at Guise have passed into the co-operative phase within the past five
years, but Saltaire and Mulhausen still retain their proprietary business
features.

The class of ventures of which these instances are but the more
conspicuous examples has peculiar characteristics. They differ from the
Peabody and Waterlow buildings of London, described in _Bradstreet's_
last August, from Starr's Philadelphia dwellings, and from the operations
of the "Improved Dwellings Association" of New York in these particulars:
the latter are financially a pure question of direct investment; are
mainly concerned with life among the poor of cities, and, whatever
philanthropy may be in their motive, are capable of adaptation to any
class of citizens. The former, while investments also, are composite, the
business of manufacturing being associated with that of rent collecting
and sharing its profits and losses; their field of operations is almost
invariably rural, and tenancy is restricted to the employes of the
proprietor. On the other hand, they differ from all co-operative and
socialistic communities in that they are an adaptation to existing
circumstances, propose to demonstrate no new theories of economics, are
free from all religious bonds, do not depend on any unity of opinion, and
do not touch the question of the proper distribution of wealth.

It is, of course, no new thing for owners of large factories,
particularly in country districts, to furnish tenements for their
operatives, and oftentimes it is quite indispensable that they should,
because there would otherwise be no accommodation for their workmen. What
is recent and exceptional is the spread of the belief that it pays to
make the accommodations furnished healthful, convenient, and attractive.
The sources of profit from this careful provision are these: the
proprietors have control of the territory, and are able to prescribe