The saving in money, time, and effort due to the establishment of these standards is impossible to estimate but it is large. Their influence, however, reaches far beyond this, as has been pointed out by Mr. Karl W. Zimmerschied, vice-president of the General Motors Corporation, who was chairman of the "standards committee" in 1915. "The most potent single factor in the brilliant rise of the mechanical industry of America" he said, "is the almost universal adoption of the principles of interchangeable manufacture. There are underlying economic reasons for the opportunities which have arisen continually before us, but no nation with so few skilled mechanics as ours would ever have taken advantage of these opportunities so adequately without possessing the genius to conceive the idea of assembling things from parts wholly produced by automatic machinery. Nor could even such genius have brought success had the final conception failed to include the masterly yet simple provision that all such automatically produced parts should be so alike as to be perfectly interchangeable from one assembly to another.

"Given this system in its present stage of development," Mr. Zimmerschied continued, 'problems of vast quantity production at remarkably low costs, of easy and rapid assembling, and of inexpensive maintenance become fascinating play. The seeming miracles of such intricate though widespread products as the sewing machine, the harvester, the talking machine, the dollar watch, and the automobile, become but the obvious fruits of a natural evolution."

ANO

IS STANDARDIZATION A GOOD THING? NOTHER view of this attractive picture of quantity production made possible by standardization was touched upon by Herbert Hoover in one of his speeches before he became Secretary of Commerce. "We must take account," Mr. Hoover said, "of the tendencies of our present repetitive industries to eliminate the creative instinct in their workers, to narrow their field of craftsmanship, to discard entirely the contribution to industry that could be had from their minds as well as from their hands. Indeed, if we are to secure the development of our people, we cannot permit the

dulling of these sensibilities. Indeed, we cannot accomplish increased production without their stimulation. The conges

tion of population is producing subnormal conditions of life. The vast repetitive operations are dulling the human mind.”

Are we sacrificing the individual on the altar of efficiency and large-scale production? Have we gone wrong in gearing up our production machinery to the highest pitch in the world, utilizing to the fullest extent inventive engineering brains and reducing to a mere automaton the common laborer? Would we be better off in the long run with fewer sewing machines, fewer harvesters, fewer automobiles, at higher prices, provided the workmen had been more than cogs in the machinery that produced them? The workmen, who have enjoyed higher wages due to this quantity production, would answer this question for themselves in the negative. With them the "dulling of the human mind" has not been noticed, and at any rate it is more than overbalanced by the increased wage they have received, which has meant better living conditions. And who will say that this country and the world will not continue to be better off for more sewing machines, more harvesters, and more automobiles? And if for lack of our ability to produce war materials in great quantity the war had been lost, would not the world be much worse off?

Quantity production most certainly is a national asset. What is needed is some way to stop the congestion due to it and the "dulling of the human mind" and yet keep quantity production. Henry Ford's plan of producing his cars and tractors in plants distributed throughout the country, where he says the employees can own farms which they can work by machinery in one or two days a week and devote the rest of the time to producing Ford cars and tractors, may offer a solution of this problem. Ford is the one who has carried quantity production to its highest degree, so that some people say his plant operates on the 'chain gang system." He may be the one to overcome the evils of this system. He is a dreamer, but his biggest dream of quantity production at low cost has come true, and he is a farmer's son and knows something of the operation of a farm.

VOLUME XLII

NUMBER 3

W

HEN the new Administration took up its duties in March, it emphasized its interest in domestic affairs in contrast to the particular attention which the previous Administration gave to our foreign relations. The temper of the public at the same time was impatient with the problems of Europe and Asia, chiefly because these matters seemed to be so insoluble. The line of least resistance seemed to be to turn our attention to our own difficulties, and, as in times past, devote our energies to putting our own house in order. This was a more familiar and congenial task.

But after four months the pendulum has swung back again. Almost every effort to attack our domestic problems led to the consideration of our foreign relations. There is no large governmental economy possible unless there is a feasible plan for a reduction in war expenditures. There is no complete invigoration of our manufacturing and farming without foreign markets. There is no saving in our merchant marine loss without foreign trade. We cannot settle our treasury policy without some arrangement for the refunding of our foreign debt. Even the tariff does not thrill the Republican breast with its ancient conviction, for, unless our imports regain their accustomed volume, the tariff will not produce the needed revenue.

We are again perforce chiefly interested in our foreign relations. The accent of the Wilson Administration was more strongly upon the political aspect of our foreign relations.

The accent of this Administration is stronger upon the economic side of our foreign relations, but in the long run, the difference in this distinction tends to fade into relative insignificance.

The outlines of our foreign policy have become fairly clear:

1. A closer coöperation than heretofore with Great Britain as the nation in the modern industrial world whose problems most nearly coincide with our own.

2. A participation in all settlements in Europe and Asia, in which our participation in the war gives us a right and which affect our economic interests.

3. A general policy of asking all countries to accord to Americans and American trade rights and privileges equal to those granted to any other foreigners.

This sounds so eminently fair that it could hardly produce any difficulty. It is, however, not quite as simple as it sounds. If Belgium, for instance, should grant French citizens a special privilege in return for special privileges granted Belgians by France, the United States, under our equal treatment policy, would demand for Americans the privileges granted Belgians in France and likewise those granted the French in Belgium, although it would grant no privileges to either in return.

The process of bringing the rest of the world into step with us will be an interesting one, and, whether we succeed entirely or not, the contact with the other countries' aims and methods will bring about an understanding based upon contact which we have not before had.