In attempting to arrive at a conclusion on this issue it is difficult to assign it such practical importance as it received during the campaign of 1908. Publicity after election simply delays the time of exposure. The knowledge that it is bound to come must exert a very powerful influence over intending contributors. That this was the case in 1908 is pretty convincingly demonstrated by a comparison of the figures of that year with the figures for earlier presidential campaigns. It is certain that publicity pure and simple, whether before or after election, will seldom show on the face of the returns any facts seriously reflecting upon party integrity. If there is to be difficulty in administering laws of this character it will come in the way of getting at real, complete statements, going back of the names and figures on the return if necessary. On the other hand it is not altogether to be deplored that before election publicity may result in rather bitter criticism of some contributors. Gifts in general, as we have already noted,[79] stand in especial need of criticism, and this principle applies with maximum force to campaign gifts. Designed as they are to affect public policy a plea for privacy cannot be set up on their behalf. If the criticism of contributors should go to extremes it will hurt the party making it more than the individuals assailed. Contributors who know their own motives to be honourable ought not to allow themselves to be deterred by baseless clamour. If, however, such criticism is just, both the individual making, and the party receiving the suspicious contribution deserve to suffer. By deterring other contributions of a similar questionable character a distinct public service will be rendered by such ante-election criticism. Knowledge of the sources of the financial support of a party is certainly not the only nor the best basis to be employed by an elector in determining the way he shall cast his vote, but under present conditions it is certainly a matter which he is entitled to take into consideration. While admitting, therefore, that there is room for honest difference of opinion on the question of publicity before or after election, the weight of the argument would seem to fall distinctly in favour of the former. It is sincerely to be regretted that the question became in a sense a matter of party record in 1908. Going back to the congressional bill of the same year, however, it is worth noting that the Republican majority in the House once placed itself solidly and squarely on record in favour of publicity before the election. Looking at the matter solely from the lower standpoint of expediency that party is now in a most enviable position to revert to its earlier attitude and, by enacting the principle of ante-election publicity into law, to secure for itself the credit of a popular reform. This would place the two parties on a uniform legal basis for the future, and make it