of ordinary business, would be considered as mere scandalous gossip and backbiting, in politics assumes the rank of public discussion and criticism, and the vast reverberation of the press swells the murmur into clamor. Intimate knowledge and good understanding, however, reveal an extent of toleration, charity, and downright generosity in politics that raises one's esteem for human nature. The consideration shown by professional politicians for the poor and unfortunate is a beautiful trait in their character. The relations between them and their constituents in many cases embrace sympathies far deeper and stronger than any connection, founded merely upon community of political ideas, could excite.

There is really nothing peculiar in the character of American politicians; but the circumstances which condition their activity are very peculiar. Their demerits are those which pertain to their period, and find abundant parallels in the history of English politics. On the other hand they have displayed, in meeting the peculiar exigencies of their situation, a readiness of invention and an adaptability of method which are characteristically American. Not even the great industrial development of the nation affords so striking an exhibition of American inventive genius and faculty for organization as that huge, complicated mechanism which, in default of any provision for direct party control of legislative procedure, has been extended

to every part of the government — national, state, and municipal - so as to reach and subject to some degree of public responsibility the political activities finding expression in the various state legislatures and in Congress. Nowhere else in the world, at any period, has party organization had to cope with such enormous tasks as in this country, and its efficiency in dealing with them is the true glory of our political system. As to this, the testimony of so competent and unbiassed a critic as Mr. Bagehot may be cited. He says: "The Americans now extol their institutions, and so defraud themselves of their due praise; but if they had not a genius for politics, if they had not a moderation in action singularly curious where superficial speech is so violent, if they had not a regard for laws such as no great people have yet evinced, and infinitely surpassing ours - the multiplicity of authorities in the American constitution would long ago have brought it to a bad end.1

All these characteristics are phases of that genius for politics of which party organization is the expression and the organ. The conclusion may be distasteful, since it is the habit of the times to pursue public men with calumny and detraction; but it follows that when history comes to reckon the achievements of our age, great party managers will receive an appreciation very different from what is now accorded to them.

1 Bagehot's English Constitution, Chap. VII.

CHAPTER XXIV

PARTY SUBSISTENCE

HAVING SO much to do, party organization provides employment for an enormous staff of managers, agents, and servants. Their number exceeds immensely the number of those connected with politics in any country in which unity of administrative control is provided by the constitution. In England the class of professional politicians is comparatively small. Mr. Bryce makes an interesting comparison on this point. He says that by the most liberal computation-one that includes the members of Parliament and expectant candidates; editors, managers, and chief writers on leading newspapers; and party agents in the various constituencies- he reached a total of 3500 in all England. Of their number in this country he says, "I can form no estimate, save that it must be counted by hundreds of thousands, inasmuch as it practically includes nearly all office-holders and most expectants of public office." This estimate, although large, is very moderate, since it includes besides federal office-holders the numerous officials holding office under state and local authority. To 1 American Commonwealth, Chap. LVII.

these should be added the large class of men who find the gains of their political activity, not in office-holding, but in the exercise of political influence. The probability is that the machinery of control in American government requires more people to tend and work it than all other political machinery in the rest of the civilized world.

So huge an organism necessarily requires provision of corresponding magnitude for its subsistence. It is notorious that party demands possession of all the offices of government for its support, but only a part of its maintenance can be provided in this way. The public service furnishes pay and quarters for what may be called the office staff of the business of party management, and the compensation attached to official employment may be squeezed for party purposes, but the direct emoluments of office-holding certainly do not sustain the management nor can they supply funds in amounts large enough to finance the large transactions of the business. It is a matter of observation that as politicians get into the first rank in influence and control their inclination is to seek office for their followers rather than for themselves. Often when they do hold office the expenses they have to assume are notoriously in excess of the compensation provided by law, and the real value of the office must lie in some advantages of position facilitating their management of politics. Many of the men who are recognized chiefs of

party management, "the bosses," do not hold office at all. Indeed, this avoidance of direct official responsibility may almost be said to be the distinguishing characteristic of the boss in a large city. Such men must find their account in politics in other ways than in the emoluments of officeholding.

It is also to be observed that the revenues required by party management are much too large to be raised by assessments upon office-holders or candidates. Although large sums are raised in this way, they form only what may be called the ordinary revenues of party organization, and are quite inadequate for the extraordinary expenditures of an important campaign. Vast sums are then expended in party agitation — public addresses, circulation of documents, mass-meetings, barbecues, picnics, and parades. Then, too, large expenditures are made in qualifying voters by getting out naturalization papers, or paying their taxes when the exercise of the franchise is so conditioned. Moreover, on election day the captain of every election district expects to be supplied with funds so as to be able to meet the expense of getting voters to the polls or to offer inducements to the wavering or indifferent. While it is impossible to get exact figures, yet the way in which money is poured out to carry elections shows that copious sources of supply are open to party managers.

It has been the experience of other countries,