a man by no means affluent, who contrib uted three times the amount he received for campaign purposes. How was his expen sive family supported during this period? Will some exegete in things political kindly explain away this difficulty? Are these gen tlemen to be regarded as philanthropists, whose chief aim in life is to benefit their fel low-men? Are they so consumed with the intense desire of serving the public as to be entirely oblivious to their own interests? Certainly, if experience count for anything, no sane person will be guilty of the unpar donable folly involved in the retention of such an opinion. On account of these abuses protests daily ascend to heaven against ring rule, and all the other hateful paraphernalia of this de spotic oligarchy. That ample occasion ex ists for the severest denunciations, admits of no question; but the main fault is not with the ring, despicable as that may be. The re sponsibility, and on this point I desire to be especially emphatic, is with the soi-disant fountain of power, — the dear people them selves. As long as men are allowed to be selected for office whose very names outrage the sentiment of all well-disposed individuals, just so long as the citizens of any commu nity quietly acquiesce in the nomination of persons for responsible positions who are notoriously unsuitable for discharging any trust, public or private, they and they alone are to blame for the consequences, no mat ter what these may be. I put the matter in this unvarnished way, because on this point it appears absolutely necessary that all persons should have well-defined opinions. We may rest assured that politicians, whether good or bad, simply reflect popular sentiment. I know it is fashionable in these latter days to aver that the incumbents themselves are scarcely to be censured. It is frequently said by namby-pamby moral ists, with a tremendous flourish of trumpets, that it is a difficult thing to be an honest politician, and a whole lot more of this rant as meaningless as it is senseless. If this
really be true, then why is it so? Politics do not make men; men make politics. From the present showing, however, a person is almost inclined to subscribe to the proposition as above stated. No matter what the cause may be, an individual would be perfectly justified in believing that many American officials are lineal descendants of those inhabitants of Jericho who made it so lively for the unfortunate wayfarer who travelled the road from Jerusalem. What is needed is that every functionary shall be held by public opinion to the same degree of accountability, to the same ster ling integrity that is expected and demanded from the employee in any respectable mer cantile establishment. Let us have done forever with the abominable and destructive notion that regards official station as a legalized opportunity of public plunder. Let us turn to the other side, and regard public office as a public trust. When that day dawns, if it should ever come, our ears will not be saluted with stories of corruption; then we will hear no more of defalcations of one sort or another. If it once be conceded that present methods are not compatible with probity and integrity, then let us revise our consti tutions and institutions if need be; but at all events, let us do something, do anything, rather than allow our bark to dash on the reef towards which it is drifting; and the quicker we set to work the better. But right at this stage of our investigation, the objection will be interposed: "Well, allowing that all you state is true, how shall a purer administration be introduced? Have we any redress? How are we to remedy this condition of affairs you describe as so lamentable?" In answer to these questions, I should re ply, Certainly not by lying supinely on our backs, and trusting to Providence that the day will speedily dawn when purity will reign supreme in politics. The petition of those who beseech Jupiter to come down from the skies and make all men pure and
