The herald., 1898-04-18
M'KINLEY AND FORAKER

The differences that have now and
then cropped out between these two men,
and the decided character of their dis
agreement on the Cuban question have
not failed to attract public attention.
One is president and the other is senator
They are from the same state and belong
to the same political party. They have
been rivals for several years for pre- emf
nence in their party in Ohio, and there
are some interesting incidents connected
with their rivalry.
They are nearly Of the same age; both
were subaltern officers in the late civil
war, and they won fair regulations for
officers of their rank. Both are men of
respectable ability, are orators above
mediocrity, and each has been governor
of Ohio for two terms. They are
unlike in some important respects. Nc
Kinley Is Of smoother mould, and more
adroit as a politician. Foraker is ag-
gressive and bristles with combative-
ness. He has always had larger per-
sonal following, but Mckinley has been
able to draw to his support skillful man.
ayers and men Of large wealth. He had
an advantage In that he has served
several terms in congress and gained ma
tional notoriety.
It is an open secret that Mckinley
sought the governorship as stepping
stone to the presidency, and that for
several years he had been planning for
| it, backed by Hanna and the financial
influences he could command. 1t is also
we'll known that there were elements
in the Republican party in Ohio which
did not take kindly to McKinley's presi-
Dental candidacy, and that these ele-
ments were friendly to Foraker.
The strife for ascendency in the party
eliminated in a contest In the state con-
vention In 1885, which nominated state
ticket and created state committee
In that convention the Foraker side
won by nominating a state ticket and
creating a state committee to its liking.
1t was a victory for Foraker over Nc
Kinley and apparently backset to Nc
Knleys presidential aspirations.
solid delegation for him from Ohio was
a sine qua non to success.
The Mckinley managers were astute,
and they promptly saw leverage had
been placed in their hands which was
susceptible of being used to advantage.
/ Foraker and his friends were deeply in
terested in the election of the state
ticket, which they had nominated, and
success depended upon party harmony
and united effort. They were approached
by the Mckinley managers with the
proposition that they would put their
money and energies into the campaign
for the ticket, and in case the legislature
should be Republican they would do
their utmost in aid of Foraker's election
to the senate, but upon condition that
Mckinley should have a solid delega
ton in the ensuing national convention.
These terms were agreed upon and were
faithfully carried out on both sides.
Foraker made the nominating speech
for Mckinley at St. Louis was chairman
of the committee on resolutions, and
author of the plank relating to Cuba.
Mckinley accepted the platform un-
! equivocally and with ostensible alacrity.
Foraker is always sincere and out
spoken, and is the leader of the positive
element of his party in the state. 1t was
not in the program that Hanna should
be made senator; that was a conception
after the presidential election, and a
proposition distasteful to Foraker and
his immediate friends. He gave no aid
to Hanna and to coerce him the power
of patronage was employed. Foraker
combated it from the start, and when
Mckinley proposed to put into the state
department as assistant secretary Gin
cinnati man inimical to him, and, as he
thought, unfit for the place, Foraker as
sumed the attitude of obstinate resist
ance. Because he would not throw him
self into the senatorial fight for Hanna
the threat was made that, in th6dispen-
sation of federal patronage his friends
would be ignored. but this did not move
him.
AS Mckinley early and a all times dis
regarded the command of the national
platform on the Cuban question, For
aker had no alternative but to stultify
himself or break with the administration
on that subject, but he maintained his
convictions and consistency. The rec
r concentrations of the president in his
late message and the resolutions offered
t by Foraker in the senate, were pointedly
: antagonistic in at least one important
t particular. The recommendations of the
r president were indecisive and tempor-
6 izing, while the Foraker resolutions
t strike at the gist of the controversy, and
: avoid circumlocution and delay. For