idea of the infamous nature of the charge they are making against Mr. Bliss, and says: Apparently neither of them has any idea that it is wrong for the highest Government official to blackmail corporations into subscribing to party campaign funds under the penalty of being prosecuted if they fail to do so. I do not know whether to be more astounded at a United States Senator taking such a position, or at the moral callousness of testifying to it in evident and complete ignorance that any culpability attaches to it."

At the conclusion of his letter, turning to the general question of campaign contributions, Mr. Roosevelt points out that it is no longer legal to accept contributions from corporations, but declares that, aside from this fact, his attitude toward campaign contributions is precisely what his attitude was in 1904, and will not be changed. He does not believe in drawing the line against the size of the contribution. He declares that the only proper conditions are, first, that the contribution should be received" without any kind of promise or obligation, expressed or implied, being accepted only on the announced principle that the man making it has no end to serve except to assist the cause he is championing; and, second, that the money should be spent in an honest fashion and only for legitimate expenses." He refers to the proposal to limit contributions to five thousand or ten thousand dollars, and says: If the virtue of a party is so frail that it will weaken if the contribution is over ten thousand, it will also weaken if it is under ten thousand. . . . It is morally as bad to solicit or accept ten dollars for improper reasons as ten thousand dollars." "As long," he continues," as the expense of running primaries and elections is left to be borne by private individuals instead of by the Government, and as long as there is no limit to the total fund which can be raised, then each contributor should be left free to contribute according to his ability, if his motive is proper and is properly understood."

Mr. Roosevelt describes a number of contributions which have been sent to him personally during the past four weeks. says:

Among them were $10 sent to me by a woman who is a bookkeeper; $5 from a workingman, an Italian by birth, who told me that it represented two days' wages; $25 from a deep-sea

fisherman, who wrote me it represented his profit on one trip, and that later he would send me the profit on another trip; $1 from an old veteran in a soldiers' home, and $2.50 from a Scotch carpenter, who wrote me that he had not been long enough in the country to vote, but that he wished to help all he could in the Progressive movement; $10 from a brakeman; about $45 from a commercial traveler, who told me it represented five per cent on his collections for a certain period; $500 from the mother of a family, which in this case, as I happened to know, meant using last fall's dresses again this fall; $1,000 from a business man in Chicago whom I did not personally know; $10 from a writer who had sold a poem on our movement for that amount; and, most touching of all, $10 from a mother whose ten-year-old boy had just died, because the boy had always admired me and read about me. These are only examples among hundreds of others of the same kind. Mr. Roosevelt declares that he profoundly appreciates such contributions as these, and that "instead of feeling like refusing the big amounts given him by the few friends who can afford to give these big amounts, I have felt much more like returning these little amounts, which I know mean so much of self-denial to the struggling men and women who send them."

In closing, Mr. Roosevelt declares: "I shall make precisely the same return to all who contribute, and that return is to serve the whole people by striving for social and industrial justice."

He sets forth two men as representing two types among the supporters of the Progressive party, Mr. Perkins and Judge Lindsey. Of the first he says:

During the primaries he contributed largely of his means, and still more largely of his time and executive and organizing ability; he will continue to give in the same fashion, both money and work, until election day; and not a dollar of his money and not a minute of his time will be used save in straightforward and honest fashion. Of the second he says:

Judge Ben Lindsey has no money to give; he has the power to set vividly before audiences the cause for which we are fighting, and to carry conviction of his and our sincerity because of the life of service he has lived. Each man is now rendering to the cause with all his soul the service which he is best fitted to render.

He concludes:

I am profoundly grateful to both; I am profoundly sensible of the service which each renders; and each expects from me nothing whatever save that I will honorably and in good faith do my part in carrying out our covenant with the people of the United States.

We commend the reading of Mr. Roosevelt's letter in full to those of Progressive

sympathies who may have been troubled by the reckless asseverations of Messrs. Penrose, Archbold, and Company. We commend it no less to those, whether Progressive or

not, who wish to know the truth and who have a constitutional objection, even in matters of political activity, to condemning any one unheard.

The Archbold-Penrose allegations seem to "Life" "fine for persons who enjoy that sort of reading... but to our mind not very important."

But they are important to other minds. How shall a political party be supplied with the "sinews of war"? Of course it must have those sinews. The people must support the political parties.

A

How has this been done in the past? Let two Knoxville (Tenn.) papers state. Republican journal, the Knoxville "Journal and Tribune," declares that "the Republican party has been buying its way into power and control with money contributed by the special interests, which it has fostered with favors and protected with legislation." Not to be outdone in honest confession, a Democratic paper, the Knoxville "Sentinel," admits that Democratic campaign funds have been "gathered from about the same sources as the Republican." The paper continues :

The Jay Goulds and Vanderbilts gave to the Republican party because they expected favors, and to the Democrats because they wished to throw an anchor to windward and assure themselves against the utter withdrawal of favors already secured. The difference was one mainly of amount. The Bryces and Whitneys got less than the Quays, but they did not go away empty-handed from the doors of the then big business.

"Scandal is lively reading, even political scandal, and doubtless the papers are justified "to quote " Life "again" in devoting much space to revelations, furnished primarily by one of Mr. Hearst's magazines, of details of Republican financing in the Presidential "Life" thus explains campaign of 1904." the situation:

Mr. Hearst printed letters to the effect that the Standard Oil Company contributed liberally to the Republican campaign fund in that year. A committee of the Senate investigated, and Mr. Penrose for the Republicans and Mr. Archbold for the Standard Oil admitted that it was true. And there has been assertion that the candidate, Mr. Roosevelt, knew of these contributions and was agreeable, and wanted $150,000 more and did not get it, and for that reason persecuted the Standard Oil Company after his election.

Of course this last accusation is not true. A matter of $150,000 worth of political assistance, more or less, would never have affected President Roosevelt's behavior toward a corporation. He denies that he had anything to do with this Standard Oil money of 1904, or consented to its being received, and has furnished letters he wrote about it to Mr. Cortelyou forbidding him to accept any Standard Oil money.

"But it is impiously suggested," slyly adds Life," ""that these letters were written to be filed, but not otherwise respected, and so on and so on, and, as we write, the headlines are all awhirl with accusation, denial, recrimination, alibis, and general exposure." The Sioux Falls, South Dakota, "Press" (Ind.) "commends these [the Archbold-Penrose letters] to the attention of thoughtful persons who are watching the 'invisible government' as it emerges into the light of day." The New York" Tribune" (Rep.) thus describes them :

Mr. Archbold testifies that the Standard Oil Company did contribute $125,000 to the Roosevelt campaign in 1904, $100,000 through Cornelius N. Bliss, treasurer of the National Committee, and subsequently $25,000 through Senator Penrose. Mr. Archbold has not been able to lay hand on Mr. Bliss's receipt. The other Standard Oil men who can confirm the fact of the contribution and relate the circumstances should be examined. Pending such confirmation, however, there will be little disposition to doubt the truth of Mr. Archbold's statement that the $100,000 of Standard Oil money went, as is stated, into the Roosevelt campaign fund through Mr. Bliss. Mr. Roosevelt, however, denies that he knew of any such contribution, and so far there is no proof that he did. It is perfectly possible that his campaign managers, being in need of money, got it where they could without telling him anything

about it.

It may well be that Mr. Roosevelt's attention was never seriously directed to campaign funds and their possible abuse until almost the end of his campaign, and that he then took such action as seemed sufficient to him to preserve his entire independence. In the absence of any proof that he knew of the Archbold contribution, it is not to be assumed in the face of his denials that he did know of it and that in 1904 he was and ever since has been playing a part of elaborate and sustained hypocrisy.

Just here the Tacoma "Tribune" (Prog.) remarks that "John D. Archbold says he

does not make a business of telling lies," and adds:

The record appears to show that Archbold makes a business of sending certified checks to corrupt statesmen of the Penrose type.

But a man making a campaign contribution as large as $25,000, comments the Kansas City "Times" (Prog.), "would be likely to mention the purpose of the contribution in the note accompanying the money." The paper further notes:

When Mr. Archbold made his notorious contribution to Senator Penrose, he merely wrote: "In fulfillment of our understanding it gives me pleasure to hand you herewith certificate of deposit to your favor for $25,000, and, with good wishes, I am yours truly."

If that amount really was a campaign contribution, is it not rather odd that the note didn't say so? Or if it was a contribution to the Republican party in Pennsylvania, wasn't Penrose probably all there was to the Republican party in that State?

Mr. Archbold admits, according to the New York Globe (Rep.), "that he paid over what he thought was a fair bribe. Penrose confesses that he was broker. Their selfpainted portraits make an exhibit of crooked business-politics that answers every requirement." After this event, says the Columbia, South Carolina, "State " (Dem.)

Mr. Archbold sailed for Europe, which impresses an unprejudiced observer as an eminently sensible thing for Mr. Archbold to do.

So much for Messrs. Penrose and Archbold.

Now as to Judge Parker. The New York"Tribune" says that Mr. Roosevelt's letters of October 26 and 27, 1904, which "tend to show his desire to be free from Standard Oil entanglements, . . were written just after the Democrats had begun the attack on the Roosevelt campaign collections, and just as Judge Parker was taking the stump with the sensational charges of corruption and blackmail which he was unable to make good." In that campaign, as the Rochester, New York, "Herald " (Ind.) says, "Mr. Roosevelt was directly charged by Judge Parker, his opponent, with having been aided by corporations and individuals hoping to profit by his administrative acts if he should be elected." But to the charge of Senator Reed, of Missouri, the other day, as quoted by the Chicago "Evening Post" (Prog.), that 'Roosevelt did not order Cortelyou to return the Oil Trust's money until the day after Judge Alton B. Parker had made the charge at a mass-meeting in Madison Square Garden, New York, that

the trusts were attempting to purchase the Presidency for Roosevelt," the Chicago paper reminds its readers that, as a matter of fact, "the Madison Square speech

was not

delivered until . . . five days after Colonel Roosevelt's letter ordering the refusal of Standard Oil contributions." The "Post"

adds:

Nor was the question of trust contributions made an issue on October 24, as Senator Reed charges. It had been made an issue long before that date by Thomas W. Lawson in his articles on Frenzied Finance."

From all this the New York "Globe " (Rep.) concludes thus:

When Judge Parker made the charge eight years ago that corporations were making large contributions to the Roosevelt campaign fund with the avowed purpose of buying immunity from interference, he may have had knowledge of what Archbold was trying to do. He could not have known that Colonel Roosevelt ever consented to the acceptance of a bribe. To read the motives of an Archbold or a Penrose required no keen perception. To conclude that they had been successful was an unwarranted assumption.

But this does not end the matter. "Sundry gentlemen are hinting at the contents of their sleeves," notes the Buffalo" Enquirer " (Dem.). They aver they have much besides elbows up them." The paper continues its picturesque phrases :

Senator Penrose threatens to tell more on Colonel Roosevelt.

Colonel Roosevelt threatens to let loose more facts and fury on Senator Penrose.

William Randolph Hearst threatens to tell on them all.

As Mr. Hearst is in London, he is, according to the Milwaukee "Sentinel" (Rep.), "far enough away to survey this Standard Oil money controversy in the perspective which conduces to breadth and impartiality of view." But the Milwaukee paper adds:

The result of Mr. Hearst's present philosophical detachment will hardly please Judge Parker and other Democrats who are crying out at the Standard Oil contributions in 1904 as something peculiarly Republican. . . .

Very good. In for a penny, in for a pound, say we. Take the lid off this whole business.

But what a shock it will be for Judge Parker should the removal of the lid disclose the Democratic dealings with Standard Oil pointed out by Mr. Hearst.

In the result, therefore, as it affects the two old parties, honors seem to be easy, if we may believe the Milwaukee "Sentinel." A few other judges, however, indicate that danger confronts Mr. Roosevelt. On the other hand, a much larger number of papers

The case reacts Penrose finds he He discovers

What a farce it all is!. upon the man who started it. has stirred up a hornet's nest. that he has not muddied the water sufficiently to conceal his own infamy or his vile purpose. The whole issue of falsehood is built upon the name of a dead man. Were Cornelius Bliss alive, he would not be called as a witness. In that case there would be some other dead man named as the lacking witness.

As to the dead witness, many papers have expressed themselves as does the New York "Commercial" (Ind.):

If Archbold has told the truth, and if Roosevelt and Cortelyou tell the truth, it is certain that a person, than whose reputation in the minds of his fellow-citizens none ever stood higher as a man of spotless personal integrity, was the most shameless of thieves. To protect the reputation of the honored dead, if for no other reason, . . Theodore Roosevelt's sworn testimony under the searchlight of further prob. ing should be had as soon as possible.

Occasionally one finds some journal-as, for instance, the Springfield, Massachusetts, "Republican "-deploring these exposures because of "the certainty that the contest could not be kept above personalities of this ugly and bitter character." To such complaints the Chicago "Evening Post" (Prog.) thus replies:

Mr. Hearst publishes a lot of letters to Mr. Archbold and to Senator Penrose showing some very questionable dealings between Mr. Penrose and Mr. Archbold. Mr. Penrose replies by a bitter attack on Colonel Roosevelt. And Colonel Roosevelt defends himself. Therefore he is to blame for the whole affair!

The "Republican was not afraid of "bitter

personalities" in the days when Samuel Bowles made it a power against human slavery almost equal to that of Greeley and the New York "Tribune" or Raymond and the New York "Times." It is getting old.

In any event, as the New York " Evening Post" (Ind.) has it:

Among the many oddities of a peculiar Presidential campaign, surely none is more odd than the fact that, at the height of the campaign, a Congressional committee will reconvene to investigate the question whether an important Presidential candidate is a truthful man or not. We state this, not as a controversial argument or as indicating our own belief on the disputed question, but merely as a fact in American history to which future students of that history will look back with astonishment.

They may, but the astonishment will doubtless be aroused by the spectacle of a Congressional committee being used for purposes of partisan "muck-raking."

These particular "exposures "' will doubtless end in purifying politics; but it should not be forgotten, as the Louisville "Evening Post" (Ind. Dem.) points out, that there has been "in the past ten years a growing sentiment among thoughtful men against soliciting or accepting large contributions from great business enterprises and great business men who have an interest in legislation and who desire to have friends at court." The paper continues :

One good effect of the changed attitude of the people towards political contributions will be a radical reduction in the expense of the campaign. The legitimate expenses, so called, have been enormous; and they ought to be cut one-half. The illegitimate expenses ought to be eliminated altogether.

The Knoxville "Journal and Tribune " (Rep.) adds:

These exposures are going to have a wonderfully purifying effect upon future campaigns. The people are going to demand the publicity of every dollar expended for campaign purposes, its source, and its uses.

Finally, the Washington " Herald" (Ind.), after recounting the complaint of Mr. Archbold that, though it had contributed to the Roosevelt campaign, the Standard Oil Company was attacked during the Roosevelt Administration, declares:

The example is salutary. It ought to be a lesson to those who give vast sums of money to political committees in the expectation that indulgences will be granted them covering illegitimate acts of wickedness.

Developments like those laid bare during the present campaign must hasten an actual rule by the people themselves.

PROBLEM PROB

meals changed in order to make home comfortable for the various members of the family. It is largely due to this fact that a few rare girls," who do not go out except at the convenience of their mistresses, keep their places. Let us be thankful that there are still a few who consider the mistress, making their time for going out conform to her convenience. These few reap their reward in having, in the long run, more time for leisure than the regulation time of one afternoon every other week. . . .

It seems to me it is just this cry of "business" that is helping to ruin the maids of to-day. They care nothing for the home; they do not look longer upon their mistress's house as their home; they simply look for the "place" in which they can do the least work for the greatest sum of money; using that money for the most fashionable clothes they can get, often spending far more than the mistress whose money they are taking.

Does the maid of to-day ever replace dishes broken, cooking utensils ruined, often after but a few times using, because of carelessness? Does she often tell the mistress that the milk has run short simply because of her neglect to put it in a proper place to keep from souring, or that the biscuits are gone because she burned them? Does it ever

occur to the average maid that this waste and breakage-if housework is simply to be treated on a business basis-should be deducted each month from her wages? We all know that there are the mistresses who do deduct breakage, who give the maid an improper place to sleep in, any old chair, bed, or bed-covering; but we also know that the maid is rare indeed to find who takes care of her mistress's goods, furniture, and food as though they were her own.

If any way or means could be devised to teach these house-workers that clothes that are good enough for our houses are good enough to appear outside in; that the house in which they work is to be their home, which