Reform is difficult, perhaps even impossible of attainment under the existing system where universal, unlimited suffrage and the party system are firmly intrenched as opponents of vital reform, and where representation and legislation take their indelible colour from these unfortunate institutions.  It must freely be admitted that there is no chance of eliminating or recasting either one or the other by the recognized methods of platform support and mass action through the ballot.  It comes in the end to a change of viewpoint and of heart on the part of the individual.  No party, no political leader would for a moment endorse any one of the principles or methods I have suggested, for this would be a suicidal act.  The newspaper, irresponsible, anonymous, directed by its advertizing interests or by those more sinister still, yet for all that the factor that controls the opinions of those who hold the balance of power in the community as it is now constituted, would reject them with derision, while in themselves they are radically opposed to the personal interests of the majority.  The only hope of lifting government to the level of dignity and capacity it should hold, lies in the individual.  It is necessary that we should see things clearly, estimate conditions as they are, and think through to the end.  We do not do this.  We admit, in a dull sort of way, that matters are not as they should be, that legislation is generally silly and oppressive, that taxation is excessive, that administration is wasteful and reckless and incompetent, for we know these things by experience.  We accept them, however, with our national good-nature and easy tolerance, assuming that they are inseparable from democratic government—­as indeed they are, but not for a moment does any large number think of questioning the principle, or even the system, that must take the responsibility.  When disgust and indifference reach a certain point we stop voting, that is all.  At the last presidential election less than one half the qualified voters took the trouble to cast their ballots, while in Boston (which is no exception) it generally happens that at a municipal elections the ballots cast are less than one-third the total electorate.  I wonder how many there are here today who have ever been to a ward meeting, or have sat through a legislative session of a city government, as of Boston for example, or have listened to the debates in a state house of representatives, or analyzed the annual grist of legislative bills, or have sat for an hour or two in the Senate or House at Washington.  Such an experience is, I assure you, illuminating, for it shows exactly why popular government is what it is, while it forms an admirable basis for a constructive revision of judgment as to the soundness of accepted principles and the validity of accepted methods.