Cases of the foregoing sort force us to a recognition of the fact that when political passion has reached its climax, as at the end of a hard fought campaign involving great principles, all considerations besides party success are apt to sink into nothingness. Properly considered, of course, the party organisation is a social institution subordinate to the state, but it differs materially in one way from other social groups of the same rank, such as business associations, the church, the family, _etc_. The latter accept their subordination more or less passively, but the party avowedly seeks to gain control of the government. Of course it professes its intention to conduct public business honestly and for the benefit of the whole people, but fine distinctions such as these are apt, in the heat of the conflict, to be lost sight of by practical politicians. Not unnaturally they identify the interests of the state with the interests of their party, and the acceptance of dishonest money, with the possible danger which such an act involves, may easily seem to them a patriotic duty rather than a heinous offence. In all their corrupt bargaining they are conscious of a certain devotion to ideal ends. They may sell franchises, but they would refuse to betray a candidate. They may allow a local gang whose support is essential to loot a city government, but they would not abandon a fundamental party principle. On the contrary they would defend their conduct as designed to secure the triumph of a great right by the commission of a small wrong.