GERALD W. WOLFF
Mark Hanna's Goal:
American Harmony
'A man who won't meet his men half-way
is a G_ d__ fool!' declared Mark Hanna
one day in 1894. He was referring to the
Pullman strike and the fact that troops
had been sent to end it. That terse,
profane comment tells a great deal about
Hanna. He was, above all else, a
pragmatist with a canny ability to successfully
adjust to changing conditions. Twenty
years previously, when his coal mines were
struck, troops had been brought in--with
disastrous consequences. He had learned
much from this experience. Thereafter he
tried diligently to show by example how
relations between labor, capital, and
management could be ordered for the bene-
fit of all. The one solid absolute in
his life was a profound belief in the living
standard capitalism had brought to
America. To preserve that way of life, he fol-
lowed what he considered to be the most
effective method of achieving his goal.
Important priorities included
conservative labor unions, cooperative capitalists, a
sympathetic public and government, and
loyal anti-Communist European immigrant
laborers--all working together to
maintain an "essential harmony between the inter-
ests of business and the whole
community."1
This general point of view, envisioning
American society as an integrated,
mutually beneficial, harmonious whole,
was not unique with Hanna. It was shared
also by many large conservative business
interests in the late 1880's and through
the progressive era, though in modified
forms. Several factors account for this
support by big business. One is that,
despite the continued growth in the size of
industries, ruinous competition in the
business world was threatening to weaken
the economic base of the country. From
about 1897 to 1901, many corporations
attempted to combat such competition
voluntarily through the merger movement.
Even though this method did not prove
successful in achieving its purposes, many
businessmen and financial interests
continued to seek a "stable," "predictable,"
and "rationalized" economy.
Another challenge that the large industrialists had
to face came from the demands made by
the growing number of labor unions.
Also, radical doctrines such as
Socialism seemed to appeal especially to immigrant
workers and could prove to be a threat
both to an economy based on capitalism
1. Quoted in Thomas Beer, Hanna (New
York, 1929), 133; Herbert Croly, Marcus Alonzo Hanna:
His Life and Work (New York, 1912), 115.
Mr. Wolff is assistant professor of
history at The University of South Dakota.
|
as well as to the basic principles of capitalism.2 How then were such problems to be met and overcome by the pro-capitalists? One method involved the commitment of many corporate business interests to the continued growth of the trusts. Central to the rationale supporting the trusts was the gospel of efficiency for industry with resultant benefits for society. Trusts, it was argued, would make the economy more efficient by reducing wasteful and destructive competition and would therefore help stabilize the economy, eliminat- ing ruinous inflation or deflation. The Federal Government could also play a sig- nificant part in the stabilization process. Historian Gabriel Kolko has contended that key conservative businessmen were mainly the ones responsible for giving direction, content, and form to the many Federal laws that attempted to regulate business during the progressive period. As we shall see, Hanna was one of these men who saw government as an ally in his effort to establish American harmony, 2. Gabriel Kolko, The Triumph of Conservatism: A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900-1916 (New York, 1963), 3, 4, 17-25; James Weinstein, The Corporate Ideal in the Liberal State (Boston, 1968), x, 3, 4; Robert H. Wiebe, Businessmen and Reform: A Study of the Progressive Movement (Cambridge, 1962), 161-165, 182. |
140 OHIO
HISTORY
and his conservatism was conditioned by
his big business interests.3
Lastly, many conservative businessmen
promoted and joined organizations dedi-
cated to fostering their economic and
social ideal. Before World War I the National
Civic Federation was the most important
of these groups. It dealt with a large num-
ber of political and economic problems
and questions related to the promotion of
a rationalized American system.
Corporate businessmen dominated the organiza-
tion. However, the NCF also included in
its leadership corps representatives from
trade unions, such as Samuel Gompers,
and a broadly defined "public" which en-
compassed several important groups. The
major goals of the NCF were: the defense
of the free enterprise system, the
promotion of general harmony among all classes,
and the conciliation of specific
disputes through cooperation and meaningful dis-
cussion among key leaders of major
interests.4
Not all business interests favored this
emphasis upon cooperation. In general,
there was a division between leaders of
the larger corporations and those repre-
senting smaller merchants and
manufacturers. The latter tended to view American
society and its problems in much
narrower terms than did the magnates and formed
their own merchant association,
including the National Association of Manufactur-
ers. The NAM for much of the progressive
period opposed labor unions, shunned
cooperative capitalism, and continued to
espouse the older principles of laissez faire
capitalism.5
The NCF, on the other hand, with Hanna
as one of its early leaders, opposed
these "anarchist" businessmen,
as well as Socialists, radicals, and reformers among
the middle class and laborers.6 Mark
Hanna was not only an important part of the
NCF but also of the whole moderately
conservative outlook and movement just
described. Although he rejected parts of
that movement, enlarged upon others, and
added some variations and innovations of
his own, he was in many ways typical
of it. The importance of his
involvement, moreover, was enhanced greatly because
of his economic and political power and
influence and because of his persistence
and dedication to the cause.
Hanna's early championship of organized
labor continued throughout his later
career and was directly related to his
goal of achieving harmonious management-
labor relations. In a speech to the
Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin
Workers in Columbus in 1903 he
completely rejected the assertion of David Parry,
president of the National Association of
Manufacturers, who claimed "organized
labor knows but one law, and that is the
law of physical force." Instead, Hanna
lamented the "overt acts" by
irresponsible parties but praised "the advancement
that has been made in the settlement of
disputes in bringing closer together the
employer and employee." The Senator
believed that it was virtually impossible for
an individual laborer to go to his
employer with a complaint and command much
respect or attention. He reminded
businessmen that organized labor was an older
creation than organized business and
that workers' desire to join for protection and
advancement should be no more shocking than
the efforts of businessmen to orga-
3. Kolko, Triumph of Conservatism, 3-7,
12-13, 65-66; Weinstein, Corporate Ideal, xiv; Samuel Haber,
Efficiency and Uplift: Scientific
Management in the Progressive Era, 1890-1920 (Chicago, 1964), ix-xii;
Wiebe, Businessmen and Reform, 18.
4. Weinstein, Corporate Ideal, xv,
4, 5; Wiebe, Businessmen and Reform, 5, 18-20, 41, 118; Foster
Rhea Dulles, Labor in America: A
History (New York, 1949), 186-187.
5. Wiebe, Businessmen and Reform, 4-5;
Ralph M. Easley, "The Work of the National Civic Fed-
eration," Harper's Weekly, November
26, 1904, p. 1805.
6. Weinstein, Corporate Ideal, 7;
Dulles, Labor in America, 186.
Mark Hanna
141
nize capital. American prosperity
depended upon both the laborer and the entre-
preneur, who were ". . . partners
in toil who ought to be partners also in the profits
of that toil." This sharing of
profits could be achieved best through "organized union
labor Americanized in the best sense and
thoroughly educated to an understanding
of its responsibilities, and in this way
to make it the ally of the capitalist, rather
than a foe with which to grapple."7
Many of the most obnoxious
characteristics of labor organizations, such as hos-
tility to capital, Hanna believed had
been imported from Europe and would soon
disappear because they were so alien to
American life. Unlike those of Europe,
American unions would "prove a boom
to our country, when a proper basis of con-
fidence and respect is
established." That spirit of respect and confidence was becom-
ing an increasing reality, in part, he
said, because of the conservative attitudes that
were developing within most unions as
the years passed. Not simply labor leaders,
but the workers themselves were
contributing much to the growth of a calm and
cooperative relationship with capital
and were not likely to be led away from the
"straight road by hot-headed
members."8
To help insure the continuation of this
trend of mutual cooperation, the mid-
western millionaire attempted to
convince his fellow industrialists that there were
benefits for businessmen in labor
organizations. When labor's interests were placed
in the hands of a few able leaders,
capitalists could communicate more easily with
their workers and so avoid unnecessary
and perhaps costly disputes. At the same
time, he admonished unions to choose
representatives who understood both sides of
labor-capital problems and ones who
would not lead workers into strikes just for
the sake of a fight. While speaking
before the iron, steel and tin workers, Hanna
said that in his own industrial affairs
he considered the best lawyer the one who
could keep him out of court and the best
leaders of labor organizations those who
could keep workers out of all avoidable
difficulties. To obtain recognition, unions
should elevate their cause to such a
level of dignity that it would be impossible for
any reasonable man not to consider their
demands and requests. "Let it be under-
stood," he said, "that there
is just as much intelligence and integrity of purpose in
the minds and hearts of laboring men as
any other class and you will get recogni-
tion." Consistent with these views,
the rugged entrepreneur opposed union partici-
pation in both the boycott and the
sympathy strike. As a condition of recognition,
workers organizations should abandon all
such hostile actions; but, at the same
time, Hanna opposed those persons who
sought the incorporation of labor organiza-
tions as a means of making unions
legally more responsible for their actions. He
implied that the bargaining position of
unions might be seriously limited by incor-
poration.9
Hanna felt that if it was good for
laborers to join together to form unions, then
it was just as good for capital to
organize to form trusts. To break up trusts and
discourage big businesses would mean
that the United States was reverting to prim-
7. Quoted in Marcus A. Hanna, speech of
April 21, 1903, Ohio State Journal (Columbus), April 22,
1903; Marcus A. Hanna, "Labor and
Capital," in Harriet Blackstone, ed., The Best of American Ora-
tions Today (New York, 1926), 288; Marcus Hanna, Mark Hanna: His
Book (Boston, 1904), 32, 36;
Marcus Hanna, "Socialism and the
Labor Unions," National Magazine, February 1904, p. 555.
8. Ibid.; Hanna, His Book, 35, 44.
9. Oscar S. Straus, "Results
Accomplished by the Industrial Department, National Civic Federa-
tion," American Academy of
Political and Social Science, Annals, XX (July 1902), 37-42; Ohio
State
Journal, April 22, 1903; Hanna, His Book, 33-34; William
H. Kiekhofer, Economic Principles, Problems,
and Policies (New York, 1941), 128.
142 OHIO
HISTORY
itive methods of economic organization.
In fact, the increasing size of industries
was an integral part of America's
material progress and "brought to our industrial
institutions," he said,
"greater economic results; . . . an increase and expansion of
trade, and higher wages for the
men." Large combinations of capital also made it
easier to establish friendly, uniform
relations with labor and to produce better mer-
chandise for the public. Furthermore, he
denied that trusts were monopolies since
"there is not a field of industry
in this country not open to anyone and everyone
who sees fit to embark capital in that
line." All in all, Hanna thought the trusts
had become institutions as permanent as
organized labor.10
In Hanna's view the biggest threat to
American harmony was the strike, for
which he had a passionate dislike. Again
and again, he referred to the tremendous
cost and waste that strikes produced.
Strikes resulted in more than material priva-
tion. "You cannot measure . . .
from a monetary standpoint the enormous loss that
has resulted from these difficulties. It
is the duty, a sacred duty for us all to use all
the efforts and influences in the
circles of labor and in the ranks of capital to bring
about a condition of things which will
prevent the occurrence and recurrence of
such conditions."11
Conciliation was a much better method of
settling labor-capital disagreements.
Hanna thought it was truly amazing how
some of the worst strikes were caused by
the most insignificant of differences.
"The time is ripe in this country," said the
Cleveland industrialist in 1901,
"for a better and permanent understanding between
the men who control invested capital and
the men whose labor makes this capital
profitable." Capital and labor were
not foreordained to battle each other. Actually,
Hanna saw a harmony of interest between
business and labor; one could not pros-
per without the other sharing in its
good fortune. It was perhaps too much to ex-
pect both sides to settle their
differences every time, but there was always a neutral
ground where labor and capital could
meet. The main goal was to get the two sides
together when trouble occurred so that a
full debate of the issues could take place.
Strikes seldom erupted when the
disenchanted representatives of labor and busi-
ness came together for a "frank,
open, manly talk of differences." Thus, Hanna
asserted that labor-captial differences
could be adjusted in most cases through con-
ciliation based upon an attitude of
fellowship and "right motives."12
Hanna had promoted collective bargaining
even before many of the most benev-
olent employers had accepted it. He made
it clear that he believed unions would
abide by agreements once they were made.
Hanna cited one instance again and
again as substantial proof that labor
unions would "stick to a bargain"; this was
also a reason why employers should have
confidence in the function of trade agree-
ments. The instance to which he referred
took place in 1902 when the bituminous
coal miners of West Virginia voted to
uphold their end of a trade agreement rather
than begin a sympathy strike in support
of the famous anthracite strike that had
just begun. Hanna was elated by the
decision and sent John Mitchell, president of
the United Mine Workers, a telegram:
I want to congratulate you and through [sic]
your associates in the successful outcome of
your convention in upholding the honor
and integrity of your organization. This result is
10. Hanna, "Labor and
Capital," 287; Marcus A. Hanna, "Industrial Conciliation and
Arbitration,"
American Academy of Political and Social Science, Annals,
XX (July 1902), 21, 25.
11. Ohio State Journal, April 22,
1903.
12. Croly, Hanna, 405; interview
with Hanna in New York Tribune, December 21, 1901; Hanna,
"Socialism and the Labor
Unions," 557.
Mark Hanna 143
a demonstration of the highest regard
which the miners hold in keeping faith, and it en-
titles them to the respect and
confidence of the Public.
To Hanna, this one incident established
the reliability of labor unions. It convinced
him that "as conditions exist today
there is every reason . . . for the employer to
have confidence in an agreement made by
his employes."13
Conciliation and trade agreements,
however, depended not only upon labor and
capital but also upon the attitude of
the public. Hanna's love of the people was
about as warm and sentimental as that of
Vanderbilt who proclaimed, "the public
be damned." But he realized that
any plan for permanent peace between worker
and employer would have to take the
public into consideration. Any hope of suc-
cess for conciliation of labor disputes
hinged upon "the strong impelling influence
of an enlightened public
sentiment." Labor and industry could form conciliation
committees by the hundreds, but they
would not succeed without public sympathy,
for, he declared, the people are the
"final arbiters."14 Because Hanna realized the
importance of public opinion, he
preached to the people about their responsibilities,
just as he had talked to the leaders of
labor and industry:
I wish I could impress upon every
American the responsibility that rests upon each one of
us. Every year of experience, every
dollar of accumulated capital, every talent we possess
should be regarded as a sacred charge
for the good of the nation, to help in uniting the
interests of rich and poor, learned and
unlearned.15
Fortunately, according to Hanna, the
public's growing acceptance of labor unions
was already helping to force more and
more employers to recognize organized
labor.16
Government also had a role to play in
aiding business and labor to adjust ami-
cably to one another. The state, Hanna
believed, existed primarily to aid business-
men and to promote prosperity.
Prosperity, of course, benefited everyone, especially
labor. To achieve this, the Republican
party was to be the main engine of state,
and party leaders were responsible for
seeing that prosperity was insured. Business,
for its part, was to fill party coffers
generously during election years in order to
keep the Republicans in power. Hanna
personally did his best to implement this
policy of promoting business prosperity
through the government and Republican
party. For example, as a United States
Senator in 1897, he participated in the crea-
tion and supported the passage of the
Dingley tariff bill. That bill substantially
raised the tariff rates on many
industrial products, which Hanna, along with others,
believed would aid the business
community and the economy in general. Again
in 1900 Hanna acted on his belief that
the Republican party, as the most significant
vehicle of government, must assert
itself to help maintain a prosperous economy.
He personally drafted the
"trust" plank in the Republican platform of 1900. "Hon-
est" trusts, he declared, were
essential to the expansion of foreign trade. Only com-
binations calculated to restrain trade,
limit production, and control prices were
condemned. Likewise, the plank declared
that the Republicans favored anti-trust
laws which would correct these abuses
and gain the rights of producers, laborers
and businessmen. To Hanna's way of
thinking, most trusts were necessary to keep
13. Samuel Gompers, Seventy Years of
Life and Labour, An Autobiography (London, 1925), II, 106;
Robert J. Cornell, The Anthracite
Coal Strike of 1902 (Washington, D. C., 1957), 106-107.
14. Hanna, "Industrial Conciliation
and Arbitration," 22, 24.
15. Hanna, "Socialism and the Labor
Unions," 558.
16. Hanna, His Book, 35.
144 OHIO
HISTORY
America on the high road to economic
success and hence social harmony, and it
was the duty of the Republican party to
aid in the preservation of the best of these
business combinations.17
To promote the multi-faceted plan for
harmony in America, a program of edu-
cation was to be developed. One of
Hanna's main themes stressed the education
and "Americanization" of
labor. The principal thrust of this program was to mold
labor into an active ally of industry by
eliminating the prejudice that existed be-
tween worker and businessman. At the
same time, labor was to be taught its
responsibility to the community at
large. Hanna was convinced that this could be
accomplished, for he had been profoundly
impressed by the public's ready accep-
tance of the propaganda he had used in
the presidential campaign of 1896. More-
over, he could see no reason why the
benign and uncomplicated approach he had
used with his own employees could not be
made a success nationally. During many
conferences with his workers'
representatives, Hanna had explained the cost of
products, the market value of goods, and
what he considered to be a fair profit.
Thus, his laborers always had the
information necessary for estimating a fair wage.
Hanna argued that this policy was the
major reason he had never experienced a
strike of any consequence since 1876.
His men had been taught their responsibil-
ities as well as their rights.18
In addition to this approach, Hanna
believed it was absolutely essential to
counteract the spread of Socialist and
Communist theories among the semi-ignorant
laboring classes. These theories,
portraying capitalists as the enemies of labor, gave,
in his opinion, an utterly false picture
of the situation in America. It was incumbent
upon those working for the cause of
unions "to Americanize labor organizations,
to fit them for their surroundings and
conditions in this country."19 It was especially
important to Americanize the thousands
of immigrants who came to America each
year. This foreign element, according to
the Ohio politician, usually came from
the lower socio-economic strata of
Europe and as a rule was prejudiced against
capitalism and our government. These
persons had to be taught that such an atti-
tude was senseless and that they had
much to gain by accepting the American eco-
nomic and political traditions. It would
take much time and patience for America
to assimilate such a large number of
immigrants so alien to its way of life, but the
effort had to be made.20 Foreign
labor was essential to American industry because
demand for workers exceeded the supply;
therefore labor could neither be ignored
nor allowed to remain hostile to the free
enterprise system. Moreover, foreign
workers eventually became voters and
were capable of exercising a potent and
dangerous force when voicing their
opinions at the polls.21
Of course, there would always be an
element of European-born labor that could
not be reached and educated by any
means. These were the ones who had accepted
Communism or Socialism, who refused to
work hoping to get "something for noth-
ing," and who had "no stake in
the country."22 The very suggestion of Communism
angered Hanna. 'What?' he remarked to Jacob Riis on the
subject, 'Give all the
17. Croly, Hanna, 275-276,
305-307.
18. Hanna, His Book, 30, 37;
"Senator Hanna and the Labor Capital Question," Harper's Magazine,
February 6, 1904, p. 193.
19. Hanna, "Labor and Capital,"
282-283; Hanna, "Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration," 25.
20. Hanna, "Socialism and the Labor
Unions," 555, 556; Hanna, "Industrial Conciliation and Arbi-
tration," 24.
21. Hanna, "Labor and
Capital," 284-285.
22. Interview, New York Times, December
21, 1901; Hanna, His Book, 39; see also, Tom L. Johnson,
My Story, edited by Elizabeth J. Hauser (New York, 1915),
202-203.
Mark Hanna 145
damn fools in the world equal rights
with good men? . . . By God no!' To Hanna,
life was competitive, and competition
was the only way to achieve material ad-
vancement. America, in his view,
provided for such progress by extending equality
of opportunity to all men and allowing
the best to rise to the top. He told the work-
ingmen of America that any one of them
could become wealthy if he showed initia-
tive. In Hanna's opinion, there was
complete social and economic mobility in the
United States, and an almost
inexhaustible supply of natural resources made suc-
cess possible for any man. Labor's only
real hope for advancement was within a
system where the basic tenet was
individualism. Communism, on the other hand,
promoted incompetence by destroying the
desire to better oneself.23
At the same time, Hanna was convinced
that once the mystery of European
Socialism and Communism was exposed to
the blinding light of truth and reality
the great majority of all workers,
regardless of origin, would reject such ideas as
repellent to all the ideals of American
life. "Its objects will be seen," he said,
to be the very opposite of those desired
both by labor and capital, since it gives no aid
toward the building up and development
of the country, nor does it guarantee each man a
chance to make a home for himself . . .
No "ism" is wanted by the American people that
will take from any citizen the just and
equitable reward of his labor.24
Who should provide the truth and reality
about Communism and Socialism? The
churches and school systems would help
greatly, but Hanna also urged the many
workers already Americanized to do a
good share of the instructing. In a speech
to the Amalgamated Association of Iron,
Steel and Tin Workers, Hanna said that
their thirty years of union experience
gave them a golden opportunity to set a
proper example for younger, more radical
unions. On that occasion, he discussed
their teaching duties with an almost
evangelical zeal:
You are the only men that can do it
[Americanize unions], and when you are meeting in
your councils or when you are meeting
with your fellows in every day life, preach it as your
Gospel . . . obedience to the law . . .
good citizenship, and that makes a good government.
And that is the spirit of our
institution [the National Civic Federation].
In making this appeal I wish I could
impress upon every man before me how much
individual effort can accomplish if only
that effort is put forward. Those of you who have
seen the benefits in the long years of
your experience as members of this association [the
Civic Federation] are the best
missionaries possible in the case of labor to preach it from
every street corner and to every man you
meet. In unions there is strength, in unions of
interests there is greater strength and
a common cause will make it in the end a great
success.25
Hanna realized that if he could convince
Americanized labor to help indoctrinate
those who had rejected the ideals of
capitalism, then businessmen would have a
powerful ally.
At the same time, however, capitalists
were to be taught their responsibilities
toward labor. The business community
would have to accept labor unions if it
expected labor-capital disputes to be
settled peacefully and permanently. Why con-
demn unions and their leaders because
they made occasional mistakes? It would be
23. Quoted in Beer, Hanna, 168,
216; Ohio State Journal, April 22, 1903; "Senator Hanna and the
Labor Question," 193.
24. Hanna, His Book, 40-41.
25. Ohio State Journal, April 22,
1903; Weinstein, Corporate Ideal, 118.
146
OHIO HISTORY
a better policy, a more
"Christian-like" policy, to help them correct the errors they
made rather than to ignore their
organizations. After all, the members of labor
unions were only trying to improve
themselves and the condition of their families.
This desire to improve one's situation
was what made progress in America possible.
'If you are the stronger or abler,' he
once told a meeting of employers' associations,
'much less excuse you have to show
resentment because the other side is simply
asking that they have their share.' It
was up to the captains of industry to "go more
than halfway" to insure a lasting
peaceful coexistence between labor and capital.
Capital had been able to dictate terms
to labor for many years, but this was no
longer the case, and the sooner it was
realized, the better off everyone would be.26
Unions were on the rise, and their
leaders made formidable opponents. Hanna
believed after 1900 that economic
prosperity provided two jobs for every laborer.
Such a condition would give workingmen a
powerful lever. Labor was becoming
too powerful to be brushed aside with
haughty disdain, and it would be expecting
too much of human nature to suppose that
labor would not use its newly organized
power to obtain a greater share of
industrial profits. Hanna told his fellow entre-
preneurs that they "must, sooner of
later, grapple with the question--the serious
problem--of adjustment of these matters,
instead of trying to turn back to conditions
that have passed."27
The situation would also improve,
declared Hanna, if each industrialist would
not only accept unions but also take an
active interest in the problems of individ-
ual employees. As a beginning, the
employer could choose any one of his workers,
acquaint himself with his condition, and
ask, "Is there anything I can do to help
the situation?" The businessman
might find, said Hanna,
that sickness or other misfortune has
come to him. He is too proud to ask alms. If you
find that he and his family are
suffering under these conditions, do not wait until he gets
to the poorhouse, or a committee
organized by law shall ascertain these facts, but make
yourself responsible.28
Ending capital's imperious ways would
not weaken its position, for there was no
better investment for a corporation than
a happy, cooperative group of employees.29
Hanna did more than simply plan and talk
about social and economic harmony
in America. Beginning early in his
career, he made a sustained effort to implement
many of his ideas, and, among the
workers in the many businesses he had acquired,
Hanna earned a reputation for fairness
and paternalistic benevolence. During the
1897 campaign, when the Ohioan's
political opponents were slashing at that repu-
tation by calling him a "labor
crusher," he let fly a ringing challenge from a
podium in Zanesville, Ohio:
Go to any one of the five thousand men
in my employ . . . Ask them whether I ever pay
less than the highest going wages, ask
them whether I ever asked them whether they be-
longed to a union or not ... Ask them
whether, when any men or any committee of men,
26. Ibid.; quoted in Ralph M.
Easley, "Senator Hanna and the Labor Problem," Independent, March
3, 1904, p. 487; Ohio State Journal, April 22,
1903; Hanna, "Socialism and the Labor Unions," 556.
27. Ibid.; Hanna, His Book, 31.
28. Hanna, "Labor and
Capital," 286.
29. Hanna, "Socialism and the Labor
Unions," 556; for a review of Hanna's business ventures and
background, see Croly, Hanna, 40-45,
57, 61, 63, 68-69, 85, 88.
Mark Hanna 147
came to me with a complaint if I ever
refused to see them . . . Ask them if I ever in my
life intentionally wronged any
workingman. I never did.30
Three weeks after Hanna issued the
challenge a number of testimonials ap-
peared in the Cleveland Leader. A
report of an investigation conducted by T. L.
Lewis, president of the Ohio State
Trades Assembly and secretary of the Ohio
Miners' Union, showed that Hanna
"paid the highest standard wages for labor
performed in industries in which he was
interested." A. W. Wright, a former mem-
ber of the executive board of the
Knights of Labor, claimed the miners who worked
for the affluent industrialist in
Michigan were the only miners in the state who
owned their own homes. Not only labor
union leaders, but also entire groups of
Hanna's laborers took the time to
prepare and sign resolutions, apparently of their
own free will, testifying to his
munificence. The dock workers at Ashtabula Harbor,
for example, produced a signed document
stating that Hanna paid them good
wages, that he always paid them on time,
and that he treated them well. Hanna's
street railway workers and the
boilermakers in the Globe Iron Works Company
also wrote similar statements regarding
his fairness and cordiality in reviewing
their complaints and grievances. William
Warner, secretary of the United Mine
Workers of the Pittsburgh district wrote
that:
The true story of Mr. Hanna's attitude
to his workmen and toward union labor, as far as
the mining interests in Western
Pennsylvania are concerned, is that he is the best man in the
whole district to work for.
While I cannot conscientiously support
Mr. Hanna in his political views, yet ... [it can-
not be said] that Senator Mark Hanna is
tyrannical, mean, or pays his workmen less than
his competitors. If there were a greater
number of Mark Hannas there would be less des-
titution and complaint among the coal
miners.31
The Ohio industrialist, moreover, never
opposed the formation of unions in
industries with which he was doing
business or in his own, for that matter. In the
early 1870's at the time of general
economic depression he promoted the develop-
ment of a national association of coal
miners whose purpose was to secure decent
wages for the workers. As soon as the
headquarters of the new union was opened
in Cleveland, its president, John Siney,
visited various coal companies in the area
in an attempt to establish friendly
relations. All of the company presidents he
visited rejected these overtures except
Hanna, who was then of Rhodes and Com-
pany and had recently organized an
operator's union whose purpose was to facili-
tate the arbitration of conflicts. Hanna
read the miners' constitution and questioned
the officers carefully. He found that
the new union advocated settling disputes
through arbitration and striking only as
a last resort. When asked if they would
accept decisions of arbitration contrary
to their demands, the representatives in-
dicated they would. Then Hanna wanted to
know whether the union's leaders had
enough influence to get the miners to
comply with an unpopular decision by ar-
bitrators. Again, they replied that
under such circumstances they would do every-
thing possible to insure that the
membership continued to work and not strike.
These answers seemed to satisfy Hanna.
"Then," he said, "I am heartily with you,
and will do all I can to have the
operators submit all questions that may arise
30. Cleveland Leader, September
25, October 2, 1897.
31. Ibid., October 15, 1897.
148
OHIO HISTORY
in the future, to the decision of a
board of arbitration."32 So, as early as 1873,
Hanna had embraced collective bargaining
as a means of maintaining harmony
between business and labor.
Hanna soon had an opportunity to make
use of the arbitration process with
the bituminous coal miners in the
Tuscarawas Valley, but with the "disastrous
consequences" referred to earlier.
Toward the end of 1874 the miners were notified
that their wages would be reduced from
ninety to seventy cents per ton, and they
protested vigorously. The officers of
the Miners' National Association and the opera-
tors agreed to submit the question to a
board of arbitration consisting of three
representatives from the miners, three
from the operators union, of which Hanna
was a member, and an umpire. The
decision of the umpire fixed the wages at
seventy-one cents per ton, thereby
seemingly favoring the operators.33 Many of the
miners believed that more could have
been gained by striking, but at the urging
of their officers, they returned to
work. The settlement, however, did not last long.
Shortly after the agreement had been
reached, another coal company in the
district, which did not have members in
either the miners' or operators' unions,
raised its wages nine cents above that
awarded the unionized companies. As a
result, the Miners' National Association
demanded further talks with Hanna's
association of operators. This time the
executives of Hanna's Rhodes and Com-
pany agreed to the miners' demands and
raised wages in April 1875, but reduced
them again in March 1876. Furious, the
miners called a strike and occupied the
Warmington mine just south of Massillon,
Ohio, of which Hanna owned an in-
terest. In a rapidly moving and
unfortunate series of events, strike-breakers were
hired; a riot ensued; a top executive of
the company was badly beaten; and Gov-
ernor Rutherford B. Hayes was asked to
send a company of militia to protect the
strike breakers. The night the militia
arrived, the embittered strikers seized the
Rhodes Company's four mines and set them
on fire. Finally, after one miner was
shot and many more were arrested, the
strike ended, and the employees sullenly
returned to work.34 At the
end of this arduous struggle, Hanna announced:
Now that we have . . . brought these
law-breakers to the bar, I am willing to meet the
miners and settle this matter in a fair
spirit and law-abiding manner.
Men have a right to go on strike in
these coal regions if they choose to. But they have
no right to commit arson and murder.35
Even though Hanna was not able to settle
this labor dispute amicably, the Mas-
sillon uprising served to intensify his
determination to avoid strikes. After this
experience he, more than ever,
considered strikes to be dangerous, wasteful, un-
necessary, and on the whole he successfully averted them in his own
businesses.36
32. Andrew Roy, The History of the
Coal Miners of the United States . . . (New York, 1907), 152-
159; Hanna, "Industrial
Conciliation and Arbitration," 23; Croly, Hanna, 91; see also
a speech made
by Hanna in Cambridge, Ohio, printed in
Cleveland Leader, October 2, 1897. Moreover, in 1897, John
McBride, a labor leader, Democrat, and
former worker in the Hanna-owned mines, wrote that "After
the disastrous strike of 1873-74, when
organization among mine workers had been practically obliter-
ated, John Seny [sic] and other
officers of the Miners' National Association were not only recognized
by, but secured the cooperation of Mr.
Hanna and his company in efforts to establish and maintain
the union in Ohio." Cleveland Leader,
October 15, 1897.
33. Roy, Coal Miners, 163-164.
Roy claims that the award was a fair one, since Rhodes and Com-
pany was the only enterprise in the
valley that had not cut its wages following the panic of 1873.
34. Ibid., 164-168; Croly, Hanna,
92-95; Hanna to Hayes, June 16, 1876, in Rutherford B. Hayes
papers, Hayes Memorial Library, Fremont,
Ohio.
35. Quoted in Cleveland Plain Dealer,
February 17, 1904.
36. See Croly, Hanna, 403-405.
Mark Hanna 149
Because he felt that labor peace was
vital in maintaining a climate for the growth
of American harmony, Hanna used his
powers of persuasion and wide range of
influential friends to settle and
prevent strikes outside his own businesses. He was
an expert "wire-puller," and
could virtually cut through tons of red tape to reach
the heart of a controversy. The only
requirement was that he be told the nature
of the problem before he arranged a
meeting between a company and its employees
or union.37 In October 1900,
for example, when he was United States Senator as
well as chairman of the National
Republican Committee and campaign manager
for William McKinley, Hanna helped end a
strike called by the United Mine
Workers against companies in three
Pennsylvania anthracite coal districts. The
strike, precipitated by demands for
higher wages and for the abolition of company
stores, involved approximately 140,000
employees. Hanna, with some difficulty,
met with the presidents of the
companies, defended the miners' demands, and
warned that Bryan could defeat McKinley
in the upcoming election if the dispute
were not settled. The executives
gradually gave in under Hanna's pressure but re-
fused to recognize the recently
organized United Mine Workers, and only a two-year
truce ensued--not a settlement.
Similarly, he helped avert a strike in 1900 against
the New York, New Haven, and Hartford
railroad by arranging a meeting between
the owners and E. E. Clark, head of the
Order of Railway Conductors. Again, in
the summer of 1901, largely through the
Senator's efforts working through the
National Civic Federation, a strike was
settled in the newly formed United States
Steel Corporation.38
In addition to his efforts in settling
labor disputes, Hanna in his later years fre-
quently promoted his view of the
economic order by delivering speeches to groups
of workers and especially to
capitalists. He always had many invitations to speak,
and as long as his health and strength
continued, he accepted as many of these
opportunities as possible "for the
purpose of talking to the business men and em-
ployers of this country just as they
ought to be talked to." At the same time, he
also promoted written propaganda. On one
occasion, he wrote to his friend, Ralph
Easley, secretary of the National Civic
Federation, asking him to persuade a cer-
tain Mr. Adams to write an article
against sympathy strikes. Easley was then to
convince Samuel Gompers to publish the
article in his labor magazine. Hanna also
mentioned that he was interested in
buying copies of such a treatise to distribute
among laborers.39
Yet another example of Hanna's
involvement in promoting better relations be-
tween business and labor was his role in
the development of the Department of
Commerce. In a letter to Jacob Bennett
on October 1, 1900, Hanna suggested that
'there should be a department capable of
handling such situations as this [the
threatened coal strike of 1900] and this
matter is being put before the President in
a very strong way.'40 By January 1902,
Hanna was advocating formation of a De-
partment of Commerce and Labor which
would have the power to investigate cor-
poration books and protect the rights of
the workingman.41 According to Hanna,
37. Easley, "Hanna and Labor
Problem," 485.
38. Samuel Yellen, American Labor
Struggles (New York, 1936), 144-145; Cornell, Anthracite Coal
Strike, 55.
39. Ohio State Journal, April 22,
1903; William Cosgrove, "Mark Hanna as a Labor Conciliator,"
(unpublished M.A. thesis, John Carroll
University, Cleveland, 1959), 32-33.
40. Quoted in Beer, Hanna, 275 fn.
5.
41. Ibid.; Croly, Hanna, 374.
|
Mark Hanna, c. 1990. the department would use the government's strength to further the development of American industry. It made no difference to him what name was chosen for the department, or who was chosen to head it, but it had to be a department rather than a bureau, and both labor and business had to be represented. The in- terests of labor and capital, said Hanna in the Senate, "are identical and mutual. What is good for one is equally good for the other." The new department would attempt to bring worker and employer closer together and make them more under- standing of one another. "I am pleading," he said, during the debates, "for the results, which I believe and know will be beneficial to the development of this country, to its future growth and prosperity . . . ." The legislation that finally estab- lished the Department of Commerce and Labor contained essentially what the Ohioan had desired and created still another vehicle through which labor-capital relations might be harmonized.42 Hanna's view of American harmony, however, was most fully expressed through the National Civic Federation (NCF), which was founded in Chicago in 1896 and had nationwide influence by 1900. The Ohio millionaire was its first president, 42. Congressional Record, 57th cong., 1st sess., 912-913, 914, 1994. |
Mark Hanna
151
and under his leadership the
organization concentrated upon the establishment of
long range stability and compatibility
between labor and capital, as well as the
mediation and conciliation of specific
labor-capital disputes.43 With respect to the
long range plans of the NCF, the Senator
tried to make it an educational body
which would gradually teach both labor
and capital how far each could go without
destroying opportunities for
conciliation. Only through such education, he declared,
could the NCF eliminate the underlying
hostility which existed between employer
and employee.44 "Thus,
the so-called gulf between capital and labor . . . will be
narrowed and bridged, and the danger of
strikes . . . will be minimized."45 Labor
was to learn to act through responsible
trade unions and adhere to its contracts
and other agreements at all costs. In
return, the NCF leaders would attempt to
gain widespread recognition of unions as
permanent American institutions and
establish respect for labor leaders who
presented and implemented their demands
in a reasonable and cooperative manner.
In order to help achieve these ends, the
NCF, by the time of Hanna's death in
1904, had broadened its scope so that it
included annual national conferences, a
monthly industrial magazine, worker wel-
fare, trade agreements, and a department
of industrial economics to promote ed-
ucation. Hanna hoped that such endeavors
would "lay the foundation stone of a
structure [of mutual trust between labor
and capital] that will endure for all time."46
As for the more immediate problems
between labor and capital, as has been
mentioned, Hanna used the NCF as a
vehicle to help allay and settle various
strikes as they arose. By November 1903,
the conciliation committee of the NCF's
industrial department had sponsored
about one hundred labor-capital agreements,
only eighteen of which ultimately
failed. The Senator played a major part in many
of these negotiations, including the
famous anthracite coal strike of 1902. Even
though these agreements were limited to
the few industries where organized labor
was fairly strong, they must have been
encouraging to those who favored a policy
promoting social and economic harmony in
America.47
When Hanna felt that American economic
success was being jeopardized by a
number of conflict situations, he did
his best, along with many other big business-
men, to maximize adjustment and minimize
strife within and between the interests
of labor, managment, and the community.
It was important to him that relations
between these major elements of society
be based upon such principles as reason-
ableness, cooperation, efficiency, and
mutual benefits. Any one group could not be
allowed, through excessive
self-interest, ignorance, or perversity, to damage or per-
haps even destroy American prosperity.
Mark Hanna, by using his national reputa-
tion in corporate business and politics
and by using a variety of methods and de-
vices, was able to play a major part in
fostering the American harmony movement.
43. Weinstein, Corporate Ideal, 37;
Dulles, Labor in America, 186-187.
44. Croly, Hanna, 391-392;
"Senator Hanna and the Labor Capital Question," 193.
45. Interview, New York Times, December
21, 1901.
46. Weinstein, Corporate Ideal, 9,
37, 38, 118; Straus, "Results, N.C.F.," 39; Easley, "Work of the
N.C.F.," 1819.
47. Ibid., 1808, 1819; Straus,
"Results, N.C.F.," 39-41; Easley, "The National Civic
Federation,"
Independent, LIV (August 28, 1902), 2066-2067; Croly, Hanna, 388-400;
Yellen, American Labor, 149-
153; interview with several coal
operators, New York Times, May 24, 1902; Marguerite Green, The
National Civic Federation and the
American Labor Movement, 1900-1925 (Washington,
D.C., 1956);
Robert H. Wiebe, "The Anthracite
Strike of 1902: A Record of Confusion," Mississippi Valley His-
torical Review, XLVIII (September 1916), 229-251; Weinstein, Corporate
Ideal, 38.
GERALD W. WOLFF
Mark Hanna's Goal:
American Harmony
'A man who won't meet his men half-way
is a G_ d__ fool!' declared Mark Hanna
one day in 1894. He was referring to the
Pullman strike and the fact that troops
had been sent to end it. That terse,
profane comment tells a great deal about
Hanna. He was, above all else, a
pragmatist with a canny ability to successfully
adjust to changing conditions. Twenty
years previously, when his coal mines were
struck, troops had been brought in--with
disastrous consequences. He had learned
much from this experience. Thereafter he
tried diligently to show by example how
relations between labor, capital, and
management could be ordered for the bene-
fit of all. The one solid absolute in
his life was a profound belief in the living
standard capitalism had brought to
America. To preserve that way of life, he fol-
lowed what he considered to be the most
effective method of achieving his goal.
Important priorities included
conservative labor unions, cooperative capitalists, a
sympathetic public and government, and
loyal anti-Communist European immigrant
laborers--all working together to
maintain an "essential harmony between the inter-
ests of business and the whole
community."1
This general point of view, envisioning
American society as an integrated,
mutually beneficial, harmonious whole,
was not unique with Hanna. It was shared
also by many large conservative business
interests in the late 1880's and through
the progressive era, though in modified
forms. Several factors account for this
support by big business. One is that,
despite the continued growth in the size of
industries, ruinous competition in the
business world was threatening to weaken
the economic base of the country. From
about 1897 to 1901, many corporations
attempted to combat such competition
voluntarily through the merger movement.
Even though this method did not prove
successful in achieving its purposes, many
businessmen and financial interests
continued to seek a "stable," "predictable,"
and "rationalized" economy.
Another challenge that the large industrialists had
to face came from the demands made by
the growing number of labor unions.
Also, radical doctrines such as
Socialism seemed to appeal especially to immigrant
workers and could prove to be a threat
both to an economy based on capitalism
1. Quoted in Thomas Beer, Hanna (New
York, 1929), 133; Herbert Croly, Marcus Alonzo Hanna:
His Life and Work (New York, 1912), 115.
Mr. Wolff is assistant professor of
history at The University of South Dakota.