(8) The Minister was given

to the Court of Appeals. power to nominate the members of any special board and unless one-fifth or more of the employers or employees respectively objected within twenty-one days to the persons nominated to represent them, the persons nominated might be appointed members of the board by the Minister. If one-fifth of the employers or employees did object, an election was to be held the same as hitherto.

This last amendment was one which received the strong indorsement of Sir Alexander Peacock, leader of the Opposition. Sir Alexander has always favored the appointment rather than the election of the board members. His reasons are well set forth by the following extract from his speech on the adoption of the amendment. He said:

I am confident that the great defect that has arisen in connection with our wages boards is owing to the fact that the representatives on the respective sides, before they are elected at all, have made pledges as to what they would do when they came to deal as jurymen with questions to which they should give the fairest attention, recognizing all interests; and then having made those pledges the questions that come before them are pre-judged before any evidence is taken. . . . We know that candidates for election to the wages boards have canvassed for votes, and have pledged themselves to ask for certain rates of wages, and that on the other side the employers' representatives have pledged themselves beforehand to insist on the wages being as low as possible. That was all done before any evidence was taken to determine what the proper rates For three years we tried that system and my experience in administering the act was exactly what I have said.1

were.

In August, 1905, the Government introduced the bill to consolidate and make permanent the nine existing laws relating to factories and shops. No changes were made in the laws themselves. In introducing the measure the Minister of Labor called attention to the

1 Parl. Debates, vol. 105, pp. 116-117.

fact that in 1896, the year when the wages boards plan was introduced into legislation, the number of workers registered in factories was 40,814; in 1904 it was 60,977.1 He said:

If these figures prove anything, I think that they prove that the laws relating to factories have not in any way impeded the progress of trade in this country. I think those figures also prove the efficacy and great advantage of having these industrial laws in the State. No doubt, in the early history of these Acts, there was very considerable friction in connection with the position of employer and employees. I think I am correct in stating that the Acts are now working smoothly, and that a much better feeling exists almost the best of feeling between both sides, and that the employers as well as the employees are thoroly well satisfied with the law as it obtains at present. I think that the hostile mood that was apparent in the early history of these Acts has disappeared, and that there is every prospect of success in connection with our industrial legislation."

The early passage of the consolidating bill through both houses of Parliament gave evidence of the truth of the Minister's statement. The debates on the measure were very brief. Most of the speakers praised the acts for having prevented sweating and strikes and for improving the relations between masters and men.3 Some little muttering of discontent was heard from those members who claimed that the acts were still in the "experimental" stage and should therefore not be made permanent, but this was but the lingering echo of the storm of opposition which had nearly swept the acts away in 1902-03. When the time came for a vote the bill to consolidate and make permanent the existing factories legislation passed in both houses without a division.

Since 1905 no fundamental changes in the wages boards legislation have been made in Victoria, but the

1 Parl. Debates, vol. 110, p. 906. Ibid., p. 906.

Ibid., vol. 111, pp. 1608-1612. 4 Ibid., p. 1611.

powers of the boards have been steadily increased. The provision in the 1905 act by which every board was instructed to ascertain the average wages "paid by employers to employees of average capacity " was found to be unsatisfactory and to hamper the work of the boards. It was accordingly repealed in 1907.1 In 1909 Parliament provided that District Boards might be appointed in the mining industry instead of one board for the entire State and that any district board might make its determinations apply to any part of such district as it saw fit. At the same session of Parliament power was given to the Governor in Council to authorize the boards to take into consideration in fixing the lowest rates of pay the following matters: (a) the place or locality where the work was to be done; (b) the hour of the day or night when the work was to be performed; (c) whether more than six consecutive days' work was to be done and to fix special prices or rates for work done on Sundays or holidays; (d) the time of beginning and ending work upon each day and the special rate of pay for work done at any hours other than those fixed for any day; (e) whether the work was casual, i. e., for less than a day."

At every session of Parliament since 1905 resolutions have been carried in both houses for the appointment of new wages boards, until at the close of 1913 there were in existence or authorized 134 special boards in as many trades or occupations. The Chief Inspector estimated that about 150,000 workers had their minimum rates of pay determined by such boards. Not only has the number of trades for which boards are provided continued to increase but their scope has

1 Report of Chief Inspector for 1907, p. 3.

2 Report of Chief Inspector for 1909, p. 4.

Report of the Chief Inspector for 1913, p. 6.

constantly widened. The idea that the boards were to operate only in the sweated trades has long been abandoned. No longer is the board plan of wage regulation limited to manufacturing industries. Asphalters, bill posters, bread carters, carpenters, coal miners, commercial clerks, dressmakers, electroplaters, factory engine drivers, gold miners, furniture dealers, gardeners, grocers, hotel employees, livery-stable employees, milliners, night-watchmen, office-cleaners, quarrymen, shop assistants (retail clerks), sorters and packers, tea packers, timber-fellers, tuck-pointers and many other classes of employees have their minimum wages and maximum hours fixed by such boards.1

No

In some industries and occupations two boards are appointed, one for the metropolitan area (Melbourne and suburbs) and the other for the country districts. Thus there are the flour board and the country flour board, the printers' board and the country printers' board, the country shop assistants' board, etc.2 effort has as yet been made in Victoria to provide wages boards for distinctly agricultural callings. Doubtless the country prejudice against such legislation still survives. Nor has there been any effort to regulate the wages or hours of domestic servants by means of such legislation. But practically every other field of industry has been invaded and Mr. Alfred Deakin's prediction, made in 1895, that "one day or other these boards will be established in every trade" comes wellnigh realization within the life of that gentleman.

M. B. HAMMOND.

OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY.

1 The full list of boards is given in the Annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories.

2 Report of Chief Inspector for 1913, p. 6.

SPECIFIC PRODUCTIVITY

SUMMARY

The argument for productivity as the determinant of distributive shares, 149. Preliminary criticism, 151. — The main argument for specific productivity rests upon a truism, 152. - The impossibility of isolating specific productivity, 155. The mathematical error in the method of isolating specific productivity, 158. The two schools of value theorists, 162. — The psychological theory of value; a safeguard against the dangers in productivity reasoning, 163. — The surrender of the social implications of the productivity thesis, 166. — The element of truth in the specific productivity concept, 168. Conclusion, 174.

Since

ECONOMICS is no longer the dismal science. the days when the wage fund and the principle of population were combined to deprive the wage earners of hope, enormous strides have been taken in the formulation of an economic theory which is both more hopeful and more correct. The revolution which has taken place within the field of economics is comparable to that effected by Darwin in the hypotheses of biology. In accomplishing this revolution in economic thought few men, if any, have rendered greater service than Professor J. B. Clark. Yet one important part of his work has tended to enslave us by a belief only less dismal than those which have been discarded. This is his doctrine of " specific productivity." 1

Professor Clark's thesis 2 is that even among the complexities of modern industry a laborer creates a

1 The Distribution of Wealth, 1899. The doctrine has been reaffirmed in The Essentials of Economic Theory, 1908.

2 "The specific productivity of labor fixes wages — this is the thesis that is to be supported in this volume. Ascertain how large a product is to be attributed to a single unit of labor that is employed in raising wheat, making shoes, smelting iron, spinning cotton, etc., and you have the standard to which the pay of all labor tends to conform.