PREFACE
Corruption is repulsive. It deserves the scorn and hatred which all straightforward men feel for it and which nearly all writers on the subject have expressed. Conviction of its vileness is the first step toward better things. Yet there is more than a possibility that the feeling of repugnance which corrupt practices inspire may interfere with our clearness of vision, may cloud our conception of the work before us, may even in some cases lead to misrepresentation—which is misrepresentation still although designed to aid in virtue’s cause. Fighting the devil with fire is evidence of a true militant spirit, yet one may doubt the wisdom of meeting an adversary in that adversary’s own element, of arming oneself for the battle with that adversary’s favorite weapon. Whatever views are held regarding the tactics of reform there must always be room for cool, systematic studies of social evils. These need not be lacking in sympathy for the good cause any more than the studies of the pathologist are devoid of sympathy for the sufferers from the disease which he is investigating. Nor need social studies conceived in the spirit of detachment, of objectivity, be lacking in practical helpfulness. We recognise the immense utility of the investigations of the pathologist although he works apart from hospital wards with microscope and culture tubes. In an effort to realise something of this spirit and purpose the following studies have been conceived.
Of the several studies making up the present work the first and second only have been published elsewhere. The writer desires to acknowledge the courtesy of the International Journal of Ethics in permitting the reprint, without material alterations, of the “Apologies for Political Corruption,” and of the Political Science Quarterly for a similar favour with regard to “The Nature of Political Corruption.” Objection will perhaps be made to the precedence given the “Apologies” over “The Nature of Political Corruption” in the present volume. Weak as it may be in logic this arrangement would seem to be the better one in ethics; hence the decision in its favour. Definition could wait, it was felt, until every opportunity had been given to the apologists for corruption to present their case.
The extent of the author’s obligations to the very rich but scattered literature of the subject will appear partly from the references in text and footnotes. For many criticisms and suggestions of value on portions of the work falling within their fields of interest, cordial acknowledgment is made to Dr. Albert C. Muhse of the Bureau of Corporations, Washington; Mr. Burton Alva Konkle of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; Professor John L. Lowes, Washington University, St. Louis; Mr. Perry Belmont, Washington; Mr. Frank Parker Stockbridge, of the Times-Star, Cincinnati; and finally to Professor Frederick Charles Hicks, the writer’s friend and colleague in the faculty of the University of Cincinnati. Credit must also be given for many novel points of view developed in class room discussion by students of Swarthmore College and the University of Cincinnati. The members of the graduate seminar in political science at the latter institution have been particularly helpful in this way. To one of them, Mr. Nathan Tovio Isaacs, of Cincinnati, the author is indebted for a most painstaking reading of the whole MS., on the basis of which many valuable criticisms of major as well as minor importance were made.
To the members of the City Clubs of Philadelphia and Cincinnati, the writer also returns most cordial thanks for the various pleasant occasions which they afforded him of presenting his views in papers read before these bodies. While there was some smoke and at times a little heat in the resulting discussions, there were also many flashes of inspiration emanating from the political experience and the high unselfish ideals of the membership of the clubs. In appropriating valuable suggestions from so many sources and with such scant recognition, the writer trusts that his treatment of political corruption may nevertheless escape the charge of literary corruption.
University of Cincinnati,
Cincinnati, Ohio,
April 1, 1910.