The independent., 1903-04-09

u cat bntS OQDJCNL SllnCl 1OtA-
mence with the assertion that value is
thing, or the attribute Of thing, or
else they shirk the inquiry altogether
and begin by telling you from what
source value is derived, which, accord
ing to their turgid phraseology, is de-
mand and supply cost of production.
utility beauty, or some other fanciful
or confusing circumstance. The OBJ
ject of the inquiry is not the cause,
or the source of value, but the nature
of it. The cause may be many causes,
SO many, as to force you to the study
of every element that composes the
life and work of man and his COM
pick relations to society. What we
want to know at the outset is, what
is value; so that we may be able to
distinguish it from that which is not
value. To begin by inquiring into the
cause of it, may beg the whole ques-
ton"
1t is this very blunder, Or some
thing very like it, that Mr.. Ashby
commits. He is not content to ex-
plain what value is, but he must make
it force and correlate it with light,
heat, electricity, ETC.: and thus con-
meet it with multitude of physical
laws and relations which demand a
lifetime for their proper study and
comprehension. Il
Heat is form Of force; and when
it is a commodity, that is to say,
when it is used productivity. it has
value If value was force, the value
of heat would be the force of
force; which is absurd.
Forces are correlated. Heat can be
converted into power, light, electric
ity, ETC.; contrariwise, all these forms
of force can be converted into heat,
or into one another. Value cannot be
converted into any of them. There
fore value is not a force.
The various forms of force are in
trinsic to matter; they reside in. or
pertain to matter, irrespective of 9TH
er matter Gravitation pertains to the
earth; heat to the sun, etc., but value
pertains to no single thing. 1t is a
relation between two or more COM
modities. Hence, value is not force.
Force is a noun; value is an adjec-
tive or adverb. To classify force and
value together is to confuse the parts
of speech.
Force being intrinsic, is not af-
fected by supply. A pound of weight,
degree of heat, volt of electricity,
is none the less when another pound,
degree, or volt is added to it. The
forces of nature are illimitable; but
they are none the less forces. The
contrary is the case with value. Ev-
cry increase in the number of things
having value, at once diminishes such
value. With illimitable supply, value
would disappear altogether. In short,
the value of a thing is denoted by
what it will fetch in other things;
while the intensity of natural force
has nothing whatever to do with
other forces.
But while thus disagreeing with Mr..
Ashby's premises, I cordially assent
to his conclusion that money and
coins are widely distinct (different)
from one another, the latter being
merely the symbols of the former"
(March So
That money is not merely lot of
coins and promissory notes, without
reference to limitation, but that it is
a legal device consisting of number
of symbols, termed in this country,
dollars and cents, limited either by
law or nature, or partly by each is,
however, conclusion which cannot
be drawn from Mr.. Ashby's premises.
1t has no connection with them; it
cannot be deduced from them. Such
fruit never grew on such trees. That
coins are the symbols of money and
not money itself, never grew out of
the premises that value is "the energy
or force expended III the competitive
struggle between men, for the exclu-
sive possession of things endowed
with utility, under the operation of
laws enforcing private ownership and
exclusive possession and restraining
from violence etc. If not, then how
did Mr.. Ashby reach the conclusion
that coins were not money, but mere
ly the symbols of money.
will tell you. 1t is from Del Mars
Science Of Money" where it will be
found on page Al. In that work the
conclusion follows the premise; in
Ashby's book work the conclusion is
borrowed, while the old premise is
torn away and new and bewilder-
ing one is substituted in it's place.
-