he was backed by both senators from Ohio and all the representatives except James A. Garfield. In the discussions of Garfield's course, which were of daily occurrence among business men in Cleveland, his dissenting voice was generally approved, but Hanna vigorously opposed his position and endorsed that of the other members, especially of the representative from Cleveland, who was a personal and political friend. Thus McKinley and Hanna had been favorable to silver for eighteen years when it fell to them to decide the issue on which the campaign of 1896 should be made. And they both, for obvious reasons to anyone who understands their political careers, desired to have the paramount issue the tariff, while silver should be relegated to a subsidiary place.

In 1896 in Ohio it was no disgrace to be a bimetallist. It was much easier to favor a single gold standard in New York or Boston; yet in Boston some of the most eminent statesmen, authors, business men and politicians, under the brilliant leadership of General Walker, had embraced the doctrine of silver and, though opposing the free coinage of the metal, were eager for its adoption as a money standard by international agreement. Between 1894 and 1896 many of these Bostonians were converted to a single gold standard although they still held to the fiction of international agreement which, as the wisest of them knew, was out of the question. This conversion was undoubtedly due to the great work of Grover Cleveland and while most Republicans would have spurned the idea of having been so influenced yet to the historian it appears that they were thus unconsciously swayed.

In the pre-Convention days in St. Louis the Eastern

men, whose leader may be said to have been Senator Lodge, were eager for the mention of gold; many from the Middle West desired a plank which could be interpreted as favoring gold in the East and yet not condemning silver in the West. The McKinley-Hanna resolution read: The Republican party "would welcome bimetallism based upon an international ratio, but, until that can be secured, it is the plain duty of the United States to maintain our present standard, and we are therefóre opposed under existing conditions to the free and unlimited coinage of silver at sixteen to one." Before these words, it spoke of "maintaining all the money of the United States whether gold, silver or paper at par with the best money in the world and up to the standard of the most enlightened governments." The resolution adopted by the Convention, which was agreed to by Senator Lodge and his associates, read: "We are opposed to the free coinage of silver except by international agreement with the leading commercial nations of the world, which we pledge ourselves to promote, and until such agreement can be obtained the existing gold standard must be preserved. All our silver and paper currency must be maintained at parity with gold and we favor all measures designed to maintain inviolably the obligations of the United States and all our money, whether coin or paper at the present standard, the standard of the most enlightened nations of the earth." It is easy to see that the controversy turned on a few words. Should the Republican party "maintain our present standard" or preserve "the existing gold standard"? To the historian conversant with the action of Grover Cleveland, the difference does not seem great, but to the framer of platforms

and the campaigner it was immense. One resolution declared in favor of gold by name, the other did not; hence it turned out that the Republicans were known throughout the campaign as the party of gold, the Democrats as the party of silver. It is no wonder, then, that the adoption of this resolution is considered so important an episode in the history of the Republican party and of the country, and that so many lay claim to a paramount influence in securing its insertion.

When Hanna saw that, owing to the sentiment developed among the delegates, his own view could not prevail, he accepted the result gracefully and persuaded McKinley to do likewise. The Committee agreed on the financial plank and reported it to the Convention, which adopted it by a vote of 812 to 110. Before the adoption of this plank, Senator Teller of Colorado offered a substitute demanding the free coinage of silver but obtained only 105 votes against 8181; this vote foreshadowed the adoption of the financial plank by nearly the same majority. After making some pathetic remarks, he, with thirty-three others, seceded from the Convention. The rest of the platform was then adopted by acclamation.1

McKinley was then nominated by 661 votes, his leading opponent, Thomas B. Reed, receiving 841. Garret A. Hobart of New Jersey was named for Vice President.

1 Life of Hanna, Croly; Foraker, Notes of a Busy Life, i.; Charles Emory Smith, Philadelphia Press, June 24, 1896, cited by Boston Daily Advertiser; The Autobiography of T. C. Platt; MS. statement of Eben S. Draper, Chairman of the Mass. delegation, Jan. 9, 1900; H. H. Kohlsaat's story, N. Y. Eve. Post, April 30, 1910; Letter of Frank S. Witherbee, N. Y. Eve. Post, April 13, 1910; W. A. White, McClure's, Nov. 1900; Halstead in Review of Reviews, Oct. 1896; Lodge, Speeches and Addresses, 1900; Stanwood, Hist. of the Presidency.

On June 18 when McKinley was nominated, Republican success was deemed more than probable. Mark Hanna was made Chairman of the Republican National Committee but thought of taking a yacht cruise along the New England Coast to obtain a needed rest after "the great strain" imposed by the work resulting in McKinley's nomination. "I would have been glad," he wrote in a private letter, "to have escaped the responsibility of managing the campaign, but there was no way out of it and I feel that I am 'enlisted for the war' and must win." This letter was written on July 3 when Hanna had no idea that he had an easy victory before him; as between June 18 and July 3 public sentiment showed that the Republican party in identifying itself with gold had run the risk of losing some of the Western States. "I must get the work of education started,” he said, "before I can take my necessary recreation." "The fight will be in the Mississippi Valley States," he added. "The 'gold' basis is giving us lots of work." 1

The Democratic Convention in Chicago, meeting on July 7, defined the issue plainly between gold and silver and changed the hoped-for victory of the Republicans into a premonition of defeat. There were many indications that the Democrats would espouse the cause of free silver. Richard P. Bland of Missouri was their idol, leader and probable candidate for the presidency and he had publicly said that the Democracy of the West was convinced that "the gold standard meant bankruptcy" and that the Convention would declare for the "free coinage of silver at 16 to 1."2 The delegates who were

1 Letter from Cleveland.

2 Twenty Years of the Republic, Peck, 492.

known as Cleveland men made a valiant fight, but their financial plank was rejected by 303 to 626 and their endorsement of Cleveland's administration by 357: 564. During the discussion of the financial resolution, William J. Bryan leaped into prominence through a speech that carried the Convention. "Upon which side will the Democratic party fight," he asked, "upon the side of the idle holders of idle capital or upon the side of the struggling masses? ... Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: 'You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.'" 1 The platform as reported by the Committee on Resolutions was adopted by 628 to 301. It declared that, "Gold monometallism is a British policy and its adoption has brought other nations into financial servitude to London. . . . We demand the free and unlimited coinage of both silver and gold at the present legal ratio of sixteen to one without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation."2 Some of the other resolutions were judged to be "anarchistic"; they were certainly extremely radical for 1896.

Bryan's speech, especially the last clause of the last sentence cited above, made him the Democratic candidate for the presidency.

"The Chicago convention has changed everything," wrote Hanna in a private letter on July 16. It has knocked out my holiday and cruise along the New England coast. The campaign "will be work and hard work 1 Bryan, The First Battle, 206. 'Stanwood, 542.