common feelings of cohesion, power enough to protect itself against conquest or foreign aggression, and affairs sufficiently various and considerable of its own to occupy worthily and expand to fit proportions the social and political intelligence of the population."

Such observations, however brilliant, leave in the dark the question, how is it possible to tell when a people have become fit to govern themselves? As to this it does not seem possible to lay down any rule. In practice it is a matter that must show for itself and find its own way. However, we are not now considering the suitability of particular forms of government to particular cases, but simply the question of how to secure the integrity of representative institutions when they are actually in being, or are about to be introduced. Certainly it is not possible to establish representative institutions without sufficient virtue and intelligence to support them, but whatever stock of good character is socially available is also politically available. Indeed, superior results are obtainable in politics, because motives of honor and distinction may be employed that do not apply to effort on the plane of private interest. People are not looked up to and respected so much for what they do for themselves as for what they do for others, and this circumstance opens a great fountain of

political force for the use of statesmanship. If the ethical standards of politics fall below those of ordinary behavior it is an infallible sign that the constitution is faulty, and no real improvement is to be expected until the defect is corrected.

CHAPTER IV

FUNDAMENTAL CONDITIONS

REPRESENTATIVE government is by its specific nature founded upon election by the people, but any consideration of elective process whether it be as to the theory or as to the actual practice, shows that it has defects which can never be removed since they are rooted in human nature. Representative institutions allow choice, but the grounds of choice may admit all the folly, wickedness and perversity of which human nature is capable. Defects of such origin will always exist while freedom of choice exists, but it does not follow that effects can not be controlled. It is the special aim and particular purpose of all sound business organization to do that very thing. Every art or contrivance has limitations imposed by the nature of its material which must be allowed for in accomplishing results, and in this respect politics has no special problems and few peculiarities. There is a prevalent notion that the special problem of politics is to overcome the propensity of agents to abuse their authority for their own advantage, but this sets a task rather than a problem. Ordinary business administra

tion has always upon it the need of controlling that same propensity and the means of doing so are tolerably well understood. The same general principles by which integrity is secured in private business are available in public business, with even greater assurance of success. The matter resolves itself into precaution against infirmities disclosed by practical experience.

At the very outset there is an infirmity so noticeable that it strikes every observer. Mill made this blunt statement of it: "Unless a man is fit for the gallows, he is thought to be about as fit as other people for almost anything for which he can offer himself as a candidate." If American experience suggests any modification of this statement it would be that the one reservation made by Mill is no longer called for by the facts of the case. Now what can be done to guard against such infirmity?

One view that may be urged and which indeed is widely held, is that the case does not admit of direct treatment; - that if the people do not elect good men to office they are themselves to blame and that the only available remedy is to inculcate a deeper sense of moral responsibility. This argument implies that as a system representative government is irresponsible in its nature and is merely reflective of such morality and conscientiousness as happen to exist in the

electorate. But no such argument would be indulged in private business. In it the matter of positive checks to condition behavior is always attended to. No one would say, if a private business concern was looted by those in charge of it, that the only moral to be drawn was that the shareholders had failed to elect good men to office. In such case the conditions that attached to the trusteeship would be considered in accounting for the occurrence and remedial action would be sought through improvement of those conditions. It would be rightly considered to be either sinister or absurd to take the position that there was nothing to be done except to await improvement in the morality and intelligence of the shareholders. And if this be the case as regards so definite a body as a group of shareholders, how much more so as regards such a vague entity as the people. When the blame of political defect is laid upon the people it is put nowhere. Such avoidance of responsibility should never be tolerated for it is nugatory of constitutional government. It may be laid down as a safe maxim that to say "it is the fault of the people" is the characteristic plea of the political scamp.

The stream cannot rise higher than its source! True enough; but there are such things as rams and pumps; and politics too does not lack