the public mind. Having been succeeded by a much inferior man, he retired from politics, and in 1889 became president of a university, to which he has given what to the multitude seems an enormous fortune, no doubt an admirable and generous work, but not specially calculated to arouse the enthusiasm of that multitude.

When the new charter of Greater New York appeared the Evening Post said:

It is, in fact, one of the most skilfully designed measures for the establishment of partisan rule ever put forward for the government of a great city. If Tammany carries the election Platt will be recognized in its government.

The most respectable classes in the city rose up and passed resolutions against it. Taken to Albany it was passed by both houses and the governor, under orders from Mr. Platt, without a word of debate. Returned to New York under the constitution, it was vetoed by Mayor Strong of that city and the mayor of Brooklyn, but was again passed at Albany over those vetoes without even an allusion to them. The report of the commission submitting the charter was signed by the Hon. Seth Low, with, among others, General Tracy and ex-Mayor Gilroy. The Evening Post then said:

His proper course was either to enter his protest against the objectionable features of the report or else to make a minority report, setting forth his objections and arguments against them. His failure to do so was very unusual, and excited the surprise of the public. It was the more unfortunate because we believe the instruction of the public to be the very highest duty of men in Mr. Low's position, particularly in our present condition. He owed it to the people of the city to discuss publicly and freely the proposed charter in anything on the subject which he printed, and especially in the report.

With much more of the same sort. Mr. Low accepted a nomination under this charter, but at no time has he discussed it or even alluded to it, except in general terms. Is there not some excuse for lack of enthusiasm ?

At

Some months before the election the Citizens' Union undertook Mr. Low's nomination and procured one hundred and twenty-five thousand signatures. It is rather singular to note that in the whole campaign he got but twenty-five thousand more. For more than a month he held back till he was assured that the demand for his candidacy was pronounced enough; very correct and proper, but not specially stimulative of enthusiasm. last, on September 14, he wrote a letter of acceptance, wholly in general terms, with no personal initiative or programme, and that was the character of the campaign. He was simply the candidate of the Citizens' Union. That Mr. Low received one hundred and fifty thousand votes is most creditable to the people of New York; that he did not receive three hundred thousand is no proof whatever of the hopeless wrong-headedness of the people, or that they are not available for good work in the future.

Some notice must be taken of a fourth candidate, - Mr. Henry George. A native of Philadelphia and afterwards editor of a paper in San Francisco, he is chiefly known by his work on "Progress and Poverty," the success of which is significant of the humanitarian spirit of the time. Written in an attractive style, it sets forth the sufferings of the poor and declares that a remedy is at hand and available. The principle of that remedy is based upon a transparent fallacy, but the mere fact that any man should develop such a rainbow of promise was enough to give the book an immense circulation both at home and abroad. The considerable profits were spent by Mr. George in less lucrative efforts to propagate his economical doctrines.

At the time of the New York election he was a poor man, with no organization behind him at all comparable. to the other three, but he had in the fullest measure the "enthusiasm of humanity." His nomination was hardly

a month before election, but he threw himself into the struggle and struck straight and hard, with an earnestness which was daily gaining him adherents. It was surprising to see how many conservative business men were prepared to acquiesce in his election. Taking into account the votes he received for the same office in 1886 it is not unreasonable to suppose that he might have reached one hundred thousand at this time. Eighty-three thousand deducted from Van Wyck and added to those which clung to his name would have given the victory to Low, with whom he declared himself in sympathy. If only our political methods would allow men to work their way to the front possessing that type of character, but of stronger brain!

The exertions of the campaign were, however, too much for him, and he died suddenly only a few days before the election. The votes which would have been cast for him, being in all probability drawn from the Democratic party, drifted back with his death to the regular nomination. His son, who took up his banner, had only a remnant of twenty-one thousand votes.

One or two further reflections suggest themselves and may bear the charge of repetition.

First. This election shows the folly and danger of

giving a four years' term to the mayor. It is perfectly

easy for the people to reëlect a good mayor for a second and third time, and if they do not do so a system is to blame which carefully conceals from them what sort of mayor they have got; but as it is they cannot, without an exertion of power by the governor which is quite as likely to be bad as good, get rid of a bad mayor for this long term. Even if Mr. Low had been elected, in four years the people would lose much of their training and force in public affairs. Under Mr. Croker they are likely to become bound hand and foot. For a President of the

United States a four years' period is not too long, because the area is so large and the questions dealt with are so general. But for the details of city government recurrence to the ruling power of public opinion is of vital importance as often as every second if not every year. The evils of a system which defeats public opinion and throws the game into the hands of machine politicians are not to be overcome by diminishing the frequency of elections. And then the absurdity of making the mayor ineligible for reëlection! As if Mr. Croker or Mr. Platt would care whether Van Wyck or Tracy could be put up again!

Second. It shows the disastrous effect of plurality elections. The fundamental principle of democracy is that the majority shall rule. If the largest of any number of fractions is to rule it may be a minority and even a small minority. It is neither democracy nor popular government. It leads men who are dissatisfied with the great parties to help set up fractions favoring their pet ideas and to salve their consciences with the conviction that though their votes count for nothing they are based on a principle which may some day prevail. It leads political intriguers to encourage such notions, since that reduces the fraction which they themselves need to secure. If Mr. George had lived, and if in consequence Mr. Low had been elected, he would have represented not much more than one-fourth of the voters, which would have been fiercely resented by the other three-fourths. It may be asked, How are we to get a majority? As we have already said, by a second election between the two highest candidates. If another ballot had been taken a week later between Van Wyck and Low a majority must have resulted. That would be too much trouble? If free government is worth anything we must take trouble. It is not as bad as the military conscription of France and Germany. Besides, one or two such experiments would

teach the people that they must pull together and not throw away their votes, instead of as now falling every year more and more into disintegration.

Third. It shows the folly of attempting to overcome a powerful organization, which has been growing up for half a century, by a mere sporadic burst of one or two months. If a disciplined force like that wielded by Platt or Croker is to be beaten it must be by still stronger discipline. If a constant succession of such men present themselves in the politics of the city and State it shows that the machinery is suited to develop them. Reform must consist in such readjustment of the machinery as to produce their counterparts, but of the right kind.

Fourth. This was declared to be an "anti-boss" campaign on behalf of the citizens at large and of good government. It is often said that one cannot prove a negative, and it is just as impossible to arouse a high degree of enthusiasm for a negative. And as to the word 'boss.' Every successful piece of executive work, an army, a railroad, a factory, must have a boss, either open or concealed. Great progress has been made of late years toward creating a "boss" of the right kind in cities, but the failure is in the want of responsibility which enables the public to recognize and appreciate their public men. The mayor is so covered up and concealed by the want of a properly organized council or criticising body that the people do not know a good man when they have got him. Compare the notoriety and prominence of Wood, Tweed, Kelly, Platt, and Croker with that of Low, Hewitt, Grace, and Strong. The only way to move masses of men is by personality, whether Washington or Lincoln, Napoleon, Platt, or Croker. Nine-tenths of our public efforts are directed towards suppressing personality. It is fighting against human nature, and human nature is hard to fight against.