THE EVOLUTION OF CONSCIENCE 375
Hence it is that the authority of conscience' is much stronger nowadays in the conduct between one and another individual, than between one individual and a group of individuals in the form of a corporation. It astonishes us to discover how neces- sary it is that street-car companies should keep such a check upon their employees who collect the fares. Not one man in ten thousand of those persons would perhaps steal from another or take money from any individual human creature. Yet now and then such men have to be discharged because they have appro- priated to themselves a part of the proceeds which should nor- mally go into the treasury of the company.
It means, in substance, that a public sentiment has not yet established itself with regard to the application of conscience on the part of the individual in his conduct toward an impersonal corporation ; because such corporations are comparatively new in the social structure. It may take half a century or a whole century before there has been enough sentiment accumulating and being transmitted by inheritance in the social medium, to establish a sensitive conscience in this new direction.
It is the same with many an individual who would have no scruple about not paying his street-car fare if the conductor passes him by and fails to collect it. Yet the same person might perhaps be haunted with positive remorse if he had bought something of his grocer and failed to pay for it because the grocer forgot to charge it on the bill.
What I am saying in regard to the application of conscience to impersonal corporations is even more striking in regard to the application of conscience to our conduct in relation to the government the city, or state, or nation to which we belong. At first one is appalled by the lack of scruple on the part of the citizens in regard to the duty of paying taxes. But we should not forget that a very rapid change has taken place in the social structure on this score. Not many years ago taxes closely resembled what we should consider actual theft on the part of the monarch in relation to the people. In regard to what they had to pay, the people had nothing to say on the matter. Under those circumstances it was perfectly natural that there should
