SOURCES OF MODERN INDUSTRIAL CONFLICTS i 
possibly to someone ‘higher up.” But in some shops his boldness 
is likely to single him out for special attention as an incipient “trouble 
maker,” and his eventual discharge may result. The constant pres- 
sure of those financially interested makes low cost of production the 
primary aim of hired management. Ruthless competition, when 
unchecked by penal legislation, a “short” labor supply, or—what is 
potentially the same thing—a strong labor organization, forces even 
humanitarian employers sometimes to descend to the same plane 
as that occupied by the most unscrupulous, unless by exceptional 
ingenuity they can cut costs by improvements in methods. The late 
Prof. H. C. Adams stated succinctly the principle here involved when 
he said: 
. . . . in the commercial world as at present organized, where the producer 
and the consumer seldom come into personal contact, the moral ‘arrangements 
followed in the process of production are not permitted a moment’s thought. 
All that is considered by the purchaser is the quality and the price of the goods. 
Those that are cheap he will buy, those that are dear he will reject, and in this 
manner he encourages those methods of production that lead to cheapness. 
. . . Fach man in the business must adopt those rules of management which 
lead to low prices, or he will be compelled to quit the business. And if this cheap- 
ness, the essential requisite of business success, be the result of harsh and inhuman 
measures, or if it lead to misrepresentation and dishonesty on the part of salesmen 
or manufacturers, the inevitable result must be that harshness and inhumanity 
will become the essential condition of success, and business men will be obliged to 
live a dual existence. 
. . . . anisolated man is powerless to stem the tide of prevalent custom, and 
. . . .in many lines of business those men whose moral sensibilities are the most 
blunted, exercise an influence in determining prevalent custom altogether out of 
proportion to their importance as industrial agents. . . . . If now the state 
stand as an unconcerned spectator, nine men who appreciate keenly, for in- 
stance, the evils of child labor will be forced to conform to the methods adopted 
by the one who is insensible to these evils. Their goods come into competition 
with his goods, and we who purchase do not inquire under what conditions they 
were manufactured. In this manner it is that men of the lowest character have 
it in their power to give the moral tone to the entire business community.’ 
Large scale production and almost complete mechanization of 
processes, moreover, has meant that the worker, except in a few 
§ Adams, H. C., “The Relation of the State to Industrial Action,” pp. 39-42- 
(American Economic Association, Publications, V. 1, No. 6.) 
40