Corruptionists usually offer rewards of one kind or another to those whom they wish to make their tools. What if the same end is compassed by means of threats or injuries? Obviously the latter may be far more potent in a given case than the most alluring promises. Sometimes the two are employed together, enormous bribes being offered for compliance, and political, social, or financial ruin threatened for recalcitrance. Coercion of the latter sort may be used either to procure corrupt action or to check honest action. It is related of Governor Folk that shortly after he embarked upon his relentless prosecution of the St. Louis boodlers, the latter combined and employed detectives to delve into every act of his life from the time of his boyhood in Tennessee up to his election as Circuit Attorney. Absolutely nothing was developed that could be used against him. The incident is suggestive, however, of what may have happened in the case of other men who desired to be honest politically but were handicapped by the fear of some forgotten scandal, perhaps of a purely personal character, in their past lives. Thus the strength of the moral condemnation visited by our society upon offences of a certain sort may become the most potent weapon in the hands of an unscrupulous boss or clique. The question remains whether the neglect or misperformance of duty procured by threats or injuries comes properly under the definition of corruption. The case is similar to admitted corruption in that both involve the idea of personal advantage. Morally, however, it would seem more reprehensible to seek or accept something desirable as the price of disregarding public duty than to disregard it under the threat of deprivation of some advantage already secured by honest effort. In the latter case the individual who is coerced may deserve some sympathy, but the individual who uses coercion adds a very ugly form of blackmail to the general guilt of his act. Whatever answer be given to the question of definition raised above, it is worth noting that in speaking of corresponding virtues a distinction is made. Honesty in politics is insisted upon, but so also is courage. “It is, of course, not enough,” writes President Roosevelt, “that a public official should be honest. No amount of honesty will avail if he is not also brave.... The weakling and the coward cannot be saved by honesty alone.”[20] To this it might be added that under existing conditions courage in the sense of power to attack or withstand, must be coupled with an almost perfectly clean record in every way to be available as a political asset of any value in the fight against corruption. * * * * *