^9 



men ^so perverse or sliort sighted as to di.'pnrngc (licir advantages. 

 'and lament their preseuce. Tlu»y ])oiiit witli jjride to the day.s bclorc 

 tlie pliice of the scytlie was ii.siir|)L'd by the mower, or the flail and 

 winnowing basket were snpphintod by the improved thrcslier. Let 

 us hope the prejudice arises I'rom chronic discouteut rather than from 

 conviction. 



Snp|)osc we glance for a moment at the arguments used by these 

 defenders of the good old times. Their tenets are chiefly supported 

 by the assertion that these implements instead of saving labor, 

 make it, and rather than decreasing the cost of production, they 

 increase it. We will ascertain if possible whetlier or not these state- 

 ments are correct. How can a labor saving machine create a necessity 

 f«jr more labor? can these articles add to the cost of food production? 



Our answer hinges on the fundamental principle of economies, that 

 labor and capital are identical. Labor, as well as time, is money. 

 If, therefore, an implement or process is labor saving, that is, ren- 

 ders a given amount of muscular force moi'e effective, it cannot add 

 to the cost of production, provided the value of tlie labor saved is in 

 excess of the cost of the implement. And here is the key to the 

 solution of tiie problem. 



Tbe individuals of whom we are speaking claim that the advent 

 of a new implement to be made efiljctive, necessitates the introduc- 

 tion of anotlier, and that this must in turn be followed by others, will, 

 instead of diminishing the expense of production, be largely 

 increased thereby. The first part of the statement is axiomatic ; on 

 what foundation does the last clause rest? To render labor and capital 

 remunerative upon the farm or elsewhere, there must be harmony 

 between the various departments ; a mower is comparatively useless 

 unless its increased power of cutting grass be supplemented by greater 

 facilties for curing, and hence the advent of a mowing machine is gen- 

 erally followed by the purchase of a horse rake and tedder ; and so one 

 malcontent declares that the mower adds to the cost of gathering his 

 hay crop rather than detracts therefrom. Were he to avert to the 

 principle already stated, he would be compelled to qualify his asser- 

 tions. If the combined labor saving powers of all three implements 

 is equal to their entire cost, the venture cannot prove a failure. 



Where is the man who dares claim that the world has paid more 

 for its cotton gins than the staple resulting solely Irom their existence 

 has been worth ? or that tbe long category of improved implements. 



