petty, personal advantage as a moving force, and address himself, patiently, to the task before him, with his mind's eye centered solely on the advancement of the common weal. It is undoubtedly true that self-aggran dizement is an ever-present, active agent, which is constantly swaying the passions and motives of human action. But it can hardly be regarded as the best guaranty for faithful work in. the true reformer. And we cannot be sure that it marks, in the better sense at least, the true reformer at all. In deed, the better opinion seems to be, that the true reformer should prosecute his work with the sole ultimate purpose of advancing the social and political conditions of the masses, with no attendant thought of the re sulting advantage or disadvantage to himself. This is, of course, unselfish devotion to one's highest political duty, and is patriotism in the best conceivable sense. If the ostensible champions of reformatory movements were more generally of this unselfish kind, they would be able to enlist a far larger and wor thier support of such movements among a class now lukewarm, if not, indeed, actively opposed to them. It is becoming more and more difficult to deceive the intelligent com mon people with high-sounding but hollow platitudes; and those who say that they stand for political ideas of a certain cast, as well as those who make political promises, must sup plement such ideas and promises with lives and conduct which shall give ample warrant for public confidence. It is possible, in this way, to make some real progress in genuine public reform. An unselfish and honest purpose is not the only requisite for the reformer. A wise judgment must dictate his actions as well. Reforms should never be attempted for the mere sake of change from present conditions. Intelligence of a most lofty and pronounced
type should attend every endeavor to improve the public service. The antagonism which any attempt at re form arouses is always so intense, and the interests which are to be affected are so jealous, that great courage is required of those who undertake it. None but the brave have any business to engage in the work of reform. But who would admit that he is not courageous? Nevertheless, it is believed that few have the courage and in dependence of Ralph Waldo Emerson, who, in 1837, dared to withdraw from the church because of its avowed support of slavery, and who at that time stated that " if a single man plant himself indomitably on his instincts and there abide, the world will come round to him." Not a few of the failures of reform movements are due to the cowardice of the people, the fear that participation in meritori ous public reform may cost the citizen a loss of position or dollars, or other personal ad vantage. In spite of this, however, it is the firm belief that the public conscience is gen erally sound. It would be little less than calamitous for republican institutions if this were not so. There can be no warrant for hope for the success of permanent reform unless the in corruptible methods of integrity are invoked. Reform and integrity are so closely related that the one cannot exist and flourish without the other. They are, practically, "one and inseparable." The reformer can do much effective work along educational lines. This can be accomplished through a healthy pub lic opinion, propagated and sustained through the press and on the rostrum. It is one of the surest, as it is also one of the safest, guarantees of the inalienable rights of the people. If it is not so there is something wrong, radically wrong, with the tastes and desires of the public who make this opinion. But a movement for reform is usually di
