To sum up the four lines of apology offered for political corruption, it may be noted that only two of them are so commonly entertained at the present time as to have any large practical significance. These are the first and second, namely, that corruption makes business good, and that it may be more than compensated for by the high efficiency of those who engage in it. The two remaining arguments, dealing respectively with the danger of mob rule and the possibly beneficent effects of further evolution, are extremely interesting; but for the present, at least, they belong largely to the realm of political theory. No one is so simple as to imagine that such forms of corruption as affect our political life owe their existence to any public benefit, near or remote, which by any stretch of the imagination may be attributed to them. Primarily they exist because they are immediately profitable to certain persons who are unscrupulous enough to engage in sinister and underhanded methods of manipulation. Philosophical excuses are not thought out until later, when the magnitude and the profitableness of the malpractices involved suggest the possibility of an apparently dignified and worthy defence. Not one of the four apologies we have considered stands the test of analysis. The social advantages alleged to flow from political corruption are either illusory or minimal. On the other hand the resultant evils are great and real, although, no doubt, they have often been exaggerated by sensational writers. Whether corruption be approached from the latter side, as is commonly done, or from the side of its apologists, the social necessity of working for its limitation is manifest. FOOTNOTES: [1] “An Apology for Graft,” by Lincoln Steffens, _American Magazine_, vol. lxvi (1908), p. 120. [2] The argument is at least as old as Plato. In the “Laws” it is put as follows: “Acquisitions which come from sources which are just and unjust indifferently are more than double those which come from just sources only.” With the true Greek contempt for business, however, the Philosopher finds it an easy matter to dispose of this specious contention. _Cf._ the “Laws,” bk. v, p. 125, tr. by B. Jowett, vol. v, 3d ed. [3] “City Government in the United States,” ch. ix, p. 228. [4] According to a newspaper report of October 16, 1909, the statue was finally placed in its niche in the $13,000,000 Capitol at Harrisburg. [5] This argument is presented in a very striking way in Mr. Hutchins Hapgood’s “The Spirit of Labour,” pp. 114, 260, 345, 369. [6] _Political Science Quarterly_, vol. xix (1904), p. 678. [7] “The History of Tammany Hall,” by Gustavus Myers, p. 323. [8] On this point _cf._ Mary E. Richmond’s extremely thoughtful and sympathetic study of “The Good Neighbour in the Modern City.” [9] Particularly chs. viii and ix. [10] _Ibid._, p. 195. [11] A discussion of these reforms in detail is given in ch. ix of Professor Goodnow’s book.