Waterbury evening Democrat., 1908-09-10

another machine the same thing hap pens. In other words there is ac. emulation of capital as well as of labor. And yet the socialist tells us that all the instruments of produo- ton and the fruits thereof belong to the laboring class.
 The question Is to whom does the belong? Is it the property of the machinist who made it? He can hardly lay claim to all of It since be had nothing to do with the metal of which the machine is made. or the other labor expended before the material came Into his hands To be formed into machine. It will, be seen that, If labor. Is the sole standard, a long, tedious and well nigh impossible series of calculations must be gone before the profits will come to the numerous laborers who were connected directly or indirectly with the making of that machine. Does the machine belong to the manufac- turer? As he paid for the metal and all the other material necessary Tor its production besides paying the skilled machinist to make, the ma chine is certainly his while he keeps 1t In his possession. But II he sells 1t to the man who Is thrifty enough to lay by sufficient to buy 1t, 1t does seem to me only the dictate of nat ural justice that he whose capital, as the result of the abstinence or consumption. and as a result or a surplus of his labor product to be invested in a profit bearing ma chine. should be entitled to the ma chine and the profits minus, or course, what he would have to pay some one besides himself for running the machine. ..
 Again 1t would seem to me that 1T the workman Is to profit by the in- struments of production as aoun- dantly as the socialist desires, he ought to assume fair proportion of the risks. If the manufacturer who built the shop and bought the ma chine and the various materials thai are made into shoes and clothes and other commodities meets with re- verses that threaten the loss or these and the case is not so rare, the workmen should club together ana save them. According to the social ist the workman has the right to the instruments of production and m saving them he would only be de- lending his own rights. wonder how many workmen have ever done so. or would be willing to do so.
 The committee gets in whack at the Standard Oil and Carnegie. Well. here We can shake hands. l have about as little use for Carnegie and the Standard oil as has any of the committee. But are all capitalists to be classed with the few that have indeed wrung tears and sweat and blood from the workman? The committee cites these and leaves the impression that, they are the rule Would the committee place Scovllls. the Waterbury Manufacturing Co, the Chase Rolling mill, the American Brass Co and other concerns Of that kind in Waterbury on the same scale with Carnegie and the Standard oil? hardly think that the workmen oi Waterbury will uphold them in any such contention. And yet in their general principles there is no dis tinction. The committee, too, makes much of the poverty and misery ex- isting. That they exist is of course simply a question of observation; that some capitalists are In measure to blame do not deny. But to say that the capitalist is respons- ible for all of it is not in harmony with facts A goodly proportion comes from the unthrifty and in temperate habits of men who could be well o6 if they choose.
 Since writing the above have comei across my authority for the amount that labor receives from the joint earnings of capital and labor. The authority in F O.. Willie who in The Laborer and Capitalist" (p 201) says that capital received 6 per cent and labor 94 per cent of the joint earnings. How competent an authority Willie is I am not pre- pared to say since I have had little or no acquaintance with his writings.
 Tn its first article the committee did little juggling with figures. It was on the average basis in which I do not take too much stock. But as the committee used it as legitimate argument l presume it will grant me the same privilege. It is taken from the census of 1900 as was the committees. The gross value of manufactured and mechanical pro- ducts was $13,014,2S7,49S. The number of wage--workers is put 5,136,S02, the per capita produc- ton $2,451 or about what the com mittee said, the per capita wage $437.50. If these were the net products or earnings there might be a valid argument in them. But the figures represent the gross value. Now the gross value of the products were the result of constant duplica-, tion, the finished product of one factory becoming material for pro- in another factory. From the gross value of $13,O14,2S7.4sS must be deducted $7,34S,144,755, the cost according to the census of only partly manufactured goods and raw material. This leaves net profit of $5,666,142,743. Dividing this by the total number of hands employed and We find s1,065 as the net product per capita. From this again must be taken the cost of freight, fuel and superintendence which brings the per capita pro- duction to about $929 instead of the gross $2,451. The total net profit of the manufacturers was $1,909,4S5,- 604 or less than 15 per cent of the entire gross product. And this does not include the cost of selling goods. bad debts, internal revenue, interest on borrowed money, etc. If the