the moral superiority of the “practical politician” strikingly apparent. It might, perhaps, be well for them to remember that some of those “idealists” four or five years ago strongly denounced the abuses of the Government which then and since came to light, and warned the party in power of the consequences which inevitably would follow if the iniquitous agencies then at work were not sternly resisted. If the “idealists” had been listened to, McDonald would not have been permitted to organize the whisky ring in St. Louis, the Belknaps and Babcocks would not have remained great and powerful men in the Government and the Republican party would not now be obliged to struggle under that load of disgrace which to-day is its greatest element of weakness. We were then told by the “practical politicians” that if such abuses existed they would be corrected, and everything put right “inside.” The “idealists” were put outside, and the “practical politicians” had their way “inside.” You know the result. The “idealists” do not appear to have been quite wrong, after all. Now I find some newspapers exercising their wit at the notion that the “idealists” insist upon “a perfect angel” for the Presidency, and will not be satisfied with anything less. As the “idealists” were not quite wrong four or five years ago, so I apprehend they are not quite wrong now. They think that, in its present situation, the country needs a man for the Presidency who can be depended upon to possess the moral courage and ability required for as great an effort as human energy is capable of to crush corruption and to make this a pure government once more, whatever opposition he may have to encounter, even if it should come from his own party friends. This may be called an ideal notion, but it is also an eminently practical one; so much, indeed, that it must be carried out if the honor of the country is to be saved and repub-
