candidate was a much abler man and a much "better fellow." I have explained that I did not cast my vote for representatives according to my personal judgment of the two men, but that I cast it according to the policies which I wanted to see enacted. Even then I have been accused of taking a low attitude in not choosing the best representative judged purely from the personal point of view.

In the same way you have probably often heard men say, "I am not going to vote for so and so in this election. There is nothing particularly against him, but he is narrowminded, partisan, and will never make headway in Congress. Who cares in Washington what he has to say on any question, or what influence can he have?" Well, the answer is that he can have the influence of his vote and that is about all the influence that any of them have. In nine cases out of ten the representative has little to do but follow his leader. More important than the slight glamor which comes from having a representative from your district who can make a fine personal impression or an eloquent

speech is the need of having a man who will support the general in whom you believe.

Before going farther, let me make two observations which I hope you will keep in mind in connection with what I say later as well as now on this matter of the relative power of the leaders, and the relative insignificance of the rank and file. First, I do not wish to exaggerate the power of those party leaders who are themselves members of the House of Representatives, although I am dealing in this lecture primarily with the voter's relation to that branch of Congress. The leaders who direct the legislative program of Congress are frequently, of course, members of the upper House. They may also be entirely outside Congress and in fact holding no office whatsoever. At the present time (May, 1912), for instance, the acknowledged leader of the Democratic majority in the House is Mr. Underwood of Alabama, but there are members of the party, who for the time being are private citizens, whose influence in determining party policy, and even the direct action of the members of Congress themselves, is very

great. The influence of Mr. Bryan, for example, on the attitude of Congress itself is perhaps as great as that of any leader in either House or Senate. This does not, however, alter the main fact which I have stated; that one's choice of the individual representative must be determined, not so much according to one's judgment of the individual man, as according to the group of leaders who, for the time being, he is practically obliged to follow. Furthermore, the influence of outside leaders on members of Congress will be in many cases felt indirectly through the leaders of the floor itself. This means either that the outside influence acts directly and sympathetically on the leaders on the floor, or else that these latter are forced to recognize the power of such outside influence and to compromise with it in order to maintain their own leadership.

This suggests the second point, which is likely to occur to you. After all, do the leaders determine the policy of the party, or does the rank and file of the party determine its own policy and dictate to the

leaders? I have seemed to imply that the former is the case rather than the latter. In doing so, however, I have in mind short periods only. It is a matter of mutual action and reaction between the leaders and the rank and file, and, in the long run, of course, it is with rare exceptions impossible for any leader or group of leaders to swing a whole party away from its established principles. Those men rise to leadership who represent the long-run opinion of the rank and file. In this sense the party dictates to its so-called leaders.

The psychology of political leadership is peculiarly fascinating and is frequently misunderstood by those who look on every compromise as a sign of weakness. Among the many intricate problems of legislation which Congress has to face there will inevitably arise frequently cases where the acknowledged party leader will be forced to support certain measures in which he does not wholly believe, or to withhold his support from measures with which he is in hearty sympathy, simply because he knows that he cannot carry his party with him. To

act otherwise, it seems to him, is to endanger not only his personal leadership, but his ultimate influence for what he considers the national welfare, without accomplishing any good results as an offset to such a sacrifice. I have often heard men speak somewhat sneeringly of such conduct and assert that a man who recognizes this necessity cannot really set up a claim to qualities of genuine leadership. This seems to me a mistaken attitude. A man who does otherwise cannot lead in the field of politics. The best swords are not those which are most rigid. Lowell wrote of Lincoln's mind "bent like perfect steel to spring again and thrust." The old saying that you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink, must frequently be paraphrased in the mind of an astute leader to the effect that there is no use in leading a horse to water if you cannot make him drink. Of course, in matters of fundamental principle, or in the face of a grave crisis, the true leader will stake his all on the effort to swing a reluctant party toward his own point of view; but many occasions of lesser importance will arise