ng them, denounced the
"undignified and demagogic methods of our desperate opponents." The
smaller Sawyer crowds applauded Sawyer when he waxed indignant over the
attempts of those "socialists and anarchists, haters of this free
country and spitters upon its glorious flag, to set poor against rich,
to destroy our splendid American tradition of a free field and no
favors, and let the best man win!"

Sawyer, and Davy, all the candidates of the machines and the reformers
for that matter, made excellent public appearances. They discoursed
eloquently about popular rights and wrongs. They denounced corruption;
they stood strongly for the right and renounced and denounced the devil
and all his works. They promised to do far more for the people than
did the Leaguers; for Victor Dorn had trained his men to tell the exact
truth--the difficulty of doing anything for the people at any near time
or in any brief period because at a single election but a small part of
the effective offices could be changed, and sweeping changes must be
made before there could be sweeping benefits. "We'll do all we can,"
was their promise. "Their county government and their state government
and their courts won't let us do much. But a beginning has to be made.
Let's make it!"

David Hull's public appearance was especially good. Not so effective
as it has now become, because he was only a novice at campaigning in
that year. But he looked, well--handsome, yet not too handsome, upper
class, but not arrogant, serious, frank and kindly. And he talked in a
plain, honest way--you felt that no interest, however greedy, desperate
and powerful, would dare approach that man with an improper
proposal--and you quite forgot in real affairs the crude improper
proposal is never the method of approach. When Davy, with grave
emotion, referred to the "pitiful efforts to smirch the personal
character of candidates," you could not but burn with scorn of the
Victor Dorn tactics. What if Hull did own gas and water and ice and
traction and railway stocks? Mustn't a rich man invest his money
somehow? And how could he more creditably invest it than in local
enterprises and in enterprises that opened up the country and gave
employment to labor? What if the dividends were improperly, even
criminally, earned? Must he therefore throw the dividends paid him
into the street? As for a man of such associations and financial
interests being unfit fairly to administer p