the second place, the conclusions drawn from part one of this study, as well as numerous cases where candidates win in spite of unanimous newspaper opposition, throw very serious doubt on the assumed causal relationship. Certainly newspaper support cannot be regarded as in any way essential to political success, and its power in a negative way, namely, in refusing all publicity to a candidate, is perhaps more important than its positive stand for or against a candidate or an issue. The conclusions here set forth, especially in part one of this paper, seemn justified on the basis of the present study as well as from facts of general observation.)0 Whether these results will hold true of other cities and especially of small towns and rural areas is a question which only further inquiry can reveal. There is reason to believe, in fact, that the influence of the press on the people of large cities on questions such as those here investigated is far less than in small towns and rural areas, due to the number and frequency of other contacts in the city through reading several newspapers and through clubs, unions, and personal and group influences. This paper does not, of course, pretend to answer in any complete or conclusive way the question of the newspaper's influence. Obviously this study has made no attempt to evaluate the more subtle and far-reaching influence of the newspaper through suggestion and repetition and possible suppression of news. The more general validity of the conclusions remain to be tested by further study. 10 For such facts see Bernays, Crystallizing Public Opinion, p. 7iff. Also McKenzie, Community Forces: A Study of the Non-Partisan Municipal Elections in Seattle. Jr. of Soc. Forces, Jan., I92.4,