would choose that for a career and these men doubtless look on it only
as an avocation.

For these reasons we have no profession of politics or of public life in
the sense that we have a profession of law and medicine and other
learned callings. We have men who have spent many years in office, but
it would be difficult to find one outside the limitations noted who
would refer to that as his business, occupation, or profession.

The inexperienced are prone to hold an erroneous idea of public life and
its methods. Not long ago I listened to a joint debate in a prominent
preparatory school. Each side took it for granted that public men were
influenced only by improper motives and that officials of the government
were seeking only their own gain and advantage without regard to the
welfare of the people. Such a presumption has no foundation in fact.
There are dishonest men in public office. There are quacks, shysters,
and charlatans among doctors, lawyers, and clergy, but they are not
representative of their professions nor indicative of their methods. Our
public men, as a class, are inspired by honorable and patriotic motives,
desirous only of a faithful execution of their trust from the executive
and legislative branches of the States and Nation down to the
executives of our towns, who bear the dignified and significant title of
selectmen. Public men must expect criticism and be prepared to endure
false charges from their opponents. It is a matter of no great concern
to them. But public confidence in government is a matter of great
concern. It cannot be maintained in the face of such opinions as I have
mentioned. It is necessary to differentiate between partisan assertions
and actual conditions. It is necessary to recognize worth as well as to
condemn graft. No system of government can stand that lacks public
confidence and no progress can be made on the assumption of a false