Senator Foraker And The Ohio Muddle
November 16, 1907
Summary
Various political events that are occuring in the country are discussed.
Transcription
Senator Foraker And The Ohio Muddle
The defeat of Congressman Theodore E. Burton by Mayor Tom L. Johnson in the recent election for Mayor of Cleveland, Ohio is the culmination of a political fight, national in its character, and which really had its commencement under the dome of the Capitol at Washington. It will be difficult for one who has not kept track of the rapidly changing events to understand to what extent President Roosevelt was interested in a context which appeared to be purely local in its character. Let us see.
When the distinguished occupant of the White House began his crusade against the trusts in general and the railroads in particular, he found that the Republican organization in the United States Senate, under the leadership of Senator Nelson W. Aldrich of Rhode Island was against his policies. This astute political leader was diplomatic in his opposition, while Senator H. B. Foraker was bluntly outspoken and accepted no compromise in a matter that he believed would not afford the relief expected. He insisted that the Elkins law, already enacted was capable of a construction that would cure the evils of which a complaint had been made.
The result was that President Roosevelt, backed by the machinery of the government and the sentiment of the people forced the Hepburn Rate Bill through the United States Senate, enlisting the active support of the Democrats in so doing and being forced into the humiliating position of accepting the leadership of Hon. B. R. Tillman of South Carolina in so doing. Senator Foraker and Senator Aldrich were held responsible for this result. Senator Tillman’s “blunderbuss” methods endangered the success of the measure and when the Hepburn Rate Bill was finally enacted into law, it was in such shape that his own father wouldn’t recognize it. The only thing that really had been gotten through the Senate practically unchanged was its name, and even this was badly damaged for some of the legislators insisted upon calling it the Tillman Hepburn Rate Bill.
It was known from one end of the country to the other that President Roosevelt and Senator Tillman were not even on speaking terms and accordingly the former was handicapped to the extent that he could not even consult with the senatorial leader, who had been given charge of his pet measure. That the Chief Executive of the nation was wrathy was a mild way of expressing it. Even when a compromise was affected among the Republican leaders, by means of modifications and changes, Senator Foraker stood against it, and when the roll was called voted against the measure, declaring that the purpose sought would not be accomplished by the passage of this bill.
He declared too that the only conviction and punishment of railroads had been under the Elkins Bill and that the Tillman-Hepburn Rate Bill had been so changed as to make it practically a law acceptable to the railroads. Time has demonstrated the truthfulness of all that he said. The shrewd, diplomatic, able representative from Rhode Island had accomplished his designs.
It will be readily seen then that the feeling of President Roosevelt towards Senator Foraker was at white heat. To add to this feeling, the alleged shooting up of Brownsville, Tex., where Companies B. C. & D of the Twenty-fifth Infantry were stationed was heralded to the country. The War Department began an alleged investigation and accepted in-toto the statements of the Texans backed up by the vehement demands of the Senators from the Lone Star State. In his fight for the passage of the Tillman-Hepburn Rate Bill, President Roosevelt had enlisted the support of the Democratic Senators from the South and was accordingly under obligations to them.
When they represented that Negro soldiers had fired upon white people in Brownsville, he accepted ex parte statements: that is. statements of only one side to the controversy and demanded that the companies find out who were the guilty men and deliver them up forthwith to the legal authorities. The failure to do this would result in the summary dismissal of the entire battalion, both the Innocent and the alleged guilty ones from, the service, and they would forfeit their right to retirement and re-enlistment and be forever disgraced upon the roster of the War Department.
The Texan officials, after a thorough investigation dismissed the soldiers charged with the crime on account of insufficient evidence. The anomalous condition was presented of citizen soldiers dismissed from the service and punished without even the form of a trial, either civil or military and accordingly in violation of that constitutional provision which declares that no person shall be punished for an Infamous offense save by due process of law. Appeals were made to the President by both white and colored persons and to the Secretary of War, William H. Taft, but both turned a deaf ear to all of these urgent representations.
It was then that Senator Joseph Benson Foraker brought the matter to the attention of the United States Senate and the investigation was begun which resulted in the collapse of many theories and assertions made by the over-anxious texans. By the time Senator Foraker got through with the case, it was settled beyond the shadow of a doubt that the proof as to the guilt of any colored soldier was by no means conclusive. The same result reached by the legal authorities in Texas, that of insufficient evidence to convict was reached by the Senatorial investigators at Washington.
President Roosevelt was placed in the embarrassing position of convicting and punishing men first and trying them afterwards. It was not long before it was announced that Senator Foraker would be defeated for reelection to the Senate. The stumbling block in the way was Senator Charles Dick, Chairman of the Republican State Committee of Ohio. He supported his colleague. As a result, they were ignored at the White House, it is said and their endorsations for appointments in Ohio became worthless.
As it was hinted that Senator Foraker was a presidential possibility, President Roosevelt announced to his friends that Hon. William H. Taft, Secretary of War was the man to succeed him and it was also noised abroad that Hon. Theodore E. Burton would be a most admirable selection to succeed Senator Joseph Benson Foraker in the United States Senate. It is needless to say that while Senator Foraker who is by nature a fighter had been marching towards the “enemy” before, he was running towards him now. His speeches delivered since that time are masterpieces of sound judgement and wisdom. Despite the provocation he has been very careful of all that he has been bold enough to say. He attempted to rip the Taft presidential boom fore and aft by attacking that statesman relative to his pronounced policies, noticeably on the tariff.
It seems that either Mr. Roosevelt or his supporters or both conceived the idea of having Mr. Burton resign his seat in Congress and become a candidate for Mayor of Cleveland, Ohio, as against Mayor Tom L. Johnson, an independent democrat with socialistic tendencies and the advocate of three cent fares on the street railways of that city. Cleveland is normally Republican. When a committee of colored men called on Mr. Burton for an expression of his attitude towards Senator Foraker, he refused to commit himself. In the meantime, he had a letter from President Roosevelt endorsing his candidacy for Mayor of Cleveland. It was not denied that he had made the fight at the suggestion and instigation of the President of the United States.
When Senator Foraker was approached concerning Congressman Hurton, he issued a statement endorsing him as the regular candidate of the Republican Party of Cleveland and asking his friends to support him. While probably not so Intended, this was nevertheless a "backhanded slap" at Mr. Burton, for he had returned good for evil and emphasized his loyalty to the party. This then caused us to think of the quotation from Shakespeare which appears at the commencement of this article.
Had Mr. Hurton won he would have been the acknowledged leader in Northern Ohio. He would either have been a dangerous aspirant for the senatorial togo, now being worn by Joseph Henson Foraker of Ohio, or he would have been able to dictate his successor. He lost, thanks to the votes of the colored citizens who remembered Brownsville and had not forgotten the patriotic action of the distinguished Ohioan in the United States Senate.
The news has been heralded all over the country to the discomfiture of Senator Foraker's enemies and the most popular President who ever sat in the White House now knows the result. Selah.
“I charge thee, fling away ambition: By that sin fell the angels.”
-Shakespeare.
The defeat of Congressman Theodore E. Burton by Mayor Tom L. Johnson in the recent election for Mayor of Cleveland, Ohio is the culmination of a political fight, national in its character, and which really had its commencement under the dome of the Capitol at Washington. It will be difficult for one who has not kept track of the rapidly changing events to understand to what extent President Roosevelt was interested in a context which appeared to be purely local in its character. Let us see.
When the distinguished occupant of the White House began his crusade against the trusts in general and the railroads in particular, he found that the Republican organization in the United States Senate, under the leadership of Senator Nelson W. Aldrich of Rhode Island was against his policies. This astute political leader was diplomatic in his opposition, while Senator H. B. Foraker was bluntly outspoken and accepted no compromise in a matter that he believed would not afford the relief expected. He insisted that the Elkins law, already enacted was capable of a construction that would cure the evils of which a complaint had been made.
The result was that President Roosevelt, backed by the machinery of the government and the sentiment of the people forced the Hepburn Rate Bill through the United States Senate, enlisting the active support of the Democrats in so doing and being forced into the humiliating position of accepting the leadership of Hon. B. R. Tillman of South Carolina in so doing. Senator Foraker and Senator Aldrich were held responsible for this result. Senator Tillman’s “blunderbuss” methods endangered the success of the measure and when the Hepburn Rate Bill was finally enacted into law, it was in such shape that his own father wouldn’t recognize it. The only thing that really had been gotten through the Senate practically unchanged was its name, and even this was badly damaged for some of the legislators insisted upon calling it the Tillman Hepburn Rate Bill.
It was known from one end of the country to the other that President Roosevelt and Senator Tillman were not even on speaking terms and accordingly the former was handicapped to the extent that he could not even consult with the senatorial leader, who had been given charge of his pet measure. That the Chief Executive of the nation was wrathy was a mild way of expressing it. Even when a compromise was affected among the Republican leaders, by means of modifications and changes, Senator Foraker stood against it, and when the roll was called voted against the measure, declaring that the purpose sought would not be accomplished by the passage of this bill.
He declared too that the only conviction and punishment of railroads had been under the Elkins Bill and that the Tillman-Hepburn Rate Bill had been so changed as to make it practically a law acceptable to the railroads. Time has demonstrated the truthfulness of all that he said. The shrewd, diplomatic, able representative from Rhode Island had accomplished his designs.
It will be readily seen then that the feeling of President Roosevelt towards Senator Foraker was at white heat. To add to this feeling, the alleged shooting up of Brownsville, Tex., where Companies B. C. & D of the Twenty-fifth Infantry were stationed was heralded to the country. The War Department began an alleged investigation and accepted in-toto the statements of the Texans backed up by the vehement demands of the Senators from the Lone Star State. In his fight for the passage of the Tillman-Hepburn Rate Bill, President Roosevelt had enlisted the support of the Democratic Senators from the South and was accordingly under obligations to them.
When they represented that Negro soldiers had fired upon white people in Brownsville, he accepted ex parte statements: that is. statements of only one side to the controversy and demanded that the companies find out who were the guilty men and deliver them up forthwith to the legal authorities. The failure to do this would result in the summary dismissal of the entire battalion, both the Innocent and the alleged guilty ones from, the service, and they would forfeit their right to retirement and re-enlistment and be forever disgraced upon the roster of the War Department.
The Texan officials, after a thorough investigation dismissed the soldiers charged with the crime on account of insufficient evidence. The anomalous condition was presented of citizen soldiers dismissed from the service and punished without even the form of a trial, either civil or military and accordingly in violation of that constitutional provision which declares that no person shall be punished for an Infamous offense save by due process of law. Appeals were made to the President by both white and colored persons and to the Secretary of War, William H. Taft, but both turned a deaf ear to all of these urgent representations.
It was then that Senator Joseph Benson Foraker brought the matter to the attention of the United States Senate and the investigation was begun which resulted in the collapse of many theories and assertions made by the over-anxious texans. By the time Senator Foraker got through with the case, it was settled beyond the shadow of a doubt that the proof as to the guilt of any colored soldier was by no means conclusive. The same result reached by the legal authorities in Texas, that of insufficient evidence to convict was reached by the Senatorial investigators at Washington.
President Roosevelt was placed in the embarrassing position of convicting and punishing men first and trying them afterwards. It was not long before it was announced that Senator Foraker would be defeated for reelection to the Senate. The stumbling block in the way was Senator Charles Dick, Chairman of the Republican State Committee of Ohio. He supported his colleague. As a result, they were ignored at the White House, it is said and their endorsations for appointments in Ohio became worthless.
As it was hinted that Senator Foraker was a presidential possibility, President Roosevelt announced to his friends that Hon. William H. Taft, Secretary of War was the man to succeed him and it was also noised abroad that Hon. Theodore E. Burton would be a most admirable selection to succeed Senator Joseph Benson Foraker in the United States Senate. It is needless to say that while Senator Foraker who is by nature a fighter had been marching towards the “enemy” before, he was running towards him now. His speeches delivered since that time are masterpieces of sound judgement and wisdom. Despite the provocation he has been very careful of all that he has been bold enough to say. He attempted to rip the Taft presidential boom fore and aft by attacking that statesman relative to his pronounced policies, noticeably on the tariff.
It seems that either Mr. Roosevelt or his supporters or both conceived the idea of having Mr. Burton resign his seat in Congress and become a candidate for Mayor of Cleveland, Ohio, as against Mayor Tom L. Johnson, an independent democrat with socialistic tendencies and the advocate of three cent fares on the street railways of that city. Cleveland is normally Republican. When a committee of colored men called on Mr. Burton for an expression of his attitude towards Senator Foraker, he refused to commit himself. In the meantime, he had a letter from President Roosevelt endorsing his candidacy for Mayor of Cleveland. It was not denied that he had made the fight at the suggestion and instigation of the President of the United States.
When Senator Foraker was approached concerning Congressman Hurton, he issued a statement endorsing him as the regular candidate of the Republican Party of Cleveland and asking his friends to support him. While probably not so Intended, this was nevertheless a "backhanded slap" at Mr. Burton, for he had returned good for evil and emphasized his loyalty to the party. This then caused us to think of the quotation from Shakespeare which appears at the commencement of this article.
Had Mr. Hurton won he would have been the acknowledged leader in Northern Ohio. He would either have been a dangerous aspirant for the senatorial togo, now being worn by Joseph Henson Foraker of Ohio, or he would have been able to dictate his successor. He lost, thanks to the votes of the colored citizens who remembered Brownsville and had not forgotten the patriotic action of the distinguished Ohioan in the United States Senate.
The news has been heralded all over the country to the discomfiture of Senator Foraker's enemies and the most popular President who ever sat in the White House now knows the result. Selah.
“I charge thee, fling away ambition: By that sin fell the angels.”
-Shakespeare.
About this article
Source
Location on Page
Upper Left Quadrant
Topic
Contributed By
Benton Camper
Citation
“Senator Foraker And The Ohio Muddle,” Black Virginia: The Richmond Planet, 1894-1909, accessed October 9, 2026, https://blackvirginia.richmond.edu/items/show/896.