A new element, however, appeared upon the scene. The Rev. Dr. Silas C. Swallow of Harrisburg was editor of the Pennsylvania Methodist. In 1895 he began an unsparing attack upon the State authorities with positive charges of corruption and crime. Indicted for criminal libel on half a dozen counts, he conducted the case himself, scoring all his antagonists from the judge down. He was fined $500 and costs and from that moment his popularity made him a Reform leader. In 1897 he became a candidate for state treasurer of the Prohibition party, of which the normal vote in the State is about 25,000. To the surprise of everybody he secured 119,000 votes out of 734,000, and more than the Democratic candidate. In 1898 he accepted an independent nomination for the governorship upon a simple platform, "Thou shalt not steal," and proposed to stump the State. He has powerful backers and if his tact is equal to his energy he may succeed in being elected.

Suppose he is. His training as Methodist minister and editor can hardly have fitted him to play the part of a statesman, however competent he may be to denounce glaring and obvious evils. He will find himself confronted by the powerful political machinery we have described, having himself no power to do anything, but subjected to the domination of a hostile legislature, baffling, tripping, and humiliating him at every turn, till after a year he falls out and disappears as a charlatan and a failure, and the astute Mr. Quay or his successor becomes more firmly seated than ever, with a still tighter hold on the political machine.1

1 The result of the election is of deep interest. Dr. Swallow passed six months in canvassing the State, visiting all of the sixty-seven counties except four, and many of them several times; and made some two hundred and fifty addresses. Mr. Wanamaker gave as much time, traversing the State with vigorous and searching exposition of fraud and corruption in the State government. The vote for governor stood as follows:

him, headed by Hon. John Wanamaker, a rich tradesman, and Postmaster-General under President Harrison.

At a crowded meeting in Lancaster on March 16 one speaker, a prominent citizen, said:—

It is often a question to me whether we live in a republic or under a monarchy. One hundred and twenty-two years ago we threw off the yoke of King George, but to-day we find the yoke of King Matthew more unbearable. If the people of the State knew their strength and their power, now is the time to dethrone King Matthew First.

They cannot do that without a leader and they have

none.

Mr. Wanamaker made a most bitter attack upon the State government, charging every kind of falsehood, corruption, and robbery under the despotic control of Mr. Quay and his lieutenant, Mr. W. H. Andrews. The details need not be given here, but they show how, under the forms of free government, a dictatorship of one man can be fully established. The curious part is in Mr. Wanamaker's conclusion.

This does not mean that we take down our Republican flag and put up an Independent flag. . . . I am a Republican of Republicans, and from my boyhood to this day I have never voted any other ticket. Neither have I scratched or bolted it. . . . I accepted a call asking me to be a candidate of the Republican party before the Republican Convention. . . . If I had wanted to be an Independent candidate I would have waited till the party leaders clinched themselves beyond recall at the Convention, and then I could have announced myself. I am not a party wrecker.

That is to say, if an impersonal party convention, calling itself Republican and manipulated by Mr. Quay, nominated Mr. Quay's man, then Mr. Wanamaker proposed to fall into line and to vote for and support the Republican ticket. If he did not go so far as that, he did not commit himself to any other candidate. Reform is not likely to go very far on that basis.

A new element, however, appeared upon the scene. The Rev. Dr. Silas C. Swallow of Harrisburg was editor of the Pennsylvania Methodist. In 1895 he began an unsparing attack upon the State authorities with positive charges of corruption and crime. Indicted for criminal libel on half a dozen counts, he conducted the case himself, scoring all his antagonists from the judge down. He was fined $500 and costs and from that moment his popularity made him a Reform leader. In 1897 he became a candidate for state treasurer of the Prohibition party, of which the normal vote in the State is about 25,000. To the surprise of everybody he secured 119,000 votes out of 734,000, and more than the Democratic candidate. In 1898 he accepted an independent nomination for the governorship upon a simple platform, "Thou shalt not steal,” and proposed to stump the State. He has powerful backers and if his tact is equal to his energy he may succeed in being elected.

Suppose he is. His training as Methodist minister and editor can hardly have fitted him to play the part of a statesman, however competent he may be to denounce glaring and obvious evils. He will find himself confronted by the powerful political machinery we have described, having himself no power to do anything, but subjected to the domination of a hostile legislature, baffling, tripping, and humiliating him at every turn, till after a year he falls out and disappears as a charlatan and a failure, and the astute Mr. Quay or his successor becomes more firmly seated than ever, with a still tighter hold on the political machine.1

1 The result of the election is of deep interest. Dr. Swallow passed six months in canvassing the State, visiting all of the sixty-seven counties except four, and many of them several times; and made some two hundred and fifty addresses. Mr. Wanamaker gave as much time, traversing the State with vigorous and searching exposition of fraud and corruption in the State government. The vote for governor stood as follows;

The lesson of all this is that the one man power is before us beyond the possibility of escape, and whether we like it or not. The people, weary and disgusted with caucus nominations, with impersonal committees, commissions, and legislatures, are hungering and thirsting for men, for leaders whom they can follow. If they cannot have good

Stone, Republican and Quay

Jenks, Democrat, and promising reform

Swallow, Independent, and honest government

473,068

353,742

132,006

What does this prove as to the character and wishes of the people? An eye-witness who accompanied Dr. Swallow in a part of his campaign, reported crowded audiences and great enthusiasm, and predicted success. That only shows how easily the demonstrative part may be mistaken for the whole people, and how difficult it is to get at the great

mass.

Again, while Dr. Swallow and Mr. Wanamaker both denounced existing evils, they proposed nothing in the way of remedy. Negatives are not sufficient to arouse effective enthusiasm.

Thirdly. While Dr. Swallow had excited enthusiasm by his coura geous stand for the right, he had no personal record to appeal to. A Methodist preacher and editor of a religious paper, with no political experience, and no definite policy to offer, could hardly expect a conservative population to hand over to him the government of the State.

Fourthly. Party loyalty must be taken into account. In the absence of adequate personality, party names form the strongest bond of union; and the word Republican has in Pennsylvania almost a religious authority. It represents not only the memories of the civil war, but the policy of high tariff, to which rightly or wrongly the State is believed to owe its prosperity. The people can see but little to choose between party politicians, and so cling to one idea. No single and spasmodic effort can reduce such a fortress as that. Nothing but personality, trained and tried by years of experience, perfectly known to the people, and thoroughly identified with the government, can overcome the "boss" power which controls such a machine.

Fifthly. The successful candidate still represents a minority. When so much is at stake, only a majority, and no lesser fraction, whether large or small, should rule. The people should not be allowed to be led astray by false hopes. A second election, at whatever cost or trouble, should compel them to face squarely the main issue.

Great stress is laid upon the false counting of votes and bribery. While there is undoubtedly much ground for this charge, it is too indefinite for conclusive argument. In one of Mr. Wanamaker's speeches (see Appendix E) is given an account of the offices, national, State, and city, which are under the control of the Quay machine, and the enormous

The only choice open is

ones they will take bad ones. whether they shall be provided with leaders, trained and tested as to character and ability, or whether by resolute resistance to their demands they shall be driven into the arms of reckless and irresponsible demagogues, abusing their enthusiasm for selfish purposes. It is precisely the evolution of leaders which is the main object of admitting executive officials to the floor of legislatures; and not merely in its effect upon themselves but upon the members as a whole. Instead of being nominated and elected as lay figures, labelled Republican or Democrat, they would become individuals, visible to their constituents and the State by supporting or criticising men, measures, and policies.

This improvement in the quality of members of the legislature and in the considerations on which they are elected would operate in one direction, where it is perhaps more needed than anywhere else in the country, and that is, in the Senate of the United States. It is not an exaggeration to say that there is no one of our institutions which has caused more dismay and mortification to every self-respecting citizen, anxious not only for the welfare of his country, but for its appearance in the eyes of the world, than the conduct of that body in the last five years. It seems as if even the conservative and dignified members amounts of money thereby placed at its disposal. In the control of the public press, the employment of workers, and the direct bribery of voters, it is evident how much can be accomplished by such means. Yet the figures of the election show that it might not avail, especially with a majority requirement, against a fully aroused moral sense of the people. Whether this could be brought about by such a personality as has been described may be open to question, but it is certain that under present conditions of our public life the experiment never has been and never can be tried.

Notwithstanding the adverse appearance of the Pennsylvania election, we maintain that it involves no condemnation of the character or intentions of the voters of the State. It only proves that they have not been appealed to in the right and effective way.