Part 18

[85] Following the four states which took action in 1897, Kentucky forbade corporate contributions in 1900. In 1905, Minnesota (ch. 291) made it a felony for an officer of a business corporation to vote money to a campaign fund. Wisconsin in the same year (ch. 492) made it a felony for a corporation to contribute to political parties for the purpose of influencing legislation or promoting or defeating the candidacy of persons for public office. New York in 1906, (ch. 239) prohibited political contributions by corporations and made violation of the act a misdemeanor. Alabama, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Texas were the five states which forbade corporate contributions in 1907, and the following eleven were reported as specifically prohibiting contributions from life insurance companies in that year: Delaware, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Tennessee, and West Virginia. In 1908, Ohio, Georgia, Massachusetts, and Mississippi also forbade corporate contributions. Altogether to the end of 1908, seventeen states had forbidden corporate contributions in general, and eleven had specifically forbidden contributions from life insurance companies.

[86] Massachusetts, L. 1908, ch. 85.

[87] Ohio, L. 1896, p. 123; repealed, L. 1902, p. 77.

[88] Nebraska in L. 1899, ch. 29, fixed the same maxima and minima as the Garfield Act. The sliding scale principle was employed in the English Act of 1883.

[89] California, L., 1893, ch. 2; Missouri, L. 1893, p. 157; Montana, Penal Code, 1895, sec. 80 ff.; Minnesota, L. 1895, ch. 277; and New York, L. 1907, ch. 584.

[90] New York, L. 1895, 155; Connecticut, L. 1895, 338.

[91] California, L. 1907, ch. 350.

[92] New York, L. 1906, ch. 503.

[93] _Cf._ p. 177, _supra_.

[94] See p. 250, _supra_.

[95] _Cf._ p. 246, _supra_.

[96] Wisconsin, L. 1897, 358.

[97] _Cf._ President Arthur T. Hadley’s discussion of “The Constitutional Position of Property in America” in the _Independent_ of April 16, 1908.

[98] _Cf._ Professor C. Edward Merriam’s “Primary Elections.”

[99] Laws of 1896, p. 123. The repeal was due to minor defects in the law which could easily have been corrected by amendment.

[100] Laws of 1906, ch. 17.

[101] Nebraska, L. 1901, 30; Virginia L. 1903, ch. 98; Georgia, L. 1908, 63.

[102] An able argument on this point is presented by Mr. Perry Belmont in his “Publicity of Election Expenditures,” _North American Review_, vol. clxxx (1905), p. 166. For many of the most important facts cited in the preceding pages of this study the writer is indebted to Mr. Belmont’s valuable article.

[103] _Cf._ the Association’s searching “Report of Examination of Election Expense Statements, 1908;” also its leaflet on “Future Plans to Prevent Corrupt Practices.”

CORRUPTION AND NOTORIETY: THE MEASURE OF OUR OFFENDING

VII

CORRUPTION AND NOTORIETY: THE MEASURE OF OUR OFFENDING

Charges of corruption make up a large and important part of the stock in trade of the ordinary American journalist, politician, and reformer. One unfortunate result of this condition of affairs is that, taking us at our word, Europe is forming a very low estimate of the honesty of governmental and business practices on this side of the Atlantic. Even among ourselves corruption is coming to be thought of as an indefinite percentage of evil corroding the general service of the state, and this percentage is assumed to be much larger in the United States than abroad. Similar comparisons are drawn between the principal local and state governments of the country. One popular writer owes no small part of his vogue to the crisp and supposedly accurate tags which he has affixed to several of our municipalities and states, _e.g._, “corrupt and contented,” “half free and fighting on,” “a city ashamed,” “bad and glad of it,” “a traitor state,” “a state for sale,” and so on. Between actual corruption, however, and the notoriety attached to it no definite and known ratio can be said to exist. Much as it is to be regretted quantitative measures of this political and social evil are at present quite impossible. Many difficulties stand in the way even of approximations sufficiently exact for comparisons of any value. It may perhaps be as well worth while to consider the nature of these difficulties as to indulge in denunciation regardless of them.

In the first place a thoroughgoing policy of concealment and silence would seem absolutely essential on the part of those who engage in corrupt practices. Our most astute leaders and manipulators realise this fact. All observers agree, however, that among the initiated, which usually means a pretty large circle, corrupt transactions are discussed with comparative freedom. It is a matter of no great difficulty for an ordinarily capable reporter to learn in a general way what has been done by the boss or gang in certain instances, although this, of course, is sufficiently far from being legal evidence. And it is notorious that our politicians of the baser sort often indulge their cronies with boasting accounts of their own achievements in grafting. No one has commented upon this fact with greater vigour than Professor H. J. Ford of Princeton in his admirable review of Mr. Steffens’ _Shame of the Cities_.

“The facts with which Mr. Steffens deals,” writes Professor Ford, “are superficial symptoms. Hardly any disguise of them is attempted in the ordinary talk of local politicians. One of the first things which practical experience teaches is that the political ideals which receive literary expression have a closely limited range. One soon reaches strata of population in which they disappear, and the relation of boss and client appears to be proper and natural. The connection between grafting politicians and their adherents is such that ability to levy blackmail inspires the same sort of respect and admiration which Rob Roy’s followers felt for him in the times that provided a career for his particular talents. And as in Rob Roy’s day, intimate knowledge finds in the type some hardy virtues. For one thing, politicians of this type do not indulge in cant. They are no more shamefaced in talking about their grafting exploits to an appreciative audience than a mediæval baron would have been in discussing the produce of his feudal fees and imposts. Mr. Steffens has really done no more than to put together material lying about loose upon the surface of municipal politics and give it effective presentation. The general truth of his statement of the case is indisputable.”[104]

Possibly, however, Professor Ford underestimates the penetrating force of “political ideals which receive literary expression.” If by this phrase he means only the highest conclusions of philosophy clothed in the noblest language, it is apparent that a very small circle will be reached at first, although in time these ideals also are certain to be widely diffused by the schools, by journalism and by the learned professions. If, on the other hand, “literary expression” is understood to include the news and editorial columns and the cartoons of the daily newspaper, a great and constantly increasing body of readers are becoming amenable to ideals higher than those bred by the personal relation of “boss and client.” Tweed’s sensitiveness to the terribly cutting cartoons of Thomas Nast shows this process in the course of development. In spite of the fact, of which the Tammany chieftain had boasted, that most of his constituents could not read, he was nevertheless forced to exclaim:—“If those picture papers would only leave me alone I wouldn’t care for all the rest. The people get used to seeing me in stripes, and by and by grow to think I ought to be in prison.”[105] Even that portion of our foreign population which differs most widely in language and customs from the native American stock is being brought with amazing swiftness under the influence of the daily papers published in English.[106] That influence may not be all that we would like it, but at any rate it is much more broadening than the ethics of the clan.

In addition to the perverted class ideas current in the lower political ranks there are other causes of the astounding garrulity which prevails regarding corrupt practices. One of these is the exaggerated vanity which all penologists note as a common trait of criminal character. The most adequate explanation, however, is to be found in the fact that so many of the offenders of this sort are allowed to escape the penalties of the law. If corruption even in its grosser forms were as certain of punishment as burglary or forgery, its still unterrified votaries would speedily learn to keep their mouths shut. One almost amusing consequence of the large degree of immunity they enjoy at present is the maudlin sympathy expressed by confrères when an occasional unlucky rascal is fairly caught in the net of the law. Well they know, these friends of his, that he is no more guilty than a score of others who go scot free. Often the untoward event is made the subject of denunciations on the flagrant injustice involved, and if the gang is particularly impudent its next accession to power is pretty apt to be marked by the complete rehabilitation of the “martyrs” who suffered during the reform uprising.

As a result of the reckless and often exaggerated gabble of the grafters, sensational newspapers and magazines find it an easy matter to keep their columns filled continually with highly spiced political exposures. In all probability comparatively few out of the total of corrupt transactions that actually take place are thus made public, but the prominence given these few may easily lead to overestimates of the extent of this evil in our political life. Undoubtedly, also, our practical political leaders are sometimes accused of offences in which they had no part. Inefficiency, as we have seen, is very common and very similar in appearance to corruption. No great reportorial or editorial skill is required to dress it in the garb of the latter. The constant reiteration of stories of this kind creates as well as meets a popular demand. Ordinarily a saving sense of the exaggeration and partisanship indulged in by a section of the press leads readers to make the necessary discount in forming their opinions of the published accounts of corruption. At times, however, the popular craving for pungent stories of corruption amounts to a positive mania. Such was the case in 1905, 1906, and 1907, as any comparison of the tables of contents of certain magazines and papers of that period with previous years will abundantly show. On the other hand there can be no doubt that a considerable part of this literature of exposure and denunciation was substantially accurate, and that its publication was a service of high merit. That it was also profitable is no reproach: society is the gainer when instead of ostracism and punishment it provides rewards and honours for those who attack real public abuses. In not a few cases where corruption was thus charged by journalists subsequent investigations before commissions and courts left no doubt of the existence of vicious practices, and led to reforms of a most beneficent character.

Extremely deplorable as must be the effect of false accusations inspired by selfish motives, a policy of the widest publicity offers great advantages over one of suppression and silence. Better fifty exposures, ten or even twenty of which are misleading, than blind concealment of official misdoing. Disproof of false charges is comparatively easy and when effectively made redounds to the prestige of the official or individual who has been unjustly assailed. As for those newspapers and periodicals which flagrantly abuse their privilege, it is seldom that they altogether escape penalties in the form of loss of influence if not of circulation. If penalties of these kinds can be made effective press censorship and _lese majeste_ laws, such as exist in autocratic governments, need never be resorted to in America. From this point of view the horror frequently expressed by continental publicists at the corruption existing in the United States appears rather equivocal. Bad as some of our political conditions may be, we at least deserve credit for our willingness, nay, our determination, to hear the worst about ourselves. Certainly there would seem to be greater hope of improvement under our policy than in a country whose chief national hero used the enormous income from the sequestered estates of the House of Hanover to fill the news and editorial columns of the “reptile” press with lying articles favourable to his policies, and in which only recently the facts concerning the Camarilla surrounding the Emperor were so cautiously and partially brought to light. And it is well known that in Russia the censorship was deliberately used by provincial bureaucrats to conceal their misdeeds from the knowledge of the Czar.

As between countries which muzzle the press and those which allow liberty it is inevitable, then, that the governments of the latter will be charged far more openly and frequently with corruption. Citizens who are shocked by the accusations thus trumpeted forth may be pardoned some apprehensions for the continued stability and success of their institutions. The sentiment does them more credit than callous disregard or brazen Chauvinism, and is altogether more likely to be productive of good works in the future. But it may easily be carried to an extreme. National shamefacedness is not a virtue. In forming a judgment of the extent of contemporary corruption the garrulity of politicians, the sensationalism of the press, the popular demand for highly spiced accounts of official sinning should all be taken into account. A cynical representative of yellow journalism, replying to the criticism that his paper indulged too much in lengthy and lurid accounts of crime and immorality, remarked rather sententiously that “sin is news.” The statement is only partially true. Most sins are too common and too petty to have any news value. Only those offences that to current estimation seem large and dangerous are given prominence and headlines. If Turkey and China enjoyed the blessings of a free press it is hardly probable that the papers of those countries would give much space to what, according to Western standards, would be frankly considered corrupt and extortionate practices on the part of their pashas and mandarins. Such practices would be so common, so universally known, and so little in conflict with contemporary Turkish and Chinese political morals that they would excite little interest and comment. If then, as in our own papers, accounts of atrocious crimes and accusations of corrupt practices are given the same large measure of prominence it means simply that both kinds of offences are considered to possess a high degree of news value. Puritans may deplore the popular taste which finds interest in such reports, but we cannot deny the existence of that interest. Primarily it exists not because sin as such is news but because offences which are considered large and dangerous appeal powerfully to the popular mind.

To the normal reader, of course, the fascination of such accounts is the fascination of repulsion, not of attraction. In attempting to explain the pornographic note in modern French literature, Professor Barrett Wendell makes a most ingenious suggestion that is not without its application to the present argument.[107] With the exception of a class forming a small part of the whole population, French family life is conspicuously pure. Why, then, asks Professor Wendell, should fathers and mothers who themselves practise every conjugal virtue delight in novels and dramas that dissect all the prurient phases of divorce, adultery, and sexual laxity? Simply because such topics take them out of themselves by presenting situations quite foreign to their experience and hence strikingly interesting. In some degree the same answer applies to American public interest in corrupt practices. The great mass of business and professional men, and of politicians as well, who sincerely attempt to live up to the best standards of their vocations nevertheless read and hear with avidity spicy accounts of the malpractices of their disreputable colleagues. Nor can this interest on their part be denounced as morbid so long as it leads not to palliation and imitation but to reprobation and efforts for the wiping out of abuses. Would the situation be really improved if instead of the daily grists presented to us by the newspapers we should read nothing but accounts of the straightforward methods which are employed in the great bulk of political, business, and professional transactions? The habit might be exemplary but it would certainly be supremely dull. While it is not true that all sin is news there would seem to be nothing to regret in the fact that neither are all virtues. Of the two the former undoubtedly has the greater news value. But the reason for this is that relative to the sum total of everyday transactions the more heinous offences against morals and law are to a high degree unusual. Virtue and ability, on the other hand, are so commonplace that it requires a most exceptional display of either to secure public notice. Considerable vogue has been enjoyed recently by the term “smokeless sin,” as applied to certain forms of social evil-doing which although large and dangerous are also so subtle and complicated that responsibility for them can easily be avoided.[108] Students of sin would do well to remember, however, that now as always virtue as a whole possesses the quality of smokelessness to a much more eminent degree than vice.

Admitting that political corruption exists among us to a disquieting extent the point is frequently made that the vigour with which it has recently been exposed and attacked is in itself evidence of moral health and harbinger of ultimate victory over the evil. Such exposure and attacks, it is said, signify the development of higher ideals measured by which practices formerly tolerated are now condemned by public opinion and will later be condemned by law. As to the emergence of higher ideals there can be no doubt, and so far we have just ground for encouragement. Reform sentiment as a whole, however, can scarcely be accepted at its full face value. A considerable part of the denunciation which accompanies it is as much exaggerated as the corresponding campaign “literature” and “oratory” of the practical politician. Thus the volume of clamour is augmented and the difficulty of correctly estimating honesty in public life increased. There are always those who deliberately attach themselves to reform movements solely because they foresee victory at the polls with office and emoluments and other less legitimate opportunities for themselves. In other words while ostensibly fighting corruption the motives of such persons are at bottom corrupt from the start. Bandit Mendoza of the Sierras, that eminent socialist of Shaw’s creation, was not entirely wrong in maintaining that “a movement which is confined to philosophers and honest men can never exercise any real political influence: there are too few of them. Until a movement shows itself capable of spreading among brigands, it can never hope for a political majority.” In some American cities charges have even been made that corporate interests which did not enjoy the favour of the gang or boss have contributed largely to “anti-graft” campaigns, their real purpose being to place themselves in a position to claim the favour of the “honest” administration elected by their efforts. Knowledge of corrupt transactions, discretely hinted at in the press, has been used in other instances as a sort of political blackmail to club the gang or boss into the granting of privileges to applicants who had hitherto been denied. The mere volume of clamour developed by reform movements against corrupt practices is, therefore, no certain index of higher moral standards. There is even danger that we may too complacently accept mere denunciation for real achievement. Nor can the work be deemed finished when popular uproar has secured new legislation, for laws, notoriously, do not execute themselves. Discouragement then too easily overtakes the rank and file of the anti-corrupt element; hence, in part, the spasmodic character of many reform movements. When every necessary deduction has been made, however, the fundamental strength and continued progress of the cause of honesty in politics is beyond question. Even the selfish interests that attach themselves to it prove this contention. It is true they bring no enthusiasm for higher standards as such, and also that the results of alliances of this character are often disheartening. Nevertheless the mere fact that such alliances are entered into by practical politicians is pretty strong testimony, coming as it does from men who are very little affected by considerations of sentiment, to the power of the sincere reform element which is pursuing no ulterior ends. In all cases of this sort the selfish politician is seeking to strike with the strength of others, and this strength must be reckoned with as a real factor, no matter what uses designing men endeavour to make of it. Here as elsewhere the counterfeit bears witness to the value of the genuine.