The alderman has also a very singular hold upon the property owners of his ward.  The paving, both of the streets and sidewalks throughout his district, is disgraceful; and in the election speeches the reform side holds him responsible for this condition, and promises better paving under another regime.  But the paving could not be made better without a special assessment upon the property owners of the vicinity, and paying more taxes is exactly what his constituents do not want to do.  In reality, “getting them off,” or at the worst postponing the time of the improvement, is one of the genuine favors which he performs.  A movement to have the paving done from a general fund would doubtless be opposed by the property owners in other parts of the city who have already paid for the asphalt bordering their own possessions, but they have no conception of the struggle and possible bankruptcy which repaving may mean to the small property owner, nor how his chief concern may be to elect an alderman who cares more for the feelings and pocket-books of his constituents than he does for the repute and cleanliness of his city.

The alderman exhibited great wisdom in procuring from certain of his down-town friends the sum of three thousand dollars with which to uniform and equip a boys’ temperance brigade which had been formed in one of the ward churches a few months before his campaign.  Is it strange that the good leader, whose heart was filled with innocent pride as he looked upon these promising young scions of virtue, should decline to enter into a reform campaign?  Of what use to suggest that uniforms and bayonets for the purpose of promoting temperance, bought with money contributed by a man who was proprietor of a saloon and a gambling house, might perhaps confuse the ethics of the young soldiers?  Why take the pains to urge that it was vain to lecture and march abstract virtues into them, so long as the “champion boodler” of the town was the man whom the boys recognized as a loyal and kindhearted friend, the public-spirited citizen, whom their fathers enthusiastically voted for, and their mothers called “the friend of the poor.”  As long as the actual and tangible success is thus embodied, marching whether in kindergartens or brigades, talking whether in clubs or classes, does little to change the code of ethics.

The question of where does the money come from which is spent so successfully, does of course occur to many minds.  The more primitive people accept the truthful statement of its sources without any shock to their moral sense.  To their simple minds he gets it “from the rich” and, so long as he again gives it out to the poor as a true Robin Hood, with open hand, they have no objections to offer.  Their ethics are quite honestly those of the merry-making foresters.  The next less primitive people of the vicinage are quite willing to admit that he leads the “gang” in the city council, and sells out the city franchises; that he makes deals with