bserved. But he marvels that American thinkers can accept it, for the
condition of some classes of laborers here was, so late as half a
century ago, a decided disproof of it. Farm hands, for instance, were
formerly often paid at the end of the year, for the reason that there
was not capital enough in farmers' hands to make the advances necessary
for weekly or monthly payments. Here was a case in which the employer
clearly had to wait for the product before he could pay the wages. No
past savings were available for the purpose. The author's arguments are
always clearly put and forcible, but his position loses strength by the
very character of his task. He has so completely separated the wages
question from all others, that we miss the natural collocation of wages
with the other items which make up the cost of a product. The capitalist
has one and the same purpose in buying raw material and labor, and no
discussion of the subject can seem complete that does not proceed from
the likeness or unlikeness of these two components of value. Another
theory which our author combats strongly is that the interest of the
employer is sufficient to keep wages up to the highest profitable point.
He holds that the laborer must be active in his own interests, or he
will never obtain that rate of payment which is necessary to his proper
maintenance. Bad food reduces the quantity and quality of the laborer's
work, so that more men have to be hired for a given task, and the
employer pays more in the end for his product, than when wages are good;
but even this prospective loss is not sufficient to keep employers from
experimenting to find just that point to which wages may be lowered
without affecting food disastrously. This disposition of the employer
can be combatted only by the resistance of the laborer. Prof. Walker
thinks there is a "constantly imminent danger that bodies of laborers
will not soon enough or amply enough resent industrial injuries which
may be wrought by the concerted action of employers or by slow and
gradual changes in production, or by catastrophes in business, such as
commercial panics." Of course he does not advocate strikes, which "are
the insurrections of labor," but even these are to be judged by their
results. The results may or may not justify them. He considers that
cooperation is a real panacea that can successfully take the place of
violent measures. He denies the assertion that cooperation gets rid of
the capi