against Hearst. No impartial observer doubts that during the long years the Republicans have had control of the State House public trusts have been abused. It is not merely a suspicion that there is much rottenness in Albany.

The people really wanted a change of administration and a housecleaning at the State Capitol. This desire was expressed emphatically, when the representatives of the machine on the Republican ticket were defeated and a Democratic Lieutenant-Governor, State Treasurer, Attorney-General, Controller, Secretary of State and State Engineer were elected. The people expect Mr. Hughes to do what a Democratic Governor would have done, in the renovation of the State House, thus putting upon him the most extraordinary task that any Governor of New York has ever essayed.

The question now is, will Mr. Hughes accomplish it? An immense majority of the people believe he will, and wish him well. His harsher critics, however, recall the campaign charge, that, bowing to the will of high powers in his party, he ignored the insistent demand that the really "big men" concerned in the misappropriation of insurance funds to further the election of Republican candidates, be placed upon the witness stand. It is the writer's opinion that if Mr. Hughes weakened there his splendid work throughout the inquiry was an entire recompense for this dereliction.

But the ever existing cynical view of men and matters must be taken into account. It was expressed acridly by Mr. Hearst and some of his supporters before the election. Those who entertain it make much of Mr. Hughes's failure to quiz the great Cornelius N. Bliss and George B. Cortelyou about money of "widows and orphans" that they received. These cynics point to Mr. Hughes's hobnobbing with Timothy L. Woodruff, practical politician, perennial candidate and late opponent of

at Mr. Woodruff's Adirondack camp after the election. If Mr. Woodruff, they say, is to be one of Mr. Hughes's advisors, he is much in need of Providential aid.

fail, and they

Politicians who are contemptuous of nonpartisans and who believe that success in public administration can be attained only by following the beaten path of party regularity and loyalty are skeptical of Mr. Hughes's ability to beat the organization in the likely contingency of a clash. Many of them would like to see him will fight for what they consider their own. Public service corporations and special interests that have been richly favored under Republican rule in New York, also do not want Mr. Hughes to succeed, if his success is to be had at their expense. They supported Mr. Hughes against Mr. Hearst, because they deemed the Republican candidate the lesser of two evils. Their alert agents are already encamped in Albany ready to do battle for their masters. Unfortunately, some of the members of the Legislature are in their tents.

Mr. Hearst deplored that the issue between him and Mr. Hughes was whether "Ryan and Belmont" or the people should be in control in Albany. That was an exaggeration, but the power these traction kings have exerted at the State capital for many years is unquestionably immense. It will require extraordinary courage for Mr. Hughes to combat this single influence.

The world now knows well how viciously antagonistic to the public welfare the insurance lobby was. If it had forgotten some of the disclosed evils of those days when "The House of Mirth" flourished, its memory was refreshed in the early part of this month of December by the trial on a charge of larceny of George Burnham, counsel of the National Reserve Life Insurance Association. In that trial Assistant District Attorney Nott showed that Senator Thomas C. Platt

and "Lou" Payn, former Superintendent of Insurance, accepted a check for $10,000 for their services in influencing legislation in favor of the Exempt Fireman's Association.

There is no doubt that there has been an improvement in the condition of affairs at the State House since the insurance revelations; many excellent laws, which, if enforced, would make corruption more difficult, have been passed; certain professional lobbyists and exposed grafters have gone into temporary retirement, but what candid man doubts that further reforms are necessary, that further investigations would involve disastrously other men high in politics, and perhaps, men high in finance!

There is, for instance, the State Banking Department, and here Mr. Hughes may find one of his greatest trials. Before the lust for heads engendered by the insurance inquiry had spent itself there were hints of an almost equally scandalous condition of affairs in the Banking Department. That section of the New York press that goaded Gov. Higgins into acquiescence to an insurance investigation demanded that the Banking Department also be probed. It was asserted that the grossest violations of the banking laws by financial institutions and by public officials would be revealed. Gov. Higgins withstood the pressure, refused to order an investigation and ignored the demand that Superintendent of Banks Kilburn be dismissed. This, coupled with the Governor's refusal to force the resignation of Superintendent of Insurance Hendricks, was one of the chief reasons why Mr. Higgins was not renominated at Saratoga.

In justice to Gov. Higgins, it should be said that in this banking inquiry matter he consented to be something of a martyr. A bit of inside history is

that a delegation of prominent bankers secretly called upon the Governor and told him that if the banks were investigated a financial panic, involving not only New York but the country, would result. Admissions were made that many institutions, whose officers had been carried away by the prevailing get-rich-quick craze, had departed from sound banking principles in flagrant violation of the law. It was declared that the whole financial structure would topple, if this situation was revealed. Promises that reforms would be made quietly were given the Governor. Mr. Higgins acquiesced to the views of the bankers and silently bore the brunt of the criticism of his course.

Another, and probably the greatest problem that will confront the new Governor is that of molding the Legislature to his will. Without the co-operation of that body he can accomplish few, if any, of the reforms that would make him a great political factor in the future. The leaders in both branches are, as a rule, seasoned politicians of the old school. They are not, as yet, openly hostile to Mr. Hughes, but they will be so, if he departs radically from the party traditions and attempts to give the kind of administration the people expect of hini.

Mr. Hughes's hope of success with the Legislature lies largely in President Roosevelt. With his federal patronage and strong personal influence the President can command the New York Legislature as he dictated its course at the last session, when State Chairman Odell's power was broken and young James Wadsworth, Jr., was elected Speaker. Thus, in the next two years Mr. Roosevelt may, perhaps, be fashioning his own successor at Washington in the person of Charles E. Hughes.

T is a common cause of remark among thoughtful men that there is often a wide difference between public ideals and private. Some years ago in one of the larger American cities the popular spirit of protest against the prevailing conditions of government took the form of a demand that the municipal administration be conducted in the manner characteristic of the methods of large business corporations. Four years later a revelation of the methods of some of these corporations astounded the man in the street, although it scarcely surprised many of the leaders in the movement to obtain a city government on business principles. The popular spirit of protest quickly appeared under the form of a demand that the corporations be subjected to a rigid political supervision, amounting practically to tutelage. Public ideals frequently seem to shift without much regard to a basic analysis of human nature. If the public are dissatisfied, a reactionary reversal is often calculated to appease the just resentment. Men in their mutual relations as individuals show far greater power of rational analysis. Perhaps, it takes the collective judgment of an electorate to appraise its virtues and ills. In that case the course of an individual voter may not be intelligent when analyzed as an instance of individual judgment and yet may be essentially true when judged by the standards of such intuitional action as is most likely to produce that saving sanity of collective opinion which up

holds confidence in democratic institutions.

It is difficult sometimes to hold fast to the recognition that cleverness, even when brilliant, may often be but sham greatness. To be ponderous in thinking and sedate in action may be a most effective method of conserving the status quo. Hence, neither brilliancy nor its absence argues far in behalf of any course of action or condition of mind that can aid in the attainment of great ends in a great manner. And the calibre of the manner of attaining results may be fully as important as the character of the results. The reason for this lies mainly in the fact that the ultimate value of great deeds and thoughts consists essentially in their effect upon the doer, the performer and the thinker. The general contour of a life depends less upon isolated elevations and depressions than would, perhaps, be obvious at first thought. Emerson employed a powerful illustration of this truth. In his essay on "Circles" he commented upon the spherical shape of the earth as shown in outline upon the moon during a partial eclipse. No trace of the soaring Himalayas or the relative depressions of the valleys and the seven seas mars the spherical outline of the globe upon its moon. The icy altitudes, which are relatively so high as to keep always their hold upon the human imagination, tend to lose their emphasis, when an effort is made to apprehend the magnitude of even our solar system.