So many factors co-operated in bringing about the business evils under consideration that the quality of corruption cannot always be ascribed to them directly. Under a policy of _laisser faire_, of unlimited competition, of public indifference and apathy, it is not easy to fix moral responsibility. Even the twentieth mean man at any given time may be only a little meaner than several of his nineteen competitors. His offences are dictated by self-interest, of course, but they are offences against a vague set of business customs or moral principles. Public interest suffers, it is true, but the public is apathetic; it has not laid down definite norms of business conduct. On the part of the offender there is often lacking that conscious and purposeful subordination of public to private interest which constitutes full fledged corruption. Whatever degree of extenuation is afforded by these considerations vanishes, however, when definite regulation is undertaken by the state. Now that we are fairly launched upon an era of legislative and administrative control, business offences of the kind under consideration are frankly corrupt. Public apathy has vanished, the interest of the public has been sharply defined, and he who in contravention of these norms places his private gain above the general welfare does so with full intent, and cannot evade or shift the accusation of corruption. A further consequence of the effort to regulate business practice by law is not only intrinsically important but also serves as the great connecting link between primarily economic and political corruption proper. As soon as regulation is undertaken by the state a motive is supplied to the still unterrified twentieth mean man to break the law or to bribe its executors. In either case, by the way, the profits are directly conditioned by the thoroughness with which his competitors are restrained from following his own malpractices. The scales employed by tariff officials may be tampered with in the interests of large importers whose profits are thereby enormously increased. Or inspectors may be bribed to pass infected carcasses, to approve impure milk, to permit get-rich-quick concerns to use the mails, to wink at lead weighted life preservers, to ignore the fact that the exits of a theatre are entirely inadequate. With cases where state regulation supplied the motive for the direct commission of fraud we are not directly concerned here, but in all the cases where the collusion of inspectors is involved we have to note that government regulation of business has made easy the transmutation of what before was merely corrupt and morally offensive into direct bribery. And from the point of view of a venal official or political machine the extension of state control means the widening of the opportunities for levying tribute. Thus a form of corruption which began among, and for a time was limited to, business relations becomes under regulation a menace to political integrity.