Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 10.djvu/121

Rh does. Mr. Lamed is particularly happy in his estimate of the faculties which are essential to the acquisition of wealth in the business-world. His analysis, too, discloses just grounds for raising the estimate usually put upon the faculties which produce the skillful mechanic, artisan, clerk, or other efficient laborer. The comparison of these two sets of faculties dispels the common notion that, as agents in the work of production, they are of widely different quality. That there is a difference is conceded; that capital is entitled to by far the largest share of remuneration is also conceded; the point is, that it exacts a larger share than any equitable principle of division gives to it.

This plea being made for labor, the author's hard work begins in finding a way to escape from the economical conclusions about the "wages-fund," in showing how that fund may be increased so that labor may receive a larger hire, and in shaping a practical plan for the accomplishment of the desired end. We commend this part of Mr. Larned's work for the strong thought and practical sagacity behind it. He is clear when he has hard knots to untie. The "wages-fund" in the hands of an economist has always appalled us. The limits to it are sketched as inexorably determined by conditions out of human reach, and the only relief open is the relative lessening of the numbers of those who share in it. Can any one wonder at men shrinking from the gloom of such a belief? Mr. Lamed holds by another and more inspiring doctrine. His effort is to prove that the enormously increased productiveness of labor, through the operation of many causes which he enumerates, is more than sufficient to supply the fullest need of legitimate human desires. If it is not so now, it is because of unjustifiable consumption and other wrongs. Let the consumption which grows out of the low desire to parade the possession of wealth be restrained by the heavy hand of public opinion, and let public-debt making be kept within certain defined bounds, so that this avenue of unproductive capital may be practically closed—let this much be done, and the result will be that those who command capital will be driven to devote more and more of it to renewed production. To such means does the author look for the increase of the fund out of which labor is paid. We have only indicated the drift of the argument.

The practical plan, advocated tentatively by the author, is a system of dividends to labor, the basis of which is given at some length. Other plans are subjected to criticism, and their defects pointed out. The system of some sort of a partnership between capitalists and laborers obviates many of these defects, but is not without its attendant difficulties. Mr. Lamed has given cogent reasons for his preference, and we hope they will be given the consideration they deserve. His views are so opposed to everything that is visionary, and are kept in such a close relationship to the facts, that his critics will find him no mean antagonist.

We had marked for comment other points in this original and interesting book, which we have no space for. What has been said falls short of doing the author justice. Indeed, this book is so compacted, and so brimful of suggestive lines of inquiry, that no summary of it can be adequate. It is a calm presentation of a difficult subject, and the temper of its conclusions will give it weight in the solution of pending problems. It has a mission which it is bound to serve worthily. The task the author unpretentiously set himself has been well done, and to other merits must be added that of literary excellence. The matter is presented in the shape of a series of conversations, and they are conducted with a skill which provokes a sharp interest in the discussions from beginning to end. The argument is carried on logically; each proposition is separated and clearly put. Those who take up the book will lose little time in finishing it, and they will find in its pages much good and substantial thought.

—It was erroneously stated last month in the review of the "Scientific Basis of Faith" that the book "is an attempt to harmonize Scripture with science." The reading should be "it is not an attempt," etc., conveying just the opposite meaning.