that the money of the people has been squandered and stolen. I promise, if elected, to thoroughly investigate this matter, and, if I find that any crime has been committed, to punish the criminals, no matter who they they may be. Tammany promises the same thing. Which would you rather trust to do this, Tammany or me?" Anyone who has ever heard Roosevelt speak can imagine how he looked when he asked that question. The effect The effect was electric and convincing. Two of my friends, who were republicans, had said they were going to vote for Van Wyck, because they believed no republican could be trusted to make the investigation. After the Roosevelt meeting in our town they changed their minds. "We have heard Roosevelt, and he's honest," is the way they put it. Just such conversations as these made up more than the seventeen thousand votes he had to spare.

The success of this new way of conducting a campaign opened the eyes of many an old-time politician. As governor he pursued the same direct, open methods, and was never afraid to take the people into his confidence. A promotion to Washington did not alter his course. No other president, in fact no other public man, has quite equalled Roosevelt in out-spokenness. His views on all important questions are known to all. He has acted and spoken as conscience and occasion directed, and without any unnecessary reserve. As John Brisben Walker has said, in writing of his career: "Each morning he asked himself what was the most important work for that day. Having determined this, he acted upon it with all his mind, with all his strength of body and will, worrying little about

next month or next year." He has never waited to see whether or not a move was likely to be popular before he made it, but, if he believed it right and wise, has proceeded to immediate action. He has proceeded a great many times, and the people have not agreed with everything he has done. He has spoken and written a great deal-more perhaps than any other president,and the people have not always agreed with what he has said and written. Frank A. Munsey said, in his article on "Training for the Presidency": "In the business world the giant combinations reach out for the very highest grade of talent, and pay fabulous salaries for it. The man who does is the man to whom the doors are flung open, and to whose hands the life and soul of the concern are intrusted. It is not a question of whether he makes mistakes or not, so long as he can show net results. It is the net that men want. In matters of state, however, the theory is that no government representative-business manager or director, if you please-should ever make a mistake except one of inaction."

The results of the last election show that the people are adopting business methods in choosing presidents. In selecting candidates, parties have been accustomed to look through the writings and records of all persons under consideration as prospective candidates to see if something has not been said or done that might be used against them. In the instance of Roosevelt, a candidate was selected who had been giving public expression to his thoughts since childhood. When not completely occupied with public office, he was writing magazine articles and books. Many of these

contain youthful and even maturelife theories of government with which neither he nor any other twentieth-century statesman would agree-many things that could be used against him, if conditions and sentiment had not materially changed. After a record of such unparalleled open and unreserved character; after issuing the most direct and unevasive letter of acceptance ever written, and capping the campaign by banishing precedent and telling the public of his righteous indignation at unfounded charges, his record-breaking indorsement at the hands of the people followed. What does it mean? It means that the new method of campaigning has been fixed beyond the possibility of recall; that the era of frankness and publicity has come, and come to stay; that the "speak-out" age has arrived, and that Theodore Roosevelt was its chief founder.

It means a better general understanding between the people and their public servants and officers. Public officials whose tenure of office is in the hands of the people will have less fear of giving public expression to their thoughts. They will know that a change of opinion to-morrow will necessarily be charged to dishonesty. They will know that their indorsement will depend upon the net results of their labors, and not upon the sanction of their every individual act and word; that honest endeavor will be accounted a virtue, even if sometimes mistaken. The people will never tolerate dishonesty, but they have learned to discriminate between this and mere indiscretion. If the service shall have been honest, and in the main, efficient and wise, slight, and even occasional serious, mistakes, will be given no consideration.

This will stimulate activity and lead to greater achievement and progress than would be possible under the former methods of evasiveness, reserve and timidity. The demand of the times is not against conservatism, and not against all due reserve. It is against eternally clinging to the past with a cringing fear of advancing new ideas honestly believed in. It is in favor of constructive statesmanship and originality of thought-and it wants this thought expressed, and not held "under a bushel" until its popularity has been ascertained. The President's message at the opening of the last session of congress furnishes an excellent example of the new idea, especially those portions referring to child-labor, transportation rates, and the reformation of campaign methods.

In diplomacy-ever the velvet glove-John Hay, whose recent death a whole nation has deplored, led the reformation, but there is still less frankness here than anywhere else. In the August "Century," Andrew D. White severely criticized the Czar, and told the plain facts about Russian affairs; so that the ex-ambassador has acquired the "speak-out" habit. The position of ambassador is essentially a delicate one, and just what is thought cannot always be said, but the progress in frankness has already been so fruitful of results that it cannot but result in a still more advanced trial. Direct methods pursued with reasonable tact can only conduce to a better understanding between the governments involved.

The Department of Commerce and Labor is collecting information in regard to the affairs of interstate corporations, which a few years

ago would have been regarded as a strictly private matter. It is true that corporations have always been conceded to be semi-public bodies, but they have been slow to realize the right of the public to inquire into the management of their affairs. Such inquiries as are now considered entirely proper, and the answers to which are understood to be generally given without the slightest protest, formerly would have been regarded as grossly impertinent. That they are greatly in the interest of the public goes without saying. Newspapers and magazines have ever been a strong influence in advancing publicity, but they are becoming much more direct in the style and in the nature of their articles. Among the recent articles, which are decidedly out-spoken in their character and style-and there are hundreds of others-may be mentioned those of Miss Tarbell and Mr. Lawson on the Standard Oil, and those of Lincoln Steffens on "The Shame of Cities" and "Enemies of the Republic." Mr. Steffens is laying bare much corruption, and wherever his pen has been drawn, better and more open conduct of affairs must of necessity follow. His manner of criticism, however, at times seems to partake too much of condemnation and too little of commendation. In such articles credit shuld always be given where credit is due, and the doubt should always be resolved in favor of honesty. Care should be taken not to blast a reputation containing little of the bad-indeed, if there be anything worse than error of judgment-as against much of the good, and thus a career of usefulness be abruptly cut short, or at least greatly impaired. Mr. Steffens has, of course, done no one an intentional

wrong, but it is intended to suggest that, in some cases, the great work he has been doing has been apparently attended with some unnecessary damage to individual reputations. A good rule to follow in such matters is: Be fair, but strike from the shoulder. There has not been a time in yearsindeed I do not believe this government has known a time—when the magazines and newspapers been so literally teeming with directly-worded, unequivocal discussions of living sociological and economic problems. And these publications are simply meeting the demands of the public.

Preachers no longer confine themselves to far-away talk, but boldly tackle living questions. People are still divided as to the propriety of their actively engaging in politics. They are none the less citizens because they have become preachers, and certainly have not, by reason of adopting their particular profession, lost their right of suffrage. Not only this, but, wherever moral questions are involved, it is their plain and imperative duty to use their utmost influence in the interest of morality; to do something practical instead of eternally talking to the clouds. Great care must be exercised in determining the extent and manner of mingling in politics, lest the permaent prestige be impaired. "How can I accomplish the most good in a lifetime?" is a question the preacher should constantly address to himself. But it should not cause inaction when brought face to face with a moral question. It should rather direct the course and manner of action. In his article on "The Decline of the Ministry," in the December "World's Work," Mr. Everett T. Tomlinson presents data

tending to show that his profession has been deteriorating in quality in recent years. Perhaps this may be true as to the past two generations, the period especially emphasized in his article; but I believe the last decade has shown a perceptible improvement. In all the larger cities are to be found preachers who have caught the spirit of the times, and are taking an active part in the practical affairs of life. There are There are also similar preachers in many of the smaller cities and towns, but naturally their reputations have not extended so far as those of the larger cities. These men are fearlessly saying what they think of the concrete forms of immorality, which surround them. Their course, where pursued with tact, is widening the influence of their profession, and, at the same time, increasing its attractiveness. The ministers have always been on the right side of the moral questions of their various communities, but it has taken this age of fearless frankness to force open expression of their ideas, and obtain any considerable practical application of their morality. This class of ministers is on the increase and public sentiment is keeping pace with it.

The legal profession in its recent national convention in St. Louis, by its advanced position and explicit declaration on the trust question, has shown that it is not lagging behind in the march of frankness. Its plan of action may be too drastic to win universal commendation, but its candor compels admiration.

Everyone admits that some matters are in their nature essentially private—and I am not anywhere in this article intending to speak of any matters, except those in which the public has a rightful interest. Everyone knows that silence must

sometimes be maintained, at least temporarily, in many matters in which the public has such interest. But the general tendency to the open life, the direct way of stating things, the absence of fear in taking a position on public questions, is a distinct step forward. It is the dawning of a better day. It means more confidence and less corruption. It means that the world is growing better, for America has taken the advance-ground in world-progress.

The era of frankness and publicity is here and is beneficial. How may we best take advantage of it? In what new lines may we advantageously geously apply and promote it? There are many, but I shall mention but one, as this seems of overtowering importance. I refer to the subject of greater publicity in the conduct of our political campaigns. I shall go into this subject briefly, and shall confine myself to merely making the suggestion, as it is a subject worthy of a full article, written after careful investigation, and the ascertainment of the opinions of those of experience. Greater strides in the advancement of morality could be made in this than in any one other matter. It is a matter which should engage the attention of all thoughtful American citizens. The greater the secrecy in casting the ballot, and the greater the publicity in the methods of controlling and influencing it, the better it will be for the Republic. Who will say that it is not possible to conduct a campaign so that every item of receipts and expenditures may be exhibited to the public? Who will say that it would not be better for the country, if this were done? Who will say that this reform cannot and will not be brought about in the near future? It seems to me that everything is

tending in that direction. The President has clearly and forcibly recommended the passage of such a law by congress, and it only needs a thorough awakening and expression of public sentiment to secure favorable action from that body. Several of the states have statutes compelling the filing of affidavits by candidates, giving an itemized statement of their campaign expenses. These provisions are salutary, but they do not reach the root of the evil. They are rarely explicitly complied with, and enforcement is not insisted upon, as it is generally recognized that they fail to cover the ground. The proposed change will doubtless

meet serious objection from some chairmen who prefer the "dark-lantern" methods, which enable them to make false claims of great astuteness and sagacity. Such men are fond of involving themselves in an air of feigned cleverness and mystery, and saying: "No matter how I did it; I did it." These men would lose capital and prestige, but that cannot be permitted to interfere with the progress and welfare of the nation. It would certainly go a long way toward eliminating corruption. Is there anyone who is willing to stand up and object to it, and furnish the reasons for his objections?