Five different aspects of the
Foraker-Archbold letters are
of moment in considering the Senator's
activities: his legal services
for the company, the purchase of the Ohio
State Journal, his in-
fluence upon Ohio legislation, his aid
or opposition to the careers
of Ohio politicians, and his reaction to
suggestions concerning
legislation pending in the United States
Senate.
The Standard Oil letters read by Hearst
reveal that during
the single year of 1900 Foraker received
the sum of $44,500 paid
without the specific statement that the
money was compensation
for legal services.61 Nevertheless
Foraker did produce convincing
proof that he rendered the Standard Oil
legal services between
December 1898 and the late months of
1900. Moreover the Sena-
tor presented evidence effectively
confirming his statements that
he had devoted a great deal of time in
regard to the anti-trust
procedings against the Standard Oil in
Ohio, that the prosecution
realized his position as attorney for
the trust, and that the difficult
task of preparing complicated briefs for
a case involving such vast
sums of money warranted a heavy fee.62
The solution of the case
by reorganization of the company under
New Jersey laws was a
60 Ibid., 1303-1304, 1341-1344, 1395, 1419, 1445, 1492, 1522;
Carlson and
Bates, op. cit., 165-166.
61 Anon., "The History of the
Standard Oil Letters," loc. cit., 2207-2208.
62 Clapp Comm. Invest., 1324-1334.
JOSEPH B. FORAKER 175
decision which allowed the Standard Oil
to continue a very aggres-
sive aggrandizement of its interests
until later checked by federal
legislation. Thus, while $44,500 might
represent a very generous
fee for Foraker's activities, the
impartial observer is inclined to
find the legal services rendered
sufficient explanation of the size
of the fee. This conclusion, however,
while removing implications
of direct bribery, does not avoid the
criticism that it was improper
for Foraker to accept employment by such
an aggressive busi-
ness corporation as the Standard while
he was in the Senate.
The fact that other public officials had
followed a similar course
cannot but leave the impression that the
public condemnation of
such action at the time of Foraker's
exodus from the Senate repre-
sented considerable progress in the
enlightening of public opinion.
Similarly an examination of all the
evidence with respect to
the $50,000 draft given to Foraker in 1902 brings a
conviction
that he spoke the exact truth in his
explanation that this sum was
a loan advanced to purchase the Ohio
State Journal and that the
money was returned when the projected
purchase could not be
carried out.63 But again,
accepting Foraker's explanation, it re-
mains to be deprecated that a public
official would place corpora-
tion money in a large newspaper for the
purpose of controlling its
editorial policy.
The various letters from Archbold to
Foraker concerning
Ohio legislation constitute the most
damaging evidence against the
Senator. The evidence discloses that
during February and March
1900, while Foraker was employed as attorney for the
Standard
Oil, he received three different letters
from Archbold requesting
him to exert his influence against
"objectionable bills" before the
Ohio Assembly. The first payments of
$15,000 and $14,500 fol-
lowed closely upon the heels of these
letters. Whether Archbold
considered the money as payment for
legal services alone cannot
be stated with certainty. But there is
no doubt that the corpora-
tion executive believed that Foraker was
"looking after" the legis-
lation concerned. Foraker upon his part denied that he had
exerted any influence with regard to the
legislation to which Arch-
63 Ibid., 1293-1294, 1316-1317; Letter of Charles L. Kurtz to
Foraker, July 29,
1901, refers to purchase of Journal by
"Mr. Rodgers."
176 OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
bold referred and displayed in proof a
letter from one M. W.
Hissey, who had acted as legislative
agent for Senator Hanna.
Hissey related that he had been
"watching" legislation for Hanna
during 1900, and that the bills in
question had been withdrawn
by direction of Governor Nash after
consultation with Hanna
and Foraker. This statement was
confirmed by the authors of the
bills who reported that Foraker had
brought no influence upon
them to secure the withdrawal of their
measures.64 It is certain,
however, that during 1902 Foraker
concerned himself with a
"curative" measure in the Ohio
General Assembly to benefit the
Cincinnati Traction Company and one
suspects that he may have
carried out Archbold's request by
indirect means and "seen to
it" that these bills were not
passed at this time. Although not
legally contradictory to his obligations
as a Senator, such action
was surely not in accord with the
highest ideals of public service.
Also dealing with Ohio politics were the
letters of Archbold
late in 1902 and early in 1903 requesting
Foraker's influence in
behalf of Judge Burket, a candidate for
relection to the State
Supreme Court, and in opposition to the
candidacy for the attor-
ney-generalship of Smith Bennett, who
had been instrumental in
the suit against Standard Oil in Ohio.
With regard to these letters
the only possible comment is to repeat
Foraker's explanation that
Archbold's letters did not determine his
attitude. He had sup-
ported Judge Burket because he had known
the justice for many
years and believed him a capable man. He
had gone contrary to
Archbold's request and favored the
candidacy of Smith Bennett.65
It should also be noted that, with the
full explanation of the Journal
loan, no indication of a money payment
within two years of these
matters can be found.
The final aspect of the Standard Oil
letters is that which con-
cerns Foraker's public service. On
February 25, 1902, the vice-
president of the petroleum corporation
wrote Foraker a letter
opposing an anti-trust bill introduced
by Senator Jones of Ar-
kansas. Hearst asserted that this letter
constituted a "direction"
to Foraker to oppose the bill. Foraker,
to the contrary, declared
64 Clapp Comm. Invest., 1280-1281, 1284-1285, 1318-1320,
1339-1340.
65 Ibid., 1279.
JOSEPH B. FORAKER 177
that the letter had only the status of
an appeal of any private citi-
zen and denied all recollection of
having received it, indicating
that he had not conceived it of much
moment at that time. In-
ternal evidence supports the Senator's
position. Archbold began
his letter with the words, "I
venture to write you," and after com-
plaining, "It really seems as
though this bill is very unnecessarily
severe and even vicious,"
continued, "I hope you will feel so about
it and I will be greatly pleased to have
a word from you on the
subject."66 Although, of course,
this tone might be adopted in
dealing with such a dignified and
self-esteeming correspondent,
the letter does not, on the face of it,
convict Foraker of being a
paid agent of the corporation.
Finally there is no indication in the
letters read by Hearst to
contradict Foraker's statement that he
received no money except
for legal services and that these
services were completed before
1901. Nor can it be denied that Foraker helped to frame the
Elkins Law under which the Standard Oil
paid a heavy fine. Yet
Foraker was, without doubt, a friend and
defender of the corpora-
tions. This fact was not a secret.
Cincinnatians had long been
aware of his legal relationship to the
municipal traction company
and Ohioans generally had been informed
of his services as
attorney for a number of railroads. It
was widely known that he
continued his legal activities for
important clients while in the
Senate. Probably the public was shocked
from its apathy in
regard to Foraker's corporate
relationship by the Hearst campaign
addresses, which linked corruption also
to his career. When proof
of his personal integrity had been
offered and generally accepted,
there still remained a shocked awareness
of the Senator's greater
concern with the wishes of the world of
business than with the
desires of the man on the street.
Regardless of the justice of the Hearst
charges, they were
chiefly responsible for the conclusion
of Foraker's public career on
March 3, 1909. The Senator retired a man
of 63, resentful of the
injustice done him by the members of his
own party and desirous
of expunging the mark of infamy which
had been set upon his
public career. As a consequence, he
again sought office before his
66 Ibid., 1286, 1288-1289, 1292-1293.
178 OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
death, believing that the favorable vote
of the people would be an
indication that they considered his
defense convincing. This vin-
dication, however, was denied him, and
he sought it through
another means, the writing of an
exculpatory autobiography. An
interesting result of the publication of
this work was that his old
adversary, Theodore Roosevelt, wrote him
to laud his "absolute
Americanism" and to say,
"There is no use in raking up the past
now, but there were some things told me
against you, or in refer-
ence to you, which (when I consider what
I know now of my
informants) would have carried no weight
with me at the time
had I been as well informed as at
present."67 Whether Roosevelt
had reference in this statement to the
Standard Oil matter is open
to question, but there was, at least,
consolation in the tribute. But
in spite of his heartfelt efforts to
destroy the shadow of scandal
which lay over his career, Foraker's
name was not freed of the
stigma of the charges brought against
him and his political career
has suffered an obfuscation seldom
equalled in American history.
67 Roosevelt to Foraker, June
28, 1916, pub. in New York Herald, February 4,
1924, in New York Times, February
10, 1926, in Cincinnati Commercial Tribune,
January 7, 1927.
JOSEPH B. FORAKER AND THE STANDARD OIL
CHARGES1
by EARL R. BECK
Instructor in History, Ohio State
University
In 1908 Joseph Benson Foraker, then
serving his second
term in the United States Senate, was
one of the outstanding
figures in politics in the nation.
Foraker had won national notice
for his aggressive, uncompromising fight
against the Hepburn
Rate Bill of 1906 and for his strident
attacks upon the executive
action of President Theodore. Roosevelt
which led to the discharge
without honor of a battalion of Negro
soldiers involved in a shoot-
ing affray at Brownsville, Texas. The
latter issue aroused the
personal ire of the President and he and
Foraker had met in a
heated discussion at the Gridiron Dinner
of 1907. To these diffi-
culties between the two men was shortly
to be added a further
cause for rancor, the opposition of
Roosevelt to Foraker's presi-
dential aspirations.
During Foraker's long career in politics
his pathway to a
presidential nomination by the
Republican Party was constantly
blocked by superior claims for
recognition upon the part of some
other Ohio statesman. Thus in 1884 and
1888 it was John Sher-
man who demanded the solid vote of the
Ohio delegation at the
Republican National Convention as a
guerdon for thirty years of
faithful service. In 1892, 1896, and
1900 William McKinley, Jr.,
came to the fore, receiving Ohio's vote
in 1892 in an effort to avert
the renomination of Benjamin Harrison
and in the two succeeding
campaigns as the result of a political
compromise with the Foraker
forces. In 1903 Mark Hanna was
considered the great man of
politics in the Buckeye State and
Foraker averted his possible
nomination for the 1904 campaign only
by springing to the staunch
1 This article is based largely upon
the author's unpublished doctoral dissertation,
written at the Ohio State University,
1942.
154