cost, at market prices, twenty-five to twenty-seven cents per day for each person, $90. to $100 worth per year of food, fuel, shelter, and clothing. Let any one consider what can be had now, and how little could have been had in the last century, for twenty-five cents in food, fuel, shelter, clothing, and sundries, and it will then be apparent that such an expenditure or measure of consumption must have been made on the average of the century in order to sustain life; hence, it would follow that the average price of life for 30,000,000 people each year has been about $100 a year. This would come to an average of $3,000,000,000, by the measure of money for the average population of 30,000,000. Multiply this by one hundred years, and we find the cost of subsistence to have been the visionary sum of $300,000,000,000, a sum which conveys little idea to the mind, but which is suitable for purposes of analysis. What would be ten per cent. upon this sum? Would it not be $30,000,000,000? If, then, a sum equal to ten per cent. of this assumed measure of the cost of subsistence has been set aside during the last century, we ought to find the latter amount of accumulated capital or wealth in existence in addition to the valuation of land. But there are no figures in the census or anywhere else which indicate any such amount of the product of labor now in existence in a salable form, aside from the value of the land itself. I do not attach any great authority to the computations of the value of the property of the United States, either in the census or elsewhere; the superintendent of the census himself and the special experts give the reason why these figures are approximate estimates rather than statements of fact; but there would be at least some sign of a quantity of capital, aside from or upon the land, measured as above, if it were in existence. Where is it?

What I have endeavored to prove is this: that not exceeding ten per cent. of the product of any year is, or can be, set aside, accumulated, or maintained; it will vary from year to year. If the average cost of subsistence of all the people who have inhabited this country for a century, including rich and poor, high-priced mechanic and low-priced laborer alike, has been only what twenty-five cents a day would represent in the form

of food, fuel, clothing, and shelter, then the sum of the capital, aside from the value of land now in existence, would be close upon $27,370,000,000. If the measure of the cost of subsistence for a century has been thirty cents a day, and ten per cent., or three cents a day, has been set aside for the maintenance and increase of capital, we should now have a capital, aside from land, of $32,750,000,000. Where is it? On the basis of figures which I have given, or on an assumed cost of living of twentyfive to thirty cents per day, there is no capital in existence which would represent ten per cent., or three cents a day, saved for each unit of the population inhabiting the country one year, year by year, for the last century. Our present population is computed at about 60,000,000; if only three cents a day were now saved, the aggregate would be a little less than $670,000,000 worth in a year; but the average production of each person cannot now be estimated at much less than double the average of the century; therefore ten per cent. upon our present product, six cents per day or $21.90 per year, set aside, per capita, would come to $1,340,000,000. Can any one find any more? I cannot. This would be 10 per cent. on an annual product valued

at $12,500,000,000.

Mr. Hawley and others imply that whatever is saved is secured by capitalists as a separate class, to the exclusion of others; he alleges that "wage-receivers, on the whole, save little or nothing," the only apparent exception to this being the farmers, who, he says, are classed as wage-receivers in the census. I should be glad to have a citation of authority on this point. What proof is there that wage-receivers save little or nothing? This statement is, in my judgment, wholly erroneous. I think that wage-receivers, small farmers, or those who are in the position of the employed rather than the employer, on moderate or small salaries, have saved at least one-half of all the capital which has been saved. The other half may perhaps be traced to the capitalists or to the middle-men, in whose hands it is the most potent force in production; but there are no data within my knowledge by which to prove this hypothesis. It may appear, however, to any close observer, that the distribution of wealth in this country differs very greatly from that of any

other country; it is much more widely and more evenly shared. It would be a most interesting subject of research for students in post-graduate courses of study.

If the propositions presented in this treatise can be sustained, it follows that the great and admitted disparity among the socalled working classes cannot be attributed to any large or increasing share of the product of the country being secured by capitalists and added to their own accumulations. By analyzing the rates of wages as well as their purchasing power, it is proved that since 1860, subject to temporary reduction in the purchasing power of wages during the period of war and paper money, the constant tendency of wages or earnings has been to rise both in rate and in purchasing power. By selecting the rates of wages given in Vol. XX. of the Census of the United States, compiled by Mr. Joseph D. Weeks, and assorting these rates by classes, the data being taken from over 100 establishments, I find that there is an increasing disparity among those who constitute the working classes in the strictest sense. Given a standard of the average consumption of food, fuel, and materials for clothing, rent being omitted because it varies so much in different parts of the country, it is apparent to any one who will devote sufficient time to a thorough investigation of the whole subject, that since 1865 the wages of foremen, overseers, boss-blacksmiths, specially skilled cabinet-makers, and the like, have advanced 108 per cent.; average mechanics, engineers, carpenters, machinists, and the like, 90 per cent.; factory operatives and all persons engaged in the ordinary arts of making stoves, boots, hats, cars, wagons, and the like, 78 per cent.; and common laborers only 66 per cent. Now, if these gains of the better class of workmen could be averaged in money and multiplied by the respective numbers of workmen in the several classes, I think it would appear without question that the aggregate of the larger share of the annual product secured by class 1 and class 2, as compared to classes 3 and 4, would come to a greater sum than that which is or can be added to capital by capitalists in any one year. Therefore it follows that, even if the share of the annual product which is now secured by capitalists to be added to their own capital, were evenly distributed among all who do the work,

as great a disparity would continue to exist in the conditions of the working classes as exists at the present time. If it were unevenly distributed the disparity among the working classes would be greater than it is now. I think it follows of necessity, from this process of reasoning, that the only logical agitator of the present day among the so-called labor reformers is the communist who objects to the whole existing method of distribution. The trade-unionist is entirely illogical, his object being to secure to the particular trade to which he belongs a larger share of the annual product than now comes to the members of that trade. He can only accomplish this at the cost of some other trade. He cannot attain any large advance in the customary rate of compensation at his particular trade at the expense of capital, because capital will quit the art unless it can earn the average of profits in other occupations. Does it not follow, from whatever point of view the distribution of products is taken up, that the measure of subsistence, shelter, and luxury which a man may obtain must, in the long run, be measured by the service which he renders to the community as a whole? That is to say, the measure of each man's income or share of the annual product is determined by his own capacity to supply each demand of the community. The demand may be for rum or it may be for wholesome food; as to what the demand shall be each member of the community judges for himself. Each consumer pays his fellow workmen, his employer, or the capitalist to whose capital he gives life and force, not for their benefit, but because he decides for himself that in such purchases he can serve his own needs better than he could in any other way. A larger measure of comfort and luxury, shorter hours of work, better conditions of life are, therefore, elements of individual character to which legislation can only give more or less free play. Hence it follows that most of the restrictive acts of public legislation and most of the restrictive by-laws of the private legislation of trade-unions, knights of labor, and the like, retard rather than promote the development of general comfort and welfare. In the last analysis each man fixes his own rate of wages by the measure of his individ ual capacity.

In conclusion, let it be observed that if the accumulation not

only of capital, but of all forms of wealth, reproductive or otherwise, during the last century has not exceeded three cents a day per capita, or ten per cent. upon a consumption measured at thirty cents per day, then the present value of all our national wealth, aside from the valuation put upon land, would be nearly three times the computed and probably large valuation which I have put upon the present annual product. I think it is a wellestablished fact that such an accumulation can be reached only in the richest and most prosperous State. I made an analysis of the wealth and product of Massachusetts in 1875, with the aid and criticism of Carroll D. Wright, and we could then barely find a sum of wealth equal to three years' product in what is probably the richest State per capita in the Union.

If, then, we cannot find in existence any form of capital or wealth aside from the valuation of land, even including, as in the census estimates, public property which is of the common wealth -and my critics, Mr. Hawley and others, who doubt my estimates or my distribution of the annual product should find an annual product of much greater value than my estimate-then it would follow that less than ten per cent. has been or can be saved in a normal year to be applied to the maintenance and increase of capital. It would then be proved that want treads closer on the heels of plenty than even I have ventured to suggest.

In the last analysis it will appear that there is no such thing as fixed capital; there is nothing useful that is very old except the precious metals, and all life consists in the conversion of forces. The only capital which is of permanent value is immaterial, the experience of generations and the development of science. It is not given to material capital to save any one generation from the work of getting its own living; all that it can accomplish is to lighten the labor; the condition on which. it attains its own income is, that it render full service for all that it receives and that it also render the general struggle for life less and less severe.

EDWARD ATKINSON.