Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-03-27
much reading. The successive mental
steps are probably of no interest to any one

my mind, as they must have presented
themselves to the mind of every thoughtful
man who has watched the development o
this State, was at first disposed to accep
unquestioningly authoritative teachings
may be seen from the fact that in an article
on the Chinese Question published in thu
New York Tribune in 1869, I stated ant
argued from the accepted law of wages, IL
a manner which Mr.. John Stuart Mill
who did me the honor to write to me OF
the subject, declared could not be improved
But had even then commenced to think
and did think closely and earnestly, unit
after what was really an exhaustive mental
examination, 1 arrived clearly and definitely
at conclusions which / first stated in a
pamphlet entitled sour Land and Land
SYSTEM" published in 1871. 1t was ther
my intention to put the reasoning there
briefly stated into more elaborate and sci.
entific form. This book is the result O
that intention though the opportunity te
write it did not occur for some years.
But let me leave this matter, Of which
only speak because you attach Importance
to it, to pass to question of fact-tht
fidelity of my representations of conflict
ing opinions. In this you do me an injus,
tice which 1 am sure upon more mature
consideration you will see and will correct
I can well understand how, when hitherto
unknown writer seems to successfully over
throw theories which have been Endorsed
by long succession of the most eminent
thinkers, there should be at first an almost
irresistible tendency to suspect some one
sidedness in the statement, some trick in
the logic, for it seems incredible that men
of such power and reputation should have
left themselves open to conviction of false
reasoning and transparent fallacies. New
ertheless, the history of opinion is full of
such instances. As Mr.. Mill himself has
said, eft often happens that the universal
belief of one age of mankind, belief from
which no one was, nor without an extraor-
binary effort of genius and courage could
at that time be free, becomes to subse-
quent age so palpable an absurdity that the
only difficulty then is to imagine how such
thing could ever have appeared credible. "
And it is, I think, the most fiattering
comment upon my book, that doctrines
which 1 have controverted appear, under
the analysis, so preposterous that it seems
as if they never could have been really
current.
But in nothing have spent SO much
labor and bestowed so much care as in the
effort to state fairly and in their strongest
form the opinions which it was necessary
for me TO attack; and that l have really
done SO I think you will, upon further ex-
animation, fully concede. The question is
purely one of fact.
First, as to my statement of the law OF
wages as currently accepted. That state
ment is: "That wages are fixed by the
ratio between the number of laborers and
the amount of capital devoted to the en-
ployment of labor.
Now | do not say that there are no dis
sentients from this doctrine, but that it is
the current doctrine l think there can be
no dispute. 1t is the doctrine of all the
best known and most widely read econo-
mists-of Smith, of Nautilus, of Ricardo,
of McCulloch, of Mill, of Cairnes, of Faw-
cett, of Perry, and of host of others who
might be mentioned it is the doctrine laid
down in the textbooks most commonly
used in our schools and universities it is
the doctrine which permeates popular
thought, and which you may notice crop
ping out in all sorts of forms in newspaper
articles, in legislative debates, in sand lot
speeches and corner grocery disputes, in
the conversations of the street or of the
railroad car.
And observe, I have stated this doctrine
not in it's most Objectionable, but in its
strongest form. The weight of authority
is. doubtless, still in favor of what is
known as the "wage fund the
ory'-ef predetermined amount OF capt.
tai which at any given time can be neither
increased nor diminished. This doctrine has
of late years been disputed by Mr.. w. A.
Thornton and others. But the form of my
statement includes, as | understand them,
the views of both parties to this contro-
versy. Nor have joined issue even here,
but on a principle wider still-whethel
wages are drawn from capital.
Second, as to my statement of the NAL
thusian doctrine, you can hardly fail to
see, if you will re-read that part OF my
book, that I have not revived against
Nautilus those exploded charges and those
extravagant imputations which the oppo-
nents of that celeb rated writer assailed
him with on the first appearance of his
work, but which have long since beer
abandoned by all who have read the Essay
on Population for themselves" On the
contrary l have given Nautilus own doc
trine, in Malthus' own words, by quota
ton from the essay on Population.
And then, not being DESTROYS of winning
any cheap victories, | go on to quote What
Mill has to say on that score and state the
Malthusian doctrine in its widest, strongest
and least Objectionable form. | then pro
coed to point out the additional support
which it has received since the time o
Nautilus in the development of modern
scientific thought, and the unquestionabl'
victory which it has won over all opposi
ton. And finally, when come to make th'
issue, 1 do SO, not by quoting the words o
Nautilus, which Mill says do not put tn,
theory into its strongest form, but by quot
ing Mill himself, as follows: