Ohio History Journal

JAMES N. GIGLIO

The Political Career of

Harry M. Daugherty, 1889-1919

Historians have written about Harry Micajah Daugherty only within the context

of the Warren G. Harding era. His association with the 1920 campaign and the

Harding presidency has received extensive coverage. Works on the 1920's have

amply covered his involvement in the administration scandals. Daugherty's pre-

1912 career, however, has been virtually ignored; only a scant outline of early

political adventures has come from the writings of Harding scholars.¹ No criticism

is intended. The fact is, their focus is on Harding and he was not aligned with

Daugherty until 1912. By that time, Daugherty's political career had already under-

gone thirty years of ups and downs. Scandal, overambition, and some bad luck

had incurred him enough opposition within the party to prevent his ever gaining

election for any important elective office. He managed to hang on as a factional

leader-one who had as many enemies as friends. This article seeks to explore

Daugherty's political setbacks and how he overcame them to become Harding's

presidential campaign manager in 1919.

In 1889 Daugherty won his first state office. Rural Fayette County, some thirty

miles southwest of Columbus, elected the twenty-nine year old lawyer from Wash-

ington Court House to the Ohio House of Representatives. The Cyclone and Fay-

ette Republican had assured the local farmers and businessman "that their interests

will be well subserved . . ." because "there is no more levelheaded or industrious

gentleman in Fayette county than Mr. Daugherty."² The thin and mustachioed

legislator intended to repay such accolades. He sponsored several bills that were

beneficial to his constituency; he also became an excellent organizer and speaker

and an expert on parliamentary law. On several occasions he ably occupied the

speaker's chair. For that reason he was considered a possible choice as speaker

of the house in the event the Republicans regained a legislative majority in the

fall election of 1891. The Republican state convention of 1890 further enhanced

Daugherty's reputation as a coming political figure. Not only was he named chair-

1. See Andrew Sinclair, The Available Man: The Life Behind the Masks of Warren Gamaliel Harding

(New York, 1965), 37-38; Francis Russell, The Shadow of Blooming Grove: Warren G. Harding in His

Times (New York, 1968), 108-112; Robert K. Murray, The Harding Era: Warren G. Harding and His

Administration (Minneapolis, 1969), 18-19; and Mark Sullivan, The Twenties (Our Times, 1900-1925, VI,

New York, 1935), 19-22.

2. Cyclone and Fayette Republican (Washington Court House), August 7, 1889.

Mr. Giglio is assistant professor of history at Southwest Missouri State College, Springfield.

154                                                              OHIO HISTORY

the January 1892 senatorial contest. Since Ohio Senators were then elected by the

General Assembly, Foraker needed not only a Republican legislature, but also

one that had a majority of Foraker supporters in order to win. Consequently, he

sought the support of Republican assemblymen like Daugherty. Related to the

Forakers through marriage, Daugherty was sympathetic to the ex-governor's sena-

torial ambitions. He had managed to champion Foraker in the past without alien-

ating Sherman supporters in his county. Local political conditions, however, now

put him on the fence. Republican leaders in Fayette County who were over-

whelmingly for John Sherman tried to pressure Daugherty to commit himself to

the Senator's candidacy. Joseph G. Gest, editor and business manager of the Cyc-

lone and Fayette Republican, published an article in the Cincinnati Enquirer on

August 1, declaring that Daugherty "will be unceremoniously shelved" as represen-

tative unless he ended his neutrality.⁵ Immediately upon reading Gest's article,

Foraker wrote Daugherty that he did not want to embarrass him. Explaining that

he would rather lose the support of his friends than have them suffer defeat on his

account, he nevertheless told Daugherty that he needed his vote. He then called

the Sherman forces cutthroats who had knifed him in 1889 and would do so again

if he were now nominated as senator.⁶ Daugherty replied that the "Sherman men

are many and active here" in the county. He indicated that the pro-Sherman Gest

and Thomas Marchant of Fayette were attempting to obtain his pledge to Sher-

man for a guarantee that he would be renominated and then reelected to the Gen-

eral Assembly that Novenber.⁷

In spite of these threats, Daugherty's renomination was unopposed at the Fayette

County Republican convention in mid-August. The convention also endorsed the

candidacy of Sherman. After Daugherty's nomination, the party leaders appointed

three delegates to escort him into the convention hall where he delivered a short

address in which he pledged that if reelected he would work in the interest of his

constituency and would "support the candidate for United States Senator who may

be the choice of the Republicans of Fayette county."⁸ That evening Daugherty as-

sured Foraker's campaign manager, Charles J. Kurtz, of his allegiance to Foraker.9

In the ensuing weeks, Daugherty stumped Fayette for his own candidacy, while

Foraker campaigned in behalf of the state ticket. They did not see each other until

October 31, three days before the state elections. At that meeting, Foraker asked

Daugherty if it were permissible for the Cincinnati Commerical Gazette, which was

publishing senatorial preferences, to indicate that he was for Foraker. As Foraker

wrote Kurtz the following day, Daugherty "at once hemmed and hawed, and

said that was a matter he ought to keep quiet about for the present." Foraker then

asked Daugherty whether he had made any pledges to the Sherman people. Daugh-

erty replied that he had not, that he would be all right when the time came but

that he had a difficult county to handle and was much embarrassed by the situa-

tion there. Foraker then spoke frankly. Realizing that the Sherman forces had

5. Cincinnati Enquirer, August 1, 1891.

6. Joseph Benson Foraker to Harry M. Daugherty, August 1, 1891, Box 27, Joseph Benson Foraker

Papers, Cincinnati Historical Society.

7. Daugherty to Foraker, August 3, 1891, Box 32, ibid.

8. Cyclone and Fayette Republican, August 20, 1891. Daugherty told a local political leader at the

convention that he would not only support Sherman's reelection in the General Assembly but would

also back his renomination in the party caucus. Hills Gardner to John Sherman, December 15, 1891,

John Sherman Papers, Vol. 561, Library of Congress.

9. James M. Cox, Journey Through My Years (New York, 1946), 303-304.

Harry M. Daugherty                                                        157

In the face of increased pressure, Daugherty's vote still remained uncertain.

Privately sympathetic to Foraker, he failed to reaffirm his August pledge to support

"the choice of the Republicans of Fayette County," which happened to be John

Sherman. Foraker, however, was beginning to lose patience with Daugherty. He

confided to Kurtz that Daugherty neglected to answer his correspondence and

that he saw other signs he did not like.¹⁶ Foraker's suspicions turned out to be

correct. On December 11 Hahn arranged to have Daugherty visit Sherman in

Washington, D.C. He assured the Senator that Daugherty would travel on an eve-

ning train so that "no one would know anything about him being there." He also

predicted Daugherty's vote for Sherman. In almost the same breath, he warned

Sherman that it would "require considerable money to carry on our work," although

"nothing will be done at these headquarters that will in anyway compromise your

personal honor."¹⁷ No record exists as to what transpired in Daugherty's consulta-

tions with Hahn and Sherman. He most likely, however, assured them that he would

honor his August pledge and signed a statement to that effect.¹⁸

Daugherty finally arrived in Columbus on December 29, four days before the

speakership and nine days before the senatorial contests. That evening he went to

Foraker's hotel room to tell him that sentiment for Senator Sherman was so strong

in Fayette County that he would have to vote accordingly. He then showed Foraker

the "card" in which he had made his Sherman declaration. Foraker requested

Daugherty to delay making his announcement in the county papers until the day

before the senatorial caucus.¹⁹

In the party caucus on January 2, 1892, Lewis C. Laylin, Sherman's candidate

for speaker of the house, defeated John F. McGrew, Foraker's choice, by four

votes. Much to Sherman's concern, Daugherty voted as pledged for McGrew, a

close friend who resided in nearby Clark County. This preliminary setback placed

Foraker at a disadvantage for the senatorial contest to be held on January 6.

As promised, Daugherty publicly reaffirmed his pledge to Sherman the day

before the senatorial contest, and on the following day presided over the caucus.

After his opening remarks, a debate ensued among the delegates on whether to

use an open or secret ballot to nominate a senatorial candidate. Foraker favored

a secret vote because he had more to gain in not forcing legislators to stand by

their pledges. He perhaps reasoned that Daugherty, among others who had favored

a secret ballot, could then dishonor his pledge to vote for Sherman.20 By a forty-

seven to forty-four vote, however, the open ballot prevailed. The nomination fol-

lowed, and Sherman became the party's choice, obtaining fifty-three votes, includ-

ing Daugherty's, to Foraker's thirty-eight. This vote insured Sherman's election

since the Republicans dominated the General Assembly.

In several editorials following the caucus, the Democratic Columbus Post ac-

cused Daugherty and fourteen other legislators of changing their pledges from

Foraker to Sherman because of "intimidation, threats, promises and actual pur-

16. Foraker to Kurtz, December 4, 1891, uncatalogued Kurtz Papers.

17. William Hahn to Sherman, December 11, 1891, Vol. 560; December 15, 1891, Vol. 561, Sher-

man Papers.

18. Daugherty showed Foraker the pledge statement on December 29. Although he did not indicate

when he had signed it, his mid-December meetings with Hahn and Sherman seemed the only logical

time. Foraker to Daugherty, January 18, 1892, Box 27, Foraker Papers.

19. Ibid.

20. Cyclone and Fayette Republican, January 7, 1892.

158                                                                OHIO HISTORY

chase" and claimed explicitly that Hahn had paid Daugherty for his vote.21 A grand

jury investigation of the charges ended without returning any indictments. Foraker,

who would have made an interesting witness, refused to cooperate with the inquiry.

"As to the grand jury business," he wrote Kurtz, "I sincerely hope that no friend

of mine will have anything whatever to do with it." He made it clear that he would

not accept responsibility for the disclosure of any charges. The contest, according

to Foraker, had ended with the caucus.22 Intraparty unity prevailed to oppose any

threat of exposure by an outside force.

The grand jury's failure to return any indictment against him enabled Daugherty

to act. In a speech in the house on January 26, he asked for a bi-partisan commit-

tee to investigate the Post charges.23 Daugherty expected full vindication of the

accusations. He went into the inquiry with letters from both Sherman and Foraker

attesting that he had acted honorably in the senatorial contest.24 The select house

committee of two Republicans and two Democrats conducted an investigation

which extended into April. The Columbus Post manager, Charles Q. Davis, failed

to substantiate his charge that Daugherty had accepted a bribe. Davis' accusation

was, in part, based upon an alleged conversation he had overheard between

Daugherty and an unidentified person near a cigar stand in the Neil House some-

time before the caucus. Daugherty, according to Davis, had commented that Sher-

man would not receive his vote unless he "put up for it." Davis had no witness

to confirm Daugherty's supposed statement. The Post's charge that Hahn had

withdrawn seven $500 bills from the Deshler National Bank of Columbus on the

day of the caucus and had used the money to bribe Daugherty met the same fate,

for again proof was not forthcoming.25

Neither Daugherty nor Sherman, however, was completely honest in his testi-

mony at the committee's hearings. Daugherty amazingly testified that he had con-

sistently supported Sherman's candidacy since the August resolutions of the

Fayette County convention. Sherman's testimony was also misleading. Choosing

to ignore Daugherty's trip to Washington in mid-December, he said that he did

not know anything about Daugherty's position on the senatorial contest aside from

what he had heard from Fayette Republicans. Indeed, Sherman claimed that he

had never seen Daugherty during the entire preliminary canvass. It was not, ac-

cording to Sherman, until two or three days before the speakership contest that he

had first talked to him about the campaign.26

Daugherty was unanimously exonerated by the house committee in April. To

Daugherty the matter "was so well settled that there is no one believing any of

the charges against me or any of the gentlemen mentioned by the paper."²⁷ He

was right in one respect. The Post's inability to substantiate its charges damaged

21. Ohio General Assembly, House Journal, 1892, Appendix, "In the Matter of the Investigation

of the Charges Published in the Columbus Post, vs. Hon. H. M. Daugherty, in the Recent Senatorial

Contest," 30, 39. Cited hereinafter as "Senatorial Investigation."

22. Foraker to Kurtz, January 14, 1892, uncatalogued Kurtz Papers.

23. Cincinnati Enquirer, January 27, 1892.

24. Daugherty wrote freely and extensively to Sherman in this period. His response to Sherman's

letter exonerating him especially revealed his gratitude. He said: "I will long preserve the letter and

hand it down to those I love. I would rather have that letter Senator than the $3,500 I have been

charged as having received for voting for you." Daugherty to Sherman, January 19, 1892, Vol. 573,

Sherman Papers.

25. "Senatorial Investigation," 47, 63.

26. Ibid., 64, 68.

27. Daugherty to Sherman, May 6, 1892, Vol. 579, Sherman Papers.

Harry M. Daugherty                                                           159

the paper's reputation, and it shortly suspended publication without any compen-

sation to its staff for salary due them. Daugherty distributed $1800 among the

hard-pressed staff with the wry remark that thete were no "crisp $500 bills" in

the disbursement. He then filed suit against the Post, recovered staff salaries, and

made no charge for legal services.²⁸

The senatorial contest altered Daugherty's political career. He became a mem-

ber of the Sherman-Hanna-McKinley wing of the party after previously associa-

ting with the Foraker element. Upon the convening of the General Assembly in

January 1892, House Speaker Lewis C. Laylin appointed Daugherty chairman of

the important corporations committee and placed him on the judiciary committee.

Meanwhile, Foraker representatives were excluded from all chairmanships.²⁹ The

Sherman faction also selected Daugherty chairman of the house caucus, entrusting

him with the responsibility of organizing party legislative support for Governor

McKinley's programs. Daugherty, in later years, claimed that all McKinley had

to do was talk to him about what he wanted done, and, as leader of the house,

he would put it into effect.³⁰

Despite the immediate favors the Sherman wing provided Daugherty, his in-

volvement in the senatorial contest had an adverse result. It cost him the support

of Foraker and his many followers. Kurtz later remarked sarcastically that he saw

little of Daugherty after their last meeting in 1891 when promised support for

Foraker failed to materialize. After this, Daugherty's actions continued to cast a

shadow over his later career as critics often alluded to his alleged duplicity. Even

as late as 1920 the New York World opposed Daugherty's appointment as attorney

general in part because it questioned his conduct in 1892.31

Nevertheless, as his second term in the house drew to a close, Daugherty itched

for higher public office. This was certainly an auspicious time, for McKinley was

serving his final term as governor. The task of choosing a successor fell upon the

1895 Republican state convention. Daugherty thought himself its worthy prospect.

Indeed, he had rendered McKinley no little support while he had been Republi-

can floor leader in the house. In 1893, as chairman of the state convention, he had

backed McKinley's gubernatorial renomination and had introduced a resolution

endorsing his administration at the Fayette County convention the following spring.³²

Even so, Hanna made it known that he would favor Judge George K. Nash of Co-

lumbus. Daugherty, however, secured the allegiance of the Hanna organization for

the attorney general nomination upon realizing that he had little support from them

for governor. Despite opposition from some Fayette Republicans, he also received

the county organization's endorsement and obtained its authorization to select

Fayette's delegation to the May 28-29 state convention at Zanesville.³³ His friends

chartered a special Pullman sleeper for the entourage. On the side of the car as it

28. Samuel Hopkins Adams, Incredible Era: The Life and Times of Warren G. Harding (Boston,

1939), 40-41.

29. Cincinnati Enquirer, January 13, 1892.

30. Daugherty to Ray Baker Harris, June 7, 1938, Box 9, Ray Baker Harris Collection, Ohio His-

torical Society.

31. Cox, Journey, 304; New York World, February 17, 1921.

32. Ohio State Journal (Columbus), June 9, 1893; Cyclone and Fayette Republican, June 7, 1894.

33. Cincinnati Enquirer, May 19, 1895. The opposition came from a Fayette Republican faction that

condemned Daugherty's conduct in the 1891 senatorial contest and resented his efforts to dominate the

county Republican organization. In 1892 this faction had prevented Daugherty from obtaining the

county Republican convention's endorsement for United States Congress. See also Cyclone and Fayette

Republican, June 23, 30, 1892.

160                                                            OHIO HISTORY

left Washington Court House on the evening of May 27 was a large streamer, "For

Attorney General, Harry M. Daugherty of Fayette." The train first stopped at

Bloomington in Paint Township. The Bloomington Republican women presented

Daugherty with a huge floral bouquet with an attached "Paint Township for

Daugherty" card. He was the recipient of additional boosting before the train pulled

into the Zanesville station.³⁴

Zanesville was a compromise site between the Foraker faction who had wanted

Cincinnati and the Hanna-Sherman forces who had favored Columbus. As it turned

out, this was one of the few convention compromises Foraker made. His tactics

surprised the opposition so completely that he was able to dominate the convention.

He received the endorsement of the delegates for Senator in 1896, wrote the party

platform, and chose almost the entire state ticket, including the gubernatorial

nominee, Asa S. Bushnell. Since Foraker controlled the key committees and many

of the large delegations, Hanna and Sherman were both rendered powerless. Their

only consolation was that McKinley was endorsed for the Presidency in 1896.35

Foraker's convention strength weakened Daugherty's nomination chances. He

was hardly Foraker's personal choice for attorney general; indeed, Foraker wanted

William L. Parmenter of Lima. On the first two ballots, however, Daugherty and

Frank S. Monnett of Bucyrus were the leaders with Parmenter a poor third. On

the following ballot, Hamilton County Boss George B. Cox gave his delegation's

eight votes to Foraker's alternate choice, Monnett. The result was inevitable; Mon-

nett defeated Daugherty 486 to 236.36

The newspapers blamed Daugherty's defeat on geographical considerations.

Bushnell came from southern Clark County, and many of the other nominees who

preceded Monnett's selection were from southern Ohio. Logic dictated that the

ticket be balanced geographically by nominating a northern Ohioan for attorney

general. Thus, Monnett and Parmenter were more suitable choices.³⁷ Actually it

probably mattered little to Foraker and Kurtz whether Daugherty was from north-

ern or southern Ohio. Daugherty, more significantly, had offended Foraker in

1891; he was now considered a strong Hanna-Sherman man. It was ironic that

Foraker's political comeback paralleled Daugherty's rising political ambitions.

Although he lost a tough fight at Zanesville, Daugherty won at least a moral

victory. He not only brought with him a united delegation of "stalwarts" but was

able to make a good impression among delegates from other counties. Many were

or would become loyal friends. No headquarters was as crowded as Daugherty's

with well-wishers and allies.³⁸

By mid-February 1896 Daugherty again aspired for public office. He announced

in an interview with the Cyclone and Fayette Republican that he was a candidate

for the United States Congress provided Fayette held a Republican primary pre-

ceding the congressional convention and that a majority of the county Republi-

cans voted for him.³⁹ Daugherty stated later that the 1896 primary was his most

bitter fight in politics. Blaming his participation in a recent controversial trial as

the cause, he claimed that feeling against him was so great in the county that the

34. Ibid., May 30, 1895; Ohio State Journal, May 28, 1895.

35. Walters, Foraker, 108-109.

36. Cincinnati Enquirer, May 30, 1895.

37. Ibid.; Ohio State Journal, May 30, 1895; Cyclone and Fayette Republican, May 30, 1895.

38. Ibid.

39. Ibid., February 20, 1896.

Harry M. Daugherty                                                       161

harness was removed from his horse while he was addressing a rally.⁴⁰ Neverthe-

less, on March 14 Daugherty defeated A. R. Creamer by 109 votes in the Repub-

lican primary county election. Editorials of the Cyclone and Fayette Republican

helped Daugherty since they associated Creamer with the "mugwumpery" which

had attempted to weaken the Republican county organization in 1892. His loyalty

was in doubt as he did not declare his support for the Republican candidate "who-

ever it might be" and had been nominated by a Democrat for mayor of Washing-

ton Court House at the same time he was running for congress on the Republican

ticket.⁴¹

To win the congressional nomination from his district, Daugherty had to re-

ceive party endorsement at the seventh United States congressional district con-

vention at Springfield. Just prior to the convention, Mark Hanna asked Daugherty,

the chairman, to insure that it select pro-McKinley delegates to support the gov-

ernor's presidential ambitions at the Republican national convention in St. Louis

that summer.⁴² This was incompatible with Daugherty's nomination strategy for

the congress.

Daugherty's plan centered upon Madison County, one of five counties which

comprised the seventh congressional district. Pickaway and Miami sent anti-

McKinley delegations to the Springfield convention while Fayette and Clark were

both for McKinley. The balance rested with Madison which dispatched two dele-

gations, each contesting for the right to be seated. George F. Wilson, the incum-

bent McKinley-Hanna congressional candidate, headed one, and John Locke led

the anti-McKinley group. Locke had promised Daugherty that he would commit

his county's twenty votes to him, provided that Fayette voted to recognize his rump

delegation. This would have given Daugherty fifty-nine votes, more than enough

for the nomination.⁴³

Daugherty elected to change his plans upon hearing from Hanna. He had no

choice but to drop his original scheme unless he wished to alienate the party boss.

He wired Hanna that he would "seat the Wilson delegation from Madison [even]

if they cut my throat a moment later." After the pro-McKinley delegation had

been selected and Daugherty had lost the congressional nomination to Walter L.

Weaver of Clark County, he again telegrammed Hanna that he had "seated the

Wilson delegation, and they have cut my throat."⁴⁴ Daugherty's only consolation

was that he had been selected to be a delegate to the Republican national conven-

tion in June.

That fall Daugherty worked hard in behalf of the national ticket. The McKinley-

Bryan presidential campaign developed into an extremely crucial contest. The

Democrats' acceptance of free silver threatened to crystalize over twenty years of

dissatisfaction with Republicanism among the farming and laboring elements.

Daugherty traveled over nine thousand miles in the campaign. At the request of

the Republican national committee, he spoke in Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin,

Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, and South Dakota. Generally, his attack was focused

on the unfairness of free silver. He spoke at Howard, South Dakota, a few hours

40. Daugherty to Harris, June 7, 1938, Box 9, Harris Collection. Daugherty defended Colonel Alonzo

Coit who had ordered his National Guard troops to fire into an angry Washington Court House crowd

that was attempting to lynch a Negro rapist who was under Coit's custody.

41. Cyclone and Fayette Republican, March 5, 12, 19, 1896.

42. Cincinnati Enquirer, May 21, 1899.

43. Ibid.

44. Ibid.

162                                                            OHIO HISTORY

after Populist Mary Lease, to contest her denunciations of McKinleyism and the

gold standard. The Cyclone and Fayette Republican claimed that at the conclusion

of his speech Daugherty received "three rousing cheers.^"45

In 1897 Daugherty gained some recognition for his work for McKinley in the

previous years. At the June Republican state convention in Toledo, he was selected

chairman of the Republican state central committee, the most important party office

in Ohio.⁴⁶ The Hanna forces dominated the convention itself as the Foraker faction

had done in 1895. Although Foraker was fortunate in securing the gubernatorial

nomination for Bushnell, it was all that he and his lieutenants were able to obtain.

George K. Nash replaced Charles Kurtz as chairman of the state executive com-

mittee, putting the pro-Hanna Nash in charge of the campaign.

The fall contest of 1897 indirectly led to Daugherty's first altercation with Hanna.

Having been appointed to the Senate in February after Sherman became McKinley's

Secretary of State, Hanna was now anxious to be elected in his own right. For the

first time in his career, he went on the stump in an effort to insure the selection of

pro-Hanna legislators at the November polls. Despite the opposition of the Foraker

faction and Democrats, Hanna appeared to have secured enough pledges as the

result of the election.⁴⁷ Nevertheless, Foraker's lieutenants collaborated with Dem-

ocrats in the post-election period in an effort to win over some of the Hanna pledges.

Led by such pro-Foraker leaders as Kurtz and Republican Mayor Robert E. Mc-

Kisson of Cleveland, they seemed to have enough support to defeat Hanna by the

time the General Assembly convened in early January. However, Hanna won by

the narrowest of margins. An anti-Hanna Republican, James Otis, thought Hanna

bought votes to win and accused a Hanna agent of bribery even before the final

vote in the legislature. On the morning of the Assembly contest, state senator

Vernon Burke introduced a resolution calling for the investigation of the bribery

charges. Quickly, the United States Senate appointed a committee of investiga-

tion which was to submit a report to the Senate committee on privileges and elec-

tions as to whether Hanna should be re-seated or expelled.⁴⁸

Hanna's friends thought it imperative that he be represented with counsel to

keep him informed as to the progress of the committee as well as to safeguard his

own interests. Charles Dick, secretary of the Republican national committee, em-

ployed Daugherty and Cyrus H. Huling, a Columbus attorney-politician, to rep-

resent Hanna.⁴⁹ This seemingly routine matter contributed to a rift between

Daugherty and Hanna which began in 1898. Though it was closed temporarily,

it still remained unresolved at Hanna's death in 1904.

Disagreement first occurred in May 1898 after the state senate committee and

the committee on privileges and elections failed to find enough evidence to impli-

cate Hanna or his friends. On May 16 Daugherty wrote Hanna enclosing bills to

the Republican national committee totaling $7500. The payment was to be divided

among Daugherty, Huling, and a G. L. Marble, an attorney from Paulding County,

for legal services in Hanna's behalf. Daugherty justified these charges in alluding

to the "constant and careful work" that he and his associates had performed

45. Cyclone and Fayette Republican, September 17, October 8, 1896.

46. Ohio State Journal, June 24, 1897.

47. Croly, Hana, 250-251.

48. Ibid., 251-259, 259-260.

49. According to Huling, Judge George K. Nash advised Dick to employ counsel. Nash most likely

suggested both Daugherty and Huling. Cincinnati Enquirer, May 12, 1899.

164                                                             OHIO HISTORY

ing to impose on Senator Hanna as you are, and we are also equally unwilling to

be imposed upon."⁵²

There are two accounts of Hanna's reaction to Daugherty's insistence that he or

the Republican national committee pay the $7500. Dick stated the following year

that when he had asked Hanna what he should do, Hanna had replied: "Do? Do

nothing, that's what the fellows have done--nothing. Put it all in the hands of Andy

Squire and let him settle."⁵³ George A. Myers of Cleveland, a barber and local

Hanna politician, in his correspondence with historian James Ford Rhodes over

twenty years later, elaborated upon the Senator's recoil. Myers claimed that Hanna

had said: "pay the ---- --- ---- and let him go."⁵⁴ Whatever his specific

response, Hanna was annoyed, even though he eventually paid Daugherty.

The differences between Daugherty and Hanna subsided within a month. In

fact, it appeared that no disagreement had occurred. At the June 21-22 Republican

state convention at Columbus, Daugherty became chairman of the state executive

committee and his friend Huling replaced him as state central committee chairman.

Hanna men were instrumental in these selections. Busily occupied in Washington,

Hanna did not attend and, therefore, played no part in the convention proceedings.

It is doubtful, however, that Daugherty was Hanna's choice, although he did not

feel strongly enough about the outcome to prevent it. As chairman, Daugherty

engineered the successful Republican campaign that fall. Secretary of state Charles

Kinney, the head of the ticket, easily won reelection.⁵⁵

Daugherty broke with Hanna the following year. The break came over Daugher-

ty's desire to seek the Republican gubernatorial nomination. Deterred in 1895,

Daugherty had decided in the summer of 1898 that he must make the race in 1899.56

Bushnell was approaching his last year of two terms. There might not be another

opportunity until 1903 if Bushnell's successor were a Republican. Besides, Daugherty

felt that the administration owed him an open field for he had worked extensively

for the McKinley organization since 1892.

Both Ohio Senators rejected Daugherty's candidacy. On January 5, 1899, Senator

Foraker sarcastically said in an interview that it was "natural" for him to be for

Daugherty since Daugherty had provided such loyal support in the 1892 senatorial

contest. A day later the Cincinnati Enquirer predicted that George K. Nash was

Hanna's choice for the nomination, although Hanna had not as yet openly sup-

ported any candidate.⁵⁷ Daugherty visited Hanna in Washington later that month

to tell him "that a free field and no favor would be a desirable thing in Ohio . . ."58

In early March, however, Hanna told him that it was not his year to make the race.

Nevertheless, Daugherty announced that Hanna favored his nomination.⁵⁹

Daugherty and his followers attempted to create the impression that the Hanna

organization regarded him as favorably as Nash. On May 10 this strategy came

into question when either Charles Dick or one of his lieutenants released a state-

ment to the Enquirer, elaborating upon how Daugherty "held up" Hanna in the

bribery investigation the previous year. In a rebuttal the following day, Cyrus Huling

52. Daugherty, Huling, and Marble to Dick, May 27, 1898, ibid.

53. Cincinnati Enquirer, May 10, 1899. Andrew Squire was Hanna's personal attorney.

54. Myers to Rhodes, May 22, 1922, Garraty, Barber and the Historian, 145.

55. Ohio State Journal, June 23, November 10, 1898.

56. Kurtz to Foraker, June 3, 1898, Box 36, Foraker Papers. Kurtz wrote Foraker that "stranger

things than this have come to pass."

57. Cincinnati Enquirer, January 6, 1899.

58. Ohio State Journal, January 23, 1899.

59. Cincinnati Enquirer, May 15, 1899.

Harry M. Daugherty                                                   165

claimed that the fee was reasonable and justified because of the extent of the work.

Daugherty and Huling then proceeded to attack Dick in the various newspapers

exchanges that week. They portrayed Dick as a jealous man who resented Daugh-

erty's elevation to chairman of the state Republican executive committee. The

"selfish" Dick, they wrote, was deliberately using his position with Hanna to curb

Daugherty's influence in the party.⁶⁰

Because of the publicized fight with Dick, Daugherty was no longer able to

assert that Hanna approved of his candidacy. It was evident that the "puppet"

Dick and other Hanna men would not have generated the anti-Daugherty publicity

without Hanna's approval. All had not ended for Daugherty, however; his control

of the Republican state executive and the state central committees enabled him to

dominate the nominating convention organization. The Republican convention tem-

porary and permanent chairmen both would be Daugherty men. He also had the

support of dissident forces who resented Hanna's domination of the Ohio party.

James W. Holcomb, who had fought the pro-Foraker McKisson and the Hanna

forces in Cleveland to a standstill, was in constant communication with Daugherty

before the Republican convention. In addition, Daugherty had his own organization

of loyal followers which included Huling, Charles Kinney, Ohio secretary of state,

and Howard Mannington, former Ohio assistant secretary of state and now Daugh-

erty's campaign manager. Daugherty's strategy precluded any attempt to align with

the anti-Hanna Foraker crowd. He planned to present his case before the delegates

as a deserving McKinley-Hanna man who sought an open convention in which

Hanna would not dictate. His fight, however, was not so much one of principle as

he himself claimed. He believed in the same boss-oriented party system as Hanna.61

In the week before June 1, the convening date of the state convention in Colum-

bus, Daugherty appeared to have the backing of most of the delegates selected at

the various Republican county conventions. Judge Nash, Hanna's choice, closely

followed, with Lieutenant Governor Asa Jones, Foraker's candidate, a poor third.

On May 27 Daugherty announced at his Neil House headquarters that at least

350 delegates were pledged to him, while Nash's managers stated that their candi-

date had about 275 votes.⁶² On the following day McKinley declared in a Washing-

ton interview that "Daugherty is a good fellow and would make a good governor."

Concerned about the growing party rift in Ohio, the President, however, refrained

from endorsing any particular candidate.⁶³

Early in the preparations for the convention battle, some of Daugherty's managers

had journeyed to Cincinnati for a meeting with Boss George B. Cox. It was claimed

after the Nash victory that an agreement had been made pertaining to the committee

of credentials. Not only had this assured the seating of the contested Holcomb and

Cox delegations, but also the agreement created the possibility of Cox eventually

swinging his delegation to the support of Daugherty--which he did not do. David

Walker, Daugherty's brother-in-law, later asserted that Cox in the Cincinnati meet-

ing had promised at least not to use his votes in Nash's behalf.⁶⁴ As a result of this

understanding Daugherty's men had returned to Columbus with the firm belief that

they need have no fear that Nash would get any votes in Hamilton County, and the

60. Ibid., May 10, 11, 12, 1899.

61. Ibid., May 10, 12, 17, June 3, 1899. On May 14, 1899, Hanna was reported to have favored a

mass convention for the selection of delegates from Cuyahoga County to the state convention.

62. Ohio State Journal, May 28, 1899.

63. Cincinnati Enquirer, May 29, 1899.

64. Ibid., June 4, 1899.

166                                                             OHIO HISTORY

plans for Daugherty's candidacy were made accordingly.

On the day before the opening of the convention Daugherty left his headquarters

and walked down the Neil House corridor to Hanna's rooms, even though Hanna

had earlier failed to award recognition to the Daugherty group as he passed by the

aspiring governor's headquarters. The men shook hands, whereupon Hanna said,

"Well, Harry, this is a great fight that you have been putting up." Daugherty re-

torted that it was not a fight but a contest. He went on to say that he did not relish

being denounced as an anti-administration man. Hanna replied, "That is wrong,

Harry, I consider . . . you . . . as good an Administration man as I am."⁶⁵ This was

Daugherty's last conversation with Hanna until after the "contest."

Daugherty's chances for success faltered in the early hours of convention morn-

ing because of the decisions made in a number of conferences held from the previ-

ous evening until the convention opened the next day. The most important was

made in a Cox-Hanna meeting just after midnight. Cox, who had preferred a com-

promise candidate from Hamilton County, agreed to favor Nash until the third

ballot in exchange for Hanna's promise to nominate Cincinnati ex-mayor John A.

Caldwell for lieutenant governor.⁶⁶ Cox's eighty-six votes from Hamilton gave Nash

a tremendous advantage.

James Holcomb nominated Harry Daugherty on the second day of the conven-

tion. According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the cheering which followed Hol-

comb's speech meant very little as the men who cheered were soon ready for the

slaughter.⁶⁷ Nash led Daugherty at the end of the first ballot, 289 to 211. On the

second vote, Nash was nominated as Cox swung his eighty-six delegates over to

the Hanna side, encouraging other delegations to follow. Nash received 461 to

Daugherty's 205 votes on the final ballot. Amid the demonstration, Daugherty

walked to the platform where he spoke briefly:

This is a good deal like a man dancing a jig at his own funeral, nevertheless there is a

great deal of pleasure in doing it. I thought it might be becoming in me ... to come before

the convention and say to you . . . that I cheerfully ratify the choice of this convention. To

my friends . . . I have nothing to offer but sincere thanks. To those who have supported

the victor in this contest, I bear no malice.

I will remain a private citizen-not, perhaps, because of my own choice, because that is

a privilege that no man dare deny me. I am determined to have my own way about some-

thing.⁶8

Daugherty waged a good fight in spite of being opposed by the Hanna and the

Foraker factions-the two major wings of the Ohio party. His smooth organization

surprised both Hanna and Nash. He failed to win not only because of the duplicity

of Cox but also because Hanna was adamant in his refusal to allow an open con-

vention. Although many pro-Hanna delegates had favored Daugherty, they were

reluctant to vote for him when it became clear that Nash was Hanna's choice.⁶⁹

They had their state jobs, patronage, or political influence to weigh against a candi-

date who was unable to assure them of certain success.⁷⁰

65. Ibid., June 1, 1899.

66. Ibid., June 3, 1899.

67. Cleveland Plain Dealer, June 3, 1899.

68. Ohio State Journal, June 3, 1899.

69. Cincinnati Enquirer, June 2, 3, 1899.

70. See, for example, William H. Phipps to Daugherty, May 22, 1899, Box 1, William H. Phipps

Papers, Ohio Historical Society.

168                                                                  OHIO HISTORY

and boss-rule in various states throughout the country. In the same fashion, this

group sought the removal of Dick and Foraker from the control of the state party

organizations.⁷² "The Republican party," according to Daugherty, "needs no bosses,

and all the semblance of bossism should be avoided by its representatives."⁷³ It

was only natural that Daugherty should attempt to play a leading role in this move-

ment. The Dick and Foraker combination had relegated him to political obscurity.

Only after curbing their influence could he hope to secure the gubernatorial nomi-

nation and play a stronger part in the party.⁷⁴

The main Daugherty-Burton-Herrick challenge came at the September Republi-

can state convention at Dayton. In various caucuses, they attempted to remove

Dick as chairman of the state Republican executive committee and prevent the

pro-Dick Walter F. brown, the political boss of Toledo, from becoming the new

chairman of the party's central committee. In each instance the insurgents lacked

the necessary strength.⁷⁵ Nevertheless, Daugherty and Burton carried the fight to

the convention floor. They ascended the rostrum to argue against Dick's continu-

ance as chairman. They opposed the unqualified endorsement of Dick and Foraker

as United States senators. Burton also introduced resolutions for tariff revision and

for the nomination of United States senators by primary vote. In every case the

insurgents suffered a reversal as their opponents proved too formidable.⁷⁶ Warren

G. Harding, the former lieutenant governor from Marion, strongly opposed Daugh-

erty and other insurgents throughout this fight.⁷⁷

Never one to crumble under adversity, Daugherty recovered quickly from his

1906 setback. Because of his anti-Foraker-Dick stance, he moved naturally--and

opportunistically--into the rising William Howard Taft camp in Ohio. By 1908

Daugherty played an active part in Taft's presidential nomination and viewed with

satisfaction the collapse of the anti-Taft Foraker-Dick organizations.⁷⁸ Still, his ambi-

tions for high public office failed to materialize. Because of Burton's candidacy in

1908, Daugherty withdrew his efforts to win the United States senatorial nomina-

tion, by now his most important political goal. He again foundered in 1910 when

the Democrats gained control of both houses of the state legislature.⁷⁹

By 1912 the Taft-Theodore Roosevelt feud elevated the increasingly thickset and

middle-aged Daugherty into the political limelight of Ohio politics. In this intra-

party battle between conservatives and progressives, he strongly supported the

former, reversing the stand he had taken in 1906 when Ohio Republican insurgents

first challenged the existing order. Daugherty was not inconsistent in aligning him-

self with Taft. In fact he had helped considerably in the 1908 campaign and had

later favored his administration. Daugherty considered Taft an honest, capable

72. Walters, Foraker, 256. See also Arthur Garford to Daugherty, August 17, 1906, Box 18, Arthur

Garford Papers, Ohio Historical Society.

73. Cleveland Plain Dealer, August 26, 1906.

74. "I note that the papers quote you as saying that you will be a candidate for governor to suc-

ceed Pattison," Phipps to Daugherty, December 11, 1905, Box 7, Phipps Papers. In answer to Phipps,

Daugherty replied, "I note what you say in regard to the governorship, I have not said I would be a

candidate . . . I did say that on the first of January, 1906, I will announce whether I will be a candidate

or not." Daugherty to Phipps, December 12, 1905, ibid.

75. Ohio State Journal, September 12, 1906.

76. Ibid., September 13, 1906.

77. Cleveland Plain Dealer, August 26, 1906.

78. Philadelphia Record, December 17, 1908. Clipping in Theodore Burton Papers, Box 67, Western

Reserve Historical Society.

79. Forrest Crissey, Theodore Burton: American Statesman (Cleveland, 1956), 75. See also Ohio

State Journal, January 11, 1911.

Harry M. Daugherty                                                            169

president who was entitled to the party's nomination, and as a candidate more in

tune with his own brand of conservative Republicanism, which remained consistent

throughout his life aside from that one detour in 1906.80 Taft was also an Ohioan--

one who was not ambivalent toward Daugherty's political ambitions. In any case,

he expected Taft's organization to support him in any future senatorial campaign.81

For whatever specific reason, Daugherty was one of the most active Taft men

in Ohio in the early months of that hectic year of 1912. He and Ohio national

committeeman Arthur Vorys devoted much time to planning Taft's Ohio primary

campaign. So appreciative was the President that he wrote Daugherty a personal

note in March thanking him for his efforts.⁸² Probably no amount of work, however,

could have prevented the humiliation Taft suffered in the Ohio May primary.

Thirty-four Roosevelt delegates were elected to eight for Taft, with only six delegates-

at-large to be chosen at the June state Republican convention. These Taft managed

to secure during a bitterly contested meeting in which hisses and catcalls interrupted

speeches from both factions.⁸³ Largely because he also controlled the national party

machinery, Taft succeeded in winning renomination at the Republican national con-

vention in Chicago the same month.

Taft's steamroller victory caused Roosevelt to create the Progressive party in

August. In Ohio a number of progressive Republican leaders joined the Bull Moose

movement upon Taft's refusal to compromise on the issue of his presidential en-

dorsement. With the Ohio Republican party now badly weakened, Harry Daugherty

agreed to serve as chairman of the Republican state executive committee. His task

was to lead the sagging state party to victory against the Democrats and Progres-

sives in November. He believed that his only hope for success was to conduct a

disciplined campaign in which all disloyal Republicans would be purged from the

party. In a series of directives, he proceeded to eliminate all anti-Taft and pro-

Progressive members from the county committees and advised all committees not

to aid financially any disloyal Republican candidate. He also worked with Ohio

secretary of state, Charles H. Graves (a Democrat), to enforce the controversial

Dana Law, which permitted a candidate to represent only one party on the ballot.⁸⁴

No longer could Republican candidates running on the congressional and county

levels carry "water on both shoulders" in order to win the Progressive party en-

dorsement. Consequently, the Progressive party was eliminated as a factor on the

local plateau.

In pursuing such policies, Daugherty had encouragement from almost all

pro-Taft Republicans. In fact, it was in this period that a Daugherty-Harding part-

80. Harry M. Daugherty and Thomas Dixon, The Inside Story of the Harding Tragedy (New York,

1932), 80. See also Daugherty to Harris, May 4, June 7, 1938, Box 9, Harris Collection.

81. Cleveland Leader, June 17, 1912; Ohio State Journal, August 7, 1912. Taft had already sup-

ported him in other ways. In January 1912 he commuted the sentence of a Federal prisoner, Charles

W. Morse, in part because of Daugherty's lobbying activities in Morse's behalf. On innumerable occa-

sions the lobbyist Daugherty attempted to use his political associations to benefit his legal work. For

the sordid Morse case see Henry F. Pringle, The Life and Times of William Howard Taft (New York,

1939), II, 627-637.

82. William Howard Taft to Daugherty, March 12, 1912, William Howard Taft Papers, Folder 335,

Presidential Series II, Library of Congress.

83. Daugherty and Harding were included among the "big six."

84. Daugherty to Edward H. Cooper, October 21, 1912, Box 21, Phipps Papers; Daugherty to County

Chairmen, November 7, 1912, ibid.; Newton Fairbanks to Myron T. Herrick, February 8, 1916, Box 1,

Newton Fairbanks Papers, Ohio Historical Society; and Ohio State Journal, September 1, 25, October

1, 1912.

170                                                                   OHIO HISTORY

nership evolved.⁸⁵ Harding, who had placed Taft's name in nomination at the

Republican national convention, had attempted to harmonize party differences.

Failing in this, he became a strong defender of Daugherty's uncompromising ac-

tions. The Harding Marion Star gave Daugherty its complete backing. Daugherty

cordially thanked Harding for his "constant comfort and support during the

campaign . . . It was only on account of such support," reported Daugherty, that

he was able "to go through this terrific fight." In another letter, he claimed that

"we are better friends than ever and understand each other thoroughly and will

hang together through thick and thin."⁸⁶

The election results, however, proved a disappointment to Daugherty. Obviously

the Republican party split was the opposition's gain. Yet his disciplined campaign

kept the party organizations intact in the face of the Progressive assault. The fact

that he prevented Republican candidates from receiving Progressive endorsements

did much to retain the integrity of the Ohio party. Confident of his course and

anxious to maintain control, he continued his strong anti-Progressive measures into

the post-election period.⁸⁷

This approach satisfied such Old Guard faithfuls as Taft and Foraker but caused

ill-feeling among many Republicans who now felt that the main task should be a

reunion of Progressives and Republicans.⁸⁸ Some, in fact, believed that Daugherty's

resignation as party chairman was a needed prerequisite for a reunited party.89 In

the months after 1912, however, chairman Daugherty continually hindered the

possibility of any meaningful Republican-Progressive amalgamation. Not only refus-

ing to relinquish the party executive chairmanship to a more harmonious leader, he

also opposed any compromises that questioned the principles he had defended in

1912. Nor did he favor the return of Progressive leaders to positions within the

Republican party.^"90

Although sometimes as uncompromising as Daugherty in 1912, Warren G.

Harding by early 1914 had the reputation of being a harmonizer and he wisely

focused on the need for an inclusive and reunited party.91 He was at that time a

prime senatorial contender to replace the retiring Theodore Burton, particularly

since his main primary opponent was the reactionary Joseph Foraker. Harding

developed a strong appreciation for Daugherty's support which led to the 1914

senatorial victory. He also believed that Daugherty was still a significant political

factor who would generally favor him, and one who had been of valuable service

to the Republicans in 1912. He therefore endorsed Daugherty for a seat in the

85. The two had met in November 1899 at Richwood, Union County. In the immediate years their

relationship had been rather casual at best. The Harding Papers contain only three letters from Daugh-

erty for the 1899-1911 period. At worst Harding, as a pro-Foraker lieutenant, sometimes opposed

Daugherty politically.

86. Daugherty to Warren G. Harding, November 16, 1912, January 13, 1913, Box 51, Warren G.

Harding Papers, Ohio Historical Society.

87. Daugherty to County Chairmen, November 7, 1912, Box 21, Phipps Papers.

88. Frank B. Willis and Simeon Fess, both involved in United States congressional campaigns in

1912, are examples of those who advocated reunion. See Gerald E. Ridinger, "The Political Career of

Frank B. Willis" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of History, The Ohio State University,

1957), 44; and John Lewis Nethers, "Simeon D. Fess: Educator and Politician" (unpublished Ph.D.

dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1964), 139-140.

89. Columbus Week, May 3, 1913.

90. In fairness to Daugherty, however, in 1913 such Progressive leaders as James Garfield or Arthur

Garford had no intention of returning to Republicanism even if Daugherty were out of office. Hoyt

Landon Warner, Progressivism in Ohio, 1897-1917 (Columbus, 1964), 468. At one point, Daugherty hinted

at resignation but did not step down. Ohio State Journal, February 13, 1914.

91. Warner, Progressivism, 471. See also Russell, Blooming Grove, 245.

Harry M. Daugherty                                                          171

United States senate in 1916. Even Harding, however, could not help Daugherty

enough in the primary election for the party's senatorial nomination. His setback

to Myron T. Herrick was so overwhelming that Harding thought it meant "his

complete retirement."⁹² Out of eighty-eight counties, Daugherty managed to win

only six--a block in south central Ohio. Only in Fayette did he gain a convincing

victory.⁹³ If it had not been for the subtle endorsement of Harding and the un-

qualified backing of the Tafts' Cincinnati Times-Star, his defeat would have reached

even more humiliating proportions.⁹⁴ Daugherty blamed his poor showing on the

large sums of money that Herrick had spent and on Republican presidential candi-

date Charles Evans Hughes' praising of Herrick's French ambassadorship in the

Taft period. Too, Daugherty admitted that the "Progressives, finding that they had

a good chance to get even with me, lined up solidly behind Herrick . . . ." What

he did not say was that many Republicans also refused to favor him because of

their opposition to the way that he had run the party.⁹⁵

Even though perturbed, Daugherty had no thoughts of divorcing himself from

politics. Adversity had a vindictive rather than a crushing effect upon him. If any-

thing, he was even more certain that former Progressive leaders like James R. Gar-

field and Walter Brown must never play any important role within the Republican

party.⁹⁶ Daugherty also became extremely antagonistic toward the wet Hamilton

County Republican organization which he believed had contributed to his primary

defeat. In November Daugherty came out strongly for prohibition in Ohio, partly

because of his personal grudge against Rudolph K. (Rud) Hynicka and other

Hamilton county leaders--at least, that was how Harding analyzed Daugherty's

motives.⁹⁷

By late 1917 Daugherty expediently joined with the personally dry ex-governor

Frank B. Willis in sponsoring state-wide prohibition. This growing movement, he

predicted, would carry Ohio dry by more than 50,000 in 1918.98 Daugherty was

not dry personally. "Nobody ever charged me with being a crank on the proposi-

tion," he asserted, "for a man can take a drink and yet be in favor of abolishing

the business." In championing the movement at this time he intended not only

to punish his political adversaries but also to reelect Willis to the governorship.

If he succeeded, he would have much to say about presidential politics in Ohio

for 1920. Also, there was already a rumor early in 1918 that if Harding were nomi-

nated to the vice-presidency, as appeared possible, Willis, if elected, would appoint

Daugherty to Harding's unexpired term in the Senate.⁹⁹ Nothing would have pleased

Daugherty more.

The reported Daugherty-Willis accord caused Harding some concern. He doubted

the wisdom of renominating the previously defeated Willis. He also feared that

Daugherty's disdain for the party's progressive and wet factions would disrupt his

92. Harding to Malcolm Jennings, August 26, 1916, Box 1, Malcolm Jennings Papers, Ohio His-

torical Society.

93. Ohio, Annual Report of the Secretary of State, 1917, pp. 558-559.

94. Campaign clipping from Jewish Review and Observer (Cleveland), July 28, 1916, Box 4, Harris

Collection. See also editorial, Cincinnati Times-Star, July 24, 1916.

95. See, for example, Daugherty to Simeon Fess, December 23, 1915, copy in Box 334, Series III,

Taft Papers.

96. Daugherty to Taft, August 18, 1916, Box 35, Series III, ibid.

97. Harding to F. E. Scobey, December 4, 1916, Box 1, F. E. Scobey Papers, Ohio Historical Society.

98. Daugherty to Harding, May 31, 1918, Box 85, Harding Papers. The Ohio dry referendum had

narrowly failed in the 1917 fall election.

99. William Wood to Harding, February 23, 1918, Box 72, Harding Papers.

172                                                                OHIO HISTORY

efforts to restore party harmony and consequently would jeopardize his own re-

election, or a vice-presidential bid in 1920.100 Because of such growing differences,

a clash developed between Daugherty and Harding in 1918 over the fundamental

issue of party control in Ohio.

Difficulties began to develop in early 1918 when Daugherty ignored Harding's

advice to reach a compromise with Rud Hynicka and the Hamilton County organi-

zation over the prohibition issue. Daugherty instead encouraged Willis "to make

no concessions to anybody."¹⁰¹ He then warned Harding that Hynicka was conspir-

ing with former Progressive Walter Brown to seek no less than complete control

of the party machinery. This Progressive-wet alliance, according to Daugherty,

was already plotting to deliver the Ohio delegation to Theodore Roosevelt in 1920.

"When that is done," he prophesied, "they expect to elect United States Senators

and governors, and wipe the real Republicans off the face of the earth."¹⁰²

In the August primary Willis won the gubernatorial nomination despite a trounc-

ing from Hamilton County. His victory forecast a dry party platform and meant

a Daugherty-Willis takeover of most of the party machinery.103 Daugherty's friend

Newton Fairbanks became the new Republican state central committee chairman

and a Willis lieutenant, Edward Fullington, was appointed chairman of the Re-

publican state executive committee. Only the Harding-created state advisory com-

mittee, which had been formed in 1916 to aid in the further reunification of the

party, remained undisturbed.

Daugherty's plans had to be modified, however, when Willis had the misfortune

of being the only Republican candidate not to win a state office in the November

election. Losing by only a 14,000 plurality, he suffered from a 16,500 deficit in

Hamilton County.104 Immediately after the election, Daugherty wrote Harding, "I

suppose you learned the whole story of the bolters' crimes. . . . Practically the

whole crime was committed in Cincinnati. . . . Henceforth the fight in Ohio will

be against Hamilton county, and on that issue the Republicans will never lose."105

Daugherty was now even more convinced that Hamilton County leaders must not

play any significant part in the state party's organizations.

Senator Harding did not share Daugherty's conclusions. He believed that for

party success cooperation was essential with Hamilton. "I am getting a number of

echoes of the Ohio political atmosphere," he cautioned Daugherty, "and have

heard you no little discussed in such revelations. . . ."¹⁰⁶ Due to the outcry against

Daugherty's manipulations and because of his own desire for party unity, Harding,

as chairman of the advisory committee, decided to call for a joint meeting of that

body and the state central committee for mid-December."¹⁰⁷ He hoped to reactivate,

expand, and reorganize the advisory committee and to include more Republicans

from Hamilton County.

100. Sinclair, Available Man, 103.

101. Daugherty to Frank B. Willis, January 24, 1918, Box 6, Frank B. Willis Papers, Ohio Historical

Society. Hynicka was successor to Boss George Cox.

102. Daugherty to Harding, June 3, 1918, Box 85, Harding Papers.

103. Charles E. Hard to Harding, August 20, 1918, Box 367, ibid.

104. Ridinger, "Willis," 141. Sole blame cannot be placed on Hamilton County. The attacks on

Willis' patriotism and his poor showing as governor from 1914 to 1916 lost him a number of votes

throughout the state.

105. Daugherty to Harding, November 18, 1918, Box 85, Harding Papers.

106. Harding to Daugherty, November 23, 1918, ibid.

107. Harding to Hard, November 29, 1918, Box 1, Charles E. Hard Papers, Ohio Historical Society.

See also Harding to N. H. Fairbanks, December 12, 1918, Box 1, Fairbanks Papers.

Harry M. Daugherty                                                          173

His authority rested on the 1918 state convention's endorsement of a revitalized

advisory organization.108 Harding, at this time, seemed intent on weakening the

influence of the Daugherty-controlled central committee by reorganizing the advi-

sory committee.

Daugherty, of course, strongly opposed Harding's proposal and countered with

a warning that the party's real enemies, the Walter Brown and Hamilton crowd

especially, wished to use the meeting and the advisory committee as vehicles to

capture control of the party. He implied that their plot included the debasement

of Harding as a political factor in Ohio.¹⁰⁹ Daugherty denied that ulterior motives

influenced his viewpoint; he cared only for party success and the well-being of

friends like Harding and Willis. Discounting any personal grudge against Hamilton

County Republicans, he retorted to Harding: "I am not in the fertilizer business

and do not consider it profitable to pursue or puncture dead horses." He did feel,

however, that since they had been treacherous, he would never have confidence in

them nor permit their participation in party affairs. He concluded with a word of

caution. If Hamilton County had a large representation on the new advisory com-

mittee, it would put Harding in a bad light with the rank and file of the party who

had supported the ticket and could also invite a renewed wet-dry conflict.¹¹⁰

For his part, Harding doubted the existence of a plot against himself, Daugherty,

or any Republican leader-at least one that was inspired by Brown or Hynicka. He

sarcastically confessed to Daugherty that he was perhaps too innocent to suspect all

the so-called schemes of those who had favored the meeting. "And . . . I am glad

I am of such a mind," Harding stated; "I should really dislike to think that there

isn't any sincerity or genuine interest in anybody. . . ."¹¹¹ He saw clearly that the

personal ambitions of Daugherty and his friends, rather than those of Brown, were

the main obstacle to his own plans of controlling a united party for 1920. Harding

confided to an associate that he would take issue with Daugherty if he insisted

upon continuing his political manipulations.112 To another friend, he said he had

told Daugherty that "some things he was committed to could not be."¹¹³ Harding,

in turn, had already been informed by Hard that "we are dealing with a lot of very

thorough gentlemen [Daugherty, Herbert Morrow, and Fairbanks], who are cold of

blood, who know what they want, and they are going to get it if they can."114

Chairman of the central committee Fairbanks requested Harding to postpone

the joint advisory-central committee meeting until after the organization of the

state legislature in January. This gesture perturbed Harding, especially when

Daugherty indicated that he and Fairbanks must have a hand in the selection of

the advisory committee's membership.115 More disturbing was Daugherty's intima-

tion that resistance might invite an opposition candidate for Harding's seat in the

108. Harding to Fairbanks, November 29, December 12, 1918, ibid.; see also Harding to Daugherty,

November 29, 1918, Box 85, Harding Papers; Harding to Jennings, November 30, 1918, Box 1, Jennings

Papers.

109. Daugherty to Harding, June 3, November 26, 1918, Box 85, Harding Papers.

110. Ibid.

111. Harding to Daugherty, November 27, December 20, 1918, Box 85; see also Hard to Harding,

December 15, 1918, Box 367, Harding Papers.

112. Harding to Jennings, November [27?], 1918, Box 1, Jennings Papers.

113. Harding to Hard, December 7, 1918, Box 1, Hard Papers.

114. Hard to Harding, December 1, 1918, Box 367, Harding Papers.

115. Hard to Harding, December 15, 1918, ibid.; Daugherty to Harding, December 17, 1918, copy in

Box 1, Fairbanks Papers. See also Daugherty to Harding, December 7, 1918, Box 85, Harding Papers.

Harry M. Daugherty                                                   177

forefront of presidential politics in Ohio, and also it denied the progressive Brown

faction a major candidate. In the January 9 letter Daugherty told Harding that he

had "some ideas about this thing now which I will talk over with you."¹²⁴ And

Harding also seemed anxious to see Daugherty. Upon receipt of Daugherty's letter,

Harding replied: "I am a good deal more anxious to confer with you than anyone

else in Ohio, because the new political situation is one that must be talked over

and we must certainly plan to cooperate in meeting the responsibility which is

going to come to us.^"125

During the following week, a revitalized state advisory committee officially came

into being with its headquarters at Columbus. The harmony-promoting and Harding-

directed organization included Daugherty, Brown, and a large representation from

Hamilton County. George H. Clark of Stark County became Harding's choice to

direct its operation, but Daugherty loomed as the most outspoken vehicle for the

Harding presidential candidacy of 1920. He would, in fact, become Harding's cam-

paign manager and would play a leading role in the crucial weeks prior to Harding's

presidential nomination.

Daugherty's eventual success as Harding's manager was the result of the same

characteristics he had displayed throughout his political career: the "bulldog"

tenacity that had enabled him to surmont his early defeats, the type of courage that

he had exhibited in challenging Hanna in 1899, and the abundance of energetic

optimism that he had employed in the McKinley and Taft campaigns. Along with

all of these qualities were his thirty-six years of organizational experience in Ohio

politics--perhaps, the most turbulent in the nation. His culminating reward was his

appointment as Attorney General of the United States by President Harding. Upon

his resignation, forced by succeeding President Calvin Coolidge after the death of

Harding, Daugherty returned to Columbus, where he died in 1941 at age eighty-one.

124. Daugherty to Harding, January 9, 1919, Box 85, ibid.

125. Ibid.