concerns a matter of campaign methods. In it Mr. McKinley's action was irreproachable, but his manner was such that one can hardly blame Mr. Hanna for being annoyed. On August 3, he wrote the following letter to the President:

"MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT:

"Chairman Odell has been talking with me with reference to two matters which seem to be of very great importance to this state.

"The first is the discrimination against the Brooklyn Navy Yard with the consequent laying off of men. This means, in addition to the voters themselves, that the tradesmen and others over there are inclined to believe that Brooklyn is not getting its share of the work. Mr. Odell informs me that the work is being sent to the Boston Navy Yard, where there is a lack of men to work, while here men are being discharged. He also tells me that he has wired you concerning it, and he believes it to be very important, as it means the loss of several hundred votes in that particular direction.

"Another matter in which he is interested is the employment of men at Iowa Island on the Hudson River, where a man by the name of Dugan, Sergeant Dugan, is in charge. He has employed Democrats, and in one instance has contemptuously thrown aside a letter of recommendation from the member of Congress from that district.

"Very truly yours,

"M. A. HANNA.”

Some days later Mr. Hanna received the following answer to his complaints:

PERSONAL

"DEAR SENATOR HANNA:

"Mr. Dawes has just called here and presented to me your letter of August 3d addressed to me and one of the same date addressed to him.

"I am sure when you know the facts you will have no reason for criticism or complaint. Mr. Odell telegraphed me with reference to the Brooklyn Navy Yard. I at once communicated with Secretary Long and received a most satisfactory

reply, a copy of which I enclose. It would not be right, and I am sure you would not have the Department employ men at the Navy Yard who are not needed, nor would you have work done there which could be best done at some other Navy Yard in the country.

"With reference to the letter of Mr. Litchman which you forward, addressed to you, complaining that an order had been issued by the Secretary of the Treasury forbidding travel on the part of any of the employees of that Department, unless the order for travel is given by the Secretary or Assistant Secretary and signed by the same, it would seem to me that this is a wise safeguard. Surely there should be no travel expense paid by the Government which is not for the public service, and I am absolutely and totally opposed to any use of the public money for travel or any other expense for party interests; and in this sentiment I know you share.

"As to the conduct of Sergeant Dugan at Iona Island on the Hudson, referred to, I know nothing about it, but will at once make an investigation. If he is using his office for the appointment of Democrats for party purposes, he shall be called to account. This is a time when every effort will be made to have the administration do questionable things. It is a period of great temptation, just the sort that will require the highest courage to meet and resist. If elected I have to live with the administration for four years. I do not want to feel that any improper or questionable methods have been employed to reach the place, and you must continue, as you have always done, to stand against unreasonable exactions, which are so common at a time like the present.

"Very sincerely yours,

(Signed) "WILLIAM MCKINLEY."

After Mr. Hanna had read the foregoing letter he threw it on the floor in great irritation; and since apparently the President's position was unassailable, the cause of his irritation needs some explanation. In requesting that during a campaign employees of the government should not be discharged and the distribution of departmental work arranged so as to hurt the canvass of the party in power, Mr. Hanna was only doing what previous Chairmen of

the National Committee had done. Local campaign managers were continually making demands of that kind on the Committee, and the Committee had been accustomed to pay too much attention to them. In the same way it had been customary for certain employees of the Treasury department to "travel" in the interest of the party in power, although when they travelled their expenses, so I am informed, were paid not by the government but by the National Committee. Neither of these practices can be defended, and Mr. McKinley in repudiating them was contributing, as he did in so many other instances, towards the establishment of higher administrative standards. Usually the President and Mr. Hanna agreed in not allowing political considerations any more weight than could be helped in the conduct of government business; but pursued as he was by the demands of local committees and leaders, and responsible as he was for Republican success, Mr. Hanna was inclined to yield more frequently than was the President himself. When such cases arose, Mr. McKinley's action in refusing indefensible demands was often admitted by Mr. Hanna to be as much for his own protection as for the President's.

What aroused his irritation in this particular instance was not so much the fact of Mr. McKinley's refusal as its form. The President's letter had been written with more than usual care and had been copied for the White House file, thus becoming a matter of public record. Mr. Hanna apparently believed that the form of the letter and the necessary publicity attached to it was prompted in the President by a desire to secure full public credit for his action even if such credit were obtained some

what at his friend's expense. As Mr. Hanna put it, the letter had been written as much for the President's biography as for the immediate occasion. No doubt it is true that Mr. McKinley throughout his official career kept his biographer a good deal in mind; but it is no less true that he had in the present instance a valid reason for giving his refusal official publicity. He thereby established an authentic precedent, which might help to emancipate both himself and his successors from similar demands.

Later in the campaign another incident occurred which also provoked in Mr. Hanna a temporary resentment. Throughout

the whole canvass there had been lively demands on the part of various state committees for Mr. Hanna's services as a stump speaker. He had in the past made very few speeches outside of Ohio, while at the same time the gradually increasing effect of his public personality had stimulated popular curiosity about him. Republican audiences wanted to hear him. For a long time he refused on the ground that he had too much to do at Committee headquarters, but towards the fall he began to yield. He spoke once in Chicago about the middle of September, once in New York ten days later, and he made an excursion to Indiana for the benefit of a Congressional candidate, Mr. C. B. Landis. After he had once yielded it became more difficult to refuse other requests. The Committees of South Dakota and Nebraska were particularly clamorous for a short stumping tour which should include their states. After careful consideration Mr. Hanna consented to go.

He had several reasons for consenting to make this particular trip. The general situation was well in hand; in his opinion Republican success assured. When in fair health he enjoyed stumping, and he looked forward to the tour as an exhilarating vacation from the pressure of office detail. His great object throughout the campaign had been to make, as we have seen, conquests in the strong Bryan states west of the Mississippi; and out of all of this district Nebraska and South Dakota were the two states in which he was working hardest to make a good showing. Inasmuch as Nebraska was Mr. Bryan's own state, its conquest would add a peculiar relish to the approaching victory. South Dakota was represented in the Senate by Richard F. Pettigrew-who had been elected as a Republican but had bolted on the silver issue. Mr. Hanna had a special reason for wishing to defeat him, because of the personal attack which he had made upon Mr. Hanna in the Senate. The local committee assured Mr. Hanna that, if only he would go to South Dakota, he would do more to defeat Pettigrew than a cohort of ordinary speakers. So the tour was arranged. While the project was under consideration, most of Mr. Hanna's friends and associates advised against it. Several members of the National Committee opposed it warmly, and a number of the closest friends outside of the Committee warned him that he was mak

ing a mistake. They urged that he was not a professional campaigner, that his selection of South Dakota would look like the persecution of Mr. Pettigrew by the most powerful man in the Republican party and would react in that gentleman's favor, and that he had better keep out of the hot and critical fight which was being made in those particular states.

After the decision was made the President himself decided to interfere. One day the Postmaster-General, Mr. Charles Emory Smith, turned up in Chicago, and sought an interview with Mr. Hanna. He began in a somewhat indirect way to develop the reasons against the proposed Northwestern tour, dwelling particularly on the danger of personal violence. In pressing these arguments he claimed to be expressing the opinion of several other members of the Cabinet. But his manner implied that there was something behind the protest; and finally Mr. Hanna became impatient and asked him point blank, "The President sent you, didn't he?" When Mr. Smith acknowledged that he was an emissary of the President, Mr. Hanna answered (according to an account given immediately after the incident to an intimate friend), "Return to Washington and tell the President that God hates a coward," a sentence which has a familiar ring, but which the reader may feel confident was not uttered for the benefit of Mr. Hanna's biography.

Mr. Hanna was exasperated at this interference with his personal plans and his management of the campaign. He was a quick-tempered man, and under the influence of high feeling contemplated courses of action which his sober judgment could not approve. In his anger he even considered for a moment the sending in of his resignation; but his head was too cool not to prevent the commission of such a mistake. The course on which he decided was to justify his own judgment by making his stumping tour a success.

His lively resentment is to be explained partly on other than obvious grounds. Of course he did not like to have his judgment impeached in relation to a very important piece of campaign business. He had decided upon the trip only after considering fully and patiently adverse opinions. The decision for or against was a matter which lay absolutely within his discretion as campaign manager. But this formal protest from Wash