The several locks of the Erie and Miami Canals, afford considerable motive power, within the corporate limits of the city. In 1845, a few enterprising business men were incorporated as the Dayton Hydraulic Company. This company constructed a hydraulic canal, from a point at Mad River, four miles above the city. By means of this canal, the waters of a large and unfailing river are brought through the city, and the surplus water is discharged into the canal, and thence into the Miami River, below the city. It was supposed that this additional water-power, was equal to one hundred run of stones. Of late, it has been found that this estimate was too large. The whole power is leased to manufacturers. This addition to the motive power of the city, is justly ranked as one of the chief sources of its prosperity. It is thought, by competent judges, that an additional water-power, equal to that of the Hydraulic Company, can be created by conducting the waters of the Miami River (a still larger stream on the western side of the city) through a canal, and discharging the same into the river below the city. This project is worthy of the attention of capitalists. There is no other city in the West so largely engaged in the manufacture and export of linseed oil and oil-cake as Dayton. The crop of flax, in the Miami Valley, is raised almost entirely for the seed; very little of the fiber being preserved for any profitable use. It is hoped that in the progress of recent discoveries, some method will be found, whereby the raising of flax for the fiber, will be a source of profit to the farmer. AMOUNT OF FLAXSEED PURCHASED, AND OIL MANUFACTURED, AT DAYTON IN 1850-51. 134,000 bushels of seed purchased, at an averaged cost of $1 22 per bush. $163,348 Amount of oil produced from same.. Average value per gallon, 72 cents.. $212,040 2,680 tons of oil-cake, produced from same, valued at $10 per ton...... $26,800 1851-155,000 bushels of seed at $1 05 ... $162,750 Producing 294,500 gallons of oil, at 63 cents 185,535 $1,000 FLOUR. The amount of superfine flour, which is manufactured annually in the city, is equal to 125,000 barrels. For the two past years, the annual wheat crop of Montgomery County (of which Dayton is the County seat) has been equal to 900,000 bushels. MANUFACTURES GENERALLY. Dayton surpasses all other Western cities of its size, in the variety and extent of the manufactures. Among the more notable and extensive establishments, are those for the manufactures of freight and passenger cars, on the largest scale. Paper mills for wrapping, news, and book paper, which supply no small part of the Western market. Foundries for stoves, hollow ware, &c. The value of the annual products of these three branches of industry is half a million of dollars. BANKS AND CAPITAL. There are three chartered banks in the city. One branch of the State Bank, one independent bank, and one bank organized under the new Free Banking Law. The aggregate capital stock of the chartered banks is $350,000. Besides these there are several private banks, which employ a capital of $200,000, making the capital used for banking purposes in the city, as near as can be ascertained, $550,000. This amount of banking capital is by no means adequate to supply the business interest of the city. Double the present amount might be safely and profitably used in this department of business. PUBLIC BUILDINGS. It can hardly be expected that when cities spring out of the wilderness, as of yesterday, the public buildings should equal in magnitude and architectural perfection, the splendid and costly structures of the old and wealthy cities of the country. The Court House for the county, located in Dayton, is believed to be the most elegant building of the kind in the Mississippi Valley. Its dimensions are 127 feet in length, by 62 in breadth. It is built of hewn blocks of coarse but compact white marble, which abounds in the vicinity. The roof is of stone, and the doors of solid iron. The style of architecture is that of the Parthenon, with slight modifications. The plan seems to be faultless, and the effect of the building is chaste and imposing. Its whole cost exceeds somewhat $100,000. MUNICIPAL ADVANTAGES, ETC. The streets, stores, and public buildings are lighted with gas, supplied by a company chartered for the purpose. The gas is made from the bituminous coal found about the head-waters of the Ohio, and affords a cheap and excellent light. Coke and tar are also made from the coal used in supplying the works. The library association of the city has laid the foundation for a valuable library, having now upward of 2,000 volumes of new-selected books. The library is open to minors, under proper restrictions. A course of lectures is usually delivered before the association during the winter months, which is free to the citizens generally. Besides an excellent female academy and several private schools, there are six free schools in the city, which are conducted in the most admirable manner. Five of these are common schools;" the sixth is called the "high school," a popular college, into which the pupils from the other schools are admitted, when they have made the prescribed advancement in the usual English studies, and sustain a good character. There are two market buildings in the city. The principal one is 400 feet long, and paved with blocks of limestone. A part of the second story of the building is occupied as a City Hall and Council Chamber. The markets of the city exhibit the overflowing abundance of the valley. Poultry, beef, pork, eggs, butter, &c., are obtained (usually) at 20 per cent less than the prices at Cincinnati, and 35 to 40 per cent less than the same articles command in the Boston market. As the population of the city increases, of course this disproportion in prices will be less. VOL. XXVI.-NO. V. 37 Art. V.-LAW OF PROGRESS IN THE RELATIONS OF CAPITAL AND LABOR. PART II. We have seen, according to the Professor's statement, that the opening of a railroad and a canal, in Illinois, affected the price of corn sixty per cent; taxing the consumers of the neighborhood to that extent, without contributing a cent to the outlay; thus in this instance capital may be said to have taxed itself. This inexorable principle of rent is the great reservoir, in all countries, which swallows up the greatest share of the increased production; and this must be the case, until society have arrived at that tone of moral feeling which teaches it the duty of limiting population within the bounds of a decent maintenance. Whenever that is the case, a check will be given to the rise of rent, to the decrease in the rate of profit, and the diminution of wages. The principle of rent, therefore, may be stated to be modified by various circumstances, the extent and variety of soils, the state of improvements, the laws and institutions of a country, and the intelligent and moral condition of the people--taxes must always diminish the general fund of profit, but cannot reach rent unless a direct tax be laid upon it according to its value. Professor Smith has again quoted from the Edinburgh Review of April last, although I have previously shown from his own words, that he had no reliable information respecting common labor; he has, however, quoted in support of a general increase of wages, three or four of the handicraft trades of the metropolis; and the period, from 1800 to 1836. Many objections might be stated to this, as affording any test of the general and constant rise of wages claimed by Professor Smith; but the position is in itself so weak, that it appears almost unnecessary. We will, however, state a few as briefly as possible. First. Why were not these statistics continued up to 1851? Because, most probably, they would have exhibited a decline since that period; and it was not for the interest of the reviewer to produce such evidence. The political and economical circumstances of England ought also to be taken into consideration. Many violent economical changes took place in England within the period of these statistics, certainly in favor of an increase of wages. If the absolute amount of money wages had not increased in such necessary callings as carpenters, bricklayers, and plumbers, such artisans could not have been obtained. Up to the year 1790 England was a grain-exporting country. The French war broke out in 1792 or 1793, and lasted with very little intermission till 1815. In 1797 the Bank of England suspended specie payments, and the Parliament passed a law to make the notes of that corporation a legal tender; the consequence was a depre ciation of from twenty to thirty per cent. Thus the circumstances of England became materially altered. A series of bad harvests commenced, and from the low prices of an exporting country, a period of high prices supervened, taking all circumstances together, without a parallel in history. During the war she imported fifteen millions of quarters of wheat, which in four different years reached the high price of five dollars a bushel. Added to this, she borrowed and expended five or six hundred millions sterling, chiefly in draining the country of men. Now, if under these circumstances the wages of skilled labor would not rise, in money price, without the Professor's natural law of progress, I do not know when they would. There are other objections to these wages as a test; they were the wages of the metropolis, where the operations of the government were carried on, and where prices were necessarily highest, and where men must be had. These trades also required a portion of time and capital to learn them, and certainly were not so liable to be overstocked as those requiring little or no education. The same objections apply with equal force to the printers, and also to the cotton-spinners, with a very little variation. But why were not the wages of the calico weavers and printers, the woolen cloth weavers, the stocking, the lace, and the silk weavers, &c., produced? Theyld have been found in the "Commissioners' Reports," no doubt. And why were not the wages of the spinners stated who wrought the coarser numbers of yarn? Simply because they did not serve the purpose of the reviewer; whose business it was to show that wages had increased. The Professor next carries us to Jamaica, and tells us a long story about negroes cutting firewood with an ax like "the blade of a sythe stuck in a wooden handle," and what a great deal more wood they would be able to cut with an American ax. The Professor also introduces us to a gentleman of the name of Anderson, who has been lecturing to the negroes upon the advantages of the plow over the hoe, as though any one doubted such a circumstance. And he also quotes Mr. Bigelow, to show that wages (upon the average) are about twenty-one cents a day, out of which the negroes have to pay their own board at the following prices flour from sixteen to eighteen dollars a barrel, three shillings a pound for butter, five cents a dozen for eggs, and twenty-five cents a pound for hams; and then goes on to say: "Furnish the negro wood-chopper with the American ax, and it is even more evident, that the proportion which his wages while using it, will bear to the total value of his work, will be much greater than at present, than it is that the proportion of the cloth earned by the Lowell spinners and weavers has increased by the use of improved machinery. It is more evident, because the labor of a few days will enable the negro to buy an American ax, and earn the highest wages, by working for himself, whereas it requires an extensive combination of spinners and weavers to command the ownership of cotton machinery, and enable them to enter into competition with their old employers, if the latter do not consent to give them that increased proportion of the cloth spun and woven to which their increased efficiency has entitled them." For my part I cannot see much difference in the two cases, but the Professor appears to have forgotten that the spinners and weavers were to obtain their extra pay out of the cheapness caused by their increased efficiency; and the negro must do the same. It is quite nonsense to talk of compelling their "old employers, in either case, to double their wages," when the relative value of the products of each must decline. And on the other hand, if the wood cutter wrought by the bulk, he would, like the Lowell spinrer, soon find that his wages would fall to the same amount as before he doubled his production-to the amount necessary, in each case, to furnish a mere subsistence. The Professor also makes great parade about the advantages of the plow over the hoe, but apparently being aware of the weakness of his position, he says: "I might specify a great variety of improvements in the methods of cultivation, in drainage, in manures, in the rotation of crops, in securing them when gathered, and transporting them to market, which occurring with improved tools, have increased from age to age, as population and cap ital have grown; the productiveness of agricultural labor, that is to say, have given so much greater a return per head to the persons employed, as after providing each of these with 'an increased share of the crops, thus increasing their wages and comforts, to yet leave an enlarged quantity to the capitalist or landowner." That great improvements have taken place in the methods of cultivation, I am not inclined to deny; but that these improvements have resulted “in a greater return per head," I must decidedly object, as being entirely fallacious. Without going back to the times of Herodotus, and the extraordinary fertility of the plains of Asia, which for so many centuries allowed the maintenance of such vast armies, we may perhaps be able to prove, that Professor Smith and Mr. Carey are both mistaken in this point. The Professor appears to have forgotten, that improved machinery requires iron, and wood, and hands to make it, which must all be paid for out of the increased production, before any profit can accrue to the community; and there is a large amount of labor pertaining to agriculture, in which little or no improvement can be made, beyond the simple hand tool. But I should like to know where this increased productiveness of agricultural labor is to be found. Not long since, we saw an account of large numbers of Russian landowners falling into poverty on account of the decreased fertility of the soil, and we have plenty of evidence that the fertility of the soil of the United States is rapidly depreciating, in spite of this improved machinery and these improved methods. We take the following from the Working Farmer, as quoted by the Tribune of February 8th: "The older States, with all the best lands in cultivation, do not at this time raise half the quantity of wheat they raised a few years ago; and the consumers in the Atlantic States are paying nearly as much for transportation, on a large portion of their breadstuffs, as the farmers who grow it receive for their grain. The wheat crops of New York are less than half what they were thirty years ago, and still no effort is made to disseminate the necessary information for arresting the evil." This is a specimen of what the improved machinery has done, without the improved methods. How does this prove that food naturally increases faster than population? We may endeavor to replace the fertility lost, but this must be done by extra labor and materials, and then we have no reason to believe from experience, that the original fertility can ever be reached; it even appears impossible. What is the average of other countries? According to statistics read by Mr. Porter before the statistical section of the British Association for the Improvement of Science, it was proved that the Department of the Eure in France produced upon the average of the English acre, but eighteen bushels of wheat, seventeen of barley, and twenty of oats; but this department appears to have been above the average fertility, as Dr. Bowring afterwards stated in the House of Commons, upon the authority of French statistics, that the average production of forty departments east of Paris, was only fourteen and three-twentieths of a bushel of wheat. What have improved machinery and improved methods done for France? It is not possible to presume that the original fertility of France did not exceed its present amount. The average production of England is said to be twenty-eight bushels per acre; but I think that is too much, and if my memory serves me correctly, I have lately seen it stated at twenty-four. Be that as it may, England has been a large importer of food and other raw material, for the last half century, and within the last few years those importations have vastly increased; |