23 6 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



him, we rise by insensible gradations, by an unbroken line, to the 

 millionaire who controls thousands of men. 



A characteristic of one class of economists is their fierce de- 

 nunciation of the profit system. " Profit," they say, " is robbery." 

 They contend that if a manufacturer supply the machinery for 

 the manufacture of commodities, an amount set apart sufficient to 

 replace the machinery when it shall have worn out, and no more, 

 is a just return for its use, and all over and above this is theft. 

 Now, the question at once arises, What does the laborer do more 

 than the machine, that he should expect more than the equivalent 

 for the quantity of brain-matter, nerve-tissue, and muscle ex- 

 pended by him in his labor ? In other words, if he be allowed 

 sufficient food, clothing, and shelter to maintain him in a healthy 

 condition so long as he gives his entire labor time, is not justice 

 satisfied ? Is not this a quid pro quo ? Why should one class of 

 labor be allowed a larger return for its produce than another, 

 even though this be made of brass and iron and steel instead of 

 blood and bone and brains ? Still further, if the producer is to 

 receive the full reward of his labor, why should not the machine 

 that produces ten times the quantity that the laborer produces re- 

 ceive ten times the reward ? Setting out with the term " labor " 

 as "that which produces wealth," a term that likewise defines the 

 function of machinery, you will see the results to which we are 

 reasonably drawn. You will understand that your economist 

 does not claim that the question of affection or of moral obliga- 

 tion should interfere with the logical conclusions at which he 

 arrives. The grand science of economics does not recognize hu- 

 man sympathies. 



If we distinguish between labor and machinery by defining the 

 former as human exertion applied to production, we gain nothing, 

 since political economy gives no reason why a difference should 

 be made in the treatment of the two. The distinction ordinarily 

 observed is to make labor the grand motive power of production, 

 and machinery the mere agency for rendering labor more pro- 

 ductive. This is not a clear nor a just distinction. For the prin- 

 cipal function of machinery is to displace the laborer rather than 

 to make his labor more productive. 



Take an illustration or two. The man who, in place of using 

 a rough knife to cut down the branches of trees, invented a saw, 

 made something which caused his labor to be more productive — 

 i. e., a given quantity of the same kind of his energy produced 

 larger useful results than before. So the invention of the file, by 

 enabling him to sharpen his saw, made his labor still further pro- 

 ductive than if he had to use a blunt one. Tools, especially, fulfill 

 this particular function of making labor — the same kind of energy 

 — more productive. 



