The political power of wealth is due only in part to dire ct corruption， vast as that is， but is even more an indirtct and perfectly legal pressure in the shape of inducements (269) which its adroit use can always bring to bear梩rade to the business man， practice to the lawyer and employment to the handworker： every one when he thinks of his income wishes to conciliate the rich. Influence of this sort makes almost every rich man a political power， even without his especially wishing to be. But when wealth is united to a shrewd and unscrupulous political ambition， when it sets out to control legislation or the administration of the laws， it becomes truly perilous. We cannot fail to see that a large part of our high offices are held by men who have no marked qualification but wealth， and would be insignificant without it； also that our legislation 梞unicipal， state and national梐nd most of our administrative machinery， feel constantly the grasp of pecuniary power. Probably it is not too much to say that except when public opinion is unusually aroused wealth can generally have its way in our politics if it makes an effort to do so.
As to the influence of the rich over the professional classes條awyers， doctors， clergymen， teachers， civil and mechanical engineers and the like梬e may say in general that it is potent but somewhat indirect， implying not conscious subservience but a moral ascendancy through habit and suggestion.
The abler men of this sort are generally educated and self-respecting， have a good deal of professional spirit and are not wholly dependent upon any one employer. At the same time， they get their living largely through the rich， from whom the most lucrative employment comes， and who have many indirect ways of making and marring careers. The ablest men in the legal profession are in close relations with the rich and commonly (270) become capitalists themselves； physicians are more independent， because their art is not directly concerned with property， yet look to wealthy patients for their most profitable practice； clergymen are under pressure to satisfy wealthy parishioners， and teachers must win the good will of the opulent citizens who control educational boards.
Now there is nothing in social psychology surer than that if there is a man by whose good will we desire to profit， we are likely to adapt our way of thinking to his. Impelled to imagine frequently his state of mind， and to desire that it should be favorable to our aims， we are unconsciously swayed by his thought， the more so if he treats us with a courtesy which does not alarm our self-respect. It is in this way that wealth imposes upon intellect. Who can deny it？
Newspapers are generally owned by men of wealth， which has no doubt an important influence upon the sentiments expressed in them； but a weightier consideration is the fact that they depend for profit chiefly upon advertisements， the most lucrative of which come from rich merchants who naturally resent doctrines that threaten their interest. Of course the papers must reach the people， in order to have a value for advertising or any other purpose， and this requires adaptation to public opinion； but the public of what are known as the better class of papers are chiefly the comparatively well-to-do.
And even that portion of the press which aims to please the hand-working class is usually more willing to carry on a loud but vague agitation， not intended to accomplish anything but increase circulation， than to push real and definite reform.
(271)