In other words, it takes on the form of political corruption as well, and must, therefore, become the subject of discussion in that connection. However disheartening in other ways, a consideration of the forms of business corruption yields the comforting reflection that all the major forms of evil in this field are clearly recognised and severely criticised. One must guard oneself against too cheerful optimism in the premises, however. Reform forces armed _cap-a-pie_ do not spring like unheralded knight errants of old into every breach at which social integrity is being assailed. Instead they can be developed only by persistent individual and associated effort and sacrifice. Moreover the problem of corruption, as we have seen, is a persistent one, the forms of which are ever changing and ever requiring new ingenuity and resourcefulness in the methods of social sanitation. Back of reform effort, also, there remains much that the individual can affect simply by clearer habits of moral reflection and action even in the small affairs of life. Public sentiment is built of such individual fragments. Low opinion, low action in everyday affairs become a part of the psychological atmosphere befogged by which the outlines even of the larger evils of the present régime grow indistinct. Professor Ross has performed a valuable service by exposing the fallacy that “sinners should be chastised only by their betters.”[53] Social life, indeed, would be inconceivable if the judgment of disinterested parties were not superior to that of parties in interest. This is true even if the former are themselves far from moral perfection. But it is further true that the judgment of the disinterested will be more worthy and helpful if in the conduct of their own affairs the disinterested have habituated themselves to scrupulous honesty of thought and action. Till this is more generally the case social ostracism, public contempt, and loathing of the corruptionist, regardless of his looted wealth, will not prove such effective measures of restraint as one might hope. “The simplest reform,” said Mr. James B. Dill, “the hardest, but it must be the first, is to make up our minds not to do those things which the other man may be doing, but which we know to be wrong.”[54] Of course the universal acceptance of such higher individual standards would solve not only the problems of corruption but all our other social and moral difficulties. We may not hope for the early arrival of the millennium in this way, but neither may we hope for any large movement toward better conditions without improvement of personal character. Under our present circumstances much may be accomplished by institutional reform, by legislation and the application of the power of the state, although none of these is possible without the application of the good will, the clearer intelligence and honesty of individuals. If not the first or only reform, then, still it is clear