Note: Images of the original pages are available through the Making of America Collection of the University of Michigan Library. See http://www. Hti. Umich. Edu/m/moagrp/

WHAT IS FREE TRADE?

An Adaptation of Frederick Bastiat's "Sophismes Économiques"Designed for the American Reader

by

EMILE WALTERA Worker

New York:G. P. Putnam & Son, 661 Broadway

The New York Printing Company, 81, 83, And 85 Centre Street, New York

1867

CONTENTS. 

 CHAPTER I. Plenty and Scarcity

 CHAPTER II. Obstacles to Wealth and Causes of Wealth

 CHAPTER III. Effort--Result

 CHAPTER IV. Equalizing of the Facilities of Production

 CHAPTER V. Our Productions are Overloaded with Internal Taxes

 CHAPTER VI. Balance of Trade

 CHAPTER VII. A Petition

 CHAPTER VIII. Discriminating Duties

 CHAPTER IX. A Wonderful Discovery

 CHAPTER X. Reciprocity

 CHAPTER XI. Absolute Prices

 CHAPTER XII. Does Protection raise the Rate of Wages?

 CHAPTER XIII. Theory and Practice

 CHAPTER XIV. Conflict of Principles

 CHAPTER XV. Reciprocity Again

 CHAPTER XVI. Obstructed Rivers plead for the Prohibitionists

 CHAPTER XVII. A Negative Railroad

 CHAPTER XVIII. There are no Absolute Principles

 CHAPTER XIX. National Independence

 CHAPTER XX. Human Labor--National Labor

 CHAPTER XXI. Raw Material

 CHAPTER XXII. Metaphors

 CHAPTER XXIII. Conclusion

INTRODUCTION. 

Years ago I could not rid my mind of the notion that Free Trade meantsome cunning policy of British statesmen designed to subject the worldto British interests. Coming across Bastiat's inimitable _SophismesEconomiques_ I learnt to my surprise that there were Frenchmen alsowho advocated Free Trade, and deplored the mischiefs of the ProtectivePolicy. This made me examine the subject, and think a good deal uponit; and the result of this thought was the unalterable conviction Inow hold--a conviction that harmonizes with every noble belief thatour race entertains; with Civil and Religious Freedom for All, regardless of race or color; with the Harmony of God's works; withPeace and Goodwill to all Mankind. That conviction is this: that tomake taxation the incident of protection to special interests, andthose engaged in them, is robbery to the rest of the community, andsubversive of National Morality and National Prosperity. I believethat taxes are necessary for the support of government, I believe theymust be raised by levy, I even believe that some customs taxes may bemore practicable and economical than some internal taxes; but I amentirely opposed to making anything the object of taxation but therevenue required by government for its economical maintenance. 

I do not espouse Free Trade because it is British, as some suppose itto be. Independent of other things, that would rather set me againstit than otherwise, because generally those things which best fitEuropean society ill befit our society--the structure of each being sodifferent. Free Trade is no more British than any other kind offreedom: indeed, Great Britain has only followed quite older examplesin adopting it, as for instance the republics of Venice and Holland, both of which countries owed their extraordinary prosperity to thefact of their having set the example of relaxing certain absurdthough time-honored restrictions on commerce. I espouse Free Tradebecause it is just, it is unselfish, and it is profitable. 

For these reasons have I, a Worker, deeply interested in the welfareof the fellow-workers who are my countrymen, lent to Truth and Justicewhat little aid I could, by adapting Bastiat's keen and cogent Essayto the wants of readers on this side of the Atlantic. 

EMILE WALTER, _the Worker_. 

NEW YORK, 1866. 

WHAT IS FREE TRADE?

CHAPTER I. 

PLENTY AND SCARCITY. 

Which is better for man and for society--abundance or scarcity?

What! Can such a question be asked? Has it ever been pretended, is itpossible to maintain, that scarcity is better than plenty?

Yes: not only has it been maintained, but it is still maintained. Congress says so; many of the newspapers (now happily diminishing innumber) say so; a large portion of the public say so; indeed, the_city theory_ is by far the more popular one of the two. 

Has not Congress passed laws which prohibit the importation of foreignproductions by the maintenance of excessive duties? Does not the_Tribune_ maintain that it is advantageous to limit the supply of ironmanufactures and cotton fabrics, by restraining any one from bringingthem to market, but the manufacturers in New England and Pennsylvania?Do we not hear it complained every day: Our importations are toolarge; We are buying too much from abroad? Is there not anAssociation of Ladies, who, though they have not kept their promise, still, promised each other not to wear any clothing which wasmanufactured in other countries?

Now tariffs can only raise prices by diminishing the quantity of goodsoffered for sale. Therefore, statesmen, editors, and the publicgenerally, believe that scarcity is better than abundance. 

But why is this; why should men be so blind as to maintain thatscarcity is better than plenty?

Because they look at _price_, but forget _quantity_. 

But let us see. 

A man becomes rich in proportion to the remunerative nature of hislabor; that is to say, _in proportion as he sells his produce at ahigh price_. The price of his produce is high in proportion to itsscarcity. It is plain, then, that, so far as regards him at least, scarcity enriches him. Applying, in turn, this manner of reasoning toeach class of laborers individually, the _scarcity theory_ is deducedfrom it. To put this theory into practice, and in order to favor eachclass of labor, an artificial scarcity is produced in every kind ofproduce by prohibitory tariffs, by restrictive laws, by monopolies, and by other analogous measures. 

In the same manner it is observed that when an article is abundant, itbrings a small price. The gains of the producer are, of course, less. If this is the case with all produce, all producers are then poor. Abundance, then, ruins society; and as any strong conviction willalways seek to force itself into practice, we see the laws of thecountry struggling to prevent abundance. 

Now, what is the defect in this argument? Something tells us that itmust be wrong; but _where_ is it wrong? Is it false? No. And yet it iswrong? Yes. But how? _It is incomplete. _

Man produces in order to consume. He is at once producer and consumer. The argument given above, considers him only under the first point ofview. Let us look at him in the second character, and the conclusionwill be different. We may say:

The consumer is rich in proportion as he _buys_ at a low price. Hebuys at a low price in proportion to the abundance of the articles indemand; _abundance_, then, enriches him. This reasoning, extended toall consumers, must lead to the _theory of abundance_. 

Which theory is right?

Can we hesitate to say? Suppose that by following out the _scarcitytheory_, suppose that through prohibitions and restrictions we werecompelled not only to make our own iron, but to grow our own coffee;in short, to obtain everything with difficulty and great outlay oflabor. We then take an account of stock and see what our savings are. 

Afterward, to test the other theory, suppose we remove the duties oniron, the duties on coffee, and the duties on everything else, so thatwe shall obtain everything with as little difficulty and outlay oflabor as possible. If we then take an account of stock, is it notcertain that we shall find more iron in the country, more coffee, moreeverything else?

Choose then, fellow-countrymen, between scarcity and abundance, between much and little, between Protection and Free Trade. You nowknow which theory is the right one, for you know the fruits they eachbear. 

But, it will be answered, if we are inundated with foreign goods andproduce, our specie, our precious product of California, our dollars, will leave the country. 

Well, what of that? Man is not fed with coin. He does not dress ingold, nor warm himself with silver. What does it matter, then, whetherthere be more or less specie in the country, provided there be morebread in the cupboard, more meat in the larder, more clothes in thewardrobe, and more fuel in the cellar?

Again, it will be objected, if we accustom ourselves to depend uponEngland for iron, what shall we do in case of a war with that country?

To this I reply, we shall then be compelled to produce iron ourselves. But, again I am told, we will not be prepared; we will have nofurnaces in blast, no forges ready. True; neither will there be anytime when war shall occur that the country will not be already filledwith all the iron we shall want until we can make it here. Did theConfederates in the late war lack for iron? Why, then, shall wemanufacture our own staples and bolts because we may some day or otherhave a quarrel with our ironmonger!

To sum up:

A radical antagonism exists between the vender and the buyer. 

The former wishes the article offered to be _scarce_, and the supplyto be small, so that the price may be high. 

The latter wishes it _abundant_ and the supply to be large, so thatthe price may be low. 

The laws, which should at least remain neutral, take part for thevender against the buyer; for the producer against the consumer; forhigh against low prices; for scarcity against abundance; forprotection against free trade. They act, if not intentionally, atleast logically, upon the principle that _a nation is rich inproportion as it is in want of everything_. 

CHAPTER II. 

OBSTACLES TO WEALTH AND CAUSES OF WEALTH. 

Man is naturally in a state of entire destitution. 

Between this state, and the satisfying of his wants, there exist anumber of obstacles which it is the object of labor to surmount. 

I wish to make a journey of some hundred miles. But between the pointof my departure and my destination there are interposed mountains, rivers, swamps, forests, robbers; in a word--_obstacles_. To overcomethese obstacles it is necessary that I should bestow much labor andgreat efforts in opposing them; or, what is the same thing, if othersdo it for me, I must pay them the value of their exertions. IT ISEVIDENT THAT I WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER OFF HAD THESE OBSTACLES NEVEREXISTED. Remember this. 

Through the journey of life, in the long series of days from thecradle to the tomb, man has many difficulties to oppose him. Hunger, thirst, sickness, heat, cold, are so many obstacles scattered alonghis road. In a state of isolation he would be obliged to combat themall by hunting, fishing, agriculture, spinning, weaving, architecture, etc. , and it is very evident that it would be better for him thatthese difficulties should exist to a less degree, or even not at all. In a state of society he is not obliged personally to struggle witheach of these obstacles, but others do it for him; and he, in turn, must remove some one of them for the benefit of his fellow-men. Thisdoing one kind of labor for another, is called the division of labor. 

Considering mankind as a whole, _let us remember once more that itwould be better for society that these obstacles should be as weak andas few as possible_. 

But mark how, in viewing this simple truth from a narrow point ofview, we come to believe that obstacles, instead of being adisadvantage, are actually a source of wealth!

If we examine closely and in detail the phenomena of society and theprivate interests of men _as modified by the division of labor_, weperceive, without difficulty, how it has happened that wants have beenconfounded with riches, and the obstacle with the cause. 

The separation of occupations, which results from the division oflabor, causes each man, instead of struggling against _all_surrounding obstacles, to combat only _one_; the effort being made notfor himself alone, but for the benefit of his fellows, who, in theirturn, render a similar service to him. 

It hence results that this man looks upon the obstacle which he hasmade it his profession to combat for the benefit of others, as theimmediate cause of his riches. The greater, the more serious, the morestringent, may be this obstacle, the more he is remunerated for theconquering of it, by those who are relieved by his labors. 

A physician, for instance, does not busy himself in baking his bread, or in manufacturing his clothing and his instruments; others do itfor him, and he, in return, combats the maladies with which hispatients are afflicted. The more dangerous and frequent these maladiesare, the more others are willing, the more, even, are they forced, towork in his service. Disease, then, which is an obstacle to thehappiness of mankind, becomes to him the source of his comforts. Thereasoning of all producers is, in what concerns themselves, the same. As the doctor draws his profits from _disease_, so does the ship-ownerfrom the obstacle called _distance_; the agriculturist from that named_hunger_; the cloth manufacturer from _cold_; the schoolmaster livesupon _ignorance_, the jeweler upon _vanity_, the lawyer upon _cupidityand breach of faith_. Each profession has then an immediate interestin the continuation, even in the extension, of the particular obstacleto which its attention has been directed. 

Theorists hence go on to found a system upon these individualinterests, and say: Wants are riches: Labor is riches: The obstacle towell-being is well-being: To multiply obstacles is to give food toindustry. 

Then comes the statesman; and as the developing and propagating ofobstacles is the developing and propagating of riches, what morenatural than that he should bend his efforts to that point? He says, for instance: If we prevent a large importation of iron, we create adifficulty in procuring it. This obstacle severely felt, obligesindividuals to pay, in order to relieve themselves from it. A certainnumber of our citizens, giving themselves up to the combating of thisobstacle, will thereby make their fortunes. In proportion, too, as theobstacle is great, and the mineral scarce, inaccessible, and ofdifficult and distant transportation, in the same proportion will bethe number of laborers maintained by the various branches of thisindustry. 

The same reasoning will lead to the proscription of machinery. 

Here are men who are at a loss how to dispose of their petroleum. Thisis an obstacle which other men set about removing for them by themanufacture of casks. It is fortunate, say our statesmen, that thisobstacle exists, since it occupies a portion of the labor of thenation, and enriches a certain number of our citizens. But here ispresented to us an ingenious machine, which cuts down the oak, squaresit, makes it into staves, and, gathering these together, forms theminto casks. The obstacle is thus diminished, and with it the fortunesof the coopers. We must prevent this. Let us proscribe the machine!

To sift thoroughly this sophism, it is sufficient to remember thathuman labor is not an _end_ but a _means_. 

_Labor is never without employment. _ If one obstacle is removed, itseizes another, and mankind is delivered from two obstacles by thesame effort which was at first necessary for one. If the labor ofcoopers could become useless, it must take another direction. Tomaintain that human labor can end by wanting employment, it would benecessary to prove that mankind will cease to encounter obstacles. 

CHAPTER III. 

EFFORT--RESULT. 

We have seen that between our wants and their gratification manyobstacles are interposed. We conquer or weaken these by the employmentof our faculties. It may be said, in general terms, that industry isan effort followed by a result. 

But by what do we measure our well-being? By our riches? By the resultof our effort, or by the effort itself? There exists always aproportion between the effort employed and the result obtained. Doesprogress consist in the relative increase of the second or of thefirst term of this proportion--between effort or result?

Both propositions have been sustained, and in political economyopinions are divided between them. 

According to the first system, riches are the result of labor. Theyincrease in the same ratio as _the result does to the effort_. Absolute perfection, of which God is the type, consists in theinfinite distance between these two terms in this relation, viz. , effort none, result infinite. 

The second system maintains that it is the effort itself which formsthe measure of, and constitutes, our riches. Progression is theincrease of the _proportion of the effect to the result_. Its idealextreme may be represented by the eternal and fruitless efforts ofSisyphus. [A]

[Footnote A: We will therefore beg the reader to allow us in future, for the sake of conciseness, to designate this system under the termof _Sisyphism_, from Sisyphus, who, in punishment of his crimes, wascompelled to roll a stone up hill, which fell to the bottom as fast ashe rolled it to the top, so that his labor was interminable as well asfruitless. ]

The first system tends naturally to the encouragement of everythingwhich diminishes difficulties, and augments production--as powerfulmachinery, which adds to the strength of man; the exchange of produce, which allows us to profit by the various natural agents distributed indifferent degrees over the surface of our globe; the intellect whichdiscovers, the experience which proves, and the emulation whichexcites. 

The second as logically inclines to everything which can augment thedifficulty and diminish the product; as, privileges, monopolies, restrictions, prohibition, suppression of machinery, sterility, &c. 

It is well to mark here that the universal practice of men is alwaysguided by the principle of the first system. Every _workman_, whetheragriculturist, manufacturer, merchant, soldier, writer or philosopher, devotes the strength of his intellect to do better, to do morequickly, more economically--in a word, _to do more with less_. 

The opposite doctrine is in use with theorists, essayists, statesmen, ministers, men whose business is to make experiments upon society. Andeven of these we may observe, that in what personally concernsthemselves, they act, like everybody else, upon the principle ofobtaining from their labor the greatest possible quantity of usefulresults. 

It may be supposed that I exaggerate, and that there are no trueSisyphists. 

I grant that in practice the principle is not pushed to its extremeconsequences. And this must always be the case when one starts upon awrong principle, because the absurd and injurious results to which itleads, cannot but check it in its progress. For this reason, practicalindustry never can admit of Sisyphism. The error is too quicklyfollowed by its punishment to remain concealed. But in the speculativeindustry of theorists and statesmen, a false principle may be for along time followed up, before the complication of its consequences, only half understood, can prove its falsity; and even when all isrevealed, the opposite principle is acted upon, self is contradicted, and justification sought, in the incomparably absurd modern axiom, that in political economy there is no principle universally true. 

Let us see, then, if the two opposite principles I have laid down donot predominate, each in its turn; the one in practical industry, theother in industrial legislation. When a man prefers a good plough to abad one; when he improves the quality of his manures; when, to loosenhis soil, he substitutes as much as possible the action of theatmosphere for that of the hoe or the harrow; when he calls to his aidevery improvement that science and experience have revealed, he has, and can have, but one object, viz. , to _diminish the proportion of theeffort to the result_. We have indeed no other means of judging ofthe success of an agriculturist or of the merits of his system, but byobserving how far he has succeeded in lessening the one, while heincreases the other; and as all the farmers in the world act upon thisprinciple, we may say that all mankind are seeking, no doubt for theirown advantage, to obtain at the lowest price, bread, or whatever otherarticle of produce they may need, always diminishing the effortnecessary for obtaining any given quantity thereof. 

This incontestable tendency of human nature, once proved, would, onemight suppose, be sufficient to point out the true principle to thelegislator, and to show him how he ought to assist industry (if indeedit is any part of his business to assist it at all), for it would beabsurd to say that the laws of men should operate in an inverse ratiofrom those of Providence. 

Yet we have heard members of Congress exclaim, "I do not understandthis theory of cheapness; I would rather see bread dear, and work moreabundant. " And consequently these gentlemen vote in favor oflegislative measures whose effect is to shackle and impede commerce, precisely because by so doing we are prevented from procuringindirectly, and at low price, what direct production can only furnishmore expensively. 

Now it is very evident that the system of Mr. So-and-so, theCongressman, is directly opposed to that of Mr. So-and-so, theagriculturist. Were he consistent with himself, he would as legislatorvote against all restriction; or else as farmer, he would practise inhis fields the same principle which he proclaims in the publiccouncils. We would then see him sowing his grain in his most sterilefields, because he would thus succeed in _laboring much_, to _obtainlittle_. We would see him forbidding the use of the plough, because hecould, by scratching up the soil with his nails, fully gratify hisdouble wish of "_dear bread_ and _abundant labor_. "

Restriction has for its avowed object and acknowledged effect, theaugmentation of labor. And again, equally avowed and acknowledged, itsobject and effect are, the increase of prices--a synonymous term forscarcity of produce. Pushed then to its greatest extreme, it is pureSisyphism as we have defined it; _labor infinite; result nothing_. 

There have been men who accused railways of _injuring shipping_; andit is certainly true that the most perfect means of attaining anobject must always limit the use of a less perfect means. But railwayscan only injure shipping by drawing from it articles oftransportation; this they can only do by transporting more cheaply;and they can only transport more cheaply, by _diminishing theproportion of the effort employed to the result obtained_--for it isin this that cheapness consists. When, therefore, these men lament thesuppression of labor in attaining a given result, they maintain thedoctrine of Sisyphism. Logically, if they prefer the vessel to therailway, they should also prefer the wagon to the vessel, thepack-saddle to the wagon, and the sack to the pack-saddle: for thisis, of all known means of transportation, the one which requires thegreatest amount of labor, in proportion to the result obtained. 

"Labor constitutes the riches of the people, " say some theorists. Thiswas no elliptical expression, meaning that the "results of laborconstitute the riches of the people. " No; these theorists intended tosay, that it is the _intensity_ of labor which measures riches; andthe proof of this is that from step to step, from restriction torestriction, they forced on the United States (and in so doingbelieved that they were doing well) to give to the procuring of, forinstance, a certain quantity of iron, double the necessary labor. InEngland, iron was then at $20; in the United States it cost $40. Supposing the day's work to be worth $2. 50, it is evident that theUnited States could, by barter, procure a ton of iron by eight days'labor taken from the labor of the nation. Thanks to the restrictivemeasures of these gentlemen, sixteen days' work were necessary toprocure it, by direct production. Here then we have double labor foran identical result; therefore double riches; and riches, measured notby the result, but by the intensity of labor. Is not this pure andunadulterated Sisyphism?

That there may be nothing equivocal, these gentlemen carry their ideastill farther, and on the same principle that we have heard them callthe intensity of labor _riches_, we will find them calling theabundant results of labor and the plenty of everything proper to thesatisfying of our wants, _poverty_. "Everywhere, " they remark, "machinery has pushed aside manual labor; everywhere production issuperabundant; everywhere the equilibrium is destroyed between thepower of production and that of consumption. " Here then we see that, according to these gentlemen, if the United States was in a criticalsituation it was because her productions were too abundant; there wastoo much intelligence, too much efficiency in her national labor. Wewere too well fed, too well clothed, too well supplied witheverything; the rapid production was more than sufficient for ourwants. It was necessary to put an end to this calamity, and thereforeit became needful to force us, by restrictions, to work more in orderto produce less. 

All that we could have further to hope for, would be, that humanintellect might sink and become extinct; for, while intellect exists, it cannot but seek continually to increase the _proportion of the endto the means; of the product to the labor_. Indeed it is in thiscontinuous effort, and in this alone, that intellect consists. 

Sisyphism has been the doctrine of all those who have been intrustedwith the regulation of the industry of our country. It would not bejust to reproach them with this; for this principle becomes that ofour administration only because it prevails in Congress; it prevailsin Congress only because it is sent there by the voters; and thevoters are imbued with it only because public opinion is filled withit to repletion. 

Let me repeat here, that I do not accuse the protectionists inCongress of being absolutely and always Sisyphists. Very certainlythey are not such in their personal transactions; very certainly eachof them will procure for himself _by barter_, what by _directproduction_ would be attainable only at a higher price. But I maintainthat they are Sisyphists when they prevent the country from actingupon the same principle. 

CHAPTER IV. 

EQUALIZING OF THE FACILITIES OF PRODUCTION. 

The protectionists often use the following argument:

"It is our belief that protection should correspond to, should be therepresentation of, the difference which exists between the price of anarticle of home production and a similar article of foreignproduction. A protective duty calculated upon such a basis doesnothing more than secure free competition; free competition can onlyexist where there is an equality in the facilities of production. In ahorse-race the load which each horse carries is weighed and alladvantages equalized; otherwise there could be no competition. Incommerce, if one producer can undersell all others, he ceases to be acompetitor and becomes a monopolist. Suppress the protection whichrepresents the difference of price according to each, and foreignproduce must immediately inundate and obtain the monopoly of ourmarket. Every one ought to wish, for his own sake and for that of thecommunity, that the productions of the country should be protectedagainst foreign competition, _whenever the latter may be able toundersell the former_. "

This argument is constantly recurring in all writings of theprotectionist school. It is my intention to make a carefulinvestigation of its merits, and I must begin by soliciting theattention and the patience of the reader. I will first examine intothe inequalities which depend upon natural causes, and afterwards intothose which are caused by diversity of taxes. 

Here, as elsewhere, we find the theorists who favor protection takingpart with the producer. Let us consider the case of the unfortunateconsumer, who seems to have entirely escaped their attention. Theycompare the field of protection to the _turf_. But on the turf, therace is at once a _means and an end_. The public has no interest inthe struggle, independent of the struggle itself. When your horses arestarted in the course with the single object of determining which isthe best runner, nothing is more natural than that their burdensshould be equalized. But if your object were to send an important andcritical piece of intelligence, could you without incongruity placeobstacles to the speed of that one whose fleetness would secure youthe best means of attaining your end? And yet this is your course inrelation to industry. You forget the end aimed at, which is the_well-being_ of the community; you set it aside; more, you sacrificeit by a perfect _petitio principii_. 

But we cannot lead our opponents to look at things from our point ofview; let us now take theirs: let us examine the question asproducers. 

I will seek to prove:

1. That equalizing the facilities of production is to attack thefoundations of mutual exchange. 

2. That it is not true that the labor of one country can be crushed bythe competition of more favored climates. 

3. That, even were this the case, protective duties cannot equalizethe facilities of production. 

4. That freedom of trade equalizes these conditions as much aspossible; and

5. That the countries which are the least favored by nature are thosewhich profit most by mutual exchange. 

1. _Equalizing the facilities of production is to attack thefoundations of mutual exchange. _ The equalizing of the facilities ofproduction, is not only the shackling of certain articles of commerce, but it is the attacking of the system of mutual exchange in its veryfoundation principle. For this system is based precisely upon the verydiversities, or, if the expression be preferred, upon the inequalitiesof fertility, climate, temperature, capabilities, which theprotectionists seek to render null. If New England sends itsmanufactures to the West, and the West sends corn to New England, itis because these two sections are, from different circumstances, induced to turn their attention to the production of differentarticles. Is there any other rule for international exchanges?

Again, to bring against such exchanges the very inequalities ofcondition which excite and explain them, is to attack them in theirvery cause of being. The protective system, closely followed up, wouldbring men to live like snails, in a state of complete isolation. Inshort, there is not one of its sophisms, which, if carried through byvigorous deductions, would not end in destruction and annihilation. 

2. _It is not true that the labor of one country can be crushed by thecompetition of more favored climates. _ The statement is not true thatthe unequal facility of production, between two similar branches ofindustry, should necessarily cause the destruction of the one which isthe least fortunate. On the turf, if one horse gains the prize, theother loses it; but when two horses work to produce any usefularticle, each produces in proportion to his strength; and because thestronger is the more useful it does not follow that the weaker is goodfor nothing. Wheat is cultivated in every section of the UnitedStates, although there are great differences in the degree offertility existing among them. If it happens that there be one whichdoes not cultivate it, it is because, even to itself, such cultivationis not useful. Analogy will show us, that under the influences of anunshackled trade, notwithstanding similar differences, wheat would beproduced in every portion of the world; and if any nation were inducedto entirely abandon the cultivation of it, this would only be becauseit would _be her interest_ to otherwise employ her lands, her capital, and her labor. And why does not the fertility of one departmentparalyze the agriculture of a neighboring and less favored one?Because the phenomena of political economy have a suppleness, anelasticity, and, so to speak, _a self-levelling power_, which seems toescape the attention of the school of protectionists. They accuse usof being theoretic, but it is themselves who are so to a supremedegree, if the being theoretic consists in building up systems uponthe experience of a single fact, instead of profiting by theexperience of a series of facts. In the above example, it is thedifference in the value of lands which compensates for the differencein their fertility. Your field produces three times as much as mine. Yes. But it has cost you ten times as much, and therefore I can stillcompete with you: this is the sole mystery. And observe how theadvantage on one point leads to disadvantage on the other. Preciselybecause your soil is more fruitful it is more dear. It is not_accidentally_ but _necessarily_ that the equilibrium is established, or at least inclines to establish itself: and can it be denied thatperfect freedom in exchanges is of all systems the one which favorsthis tendency?

I have cited an agricultural example; I might as easily have taken onefrom any trade. There are tailors at Barnegat, but that does notprevent tailors from being in New York also, although the latter haveto pay a much higher rent, as well as higher price for furniture, workmen, and food. But their customers are sufficiently numerous notonly to reëstablish the balance, but also to make it lean on theirside. 

When, therefore, the question is about equalizing the advantages oflabor, it would be well to consider whether the natural freedom ofexchange is not the best umpire. 

This self-levelling faculty of political phenomena is so important, and at the same time so well calculated to cause us to admire theprovidential wisdom which presides over the equalizing government ofsociety, that I must ask permission a little longer to turn to it theattention of the reader. 

The protectionists say, Such a nation has the advantage over us, inbeing able to procure cheaply, coal, iron, machinery, capital; it isimpossible for us to compete with it. 

We must examine this proposition under other aspects. For thepresent, I stop at the question, whether, when an advantage and adisadvantage are placed in juxtaposition, they do not bear inthemselves, the former a descending, the latter an ascending power, which must end by placing them in a just equilibrium?

Let us suppose the countries A and B. A has every advantage over B;you thence conclude that labor will be concentrated upon A, while Bmust be abandoned. A, you say, sells much more than it buys; B buysmuch more than it sells. I might dispute this, but I will meet youupon your own ground. 

In the hypothesis, labor being in great demand in A, soon rises invalue; while labor, iron, coal, lands, food, capital, all being littlesought after in B, soon fall in price. 

Again: A being always selling and B always buying, cash passes from Bto A. It is abundant in A, very scarce in B. 

But where there is abundance of cash, it follows that in all purchasesa large proportion of it will be needed. Then in A, _real dearness_, which proceeds from a very active demand, is added to _nominaldearness_, the consequence of a superabundance of the precious metals. 

Scarcity of money implies that little is necessary for each purchase. Then in B, a _nominal cheapness_ is combined with _real cheapness_. 

Under these circumstances, industry will have the strongest possiblemotives for deserting A to establish itself in B. 

Now, to return to what would be the true course of things. As theprogress of such events is always gradual, industry from its naturebeing opposed to sudden transits, let us suppose that, withoutwaiting the extreme point, it will have gradually divided itselfbetween A and B, according to the laws of supply and demand; that isto say, according to the laws of justice and usefulness. 

_I do not advance an empty hypothesis when I say, that were itpossible that industry should concentrate itself upon a single point, there must, from its nature, arise spontaneously, and in its midst_, AN IRRESISTIBLE POWER OF DECENTRALIZATION. 

We will quote the words of a manufacturer to the Chamber of Commerceat Manchester (the figures brought into his demonstration beingsuppressed):

"Formerly we exported goods; this exportation gave way to that ofthread for the manufacture of goods; later, instead of thread, weexported machinery for the making of thread; then capital for theconstruction of machinery; and lastly, workmen and talent, which arethe source of capital. All these elements of labor have, one after theother, transferred themselves to other points, where their profitswere increased, and where the means of subsistence being lessdifficult to obtain, life is maintained at less cost. There are atpresent to be seen in Prussia, Austria, Saxony, Switzerland, andItaly, immense manufacturing establishments, founded entirely byEnglish capital, worked by English labor, and directed by Englishtalent. "

We may here perceive that Nature, with more wisdom and foresight thanthe narrow and rigid system of the protectionists can suppose, doesnot permit the concentration of labor, and the monopoly of advantages, from which they draw their arguments as from an absolute andirremediable fact. It has, by means as simple as they are infallible, provided for dispersion, diffusion, mutual dependence, andsimultaneous progress; all of which, your restrictive laws paralyze asmuch as is in their power, by their tendency towards the isolation ofnations. By this means they render much more decided the differencesexisting in the conditions of production; they check theself-levelling power of industry, prevent fusion of interests, neutralize the counterpoise, and fence in each nation within its ownpeculiar advantages and disadvantages. 

3. _Even were the labor of one country crushed by the competition ofmore favored climates (which is denied), protective duties cannotequalize the facilities of production. _ To say that by a protectivelaw the conditions of production are equalized, is to disguise anerror under false terms. It is not true that an import duty equalizesthe conditions of production. These remain after the imposition of theduty just as they were before. The most that law can do is to equalizethe _conditions of sale_. If it should be said that I am playing uponwords, I retort the accusation upon my adversaries. It is for them toprove that _production_ and _sale_ are synonymous terms, which if theycannot do, I have a right to accuse them, if not of playing uponwords, at least of confounding them. 

Let me be permitted to exemplify my idea. 

Suppose that several New York speculators should determine to devotethemselves to the production of oranges. They know that the oranges ofPortugal can be sold in New York at one cent each, whilst on accountof the boxes, hot-houses, &c. , which are necessary to ward againstthe severity of our climate, it is impossible to raise them at lessthan a dollar apiece. They accordingly demand a duty of ninety-ninecents upon Portugal oranges. With the help of this duty, say they, the_conditions of production_ will be equalized. Congress, yielding asusual to this argument, imposes a duty of ninety-nine cents on eachforeign orange. 

Now I say that the _relative conditions of production_ are in no wisechanged. The law can take nothing from the heat of the sun in Lisbon, nor from the severity of the frosts in New York. Oranges continuing tomature themselves _naturally_ on the banks of the Tagus, andartificially upon those of the Hudson, must continue to require fortheir production much more labor on the latter than the former. Thelaw can only equalize the _conditions of sale_. It is evident thatwhile the Portuguese sell their oranges here at a dollar apiece, theninety-nine cents which go to pay the tax are taken from the Americanconsumer. Now look at the whimsicality of the result. Upon eachPortuguese orange, the country loses nothing; for the ninety-ninecents which the consumer pays to satisfy the impost tax, enter intothe treasury. There is improper distribution; but no loss. But uponeach American orange consumed, there will be about ninety-nine centslost; for while the buyer very certainly loses them, the seller justas certainly does not gain them; for, even according to thehypothesis, he will receive only the price of production, I will leaveit to the protectionists to draw their conclusion. 

4. _But freedom of trade equalizes these conditions as much as ispossible. _ I have laid some stress upon this distinction between theconditions of production and those of sale, which perhaps theprohibitionists may consider as paradoxical, because it leads me on towhat they will consider as a still stranger paradox. This is: If youreally wish to equalize the facilities of production, leave tradefree. 

This may surprise the protectionists; but let me entreat them tolisten, if it be only through curiosity, to the end of my argument. Itshall not be long. I will now take it up where we left off. 

If we suppose for the moment, that the common and daily profits ofeach American amount to one dollar, it will indisputably follow thatto produce an orange by _direct_ labor in America, one day's work, orits equivalent, will be requisite; whilst to produce the cost of aPortuguese orange, only one-hundredth of this day's labor is required;which means simply this, that the sun does at Lisbon what labor doesat New York. Now is it not evident, that if I can produce an orange, or, what is the same thing, the means of buying it, with one-hundredthof a day's labor, I am placed exactly in the same condition as thePortuguese producer himself, excepting the expense of thetransportation? It therefore follows that freedom of commerceequalizes the conditions of production direct or indirect, as much asit is possible to equalize them; for it leaves but the one inevitabledifference, that of transportation. 

I will add that free trade equalizes also the facilities for attainingenjoyments, comforts, and general consumption; the last, an objectwhich is, it would seem, quite forgotten, and which is neverthelessall-important; since, in fine, consumption is the main object of allour industrial efforts. Thanks to freedom of trade, we would enjoyhere the results of the Portuguese sun, as well as Portugal itself;and the inhabitants of New York would have in their reach, as well asthose of London, and with the same facilities, the advantages whichnature has in a mineralogical point of view conferred upon Cornwall. 

5. _Countries least favored by nature (countries not yet cleared offorests, for example) are those which profit most by mutual exchange. _The protectionists may suppose me in a paradoxical humor, for I gofurther still. I say, and I sincerely believe, that if any twocountries are placed in unequal circumstances as to advantages ofproduction, _the one of the two which is the less favored by nature, will gain more by freedom of commerce_. To prove this, I will beobliged to turn somewhat aside from the form of reasoning whichbelongs to this work. I will do so, however; first, because thequestion in discussion turns upon this point; and again, because itwill give me the opportunity of exhibiting a law of political economyof the highest importance, and which, well understood, seems to me tobe destined to lead back to this science all those sects which, in ourdays, are seeking in the land of chimeras that social harmony whichthey have been unable to discover in nature. I speak of the law ofconsumption, which the majority of political economists may well bereproached with having too much neglected. 

Consumption is the _end_, the final cause of all the phenomena ofpolitical economy, and, consequently, in it is found their finalsolution. 

No effect, whether favorable or unfavorable, can be vested permanentlyin the producer. His advantages and disadvantages, derived from hisrelations to nature and to society, both pass gradually from him; andby an almost insensible tendency are absorbed and fused into thecommunity at large--the community considered as consumers. This is anadmirable law, alike in its cause and its effects; and he who shallsucceed in making it well understood, will have a right to say, "Ihave not, in my passage through the world, forgotten to pay my tributeto society. "

Every circumstance which favors the work of production is of coursehailed with joy by the producer, for its _immediate effect_ is toenable him to render greater services to the community, and to exactfrom it a greater remuneration. Every circumstance which injuresproduction, must equally be the source of uneasiness to him; for its_immediate effect_ is to diminish his services, and consequently hisremuneration. This is a fortunate and necessary law of nature. Theimmediate good or evil of favorable or unfavorable circumstances mustfall upon the producer, in order to influence him invisibly to seekthe one and to avoid the other. 

Again: when an inventor succeeds in his labor-saving machine, the_immediate_ benefit of this success is received by him. This again isnecessary, to determine him to devote his attention to it. It is alsojust; because it is just that an effort crowned with success shouldbring its own reward. 

But these effects, good and bad, although permanent in themselves, arenot so as regards the producer. If they had been so, a principle ofprogressive and consequently infinite inequality would have beenintroduced among men. This good, and this evil, both therefore passon, to become absorbed in the general destinies of humanity. 

How does this come about? I will try to make it understood by someexamples. 

Let us go back to the thirteenth century. Men who gave themselves upto the business of copying, received for this service _a remunerationregulated by the general rate of the profits_. Among them is foundone, who seeks and finds the means of rapidly multiplying copies ofthe same work. He invents printing. The first effect of this is, thatthe individual is enriched, while many more are impoverished. At thefirst view, wonderful as the discovery is, one hesitates in decidingwhether it is not more injurious than useful. It seems to haveintroduced into the world, as I said above, an element of infiniteinequality. Guttenberg makes large profits by this invention, andperfects the invention by the profits, until all other copyists areruined. As for the public--the consumer--it gains but little, forGuttenberg takes care to lower the price of books only just so much asis necessary to undersell all rivals. 

But the great Mind which put harmony into the movements of celestialbodies, could also give it to the internal mechanism of society. Wewill see the advantages of this invention escaping from theindividual, to become for ever the common patrimony of mankind. 

The process finally becomes known. Guttenberg is no longer alone inhis art; others imitate him. Their profits are at first considerable. They are recompensed for being the first who made the effort toimitate the processes of the newly-invented art. This again wasnecessary, in order that they might be induced to the effort, and thusforward the great and final result to which we approach. They gainlargely; but they gain less than the inventor, for _competition_ hascommenced its work. The price of books now continually decreases. Thegains of the imitators diminish in proportion as the invention becomesolder; and in the same proportion imitation becomes less meritorious. Soon the new object of industry attains its normal condition; in otherwords, the remuneration of printers is no longer an exception to thegeneral rules of remuneration, and, like that of copyists formerly, itis only regulated _by the general rate of profits_. Here then theproducer, as such, holds only the old position. The discovery, however, has been made; the saving of time, labor, effort, for a fixedresult, for a certain number of volumes, is realized. But in what isthis manifested? In the cheap price of books. For the good of whom?For the good of the consumer--of society--of humanity. Printers, having no longer any peculiar merit, receive no longer a peculiarremuneration. As men--as consumers--they no doubt participate in theadvantages which the invention confers upon the community; but that isall. As printers, as producers, they are placed upon the ordinaryfooting of all other producers. Society pays them for their labor, andnot for the usefulness of the invention. _That_ has become agratuitous benefit, a common heritage to mankind. 

The wisdom and beauty of these laws strike me with admiration andreverence. 

What has been said of printing, can be extended to every agent for theadvancement of labor--from the nail and the mallet, up to thelocomotive and the electric telegraph. Society enjoys all, by theabundance of its use, its consumption; and it _enjoys allgratuitously_. For as their effect is to diminish prices, it isevident that just so much of the price as is taken off by theirintervention, renders the production in so far _gratuitous_. Thereonly remains the actual labor of man to be paid for; and theremainder, which is the result of the invention, is subtracted; atleast after the invention has run through the cycle which I have justdescribed as its destined course. I send for a workman; he brings asaw with him; I pay him two dollars for his day's labor, and he sawsme twenty-five boards. If the saw had not been invented, he wouldperhaps not have been able to make one board, and I would none theless have paid him for his day's labor. The _usefulness_, then, of thesaw, is for me a gratuitous gift of nature, or rather, is a portion ofthe inheritance which, _in common_ with my brother men, I havereceived from the genius of my ancestors. I have two workmen in myfield; the one directs the handle of a plough, the other that of aspade. The result of their day's labor is very different, but theprice is the same, because the remuneration is proportioned, not tothe usefulness of the result, but to the effort, the [time, and] laborgiven to attain it. 

I invoke the patience of the reader, and beg him to believe, that Ihave not lost sight of free trade: I entreat him only to remember theconclusion at which I have arrived: _Remuneration is not proportionedto the usefulness of the articles brought by the producer into themarket, but to the [time and] labor required for their production. _[B]

[Footnote B: It is true that [time and] labor do not receive a uniformremuneration; because labor is more or less intense, dangerous, skilful, &c. , [and time more or less valuable. ] Competitionestablishes for each category a price current: and it is of thisvariable price that I speak. ]

I have so far taken my examples from human inventions, but will now goon to speak of natural advantages. 

In every article of production, nature and man must concur. But theportion of nature is always gratuitous. Only so much of the usefulnessof an article as is the result of human labor becomes the object ofmutual exchange, and consequently of remuneration. The remunerationvaries much, no doubt, in proportion to the intensity of the labor, ofthe skill, which it requires, of its being _à-propos_ to the demand ofthe day, of the need which exists for it, of the momentary absence ofcompetition, &c. But it is not the less true in principle, that theassistance received from natural laws, which belongs to all, countsfor nothing in the price. 

We do not pay for the air we breathe, although so useful to us, thatwe could not live two minutes without it. We do not pay for it, because nature furnishes it without the intervention of man's labor. But if we wish to separate one of the gases which compose it forinstance, to fill a balloon, we must take some [time and] labor; or ifanother takes it for us, we must give him an equivalent in somethingwhich will have cost us the trouble of production. From which we seethat the exchange is between efforts, [time and] labor. It iscertainly not for hydrogen gas that I pay, for this is everywhere atmy disposal, but for the work that it has been necessary to accomplishin order to disengage it; work which I have been spared, and which Imust refund. If I am told that there are other things to pay for, asexpense, materials, apparatus, I answer, that still in these things itis the work that I pay for. The price of the coal employed is only therepresentation of the [time and] labor necessary to dig and transportit. 

We do not pay for the light of the sun, because nature alone gives itto us. But we pay for the light of gas, tallow, oil, wax, because hereis labor to be remunerated;--and remark, that it is so entirely [timeand] labor and not utility to which remuneration is proportioned, thatit may well happen that one of these means of lighting, while it maybe much more effective than another, may still cost less. To causethis, it is only necessary that less [time and] human labor should berequired to furnish it. 

When the water-boat comes to supply my ship, were I to pay inproportion to the _absolute utility_ of the water, my whole fortunewould not be sufficient. But I pay only for the trouble taken. If moreis required, I can get another boat to furnish it, or finally go andget it myself. The water itself is not the subject of the bargain, butthe labor required to obtain the water. This point of view is soimportant, and the consequences that I am going to draw from it soclear, as regards the freedom of international exchanges, that I willstill elucidate my idea by a few more examples. 

The alimentary substance contained in potatoes does not cost us verydear, because a great deal of it is attainable with little work. Wepay more for wheat, because, to produce it, Nature requires more laborfrom man. It is evident that if Nature did for the latter what shedoes for the former, their prices would tend to the same level. It isimpossible that the producer of wheat should permanently gain morethan the producer of potatoes. The law of competition cannot allow it. 

Again, if by a happy miracle the fertility of all arable lands were tobe increased, it would not be the agriculturist, but the consumer, whowould profit by this phenomenon; for the result of it would beabundance and cheapness. There would be less labor incorporated intoan acre of grain, and the agriculturist would be therefore obliged toexchange it for less labor incorporated into some other article. If, on the contrary, the fertility of the soil were suddenly todeteriorate, the share of nature in production would be less, that oflabor greater, and the result would be higher prices. 

I am right then in saying that it is in consumption, in mankind, thatat length all political phenomena find their solution. As long as wefail to follow their effects to this point, and look only at_immediate_ effects, which act but upon individual men or classes ofmen _as producers_, we know nothing more of political economy than thequack does of medicine, when instead of following the effects of aprescription in its action upon the whole system, he satisfies himselfwith knowing how it affects the palate and the throat. 

The tropical regions are very favorable to the production of sugar andcoffee; that is to say, Nature does most of the business and leavesbut little for labor to accomplish. But who reaps the advantage ofthis liberality of Nature? NOT THESE REGIONS, for they areforced by competition to receive remuneration simply for their labor. It is MANKIND who is the gainer; for the result of thisliberality is _cheapness_, and cheapness belongs to the world. 

Here in the temperate zone, we find coal and iron ore on the surfaceof the soil; we have but to stoop and take them. At first, I grant, the immediate inhabitants profit by this fortunate circumstance. Butsoon comes competition, and the price of coal and iron falls, untilthis gift of nature becomes gratuitous to all, and human labor is onlypaid according to the general rate of profits. 

Thus, natural advantages, like improvements in the process ofproduction, are, or have, a constant tendency to become, under the lawof competition, the common and _gratuitous_ patrimony of consumers, ofsociety, of mankind. Countries, therefore, which do not enjoy theseadvantages, must gain by commerce with those which do; because theexchanges of commerce are between _labor and labor_, subtraction beingmade of all the natural advantages which are combined with theselabors; and it is evidently the most favored countries which canincorporate into a given labor the largest proportion of these_natural advantages_. Their produce representing less labor, receivesless recompense; in other words, is _cheaper_. If then all theliberality of Nature results in cheapness, it is evidently not theproducing, but the consuming country, which profits by her benefits. 

Hence we may see the enormous absurdity of the consuming country, which rejects produce precisely because it is cheap. It is as thoughwe should say: "We will have nothing of that which Nature gives you. You ask of us an effort equal to two, in order to furnish ourselveswith produce only attainable at home by an effort equal to four. Youcan do it because with you Nature does half the work. But we will havenothing to do with it; we will wait till your climate, becoming moreinclement, forces you to ask of us a labor equal to four, and then wecan treat with you _upon an equal footing_!"

A is a favored country; B is maltreated by Nature. Mutual traffic thenis advantageous to both, but principally to B, because the exchange isnot between _utility_ and _utility_, but between _value_ and _value_. Now A furnishes a greater _utility in a similar value_, because theutility of any article includes at once what Nature and what laborhave done; whereas the value of it only corresponds to the portionaccomplished by labor. B then makes an entirely advantageous bargain;for by simply paying the producer from A for his labor, it receives inreturn not only the results of that labor, but in addition there isthrown in whatever may have accrued from the superior bounty ofNature. 

We will lay down the general rule. 

Traffic is an exchange of _values_; and as value is reduced bycompetition to the simple representation of labor, traffic is theexchange of equal labors. Whatever Nature has done towards theproduction of the articles exchanged, is given on both sides_gratuitously_; from whence it necessarily follows, that the mostadvantageous commerce is transacted with those countries which arethe least favored by Nature. 

The theory of which I have attempted in this chapter to trace theoutlines, deserves a much greater elaboration. But perhaps theattentive reader will have perceived in it the fruitful seed which isdestined in its future growth to smother Protectionism, at once withthe various other isms whose object is to exclude the law ofCOMPETITION from the government of the world. Competition, nodoubt, considering man as producer, must often interfere with hisindividual and _immediate_ interests. But if we consider the greatobject of all labor, the universal good, in a word, Consumption, wecannot fail to find that Competition is to the moral world what thelaw of equilibrium is to the material one. It is the foundation oftrue gratification, of true Liberty and Equality, of the equality ofcomforts and condition, so much sought after in our day; and if somany sincere reformers, so many earnest friends to public right, seekto reach their end by _commercial legislation_, it is only becausethey do not yet understand _commercial freedom_. 

CHAPTER V. 

OUR PRODUCTIONS ARE OVERLOADED WITH INTERNAL TAXES--

This is but a new wording of the Sophism before noticed. Thedemand made is, that the foreign article should be taxed, in order toneutralize the effects of the internal tax, which weighs down domesticproduce. It is still then but the question of equalizing thefacilities of production. We have but to say that the tax is anartificial obstacle, which has exactly the same effect as a naturalobstacle, i. E. The increasing of the price. If this increase is sogreat that there is more loss in producing the article in question athome than in attracting it from foreign parts by the production of anequivalent value of something else--_laissez faire_. Individualinterest will soon learn to choose the lesser of two evils. I mightrefer the reader to the preceding demonstration for an answer to thisSophism; but it is one which recurs so often, that it deserves aspecial discussion. 

I have said more than once, that I am opposing only the theory of theprotectionists, with the hope of discovering the source of theirerrors. Were I disposed to enter into controversy with them, I wouldsay: Why direct your tariffs principally against England, a countrymore overloaded with taxes than any in the world? Have I not a rightto look upon your argument as a mere pretext? But I am not of thenumber of those who believe that prohibitionists are guided byinterest, and not by conviction. The doctrine of Protection is toopopular not to be sincere. If the majority could believe in freedom, we would be free. Without doubt it is individual interest which weighsus down with tariffs; but it acts upon conviction. "The will (saidPascal) is one of the principal organs of belief. " But belief does notthe less exist because it is rooted in the will and in the secretinspirations of egotism. 

We will return to the Sophism drawn from internal taxes. 

The government may make either a good or a bad use of taxes; it makesa good use of them when it renders to the public services equivalentto the value received from them; it makes a bad use of them when itexpends this value, giving nothing in return. To say in the first casethat they place the country which pays them in more disadvantageousconditions for production, than the country which is free from them, is a Sophism. We pay, it is true, so many millions for theadministration of justice, and the maintenance of order, but we havejustice and order; we have the security which they give, the timewhich they save for us; and it is most probable that production isneither more easy nor more active among nations, where (if there besuch) each individual takes the administration of justice into his ownhands. We pay, I grant, many millions for roads, bridges, ports, steamships; but we have these steamships, these ports, bridges, androads; and unless we maintain that it is a losing business toestablish them, we cannot say that they place us in a positioninferior to that of nations who have, it is true, no budget of publicworks, but who likewise have no public works. And here we see why(even while we accuse taxes of being a cause of industrialinferiority) we direct our tariffs precisely against those nationswhich are the most taxed. It is because these taxes, well used, farfrom injuring, have ameliorated the _conditions of production_ tothese nations. Thus we again arrive at the conclusion that theprotectionist Sophisms not only wander from, but are the contrary--thevery antithesis--of truth. 

As to unproductive taxes, suppress them if you can; but surely it is amost singular idea to suppose, that their evil effect is to beneutralized by the addition of individual taxes to public taxes. Manythanks for the compensation! The State, you say, has taxed us toomuch; surely this is no reason that we should tax each other!

A protective duty is a tax directed against foreign produce, but whichreturns, let us keep in mind, upon the national consumer. Is it notthen a singular argument to say to him, "Because the taxes are heavy, we will raise prices higher for you; and because the State takes apart of your revenue, we will give another portion of it to benefit amonopoly?"

But let us examine more closely this Sophism so accredited among ourlegislators; although, strange to say, it is precisely those who keepup the unproductive taxes (according to our present hypothesis) whoattribute to them afterwards our supposed inferiority, and seek tore-establish the equilibrium by further taxes and new clogs. 

It appears to me to be evident that protection, without any change inits nature and effects, might have taken the form of a direct tax, raised by the State, and distributed as a premium to privilegedindustry. 

Let us admit that foreign iron could be sold in our market at $16, butnot lower; and American iron at not lower than $24. 

In this hypothesis there are two ways in which the State can securethe national market to the home producer. 

The first, is to put upon foreign iron a duty of $10. This, it isevident, would exclude it, because it could no longer be sold at lessthan $26; $16 for the indemnifying price, $10 for the tax; and at thisprice it must be driven from the market by American iron, which wehave supposed to cost $24. In this case the buyer, the consumer, willhave paid all the expenses of the protection given. 

The second means would be to lay upon the public an Internal Revenuetax of $10, and to give it as a premium to the iron manufacturer. Theeffect would in either case be equally a protective measure. Foreigniron would, according to both systems, be alike excluded; for our ironmanufacturer could sell at $14, what, with the $10 premium, would thusbring him in $24. While the price of sale being $14, foreign ironcould not obtain a market at $16. 

In these two systems the principle is the same; the effect is thesame. There is but this single difference; in the first case theexpense of protection is paid by a part, in the second by the wholeof the community. I frankly confess my preference for the secondsystem, which I regard as more just, more economical, and more legal. More just, because, if society wishes to give bounties to some of itsmembers, the whole community ought to contribute; more economical, because it would banish many difficulties, and save the expenses ofcollection; more legal, because the public would see clearly into theoperation, and know what was required of it. 

But if the protective system had taken this form, would it not havebeen laughable enough to hear it said: "We pay heavy taxes for thearmy, the navy, the judiciary, the public works, the debt, &c. Theseamount to more than 200 millions. It would therefore be desirable thatthe State should take another 200 millions to relieve the poor ironmanufacturers. "

This, it must certainly be perceived, by an attentive investigation, is the result of the Sophism in question. In vain, gentlemen, are allyour efforts; you cannot give money to one without taking it fromanother. If you are absolutely determined to exhaust the funds of thetaxable community, well; but, at least, do not mock them; do not tellthem, "We take from you again, in order to compensate you for what wehave already taken. "

It would be a too tedious undertaking to endeavor to point out all thefallacies of this Sophism. I will therefore limit myself to theconsideration of it in three points. 

You argue that the United States are overburdened with taxes, anddeduce thence the conclusion that it is necessary to protect such andsuch an article of produce. But protection does not relieve us fromthe payment of these taxes. If, then, individuals devoting themselvesto any one object of industry, should advance this demand: "We, fromour participation in the payment of taxes, have our expenses ofproduction increased, and therefore ask for a protective duty whichshall raise our price of sale:" what is this but a demand on theirpart to be allowed to free themselves from the burden of the tax, bylaying it on the rest of the community? Their object is to balance, bythe increased price of their produce, the amount which they pay intaxes. Now, as the whole amount of these taxes must enter into theTreasury, and the increase of price must be paid by society, itfollows that (where this protective duty is imposed) society has tobear, not only the general tax, but also that for the protection ofthe article in question. But, it is answered, let _everything_ beprotected. Firstly, this is impossible; and, again, were it possible, how could such a system give relief? _I_ will pay for you, _you_ willpay for me; but not the less still there remains the tax to be paid. 

Thus you are the dupes of an illusion. You determine to raise taxesfor the support of an army, a navy, judges, roads, &c. Afterwards youseek to disburden from its portion of the tax, first one article ofindustry, then another, then a third; always adding to the burden ofthe mass of society. You thus only create interminable complications. If you can prove that the increase of price resulting from protection, falls upon the foreign producer, I grant something specious in yourargument. But if it be true that the American people paid the taxbefore the passing of the protective duty, and afterwards that it haspaid not only the tax but the protective duty also, truly I do notperceive wherein it has profited. 

But I go much further, and maintain that the more oppressive our taxesare, the more anxiously ought we to open our ports and frontiers toforeign nations, less burdened than ourselves. And why? _In order thatwe may_ SHARE WITH THEM, _as much as possible, the burdenwhich we bear. _ Is it not an incontestable maxim in political economy, that taxes must, in the end, fall upon the consumer? _The greater thenour commerce, the greater the portion which will be reimbursed to us, of taxes incorporated in the produce which we will have sold toforeign consumers; whilst we on our part will have made to them only alesser reimbursement, because (according to our hypothesis) theirproduce is less taxed than ours. _

CHAPTER VI. 

BALANCE OF TRADE. 

Our adversaries have adopted a system of tactics, whichembarrasses us not a little. Do we prove our doctrine? They admit thetruth of it in the most respectful manner. Do we attack theirprinciples? They abandon them with the best possible grace. They onlyask that our doctrine, which they acknowledge to be true, should beconfined to books; and that their principles, which they allow to befalse, should be established in practice. If we will give up to themthe regulation of our tariffs, they will leave us triumphant in thedomain of literature. 

It is constantly alleged in opposition to our principles, that theyare good only in theory. But, gentlemen, do you believe thatmerchants' books are good in practice? It does appear to me, if thereis anything which can have a practical authority, when the object isto prove profit and loss, that this must be commercial accounts. Wecannot suppose that all the merchants of the world, for centuriesback, should have so little understood their own affairs, as to havekept their books in such a manner as to represent gains as losses, andlosses as gains. Truly it would be easier to believe that ourlegislators are bad political economists. A merchant, one of myfriends, having had two business transactions, with very differentresults, I have been curious to compare on this subject the accountsof the counter with those of the custom-house, interpreted by ourlegislators. 

Mr. T dispatched from New Orleans a vessel freighted for France withcotton valued at $200, 000. Such was the amount entered at thecustom-house. The cargo, on its arrival at Havre, had paid ten percent. Expenses, and was liable to thirty per cent. Duties, whichraised its value to $280, 000. It was sold at twenty per cent. Profiton its original value, which equalled $40, 000, and the price of salewas $320, 000, which the consignee converted into merchandise, principally Parisian goods. These goods, again, had to pay fortransportation to the sea-board, insurance, commissions, &c. , ten percent. ; so that when the return cargo arrived at New Orleans, its valuehad risen to $352, 000, and it was thus entered at the custom-house. Finally, Mr. T realized again on this return cargo twenty per cent. Profits, amounting to $70, 400. The goods thus sold for the sum of$422, 400. 

If our legislators require it, I will send them an extract from thebooks of Mr. T. They will there see, _credited_ to the account of_profit and loss_, that is to say, set down as gained, two sums; theone of $40, 000, the other of $70, 400, and Mr. T feels perfectlycertain that, as regards these, there is no mistake in his accounts. 

Now what conclusion do our Congressmen draw from the sums entered intothe custom-house, in this operation? They thence learn that the UnitedStates have exported $200, 000, and imported $352, 000; from whencethey conclude "_that she has spent, dissipated, the profits of herprevious savings; that she is impoverishing herself and progressing toher ruin; and that she has squandered on a foreign nation_ $152, 000_of her capital_. "

Some time after this transaction, Mr. T dispatched another vessel, again freighted with national produce, to the amount of $200, 000. Butthe vessel foundered in leaving the port, and Mr. T had only furtherto inscribe upon his books two little items, thus worded:

"_Sundries due to X_, $200, 000, for purchase of divers articlesdispatched by vessel N. "

"_Profit and loss due, to sundries_, $200, 000, _for final and totalloss of cargo. _"

In the meantime the custom-house inscribed $200, 000 upon its list of_exportations_, and as there can of course be nothing to balance thisentry on the list of _importations_, it hence follows that ourenlightened members of Congress must see in this wreck _a clearprofit_ to the United States of $200, 000. 

We may draw hence yet another conclusion, viz. : that according to theBalance of Trade theory, the United States has an exceedingly simplemanner of constantly doubling her capital. It is only necessary, toaccomplish this, that she should, after entering into the custom-househer articles for exportation, cause them to be thrown into the sea. Bythis course, her exportations can speedily be made to equal hercapital; importations will be nothing, and our gain will be, all whichthe ocean will have swallowed up. 

You are joking, the protectionists will reply. You know that it isimpossible that we should utter such absurdities. Nevertheless, Ianswer, you do utter them, and what is more, you give them life, youexercise them practically upon your fellow-citizens, as much, atleast, as is in your power to do. 

But lest even Mr. T's books may not be deemed of sufficient weight tocounterbalance the convictions of the Horace Greeley school ofprohibition, I shall proceed to furnish a table exhibiting variousclasses of commercial transactions, embracing most of the classesusually effected by importing and exporting houses, all of which mayresult in undoubted profits to the parties engaged in them, and to thecountry at large, and yet which, as they appear in the annual Commerceand Navigation Reports issued by the government, would be made toprove by Mr. Greeley that the result has in each case been a loss tothe country. The sums are all stated in gold:

A, represents one hundred merchants, who shipped to London beef, bootsand shoes, butter, cheese, cotton, hams and bacon, flour, Indian corn, lard, lumber, machinery, oils, pork, staves, tallow, tobacco andcigars, worth in New York, in the aggregate, ten millions of dollars, gold, but worth in London plus the cost of transportation, &c. , elevenmillions of dollars, gold, in bond. After being sold in London, theproceeds (eleven millions) were invested in British goods, wortheleven millions in London, but worth twelve millions in bond in NewYork, and plus the cost of transportation, &c. After having thesegoods sold in New York, a net profit of two millions was the result ofthe whole transaction, a profit both to the merchants and the country;yet, according to the Commerce and Navigation Returns, the exportswere ten millions, and the imports eleven millions (valued at theforeign place of production as the law directs), showing, according toMr. Greeley's solitary point of view, a loss to the country of onemillion. 

B, owned a gold mine in Nevada, and had no capital with which todevelop it. He proceeded to France, sold his mine to C for a million, which he invested in French muslin-de-laines, buttons, and glassware, worth a million in France, but worth $1, 100, 000 in Philadelphia, exduty and plus transportation, &c. These sold, B netted an undoubtedprofit of $100, 000, besides getting rid of his mine; but, according tothe Commerce and Navigation Returns, the exports were nothing, and theimports $1, 000, 000; showing, according to Mr. Greeley's solitary pointof view, a loss to the country of $1, 000, 000. 

C, the French owner of the Nevada mine, had a million more with whichto develop it. Hearing that French cloths and gloves had a good salein Boston, he invested his million in these goods, sailed for Bostonwith them, sold them there in bond and plus exportation, for$1, 100, 000, which he at once invested in machinery, labor, &c. , destined for Nevada. So far, C made a profit of $100, 000, and had$2, 100, 000 invested in an American gold mine; but, according to theCommerce and Navigation Returns, the exports were nothing, and theimports $1, 000, 000; according to Mr. Greeley's solitary point of view, a loss to the country of $ 1, 000, 000. 

D, had a rich uncle in Rio Janeiro who died and left him a million. Dordered this sum to be invested in hides and shipped to him at Boston. These hides were worth a million in Rio, but $1, 100, 000 in Natick, exduty and plus transportation. Upon selling them D was clearly worth$1, 100, 000; yet, according to the Commerce and Navigation Reports, asthere had been no exports, but simply $1, 000, 000 of imports, thetransaction, from Mr. Greeley's solitary point of view, seemed a lossto the country of $1, 000, 000. 

E, in 1850, shipped to Cuba, wagons, carts, agricultural implements, pianos and billiard-tables, worth $1, 000, 000 in Baltimore, but$1, 100, 000 in Havana, ex duty and plus transportation. These he sold, and invested the proceeds in cigars worth $1, 100, 000 in Havana, but inRussia, ex duty and plus transportation, $1, 210, 000. Disposing ofthese in turn, and investing the proceeds in Russian iron worth$1, 210, 000 in Russia, but $1, 331, 000 in Venezuela, ex duty and plustransportation, he shipped the iron to Venezuela, where he realized onit, investing the proceeds this time in South American products worthin Spain $1, 464, 100. He sold these products in Spain, bought olive oilwith the proceeds, shipped the same to Australia, where it was worth, ex duty and plus charges, $1, 610, 510, which sum he realized in gold, which he carried to New York in 1853. On the latter transaction hemakes no profit, but barely clears his charges. Yet on the whole hehas made a net gain of $610, 510; but, according to the Commerce andNavigation Reports, the exports have been $1, 000, 000 and the imports$1, 610, 510, showing, from Mr. Greeley's solitary point of view, a lossto the country of $610, 510. Nay more, for Mr. Greeley balances histrade accounts each year by itself, and as E's outward shipment wasmade in 1850 and his importation in 1853, the country, according toH. G. , lost in 1853, by over importation, $1, 610, 500. Yet not to behard on H. G. , and to be perfectly honest in our accounts, we will onlyset down a loss to the country from his point of view of $610, 510. 

F, owned the 4, 000 ton ship Great Republic, which cost him $160, 000. Finding her too large for profitable employment, and hearing thatlarge vessels were in demand in England as troop transports to theCrimea, he sent her out in ballast and sold her in Southampton for$200, 000 cash. With this sum he went to Geneva, where he invested itin Swiss watches worth $200, 000 in Geneva, but $210, 000 in NewOrleans, ex duty and plus transportation. To New Orleans heaccordingly shipped the watches, and they were sold. By thesetransactions he not only got rid of his elephant, but both he and thecountry clearly gained $50, 000. Yet according to Mr. Greeley's singleeye the country suffered to the extent of $200, 000, for in the exportsappeared nothing, but among the imports $200, 000 worth of foreigngewgaws, only fit to keep time with. 

G, (an actual transaction) shipped by the Great Eastern on her lastvoyage from New York, lard and other merchandise, worth in New York$600, 000, the fact of which, in the hurry of business, he failed toreport to the Custom House, and it therefore did not appear in theexports. This lard was carried to England, where it found no sale, andwas reshipped to New York. G only escaped being charged duty on itwhen it arrived, by swearing that it had been originally shipped fromhere in good faith; yet it was entered as an import (free of duty), and showed, according to Mr. Greeley's one eye, that the country wason the road to ruin $600, 000 worth. 

H, lived in Brownsville, Texas, where he had a lot of arms andgunpowder, worth $100, 000. The Mexicans levied a very high import dutyon these articles, and they consequently bore a very high price inMatamoras, just opposite, being worth in the market of that town noless than $250, 000. He accordingly conceived the idea of smugglingthem into Mexican territory, and, with the connivance of the Mexicanofficials, (what rascals these foreign custom-house officials are, tobe sure!) actually succeeded in doing so, and thus realized the veryhandsome profit of $150, 000 in gold. The entire proceeds he investedin Mexican indigo and cochineal, worth in Mexico $250, 000, and inBoston $275, 000, in bond, plus charges. Of course, no export entry wasfurnished to the customs collector at Brownsville; but Mr. Greeleyfastened his one eye on the indigo and cochineal, when it arrived inBoston, and made up his mind that the country had lost $250, 000. Asfor H, he has invested $100, 000 in more gunpowder and arms, and startsfor Brownsville next week, to try his luck again. With the other$175, 000 he has a notion of buying out the New York _Tribune_, andsetting it right on free trade, and other matters of the sort. 

I, and his friends owned a fine fleet of merchantmen when the warbroke out. The aggregate burden of the vessels was nearly a million oftons, and they were worth $40 a ton. When the rebel cruisers commencedtheir operations, there were no United States cruisers prepared tocapture them, because our best vessels were on blockade service. Thisbeing the case, insurance on American merchantmen rose very high--sohigh that I and his friends were reluctantly compelled to sell theirvessels in Great Britain and elsewhere, and convert them into cash. They brought $40, 000, 000, and this sum was invested in merchandise, which netted a profit of ten per cent. To I and his friends. They thusgained $4, 000, 000 by these transactions. The entire proceeds, $44, 000, 000, they then lent to the government with which to carry onits war of existence with the Southern insurgents. Profitable as thesetransactions clearly were to I and his friends, and to the government, Mr. Greeley, nevertheless, only sees the import of $40, 000, 000 worthof foreign extravagances, and consequently wants the tariff on ironincreased in order to make water run up hill. 

J, had $2, 000, 000 in five-twenty bonds, which cost him $1, 400, 000gold. As the market price in New York was only 70 gold, while it was72-1/4 in London, he conceived the inhuman idea of selling them in thelatter place. The cost of sending them there, including insurance, &c. , made them net him but 72, but at this price he gained a profit of$40, 000. With his capital now augmented to $1, 440, 000 he bought ragsin Italy, which he sold in New York for $1, 584, 000, ex duty and plustransportation, a clear profit of $184, 000 from the start. No exportappearing in the Commerce and Navigation Returns, and nothing but therags meeting his unital gaze, Mr. Greeley at once posted his nationalledger with a loss of $1, 440, 000, the cost of the rags in Italy. 

K, was, and is still (for these are actual transactions taken from hisaccount books), an exchange broker, doing business in New York. Hebuys notes on the banks of England, Ireland, Scotland, France andCanada--indeed, foreign banknotes of all kinds--for which he usuallypays about ninety per cent, of their face value. By the end of lastyear he had invested $200, 000 in these notes brought here bytravellers. He then inclosed them in letters, and sent them to theirproper destinations to be redeemed. Redeemed they were in due time, and the proceeds remitted in gold. In this business he earned the neatprofit of $22, 222, and the country was that much richer thereby. ButMr. Greeley, who only looked at the import of K's gold remittance, declared the country $22, 222 worse off than before, and dares us to"come on" with the figures. 

L, and some fifty thousand other skedaddlers ran off to Canada whenthe war broke out, for fear they might be drafted. Together with thecolored folks who fled there, and the many travellers who went therefrom time to time, they carried with them most of our silverhalf-dollars, quarters, dimes, half-dimes, and three-cent pieces. These amounted to $25, 000, 000, which the skedaddlers, the coloredfolks, and the travellers, as with returning peace they slowlystraggled back into the country, invested in Canadian knick-knacks, which they disposed of in the United States. The incoming goodswere duly entered at our frontier custom-houses, but the outgoingsilver was not. Mr. Greeley, unaware of this fact, detects anover-importation of $25, 000, 000, and is waiting to be elected toCongress in order to legislate the matter right. 

M, (an actual transaction) had $1, 000, 000 in Illinois Central Railroadbonds, for which he desired to obtain $1, 000, 000 worth of iron railsto repair the road with. Not being able to effect the transaction inthe United States, he sent the bonds to Germany, where they were sold, and the proceeds invested in English railroad iron, worth $1, 000, 000in Glasgow, but $1, 100, 000 in Chicago, ex duty, and plustransportation. By this transaction M, besides effecting the desiredexchange, netted a profit of $100, 000. Yet, according to the Commerceand Navigation Reports, and Mr. Greeley's one eye, as there had beenno exports and $1, 000, 000 of imports, the country was a sufferer bythe latter sum. 

N, was a body of incorporators who owned a tract of land lying in thebend of a river. Standing in need of water power for manufacturingpurposes, they resolved to cut a canal across the bend. As this wouldessentially benefit the navigation of the river, the State agreed toguaranty their bonds for a loan of money to the extent of $1, 000, 000. Finding no purchaser for these bonds in the United States, theyremitted them to Europe, and there sold them at par. With the proceedsthey purchased army blankets for the Boston market, on which theyrealized ten per cent. Net profit. These sold, the avails wereinvested in barrows, spades, water-wheels, wages, &c. , and in goodtime the canal was cut and the manufactory set a-going. Profitable asthis thing was to N, Mr. Greeley's single-barrelled telescope sees init only a loss to the country of $1, 000, 000. 

O, represents the Illinois Central, Union Pacific, and other westernrailroads, owning grants of land along their respective roads, to sellwhich to actual settlers they open agencies in London, Havre, Antwerp, and other European cities. The emigrants who buy these lands pay forthem in Europe, and set sail for America with their title-deeds intheir pockets, and their axes on their shoulders, ready for a conquestover forest and prairie. The agents of the Illinois Central Railroad(see report of the Company), who have sold 1, 664, 422 acres, say at anaverage of ten dollars per acre, invested the proceeds, $16, 644, 220, in iron rails for the road, worth that sum in England, but ten percent. More in Illinois, less duty and plus transportation. The roadhas thus not only netted a profit of $1, 664, 422 on the transaction, but sold their wild lands to actual settlers, who will soon convertthem into productive farms. But Mr. Greeley, upon seeing an import of$16, 644, 220 of iron rails, declares the thing must be stopped or thecountry will perish. 

P, is Sir Morton Peto and other European capitalists, who, believingthat eight per cent. , the average rate of interest in the UnitedStates, is better than three per cent. , the average rate in England, invest $10, 000, 000 of capital in American enterprises. This capital issent hither in the form of merchandise, to stock our railroads, farms, factories, etc. , and is so much clear benefit to the country; but toMr. Greeley's solitary vision it is only a curse. 

Q, and his friends are cozy old-fashioned merchants in Boston city, who own one hundred and seventy-nine vessels (see Consular Reports, 1865), which trade between foreign ports and away from the UnitedStates altogether. These vessels have an aggregate burden of onemillion tons, are worth forty dollars, gold, per ton, and earn a netprofit per annum of ten per cent. On their cost. Although in this kindof carrying trade we are wofully behind other nations, yet it yields, in twelve years (the average age of the vessels engaged in it), theneat little profit of $48, 000, 000, which is invested by Q in tea, coffee, and sugar, and imported into the United States at a net profitof ten per cent. Although an unquestionable gain to Q and the countryat large of $52, 800, 000, Mr. Greeley, with his contracted views, onlyregards it as a dead loss on the import side of our Commerce andNavigation Returns. 

R, was a bank which had a defaulting cashier, who ran away in 1857with $500, 000 of its funds. (Sch*yl*r carried off a million of NewHaven Railroad bonds). These funds were recovered and converted intogold, which was shipped to the United States. According to Mr. Greeley, who could find no record of exports to counterbalance it, thesame was a dead loss to the country. 

S, and his friends own 76, 990 tons of whaling ships (see Commerce andNavigation Reports, 1866), worth $40 per ton, gold, or $3, 079, 600. These ships are sent annually to the Arctic regions and earn for S andhis friends ten per cent. , or $307, 960 net profit each year. Fiveyears' profits, consisting of whale oil, bone, etc. , which, after anactive and profitable trade at the Sandwich Islands, they returnedwith this year, were valued at $1, 655, 659, and were duly entered amongthe imports, furnishing to Mr. Greeley an indubitable proof that thecountry was losing money in this business, and that the attention ofCongress should at once be directed toward supplying a proper remedy. 

T, was a South American refugee, who brought with him a million ofdollars in gold doubloons. After living here for many years, by whichtime, through foreign trading, his capital had doubled, he investedthe entire avails in United States bonds, as a last and strikingevidence of his faith in our institutions, and departed to his nativecountry, there to rest his bones. This man clearly prospered, and sodid the country in which he settled, and on whose national faith helent all his fortune. Yet Mr. Greeley concludes the whole thing tohave been a bad job for us, and harps upon another over-importation of$1, 000, 000. 

U, is a gallant Yankee sea-captain, who picks up an abandoned vesselat sea laden with a valuable cargo of teas, and bravely tows her intoport, receiving $200, 000 of the proceeds of the sale of her cargo assalvage for his skill and intrepidity. From Mr. Greeley's point ofview U is a traitor to his country, and suffering a merited povertyfor over-importing. But U drives his carriage about town, and has hisown opinion of Mr. Greeley's views. 

V, having a debt of $300, 000 due to him by a merchant in Alexandria, requests him to invest the same in Arabian horses, as fancy stock toimprove American breeds. The horses arrive in good order, and on beingsold, yield V a net profit of $30, 000, besides enriching our nativebreeds of these useful animals. Mr. Greeley still holds out, and jotsthe whole transaction down as an additional evidence of nationaldecadence. 

TABULAR EXPOSE. 

Official Returns of these Transactions as they would appear perCommerce and Navigation Reports. --Sums all stated in gold. 

--+------------+------------+------------+----------------| |Exports. | Imports. | Net profit |Immediate | |Value in the| Foreign | to the |accretion to the| |United | value. | individual. |country's stock | |States. | | |of productive | | | | |wealth. |--+------------+------------+------------+----------------|A | $10, 000, 000| $11, 000, 000| $2, 000, 000 | $2, 000, 000 |B | | 1, 000, 000| 100, 000 | 1, 100, 000 |C | | 1, 000, 000| 100, 000 | 1, 000, 000 |D | | 1, 000, 000| 1, 100, 000 | 1, 100, 000 |E | 1, 000, 000| 1, 610, 510| 610, 510 | 610, 510 |F | | 200, 000| 50, 000 | 50, 000 |G | | 600, 000| | |H | | 250, 000| 175, 000 | 175, 000 |I | | 40, 000, 000| 4, 000, 000 | 4, 000, 000 |J | | 1, 440, 000| 184, 000 | 1, 584, 000 |K | | 222, 222| 22, 222 | 22, 222 |L | | 25, 000, 000| | 25, 000, 000 |M | | 1, 000, 000| 100, 000 | 1, 000, 000 |N | | 1, 000, 000| 100, 000 | 1, 100, 000 |O | | 16, 644, 220| 1, 664, 422 | 18, 308, 642 |P | | 10, 000, 000| | 10, 000, 000 |Q | | 48, 000, 000| 52, 800, 000 | 52, 800, 000 |R | | 500, 000| 500, 000 | 500, 000 |S | | 1, 655, 659| 1, 655, 659 | 1, 655, 659 |T | | 1, 000, 000| 1, 000, 000 | 2, 000, 000 |U | | 200, 000| 200, 000 | 200, 000 |V | | 300, 000| 30, 000 | 330, 000 |W | | | | |X | | | | |Y | | | | |Z | | | | |--+------------+------------+------------+----------------| $11, 000, 000|$163, 622, 611|$66, 391, 813 |$124, 736, 033 |-----------------------------------------------------------

W, X, Y, Z, represent 43, 628, 427, 835, 109 other commercialtransactions, in all of which the parties to them and the countries inwhich they live make money, but which, regarded from Mr. Greeley'ssolitary point of view, should be stopped at once by appropriatelegislation. 

These various transactions, it will be perceived, have netted to theindividuals engaged in them a clear profit of $66, 391, 813, while thecountry has added to its immediate stock of wealth not only this sum, but $58, 344, 220 over, viz: $124, 736, 033; while, according to theBalance of Trade chimera, which simply weighs the custom-house reportsof the value of the exports with that of the imports (and their valuesin their respective countries of production, too), this commerce hasbeen a loss to the country of $163, 622, 611--$11, 000, 000: $152, 622, 611. 

So much for _theory_ when confronted with _practice_. 

The truth is, that the theory of the Balance of Trade should beprecisely _reversed_. The profits accruing to the nation from anyforeign commerce should be calculated by the overplus of theimportation above the exportation. This overplus, after the deductionof expenses, is the real gain. Here we have the true theory, and it isone which leads directly to freedom in trade. I now, gentlemen, abandon you this theory, as I have done all those of the precedingchapters. Do with it as you please, exaggerate it as you will; it hasnothing to fear. Push it to the furthest extreme; imagine, if it soplease you, that foreign nations should inundate us with usefulproduce of every description, and ask nothing in return; that ourimportations should be _infinite_, and our exportations _nothing_. Imagine all this, and still I defy you to prove that we will be thepoorer in consequence. 

CHAPTER VII. 

A PETITION. 

Petition from the Manufacturers of Candles, Wax-Lights, Lamps, Chandeliers, Reflectors, Snuffers, Extinguishers; and from theProducers of Tallow, Oil, Resin, Petroleum, Kerosene, Alcohol, andgenerally of every thing used for lights. 

"_To the Honorable the Senators and Representatives of the UnitedStates in Congress assembled. _

"GENTLEMEN:--You are in the right way: you reject abstracttheories; abundance, cheapness, concerns you little. You are entirelyoccupied with the interest of the producer, whom you are anxious tofree from foreign competition. In a word, you wish to secure the_national market_ to _national labor_. 

"We come now to offer you an admirable opportunity for the applicationof your--what shall we say? your theory? no, nothing is moredeceiving than theory--your doctrine? your system? your principle? Butyou do not like doctrines; you hold systems in horror; and, as forprinciples, you declare that there are no such things in politicaleconomy. We will say, then, your practice; your practice withouttheory, and without principle. 

"We are subjected to the intolerable competition of a FOREIGN RIVAL, who enjoys, it would seem, such superior facilities for the productionof light, that he is enabled to _inundate_ our _national market_ at soexceedingly reduced a price, that, the moment he makes his appearance, he draws off all custom from us; and thus an important branch ofAmerican industry, with all its innumerable ramifications, is suddenlyreduced to a state of complete stagnation. This rival, who is no otherthan the sun, carries on so bitter a war against us, that we haveevery reason to believe that he has been excited to this course by ourperfidious cousins, the Britishers. (Good diplomacy this, for thepresent time!) In this belief we are confirmed by the fact that in allhis transactions with their befogged island, he is much more moderateand careful than with us. 

"Our petition is, that it would please your Honorable Body to pass alaw whereby shall be directed the shutting up of all windows, dormers, sky-lights, shutters, curtains--in a word, all openings, holes, chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is used topenetrate into our dwellings, to the prejudice of the profitablemanufactures which we flatter ourselves we have been enabled to bestowupon the country; which country cannot, therefore, withoutingratitude, leave us now to struggle unprotected through so unequal acontest. 

"We pray your Honorable Body not to mistake our petition for a satire, nor to repulse us without at least hearing the reasons which we haveto advance in its favor. 

"And first, if, by shutting out as much as possible all access tonatural light, you thus create the necessity for artificial light, isthere in the United States an industrial pursuit which will not, through some connection with this important object, be benefited byit?

"If more tallow be consumed, there will arise a necessity for anincrease of cattle and sheep. Thus artificial meadows must be ingreater demand; and meat, wool, leather, and above all, manure, thisbasis of agricultural riches, must become more abundant. 

"If more oil be consumed, it will effect a great impetus to ourpetroleum trade. Pit-Hole, Tack, and Oil Creek stock will go upexceedingly, and an immense revenue will thereby accrue to thenumerous possessors of oil lands, who will be able to pay such a largetax that the national debt can be paid off at once. Besides that, thepatent hermetical barrel trade, and numerous other industriesconnected with the oil trade, will prosper at an unprecedented rate, to the great benefit and glory of the country. 

"Navigation would equally profit. Thousands of vessels would soon beemployed in the whale fisheries, and thence would arise a navy capableof sustaining the honor of the United States, and of responding to thepatriotic sentiments of the undersigned petitioners, candle-merchants, &c. 

"But what words can express the magnificence which New York will thenexhibit! Cast an eye upon the future, and behold the gildings, thebronzes, the magnificent crystal chandeliers, lamps, lusters, andcandelabras, which will glitter in the spacious stores, compared towhich the splendor of the present day will appear little andinsignificant. 

"There is none, not even the poor manufacturer of resin in the midstof his pine forests, nor the miserable miner in his dark dwelling, butwho would enjoy an increase of salary and of comforts. 

"Gentlemen, if you will be pleased to reflect, you cannot fail to beconvinced that there is perhaps not one American, from the opulentstockholder of Pit-Hole, down to the poorest vender of matches, who isnot interested in the success of our petition. 

"We foresee your objections, gentlemen; but there is not one that youcan oppose to us which you will not be obliged to gather from theworks of the partisans of free trade. We dare challenge you topronounce one word against our petition, which is not equally opposedto your own practice and the principle which guides your policy. 

"If you tell us that, though we may gain by this protection, theUnited States will not gain, because the consumer must pay the priceof it, we answer you:

"You have no longer any right to cite the interest of the consumer. For whenever this has been found to compete with that of the producer, you have invariably sacrificed the first. You have done this to_encourage labor_, to _increase the demand for labor_. The same reasonshould now induce you to act in the same manner. 

"You have yourselves already answered the objection. When you weretold: The consumer is interested in the free introduction of iron, coal, corn, wheat, cloths, &c. , your answer was: Yes, but the produceris interested in their exclusion. Thus, also, if the consumer isinterested in the admission of light, we, the producers, pray for itsinterdiction. 

"You have also said the producer and the consumer are one. If themanufacturer gains by protection, he will cause the agriculturist togain also; if agriculture prospers, it opens a market for manufacturedgoods. Thus we, if you confer upon us the monopoly of furnishing lightduring the day, will as a first consequence buy large quantities oftallow, coal, oil, resin, kerosene, wax, alcohol, silver, iron, bronze, crystal, for the supply of our business; and then we and ournumerous contractors having become rich, our consumption will begreat, and will become a means of contributing to the comfort andcompetency of the workers in every branch of national labor. 

"Will you say that the light of the sun is a gratuitous gift, and thatto repulse gratuitous gifts is to repulse riches under pretence ofencouraging the means of obtaining them?

"Take care--you carry the death-blow to your own policy. Remember thathitherto you have always repulsed foreign produce, _because_ it was anapproach to a gratuitous gift, and _the more in proportion_ as thisapproach was more close. You have, in obeying the wishes of othermonopolists, acted only from a _half-motive_; to grant our petitionthere is a much _fuller inducement_. To repulse us, precisely for thereason that our case is a more complete one than any which havepreceded it, would be to lay down the following equation: + × + = -; inother words, it would be to accumulate absurdity upon absurdity. 

"Labor and Nature concur in different proportions, according tocountry and climate, in every article of production. The portion ofNature is always gratuitous; that of labor alone regulates the price. 

"If a Lisbon orange can be sold at one hundredth the price of a NewYork one, it is because a natural and gratuitous heat does for theone, what the other only obtains from an artificial and consequentlyexpensive one. 

"When, therefore, we purchase a Portuguese orange, we may say that weobtain it 99/100 gratuitously and 1/100 by the right of labor; inother words, at a mere song compared to those of New York. 

"Now it is precisely on account of this 99/100 _gratuity_ (excuse thephrase) that you argue in favor of exclusion. How, you say, couldnational labor sustain the competition of foreign labor, when thefirst has every thing to do, and the last is rid of nearly all thetrouble, the sun taking the rest of the business upon himself? If thenthe 99/100 _gratuity_ can determine you to check competition, on whatprinciple can the _entire gratuity_ be alleged as a reason foradmitting it? You are no logicians if, refusing the 99/100 gratuity ashurtful to human labor, you do not _à fortiori_, and with double zeal, reject the full gratuity. 

"Again, when any article, as coal, iron, cheese, or cloth, comes to usfrom foreign countries with less labor than if we produced itourselves, the difference in price is a _gratuitous gift_ conferredupon us; and the gift is more or less considerable, according as thedifference is greater or less. It is the quarter, the half, or thethree-quarters of the value of the produce, in proportion as theforeign merchant requires the three-quarters, the half, or thequarter of the price. It is as complete as possible when the produceroffers, as the sun does with light, the whole, in free gift. Thequestion is, and we put it formally, whether you wish for the UnitedStates the benefit of gratuitous consumption, or the supposedadvantages of laborious production. Choose: but be consistent. Anddoes it not argue the greatest inconsistency to check, as you do, theimportation of iron-ware, dry-goods, and other foreign manufactures, merely because, and even in proportion as, their price approacheszero, while at the same time you freely admit, and without limitation, the light of the sun, whose price is during the whole day _at_ zero?"

CHAPTER VIII. 

DISCRIMINATING DUTIES. 

A poor laborer of Ohio had raised, with the greatest possiblecare and attention, a nursery of vines, from which, after much labor, he at last succeeded in producing a pipe of Catawba wine, and forgot, in the joy of his success, that each drop of this precious nectar hadcost a drop of sweat to his brow. 

"I will sell it, " said he to his wife, "and with the proceeds I willbuy lace, which will serve you to make a present for our daughter. "

The honest countryman, arriving in the city of Cincinnati, there metan Englishman and a Yankee. 

The Yankee said to him, "Give me your wine, and I in exchange willgive you fifteen bundles of Yankee lace. "

The Englishman said, "Give it to me, and I will give you twentybundles of English lace, for we English can spin cheaper than theYankees. "

But a custom-house officer standing by, said to the laborer, "My goodfellow, make your exchange, if you choose, with Brother Jonathan, butit is my duty to prevent your doing so with the Englishman. "

"What!" exclaimed the countryman, "you wish me to take fifteen bundlesof New England lace, when I can have twenty from Manchester!"

"Certainly, " replied the custom-house officer; "do you not see thatthe United States would be a loser if you were to receive twentybundles instead of fifteen?"

"I can scarcely understand this, " said the laborer. 

"Nor can I explain it, " said the custom-house officer, "but there isno doubt of the fact; for congressmen, ministers, and editors, allagree that a people is impoverished in proportion as it receives alarge compensation for any given quantity of its produce. "

The countryman was obliged to conclude his bargain with the Yankee. His daughter received but three-fourths of her present; and these goodfolks are still puzzling themselves to discover how it can happen thatpeople are ruined by receiving four instead of three; and why they arericher with three dozen bundles of lace instead of four. 

CHAPTER IX. 

A WONDERFUL DISCOVERY. 

At this moment, when all minds are occupied in endeavoring todiscover the most economical means of transportation; when, to putthese means into practice, we are levelling roads, improving rivers, perfecting steamboats, establishing railroads, and attempting varioussystems of traction, atmospheric, hydraulic, pneumatic, electric, &c. ;at this moment, when, I believe, every one is seeking in sincerity andwith ardor the solution of this problem--"_To bring the price ofthings in their place of consumption, as near as possible to theirprice in that of production_"--I would believe myself to be acting aculpable part towards my country, towards the age in which I live, andtowards myself, if I were longer to keep secret the wonderfuldiscovery which I have just made. 

I am well aware that the self-illusions of inventors have becomeproverbial, but I have, nevertheless, the most complete certainty ofhaving discovered an infallible means of bringing produce from allparts of the world into the United States, and reciprocally totransport ours, with a very important reduction of price. 

Infallible! and yet this is but a single one of the advantages of myastonishing invention, which requires neither plans nor devices, neither preparatory studies, nor engineers, nor machinists, norcapital, nor stockholders, nor governmental assistance! There is nodanger of shipwrecks, of explosions, of shocks of fire, nor ofdisplacement of rails! It can be put into practice without preparationalmost any day we think proper!

Finally: and this will, no doubt, recommend it to the public, it willnot increase the Budget one cent; but the contrary. It will notaugment the number of office-holders, nor the exigencies of State; butthe contrary. It will put in hazard the liberty of no one; but on thecontrary, it will secure to each a greater freedom. 

I have been led to this discovery, not from accident, but fromobservation, and I will tell you how. 

I had this question to determine:

"Why does any article made, for instance, at Montreal, bear anincreased price on its arrival at New York?"

It was immediately evident to me that this was the result of_obstacles_ of various kinds existing between Montreal and New York. First, there is _distance_, which cannot be overcome without troubleand loss of time; and either we must submit to these troubles andlosses in our own person, or pay another for bearing them for us. Thencome rivers, hills, accidents, heavy and muddy roads. These are somany _difficulties_ to be overcome; in order to do which, causewaysare constructed, bridges built, roads cut and paved, railroadsestablished, &c. But all this is costly, and the article transportedmust bear its portion of the expense. There are robbers, too, on theroads, sometimes, and this necessitates railway guards, a policeforce, &c. 

Now, among these _obstacles_, there is one which we ourselves havelately placed, and that at no little expense, between Montreal and NewYork. This consists of men planted along the frontier, armed to theteeth, whose business it is to place _difficulties_ in the way of thetransportation of goods from one country to another. These men arecalled custom-house officers, and their effect is precisely similar tothat of rutted and boggy roads. They retard and put obstacles in theway of transportation, thus contributing to the difference which wehave remarked between the price of production and that of consumption;to diminish which difference, as much as possible, is the problemwhich we are seeking to resolve. 

Here, then, we have found its solution. Let our tariff be diminished:we will thus have constructed a Northern railway which will cost usnothing. Nay, more, we will be saved great expenses, and will begin, from the first day, to save capital. 

Really, I cannot but ask myself, in surprise, how our brains couldhave admitted so whimsical a piece of folly as to induce us to paymany millions to destroy the _natural obstacles_ interposed betweenthe United States and other nations, only at the same time to pay somany millions more in order to replace them by _artificial obstacles_, which have exactly the same effect; so that the obstacle removed andthe obstacle created, neutralize each other, things go on as before, and the only result of our trouble is a double expense. 

An article of Canadian production is worth, at Montreal, twentydollars, and, from the expenses of transportation, thirty dollars atNew York. A similar article of New York manufacture costs fortydollars. What is our course under these circumstances?

First, we impose a duty of at least ten dollars on the Canadianarticle, so as to raise its price to a level with that of the New Yorkone--the government, withal, paying numerous officials to attend tothe levying of this duty. The article thus pays ten dollars fortransportation, and ten for the tax. 

This done, we say to ourselves: Transportation between Montreal andNew York is very dear; let us spend two or three millions in railways, and we will reduce it one-half. Evidently the result of such a coursewill be to get the Canadian article at New York for thirty-fivedollars, viz. :

 20 dollars--price at Montreal. 10 " duty. 5 " transportation by railway. -- 35 dollars--total, or market price at New York. 

Could we not have attained the same end by lowering the tariff to fivedollars? We would then have--

 20 dollars--price at Montreal. 5 " duty. 10 " transportation on the common road. -- 35 dollars--total, or market price at New York. 

And this arrangement would have saved us the $2, 000, 000 spent upon therailway, besides the expense saved in custom-house surveillance, whichwould of course diminish in proportion as the temptation to smugglingwould become less. 

But it is answered: The duty is necessary to protect New Yorkindustry. So be it; but do not then destroy the effect of it by yourrailway. For if you persist in your determination to keep the Canadianarticle on a par with the New York one at forty dollars, you mustraise the duty to fifteen dollars, in order to have:--

 20 dollars--price at Montreal. 15 " protective duty. 5 " transportation by railway. -- 40 dollars--total, at equalized prices. 

And I now ask, of what benefit, under these circumstances, is therailway?

Frankly, is it not humiliating to the nineteenth century, that itshould be destined to transmit to future ages the example of suchpuerilities seriously and gravely practised? To be the dupe ofanother, is bad enough; but to employ all the forms and ceremonies ofrepresentation in order to cheat oneself--to doubly cheat oneself, andthat too in a mere numerical account--truly this is calculated tolower a little the pride of this _enlightened age_. 

CHAPTER X. 

RECIPROCITY. 

We have just seen that all which renders transportation difficult, acts in the same manner as protection; or, if the expression bepreferred, that protection tends towards the same result as allobstacles to transportation. 

A tariff may be truly spoken of as a swamp, a rut, a steep hill; in aword, an _obstacle_, whose effect is to augment the difference betweenthe price of consumption and that of production. It is equallyincontestable that a swamp, a bog, &c. , are veritable protectivetariffs. 

There are people (few in number, it is true, but such there are) whobegin to understand that obstacles are not the less obstacles becausethey are artificially created, and that our well-being is moreadvanced by freedom of trade than by protection; precisely as a canalis more desirable than a sandy, hilly, and difficult road. 

But they still say, this liberty ought to be reciprocal. If we takeoff our taxes in favor of Canada, while Canada does not do the sametowards us, it is evident that we are duped. Let us, then, make_treaties of commerce_ upon the basis of a just reciprocity; let usyield where we are yielded to; let us make the _sacrifice_ of buyingthat we may obtain the advantage of selling. 

Persons who reason thus, are (I am sorry to say), whether they know itor not, governed by the protectionist principle. They are only alittle more inconsistent than the pure protectionists, as these aremore inconsistent than the absolute prohibitionists. 

I will illustrate this by a fable:

There were, it matters not where, two towns, N*w Y*rk and M*ntr**l, which, at great expense, had a road built, which connected them witheach other. Some time after this was done, the inhabitants of N*w Y*rkbecame uneasy, and said: "M*ntr**l is overwhelming us with itsproductions; this must be attended to. " They established, therefore, acorps of _Obstructors_, so called, because their business was to placeobstacles in the way of the convoys which arrived from M*ntr**l. Soonafter, M*ntr**l also established a corps of Obstructors. 

After some years, people having become more enlightened, theinhabitants of M*ntr**l began to discover that these reciprocalobstacles might possibly be reciprocal injuries. They sent, therefore, an ambassador to N*w Y*rk, who (passing over the official phraseology)spoke much to this effect: "We have built a road, and now we putobstacles in the way of this road. This is absurd. It would have beenfar better to have left things in their original position, for then wewould not have been put to the expense of building our road, andafterwards of creating difficulties. In the name of M*ntr**l I come topropose to you not to renounce at once our system of mutual obstacles, for this would be acting according to a principle, and we despiseprinciples as much as you do; but to somewhat lighten these obstacles, weighing at the same time carefully our respective _sacrifices_. " Theambassador having thus spoken, the town of N*w Y*rk asked time toreflect; manufacturers, office-seekers, congressmen, and custom-houseofficers, were consulted; and at last, after some years' deliberation, it was declared that the negotiations were broken off. 

At this news, the inhabitants of M*ntr**l held a council. An old man(who it has always been supposed had been secretly bribed by N*w Y*rk)rose and said: "The obstacles raised by N*w Y*rk are injurious to oursales; this is a misfortune. Those which we ourselves create, injureour purchases; this is a second misfortune. We have no power over thefirst, but the second is entirely dependent upon ourselves. Let usthen at least get rid of one, since we cannot be delivered from both. Let us suppress our corps of Obstructors, without waiting for N*w Y*rkto do the same. Some day or other she will learn to better calculateher own interests. "

A second counsellor, a man of practice and of facts, uncontrolled byprinciples and wise in ancestral experience, replied: "We must notlisten to this dreamer, this theorist, this innovator, this Utopian, this political economist, this friend to N*w Y*rk. We would beentirely ruined if the embarrassments of the road were not carefullyweighed and exactly equalized between N*w Y*rk and M*ntr**l. Therewould be more difficulty in going than in coming; in exportation thanin importation. We would be with regard to N*w Y*rk, in the inferiorcondition in which Havre, Nantes, Bordeaux, Lisbon, London, Hamburg, and New Orleans, are, in relation to cities placed higher up therivers Seine, Loire, Garonne, Tagus, Thames, Elbe, and Mississippi;for the difficulties of ascending must always be greater than those ofdescending rivers. "

"(A voice exclaims: 'But the cities near the mouths of rivers havealways prospered more than those higher up the stream. ')

"This is not possible. "

"(The same voice: 'But it is a fact. ')

"Well, they have then prospered _contrary to rule_. "

Such conclusive reasoning staggered the assembly. The orator went onto convince them thoroughly and conclusively by speaking of nationalindependence, national honor, national dignity, national labor, overwhelming importation, tributes, ruinous competition. In short, hesucceeded in determining the assembly to continue their system ofobstacles, and I can now point out a certain country where you may seeroad-workers and Obstructors working with the best possibleunderstanding, by the decree of the same legislative assembly, paid bythe same citizens; the first to improve the road, the last toembarrass it. 

CHAPTER XI. 

ABSOLUTE PRICES. 

If we wish to judge between freedom of trade and protection, tocalculate the probable effect of any political phenomenon, we shouldnotice how far its influence tends to the production of _abundance_ or_scarcity_, and not simply of _cheapness_ or _dearness_ of price. Wemust beware of trusting to absolute prices: it would lead toinextricable confusion. 

Mr. Protectionist, after having established the fact that protectionraises prices, adds:

"The augmentation of price increases the expenses of life, andconsequently the price of labor, and every one finds in the increaseof the price of his produce the same proportion as in the increase ofhis expenses. Thus, if everybody pays as consumer, everybody receivesalso as producer. "

It is evident that it would be easy to reverse the argument, and say:If everybody receives as producer, everybody must pay as consumer. 

Now what does this prove? Nothing whatever, unless it be thatprotection _transfers_ riches, uselessly and unjustly. Spoliation doesthe same. 

Again, to prove that the complicated arrangements of this system giveeven simple compensation, it is necessary to adhere to the"_consequently_" of Mr. Protectionist, and to convince oneself thatthe price of labor rises with that of the articles protected. This isa question of fact. For my own part I do not believe in it, because Ithink that the price of labor, like everything else, is governed bythe proportion existing between the supply and the demand. Now I canperfectly well understand that _restriction_ will diminish the supplyof produce, and consequently raise its price; but I do not as clearlysee that it increases the demand for labor, thereby raising the rateof wages. This is the less conceivable to me, because the sum of laborrequired depends upon the quantity of disposable capital; andprotection, while it may change the direction of capital, and transferit from one business to another, cannot increase it one penny. 

This question, which is of the highest interest, we will examineelsewhere. I return to the discussion of _absolute prices_, anddeclare that there is no absurdity which cannot be rendered speciousby such reasoning as that which is commonly resorted to byprotectionists. 

Imagine an isolated nation possessing a given quantity of cash, andevery year wantonly burning the half of its produce; I will undertaketo prove by the protective theory that this nation will not be theless rich in consequence of such a procedure. For, the result of theconflagration must be, that everything would double in price. Aninventory made before this event, would offer exactly the same nominalvalue as one made after it. Who, then, would be the loser? If Johnbuys his cloth dearer, he also sells his corn at a higher price; andif Peter makes a loss on the purchase of his corn, he gains it backby the sale of his cloth. Thus "every one finds in the increase of theprice of his produce, the same proportion as in the increase of hisexpenses: and thus if everybody pays as consumer, everybody alsoreceives as producer. "

All this is nonsense, and not science. 

The simple truth is, that whether men destroy their corn and cloth byfire, or by use, the effect is the same as regards price, but not asregards riches, for it is precisely in the enjoyment of the use, thatriches--in other words, comfort, well-being--exist. 

Restriction may in the same way, while it lessens the abundance ofthings, raise their prices, so as to leave each individual as rich, _numerically speaking_, as when unembarrassed by it. But because weput down in an inventory three bushels of corn at $1, or four bushelsat 75 cents, and sum up the nominal value of each inventory at $3, does it thence follow that they are equally capable of contributing tothe necessities of the community?

To this truthful and common-sense view of the phenomenon ofconsumption it will be my continual endeavor to lead theprotectionists; for in this is the end of all my efforts, the solutionof every problem. I must continually repeat to them that restriction, by impeding commerce, by limiting the division of labor, by forcing itto combat difficulties of situation and temperature, must in itsresults diminish the quantity produced by any fixed quantum of labor. And what can it benefit us that the smaller quantity produced underthe protective system bears the same _nominal value_ as the greaterquantity produced under the free trade system? Man does not live on_nominal values_, but on real articles of produce; and the moreabundant these articles are, no matter what price they may bear, thericher is he. 

The following passage occurs in the writings of a Frenchprotectionist:

"If fifteen millions of merchandise sold to foreign nations, be takenfrom our ordinary produce, calculated at fifty millions, thethirty-five millions of merchandise which remain, not being sufficientfor the ordinary demand, will increase in price to the value of fiftymillions. The revenue of the country will thus represent fifteenmillions more in value. .. . There will then be an increase of fifteenmillions in the riches of the country; precisely the amount of theimportation of money. "

This is droll enough! If a country has made in the course of the yearfifty millions of revenue in harvests and merchandise, she need butsell one-quarter to foreign nations, in order to make herselfone-quarter richer than before! If then she sold the half, she wouldincrease her riches by one-half; and if the last hair of her wool, thelast grain of her wheat, were to be changed for cash, she would thusraise her product to one hundred millions, where before it was butfifty! A singular manner, certainly, of becoming rich. Unlimited priceproduced by unlimited scarcity!

To sum up our judgment of the two systems, let us contemplate theirdifferent effects when pushed to the most exaggerated extreme. 

According to the protectionist just quoted, the French would be quiteas rich, that is to say, as well provided with everything, if theyhad but a thousandth part of their annual produce, because this partwould then be worth a thousand times its natural value! So much forlooking at prices alone. 

According to us, the French would be infinitely rich if their annualproduce were infinitely abundant, and consequently bearing no value atall. 

CHAPTER XII. 

DOES PROTECTION RAISE THE RATE OF WAGES?

When we hear our beardless scribblers, romancers, reformers, ourperfumed magazine writers, stuffed with ices and champagne, as theycarefully place in their portfolios the sentimental scissorings whichfill the current literature of the day, or cause to be decorated withgilded ornaments their tirades against the egotism and theindividualism of the age; when we hear them declaiming against socialabuses, and groaning over deficient wages and needy families; when wesee them raising their eyes to heaven and weeping over thewretchedness of the laboring classes, while they never visit thiswretchedness unless it be to draw lucrative sketches of its scenes ofmisery, we are tempted to say to them: The sight of you is enough tomake me sicken of attempting to teach the truth. 

Affectation! Affectation! It is the nauseating disease of the day! Ifa thinking man, a sincere philanthropist, takes into consideration thecondition of the working classes and endeavors to lay bare theirnecessities, scarcely has his work made an impression before it isgreedily seized upon by the crowd of reformers, who turn, twist, examine, quote, exaggerate it, until it becomes ridiculous; and then, as sole compensation, you are overwhelmed with such big words as:Organization, Association; you are flattered and fawned upon untilyou become ashamed of publicly defending the cause of the working man;for how can it be possible to introduce sensible ideas in the midst ofthese sickening affectations?

But we must put aside this cowardly indifference, which theaffectation that provokes it is not enough to justify. 

Working men, your situation is singular! You are robbed, as I willpresently prove to you. But no: I retract the word; we must avoid anexpression which is violent; perhaps, indeed, incorrect; inasmuch asthis spoliation, wrapped in the sophisms which disguise it, ispractised, we must believe, without the intention of the spoiler, andwith the consent of the spoiled. But it is nevertheless true that youare deprived of the just remuneration of your labor, while no onethinks of causing _justice_ to be rendered to you. If you could beconsoled by the noisy appeals of your champions to philanthropy, topowerless charity, to degrading almsgiving, or if the high-soundingwords of Voice of the People, Rights of Labor, &c. , would relieveyou--these indeed you can have in abundance. But _justice_, simple_justice_--this nobody thinks of rendering you. For would it not be_just_ that after a long day's labor, when you have received yourwages, you should be permitted to exchange them for the largestpossible sum of comforts you can obtain voluntarily from any man uponthe face of the earth?

I too, perhaps, may some day speak to you of the Voice of the People, the Rights of Labor, &c. , and may perhaps be able to show you what youhave to expect from the chimeras by which you allow yourselves to beled astray. 

In the meantime let us examine if _injustice_ is not done to you bythe legislative limitation of the number of persons from whom you areallowed to buy those things which you need; as iron, coal, cotton andwoollen cloths, &c. ; thus artificially fixing (so to express myself)the price which these articles must bear. 

Is it true that protection, which avowedly raises prices, and thusinjures you, proportionably raises the rate of wages?

On what does the rate of wages depend?

One of your own class has energetically said: "When two workmen runafter a boss, wages fall; when two bosses run after a workman, wagesrise. "

Allow me, in similar laconic phrase, to employ a more scientific, though perhaps a less striking expression: "The rate of wages dependsupon the proportion which the supply of labor bears to the demand. "

On what depends the _demand_ for labor?

On the quantity of disposable capital seeking investment. And the lawwhich says, "Such or such an article shall be limited to homeproduction and no longer imported from foreign countries, " can it inany degree increase this capital? Not in the least. This law maywithdraw it from one course, and transfer it to another; but cannotincrease it one penny. Then it cannot increase the demand for labor. 

While we point with pride to some prosperous manufacture, can weanswer, whence comes the capital with which it is founded andmaintained? Has it fallen from the moon? or rather is it not drawneither from agriculture, or stock-breeding, or commerce? We here seewhy, since the reign of protective tariffs, if we see more workmen inour mines and our manufacturing towns, we find also fewer vessels inour ports, fewer graziers and fewer laborers in our fields and uponour hill-sides. 

I could speak at great length upon this subject, but preferillustrating my thought by an example. 

A countryman had twenty acres of land, with a capital of $10, 000. Hedivided his land into four parts, and adopted for it the followingchanges of crops: 1st, maize; 2d, wheat; 3d, clover; and 4th, rye. Ashe needed for himself and family but a small portion of the grain, meat, and dairy produce of the farm, he sold the surplus and boughtiron, coal, cloths, etc. The whole of his capital was yearlydistributed in wages and payments of accounts to the workingmen of theneighborhood. This capital was, from his sales, again returned to him, and even increased from year to year. Our countryman, being fullyconvinced that idle capital produces nothing, caused to circulateamong the working classes this annual increase, which he devoted tothe inclosing and clearing of lands, or to improvements in his farmingutensils and his buildings. He deposited some sums in reserve in thehands of a neighboring banker, who on his part did not leave theseidle in his strong-box, but lent them to various tradesmen, so thatthe whole came to be usefully employed in the payment of wages. 

The countryman died, and his son, become master of the inheritance, said to himself: "It must be confessed that my father has, all hislife, allowed himself to be duped. He bought iron, and thus paid_tribute_ to England, while our own land could, by an effort, be madeto produce iron as well as England. He bought coal, cloths, andoranges, thus paying _tribute_ to New Brunswick, France, and Sicily, very unnecessarily; for coal may be found, doeskins may be made, andoranges may be forced to grow, within our own territory. He paidtribute to the foreign miner and the weaver; our own servants couldvery well mine our iron and get up native doeskins almost as good asthe French article. He did all he could to ruin himself, and gave tostrangers what ought to have been kept for the benefit of his ownhousehold. "

Full of this reasoning, our headstrong fellow determined to change theroutine of his crops. He divided his farm into twenty parts. On one hedug for coal; on another he erected a cloth factory; on a third he puta hot-house and cultivated the orange; he devoted the fourth to vines, the fifth to wheat, &c. , &c. Thus he succeeded in rendering himself_independent_, and furnished all his family supplies from his ownfarm. He no longer received anything from the general circulation;neither, it is true, did he cast anything into it. Was he the richerfor this course? No; for his mine did not yield coal as cheaply as hecould buy it in the market, nor was the climate favorable to theorange. In short, the family supply of these articles was veryinferior to what it had been during the time when the father hadobtained them and others by exchange of produce. 

With regard to the demand for labor, it certainly was no greater thanformerly. THERE WERE, TO BE SURE, FIVE TIMES AS MANY FIELDS TOCULTIVATE, BUT THEY WERE FIVE TIMES SMALLER. If coal was mined, therewas also less wheat; and because there were no more oranges bought, neither was there any more rye sold. Besides, the farmer could notspend in wages more than his capital, and his capital, instead ofincreasing, was now constantly diminishing. A great part of it wasnecessarily devoted to numerous buildings and utensils, indispensableto a person who determines to undertake everything. In short, thesupply of labor continued the same, but the means of paying becameless. 

The result is precisely similar when a nation isolates itself by theprohibitive system. Its number of industrial pursuits is certainlymultiplied, but their importance is diminished. In proportion to theirnumber, they become less productive, for the same capital and the sameskill are obliged to meet a greater number of difficulties. The fixedcapital absorbs a greater part of the circulating capital; that is tosay, a greater part of the funds destined to the payment of wages. What remains, ramifies itself in vain; the quantity cannot beaugmented. It is like the water of a deep pond, which, distributedamong a multitude of small reservoirs, appears to be more abundant, because it covers a greater quantity of soil, and presents a largersurface to the sun, while we hardly perceive that, precisely on thisaccount, it absorbs, evaporates, and loses itself the quicker. 

Capital and labor being given, the result is, a sum of production, always the less great in proportion as obstacles are numerous. Therecan be no doubt that international barriers, by forcing capital andlabor to struggle against greater difficulties of soil and climate, must cause the general production to be less, or, in other words, diminish the portion of comforts which would thence result to mankind. If, then, there be a general diminution of comforts, how, working men, can it be possible that _your_ portion should be increased? Under sucha supposition it would be necessary to believe that the rich, thosewho made the law, have so arranged matters, that not only they subjectthemselves to their own proportion of the general diminution, buttaking the whole of it upon themselves, that they submit also to afurther loss in order to increase your gains. Is this credible? Isthis possible? It is, indeed, a most suspicious act of generosity; andif you act wisely you will reject it. 

CHAPTER XIII. 

THEORY AND PRACTICE. 

Defenders of free trade, we are accused of being mere theorists, ofnot giving sufficient weight to the practical. 

"What a fearful charge against you, free traders, " say theprotectionists, "is this long succession of distinguished statesmen, this imposing race of writers, who have all held opinions differingfrom yours!" This we do not deny. We answer, "It is said, in supportof established errors, that 'there must be some foundation for ideasso generally adopted by all nations. Should not one distrust opinionsand arguments which overturn that which, until now, has been held assettled; that which is held as certain by so many persons whoseintelligence and motives make them trustworthy?'"

We confess this argument should make a profound impression, and oughtto throw doubt on the most incontestable points, if we had not seen, one after another, opinions the most false, now generally acknowledgedto be such, received and professed by all the world during a longsuccession of centuries. It is not very long since all nations, fromthe most rude to the most enlightened, and all men, from thestreet-porter to the most learned philosopher, believed in the fourelements. Nobody had thought of contesting this doctrine, which is, however, false; so much so, that at this day any mere naturalist'sassistant, who should consider earth, water, and fire, elements, woulddisgrace himself. 

On which our opponents make this observation: "If you suppose you havethus answered the very forcible objection you have proposed toyourselves, you deceive yourselves strangely. Suppose that men, otherwise intelligent, should be mistaken on any point whatever ofnatural history for many centuries, that would signify or provenothing. Would water, air, earth, fire, be less useful to man whetherthey were or were not elements? Such errors are of no consequence;they lead to no revolutions, do not unsettle the mind; above all, theyinjure no interests, so they might, without inconvenience, endure formillions of years. The physical world would progress just as if theydid not exist. Would it be thus with errors which attack the moralworld? Can we conceive that a system of government, absolutely false, consequently injurious, could be carried out through many centuries, among many nations, with the general consent of educated men? Can weexplain how such a system could be reconciled with the ever-increasingprosperity of nations? You acknowledge that the argument you combatought to make a profound impression. Yes, truly, and this impressionremains, for you have rather strengthened than destroyed it. "

Or again, they say: "It was only in the middle of the last century, the eighteenth century, in which all subjects, all principles, withoutexception, were delivered up to public discussion, that thesefurnishers of speculative ideas which are applied to everythingwithout being applicable to anything--commenced writing on politicaleconomy. There existed, however, a system of political economy, notwritten, but practised by governments. It is said that Colbert was itsinventor, and it was the rule of all the States of Europe. What ismore singular, it has remained so till lately, despite anathemas andcontempt, and despite the discoveries of the modern school. Thissystem, which our writers have called the _mercantile system_, consists in opposing, by prohibitions and duties, such foreignproductions as might ruin our manufacturers by their competition. Thissystem has been pronounced futile, absurd, capable of ruining anycountry, by economical writers of all schools. It has been banishedfrom all books, reduced to take refuge in the practice of everypeople; and we do not understand why, in regard to the wealth ofnations, governments should not have yielded themselves to wiseauthors rather than to _the old experience_ of a system. Above all, wecannot conceive why, in political economy, the American governmentshould persist in resisting the progress of light, and in preserving, in its practice, those old errors which all our economists of the penhave designated. But we have said too much about this mercantilesystem, which has in its favor _facts_ alone, though sustained byscarcely a single writer of the day. "

Would not one say, who listened only to this language, that wepolitical economists, in merely claiming for every one _the freedisposition of his own property_, had, like the Fourierists, conjuredup from our brains a new social order, chimerical and strange; a sortof phalanstery, without precedent in the annals of the human race, instead of merely talking plain _meum_ and _tuum_ It seems to us thatif there is in all this anything utopian, anything problematical, itis not free trade, but protection; it is not the right to exchange, but tariff after tariff applied to overturning the natural order ofcommerce. 

But it is not the point to compare and judge of these two systems bythe light of reason; the question for the moment is, to know which ofthe two is founded upon experience. 

So, Messrs. Monopolists, you pretend that the facts are on your side;that we have, on our side, theories only. 

You even flatter yourselves that this long series of public acts, thisold experience of the world, which you invoke, has appeared imposingto us, and that we confess we have not as yet refuted you as fully aswe might. 

But we do not cede to you the domain of facts, for you have on yourside only exceptional and contracted facts, while we have universalones to oppose to them; the free and voluntary acts of all men. 

What do you say, and what say we?

We say:

"It is better to buy from others anything which would cost more tomake ourselves. "

And on your part you say:

"It is better to make things ourselves, even though it would cost lessto purchase them from others. "

Now, gentlemen, laying aside theory, demonstration, argument, everything which appears to afflict you with nausea, which of theseassertions has in its favor the sanction of _universal practice_?

Visit the fields, work-rooms, manufactories, shops; look above, beneath, and around you; investigate what is going on in your ownestablishment; observe your own conduct at all times, and then saywhich is the principle that directs these labors, these workmen, theseinventors, these merchants; say, too, which is your own individualpractice. 

Does the farmer make his clothes? Does the tailor raise the wheatwhich he consumes? Does not your housekeeper cease making bread athome so soon as she finds it more economical to buy it from the baker?Do you give up the pen for the brush in order to avoid paying tributeto the shoe-black? Does not the whole economy of society depend on theseparation of occupations, on the division of labor; in one word, on_exchange_? And is exchange anything else than the calculation whichleads us to discontinue, as far as we can, direct production, whenindirect acquisition spares us time and trouble?

You are not, then, men of _practice_, since you cannot show a singleman on the surface of the globe who acts in accordance with yourprinciple. 

"But, " you will say, "we have never heard our principle made the ruleof individual relations. We comprehend perfectly that this would breakthe social bond, and force men to live, like snails, each one in hisown shell. We limit ourselves to asserting that it governs _in fact_the relations which are established among the agglomerations of thehuman family. "

But still, this assertion is erroneous. The family, the village, thetown, the county, the state, are so many agglomerations, which all, without any exception, _practically_ reject your principle, and havenever even thought of it. All of them procure, by means of exchange, that which would cost them more to procure by means of production. Nations would act in the same natural manner, if you did not preventit _by force_. 

It is _we_, then, who are the men of practice and of experience; for, in order to combat the interdict which you have placed exceptionallyon certain international exchanges, we appeal to the practice andexperience of all individuals, and all agglomerations of individualswhose acts are voluntary, and consequently may be called on fortestimony. But you commence by _constraining_, by _preventing_, andthen you avail yourself of acts caused by prohibition to exclaim, "See! practice justifies us!" You oppose our _theory_, indeed all_theory_. But when you put a principle in antagonism with ours, doyou, by chance, fancy that you have formed no _theory_? No, no; erasethat from your plea. You form a theory as well as ourselves; butbetween yours and ours there is this difference: our theory consistsmerely in observing universal facts, universal sentiments, universalcalculations and proceedings, and further, in classifying them andarranging them, in order to understand them better. It is so littleopposed to practice, that it is nothing but _practice explained_. Weobserve the actions of men moved by the instinct of preservation andof progress; and what they do freely, voluntarily, is precisely whatwe call _political economy_, or the economy of society. We go onrepeating with out cessation: "Every man is _practically_ anexcellent economist, producing or exchanging, according as it is mostadvantageous to him to exchange or to produce. Each one, throughexperience, is educated to science; or rather, science is only thatsame experience scrupulously observed and methodically set forth. "

As for you, you form a theory, in the unfavorable sense of the word. You imagine, you invent--proceedings which are not sanctioned by thepractice of any living man under the vault of heaven--and then youcall to your assistance constraint and prohibition. You need, indeed, have recourse to _force_, since, in wishing that men should _produce_that which it would be more advantageous to them to _buy_, you wishthem to renounce an _advantage_; you demand that they should act inaccordance with a doctrine which implies contradiction even in itsterms. 

Now, this doctrine, which, you argue, would be absurd in individualrelations, we defy you to extend, even in speculation, to transactionsbetween families, towns, counties, states. By your own avowal, it isapplicable to international relations only. 

And this is why you are obliged to repeat daily: "Principles are notin their nature absolute. That which is _well_ in the individual, thefamily, the county, the state, is _evil_ in the nation. That which is_good_ in detail--such as, to purchase rather than to produce, whenpurchase is more advantageous than production--is bad in the mass. Thepolitical economy of individuals is not that of nations, " and otherrubbish, _ejusdem farinæ_. And why all this? Look at it closely. It isin order to prove to us that we, consumers, are your property, thatwe belong to you body and soul, that you have an exclusive right toour stomachs and limbs, and it is for you to nourish us and clothe usat your own price, however great may be your ignorance, your rapacity, or the inferiority of your position. 

No, you are not men of practice; you are men of abstraction--and ofextraction!

CHAPTER XIV. 

CONFLICT OF PRINCIPLES. 

There is one thing which confounds us, and it is this:

Some sincere publicists, studying social economy from the point ofview of producers only, have arrived at this double formula:

"Governments ought to dispose of the consumers subject to theinfluence of their laws, in favor of national labor. "

"They should render distant consumers subject to their laws, in orderto dispose of them in favor of national labor. "

The first of these formulas is termed _protection_; the latter, _expediency_. 

Both rest on the principle called Balance of Trade; the formula ofwhich is:

"A people impoverishes itself when it imports, and enriches itselfwhen it exports. "

Of course, if every foreign purchase is a tribute paid, a loss, it isperfectly evident we must restrain, even prohibit, importations. 

And if all foreign sales are tribute received, profit, it is quitenatural to create channels of outlet, even by force. 

Protective System--Colonial System: two aspects of the same theory. To_hinder_ our fellow-citizens purchasing of foreigners, _to force_foreigners to purchase from our fellow-citizens, are merely twoconsequences of one identical principle. Now, it is impossible not torecognize that according to this doctrine, general utility rests on_monopoly_, or interior spoliation, and on _conquest_, or exteriorspoliation. 

Let us enter one of the cabins among the Adirondacks. The father ofthe family has received for his work only a slender salary. The icynorthern blast makes his half naked children shiver, the fire isextinguished, and the table bare. There are wool, and wood, and coal, just over the St. Lawrence; but these commodities are forbidden to thefamily of the poor day-laborer, for the other side of the river is nolonger the United States. The foreign pine-logs may not gladden thehearth of his cabin; his children may not know the taste of Canadianbread, the wool of Upper Canada will not bring back warmth to theirbenumbed limbs. General utility wills it so. All very well! butacknowledge that here it contradicts justice. To dispose bylegislation of consumers, to limit them to the products of nationallabor, is to encroach upon their liberty, to forbid them a resource(exchange) in which there is nothing contrary to morality; in oneword, it is to do them injustice. 

"Yet this is necessary, " it is said, "under the penalty of seeingnational labor stopped, under the penalty of striking a fatal blow atpublic prosperity. "

The writers of the protectionist school arrive then at this sadconclusion; that there is a radical incompatibility between justiceand utility. 

On the other side, if nations are interested in selling, and not inbuying, violent action and reaction are the natural condition oftheir relations, for each will seek to impose its products on all, andall will do their utmost endeavor to reject the products of each. 

As a sale, in effect, implies a purchase, and since, according to thisdoctrine, to sell is to benefit, as to buy is to injure, everyinternational transaction implies the amelioration of one people, andthe deterioration of another. 

But, on one side, men are fatally impelled towards that which profitsthem: on the contrary, they resist instinctively whatever injuresthem; whence we must conclude that every people bears within itself anatural force of expansion, and a not less natural power ofresistance, which are equally prejudicial to all the others; or, inother terms, that antagonism and war are the natural constitution ofhuman society!

So that the theory which we are discussing may be summed up in thesetwo axioms:

"Utility is incompatible with justice at home, "

"Utility is incompatible with peace abroad. "

Now that which astonishes us, which confounds us, is, that apublicist, a statesman, who has sincerely adhered to an economicdoctrine whose principle clashes so violently with other incontestableprinciples, could enjoy one moment's calm and repose of mind. As forus, it seems to us, that if we had penetrated into science by thisentrance, if we did not clearly perceive that liberty, utility, justice, peace, are things not only compatible, but closely alliedtogether, so to say, identical with each other, we would try to forgetall we had learned; we would say to ourselves:

"How could God will that men shall attain prosperity only throughinjustice and war? How could He will that they may remove war andinjustice only by renouncing their own well-being?"

Does not the science which has conducted us to the horrible blasphemywhich this alternative implies deceive us by false lights; and shallwe dare take on ourselves to make it the basis of legislation for agreat people? And when a long succession of illustrious philosophershave brought together more comforting results from this same science, to which they have consecrated their whole lives; when they affirmthat Liberty and Utility are reconciled with Justice and Peace, thatall these grand principles follow infinite parallels, withoutclashing, throughout all eternity; have they not in their favor thepresumption which results from all we know of the goodness and thewisdom of God, manifested in the sublime harmony of the materialcreation? Ought we lightly to believe, against such a presumption, andin face of so many imposing authorities, that it has pleased this sameGod to introduce antagonism and a discord into the laws of the moralworld?

No, no; before taking it for granted that all social principles clash, shock, and neutralize each other, and are in anarchical, eternal, irremediable, conflict together; before imposing on our fellowcitizens the impious system to which such reasoning conducts us, wehad better go over the whole chain, and assure ourselves that there isno point on the way where we may have gone astray. 

And if, after a faithful examination, twenty times recommenced, weshould always return to this frightful conclusion, that we must choosebetween the advantages and the good--we should thrust science away, disheartened; we should shut ourselves up in voluntary ignorance;above all, we should decline all participation in the affairs of ourcountry, leaving to the men of another time the burden and theresponsibility of a choice so difficult. 

CHAPTER XV. 

RECIPROCITY AGAIN. 

The protectionists ask, "Are we sure that the foreigner will purchaseas much from us, as he will sell to us? What reason have we to thinkthat the English producer will come to us rather than to any othernation on the globe to look for the productions he may need; and forproductions equivalent in value to his own exportations to thiscountry?"

We are surprised that men who call themselves peculiarly _practical_, reason independent of all practice. 

In practice, is there one exchange in a hundred, in a thousand, in tenthousand perhaps, where there is a direct barter of product forproduct? Since there has been money in the world, has any cultivatorever said, "I wish to buy shoes, hats, advice, instruction, from thatshoemaker, hatter, lawyer, and professor only, who will purchase fromme just wheat enough to make an equivalent value?"

And why should nations impose such a restraint upon themselves?

How is the matter managed?

Suppose a nation deprived of exterior relations. A man has producedwheat. He throws it into the widest national circulation he can findfor it, and receives in exchange, what? Some dollars; that is to saybills, bonds, infinitely divisible, by means of which it becomeslawful for him to withdraw from national circulation, whenever hethinks it advisable, and by just agreement, such articles as he mayneed or wish. In fine, at the end of the operation he will havewithdrawn from the mass the exact equivalent of what he threw into it, and in value his consumption will precisely equal his production. 

If the foreign exchanges of that nation are free, it is no longer into_national_, but into _general_ circulation that each one throws hisproducts, and from which he draws his returns. He has not to inquirewhether what he delivers up for general circulation is purchased by afellow-countryman or a foreigner; whether the goods he receives cameto him from a Frenchman or an Englishman; whether the objects forwhich, in accordance with his needs, he, in the end, exchanges hisbills, are made on this or that side of the Atlantic or the St. Lawrence. With each individual there is always an exact balancebetween what he puts into and what he draws out of the grand commonreservoir; and if that is true of each individual, it is true of thenation in the aggregate. The only difference between the two cases is, that in the latter, each one is in a more extended market for both hissales and his purchases, and has consequently more chances of doingwell by both. 

This objection is made: "If every one should agree that they would notwithdraw from circulation any of the products of a specifiedindividual, he in turn would sustain the misfortune of being able todraw nothing out. The same of a nation. "

ANSWER. --If the nation cannot draw out of the mass, it willno longer contribute to it: it will work for itself. It will becompelled to that which you would impose on it in advance: that is tosay, isolation. 

And this will be the ideal of prohibitive government. Is it notamusing that you inflict upon it, at once and already, the misfortuneof this system, in the fear that it runs the risk of getting theresome day without you?

CHAPTER XVI. 

OBSTRUCTED RIVERS PLEAD FOR THE PROHIBITIONISTS. 

Some years ago, when the Spanish Cortes were discussing a treaty withPortugal on improving the course of the river Douro, a deputy rose andsaid, "If the Douro is turned into a canal, transportation will bemade at a much lower price. Portuguese cereals will sell cheaper inCastile, and will make a formidable opposition to our _nationallabor_. I oppose the project unless the ministers engage to raise thetariff in such a way as to restore the equilibrium. " The assemblyfound the argument unanswerable. 

Three months later the same question was submitted to the Senate ofPortugal. A noble hidalgo said: "Mr. President, the project is absurd. You post guards, at great expense, on the banks of the Douro, in orderto prevent the introduction of Castilian cereals into Portugal, while, at the same time, you would, also, at great expense, facilitate theirintroduction. This is an inconsistency with which I cannot identifymyself. Let the Douro pass on to our sons as our fathers left it tous. "

Now, when it is proposed to alter and confine the course of theMississippi, we recall the arguments of the Iberian orators, and sayto ourselves, if the member from St. Louis was as good an economist asthose of Valencia, and the representatives from New Orleans aspowerful logicians as those of Oporto, assuredly the Mississippi wouldbe left

 "To sleep amid its forests dank and lone, "

for to improve the navigation of the Mississippi will favor theintroduction of New Orleans products to the injury of St. Louis, andan inundation of the products of St. Louis to the detriment of NewOrleans. 

CHAPTER XVII. 

A NEGATIVE RAILROAD. 

We have said that when, unfortunately, we place ourselves at the pointof view of the producer's interest, we cannot fail to clash with thegeneral interest, because the producer, as such, demands only_efforts_, _wants_, _and obstacles_. 

When the Atlantic and Great Western Railway is finished, the questionwill arise, "Should connection be broken at Pittsburg?" This thePittsburgers will answer affirmatively, for a multitude of reasons, but for this among others; the railroad from New York to St. Louisought to have an interruption at Pittsburg, in order that merchandiseand travellers compelled to stop in the city may leave in it fees tothe hackmen, pedlars, errand-boys, consignees, hotel-keepers, etc. 

It is clear, that here again the interest of the agent of labor isplaced before the interest of the consumer. 

But if Pittsburg ought to profit by the interruption, and if theprofit is conformable with public interest, Harrisburg, Dayton, Indianapolis, Columbus, much more all the intermediate points, oughtto demand stoppages, and that in the general interest, in the widelyextended interest of national labor, for the more they are multiplied, the more will consignments, commissions, transportations, bemultiplied on all points of the line. With this system we arrive at arailroad of successive stoppages, to a _negative railroad_. 

Whether the protectionists wish it or not, it is not the less certainthat the principle of restriction is the same as the principle ofgaps, the sacrifice of the consumers to the producer, of the end tothe means. 

CHAPTER XVIII. 

THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTE PRINCIPLES. 

We cannot be too much astonished at the facility with which men resignthemselves to be ignorant of what is most important for them to know, and we may feel sure that they have decided to go to sleep in theirignorance when they have brought themselves to proclaim this axiom:There are no absolute principles. 

Enter the Halls of Congress. The question under discussion is whetherthe law shall interdict or allow international exchanges. 

Mr. C****** rises and says:

"If you tolerate these exchanges, the foreigner will inundate you withhis products, the English with cotton and iron goods, the Nova-Scotianwith coal, the Spaniard with wool, the Italian with silk, the Canadianwith cattle, the Swede with iron, the Newfoundlander with salt-fish. Industrial pursuits will thus be destroyed. "

Mr. G***** replies:

"If you prohibit these exchanges, the varied benefits which nature haslavished on different climates will be, to you, as though they werenot. You will not participate in the mechanical skill of the English, nor in the riches of the Nova-Scotian mines, in the abundance ofCanadian pasturage, in the cheapness of Spanish labor, in the fervorof the Italian climate; and you will be obliged to ask through aforced production that which you might by exchange have obtainedthrough a readier production. "

Assuredly, one of the senators deceives himself. But which? It is wellworth while to ascertain; for we are not dealing with opinions only. You stand at the entrance of two roads; you must choose; one of themleads necessarily to _misery_. 

To escape from this embarrassment it is said: There are no absoluteprinciples. 

This axiom, so much in vogue in our day, not only serves laziness, itis also in accord with ambition. 

If the theory of prohibition should prevail, or again, if the doctrineof liberty should triumph, a very small amount of law would sufficefor our economic code. In the first case it would stand--_All foreignexchange is forbidden_; in the second, _All exchange with abroad isfree_, and many great personages would lose their importance. 

But if exchange has not a nature proper to itself; if it is governedby no natural law; if it is capriciously useful or injurious; if itdoes not find its spring in the good it accomplishes, its limit whenit ceases to do good; if its effects cannot be appreciated by thosewho execute them; in one word, if there are no absolute principles, weare compelled to measure, weigh, regulate transactions, to equalizethe conditions of labor, to look for the level of profits--colossaltask, well suited to give great entertainments, and high influence tothose who undertake it. 

Here in New York are a million of human beings who would all diewithin a few days, if the abundant provisioning of nature were notflowing towards this great metropolis. 

Imagination takes fright in the effort to appreciate the immensemultiplicity of articles which must cross the Bay, the Hudson, theHarlem, and the East rivers, to-morrow, if the lives of itsinhabitants are not to become the prey of famine, riot, and pillage. Yet, as we write, all are sleeping; and their quiet slumbers are notdisturbed for a moment by the thought of so frightful a perspective. On the other hand, forty-five States and Territories have workedto-day, without concert, without mutual understanding, to provisionNew York. How is it that every day brings in what is needed, neithermore nor less, to this gigantic market? What is the intelligent andsecret power which presides over the astonishing regularity ofmovements so complicated--a regularity in which each one has a faithso undoubting, though comfort and life are at stake. 

This power is an _absolute principle_, the principle of freedom ofoperation, the principle of free conduct. 

We have faith in that innate light which Providence has placed in thehearts of all men, to which he has confided the preservation andimprovement of our race-_interest_ (since we must call it by itsname), which is so active, so vigilant, so provident, when its actionis free. What would become of you, inhabitants of New York, if aCongressional majority should take a fancy to substitute for thispower the combinations of their genius, however superior it may besupposed to be; if they imagined they could submit this prodigiousmechanism to its supreme direction, unite all its resources in theirown hands, and decide when, where, how, and on what conditionseverything should be produced, transported, exchanged, and consumed?Ah! though there may be much suffering within your bounds, thoughmisery, despair, and perhaps hungry exhaustion may cause more tears toflow than your ardent charity can dry, it is probable, it is certain, we dare to affirm, that the arbitrary intervention of government wouldmultiply these sufferings infinitely, and would extend to you all, those evils which at present are confined to a small portion of yournumber. 

We all have faith in this principle where our internal transactionsare concerned; why should we not have faith in the same principleapplied to our international operations, which are, assuredly, lessnumerous, less delicate, and less complicated. And if it is notnecessary that the Mayor and Common Council of New York shouldregulate our industries, weigh our change, our profits, and ourlosses, occupy themselves with the regulation of prices, equalize theconditions of our labor in internal commerce--why is it necessary thatthe custom-house, proceeding on its fiscal mission, should pretend toexercise protective action upon our exterior commerce?

CHAPTER XIX. 

NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE. 

Among the arguments which are considered of weight in favor of therestriction system, we must not forget that drawn from nationalindependence. 

"What shall we do in case of war, " say they, "if we have placedourselves at the mercy of Great Britain for iron and coal?"

English monopolists did not fail on their side to exclaim, when thecorn-laws were repealed, "What will become of Great Britain in time ofwar if she depends on the United States for food?"

One thing they fail to observe: it is that this sort of dependence, which results from exchange, from commercial operations, is a_reciprocal_ dependence. We cannot depend on the foreigner unless theforeigner depends on us. This is the very essence of _society_. We donot place ourselves in a state of independence by breaking naturalrelations, but in a state of isolation. 

Remark also: we isolate ourselves in the anticipation of war; but thevery act of isolation is the commencement of war. It renders it moreeasy, less burdensome, therefore less unpopular. Let nations becomepermanent recipient customers each of the other, let the interruptionof their relations inflict upon them the double suffering of privationand surfeit, and they will no longer require the powerful navieswhich ruin them, the great armies which crush them; the peace of theworld will no longer be compromised by the caprice of a Napoleon or ofa Bismarck, and war will disappear through lack of aliment, resources, motive, pretext, and popular sympathy. 

We know well that we shall be reproached (in the cant of the day) forproposing interest, vile and prosaic interest, as a foundation for thefraternity of nations. It would be preferred that it should have itsfoundation in charity, in love, even in self-renunciation, and that, demolishing the material comfort of man, it should have the merit of agenerous sacrifice. 

When shall we have done with such puerile talk? When shall we banishcharlatanry from science? When shall we cease to manifest thisdisgusting contradiction between our writings and our conduct? We hootat and spit upon _interest_, that is to say, the useful, the right(for to say that all nations are interested in a thing, is to say thatthat thing is good in itself), as if interest were not the necessary, eternal, indestructible instrument to which Providence has intrustedhuman perfectibility. Would not one suppose us all angels ofdisinterestedness? And is it supposed that the public does not seewith disgust that this affected language blackens precisely thosepages for which it is compelled to pay highest? Affectation is trulythe malady of this age. 

What! because comfort and peace are correlative things; because it haspleased God to establish this beautiful harmony in the moral world;you are not willing that we should admire and adore His providence, and accept with gratitude laws which make justice the condition ofhappiness. You wish peace only so far as it is destructive to comfort;and liberty burdens you because it imposes no sacrifices on you. Ifself-renunciation has so many claims for you, who prevents yourcarrying it into private life? Society will be grateful to you for it, for some one, at least, will receive the benefit of it; but to wish toimpose it on humanity as a principle is the height of absurdity, forthe abnegation of everything is the sacrifice of everything--it isevil set up in theory. 

But, thank Heaven, men may write and read a great deal of such talk, without causing the world to refrain on that account from renderingobedience to its motive-power, which is, whether they will or no, _interest_. After all, it is singular enough to see sentiments of themost sublime abnegation invoked in favor of plunder itself. Just seeto what this ostentatious disinterestedness tends. These men, sopoetically delicate that they do not wish for peace itself, if it isfounded on the base interest of men, put their hands in the pockets ofothers, and, above all, of the poor; for what section of the tariffprotects the poor?

Well, gentlemen, dispose according to your own judgment of whatbelongs to yourselves, but allow us also to dispose of the fruit ofthe sweat of our brows, to avail ourselves of exchange at our ownpleasure. Talk away about self-renunciation, for that is beautiful;but at the same time practice a little honesty. 

CHAPTER XX. 

HUMAN LABOR--NATIONAL LABOR. 

To break machines, to reject foreign merchandise--are two actsproceeding from the same doctrine. 

We see men who clap their hands when a great invention is made knownto the world, who nevertheless adhere to the protective system. Suchmen are highly inconsistent. 

With what do they upbraid freedom of commerce? With getting foreignersmore skilful or better situated than ourselves to produce articles, which, but for them, we should produce ourselves. In one word, theyaccuse us of damaging national labor. 

Might they not as well reproach machines for accomplishing, by naturalagents, work which, without them, we could perform with our own arms, and, in consequence, damaging human labor?

The foreign workman who is more favorably situated than the Americanlaborer, is, in respect to the latter, a veritable economic machine, which injures him by competition. In the same manner, a machine whichexecutes a piece of work at a less price than can be done by a certainnumber of arms, is, relatively to those arms, a true competingforeigner, who paralyzes them by his rivalry. 

If, then, it is needful to protect national labor against thecompetition of foreign labor, it is not less so, to protect humanlabor against the rivalry of mechanical labor. 

So, he who adheres to the protective policy, if he has but a smallamount of logic in his brain, must not stop when he has prohibitedforeign products; he must farther proscribe the shuttle and theplough. 

And that is the reason why we prefer the logic of those men who, declaiming against the invasion of exotic merchandise, have, at least, the courage to declaim as well against the excess of production due tothe inventive power of the human mind. 

Hear such a Conservative:--"One of the strongest arguments againstliberty of commerce, and the too great employment of machines, is, that very many workmen are deprived of work, either by foreigncompetition, which is destructive to their manufactures, or bymachines, which take the place of men in the workshops. "

This gentleman perfectly sees the analogy, or rather, let us say, theidentity, existing between importations and machines; that is thereason he proscribes both: and truly there is some pleasure in havingto do with reasonings, which, even in error, pursue an argument to theend. 

Let us look at the difficulty in the way of its soundness. 

If it be true, _à priori_, that the domain of _invention_ and that oflabor cannot be extended, except at the expense of one or the other, it is in the place where there are most machines, Lancaster or Lowell, for example, that we shall meet with the fewest _workmen_. And if, onthe contrary, we prove _a fact_, that mechanical and hand workco-exist in a greater degree among wealthy nations than among savages, we must necessarily conclude that these two powers do not exclude eachother. 

It is not easy to explain how a thinking being can taste repose inpresence of this dilemma:

Either--"The inventions of man do not injure labor, as general factsattest, since there are more of both among the English and Americansthan among the Hottentots and Cherokees. In that case I have made afalse reckoning, though I know neither where nor when I got astray. Ishould commit the crime of treason to humanity if I should introducemy error into the legislation of my country. "

Or else--"The discoveries of the mind limit the work of the arms, assome particular facts seem to indicate; for I see daily a machine dothe labor of from twenty to a hundred workmen, and thus I am forced toprove a flagrant, eternal, incurable antithesis between theintellectual and physical ability of man; between his progress and hiscomfort; and I cannot forbear saying that the Creator of man ought tohave given him either reason or arms, moral force, or brutal force, but that he has played with him in conferring upon him opposingfaculties which destroy one another. "

The difficulty is pressing. Do you know how they get rid of it? Bythis singular apothegm:

"In political economy there are no absolute principles. "

In intelligible and vulgar language, that means: "I do not know whereis the true nor the false; I am ignorant of what constitutes generalgood or evil; I give myself no trouble about it. The only law which Iconsent to recognize, is the immediate effect of each measure upon mypersonal comfort. "

No absolute principles! You might as well say, there are no absolutefacts; for principles are only the summing up of well proven facts. 

Machines, importations, have certainly consequences. Theseconsequences are good or bad. On this point there may be difference ofopinion. But whichever of these we adopt, we express it in one ofthese two _principles_: "machines are a benefit, " or "machines are anevil. " "Importations are favorable, " or "importations are injurious. "But to say "there are no principles, " is the lowest degree ofabasement to which the human mind can descend; and we confess we blushfor our country when we hear so monstrous a heresy uttered in thepresence of the American people, with their consent; that is to say, in the presence and with the consent of the greater part of ourfellow-citizens, in order to justify Congress for imposing laws on us, in perfect ignorance of the reasons for them or against them. 

But then we shall be told, "destroy _the sophism_; prove that machinesdo not injure _human labor_, nor importations _national industry_. "

In an essay of this nature such demonstrations cannot be complete. Ouraim is more to propose difficulties than to solve them; to excitereflection, than to satisfy it. No conviction of the mind is wellacquired, excepting that which it gains by its own labor. We will try, nevertheless, to place it before you. 

The opponents of importations and machines are mistaken, because theyjudge by immediate and transitory consequences, instead of looking atgeneral and final ones. 

The immediate effect of an ingenious machine is to economize, towardsa given result, a certain amount of handwork. But its action does notstop there: inasmuch as this result is obtained with less effort, itis given to the public for a lower price; and the amount of thesavings thus realized by all the purchasers, enables them to procureother gratifications--that is to say, to encourage handwork ingeneral, equal in amount to that subtracted from the special handworklately improved upon--so that the level of work has not fallen, thoughthat of gratification has risen. Let us make this connection ofconsequences evident by an example. 

Suppose that in the United States ten millions of hats are sold atfive dollars each: this affords to the hatters' trade an income offifty millions. A machine is invented which allows hats to be affordedat three dollars each. The receipts are reduced to thirty millions, admitting that the consumption does not increase. But, for all that, the other twenty millions are not subtracted from _human labor_. Economized by the purchasers of hats, they will serve them insatisfying other needs, and by consequence will, to that amount, remunerate collective industry. With these two dollars saved, Johnwill purchase a pair of shoes, James a book, William a piece offurniture, etc. Human labor, in the general, will thus continue to beencouraged to the amount of fifty millions; but this sum, besidegiving the same number of hats as before, will add the gratificationsobtained by the twenty millions which the machine has spared. Thesegratifications are the net products which America has gained by theinvention. It is a gratuitous gift, a tax, which the genius of man hasimposed on Nature. We do not deny that, in the course of the change, acertain amount of labor may have been _displaced_; but we cannot agreethat it has been destroyed, or even diminished. The same holds true ofimportations. 

We will resume the hypothesis. America makes ten millions of hats, ofwhich the price was five dollars each. The foreigner invaded ourmarket in furnishing us with hats at three dollars. We say thatnational labor will be not at all diminished. For it will have toproduce to the amount of thirty millions, in order to pay for tenmillions of hats at three dollars. And then there will remain to eachpurchaser two dollars saved on each hat, or a total of twentymillions, which will compensate for other enjoyments; that is to say, for other work. So the total of labor remains what it was; and thesupplementary enjoyments, represented by twenty millions economized onthe hats, will form the net profit of the importations, or of freetrade. 

No one need attempt to horrify us by a picture of the sufferings, which, in this hypothesis, will accompany the displacement of labor. For if prohibition had never existed, labor would have classed itselfin accordance with the law of exchange, and no displacement would havetaken place. If, on the contrary, prohibition has brought in anartificial and unproductive kind of work, it is prohibition, and notfree trade, which is responsible for the inevitable displacement, inthe transition from wrong to right. 

Unless, indeed, it should be contended that, because an abuse cannotbe destroyed without hurting those who profit by it, its existence fora single moment is reason enough why it should endure forever. 

CHAPTER XXI. 

RAW MATERIAL. 

It is said that the most advantageous commerce consists in theexchange of manufactured goods for raw material, because this rawmaterial is a spur to _national labor_. 

And then the conclusion is drawn, that the best custom-houseregulation would be that which should give the utmost possiblefacility to the entry of _raw material_, and oppose the greatestobstacles to articles which have received their first manipulation bylabor. 

No sophism of political economy is more widely spread than theforegoing. It supports not only the protectionists, but, much more, and above all, the pretended liberalists. This is to be regretted; forthe worst which can happen to a good cause is not to be severelyattacked, but to be badly defended. 

Commercial freedom will probably have the fate of all freedom; it willnot be introduced into our laws until after it has taken possession ofour minds. But if it be true that a reform must be generallyunderstood, in order that it may be solidly established, it followsthat nothing can retard it so much as that which misleads publicopinion; and what is more likely to mislead it than those writingswhich seem to favor freedom by upholding the doctrines of monopoly?

Several years ago, three large cities of France--Lyons, Bordeaux, andHavre--were greatly agitated against the restrictive policy. Thenation, and indeed all Europe, was moved at seeing a banner raised, which they supposed to be that of free trade. Alas! it was still thebanner of monopoly; of a monopoly a little more niggardly, and a greatdeal more absurd, than that which they appeared to wish to overturn. Owing to the sophism which we are about to unveil, the petitionersmerely reproduced the doctrine of _protection to national labor_, adding to it, however, another folly. 

What is, in effect, the prohibitive system? Let us listen to theprotectionist: "Labor constitutes the wealth of a people, because italone creates those material things which our necessities demand, andbecause general comfort depends upon these. "

This is the principle. 

"But this abundance must be the product of _national labor_. Should itbe the product of foreign labor, national labor would stop at once. "

This is the mistake. (See the close of the last chapter. )

"What shall be done, then, in an agricultural and manufacturingcountry?"

This is the question. 

"Restrict its market to the products of its own soil, and its ownindustry. "

This is the end proposed. 

"And for this end, restrain by prohibitive duties the entrance of theproducts of the industry of other nations. "

These are the means. 

Let us reconcile with this system that of the petition from Bordeaux. 

It divided merchandise into three classes:

"The first includes articles of food, and _raw material free from allhuman labor. A wise economy would require that this class should notbe taxed_. "

Here there is no labor; consequently no protection. 

"The second is composed of articles which have undergone _somepreparation_. This preparation warrants us _in charging it with sometax_. "

Here protection commences, because, according to the petitioners, _national labor_ commences. 

"The third comprises perfected articles which can in no way servenational labor; we consider these the most taxable. "

Here, labor, and with it protection, reach their maximum. 

The petitioners assert that foreign labor injures national labor; thisis _the error_ of the prohibitive school. 

They demanded that the French market should be restricted to French_labor_; this is the _end_ of the prohibitive system. 

They insisted that foreign labor should be subject to restriction andtaxation; these are the _means_ of the prohibitive system. 

What difference, then, is it possible to discover between thepetitioners of Bordeaux and the advocate of American restriction? Onealone: the greater or less extent given to the word _labor_. 

The protectionist extends it to everything--so he wishes to _protect_everything. 

"Labor constitutes _all_ the wealth of a people, " says he; "toprotect national industry, _all_ national industry, manufacturingindustry, _all_ manufacturing industry, is the idea which shouldalways be kept before the people. " The petitioners saw no laborexcepting that of manufacturers; so they would admit that alone to thefavors of protection. They said:

"Raw material is _devoid of all human labor_. For that reason weshould not tax it. Fabricated articles can no longer occupy nationallabor. We consider them the most taxable. "

We are not inquiring whether protection to national labor isreasonable. The protectionist and the Bordelais agree upon this point, and we, as has been seen in the preceding chapters, differ from both. 

The question is to ascertain which of the two--the protectionists orthe raw-materialists of Bordeaux--give its just acceptation to theword "labor. "

Now, upon this ground, it must be said, the protectionist is, by allodds, right; for observe the dialogue which might take place betweenthem:

The PROTECTIONIST: "You agree that national labor ought to beprotected. You agree that no foreign labor can be introduced into ourmarket without destroying therein an equal amount of our nationallabor. Yet you assert that there is a host of merchandise possessed of_value_ (since it sells), which is, however, free from _human labor_. And, among other things, you name wheat, corn, meats, cattle, lard, salt, iron, brass, lead, coal, wool, furs, seeds, etc. If you canprove to me that the value of these things is not due to labor, I willagree that it is useless to protect them. But, again, if I demonstrateto you that there is as much labor in a hundred dollars' worth ofwool as in a hundred dollars' worth of cloth, you must acknowledgethat protection is as much due to the one as to the other. Now, why isthis bag of wool worth a hundred dollars? Is it not because that sumis the price of production? And is the price of production anythingbut that which it has been necessary to distribute in wages, salaries, manual labor, interest, to all the workmen and capitalists who haveconcurred in producing the article?"

The RAW-MATERIALIST: "It is true, that in regard to wool, youmay be right. But a bag of wheat, an ingot of iron, a quintal ofcoal--are they the produce of labor? Did not Nature create them?"

The PROTECTIONIST: "Without doubt Nature _creates_ the_elements_ of all things; but it is labor which produces their_value_. I was wrong myself in saying that labor creates materialobjects, and this faulty phrase has led the way to many other errors. It does not belong to man, either manufacturer or cultivator, to_create_, to make something out of nothing; if, by _production_, weunderstand _creation_, all our labors will be unproductive; that ofmerchants more so than any other, except, perhaps, that of law-makers. The farmer has no claim to have _created_ wheat, but he may claim tohave created its _value_: he has transformed into wheat substanceswhich in no wise resembled it, by his own labor with that of hisploughmen and reapers. What more does the miller effect who convertsit into flour, the baker who turns it into bread? Because man mustclothe himself in cloth, a host of operations is necessary. Before theintervention of any human labor, the true raw materials of thisproduct (cloth) are air, water, gas, light, the chemical substanceswhich must enter into its composition. These are truly the rawmaterials which are _untouched by human labor_; therefore, they are ofno _value_, and I do not think of protecting them. But a first laborconverts these substances into hay, straw, etc. , a second into wool, athird into thread, a fourth into cloth, a fifth into clothing--whowill dare to say that every step in this work is not _labor_, from thefirst stroke of the plough, which begins, to the last stroke of theneedle, which terminates it? And because, in order to secure morecelerity and perfection in the accomplishment of a definite work, suchas a garment, the labors are divided among several classes ofindustry, you wish, by an arbitrary distinction, that the order ofsuccession of these labors should be the only reason for theirimportance; so much so that the first shall not deserve even the nameof labor, and that the last work pre-eminently, shall alone be worthyof the favors of protection!"

The RAW-MATERIALIST: "Yes, we begin to see that wheat no morethan wool is entirely devoid of human labor; but, at least, theagriculturist has not, like the manufacturer, done all by himself andhis workmen; Nature aids him, and if there is labor, it is not alllabor in the wheat. "

The PROTECTIONIST: "But all its _value_ is in the labor ithas cost. I admit that Nature has assisted in the material formationof wheat. I admit even that it may be exclusively her work; butconfess that I have controlled it by my labor; and when I sell yousome wheat, observe this well: that it is not the work of _Nature_ forwhich I make you pay, but _my own_; and, on your supposition, manufactured articles would be no more the product of labor thanagricultural ones. Does not the manufacturer, too, rely upon Nature tosecond him? Does he not avail himself of the weight of the atmospherein aid of the steam-engine, as I avail myself of its humidity in aidof the plough? Did he create the laws of gravitation, of correlationof forces, of affinities?"

The RAW-MATERIALIST: "Come, let the wool go too. But coal isassuredly the work, and the exclusive work, of Nature, _unaided by anyhuman labor_. "

The PROTECTIONIST: "Yes, Nature made coal, but _labor_ makesits value. Coal had no _value_ during the thousands of years duringwhich it was hidden, unknown, a hundred feet below the soil. It wasnecessary to look for it there--that is a _labor_: it was necessary totransport it to market; that is another _labor_: and once more, theprice which you pay for it in the market is nothing else than theremuneration for these labors of digging and transportation. "

We see that thus far the protectionist has all the advantage on hisside; that the value of raw material, as well as that of manufacturedmaterial, represents the expense of production, that is to say, of_labor_; that it is impossible to conceive of a material possessed ofvalue while totally unindebted to human labor; that the distinctionwhich the raw-materialists make is wholly futile, in theory; that, asa basis for an unequal division of _favors_, it would be iniquitous inpractice; because the result would be that one-third of the people, engaged in manufactures, would obtain the sweets of monopoly, for thereason that they produced _by labor_, while the other two-thirds, that is to say the agriculturists, would be abandoned to competition, under pretext that they produced without labor. 

It will be urged that it is of more advantage to a nation to importthe materials called raw, whether they are or are not the product oflabor, and to export manufactured articles. 

This is a strongly accredited opinion. 

"The more abundant raw materials are, " said the petition fromBordeaux, "the more manufactories are multiplied and extended. " Itsaid again, that "raw material opens an unlimited field of labor tothe inhabitants of the country from which it is imported. "

"Raw material, " said the other petition, that from Havre, "being thealiment of labor, must be submitted to a _different system_, andadmitted at once at the lowest duty. " The same petition would have theprotection on manufactured articles reduced, not one after another, but at an undetermined time; not to the lowest duty, but to twenty percent. 

"Among other articles which necessity requires to be abundant andcheap, " said the third petition, that from Lyons, "the manufacturersname all raw material. "

This all rests on an illusion. We have seen that all _value_represents labor. Now, it is true that labor increases ten-fold, sometimes a hundred-fold, the value of a rough product, that is tosay, expands ten-fold, a hundred-fold, the products of a nation. Thence it is reasoned, "The production of a bale of cotton causesworkmen of all classes to earn one hundred dollars only. Theconversion of this bale into lace collars raises their profits to tenthousand dollars; and will you dare to say that the nation is notmore interested in encouraging labor worth ten thousand than thatworth one hundred dollars?"

We forget that international exchanges, no more than individualexchanges, work by weight or measure. We do not exchange a bale ofcotton for a bale of lace collars, nor a pound of wool in the greasefor a pound of wool in cashmere; but a certain value of one of thesethings _for an equal value_ of the other. Now to barter equal valueagainst equal value is to barter equal work against equal work. It isnot true, then, that the nation which gives for a hundred dollarscashmere or collars, gains more than the nation which delivers for ahundred dollars wool or cotton. 

In a country where no law can be adopted, no impost established, without the consent of those whom this law is to govern, the publiccannot be robbed without being first deceived. Our ignorance is the"raw material" of all extortion which is practised upon us, and we maybe sure in advance that every sophism is the forerunner of aspoliation. Good public, when you see a sophism, clap your hand onyour pocket; for that is certainly the point at which it aims. Whatwas the secret thought which the shipowners of Bordeaux and of Havre, and the manufacturers of Lyons, conceived in this distinction betweenagricultural products and manufactured articles?

"It is principally in this first class (that which comprehends rawmaterial _unmodified by human labor_), " said the Raw-Materialists ofBordeaux, "that the chief aliment of our merchant marine is found. Atthe outset, a wise economy would require that this class should notbe taxed. The second (articles which have received some preparation)may be charged; the third (articles on which no more work has to bedone) we consider the most taxable. "

"Consider, " said those of Havre, "that it is indispensable to reduceall raw materials one after another to the lowest rate, in order thatindustry may successively bring into operation the naval forces whichwill furnish to it its first and indispensable means of labor. " Themanufacturers could not in exchange of politeness be behind theship-owners; so the petition from Lyons demanded the free introductionof raw material, "in order to prove, " said they, "that the interestsof manufacturing towns are not always opposed to those of maritimeones!"

True; but it must be said that both interests were, understood as thepetitioners understood them, terribly opposed to the interests of thecountry, of agriculture, and of consumers. 

See, then, where you would come out! See the end of these subtleeconomical distinctions! You would legislate against allowing_perfected_ produce to traverse the ocean, in order that the much moreexpensive transportation of rough materials, dirty, loaded with wastematter, may offer more employment to our merchant service, and put ournaval force into wider operation. This is what these petitionerstermed _a wise economy_. Why did they not demand that the firs ofRussia should be brought to them with their branches, bark, and roots;the gold of California in its mineral state, and the hides from BuenosAyres still attached to the bones of the tainted skeleton?

Industry, the navy, labor, have for their end, the general good, thepublic good. To create a useless industry, in order to favorsuperfluous transportation; to feed superfluous labor, not for thegood of the public, but for the expense of the public--this is torealize a veritable begging the question. Work, in itself, is not adesirable thing; its result is; all work without result is a loss. Topay sailors for carrying useless waste matter across the sea is likepaying them for skipping stones across the surface of the water. So wearrive at this result: that all economical sophisms, despite theirinfinite variety, have this in common, that they confound the meanswith the end, and develop one at the expense of the other. 

CHAPTER XXII. 

METAPHORS. 

Sometimes a sophism dilates itself, and penetrates through the wholeextent of a long and heavy theory. More frequently it is compressed, contracted, becomes a principle, and is completely covered by a word. A good man once said: "God protect us from the devil and frommetaphors!" In truth, it would be difficult to say which of the twocreates the more evil upon our planet. It is the demon, say you; healone, so long as we live, puts the spirit of spoliation in ourhearts. Yes; but he does not prevent the repression of abuses by theresistance of those who suffer from them. _Sophistry_ paralyzes thisresistance. The sword which malice puts in the assailant's hand wouldbe powerless, if sophistry did not break the shield upon the arm ofthe assailed; and it is with good reason that Malebranche hasinscribed at the opening of his book, "Error is the cause of humanmisery. "

See how it comes to pass. Ambitious hypocrites will have some sinisterpurpose; for example, sowing national hatred in the public mind. Thisfatal germ may develop, lead to general conflagration, arrestcivilization, pour out torrents of blood, draw upon the land the mostterrible of scourges--_invasion_. In every case of indulgence in suchsentiments of hatred they lower us in the opinion of nations, andcompel those Americans, who have retained some love of justice, toblush for their country. Certainly these are great evils; and in orderthat the public should protect itself from the guidance of those whowould lead it into such risks, it is only necessary to give it a clearview of them. How do they succeed in veiling it from them? It is by_metaphor_. They alter, they force, they deprave the meaning of threeor four words, and all is done. 

Such a word is _invasion_ itself. An owner of an American furnacesays, "Preserve us from the _invasion_ of English iron. " An Englishlandlord exclaims, "Let us repel the _invasion_ of American wheat!"And so they propose to erect barriers between the two nations. Barriers constitute isolation, isolation leads to hatred, hatred towar, and war to _invasion_. "Suppose it does, " say the two sophists;"is it not better to expose ourselves to the chance of an eventual_invasion_, than to accept a certain one?" And the people stillbelieve, and the barriers still remain. 

Yet what analogy is there between an exchange and an _invasion_? Whatresemblance can possibly be established between a vessel of war, whichcomes to pour fire, shot, and devastation into our cities, and amerchant ship, which comes to offer to barter with us freely, voluntarily, commodity for commodity?

As much may be said of the word _inundation_. This word is generallytaken in bad part, because _inundations_ often ravage fields andcrops. If, however, they deposit upon the soil a greater value thanthat which they take from it; as is the case in the inundations of theNile, we might bless and deify them as the Egyptians do. Well! beforedeclaiming against the inundation of foreign produces, beforeopposing to them restraining and costly obstacles, let us inquire ifthey are the inundations which ravage or those which fertilize? Whatshould we think of Mehemet Ali, if, instead of building, at greatexpense, dams across the Nile for the purpose of extending its fieldof inundation, he should expend his money in digging for it a deeperbed, so that Egypt should not be defiled by this _foreign_ slime, brought down from the Mountains of the Moon? We exhibit precisely thesame amount of reason, when we wish, by the expenditure of millions, to preserve our country--From what? The advantages with which Naturehas endowed other climates. 

Among the metaphors which conceal an injurious theory, none is morecommon than that embodied in the words _tribute, tributary_. 

These words are so much used that they have become synonymous with thewords _purchase, purchaser_, and one is used indifferently for theother. 

Yet a _tribute_ or _tax_ differs as much from _purchase_ as a theftfrom an exchange, and we should like quite as well to hear it said, "Dick Turpin has broken open my safe, and has _purchased_ out of it athousand dollars, " as we do to have it remarked by our sagerepresentatives, "We have paid to England the _tribute_ for a thousandgross of knives which she has sold to us. "

For the reason why Turpin's act is not a _purchase_ is, that he hasnot paid into my safe, with my consent, value equivalent to what hehas taken from it, and the reason why the payment of five hundredthousand dollars, which we have made to England, is not a _tribute_, is simply because she has not received them gratuitously, but inexchange for the delivery to us of a thousand gross of knives, whichwe ourselves have judged worth five hundred thousand dollars. 

But is it necessary to take up seriously such abuses of language? Whynot, when they are seriously paraded in newspapers and in books?

Do not imagine that they escape from writers who are ignorant of theirlanguage; for one who abstains from them, we could point you to tenwho employ them, and they persons of consideration--that is to say, men whose words are laws, and whose most shocking sophisms serve asthe basis of administration for the country. 

A celebrated modern philosopher has added to the categories ofAristotle, the sophism which consists in including in one word thebegging of the question. He cites several examples. He should haveadded the word _tributary_ to his vocabulary. In effect the questionis, are purchases made abroad useful or injurious? "They areinjurious, " you say. And why? "Because they make us _tributary_ to theforeigner. " Here is certainly a word which presents as a fact thatwhich is a question. 

How is this abusive trope introduced into the rhetoric of monopolists?

Some specie _goes out of a country_ to satisfy the rapacity of avictorious enemy--other specie, also, goes out of a country to settlean account for merchandise. The analogy between the two cases isestablished, by taking account of the one point in which they resembleone another, and leaving out of view that in which they differ. 

This circumstance, however, --that is to say, non-reimbursementin the one case, and reimbursement freely agreed upon in theother--establishes such a difference between them, that it is notpossible to class them under the same title. To deliver a hundreddollars _by compulsion_ to him who says "Stand and deliver, " or_voluntarily_ to pay the same sum to him who sells you the object ofyour wishes--truly, these are things which cannot be made toassimilate. As well might you say, it is a matter of indifferencewhether you throw bread into the river or eat it, because in eithercase it is bread _destroyed_. The fault of this reasoning, as in thatwhich the word _tribute_ is made to imply, consists in founding anexact similitude between two cases on their points of resemblance, andomitting those of difference. 

CHAPTER XXIII. 

CONCLUSION. 

All the sophisms we have hitherto combated are connected with onesingle question: the restrictive system; and, out of pity for thereader, we pass by acquired rights, untimeliness, misuse of thecurrency, etc. , etc. 

But social economy is not confined to this narrow circle. Fourierism, Saint-Simonism, communism, mysticism, sentimentalism, falsephilanthropy, affected aspirations to equality and chimericalfraternity, questions relative to luxury, to salaries, to machines, tothe pretended tyranny of capital, to distant territorial acquisitions, to outlets, to conquests, to population, to association, toemigration, to imposts, to loans, have encumbered the field of sciencewith a host of parasitical _sophisms_, which demand the hoe and thesickle of the diligent economist. It is not because we do notrecognize the fault of this plan, or rather of this absence of plan. To attack, one by one, so many incoherent sophisms which sometimesclash, although more frequently one runs into the other, is to condemnone's self to a disorderly, capricious struggle, and to expose one'sself to perpetual repetitions. 

How much we should prefer to say simply how things are, withoutoccupying ourselves with the thousand aspects in which the ignorantsee them! To explain the laws under which societies prosper or decay, is virtually to destroy all sophistry at once. When La Place haddescribed all that can, as yet, be known of the movements of theheavenly bodies, he had dispersed, without even naming them, all theastrological dreams of the Egyptians, Greeks, and Hindoos, much moresurely than he could have done by directly refuting them throughinnumerable volumes. Truth is one; the book which exposes it is animposing and durable monument:

 Il brave les tyrans avides, Plus hardi que les Pyramides Et plus durable que l'airain. 

Error is manifold, and of ephemeral duration; the work which combatsit does not carry within itself a principle of greatness or ofendurance. 

But if the power, and perhaps the opportunity, have failed us forproceeding in the manner of La Place and of Say, we cannot refuse tobelieve that the form which we have adopted has, also, its modestutility. It appears to us especially well suited to the wants of theage, to the hurried moments which it can consecrate to study. 

A treatise has, doubtless, an incontestable superiority; but uponcondition that it be read, meditated upon, searched into. It addressesitself to a select public only. Its mission is, at first, to fix, andafterwards to enlarge, the circle of acquired knowledge. 

The refutation of vulgar prejudices could not carry with it this highbearing. It aspires only to disencumber the route before the march oftruth, to prepare the mind, to reform public opinion, to bluntdangerous tools in improper hands. It is in social economy above all, that these hand-to-hand struggles, these constantly recurring combatswith popular errors, have a true practical utility. 

We might arrange the sciences under two classes. The one, strictly, can be known to philosophers only. They are those whose applicationdemands a special occupation. The public profit by their labor, despite their ignorance of them. They do not enjoy the use of a watchthe less, because they do not understand mechanics and astronomy. Theyare not the less carried along by the locomotive and the steamboatthrough their faith in the engineer and the pilot. We walk accordingto the laws of equilibrium without being acquainted with them. 

But there are sciences which exercise upon the public an influenceproportionate with the light of the public itself, not from knowledgeaccumulated in a few exceptional heads, but from that which isdiffused through the general understanding. Such are morals, hygiene, social economy, and in countries which men belong to themselves, politics. It is of these sciences, above all, that Bentham might havesaid: "That which spreads them is worth more than that which advancesthem. " Of what consequence is it that a great man, a God even, shouldhave promulgated moral laws, so long as men, imbued with falsenotions, take virtues for vices, and vices for virtues? Of what valueis it that Smith, Say, and, according to Chamans, economists of allschools, have proclaimed the superiority of liberty to restraint incommercial transactions, if those who make the laws and those forwhom the laws are made, are convinced to the contrary. 

These sciences, which are well named social, have this peculiarity:that for the very reason that they are of a general application, noone confesses himself ignorant of them. Do we wish to decide aquestion in chemistry or geometry? No one pretends to have theknowledge instinctively; we are not ashamed to consult Draper; we makeno difficulty about referring to Euclid. 

But in social science authority is but little recognized. As such aone has to do daily with morals, good or bad, with hygiene, witheconomy, with politics reasonable or absurd, each one considershimself skilled to comment, discuss, decide, and dogmatize in thesematters. 

Are you ill? There is no good nurse who does not tell you, at thefirst moment, the cause and cure of your malady. 

"They are humors, " affirms she; "you must be purged. "

But what are humors? and are these humors?

She does not trouble herself about that. I involuntarily think of thisgood nurse when I hear all social evils explained by these commonphrases: "It is the superabundance of products, the tyranny ofcapital, industrial plethora, " and other idle stories of which wecannot even say: _verba et voces prætereaque nihil_: for they are alsofatal mistakes. 

From what precedes, two things result--

1st. That the social sciences must abound in sophistry much more thanthe other sciences, because in them each one consults his own judgmentor instinct alone. 

2d. That in these sciences sophistry is especially injurious, becauseit misleads public opinion where opinion is a power--that is, law. 

Two sorts of books, then, are required by these sciences; those whichexpound them, and those which propagate them; those which show thetruth, and those which combat error. 

It appears to us that the inherent defect in the form of this littleEssay--_repetition_--is that which constitutes its principal value. 

In the question we have treated, each sophism has, doubtless, its ownset form, and its own range, but all have one common root, which is, "_forgetfulness of the interests of man, insomuch as they forget theinterests of consumers_. " To show that the thousand roads of errorconduct to this generating sophism, is to teach the public torecognize it, to appreciate it--to distrust it under allcircumstances. 

After all, we do not aspire to arouse convictions, but doubts. 

We have no expectation that in laying down the book, the reader shallexclaim: "_I know_. " Please Heaven he may be induced to say, "_I amignorant_. "

"I am ignorant, for I begin to believe there is something delusive inthe sweets of Scarcity. "

"I am no longer so much edified by the charms of Obstruction. "

"Effort without Result no longer seems to me so desirable as Resultwithout Effort. "

"It may probably be true that the secret of commerce does not consist, as that of arms does, _in giving and not receiving_, according to thedefinition which the duellist in the play gives of it. "

"I consider an article is increased in value by passing throughseveral processes of manufacture; but, in exchange, do two equalvalues cease to be equal because the one comes from the plough and theother from the power-loom?"

"I confess that I begin to think it singular that humanity should beameliorated by shackles, or enriched by taxes: and, frankly, I shouldbe relieved of a heavy weight, I should experience a pure joy, if Icould see demonstrated, which the author assures us of, that there isno incompatibility between comfort and justice, between peace andliberty, between the extension of labor and the progress ofintelligence. "

"So, without feeling satisfied by his arguments, to which I do notknow whether to give the name of reasoning or of objections, I willinterrogate the masters of the science. "

Let us terminate by a last and important observation this monograph ofsophisms. The world does not know, as it ought, the influence whichsophistry exerts upon it. If we must say what we think, when the Rightof the Strongest was dethroned, sophistry placed the empire in theRight of the Most Cunning; and it would be difficult to say which ofthese two tyrants has been the more fatal to humanity. 

Men have an immoderate love for pleasure, influence, position, power--in one word, for wealth. 

And at the same time men are impelled by a powerful impulse to procurethese things at the expense of another. But this other, which is thepublic, has an inclination not less strong to keep what it hasacquired, provided it can and knows how. Spoliation, which plays solarge a part in the affairs of the world, has, then, two agents only:Strength and Cunning; and two limits: Courage and Right. 

Power applied to spoliation forms the groundwork of human savagism. Toretrace its history would be to reproduce almost entire the history ofall nations--Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes, Persians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Goths, Franks, Huns, Turks, Arabs, Moguls, Tartars--without counting that of the Spaniards in America, theEnglish in India, the French in Africa, the Russians in Asia, etc. , etc. 

But, at least, among civilized nations, the men who produce wealthhave become sufficiently numerous and sufficiently strong to defendit. 

Is that to say that they are no longer despoiled? By no means; theyare robbed as much as ever, and, what is more, they despoil oneanother. The agent alone is changed; it is no longer by violence, butby stratagem, that the public wealth is seized upon. 

In order to rob the public, it must be deceived. To deceive it, is topersuade it that it is robbed for its own advantage; it is to make itaccept fictitious services, and often worse, in exchange for itsproperty. Hence sophistry, economical sophistry, political sophistry, and financial sophistry--and, since force is held in check, sophistryis not only an evil, it is the parent of other evils. So it becomesnecessary to hold it in check, _in its turn_, and for this purpose torender the public more acute than the cunning; just as it has becomemore peaceful than the strong.