FOOTNOTES:
[104] Political Science Quarterly, vol. xix (1904), p. 676.
[105] G. Myers, “History of Tammany Hall,” p. 285.
[106] Mr. Ernest Poole under the title of “New Readers of the News” in the American Magazine for November 1907, (65:41), presents an extremely interesting study of the broadening power of the press along this line.
[107] “The France of To-day,” pp. 223 et seq.
[108] As, e.g., fraudulent promotion, adulteration, the building of unsanitary tenements, failure to provide proper safety devices in theatres and factories or on railroads and steamships.
[109] Cf. Mr. Frederic C. Howe’s admirable article on “Graft in England,” American Magazine, vol. lxiii (1907), p. 398.
[110] Nation, lxxxi (November 23, 1905), p. 422.
[111] Note, for example, the very different treatment of the campaign contribution question in the two countries. It may be conceded that America has much to learn from England with regard to the control of election expenditures. On the side of collections, however, it is notorious that in England both political parties unblushingly barter titles for financial support. There is something particularly despicable in this pollution of the “fountain of honour” to procure campaign funds, yet on the rare occasions when the matter is brought up in Parliament its discussion is characterised by hilarity rather than by moral earnestness. In American politics the corresponding evil is felt to be a scandal and as such provokes not only the curative legislation discussed in an earlier study but also much bitter and noisy denunciation.
[112] Any illusion as to the ease of restraining privilege in the United States is likely to be speedily dispelled by the reading of President Arthur T. Hadley’s masterly discussion in the Independent of April 16, 1908, of “The Constitutional Position of Property in America.”
[113] In “The Old Order Changeth,” American Magazine, lxvii (1909), p. 219.
[114] No political reform now before the American people promises more beneficent results than the short ballot movement. It advocates the principle “that democracy can reach more efficient working through a drastic reduction in the present number of officials selected by the individual voter, thus securing a ballot which is very short and which includes only offices that are of sufficient public interest to attract from the voters a scrutiny and comparison of candidates that will be adequate to make their relative individual merits a matter of common knowledge.” Cf. the vigorous little pamphlet by Richard S. Childs on “The Short Ballot: A New Plan of Reform,” reprinted from the Outlook of July 17, 1909, New York, 127 Duane St., 1909.
[115] “Sin and Society,” pp. 29-30.