322 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. II. No. 37. 



in 1828) to his edition of Dr. Adam Smith's 

 work, ' An Inquiry into the Nature and 

 Causes of the Wealth of Nations,' he gives 

 one of the best definitions we have of the 

 science of political economy. "Its object," 

 he says, " is to point out the means by 

 which the industry of man may be rendered 

 most productive of those necessaries, com- 

 forts and enjoyments which constitute 

 wealth ; to ascertain the proportion in which 

 this wealth is divided among the different 

 classes of the community, and the mode in 

 which it may be most advantageouslj' con- 

 sumed." 



The definition of engineering given by 

 Tredgold, and incorporated into the charter 

 of the British Institution of Civil Engi- 

 neers, is ' The art of directing the great 

 sources of power in nature for the use and 

 convenience of man.' Rankine says: " The 

 engineer is he who by art and science 

 makes the mechanical properties of matter 

 serve the ends of man." 



Mr. George S. Morison, President of the 

 American Society of Civil Engineers, in his 

 address at the convention of the Society in 

 Jiine this year, says: 



" Every engineering work is built for a 

 special ulterior end; it is a tool to accom- 

 plish some specific purpose. Engine is but 

 another name for tool. The highest de- 

 velopment of a tool is an engine which 

 manufactures power." 



Comparing the above definitions of polit- 

 ical economy and of engineering, we find 

 they are closely related. Political economy, 

 according to McCullough, points out the 

 means by which the industry of man may 

 be rendered most productive of wealth. If 

 we asked the merest tyro in knowledge of 

 human industry by what means industry 

 might be rendered most productive, he 

 would naturally answer, ' by the use of 

 tools.' The engineer is the tool builder. 

 His best work is the building of an engine 

 which manufactvn-es power, makes indiisti-y 



most productive and manufactures com- 

 modities which are the elements of wealth. 

 Political economy, which points out the 

 means bj^ which industry may be made most 

 productive, should, therefore, point out tools 

 and engines. But, strange to say, the 

 writers on political economy have almost 

 entirelj' neglected to point out those means. 

 Their ' dismal science,' as it is called, gener- 

 ally points out everything but tools and 

 engines. It treats of buying and selling, of 

 supply and demand, of rents, interest and 

 wages, of tariffs, of money and currency, of 

 land values, taxes, and what not ; but, with 

 rare exceptions, does not mention engineer- 

 ing, which is the most potent force in the 

 economics of the nineteenth century. 



Adam Smith, the first great English 

 writer on political economy, writing in 1776, 

 when he was, of course, not to be blamed 

 for knowing nothing of the engineering of 

 this centurj^, said : " The greatest improve- 

 ment in the productive power of labor, and 

 the greater part of the skill, dexterity and 

 judgment with which it is anywhere directed 

 or applied, seem to have been the effects of 

 the division of labor." He gives a famous 

 instance of the division of labor in the man- 

 ufactu.re of pins. One man, he said, might 

 with difliculty make one pin a daj'^, and 

 certainly could jiot make twenty. But as 

 the manufacture was cari'ied on in his day, 

 by division of labor one man draws out the 

 wire, another sti'aightens it, a third cuts ^t, 

 a fourth points it, a fifth grinds it at the 

 top for receiving the head, and so on, di- 

 viding the labor up among ten men, and 

 eighteen diflferent operations. Those ten 

 men thus made between them 48,000 pins 

 per day. Most writers on political economy 

 have followed Adam Smith, and given di- 

 vision of labor the credit for making the 

 greatest improvement in production, and 

 neglected the still more important improve- 

 ment, the introduction of machinerj^, l)y 

 \\'hich the labor of ten men was all done by 



1 



