doing his best to make me realize what it was all about, so that occasionally under the strain he would give vent to a stream of picturesque cuss words that here was not only a great pioneer and discoverer in the world of industry, but a man whose heart was aflame with missionary zeal, a'man who was an industrial revolutionist.

To doubt his zeal was impossible. If you want the proof, it lies in the fact that since his retirement from active work he had been drawing on his fortune to round up likely young men fresh from the technical schools and have them trained to install the system of which he was the father. As I have said, my heart went out to him completely. I could see now that, if he feared neither man nor devil and was domineering and imperious, he was not arrogant or arbitrary. He did not want you to bow down to him; he simply thought it behooves every man to make obeisance to superior knowledge, no matter in whom it might be lodged. For God's sake, see straight, think straight, and talk straight-that was the man's whole spirit. And his god was God the omniscient. If he was egoistic, his was the egoism of a Richard Wagner-the egoism of a man who knows when he knows, and, of stout heart and inflexible will, has had his ego enlarged and hardened by years of combat with little people who, from his advanced point of view, must appear as dunderheads and fools.

Yes, just as Wagner was a revolutionista man of the future-in the world of music, so Frederick Winslow Taylor was a revolutionist-a man of the future-in the world of industry. If he was spared the unfortunate Wagner's terrible struggle with poverty, if he was prudent and shrewd where Wagner was imprudent and reckless, he nevertheless had the same high call to sacrifice his ease and wage valiant battle against tradition. Something of the immense significance of his career came to me after I had had that second morning's talk with him. I say something, but it was enough to make me drunk-so drunk that I could not trust the trolley to take me back to my hotel, but must needs attempt to walk it off.

Reader, you see, I knew that the ethical had been taught these thousands of years. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." "Cast your bread upon the waters, and it will return to you after many days." "We are formed for co-operation, like hands and feet." "Never take advan

tage; give advantage." Thus had spoken the prophets, the poets, and the philosophers. But who was going to believe these thingsexcept on Sundays? Who was going to attempt to practice these things-except after business hours? Who, in business, was going to refuse to take advantage when everybody was doing it?

But here, now, was this man Taylor-one of the most intensely practical men that ever breathed. If he were now alive, he would be the first to confirm the fact that, when he embarked on the inquiry that was destined to lift. industrial management from the low plane of empiricism and tradition to the high plane of modern science, he did not do so as a prophet, poet, or philosopher, but simply as an engineer who steadily was accumulating wealth for his employers and a big fortune for himself through his observance of the principle that "the dollar is the final term in almost every equation which arises in the practice of engineering." Beyond all doubt, Fred Taylor recognized that the engineer is, by the nature of his profession, an economist, and that, just as the best machine is the one that does the work with the least cost, so the best type of industrial management is the one that insures for the establishment the lowest production costs consistent with the maintenance of a given standard of quality. Beyond all doubt this was his ideal. Unquestionably this was all at which he aimed. But, for Heaven's sake, what was he now doing? He was trying to bring about in the industrial world a revolution. Yes; but what kind of a revolution? Why, just as sure as you were born, it was a moral revolution. He was demanding that employers experience a change of heart like unto that of a religious conversion. He was crying out with a loud voice that his scientific system of management would not work unless it were animated by the spirit of brotherly love. In sum, he was trying to beat it into men's thick, bony heads that the way to make more money was to obey what the prophets, poets, and philosophers have been teaching us for, lo, these many years!

And here let me say that my subsequent visits to the industrial establishments where his system of management had been installed proved to me conclusively that what he said about the ethical nature of his system was strictly true. Indeed, about the first impression likely to be made upon any outsider by the Taylor system is that of a system such as

might very well have been designed by men whose primary object was to inculcate the principle of brotherly love.

"I venture to believe," said Dr. Alexander C. Humphreys, President of the Stevens Institute of Technology, after hearing H. F. Gantt, one of Mr. Taylor's associates, read a paper on the subject of scientific management before the American Society of Mechanical Engineers- I venture to believe that if this system were generally introduced through the United States, the resulting moral uplift would attract more attention than the increase in dividend-earning capacity." And Professor William Kent said at the same meeting: "The hopeful thing about this paper is that it is in harmony with humanitarian ideas."

Naturally, I cannot here go into the technical details of this system. I can but point out that it is based and depends for its smooth working on at least two great ethical principles: (1) The strong must serve the weak; (2) Give in order to get. And let it be made plain also that no one who has looked into its workings can doubt for a minute that Mr. Taylor's scientifically designed managerial mechanism is accomplishing its primary object of reducing production costs. As a matter of fact, what makes it scientific is not its ethical but its economic success. Nevertheless, the important fact for us is that we here see the economic and the ethical going hand in hand, and apparently not in any accidental relation, but with the ethical existing in relation to the economic as a necessary concomitant.

What does this signify? It is right here, I think, that we have the fundamental significance of Mr. Taylor's whole career, the deep significance of the fact that, beginning as a practitioner of economics, he was led to become a powerful preacher of ethics.

Cannot love be as well as hate?" asks Ralph Waldo Emerson. "Would not love answer the same end, or even a better? Cannot peace be as well as war?" And he goes on to cite the objections of the " practical" men; namely, that peace might very well be if the world were all a church, if all the men were the best men, if all would agree to accept this rule. And much the same answer has been commonly made to those of us who have fondly dreamed that industrial peace could be as well as industrial war; that in business the love which gives advantage might answer even a better end than

the hate which takes advantage. Yes, we advocates of industrial peace also have been told that we mistake the times; that we overestimate the virtue of men; that if all would agree to accept the rule, it might work, but for one to attempt it alone were absurd.

Not only have we been told this-we still continue to be told it. And surely here is a strange situation: These "practical" men admit the excellence of our aim, but deny its expediency. All admit it ought to be, but they deny it can be. Some say it cannot now be and some say it never can be. Some say that employers must go on trying to take advantage of employees until kingdom come, and that employees must go on organizing to fight back. It is true that it ought not to be, but it must be. We all of us know a better way, but that way to us is closed. God may be in his heaven all right, but the devil is in our world; and so in this world we must go on behaving like the devil and fighting like the devil. Yes, this is what the talk of these practical" men comes right down to; they say, in effect, that nature, instead of being a harmonious unity, is a dissonant dualitythat all things are in a deuce of a mess, out of which we may get some time, but possibly

66

never.

Does not the career of Frederick W. Taylor, the man who saw straight and thought straight, show up these "practical" men for just what they are? Does it not signifynay, demonstrate-that the really practical men are not those commonly so called, but the prophets, the poets, and the philosophers -all those who, like Emerson, have "put trust in ideas and not in circumstances," and have had the faith to declare that, despite all indications to the contrary," what is the best must be the true; and what is true-that is, what is at bottom fit and agreeable to the constitution of man-must at last prevail over all obstacles and all opposition"?

That Mr. Taylor was forced to build an ethical system of management when he started out to build a scientific one I think will readily appear when we come to look into it.

That is the best mechanical device which does the work at the lowest cost. Yes, but in order to attain the lowest cost it must be able to stand up under all the stress and strain to which it is ever likely to be subject; which is to say that the engineer who designs a mechanical device, whether it be a bridge or the locomotive that passes over the bridge, must aim at permanent and enduring results.

How are such results obtained? There is only one way: The engineer cannot design willfully, capriciously, or idiosyncratically. He cannot use this material or that material simply because it may be cheaper or look prettier than some other material. He cannot say to heat, "I wish you would act this way," and he cannot say to gravity, "I wish would act that way." you No; he must humbly submit himself to law. He must observe the natural order of things, and design in harmony with this order. He must select in accordance with right relations. As we say, he must plan justly and build honestly. All this he must do, if he would do his duty as an economist.

Is it not self-evident that the managerial engineer no less than the mechanical engineer must aim at permanent and enduring results? If a managerial mechanism were likely to break down under the stress and strain of every-day operation, how could you say that it, any more than any other kind of a mechanism, was designed to work with the least cost? Surely, then, the managerial engineer is no more free than is the mechanical engineer to design willfully, capriciously, or idiosyncratically. As a matter of fact, when we once understand that order is but the placing of things in right (¿. e., natural) relations of co-existence or sequence, we shall readily see, what we all must intuitively feel, that orderliness is indispensable if we would give permanence to anything.

But, it may be said, the mechanical engineer has to deal only with inanimate things, while the managerial engineer must deal with human beings. What then? Shall it be said that, while there is a natural order governing the relations of inanimate things, there is no natural order governing the relations of human beings? Why, to say such a thing would be the same as saying that when we step from the inanimate plane up to the human plane we leave a region of law and enter a region of anarchy !

No; Mr. Taylor found that there were right relations among human beings as among inanimate things, and, being an economist, he, willy-nilly, had to build in harmony with this natural order. And this, you see, is but to say that he had to build in accordance with what is just and honest in human relations, with what is right in human character and conduct-in a word, with the ethical.

Said Mr. Gantt in the paper he read before the American Society of Mechanical

Engineers: "A system of management may be defined as a means of causing men to cooperate with each other for a common end. If this co-operation is maintained by force, the system is in a state of unstable equilibrium, and will go to pieces if the strong hand is removed. Co-operation in which the bond is mutual interest in the success of work done by intelligent and honest methods produces a state of equilibrium which is stable and needs no outside support."

Now, what clearly appears from this is that, while in dealing with human beings you can be ethical without being practical, you cannot at the last analysis be practical without being ethical. Certainly we here have seen that you cannot be truly economical without being ethical; and if the truly economical is not the practical, what is it? Here, in fact, is the meaning of that oftquoted and much misunderstood command of Emerson's, "Hitch your wagon to a star." It was not Emerson's idea at all that we should hitch up with a star so that when we have said good-by to this workaday world we may be carried up to heaven. He saw, did this shrewdest of Yankees, that hitching up with a star is right here and now the most practical thing to do—is the way to have our worldly wagon carried along with the least effort on our part. Take the context of his saying, and you will realize that this is so.:

"Now that is the wisdom of a man, in every instance of his labor, to hitch his wagon to a star and see his chore done by the gods themselves. That is the way we are strong, by borrowing the might of the elements."

Undoubtedly what Emerson meant was that nature is at bottom sound, whole, moral, ethical-hence the symbol of the star-and that when we work with nature all her forces help to carry us along, while when we work against nature we have to resort to an uneconomical expenditure of force, uneconomical both because it is unnecessary and because it cannot be sustained.

Of course it may be said that this has been sensed by all clear thinkers for many years. Says President Hadley, of Yale, in his work "Economics :"

on

"No economist of reputation at the present day would attempt to ignore the ethical aspects of an institution, as might have been done fifty years ago. Instead of asserting the complete independence of economics and ethics, the modern economist, whether individualist or socialist, would insist on the close

connection between the two sciences. He would say that nothing could be economically beneficial which was ethically bad, because such economic benefit could be only transitory."

Yes, it may be true that clear thinkers always have associated true economy with the stable and the permanent, and for a long time have agreed that nothing can be stable or permanent that is out of harmony with the natural order, which among human beings is the ethical. Even so, it seems to me it must be conceded that it is a tremendous thing to have had, here in the United States of America, the moral soundness of nature and the . practicality of the ethical demonstrated in dollars and cents. And that is just what Frederick W. Taylor, of Philadelphia, did for us. When, for example, his ethical system of management was introduced at the Watertown Arsenal, the labor cost of making certain molds for the pommel of a pack-saddle was reduced from $1.17 each to 54 cents. And whereas, again, the labor cost of building a 6-inch disappearing gun-carriage had been $10,229, it was reduced to $6,950. Taken from an official Government report, these figures are eloquent.

It has been here asked if the career of Frederick W. Taylor has not shown up those so-called practical people for just what they

Surely here is the proof that what they think is their practicality is really their ignorance, their myopia, their cowardice, their greed. They are people who can see nothing but immediate results. They cannot wait for God's fruit to ripen. Even at the

best, they are essentially of the get-rich-quick type, demanding, as they do, immediate results at almost any cost. They do not see that if their methods often bring them a measure of prosperity, it simply is because there could be no play for morality with punishment immediately overtaking offense. They forget that, while "we can drive a stone upward for a moment into the air, it is yet true that all stones will forever fall." They overlook the fact that no one yet has derived any real or lasting profit from that which is obtained at a fellow human being's expense. Long have we suspected all this; but now we know it.

Let it always be kept in mind that Mr. Taylor's work was not confined to building up that system of his which as it became scientifically economic had to become scientifically ethical. After he got it built experi

ence taught him that it could not be depended upon to work—that is, to go on making more money than any other system-unless it were animated by the spirit of brotherly love. And he has shown us just why this must be. He has shown us that, if morality can be coined, it must be real morality-that is, the giving must not be done simply for the sake of the getting, but mainly because it is the right thing to do, the thing that gives us pleasure to do, seeing that our own good is inseparably bound up with the good of all.

Cannot love be as well as hate? Would not love answer the same end, or even a better? Cannot peace be as well as war?

Reader, the more thoroughly you look into it, the more you will see that the career of Frederick W. Taylor-love and peace be with his soul !-fully demonstrates to us that these things can be, not only in some dim and distant future, not only in some remote heaven, but right here and now. He was

no prophet, he was no poet; he was simply a man of science, a straight-seeing, straightthinking, straight-talking, and straight-acting engineer. Could anything be more significant? Does it not signify that to renovate society on the principles of right and justice we do not need any revolutionary change in government, but simply the moral revolution. which must inevitably go with the knowledge of what is really practical and the substitution of enlightened self-interest for the prevailing stupid type?

It is true that here is a difficulty. If Mr. Taylor had shown that what we need in order to attain to the highest practicality is the vision of the fact that our own good is inseparably bound up, with the good of all men, the question arises, can this vision come unless we love our fellow-men to begin with? In truth, does not his whole message come down to just this: that love is indispensable to sight; that if God is all-seeing, it is because God is love?

And if this is so, where does it put me in connection with Mr. Taylor himself? Here I have represented him to have been simply a man of science. Surely my two talks with him must have given me only a superficial knowledge of the man, or I have been sacrificing truth to score the rhetorical point that all prophets feel, while men of science can see. Perhaps because of his New England, not to speak of his Quaker, ancestry, Mr. Taylor was something of a prophet also. Perhaps there was hidden in him much of the spirit of his

I cannot deny that this my present suspicion receives support from the fact that since I started to write this article I have had sent me a Philadelphia newspaper in which I read that at Mr. Taylor's funeral one of his oldest associates testified that "he [Mr. Taylor] had a wonderful capacity for friendliness, a capacity that could stretch across seven seas, last a lifetime, and reach the lowest man in the ranks. And I read in this newspaper also that sayings frequently on Mr. Taylor's lips were: "I can no longer afford to work for money, ""All our inventions are made to produce human happiness," "In all your relations do to the other fellow as you would have him do to you."

Well, waiving the question as to which comes first, the sight or the love, I think we can take our stand on the broad principle that immorality is always crookedness, and that science is science only as it sees straight; so that it must inevitably follow that along with such an impetus as has been given to the scientific spirit in the world of industry by Frederick W. Taylor there must occur a moral revolution. And that this revolution has at least begun is, I think, manifest to every one who is informed as to what leading business men throughout the country are thinking about, and what so many of them are planning to do and actually are doing. And we have reason to believe also that it is not only in connection with labor that scientific management is tending to bring about a moral revo

lution. Producing exact knowledge in every department of industry, scientific management must needs be a foe to all loose methods, including not only downright lying and cheating, but the misrepresentation that comes from exaggeration.

Years ago Emerson wrote: "I have just been conversing with one man to whom no weight of adverse experience will make it for a moment appear impossible that thousands of human beings might share and obey each with the other the grandest and truest sentiments, as well as a knot of friends or a pair of lovers." I think that, thanks chiefly to Frederick W. Taylor, of Philadelphia, this is a notion that from now on will be entertained by a steadily increasing number. Already world-wide, the influence of Frederick W. Taylor's life and work must go marching on to make more and more see that in industry love can be as well as hate, that peace can be as well as war.

66

Revolutions," says Emerson, go not backward. The star once risen, though only one man in the hemisphere has yet seen its upper limb in the horizon, will mount and mount, until it becomes visible to other men, to multitudes, and climbs the zenith of all eyes. And so it is not a great matter how long men refuse to believe the advent of peace: war is on its last legs; and a universal peace is as sure as is the prevalence of civilization over barbarism, of liberal government over feudal forms. The question for us is only, How soon ?”

T

HE woman capitalist as a factor in industry is a modern phenomenon. Before the twentieth century almost no woman of property understood the details of its administration, far less the economics of an industry. Her ultimate conception of responsibility for wealth lay in "welfare work" among her employees. Any factory or mill owner who looked to the sanitation, safety, and education of her workers straightway assumed kinship with Ben Adhem, the blessed, and automatically donned the halo of

those who loved their fellow-men. More than this none dreamed of, until a happy, sane, thoroughgoing woman of the world, weary of piffling palliatives known as philanthropy, turned her extremely incisive mind to a solution of her own problem of personal property.

The Dennison Manufacturing Company, of South Framingham, Massachusetts, is an industry which manufactures, among other things, the waterproof tags for all the bales, boxes, and bundles of this country. The