When the bill was finally passed, the Congressman succeeded in adding half a cent a pound to the duty on two of these products and in preventing any reduction on the others. A year later, when the popular clamor against the bill had become acute, the same association that had asked him to vote for increases wrote to the Congressman denouncing the bill as “the most iniquitous measure ever enacted by Congress” and requesting him to explain by letter why he had voted with “the Reactionaries” to pass the bill. When it was pointed out to the association that it had urged the Congressman to obtain an increase of duty on the products in which it was interested, it dropped its demand for an explanation. An influential newspaper published in his district editorially commended him while the bill was under debate for his “intelligent efforts” to increase the duty on manufactured articles in which the district was interested, and a year later the same newspaper in the same editorial column denounced him as one of “the legislative banditti responsible for the Payne-Aldrich measure.” As with the tariff, so with pensions; the Congressman is urged to obtain local favors without regard to National interests. This is illustrated by the following letter, which the author prints, and which was written by the clergyman of a large and wealthy church: _My dear Congressman_: I received a call from James H. —— several days ago, and he told me that he had received a very unsatisfactory letter from you regarding his chances for getting a pension. Now, Congressman, while I know he deserted during the second year of the war, yet there must be some way the matter can be covered up and —— be given a pensionable status. He is at present a charge on my congregation. Every one seems to be able to get a pension. Why not he? Do what you can for him, and oblige. It may be said that this is a unique instance from which it is unfair to draw a general inference. The confessing Congressman answers, No; that he has “hundreds of such letters filed away. So has every other Congressman.” River and harbor legislation is another field in which local selfishness busies itself, to the exclusion of National needs. In this case requests are not made by letter but by delegations which come to Washington besieging their Senators and Representatives. “There is,” says the frank writer of this article, “figuratively speaking, between $50,000,000 and $60,000,000 on the table to be divided. The Committee divides it so that every one is satisfied, at least to a reasonable extent.” Every one, that is, but the people at large, the people who have no special interest to serve, and who feel keenly indignant that the rivers and harbors of the United States are developed in a fashion so inferior to that of Europe.