CONFLICT AND RECONSTRUCTION 55 
worker would be getting more than that to which he has a 
right if he were paid something in excess of this ethical 
minimum. Why, then, should we assume that this is the 
normal share of almost the whole laboring population? Since 
our industrial resources and instrumentalities are sufficient 
to provide more than a living wage for a very large propor- 
tion of the workers, why should we acquiesce in a theory 
which denies them this measure of the comforts of life? 
Such a policy is not only of very questionable morality, but 
is unsound economically. The large demand for goods, which 
ls created and maintained by high rates of wages and high 
purchasing power by the masses, is the surest guaranty of a 
continuous and general operation of industrial establishments. 
[t is the most effective instrument of prosperity for labor and 
capital alike. 
Protestant churches of all denominations also supported 
the principles underlying this pronouncement. The Inter- 
church World Movement itself in 1919 called a conference 
in New York City to formulate a nation-wide, constructive 
basis of procedure. Two industrial conferences composed 
of representatives of capital, labor, and the public were 
also convened by President Wilson in the years 1919-1920 
and urged by him to formulate a new constructive program 
looking toward industrial justice and permanent indus- 
trial peace and democracy. 
REVERSION TO INDUSTRIAL CONFLICT 
Organized capital and labor, however, were unable to 
agree on a definition of collective bargaining. On this 
rock the attempts toward a new constructive policy were 
shattered. New principles of wage-determination never 
really passed beyond the phase of agitation to formal joint- 
discussion. This deplorable condition of affairs was 
brought about by extremists in the forces of both capital 
and labor.