254 
THIRTEENTH REPORT. 
18 THE PREVAILING TEACHING OF THE LAW OF DIMINISH- 
ING RETURNS JUSTIFIED? 
HERBERT ADOLPHUS HILLER. 
It seems to be peculiarly difficult for men, whether in science, politics 
or religion, to give up a law or doctrine which lias become a slogan to 
them, after it can no longer be justified. This is true of the law of di- 
minishing returns which economists have considered to be fundamental 
to much of their reasoning. I have been able to find only one promi- 
nent economist of the present dav who lias made any definite attack upon 
this “Law.” 
Simon N. Patten, in the “New Basis of Civilization” says, “The law 
of diminishing returns was discovered by the most stupid body in Eng- 
land— a committee of the House of Lords. English agriculture at the 
close of the Napoleonic wars was so abnormal that anyone could see how 
the high price of food brought poor land into cultivation. A committee, 
even if it was stupid, could not but stumble on the pertinent facts that 
formulated the law. But their perception of it does not account for its 
subsequent vogue. The real question of control is: Why did a nation, 
naturally optimistic and in a period of rapid industrial advance, accept 
the hopeless doctrine and permit it to curb their thinking for genera- 
tions? Why also do teachers in America, where notoriously it never 
has been in operation, hold devoutly to it and spend their time expound- 
ing a lame philosophy to their classes?” 
Professor Patten does not follow this statement with a specific dis- 
cussion as to his reasons, although his whole book is based on the 
principle of increasing returns. 
Since I am not an economist but a dabbler, I feel a little uncertain 
♦ ' 
how the position should be defended. I have looked carefully through 
the books of modern writers on economics and find that all lay much 
emphasis on this law. The following are typical definitions from promi- 
nent economist: Seligman in bis “Principles of Economics” says that 
“The law of diminishing Yeturns is * * * the foundation of the law 
of rent. A farmer will sometime reach a point where it will not pay him 
to add another laborer or another machine to his land because beyond 
the margin of profitable expenditure every additional ‘dose’ of capital 
or labor will mean a return insufficient to cover «-ost * * * The law 
of diminishing returns is universal and applies to everything that pos- 
sesses value.” Professor 8 eager in his “Introduction to Economics” 
says, “After a certain point has been reached in the cultivation of an 
acre of land or exploitation of a mine increased applications of labor 
and capital yield less than proportionate returns in product, it being 
understood, of course, that no important change is made in the method 
of cultivation or exploitation.” Carver in his “Distribution of Wealth” 
goes more into detail and proves the law with mathematical exactness. 
In fact he is so clear that he seems to be proving the obvious. How- 
