238 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



totally displace labor, both, manual and mental. Each improve- 

 ment in machinery tends to make it more and more automatic, 

 self-governing, and the least intelligent person is usually found 

 capable of running some kind of machinery. 



The socialist admits that the vast production of wealth which 

 has characterized the past century is due to labor-saving ma- 

 chinery. But he claims that this machinery is in itself the product 

 of labor, which it unquestionably is. He argues, however, that 

 the inventor has no right to the exclusive enjoyment of his ideas. 



If inventions were the creation of all the members of a society 

 equally, each would be entitled to his share of the product equally, 

 and our economist would be right. But such is not the case. 

 Supposing in a community a number of men are engaged in 

 weaving a certain kind of fabric by hand. After a time, by care- 

 ful thought, study, and years of experimenting during his even- 

 ings, one of them succeeds in constructing a machine capable of 

 weaving in a day as much of the fabric as ten men can do in the 

 same time ; and, supposing the amount of manual power to 

 operate this machine is the exact amount expended by one man in 

 his ordinary day's task, then this man and his machine perform 

 the work of ten men in an equal time, and if he only work it one 

 hour he has produced what previously occupied him one day. 

 He may therefore work one hour per day and get the same return 

 as before, or by working one day get the produce of ten men # 

 Supposing he offers to one of the other men the privilege of work- 

 ing this machine in his place, which, requires no greater expendi- 

 ture of labor on this man's part than the work he is engaged on, 

 and the man accepts. The inventor of the machine may offer him 

 the produce of two days' labor as an incentive to accept employ- 

 ment from him. The inventor then becomes a capitalist, an em- 

 ployer, and gets his ten days' produce, paying his employee two 

 days, and retaining eight himself, for which he himself does noth- 

 ing. Practically his work has ceased after inventing, designing, 

 and constructing the machine. Is it an act of injustice for him to 

 claim the product of the machine which is his invention ? And 

 if he build one machine and employ one man, may he not build 

 two and employ two men, and carry this on until his machines 

 supply the entire demand ? And may he not transfer his interest, 

 or part of an interest, to another, and another, until you have a 

 number of idle men living off the produce of the labor of the ma- 

 chines and employees ? There is in this nothing unjust from an 

 economical standpoint, for this man has taken nothing which did 

 not originate with him. 



But, says the reformer, were it not for the protection afforded 

 the inventor by society, the privilege he artificially enjoys, these 

 employees would build their own machines and each man be his 



