The independent., 1903-04-09

ing his own battles, but the associate
editor, having in charge the captains
manuscript, copying and proof-reading
it, feels inclined to review Mr.. Theo-
bald's criticism somewhat.
In the first place, Independent read
ers are beginning to understand that
one can criticise the work of another
without being subject to the accusa-
ton that he is hostile The Inde-
pendent criticises the statements of
single takers, yet knows no class of
economists who are inspired by high
er ideals. It criticisas socialists, but
has no hatred toward them Or their
theories. In fact, any system of phil
osophy or political economy which
cannot stand a little criticism, lit
tie. opposition, is hardly worth con-
sidering.
Mr.. Theobald seems to have read
Capt Ashby's articles carefully enough
TO grasp the meaning, and upon this
we need not dwell at this time. sVal-
ue," he continues, lis neither a thing
nor a quality of a thing Is this
true? If so, it must depend upon
what is considered a thing"
Now, the most restricted meaning
of the word thing" as defined by
Webster, is: Whatever exists, or is
conceived to exist, as a separate en-
tity, whether animate or inanimate;
any separable or distinguishable OBJ
sect of thought" Will Mr.. Theobald
contend that value is not "distin-
guishable object Of thought" Is it
true that we cannot think about val
ue?
1t is doubtless true that value is
not the quality of thing; but, ad-
uniting it to be AN arithmetical rela-
tion," is not this relation thinkable,
hence, an object of thought, and there
fore a "thing?" -
Capt. Ashby has carefully avoided
using the word measure" in his dis
cussion of value, doubtless because
the primary definition of that word is
"a standard of dimension" and that
it implies not only a device for ex-
pressing quantity of extension in
space, but also physical appliance
to be used in the act OF measuring.
He has invariably used the words,
estimate" Appraisal" or "val,,a-
tion" instead of measure, because he
recognizes that there is no physical ap.
pliance in the case Of value as there
is in the case of space, time, gravity,
etc. In measuring these a physical
appliance is employed and a device
used to express the quantity. With
value there is simply the device, and
each valuer must Use his own judg-
ment as to the quantity of the force
of demand.
Comte's philosophy recognizes three
stages Of development: (a) the SUI
perstitious; (b) the philosophical; and
(c) the scientific. In astronomy, for
example, it was duling the first per-
iod when there was an eclipse and
afterward the king died; therefore the
eclipse killed the king. Astrology
marks the second period, when each
planet was supposed to move be-
cause of something intrinsic. Mr..
Theobald seems to be still in the
astrological stage, inasmuch as he
says "Gravitation pertains to the
e-rth; heat to the sun, ETC.
IL value Is d feldllUu UeLWeeu tWO
or more commodities" and, hence,
not force, how is that relation rec
ognized? There must be compari-
son made. What is compared? Bulk?
No. Weight? No. Color? No. What
then? Oh, just value" Then, after
all, it is a relation of a relation,
which is fully as absurd as Mr.. Theo-
bald's force of force" objection.
Capt. Ashby has never said that the
force Of demand is of the same nature
as heat, light, gravity, etc. He has
said that it is analogous to these
forces, just as Mr.. Del Mar has said
Value resembles time,
space, gravity, and the other
primordial conditions or relations
of matter"
Mr.. Theobald's grammatical criti-
cism is inaccurate. If he can find any
grammarian who classifies value as
anything else than a noun or verb
transitive, he will confer favor on
this onice by giving the name. Of
course, it is easy to see how he falls
into this amusing error. Value is not
a thing. A noun is the name of
thing. Therefore, value is not
noun.