[Letter] Nov.18,1887,Smith College [to F.H. Giddings]

Nov. 18, 1887, Smith College.

Dear Mr. Giddings,
          If you happen to
have a vol. that would do
as a model, in so far as
binding goes, would it not
be well to send it to
me to be forwarded later
to Ginn & Co.? They will
promptly return it. I had
not thought of appending our
names to chapters, but
had thought of putting these
in table of contents. I
think we need a preface,
and if it so strikes you
suppose you sketch one
that covers such points as
seem to you to be required.
 It has seemed to me
that we need to say that
the emphasis, in our title,
is on the modernness of
the system we analyze, and
that we do not claim to
discuss Distribution in its
entirety, but only that part
of the process that has
undergone changes from
recent industrial developments;
that we conceive of dist. as
a systematic division, subdivision,
and farther subdivision of
the aggregate income of society
in which producing (1) groups,
(2) subgroups, (3) the labor class
and capital class in each
final sub-group constitute the
respective actors (Wealth
divided among groups by sale of
completed product - the part
embodied in the product subdivided
by sales of sub-products - the
part embodied in each
sub-product divided by wage
contract between employers
and employed). As well
sub-products together constitute
all wealth created by industry
the entire amount is ( )
in final dividends, and
as all industrial society is
included in sub-groups, the
tertiary division referred to
distributes all wealth created
among all creators or claimants.
The free flow of capital and
labor from sub-group to sub-
group equalizes the gains of
capitalists and laborers in all.
It is as though in the long run
all capital were fitted in distribu-
tion against. all labor. At a
particular time relations are
confined to groups. The division
of the two subdivisions referred to
distribute what is on hand at a
particular period according to pre-
existing social arrangements, and give
temporary distribution corresponding to
market price as distinct from
"natural" or normal price of
commodities, while movements
from sub-group to sub- group
affect the pre-existing
social arrangement, and
settle the terms of permanent,
"natural" or normal
distribution.
Now the mode of
these adjustments is modem.
New conditions affect the
relation of groups to each,
other and, thus, affect
temporary distribution, while
equally modem conditions
affect the movement
from group to group and,
thus, the normal and
permanent distribution.
 Well - I
had not a thought, when
I began this letter that
the sketch of my idea would
so prolong itself. It is a
trifle cool to ask you
to make a preface and
then to precipitate such
a mass of suggestion upon
you. Please sketch the
preface all the same,
changing the suggestions
at will or omitting the
points altogether of others more available occur to you.
 By the way, I have not
written out this little
analysis before, and it might
be well to keep the letter for
reference at some time. I
do not think that the
general subject of Distribution
has received the systematic
treatment that even our
short sketch will give it.
 Of course, my long drawn
out suggestion of preface does
not intend to convey anything on the
subject of form. As I have
written it I think it would be
pretty incomprehensible to a reader.
 Miss Ruth Bowles, sister of
Samuel the younger, is my graduate
pupil in Economics. She expressed regret
that she had no one in Springfield whom
she could consult between the times of her
visits here. I told her Springfield had just
the man, if he would give her the time,
my friend F. H. Giddings. If she finds
that she needs help of that kind would you
like to give it? I presume she would
expect to pay for time.
 I think we shall find
Ginn & Co. prompt to act, and
reasonable in listening to
suggestions. They will be charged of
putting much money into binding
etc. I think we want thick paper.
Is the paper of the Quarterly about
right?

               Yours Very Truly,
                     J. B. Clark