International division of labor. When the territories considered are not different sections of the same country but diferent countries, we have what is known as the international division of labor. Were it not for certain uneconomic factors which enter into the problems of national life and existence, everything which can be said in favor of a territorial division of labor and freedom of exchange within a country could also be said, and with equal force, in favor of an international division of labor. The chief of these uneconomic factors is the possibility of war. War is the greatest disturber of normal economic activities, and until it can be eliminated, every nation must calculate upon its possibility and be prepared for it. In case of war a nation which is not prepared to produce all the necessaries of life, as well as all military supplies, may find itself helpless before a foreign enemy. Its only other hope would be to keep open the channels of commerce which connect it with outside sources of supply, but this is one of the things which the enemy country would try to prevent.

In some animal societies, and especially in the colonies of certain insects such as bees and ants, there is an elaborate and admirable division of labor. Elaborate and admirable as it is, however, it is rudimentary as compared with that which is found in any highly developed industrial society. There is no such minute division of labor and extreme specialization as is found in a modern factory; there is no such detailed planning for the distant future, there is no such bringing together of materials from distant places, there is no such coördination of labor performed at such widely separated times and places, there is no such system of exchange as we see carried on all about us in our own communities. If you will study the various material objects on your dinner table and find out all about each of them, you will find that literally thousands of people, few of whom you ever saw or heard of, or who ever saw or heard of one another, have had a part in the preparation of your meal and the table, dishes, knives, forks, and spoons

which you use. It is through the system which we have called the division of labor that you, by doing a very few useful things and doing them well, find a considerable variety of objects on your table at the proper time without your having given much thought to any one of them.

No preconceived plan. This is sometimes called the organization of industry. The term organization may be a little misleading, though not necessarily so. It seems to imply that somebody thought it all out or planned it and then organized the system. It did not come about in that way. The process was more nearly like the slow growth of an organism. Each individual has looked about for something to do in order to earn a living, and has taken what looked to him at the time as the most available opportunity. Wherever there was a scarcity of workers, there has been an opportunity for a new worker. Wherever there was an oversupply, the opportunity has not looked so good. By that simple process in which each individual chose to do that which he could do best, the whole elaborate system has been worked out.

Adam Smith's remarks, quoted earlier in this chapter, regarding the way in which the minute division of labor has aided in the invention and improvement of machinery, may be applied to the much greater problem of the development and improvement of a great and complex industrial system. When each workman spends all his time performing a single operation, it is much easier for him to devise a better way of doing it than it would be if he had to give his attention to many things. It is probable that no important and complicated machine was ever invented and made to work successfully without a great deal of trying out, modification, and general improvement. In actual use many weaknesses in the machine are revealed, which no inventor, however wise, could have foreseen and prevented. What is sometimes called the heroic theory of invention does not actually work in practice. By the heroic theory is meant the theory that a great invention springs,

a completed whole, from the mind of the inventor, as Athena sprang full-armed from the head of Zeus. The fact seems to be that no human mind is capable of inventing a complete and successful machine without many trials, failures, modifications, and detailed and piecemeal improvements. Even such a simple device as a bicycle passed through a long and interesting evolution before it reached a stage which made it genally useful and popular. The automobile is another illustration of gradual and detailed improvement after it was actually in use.

If it is impossible for any human intelligence to invent and construct at once a satisfactory automobile, it would be obviously impossible to have invented and organized a whole industrial system. It would present an infinitely more difficult problem than the invention and construction of any machine that was ever built. 'It has been by age-long trial and error, variation and selection, experiment and failure, that even a tolerably successful industrial system has been worked out. There are doubtless endless improvements yet to be made, but they will certainly be made by the same process of gradual and piecemeal adjustment. Anyone who thinks that he can devise and organize a better system than the present shows, by the very fact that he thinks so, that he is unfitted for the task. He shows that he lacks the first element in fitness; namely, a knowledge of the vastness of the problem and the infinite number of difficulties to be overcome. It is different, however, with one who thinks of some detail in the present industrial system which might be improved. This presents a problem worthy of the greatest minds, and it also furnishes a possibility of genuine achievement.

CHAPTER XI

POWER

Power needed for moving material objects. It has been pointed out in Chapter VIII that man's work, on the physical side at least, consists in moving material objects. For this work the first essential is power. The power first applied was, of course, that which was generated in his own body and exercised through his own muscles. But the secret of the industrial success of modern civilized nations lies in their command of other sources of power rather than in any superior muscularity of their own.

Animal power. The first of these other sources of power which man utilized on a large scale was that of animals which he domesticated and enslaved. They are still one of the most important sources, if not the most important source, of power. According to the Yearbook of the United States Department of Agriculture there were on the farms of the United States on January 1, 1916, about 25,731,000 horses and mules, to say nothing of those in use in the cities and towns. The latest figures for horses and mules not on farms are those given in the census of 1910. On April 15 of that year there were 3,543,000. Assuming that there were as many in 1916, it would bring the total up to 29,184,000. Some of those on farms, of course, are colts too young to work. Those of working age, both on farms and not on farms, are probably close to 25,000,000. Besides horses and mules, a few oxen are still used. The "primary horse power" (that is, horse power in its original sense) used in manufacturing in the United States in 1914 was estimated at 22,547,574. It has been increasing rapidly, so that by 1916 it was certainly much larger. It is not easy to compare the

actual working power of a horse with that of the horse-power unit as used in measuring the power of a steam engine, but, assuming that they are equal, it would appear that the total animal power in use in the United States is very nearly as great as the total steam and water power used in manufacturing.

Among the animals which have furnished power for man's work may be named the horse, the mule, the ass, the ox, the buffalo, the camel, the elephant, the reindeer, the llama, the dog, and the goat. Of these, the most important for the north temperate zone is the horse, though the ox is a close second. Originally, in fact until very modern times, the horse was used mainly to carry man himself or loads of material on his back rather than for traction; that is, for pulling or drawing loads. Such traction as he was required to perform was the drawing of war chariots and carriages of state, and, later, carriages and vehicles for the conveyance of travelers. His speed fitted him especially for this work. For the slower and heavier work of plowing, harrowing, and drawing heavy loads of farm produce the ox was long considered superior. In the first place, he was larger and heavier than the horses of that day. His heavy body and short legs and his general anatomy seemed to fit him peculiarly for pulling. He fights by pushing with his head. This seemed to call into play the same muscles, bones, and joints as are used in pushing on the yoke. During the last century or so the horse and the mule have been gradually displacing the ox even in agriculture.

Displacement of the ox by the horse. Two factors have contributed to this change from the ox to the horse and the mule as a source of power for farm work. One is the development of large and heavy breeds of horses of such strength and docility as to fit them as well as oxen for the pulling of heavy loads. The other is the development of farm machinery. All large breeds of horses, however, have been developed in the northwestern parts of Europe; that is, in Great Britain, northern France, Belgium, Holland, and Denmark. Whether this is due