The Press., 1890-11-27

nomic science, but that another science be
 added to the situation, namely the science
 of applying the principles which political
 economy discloses. No great question can
 be thoroughly settled except upon the
 foundation of we'll tried principles. The
 impulse of humanity and an interest in our
 fellow men supply the motive to apply
 principles to the labor problem, and polit-
 ical economy supplies the principles to be
 8 great question without principles to ap- ply to it is like attempting to regulate .
 train without brakes. it. rushes past sta-
 tions and stops tn the woods. But there
 is some truth, it must be admitted. in the
 assertion, often made, that the present at-
 titude of political economy is toward the
 side of the employer. The popular i'm
 pression conveyed by the economic doc
 Urine of to-day is that the employer must
 hold the field. Such was the character of
 an address delivered by Professor Sumner
 at gathering of socialists and communists in New Haven year or two ago. He told
 them that they must get capital and enter
 the ranks of capitalists or succumb. This
 means revolution or despair. But when
 Professor Sumner says the employer must
 yield, the employer replies that he will
 not yield; this is the attitude of revolt,
 the determination to resort to force.
 | Let us examine now what is the incen.
 tive to the use of force, on the part of la
 bor, in dealing with its employers. There
 seem to be two causes which foster the re-
 sort to force, but they are causes which
 encourage the leaders, not the mass.
 These two causes are theory and the de-
 sire tor 2ooaoer. The argument upon the-
 ory IS that labor precedes capital, that it
 produces capital, and therefore that it's in-
 terests should be considered before the
 interests of capital. "Labor creates wealth
 and wealth belongs to those who create it."
 as was recently said by MT. Victor Drury.
 MT. Hyndeman also emphasizes this argu.
 ment in his book England for AL"
 What answer can be made to this
 assumption !? It is true that in prim-
 tive society labor was the price of com
 modities, but in modern society there have
 been developed other influences which en-
 ter conspicuously into the production of
 wealth. The chief among these modern
 influences are the quality of labor and the
 direction of labor. The price paid for the
 not paid so much for the quantity of labor
 as for the quality of the labor. When we
 trace back the operation by which a coat
 or any other commodity was produced we
 find the operations to be all finally resolva- ble into manual labor, but we find also
 that while manual labor was the immediate instrument of production there were other agencies concerned, the importance of which are underestimated by the socialist and labor reformer. These latter are the agency of the inventor who causes i'm } provements ill the methods of production to be made, of the capitalist who saves his income and uses it to put the ideas of the inventor into operation, and of the man.
 | Nyh hn fho 1% klol lul~ . CTS. Without these three classes the great class of mere laborers would never have , made any material advancement. An army of able bodied troops may be capable of great exertion, and yet unless their move- : ments are directed by leaders of ability . and skill they may be easily overcome in 3 conflict and perhaps put completely to rout In like manner the forces of labor would f be possessed of little efficiency in the crea- l. tion of wealth if their efforts were not di. t rected by the genius of enterprise and
 good management. The great undertak- s ings of the world, such as the tunneling 0 of the Alps and the construction of the 8 Suez canal, owe more to the genius and l. mastery which directed than to the labor e which simply executed.
 j. We must then conclude that the argu- |. ment from theory, that labor is the most e important factor in the production of fine . wealth of the world to-day is not correct. s The direction of labor is of greater import. J. ance, and this conclusion follows from the r logic of experience, as we'll as from the E. teaching of economic theory.
 a The other motive for the resort to force, v desire for poaUer, is a motive which i'm 7? pels mankind more unrelentingly than any g other influence. The laboring classes seem e to have recently awakened to realization s of the enormous power which they possess e and determination to use this power for s the advancement of their aims.
 l. This determination often meets with re. e sistance on the side of employers, and the J. differences which result grow, at times f end in industrial strife, that is in strikes ol c lock-ou These contests are so disas D trous, so fraught with waste and misery, J. that ever since the laborer emerged frem n serfdom and wages have been paid, there l. has been strong desire to discover some 0 speedy and efficient method of harmoniz n ing the differences between employer and e employed, of preventing such differences d from growing into disputes, and of set {, ting disputes, if they arise, without 6 @ marshalling of forces and the shock anG F. waste of conflict.
 e It cannot be questioned that sigma U changes nave taken place within gen @ eration ill the theories and the condi J. tions involved in the treatment of labol IS differences and their settlement. Tn, e theory of the relation of employer and em 7. ployed has been remodeled, and their DO e sitions toward each other and toward tht '- state and society greatly altered. Ever }, the severity of the law, toward labor, a r. set forth in the English Statute of Labor 2. CTS, the doctrine of non restraint of trade e and the law of conspiracy, have changed n the factory acts and the employers liabil or ity acts are evidence of this. Competition a as law, too, has been shown to be i'm B. perfect, unions and combinations hay, n multiplied, and the wage fund theory ha 1- been long since refuted. It requires n, 'e argument to show that the methods o re thought and treatment which were in vogu le twenty-five years ago are of small valu le now, and he will most certainly lose hi i'd way who attempts to deal with labor diff d. culties according to the maxims of the pc 7e litical economy then prevalent. New con le ditions are present and we must candidl, v- accept the limitations and methods whicl Id they bring. And it must be noted tha i'll these changed conditions, as we'll as tn o, greater intelligence and broader grasp c s. the age, have multiplied the causes of dii ns ference and discomfort. Questions whic | L