statement that they who sleep upon guard are as reprehensible as they who go over to the enemy. And even now, in the wake of a great revolution-almost unprecedented in recent political history-the danger is that such men may grow lukewarm and indifferent, and that other bosses-a new type perhaps may be evolved from those who have worked for the present reforms for purely selfish purposes. Eternal vigilance that will last when the tumult and the shouting die out, will alone establish the movement on a firm basis.

So much may be said of the results of the last two elections from the standpoint of the nation at large. But what about the independent voter in the South? To what extent has the reform movement affected this section? These are questions that inevitably suggest themselves to one trying to understand the extent and significance of the most recent political phenomenon in this country. Is there a sharp differentiation between state and national issues as there has been in other sections, or is there the same effort to bring about wholesome municipal reforms? Unless one believes that the democratic party in the South is perfect, or as nearly perfect as any party can well be, or unless he believes that no reforms are needed anywhere in our body politic, he must believe that here and now there is an imperative need for the independent voter to exercise the same conscience in voting that he has elsewhere, and that there will result the same uplift of civic life, the same heightening of civic conscience.

It should be a matter of pride and of inspiration to every Southerner that Gov. Folk, of Missouri, has been so potent a factor in the recent reform movements. His own manly fight, first in St. Louis and then in the State, and the effective speeches he made in Cincinnati and Philadelphia, have marked him as a man of the first importance. The fact that he is Southern born-he is of good North Carolina stock-and of Southern training-he was for several years a student at Vanderbilt University-makes his example all the more significant to a Southerner of today. In Maryland, too, the defeat of Senator Gorman by an uprising of patriotic independent democrats was a very notable achieve

ment. Strangely enough, many men who have rejoiced over the success of Folk have lamented the defeat of Gorman, and yet two men were never more unlike the one a spoilsman, a trickster, a boss, the other a brave, independent, patriotic leader on opposite sides in the great battle now being waged in this country.

Besides the election of Folk in Missouri by independent voters and the defeat of Gorman in Maryland by independents and these States scarcely fall within the list of Southern States-what other evidences have we had in the South of an aggressive, well planned, successful independent movement? What events in our recent political history compare in significance to the election of Gov. Douglas in Massachusetts, the defeat of Herrick in Ohio, the success of Jerome and Weaver in their fight for clean politics? How many of the 2,000,000 men who voted one way for president and the other way for governor lived south of the Potomac and the Ohio? These questions are asked in no hypercritical spirit, but with the desire to get at the truth and to understand the problem.

The independents in the South have to face the same state of affairs that the independents of the North did in the '80'sall the better traditions connected with one party, and most of the respectable people belonging to the same party. Just as George William Curtis and his followers were accused of being democrats in disguise and of being traitors to the "grand old party" that had saved the Union and freed the slaves, and deserters to a party of Copperheads, so the Southern independent is said to be a republican in disguise, and is told of the awful crimes of the Reconstruction era. When all other arguments have failed, there is the inevitable appeal to the threatened domination of an inferior race which is not now even a remote possibility. Oh no, there isn't any longer the social ostracism of former days, nor thumbscrew inquisition methods, but what for this day is almost as effective, the appeal to a well crystallized public opinion. Ridicule, sentimentalism and authority-those three ancient methods of dealing with the children of light-are all used to effect. Always there is the appeal to the illiterate masses, or

to that solid phalanx of men who have inherited the passionate sectionalism of a generation of men who don't know that the war is over, or that they are living in a new age which teaches new duties and has to do with new problems. It makes the blood boil in one's veins to read, or remember, the experience of William L. Wilson-as fine a man as the South has had in these thirty years-hooted and insulted by an audience of his neighbors because he spoke for Palmer and Buckner in 1896. His experience was not unlike that of other Gold Democrats and the supporters of President Roosevelt in the last election.

But there are many hopeful signs. In 1896 there were many who voted for Palmer and Buckner, and in 1900 there were many business men who voted for McKinley rather than Bryan. In the cities especially there was very considerable bolting. A great many more inwardly hoped that the nation would not vote as they voted. The writer knows of several college faculties who voted almost to a man for McKinley. In this same year some of the strongest newspapers either supported the republican, or refused to support the democratic, national ticket. The editorials that appeared in the Charlotte Observer, the Chattanooga Times, the Nashville Banner, and other leading dailies, were of great import as inaugurating a new day in Southern life. Although some of the "organs" tried to browbeat them and produce a boycott among the subscribers, they failed signally. Men who did not follow the editors in their independence, admired their bravery.

The discouraging feature of this independent movement, however, is that there is so little to show when the ballots come in. One wonders how it was possible that men of the prominence and character of the Gold Democrats, for instance, and newspapers of the character of those indicated, did not have greater influence in changing votes. When the votes were counted, however, there was little difference, except in the border States like Kentucky, Missouri and Maryland. There was the same Solid South! And, unfortunately, during the last election, the momentum that had been given to the independent movement was checked. It is not necessary to

go into the reasons here, but it is known of all men that, after a campaign of intensely bitter attacks on President Roosevelt, by men who have since outdone one another in "slopping over," the independents of the two preceding elections, were practically not in evidence. However natural this was,—and we can see another reason for it in the nomination of a conservative like Judge Parker-the fact is to be deplored.

The victory of the independent voter in the South, or any substantial result of his activity, is a long way off, perhaps, but neither criticism nor ridicule nor the brow-beating of a partisan press and impulsive demagogues will cause him to to waver in his determination to use his ballot as a sacred trust, and to vote for no man in whom he does not have confidence, and for no platform to which he cannot give his allegiance. Reverencing profoundly the past deeds of Southerners and loyal to the best ideals of his people, he believes that the best thing that can happen to the South today is that there shall be two strong parties, and that there shall be a body—a small number comparatively to hold the balance of power between these two. He would like to see the Democratic party led by strong, constructive leaders-not obstructionists or temporizers but men of conviction and power, not relying on the past achievements or appealing to past memories, but working to a definite end-men of the type of Gov. Folk and ex-Gov. Aycock. He would like to see, too, -a bolder vision, it is true-a stronger Republican party, cutting itself aloose from the methods and traditions of the past, and ridding itself of the present unseemly struggle for spoils, and appealing manfully to the sense and conscience of the South on great national questions. He hails the establishment of a paper like the Industrial News as a distinct achievement, and rejoices at its cordial reception by papers throughout this State as a forerunner of better days. Even with conditions as they are, the independent in the South will come to distinguish carefully between state and national politics, he will follow his own conviction as to men and measures "scratching" tickets, "bolting" conventions, and doing

everything he can to increase the number and influence of those who will work to the same end as he.

The role of the independent is especially adapted to the college man. He will never aspire to office, he will not likely become a leader in the parties, but, if he is a true citizen, he will have the profoundest concern about public questions, he will do all he can to make democratic government-which depends on the active, intelligent suffrage of all men, and especially those who have superior endowments-a success. Heir of all the ages, he will seek to interpret public issues in view of the best that has been known and thought in the world. Able to see the light, he must bear witness to that light. He believes with Milton that a complete and generous education is "that which fits a man to perform justly, skilfully and magnanimously all the offices, both private and public, of peace and war."

To encourage him in his work the Southern scholar has the inspiring example of those pioneers of the independent movement-George William Curtis and James Russell Lowell. The addresses of the former, the essays of the latter, and the lives of both, are a kind of manual of civic righteousness, which he cannot do without. These two men, not fanatics, but inheritors of all that was best in New England culture, turned aside from their academic case studies so inviting to such bookmen as they both were, and took an aggressive part in the movement looking to civil service and tariff reform. They had both thrown all their energy with the Republican party in its early days when it had championed emancipation and nationalism. But when during Grant's second administration, and in the days of Blaine and Conkling, politics seemed peculiarly "mean, selfish and corrupt," they broke away from it, first as Liberal Republicans, and then as Independents. The Southern people owe much to this awakening of the independent spirit: that the people of the North were made aware of Reconstruction government in the South, that the spoils system was overthrown and civil service reform promoted, and that tariff reform was made the subject of intelligent discussion, was due to the fight that such men made on the blind partisanship and sectional feeling of