Ohio History Journal

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1 This article is based largely upon the author's unpublished doctoral dissertation,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

• 1
 

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.

• 2
 

156

• 3
 

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.

• 4
 

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.

• 5
 

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.

• 6
 

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.

• 7
 

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.

• 8
 

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.

• 9
 

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.

• 10
 

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.)

• 11
 

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.

• 12
 

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.

• 13
 

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.

• 14
 

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.

• 15
 

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.

• 16
 

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.

• 17
 

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.

• 18
 

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.

• 19
 

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.

• 20
 

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.

• 21
 

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."

• 22
 

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.

• 23
 

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.

• 24
 

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.

• 25