Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The independent. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1902-1907 | View Entire Issue (Feb. 26, 1903)
I : r &m f - " - ft mi mm Vol. XIV. LINCOLN, NEB., FEB. 2f, 1903. No. 40. DEFINITIONS VS. IDEAS for Mr- Tan VorhU Urges tha KcceailtT Idea Rather Than Inflexible Definitions Editor Independent: Frequently, in periodicals, I read articles written by earnest and thoughtful men that im press me with the difficulties in eco nomic discussion occasioned by the in considerate use of words that, in the nature of language, are not precise in meaning. It is impossible for words to have such certain and specific meaning as some writers desire to give them. Language, like everything related to human development, is an evolution. It has been evolved out of necessities, the results of conditions and circum stances. This is as .true of words, and the meaning of them, in the develop ment of language as it is of tools and the use of tools in the development of mechanics. Words have been loaded with Uncertainty in meaning as much as have traditions and theories with errors. The want of precise meaning in words, or, to express it in another way, the various meanings and shades of meaning with which the same word is used, is the result of the same causes that have filled history with '"traditions and theories" that' are Eiixed and confused, or that have lit tle basis of truth. The minds of men are warped "and made to fit" not only ! by a restriction of. the and try to confine them to some mean ing of our own, we shall find our selves, I think, not only to be misun derstood when we use them, but we will have prepared ourselves to mis understand the valuable writings that make up what may be called the standard literature of the subject. There are not many writers, who have attempted any very comprehen sive consideration of economic sci ence, that have not attempted some definition of "wealth." Many of them have recognized the difficulty, if not impossibility, of a definition that would be completely inclusive and ex clusive. When I read, therefore, the statement "that while the subject of political economy is 'wealth,' yet no definition of that subject has ever been attempted," and that, because of this, the science is vague and "has proceeded without a definite subject," I am forced to conclude that the writ er has allowed himself to be confused by a desire for precision in definitions, and by taking as precise definitions that, in the nature of things, cannot be. The desire for precise definitions of some of the important words used in economics, the effort to construct 'such definitions, and the acceptance of some definitions as precise that are not, and, in the very nature of things, cannot be, have been the very bane of economic study. Some writers at tempt to give clearness to the expres sion of their ideas of economics more meaning of "notions," but words "that have come to us from the past" in the evolution of language, we are approximating, I think, a more pre cise meaning in the use of words, but it is worth while in the discussion of any subject, particularly economics, to use words with the meaning justified by the best literature, but it must be remembered that ideas are not ac curately conveyed by words alone, but by a proper combination, and ar-rangen-'ent of them into language. In this way, and in this way only-, can ideas be conveyed with even approx imate correctness and precision. To fail to remember this is a fault from which, I am afraid, none of us, who attempt to write or speak, are as free as we ought to be. The writer, who attempts to give to certain words a fixed and definite meaning, usually fails to confine his use of the words ,to his own definitions, and generally succeeds in having the average reader misunderstand him. ' It ought always to be remembered that no one writer or speaker can de termine the meaning with which a word shall be used. If readers are ex pected to follow accurately our thoughts; we ought to use our words as they are generally used in the best literature. There is no other guide, and to follow this rule is the privilege of every writer. Even when we do this, there are words that we must necessarily use of which the meaning intended must be indicated by the construction of sentences or phrases. It is a most unfortunate defect in a writing that aspires to be a work on economics, and which is accompanied by the announcement of a purpose to reconstruct the science, and which shows much labor and ability, when there occurs so frequently the unnec essary doubling of words, such as "resulting conclusions," "accepted along with," etc., or when wofds are used with such literary inaccuracy as the word "incapable" in "Many of the assumptions are incapable of verifica tion," or as the word "collision" when it is asserted that a theory "comes in collision" with an assumption. Con clusions'are always results. "Accepted with" is not made better by the ad dition of the word "along." It is of questionable literary accuracy to say Assumptions have no capacity, or that they can-collide with theories. Never theless, these inaccuracies do not pre vent the writer from being under- stood. If such use of the words is in accurate, the language is still such '"" tbat you got tne i(iea Intende(i to be expressed; and that, after all, is the important purpose to be attained. It is possible to express an idea clearly, so that there will be no misunder standing about the meaning intended, bv the use of words in a way not jus tified by literary accuracy. There is very lielv to be confusion and uncertainty when we begin the effort to confine too closelv the mean ing with which a word shall be used. If. in our use of words, we forget the latitude given to the meaning of them, words to a narrow limit than by a free use of words and a proper con struction of language. To accept the statement that "the subject of politi cal economy is wealth" as a precise, completely inclusive and completely exclusive statement of a fact is to lay the foundation for error in the subse quent discussion. As a rule, defini tions are only attempts to approxi mate precisions, and do not pretend to be anything m6re. By reference- to the Century Dictionary, it will be found that there are three general meanings with which the word "wealth" is used in literature, but who will assert that the use of the word is, or can -be, confined to these three general classes? If the foundation of economic sci ence is "sandy" and insecure, it is not for want of attempts at definitions. It has been much confused, certainly, by attempts that, in the very nature of things, could not be successful. Neith er generally nor in economic literature has wealth been used with any uni formity of meaning. The reason is obvious. It is an eco nomic conception that is too broad to have its bounds easily fixed. Every attempt to fix the extent and limita tion of the economic idea only results in each particular writer reading into the word his own economic concep tions. The very growth of economic sci ence is marked by the tendency to abandon attempts at precise defini tions, and to use words in a broader and more liberal sense, and thus to make language in its construction more precise and accurate. When we come to a full understanding of eco nomic principles and laws, and the ap plication of them to the best inter ests of humanity, the science will have constructed the definition of its subject, but not until then. Econom ics is not founded upon definitions but principles and laws of existence and action. It is not without a definite subject or object because the word "wealth" cannot be defined. The sub ject of economics is as broad as hu man action, and the object as compre hensive as human needs, and no definition of any word or words can compass it. The ablest writers have recognized the different meanings, and have sought to use words so that they would be understood. Adam Smith, by a short explanation, made clear that the word "value" had at least two gen eral meanings, "value in use" and "value in exchange," and that one use was just as correct as the other. By what authority does any writer assert that it is correct to use value in the sense of its applications to things "in exchange" and incorrect to use it in the sense of its application to mings "in use?" There can be nc reason for it except the desire for what does not exist in language. The fact that such different meanings are given to words cannot be avoided, and the attempt to avoid causes more con fusion than the meanings. The ab-. surdity of the situation is made more manifest when a definition that will "separate value from price", Is de manded. Price is lvalue expressed in terms of money. IX Is just as reason able to demand a' definition of fruit that would separate it from apples. Iwcardo, to distinguish the meaning of "value in exchange" from other meanings of the word, prefixed the word "exchangeable," and, called it "exchangeable value." The language of a writer must be interpreted, of course, according to the thought of his time, but during the time of Smith and Ricardo the criticism implied by the question "How can value be ex changeable?" would not have been justified. It certainly would not be justified now, and. if they were alive today, they might exclaim concern ing that, and the demand for a defi nition that would limit value to one precise meaning, "What nonsense!" We do not need definitions but idef s expressed in language that will be understood by the average reader, whq has neither the time nor the inclina tion to follow an attempt to recon struct either the science of economics or the language of its literature. FLAVIUS J. VAN VORIIIS. Indianapolis, Ind. Gradations A poor man took they called it stole A gunny sack half filled with coal. To him, it seemed like hope and life, For his young babe and failing wife. A cop rushed up they grapple, fight; In vain the poor man smote with might That night his wife and infant died- Ana wncn the prisoners case was tried Condemned, by jury of his peers; To Sing Sing doomed, for twenty years. Three desperate tramps in hunger's "rage, Held up a well-filled, frontier stage. Yes, blood was shed, for some would slay, Ere parting with their gold, that way. One tramp was shot the others fled, Still weak - from hunger want of bread. -Blood-hounds were sent out on their trail Mangled and maimed when lodged in jail. Tried and condemned the two were hung A warning to the old and young! Six idle toughs, great husky scamps Some called them vicious, murderous tramps Derail a train blow off a door, Dynamite the safe find gold, galore. They clutch and grab, till three are slain Shot down by men who run the train. With loads of loot three left took flight. Yet they were trailed yes, shot at sight. All killed, save one, whose wounds will share, That doom of dooms the eloctric chair! A greater gang a hireling horde, Long drilled to fight with gun and sword, To march on land, or sail the sea In search of weakness, or some plea, To conquer, crush despoil, or kill. To please their ruler's murderous will Till burning cities light the plain "A howling wilderness" of slain. Men call these: heroas; Patriot band Shout "Glory!" and "Achievements grand!" LYDIA PLATT RICHARDS. Pasadena, Cal. A False Report. The Co-operator, Kansas City, Mo., under date of January 24, 1903. says: "The co-operative movement in Kansas City continues to grow. The statement in the daily papers concern ing the 'failure' of the co-operative movement was a misunderstanding, and consequently a mis-statement of the situation. "Mr. Vrooman has not lost a cent in experimenting on co-operation. An employe may have mis-directed or mis-appropriated T s. but all the rest that he has . Unto the move ment was not lost. M snent in es tablishing the bush ss nf rnmmor. cial co-operation. All other reports to the contrary are false." THAT "CONSPIRACY" Corraipoadaae Otir Tht Appaal to IUuoi'i Mid-Koad Allajtatloa of FniUa Coatplracy ' In Ita" issue of January 24, 1903, Its so-called "populist" edition, the Ap peal to Reason, a "kangaroo" social ist sheet, said: "There is no use to argue that the logic of the situation made it necessary for the populists to t nominate Bryan at St Louis In ' 1896, for you know that Mr. Bryan . and the populist leaders arranged months before so that the peo ple's party would be placed in this humiliating position. Mr. Bryan so stated to the writer in 1897." This and pther statements The In deDendent emoted in its Issue of Feb ruary 5, and commented by saying: "That is certainly a serious charge if true and a damnable lie if it isn't. Who is the 'writer' to whom Mr. Bryan stated this astounding thing?- (That is, that Mr. Bryan and the populist lead- ders had arranged months before , the. populist national convention to nominate him for president). Where did he say it to the .. 'writer'? The democratic conven tion was July 7, 1890, and the pop ulist July 22, 18. Evidently If the 'writer' tells the truth the populist leaders and Mr. Bryan made all arrangements to have Mr. Bryan nominated at Chicago." Under date of February 7, 1903, The Independent- received a letter from Mr. A. W. Ricker, associate edi tor of the Appeal to Reason, which is printed in full hereinafter. Mr. Ricker is an ex-mid-road populist of Iowa. A day or two before the re ceipt of Mr. Ricker's letter Mr. Bryan had started on his trip through the east; accordingly a copy of Mr. Rick er's letter was made and sent him, with the request that he reply to the allegations therein, so that the two could be published together. Mr. Ricker's charge la simply a variation of the one made by Joe Parker in the Southern Mercury some months ago, namely, that all arrange ments had been made in 1895 for Bry an's nomination. At that time he in timated that he still held several large cards up his sleeve, which he would show in due time, but to date he has brought forward no proof. Mr. Rick er now comes forward and states that Bryan told him that such arrange ment had been made. Mr. Bryan has no recollection of meeting Ricker, but says it is not true that any such ar rangements were made, and that he is sure that he never said anything that "could by any reasonable con struction be tortured into a basis for the charge" Ricker makes. So. far not a scintilla of evidence has been adduced to prove the "co'nspir- -acy." The Independent has been pa tient in giving space to "hot-air" blow ers, simply to see if they have one ftct upon which to base a reasonable conclus.on, but so far they have ad duced r.othing but suspicions. Wheth- . er Mr. Ricker made his assertions ma liciously is on open question, but no reasonalle man will believe, without better proofs than has been brought forward, (a) that any such "arrange ments" were made; or (b) that Mr. Bryan fvor told Mr. Ricker that any such arrangements had been made. Mr. Ricker's letter is as follows: Editor Independent. Lincoln. Neb. Dear Sir: The coDy of vour naner. dated February 5, in which you call on the Appeal to Reason to produce its proof that Mr. Bryan stated in 1897 that his nomination at Chicaeo was arranged prior to the time of the dem ocratic convention, lies before me and I beg to submit the following: In the campaign of 1897 in the stato of Iowa, Mr. Bryan and I were both engaged in very laudable work of pub lic speaking, it so chanced that our tour brought us in conflict with earh other at Onawa, Monona county. I was speaking for the people's party and Mr. Bryan for the democratic par ty, or ine tusion party to be more ex plicit. I snolfe in the forennvn tn ti moderately large crowd and Mr. Brv- an in the afternoon to a very large crowd. It so happened that our next objective point was Council Bluffs and as there was but one train to bear us r
