Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 6.djvu/585

 REVIEWS 571

practice to assess real property at its actual selling value, as nearly as it is possible, we have in these assessments data from which we may draw conclusions with no little confidence. According to the returns of Polls, Property Taxes, etc. (Public Document No. 19), there was an increase in the value of the land of the entire state, excluding buildings, from $672,147,747, May i, 1886, to $1,071,843,224, May i, 1898, or 59 per cent. The increase in the value of buildings was from $668,345,926 to $1,110,753,429, or 66 per cent. This notwithstanding the aban- doned farms and decreased values in some few localities, owing to the competition of the newer and more fertile lands of the West resulting from cheapened transportation.

Space does not permit further details in carrying out criticism of this part of the book.

The inconsistency, not to say absurdity, of the author's methods is shown again in his consideration of land, capital, and wealth. While recognizing land and capital, as well as labor, as distinct factors in the production of wealth, he persistently disregards the distinction. He draws the conclusion of the greatly increased importance of capital from comparison of statistics in which land is included as capital (p. 190). This notwithstanding that these statistics of the tenth and eleventh censuses were otherwise so incomparable from a change in census methods that the present author had previously remarked (p. 187) : "They may give rise to very misleading inferences in regard to questions of the relative importance and the relative reward of capital and labor."

Thus to exaggerate the growing importance of capital in modern methods of production seems no part of the science of statistics. That "labor must be applied through the aid of more and more com- plicated and expensive machinery" is doubtless true. The inference, however, is not valid that the great increase in nominal capital is prin- cipally due to increased capital invested in machinery ; for, as appears from statistics of manufactures in 165 cities which the author presents (p. 170), but 1 8. 8 per cent, of the total capital reported in 1890 was invested in machinery and implements. The author is doubtless right in his remark that capital should be encouraged and not discouraged, and that increased capital means increased employment for labor. That is, he would be right did he not fail to make the distinction between real capital and such nominal capital as is but the capitaliza- tion of special privilege. The wealth, for instance, of those who own and control the anthracite coal fields of Pennsylvania is not chiefly