I am not even now suggesting corrupt influence. That is not my point.
Corruption is a very difficult thing to manage in its literal sense. The
payment of money is very easily detected, and men of this kind who control
these interests by secret arrangement would not consent to receive a
dollar in money. They are following their own principles,--that is to say,
the principles which they think and act upon,--and they think that they
are perfectly honorable and incorruptible men; but they believe one thing
that I do not believe and that it is evident the people of the country do
not believe: they believe that the prosperity of the country depends upon
the arrangements which certain party leaders make with certain business
leaders. They believe that, but the proposition has merely to be stated
to the jury to be rejected. The prosperity of this country depends upon
the interests of all of us and cannot be brought about by arrangement
between any groups of persons. Take any question you like out to the
country,--let it be threshed out in public debate,--and you will have made
these methods impossible.

This is what sometimes happens: They promise you a particular piece of
legislation. As soon as the legislature meets, a bill embodying that
legislation is introduced. It is referred to a committee. You never hear
of it again. What happened? Nobody knows what happened.

I am not intimating that corruption creeps in; I do not know what creeps
in. The point is that we not only do not know, but it is intimated, if we
get inquisitive, that it is none of our business. My reply is that it is
our business, and it is the business of every man in the state; we have a
right to know all the particulars of that bill's history. There is not any
legitimate privacy about matters of government. Government must, if it is
to be pure and correct in its processes, be absolutely public in