This argument is perhaps the most subtle that can be offered, and the form of corruption for which it finds a quasi-justification is assuredly the most dangerous with which we are confronted to-day. It will be observed, however, that the foregoing illustrations involve a higher range of motives than can be ascribed to our ordinary political bosses. Doubtless there have been exceptional cases of party leaders who, for minor but corrupt governmental favours, have accepted money and turned every cent of it into the party treasury for honest propaganda work. But once admit this conduct to be justifiable and the day of such leaders will soon be over. Inevitably they must be succeeded by less scrupulous politicians who will sell public property and betray public interests right and left, and, after deducting large sums to feather their own nests, still be in a position to contribute to the support of the party more largely than any conscientious leader. Under these conditions the political influence of wealthy corporations or wealthy men will be limited solely by the amount of money they are willing to spend. No matter with what reservations and good intentions such practices are entered upon, they will mean in the end nothing more and nothing less than that government is on hire or on sale to the highest bidders. There is no easier road by which democracy may pass over into plutocracy; and it is indeed fortunate that the American people in its recent attitude toward the question of campaign contributions has begun to show an adequate realisation of the danger confronting it. * * * * * To sum up the argument presented in the foregoing pages, it should be noted that while it is comparatively easy to formulate a definition of corruption, to point out the difference between the legal and ethical conceptions of the matter, to distinguish between bribery and auto-corruption and, in general, to mark out the logical boundaries of the field, the application of these definitions and distinctions is made immensely difficult by the variety of political institutions, the divergence of political practices and the conflict between general opinion and class opinions. A number of conclusions would nevertheless seem to deserve at least tentative expression. (1) The prevalence of charges of corruption and of actual corruption in American politics is not of itself proof of our inferiority in political morality to the other great nations of the world. (2) Considering opportunities and temptations, our current political morality is at least not yet proven to be inferior to our business and social morality in general. (3) Unsupported charges of corruption are too frequently indulged in by practical politicians, reformers, and conservatives, the results being a popular moral callousness and a loss of social confidence which render all constructive work more difficult.