These were intended to be used by citizens voting the Republican or Citizens' ticket, being pasted by them over the name of one of the common council candidates on either of these tickets, so enabling the Republican or supporter of the Citizens' list to give his vote for Mr. Whitmore, while voting against the rest of the Democratic ticket.

The following three tickets were used at the election of city and school officers in the city of Cambridge, Mass., December 1887. They were all issued by organizations, but not regular party organizations. At the same election a popular vote was taken on the question whether licences for the sale of intoxicants should be granted in the city.

Shall Licences be granted for the sale of Intoxicating Liquors in this City?

Shall Licences be granted for the sale of Intoxicating Liquors in this City?

NO.

YES.

WORKINGMEN'S TICKET.

The following comments on this Cambridge election made by a Cambridge newspaper next day state the result, and explain the use of "pasters" or "stickers"

RUSSELL AND "NO!"

MAYOR RUSSELL'S MAJORITY 1917.

Five Hundred and Sixty-Six Majority for No-Licence.

"Mayor Russell received an emphatic endorsement at the polls on Tuesday and was returned to the mayor's chair by the handsome majority of 1917. No-licence also came off triumphant with the same majority as last year, viz. 566, which is a remarkable coincidence. The vote polled was unprecedentedly large, there being nearly 8200 votes cast out of a total registration of about 9500. The interest in the licence question was largely responsible for this, the temperance people having done their utmost to bring out every friend of the cause, while the licence people struggled with tremendous energy for the success of their side.

"The Russell ticket was, in the main, successful right through. The aldermanic exceptions were the election of Hincks in Ward One, in place of Ivers, and of Lindsey in Ward Two, instead of Holton. Both of these successful candidates are members of this year's board and were upon the Champlin ticket. Their election is not a surprise nor is it a victory for the Champlin ticket, as they could probably have been elected had they run independently. It will be remembered that there was a strong effort made to nominate both these men in the Russell convention. The election of General Hincks is regarded as an effective offset to the attack made upon him in the convention. He received a very large vote, and stood eighth in the list of those elected. Alderman Lindsey defeated Alderman Holton by 78 votes only, and the majority is so small that there will be a recount. Holton's defeat is due to the free use of stickers in Ward Three. Ivers, whom General Hincks defeated, stood twelfth on the aldermanic list in the size of his vote. He was scratched badly in East Cambridge, where Hincks pasters were freely used. The largest vote cast was that for Neilon for alderman, viz. 7440. He was on both tickets. Frasier, who was also on both tickets, received 6872 votes."-Cambridge Tribune, 10th December 1887.

CHAPTER LXVII

CORRUPTION

No impression regarding American politics is more generally diffused in Europe than that contained in the question which the traveller who has returned from the United States becomes so weary of being asked, "Isn't everybody corrupt there?" It is an impression for which the Americans themselves, with their airy way of talking about their own country, their fondness for broad effects, their enjoyment of a good story and humorous pleasure in exaggerations generally, are largely responsible. European visitors who, generally belonging to the wealthier classes, are generally reactionary in politics, and glad to find occasion for disparaging popular government, eagerly catch up and repeat the stories they are told in New York or San Francisco. European readers take literally the highly-coloured pictures of some American novels and assume that the descriptions there given of certain men and groups "inside politics"-descriptions legitimate enough in a novel-hold true of all men and groups following that unsavoury trade. Europeans, moreover, and Englishmen certainly not less than other Europeans, have a useful knack of forgetting their own shortcomings when contemplating those of their neighbours; so you may hear

men wax eloquent over the depravity of transatlantic politicians who will sail very near the wind in giving deceptive pledges to their own constituents, who will support flagrant jobs done on behalf of their own party, who will accept favours from, and dine with, and receive at their own houses, financial speculators and members of the legislature whose aims are just as base, and whose standard is just as low as those of the worst congressman that ever came to push his fortune in Washington.

I am sensible of the extreme difficulty of estimating the amount of corruption that prevails in the United States. If a native American does not know-as few do --how deep it goes nor how widely it is spread, much less can a stranger. I have, however, submitted the impressions I formed to the judgment of some fair-minded and experienced American friends, and am assured by them that these impressions are substantially correct; that is to say, that they give a view of the facts such as they have themselves formed from an observation incomparably wider than that of a European traveller could be.

The word "corruption" needs to be analysed. It is used to cover several different kinds of political unsoundness.

One sense, the most obvious, is the taking or giving of money bribes. Another sense is the taking or giving of bribes in kind, e.g. the allotment of a certain quantity of stock or shares in a company, or of an interest in a profitable contract, or of a land grant. The offence is essentially the same as where a money bribe passes, but to most people it does not seem the same, partly because the taking of money is a more unmistakable selling of one's self, partly because it is usually uncertain how the bribe given in kind will turn out, and a man excuses himself by thinking that its value will depend on how