XXV11 



OCTOBER, 

 At a meeting of the Royal Society of Tasmania on Monday, October 

 21, discussion was resumed upon Mr. R. M. Johnston's paper on "The 

 primary law of value or price," which was read at the previous 

 meeting of the Society. The Hon. Sir James Wilson Agnew presided, 

 and there was a good attendance of ladies and gentlemen, among 

 whom were the Hon. P. O. Fysh, Mr. Justice Dodds, Hon. Adye 

 Douglas, M.L.O.; Bishop Montgomery, and Hon. C. H. Grant, M.L.C. 



mbs. meeedith's watebcolours. 

 The President, in opening the meeting, mentioned that an effort 

 Was being made to secure Mrs. Meredith's watercolour drawings of 

 Tatminianfish, flowers, shells, etc., and to present them to the Society. 

 Considerable amount of success had already attended the effort, but 

 Wore money was still needed for the purpose, and if any public-i-pirited 

 individual could afford to help, the members of the Society would be 

 Very grateful. The paintings were on view downstairs, and he advised 

 those present to inspect them before they left the building. 



APOLOGIES. 



The Secretary (Mr. A. Morton) read letters of apology from His 

 Excellency the Governor, Hon. J. Henry, Messrs, E. Hawson (secretary 

 of the Chamber of Commerce), T. E. Hewitt, James Whyte, and James 

 Barnard, senior vice-president. 



ME. JOHNSTON'S PAPER. 



The Chairman said he had repeatedly read Mr. Johnston's 

 pamphlet, and thought he had clearly proved his case — that the cost 

 of production regulated the price. 



Mr. A. J. Cqilvy said he thought the thanks of the whole 

 community were due to Mr, Johnston for having so ably brought the 

 subject forward. He (the speaker) was not going into any particular 

 application of the principle— bimetallism or anything else— for it was 

 no good to go into the application until it was settled whether the 

 principle was the true one. Mr. Johnston's opening statement when 

 condensed was that the cost of production, not demand and supply, 

 primarily determined prices. Later he qualified that by excluding 

 things the cost of which was determined by scarcity alone, confining it 

 to things which could be increased indefinitely, and where competition 

 operated without restraint. That price would always represent cost 

 of production measured in labour if there were no natural scarcity or 

 artifical interference Mr. Johnston had proved conclusively, but the 

 case thus qualified seemed so phin from the mere statement of it 

 that one was surprised to hear that it required proof. The ratio 

 between demand and supply as such was the sole governing power of 

 the movement of prices, notwithstanding that behind demand and 

 Supply was cost of production. The doctrine of demand and supply 

 Was that the value of everything was determined by its scarcity, as 

 compared with the demand for it. If there was no demand for it it 

 Would have no value, no matter how scarce it might be. However, let 

 them keep to the main point, which was that looking at the matter 

 broadly and taking price as a whole as it actually was with all its 

 disturbing iifluenees, not as it might be without them, it was demand 

 and supply as such that determined it, cost of production acting only 

 by affecting supply and so disturbing the ratio, besides being only 

 one factor out of many, though no doubt the chief one, in affecting 

 supply. 



