This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Br'er Rabbit (talk | contribs) at 19:09, 21 June 2012 (;). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:09, 21 June 2012 by Br'er Rabbit (talk | contribs) (;)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
On January 12, 1898, the Ohio Legislature met in joint convention to elect a United States Senator. The incumbent senator, Mark Hanna, had been appointed by Governor Asa Bushnell on March 5, 1897 to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of John Sherman; however, the appointment was only good until the legislature met and made its own choice. The legislature elected Hanna over his fellow Republican, Cleveland Mayor Robert McKisson, both for the remainder of Sherman's original term (expiring in 1899) and for a full six-year term to expire in 1905. However, Hanna won both ballots only with the minimum number of votes, and allegations of bribery were made, though they were not proven.
Hanna, a wealthy industrialist, had been a major factor in the election of former Ohio governor William McKinley to the presidency in 1896. Nevertheless, the state Republican party was bitterly divided between the faction led by McKinley, Hanna, and Sherman, and that led by Ohio's other senator, Joseph B. Foraker. Bushnell was a Foraker ally, and it was only after intense pressure was applied to him that he agreed to appoint Hanna to fill Sherman's Senate seat. Hanna gained the appointment, and Republicans kept a majority in the legislature in the November 1897 elections. Nevertheless, before the January 1898 legislative session, the Democrats allied with a number of Republicans from the Foraker faction, hoping to gain control of the legislature and defeat Hanna.
The coalition was successful in taking control of both houses of the legislature; and with the Senate election to be held just over a week later, intense politicking went on. Some legislators went into hiding for fear they would be blackmailed by the other side. The insurgents decided on McKisson as their candidate two days before the election. Three Republican state representatives who had voted with the Democrats to organize the legislature switched sides and voted for Hanna, who triumphed with a bare majority in both the short and long term elections. Bribery was alleged, and legislative leaders complained to the United States Senate, which took no action against Hanna.
Background
Election of senators before the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment
The United States Constitution originally gave the right to elect senators to state legislatures, and allowed them to make rules to govern the selection. However, it gave Congress the right to alter such arrangements, or prescribe uniform regulations for senatorial elections. Prior to 1866, the voting took place in each house of the legislature, with the two only meeting in joint convention if they were unable to agree. In the years leading up to the Civil War, there were occasional abuses, such as one house refusing to send a quorum of members to the joint convention. As legislative terms varied, some legislatures sought to override an earlier choice of a senator-elect.
In 1866, Congress acted, passing legislation to govern the election of senators by legislatures. Under the 1866 bill, the election was to take place in each house of the legislature on the second Tuesday following the organization of the legislature which would be in office at the expiration of the senatorial term. The two houses of a legislature met separately on the prescribed date, and voted. If a majority of each house voted for the same candidate, then at the joint convention held the following day at noon, the votes would be read from the journal of each house, and the candidate was declared elected. If the same candidate did not get a majority of both houses, then the two houses would proceed to a roll-call vote in joint convention, with a majority of those present needed to elect. If the joint convention failed to elect a senator on that vote, it would convene at noon every day during the legislative session until a choice was made, voting once per day.
If a vacancy through death, resignation, or expulsion occurred during a senator's term, the state governor was empowered by the Constitution to make a temporary appointment. This choice was only valid pending the next meeting of the legislature, which would fill the vacancy by holding an election under the usual rules..
In 1913, state legislatures completed the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment, giving the right to elect senators to the people.
Rise of Mark Hanna; political background
Hanna was born in New Lisbon, Ohio (later renamed Lisbon) in 1837. His family moved to Cleveland when he was an adolescent, and Hanna attended high school and (briefly) college in the Cleveland area. He initially failed as a businessmen, but was taken into his father-in-law's business and became extremely successful, with interests in coal, steel, and shipping. Beginning in the late 1860s, he became involved in Cleveland municipal politics, serving a term on the school board, but by 1880 had interested himself in national politics, becoming a strong backer of John Sherman for president. Sherman, one of the founders of the Republican Party, ran for the presidential nomination three times in the 1880s, each time failing.
Hanna also backed the political ambitions of Governor Joseph B. Foraker, but at the 1888 Republican National Convention, the two men became enemies when Foraker abandoned Sherman, instead backing Indiana Governor Benjamin Harrison, who gained both the Republican nomination and the presidency. The Ohio Republican party became bitterly divided between two factions, one led by Foraker, and the other led by Senator Sherman, Congressman William McKinley, and Hanna. This infighting help defeat Foraker's bid for a third two-year term as governor in 1889. With control of the legislature, Democrats elected Calvin Brice as senator and redistricted McKinley out of office.
The Ohio Republicans quickly rebounded, electing McKinley as governor in 1891. They also secured a majority in the legislature, which in January 1892 re-elected Sherman to the Senate over Foraker, whose supporters had formed an alliance with the Democrats to try to gain his election. Although Sherman did not credit Hanna in the elder man's memoirs, the industrialist did much to secure the senator's re-election, hiring detectives to find Republican legislators who were believed to be Foraker supporters and who had gone into hiding, and ensuring that they voted for Sherman. McKinley was re-elected in 1893; by then Hanna was a close adviser to the governor, who was already deemed the favorite for the Republican nomination for president in 1896.
In 1895, Cleveland city councilman Robert McKisson ran for mayor of the city. He was not supported by the city's business community, but went to see Hanna, hoping to secure his support. The industrialist told him, "Young man, you have yet to win your spurs." Despite Hanna's opposition, McKisson won the mayoralty, but held a grudge against Hanna for his opposition. McKisson was elected to a second term in spring 1897.
Their eyes on the national arena, McKinley and Hanna were neglectful of local politics, and at the 1895 state convention, with McKinley not seeking a third term as governor, Ohio Republicans nominated Asa Bushnell, a Foraker supporter, and set a precedent in Ohio by endorsing a specific individual, in this case Foraker, for senator. Despite the fact that Bushnell was a factional opponent, McKinley campaigned for him and other state Republicans, and Bushnell was elected with the Republicans maintaining their majority in the legislature. This meant that unless there was a Republican split, Senator Brice would not be re-elected. Just before the senatorial vote, McKinley and Foraker made a deal: McKinley's supporters would vote for Foraker for senator and Foraker would support McKinley's presidential ambitions. The legislature duly elected Foraker. This did not bring party peace to Ohio; there remained factional conflict at a lower level, but Senator-elect Foraker placed McKinley's name in nomination at the 1896 Republican National Convention, and the two men refrained from criticism of each other.
Appointment of Hanna
_1896.jpg)
In the November election, McKinley defeated Democrat William Jennings Bryan to secure the presidency; Hanna served as his campaign manager and chief fundraiser. The industrialist raised millions for McKinley's campaign but was bitterly attacked by Democratic newspapers for allegedly trying to buy the presidency with McKinley as his easily-dominated agent. After the election, the President-elect offered Hanna the post of Postmaster General, which he turned down, hoping to become senator if Sherman was appointed to the Cabinet. On January 4, 1897, McKinley, who did not believe the (accurate) rumors that the 73-year-old Sherman's mental faculties were failing, offered him the position of Secretary of State; Sherman quickly accepted. This meant that a Senate seat for Ohio would now be in the gift of Bushnell, with the appointee to serve until the legislature met again in January 1898.
Foraker was astonished when he learned that Hanna was seeking the Senate seat, not knowing that the industrialist had political ambitions, and feeling that Hanna's campaign activities did not qualify him for legislative service. The senator-elect also thought that in view of his increasingly-apparent infirmities, Sherman should not become Secretary of State, but failed to convince McKinley. Hanna and his allies applied considerable pressure on the governor, though initially McKinley did not participate.
Bushnell did not want to appoint Hanna, and offered the seat to Congressman Theodore Burton, a member of neither faction, who turned it down. Historian Wilbur Jones, in his journal article on the relationship between Hanna and Burton, speculates that the seat was refused because of Burton's unwillingness to alienate Hanna's supporters, an action which might sacrifice a career in the House of Representatives for the sake of a few months in the Senate. The governor considered other options, such as arranging to get the post himself or calling a special session of the legislature and have them elect a new senator, but Bushnell finally decided that bypassing Hanna was not worth risking the wrath of the new administration, and of Hanna (who was chairman of the Republican National Committee). In late February, 1897, McKinley sent a personal emissary, the President-elect's old friend Judge William R. Day, to Bushnell, and the governor yielded. Hanna was handed his commission by Governor Bushnell in the lobby of Washington's Arlington Hotel on the morning of March 5, 1897.
Hanna's associates, and Croly in his biography of Hanna, alleged that Bushnell had delayed the appointment of Hanna so that Foraker could be the senior senator; this is also mentioned by McKinley biographer H. Wayne Morgan and Hanna biographer William Horner considers this motive possible. In his memoirs, Foraker denied this, stating that Sherman had not resigned from the Senate until the afternoon of March 4, 1897 (the date on which the president and Congress were sworn in) so that Sherman could introduce the new senator, Foraker, to the Senate to be sworn in. Sherman, according to Foraker, was also unwilling to resign until he had been confirmed as Secretary of State, which took place that afternoon. Foraker also noted that he had been senator-elect for 13 months "and there was no vacancy for which Mr. Hanna could be qualified, except only that to be created by the retirement of Mr. Sherman, and Mr. Sherman refused to retire until I was sworn and in my seat".
1897 campaign
There seemed little opposition from other Republicans to Hanna's re-election during the 1897 Ohio election campaign. Following Foraker's precedent of 1895, Hanna obtained endorsement by the 1897 Republican state convention in June in Toledo, and by county conventions in 84 of Ohio's 88 counties. Hanna made speeches across Ohio, much to the curiosity of Ohioans, who had heard much about him for his activities on behalf of McKinley, but who did not know him well. There was much national interest in the legislative campaign, which was seen as a rerun of 1896 and a forerunner of the 1900 presidential campaign, and as a referendum on Mark Hanna. President McKinley both campaigned on Hanna's behalf in Ohio and recruited speakers for him; for the Democrats, Bryan was the leading orator. Democrats hoped that by defeating Hanna, they could claim a reversal of the voters' verdict in the 1896 presidential race, and exact revenge on the man who had helped orchestrate their defeat.
During the campaign, William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal renewed the savage attacks on Hanna which had marked the 1896 campaign; Hanna was depicted as a bloated plutocrat, frequently trampling a skull marked "Labor" and dominating a shrunken, childlike McKinley. Such cartoons have been instrumental in shaping the popular images of both men. Foraker was not prominent in support of Hanna: he did endorse his junior colleague in mid-September, and made several speeches soon after the announcement, but thereafter maintained a public silence which would continue until after the vote for senator by the newly-elected legislature in January 1898.
Hanna had rarely been called upon to make speeches, but now would have to in convincing the public to elect legislators who would support him. McKinley recommended his technique of thoroughly laying out a speech in advance, but Hanna found it did not work well for him, preferring to compose a brief introduction and then speak extemporaneously, not always even being certain what topics he would address. According to his biographer, Herbert Croly, the informality of Hanna's speeches won over many in his audience, and he became a very effective public speaker. When Democrats attacked Hanna, who had considerable interests in industry, as a "labor crusher", he gave speeches inviting listeners to ask his workers whether they were well-treated, and a number of union leaders and workmen's committees confirmed that they had no complaint against Hanna.
In the November election, there were 62 Republicans and 47 Democrats elected to the Ohio House of Representatives, while in the Ohio Senate there were 19 Democrats, 18 Republicans, and 1 Independent Republican. This meant a majority of 15 for the Republicans on joint ballot, ample, it was thought, to secure Hanna's election.
Senate election
Political turmoil
The first public inkling that there might still be a serious contest for Hanna's Senate seat came the day after the November vote, when Governor Bushnell (himself re-elected) declared that the party majority in the legislature was sufficient to elect a Republican as senator, but refrained from mentioning Hanna's name. Newspapers took note of the fact that while Bushnell had been re-elected by 28,000 votes, the balloting for the legislature had gone Republican by only 9,000. Soon after the election, a number of Republican legislators announced that they intended to ally with the Democrats to organize both houses of the legislature and defeat Hanna. Croly lists among those involved in what he deemed a conspiracy against Hanna included Bushnell, McKisson, and former Republican state chairman Charles L. Kurtz. According to Croly, both McKisson and Kurtz related had grudges against Hanna, though the biographer assigned no such motive to Bushnell.
Charles Dick, then Hanna's aide and later his successor as senator, recounted, "The opposition developed immediately after the election. I might say the plotting, so far as the bolters were concerned, began before the election ... The fifteen majority melted away." According to Horner, "as men elected to the Ohio legislature who were pledged to support Hanna continued to turn up opposing him ... the chances of Hanna retaining his seat began to look rather grim". Kurtz disavowed the Toledo convention's endorsement of Hanna, describing it as controlled by the senator's paid agents, and stated his case against Hanna: "The returns of the recent election show that he is not wanted by the party. The days of Mr. Hanna's bossism are over. The people here are against him, and that settles it."
A number of the men who opposed Hanna came from Cuyahoga County, whose seat is Cleveland, where Mayor McKisson was influential. The situation in Hamilton County (Cincinnati, and home to Foraker) was complicated by the fact that the Republican legislators from there were elected on a fusion ticket with the Democrats in order to defeat the local Republican bosses. These Republicans (and the Independent Republican) supported "free silver" in opposition to McKinley, and had not pledged during the campaign (as many Republicans had done) to vote for Hanna if elected. Foraker was not actively involved in the controversy, and in the sole interview he gave, said he was doing his best to keep out of it; however, most of Hanna's Republican opponents were from his wing of the party. Ohio's senior senator also stated his belief that Hanna would have a difficult time being elected, and when asked by Hanna supporters to intercede with the insurgents, responded, "I will not antagonize lifetime friends for Hanna," and that Hanna was "not honorable enough" to go to Bushnell and Kurtz and work out a solution.
The new legislature convened on Columbus on Monday, January 3, 1898. In the House of Representatives, nine anti-Hanna Republicans voted with the Democrats, electing one of the nine Speaker. In the Senate, an anti-Hanna Republican remained away, allowing the Democrats to organize the chamber and elect one of their own president of the body. The various legislative offices were divided up between the Democrats and the insurgent Republicans Democratic forces in the Ohio Senate were boosted when the absent Republican appeared and voted with them. Having a margin of three in the House and two in the Senate translated into a likely margin of five against Hanna on the senatorial vote, meaning that three legislators would have to switch sides for Hanna to triumph.
Contest in Columbus
After the coalition's success in the legislature became clear, the Hanna-controlled Republican state committee called on local activists to come to Columbus; this rally took place on the day of Governor Bushnell's second inauguration, and many in the streets booed him. Croly described the scene in the days leading up to the vote for senator:
Columbus came to resemble a mediaeval city given over to an angry feud between armed partisans. Everybody was worked up to a high pitch of excitement and resentment. Blows were exchanged in the hotels and on the streets. There were threats of assassination. Timid men feared to go out after dark. Certain members of the Legislature were supplied with body-guards. Many of them never left their rooms. Detectives and spies, who were trying to track down various stories of bribery and corruption, were scattered everywhere.
Hanna's forces went to great lengths to pick up the remaining votes he needed for his election. They received word that state Representative John Griffiths of Union County, among the Republicans who had joined with the Democrats, was under constant guard at the Southern Hotel, but desired to come over to the Hanna side. Hanna operatives aided his escape, and he was kept with his wife at Hanna headquarters at the Neil House until the vote. Others sought to persuade the coalition Republicans to return to the fold—by one account, one Cleveland Republican tearfully refused, stating that if he voted for Hanna, McKisson would end his status as a supplier of brick pavers to his city. President McKinley did his best to help out, sending a letter to one Republican whose vote was doubtful, delivered by a soldier.
On January 9, newspapers printed allegations that Hanna had arranged to bribe John Otis, one of the Silver Republicans from Cincinnati. The circumstances of the transaction could not be ascertained even at the time, but Otis alleged that he was offered $10,000 and actually paid $1,750. The individual said to have offered the money, New York furrier C.C. Shayne, had interested himself in political affairs, and met with Hanna adviser Estes Rathbone at least twice. He denied trying to bribe Otis, though he did admit to giving a retainer payment to Otis's lawyer, a witness to the transaction, and fled the state when the matter became public. Hanna denied any involvement; his opponents hoped that this would preface his defeat, and his supporters feared the story would prompt a public outcry. Croly and Horner agree that the allegations appear to have had little impact on public opinion.
The legislative leaders had not settled on a candidate to stand against Hanna, and discussions continued until January 10, a day before the houses would vote separately and two days before the joint convention. Democrats had tentatively agreed to vote for a Republican for senator, but were unwilling to consider a Republican who supported the gold standard. They considered giving a "complimentary" (that is, to honor the recipient, rather than a serious candidature) to Cincinnati publisher John R. McLean, a Democrat, before switching to a Republican, and tried to negotiate that a Democrat would be elected at least for the short term, to expire in 1899. Under the latter scenario, Governor Bushnell was proposed in the long term election, but Bushnell was unwilling to support silver. At last, McKisson was decided on by the insurgents for both the short and long terms. This was announced on January 10, together with a statement from McKisson that though he would, if elected, remain in name a Republican, he would support the "Chicago Platform", that is, the pro-silver platform run on by Bryan and his Democrats in 1896.
The contest came down to the votes of two other Cincinnati Silver Republicans, in particular Charles F. Droste. The Hanna campaign at last secured the votes of these two men, Croly relates that Droste had initially sought to advance the candidacy of another Cincinnatan, and when it was clear there was no other support, gave Hanna his vote. A contemporary account calls the men's decision "unexplained", but notes that by one rumor, each of the two Cincinnati legislators was offered the senatorship by anti-Hanna forces if each would vote against Hanna, though the account notes that whether they could make that happen was "doubtful".
The votea in the separate chambers took place on January 11, 1898. In the Ohio House, Hanna received 56 votes to 49 for McKisson, with John J. Lentz, Aquila Wiley and A.J. Warner receiving one vote each, The vote was the same for the short and the long term.. These three votes were cast by Democrats unwilling to vote for a Republican. One Democratic representative was absent, sick, on both days of the voting. In the Senate there were identical votes for short and long term, with McKisson receiving the votes of 18 Democrats and one Republican, while Hanna won the vote of 16 Republicans and the one Independent Republican. This split between the two houses meant that there would be a roll-call vote of the two houses in joint convention the following day. The 73 men pledged to Hanna went to the State House together on January 12 under the protection of Hanna adherents. Croly related. "Armed guards were stationed at every important point. The State House was filled with desperate and determined men." In the joint convention, held in the House Chamber, the votes of the previous days held during the roll call votes, except that the votes for Warner and Wiley went to McKisson. Aquila Wiley was the last to vote, with Hanna having already received the 73 ballots he needed for election, Wiley maintained his vote for Lentz. The final tally, both for the short and long term was Hanna 73, McKisson 70, and Lentz 1. Before the joint convention adjourned, Hanna appeared before it, and thanked the legislators for his election, stating that he "doubly thank you because under the circumstances it comes to me as an assurance of your confidence".
Aftermath
Newspaper reaction was generally along partisan lines. The Cincinnati Commercial Tribune, a Republican paper, stated of Hanna, "And this is the man against whom has been waged a war than which political history furnishes none more venomous, vicious, and relentlessly vituperative. It is a disgraceful story, known of all men." The Blade of Toledo, another Republican paper, agreed, writing, "The fight against Mr. Hanna was the most malignantly traitorous contest ever waged in the political annals of Ohio." The Cincinnati Enquirer, Silver Democratic, argued, "The Republican contingent which stuck to the last against Hanna has made a record which the victorious faction might well envy ... Their fight was against the party discipline; against the party organization in the state; against the chairman of the national committee and all its forces and resources; against the president of the United States, with his tremendous party influence and more influential patronage. Against all this they have cut down the man who a year ago was, next to the president, the leading Republican of the United States, to a pitiful majority of one in his ambition to be elected to the Senate, and that obtained under circumstances not creditable to him. They chased him so hard that he dare not stop to have the gravest charges investigated." Hearst's New York Journal noted, "And so it is to be 'Senator Hanna' for seven years. Well, the senatorship can add nothing to its holder's power for evil. As long as Hanna has his money he can control senatorships, whether he occupies them or not. Perhaps it is best to have him in the open."
The revenge by Hanna forces against McKisson was quick and effective. In June 1898, McKisson and his Cuyahoga County delegation were excluded from the Republican state convention in favor of a Hanna-backed delegation. Hanna forces had lost at the county level, but, alleging irregularities, had met and sent a rival delegation. McKisson ran for a third term as mayor in 1899. He was successful after a bitter battle in the Republican primary, but failed of re-election, leading to a decade of dominance by the Democrats in Cleveland. McKisson returned to his career as an attorney after his unsuccessful run for mayor, continuing to practice law in Cleveland until his death in 1915 at age 49.
Both houses voted to form committees to investigate alleged bribery in the result, though most Republicans refused to vote on the resolutions. The Ohio Senate committee declined to allow Hanna's attorney to participate in the proceedings; on his attorneys' advice, Hanna refused to testify and asked supporters not to testify as well. The State Senate committee reported that an attempt to bribe Otis had been made by an unknown agent of Hanna, and that three Hanna aides, including Charles Dick, were implicated. The report was sent to the US Senate in May 1898, which referred it to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. The Republican majority of the committee reported in February 1899 that while it accepted that an attempt had been made to bribe Otis, the matter had been known before the vote, Otis had voted for McKisson anyway, and there was no evidence linking Hanna to the attempt. The report did mildly admonish Hanna and his associates for not cooperating with the Ohio Senate committee. Democrats on the Privileges and Elections Committee urged further investigation, but the US Senate ordered the committee's report to be printed, and took no further action. Hanna remained a power in the Senate until his death; Croly suggested "If Mr. Hanna had himself planned to purchase the vote of John C. Otis, it is reasonable to believe that the business would have been better managed."
The amount to which money or patronage affected the outcome is unclear. Congressman Burton stated, "I never saw any evidence of the use of money in Columbus and don't believe there any money was used corruptly." James Rudolph Garfield, son of the late president and floor leader of the Hanna forces in the Ohio Senate, interviewed after Hanna's death in 1904, recalled that Hanna "had been asked to shut his eyes to some things. But he declined to do it." However, Garfield also noted, "I have never been sure as to what some of the men who called themselves Senator Hanna's friends really did do." Croly stated his belief that Hanna did not personally authorize bribes of legislators, but concedes that Hanna's supporters "may have been willing to spend money in Mr. Hanna's interest and without his knowledge." Horner believes it impossible to ascertain if bribery took place, but if Hanna bribed legislators, it was because it was a common practice on both sides", and notes of Hanna, "his career as a senator continued, but accusations of wrongdoing remain a part of his legacy well over a century later." Public dismay at what was seen as a corrupt means of choosing federal legislators led to the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, depriving state legislators of the privilege of electing senators and giving it to the people.
References
- ^ Election laws.
- ^ Willoughby, pp. 557–559.
- Bybee, pp. 504–505.
- Croly, pp. 3–6.
- Croly, pp. 36–40.
- Beer, pp. 53–55.
- Croly, pp. 111–112.
- Morgan, pp. 73–74.
- Horner, pp. 70–77.
- Walters, pp. 95–96.
- Knepper, p. 271.
- Morgan, pp. 114–115.
- Williams, p. 50.
- Horner, pp. 86–87.
- Phillips, pp. 66–67.
- Horner, p. 81.
- Morgan, p. 129.
- Horner, pp. 223–224.
- Horner, p. 224.
- Walters, p. 138.
- Walters, pp. 107–109.
- Stanley Jones, pp. 108–110.
- Morgan, pp. 174, 186.
- Horner, pp. 193–204.
- Horner, p. 127.
- Leech, pp. 99–100.
- Rhodes, p. 31.
- Horner, pp. 218–221.
- Walters, pp. 132–133.
- ^ Morgan, p. 192.
- Wilbur Jones, pp. 10–12.
- Leech, pp. 100–101.
- ^ Horner, p. 219.
- Croly, pp. 240–241.
- Morgan, pp. 192–193.
- Foraker, pp. 505–506.
- Horner, p. 221.
- Horner, pp. 221–222.
- Croly, pp. 248–249.
- Horner, pp. 110–113, 220, 226.
- Walters, p. 139.
- Croly, pp. 244–247.
- Wolff, pp. 146–147.
- ^ Appletons, p. 606.
- Croly, p. 250.
- Croly, pp. 250–252.
- ^ Horner, p. 230.
- Free Lance 11-13-1897.
- Croly, pp. 252–254.
- Walters, pp. 139–140.
- Legislature, p. 3.
- Croly, p. 254.
- Outlook 1-15-1898.
- Croly, p. 256.
- Croly, p. 257.
- Horner, pp. 225–226.
- ^ Croly, p. 259.
- ^ Outlook 1-22-1898.
- Croly, pp. 259–262.
- Horner, p. 227.
- Croly, p. 255.
- Gould, p. 11.
- Croly, pp. 258–259.
- Legislature, pp. 36–37.
- Legislature, pp. 37–39.
- Legislature, p. 42.
- ^ Public Opinion 1-20-1898.
- The Public 6-25-1898.
- Croly, p. 294.
- Encyclopedia of Cleveland History. sfn error: no target: CITEREFEncyclopedia_of_Cleveland_History (help)
- Croly, p. 460.
- Hanna case.
- Croly, p. 464.
- Horner, p. 228.
- Horner, p. 229.
- Horner, pp. 229–230.
- Croly, pp. 263–264.
- Horner, pp. 228–229.
- Horner, p. 233.
- Bybee, pp. 538–540.
Bibliography
- Beer, Thomas (1929). Hanna. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. OCLC 246586946.
- Croly, Herbert (1912). Marcus Alonzo Hanna: His Life and Work. New York: The Macmillan Company. OCLC 715683. Retrieved March 14, 2012.
- Foraker, Joseph Benson (1917). Notes of a Busy Life. Vol. 1. Cincinnati: Stewart & Kidd Company. Retrieved June 16, 2012.
- Gould, Lewis L. (1980). The Presidency of William McKinley. American Presidency. Lawrence, Kan.: University Press of Kansas. ISBN 978-0-7006-0206-3.
- Horner, William T. (2010). Ohio's Kingmaker: Mark Hanna, Man and Myth. Athens, Oh.: Ohio University Press. ISBN 978-0-8214-1894-9.
- Jones, Stanley L. (1964). The Presidential Election of 1896. Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press. OCLC 445683.
- Knepper, George W. (2003). Ohio and Its People. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press. ISBN 978-0-87338-791-0. Retrieved June 17, 2012.
- Leech, Margaret (1959). In the Days of McKinley. New York: Harper and Brothers. OCLC 456809.
- Morgan, H. Wayne (2003). William McKinley and His America (revised ed.). Kent, Oh.: The Kent State University Press. ISBN 978-0-87338-765-1.
- Phillips, Kevin (2003). William McKinley. New York: Times Books. ISBN 978-0-8050-6953-2.
- Rhodes, James Ford (1922). The McKinley and Roosevelt Administrations, 1897–1909. New York: The Macmillan Company. OCLC 457006. Retrieved October 28, 2011.
- Walters, Everett (1948). Joseph Benson Foraker: An Uncompromising Republican. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio History Press.
- Williams, R. Hal (2010). Realigning America: McKinley, Bryan and the Remarkable Election of 1896. Lawrence, Kan.: University Press of Kansas. ISBN 978-0-7006-1721-0.
- Willoughby, Westel Woodbury (1910). The Constitutional Law of the United States. Vol. 1. New York: Baker, Voorhis & Company.
- Appletons' Annual Cyclopaedia and Register of Important Events. Vol. 3. New York: D. Appleton and Company. 1899.
- "McKisson, Robert Erastus". Encyclopedia of Cleveland History. Cleveland: Case Western Reserve University. Retrieved June 20, 2012.
- Journal of the House of Representatives. Norwalk, Oh.: The Laning Printing Company. 1898. Retrieved June 19, 2012.
Other sources
- Bybee, Jay S. (Winter 1997). "Ulysses at the Mast: Democracy, Federalism, and the Sirens' Song of the Seventeenth Amendment". Northwestern University Law Review. 91 (2). Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University: 500–572. Retrieved June 20, 2012.
- Jones, Wilbur Devereux (January 1957). "Marcus A. Hanna and Theodore F. Burton". Ohio State Arcaeological and Historical Quarterly. 60 (1). Columbus, Ohio: Ohio Historical Society: 10–19.
- Wolff, Gerald W. (Summer/Autumn 1970). "Mark Hanna's goal: American harmony". Ohio History. 79 (3 and 4). Columbus, Ohio: Ohio Historical Society: 138–151.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help)CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link) - "Is Hanna to be retired?". The Free Lance (Fredricksburg, Va.). November 13, 1897. p. 2. Retrieved June 19, 2012.
- "News". The Public. 1 (12). Chicago: The Public Publishing Company: 9–10. June 25, 1898. Retrieved June 20, 2012.
- "The Ohio Imbroglio". The Outlook. 58 (3). New York: The Outlook Company: 160–161. January 15, 1898. Retrieved June 20, 2012.
- "The Week". The Outlook. 79 (4). New York: The Outlook Company: 208–209. January 22, 1898. Retrieved June 20, 2012.
- "Mr. Hanna's election to the Senate". Public Opinion. 24 (3). New York: The Public Opinion Company: 69–71. January 20, 1898. Retrieved June 20, 2012.
- "The Election case of Marcus A. Hanna of Ohio (1899)". United States Senate. Retrieved June 16, 2012.
- "Election laws". United States Senate. Retrieved June 15, 2012.
Elections to the United States Senate in 1898.
|