To decide to

as to the best line of action. work in harmony with a powerful organization to ultimately turn it toward a certain goal is just as worthy conduct as to throw one's fortunes with what may seem a more idealistic movement by means of some new organization. It is not a question of conscience. It is a question of judgment as to the best means to the end.

If you come to a choice, as most voters do, between one or the other of the two great parties, it is here that the educated man, if he lives up to the moral duty of considering problems of public policy with care and study, ought to be able to make his choice with intelligence and a clear conscience. Having made such a choice, he must then recognize the limitations of his action. It is not for him to frame an ideal system of government or an ideal economic policy. Rather, having once cast his lot with that organization which, on the whole, he believes in, among the choice offered to him, he must recognize that now this very organization cannot accomplish even a part of the results which he desires unless it is to have the loyal

support of its members. I know there are many who feel that there is something immoral in strict party loyalty. Many people of the educated class look with a superior scorn on those who work for party success year after year, even when that party follows many paths from which they have attempted to steer its feet.

I certainly believe in the independence of the voter, but I do not believe that his independence is any greater if he jumps indiscriminately from one party to the other according to some temporary feeling, or because of dissatisfaction with certain individuals. I think frequently this shows a certain lack of principle. The thoughtful and conscientious man, from his training, his historical study, his profound convictions regarding great lines of policy, ought not to be able to throw off a party as lightly as he throws off an overcoat. If he can do this, what right had he conscientiously to belong to that party before? It would indicate that he had no serious convictions, or no serious reason for his previous choice. I am speaking now of national politics and not of local

or state politics. The same principles apply to a certain extent in the case of state politics and to a less extent or very slightly in the matter of municipal elections. For this reason I think it of the utmost benefit that state and local elections should not be held at the same time with the elections of a President or a Congress.

I think some of the best men in the world and the men who are striving hardest to secure improvement in public affairs waste their efforts by holding up independence as a fetish to be worshiped. The futility of many of these efforts for reform is due to the fact that reform leaders are too often unwilling to use the tools at their hands and to recognize the fact that political parties are and must be coherent, dynamic organizations. Many a man is more conscientiously loyal to some ideal who refuses to lend his support to the breakdown of an efficient organization than he who appears before the public as a champion of the very principle in which both believe.

Even at the risk of telling too many stories I venture to illustrate some of the

above ideas by two instances of my own experience.

I was formerly connected with a workingmen's organization which used to meet once a week for discussion of public affairs. The club included a large variety of workingmen, from janitors to skilled mechanics, and it also included men of a variety of party and political interests. Among them one of the most intelligent, and one of the most skilled workers, was an earnest socialist.

We were invited as a club to send representatives to a special meeting to which delegates had been invited from a large number of different civic organizations for the purpose of forming some kind of federation for the advancement of the welfare of the community and general civic betterment. I read the invitation at one meeting and moved that a delegation of three should be appointed. The club was pleased to be recognized in such a movement and the vote was about to go through without contest when the socialist member arose and said that he would like to know more about it before voting in favor of the proposition. I saw at once that he was

suspicious that there was some especial interest in the matter for a particular movement, and he was disinclined to give his support to anything that would not support the policies which he favored. I attempted to allay his fears by explaining that this was to be a general organization for civic betterment only, and that it had nothing to do with any particular party or any particular sect in the community; that it was simply a movement on the part of public-spirited citizens to get an organization which should stand for the best public welfare. I assured him and the others that there was no trick in it and that there was no reason why all parties should not join in it-Republicans and Democrats, Socialists and Prohibitionists, Catholics and Protestants, Jews and Gentiles.

Such an idea seemed to appeal to the others, but my socialist friend was promptly on his feet and, although remarking politely that he did not wish to oppose the wishes of "the professor" (which he always called me with a somewhat pleasant humor, in view of the fact, I think, that he was quite skeptical