unto this last- 第10部分

number　of　men　who　are　willing　to　do　the　work。　I　want　a　horseshoe



for　my　horse。　Twenty　smiths；　or　twenty　thousand　smiths；　may　be



ready　to　forge　it；　their　number　does　not　in　one　atom's　weight



affect　the　question　of　the　equitable　payment　of　the　one　who　does



forge　it。　It　costs　him　a　quarter　of　an　hour　of　his　life；　and　so



much　skill　and　strength　of　arm　to　make　that　horseshoe　for　me。



Then　at　some　future　time　I　am　bound　in　equity　to　give　a　quarter



of　an　hour；　and　some　minutes　more；　of　my　life　（or　of　some　other



person's　at　my　disposal）；　and　also　as　much　strength　of　arm　and



skill；　and　a　little　more；　in　making　or　doing　what　the　smith　may



have　need　of。



　　　　Such　being　the　abstract　theory　of　just　remunerative　payment；



its　application　is　practically　modified　by　the　fact　that　the



order　for　labour；　given　in　payment；　is　general；　while　labour



received　is　special。　The　current　coin　or　document　is　practically



an　order　on　the　nation　for　so　much　work　of　any　kind；　and　this



universal　applicability　to　immediate　need　renders　it　so　much　more



valuable　than　special　labour　can　be；　that　an　order　for　a　less



quantity　of　this　general　toil　will　always　be　accepted　as　a　just



equivalent　for　a　greater　quantity　of　special　toil。　Any　given



craftsman　will　always　be　willing　to　give　an　hour　of　his　own　work



in　order　to　receive　command　over　half…an…hour；　or　even　much　less；



of　national　work。　This　source　of　uncertainty；　together。　with　the



difficulty　of　determining　the　monetary　value　of　skill；（10*）



renders　the　ascertainment　（even　approximate）　of　the　proper　wages



of　any　given　labour　in　terms　of　a　currency　matter　of　considerable



complexity。　But　they　do　not　affect　the　principle　of　exchange。　The



worth　of　the　work　may　not　be　easily　known；　but　it　has　a　worth；



just　as　fixed　and　real　as　the　specific　gravity　of　a　substance；



though　such　specific　gravity　may　not　be　easily　ascertainable　when



the　substance　is　united　with　many　others。　Nor　is　there　so　much



difficulty　or　chance　in　determining　it　as　in　determining　the



ordinary　maxima　and　minima　of　vulgar　political　economy。　There　are



few　bargains　in　which　the　buyer　can　ascertain　with　anything　like



precision　that　the　seller　would　have　taken　no　less；　　or　the



seller　acquire　more　than　a　comfortable　faith　that　the　purchaser



would　have　given　no　more。　This　impossibility　of　precise　knowledge



prevents　neither　from　striving　to　attain　the　desired　point　of



greatest　vexation　and　injury　to　the　other；　nor　from　accepting　it



for　a　scientific　principle　that　he　is　to　buy　for　the　least　and



sell　for　the　most　possible；　though　what　the　real　least　or　most



may　be　he　cannot　tell。　In　like　manner；　a　just　person　lays　it　down



for　a　scientific　principle　that　he　is　to　pay　a　just　price；　and；



without　being　able　precisely　to　ascertain　the　limits　of　such　a



price；　will　nevertheless　strive　to　attain　the　closest　possible



approximation　to　them。　A　practically　serviceable　approximation　he



can　obtain。　It　is　easier　to　determine　scientifically　what　a　man



ought　to　have　for　his　work；　than　what　his　necessities　will　compel



him　to　take　for　it。　His　necessities　can　only　be　ascertained　by



empirical；　but　his　due　by　analytical；　investigation。　In　the　one



case；　you　try　your　answer　to　the　sum　like　a　puzzled　schoolboy　



till　you　find　one　that　fits；　in　the　other；　you　bring　out　your



result　within　certain　limits；　by　process　of　calculation。



　　　　Supposing；　then；　the　just　wages　of　any　quantity　of　given



labour　to　have　been　ascertained；　let　us　examine　the　first　results



of　just　and　unjust　payment；　when　in　favour　of　the　purchaser　or



employer；　i。e。　when　two　men　are　ready　to　do　the　work；　and　only



one　wants　to　have　it　done。



　　　　The　unjust　purchaser　forces　the　two　to　bid　against　each　other



till　he　has　reduced　their　demand　to　its　lowest　terms。　Let　us



assume　that　the　lowest　bidder　offers　to　do　the　work　at　half　its



just　price。



　　　　The　purchaser　employs　him；　and　does　not　employ　the　other。　The



first　or　apparent　result　is；　therefore；　that　one　of　the　two　men



is　left　out　of　employ；　or　to　starvation；　just　as　definitely　as　by



the　just　procedure　of　giving　fair　price　to　the　best　workman。　The



various　writers　who　endeavoured　to　invalidate　the　positions　of　my



first　paper　never　saw　this；　and　assumed　that　the　unjust　hirer



employed　both。　He　employs　both　no　more　than　the　just　hirer。　The



only　difference　（in　the　outset；　is　that　the　just　man　pays



sufficiently；　the　unjust　man　insufficiently；　for　the　labour　of



the　single　person　employed。



　　　　I　say；　〃in　the　outset；〃　for　this　first　or　apparent；



difference　is　not　the　actual　difference。　By　the　unjust　procedure；



half　the　proper　price　of　the　work　is　left　in　the　hands　of　the



employer。　This　enables　him　to　hire　another　man　at　the　same　unjust



rate；　on　some　other　kind　of　work；　and　the　final　result　is　that　he



has　two　men　working　for　him　at　half　price；　and　two　are　out　of



employ。



　　　　By　the　just　procedure；　the　whole　price　of　the　first　piece　of



work　goes　in　the　hands　of　the　man　who　does　it。　No　surplus　being



left　in　the　employer's　hands；　he　cannot　hire　another　man　for



another　piece　of　labour。　But　by　precisely　so　much　as　his　power　is



diminished；　the　hired　workman's　power　is　increased；　that　is　to



say；　by　the　additional　half　of　the　price　he　has　received；　which



additional　half　he　has　the　power　of　using　to　employ　another　man



in　his　service。　I　will　suppose；　for　the　moment；　the　least



favourable；　though　quite　probable；　case　　that；　though　justly



treated　himself；　he　yet　will　act　unjustly　to　his　subordinate；　and



hire　at　half…price；　if　he　can。　The　final　result　will　then　be；



that　one　man　works　for　the　employer；　at　just　price；　one　for　the



workman；　at　half…price；　and　two；　as　in　the　first　case；　are　still



out　of　employ。　These　two；　as　I　said　before；　are　out　of　employ　in



both　cases。　The　difference　between　the　just　and　unjust　procedure



does　not　lie　in　the　number　of　men　hired；　but　in　the　price　paid　to



them；　and　the　persons　by　whom　it　is　paid。　The　essential



difference；　that　which　I　want　the　reader　to　see　clearly；　is；　that



in　the　unjust　case；　two　men　work　for　one；　the　first　hirer。　In　the



just　case；　one　man　works　for　the　first　hirer；　one　for　the　person



hired；　and　so　on；　down　or　up　through　the　various　grades　of



service；　the　influence　being　carried　forward　by　justice；　and



arrested　by　injustice。　The　universal　and　constant　action　of



justice　in　this　matter　is　therefore　to　diminish　the　power　oF



wealth；　in　the　hands　of　one　individual；　over　masses　of　men；　and



to　distribute　it　through　a　chain　of　men。　The　actual　power　exerted



by　the　wealth　is　the　same　in　both　cases；　but　by　injustice　it　is



put　all　into　one　man's　hands；　so　that　he　directs　at　once　and　with



equal　force　the　labour　of　a　circle　of　men　about　him；　by　the　just



procedure；　he　is　permitted　to　touch　the　nearest　only；　through



whom；　with　diminished　force；　modified　by　new　minds；　the　energy　of



the　wealth　passes　on　to　others；　and　so　till　it　exhausts　itself。



　　　　The　immediate　operation　of　justice　in　this　respect　is



therefore　to　diminish　the　power　of　wealth；　first　in　acquisition



of　luxury；　and；　secondly；　in　exercise　of　moral　influence。　The



employer　cannot　concentrate　so　multitudinous　labour　on　his　own



interests；　nor　can　he　subdue　so　multitudinous　mind　to　his　own



will。　But　the　secondary　operation　of　justice　is　not　less



important。　The　insufficient　payment　of　the　group　of　men　working



for　one；　places　each　under　a　maximum　of　difficulty　in　rising



above　his　position。　The　tendency　of　the　system　is　to　check



advancement。　But　the　sufficient　or　just　payment；　distributed



through　a　descending　series　oF　offices　or　grades　or　labour；（11*）



gives　each　subordinated　person　fair　and　sufficient　means　of



rising　in　the　social　scale；　if　he　chooses　to　use　them；　and　thus



not　only　diminishes　the　immediate　power　of　wealth；　but　removes



the　worst　disabilities　of　poverty。



　　　　It　is　on　this　vital　problem　that　the　entire　destiny　of　the



labourer　is　ultimately　dependent。　Many　minor　interests　may



sometimes　appear　to　interfere　with　it；　but　all　branch　from　it。



For　instance；　considerable　agitation　is　often　caused　in　the　minds



of　the　lower　classes　when　they　discover　the　share　which　they



nominally；　and　to　all　appearance；　actually；　pay　out　of　their



wages　in　taxation　（I　believe　thirty…five　or　forty　per　cent）。　This



sounds　very　grievous；　but　in　reality　the　labourer　does　not　pay



it；　but　his　employer。　If　the　workman　had　not　to　pay　it；　his　wages



would　be　less　by　just　that　sum：　competition　would　still　reduce



them　to