MARCUS A. HANNA AND THEODORE E. BURTON
by WILBUR
DEVEREUX JONES
Instructor in History, University of
Georgia
The tempestuous career of Marcus A.
Hanna during the
triumphant days of the Republican party
at the turn of the century
is still the object of considerable
interest to the historian. While
his importance is generally recognized,
possibly even exaggerated,
the available biographical material on
Hanna is not very satis-
factory, partly because the accounts
tend to be biased, partly because
they often conflict with one another on
many points. It is the purpose
of this paper to present certain
incidents in his career as they are
related to the career of Theodore E.
Burton, at that time the
Republican congressman from the 21st district
in Cleveland, in an
attempt to throw additional light on
several disputed points and
to aid in the proper evaluation of
Hanna's political power and
leadership.
Generally speaking, the political
relationship between Hanna
and Burton was never cordial. Their
political differences date back
at least as far as their quarrel over
the Cleveland postmastership
during the Harrison administration.
This does not mean, however,
that the two were constantly at odds
with each other in the way
that Hanna was at odds with Senator
Foraker. Burton was an out-
standing vote-getter and, as such, was
badly needed in the politically
uncertain Cleveland area. Fortunately
for Hanna, he was also a
man who believed in promoting party
harmony. Hanna needed
Burton; Burton deplored factionalism.
This was the basis of their
relationship and it was substantial
enough to prevent, save on one
occasion, an open break between them.
If Congressman Burton had had the
desire to contest the
leadership of Ohio politics with Hanna,
the opportunity for so
doing came early and in a way which
permitted him to take decisive
action. This occasion presented itself
at the time the question of
appointing a successor to serve out the
remainder of John Sherman's
term in the senate became an issue of
national interest. The story
10
Hanna and Burton 11
of how Senator Sherman, perhaps
unwillingly, accepted the post
of secretary of state in President
McKinley's cabinet and thus
created a vacancy for an Ohio senator
is too well known to need
recounting here. Suffice it to say that
the resignation of Sherman left
the appointment of a senator,
presumably Hanna, up to Governor
Asa Bushnell of Ohio. Bushnell,
however, was a member of the
anti-Hanna Foraker faction and had no
desire to make a free gift
of this high office to Hanna. All
accounts of the incident agree
up to this point, but thereafter there
is some conflict among them
concerning why Bushnell finally
appointed Hanna.
According to one writer the governor,
in spite of his hos-
tility toward Hanna, did not
"dare" to give the appointment to
anyone else.1 Myron T.
Herrick confirms this story, explaining that
Governor Bushnell was forced to appoint
Hanna.2 Lincoln Steffens
takes a somewhat similar stand. His
account states that George B.
Cox, the former saloon keeper whom
Senator Foraker had made
the top political power in Cincinnati,
dictated the selection of
Hanna both to Bushnell and Foraker.3
These accounts may all have
some truth in them, but they are
misleading. Senator Foraker's
version, which leaves the impression
that Hanna was appointed
simply because no other suitable
candidate could be found, is the
most accurate.4
Governor Bushnell did dare to offer the
position to at least
two other men, one of whom was Burton.
His offer probably
reached Burton on February 16, 1897,
for Burton's telegram in
reply is so dated and indicates a quick
response.5 The answer was
rather noncommital, but showed
considerable interest. He explained
that he could not reply affirmatively
to the suggestion, but he
promised to leave the same night for
Columbus to "talk over the
situation." Leaving immediately,
Burton arrived in Columbus on
February 17 and spent the afternoon and
evening in conversation
1 Herbert Croly, Marcus Alonzo
Hanna, His Life and Work (New York, 1912),
240.
2 T. Bentley Mott, Myron T. Herrick,
Friend of France (New York, 1930), 79.
3 Lincoln Steffens, The Struggle for
Self-Government (New York, 1906), 171-
172. Colored with the writer's political
idealism, this is one of the least sympathetic
(and sometimes unreliable) writings on
Hanna.
4 Joseph B. Foraker, Notes of a Busy
Life (2 vols., Cincinnati, 1916), I, 504.
5 In the Burton Papers in the Western
Reserve Historical Society, Cleveland,
Ohio. All Burton correspondence
subsequently referred to is from this collection.
12 Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
with Governor Bushnell and Senator
Foraker. At this conference
Burton was promised the senatorship and
full support in the
senatorial election.6 Foraker,
writing of the incident later, was
unable to account for Burton's
refusal.7 There were probably
several reasons for his rejection of
this tempting offer. In the first
place he did not want to form a
definite alliance with the anti-
Hanna, anti-McKinley Foraker faction
and thus definitely break
with one strong wing of the Ohio
Republican party. He may also
have felt that his election to the
post, contested by the powerful
Hanna forces in the legislature, would
be uncertain and his ac-
ceptance might mean giving up a
promising career in the house of
representatives for a few months in the
senate. Finally, he may
have felt that his acceptance would
have been seriously injurious
to party harmony, as, no doubt, it
would have been.8 At any rate,
at this crucial moment in his early
career, Burton pursued a policy
of caution which in itself was a tacit
acknowledgment of the power
of the Hanna forces in state politics.
It is interesting to speculate on the
outcome of the election
if a strong candidate like Burton had
chosen to accept, for, as it
was, Hanna as incumbent narrowly missed
defeat at the hands of
the Foraker faction. Probably at no
time in his career thereafter
was Hanna in such danger of a major
defeat as at the election of
1897. But his victory further secured
his position in Ohio politics,
and thereafter he tightened his grip on
the state and local machines.
This grip does not appear to have
relaxed until about 1902, when,
in the opinion of this writer, Hanna's
political power was waning
and forces were piling up against him
again.
However great Hanna's ability as a
national chairman may have
been, this political genius was
certainly not reflected in his manage-
ment of local politics. He was willing
to make concessions to
Burton and others in the matter of
political patronage even to the
6 Cleveland
Leader, February 27, 1897.
7 Foraker,
Notes of a Busy Life, I, 504.
8 G. W. Shurtleff to Burton, February
23, 1897; William J. Akers to Burton,
February 22, 1897. In seeking advice
from his friends in this matter, Burton enjoined
upon them strict secrecy. This may have
resulted from his desire to keep Hanna
from knowing that he was considering the
offer or may have been forced upon him
by Bushnell and Foraker, who did not
wish their efforts to be made known until
they had found a strong appointee.
Burton stressed party harmony as the reason for
his refusal.
Hanna and Burton 13
extent of allowing his enemies to be
appointed to minor offices,9
but he was never successful in
eliminating factionalism and creating
an effective local machine. The reform
wave that swept some cities
at the opening of the century was
another factor in causing the
Republican party in Cleveland to fall
on evil days. If they could
not agree on many topics, Hanna and
Burton reached unanimity
whenever the name Tom L. Johnson, the
Democratic reform mayor
of Cleveland was mentioned. Hanna
thought him a "socialist-
anarchist-nihilist"10 and
Burton likewise regarded him with dis-
taste.11 Even the common dislike for
Johnson, however, was not
enough to unite the Republican party,
which passed its time in futile
splits and unsuccessful harmony
meetings.12 It would require con-
siderable space to describe fully these
vicissitudes, and such an
account would have little historical
importance. One incident, the
story of the open break of Burton with
his party in 1902, will give
something of an over-all picture of the
situation.
Had there been no other reason for the
"partial estrangement"
between Hanna and Burton,13 the factor
of clashing personalities
would seem to have been enough to keep
the two men apart.
Burton was reserved; Hanna, effusive.
Burton was something of a
scholar; Hanna was sometimes openly
contemptuous of learning.
Burton's tactics were at all times
above reproach; those of Hanna
were sometimes open to question. But
there were reasons beyond
this incompatibility of personalities
to prevent their reaching an
understanding. Burton no doubt felt
than Hanna was a most
unfortunate leader for the Republican
party.14 His activities in
politics and business had created the
most bitter animosity toward
him in some quarters, and the flood of
unfavorable publicity he
9
Charles F. Leach to Burton, June 9, 1899.
10 Steffens, Struggle for
Self-Government, 183.
11 Johnson and Burton were at sword's
points early in 1901. Burton charged him
with making "disparaging references" about
his congressional record. Burton to Tom
L. Johnson, March 29, 1901. He, in turn,
accused Burton of making "criminal charges"
against him. Johnson to Burton, March 29, 1901.
Burton's challenge to a debate was
accepted, but apparently it was never held.
12 One of the worst splits occurred in
1900. John F. Goldenbogen to Burton,
February 3, 1900; Hugh Buckley, Jr., to
Burton, February 17, 1900.
13 G. W. Shurtleff to Burton, February
23, 1897. The writer, a relative of
Burton's, says: "I think it is
quite important that the old relations of partial estrange-
ment between you and Hanna should be removed."
14 Ibid.
14
Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
received in Democratic newspapers made
many Republicans speak
of him apologetically.15 As
party leader he had failed year after
year to create peace in the Republican
ranks in Cleveland. As the
election of 1902 appeared on the
horizon, Burton felt it was time
a serious effort be made to improve the
situation in the Cleveland
district.
In May 1902 Burton formulated his plan
for eliminating
"bossism" from the county
machine and for securing party leaders
in the district more likely to meet
with public approval. He felt
that the best way to avoid the
inevitable charges of bossism would
be to have the candidates themselves
choose the key men of the
county machine at special meetings. Two
such meetings were held,
and a nonfactional candidate was
selected for the county chair-
manship. Shortly before the formal
election of the county chairman,
however, a meeting was held in the
Perry-Paine Building in Cleve-
land, the headquarters of the Hanna
machine, and there Hanna
and his lieutenants chose the county
slate, ignoring the wishes of
the candidates. The men so chosen were
duly elected, and as another
slap at Burton, a candidate wholly
unacceptable to Burton was
chosen as nominee for judge. During the
affair one of Burton's most
trusted lieutenants cooperated with the
Hanna machine, making it
all the more bitter for Burton.16
When Burton heard the result of the
meeting, he decided on
a two-fold course of action. Realizing
how seriously it would hurt
the party ticket, he announced his
withdrawal from the congressional
race. Next he decided to enter charges
against the government
employees who led the Hanna forces in
Cleveland for violation
of the rule prohibiting government
employees from being politically
active. Pleading ill health, Burton
went to Hot Springs, Virginia,
to await developments. He did not have
long to wait. First the local
leader of the Hanna forces wrote and
tried to present excuses.17
Then Myron T. Herrick wrote that he was
going to contact Presi-
15 Solon Lauer, Mark Hanna (Cleveland,
1901), 12-14. See also Joseph L.
Szepessy to Burton, June 8, 1902.
16 Burton to J. B. Morrow, June 6, 1902;
C. C. Dewstoe to Burton, June 6,
1902; Burton to E. D. Barry, June 6,
1902. The judge was elected in the fall,
ironically enough, through the efforts
of the Burton committee. See the Cleveland
Plain Dealer, November 5, 1902.
17 Charles F. Leach to Burton, June 7,
1902.
Hanna and Burton 15
dent Roosevelt with the warning that
the withdrawal would mean
the defeat of the Republicans in the
district.18 Hanna was at first
determined not to ask Burton to remain
on the ticket, but a visit
to Cleveland seems to have caused him
to change his mind. He
had a conference with Burton which
resulted in the drawing up of
a "memerandum" agreement.19
By the terms of this compromise
Burton was given complete charge of the
campaign in his own
congressional area (the 21st district),
and the county committee
as elected was allowed to function
outside these geographical limits.
Perhaps nothing can better illustrate
the sorry state of Cleveland
politics during the Hanna era than this
unusual agreement itself.
The second part of Burton's plan did
not work out so success-
fully. The complaint he registered with
the civil service commission
not only charged violation of the rule
against political activity by
federal employees, but also included a
charge of bribery in the
county election.20 With the
political reputation of two of his chief
lieutenants in jeopardy, Hanna brought
pressure to bear. President
Roosevelt dropped the charges of
violating the civil service rule,
and the charges of bribery did not
survive a court investigation,
though the judge admitted to Burton
that "illegitimate, and perhaps
corrupt means" had been used.21 A
bit battered by Burton's assault,
the Hanna machine in Cleveland,
therefore, was allowed to con-
tinue to function. The creditable
victory achieved in the fall, how-
ever, can no doubt be attributed to
Burton.
Not only did Burton meet and beat Hanna
on this local issue,
but he was also victorious on a
national one. One of the few
measures that Hanna strongly advocated
during his time in the
senate was a bill to subsidize American
shipping. In his support of
the proposal he pointed out that such a
subsidy was similar in
effect to the tariff system adopted for
the protection of industry, and
utilizing the current fear of German
sea power, he noted that
without such a measure Germany would
soon be stronger at sea
18 Myron T. Herrick to Burton, June 11,
1902.
19 M.
A. Hanna to Harvey D. Goulder, June 24, 1902. The spelling is Hanna's.
20 James R. Garfield to Burton, June 14, 1902; Howard H.
Burgess to Burton,
June 6, 1902. The bribes said to have
been offered were positions on the park board
as well as money payments.
21 Cleveland Plain Dealer, June 9,
11, 1902; Probate Judge Henry C. White to
Burton, June 19, 1902. See also Charles
F. Leach to Burton, June 29, 1902.
16 Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
than the United States. Some senators,
such as Senator Tillman of
South Carolina, were not satisfied with
these arguments and sought
to connect Hanna's interest in the
measure with the recent acquisi-
tion of certain steamship lines, such
as the Leyland Line, by J. P.
Morgan, who would benefit by the
passage of the act.22 Nevertheless,
the bill passed the senate in March
1902 and went to the house.
Burton had taken a firm stand against
such a measure as early
as 1900.23 In the house the bill went
into committee and remained
there without action until early in
1903, when Senator Hanna tried
to bring it to a vote. The degree of
Hanna's interest in the measure
is indicated by the fact that he paid
one of his very rare visits to
the house to consult party leaders
there.24 After spending some time
in conference with his close friend
Congressman Charles Dick and
other members of the house committee on
merchant marine and
fisheries, he returned to the senate
chamber. At this conference he
appealed to them as the Republican
national chairman, demanding
that the bill be brought to a vote in
order to redeem party pledges.
Therefore, when a number of Republicans
on the committee voted
with the Democrats to scuttle the bill,
the defeat was damaging to
his party prestige. Though not a member
of the committee, Burton
had a hand in blocking the passage of
the measure.25
Still another incident, this time in
the field of state politics,
might indicate that Hanna's control of
the Republican party was
weakening in the years 1902-3. Through
his alliance with "Boss"
Cox, Hanna had wielded great power in
state political affairs for
many years. However, the Republican
candidate for governor in
1903 seems to have been forced upon
Hanna rather than selected
by him. This seems to be true even
though most accounts leave one
with the opposite impression.
22 Congressional Record, 57 cong.,
1 sess., 2440-2445. See also the Cleveland
Leader, February 26, 1903.
23
C. C. Dewstoe to Burton, November 27, 1900. Burton's objections to the bill
were apparently based on economy. His
case, however, is somewhat questionable
because he received considerable
information on the subject from Vernon D. Brown,
an agent of a foreign line. Vernon D.
Brown to Burton, December 1, 1900.
24 Cleveland Plain Dealer, February
14, 1903. Hanna had visited the house once
before, during its consideration of the
Cuban tariffs. It is said that at that time his
presence caused such a sensation that it almost broke
up the session of congress.
On this occasion he was careful to hold
his interviews in the smoking room.
25 Ibid., February
14, 24, 1903. See also Grace C. Burton to Burton, March 2,
1903.
Hanna and Burton 17
In his memoirs Myron T. Herrick states
that Hanna asked him
to run for governor of Ohio in 1903 and
that he rather reluctantly
agreed to do so.26 One of Hanna's
biographers uses Herrick's success
in this campaign as evidence of Hanna's
power in state politics.27
The Burton papers, however, reveal a
rather different story. Far from
being a reluctant candidate, Herrick
sought Burton's (not Hanna's)
support for the nomination as early as
December 1902.28 It was
through Burton that Herrick sought the
support of Hanna's political
enemy, Senator Foraker, and other Ohio
political leaders.29 All
evidence at this time indicates that
Hanna did not desire the nomi-
nation of Herrick, but of his old
friend Charles Dick.30 When it
became apparent that Herrick's
candidacy had been so well managed
that Dick could not hope for the
nomination, only then did Hanna
come out with an endorsement of
Herrick, and it was but a feeble
and limited one.31 Herrick himself
admitted at the time that his
candidacy had not been welcomed by
Hanna nor by George B. Cox.32
Once it was clear that Herrick would
get the nomination, Hanna
gave him the full support of his
machine, but if the successful
candidacy of Herrick can be attributed
to any one man, it must be
to Burton. It was Burton who helped him
write the announcement
of his candidacy and his inauguaral
address.33 He followed Burton's
advice and methods in conducting his
campaign.34 He tried to make
his plans to suit Burton's
convenience.35 Burton supported him so
whole-heartedly during this campaign
that one suspects that the
two had reached some political
understanding.
This incident leads indirectly to one
of the most interesting
and unsolved mysteries of Hanna's
career, namely, did Hanna have
26 Mott,
Myron T. Herrick, 80.
27
Croly, Marcus Alonzo Hanna, 428-429.
28 Myron
T. Herrick to Burton, December 31, 1902.
29 Myron
T. Herrick to Burton, January 2, 1903. See also A. H. Jackson to
Burton, December 26, 1902; M. L. Smyser
to Burton, December 26, 1902; H. E.
Starkey to Burton, December 27, 1902.
30 H. E. Starkey to Burton, December 27, 1902; Myron T. Herrick to Burton,
December 31, 1902.
31 Cleveland Leader, January 4, 1903.
32 Ibid., April 16, 1903.
33 Myron T. Herrick to Burton, January
2, 1903; Myron T. Herrick to Burton,
January 8, 1904.
34 James H. Cassidy to Burton, September
5, 1903.
35 Myron T. Herrick to Burton, January
15, 1903; Myron T. Herrick to Burton,
April 17, 1903.
18
Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
designs on the presidential nomination
in 1904? Unfortunately,
the Burton papers do not provide an
answer to this question, but
one is left with the impression from
them that Burton felt Hanna
might be successful in being nominated.
When Hanna died in
1904, Burton expected the support of
Myron T. Herrick for the
senatorship, and he was very indignant
when he did not get it.36
If it is true that they had an
agreement in 1903 that Herrick would
support Burton for the senatorship in
1904 in return for his aid in
Herrick's gubernatorial race, it leads
one to the question of why
Burton at that time expected Hanna's
seat in the senate to become
vacant. He did not contest the seat
with Hanna in 1903, and, of
course, he could not have predicted
Hanna's death. Thus, one is
left with the answer that he expected
Hanna to resign it, pre-
sumably to become a candidate for the
presidency. This impression
receives some confirmation in the fact
that Burton, early in 1904,
was trying to discover the amount of
support Hanna might have
in a contest with Roosevelt.37
When Hanna died "Boss" Cox
came out in support of Charles
Dick for the vacant seat in the senate,
and so did Myron T. Herrick.
Adding a special type of sanction for
Dick's election, Hanna's wife
issued the statement, "Mr. Hanna
would have wished it. I wish it
and the family wishes it."38 Senator
Foraker, too, came to the support
of Dick, and this combination was
strong enough to secure his
easy election, though the methods used
by his supporters, in the
opinion of one legislator,
"humiliated the State of Ohio." Once
the decision was reached, the
legislators called each other "cowards,"
"slaves," and "yellow
dogs," but they lived in fear of being "out"
with Hanna's successors and otherwise
meekly accepted dictation.39
Congressman Burton's elevation to the
senate was, therefore,
postponed for a time, but if he held
any malice toward those who
had rudely elbowed him aside in 1904,
he must have experienced
some satisfaction at the fate of the
triumvirate that had replaced
36 Grace C. Burton to Burton, February
22, 1904.
37 Samuel Mather to Burton, January 20,
1904; T. A. McCastin to Burton,
January 19, 1904.
38 Cleveland
World, February 21, 1904.
39 H.
H. B. to Burton, February 25, 1904. The writer can be identified as Howard
H. Burgess. He was very anxious that his
description of this event be destroyed.
H. H. B. to Burton, March 21, 1904.
Hanna and Burton 19
Hanna and was responsible for his own
defeat.40 In spite of a con-
fident prediction that he would win by
100,000 votes, Myron T.
Herrick had the dubious distinction in
1905 of being beaten for re-
election in what was otherwise a
Republican landslide. Foraker
was next to fall. He toppled in 1908
under the weight of the Hearst
Standard Oil letters and the opposition
of President Roosevelt.
Charles Dick, in 1909, likewise went
down in defeat. On the other
hand, Burton's star was rising, and his
disappointment in 1904 was
only a minor setback in his
distinguished career in the house and
in the senate, where he long survived
the stormy politics of the
Hanna era.
40 Grace C. Burton, March 5, 1904. See
also Oscar K. Davis, Released for Pub-
lication (Boston,
1925), 99. This writer does not include Myron T. Herrick as one
of those inheriting the Hanna machine,
but limits his group to Charles Dick and
Joseph B. Foraker. Herrick, as governor, should be
added, and, to make the list
complete, the name of George B. Cox
should probably not be omitted.