The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-01-01
..THE OFFICIAL POLITICAL ECONOMY
OF INDIANA

Under the caption 'The Official Polit-
ton, president of the School of Social
Economics in New York. and editor of
the Social Economist, exposes the fall
lacies of Professor Commonss latest
work, 1.-THE Distribution of Wealth" in
that periodical. Mr.. Gunton uses the
phrase 1.-THE Official Political Economy
of Indiana because Professor Commons
is the teacher of economic and social
sciences in the State University. In his
criticism of "The Official Political Econ
omy of Indiana" Mr.. Gunton briefly
summarizes the theories of political
economists from Aristotle to the present
time, and, by cutting straight line
through "the tangled jungle of these
conflicting theories. arrives at certain
principles, among which are a. that the
concentration OF wealth in one hand is
always productive of wealth in social
use and never enjoyable wealth capa-
BILE Of being consumed for satisfying
want of the Individual; CD that the
function of productive wealth is always
to diffuse and make more abundant
equality and abundance in the use of
enjoyable wealth are proportionate to
the concentration in ownership of pro-
ductive wealth so far as such owner
ship is really economic to society. and
so far as it is wasteful it ceases and
the wealth is dispersed; a. that this
increased equality in the diffusion and
the abundance in supply of enjoyable
wealth is identical with higher wages,
high standard of life and high values
to land where population accumulates
and low prices of commodities, measured
by effort spent in production.
Mr.. CLINTON says that these facts and
principles of social economics do not
find a Judgement in the mind of Pro-
fessor Commons, but he evolves theory
which ignores these facts and regards
the accumulation of wealth in one hand
or in CORPORATIONS as an evil. 1t is this
theory which Mr.. Gunton dissects. In
one chapter of his book Professor Com
mons assumes as a fact that "agri-
cultural products rise while manufacture
ing products fall and he attributes it
to 1.-The exaggerated system of private
property.in land AS a matter of fact
agricultural products have not risen in
recent years. while the products of the
factory have fallen. Mr.. Gunton. how
ever, criticises the assumption as if it
were fact. and makes the claim that
the abolition of private property would
make competition free very ridiculous.
In the same manner he shows the alb
Surdity of Professor Commons'S claim
that 1.-The only raison d'etre of labor
union is to keep up wages by restricting
the numbers of men employed" las
we'll say that the only reason an army
has for existence is to restrict enlist
ments," retorts Mr.. Gunton: "a union
is like an army because both have a
battle to fight" OF the claim of Pro-
fessor Commons that he has cut a
straight line through the tangled jun
gle' of economic theories Mr. Gunton
says:
In fact it was opened at least two thou
sand years ago by Plato, and has been
trodden by long line of dreamers not
ending with Prudhon. They have steadily
taught that private property should be
structed by confiscation. Such economists
are in the condition of arithmeticians who
have not found the decimal system The
labyrinth has no clew. TO be an official DO
itical economist of the State of Indiana
without the power TO give an economic
is to be in command of ocean steamer
without chart or compass.