[Letter] [Sept.]23,[1891?],Smith College [to F.H. Giddings]

   [Sept.] 23, [1891?], Smith College.

Dear Friend,
       I have just reread
one of the letters of the
editor of the new English
Dictionary of Polit. Ec., and
find that one of the two
articles that he requested of
me was to be on the
Cost of Distribution, the
other being on the Ethics
of Dist. I had formerly
read it Law of Dist.
My wife read it in the
same way. I had an
article on that subject
under way. I discovered the
mistake through a
marginal note on one of the
circulars sent to me. Now
I have written to the
editor that, in my use,
distribution means the
apportionment of the collective
income of society among
different classes; that in
this sense it has no
true cost; that there is
a popular use of the word
that makes it mean the
dividing of merchandise
among consumers, - the
merchant's function, and
in this sense it has a
cost. In this sense it is
a part of production. There
is friction and loss
connected with adjusting
wages, but no true cost.
I therefore am disqualified
from writing an article on
the Cost of Dist. Am I
right? I then unfold
to him the purpose of our
committee on Definition
and say we thought of
seeking English coperation.
I express the hope that the
dictionary may help in this
direction. In particular
I express the hope that it
may clear up the difficulty
about the word distribution.
I venture to express the
hope that no article will
discuss the cost of distribution,
since that will confirm
the popular confusion. What
may come of it I do not know.
I fear it may create delay as
the time for the article is about
arrived.

       Yours Very Truly,
            J. B. Clark