BY E. M. JOHNSTON, F.L.S. 161 



desirable end, a correspouding or even a much greater amount 

 of labour could not produce the same result if the previously 

 carefully arranged and periodical regulation of the apportion- 

 ment of labourers were subsequently disturbed in an arbitrary 

 way. Every arbitrary disturbance of the proportion of 

 labourers trained and originally apportioned to a special work 

 or function, has the effect of lowering the purchasing power 

 of the section which was arbitrarily increased, because it 

 introduced either curtailment of employment, wrongful com- 

 petition, over-production, or diminished purchasing power 

 within that particular section of the division of labour ; and 

 in the section from which they were arbitrarily withdrawn, it 

 either lessened the amount of aggregate satisfactions required 

 for all ; or, if it have not that effect, it increases the hours of 

 labour of those within the division beyond the maximum 

 standard without additional recompense for increased exer- 

 tion. If, however, the additional hours are rewarded by 

 extra satisfactions, it must be at the expense of the general 

 consumers, thus lessening their average of aggregate satis- 

 factions. 



The wrongful over-production is a direct loss to the whole 

 community so healthfully regulated by community of in- 

 terests. 



Oh ! but your ideal Euphrasian forgets, says the Economist, 

 that the surplus of A division might by interchange with, 

 another nation be made to restore the balance thus arbitrarily 

 destroyed by A recompensing through products needed in 

 division B where a deficiency was caused. This is true, but 

 at best this course only helps to restore the loss occasioned by 

 the arbitrary disturbance of the apportionment of the local 

 Euphrasian division of services. Nay, more ; the loss occa- 

 sioned could not be fully restored by an equal exchange of 

 lahour and sTcill, for the exchange with the distant foreign 

 country involved a fresh expenditure of labour in transfer 

 and agencies of exchange — thus increasing the value of O or 

 obstacles — between producer and consumer, and so inevitably 

 lessening the quota of the essential material satisfactions to 

 be divided among consumers. It must be borne in mind 

 that Euphrasia is assumed to possess the maximum of favour- 

 able natural resources — plus best art appliances — and con- 

 sequently the restoration of the destroyed equilibrium in 

 Euphrasia could only be effected by a skilled people, who 

 of necessity were forced to adapt themselves to circumstances 

 by either being satisfied with a lower requirement of wants 

 than that enjoyed by the Euphrasians, or by a similar standard 

 of material satisfactions gained at a much greater expenditure 

 of labour. 



Eor the sake of illustration, let us further examine this 

 theory of obstacles. It will readily be granted that where 



