Ordinarily this argument stops with the consideration of spending alone. It may be strengthened somewhat by bringing in the reaction of consumption upon production. A great city prides itself upon its ceaseless rush and gaiety, its bright lights and crowded streets, its numerous places of amusement and all the evidences of material prosperity and pleasure. These may be held to be enhanced when both licit and illicit pursuits and diversions are open to its people; and further, the people themselves, under the attraction of such varied allurements, may strive to produce more that they may enjoy more. In the Philippines, it is said that the only labourers who can be relied upon to stick to their work any considerable length of time are those who have caught the gambling and cock-fighting mania. Under tropical conditions a little intermittent labour easily supplies the few needs of others, whereas the devotee of chance, driven by a consuming passion, works steadily. In the present state of a fallen humanity there are presumably many persons of similar character living under our own higher civilisation. Strong as is the hold which the foregoing considerations have obtained upon certain limited sections of the business community it is not difficult to criticise them upon purely economic grounds. Of two neighbouring towns, one “wide-open” and the other law-abiding, the former might, indeed, prove more successful in a business way. But we have to consider not simply the material advantage in the case of two rival cities. The material welfare of the state as a whole is of greater importance, and it would be impossible to show that this was enhanced by corruptly tolerating gambling and vice anywhere within its territory. On the contrary, economists have abundantly shown the harmful effects of such practices, even when no taint of illegality attaches to them. What the “wide-open” community gains over its rival is much more than offset by what the state as a whole loses. Moreover, it may well be doubted whether the purely economic advantage of the “wide-open” city is solid and permanent. Even those of its business men who are engaged in legitimate pursuits are constant sufferers from the general neglect of administrative duty, and sometimes even from the extortionate practices, of its corrupt government. They may consider it to their advantage to have gambling and vice tolerated, but only within limits. If such abuses become too open and rampant legitimate business is certain to suffer, both because of the losses and distractions suffered by the worse element in the community and because of the fear and avoidance which the prevalence of vicious conditions inspires in the better classes. Indeed cases are by no means uncommon where the better business element has risen in protest against lax and presumably corrupt police methods which permitted vice to flaunt itself so boldly on retail thoroughfares that respectable women became afraid to venture