The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1890-04-08
A Reviewer Reviewed.

Editor Call: L note with interest the
Standards editorial review of Professor
Huxley's article, Capital, the Mother Of
Labor" in its issue of March 18th. Able
as are some of the arguments with which il
endeayors to explain away the apparent
misapprehensions under which the sci
enlist is laboriDg, l think it has fallen into
the selfsame fault of "quibbling over
words" The probability that Professor
Huxley instanced regarding the possible
impenetrability of any Of the rock in the
line of the great st. Gothard Tunnel was
merely used as an Illustration of the fact
that in any such case the Value of the ex-
pended labor rests entirely on the ultimate
completion Of the project, in contradiction
to Mr.. Georges idea expressed in Progress
and Poverty" but the Standard totally
ignored or overlooked the question at issue,
and goes on to cite other supposititious in
stances in which the explanation comes
more easy to itself.
Ii Professor Huxley had taken into ac-
count the present case of the Panama Ship
Canal and asked whether or not its value as
a product OF labor depends on the final
completion, l think he would have pre-
sented much clearer case. But with the
Professor. L fail to see how it can be pos
slble That there has not been any advance
of capita" in the event that the canal re-
mains in its present unfinished condition.
For. even were it fact that it commands
an exchangeable or salable value. and this
l think. is Mr.. Georges idea Of where the
value rests, it is only possessed of such in
the recognition OF the purchasing party
that its ultimate completion is within the
bounds of possibility.
Outside of this generally understood
probability it would be hard to conceive
any value attached to All unfinished product
of any kind, where it is destined to remain
in state of unftness for use or inadapt-
ability TO the end for which it was
designed.
Whilst on this subject there is another
point TO which L would beg the liberty of
making reference. In progress and
Poverty" there IS a chapter devoted to
Capital and Labor" wherein MIR. George
draws an illustration of the gold-miner who
pays to his hired laborer a regular stipu-
lated sum out of the very identical dust"
which the efforts of said laborer procured.
The author uses this as q positive demon
station that the wages of labor are inyari-
ably paid out of the value of its own pro-
ducuon. In all such instances Mr.. George
evidently takes II for granted that labor is
never expended and recompensed other
than on works which prove remunerative
and productive. Such an idea is fallacious
There is such thing as mining at loss,
and In all like events 1t is hard to under
stand how the regular fixed wages of the
hired laborer are paid other than out Of and
at a loss to capital.
To serve our present purpose it is suf-
ficent that our idea Of the term capital be
whatsoever it may if representing the
power to outlay itself in the employment of
labor and not understood as being the
direct result Of recently applied labor.
which is the value" out of which Henry
George says all labor pays itself. For ex-
ample of the one-sideduess of this theory
take the following superstition, which in
substance is often common occurrence.
Ii 1 sink shaft in a locality where the
Indications of q profitable outcome are good,
l must necessarily eXpend capital on the
required labor, in the way of paying regu-
lar fixed wages in exchange for work. This
1 pay wi&er the mine "pans out" or not.
Now, suppose if at the end Of several weeks
or months, as the case may be, having
reached certain strata and indications in
the rock formation, beyond which my
knowledge OF scientific mining tells me that
il is useless 10 seek the gold bearing quartz,
and then ludiciously quit operations,
what have these wages III the meantime
been regularly paid out of? Surely not out
of any value that this labor has created. as
Mr. George says. If so, what has become
of my original capital? A mere hole in the
ground is utterly worthless, however much
may have had ideas to the contrary at the
tfne Of its progression. The whole theory
IN this instance seems to dissolve itself into
the absurdlty that labor pays itself out of
value which it was impossible for it to
create. O. r. 8