SOCIAL SUSTENANCE. 735 



one species/or another by direct supernatural creative act. Both admit 

 the gradual development of the organic kingdom as a whole through 

 stages similar to those of embryonic development ; but the one regards 

 the whole process as natural, and therefore strictly comparable to em- 

 bryonic development, the other as requiring frequent special interfer- 

 ence of creative energy, and therefore comparable rather to the devel- 

 opment of a building under the hand and according to the preconceived 

 plan of an architect a plan, in this case, conceived in eternity and 

 carried out consistently through infinite time. It is seen that the essen- 

 tial point of difference is this : The one asserts the variability of species 

 (if conditions favor, and time enough is given) without limit ; the other 

 asserts the permanency of specific forms, or their variability only within 

 narrow limits. The one asserts the origin of species by " descent with 

 modifications " ; the other, the origin of species by " special act of 

 creation." The one asserts the law of continuity (i. e., that each stage 

 is the natural outcome of the immediately preceding stage) in this, as 

 in every other department of Nature ; the other asserts that the law of 

 continuity (i. e., of cause and effect) does not hold in this department ; 

 that the links of the chain of changes are discontinuous, the connection 

 between them being intellectual, not physical. 



So much for sharp contrasting characterization of the two views, 

 necessary for clear understanding of much that is to follow. 



-*- 



SOCIAL SUSTENANCE. 



By HENEY J. PHILPOTT. 

 IV. ALLOTMENT OF SPECIALTIES. 



THUS far we have left untouched, as nearly as possible, one vital 

 question relating to specialties namely : How shall they be 

 allotted ? What task shall each of us take, and to whom shall we 

 leave this, that, and the other task which, if we do confine ourselves 

 to one, we must leave to others ? We are not concerned about per- 

 sonal names, but on what principles shall the allotment be made? 

 What kind of people shall do the weaving, what kind the newspaper 

 work, what kind the trading ? Within each office, store, or factory, 

 how shall we judge whom to select for the management, whom for 

 the clerkships, whom for each different manual task ? Passing from 

 the monad to the mass, which community or which country shall de- 

 vote its best energies to the production of which products ? How 

 shall the nations of the earth divide its work between them? 



It is only in answer to this last question that, so far as I know, 

 any economist has given any attention to the subject of allotment. 

 It has never been elaborated, nor allowed to be the vital, rudimental 

 question that I conceive it to be. The result is, that even those who 



