HE object of this book is to show the dependence of the popular welfare upon the ability of men to increase the national income. The closely-constructed and convincing argu

ment has the historical support that the average income of the laboring man has grown faster than the incomes of any other members of the community. This has been especially true of the last fifty years. The conclusion reached is, "As the productivity of human exertion increases, the part played by ability becomes more and more important. More and more do the average men become dependent on the exceptional men." By learning the lesson of the past, reforms need not be dreaded.

In following the details of his argument, Mr. Mallock at first clears away the rubbish of so-called socialistic reformers by showing that their claim for a pro rata division of the annual public income is impossible, absurd, and without gratifying results. After a brief discussion of things generally well known, "that a redistribution of wealth would have in itself no tendency to alter the existing conditions of the workers in any respect except that of wages only," and hence, a simple gain in money, he shows that the public income would give only thirty-one shillings and eight pence a week to the standard average of comfort; that is, a childless man and wife. It is absurd as well as impossible for a childless pair, "prince and pauper" alike, to live on about eight dollars a week.

But such income is not wholly in money, but as well in commodities, food, clothing, lodging, fuel, etc., and in service for public and private protection. Hence the impossibility of making a just and satisfactory redistribution, either of wealth or income. And yet "an equal division now would give each man nearly double the amount it would have given him when Mr. Gladstone was beginning to be middle-aged" (1843–1851).

The causes for this increase is the object of the second part of the book. In reviewing the causes of wealth-land, capital and human exertion-Mr. Mallock differs from Mr. Mill and others in several important respects. In rent, for example, Mill takes no account of the variation in soils, while our author says:

"Rent is for all practical purposes, not the product of land and human exertion combined, but the product of land solely, as separate from human exertion and distinct from it." Again, distinct from it." Again, "Rent represents an advantage which is naturally inherent in certain soils; and whoever own this advantage, either the State or the private person, must of necessity either take the rent, or else make a present of it to certain favored individuals."

Mr. Mallock classifies capital into fixed, or that in buildings, machines and such, and circulating or wage capital, having for its fundamental function the "imparting to industry the power of waiting for its own results." But wage capital has a principle as distinct from a fundamental function. It is thus defined:

"It is to enable the exceptional knowledge,

ingenuity, enterprise and productive genius of a few men so to animate, to organize and direct the average physical exertions of the many, as to improve, to multiply, or to hasten the results of that exertion without increasing its quantity." "Machinery may be called congealed wage capital. Wage capital may be called fluid machinery."

By distinctions like the preceding, Mr. Mallock arrives at the difference in kinds of labor. There is a kind of labor that works without machinery or works machinery. This is simple, raw human exertion. Another kind is the guiding controlling labor or ability. Mill recognizes the "labor of superintendence." But he does not distinguish kinds of labor. With him there is no difference between the "men who lead in industry and of the men who follow." Arkwright and his men are both laborers. The ability to perfect the telegraph, with Mill, is the same as the muscle that strings the lines. He has really in mind manual laborers. But Mr. Mallock says:

"Human exertion, then, as applied to the production of wealth, is of two distinct kinds, ability and labor, the former being essentially moral or mental exertion and only incidentally muscular; the latter being mainly muscular and only moral or mental in a comparatively unimportant sense." The causes of wealth, therefore, are land, labor, capital and ability, the last two being in some cases really one, ability. To this factor, ability, is assigned all progress in production.

The appeal to history shows an increase between 1750 and 1800 of 60 per cent in products of agriculture. In forty years the amount of labor was doubled, and the products increased fifteenfold in twentyfive. One hundred years ago, England produced for ten millions of people, four

teen pounds per head. The production to-day per head is thirty-five pounds. This increase is attributed to ability.

A considerable portion of the book is given to the refutation of socialistic notions about the equality of labor. It is a popular idea that the individual worker adds as much to his country's wealth as the creators of the spinning-frame and the locomotive. This fallacy appears in the strikes between capital and labor, in which Labor Labor says to Capital, "You cannot succeed without me." But in actual facts the strike is dependent upon something to live on; that is, on capital. So, then, strikes represent the power, not of labor, but of capital. The so-called labor represented by capital can do without labor for a time, while raw labor cannot exist without capital.

So in a

Another socialistic fallacy is that when an invention is made it becomes common property. Here, also, the facts disprove, for inventions call for men of ability to operate them, and instead of increasing the dignity of raw labor, increases the number of ability-workers or capitalists. third case, a fallacy supported by Herbert Spencer in the statement that, "Before the great man can remake his society, his society must make him," is disproved by facts. Opportunity and education do much to develop men, but little or nothing to impart natural ability. If we can judge industrial ability by the amount of income, only one man in a thousand has the ability to earn more than five thousand (5,000) pounds, one man in four thousand to earn fifteen thousand (15,000) pounds, and one man in one hundred thousand to earn fifty thousand (50,000) pounds. These facts require other explanation than mere opportunity education, for with all modern advantages only sixty in a thousand earn more than one hundred and fifty pounds; that is, about

or

seven hundred and fifty dollars. "Instead, therefore, of contenting ourselves with the general statement that ability makes so much of the national income, and labor so much, we may say that ninety-six per cent of the producing classes produce little more than a third of our present national income, and that a minority, consisting of one sixteenth of these classes, produces little less than two thirds of it." It appears, then, that it is in the interest of all classes to do nothing to reduce the production of ability. The practical question, therefore, is how to obtain from ability without diminishing its efficacy as a producing agent. In some way this has been done during the past years, with the result that in 1860 labor received twenty-five per cent more than it produced, and since that time the percentage has grown to be forty per cent more than it produces. The laboring classes of England-that is, persons with less than one hundred and fifty pounds a year-receive to-day forty-seven million pounds a year more than the entire income of the country at the beginning of Queen Victoria's reign, fifty years ago.

Mr. Mallock's deduction from these facts is that by means of ability the laboring man in the future will receive the same increased proportionate income. We are prepared, therefore, for his matured advice to let things go on as they have been running. The only saving clause in this apparent laissez faire proposition is his recognition of healthful legislation and moderate trade-union action. In his elaborated figure of wealth as the wonderful Nile-overflow, he speaks of the destruction of this flood being lessened by legislation and the restrain of the "union."

It is hardly fair to take advantage of a figure of speech, but this beautiful simile makes two admissions that Mr. Mallock's argument studiously avoids. The one is that wealth is destructive, the other that capital and labor have any ground for antagonism. The only word, therefore, that he has for the laboring man is that he secure all the possible legislation for himself and hold capital in check by the tradeunions. Hence, it is hard to find any

advance upon the arguments of previous writers. He has, however, a word also for ability. As it has increased production, it owes to this production its proper share of the profits.

Labor, he acknowledges, has a claim on ability for increased wages. Ability is not robbed or labor bribed by largess. "A duty is discharged, which, if recognized for what it is, and performed in the spirit proper to it, will have the effect of really uniting classes."

In the meantime, the cry of the laboring classes calls for redress of grievances. These to them, in spite of economic figures, are extremely real. This "cry" of so many men and women the world over has led thinking men to feel that something is wrong in our social and economical philosophy. For a leader like Mr. Mallock to leave out of his discussion any reference to the present distress as connected in some way with our economical life is rather unfortunate. The public has a claim for a more heartfelt discussion of these matters.

The book is, however, a valuable contribution to the literature of the subject. It shows laborious research and a clear understanding of economic problems. It emphasizes more possibly than any work the place ability holds in relation to labor. It will confirm the capitalist in his individualism, it will assure the laborer that his trade-union is his only hope. But meanwhile a large and increasing number of us are saying with Kingsley, "If man living in civilized society has one right which he can demand it is this, that the state which exists by his labor shall enable him to develop, or at least not hinder his developing, his whole faculties to their very utmost, however lofty that may be. While a man who might be an author remains a spade-drudge or a journeyman, while he has capacities for a master; while any man able to rise in life remains by social eircumstances lower than he is willing to place himself, that man has a right to complain of the state's injustice and neglect."

London, Adam and Charles Black; New York, Macmillan & Co., pp. 336; $1.50.

ABOR Commissioner Carroll D. Wright has recently published some very suggestive facts respect

ing the slums of our great cities. According to his investigation, New York has a total slum population of 360,000, and Chicago stands second, with 162,000. In the slum district of New York there is a saloon for every 129 persons. In Chicago there is a saloon for every 127 persons.

While reading such facts the question comes, why are there such hideous and wretched spots in our cities? The conditions of life must indeed be very uneven that can create these maelstroms of poverty and vice. The figure of a whirlpool engineering all within its reach is not too strong to apply to these sinks of human woe. Alas! how many have slowly but surely drifted into these sad surroundings.

Not alone from the lower strata of society have come the additions to this forsaken host, for the rich, the noble, the refined and educated classes have largely contributed. What heart-rending stories of broken faith, depressed life, gnawing poverty these unfortunates could tell. Over all, perhaps, they think no star of hope sends a cheering ray to guide the footsteps away from such damning influence.

But there is hope, and that from two directions. There is hope in lessening the supply. There is some hope of saving

the lost. Some of the supply comes from the unkept word of immoral men. When men are required to live up to the same standard of moral purity as women, one constant source of supply will be largely diminished. Quite a percentage, also, are in the slums through family pride, lack of family interest, lack of Christian activity in saving whole families as well as individuals from financial ruin. How many families are conscious of broken links because no one helped when help was needed? Sickness, business failure, indiscretion and positive sin were the causes. And there were none to help, none to forgive. How very many might have been saved from the slum by a friendly hand, a cheap loan, a forgiving spirit, who to-day are seemingly beyond hope.

The other ground of hope is in the slum itself. Municipal reform that insists upon cleanliness, upon the overthrow of saloons, upon the observance of rules of decency can do much to cleanse these social places. Christ-like personal help, now somewhat multiplying, is able, also, to reawaken longings and ambitions for a better life. And it is in the slum itself that the most work is to be done. Here it is that chords long unstrung can be made to vibrate with songs of purity and love. And what all of us must do is to know the wretched life of the low till we are forced to do something to improve it.

In this connection, also, we are reminded

of the influence of home in restraining from the slum-drift. It is easy for the homeless to get away from all good surroundings. A writer in the August Far and Near cites this incident. It was in connection with Guild work: "I have missed a boy at several successive club meetings. 'Do you know where he lives?' I asked one of his friends. 'No, I don't know where he lives,' was the answer, 'but I know where he stands." It is this standing around, often caused by an uncongenial boardingplace and displeasing associations, that leads to much evil. The saloon and the tobacco-store too often afford standingplaces for men, and even for boys. The community is wise that provides for all disposed to stand about dangerous places, pleasant and attractive places like guilds, clubs or reading and social rooms. Many a character drifting toward the saloon and the slum may have a life-line shot across her deck by means of which safely to find a true harbor.

Something should be done to protect the wages of females. A sharp competition has lowered the salaries of female workers in many lines to starvation limits. In nearly 6,000 cases recently investigated the annual average was found to be only $295, while the annual average expense was computed to be $286, a person being given a surplus of $9 above bare subsistence. This is the result of competition, not alone with male labor, but also with female labor itself. This shows that the working-women are not working together. They fear the sturdy measures of organization. Possibly

native timidity and dislike for masculinity has something to do with it. At any rate, they do not strike, but avoid contention with employers, submitting to unjust and unmerciful exaction. The time has come for a womanly defense of life, and a true estimate in an open market of the value of their work. Many employers of female labor would be glad to help if they could do so without injury to their business. But an increase of expense they could ill afford in a cheap labor market.

A recent writer on this subject, Leonora O'Reilly, offers the sensible plan of Boards of Conciliation in different trades, such boards to prevent strikes on their part, and lockouts on the employers' part. It appears from this woman's study that this plan works well in England and Belgium, and that several trades in America have similar

organizations. Whether this or another plan be adopted, female labor should protect itself. All lovers of women will surely wish well any proper way of gaining a much higher average income than at present obtains. The average salary should cover sickness and expense for personal improvement with proper recreation. This organization of female labor will strike a severe blow at the sweating system of labor, an evil pernicious in every respect. Other evils will likewise be affected by it. Out of two hundred and fifty occupations in the United States, women struggle for a living in all but twenty-nine. Her claims, therefore, upon a just sentiment are imperative. Her wrongs demand relief.