646 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



versal liability of individuals or partners, and only risk the por- 

 tion of their wealth which they invest in the corporation. This 

 feature of limited liability, probably more than any other, ac- 

 counts for the growth and number of corporations. Private indi- 

 viduals or copartnerships do not enjoy this privilege or immu- 

 nity, but remain liable to loss to the full extent of their posses- 

 sions. It is clear, therefore, that the moral right of the State or 

 society as a whole to regulate wage-contracts with a corporation 

 is greater than with individuals or firms, provided the neces- 

 sity exists and the wage-earners desire it. It is not intended 

 to confine the discussion to the case of corporate employers, but 

 merely to point out some differences between the two classes of 

 employers. 



Mr. Spencer's opinion that the State has no moral right to 

 interfere with the freedom of contract between employer and 

 employed, or to regulate wages in any way, is based upon the 

 analogy supposed to exist between human labor and commodities. 

 Because, in his opinion, the State has no right to regulate the 

 price of bread, or the rate of interest, or the price of other com- 

 modities, therefore it has not the moral right to regulate the price 

 of human labor, with the exception of labor for life, or slavery. 

 Is this analogy correct ? Is human labor a commodity ? No ; 

 human labor is the creator of commodities, and commodities are 

 things created by human labor. The creator is always superior 

 to the thing created. The shoemaker is superior to the shoe ; the 

 watchmaker to the watch ; and God to man. The slaveholder 

 also believed that human labor when clothed in black was a com- 

 modity, and that negroes could be bought and sold as chattels ; 

 and it took four years of civil war to establish the contrary. 

 Labor is much more than a commodity ; it is the bone and sinew 

 of the State, the very essence of its existence. It is the sole means 

 of support of millions of human beings men, women, and chil- 

 dren. Those who have only their labor to sell are more entitled 

 to the protection of the State than those who have commodities 

 to sell. 



Mr. Spencer's admission that the State has the right to forbid 

 the sale of one's self into slavery, or the sale of one's services for 

 life, as well as to hinder freedom of contract when it endangers 

 national existence, also proves his analogy to be unsound. For, 

 if the State may regulate or forbid the sale of one's services for 

 life, it may also regulate the sale of one's services for ten years, or 

 five years, or one year, or a shorter term ; and, if the State may 

 hinder the freedom of contract when national existence is thereby 

 endangered, why may it not hinder the freedom of contract when 

 the existence of a large body of its citizens is thereby endan- 

 gered ? Their existence is endangered when they can not, by 



