initial commit of ebook 16106HEADmain

10 files changed, 14256 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6833f05
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.gitattributes
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+* text=auto
+*.txt text
+*.md text
diff --git a/16106-8.txt b/16106-8.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b400b93
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16106-8.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,4642 @@
+The Project Gutenberg eBook, What Is Free Trade?, by Frédérick Bastiat,
+Translated by Emile Walter
+
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+
+
+
+
+Title: What Is Free Trade?
+       An Adaptation of Frederic Bastiat's "Sophismes Éconimiques" 
+       Designed for the American Reader
+
+
+Author: Frédérick Bastiat
+
+
+
+Release Date: June 22, 2005  [eBook #16106]
+[Date last updated: January 1, 2006]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
+
+
+***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WHAT IS FREE TRADE?***
+
+
+E-text prepared by Sankar Viswanathan and the Project Gutenberg Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team (https://www.pgdp.net) from page images
+generously made available by the Making of America Collection of the
+University of Michigan Library (http://www.hti.umich.edu/m/moagrp/)
+
+
+
+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 WALTER
+A 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 meant
+some cunning policy of British statesmen designed to subject the world
+to British interests. Coming across Bastiat's inimitable _Sophismes
+Economiques_ I learnt to my surprise that there were Frenchmen also
+who advocated Free Trade, and deplored the mischiefs of the Protective
+Policy. This made me examine the subject, and think a good deal upon
+it; and the result of this thought was the unalterable conviction I
+now hold--a conviction that harmonizes with every noble belief that
+our race entertains; with Civil and Religious Freedom for All,
+regardless of race or color; with the Harmony of God's works; with
+Peace and Goodwill to all Mankind. That conviction is this: that to
+make taxation the incident of protection to special interests, and
+those engaged in them, is robbery to the rest of the community, and
+subversive of National Morality and National Prosperity. I believe
+that taxes are necessary for the support of government, I believe they
+must be raised by levy, I even believe that some customs taxes may be
+more practicable and economical than some internal taxes; but I am
+entirely opposed to making anything the object of taxation but the
+revenue required by government for its economical maintenance.
+
+I do not espouse Free Trade because it is British, as some suppose it
+to be. Independent of other things, that would rather set me against
+it than otherwise, because generally those things which best fit
+European society ill befit our society--the structure of each being so
+different. Free Trade is no more British than any other kind of
+freedom: indeed, Great Britain has only followed quite older examples
+in adopting it, as for instance the republics of Venice and Holland,
+both of which countries owed their extraordinary prosperity to the
+fact of their having set the example of relaxing certain absurd
+though time-honored restrictions on commerce. I espouse Free Trade
+because it is just, it is unselfish, and it is profitable.
+
+For these reasons have I, a Worker, deeply interested in the welfare
+of the fellow-workers who are my countrymen, lent to Truth and Justice
+what little aid I could, by adapting Bastiat's keen and cogent Essay
+to 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 it
+possible 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 in
+number) 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 foreign
+productions by the maintenance of excessive duties? Does not the
+_Tribune_ maintain that it is advantageous to limit the supply of iron
+manufactures and cotton fabrics, by restraining any one from bringing
+them to market, but the manufacturers in New England and Pennsylvania?
+Do we not hear it complained every day: Our importations are too
+large; We are buying too much from abroad? Is there not an
+Association of Ladies, who, though they have not kept their promise,
+still, promised each other not to wear any clothing which was
+manufactured in other countries?
+
+Now tariffs can only raise prices by diminishing the quantity of goods
+offered for sale. Therefore, statesmen, editors, and the public
+generally, believe that scarcity is better than abundance.
+
+But why is this; why should men be so blind as to maintain that
+scarcity 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 his
+labor; that is to say, _in proportion as he sells his produce at a
+high price_. The price of his produce is high in proportion to its
+scarcity. It is plain, then, that, so far as regards him at least,
+scarcity enriches him. Applying, in turn, this manner of reasoning to
+each class of laborers individually, the _scarcity theory_ is deduced
+from it. To put this theory into practice, and in order to favor each
+class of labor, an artificial scarcity is produced in every kind of
+produce 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, it
+brings 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 will
+always seek to force itself into practice, we see the laws of the
+country struggling to prevent abundance.
+
+Now, what is the defect in this argument? Something tells us that it
+must be wrong; but _where_ is it wrong? Is it false? No. And yet it is
+wrong? 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 of
+view. Let us look at him in the second character, and the conclusion
+will be different. We may say:
+
+The consumer is rich in proportion as he _buys_ at a low price. He
+buys at a low price in proportion to the abundance of the articles in
+demand; _abundance_, then, enriches him. This reasoning, extended to
+all consumers, must lead to the _theory of abundance_.
+
+Which theory is right?
+
+Can we hesitate to say? Suppose that by following out the _scarcity
+theory_, suppose that through prohibitions and restrictions we were
+compelled not only to make our own iron, but to grow our own coffee;
+in short, to obtain everything with difficulty and great outlay of
+labor. We then take an account of stock and see what our savings are.
+
+Afterward, to test the other theory, suppose we remove the duties on
+iron, the duties on coffee, and the duties on everything else, so that
+we shall obtain everything with as little difficulty and outlay of
+labor as possible. If we then take an account of stock, is it not
+certain that we shall find more iron in the country, more coffee, more
+everything else?
+
+Choose then, fellow-countrymen, between scarcity and abundance,
+between much and little, between Protection and Free Trade. You now
+know which theory is the right one, for you know the fruits they each
+bear.
+
+But, it will be answered, if we are inundated with foreign goods and
+produce, 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 in
+gold, nor warm himself with silver. What does it matter, then, whether
+there be more or less specie in the country, provided there be more
+bread in the cupboard, more meat in the larder, more clothes in the
+wardrobe, and more fuel in the cellar?
+
+Again, it will be objected, if we accustom ourselves to depend upon
+England 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 no
+furnaces in blast, no forges ready. True; neither will there be any
+time when war shall occur that the country will not be already filled
+with all the iron we shall want until we can make it here. Did the
+Confederates in the late war lack for iron? Why, then, shall we
+manufacture our own staples and bolts because we may some day or other
+have 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 supply
+to be small, so that the price may be high.
+
+The latter wishes it _abundant_ and the supply to be large, so that
+the price may be low.
+
+The laws, which should at least remain neutral, take part for the
+vender against the buyer; for the producer against the consumer; for
+high against low prices; for scarcity against abundance; for
+protection against free trade. They act, if not intentionally, at
+least logically, upon the principle that _a nation is rich in
+proportion 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 a
+number of obstacles which it is the object of labor to surmount.
+
+I wish to make a journey of some hundred miles. But between the point
+of my departure and my destination there are interposed mountains,
+rivers, swamps, forests, robbers; in a word--_obstacles_. To overcome
+these obstacles it is necessary that I should bestow much labor and
+great efforts in opposing them; or, what is the same thing, if others
+do it for me, I must pay them the value of their exertions. IT IS
+EVIDENT THAT I WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER OFF HAD THESE OBSTACLES NEVER
+EXISTED. Remember this.
+
+Through the journey of life, in the long series of days from the
+cradle to the tomb, man has many difficulties to oppose him. Hunger,
+thirst, sickness, heat, cold, are so many obstacles scattered along
+his road. In a state of isolation he would be obliged to combat them
+all by hunting, fishing, agriculture, spinning, weaving, architecture,
+etc., and it is very evident that it would be better for him that
+these difficulties should exist to a less degree, or even not at all.
+In a state of society he is not obliged personally to struggle with
+each 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. This
+doing one kind of labor for another, is called the division of labor.
+
+Considering mankind as a whole, _let us remember once more that it
+would be better for society that these obstacles should be as weak and
+as few as possible_.
+
+But mark how, in viewing this simple truth from a narrow point of
+view, we come to believe that obstacles, instead of being a
+disadvantage, are actually a source of wealth!
+
+If we examine closely and in detail the phenomena of society and the
+private interests of men _as modified by the division of labor_, we
+perceive, without difficulty, how it has happened that wants have been
+confounded with riches, and the obstacle with the cause.
+
+The separation of occupations, which results from the division of
+labor, causes each man, instead of struggling against _all_
+surrounding obstacles, to combat only _one_; the effort being made not
+for himself alone, but for the benefit of his fellows, who, in their
+turn, render a similar service to him.
+
+It hence results that this man looks upon the obstacle which he has
+made it his profession to combat for the benefit of others, as the
+immediate cause of his riches. The greater, the more serious, the more
+stringent, may be this obstacle, the more he is remunerated for the
+conquering 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 it
+for him, and he, in return, combats the maladies with which his
+patients are afflicted. The more dangerous and frequent these maladies
+are, the more others are willing, the more, even, are they forced, to
+work in his service. Disease, then, which is an obstacle to the
+happiness of mankind, becomes to him the source of his comforts. The
+reasoning of all producers is, in what concerns themselves, the same.
+As the doctor draws his profits from _disease_, so does the ship-owner
+from the obstacle called _distance_; the agriculturist from that named
+_hunger_; the cloth manufacturer from _cold_; the schoolmaster lives
+upon _ignorance_, the jeweler upon _vanity_, the lawyer upon _cupidity
+and breach of faith_. Each profession has then an immediate interest
+in the continuation, even in the extension, of the particular obstacle
+to which its attention has been directed.
+
+Theorists hence go on to found a system upon these individual
+interests, and say: Wants are riches: Labor is riches: The obstacle to
+well-being is well-being: To multiply obstacles is to give food to
+industry.
+
+Then comes the statesman; and as the developing and propagating of
+obstacles is the developing and propagating of riches, what more
+natural than that he should bend his efforts to that point? He says,
+for instance: If we prevent a large importation of iron, we create a
+difficulty in procuring it. This obstacle severely felt, obliges
+individuals to pay, in order to relieve themselves from it. A certain
+number of our citizens, giving themselves up to the combating of this
+obstacle, will thereby make their fortunes. In proportion, too, as the
+obstacle is great, and the mineral scarce, inaccessible, and of
+difficult and distant transportation, in the same proportion will be
+the number of laborers maintained by the various branches of this
+industry.
+
+The same reasoning will lead to the proscription of machinery.
+
+Here are men who are at a loss how to dispose of their petroleum. This
+is an obstacle which other men set about removing for them by the
+manufacture of casks. It is fortunate, say our statesmen, that this
+obstacle exists, since it occupies a portion of the labor of the
+nation, and enriches a certain number of our citizens. But here is
+presented to us an ingenious machine, which cuts down the oak, squares
+it, makes it into staves, and, gathering these together, forms them
+into casks. The obstacle is thus diminished, and with it the fortunes
+of the coopers. We must prevent this. Let us proscribe the machine!
+
+To sift thoroughly this sophism, it is sufficient to remember that
+human labor is not an _end_ but a _means_.
+
+_Labor is never without employment._ If one obstacle is removed, it
+seizes another, and mankind is delivered from two obstacles by the
+same effort which was at first necessary for one. If the labor of
+coopers could become useless, it must take another direction. To
+maintain that human labor can end by wanting employment, it would be
+necessary to prove that mankind will cease to encounter obstacles.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER III.
+
+EFFORT--RESULT.
+
+
+We have seen that between our wants and their gratification many
+obstacles are interposed. We conquer or weaken these by the employment
+of our faculties. It may be said, in general terms, that industry is
+an effort followed by a result.
+
+But by what do we measure our well-being? By our riches? By the result
+of our effort, or by the effort itself? There exists always a
+proportion between the effort employed and the result obtained. Does
+progress consist in the relative increase of the second or of the
+first term of this proportion--between effort or result?
+
+Both propositions have been sustained, and in political economy
+opinions are divided between them.
+
+According to the first system, riches are the result of labor. They
+increase in the same ratio as _the result does to the effort_.
+Absolute perfection, of which God is the type, consists in the
+infinite distance between these two terms in this relation, viz.,
+effort none, result infinite.
+
+The second system maintains that it is the effort itself which forms
+the measure of, and constitutes, our riches. Progression is the
+increase of the _proportion of the effect to the result_. Its ideal
+extreme may be represented by the eternal and fruitless efforts of
+Sisyphus.[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 term
+of _Sisyphism_, from Sisyphus, who, in punishment of his crimes, was
+compelled to roll a stone up hill, which fell to the bottom as fast as
+he rolled it to the top, so that his labor was interminable as well as
+fruitless.]
+
+The first system tends naturally to the encouragement of everything
+which diminishes difficulties, and augments production--as powerful
+machinery, which adds to the strength of man; the exchange of produce,
+which allows us to profit by the various natural agents distributed in
+different degrees over the surface of our globe; the intellect which
+discovers, the experience which proves, and the emulation which
+excites.
+
+The second as logically inclines to everything which can augment the
+difficulty 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 always
+guided by the principle of the first system. Every _workman_, whether
+agriculturist, manufacturer, merchant, soldier, writer or philosopher,
+devotes the strength of his intellect to do better, to do more
+quickly, 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. And
+even of these we may observe, that in what personally concerns
+themselves, they act, like everybody else, upon the principle of
+obtaining from their labor the greatest possible quantity of useful
+results.
+
+It may be supposed that I exaggerate, and that there are no true
+Sisyphists.
+
+I grant that in practice the principle is not pushed to its extreme
+consequences. And this must always be the case when one starts upon a
+wrong principle, because the absurd and injurious results to which it
+leads, cannot but check it in its progress. For this reason, practical
+industry never can admit of Sisyphism. The error is too quickly
+followed by its punishment to remain concealed. But in the speculative
+industry of theorists and statesmen, a false principle may be for a
+long time followed up, before the complication of its consequences,
+only half understood, can prove its falsity; and even when all is
+revealed, 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 do
+not predominate, each in its turn; the one in practical industry, the
+other in industrial legislation. When a man prefers a good plough to a
+bad one; when he improves the quality of his manures; when, to loosen
+his soil, he substitutes as much as possible the action of the
+atmosphere for that of the hoe or the harrow; when he calls to his aid
+every improvement that science and experience have revealed, he has,
+and can have, but one object, viz., to _diminish the proportion of the
+effort to the result_. We have indeed no other means of judging of
+the success of an agriculturist or of the merits of his system, but by
+observing how far he has succeeded in lessening the one, while he
+increases the other; and as all the farmers in the world act upon this
+principle, we may say that all mankind are seeking, no doubt for their
+own advantage, to obtain at the lowest price, bread, or whatever other
+article of produce they may need, always diminishing the effort
+necessary for obtaining any given quantity thereof.
+
+This incontestable tendency of human nature, once proved, would, one
+might suppose, be sufficient to point out the true principle to the
+legislator, and to show him how he ought to assist industry (if indeed
+it is any part of his business to assist it at all), for it would be
+absurd to say that the laws of men should operate in an inverse ratio
+from those of Providence.
+
+Yet we have heard members of Congress exclaim, "I do not understand
+this theory of cheapness; I would rather see bread dear, and work more
+abundant." And consequently these gentlemen vote in favor of
+legislative measures whose effect is to shackle and impede commerce,
+precisely because by so doing we are prevented from procuring
+indirectly, and at low price, what direct production can only furnish
+more expensively.
+
+Now it is very evident that the system of Mr. So-and-so, the
+Congressman, is directly opposed to that of Mr. So-and-so, the
+agriculturist. Were he consistent with himself, he would as legislator
+vote against all restriction; or else as farmer, he would practise in
+his fields the same principle which he proclaims in the public
+councils. We would then see him sowing his grain in his most sterile
+fields, because he would thus succeed in _laboring much_, to _obtain
+little_. We would see him forbidding the use of the plough, because he
+could, by scratching up the soil with his nails, fully gratify his
+double wish of "_dear bread_ and _abundant labor_."
+
+Restriction has for its avowed object and acknowledged effect, the
+augmentation of labor. And again, equally avowed and acknowledged, its
+object and effect are, the increase of prices--a synonymous term for
+scarcity of produce. Pushed then to its greatest extreme, it is pure
+Sisyphism as we have defined it; _labor infinite; result nothing_.
+
+There have been men who accused railways of _injuring shipping_; and
+it is certainly true that the most perfect means of attaining an
+object must always limit the use of a less perfect means. But railways
+can only injure shipping by drawing from it articles of
+transportation; this they can only do by transporting more cheaply;
+and they can only transport more cheaply, by _diminishing the
+proportion of the effort employed to the result obtained_--for it is
+in this that cheapness consists. When, therefore, these men lament the
+suppression of labor in attaining a given result, they maintain the
+doctrine of Sisyphism. Logically, if they prefer the vessel to the
+railway, they should also prefer the wagon to the vessel, the
+pack-saddle to the wagon, and the sack to the pack-saddle: for this
+is, of all known means of transportation, the one which requires the
+greatest amount of labor, in proportion to the result obtained.
+
+"Labor constitutes the riches of the people," say some theorists. This
+was no elliptical expression, meaning that the "results of labor
+constitute the riches of the people." No; these theorists intended to
+say, that it is the _intensity_ of labor which measures riches; and
+the proof of this is that from step to step, from restriction to
+restriction, they forced on the United States (and in so doing
+believed that they were doing well) to give to the procuring of, for
+instance, a certain quantity of iron, double the necessary labor. In
+England, 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 the
+United States could, by barter, procure a ton of iron by eight days'
+labor taken from the labor of the nation. Thanks to the restrictive
+measures of these gentlemen, sixteen days' work were necessary to
+procure it, by direct production. Here then we have double labor for
+an identical result; therefore double riches; and riches, measured not
+by the result, but by the intensity of labor. Is not this pure and
+unadulterated Sisyphism?
+
+That there may be nothing equivocal, these gentlemen carry their idea
+still farther, and on the same principle that we have heard them call
+the intensity of labor _riches_, we will find them calling the
+abundant results of labor and the plenty of everything proper to the
+satisfying of our wants, _poverty_. "Everywhere," they remark,
+"machinery has pushed aside manual labor; everywhere production is
+superabundant; everywhere the equilibrium is destroyed between the
+power of production and that of consumption." Here then we see that,
+according to these gentlemen, if the United States was in a critical
+situation it was because her productions were too abundant; there was
+too much intelligence, too much efficiency in her national labor. We
+were too well fed, too well clothed, too well supplied with
+everything; the rapid production was more than sufficient for our
+wants. It was necessary to put an end to this calamity, and therefore
+it became needful to force us, by restrictions, to work more in order
+to produce less.
+
+All that we could have further to hope for, would be, that human
+intellect might sink and become extinct; for, while intellect exists,
+it cannot but seek continually to increase the _proportion of the end
+to the means; of the product to the labor_. Indeed it is in this
+continuous effort, and in this alone, that intellect consists.
+
+Sisyphism has been the doctrine of all those who have been intrusted
+with the regulation of the industry of our country. It would not be
+just to reproach them with this; for this principle becomes that of
+our administration only because it prevails in Congress; it prevails
+in Congress only because it is sent there by the voters; and the
+voters are imbued with it only because public opinion is filled with
+it to repletion.
+
+Let me repeat here, that I do not accuse the protectionists in
+Congress of being absolutely and always Sisyphists. Very certainly
+they are not such in their personal transactions; very certainly each
+of them will procure for himself _by barter_, what by _direct
+production_ would be attainable only at a higher price. But I maintain
+that they are Sisyphists when they prevent the country from acting
+upon 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 the
+representation of, the difference which exists between the price of an
+article of home production and a similar article of foreign
+production. A protective duty calculated upon such a basis does
+nothing more than secure free competition; free competition can only
+exist where there is an equality in the facilities of production. In a
+horse-race the load which each horse carries is weighed and all
+advantages equalized; otherwise there could be no competition. In
+commerce, if one producer can undersell all others, he ceases to be a
+competitor and becomes a monopolist. Suppress the protection which
+represents the difference of price according to each, and foreign
+produce must immediately inundate and obtain the monopoly of our
+market. Every one ought to wish, for his own sake and for that of the
+community, that the productions of the country should be protected
+against foreign competition, _whenever the latter may be able to
+undersell the former_."
+
+This argument is constantly recurring in all writings of the
+protectionist school. It is my intention to make a careful
+investigation of its merits, and I must begin by soliciting the
+attention and the patience of the reader. I will first examine into
+the inequalities which depend upon natural causes, and afterwards into
+those which are caused by diversity of taxes.
+
+Here, as elsewhere, we find the theorists who favor protection taking
+part with the producer. Let us consider the case of the unfortunate
+consumer, who seems to have entirely escaped their attention. They
+compare the field of protection to the _turf_. But on the turf, the
+race is at once a _means and an end_. The public has no interest in
+the struggle, independent of the struggle itself. When your horses are
+started in the course with the single object of determining which is
+the best runner, nothing is more natural than that their burdens
+should be equalized. But if your object were to send an important and
+critical piece of intelligence, could you without incongruity place
+obstacles to the speed of that one whose fleetness would secure you
+the best means of attaining your end? And yet this is your course in
+relation to industry. You forget the end aimed at, which is the
+_well-being_ of the community; you set it aside; more, you sacrifice
+it by a perfect _petitio principii_.
+
+But we cannot lead our opponents to look at things from our point of
+view; let us now take theirs: let us examine the question as
+producers.
+
+I will seek to prove:
+
+1. That equalizing the facilities of production is to attack the
+foundations of mutual exchange.
+
+2. That it is not true that the labor of one country can be crushed by
+the competition of more favored climates.
+
+3. That, even were this the case, protective duties cannot equalize
+the facilities of production.
+
+4. That freedom of trade equalizes these conditions as much as
+possible; and
+
+5. That the countries which are the least favored by nature are those
+which profit most by mutual exchange.
+
+1. _Equalizing the facilities of production is to attack the
+foundations of mutual exchange._ The equalizing of the facilities of
+production, is not only the shackling of certain articles of commerce,
+but it is the attacking of the system of mutual exchange in its very
+foundation principle. For this system is based precisely upon the very
+diversities, or, if the expression be preferred, upon the inequalities
+of fertility, climate, temperature, capabilities, which the
+protectionists seek to render null. If New England sends its
+manufactures to the West, and the West sends corn to New England, it
+is because these two sections are, from different circumstances,
+induced to turn their attention to the production of different
+articles. Is there any other rule for international exchanges?
+
+Again, to bring against such exchanges the very inequalities of
+condition which excite and explain them, is to attack them in their
+very cause of being. The protective system, closely followed up, would
+bring men to live like snails, in a state of complete isolation. In
+short, there is not one of its sophisms, which, if carried through by
+vigorous deductions, would not end in destruction and annihilation.
+
+2. _It is not true that the labor of one country can be crushed by the
+competition of more favored climates._ The statement is not true that
+the unequal facility of production, between two similar branches of
+industry, should necessarily cause the destruction of the one which is
+the least fortunate. On the turf, if one horse gains the prize, the
+other loses it; but when two horses work to produce any useful
+article, each produces in proportion to his strength; and because the
+stronger is the more useful it does not follow that the weaker is good
+for nothing. Wheat is cultivated in every section of the United
+States, although there are great differences in the degree of
+fertility existing among them. If it happens that there be one which
+does not cultivate it, it is because, even to itself, such cultivation
+is not useful. Analogy will show us, that under the influences of an
+unshackled trade, notwithstanding similar differences, wheat would be
+produced in every portion of the world; and if any nation were induced
+to entirely abandon the cultivation of it, this would only be because
+it would _be her interest_ to otherwise employ her lands, her capital,
+and her labor. And why does not the fertility of one department
+paralyze the agriculture of a neighboring and less favored one?
+Because the phenomena of political economy have a suppleness, an
+elasticity, and, so to speak, _a self-levelling power_, which seems to
+escape the attention of the school of protectionists. They accuse us
+of being theoretic, but it is themselves who are so to a supreme
+degree, if the being theoretic consists in building up systems upon
+the experience of a single fact, instead of profiting by the
+experience of a series of facts. In the above example, it is the
+difference in the value of lands which compensates for the difference
+in 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 still
+compete with you: this is the sole mystery. And observe how the
+advantage on one point leads to disadvantage on the other. Precisely
+because 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 that
+perfect freedom in exchanges is of all systems the one which favors
+this tendency?
+
+I have cited an agricultural example; I might as easily have taken one
+from any trade. There are tailors at Barnegat, but that does not
+prevent tailors from being in New York also, although the latter have
+to pay a much higher rent, as well as higher price for furniture,
+workmen, and food. But their customers are sufficiently numerous not
+only to reëstablish the balance, but also to make it lean on their
+side.
+
+When, therefore, the question is about equalizing the advantages of
+labor, it would be well to consider whether the natural freedom of
+exchange 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 the
+providential wisdom which presides over the equalizing government of
+society, that I must ask permission a little longer to turn to it the
+attention of the reader.
+
+The protectionists say, Such a nation has the advantage over us, in
+being able to procure cheaply, coal, iron, machinery, capital; it is
+impossible for us to compete with it.
+
+We must examine this proposition under other aspects. For the
+present, I stop at the question, whether, when an advantage and a
+disadvantage are placed in juxtaposition, they do not bear in
+themselves, 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 B
+must be abandoned. A, you say, sells much more than it buys; B buys
+much more than it sells. I might dispute this, but I will meet you
+upon your own ground.
+
+In the hypothesis, labor being in great demand in A, soon rises in
+value; while labor, iron, coal, lands, food, capital, all being little
+sought after in B, soon fall in price.
+
+Again: A being always selling and B always buying, cash passes from B
+to A. It is abundant in A, very scarce in B.
+
+But where there is abundance of cash, it follows that in all purchases
+a large proportion of it will be needed. Then in A, _real dearness_,
+which proceeds from a very active demand, is added to _nominal
+dearness_, 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 possible
+motives for deserting A to establish itself in B.
+
+Now, to return to what would be the true course of things. As the
+progress of such events is always gradual, industry from its nature
+being opposed to sudden transits, let us suppose that, without
+waiting the extreme point, it will have gradually divided itself
+between A and B, according to the laws of supply and demand; that is
+to say, according to the laws of justice and usefulness.
+
+_I do not advance an empty hypothesis when I say, that were it
+possible 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 Commerce
+at Manchester (the figures brought into his demonstration being
+suppressed):
+
+"Formerly we exported goods; this exportation gave way to that of
+thread for the manufacture of goods; later, instead of thread, we
+exported machinery for the making of thread; then capital for the
+construction of machinery; and lastly, workmen and talent, which are
+the source of capital. All these elements of labor have, one after the
+other, transferred themselves to other points, where their profits
+were increased, and where the means of subsistence being less
+difficult to obtain, life is maintained at less cost. There are at
+present to be seen in Prussia, Austria, Saxony, Switzerland, and
+Italy, immense manufacturing establishments, founded entirely by
+English capital, worked by English labor, and directed by English
+talent."
+
+We may here perceive that Nature, with more wisdom and foresight than
+the narrow and rigid system of the protectionists can suppose, does
+not permit the concentration of labor, and the monopoly of advantages,
+from which they draw their arguments as from an absolute and
+irremediable fact. It has, by means as simple as they are infallible,
+provided for dispersion, diffusion, mutual dependence, and
+simultaneous progress; all of which, your restrictive laws paralyze as
+much as is in their power, by their tendency towards the isolation of
+nations. By this means they render much more decided the differences
+existing in the conditions of production; they check the
+self-levelling power of industry, prevent fusion of interests,
+neutralize the counterpoise, and fence in each nation within its own
+peculiar advantages and disadvantages.
+
+3. _Even were the labor of one country crushed by the competition of
+more favored climates (which is denied), protective duties cannot
+equalize the facilities of production._ To say that by a protective
+law the conditions of production are equalized, is to disguise an
+error under false terms. It is not true that an import duty equalizes
+the conditions of production. These remain after the imposition of the
+duty just as they were before. The most that law can do is to equalize
+the _conditions of sale_. If it should be said that I am playing upon
+words, I retort the accusation upon my adversaries. It is for them to
+prove that _production_ and _sale_ are synonymous terms, which if they
+cannot do, I have a right to accuse them, if not of playing upon
+words, at least of confounding them.
+
+Let me be permitted to exemplify my idea.
+
+Suppose that several New York speculators should determine to devote
+themselves to the production of oranges. They know that the oranges of
+Portugal can be sold in New York at one cent each, whilst on account
+of the boxes, hot-houses, &c., which are necessary to ward against
+the severity of our climate, it is impossible to raise them at less
+than a dollar apiece. They accordingly demand a duty of ninety-nine
+cents upon Portugal oranges. With the help of this duty, say they, the
+_conditions of production_ will be equalized. Congress, yielding as
+usual to this argument, imposes a duty of ninety-nine cents on each
+foreign orange.
+
+Now I say that the _relative conditions of production_ are in no wise
+changed. 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 to
+mature themselves _naturally_ on the banks of the Tagus, and
+artificially upon those of the Hudson, must continue to require for
+their production much more labor on the latter than the former. The
+law can only equalize the _conditions of sale_. It is evident that
+while the Portuguese sell their oranges here at a dollar apiece, the
+ninety-nine cents which go to pay the tax are taken from the American
+consumer. Now look at the whimsicality of the result. Upon each
+Portuguese orange, the country loses nothing; for the ninety-nine
+cents which the consumer pays to satisfy the impost tax, enter into
+the treasury. There is improper distribution; but no loss. But upon
+each American orange consumed, there will be about ninety-nine cents
+lost; for while the buyer very certainly loses them, the seller just
+as certainly does not gain them; for, even according to the
+hypothesis, he will receive only the price of production, I will leave
+it to the protectionists to draw their conclusion.
+
+4. _But freedom of trade equalizes these conditions as much as is
+possible._ I have laid some stress upon this distinction between the
+conditions of production and those of sale, which perhaps the
+prohibitionists may consider as paradoxical, because it leads me on to
+what they will consider as a still stranger paradox. This is: If you
+really wish to equalize the facilities of production, leave trade
+free.
+
+This may surprise the protectionists; but let me entreat them to
+listen, if it be only through curiosity, to the end of my argument. It
+shall 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 of
+each American amount to one dollar, it will indisputably follow that
+to produce an orange by _direct_ labor in America, one day's work, or
+its equivalent, will be requisite; whilst to produce the cost of a
+Portuguese orange, only one-hundredth of this day's labor is required;
+which means simply this, that the sun does at Lisbon what labor does
+at 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-hundredth
+of a day's labor, I am placed exactly in the same condition as the
+Portuguese producer himself, excepting the expense of the
+transportation? It therefore follows that freedom of commerce
+equalizes the conditions of production direct or indirect, as much as
+it is possible to equalize them; for it leaves but the one inevitable
+difference, that of transportation.
+
+I will add that free trade equalizes also the facilities for attaining
+enjoyments, comforts, and general consumption; the last, an object
+which is, it would seem, quite forgotten, and which is nevertheless
+all-important; since, in fine, consumption is the main object of all
+our industrial efforts. Thanks to freedom of trade, we would enjoy
+here the results of the Portuguese sun, as well as Portugal itself;
+and the inhabitants of New York would have in their reach, as well as
+those of London, and with the same facilities, the advantages which
+nature has in a mineralogical point of view conferred upon Cornwall.
+
+5. _Countries least favored by nature (countries not yet cleared of
+forests, for example) are those which profit most by mutual exchange._
+The protectionists may suppose me in a paradoxical humor, for I go
+further still. I say, and I sincerely believe, that if any two
+countries are placed in unequal circumstances as to advantages of
+production, _the one of the two which is the less favored by nature,
+will gain more by freedom of commerce_. To prove this, I will be
+obliged to turn somewhat aside from the form of reasoning which
+belongs to this work. I will do so, however; first, because the
+question in discussion turns upon this point; and again, because it
+will give me the opportunity of exhibiting a law of political economy
+of the highest importance, and which, well understood, seems to me to
+be destined to lead back to this science all those sects which, in our
+days, are seeking in the land of chimeras that social harmony which
+they have been unable to discover in nature. I speak of the law of
+consumption, which the majority of political economists may well be
+reproached with having too much neglected.
+
+Consumption is the _end_, the final cause of all the phenomena of
+political economy, and, consequently, in it is found their final
+solution.
+
+No effect, whether favorable or unfavorable, can be vested permanently
+in the producer. His advantages and disadvantages, derived from his
+relations to nature and to society, both pass gradually from him; and
+by an almost insensible tendency are absorbed and fused into the
+community at large--the community considered as consumers. This is an
+admirable law, alike in its cause and its effects; and he who shall
+succeed in making it well understood, will have a right to say, "I
+have not, in my passage through the world, forgotten to pay my tribute
+to society."
+
+Every circumstance which favors the work of production is of course
+hailed with joy by the producer, for its _immediate effect_ is to
+enable him to render greater services to the community, and to exact
+from it a greater remuneration. Every circumstance which injures
+production, must equally be the source of uneasiness to him; for its
+_immediate effect_ is to diminish his services, and consequently his
+remuneration. This is a fortunate and necessary law of nature. The
+immediate good or evil of favorable or unfavorable circumstances must
+fall upon the producer, in order to influence him invisibly to seek
+the 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 is
+necessary, to determine him to devote his attention to it. It is also
+just; because it is just that an effort crowned with success should
+bring its own reward.
+
+But these effects, good and bad, although permanent in themselves, are
+not so as regards the producer. If they had been so, a principle of
+progressive and consequently infinite inequality would have been
+introduced among men. This good, and this evil, both therefore pass
+on, to become absorbed in the general destinies of humanity.
+
+How does this come about? I will try to make it understood by some
+examples.
+
+Let us go back to the thirteenth century. Men who gave themselves up
+to the business of copying, received for this service _a remuneration
+regulated by the general rate of the profits_. Among them is found
+one, who seeks and finds the means of rapidly multiplying copies of
+the same work. He invents printing. The first effect of this is, that
+the individual is enriched, while many more are impoverished. At the
+first view, wonderful as the discovery is, one hesitates in deciding
+whether it is not more injurious than useful. It seems to have
+introduced into the world, as I said above, an element of infinite
+inequality. Guttenberg makes large profits by this invention, and
+perfects the invention by the profits, until all other copyists are
+ruined. As for the public--the consumer--it gains but little, for
+Guttenberg takes care to lower the price of books only just so much as
+is necessary to undersell all rivals.
+
+But the great Mind which put harmony into the movements of celestial
+bodies, could also give it to the internal mechanism of society. We
+will see the advantages of this invention escaping from the
+individual, to become for ever the common patrimony of mankind.
+
+The process finally becomes known. Guttenberg is no longer alone in
+his art; others imitate him. Their profits are at first considerable.
+They are recompensed for being the first who made the effort to
+imitate the processes of the newly-invented art. This again was
+necessary, in order that they might be induced to the effort, and thus
+forward the great and final result to which we approach. They gain
+largely; but they gain less than the inventor, for _competition_ has
+commenced its work. The price of books now continually decreases. The
+gains of the imitators diminish in proportion as the invention becomes
+older; and in the same proportion imitation becomes less meritorious.
+Soon the new object of industry attains its normal condition; in other
+words, the remuneration of printers is no longer an exception to the
+general rules of remuneration, and, like that of copyists formerly, it
+is only regulated _by the general rate of profits_. Here then the
+producer, as such, holds only the old position. The discovery,
+however, has been made; the saving of time, labor, effort, for a fixed
+result, for a certain number of volumes, is realized. But in what is
+this 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 peculiar
+remuneration. As men--as consumers--they no doubt participate in the
+advantages which the invention confers upon the community; but that is
+all. As printers, as producers, they are placed upon the ordinary
+footing of all other producers. Society pays them for their labor, and
+not for the usefulness of the invention. _That_ has become a
+gratuitous benefit, a common heritage to mankind.
+
+The wisdom and beauty of these laws strike me with admiration and
+reverence.
+
+What has been said of printing, can be extended to every agent for the
+advancement of labor--from the nail and the mallet, up to the
+locomotive and the electric telegraph. Society enjoys all, by the
+abundance of its use, its consumption; and it _enjoys all
+gratuitously_. For as their effect is to diminish prices, it is
+evident that just so much of the price as is taken off by their
+intervention, renders the production in so far _gratuitous_. There
+only remains the actual labor of man to be paid for; and the
+remainder, which is the result of the invention, is subtracted; at
+least after the invention has run through the cycle which I have just
+described as its destined course. I send for a workman; he brings a
+saw with him; I pay him two dollars for his day's labor, and he saws
+me twenty-five boards. If the saw had not been invented, he would
+perhaps not have been able to make one board, and I would none the
+less have paid him for his day's labor. The _usefulness_, then, of the
+saw, is for me a gratuitous gift of nature, or rather, is a portion of
+the inheritance which, _in common_ with my brother men, I have
+received from the genius of my ancestors. I have two workmen in my
+field; the one directs the handle of a plough, the other that of a
+spade. The result of their day's labor is very different, but the
+price is the same, because the remuneration is proportioned, not to
+the usefulness of the result, but to the effort, the [time, and] labor
+given to attain it.
+
+I invoke the patience of the reader, and beg him to believe, that I
+have not lost sight of free trade: I entreat him only to remember the
+conclusion at which I have arrived: _Remuneration is not proportioned
+to the usefulness of the articles brought by the producer into the
+market, but to the [time and] labor required for their production._[B]
+
+[Footnote B: It is true that [time and] labor do not receive a uniform
+remuneration; because labor is more or less intense, dangerous,
+skilful, &c., [and time more or less valuable.] Competition
+establishes for each category a price current: and it is of this
+variable price that I speak.]
+
+I have so far taken my examples from human inventions, but will now go
+on to speak of natural advantages.
+
+In every article of production, nature and man must concur. But the
+portion of nature is always gratuitous. Only so much of the usefulness
+of an article as is the result of human labor becomes the object of
+mutual exchange, and consequently of remuneration. The remuneration
+varies much, no doubt, in proportion to the intensity of the labor, of
+the skill, which it requires, of its being _à-propos_ to the demand of
+the day, of the need which exists for it, of the momentary absence of
+competition, &c. But it is not the less true in principle, that the
+assistance received from natural laws, which belongs to all, counts
+for nothing in the price.
+
+We do not pay for the air we breathe, although so useful to us, that
+we 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 for
+instance, to fill a balloon, we must take some [time and] labor; or if
+another takes it for us, we must give him an equivalent in something
+which will have cost us the trouble of production. From which we see
+that the exchange is between efforts, [time and] labor. It is
+certainly not for hydrogen gas that I pay, for this is everywhere at
+my disposal, but for the work that it has been necessary to accomplish
+in order to disengage it; work which I have been spared, and which I
+must refund. If I am told that there are other things to pay for, as
+expense, materials, apparatus, I answer, that still in these things it
+is the work that I pay for. The price of the coal employed is only the
+representation of the [time and] labor necessary to dig and transport
+it.
+
+We do not pay for the light of the sun, because nature alone gives it
+to us. But we pay for the light of gas, tallow, oil, wax, because here
+is labor to be remunerated;--and remark, that it is so entirely [time
+and] labor and not utility to which remuneration is proportioned, that
+it may well happen that one of these means of lighting, while it may
+be much more effective than another, may still cost less. To cause
+this, it is only necessary that less [time and] human labor should be
+required to furnish it.
+
+When the water-boat comes to supply my ship, were I to pay in
+proportion to the _absolute utility_ of the water, my whole fortune
+would not be sufficient. But I pay only for the trouble taken. If more
+is required, I can get another boat to furnish it, or finally go and
+get it myself. The water itself is not the subject of the bargain, but
+the labor required to obtain the water. This point of view is so
+important, and the consequences that I am going to draw from it so
+clear, as regards the freedom of international exchanges, that I will
+still elucidate my idea by a few more examples.
+
+The alimentary substance contained in potatoes does not cost us very
+dear, because a great deal of it is attainable with little work. We
+pay more for wheat, because, to produce it, Nature requires more labor
+from man. It is evident that if Nature did for the latter what she
+does for the former, their prices would tend to the same level. It is
+impossible that the producer of wheat should permanently gain more
+than the producer of potatoes. The law of competition cannot allow it.
+
+Again, if by a happy miracle the fertility of all arable lands were to
+be increased, it would not be the agriculturist, but the consumer, who
+would profit by this phenomenon; for the result of it would be
+abundance and cheapness. There would be less labor incorporated into
+an acre of grain, and the agriculturist would be therefore obliged to
+exchange it for less labor incorporated into some other article. If,
+on the contrary, the fertility of the soil were suddenly to
+deteriorate, the share of nature in production would be less, that of
+labor greater, and the result would be higher prices.
+
+I am right then in saying that it is in consumption, in mankind, that
+at length all political phenomena find their solution. As long as we
+fail to follow their effects to this point, and look only at
+_immediate_ effects, which act but upon individual men or classes of
+men _as producers_, we know nothing more of political economy than the
+quack does of medicine, when instead of following the effects of a
+prescription in its action upon the whole system, he satisfies himself
+with knowing how it affects the palate and the throat.
+
+The tropical regions are very favorable to the production of sugar and
+coffee; that is to say, Nature does most of the business and leaves
+but little for labor to accomplish. But who reaps the advantage of
+this liberality of Nature? NOT THESE REGIONS, for they are
+forced by competition to receive remuneration simply for their labor.
+It is MANKIND who is the gainer; for the result of this
+liberality is _cheapness_, and cheapness belongs to the world.
+
+Here in the temperate zone, we find coal and iron ore on the surface
+of the soil; we have but to stoop and take them. At first, I grant,
+the immediate inhabitants profit by this fortunate circumstance. But
+soon comes competition, and the price of coal and iron falls, until
+this gift of nature becomes gratuitous to all, and human labor is only
+paid according to the general rate of profits.
+
+Thus, natural advantages, like improvements in the process of
+production, are, or have, a constant tendency to become, under the law
+of competition, the common and _gratuitous_ patrimony of consumers, of
+society, of mankind. Countries, therefore, which do not enjoy these
+advantages, must gain by commerce with those which do; because the
+exchanges of commerce are between _labor and labor_, subtraction being
+made of all the natural advantages which are combined with these
+labors; and it is evidently the most favored countries which can
+incorporate into a given labor the largest proportion of these
+_natural advantages_. Their produce representing less labor, receives
+less recompense; in other words, is _cheaper_. If then all the
+liberality of Nature results in cheapness, it is evidently not the
+producing, 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 though
+we 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 ourselves
+with produce only attainable at home by an effort equal to four. You
+can do it because with you Nature does half the work. But we will have
+nothing to do with it; we will wait till your climate, becoming more
+inclement, forces you to ask of us a labor equal to four, and then we
+can treat with you _upon an equal footing_!"
+
+A is a favored country; B is maltreated by Nature. Mutual traffic then
+is advantageous to both, but principally to B, because the exchange is
+not between _utility_ and _utility_, but between _value_ and _value_.
+Now A furnishes a greater _utility in a similar value_, because the
+utility of any article includes at once what Nature and what labor
+have done; whereas the value of it only corresponds to the portion
+accomplished by labor. B then makes an entirely advantageous bargain;
+for by simply paying the producer from A for his labor, it receives in
+return not only the results of that labor, but in addition there is
+thrown in whatever may have accrued from the superior bounty of
+Nature.
+
+We will lay down the general rule.
+
+Traffic is an exchange of _values_; and as value is reduced by
+competition to the simple representation of labor, traffic is the
+exchange of equal labors. Whatever Nature has done towards the
+production of the articles exchanged, is given on both sides
+_gratuitously_; from whence it necessarily follows, that the most
+advantageous commerce is transacted with those countries which are
+the least favored by Nature.
+
+The theory of which I have attempted in this chapter to trace the
+outlines, deserves a much greater elaboration. But perhaps the
+attentive reader will have perceived in it the fruitful seed which is
+destined in its future growth to smother Protectionism, at once with
+the various other isms whose object is to exclude the law of
+COMPETITION from the government of the world. Competition, no
+doubt, considering man as producer, must often interfere with his
+individual and _immediate_ interests. But if we consider the great
+object of all labor, the universal good, in a word, Consumption, we
+cannot fail to find that Competition is to the moral world what the
+law of equilibrium is to the material one. It is the foundation of
+true gratification, of true Liberty and Equality, of the equality of
+comforts and condition, so much sought after in our day; and if so
+many sincere reformers, so many earnest friends to public right, seek
+to reach their end by _commercial legislation_, it is only because
+they 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. The
+demand made is, that the foreign article should be taxed, in order to
+neutralize the effects of the internal tax, which weighs down domestic
+produce. It is still then but the question of equalizing the
+facilities of production. We have but to say that the tax is an
+artificial obstacle, which has exactly the same effect as a natural
+obstacle, i.e. the increasing of the price. If this increase is so
+great that there is more loss in producing the article in question at
+home than in attracting it from foreign parts by the production of an
+equivalent value of something else--_laissez faire_. Individual
+interest will soon learn to choose the lesser of two evils. I might
+refer the reader to the preceding demonstration for an answer to this
+Sophism; but it is one which recurs so often, that it deserves a
+special discussion.
+
+I have said more than once, that I am opposing only the theory of the
+protectionists, with the hope of discovering the source of their
+errors. Were I disposed to enter into controversy with them, I would
+say: Why direct your tariffs principally against England, a country
+more overloaded with taxes than any in the world? Have I not a right
+to look upon your argument as a mere pretext? But I am not of the
+number of those who believe that prohibitionists are guided by
+interest, and not by conviction. The doctrine of Protection is too
+popular not to be sincere. If the majority could believe in freedom,
+we would be free. Without doubt it is individual interest which weighs
+us down with tariffs; but it acts upon conviction. "The will (said
+Pascal) is one of the principal organs of belief." But belief does not
+the less exist because it is rooted in the will and in the secret
+inspirations 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 makes
+a good use of them when it renders to the public services equivalent
+to the value received from them; it makes a bad use of them when it
+expends this value, giving nothing in return. To say in the first case
+that they place the country which pays them in more disadvantageous
+conditions for production, than the country which is free from them,
+is a Sophism. We pay, it is true, so many millions for the
+administration of justice, and the maintenance of order, but we have
+justice and order; we have the security which they give, the time
+which they save for us; and it is most probable that production is
+neither more easy nor more active among nations, where (if there be
+such) each individual takes the administration of justice into his own
+hands. We pay, I grant, many millions for roads, bridges, ports,
+steamships; but we have these steamships, these ports, bridges, and
+roads; and unless we maintain that it is a losing business to
+establish them, we cannot say that they place us in a position
+inferior to that of nations who have, it is true, no budget of public
+works, but who likewise have no public works. And here we see why
+(even while we accuse taxes of being a cause of industrial
+inferiority) we direct our tariffs precisely against those nations
+which are the most taxed. It is because these taxes, well used, far
+from injuring, have ameliorated the _conditions of production_ to
+these nations. Thus we again arrive at the conclusion that the
+protectionist Sophisms not only wander from, but are the contrary--the
+very antithesis--of truth.
+
+As to unproductive taxes, suppress them if you can; but surely it is a
+most singular idea to suppose, that their evil effect is to be
+neutralized by the addition of individual taxes to public taxes. Many
+thanks for the compensation! The State, you say, has taxed us too
+much; surely this is no reason that we should tax each other!
+
+A protective duty is a tax directed against foreign produce, but which
+returns, let us keep in mind, upon the national consumer. Is it not
+then a singular argument to say to him, "Because the taxes are heavy,
+we will raise prices higher for you; and because the State takes a
+part of your revenue, we will give another portion of it to benefit a
+monopoly?"
+
+But let us examine more closely this Sophism so accredited among our
+legislators; although, strange to say, it is precisely those who keep
+up the unproductive taxes (according to our present hypothesis) who
+attribute to them afterwards our supposed inferiority, and seek to
+re-establish the equilibrium by further taxes and new clogs.
+
+It appears to me to be evident that protection, without any change in
+its nature and effects, might have taken the form of a direct tax,
+raised by the State, and distributed as a premium to privileged
+industry.
+
+Let us admit that foreign iron could be sold in our market at $16, but
+not lower; and American iron at not lower than $24.
+
+In this hypothesis there are two ways in which the State can secure
+the national market to the home producer.
+
+The first, is to put upon foreign iron a duty of $10. This, it is
+evident, would exclude it, because it could no longer be sold at less
+than $26; $16 for the indemnifying price, $10 for the tax; and at this
+price it must be driven from the market by American iron, which we
+have supposed to cost $24. In this case the buyer, the consumer, will
+have paid all the expenses of the protection given.
+
+The second means would be to lay upon the public an Internal Revenue
+tax of $10, and to give it as a premium to the iron manufacturer. The
+effect would in either case be equally a protective measure. Foreign
+iron would, according to both systems, be alike excluded; for our iron
+manufacturer could sell at $14, what, with the $10 premium, would thus
+bring him in $24. While the price of sale being $14, foreign iron
+could not obtain a market at $16.
+
+In these two systems the principle is the same; the effect is the
+same. There is but this single difference; in the first case the
+expense of protection is paid by a part, in the second by the whole
+of the community. I frankly confess my preference for the second
+system, which I regard as more just, more economical, and more legal.
+More just, because, if society wishes to give bounties to some of its
+members, the whole community ought to contribute; more economical,
+because it would banish many difficulties, and save the expenses of
+collection; more legal, because the public would see clearly into the
+operation, and know what was required of it.
+
+But if the protective system had taken this form, would it not have
+been laughable enough to hear it said: "We pay heavy taxes for the
+army, the navy, the judiciary, the public works, the debt, &c. These
+amount to more than 200 millions. It would therefore be desirable that
+the State should take another 200 millions to relieve the poor iron
+manufacturers."
+
+This, it must certainly be perceived, by an attentive investigation,
+is the result of the Sophism in question. In vain, gentlemen, are all
+your efforts; you cannot give money to one without taking it from
+another. If you are absolutely determined to exhaust the funds of the
+taxable community, well; but, at least, do not mock them; do not tell
+them, "We take from you again, in order to compensate you for what we
+have already taken."
+
+It would be a too tedious undertaking to endeavor to point out all the
+fallacies of this Sophism. I will therefore limit myself to the
+consideration of it in three points.
+
+You argue that the United States are overburdened with taxes, and
+deduce thence the conclusion that it is necessary to protect such and
+such an article of produce. But protection does not relieve us from
+the payment of these taxes. If, then, individuals devoting themselves
+to any one object of industry, should advance this demand: "We, from
+our participation in the payment of taxes, have our expenses of
+production increased, and therefore ask for a protective duty which
+shall raise our price of sale:" what is this but a demand on their
+part to be allowed to free themselves from the burden of the tax, by
+laying it on the rest of the community? Their object is to balance, by
+the increased price of their produce, the amount which they pay in
+taxes. Now, as the whole amount of these taxes must enter into the
+Treasury, and the increase of price must be paid by society, it
+follows that (where this protective duty is imposed) society has to
+bear, not only the general tax, but also that for the protection of
+the article in question. But, it is answered, let _everything_ be
+protected. Firstly, this is impossible; and, again, were it possible,
+how could such a system give relief? _I_ will pay for you, _you_ will
+pay 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 taxes
+for the support of an army, a navy, judges, roads, &c. Afterwards you
+seek to disburden from its portion of the tax, first one article of
+industry, then another, then a third; always adding to the burden of
+the 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 your
+argument. But if it be true that the American people paid the tax
+before the passing of the protective duty, and afterwards that it has
+paid not only the tax but the protective duty also, truly I do not
+perceive wherein it has profited.
+
+But I go much further, and maintain that the more oppressive our taxes
+are, the more anxiously ought we to open our ports and frontiers to
+foreign nations, less burdened than ourselves. And why? _In order that
+we may_ SHARE WITH THEM, _as much as possible, the burden
+which we bear._ Is it not an incontestable maxim in political economy,
+that taxes must, in the end, fall upon the consumer? _The greater then
+our commerce, the greater the portion which will be reimbursed to us,
+of taxes incorporated in the produce which we will have sold to
+foreign consumers; whilst we on our part will have made to them only a
+lesser reimbursement, because (according to our hypothesis) their
+produce is less taxed than ours._
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER VI.
+
+BALANCE OF TRADE.
+
+
+Our adversaries have adopted a system of tactics, which
+embarrasses us not a little. Do we prove our doctrine? They admit the
+truth of it in the most respectful manner. Do we attack their
+principles? They abandon them with the best possible grace. They only
+ask that our doctrine, which they acknowledge to be true, should be
+confined to books; and that their principles, which they allow to be
+false, should be established in practice. If we will give up to them
+the regulation of our tariffs, they will leave us triumphant in the
+domain of literature.
+
+It is constantly alleged in opposition to our principles, that they
+are good only in theory. But, gentlemen, do you believe that
+merchants' books are good in practice? It does appear to me, if there
+is anything which can have a practical authority, when the object is
+to prove profit and loss, that this must be commercial accounts. We
+cannot suppose that all the merchants of the world, for centuries
+back, should have so little understood their own affairs, as to have
+kept their books in such a manner as to represent gains as losses, and
+losses as gains. Truly it would be easier to believe that our
+legislators are bad political economists. A merchant, one of my
+friends, having had two business transactions, with very different
+results, I have been curious to compare on this subject the accounts
+of the counter with those of the custom-house, interpreted by our
+legislators.
+
+Mr. T dispatched from New Orleans a vessel freighted for France with
+cotton valued at $200,000. Such was the amount entered at the
+custom-house. The cargo, on its arrival at Havre, had paid ten per
+cent. expenses, and was liable to thirty per cent. duties, which
+raised its value to $280,000. It was sold at twenty per cent. profit
+on its original value, which equalled $40,000, and the price of sale
+was $320,000, which the consignee converted into merchandise,
+principally Parisian goods. These goods, again, had to pay for
+transportation to the sea-board, insurance, commissions, &c., ten per
+cent.; so that when the return cargo arrived at New Orleans, its value
+had 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 the
+books 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; the
+one of $40,000, the other of $70,400, and Mr. T feels perfectly
+certain that, as regards these, there is no mistake in his accounts.
+
+Now what conclusion do our Congressmen draw from the sums entered into
+the custom-house, in this operation? They thence learn that the United
+States have exported $200,000, and imported $352,000; from whence
+they conclude "_that she has spent, dissipated, the profits of her
+previous savings; that she is impoverishing herself and progressing to
+her 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. But
+the vessel foundered in leaving the port, and Mr. T had only further
+to inscribe upon his books two little items, thus worded:
+
+"_Sundries due to X_, $200,000, for purchase of divers articles
+dispatched by vessel N."
+
+"_Profit and loss due, to sundries_, $200,000, _for final and total
+loss 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 this
+entry on the list of _importations_, it hence follows that our
+enlightened members of Congress must see in this wreck _a clear
+profit_ to the United States of $200,000.
+
+We may draw hence yet another conclusion, viz.: that according to the
+Balance of Trade theory, the United States has an exceedingly simple
+manner of constantly doubling her capital. It is only necessary, to
+accomplish this, that she should, after entering into the custom-house
+her articles for exportation, cause them to be thrown into the sea. By
+this course, her exportations can speedily be made to equal her
+capital; importations will be nothing, and our gain will be, all which
+the ocean will have swallowed up.
+
+You are joking, the protectionists will reply. You know that it is
+impossible that we should utter such absurdities. Nevertheless, I
+answer, you do utter them, and what is more, you give them life, you
+exercise them practically upon your fellow-citizens, as much, at
+least, as is in your power to do.
+
+But lest even Mr. T's books may not be deemed of sufficient weight to
+counterbalance the convictions of the Horace Greeley school of
+prohibition, I shall proceed to furnish a table exhibiting various
+classes of commercial transactions, embracing most of the classes
+usually effected by importing and exporting houses, all of which may
+result in undoubted profits to the parties engaged in them, and to the
+country at large, and yet which, as they appear in the annual Commerce
+and Navigation Reports issued by the government, would be made to
+prove by Mr. Greeley that the result has in each case been a loss to
+the country. The sums are all stated in gold:
+
+A, represents one hundred merchants, who shipped to London beef, boots
+and shoes, butter, cheese, cotton, hams and bacon, flour, Indian corn,
+lard, lumber, machinery, oils, pork, staves, tallow, tobacco and
+cigars, worth in New York, in the aggregate, ten millions of dollars,
+gold, but worth in London plus the cost of transportation, &c., eleven
+millions of dollars, gold, in bond. After being sold in London, the
+proceeds (eleven millions) were invested in British goods, worth
+eleven millions in London, but worth twelve millions in bond in New
+York, and plus the cost of transportation, &c. After having these
+goods sold in New York, a net profit of two millions was the result of
+the whole transaction, a profit both to the merchants and the country;
+yet, according to the Commerce and Navigation Returns, the exports
+were ten millions, and the imports eleven millions (valued at the
+foreign place of production as the law directs), showing, according to
+Mr. Greeley's solitary point of view, a loss to the country of one
+million.
+
+B, owned a gold mine in Nevada, and had no capital with which to
+develop 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, ex
+duty and plus transportation, &c. These sold, B netted an undoubted
+profit of $100,000, besides getting rid of his mine; but, according to
+the Commerce and Navigation Returns, the exports were nothing, and the
+imports $1,000,000; showing, according to Mr. Greeley's solitary point
+of view, a loss to the country of $1,000,000.
+
+C, the French owner of the Nevada mine, had a million more with which
+to develop it. Hearing that French cloths and gloves had a good sale
+in Boston, he invested his million in these goods, sailed for Boston
+with 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 the
+Commerce and Navigation Returns, the exports were nothing, and the
+imports $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. D
+ordered 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, ex
+duty and plus transportation. Upon selling them D was clearly worth
+$1,100,000; yet, according to the Commerce and Navigation Reports, as
+there had been no exports, but simply $1,000,000 of imports, the
+transaction, from Mr. Greeley's solitary point of view, seemed a loss
+to 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 in
+Russia, ex duty and plus transportation, $1,210,000. Disposing of
+these in turn, and investing the proceeds in Russian iron worth
+$1,210,000 in Russia, but $1,331,000 in Venezuela, ex duty and plus
+transportation, he shipped the iron to Venezuela, where he realized on
+it, investing the proceeds this time in South American products worth
+in Spain $1,464,100. He sold these products in Spain, bought olive oil
+with 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 he
+makes no profit, but barely clears his charges. Yet on the whole he
+has made a net gain of $610,510; but, according to the Commerce and
+Navigation Reports, the exports have been $1,000,000 and the imports
+$1,610,510, showing, from Mr. Greeley's solitary point of view, a loss
+to the country of $610,510. Nay more, for Mr. Greeley balances his
+trade accounts each year by itself, and as E's outward shipment was
+made in 1850 and his importation in 1853, the country, according to
+H.G., lost in 1853, by over importation, $1,610,500. Yet not to be
+hard on H.G., and to be perfectly honest in our accounts, we will only
+set 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 that
+large vessels were in demand in England as troop transports to the
+Crimea, 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 it
+in Swiss watches worth $200,000 in Geneva, but $210,000 in New
+Orleans, ex duty and plus transportation. To New Orleans he
+accordingly shipped the watches, and they were sold. By these
+transactions he not only got rid of his elephant, but both he and the
+country clearly gained $50,000. Yet according to Mr. Greeley's single
+eye the country suffered to the extent of $200,000, for in the exports
+appeared nothing, but among the imports $200,000 worth of foreign
+gewgaws, only fit to keep time with.
+
+G, (an actual transaction) shipped by the Great Eastern on her last
+voyage from New York, lard and other merchandise, worth in New York
+$600,000, the fact of which, in the hurry of business, he failed to
+report to the Custom House, and it therefore did not appear in the
+exports. This lard was carried to England, where it found no sale, and
+was reshipped to New York. G only escaped being charged duty on it
+when it arrived, by swearing that it had been originally shipped from
+here 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 was
+on the road to ruin $600,000 worth.
+
+H, lived in Brownsville, Texas, where he had a lot of arms and
+gunpowder, worth $100,000. The Mexicans levied a very high import duty
+on these articles, and they consequently bore a very high price in
+Matamoras, just opposite, being worth in the market of that town no
+less than $250,000. He accordingly conceived the idea of smuggling
+them into Mexican territory, and, with the connivance of the Mexican
+officials, (what rascals these foreign custom-house officials are, to
+be sure!) actually succeeded in doing so, and thus realized the very
+handsome profit of $150,000 in gold. The entire proceeds he invested
+in Mexican indigo and cochineal, worth in Mexico $250,000, and in
+Boston $275,000, in bond, plus charges. Of course, no export entry was
+furnished to the customs collector at Brownsville; but Mr. Greeley
+fastened his one eye on the indigo and cochineal, when it arrived in
+Boston, and made up his mind that the country had lost $250,000. As
+for H, he has invested $100,000 in more gunpowder and arms, and starts
+for Brownsville next week, to try his luck again. With the other
+$175,000 he has a notion of buying out the New York _Tribune_, and
+setting it right on free trade, and other matters of the sort.
+
+I, and his friends owned a fine fleet of merchantmen when the war
+broke out. The aggregate burden of the vessels was nearly a million of
+tons, and they were worth $40 a ton. When the rebel cruisers commenced
+their operations, there were no United States cruisers prepared to
+capture them, because our best vessels were on blockade service. This
+being the case, insurance on American merchantmen rose very high--so
+high that I and his friends were reluctantly compelled to sell their
+vessels 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 thus
+gained $4,000,000 by these transactions. The entire proceeds,
+$44,000,000, they then lent to the government with which to carry on
+its war of existence with the Southern insurgents. Profitable as these
+transactions clearly were to I and his friends, and to the government,
+Mr. Greeley, nevertheless, only sees the import of $40,000,000 worth
+of foreign extravagances, and consequently wants the tariff on iron
+increased in order to make water run up hill.
+
+J, had $2,000,000 in five-twenty bonds, which cost him $1,400,000
+gold. As the market price in New York was only 70 gold, while it was
+72-1/4 in London, he conceived the inhuman idea of selling them in the
+latter 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 rags
+in Italy, which he sold in New York for $1,584,000, ex duty and plus
+transportation, a clear profit of $184,000 from the start. No export
+appearing in the Commerce and Navigation Returns, and nothing but the
+rags meeting his unital gaze, Mr. Greeley at once posted his national
+ledger 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 his
+account books), an exchange broker, doing business in New York. He
+buys notes on the banks of England, Ireland, Scotland, France and
+Canada--indeed, foreign banknotes of all kinds--for which he usually
+pays about ninety per cent, of their face value. By the end of last
+year he had invested $200,000 in these notes brought here by
+travellers. He then inclosed them in letters, and sent them to their
+proper destinations to be redeemed. Redeemed they were in due time,
+and the proceeds remitted in gold. In this business he earned the neat
+profit of $22,222, and the country was that much richer thereby. But
+Mr. 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 when
+the war broke out, for fear they might be drafted. Together with the
+colored folks who fled there, and the many travellers who went there
+from time to time, they carried with them most of our silver
+half-dollars, quarters, dimes, half-dimes, and three-cent pieces.
+These amounted to $25,000,000, which the skedaddlers, the colored
+folks, and the travellers, as with returning peace they slowly
+straggled back into the country, invested in Canadian knick-knacks,
+which they disposed of in the United States. The incoming goods
+were duly entered at our frontier custom-houses, but the outgoing
+silver was not. Mr. Greeley, unaware of this fact, detects an
+over-importation of $25,000,000, and is waiting to be elected to
+Congress in order to legislate the matter right.
+
+M, (an actual transaction) had $1,000,000 in Illinois Central Railroad
+bonds, for which he desired to obtain $1,000,000 worth of iron rails
+to repair the road with. Not being able to effect the transaction in
+the United States, he sent the bonds to Germany, where they were sold,
+and the proceeds invested in English railroad iron, worth $1,000,000
+in Glasgow, but $1,100,000 in Chicago, ex duty, and plus
+transportation. By this transaction M, besides effecting the desired
+exchange, netted a profit of $100,000. Yet, according to the Commerce
+and Navigation Reports, and Mr. Greeley's one eye, as there had been
+no exports and $1,000,000 of imports, the country was a sufferer by
+the latter sum.
+
+N, was a body of incorporators who owned a tract of land lying in the
+bend of a river. Standing in need of water power for manufacturing
+purposes, they resolved to cut a canal across the bend. As this would
+essentially benefit the navigation of the river, the State agreed to
+guaranty their bonds for a loan of money to the extent of $1,000,000.
+Finding no purchaser for these bonds in the United States, they
+remitted them to Europe, and there sold them at par. With the proceeds
+they purchased army blankets for the Boston market, on which they
+realized ten per cent. net profit. These sold, the avails were
+invested in barrows, spades, water-wheels, wages, &c., and in good
+time the canal was cut and the manufactory set a-going. Profitable as
+this thing was to N, Mr. Greeley's single-barrelled telescope sees in
+it only a loss to the country of $1,000,000.
+
+O, represents the Illinois Central, Union Pacific, and other western
+railroads, owning grants of land along their respective roads, to sell
+which to actual settlers they open agencies in London, Havre, Antwerp,
+and other European cities. The emigrants who buy these lands pay for
+them in Europe, and set sail for America with their title-deeds in
+their pockets, and their axes on their shoulders, ready for a conquest
+over forest and prairie. The agents of the Illinois Central Railroad
+(see report of the Company), who have sold 1,664,422 acres, say at an
+average of ten dollars per acre, invested the proceeds, $16,644,220,
+in iron rails for the road, worth that sum in England, but ten per
+cent. more in Illinois, less duty and plus transportation. The road
+has thus not only netted a profit of $1,664,422 on the transaction,
+but sold their wild lands to actual settlers, who will soon convert
+them into productive farms. But Mr. Greeley, upon seeing an import of
+$16,644,220 of iron rails, declares the thing must be stopped or the
+country will perish.
+
+P, is Sir Morton Peto and other European capitalists, who, believing
+that eight per cent., the average rate of interest in the United
+States, is better than three per cent., the average rate in England,
+invest $10,000,000 of capital in American enterprises. This capital is
+sent hither in the form of merchandise, to stock our railroads, farms,
+factories, etc., and is so much clear benefit to the country; but to
+Mr. 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 United
+States altogether. These vessels have an aggregate burden of one
+million tons, are worth forty dollars, gold, per ton, and earn a net
+profit per annum of ten per cent. on their cost. Although in this kind
+of carrying trade we are wofully behind other nations, yet it yields,
+in twelve years (the average age of the vessels engaged in it), the
+neat 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 profit
+of ten per cent. Although an unquestionable gain to Q and the country
+at large of $52,800,000, Mr. Greeley, with his contracted views, only
+regards it as a dead loss on the import side of our Commerce and
+Navigation Returns.
+
+R, was a bank which had a defaulting cashier, who ran away in 1857
+with $500,000 of its funds. (Sch*yl*r carried off a million of New
+Haven Railroad bonds). These funds were recovered and converted into
+gold, which was shipped to the United States. According to Mr.
+Greeley, who could find no record of exports to counterbalance it, the
+same was a dead loss to the country.
+
+S, and his friends own 76,990 tons of whaling ships (see Commerce and
+Navigation Reports, 1866), worth $40 per ton, gold, or $3,079,600.
+These ships are sent annually to the Arctic regions and earn for S and
+his friends ten per cent., or $307,960 net profit each year. Five
+years' profits, consisting of whale oil, bone, etc., which, after an
+active and profitable trade at the Sandwich Islands, they returned
+with this year, were valued at $1,655,659, and were duly entered among
+the imports, furnishing to Mr. Greeley an indubitable proof that the
+country was losing money in this business, and that the attention of
+Congress should at once be directed toward supplying a proper remedy.
+
+T, was a South American refugee, who brought with him a million of
+dollars in gold doubloons. After living here for many years, by which
+time, through foreign trading, his capital had doubled, he invested
+the entire avails in United States bonds, as a last and striking
+evidence of his faith in our institutions, and departed to his native
+country, there to rest his bones. This man clearly prospered, and so
+did the country in which he settled, and on whose national faith he
+lent all his fortune. Yet Mr. Greeley concludes the whole thing to
+have 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 vessel
+at sea laden with a valuable cargo of teas, and bravely tows her into
+port, receiving $200,000 of the proceeds of the sale of her cargo as
+salvage for his skill and intrepidity. From Mr. Greeley's point of
+view U is a traitor to his country, and suffering a merited poverty
+for over-importing. But U drives his carriage about town, and has his
+own 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 to
+improve American breeds. The horses arrive in good order, and on being
+sold, yield V a net profit of $30,000, besides enriching our native
+breeds of these useful animals. Mr. Greeley still holds out, and jots
+the whole transaction down as an additional evidence of national
+decadence.
+
+
+TABULAR EXPOSE.
+
+
+Official Returns of these Transactions as they would appear per
+Commerce 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 commercial
+transactions, in all of which the parties to them and the countries in
+which they live make money, but which, regarded from Mr. Greeley's
+solitary point of view, should be stopped at once by appropriate
+legislation.
+
+These various transactions, it will be perceived, have netted to the
+individuals engaged in them a clear profit of $66,391,813, while the
+country has added to its immediate stock of wealth not only this sum,
+but $58,344,220 over, viz: $124,736,033; while, according to the
+Balance of Trade chimera, which simply weighs the custom-house reports
+of the value of the exports with that of the imports (and their values
+in their respective countries of production, too), this commerce has
+been 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 be
+precisely _reversed_. The profits accruing to the nation from any
+foreign commerce should be calculated by the overplus of the
+importation above the exportation. This overplus, after the deduction
+of expenses, is the real gain. Here we have the true theory, and it is
+one which leads directly to freedom in trade. I now, gentlemen,
+abandon you this theory, as I have done all those of the preceding
+chapters. Do with it as you please, exaggerate it as you will; it has
+nothing to fear. Push it to the furthest extreme; imagine, if it so
+please you, that foreign nations should inundate us with useful
+produce of every description, and ask nothing in return; that our
+importations should be _infinite_, and our exportations _nothing_.
+Imagine all this, and still I defy you to prove that we will be the
+poorer in consequence.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER VII.
+
+A PETITION.
+
+
+Petition from the Manufacturers of Candles, Wax-Lights, Lamps,
+Chandeliers, Reflectors, Snuffers, Extinguishers; and from the
+Producers of Tallow, Oil, Resin, Petroleum, Kerosene, Alcohol, and
+generally of every thing used for lights.
+
+"_To the Honorable the Senators and Representatives of the United
+States in Congress assembled._
+
+"GENTLEMEN:--You are in the right way: you reject abstract
+theories; abundance, cheapness, concerns you little. You are entirely
+occupied with the interest of the producer, whom you are anxious to
+free 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 application
+of your--what shall we say? your theory? no, nothing is more
+deceiving than theory--your doctrine? your system? your principle? But
+you do not like doctrines; you hold systems in horror; and, as for
+principles, you declare that there are no such things in political
+economy. We will say, then, your practice; your practice without
+theory, and without principle.
+
+"We are subjected to the intolerable competition of a FOREIGN RIVAL,
+who enjoys, it would seem, such superior facilities for the production
+of light, that he is enabled to _inundate_ our _national market_ at so
+exceedingly reduced a price, that, the moment he makes his appearance,
+he draws off all custom from us; and thus an important branch of
+American industry, with all its innumerable ramifications, is suddenly
+reduced to a state of complete stagnation. This rival, who is no other
+than the sun, carries on so bitter a war against us, that we have
+every reason to believe that he has been excited to this course by our
+perfidious cousins, the Britishers. (Good diplomacy this, for the
+present time!) In this belief we are confirmed by the fact that in all
+his transactions with their befogged island, he is much more moderate
+and careful than with us.
+
+"Our petition is, that it would please your Honorable Body to pass a
+law 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 to
+penetrate into our dwellings, to the prejudice of the profitable
+manufactures which we flatter ourselves we have been enabled to bestow
+upon the country; which country cannot, therefore, without
+ingratitude, leave us now to struggle unprotected through so unequal a
+contest.
+
+"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 have
+to advance in its favor.
+
+"And first, if, by shutting out as much as possible all access to
+natural light, you thus create the necessity for artificial light, is
+there in the United States an industrial pursuit which will not,
+through some connection with this important object, be benefited by
+it?
+
+"If more tallow be consumed, there will arise a necessity for an
+increase of cattle and sheep. Thus artificial meadows must be in
+greater demand; and meat, wool, leather, and above all, manure, this
+basis of agricultural riches, must become more abundant.
+
+"If more oil be consumed, it will effect a great impetus to our
+petroleum trade. Pit-Hole, Tack, and Oil Creek stock will go up
+exceedingly, and an immense revenue will thereby accrue to the
+numerous possessors of oil lands, who will be able to pay such a large
+tax that the national debt can be paid off at once. Besides that, the
+patent hermetical barrel trade, and numerous other industries
+connected 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 be
+employed in the whale fisheries, and thence would arise a navy capable
+of sustaining the honor of the United States, and of responding to the
+patriotic sentiments of the undersigned petitioners, candle-merchants,
+&c.
+
+"But what words can express the magnificence which New York will then
+exhibit! Cast an eye upon the future, and behold the gildings, the
+bronzes, the magnificent crystal chandeliers, lamps, lusters, and
+candelabras, which will glitter in the spacious stores, compared to
+which the splendor of the present day will appear little and
+insignificant.
+
+"There is none, not even the poor manufacturer of resin in the midst
+of his pine forests, nor the miserable miner in his dark dwelling, but
+who would enjoy an increase of salary and of comforts.
+
+"Gentlemen, if you will be pleased to reflect, you cannot fail to be
+convinced that there is perhaps not one American, from the opulent
+stockholder of Pit-Hole, down to the poorest vender of matches, who is
+not interested in the success of our petition.
+
+"We foresee your objections, gentlemen; but there is not one that you
+can oppose to us which you will not be obliged to gather from the
+works of the partisans of free trade. We dare challenge you to
+pronounce one word against our petition, which is not equally opposed
+to your own practice and the principle which guides your policy.
+
+"If you tell us that, though we may gain by this protection, the
+United States will not gain, because the consumer must pay the price
+of 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 reason
+should now induce you to act in the same manner.
+
+"You have yourselves already answered the objection. When you were
+told: The consumer is interested in the free introduction of iron,
+coal, corn, wheat, cloths, &c., your answer was: Yes, but the producer
+is interested in their exclusion. Thus, also, if the consumer is
+interested in the admission of light, we, the producers, pray for its
+interdiction.
+
+"You have also said the producer and the consumer are one. If the
+manufacturer gains by protection, he will cause the agriculturist to
+gain also; if agriculture prospers, it opens a market for manufactured
+goods. Thus we, if you confer upon us the monopoly of furnishing light
+during the day, will as a first consequence buy large quantities of
+tallow, coal, oil, resin, kerosene, wax, alcohol, silver, iron,
+bronze, crystal, for the supply of our business; and then we and our
+numerous contractors having become rich, our consumption will be
+great, and will become a means of contributing to the comfort and
+competency of the workers in every branch of national labor.
+
+"Will you say that the light of the sun is a gratuitous gift, and that
+to repulse gratuitous gifts is to repulse riches under pretence of
+encouraging the means of obtaining them?
+
+"Take care--you carry the death-blow to your own policy. Remember that
+hitherto you have always repulsed foreign produce, _because_ it was an
+approach to a gratuitous gift, and _the more in proportion_ as this
+approach was more close. You have, in obeying the wishes of other
+monopolists, acted only from a _half-motive_; to grant our petition
+there is a much _fuller inducement_. To repulse us, precisely for the
+reason that our case is a more complete one than any which have
+preceded it, would be to lay down the following equation: + × + = -; in
+other words, it would be to accumulate absurdity upon absurdity.
+
+"Labor and Nature concur in different proportions, according to
+country and climate, in every article of production. The portion of
+Nature is always gratuitous; that of labor alone regulates the price.
+
+"If a Lisbon orange can be sold at one hundredth the price of a New
+York one, it is because a natural and gratuitous heat does for the
+one, what the other only obtains from an artificial and consequently
+expensive one.
+
+"When, therefore, we purchase a Portuguese orange, we may say that we
+obtain it 99/100 gratuitously and 1/100 by the right of labor; in
+other words, at a mere song compared to those of New York.
+
+"Now it is precisely on account of this 99/100 _gratuity_ (excuse the
+phrase) that you argue in favor of exclusion. How, you say, could
+national labor sustain the competition of foreign labor, when the
+first has every thing to do, and the last is rid of nearly all the
+trouble, the sun taking the rest of the business upon himself? If then
+the 99/100 _gratuity_ can determine you to check competition, on what
+principle can the _entire gratuity_ be alleged as a reason for
+admitting it? You are no logicians if, refusing the 99/100 gratuity as
+hurtful 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 us
+from foreign countries with less labor than if we produced it
+ourselves, the difference in price is a _gratuitous gift_ conferred
+upon us; and the gift is more or less considerable, according as the
+difference is greater or less. It is the quarter, the half, or the
+three-quarters of the value of the produce, in proportion as the
+foreign merchant requires the three-quarters, the half, or the
+quarter of the price. It is as complete as possible when the producer
+offers, as the sun does with light, the whole, in free gift. The
+question is, and we put it formally, whether you wish for the United
+States the benefit of gratuitous consumption, or the supposed
+advantages of laborious production. Choose: but be consistent. And
+does it not argue the greatest inconsistency to check, as you do, the
+importation of iron-ware, dry-goods, and other foreign manufactures,
+merely because, and even in proportion as, their price approaches
+zero, 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 possible
+care 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 had
+cost a drop of sweat to his brow.
+
+"I will sell it," said he to his wife, "and with the proceeds I will
+buy lace, which will serve you to make a present for our daughter."
+
+The honest countryman, arriving in the city of Cincinnati, there met
+an Englishman and a Yankee.
+
+The Yankee said to him, "Give me your wine, and I in exchange will
+give you fifteen bundles of Yankee lace."
+
+The Englishman said, "Give it to me, and I will give you twenty
+bundles of English lace, for we English can spin cheaper than the
+Yankees."
+
+But a custom-house officer standing by, said to the laborer, "My good
+fellow, make your exchange, if you choose, with Brother Jonathan, but
+it is my duty to prevent your doing so with the Englishman."
+
+"What!" exclaimed the countryman, "you wish me to take fifteen bundles
+of New England lace, when I can have twenty from Manchester!"
+
+"Certainly," replied the custom-house officer; "do you not see that
+the United States would be a loser if you were to receive twenty
+bundles instead of fifteen?"
+
+"I can scarcely understand this," said the laborer.
+
+"Nor can I explain it," said the custom-house officer, "but there is
+no doubt of the fact; for congressmen, ministers, and editors, all
+agree that a people is impoverished in proportion as it receives a
+large 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 good
+folks are still puzzling themselves to discover how it can happen that
+people are ruined by receiving four instead of three; and why they are
+richer with three dozen bundles of lace instead of four.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER IX.
+
+A WONDERFUL DISCOVERY.
+
+
+At this moment, when all minds are occupied in endeavoring to
+discover the most economical means of transportation; when, to put
+these means into practice, we are levelling roads, improving rivers,
+perfecting steamboats, establishing railroads, and attempting various
+systems of traction, atmospheric, hydraulic, pneumatic, electric, &c.;
+at this moment, when, I believe, every one is seeking in sincerity and
+with ardor the solution of this problem--"_To bring the price of
+things in their place of consumption, as near as possible to their
+price in that of production_"--I would believe myself to be acting a
+culpable part towards my country, towards the age in which I live, and
+towards myself, if I were longer to keep secret the wonderful
+discovery which I have just made.
+
+I am well aware that the self-illusions of inventors have become
+proverbial, but I have, nevertheless, the most complete certainty of
+having discovered an infallible means of bringing produce from all
+parts of the world into the United States, and reciprocally to
+transport ours, with a very important reduction of price.
+
+Infallible! and yet this is but a single one of the advantages of my
+astonishing invention, which requires neither plans nor devices,
+neither preparatory studies, nor engineers, nor machinists, nor
+capital, nor stockholders, nor governmental assistance! There is no
+danger of shipwrecks, of explosions, of shocks of fire, nor of
+displacement of rails! It can be put into practice without preparation
+almost any day we think proper!
+
+Finally: and this will, no doubt, recommend it to the public, it will
+not increase the Budget one cent; but the contrary. It will not
+augment the number of office-holders, nor the exigencies of State; but
+the contrary. It will put in hazard the liberty of no one; but on the
+contrary, it will secure to each a greater freedom.
+
+I have been led to this discovery, not from accident, but from
+observation, and I will tell you how.
+
+I had this question to determine:
+
+"Why does any article made, for instance, at Montreal, bear an
+increased 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 trouble
+and loss of time; and either we must submit to these troubles and
+losses in our own person, or pay another for bearing them for us. Then
+come rivers, hills, accidents, heavy and muddy roads. These are so
+many _difficulties_ to be overcome; in order to do which, causeways
+are constructed, bridges built, roads cut and paved, railroads
+established, &c. But all this is costly, and the article transported
+must bear its portion of the expense. There are robbers, too, on the
+roads, sometimes, and this necessitates railway guards, a police
+force, &c.
+
+Now, among these _obstacles_, there is one which we ourselves have
+lately placed, and that at no little expense, between Montreal and New
+York. This consists of men planted along the frontier, armed to the
+teeth, whose business it is to place _difficulties_ in the way of the
+transportation of goods from one country to another. These men are
+called custom-house officers, and their effect is precisely similar to
+that of rutted and boggy roads. They retard and put obstacles in the
+way of transportation, thus contributing to the difference which we
+have remarked between the price of production and that of consumption;
+to diminish which difference, as much as possible, is the problem
+which 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 us
+nothing. 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 could
+have admitted so whimsical a piece of folly as to induce us to pay
+many millions to destroy the _natural obstacles_ interposed between
+the United States and other nations, only at the same time to pay so
+many millions more in order to replace them by _artificial obstacles_,
+which have exactly the same effect; so that the obstacle removed and
+the 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, twenty
+dollars, and, from the expenses of transportation, thirty dollars at
+New York. A similar article of New York manufacture costs forty
+dollars. What is our course under these circumstances?
+
+First, we impose a duty of at least ten dollars on the Canadian
+article, so as to raise its price to a level with that of the New York
+one--the government, withal, paying numerous officials to attend to
+the levying of this duty. The article thus pays ten dollars for
+transportation, and ten for the tax.
+
+This done, we say to ourselves: Transportation between Montreal and
+New 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 course
+will be to get the Canadian article at New York for thirty-five
+dollars, 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 five
+dollars? 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 the
+railway, besides the expense saved in custom-house surveillance, which
+would of course diminish in proportion as the temptation to smuggling
+would become less.
+
+But it is answered: The duty is necessary to protect New York
+industry. So be it; but do not then destroy the effect of it by your
+railway. For if you persist in your determination to keep the Canadian
+article on a par with the New York one at forty dollars, you must
+raise 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 the
+railway?
+
+Frankly, is it not humiliating to the nineteenth century, that it
+should be destined to transmit to future ages the example of such
+puerilities seriously and gravely practised? To be the dupe of
+another, is bad enough; but to employ all the forms and ceremonies of
+representation in order to cheat oneself--to doubly cheat oneself, and
+that too in a mere numerical account--truly this is calculated to
+lower 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 be
+preferred, that protection tends towards the same result as all
+obstacles to transportation.
+
+A tariff may be truly spoken of as a swamp, a rut, a steep hill; in a
+word, an _obstacle_, whose effect is to augment the difference between
+the price of consumption and that of production. It is equally
+incontestable that a swamp, a bog, &c., are veritable protective
+tariffs.
+
+There are people (few in number, it is true, but such there are) who
+begin to understand that obstacles are not the less obstacles because
+they are artificially created, and that our well-being is more
+advanced by freedom of trade than by protection; precisely as a canal
+is more desirable than a sandy, hilly, and difficult road.
+
+But they still say, this liberty ought to be reciprocal. If we take
+off our taxes in favor of Canada, while Canada does not do the same
+towards us, it is evident that we are duped. Let us, then, make
+_treaties of commerce_ upon the basis of a just reciprocity; let us
+yield where we are yielded to; let us make the _sacrifice_ of buying
+that we may obtain the advantage of selling.
+
+Persons who reason thus, are (I am sorry to say), whether they know it
+or not, governed by the protectionist principle. They are only a
+little more inconsistent than the pure protectionists, as these are
+more 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 with
+each other. Some time after this was done, the inhabitants of N*w Y*rk
+became uneasy, and said: "M*ntr**l is overwhelming us with its
+productions; this must be attended to." They established, therefore, a
+corps of _Obstructors_, so called, because their business was to place
+obstacles in the way of the convoys which arrived from M*ntr**l. Soon
+after, M*ntr**l also established a corps of Obstructors.
+
+After some years, people having become more enlightened, the
+inhabitants of M*ntr**l began to discover that these reciprocal
+obstacles 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 put
+obstacles in the way of this road. This is absurd. It would have been
+far better to have left things in their original position, for then we
+would not have been put to the expense of building our road, and
+afterwards of creating difficulties. In the name of M*ntr**l I come to
+propose to you not to renounce at once our system of mutual obstacles,
+for this would be acting according to a principle, and we despise
+principles as much as you do; but to somewhat lighten these obstacles,
+weighing at the same time carefully our respective _sacrifices_." The
+ambassador having thus spoken, the town of N*w Y*rk asked time to
+reflect; manufacturers, office-seekers, congressmen, and custom-house
+officers, 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 our
+sales; this is a misfortune. Those which we ourselves create, injure
+our purchases; this is a second misfortune. We have no power over the
+first, but the second is entirely dependent upon ourselves. Let us
+then 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*rk
+to do the same. Some day or other she will learn to better calculate
+her own interests."
+
+A second counsellor, a man of practice and of facts, uncontrolled by
+principles and wise in ancestral experience, replied: "We must not
+listen to this dreamer, this theorist, this innovator, this Utopian,
+this political economist, this friend to N*w Y*rk. We would be
+entirely ruined if the embarrassments of the road were not carefully
+weighed and exactly equalized between N*w Y*rk and M*ntr**l. There
+would be more difficulty in going than in coming; in exportation than
+in importation. We would be with regard to N*w Y*rk, in the inferior
+condition in which Havre, Nantes, Bordeaux, Lisbon, London, Hamburg,
+and New Orleans, are, in relation to cities placed higher up the
+rivers Seine, Loire, Garonne, Tagus, Thames, Elbe, and Mississippi;
+for the difficulties of ascending must always be greater than those of
+descending rivers."
+
+"(A voice exclaims: 'But the cities near the mouths of rivers have
+always 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 on
+to convince them thoroughly and conclusively by speaking of national
+independence, national honor, national dignity, national labor,
+overwhelming importation, tributes, ruinous competition. In short, he
+succeeded in determining the assembly to continue their system of
+obstacles, and I can now point out a certain country where you may see
+road-workers and Obstructors working with the best possible
+understanding, by the decree of the same legislative assembly, paid by
+the same citizens; the first to improve the road, the last to
+embarrass it.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XI.
+
+ABSOLUTE PRICES.
+
+
+If we wish to judge between freedom of trade and protection, to
+calculate the probable effect of any political phenomenon, we should
+notice how far its influence tends to the production of _abundance_ or
+_scarcity_, and not simply of _cheapness_ or _dearness_ of price. We
+must beware of trusting to absolute prices: it would lead to
+inextricable confusion.
+
+Mr. Protectionist, after having established the fact that protection
+raises prices, adds:
+
+"The augmentation of price increases the expenses of life, and
+consequently the price of labor, and every one finds in the increase
+of the price of his produce the same proportion as in the increase of
+his expenses. Thus, if everybody pays as consumer, everybody receives
+also 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 that
+protection _transfers_ riches, uselessly and unjustly. Spoliation does
+the same.
+
+Again, to prove that the complicated arrangements of this system give
+even simple compensation, it is necessary to adhere to the
+"_consequently_" of Mr. Protectionist, and to convince oneself that
+the price of labor rises with that of the articles protected. This is
+a question of fact. For my own part I do not believe in it, because I
+think that the price of labor, like everything else, is governed by
+the proportion existing between the supply and the demand. Now I can
+perfectly well understand that _restriction_ will diminish the supply
+of produce, and consequently raise its price; but I do not as clearly
+see that it increases the demand for labor, thereby raising the rate
+of wages. This is the less conceivable to me, because the sum of labor
+required depends upon the quantity of disposable capital; and
+protection, while it may change the direction of capital, and transfer
+it from one business to another, cannot increase it one penny.
+
+This question, which is of the highest interest, we will examine
+elsewhere. I return to the discussion of _absolute prices_, and
+declare that there is no absurdity which cannot be rendered specious
+by such reasoning as that which is commonly resorted to by
+protectionists.
+
+Imagine an isolated nation possessing a given quantity of cash, and
+every year wantonly burning the half of its produce; I will undertake
+to prove by the protective theory that this nation will not be the
+less rich in consequence of such a procedure. For, the result of the
+conflagration must be, that everything would double in price. An
+inventory made before this event, would offer exactly the same nominal
+value as one made after it. Who, then, would be the loser? If John
+buys his cloth dearer, he also sells his corn at a higher price; and
+if Peter makes a loss on the purchase of his corn, he gains it back
+by the sale of his cloth. Thus "every one finds in the increase of the
+price of his produce, the same proportion as in the increase of his
+expenses: and thus if everybody pays as consumer, everybody also
+receives as producer."
+
+All this is nonsense, and not science.
+
+The simple truth is, that whether men destroy their corn and cloth by
+fire, or by use, the effect is the same as regards price, but not as
+regards riches, for it is precisely in the enjoyment of the use, that
+riches--in other words, comfort, well-being--exist.
+
+Restriction may in the same way, while it lessens the abundance of
+things, raise their prices, so as to leave each individual as rich,
+_numerically speaking_, as when unembarrassed by it. But because we
+put down in an inventory three bushels of corn at $1, or four bushels
+at 75 cents, and sum up the nominal value of each inventory at $3,
+does it thence follow that they are equally capable of contributing to
+the necessities of the community?
+
+To this truthful and common-sense view of the phenomenon of
+consumption it will be my continual endeavor to lead the
+protectionists; for in this is the end of all my efforts, the solution
+of every problem. I must continually repeat to them that restriction,
+by impeding commerce, by limiting the division of labor, by forcing it
+to combat difficulties of situation and temperature, must in its
+results diminish the quantity produced by any fixed quantum of labor.
+And what can it benefit us that the smaller quantity produced under
+the protective system bears the same _nominal value_ as the greater
+quantity produced under the free trade system? Man does not live on
+_nominal values_, but on real articles of produce; and the more
+abundant these articles are, no matter what price they may bear, the
+richer is he.
+
+The following passage occurs in the writings of a French
+protectionist:
+
+"If fifteen millions of merchandise sold to foreign nations, be taken
+from our ordinary produce, calculated at fifty millions, the
+thirty-five millions of merchandise which remain, not being sufficient
+for the ordinary demand, will increase in price to the value of fifty
+millions. The revenue of the country will thus represent fifteen
+millions more in value.... There will then be an increase of fifteen
+millions in the riches of the country; precisely the amount of the
+importation of money."
+
+This is droll enough! If a country has made in the course of the year
+fifty millions of revenue in harvests and merchandise, she need but
+sell one-quarter to foreign nations, in order to make herself
+one-quarter richer than before! If then she sold the half, she would
+increase her riches by one-half; and if the last hair of her wool, the
+last grain of her wheat, were to be changed for cash, she would thus
+raise her product to one hundred millions, where before it was but
+fifty! A singular manner, certainly, of becoming rich. Unlimited price
+produced by unlimited scarcity!
+
+To sum up our judgment of the two systems, let us contemplate their
+different effects when pushed to the most exaggerated extreme.
+
+According to the protectionist just quoted, the French would be quite
+as rich, that is to say, as well provided with everything, if they
+had but a thousandth part of their annual produce, because this part
+would then be worth a thousand times its natural value! So much for
+looking at prices alone.
+
+According to us, the French would be infinitely rich if their annual
+produce were infinitely abundant, and consequently bearing no value at
+all.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XII.
+
+DOES PROTECTION RAISE THE RATE OF WAGES?
+
+
+When we hear our beardless scribblers, romancers, reformers, our
+perfumed magazine writers, stuffed with ices and champagne, as they
+carefully place in their portfolios the sentimental scissorings which
+fill the current literature of the day, or cause to be decorated with
+gilded ornaments their tirades against the egotism and the
+individualism of the age; when we hear them declaiming against social
+abuses, and groaning over deficient wages and needy families; when we
+see them raising their eyes to heaven and weeping over the
+wretchedness of the laboring classes, while they never visit this
+wretchedness unless it be to draw lucrative sketches of its scenes of
+misery, we are tempted to say to them: The sight of you is enough to
+make me sicken of attempting to teach the truth.
+
+Affectation! Affectation! It is the nauseating disease of the day! If
+a thinking man, a sincere philanthropist, takes into consideration the
+condition of the working classes and endeavors to lay bare their
+necessities, scarcely has his work made an impression before it is
+greedily 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 until
+you become ashamed of publicly defending the cause of the working man;
+for how can it be possible to introduce sensible ideas in the midst of
+these sickening affectations?
+
+But we must put aside this cowardly indifference, which the
+affectation that provokes it is not enough to justify.
+
+Working men, your situation is singular! You are robbed, as I will
+presently prove to you. But no: I retract the word; we must avoid an
+expression which is violent; perhaps, indeed, incorrect; inasmuch as
+this spoliation, wrapped in the sophisms which disguise it, is
+practised, we must believe, without the intention of the spoiler, and
+with the consent of the spoiled. But it is nevertheless true that you
+are deprived of the just remuneration of your labor, while no one
+thinks of causing _justice_ to be rendered to you. If you could be
+consoled by the noisy appeals of your champions to philanthropy, to
+powerless charity, to degrading almsgiving, or if the high-sounding
+words of Voice of the People, Rights of Labor, &c., would relieve
+you--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 your
+wages, you should be permitted to exchange them for the largest
+possible sum of comforts you can obtain voluntarily from any man upon
+the 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 you
+have to expect from the chimeras by which you allow yourselves to be
+led astray.
+
+In the meantime let us examine if _injustice_ is not done to you by
+the legislative limitation of the number of persons from whom you are
+allowed to buy those things which you need; as iron, coal, cotton and
+woollen 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 thus
+injures 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 run
+after a boss, wages fall; when two bosses run after a workman, wages
+rise."
+
+Allow me, in similar laconic phrase, to employ a more scientific,
+though perhaps a less striking expression: "The rate of wages depends
+upon 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 law
+which says, "Such or such an article shall be limited to home
+production and no longer imported from foreign countries," can it in
+any degree increase this capital? Not in the least. This law may
+withdraw it from one course, and transfer it to another; but cannot
+increase it one penny. Then it cannot increase the demand for labor.
+
+While we point with pride to some prosperous manufacture, can we
+answer, whence comes the capital with which it is founded and
+maintained? Has it fallen from the moon? or rather is it not drawn
+either from agriculture, or stock-breeding, or commerce? We here see
+why, since the reign of protective tariffs, if we see more workmen in
+our mines and our manufacturing towns, we find also fewer vessels in
+our ports, fewer graziers and fewer laborers in our fields and upon
+our hill-sides.
+
+I could speak at great length upon this subject, but prefer
+illustrating my thought by an example.
+
+A countryman had twenty acres of land, with a capital of $10,000. He
+divided his land into four parts, and adopted for it the following
+changes of crops: 1st, maize; 2d, wheat; 3d, clover; and 4th, rye. As
+he needed for himself and family but a small portion of the grain,
+meat, and dairy produce of the farm, he sold the surplus and bought
+iron, coal, cloths, etc. The whole of his capital was yearly
+distributed in wages and payments of accounts to the workingmen of the
+neighborhood. This capital was, from his sales, again returned to him,
+and even increased from year to year. Our countryman, being fully
+convinced that idle capital produces nothing, caused to circulate
+among the working classes this annual increase, which he devoted to
+the inclosing and clearing of lands, or to improvements in his farming
+utensils and his buildings. He deposited some sums in reserve in the
+hands of a neighboring banker, who on his part did not leave these
+idle in his strong-box, but lent them to various tradesmen, so that
+the 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 his
+life, allowed himself to be duped. He bought iron, and thus paid
+_tribute_ to England, while our own land could, by an effort, be made
+to produce iron as well as England. He bought coal, cloths, and
+oranges, thus paying _tribute_ to New Brunswick, France, and Sicily,
+very unnecessarily; for coal may be found, doeskins may be made, and
+oranges may be forced to grow, within our own territory. He paid
+tribute to the foreign miner and the weaver; our own servants could
+very well mine our iron and get up native doeskins almost as good as
+the French article. He did all he could to ruin himself, and gave to
+strangers what ought to have been kept for the benefit of his own
+household."
+
+Full of this reasoning, our headstrong fellow determined to change the
+routine of his crops. He divided his farm into twenty parts. On one he
+dug for coal; on another he erected a cloth factory; on a third he put
+a 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 own
+farm. He no longer received anything from the general circulation;
+neither, it is true, did he cast anything into it. Was he the richer
+for this course? No; for his mine did not yield coal as cheaply as he
+could buy it in the market, nor was the climate favorable to the
+orange. In short, the family supply of these articles was very
+inferior to what it had been during the time when the father had
+obtained them and others by exchange of produce.
+
+With regard to the demand for labor, it certainly was no greater than
+formerly. THERE WERE, TO BE SURE, FIVE TIMES AS MANY FIELDS TO
+CULTIVATE, BUT THEY WERE FIVE TIMES SMALLER. If coal was mined, there
+was also less wheat; and because there were no more oranges bought,
+neither was there any more rye sold. Besides, the farmer could not
+spend in wages more than his capital, and his capital, instead of
+increasing, was now constantly diminishing. A great part of it was
+necessarily devoted to numerous buildings and utensils, indispensable
+to a person who determines to undertake everything. In short, the
+supply of labor continued the same, but the means of paying became
+less.
+
+The result is precisely similar when a nation isolates itself by the
+prohibitive system. Its number of industrial pursuits is certainly
+multiplied, but their importance is diminished. In proportion to their
+number, they become less productive, for the same capital and the same
+skill are obliged to meet a greater number of difficulties. The fixed
+capital absorbs a greater part of the circulating capital; that is to
+say, a greater part of the funds destined to the payment of wages.
+What remains, ramifies itself in vain; the quantity cannot be
+augmented. It is like the water of a deep pond, which, distributed
+among a multitude of small reservoirs, appears to be more abundant,
+because it covers a greater quantity of soil, and presents a larger
+surface to the sun, while we hardly perceive that, precisely on this
+account, 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. There
+can be no doubt that international barriers, by forcing capital and
+labor 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 such
+a supposition it would be necessary to believe that the rich, those
+who made the law, have so arranged matters, that not only they subject
+themselves to their own proportion of the general diminution, but
+taking the whole of it upon themselves, that they submit also to a
+further loss in order to increase your gains. Is this credible? Is
+this possible? It is, indeed, a most suspicious act of generosity; and
+if you act wisely you will reject it.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XIII.
+
+THEORY AND PRACTICE.
+
+
+Defenders of free trade, we are accused of being mere theorists, of
+not giving sufficient weight to the practical.
+
+"What a fearful charge against you, free traders," say the
+protectionists, "is this long succession of distinguished statesmen,
+this imposing race of writers, who have all held opinions differing
+from yours!" This we do not deny. We answer, "It is said, in support
+of established errors, that 'there must be some foundation for ideas
+so generally adopted by all nations. Should not one distrust opinions
+and arguments which overturn that which, until now, has been held as
+settled; that which is held as certain by so many persons whose
+intelligence and motives make them trustworthy?'"
+
+We confess this argument should make a profound impression, and ought
+to throw doubt on the most incontestable points, if we had not seen,
+one after another, opinions the most false, now generally acknowledged
+to be such, received and professed by all the world during a long
+succession of centuries. It is not very long since all nations, from
+the most rude to the most enlightened, and all men, from the
+street-porter to the most learned philosopher, believed in the four
+elements. Nobody had thought of contesting this doctrine, which is,
+however, false; so much so, that at this day any mere naturalist's
+assistant, who should consider earth, water, and fire, elements, would
+disgrace himself.
+
+On which our opponents make this observation: "If you suppose you have
+thus answered the very forcible objection you have proposed to
+yourselves, you deceive yourselves strangely. Suppose that men,
+otherwise intelligent, should be mistaken on any point whatever of
+natural history for many centuries, that would signify or prove
+nothing. Would water, air, earth, fire, be less useful to man whether
+they were or were not elements? Such errors are of no consequence;
+they lead to no revolutions, do not unsettle the mind; above all, they
+injure no interests, so they might, without inconvenience, endure for
+millions of years. The physical world would progress just as if they
+did not exist. Would it be thus with errors which attack the moral
+world? 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 we
+explain how such a system could be reconciled with the ever-increasing
+prosperity of nations? You acknowledge that the argument you combat
+ought to make a profound impression. Yes, truly, and this impression
+remains, 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, without
+exception, were delivered up to public discussion, that these
+furnishers of speculative ideas which are applied to everything
+without being applicable to anything--commenced writing on political
+economy. There existed, however, a system of political economy, not
+written, but practised by governments. It is said that Colbert was its
+inventor, and it was the rule of all the States of Europe. What is
+more singular, it has remained so till lately, despite anathemas and
+contempt, and despite the discoveries of the modern school. This
+system, which our writers have called the _mercantile system_,
+consists in opposing, by prohibitions and duties, such foreign
+productions as might ruin our manufacturers by their competition. This
+system has been pronounced futile, absurd, capable of ruining any
+country, by economical writers of all schools. It has been banished
+from all books, reduced to take refuge in the practice of every
+people; and we do not understand why, in regard to the wealth of
+nations, governments should not have yielded themselves to wise
+authors rather than to _the old experience_ of a system. Above all, we
+cannot conceive why, in political economy, the American government
+should persist in resisting the progress of light, and in preserving,
+in its practice, those old errors which all our economists of the pen
+have designated. But we have said too much about this mercantile
+system, which has in its favor _facts_ alone, though sustained by
+scarcely a single writer of the day."
+
+Would not one say, who listened only to this language, that we
+political economists, in merely claiming for every one _the free
+disposition of his own property_, had, like the Fourierists, conjured
+up from our brains a new social order, chimerical and strange; a sort
+of phalanstery, without precedent in the annals of the human race,
+instead of merely talking plain _meum_ and _tuum_ It seems to us that
+if there is in all this anything utopian, anything problematical, it
+is not free trade, but protection; it is not the right to exchange,
+but tariff after tariff applied to overturning the natural order of
+commerce.
+
+But it is not the point to compare and judge of these two systems by
+the light of reason; the question for the moment is, to know which of
+the 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, this
+old experience of the world, which you invoke, has appeared imposing
+to us, and that we confess we have not as yet refuted you as fully as
+we might.
+
+But we do not cede to you the domain of facts, for you have on your
+side only exceptional and contracted facts, while we have universal
+ones 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 to
+make ourselves."
+
+And on your part you say:
+
+"It is better to make things ourselves, even though it would cost less
+to purchase them from others."
+
+Now, gentlemen, laying aside theory, demonstration, argument,
+everything which appears to afflict you with nausea, which of these
+assertions 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 own
+establishment; observe your own conduct at all times, and then say
+which is the principle that directs these labors, these workmen, these
+inventors, these merchants; say, too, which is your own individual
+practice.
+
+Does the farmer make his clothes? Does the tailor raise the wheat
+which he consumes? Does not your housekeeper cease making bread at
+home 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 tribute
+to the shoe-black? Does not the whole economy of society depend on the
+separation of occupations, on the division of labor; in one word, on
+_exchange_? And is exchange anything else than the calculation which
+leads us to discontinue, as far as we can, direct production, when
+indirect acquisition spares us time and trouble?
+
+You are not, then, men of _practice_, since you cannot show a single
+man on the surface of the globe who acts in accordance with your
+principle.
+
+"But," you will say, "we have never heard our principle made the rule
+of individual relations. We comprehend perfectly that this would break
+the social bond, and force men to live, like snails, each one in his
+own shell. We limit ourselves to asserting that it governs _in fact_
+the relations which are established among the agglomerations of the
+human family."
+
+But still, this assertion is erroneous. The family, the village, the
+town, the county, the state, are so many agglomerations, which all,
+without any exception, _practically_ reject your principle, and have
+never 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 prevent
+it _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 exceptionally
+on certain international exchanges, we appeal to the practice and
+experience of all individuals, and all agglomerations of individuals
+whose acts are voluntary, and consequently may be called on for
+testimony. But you commence by _constraining_, by _preventing_, and
+then 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, do
+you, by chance, fancy that you have formed no _theory_? No, no; erase
+that from your plea. You form a theory as well as ourselves; but
+between yours and ours there is this difference: our theory consists
+merely in observing universal facts, universal sentiments, universal
+calculations and proceedings, and further, in classifying them and
+arranging them, in order to understand them better. It is so little
+opposed to practice, that it is nothing but _practice explained_. We
+observe the actions of men moved by the instinct of preservation and
+of progress; and what they do freely, voluntarily, is precisely what
+we call _political economy_, or the economy of society. We go on
+repeating with out cessation: "Every man is _practically_ an
+excellent economist, producing or exchanging, according as it is most
+advantageous to him to exchange or to produce. Each one, through
+experience, is educated to science; or rather, science is only that
+same 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 the
+practice of any living man under the vault of heaven--and then you
+call 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 wish
+them to renounce an _advantage_; you demand that they should act in
+accordance with a doctrine which implies contradiction even in its
+terms.
+
+Now, this doctrine, which, you argue, would be absurd in individual
+relations, we defy you to extend, even in speculation, to transactions
+between families, towns, counties, states. By your own avowal, it is
+applicable to international relations only.
+
+And this is why you are obliged to repeat daily: "Principles are not
+in their nature absolute. That which is _well_ in the individual, the
+family, the county, the state, is _evil_ in the nation. That which is
+_good_ in detail--such as, to purchase rather than to produce, when
+purchase is more advantageous than production--is bad in the mass. The
+political economy of individuals is not that of nations," and other
+rubbish, _ejusdem farinæ_. And why all this? Look at it closely. It is
+in order to prove to us that we, consumers, are your property, that
+we belong to you body and soul, that you have an exclusive right to
+our stomachs and limbs, and it is for you to nourish us and clothe us
+at 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 of
+extraction!
+
+
+
+
+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 of
+view of producers only, have arrived at this double formula:
+
+"Governments ought to dispose of the consumers subject to the
+influence of their laws, in favor of national labor."
+
+"They should render distant consumers subject to their laws, in order
+to 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 of
+which is:
+
+"A people impoverishes itself when it imports, and enriches itself
+when it exports."
+
+Of course, if every foreign purchase is a tribute paid, a loss, it is
+perfectly evident we must restrain, even prohibit, importations.
+
+And if all foreign sales are tribute received, profit, it is quite
+natural 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 two
+consequences of one identical principle. Now, it is impossible not to
+recognize that according to this doctrine, general utility rests on
+_monopoly_, or interior spoliation, and on _conquest_, or exterior
+spoliation.
+
+Let us enter one of the cabins among the Adirondacks. The father of
+the family has received for his work only a slender salary. The icy
+northern blast makes his half naked children shiver, the fire is
+extinguished, and the table bare. There are wool, and wood, and coal,
+just over the St. Lawrence; but these commodities are forbidden to the
+family of the poor day-laborer, for the other side of the river is no
+longer the United States. The foreign pine-logs may not gladden the
+hearth of his cabin; his children may not know the taste of Canadian
+bread, the wool of Upper Canada will not bring back warmth to their
+benumbed limbs. General utility wills it so. All very well! but
+acknowledge that here it contradicts justice. To dispose by
+legislation of consumers, to limit them to the products of national
+labor, is to encroach upon their liberty, to forbid them a resource
+(exchange) in which there is nothing contrary to morality; in one
+word, it is to do them injustice.
+
+"Yet this is necessary," it is said, "under the penalty of seeing
+national labor stopped, under the penalty of striking a fatal blow at
+public prosperity."
+
+The writers of the protectionist school arrive then at this sad
+conclusion; that there is a radical incompatibility between justice
+and utility.
+
+On the other side, if nations are interested in selling, and not in
+buying, violent action and reaction are the natural condition of
+their relations, for each will seek to impose its products on all, and
+all will do their utmost endeavor to reject the products of each.
+
+As a sale, in effect, implies a purchase, and since, according to this
+doctrine, to sell is to benefit, as to buy is to injure, every
+international transaction implies the amelioration of one people, and
+the deterioration of another.
+
+But, on one side, men are fatally impelled towards that which profits
+them: on the contrary, they resist instinctively whatever injures
+them; whence we must conclude that every people bears within itself a
+natural force of expansion, and a not less natural power of
+resistance, which are equally prejudicial to all the others; or, in
+other terms, that antagonism and war are the natural constitution of
+human society!
+
+So that the theory which we are discussing may be summed up in these
+two axioms:
+
+"Utility is incompatible with justice at home,"
+
+"Utility is incompatible with peace abroad."
+
+Now that which astonishes us, which confounds us, is, that a
+publicist, a statesman, who has sincerely adhered to an economic
+doctrine whose principle clashes so violently with other incontestable
+principles, could enjoy one moment's calm and repose of mind. As for
+us, it seems to us, that if we had penetrated into science by this
+entrance, if we did not clearly perceive that liberty, utility,
+justice, peace, are things not only compatible, but closely allied
+together, so to say, identical with each other, we would try to forget
+all we had learned; we would say to ourselves:
+
+"How could God will that men shall attain prosperity only through
+injustice and war? How could He will that they may remove war and
+injustice only by renouncing their own well-being?"
+
+Does not the science which has conducted us to the horrible blasphemy
+which this alternative implies deceive us by false lights; and shall
+we dare take on ourselves to make it the basis of legislation for a
+great people? And when a long succession of illustrious philosophers
+have brought together more comforting results from this same science,
+to which they have consecrated their whole lives; when they affirm
+that Liberty and Utility are reconciled with Justice and Peace, that
+all these grand principles follow infinite parallels, without
+clashing, throughout all eternity; have they not in their favor the
+presumption which results from all we know of the goodness and the
+wisdom of God, manifested in the sublime harmony of the material
+creation? Ought we lightly to believe, against such a presumption, and
+in face of so many imposing authorities, that it has pleased this same
+God to introduce antagonism and a discord into the laws of the moral
+world?
+
+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 fellow
+citizens the impious system to which such reasoning conducts us, we
+had better go over the whole chain, and assure ourselves that there is
+no point on the way where we may have gone astray.
+
+And if, after a faithful examination, twenty times recommenced, we
+should always return to this frightful conclusion, that we must choose
+between 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 our
+country, leaving to the men of another time the burden and the
+responsibility of a choice so difficult.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XV.
+
+RECIPROCITY AGAIN.
+
+
+The protectionists ask, "Are we sure that the foreigner will purchase
+as much from us, as he will sell to us? What reason have we to think
+that the English producer will come to us rather than to any other
+nation on the globe to look for the productions he may need; and for
+productions equivalent in value to his own exportations to this
+country?"
+
+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 ten
+thousand perhaps, where there is a direct barter of product for
+product? Since there has been money in the world, has any cultivator
+ever said, "I wish to buy shoes, hats, advice, instruction, from that
+shoemaker, hatter, lawyer, and professor only, who will purchase from
+me 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 produced
+wheat. He throws it into the widest national circulation he can find
+for it, and receives in exchange, what? Some dollars; that is to say
+bills, bonds, infinitely divisible, by means of which it becomes
+lawful for him to withdraw from national circulation, whenever he
+thinks it advisable, and by just agreement, such articles as he may
+need or wish. In fine, at the end of the operation he will have
+withdrawn 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 his
+products, and from which he draws his returns. He has not to inquire
+whether what he delivers up for general circulation is purchased by a
+fellow-countryman or a foreigner; whether the goods he receives came
+to him from a Frenchman or an Englishman; whether the objects for
+which, in accordance with his needs, he, in the end, exchanges his
+bills, are made on this or that side of the Atlantic or the St.
+Lawrence. With each individual there is always an exact balance
+between what he puts into and what he draws out of the grand common
+reservoir; and if that is true of each individual, it is true of the
+nation 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 his
+sales and his purchases, and has consequently more chances of doing
+well by both.
+
+This objection is made: "If every one should agree that they would not
+withdraw from circulation any of the products of a specified
+individual, he in turn would sustain the misfortune of being able to
+draw nothing out. The same of a nation."
+
+ANSWER.--If the nation cannot draw out of the mass, it will
+no longer contribute to it: it will work for itself. It will be
+compelled to that which you would impose on it in advance: that is to
+say, isolation.
+
+And this will be the ideal of prohibitive government. Is it not
+amusing that you inflict upon it, at once and already, the misfortune
+of this system, in the fear that it runs the risk of getting there
+some day without you?
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XVI.
+
+OBSTRUCTED RIVERS PLEAD FOR THE PROHIBITIONISTS.
+
+
+Some years ago, when the Spanish Cortes were discussing a treaty with
+Portugal on improving the course of the river Douro, a deputy rose and
+said, "If the Douro is turned into a canal, transportation will be
+made at a much lower price. Portuguese cereals will sell cheaper in
+Castile, and will make a formidable opposition to our _national
+labor_. I oppose the project unless the ministers engage to raise the
+tariff in such a way as to restore the equilibrium." The assembly
+found the argument unanswerable.
+
+Three months later the same question was submitted to the Senate of
+Portugal. A noble hidalgo said: "Mr. President, the project is absurd.
+You post guards, at great expense, on the banks of the Douro, in order
+to prevent the introduction of Castilian cereals into Portugal, while,
+at the same time, you would, also, at great expense, facilitate their
+introduction. This is an inconsistency with which I cannot identify
+myself. Let the Douro pass on to our sons as our fathers left it to
+us."
+
+Now, when it is proposed to alter and confine the course of the
+Mississippi, we recall the arguments of the Iberian orators, and say
+to ourselves, if the member from St. Louis was as good an economist as
+those of Valencia, and the representatives from New Orleans as
+powerful logicians as those of Oporto, assuredly the Mississippi would
+be left
+
+     "To sleep amid its forests dank and lone,"
+
+for to improve the navigation of the Mississippi will favor the
+introduction of New Orleans products to the injury of St. Louis, and
+an inundation of the products of St. Louis to the detriment of New
+Orleans.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XVII.
+
+A NEGATIVE RAILROAD.
+
+
+We have said that when, unfortunately, we place ourselves at the point
+of view of the producer's interest, we cannot fail to clash with the
+general interest, because the producer, as such, demands only
+_efforts_, _wants_, _and obstacles_.
+
+When the Atlantic and Great Western Railway is finished, the question
+will arise, "Should connection be broken at Pittsburg?" This the
+Pittsburgers will answer affirmatively, for a multitude of reasons,
+but for this among others; the railroad from New York to St. Louis
+ought to have an interruption at Pittsburg, in order that merchandise
+and travellers compelled to stop in the city may leave in it fees to
+the hackmen, pedlars, errand-boys, consignees, hotel-keepers, etc.
+
+It is clear, that here again the interest of the agent of labor is
+placed before the interest of the consumer.
+
+But if Pittsburg ought to profit by the interruption, and if the
+profit is conformable with public interest, Harrisburg, Dayton,
+Indianapolis, Columbus, much more all the intermediate points, ought
+to demand stoppages, and that in the general interest, in the widely
+extended interest of national labor, for the more they are multiplied,
+the more will consignments, commissions, transportations, be
+multiplied on all points of the line. With this system we arrive at a
+railroad of successive stoppages, to a _negative railroad_.
+
+Whether the protectionists wish it or not, it is not the less certain
+that the principle of restriction is the same as the principle of
+gaps, the sacrifice of the consumers to the producer, of the end to
+the means.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XVIII.
+
+THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTE PRINCIPLES.
+
+
+We cannot be too much astonished at the facility with which men resign
+themselves 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 their
+ignorance when they have brought themselves to proclaim this axiom:
+There are no absolute principles.
+
+Enter the Halls of Congress. The question under discussion is whether
+the law shall interdict or allow international exchanges.
+
+Mr. C****** rises and says:
+
+"If you tolerate these exchanges, the foreigner will inundate you with
+his products, the English with cotton and iron goods, the Nova-Scotian
+with coal, the Spaniard with wool, the Italian with silk, the Canadian
+with 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 has
+lavished on different climates will be, to you, as though they were
+not. You will not participate in the mechanical skill of the English,
+nor in the riches of the Nova-Scotian mines, in the abundance of
+Canadian pasturage, in the cheapness of Spanish labor, in the fervor
+of the Italian climate; and you will be obliged to ask through a
+forced production that which you might by exchange have obtained
+through a readier production."
+
+Assuredly, one of the senators deceives himself. But which? It is well
+worth while to ascertain; for we are not dealing with opinions only.
+You stand at the entrance of two roads; you must choose; one of them
+leads necessarily to _misery_.
+
+To escape from this embarrassment it is said: There are no absolute
+principles.
+
+This axiom, so much in vogue in our day, not only serves laziness, it
+is also in accord with ambition.
+
+If the theory of prohibition should prevail, or again, if the doctrine
+of liberty should triumph, a very small amount of law would suffice
+for our economic code. In the first case it would stand--_All foreign
+exchange is forbidden_; in the second, _All exchange with abroad is
+free_, and many great personages would lose their importance.
+
+But if exchange has not a nature proper to itself; if it is governed
+by no natural law; if it is capriciously useful or injurious; if it
+does not find its spring in the good it accomplishes, its limit when
+it ceases to do good; if its effects cannot be appreciated by those
+who execute them; in one word, if there are no absolute principles, we
+are compelled to measure, weigh, regulate transactions, to equalize
+the conditions of labor, to look for the level of profits--colossal
+task, well suited to give great entertainments, and high influence to
+those who undertake it.
+
+Here in New York are a million of human beings who would all die
+within a few days, if the abundant provisioning of nature were not
+flowing towards this great metropolis.
+
+Imagination takes fright in the effort to appreciate the immense
+multiplicity of articles which must cross the Bay, the Hudson, the
+Harlem, and the East rivers, to-morrow, if the lives of its
+inhabitants are not to become the prey of famine, riot, and pillage.
+Yet, as we write, all are sleeping; and their quiet slumbers are not
+disturbed for a moment by the thought of so frightful a perspective.
+On the other hand, forty-five States and Territories have worked
+to-day, without concert, without mutual understanding, to provision
+New York. How is it that every day brings in what is needed, neither
+more nor less, to this gigantic market? What is the intelligent and
+secret power which presides over the astonishing regularity of
+movements so complicated--a regularity in which each one has a faith
+so undoubting, though comfort and life are at stake.
+
+This power is an _absolute principle_, the principle of freedom of
+operation, the principle of free conduct.
+
+We have faith in that innate light which Providence has placed in the
+hearts of all men, to which he has confided the preservation and
+improvement of our race-_interest_ (since we must call it by its
+name), which is so active, so vigilant, so provident, when its action
+is free. What would become of you, inhabitants of New York, if a
+Congressional majority should take a fancy to substitute for this
+power the combinations of their genius, however superior it may be
+supposed to be; if they imagined they could submit this prodigious
+mechanism to its supreme direction, unite all its resources in their
+own hands, and decide when, where, how, and on what conditions
+everything should be produced, transported, exchanged, and consumed?
+Ah! though there may be much suffering within your bounds, though
+misery, despair, and perhaps hungry exhaustion may cause more tears to
+flow than your ardent charity can dry, it is probable, it is certain,
+we dare to affirm, that the arbitrary intervention of government would
+multiply these sufferings infinitely, and would extend to you all,
+those evils which at present are confined to a small portion of your
+number.
+
+We all have faith in this principle where our internal transactions
+are concerned; why should we not have faith in the same principle
+applied to our international operations, which are, assuredly, less
+numerous, less delicate, and less complicated. And if it is not
+necessary that the Mayor and Common Council of New York should
+regulate our industries, weigh our change, our profits, and our
+losses, occupy themselves with the regulation of prices, equalize the
+conditions of our labor in internal commerce--why is it necessary that
+the custom-house, proceeding on its fiscal mission, should pretend to
+exercise protective action upon our exterior commerce?
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XIX.
+
+NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE.
+
+
+Among the arguments which are considered of weight in favor of the
+restriction system, we must not forget that drawn from national
+independence.
+
+"What shall we do in case of war," say they, "if we have placed
+ourselves at the mercy of Great Britain for iron and coal?"
+
+English monopolists did not fail on their side to exclaim, when the
+corn-laws were repealed, "What will become of Great Britain in time of
+war 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 the
+foreigner depends on us. This is the very essence of _society_. We do
+not place ourselves in a state of independence by breaking natural
+relations, but in a state of isolation.
+
+Remark also: we isolate ourselves in the anticipation of war; but the
+very act of isolation is the commencement of war. It renders it more
+easy, less burdensome, therefore less unpopular. Let nations become
+permanent recipient customers each of the other, let the interruption
+of their relations inflict upon them the double suffering of privation
+and surfeit, and they will no longer require the powerful navies
+which ruin them, the great armies which crush them; the peace of the
+world will no longer be compromised by the caprice of a Napoleon or of
+a 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) for
+proposing interest, vile and prosaic interest, as a foundation for the
+fraternity of nations. It would be preferred that it should have its
+foundation in charity, in love, even in self-renunciation, and that,
+demolishing the material comfort of man, it should have the merit of a
+generous sacrifice.
+
+When shall we have done with such puerile talk? When shall we banish
+charlatanry from science? When shall we cease to manifest this
+disgusting contradiction between our writings and our conduct? We hoot
+at 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 that
+that thing is good in itself), as if interest were not the necessary,
+eternal, indestructible instrument to which Providence has intrusted
+human perfectibility. Would not one suppose us all angels of
+disinterestedness? And is it supposed that the public does not see
+with disgust that this affected language blackens precisely those
+pages for which it is compelled to pay highest? Affectation is truly
+the malady of this age.
+
+What! because comfort and peace are correlative things; because it has
+pleased 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 of
+happiness. You wish peace only so far as it is destructive to comfort;
+and liberty burdens you because it imposes no sacrifices on you. If
+self-renunciation has so many claims for you, who prevents your
+carrying 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 to
+impose it on humanity as a principle is the height of absurdity, for
+the abnegation of everything is the sacrifice of everything--it is
+evil 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 rendering
+obedience to its motive-power, which is, whether they will or no,
+_interest_. After all, it is singular enough to see sentiments of the
+most sublime abnegation invoked in favor of plunder itself. Just see
+to what this ostentatious disinterestedness tends. These men, so
+poetically delicate that they do not wish for peace itself, if it is
+founded on the base interest of men, put their hands in the pockets of
+others, and, above all, of the poor; for what section of the tariff
+protects the poor?
+
+Well, gentlemen, dispose according to your own judgment of what
+belongs to yourselves, but allow us also to dispose of the fruit of
+the sweat of our brows, to avail ourselves of exchange at our own
+pleasure. 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 acts
+proceeding from the same doctrine.
+
+We see men who clap their hands when a great invention is made known
+to the world, who nevertheless adhere to the protective system. Such
+men are highly inconsistent.
+
+With what do they upbraid freedom of commerce? With getting foreigners
+more skilful or better situated than ourselves to produce articles,
+which, but for them, we should produce ourselves. In one word, they
+accuse us of damaging national labor.
+
+Might they not as well reproach machines for accomplishing, by natural
+agents, 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 American
+laborer, is, in respect to the latter, a veritable economic machine,
+which injures him by competition. In the same manner, a machine which
+executes a piece of work at a less price than can be done by a certain
+number of arms, is, relatively to those arms, a true competing
+foreigner, who paralyzes them by his rivalry.
+
+If, then, it is needful to protect national labor against the
+competition of foreign labor, it is not less so, to protect human
+labor against the rivalry of mechanical labor.
+
+So, he who adheres to the protective policy, if he has but a small
+amount of logic in his brain, must not stop when he has prohibited
+foreign products; he must farther proscribe the shuttle and the
+plough.
+
+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 to
+the inventive power of the human mind.
+
+Hear such a Conservative:--"One of the strongest arguments against
+liberty of commerce, and the too great employment of machines, is,
+that very many workmen are deprived of work, either by foreign
+competition, which is destructive to their manufactures, or by
+machines, which take the place of men in the workshops."
+
+This gentleman perfectly sees the analogy, or rather, let us say, the
+identity, existing between importations and machines; that is the
+reason he proscribes both: and truly there is some pleasure in having
+to do with reasonings, which, even in error, pursue an argument to the
+end.
+
+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 of
+labor 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, on
+the contrary, we prove _a fact_, that mechanical and hand work
+co-exist in a greater degree among wealthy nations than among savages,
+we must necessarily conclude that these two powers do not exclude each
+other.
+
+It is not easy to explain how a thinking being can taste repose in
+presence of this dilemma:
+
+Either--"The inventions of man do not injure labor, as general facts
+attest, since there are more of both among the English and Americans
+than among the Hottentots and Cherokees. In that case I have made a
+false reckoning, though I know neither where nor when I got astray. I
+should commit the crime of treason to humanity if I should introduce
+my error into the legislation of my country."
+
+Or else--"The discoveries of the mind limit the work of the arms, as
+some particular facts seem to indicate; for I see daily a machine do
+the labor of from twenty to a hundred workmen, and thus I am forced to
+prove a flagrant, eternal, incurable antithesis between the
+intellectual and physical ability of man; between his progress and his
+comfort; and I cannot forbear saying that the Creator of man ought to
+have given him either reason or arms, moral force, or brutal force,
+but that he has played with him in conferring upon him opposing
+faculties which destroy one another."
+
+The difficulty is pressing. Do you know how they get rid of it? By
+this singular apothegm:
+
+"In political economy there are no absolute principles."
+
+In intelligible and vulgar language, that means: "I do not know where
+is the true nor the false; I am ignorant of what constitutes general
+good or evil; I give myself no trouble about it. The only law which I
+consent to recognize, is the immediate effect of each measure upon my
+personal comfort."
+
+No absolute principles! You might as well say, there are no absolute
+facts; for principles are only the summing up of well proven facts.
+
+Machines, importations, have certainly consequences. These
+consequences are good or bad. On this point there may be difference of
+opinion. But whichever of these we adopt, we express it in one of
+these two _principles_: "machines are a benefit," or "machines are an
+evil." "Importations are favorable," or "importations are injurious."
+But to say "there are no principles," is the lowest degree of
+abasement to which the human mind can descend; and we confess we blush
+for our country when we hear so monstrous a heresy uttered in the
+presence of the American people, with their consent; that is to say,
+in the presence and with the consent of the greater part of our
+fellow-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 machines
+do not injure _human labor_, nor importations _national industry_."
+
+In an essay of this nature such demonstrations cannot be complete. Our
+aim is more to propose difficulties than to solve them; to excite
+reflection, than to satisfy it. No conviction of the mind is well
+acquired, 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 they
+judge by immediate and transitory consequences, instead of looking at
+general and final ones.
+
+The immediate effect of an ingenious machine is to economize, towards
+a given result, a certain amount of handwork. But its action does not
+stop there: inasmuch as this result is obtained with less effort, it
+is given to the public for a lower price; and the amount of the
+savings thus realized by all the purchasers, enables them to procure
+other gratifications--that is to say, to encourage handwork in
+general, equal in amount to that subtracted from the special handwork
+lately improved upon--so that the level of work has not fallen, though
+that of gratification has risen. Let us make this connection of
+consequences evident by an example.
+
+Suppose that in the United States ten millions of hats are sold at
+five dollars each: this affords to the hatters' trade an income of
+fifty millions. A machine is invented which allows hats to be afforded
+at 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 in
+satisfying other needs, and by consequence will, to that amount,
+remunerate collective industry. With these two dollars saved, John
+will purchase a pair of shoes, James a book, William a piece of
+furniture, etc. Human labor, in the general, will thus continue to be
+encouraged to the amount of fifty millions; but this sum, beside
+giving the same number of hats as before, will add the gratifications
+obtained by the twenty millions which the machine has spared. These
+gratifications are the net products which America has gained by the
+invention. It is a gratuitous gift, a tax, which the genius of man has
+imposed on Nature. We do not deny that, in the course of the change, a
+certain amount of labor may have been _displaced_; but we cannot agree
+that it has been destroyed, or even diminished. The same holds true of
+importations.
+
+We will resume the hypothesis. America makes ten millions of hats, of
+which the price was five dollars each. The foreigner invaded our
+market in furnishing us with hats at three dollars. We say that
+national labor will be not at all diminished. For it will have to
+produce to the amount of thirty millions, in order to pay for ten
+millions of hats at three dollars. And then there will remain to each
+purchaser two dollars saved on each hat, or a total of twenty
+millions, which will compensate for other enjoyments; that is to say,
+for other work. So the total of labor remains what it was; and the
+supplementary enjoyments, represented by twenty millions economized on
+the hats, will form the net profit of the importations, or of free
+trade.
+
+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 itself
+in accordance with the law of exchange, and no displacement would have
+taken place. If, on the contrary, prohibition has brought in an
+artificial and unproductive kind of work, it is prohibition, and not
+free trade, which is responsible for the inevitable displacement, in
+the transition from wrong to right.
+
+Unless, indeed, it should be contended that, because an abuse cannot
+be destroyed without hurting those who profit by it, its existence for
+a single moment is reason enough why it should endure forever.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XXI.
+
+RAW MATERIAL.
+
+
+It is said that the most advantageous commerce consists in the
+exchange of manufactured goods for raw material, because this raw
+material is a spur to _national labor_.
+
+And then the conclusion is drawn, that the best custom-house
+regulation would be that which should give the utmost possible
+facility to the entry of _raw material_, and oppose the greatest
+obstacles to articles which have received their first manipulation by
+labor.
+
+No sophism of political economy is more widely spread than the
+foregoing. It supports not only the protectionists, but, much more,
+and above all, the pretended liberalists. This is to be regretted; for
+the worst which can happen to a good cause is not to be severely
+attacked, but to be badly defended.
+
+Commercial freedom will probably have the fate of all freedom; it will
+not be introduced into our laws until after it has taken possession of
+our minds. But if it be true that a reform must be generally
+understood, in order that it may be solidly established, it follows
+that nothing can retard it so much as that which misleads public
+opinion; and what is more likely to mislead it than those writings
+which seem to favor freedom by upholding the doctrines of monopoly?
+
+Several years ago, three large cities of France--Lyons, Bordeaux, and
+Havre--were greatly agitated against the restrictive policy. The
+nation, and indeed all Europe, was moved at seeing a banner raised,
+which they supposed to be that of free trade. Alas! it was still the
+banner of monopoly; of a monopoly a little more niggardly, and a great
+deal more absurd, than that which they appeared to wish to overturn.
+Owing to the sophism which we are about to unveil, the petitioners
+merely 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 the
+protectionist: "Labor constitutes the wealth of a people, because it
+alone creates those material things which our necessities demand, and
+because general comfort depends upon these."
+
+This is the principle.
+
+"But this abundance must be the product of _national labor_. Should it
+be 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 manufacturing
+country?"
+
+This is the question.
+
+"Restrict its market to the products of its own soil, and its own
+industry."
+
+This is the end proposed.
+
+"And for this end, restrain by prohibitive duties the entrance of the
+products 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 all
+human labor. A wise economy would require that this class should not
+be taxed_."
+
+Here there is no labor; consequently no protection.
+
+"The second is composed of articles which have undergone _some
+preparation_. This preparation warrants us _in charging it with some
+tax_."
+
+Here protection commences, because, according to the petitioners,
+_national labor_ commences.
+
+"The third comprises perfected articles which can in no way serve
+national 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; this
+is _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 and
+taxation; these are the _means_ of the prohibitive system.
+
+What difference, then, is it possible to discover between the
+petitioners of Bordeaux and the advocate of American restriction? One
+alone: 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; "to
+protect national industry, _all_ national industry, manufacturing
+industry, _all_ manufacturing industry, is the idea which should
+always be kept before the people." The petitioners saw no labor
+excepting that of manufacturers; so they would admit that alone to the
+favors of protection. They said:
+
+"Raw material is _devoid of all human labor_. For that reason we
+should not tax it. Fabricated articles can no longer occupy national
+labor. We consider them the most taxable."
+
+We are not inquiring whether protection to national labor is
+reasonable. 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 or
+the raw-materialists of Bordeaux--give its just acceptation to the
+word "labor."
+
+Now, upon this ground, it must be said, the protectionist is, by all
+odds, right; for observe the dialogue which might take place between
+them:
+
+The PROTECTIONIST: "You agree that national labor ought to be
+protected. You agree that no foreign labor can be introduced into our
+market without destroying therein an equal amount of our national
+labor. 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 can
+prove to me that the value of these things is not due to labor, I will
+agree that it is useless to protect them. But, again, if I demonstrate
+to you that there is as much labor in a hundred dollars' worth of
+wool as in a hundred dollars' worth of cloth, you must acknowledge
+that protection is as much due to the one as to the other. Now, why is
+this bag of wool worth a hundred dollars? Is it not because that sum
+is the price of production? And is the price of production anything
+but that which it has been necessary to distribute in wages, salaries,
+manual labor, interest, to all the workmen and capitalists who have
+concurred in producing the article?"
+
+The RAW-MATERIALIST: "It is true, that in regard to wool, you
+may be right. But a bag of wheat, an ingot of iron, a quintal of
+coal--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 material
+objects, 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_, we
+understand _creation_, all our labors will be unproductive; that of
+merchants more so than any other, except, perhaps, that of law-makers.
+The farmer has no claim to have _created_ wheat, but he may claim to
+have created its _value_: he has transformed into wheat substances
+which in no wise resembled it, by his own labor with that of his
+ploughmen and reapers. What more does the miller effect who converts
+it into flour, the baker who turns it into bread? Because man must
+clothe himself in cloth, a host of operations is necessary. Before the
+intervention of any human labor, the true raw materials of this
+product (cloth) are air, water, gas, light, the chemical substances
+which must enter into its composition. These are truly the raw
+materials which are _untouched by human labor_; therefore, they are of
+no _value_, and I do not think of protecting them. But a first labor
+converts these substances into hay, straw, etc., a second into wool, a
+third into thread, a fourth into cloth, a fifth into clothing--who
+will dare to say that every step in this work is not _labor_, from the
+first stroke of the plough, which begins, to the last stroke of the
+needle, which terminates it? And because, in order to secure more
+celerity and perfection in the accomplishment of a definite work, such
+as a garment, the labors are divided among several classes of
+industry, you wish, by an arbitrary distinction, that the order of
+succession of these labors should be the only reason for their
+importance; so much so that the first shall not deserve even the name
+of labor, and that the last work pre-eminently, shall alone be worthy
+of the favors of protection!"
+
+The RAW-MATERIALIST: "Yes, we begin to see that wheat no more
+than wool is entirely devoid of human labor; but, at least, the
+agriculturist has not, like the manufacturer, done all by himself and
+his workmen; Nature aids him, and if there is labor, it is not all
+labor in the wheat."
+
+The PROTECTIONIST: "But all its _value_ is in the labor it
+has cost. I admit that Nature has assisted in the material formation
+of wheat. I admit even that it may be exclusively her work; but
+confess that I have controlled it by my labor; and when I sell you
+some wheat, observe this well: that it is not the work of _Nature_ for
+which I make you pay, but _my own_; and, on your supposition,
+manufactured articles would be no more the product of labor than
+agricultural ones. Does not the manufacturer, too, rely upon Nature to
+second him? Does he not avail himself of the weight of the atmosphere
+in aid of the steam-engine, as I avail myself of its humidity in aid
+of the plough? Did he create the laws of gravitation, of correlation
+of forces, of affinities?"
+
+The RAW-MATERIALIST: "Come, let the wool go too. But coal is
+assuredly the work, and the exclusive work, of Nature, _unaided by any
+human labor_."
+
+The PROTECTIONIST: "Yes, Nature made coal, but _labor_ makes
+its value. Coal had no _value_ during the thousands of years during
+which it was hidden, unknown, a hundred feet below the soil. It was
+necessary to look for it there--that is a _labor_: it was necessary to
+transport it to market; that is another _labor_: and once more, the
+price which you pay for it in the market is nothing else than the
+remuneration for these labors of digging and transportation."
+
+We see that thus far the protectionist has all the advantage on his
+side; that the value of raw material, as well as that of manufactured
+material, represents the expense of production, that is to say, of
+_labor_; that it is impossible to conceive of a material possessed of
+value while totally unindebted to human labor; that the distinction
+which the raw-materialists make is wholly futile, in theory; that, as
+a basis for an unequal division of _favors_, it would be iniquitous in
+practice; because the result would be that one-third of the people,
+engaged in manufactures, would obtain the sweets of monopoly, for the
+reason 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 import
+the materials called raw, whether they are or are not the product of
+labor, and to export manufactured articles.
+
+This is a strongly accredited opinion.
+
+"The more abundant raw materials are," said the petition from
+Bordeaux, "the more manufactories are multiplied and extended." It
+said again, that "raw material opens an unlimited field of labor to
+the inhabitants of the country from which it is imported."
+
+"Raw material," said the other petition, that from Havre, "being the
+aliment of labor, must be submitted to a _different system_, and
+admitted at once at the lowest duty." The same petition would have the
+protection on manufactured articles reduced, not one after another,
+but at an undetermined time; not to the lowest duty, but to twenty per
+cent.
+
+"Among other articles which necessity requires to be abundant and
+cheap," said the third petition, that from Lyons, "the manufacturers
+name 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 to
+say, expands ten-fold, a hundred-fold, the products of a nation.
+Thence it is reasoned, "The production of a bale of cotton causes
+workmen of all classes to earn one hundred dollars only. The
+conversion of this bale into lace collars raises their profits to ten
+thousand dollars; and will you dare to say that the nation is not
+more interested in encouraging labor worth ten thousand than that
+worth one hundred dollars?"
+
+We forget that international exchanges, no more than individual
+exchanges, work by weight or measure. We do not exchange a bale of
+cotton for a bale of lace collars, nor a pound of wool in the grease
+for a pound of wool in cashmere; but a certain value of one of these
+things _for an equal value_ of the other. Now to barter equal value
+against equal value is to barter equal work against equal work. It is
+not true, then, that the nation which gives for a hundred dollars
+cashmere or collars, gains more than the nation which delivers for a
+hundred 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 public
+cannot be robbed without being first deceived. Our ignorance is the
+"raw material" of all extortion which is practised upon us, and we may
+be sure in advance that every sophism is the forerunner of a
+spoliation. Good public, when you see a sophism, clap your hand on
+your pocket; for that is certainly the point at which it aims. What
+was the secret thought which the shipowners of Bordeaux and of Havre,
+and the manufacturers of Lyons, conceived in this distinction between
+agricultural products and manufactured articles?
+
+"It is principally in this first class (that which comprehends raw
+material _unmodified by human labor_)," said the Raw-Materialists of
+Bordeaux, "that the chief aliment of our merchant marine is found. At
+the outset, a wise economy would require that this class should not
+be taxed. The second (articles which have received some preparation)
+may be charged; the third (articles on which no more work has to be
+done) we consider the most taxable."
+
+"Consider," said those of Havre, "that it is indispensable to reduce
+all raw materials one after another to the lowest rate, in order that
+industry may successively bring into operation the naval forces which
+will furnish to it its first and indispensable means of labor." The
+manufacturers could not in exchange of politeness be behind the
+ship-owners; so the petition from Lyons demanded the free introduction
+of raw material, "in order to prove," said they, "that the interests
+of manufacturing towns are not always opposed to those of maritime
+ones!"
+
+True; but it must be said that both interests were, understood as the
+petitioners understood them, terribly opposed to the interests of the
+country, of agriculture, and of consumers.
+
+See, then, where you would come out! See the end of these subtle
+economical distinctions! You would legislate against allowing
+_perfected_ produce to traverse the ocean, in order that the much more
+expensive transportation of rough materials, dirty, loaded with waste
+matter, may offer more employment to our merchant service, and put our
+naval force into wider operation. This is what these petitioners
+termed _a wise economy_. Why did they not demand that the firs of
+Russia should be brought to them with their branches, bark, and roots;
+the gold of California in its mineral state, and the hides from Buenos
+Ayres still attached to the bones of the tainted skeleton?
+
+Industry, the navy, labor, have for their end, the general good, the
+public good. To create a useless industry, in order to favor
+superfluous transportation; to feed superfluous labor, not for the
+good of the public, but for the expense of the public--this is to
+realize a veritable begging the question. Work, in itself, is not a
+desirable thing; its result is; all work without result is a loss. To
+pay sailors for carrying useless waste matter across the sea is like
+paying them for skipping stones across the surface of the water. So we
+arrive at this result: that all economical sophisms, despite their
+infinite variety, have this in common, that they confound the means
+with the end, and develop one at the expense of the other.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XXII.
+
+METAPHORS.
+
+
+Sometimes a sophism dilates itself, and penetrates through the whole
+extent 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 from
+metaphors!" In truth, it would be difficult to say which of the two
+creates the more evil upon our planet. It is the demon, say you; he
+alone, so long as we live, puts the spirit of spoliation in our
+hearts. Yes; but he does not prevent the repression of abuses by the
+resistance of those who suffer from them. _Sophistry_ paralyzes this
+resistance. The sword which malice puts in the assailant's hand would
+be powerless, if sophistry did not break the shield upon the arm of
+the assailed; and it is with good reason that Malebranche has
+inscribed at the opening of his book, "Error is the cause of human
+misery."
+
+See how it comes to pass. Ambitious hypocrites will have some sinister
+purpose; for example, sowing national hatred in the public mind. This
+fatal germ may develop, lead to general conflagration, arrest
+civilization, pour out torrents of blood, draw upon the land the most
+terrible of scourges--_invasion_. In every case of indulgence in such
+sentiments of hatred they lower us in the opinion of nations, and
+compel those Americans, who have retained some love of justice, to
+blush for their country. Certainly these are great evils; and in order
+that the public should protect itself from the guidance of those who
+would lead it into such risks, it is only necessary to give it a clear
+view of them. How do they succeed in veiling it from them? It is by
+_metaphor_. They alter, they force, they deprave the meaning of three
+or four words, and all is done.
+
+Such a word is _invasion_ itself. An owner of an American furnace
+says, "Preserve us from the _invasion_ of English iron." An English
+landlord 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 to
+war, 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 still
+believe, and the barriers still remain.
+
+Yet what analogy is there between an exchange and an _invasion_? What
+resemblance can possibly be established between a vessel of war, which
+comes to pour fire, shot, and devastation into our cities, and a
+merchant 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 generally
+taken in bad part, because _inundations_ often ravage fields and
+crops. If, however, they deposit upon the soil a greater value than
+that which they take from it; as is the case in the inundations of the
+Nile, we might bless and deify them as the Egyptians do. Well! before
+declaiming against the inundation of foreign produces, before
+opposing to them restraining and costly obstacles, let us inquire if
+they are the inundations which ravage or those which fertilize? What
+should we think of Mehemet Ali, if, instead of building, at great
+expense, dams across the Nile for the purpose of extending its field
+of inundation, he should expend his money in digging for it a deeper
+bed, so that Egypt should not be defiled by this _foreign_ slime,
+brought down from the Mountains of the Moon? We exhibit precisely the
+same amount of reason, when we wish, by the expenditure of millions,
+to preserve our country--From what? The advantages with which Nature
+has endowed other climates.
+
+Among the metaphors which conceal an injurious theory, none is more
+common than that embodied in the words _tribute, tributary_.
+
+These words are so much used that they have become synonymous with the
+words _purchase, purchaser_, and one is used indifferently for the
+other.
+
+Yet a _tribute_ or _tax_ differs as much from _purchase_ as a theft
+from 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 a
+thousand dollars," as we do to have it remarked by our sage
+representatives, "We have paid to England the _tribute_ for a thousand
+gross of knives which she has sold to us."
+
+For the reason why Turpin's act is not a _purchase_ is, that he has
+not paid into my safe, with my consent, value equivalent to what he
+has taken from it, and the reason why the payment of five hundred
+thousand dollars, which we have made to England, is not a _tribute_,
+is simply because she has not received them gratuitously, but in
+exchange for the delivery to us of a thousand gross of knives, which
+we ourselves have judged worth five hundred thousand dollars.
+
+But is it necessary to take up seriously such abuses of language? Why
+not, when they are seriously paraded in newspapers and in books?
+
+Do not imagine that they escape from writers who are ignorant of their
+language; for one who abstains from them, we could point you to ten
+who employ them, and they persons of consideration--that is to say,
+men whose words are laws, and whose most shocking sophisms serve as
+the basis of administration for the country.
+
+A celebrated modern philosopher has added to the categories of
+Aristotle, the sophism which consists in including in one word the
+begging of the question. He cites several examples. He should have
+added the word _tributary_ to his vocabulary. In effect the question
+is, are purchases made abroad useful or injurious? "They are
+injurious," you say. And why? "Because they make us _tributary_ to the
+foreigner." Here is certainly a word which presents as a fact that
+which 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 a
+victorious enemy--other specie, also, goes out of a country to settle
+an account for merchandise. The analogy between the two cases is
+established, by taking account of the one point in which they resemble
+one another, and leaving out of view that in which they differ.
+
+This circumstance, however,--that is to say, non-reimbursement
+in the one case, and reimbursement freely agreed upon in the
+other--establishes such a difference between them, that it is not
+possible to class them under the same title. To deliver a hundred
+dollars _by compulsion_ to him who says "Stand and deliver," or
+_voluntarily_ to pay the same sum to him who sells you the object of
+your wishes--truly, these are things which cannot be made to
+assimilate. As well might you say, it is a matter of indifference
+whether you throw bread into the river or eat it, because in either
+case it is bread _destroyed_. The fault of this reasoning, as in that
+which the word _tribute_ is made to imply, consists in founding an
+exact similitude between two cases on their points of resemblance, and
+omitting those of difference.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XXIII.
+
+CONCLUSION.
+
+
+All the sophisms we have hitherto combated are connected with one
+single question: the restrictive system; and, out of pity for the
+reader, we pass by acquired rights, untimeliness, misuse of the
+currency, etc., etc.
+
+But social economy is not confined to this narrow circle. Fourierism,
+Saint-Simonism, communism, mysticism, sentimentalism, false
+philanthropy, affected aspirations to equality and chimerical
+fraternity, questions relative to luxury, to salaries, to machines, to
+the pretended tyranny of capital, to distant territorial acquisitions,
+to outlets, to conquests, to population, to association, to
+emigration, to imposts, to loans, have encumbered the field of science
+with a host of parasitical _sophisms_, which demand the hoe and the
+sickle of the diligent economist. It is not because we do not
+recognize the fault of this plan, or rather of this absence of plan.
+To attack, one by one, so many incoherent sophisms which sometimes
+clash, although more frequently one runs into the other, is to condemn
+one's self to a disorderly, capricious struggle, and to expose one's
+self to perpetual repetitions.
+
+How much we should prefer to say simply how things are, without
+occupying ourselves with the thousand aspects in which the ignorant
+see them! To explain the laws under which societies prosper or decay,
+is virtually to destroy all sophistry at once. When La Place had
+described all that can, as yet, be known of the movements of the
+heavenly bodies, he had dispersed, without even naming them, all the
+astrological dreams of the Egyptians, Greeks, and Hindoos, much more
+surely than he could have done by directly refuting them through
+innumerable volumes. Truth is one; the book which exposes it is an
+imposing 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 combats
+it does not carry within itself a principle of greatness or of
+endurance.
+
+But if the power, and perhaps the opportunity, have failed us for
+proceeding in the manner of La Place and of Say, we cannot refuse to
+believe that the form which we have adopted has, also, its modest
+utility. It appears to us especially well suited to the wants of the
+age, to the hurried moments which it can consecrate to study.
+
+A treatise has, doubtless, an incontestable superiority; but upon
+condition that it be read, meditated upon, searched into. It addresses
+itself to a select public only. Its mission is, at first, to fix, and
+afterwards to enlarge, the circle of acquired knowledge.
+
+The refutation of vulgar prejudices could not carry with it this high
+bearing. It aspires only to disencumber the route before the march of
+truth, to prepare the mind, to reform public opinion, to blunt
+dangerous tools in improper hands. It is in social economy above all,
+that these hand-to-hand struggles, these constantly recurring combats
+with 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 application
+demands a special occupation. The public profit by their labor,
+despite their ignorance of them. They do not enjoy the use of a watch
+the less, because they do not understand mechanics and astronomy. They
+are not the less carried along by the locomotive and the steamboat
+through their faith in the engineer and the pilot. We walk according
+to the laws of equilibrium without being acquainted with them.
+
+But there are sciences which exercise upon the public an influence
+proportionate with the light of the public itself, not from knowledge
+accumulated in a few exceptional heads, but from that which is
+diffused 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 have
+said: "That which spreads them is worth more than that which advances
+them." Of what consequence is it that a great man, a God even, should
+have promulgated moral laws, so long as men, imbued with false
+notions, take virtues for vices, and vices for virtues? Of what value
+is it that Smith, Say, and, according to Chamans, economists of all
+schools, have proclaimed the superiority of liberty to restraint in
+commercial transactions, if those who make the laws and those for
+whom 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, no
+one confesses himself ignorant of them. Do we wish to decide a
+question in chemistry or geometry? No one pretends to have the
+knowledge instinctively; we are not ashamed to consult Draper; we make
+no difficulty about referring to Euclid.
+
+But in social science authority is but little recognized. As such a
+one has to do daily with morals, good or bad, with hygiene, with
+economy, with politics reasonable or absurd, each one considers
+himself skilled to comment, discuss, decide, and dogmatize in these
+matters.
+
+Are you ill? There is no good nurse who does not tell you, at the
+first 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 this
+good nurse when I hear all social evils explained by these common
+phrases: "It is the superabundance of products, the tyranny of
+capital, industrial plethora," and other idle stories of which we
+cannot even say: _verba et voces prætereaque nihil_: for they are also
+fatal mistakes.
+
+From what precedes, two things result--
+
+1st. That the social sciences must abound in sophistry much more than
+the other sciences, because in them each one consults his own judgment
+or instinct alone.
+
+2d. That in these sciences sophistry is especially injurious, because
+it misleads public opinion where opinion is a power--that is, law.
+
+Two sorts of books, then, are required by these sciences; those which
+expound them, and those which propagate them; those which show the
+truth, and those which combat error.
+
+It appears to us that the inherent defect in the form of this little
+Essay--_repetition_--is that which constitutes its principal value.
+
+In the question we have treated, each sophism has, doubtless, its own
+set form, and its own range, but all have one common root, which is,
+"_forgetfulness of the interests of man, insomuch as they forget the
+interests of consumers_." To show that the thousand roads of error
+conduct to this generating sophism, is to teach the public to
+recognize it, to appreciate it--to distrust it under all
+circumstances.
+
+After all, we do not aspire to arouse convictions, but doubts.
+
+We have no expectation that in laying down the book, the reader shall
+exclaim: "_I know_." Please Heaven he may be induced to say, "_I am
+ignorant_."
+
+"I am ignorant, for I begin to believe there is something delusive in
+the 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 Result
+without 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 the
+definition which the duellist in the play gives of it."
+
+"I consider an article is increased in value by passing through
+several processes of manufacture; but, in exchange, do two equal
+values cease to be equal because the one comes from the plough and the
+other from the power-loom?"
+
+"I confess that I begin to think it singular that humanity should be
+ameliorated by shackles, or enriched by taxes: and, frankly, I should
+be relieved of a heavy weight, I should experience a pure joy, if I
+could see demonstrated, which the author assures us of, that there is
+no incompatibility between comfort and justice, between peace and
+liberty, between the extension of labor and the progress of
+intelligence."
+
+"So, without feeling satisfied by his arguments, to which I do not
+know whether to give the name of reasoning or of objections, I will
+interrogate the masters of the science."
+
+Let us terminate by a last and important observation this monograph of
+sophisms. The world does not know, as it ought, the influence which
+sophistry exerts upon it. If we must say what we think, when the Right
+of the Strongest was dethroned, sophistry placed the empire in the
+Right of the Most Cunning; and it would be difficult to say which of
+these 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 procure
+these things at the expense of another. But this other, which is the
+public, has an inclination not less strong to keep what it has
+acquired, provided it can and knows how. Spoliation, which plays so
+large 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. To
+retrace its history would be to reproduce almost entire the history of
+all nations--Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes, Persians, Egyptians,
+Greeks, Romans, Goths, Franks, Huns, Turks, Arabs, Moguls,
+Tartars--without counting that of the Spaniards in America, the
+English in India, the French in Africa, the Russians in Asia, etc.,
+etc.
+
+But, at least, among civilized nations, the men who produce wealth
+have become sufficiently numerous and sufficiently strong to defend
+it.
+
+Is that to say that they are no longer despoiled? By no means; they
+are robbed as much as ever, and, what is more, they despoil one
+another. The agent alone is changed; it is no longer by violence, but
+by stratagem, that the public wealth is seized upon.
+
+In order to rob the public, it must be deceived. To deceive it, is to
+persuade it that it is robbed for its own advantage; it is to make it
+accept fictitious services, and often worse, in exchange for its
+property. Hence sophistry, economical sophistry, political sophistry,
+and financial sophistry--and, since force is held in check, sophistry
+is not only an evil, it is the parent of other evils. So it becomes
+necessary to hold it in check, _in its turn_, and for this purpose to
+render the public more acute than the cunning; just as it has become
+more peaceful than the strong.
+
+
+
+***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WHAT IS FREE TRADE?***
+
+
+******* This file should be named 16106-8.txt or 16106-8.zip *******
+
+
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+https://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/6/1/0/16106
+
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+https://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at https://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/pglaf.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at https://www.gutenberg.org/about/contact
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit https://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/donate
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including including checks, online payments and credit card
+donations.  To donate, please visit:
+https://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     https://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
+
diff --git a/16106-8.zip b/16106-8.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b8585c5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16106-8.zip
diff --git a/16106-h.zip b/16106-h.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1d865fc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16106-h.zip
diff --git a/16106-h/16106-h.htm b/16106-h/16106-h.htm
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7da2d25
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16106-h/16106-h.htm
@@ -0,0 +1,4956 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
+<html>
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" />
+<title>The Project Gutenberg eBook of What Is Free Trade?, by Frédérick Bastiat</title>
+    <style type="text/css">
+/*<![CDATA[  XML blockout */
+<!--
+    p {  margin-top: .75em;
+         text-align: justify;
+         margin-bottom: .75em;
+         }
+    h1,h3,h4,h5,h6 {
+         text-align: center; /* all headings centered */
+         clear: both;
+         }
+      h2 { text-align:center;  margin-top: 4em; margin-bottom: 1em; }
+	  body{margin-left: 10%;
+         margin-right: 10%;
+        }
+	  hr { width: 33%;
+	 margin-top: 2em;
+	 margin-bottom: 2em;
+         margin-left: auto;
+         margin-right: auto;
+         clear: both;
+       }
+	 table {width: 100%; text-align:right}
+
+   ul.TOC  {list-style-type: none; position: relative; width: 85%;}
+	 ul{ list-style-type: none; padding: 0; margin-left: 1.5em; }
+
+	ol.RU { list-style-type: upper-roman; }
+
+    span.ralign { position: absolute; right: 0; top: auto;}
+	a:link {text-decoration: none;}
+     a:visited {text-decoration: none;}
+     a:hover {
+	text-decoration: underline;
+	color: #FF0000;
+}
+
+    .pagenum {position: absolute; left: 91%; text-indent: 0; font-weight: normal; color: gray; font-size: 7pt; text-align: right;}
+
+    .blockquot{margin-left: 5%; margin-right: 10%;}
+    .pagenum  {position: absolute; left: 92%; font-size: 0.5em; text-align: right;}
+
+    .center   {text-align: center;}
+    .smcap    {font-variant: small-caps;}
+    .u        {text-decoration: underline;}
+
+    .caption  {font-weight: bold;}
+
+    .figcenter   {margin: auto; text-align: center;}
+
+    .figleft     {float: left; clear: left; margin-left: 0; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top:
+                 1em; margin-right: 1em; padding: 0; text-align: center;}
+
+    .figright    {float: right; clear: right; margin-left: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em;
+                 margin-top: 1em; margin-right: 0; padding: 0; text-align: center;}
+
+    .footnotes { /* only use is for border, background-color of block */
+		border: dashed 1px gray;	/* comment out if not wanted */
+		background-color: #EEE;		/* comment out if not wanted */
+		padding: 0 1em 1em 1em; 	}
+    .footnote         {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;}
+    .footnote .label  {right: 84%; text-align: right;}
+    .fnanchor         {vertical-align: super; font-size: .8em; text-decoration: none;}
+
+    .poem             {margin-left:10%; margin-right:10%; text-align: left;}
+    .i20 {margin-left:3em;}
+    hr.full { width: 100%; }
+    pre      {font-size: 8pt;}
+    // -->
+    /* XML end  ]]>*/
+    </style>
+</head>
+<body>
+<h1>The Project Gutenberg eBook, What Is Free Trade?, by Frédérick Bastiat,
+Translated by Emile Walter</h1>
+<pre>
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at <a href = "https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a></pre>
+<p>Title: What Is Free Trade?</p>
+<p>       An Adaptation of Frederic Bastiat's "Sophismes Éconimiques" </p>
+<p>       Designed for the American Reader</p>
+<p>Author: Frédérick Bastiat</p>
+<p>Release Date: June 22, 2005  [eBook #16106]</p>
+<p>[Date last updated: January 1, 2006]</p>
+<p>Language: English</p>
+<p>Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1</p>
+<p>***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WHAT IS FREE TRADE?***</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<h4>E-text prepared by Sankar Viswanathan<br />
+    and the Project Gutenberg Online Distributed Proofreading Team (https://www.pgdp.net)<br />
+    from page images generously made available by<br />
+    the Making of America Collection of the University of Michigan Library
+    <a href="http://www.hti.umich.edu/m/moagrp/">(http://www.hti.umich.edu/m/moagrp/)</a></h4>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<table border="0" cellpadding="10" style="background-color: #ccccff;">
+  <tr>
+    <td valign="top">
+      Note:
+    </td>
+    <td align="left">
+      Images of the original pages are available through the Making of
+      America Collection of the University of Michigan Library. See
+      <a href="http://www.hti.umich.edu/m/moagrp/">
+      http://www.hti.umich.edu/m/moagrp/</a>
+    </td>
+  </tr>
+</table>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<hr class="full" />
+<p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_i" id="Page_i"></a>[i]</span> </p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<h1><span class="smcap">What Is Free Trade?</span></h1>
+<h3>AN ADAPTATION OF
+  <br />
+  <br />
+  <span class="smcap">Frederick Bastiat's "Sophismes &Eacute;conomiques."</span><br />
+<br />
+  DESIGNED FOR THE AMERICAN READER.<br />
+  <br />
+  BY <br />
+</h3>
+<h3>EMILE WALTER,</h3>
+<h4>A WORKER.</h4>
+<div class="center">
+<img src="images/image_001.jpg" alt="Seal" width="200" height="127" />
+</div>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<h4>NEW YORK:</h4>
+
+  <h3>G. P. PUTNAM &amp; SON, 661 BROADWAY.</h3>
+  <h4>1867.</h4>
+
+<p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_ii" id="Page_ii"></a>[ii]</span> </p>
+
+
+
+<h6><span class="smcap">The New York Printing Company,</span></h6>
+
+<h6>81, 83, <i>and</i>&nbsp;&nbsp;85<i>&nbsp;Centre Street</i>,</h6>
+
+<h6><span class="smcap">New York.</span></h6>
+<p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_v" id="Page_v"></a>[v]</span> </p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+
+
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<h2><a name="CONTENTS" id="CONTENTS"></a>CONTENTS.</h2>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<ul class="TOC">
+<li><span class="ralign">PAGE</span></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li><b>INTRODUCTION.</b>
+<span class="ralign"><a href="#Page_vii">vii</a></span></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li><b>CHAPTER I.<span class="i20">&nbsp; Plenty and Scarcity</span></b>
+<span class="ralign"><a href="#Page_11">11</a></span></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li><b>CHAPTER II.<span class="i20"> Obstacles to Wealth and Causes of Wealth</span></b>
+<span class="ralign"><a href="#Page_16">16</a></span></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li><b>CHAPTER III.<span class="i20">Effort&mdash;Result</span></b>
+<span class="ralign"><a href="#Page_20">20</a></span></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li><b>CHAPTER IV.<span class="i20">Equalizing of the Facilities of Production</span></b>
+<span class="ralign"><a href="#Page_27">27</a></span></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li><b>CHAPTER V.<span class="i20"> Our Productions are Overloaded with Internal Taxes</span></b>
+<span class="ralign"><a href="#Page_48">48</a></span></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li><b>CHAPTER VI.<span class="i20">Balance of Trade</span></b>
+<span class="ralign"><a href="#Page_55">55</a></span></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li><b>CHAPTER VII.<span class="i20">A Petition</span></b>
+<span class="ralign"><a href="#Page_72">72</a></span></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li><b>CHAPTER VIII.<span class="i20">Discriminating Duties</span></b>
+<span class="ralign"><a href="#Page_79">79</a></span></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li><b>CHAPTER IX.<span class="i20"> A Wonderful Discovery</span></b>
+<span class="ralign"><a href="#Page_81">81</a></span></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li><b>CHAPTER X.<span class="i20">&nbsp; Reciprocity</span></b>
+<span class="ralign"><a href="#Page_86">86</a></span></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li><b>CHAPTER XI.<span class="i20"> Absolute Prices</span></b>
+<span class="ralign"><a href="#Page_90">90</a></span></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li><b>CHAPTER XII.<span class="i20">Does Protection raise the Rate of Wages?</span></b>
+<span class="ralign"><a href="#Page_95">95</a></span></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li><b>CHAPTER XIII.<span class="i20">Theory and Practice</span></b>
+<span class="ralign"><a href="#Page_102">102</a></span></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li><b>CHAPTER XIV.<span class="i20">Conflict of Principles</span></b>
+<span class="ralign"><a href="#Page_110">110</a></span></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li><b>CHAPTER XV.<span class="i20">Reciprocity Again</span></b>
+<span class="ralign"><a href="#Page_115">115</a></span></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li><b>CHAPTER XVI.<span class="i20">Obstructed Rivers plead for the Prohibitionists</span></b>
+<span class="ralign"><a href="#Page_118">118</a></span></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li><b>CHAPTER XVII.<span class="i20">A Negative Railroad</span></b>
+<span class="ralign"><a href="#Page_120">120</a></span></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li><b>CHAPTER XVIII.<span class="i20">There are no Absolute Principles</span></b>
+<span class="ralign"><a href="#Page_122">122</a></span></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li><b>CHAPTER XIX.<span class="i20">National Independence</span></b>
+<span class="ralign"><a href="#Page_126">126</a></span></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li><b>CHAPTER XX.<span class="i20"> Human Labor&mdash;National Labor</span></b>
+<span class="ralign"><a href="#Page_129">129</a></span></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li><b>CHAPTER XXI.<span class="i20">Raw Material</span></b>
+<span class="ralign"><a href="#Page_136">136</a></span></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li><b>CHAPTER XXII.<span class="i20">Metaphors</span></b>
+<span class="ralign"><a href="#Page_147">147</a></span></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+<li><b>CHAPTER XXII.<span class="i20">Conclusion</span></b>
+<span class="ralign"><a href="#Page_152">152</a></span></li>
+<li>&nbsp;</li>
+</ul>
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_vii" id="Page_vii"></a>[vii]</span> </p>
+<h2><a name="INTRODUCTION" id="INTRODUCTION"></a>INTRODUCTION.</h2>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>Years ago I could not rid my mind of the notion that Free Trade meant
+some cunning policy of British statesmen designed to subject the world
+to British interests. Coming across Bastiat's inimitable <i>Sophismes
+Economiques</i> I learnt to my surprise that there were Frenchmen also
+who advocated Free Trade, and deplored the mischiefs of the Protective
+Policy. This made me examine the subject, and think a good deal upon
+it; and the result of this thought was the unalterable conviction I
+now hold&mdash;a conviction that harmonizes with every noble belief that
+our race entertains; with Civil and Religious Freedom for All,
+regardless of race or color; with the Harmony of God's works; with
+Peace and Goodwill to all Mankind. That conviction  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_viii" id="Page_viii"></a>[viii]</span> is this: that to
+make taxation the incident of protection to special interests, and
+those engaged in them, is robbery to the rest of the community, and
+subversive of National Morality and National Prosperity. I believe
+that taxes are necessary for the support of government, I believe they
+must be raised by levy, I even believe that some customs taxes may be
+more practicable and economical than some internal taxes; but I am
+entirely opposed to making anything the object of taxation but the
+revenue required by government for its economical maintenance.</p>
+
+<p>I do not espouse Free Trade because it is British, as some suppose it
+to be. Independent of other things, that would rather set me against
+it than otherwise, because generally those things which best fit
+European society ill befit our society&mdash;the structure of each being so
+different. Free Trade is no more British than any other kind of
+freedom: indeed, Great Britain has only followed quite older examples
+in adopting it, as for instance the republics of Venice and Holland,
+both of which countries owed their extraordinary prosperity to the
+fact of their having set the  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_ix" id="Page_ix"></a>[ix]</span> example of relaxing certain absurd
+though time-honored restrictions on commerce. I espouse Free Trade
+because it is just, it is unselfish, and it is profitable.</p>
+
+<p>For these reasons have I, a Worker, deeply interested in the welfare
+of the fellow-workers who are my countrymen, lent to Truth and Justice
+what little aid I could, by adapting Bastiat's keen and cogent Essay
+to the wants of readers on this side of the Atlantic.</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Emile Walter</span>, <i>the Worker</i>.</p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">New York</span>, 1866.</p>
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+
+
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11"></a>[11]</span></p>
+<h2>WHAT IS FREE TRADE?</h2>
+
+
+
+
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_I" id="CHAPTER_I"></a>CHAPTER I.</h2>
+
+<h3>PLENTY AND SCARCITY.</h3>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>Which is better for man and for society&mdash;abundance or scarcity?</p>
+
+<p>What! Can such a question be asked? Has it ever been pretended, is it
+possible to maintain, that scarcity is better than plenty?</p>
+
+<p>Yes: not only has it been maintained, but it is still maintained.
+Congress says so; many of the newspapers (now happily diminishing in
+number) say so; a large portion of the public say so; indeed, the
+<i>scarcity theory</i> is by far the more popular one of the two.</p>
+
+<p>Has not Congress passed laws which prohibit the importation of foreign
+productions by the maintenance of excessive duties? Does not the
+<i>Tribune</i> maintain that it is advantageous to limit the supply of iron
+manufactures and cotton fabrics, by restraining any one from bringing
+them to market, but the manufacturers in New England and Pennsylvania?
+Do we not hear it complained every day: Our importations are too
+large; We are buying too much from abroad? Is there  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12"></a>[12]</span> not an
+Association of Ladies, who, though they have not kept their promise,
+still, promised each other not to wear any clothing which was
+manufactured in other countries?</p>
+
+<p>Now tariffs can only raise prices by diminishing the quantity of goods
+offered for sale. Therefore, statesmen, editors, and the public
+generally, believe that scarcity is better than abundance.</p>
+
+<p>But why is this; why should men be so blind as to maintain that
+scarcity is better than plenty?</p>
+
+<p>Because they look at <i>price</i>, but forget <i>quantity</i>.</p>
+
+<p>But let us see.</p>
+
+<p>A man becomes rich in proportion to the remunerative nature of his
+labor; that is to say, <i>in proportion as he sells his produce at a
+high price</i>. The price of his produce is high in proportion to its
+scarcity. It is plain, then, that, so far as regards him at least,
+scarcity enriches him. Applying, in turn, this manner of reasoning to
+each class of laborers individually, the <i>scarcity theory</i> is deduced
+from it. To put this theory into practice, and in order to favor each
+class of labor, an artificial scarcity is produced in every kind of
+produce by prohibitory tariffs, by restrictive laws, by monopolies,
+and by other analogous measures.</p>
+
+<p>In the same manner it is observed that when an article is abundant, it
+brings 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 will
+always seek to force itself into practice, we see the laws of the
+country struggling to prevent abundance.</p><p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13"></a>[13]</span> </p>
+
+<p>Now, what is the defect in this argument? Something tells us that it
+must be wrong; but <i>where</i> is it wrong? Is it false? No. And yet it is
+wrong? Yes. But how? <i>It is incomplete</i>.</p>
+
+<p>Man produces in order to consume. He is at once producer and consumer.
+The argument given above, considers him only under the first point of
+view. Let us look at him in the second character, and the conclusion
+will be different. We may say:</p>
+
+<p>The consumer is rich in proportion as he <i>buys</i> at a low price. He
+buys at a low price in proportion to the abundance of the articles in
+demand; <i>abundance</i>, then, enriches him. This reasoning, extended to
+all consumers, must lead to the <i>theory of abundance</i>.</p>
+
+<p>Which theory is right?</p>
+
+<p>Can we hesitate to say? Suppose that by following out the <i>scarcity
+theory</i>, suppose that through prohibitions and restrictions we were
+compelled not only to make our own iron, but to grow our own coffee;
+in short, to obtain everything with difficulty and great outlay of
+labor. We then take an account of stock and see what our savings are.</p>
+
+<p>Afterward, to test the other theory, suppose we remove the duties on
+iron, the duties on coffee, and the duties on everything else, so that
+we shall obtain everything with as little difficulty and outlay of
+labor as possible. If we then take an account of stock, is it not
+certain that we shall find more iron in the country, more coffee, more
+everything else?</p>
+
+<p>Choose then, fellow-countrymen, between scarcity and abundance,
+between much and little, between Protection and Free Trade. You now
+know which  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14"></a>[14]</span> theory is the right one, for you know the fruits they each
+bear.</p>
+
+<p>But, it will be answered, if we are inundated with foreign goods and
+produce, our specie, our precious product of California, our dollars,
+will leave the country.</p>
+
+<p>Well, what of that? Man is not fed with coin. He does not dress in
+gold, nor warm himself with silver. What does it matter, then, whether
+there be more or less specie in the country, provided there be more
+bread in the cupboard, more meat in the larder, more clothes in the
+wardrobe, and more fuel in the cellar?</p>
+
+<p>Again, it will be objected, if we accustom ourselves to depend upon
+England for iron, what shall we do in case of a war with that country?</p>
+
+<p>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 no
+furnaces in blast, no forges ready. True; neither will there be any
+time when war shall occur that the country will not be already filled
+with all the iron we shall want until we can make it here. Did the
+Confederates in the late war lack for iron? Why, then, shall we
+manufacture our own staples and bolts because we may some day or other
+have a quarrel with our ironmonger!</p>
+
+<p>To sum up:</p>
+
+<p>A radical antagonism exists between the vender and the buyer.</p>
+
+<p>The former wishes the article offered to be <i>scarce</i>, and the supply
+to be small, so that the price may be high.</p>
+
+<p>The latter wishes it <i>abundant</i> and the supply to be large, so that
+the price may be low.</p><p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15"></a>[15]</span> </p>
+
+<p>The laws, which should at least remain neutral, take part for the
+vender against the buyer; for the producer against the consumer; for
+high against low prices; for scarcity against abundance; for
+protection against free trade. They act, if not intentionally, at
+least logically, upon the principle that <i>a nation is rich in
+proportion as it is in want of everything</i>.</p>
+
+
+
+
+<p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16"></a>[16]</span> </p>
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_II" id="CHAPTER_II"></a>CHAPTER II.</h2>
+
+<h3>OBSTACLES TO WEALTH AND CAUSES OF WEALTH.</h3>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>Man is naturally in a state of entire destitution.</p>
+
+<p>Between this state, and the satisfying of his wants, there exist a
+number of obstacles which it is the object of labor to surmount.</p>
+
+<p>I wish to make a journey of some hundred miles. But between the point
+of my departure and my destination there are interposed mountains,
+rivers, swamps, forests, robbers; in a word&mdash;<i>obstacles</i>. To overcome
+these obstacles it is necessary that I should bestow much labor and
+great efforts in opposing them; or, what is the same thing, if others
+do it for me, I must pay them the value of their exertions. <span class="smcap">It is
+evident that I would have been better off had these obstacles never
+existed</span>. Remember this.</p>
+
+<p>Through the journey of life, in the long series of days from the
+cradle to the tomb, man has many difficulties to oppose him. Hunger,
+thirst, sickness, heat, cold, are so many obstacles scattered along
+his road. In a state of isolation he would be obliged to combat them
+all by hunting, fishing, agriculture, spinning, weaving, architecture,
+etc., and it is very evident that it would be better for him that
+these difficulties should exist to a less degree, or even not at all.
+In a state  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17"></a>[17]</span> of society he is not obliged personally to struggle with
+each 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. This
+doing one kind of labor for another, is called the division of labor.</p>
+
+<p>Considering mankind as a whole, <i>let us remember once more that it
+would be better for society that these obstacles should be as weak and
+as few as possible</i>.</p>
+
+<p>But mark how, in viewing this simple truth from a narrow point of
+view, we come to believe that obstacles, instead of being a
+disadvantage, are actually a source of wealth!</p>
+
+<p>If we examine closely and in detail the phenomena of society and the
+private interests of men <i>as modified by the division of labor</i>, we
+perceive, without difficulty, how it has happened that wants have been
+confounded with riches, and the obstacle with the cause.</p>
+
+<p>The separation of occupations, which results from the division of
+labor, causes each man, instead of struggling against <i>all</i>
+surrounding obstacles, to combat only <i>one</i>; the effort being made not
+for himself alone, but for the benefit of his fellows, who, in their
+turn, render a similar service to him.</p>
+
+<p>It hence results that this man looks upon the obstacle which he has
+made it his profession to combat for the benefit of others, as the
+immediate cause of his riches. The greater, the more serious, the more
+stringent, may be this obstacle, the more he is remunerated for the
+conquering of it, by those who are relieved by his labors.</p>
+
+<p>A physician, for instance, does not busy himself in baking his bread,
+or in manufacturing his clothing and  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18"></a>[18]</span> his instruments; others do it
+for him, and he, in return, combats the maladies with which his
+patients are afflicted. The more dangerous and frequent these maladies
+are, the more others are willing, the more, even, are they forced, to
+work in his service. Disease, then, which is an obstacle to the
+happiness of mankind, becomes to him the source of his comforts. The
+reasoning of all producers is, in what concerns themselves, the same.
+As the doctor draws his profits from <i>disease</i>, so does the ship-owner
+from the obstacle called <i>distance</i>; the agriculturist from that named
+<i>hunger</i>; the cloth manufacturer from <i>cold</i>; the schoolmaster lives
+upon <i>ignorance</i>, the jeweler upon <i>vanity</i>, the lawyer upon <i>cupidity
+and breach of faith</i>. Each profession has then an immediate interest
+in the continuation, even in the extension, of the particular obstacle
+to which its attention has been directed.</p>
+
+<p>Theorists hence go on to found a system upon these individual
+interests, and say: Wants are riches: Labor is riches: The obstacle to
+well-being is well-being: To multiply obstacles is to give food to
+industry.</p>
+
+<p>Then comes the statesman; and as the developing and propagating of
+obstacles is the developing and propagating of riches, what more
+natural than that he should bend his efforts to that point? He says,
+for instance: If we prevent a large importation of iron, we create a
+difficulty in procuring it. This obstacle severely felt, obliges
+individuals to pay, in order to relieve themselves from it. A certain
+number of our citizens, giving themselves up to the combating of this
+obstacle, will thereby make their fortunes. In proportion, too, as the
+obstacle is great, and the mineral  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19"></a>[19]</span> scarce, inaccessible, and of
+difficult and distant transportation, in the same proportion will be
+the number of laborers maintained by the various branches of this
+industry.</p>
+
+<p>The same reasoning will lead to the proscription of machinery.</p>
+
+<p>Here are men who are at a loss how to dispose of their petroleum. This
+is an obstacle which other men set about removing for them by the
+manufacture of casks. It is fortunate, say our statesmen, that this
+obstacle exists, since it occupies a portion of the labor of the
+nation, and enriches a certain number of our citizens. But here is
+presented to us an ingenious machine, which cuts down the oak, squares
+it, makes it into staves, and, gathering these together, forms them
+into casks. The obstacle is thus diminished, and with it the fortunes
+of the coopers. We must prevent this. Let us proscribe the machine!</p>
+
+<p>To sift thoroughly this sophism, it is sufficient to remember that
+human labor is not an <i>end</i> but a <i>means</i>.</p>
+
+<p><i>Labor is never without employment</i>. If one obstacle is removed, it
+seizes another, and mankind is delivered from two obstacles by the
+same effort which was at first necessary for one. If the labor of
+coopers could become useless, it must take another direction. To
+maintain that human labor can end by wanting employment, it would be
+necessary to prove that mankind will cease to encounter obstacles.</p>
+
+
+
+
+<p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20"></a>[20]</span> </p>
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_III" id="CHAPTER_III"></a>CHAPTER III.</h2>
+
+<h3>EFFORT&mdash;RESULT.</h3>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>We have seen that between our wants and their gratification many
+obstacles are interposed. We conquer or weaken these by the employment
+of our faculties. It may be said, in general terms, that industry is
+an effort followed by a result.</p>
+
+<p>But by what do we measure our well-being? By our riches? By the result
+of our effort, or by the effort itself? There exists always a
+proportion between the effort employed and the result obtained. Does
+progress consist in the relative increase of the second or of the
+first term of this proportion&mdash;between effort or result?</p>
+
+<p>Both propositions have been sustained, and in political economy
+opinions are divided between them.</p>
+
+<p>According to the first system, riches are the result of labor. They
+increase in the same ratio as <i>the result does to the effort</i>.
+Absolute perfection, of which God is the type, consists in the
+infinite distance between these two terms in this relation, viz.,
+effort none, result infinite.</p>
+
+<p>The second system maintains that it is the effort itself which forms
+the measure of, and constitutes, our riches. Progression is the
+increase of the <i>proportion of the effect to the result</i>. Its ideal
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21"></a>[21]</span>
+extreme may be represented by the eternal and fruitless efforts of
+Sisyphus.<a name="FNanchor_A_1" id="FNanchor_A_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_A_1" class="fnanchor">[A]</a></p>
+
+<div class="footnotes"><a name="Footnote_A_1" id="Footnote_A_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_A_1"><span class="label">[A]</span></a> We will therefore beg the reader to allow us in future,
+for the sake of conciseness, to designate this system under the term
+of <i>Sisyphism</i>, from Sisyphus, who, in punishment of his crimes, was
+compelled to roll a stone up hill, which fell to the bottom as fast as
+he rolled it to the top, so that his labor was interminable as well as
+fruitless.</div>
+
+<p>The first system tends naturally to the encouragement of everything
+which diminishes difficulties, and augments production&mdash;as powerful
+machinery, which adds to the strength of man; the exchange of produce,
+which allows us to profit by the various natural agents distributed in
+different degrees over the surface of our globe; the intellect which
+discovers, the experience which proves, and the emulation which
+excites.</p>
+
+<p>The second as logically inclines to everything which can augment the
+difficulty and diminish the product; as, privileges, monopolies,
+restrictions, prohibition, suppression of machinery, sterility, &amp;c.</p>
+
+<p>It is well to mark here that the universal practice of men is always
+guided by the principle of the first system. Every <i>workman</i>, whether
+agriculturist, manufacturer, merchant, soldier, writer or philosopher,
+devotes the strength of his intellect to do better, to do more
+quickly, more economically&mdash;in a word, <i>to do more with less</i>.</p>
+
+<p>The opposite doctrine is in use with theorists, essayists, statesmen,
+ministers, men whose business is to make experiments upon society. And
+even of these we may observe, that in what personally concerns
+themselves,  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22"></a>[22]</span> they act, like everybody else, upon the principle of
+obtaining from their labor the greatest possible quantity of useful
+results.</p>
+
+<p>It may be supposed that I exaggerate, and that there are no true
+Sisyphists.</p>
+
+<p>I grant that in practice the principle is not pushed to its extreme
+consequences. And this must always be the case when one starts upon a
+wrong principle, because the absurd and injurious results to which it
+leads, cannot but check it in its progress. For this reason, practical
+industry never can admit of Sisyphism. The error is too quickly
+followed by its punishment to remain concealed. But in the speculative
+industry of theorists and statesmen, a false principle may be for a
+long time followed up, before the complication of its consequences,
+only half understood, can prove its falsity; and even when all is
+revealed, 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.</p>
+
+<p>Let us see, then, if the two opposite principles I have laid down do
+not predominate, each in its turn; the one in practical industry, the
+other in industrial legislation. When a man prefers a good plough to a
+bad one; when he improves the quality of his manures; when, to loosen
+his soil, he substitutes as much as possible the action of the
+atmosphere for that of the hoe or the harrow; when he calls to his aid
+every improvement that science and experience have revealed, he has,
+and can have, but one object, viz., to <i>diminish the proportion of the
+effort to the result</i>. We have indeed no  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23"></a>[23]</span> other means of judging of
+the success of an agriculturist or of the merits of his system, but by
+observing how far he has succeeded in lessening the one, while he
+increases the other; and as all the farmers in the world act upon this
+principle, we may say that all mankind are seeking, no doubt for their
+own advantage, to obtain at the lowest price, bread, or whatever other
+article of produce they may need, always diminishing the effort
+necessary for obtaining any given quantity thereof.</p>
+
+<p>This incontestable tendency of human nature, once proved, would, one
+might suppose, be sufficient to point out the true principle to the
+legislator, and to show him how he ought to assist industry (if indeed
+it is any part of his business to assist it at all), for it would be
+absurd to say that the laws of men should operate in an inverse ratio
+from those of Providence.</p>
+
+<p>Yet we have heard members of Congress exclaim, "I do not understand
+this theory of cheapness; I would rather see bread dear, and work more
+abundant." And consequently these gentlemen vote in favor of
+legislative measures whose effect is to shackle and impede commerce,
+precisely because by so doing we are prevented from procuring
+indirectly, and at low price, what direct production can only furnish
+more expensively.</p>
+
+<p>Now it is very evident that the system of Mr. So-and-so, the
+Congressman, is directly opposed to that of Mr. So-and-so, the
+agriculturist. Were he consistent with himself, he would as legislator
+vote against all restriction; or else as farmer, he would practise in
+his fields the same principle which he proclaims in the public
+councils. We would then see him sowing his  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24"></a>[24]</span> grain in his most sterile
+fields, because he would thus succeed in <i>laboring much</i>, to <i>obtain
+little</i>. We would see him forbidding the use of the plough, because he
+could, by scratching up the soil with his nails, fully gratify his
+double wish of "<i>dear bread</i> and <i>abundant labor</i>."</p>
+
+<p>Restriction has for its avowed object and acknowledged effect, the
+augmentation of labor. And again, equally avowed and acknowledged, its
+object and effect are, the increase of prices&mdash;a synonymous term for
+scarcity of produce. Pushed then to its greatest extreme, it is pure
+Sisyphism as we have defined it; <i>labor infinite; result nothing</i>.</p>
+
+<p>There have been men who accused railways of <i>injuring shipping</i>; and
+it is certainly true that the most perfect means of attaining an
+object must always limit the use of a less perfect means. But railways
+can only injure shipping by drawing from it articles of
+transportation; this they can only do by transporting more cheaply;
+and they can only transport more cheaply, by <i>diminishing the
+proportion of the effort employed to the result obtained</i>&mdash;for it is
+in this that cheapness consists. When, therefore, these men lament the
+suppression of labor in attaining a given result, they maintain the
+doctrine of Sisyphism. Logically, if they prefer the vessel to the
+railway, they should also prefer the wagon to the vessel, the
+pack-saddle to the wagon, and the sack to the pack-saddle: for this
+is, of all known means of transportation, the one which requires the
+greatest amount of labor, in proportion to the result obtained.</p>
+
+<p>"Labor constitutes the riches of the people," say some theorists. This
+was no elliptical expression,  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25"></a>[25]</span> meaning that the "results of labor
+constitute the riches of the people." No; these theorists intended to
+say, that it is the <i>intensity</i> of labor which measures riches; and
+the proof of this is that from step to step, from restriction to
+restriction, they forced on the United States (and in so doing
+believed that they were doing well) to give to the procuring of, for
+instance, a certain quantity of iron, double the necessary labor. In
+England, 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 the
+United States could, by barter, procure a ton of iron by eight days'
+labor taken from the labor of the nation. Thanks to the restrictive
+measures of these gentlemen, sixteen days' work were necessary to
+procure it, by direct production. Here then we have double labor for
+an identical result; therefore double riches; and riches, measured not
+by the result, but by the intensity of labor. Is not this pure and
+unadulterated Sisyphism?</p>
+
+<p>That there may be nothing equivocal, these gentlemen carry their idea
+still farther, and on the same principle that we have heard them call
+the intensity of labor <i>riches</i>, we will find them calling the
+abundant results of labor and the plenty of everything proper to the
+satisfying of our wants, <i>poverty</i>. "Everywhere," they remark,
+"machinery has pushed aside manual labor; everywhere production is
+superabundant; everywhere the equilibrium is destroyed between the
+power of production and that of consumption." Here then we see that,
+according to these gentlemen, if the United States was in a critical
+situation it was because her productions were too abundant; there was
+too much intelligence,  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26"></a>[26]</span> too much efficiency in her national labor. We
+were too well fed, too well clothed, too well supplied with
+everything; the rapid production was more than sufficient for our
+wants. It was necessary to put an end to this calamity, and therefore
+it became needful to force us, by restrictions, to work more in order
+to produce less.</p>
+
+<p>All that we could have further to hope for, would be, that human
+intellect might sink and become extinct; for, while intellect exists,
+it cannot but seek continually to increase the <i>proportion of the end
+to the means; of the product to the labor</i>. Indeed it is in this
+continuous effort, and in this alone, that intellect consists.</p>
+
+<p>Sisyphism has been the doctrine of all those who have been intrusted
+with the regulation of the industry of our country. It would not be
+just to reproach them with this; for this principle becomes that of
+our administration only because it prevails in Congress; it prevails
+in Congress only because it is sent there by the voters; and the
+voters are imbued with it only because public opinion is filled with
+it to repletion.</p>
+
+<p>Let me repeat here, that I do not accuse the protectionists in
+Congress of being absolutely and always Sisyphists. Very certainly
+they are not such in their personal transactions; very certainly each
+of them will procure for himself <i>by barter</i>, what by <i>direct
+production</i> would be attainable only at a higher price. But I maintain
+that they are Sisyphists when they prevent the country from acting
+upon the same principle.</p>
+
+
+
+<p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27"></a>[27]</span> </p>
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_IV" id="CHAPTER_IV"></a>CHAPTER IV.</h2>
+
+<h3>EQUALIZING OF THE FACILITIES OF PRODUCTION.</h3>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>The protectionists often use the following argument:</p>
+
+<p>"It is our belief that protection should correspond to, should be the
+representation of, the difference which exists between the price of an
+article of home production and a similar article of foreign
+production. A protective duty calculated upon such a basis does
+nothing more than secure free competition; free competition can only
+exist where there is an equality in the facilities of production. In a
+horse-race the load which each horse carries is weighed and all
+advantages equalized; otherwise there could be no competition. In
+commerce, if one producer can undersell all others, he ceases to be a
+competitor and becomes a monopolist. Suppress the protection which
+represents the difference of price according to each, and foreign
+produce must immediately inundate and obtain the monopoly of our
+market. Every one ought to wish, for his own sake and for that of the
+community, that the productions of the country should be protected
+against foreign competition, <i>whenever the latter may be able to
+undersell the former</i>."</p>
+
+<p>This argument is constantly recurring in all writings of the
+protectionist school. It is my intention to make a careful
+investigation of its merits, and I must begin  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28"></a>[28]</span> by soliciting the
+attention and the patience of the reader. I will first examine into
+the inequalities which depend upon natural causes, and afterwards into
+those which are caused by diversity of taxes.</p>
+
+<p>Here, as elsewhere, we find the theorists who favor protection taking
+part with the producer. Let us consider the case of the unfortunate
+consumer, who seems to have entirely escaped their attention. They
+compare the field of protection to the <i>turf</i>. But on the turf, the
+race is at once a <i>means and an end</i>. The public has no interest in
+the struggle, independent of the struggle itself. When your horses are
+started in the course with the single object of determining which is
+the best runner, nothing is more natural than that their burdens
+should be equalized. But if your object were to send an important and
+critical piece of intelligence, could you without incongruity place
+obstacles to the speed of that one whose fleetness would secure you
+the best means of attaining your end? And yet this is your course in
+relation to industry. You forget the end aimed at, which is the
+<i>well-being</i> of the community; you set it aside; more, you sacrifice
+it by a perfect <i>petitio principii</i>.</p>
+
+<p>But we cannot lead our opponents to look at things from our point of
+view; let us now take theirs: let us examine the question as
+producers.</p>
+
+<p>I will seek to prove:</p>
+
+<p>1. That equalizing the facilities of production is to attack the
+foundations of mutual exchange.</p>
+
+<p>2. That it is not true that the labor of one country can be crushed by
+the competition of more favored climates.</p><p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29"></a>[29]</span> </p>
+
+<p>3. That, even were this the case, protective duties cannot equalize
+the facilities of production.</p>
+
+<p>4. That freedom of trade equalizes these conditions as much as
+possible; and</p>
+
+<p>5. That the countries which are the least favored by nature are those
+which profit most by mutual exchange.</p>
+
+<p>1. <i>Equalizing the facilities of production is to attack the
+foundations of mutual exchange</i>. The equalizing of the facilities of
+production, is not only the shackling of certain articles of commerce,
+but it is the attacking of the system of mutual exchange in its very
+foundation principle. For this system is based precisely upon the very
+diversities, or, if the expression be preferred, upon the inequalities
+of fertility, climate, temperature, capabilities, which the
+protectionists seek to render null. If New England sends its
+manufactures to the West, and the West sends corn to New England, it
+is because these two sections are, from different circumstances,
+induced to turn their attention to the production of different
+articles. Is there any other rule for international exchanges?</p>
+
+<p>Again, to bring against such exchanges the very inequalities of
+condition which excite and explain them, is to attack them in their
+very cause of being. The protective system, closely followed up, would
+bring men to live like snails, in a state of complete isolation. In
+short, there is not one of its sophisms, which, if carried through by
+vigorous deductions, would not end in destruction and annihilation.</p>
+
+<p>2. <i>It is not true that the labor of one country can be crushed by the
+competition of more favored climates</i>. The statement is not true that
+the unequal facility of  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30"></a>[30]</span> production, between two similar branches of
+industry, should necessarily cause the destruction of the one which is
+the least fortunate. On the turf, if one horse gains the prize, the
+other loses it; but when two horses work to produce any useful
+article, each produces in proportion to his strength; and because the
+stronger is the more useful it does not follow that the weaker is good
+for nothing. Wheat is cultivated in every section of the United
+States, although there are great differences in the degree of
+fertility existing among them. If it happens that there be one which
+does not cultivate it, it is because, even to itself, such cultivation
+is not useful. Analogy will show us, that under the influences of an
+unshackled trade, notwithstanding similar differences, wheat would be
+produced in every portion of the world; and if any nation were induced
+to entirely abandon the cultivation of it, this would only be because
+it would <i>be her interest</i> to otherwise employ her lands, her capital,
+and her labor. And why does not the fertility of one department
+paralyze the agriculture of a neighboring and less favored one?
+Because the phenomena of political economy have a suppleness, an
+elasticity, and, so to speak, <i>a self-levelling power</i>, which seems to
+escape the attention of the school of protectionists. They accuse us
+of being theoretic, but it is themselves who are so to a supreme
+degree, if the being theoretic consists in building up systems upon
+the experience of a single fact, instead of profiting by the
+experience of a series of facts. In the above example, it is the
+difference in the value of lands which compensates for the difference
+in their fertility. Your field produces three times as much as mine.
+Yes.  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31"></a>[31]</span> But it has cost you ten times as much, and therefore I can still
+compete with you: this is the sole mystery. And observe how the
+advantage on one point leads to disadvantage on the other. Precisely
+because your soil is more fruitful it is more dear. It is not
+<i>accidentally</i> but <i>necessarily</i> that the equilibrium is established,
+or at least inclines to establish itself: and can it be denied that
+perfect freedom in exchanges is of all systems the one which favors
+this tendency?</p>
+
+<p>I have cited an agricultural example; I might as easily have taken one
+from any trade. There are tailors at Barnegat, but that does not
+prevent tailors from being in New York also, although the latter have
+to pay a much higher rent, as well as higher price for furniture,
+workmen, and food. But their customers are sufficiently numerous not
+only to re&euml;stablish the balance, but also to make it lean on their
+side.</p>
+
+<p>When, therefore, the question is about equalizing the advantages of
+labor, it would be well to consider whether the natural freedom of
+exchange is not the best umpire.</p>
+
+<p>This self-levelling faculty of political phenomena is so important,
+and at the same time so well calculated to cause us to admire the
+providential wisdom which presides over the equalizing government of
+society, that I must ask permission a little longer to turn to it the
+attention of the reader.</p>
+
+<p>The protectionists say, Such a nation has the advantage over us, in
+being able to procure cheaply, coal, iron, machinery, capital; it is
+impossible for us to compete with it.</p>
+
+<p>We must examine this proposition under other  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32"></a>[32]</span> aspects. For the
+present, I stop at the question, whether, when an advantage and a
+disadvantage are placed in juxtaposition, they do not bear in
+themselves, the former a descending, the latter an ascending power,
+which must end by placing them in a just equilibrium?</p>
+
+<p>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 B
+must be abandoned. A, you say, sells much more than it buys; B buys
+much more than it sells. I might dispute this, but I will meet you
+upon your own ground.</p>
+
+<p>In the hypothesis, labor being in great demand in A, soon rises in
+value; while labor, iron, coal, lands, food, capital, all being little
+sought after in B, soon fall in price.</p>
+
+<p>Again: A being always selling and B always buying, cash passes from B
+to A. It is abundant in A, very scarce in B.</p>
+
+<p>But where there is abundance of cash, it follows that in all purchases
+a large proportion of it will be needed. Then in A, <i>real dearness</i>,
+which proceeds from a very active demand, is added to <i>nominal
+dearness</i>, the consequence of a superabundance of the precious metals.</p>
+
+<p>Scarcity of money implies that little is necessary for each purchase.
+Then in B, a <i>nominal cheapness</i> is combined with <i>real cheapness</i>.</p>
+
+<p>Under these circumstances, industry will have the strongest possible
+motives for deserting A to establish itself in B.</p>
+
+<p>Now, to return to what would be the true course of things. As the
+progress of such events is always gradual, industry from its nature
+being opposed to sudden  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33"></a>[33]</span> transits, let us suppose that, without
+waiting the extreme point, it will have gradually divided itself
+between A and B, according to the laws of supply and demand; that is
+to say, according to the laws of justice and usefulness.</p>
+
+<p><i>I do not advance an empty hypothesis when I say, that were it
+possible that industry should concentrate itself upon a single point,
+there must, from its nature, arise spontaneously, and in its midst</i>,
+AN IRRESISTIBLE POWER OF DECENTRALIZATION.</p>
+
+<p>We will quote the words of a manufacturer to the Chamber of Commerce
+at Manchester (the figures brought into his demonstration being
+suppressed):</p>
+
+<p>"Formerly we exported goods; this exportation gave way to that of
+thread for the manufacture of goods; later, instead of thread, we
+exported machinery for the making of thread; then capital for the
+construction of machinery; and lastly, workmen and talent, which are
+the source of capital. All these elements of labor have, one after the
+other, transferred themselves to other points, where their profits
+were increased, and where the means of subsistence being less
+difficult to obtain, life is maintained at less cost. There are at
+present to be seen in Prussia, Austria, Saxony, Switzerland, and
+Italy, immense manufacturing establishments, founded entirely by
+English capital, worked by English labor, and directed by English
+talent."</p>
+
+<p>We may here perceive that Nature, with more wisdom and foresight than
+the narrow and rigid system of the protectionists can suppose, does
+not permit the concentration of labor, and the monopoly of advantages,
+from which they draw their arguments as from an absolute  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34"></a>[34]</span> and
+irremediable fact. It has, by means as simple as they are infallible,
+provided for dispersion, diffusion, mutual dependence, and
+simultaneous progress; all of which, your restrictive laws paralyze as
+much as is in their power, by their tendency towards the isolation of
+nations. By this means they render much more decided the differences
+existing in the conditions of production; they check the
+self-levelling power of industry, prevent fusion of interests,
+neutralize the counterpoise, and fence in each nation within its own
+peculiar advantages and disadvantages.</p>
+
+<p>3. <i>Even were the labor of one country crushed by the competition of
+more favored climates (which is denied), protective duties cannot
+equalize the facilities of production</i>. To say that by a protective
+law the conditions of production are equalized, is to disguise an
+error under false terms. It is not true that an import duty equalizes
+the conditions of production. These remain after the imposition of the
+duty just as they were before. The most that law can do is to equalize
+the <i>conditions of sale</i>. If it should be said that I am playing upon
+words, I retort the accusation upon my adversaries. It is for them to
+prove that <i>production</i> and <i>sale</i> are synonymous terms, which if they
+cannot do, I have a right to accuse them, if not of playing upon
+words, at least of confounding them.</p>
+
+<p>Let me be permitted to exemplify my idea.</p>
+
+<p>Suppose that several New York speculators should determine to devote
+themselves to the production of oranges. They know that the oranges of
+Portugal can be sold in New York at one cent each, whilst on account
+of the boxes, hot-houses, &amp;c., which are necessary  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35"></a>[35]</span> to ward against
+the severity of our climate, it is impossible to raise them at less
+than a dollar apiece. They accordingly demand a duty of ninety-nine
+cents upon Portugal oranges. With the help of this duty, say they, the
+<i>conditions of production</i> will be equalized. Congress, yielding as
+usual to this argument, imposes a duty of ninety-nine cents on each
+foreign orange.</p>
+
+<p>Now I say that the <i>relative conditions of production</i> are in no wise
+changed. 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 to
+mature themselves <i>naturally</i> on the banks of the Tagus, and
+artificially upon those of the Hudson, must continue to require for
+their production much more labor on the latter than the former. The
+law can only equalize the <i>conditions of sale</i>. It is evident that
+while the Portuguese sell their oranges here at a dollar apiece, the
+ninety-nine cents which go to pay the tax are taken from the American
+consumer. Now look at the whimsicality of the result. Upon each
+Portuguese orange, the country loses nothing; for the ninety-nine
+cents which the consumer pays to satisfy the impost tax, enter into
+the treasury. There is improper distribution; but no loss. But upon
+each American orange consumed, there will be about ninety-nine cents
+lost; for while the buyer very certainly loses them, the seller just
+as certainly does not gain them; for, even according to the
+hypothesis, he will receive only the price of production, I will leave
+it to the protectionists to draw their conclusion.</p>
+
+<p>4. <i>But freedom of trade equalizes these conditions as much as is
+possible</i>. I have laid some stress upon this  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36"></a>[36]</span> distinction between the
+conditions of production and those of sale, which perhaps the
+prohibitionists may consider as paradoxical, because it leads me on to
+what they will consider as a still stranger paradox. This is: If you
+really wish to equalize the facilities of production, leave trade
+free.</p>
+
+<p>This may surprise the protectionists; but let me entreat them to
+listen, if it be only through curiosity, to the end of my argument. It
+shall not be long. I will now take it up where we left off.</p>
+
+<p>If we suppose for the moment, that the common and daily profits of
+each American amount to one dollar, it will indisputably follow that
+to produce an orange by <i>direct</i> labor in America, one day's work, or
+its equivalent, will be requisite; whilst to produce the cost of a
+Portuguese orange, only one-hundredth of this day's labor is required;
+which means simply this, that the sun does at Lisbon what labor does
+at 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-hundredth
+of a day's labor, I am placed exactly in the same condition as the
+Portuguese producer himself, excepting the expense of the
+transportation? It therefore follows that freedom of commerce
+equalizes the conditions of production direct or indirect, as much as
+it is possible to equalize them; for it leaves but the one inevitable
+difference, that of transportation.</p>
+
+<p>I will add that free trade equalizes also the facilities for attaining
+enjoyments, comforts, and general consumption; the last, an object
+which is, it would seem, quite forgotten, and which is nevertheless
+all-important; since, in fine, consumption is the main object of  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37"></a>[37]</span> all
+our industrial efforts. Thanks to freedom of trade, we would enjoy
+here the results of the Portuguese sun, as well as Portugal itself;
+and the inhabitants of New York would have in their reach, as well as
+those of London, and with the same facilities, the advantages which
+nature has in a mineralogical point of view conferred upon Cornwall.</p>
+
+<p>5. <i>Countries least favored by nature (countries not yet cleared of
+forests, for example) are those which profit most by mutual exchange</i>.
+The protectionists may suppose me in a paradoxical humor, for I go
+further still. I say, and I sincerely believe, that if any two
+countries are placed in unequal circumstances as to advantages of
+production, <i>the one of the two which is the less favored by nature,
+will gain more by freedom of commerce</i>. To prove this, I will be
+obliged to turn somewhat aside from the form of reasoning which
+belongs to this work. I will do so, however; first, because the
+question in discussion turns upon this point; and again, because it
+will give me the opportunity of exhibiting a law of political economy
+of the highest importance, and which, well understood, seems to me to
+be destined to lead back to this science all those sects which, in our
+days, are seeking in the land of chimeras that social harmony which
+they have been unable to discover in nature. I speak of the law of
+consumption, which the majority of political economists may well be
+reproached with having too much neglected.</p>
+
+<p>Consumption is the <i>end</i>, the final cause of all the phenomena of
+political economy, and, consequently, in it is found their final
+solution.</p><p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38"></a>[38]</span> </p>
+
+<p>No effect, whether favorable or unfavorable, can be vested permanently
+in the producer. His advantages and disadvantages, derived from his
+relations to nature and to society, both pass gradually from him; and
+by an almost insensible tendency are absorbed and fused into the
+community at large&mdash;the community considered as consumers. This is an
+admirable law, alike in its cause and its effects; and he who shall
+succeed in making it well understood, will have a right to say, "I
+have not, in my passage through the world, forgotten to pay my tribute
+to society."</p>
+
+<p>Every circumstance which favors the work of production is of course
+hailed with joy by the producer, for its <i>immediate effect</i> is to
+enable him to render greater services to the community, and to exact
+from it a greater remuneration. Every circumstance which injures
+production, must equally be the source of uneasiness to him; for its
+<i>immediate effect</i> is to diminish his services, and consequently his
+remuneration. This is a fortunate and necessary law of nature. The
+immediate good or evil of favorable or unfavorable circumstances must
+fall upon the producer, in order to influence him invisibly to seek
+the one and to avoid the other.</p>
+
+<p>Again: when an inventor succeeds in his labor-saving machine, the
+<i>immediate</i> benefit of this success is received by him. This again is
+necessary, to determine him to devote his attention to it. It is also
+just; because it is just that an effort crowned with success should
+bring its own reward.</p>
+
+<p>But these effects, good and bad, although permanent in themselves, are
+not so as regards the producer. If they had been so, a principle of
+progressive and consequently  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39"></a>[39]</span> infinite inequality would have been
+introduced among men. This good, and this evil, both therefore pass
+on, to become absorbed in the general destinies of humanity.</p>
+
+<p>How does this come about? I will try to make it understood by some
+examples.</p>
+
+<p>Let us go back to the thirteenth century. Men who gave themselves up
+to the business of copying, received for this service <i>a remuneration
+regulated by the general rate of the profits</i>. Among them is found
+one, who seeks and finds the means of rapidly multiplying copies of
+the same work. He invents printing. The first effect of this is, that
+the individual is enriched, while many more are impoverished. At the
+first view, wonderful as the discovery is, one hesitates in deciding
+whether it is not more injurious than useful. It seems to have
+introduced into the world, as I said above, an element of infinite
+inequality. Guttenberg makes large profits by this invention, and
+perfects the invention by the profits, until all other copyists are
+ruined. As for the public&mdash;the consumer&mdash;it gains but little, for
+Guttenberg takes care to lower the price of books only just so much as
+is necessary to undersell all rivals.</p>
+
+<p>But the great Mind which put harmony into the movements of celestial
+bodies, could also give it to the internal mechanism of society. We
+will see the advantages of this invention escaping from the
+individual, to become for ever the common patrimony of mankind.</p>
+
+<p>The process finally becomes known. Guttenberg is no longer alone in
+his art; others imitate him. Their profits are at first considerable.
+They are recompensed  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40"></a>[40]</span> for being the first who made the effort to
+imitate the processes of the newly-invented art. This again was
+necessary, in order that they might be induced to the effort, and thus
+forward the great and final result to which we approach. They gain
+largely; but they gain less than the inventor, for <i>competition</i> has
+commenced its work. The price of books now continually decreases. The
+gains of the imitators diminish in proportion as the invention becomes
+older; and in the same proportion imitation becomes less meritorious.
+Soon the new object of industry attains its normal condition; in other
+words, the remuneration of printers is no longer an exception to the
+general rules of remuneration, and, like that of copyists formerly, it
+is only regulated <i>by the general rate of profits</i>. Here then the
+producer, as such, holds only the old position. The discovery,
+however, has been made; the saving of time, labor, effort, for a fixed
+result, for a certain number of volumes, is realized. But in what is
+this manifested? In the cheap price of books. For the good of whom?
+For the good of the consumer&mdash;of society&mdash;of humanity. Printers,
+having no longer any peculiar merit, receive no longer a peculiar
+remuneration. As men&mdash;as consumers&mdash;they no doubt participate in the
+advantages which the invention confers upon the community; but that is
+all. As printers, as producers, they are placed upon the ordinary
+footing of all other producers. Society pays them for their labor, and
+not for the usefulness of the invention. <i>That</i> has become a
+gratuitous benefit, a common heritage to mankind.</p>
+
+<p>The wisdom and beauty of these laws strike me with admiration and
+reverence.</p><p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41"></a>[41]</span> </p>
+
+<p>What has been said of printing, can be extended to every agent for the
+advancement of labor&mdash;from the nail and the mallet, up to the
+locomotive and the electric telegraph. Society enjoys all, by the
+abundance of its use, its consumption; and it <i>enjoys all
+gratuitously</i>. For as their effect is to diminish prices, it is
+evident that just so much of the price as is taken off by their
+intervention, renders the production in so far <i>gratuitous</i>. There
+only remains the actual labor of man to be paid for; and the
+remainder, which is the result of the invention, is subtracted; at
+least after the invention has run through the cycle which I have just
+described as its destined course. I send for a workman; he brings a
+saw with him; I pay him two dollars for his day's labor, and he saws
+me twenty-five boards. If the saw had not been invented, he would
+perhaps not have been able to make one board, and I would none the
+less have paid him for his day's labor. The <i>usefulness</i>, then, of the
+saw, is for me a gratuitous gift of nature, or rather, is a portion of
+the inheritance which, <i>in common</i> with my brother men, I have
+received from the genius of my ancestors. I have two workmen in my
+field; the one directs the handle of a plough, the other that of a
+spade. The result of their day's labor is very different, but the
+price is the same, because the remuneration is proportioned, not to
+the usefulness of the result, but to the effort, the [time, and] labor
+given to attain it.</p>
+
+<p>I invoke the patience of the reader, and beg him to believe, that I
+have not lost sight of free trade: I entreat him only to remember the
+conclusion at which I have arrived: <i>Remuneration is not proportioned
+to the usefulness of the articles brought by the producer into the
+market, but to the [time and] labor required for their
+production</i>.<a name="FNanchor_B_2" id="FNanchor_B_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_B_2" class="fnanchor">[B]</a></p>
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42"></a>[42]</span></p>
+
+<div class="footnotes"><a name="Footnote_B_2" id="Footnote_B_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_B_2"><span class="label">[B]</span></a> It is true that [time and] labor do not receive a uniform
+remuneration; because labor is more or less intense, dangerous,
+skilful, &amp;c., [and time more or less valuable.] Competition
+establishes for each category a price current: and it is of this
+variable price that I speak.</div>
+
+<p>I have so far taken my examples from human inventions, but will now go
+on to speak of natural advantages.</p>
+
+<p>In every article of production, nature and man must concur. But the
+portion of nature is always gratuitous. Only so much of the usefulness
+of an article as is the result of human labor becomes the object of
+mutual exchange, and consequently of remuneration. The remuneration
+varies much, no doubt, in proportion to the intensity of the labor, of
+the skill, which it requires, of its being <i>&agrave;-propos</i> to the demand of
+the day, of the need which exists for it, of the momentary absence of
+competition, &amp;c. But it is not the less true in principle, that the
+assistance received from natural laws, which belongs to all, counts
+for nothing in the price.</p>
+
+<p>We do not pay for the air we breathe, although so useful to us, that
+we 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 for
+instance, to fill a balloon, we must take some [time and] labor; or if
+another takes it for us, we must give him an equivalent in something
+which will have cost us the trouble of production. From which we see
+that the exchange is between efforts, [time and] labor. It is
+certainly  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43"></a>[43]</span> not for hydrogen gas that I pay, for this is everywhere at
+my disposal, but for the work that it has been necessary to accomplish
+in order to disengage it; work which I have been spared, and which I
+must refund. If I am told that there are other things to pay for, as
+expense, materials, apparatus, I answer, that still in these things it
+is the work that I pay for. The price of the coal employed is only the
+representation of the [time and] labor necessary to dig and transport
+it.</p>
+
+<p>We do not pay for the light of the sun, because nature alone gives it
+to us. But we pay for the light of gas, tallow, oil, wax, because here
+is labor to be remunerated;&mdash;and remark, that it is so entirely [time
+and] labor and not utility to which remuneration is proportioned, that
+it may well happen that one of these means of lighting, while it may
+be much more effective than another, may still cost less. To cause
+this, it is only necessary that less [time and] human labor should be
+required to furnish it.</p>
+
+<p>When the water-boat comes to supply my ship, were I to pay in
+proportion to the <i>absolute utility</i> of the water, my whole fortune
+would not be sufficient. But I pay only for the trouble taken. If more
+is required, I can get another boat to furnish it, or finally go and
+get it myself. The water itself is not the subject of the bargain, but
+the labor required to obtain the water. This point of view is so
+important, and the consequences that I am going to draw from it so
+clear, as regards the freedom of international exchanges, that I will
+still elucidate my idea by a few more examples.</p>
+
+<p>The alimentary substance contained in potatoes does not cost us very
+dear, because a great deal of it is attainable  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44"></a>[44]</span> with little work. We
+pay more for wheat, because, to produce it, Nature requires more labor
+from man. It is evident that if Nature did for the latter what she
+does for the former, their prices would tend to the same level. It is
+impossible that the producer of wheat should permanently gain more
+than the producer of potatoes. The law of competition cannot allow it.</p>
+
+<p>Again, if by a happy miracle the fertility of all arable lands were to
+be increased, it would not be the agriculturist, but the consumer, who
+would profit by this phenomenon; for the result of it would be
+abundance and cheapness. There would be less labor incorporated into
+an acre of grain, and the agriculturist would be therefore obliged to
+exchange it for less labor incorporated into some other article. If,
+on the contrary, the fertility of the soil were suddenly to
+deteriorate, the share of nature in production would be less, that of
+labor greater, and the result would be higher prices.</p>
+
+<p>I am right then in saying that it is in consumption, in mankind, that
+at length all political phenomena find their solution. As long as we
+fail to follow their effects to this point, and look only at
+<i>immediate</i> effects, which act but upon individual men or classes of
+men <i>as producers</i>, we know nothing more of political economy than the
+quack does of medicine, when instead of following the effects of a
+prescription in its action upon the whole system, he satisfies himself
+with knowing how it affects the palate and the throat.</p>
+
+<p>The tropical regions are very favorable to the production of sugar and
+coffee; that is to say, Nature does  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45"></a>[45]</span> most of the business and leaves
+but little for labor to accomplish. But who reaps the advantage of
+this liberality of Nature? <span class="smcap">Not these regions</span>, for they are
+forced by competition to receive remuneration simply for their labor.
+It is <span class="smcap">mankind</span> who is the gainer; for the result of this
+liberality is <i>cheapness</i>, and cheapness belongs to the world.</p>
+
+<p>Here in the temperate zone, we find coal and iron ore on the surface
+of the soil; we have but to stoop and take them. At first, I grant,
+the immediate inhabitants profit by this fortunate circumstance. But
+soon comes competition, and the price of coal and iron falls, until
+this gift of nature becomes gratuitous to all, and human labor is only
+paid according to the general rate of profits.</p>
+
+<p>Thus, natural advantages, like improvements in the process of
+production, are, or have, a constant tendency to become, under the law
+of competition, the common and <i>gratuitous</i> patrimony of consumers, of
+society, of mankind. Countries, therefore, which do not enjoy these
+advantages, must gain by commerce with those which do; because the
+exchanges of commerce are between <i>labor and labor</i>, subtraction being
+made of all the natural advantages which are combined with these
+labors; and it is evidently the most favored countries which can
+incorporate into a given labor the largest proportion of these
+<i>natural advantages</i>. Their produce representing less labor, receives
+less recompense; in other words, is <i>cheaper</i>. If then all the
+liberality of Nature results in cheapness, it is evidently not the
+producing, but the consuming country, which profits by her benefits.</p><p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46"></a>[46]</span> </p>
+
+<p>Hence we may see the enormous absurdity of the consuming country,
+which rejects produce precisely because it is cheap. It is as though
+we 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 ourselves
+with produce only attainable at home by an effort equal to four. You
+can do it because with you Nature does half the work. But we will have
+nothing to do with it; we will wait till your climate, becoming more
+inclement, forces you to ask of us a labor equal to four, and then we
+can treat with you <i>upon an equal footing</i>!"</p>
+
+<p>A is a favored country; B is maltreated by Nature. Mutual traffic then
+is advantageous to both, but principally to B, because the exchange is
+not between <i>utility</i> and <i>utility</i>, but between <i>value</i> and <i>value</i>.
+Now A furnishes a greater <i>utility in a similar value</i>, because the
+utility of any article includes at once what Nature and what labor
+have done; whereas the value of it only corresponds to the portion
+accomplished by labor. B then makes an entirely advantageous bargain;
+for by simply paying the producer from A for his labor, it receives in
+return not only the results of that labor, but in addition there is
+thrown in whatever may have accrued from the superior bounty of
+Nature.</p>
+
+<p>We will lay down the general rule.</p>
+
+<p>Traffic is an exchange of <i>values</i>; and as value is reduced by
+competition to the simple representation of labor, traffic is the
+exchange of equal labors. Whatever Nature has done towards the
+production of the articles exchanged, is given on both sides
+<i>gratuitously</i>; from whence it necessarily follows, that the most
+advantageous  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47"></a>[47]</span> commerce is transacted with those countries which are
+the least favored by Nature.</p>
+
+<p>The theory of which I have attempted in this chapter to trace the
+outlines, deserves a much greater elaboration. But perhaps the
+attentive reader will have perceived in it the fruitful seed which is
+destined in its future growth to smother Protectionism, at once with
+the various other isms whose object is to exclude the law of
+<span class="smcap">Competition</span> from the government of the world. Competition, no
+doubt, considering man as producer, must often interfere with his
+individual and <i>immediate</i> interests. But if we consider the great
+object of all labor, the universal good, in a word, Consumption, we
+cannot fail to find that Competition is to the moral world what the
+law of equilibrium is to the material one. It is the foundation of
+true gratification, of true Liberty and Equality, of the equality of
+comforts and condition, so much sought after in our day; and if so
+many sincere reformers, so many earnest friends to public right, seek
+to reach their end by <i>commercial legislation</i>, it is only because
+they do not yet understand <i>commercial freedom</i>.</p><p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48"></a>[48]</span> </p>
+
+
+
+
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_V" id="CHAPTER_V"></a>CHAPTER V.</h2>
+
+<h3>OUR PRODUCTIONS ARE OVERLOADED WITH INTERNAL TAXES&mdash;&mdash;</h3>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>This is but a new wording of the Sophism before noticed. The
+demand made is, that the foreign article should be taxed, in order to
+neutralize the effects of the internal tax, which weighs down domestic
+produce. It is still then but the question of equalizing the
+facilities of production. We have but to say that the tax is an
+artificial obstacle, which has exactly the same effect as a natural
+obstacle, i.e. the increasing of the price. If this increase is so
+great that there is more loss in producing the article in question at
+home than in attracting it from foreign parts by the production of an
+equivalent value of something else&mdash;<i>laissez faire</i>. Individual
+interest will soon learn to choose the lesser of two evils. I might
+refer the reader to the preceding demonstration for an answer to this
+Sophism; but it is one which recurs so often, that it deserves a
+special discussion.</p>
+
+<p>I have said more than once, that I am opposing only the theory of the
+protectionists, with the hope of discovering the source of their
+errors. Were I disposed to enter into controversy with them, I would
+say: Why direct your tariffs principally against England, a country
+ <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49"></a>[49]</span> more overloaded with taxes than any in the world? Have I not a right
+to look upon your argument as a mere pretext? But I am not of the
+number of those who believe that prohibitionists are guided by
+interest, and not by conviction. The doctrine of Protection is too
+popular not to be sincere. If the majority could believe in freedom,
+we would be free. Without doubt it is individual interest which weighs
+us down with tariffs; but it acts upon conviction. "The will (said
+Pascal) is one of the principal organs of belief." But belief does not
+the less exist because it is rooted in the will and in the secret
+inspirations of egotism.</p>
+
+<p>We will return to the Sophism drawn from internal taxes.</p>
+
+<p>The government may make either a good or a bad use of taxes; it makes
+a good use of them when it renders to the public services equivalent
+to the value received from them; it makes a bad use of them when it
+expends this value, giving nothing in return. To say in the first case
+that they place the country which pays them in more disadvantageous
+conditions for production, than the country which is free from them,
+is a Sophism. We pay, it is true, so many millions for the
+administration of justice, and the maintenance of order, but we have
+justice and order; we have the security which they give, the time
+which they save for us; and it is most probable that production is
+neither more easy nor more active among nations, where (if there be
+such) each individual takes the administration of justice into his own
+hands. We pay, I grant, many millions for roads, bridges, ports,
+steamships; but we have these steamships, these ports, bridges, and
+roads; and  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50"></a>[50]</span> unless we maintain that it is a losing business to
+establish them, we cannot say that they place us in a position
+inferior to that of nations who have, it is true, no budget of public
+works, but who likewise have no public works. And here we see why
+(even while we accuse taxes of being a cause of industrial
+inferiority) we direct our tariffs precisely against those nations
+which are the most taxed. It is because these taxes, well used, far
+from injuring, have ameliorated the <i>conditions of production</i> to
+these nations. Thus we again arrive at the conclusion that the
+protectionist Sophisms not only wander from, but are the contrary&mdash;the
+very antithesis&mdash;of truth.</p>
+
+<p>As to unproductive taxes, suppress them if you can; but surely it is a
+most singular idea to suppose, that their evil effect is to be
+neutralized by the addition of individual taxes to public taxes. Many
+thanks for the compensation! The State, you say, has taxed us too
+much; surely this is no reason that we should tax each other!</p>
+
+<p>A protective duty is a tax directed against foreign produce, but which
+returns, let us keep in mind, upon the national consumer. Is it not
+then a singular argument to say to him, "Because the taxes are heavy,
+we will raise prices higher for you; and because the State takes a
+part of your revenue, we will give another portion of it to benefit a
+monopoly?"</p>
+
+<p>But let us examine more closely this Sophism so accredited among our
+legislators; although, strange to say, it is precisely those who keep
+up the unproductive taxes (according to our present hypothesis) who
+attribute to them afterwards our supposed inferiority, and  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51"></a>[51]</span> seek to
+re-establish the equilibrium by further taxes and new clogs.</p>
+
+<p>It appears to me to be evident that protection, without any change in
+its nature and effects, might have taken the form of a direct tax,
+raised by the State, and distributed as a premium to privileged
+industry.</p>
+
+<p>Let us admit that foreign iron could be sold in our market at $16, but
+not lower; and American iron at not lower than $24.</p>
+
+<p>In this hypothesis there are two ways in which the State can secure
+the national market to the home producer.</p>
+
+<p>The first, is to put upon foreign iron a duty of $10. This, it is
+evident, would exclude it, because it could no longer be sold at less
+than $26; $16 for the indemnifying price, $10 for the tax; and at this
+price it must be driven from the market by American iron, which we
+have supposed to cost $24. In this case the buyer, the consumer, will
+have paid all the expenses of the protection given.</p>
+
+<p>The second means would be to lay upon the public an Internal Revenue
+tax of $10, and to give it as a premium to the iron manufacturer. The
+effect would in either case be equally a protective measure. Foreign
+iron would, according to both systems, be alike excluded; for our iron
+manufacturer could sell at $14, what, with the $10 premium, would thus
+bring him in $24. While the price of sale being $14, foreign iron
+could not obtain a market at $16.</p>
+
+<p>In these two systems the principle is the same; the effect is the
+same. There is but this single difference; in the first case the
+expense of protection is paid by a  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52"></a>[52]</span> part, in the second by the whole
+of the community. I frankly confess my preference for the second
+system, which I regard as more just, more economical, and more legal.
+More just, because, if society wishes to give bounties to some of its
+members, the whole community ought to contribute; more economical,
+because it would banish many difficulties, and save the expenses of
+collection; more legal, because the public would see clearly into the
+operation, and know what was required of it.</p>
+
+<p>But if the protective system had taken this form, would it not have
+been laughable enough to hear it said: "We pay heavy taxes for the
+army, the navy, the judiciary, the public works, the debt, &amp;c. These
+amount to more than 200 millions. It would therefore be desirable that
+the State should take another 200 millions to relieve the poor iron
+manufacturers."</p>
+
+<p>This, it must certainly be perceived, by an attentive investigation,
+is the result of the Sophism in question. In vain, gentlemen, are all
+your efforts; you cannot give money to one without taking it from
+another. If you are absolutely determined to exhaust the funds of the
+taxable community, well; but, at least, do not mock them; do not tell
+them, "We take from you again, in order to compensate you for what we
+have already taken."</p>
+
+<p>It would be a too tedious undertaking to endeavor to point out all the
+fallacies of this Sophism. I will therefore limit myself to the
+consideration of it in three points.</p>
+
+<p>You argue that the United States are overburdened with taxes, and
+deduce thence the conclusion that it is  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53"></a>[53]</span> necessary to protect such and
+such an article of produce. But protection does not relieve us from
+the payment of these taxes. If, then, individuals devoting themselves
+to any one object of industry, should advance this demand: "We, from
+our participation in the payment of taxes, have our expenses of
+production increased, and therefore ask for a protective duty which
+shall raise our price of sale:" what is this but a demand on their
+part to be allowed to free themselves from the burden of the tax, by
+laying it on the rest of the community? Their object is to balance, by
+the increased price of their produce, the amount which they pay in
+taxes. Now, as the whole amount of these taxes must enter into the
+Treasury, and the increase of price must be paid by society, it
+follows that (where this protective duty is imposed) society has to
+bear, not only the general tax, but also that for the protection of
+the article in question. But, it is answered, let <i>everything</i> be
+protected. Firstly, this is impossible; and, again, were it possible,
+how could such a system give relief? <i>I</i> will pay for you, <i>you</i> will
+pay for me; but not the less still there remains the tax to be paid.</p>
+
+<p>Thus you are the dupes of an illusion. You determine to raise taxes
+for the support of an army, a navy, judges, roads, &amp;c. Afterwards you
+seek to disburden from its portion of the tax, first one article of
+industry, then another, then a third; always adding to the burden of
+the 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 your
+argument. But if it be true that the American people  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54"></a>[54]</span> paid the tax
+before the passing of the protective duty, and afterwards that it has
+paid not only the tax but the protective duty also, truly I do not
+perceive wherein it has profited.</p>
+
+<p>But I go much further, and maintain that the more oppressive our taxes
+are, the more anxiously ought we to open our ports and frontiers to
+foreign nations, less burdened than ourselves. And why? <i>In order that
+we may</i> <span class="smcap">share with them</span>, <i>as much as possible, the burden
+which we bear</i>. Is it not an incontestable maxim in political economy,
+that taxes must, in the end, fall upon the consumer? <i>The greater then
+our commerce, the greater the portion which will be reimbursed to us,
+of taxes incorporated in the produce which we will have sold to
+foreign consumers; whilst we on our part will have made to them only a
+lesser reimbursement, because (according to our hypothesis) their
+produce is less taxed than ours</i>.</p><p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55"></a>[55]</span> </p>
+
+
+
+
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_VI" id="CHAPTER_VI"></a>CHAPTER VI.</h2>
+
+<h3>BALANCE OF TRADE.</h3>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>Our adversaries have adopted a system of tactics, which
+embarrasses us not a little. Do we prove our doctrine? They admit the
+truth of it in the most respectful manner. Do we attack their
+principles? They abandon them with the best possible grace. They only
+ask that our doctrine, which they acknowledge to be true, should be
+confined to books; and that their principles, which they allow to be
+false, should be established in practice. If we will give up to them
+the regulation of our tariffs, they will leave us triumphant in the
+domain of literature.</p>
+
+<p>It is constantly alleged in opposition to our principles, that they
+are good only in theory. But, gentlemen, do you believe that
+merchants' books are good in practice? It does appear to me, if there
+is anything which can have a practical authority, when the object is
+to prove profit and loss, that this must be commercial accounts. We
+cannot suppose that all the merchants of the world, for centuries
+back, should have so little understood their own affairs, as to have
+kept their books in such a manner as to represent gains as losses, and
+losses as gains. Truly it would be easier to believe that our
+legislators are bad political economists.  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56"></a>[56]</span> A merchant, one of my
+friends, having had two business transactions, with very different
+results, I have been curious to compare on this subject the accounts
+of the counter with those of the custom-house, interpreted by our
+legislators.</p>
+
+<p>Mr. T dispatched from New Orleans a vessel freighted for France with
+cotton valued at $200,000. Such was the amount entered at the
+custom-house. The cargo, on its arrival at Havre, had paid ten per
+cent. expenses, and was liable to thirty per cent. duties, which
+raised its value to $280,000. It was sold at twenty per cent. profit
+on its original value, which equalled $40,000, and the price of sale
+was $320,000, which the consignee converted into merchandise,
+principally Parisian goods. These goods, again, had to pay for
+transportation to the sea-board, insurance, commissions, &amp;c., ten per
+cent.; so that when the return cargo arrived at New Orleans, its value
+had 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.</p>
+
+<p>If our legislators require it, I will send them an extract from the
+books of Mr. T. They will there see, <i>credited</i> to the account of
+<i>profit and loss</i>, that is to say, set down as gained, two sums; the
+one of $40,000, the other of $70,400, and Mr. T feels perfectly
+certain that, as regards these, there is no mistake in his accounts.</p>
+
+<p>Now what conclusion do our Congressmen draw from the sums entered into
+the custom-house, in this operation? They thence learn that the United
+States have  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57"></a>[57]</span> exported $200,000, and imported $352,000; from whence
+they conclude "<i>that she has spent, dissipated, the profits of her
+previous savings; that she is impoverishing herself and progressing to
+her ruin; and that she has squandered on a foreign nation</i> $152,000
+<i>of her capital</i>."</p>
+
+<p>Some time after this transaction, Mr. T dispatched another vessel,
+again freighted with national produce, to the amount of $200,000. But
+the vessel foundered in leaving the port, and Mr. T had only further
+to inscribe upon his books two little items, thus worded:</p>
+
+<p>"<i>Sundries due to X</i>, $200,000, for purchase of divers articles
+dispatched by vessel N."</p>
+
+<p>"<i>Profit and loss due, to sundries</i>, $200,000, <i>for final and total
+loss of cargo</i>."</p>
+
+<p>In the meantime the custom-house inscribed $200,000 upon its list of
+<i>exportations</i>, and as there can of course be nothing to balance this
+entry on the list of <i>importations</i>, it hence follows that our
+enlightened members of Congress must see in this wreck <i>a clear
+profit</i> to the United States of $200,000.</p>
+
+<p>We may draw hence yet another conclusion, viz.: that according to the
+Balance of Trade theory, the United States has an exceedingly simple
+manner of constantly doubling her capital. It is only necessary, to
+accomplish this, that she should, after entering into the custom-house
+her articles for exportation, cause them to be thrown into the sea. By
+this course, her exportations can speedily be made to equal her
+capital; importations will be nothing, and our gain will be, all which
+the ocean will have swallowed up.</p>
+
+<p>You are joking, the protectionists will reply. You  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58"></a>[58]</span> know that it is
+impossible that we should utter such absurdities. Nevertheless, I
+answer, you do utter them, and what is more, you give them life, you
+exercise them practically upon your fellow-citizens, as much, at
+least, as is in your power to do.</p>
+
+<p>But lest even Mr. T's books may not be deemed of sufficient weight to
+counterbalance the convictions of the Horace Greeley school of
+prohibition, I shall proceed to furnish a table exhibiting various
+classes of commercial transactions, embracing most of the classes
+usually effected by importing and exporting houses, all of which may
+result in undoubted profits to the parties engaged in them, and to the
+country at large, and yet which, as they appear in the annual Commerce
+and Navigation Reports issued by the government, would be made to
+prove by Mr. Greeley that the result has in each case been a loss to
+the country. The sums are all stated in gold:</p>
+
+<p>A, represents one hundred merchants, who shipped to London beef, boots
+and shoes, butter, cheese, cotton, hams and bacon, flour, Indian corn,
+lard, lumber, machinery, oils, pork, staves, tallow, tobacco and
+cigars, worth in New York, in the aggregate, ten millions of dollars,
+gold, but worth in London plus the cost of transportation, &amp;c., eleven
+millions of dollars, gold, in bond. After being sold in London, the
+proceeds (eleven millions) were invested in British goods, worth
+eleven millions in London, but worth twelve millions in bond in New
+York, and plus the cost of transportation, &amp;c. After having these
+goods sold in New York, a net profit of two millions was the result of
+the whole transaction, a profit both to the merchants and the country;
+ <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59"></a>[59]</span> yet, according to the Commerce and Navigation Returns, the exports
+were ten millions, and the imports eleven millions (valued at the
+foreign place of production as the law directs), showing, according to
+Mr. Greeley's solitary point of view, a loss to the country of one
+million.</p>
+
+<p>B, owned a gold mine in Nevada, and had no capital with which to
+develop 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, ex
+duty and plus transportation, &amp;c. These sold, B netted an undoubted
+profit of $100,000, besides getting rid of his mine; but, according to
+the Commerce and Navigation Returns, the exports were nothing, and the
+imports $1,000,000; showing, according to Mr. Greeley's solitary point
+of view, a loss to the country of $1,000,000.</p>
+
+<p>C, the French owner of the Nevada mine, had a million more with which
+to develop it. Hearing that French cloths and gloves had a good sale
+in Boston, he invested his million in these goods, sailed for Boston
+with them, sold them there in bond and plus exportation, for
+$1,100,000, which he at once invested in machinery, labor, &amp;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 the
+Commerce and Navigation Returns, the exports were nothing, and the
+imports $1,000,000; according to Mr. Greeley's solitary point of view,
+a loss to the country of $ 1,000,000.</p>
+
+<p>D, had a rich uncle in Rio Janeiro who died and left  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60"></a>[60]</span> him a million. D
+ordered 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, ex
+duty and plus transportation. Upon selling them D was clearly worth
+$1,100,000; yet, according to the Commerce and Navigation Reports, as
+there had been no exports, but simply $1,000,000 of imports, the
+transaction, from Mr. Greeley's solitary point of view, seemed a loss
+to the country of $1,000,000.</p>
+
+<p>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 in
+Russia, ex duty and plus transportation, $1,210,000. Disposing of
+these in turn, and investing the proceeds in Russian iron worth
+$1,210,000 in Russia, but $1,331,000 in Venezuela, ex duty and plus
+transportation, he shipped the iron to Venezuela, where he realized on
+it, investing the proceeds this time in South American products worth
+in Spain $1,464,100. He sold these products in Spain, bought olive oil
+with 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 he
+makes no profit, but barely clears his charges. Yet on the whole he
+has made a net gain of $610,510; but, according to the Commerce and
+Navigation Reports, the exports have been $1,000,000 and the imports
+$1,610,510, showing, from Mr. Greeley's solitary point of view, a loss
+to the country of $610,510. Nay more, for Mr. Greeley balances  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61"></a>[61]</span> his
+trade accounts each year by itself, and as E's outward shipment was
+made in 1850 and his importation in 1853, the country, according to
+H.G., lost in 1853, by over importation, $1,610,500. Yet not to be
+hard on H.G., and to be perfectly honest in our accounts, we will only
+set down a loss to the country from his point of view of $610,510.</p>
+
+<p>F, owned the 4,000 ton ship Great Republic, which cost him $160,000.
+Finding her too large for profitable employment, and hearing that
+large vessels were in demand in England as troop transports to the
+Crimea, 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 it
+in Swiss watches worth $200,000 in Geneva, but $210,000 in New
+Orleans, ex duty and plus transportation. To New Orleans he
+accordingly shipped the watches, and they were sold. By these
+transactions he not only got rid of his elephant, but both he and the
+country clearly gained $50,000. Yet according to Mr. Greeley's single
+eye the country suffered to the extent of $200,000, for in the exports
+appeared nothing, but among the imports $200,000 worth of foreign
+gewgaws, only fit to keep time with.</p>
+
+<p>G, (an actual transaction) shipped by the Great Eastern on her last
+voyage from New York, lard and other merchandise, worth in New York
+$600,000, the fact of which, in the hurry of business, he failed to
+report to the Custom House, and it therefore did not appear in the
+exports. This lard was carried to England, where it found no sale, and
+was reshipped to New York. G only escaped being charged duty on it
+when it arrived, by swearing that it had been originally shipped from
+ <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62"></a>[62]</span> here 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 was
+on the road to ruin $600,000 worth.</p>
+
+<p>H, lived in Brownsville, Texas, where he had a lot of arms and
+gunpowder, worth $100,000. The Mexicans levied a very high import duty
+on these articles, and they consequently bore a very high price in
+Matamoras, just opposite, being worth in the market of that town no
+less than $250,000. He accordingly conceived the idea of smuggling
+them into Mexican territory, and, with the connivance of the Mexican
+officials, (what rascals these foreign custom-house officials are, to
+be sure!) actually succeeded in doing so, and thus realized the very
+handsome profit of $150,000 in gold. The entire proceeds he invested
+in Mexican indigo and cochineal, worth in Mexico $250,000, and in
+Boston $275,000, in bond, plus charges. Of course, no export entry was
+furnished to the customs collector at Brownsville; but Mr. Greeley
+fastened his one eye on the indigo and cochineal, when it arrived in
+Boston, and made up his mind that the country had lost $250,000. As
+for H, he has invested $100,000 in more gunpowder and arms, and starts
+for Brownsville next week, to try his luck again. With the other
+$175,000 he has a notion of buying out the New York <i>Tribune</i>, and
+setting it right on free trade, and other matters of the sort.</p>
+
+<p>I, and his friends owned a fine fleet of merchantmen when the war
+broke out. The aggregate burden of the vessels was nearly a million of
+tons, and they were worth $40 a ton. When the rebel cruisers commenced
+their operations, there were no United States cruisers prepared  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63"></a>[63]</span> to
+capture them, because our best vessels were on blockade service. This
+being the case, insurance on American merchantmen rose very high&mdash;so
+high that I and his friends were reluctantly compelled to sell their
+vessels 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 thus
+gained $4,000,000 by these transactions. The entire proceeds,
+$44,000,000, they then lent to the government with which to carry on
+its war of existence with the Southern insurgents. Profitable as these
+transactions clearly were to I and his friends, and to the government,
+Mr. Greeley, nevertheless, only sees the import of $40,000,000 worth
+of foreign extravagances, and consequently wants the tariff on iron
+increased in order to make water run up hill.</p>
+
+<p>J, had $2,000,000 in five-twenty bonds, which cost him $1,400,000
+gold. As the market price in New York was only 70 gold, while it was
+72&frac14; in London, he conceived the inhuman idea of selling them in the
+latter place. The cost of sending them there, including insurance,
+&amp;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 rags
+in Italy, which he sold in New York for $1,584,000, ex duty and plus
+transportation, a clear profit of $184,000 from the start. No export
+appearing in the Commerce and Navigation Returns, and nothing but the
+rags meeting his unital gaze, Mr. Greeley at once posted his national
+ledger with a loss of $1,440,000, the cost of the rags in Italy.</p><p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64"></a>[64]</span> </p>
+
+<p>K, was, and is still (for these are actual transactions taken from his
+account books), an exchange broker, doing business in New York. He
+buys notes on the banks of England, Ireland, Scotland, France and
+Canada&mdash;indeed, foreign banknotes of all kinds&mdash;for which he usually
+pays about ninety per cent. of their face value. By the end of last
+year he had invested $200,000 in these notes brought here by
+travellers. He then inclosed them in letters, and sent them to their
+proper destinations to be redeemed. Redeemed they were in due time,
+and the proceeds remitted in gold. In this business he earned the neat
+profit of $22,222, and the country was that much richer thereby. But
+Mr. 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.</p>
+
+<p>L, and some fifty thousand other skedaddlers ran off to Canada when
+the war broke out, for fear they might be drafted. Together with the
+colored folks who fled there, and the many travellers who went there
+from time to time, they carried with them most of our silver
+half-dollars, quarters, dimes, half-dimes, and three-cent pieces.
+These amounted to $25,000,000, which the skedaddlers, the colored
+folks, and the travellers, as with returning peace they slowly
+straggled back into the country, invested in Canadian knick-knacks,
+which they disposed of in the United States. The incoming goods were
+duly entered at our frontier custom-houses, but the outgoing silver
+was not. Mr. Greeley, unaware of this fact, detects an
+over-importation of $25,000,000, and is waiting to be elected to
+Congress in order to legislate the matter right.</p><p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65"></a>[65]</span> </p>
+
+<p>M, (an actual transaction) had $1,000,000 in Illinois Central Railroad
+bonds, for which he desired to obtain $1,000,000 worth of iron rails
+to repair the road with. Not being able to effect the transaction in
+the United States, he sent the bonds to Germany, where they were sold,
+and the proceeds invested in English railroad iron, worth $1,000,000
+in Glasgow, but $1,100,000 in Chicago, ex duty, and plus
+transportation. By this transaction M, besides effecting the desired
+exchange, netted a profit of $100,000. Yet, according to the Commerce
+and Navigation Reports, and Mr. Greeley's one eye, as there had been
+no exports and $1,000,000 of imports, the country was a sufferer by
+the latter sum.</p>
+
+<p>N, was a body of incorporators who owned a tract of land lying in the
+bend of a river. Standing in need of water power for manufacturing
+purposes, they resolved to cut a canal across the bend. As this would
+essentially benefit the navigation of the river, the State agreed to
+guaranty their bonds for a loan of money to the extent of $1,000,000.
+Finding no purchaser for these bonds in the United States, they
+remitted them to Europe, and there sold them at par. With the proceeds
+they purchased army blankets for the Boston market, on which they
+realized ten per cent. net profit. These sold, the avails were
+invested in barrows, spades, water-wheels, wages, &amp;c., and in good
+time the canal was cut and the manufactory set a-going. Profitable as
+this thing was to N, Mr. Greeley's single-barrelled telescope sees in
+it only a loss to the country of $1,000,000.</p>
+
+<p>O, represents the Illinois Central, Union Pacific, and  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66"></a>[66]</span> other western
+railroads, owning grants of land along their respective roads, to sell
+which to actual settlers they open agencies in London, Havre, Antwerp,
+and other European cities. The emigrants who buy these lands pay for
+them in Europe, and set sail for America with their title-deeds in
+their pockets, and their axes on their shoulders, ready for a conquest
+over forest and prairie. The agents of the Illinois Central Railroad
+(see report of the Company), who have sold 1,664,422 acres, say at an
+average of ten dollars per acre, invested the proceeds, $16,644,220,
+in iron rails for the road, worth that sum in England, but ten per
+cent. more in Illinois, less duty and plus transportation. The road
+has thus not only netted a profit of $1,664,422 on the transaction,
+but sold their wild lands to actual settlers, who will soon convert
+them into productive farms. But Mr. Greeley, upon seeing an import of
+$16,644,220 of iron rails, declares the thing must be stopped or the
+country will perish.</p>
+
+<p>P, is Sir Morton Peto and other European capitalists, who, believing
+that eight per cent., the average rate of interest in the United
+States, is better than three per cent., the average rate in England,
+invest $10,000,000 of capital in American enterprises. This capital is
+sent hither in the form of merchandise, to stock our railroads, farms,
+factories, etc., and is so much clear benefit to the country; but to
+Mr. Greeley's solitary vision it is only a curse.</p>
+
+<p>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 United
+States  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67"></a>[67]</span> altogether. These vessels have an aggregate burden of one
+million tons, are worth forty dollars, gold, per ton, and earn a net
+profit per annum of ten per cent. on their cost. Although in this kind
+of carrying trade we are wofully behind other nations, yet it yields,
+in twelve years (the average age of the vessels engaged in it), the
+neat 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 profit
+of ten per cent. Although an unquestionable gain to Q and the country
+at large of $52,800,000, Mr. Greeley, with his contracted views, only
+regards it as a dead loss on the import side of our Commerce and
+Navigation Returns.</p>
+
+<p>R, was a bank which had a defaulting cashier, who ran away in 1857
+with $500,000 of its funds. (Sch*yl*r carried off a million of New
+Haven Railroad bonds). These funds were recovered and converted into
+gold, which was shipped to the United States. According to Mr.
+Greeley, who could find no record of exports to counterbalance it, the
+same was a dead loss to the country.</p>
+
+<p>S, and his friends own 76,990 tons of whaling ships (see Commerce and
+Navigation Reports, 1866), worth $40 per ton, gold, or $3,079,600.
+These ships are sent annually to the Arctic regions and earn for S and
+his friends ten per cent., or $307,960 net profit each year. Five
+years' profits, consisting of whale oil, bone, etc., which, after an
+active and profitable trade at the Sandwich Islands, they returned
+with this year, were valued at $1,655,659, and were duly entered among
+the imports, furnishing to Mr. Greeley an indubitable proof  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68"></a>[68]</span> that the
+country was losing money in this business, and that the attention of
+Congress should at once be directed toward supplying a proper remedy.</p>
+
+<p>T, was a South American refugee, who brought with him a million of
+dollars in gold doubloons. After living here for many years, by which
+time, through foreign trading, his capital had doubled, he invested
+the entire avails in United States bonds, as a last and striking
+evidence of his faith in our institutions, and departed to his native
+country, there to rest his bones. This man clearly prospered, and so
+did the country in which he settled, and on whose national faith he
+lent all his fortune. Yet Mr. Greeley concludes the whole thing to
+have been a bad job for us, and harps upon another over-importation of
+$1,000,000.</p>
+
+<p>U, is a gallant Yankee sea-captain, who picks up an abandoned vessel
+at sea laden with a valuable cargo of teas, and bravely tows her into
+port, receiving $200,000 of the proceeds of the sale of her cargo as
+salvage for his skill and intrepidity. From Mr. Greeley's point of
+view U is a traitor to his country, and suffering a merited poverty
+for over-importing. But U drives his carriage about town, and has his
+own opinion of Mr. Greeley's views.</p>
+
+<p>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 to
+improve American breeds. The horses arrive in good order, and on being
+sold, yield V a net profit of $30,000, besides enriching our native
+breeds of these useful animals. Mr. Greeley still holds out, and jots
+the whole transaction down as an additional evidence of national
+decadence.</p><p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69"></a>[69]</span> </p>
+
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Tabular Expose.</span><br /></p>
+
+<p>
+Official Returns of these Transactions as they would appear per<br />
+Commerce and Navigation Reports.&mdash;Sums all stated in gold.<br />
+</p>
+<table border="1">
+  <tr>
+    <td>&nbsp;
+
+    </td>
+    <td>Exports.<br />
+      Value in the<br />
+  United States.<br />
+  <br />
+    </td>
+    <td>Imports.<br />
+      Foreign<br />
+        value.<br />
+        <br />
+
+    </td>
+    <td>Net profit<br />
+      to the<br />
+        individual.<br />
+        <br />
+
+    </td>
+    <td>Immediate <br />
+    accretion to the<br />
+    country's stock<br />
+    of productive <br />
+    wealth.<br /></td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>A</td>
+    <td>$10,000,000<br /></td>
+    <td>$11,000,000<br /></td>
+    <td> $2,000,000<br /></td>
+    <td>$2,000,000 <br /></td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>B</td>
+    <td>&nbsp;</td>
+    <td>1,000,000<br /></td>
+    <td>100,000</td>
+    <td>1,100,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>C</td>
+    <td>&nbsp;</td>
+    <td>1,000,000</td>
+    <td>100,000 </td>
+    <td> 1,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>D</td>
+    <td>&nbsp;</td>
+    <td>1,000,000 </td>
+    <td>1,100,000 </td>
+    <td>1,100,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>E</td>
+    <td>1,000,000</td>
+    <td>1,610,510 </td>
+    <td>610,510 </td>
+    <td>610,510</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>F</td>
+    <td>&nbsp;</td>
+    <td> 200,000</td>
+    <td>50,000 </td>
+    <td>50,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>G</td>
+    <td>&nbsp;</td>
+    <td>600,000</td>
+    <td>&nbsp;</td>
+    <td>&nbsp;</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>H</td>
+    <td>&nbsp;</td>
+    <td> 250,000 </td>
+    <td> 175,000 </td>
+    <td>175,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>I</td>
+    <td>&nbsp;</td>
+    <td> 40,000,000 </td>
+    <td> 4,000,000 </td>
+    <td>4,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>J</td>
+    <td>&nbsp;</td>
+    <td>1,440,000 </td>
+    <td>184,000</td>
+    <td>1,584,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>K</td>
+    <td>&nbsp;</td>
+    <td> 222,222 </td>
+    <td>22,222 </td>
+    <td>22,222</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>L</td>
+    <td>&nbsp;</td>
+    <td> 25,000,000 </td>
+    <td>&nbsp;</td>
+    <td>  25,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>M</td>
+    <td>&nbsp;</td>
+    <td>  1,000,000 </td>
+    <td> 100,000 </td>
+    <td> 1,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>N</td>
+    <td>&nbsp;</td>
+    <td> 1,000,000 </td>
+    <td>100,000 </td>
+    <td>1,100,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>O</td>
+    <td>&nbsp;</td>
+    <td>16,644,220 </td>
+    <td>1,664,422 </td>
+    <td>18,308,642</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>P</td>
+    <td>&nbsp;</td>
+    <td>10,000,000 </td>
+    <td>&nbsp;</td>
+    <td>10,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>Q</td>
+    <td>&nbsp;</td>
+    <td> 48,000,000 </td>
+    <td> 52,800,000</td>
+    <td> 52,800,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>R</td>
+    <td>&nbsp;</td>
+    <td>500,000 </td>
+    <td>500,000</td>
+    <td>500,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>S</td>
+    <td>&nbsp;</td>
+    <td>1,655,659 </td>
+    <td>1,655,659 </td>
+    <td>1,655,659</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>T</td>
+    <td>&nbsp;</td>
+    <td>1,000,000 </td>
+    <td>1,000,000</td>
+    <td>2,000,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>U</td>
+    <td>&nbsp;</td>
+    <td>200,000 </td>
+    <td>200,000 </td>
+    <td>200,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>V</td>
+    <td>&nbsp;</td>
+    <td>300,000 </td>
+    <td>30,000</td>
+    <td>330,000</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>W</td>
+    <td>&nbsp;</td>
+    <td>&nbsp;</td>
+    <td>&nbsp;</td>
+    <td>&nbsp;</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>X</td>
+    <td>&nbsp;</td>
+    <td>&nbsp;</td>
+    <td>&nbsp;</td>
+    <td>&nbsp;</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>Y</td>
+    <td>&nbsp;</td>
+    <td>&nbsp;</td>
+    <td>&nbsp;</td>
+    <td>&nbsp;</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>Z</td>
+    <td>&nbsp;</td>
+    <td>&nbsp;</td>
+    <td>&nbsp;</td>
+    <td>&nbsp;</td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>&nbsp;</td>
+    <td>$11,000,000</td>
+    <td>$163,622,611</td>
+    <td>$66,391,813</td>
+    <td>$124,736,033</td>
+  </tr>
+</table>
+
+<p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70"></a>[70]</span> </p>
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>W, X, Y, Z, represent 43,628,427,835,109 other commercial
+  transactions, in all of which the parties to them and the countries in
+  which they live make money, but which, regarded from Mr. Greeley's
+  solitary point of view, should be stopped at once by appropriate
+  legislation.</p>
+<p>These various transactions, it will be perceived, have netted to the
+individuals engaged in them a clear profit of $66,391,813, while the
+country has added to its immediate stock of wealth not only this sum,
+but $58,344,220 over, viz: $124,736,033; while, according to the
+Balance of Trade chimera, which simply weighs the custom-house reports
+of the value of the exports with that of the imports (and their values
+in their respective countries of production, too), this commerce has
+been a loss to the country of $163,622,611&mdash;$11,000,000: $152,622,611.</p>
+
+<p>So much for <i>theory</i> when confronted with <i>practice</i>.</p>
+
+<p>The truth is, that the theory of the Balance of Trade should be
+precisely <i>reversed</i>. The profits accruing to the nation from any
+foreign commerce should be calculated by the overplus of the
+importation above the exportation. This overplus, after the deduction
+of expenses, is the real gain. Here we have the true theory, and it is
+one which leads directly to freedom in trade. I now, gentlemen,
+abandon you this theory, as I have done all those of the preceding
+chapters. Do with it as you please, exaggerate it as you will; it has
+nothing to fear. Push it to the furthest extreme; imagine, if it so
+please you, that foreign nations should inundate us with useful
+produce of every description, and ask  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71"></a>[71]</span> nothing in return; that our
+importations should be <i>infinite</i>, and our exportations <i>nothing</i>.
+Imagine all this, and still I defy you to prove that we will be the
+poorer in consequence.</p><p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72"></a>[72]</span> </p>
+
+
+
+
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_VII" id="CHAPTER_VII"></a>CHAPTER VII.</h2>
+
+<h3>A PETITION.</h3>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>Petition from the Manufacturers of Candles, Wax-Lights, Lamps,
+Chandeliers, Reflectors, Snuffers, Extinguishers; and from the
+Producers of Tallow, Oil, Resin, Petroleum, Kerosene, Alcohol, and
+generally of every thing used for lights.</p>
+
+<p>"<i>To the Honorable the Senators and Representatives of the United
+States in Congress assembled</i>.</p>
+
+<p>"<span class="smcap">Gentlemen</span>:&mdash;You are in the right way: you reject abstract
+theories; abundance, cheapness, concerns you little. You are entirely
+occupied with the interest of the producer, whom you are anxious to
+free from foreign competition. In a word, you wish to secure the
+<i>national market</i> to <i>national labor</i>.</p>
+
+<p>"We come now to offer you an admirable opportunity for the application
+of your&mdash;&mdash;what shall we say? your theory? no, nothing is more
+deceiving than theory&mdash;your doctrine? your system? your principle? But
+you do not like doctrines; you hold systems in horror; and, as for
+principles, you declare that there are no such things in political
+economy. We will say, then, your practice; your practice without
+theory, and without principle.</p>
+<p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73"></a>[73]</span> </p>
+
+<p>"We are subjected to the intolerable competition of a FOREIGN RIVAL,
+who enjoys, it would seem, such superior facilities for the production
+of light, that he is enabled to <i>inundate</i> our <i>national market</i> at so
+exceedingly reduced a price, that, the moment he makes his appearance,
+he draws off all custom from us; and thus an important branch of
+American industry, with all its innumerable ramifications, is suddenly
+reduced to a state of complete stagnation. This rival, who is no other
+than the sun, carries on so bitter a war against us, that we have
+every reason to believe that he has been excited to this course by our
+perfidious cousins, the Britishers. (Good diplomacy this, for the
+present time!) In this belief we are confirmed by the fact that in all
+his transactions with their befogged island, he is much more moderate
+and careful than with us.</p>
+
+<p>"Our petition is, that it would please your Honorable Body to pass a
+law whereby shall be directed the shutting up of all windows, dormers,
+sky-lights, shutters, curtains&mdash;in a word, all openings, holes,
+chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is used to
+penetrate into our dwellings, to the prejudice of the profitable
+manufactures which we flatter ourselves we have been enabled to bestow
+upon the country; which country cannot, therefore, without
+ingratitude, leave us now to struggle unprotected through so unequal a
+contest.</p>
+
+<p>"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 have
+to advance in its favor.</p>
+
+<p>"And first, if, by shutting out as much as possible  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74"></a>[74]</span> all access to
+natural light, you thus create the necessity for artificial light, is
+there in the United States an industrial pursuit which will not,
+through some connection with this important object, be benefited by
+it?</p>
+
+<p>"If more tallow be consumed, there will arise a necessity for an
+increase of cattle and sheep. Thus artificial meadows must be in
+greater demand; and meat, wool, leather, and above all, manure, this
+basis of agricultural riches, must become more abundant.</p>
+
+<p>"If more oil be consumed, it will effect a great impetus to our
+petroleum trade. Pit-Hole, Tack, and Oil Creek stock will go up
+exceedingly, and an immense revenue will thereby accrue to the
+numerous possessors of oil lands, who will be able to pay such a large
+tax that the national debt can be paid off at once. Besides that, the
+patent hermetical barrel trade, and numerous other industries
+connected with the oil trade, will prosper at an unprecedented rate,
+to the great benefit and glory of the country.</p>
+
+<p>"Navigation would equally profit. Thousands of vessels would soon be
+employed in the whale fisheries, and thence would arise a navy capable
+of sustaining the honor of the United States, and of responding to the
+patriotic sentiments of the undersigned petitioners, candle-merchants,
+&amp;c.</p>
+
+<p>"But what words can express the magnificence which New York will then
+exhibit! Cast an eye upon the future, and behold the gildings, the
+bronzes, the magnificent crystal chandeliers, lamps, lusters, and
+candelabras, which will glitter in the spacious stores, compared to
+which the splendor of the present day will appear little and
+insignificant.</p>
+<p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75"></a>[75]</span> </p>
+
+<p>"There is none, not even the poor manufacturer of resin in the midst
+of his pine forests, nor the miserable miner in his dark dwelling, but
+who would enjoy an increase of salary and of comforts.</p>
+
+<p>"Gentlemen, if you will be pleased to reflect, you cannot fail to be
+convinced that there is perhaps not one American, from the opulent
+stockholder of Pit-Hole, down to the poorest vender of matches, who is
+not interested in the success of our petition.</p>
+
+<p>"We foresee your objections, gentlemen; but there is not one that you
+can oppose to us which you will not be obliged to gather from the
+works of the partisans of free trade. We dare challenge you to
+pronounce one word against our petition, which is not equally opposed
+to your own practice and the principle which guides your policy.</p>
+
+<p>"If you tell us that, though we may gain by this protection, the
+United States will not gain, because the consumer must pay the price
+of it, we answer you:</p>
+
+<p>"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
+<i>encourage labor</i>, to <i>increase the demand for labor</i>. The same reason
+should now induce you to act in the same manner.</p>
+
+<p>"You have yourselves already answered the objection. When you were
+told: The consumer is interested in the free introduction of iron,
+coal, corn, wheat, cloths, &amp;c., your answer was: Yes, but the producer
+is interested in their exclusion. Thus, also, if the consumer  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76"></a>[76]</span> is
+interested in the admission of light, we, the producers, pray for its
+interdiction.</p>
+
+<p>"You have also said the producer and the consumer are one. If the
+manufacturer gains by protection, he will cause the agriculturist to
+gain also; if agriculture prospers, it opens a market for manufactured
+goods. Thus we, if you confer upon us the monopoly of furnishing light
+during the day, will as a first consequence buy large quantities of
+tallow, coal, oil, resin, kerosene, wax, alcohol, silver, iron,
+bronze, crystal, for the supply of our business; and then we and our
+numerous contractors having become rich, our consumption will be
+great, and will become a means of contributing to the comfort and
+competency of the workers in every branch of national labor.</p>
+
+<p>"Will you say that the light of the sun is a gratuitous gift, and that
+to repulse gratuitous gifts is to repulse riches under pretence of
+encouraging the means of obtaining them?</p>
+
+<p>"Take care&mdash;you carry the death-blow to your own policy. Remember that
+hitherto you have always repulsed foreign produce, <i>because</i> it was an
+approach to a gratuitous gift, and <i>the more in proportion</i> as this
+approach was more close. You have, in obeying the wishes of other
+monopolists, acted only from a <i>half-motive</i>; to grant our petition
+there is a much <i>fuller inducement</i>. To repulse us, precisely for the
+reason that our case is a more complete one than any which have
+preceded it, would be to lay down the following equation: + &times; + = - ; in
+other words, it would be to accumulate absurdity upon absurdity.</p>
+
+<p>"Labor and Nature concur in different proportions,  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77"></a>[77]</span> according to
+country and climate, in every article of production. The portion of
+Nature is always gratuitous; that of labor alone regulates the price.</p>
+
+<p>"If a Lisbon orange can be sold at one hundredth the price of a New
+York one, it is because a natural and gratuitous heat does for the
+one, what the other only obtains from an artificial and consequently
+expensive one.</p>
+
+<p>"When, therefore, we purchase a Portuguese orange, we may say that we
+obtain it 99/100 gratuitously and 1/100 by the right of labor; in
+other words, at a mere song compared to those of New York.</p>
+
+<p>"Now it is precisely on account of this 99/100 <i>gratuity</i> (excuse the
+phrase) that you argue in favor of exclusion. How, you say, could
+national labor sustain the competition of foreign labor, when the
+first has every thing to do, and the last is rid of nearly all the
+trouble, the sun taking the rest of the business upon himself? If then
+the 99/100 <i>gratuity</i> can determine you to check competition, on what
+principle can the <i>entire gratuity</i> be alleged as a reason for
+admitting it? You are no logicians if, refusing the 99/100 gratuity as
+hurtful to human labor, you do not <i>&agrave; fortiori</i>, and with double zeal,
+reject the full gratuity.</p>
+
+<p>"Again, when any article, as coal, iron, cheese, or cloth, comes to us
+from foreign countries with less labor than if we produced it
+ourselves, the difference in price is a <i>gratuitous gift</i> conferred
+upon us; and the gift is more or less considerable, according as the
+difference is greater or less. It is the quarter, the half, or the
+three-quarters of the value of the produce, in proportion as the
+foreign merchant requires the  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78"></a>[78]</span> three-quarters, the half, or the
+quarter of the price. It is as complete as possible when the producer
+offers, as the sun does with light, the whole, in free gift. The
+question is, and we put it formally, whether you wish for the United
+States the benefit of gratuitous consumption, or the supposed
+advantages of laborious production. Choose: but be consistent. And
+does it not argue the greatest inconsistency to check, as you do, the
+importation of iron-ware, dry-goods, and other foreign manufactures,
+merely because, and even in proportion as, their price approaches
+zero, while at the same time you freely admit, and without limitation,
+the light of the sun, whose price is during the whole day <i>at</i> zero?"</p><p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79"></a>[79]</span> </p>
+
+
+
+
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_VIII" id="CHAPTER_VIII"></a>CHAPTER VIII.</h2>
+
+<h3>DISCRIMINATING DUTIES.</h3>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>A poor laborer of Ohio had raised, with the greatest possible
+care 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 had
+cost a drop of sweat to his brow.</p>
+
+<p>"I will sell it," said he to his wife, "and with the proceeds I will
+buy lace, which will serve you to make a present for our daughter."</p>
+
+<p>The honest countryman, arriving in the city of Cincinnati, there met
+an Englishman and a Yankee.</p>
+
+<p>The Yankee said to him, "Give me your wine, and I in exchange will
+give you fifteen bundles of Yankee lace."</p>
+
+<p>The Englishman said, "Give it to me, and I will give you twenty
+bundles of English lace, for we English can spin cheaper than the
+Yankees."</p>
+
+<p>But a custom-house officer standing by, said to the laborer, "My good
+fellow, make your exchange, if you choose, with Brother Jonathan, but
+it is my duty to prevent your doing so with the Englishman."</p>
+
+<p>"What!" exclaimed the countryman, "you wish me to take fifteen bundles
+of New England lace, when I can have twenty from Manchester!"</p><p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80"></a>[80]</span> </p>
+
+<p>"Certainly," replied the custom-house officer; "do you not see that
+the United States would be a loser if you were to receive twenty
+bundles instead of fifteen?"</p>
+
+<p>"I can scarcely understand this," said the laborer.</p>
+
+<p>"Nor can I explain it," said the custom-house officer, "but there is
+no doubt of the fact; for congressmen, ministers, and editors, all
+agree that a people is impoverished in proportion as it receives a
+large compensation for any given quantity of its produce."</p>
+
+<p>The countryman was obliged to conclude his bargain with the Yankee.
+His daughter received but three-fourths of her present; and these good
+folks are still puzzling themselves to discover how it can happen that
+people are ruined by receiving four instead of three; and why they are
+richer with three dozen bundles of lace instead of four.</p><p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81"></a>[81]</span> </p>
+
+
+
+
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_IX" id="CHAPTER_IX"></a>CHAPTER IX.</h2>
+
+<h3>A WONDERFUL DISCOVERY.</h3>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>At this moment, when all minds are occupied in endeavoring to
+discover the most economical means of transportation; when, to put
+these means into practice, we are levelling roads, improving rivers,
+perfecting steamboats, establishing railroads, and attempting various
+systems of traction, atmospheric, hydraulic, pneumatic, electric, &amp;c.;
+at this moment, when, I believe, every one is seeking in sincerity and
+with ardor the solution of this problem&mdash;"<i>To bring the price of
+things in their place of consumption, as near as possible to their
+price in that of production</i>"&mdash;I would believe myself to be acting a
+culpable part towards my country, towards the age in which I live, and
+towards myself, if I were longer to keep secret the wonderful
+discovery which I have just made.</p>
+
+<p>I am well aware that the self-illusions of inventors have become
+proverbial, but I have, nevertheless, the most complete certainty of
+having discovered an infallible means of bringing produce from all
+parts of the world into the United States, and reciprocally to
+transport ours, with a very important reduction of price.</p>
+
+<p>Infallible! and yet this is but a single one of the advantages of my
+astonishing invention, which requires neither plans nor devices,
+neither preparatory studies,  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82"></a>[82]</span> nor engineers, nor machinists, nor
+capital, nor stockholders, nor governmental assistance! There is no
+danger of shipwrecks, of explosions, of shocks of fire, nor of
+displacement of rails! It can be put into practice without preparation
+almost any day we think proper!</p>
+
+<p>Finally: and this will, no doubt, recommend it to the public, it will
+not increase the Budget one cent; but the contrary. It will not
+augment the number of office-holders, nor the exigencies of State; but
+the contrary. It will put in hazard the liberty of no one; but on the
+contrary, it will secure to each a greater freedom.</p>
+
+<p>I have been led to this discovery, not from accident, but from
+observation, and I will tell you how.</p>
+
+<p>I had this question to determine:</p>
+
+<p>"Why does any article made, for instance, at Montreal, bear an
+increased price on its arrival at New York?"</p>
+
+<p>It was immediately evident to me that this was the result of
+<i>obstacles</i> of various kinds existing between Montreal and New York.
+First, there is <i>distance</i>, which cannot be overcome without trouble
+and loss of time; and either we must submit to these troubles and
+losses in our own person, or pay another for bearing them for us. Then
+come rivers, hills, accidents, heavy and muddy roads. These are so
+many <i>difficulties</i> to be overcome; in order to do which, causeways
+are constructed, bridges built, roads cut and paved, railroads
+established, &amp;c. But all this is costly, and the article transported
+must bear its portion of the expense. There are robbers, too, on the
+roads, sometimes, and this necessitates railway guards, a police
+force, &amp;c.</p>
+
+<p>Now, among these <i>obstacles</i>, there is one which we  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83"></a>[83]</span> ourselves have
+lately placed, and that at no little expense, between Montreal and New
+York. This consists of men planted along the frontier, armed to the
+teeth, whose business it is to place <i>difficulties</i> in the way of the
+transportation of goods from one country to another. These men are
+called custom-house officers, and their effect is precisely similar to
+that of rutted and boggy roads. They retard and put obstacles in the
+way of transportation, thus contributing to the difference which we
+have remarked between the price of production and that of consumption;
+to diminish which difference, as much as possible, is the problem
+which we are seeking to resolve.</p>
+
+<p>Here, then, we have found its solution. Let our tariff be diminished:
+we will thus have constructed a Northern railway which will cost us
+nothing. Nay, more, we will be saved great expenses, and will begin,
+from the first day, to save capital.</p>
+
+<p>Really, I cannot but ask myself, in surprise, how our brains could
+have admitted so whimsical a piece of folly as to induce us to pay
+many millions to destroy the <i>natural obstacles</i> interposed between
+the United States and other nations, only at the same time to pay so
+many millions more in order to replace them by <i>artificial obstacles</i>,
+which have exactly the same effect; so that the obstacle removed and
+the obstacle created, neutralize each other, things go on as before,
+and the only result of our trouble is a double expense.</p>
+
+<p>An article of Canadian production is worth, at Montreal, twenty
+dollars, and, from the expenses of transportation, thirty dollars at
+New York. A similar  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84"></a>[84]</span> article of New York manufacture costs forty
+dollars. What is our course under these circumstances?</p>
+
+<p>First, we impose a duty of at least ten dollars on the Canadian
+article, so as to raise its price to a level with that of the New York
+one&mdash;the government, withal, paying numerous officials to attend to
+the levying of this duty. The article thus pays ten dollars for
+transportation, and ten for the tax.</p>
+
+<p>This done, we say to ourselves: Transportation between Montreal and
+New 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 course
+will be to get the Canadian article at New York for thirty-five
+dollars, viz.:</p>
+
+
+<ul>
+<li>20 dollars&mdash;price at Montreal.</li>
+<li>10&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;duty.</li>
+<li>&nbsp;&nbsp;5&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;transportation by railway.</li>
+<li>&mdash;</li>
+<li> 35 dollars&mdash;total, or market price at New York.</li>
+</ul>
+
+
+
+<p>Could we not have
+  attained the same end by lowering the tariff to five dollars? We would
+  then have&mdash;</p>
+<ul>
+<li>20 dollars&mdash;price at Montreal.</li>
+<li>&nbsp;&nbsp;5&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;duty.</li>
+<li>10&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;transportation on the common road.</li>
+<li>&mdash;</li>
+<li> 35 dollars&mdash;total, or market price at New York.</li>
+</ul>
+
+
+
+<p>And this arrangement
+  would have saved us the $2,000,000 spent upon the railway, besides the
+  expense saved in custom-house surveillance, which would of course
+  diminish in proportion as the temptation to smuggling would become
+  less.</p>
+<p>But it is answered: The duty is necessary to protect  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85"></a>[85]</span> New York
+industry. So be it; but do not then destroy the effect of it by your
+railway. For if you persist in your determination to keep the Canadian
+article on a par with the New York one at forty dollars, you must
+raise the duty to fifteen dollars, in order to have:&mdash;</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>20 dollars&mdash;price at Montreal.</li>
+<li>15&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;protective duty.</li>
+<li>&nbsp;&nbsp;5&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;transportation by railway.</li>
+<li>&mdash;</li>
+<li> 40 dollars&mdash;total, at equalized prices.</li>
+</ul>
+
+
+
+<p> And I now ask, of what
+  benefit, under these circumstances, is the railway?</p>
+<p>Frankly, is it not humiliating to the nineteenth century, that it
+should be destined to transmit to future ages the example of such
+puerilities seriously and gravely practised? To be the dupe of
+another, is bad enough; but to employ all the forms and ceremonies of
+representation in order to cheat oneself&mdash;to doubly cheat oneself, and
+that too in a mere numerical account&mdash;truly this is calculated to
+lower a little the pride of this <i>enlightened age</i>.</p><p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86"></a>[86]</span> </p>
+
+
+
+
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_X" id="CHAPTER_X"></a>CHAPTER X.</h2>
+
+<h3>RECIPROCITY.</h3>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>We have just seen that all which renders transportation difficult,
+acts in the same manner as protection; or, if the expression be
+preferred, that protection tends towards the same result as all
+obstacles to transportation.</p>
+
+<p>A tariff may be truly spoken of as a swamp, a rut, a steep hill; in a
+word, an <i>obstacle</i>, whose effect is to augment the difference between
+the price of consumption and that of production. It is equally
+incontestable that a swamp, a bog, &amp;c., are veritable protective
+tariffs.</p>
+
+<p>There are people (few in number, it is true, but such there are) who
+begin to understand that obstacles are not the less obstacles because
+they are artificially created, and that our well-being is more
+advanced by freedom of trade than by protection; precisely as a canal
+is more desirable than a sandy, hilly, and difficult road.</p>
+
+<p>But they still say, this liberty ought to be reciprocal. If we take
+off our taxes in favor of Canada, while Canada does not do the same
+towards us, it is evident that we are duped. Let us, then, make
+<i>treaties of commerce</i> upon the basis of a just reciprocity; let us
+yield  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87"></a>[87]</span> where we are yielded to; let us make the <i>sacrifice</i> of buying
+that we may obtain the advantage of selling.</p>
+
+<p>Persons who reason thus, are (I am sorry to say), whether they know it
+or not, governed by the protectionist principle. They are only a
+little more inconsistent than the pure protectionists, as these are
+more inconsistent than the absolute prohibitionists.</p>
+
+<p>I will illustrate this by a fable:</p>
+
+<p>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 with
+each other. Some time after this was done, the inhabitants of N*w Y*rk
+became uneasy, and said: "M*ntr**l is overwhelming us with its
+productions; this must be attended to." They established, therefore, a
+corps of <i>Obstructors</i>, so called, because their business was to place
+obstacles in the way of the convoys which arrived from M*ntr**l. Soon
+after, M*ntr**l also established a corps of Obstructors.</p>
+
+<p>After some years, people having become more enlightened, the
+inhabitants of M*ntr**l began to discover that these reciprocal
+obstacles 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 put
+obstacles in the way of this road. This is absurd. It would have been
+far better to have left things in their original position, for then we
+would not have been put to the expense of building our road, and
+afterwards of creating difficulties. In the name of M*ntr**l I come to
+propose to you not to renounce at once our system of mutual obstacles,
+ <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88"></a>[88]</span> for this would be acting according to a principle, and we despise
+principles as much as you do; but to somewhat lighten these obstacles,
+weighing at the same time carefully our respective <i>sacrifices</i>." The
+ambassador having thus spoken, the town of N*w Y*rk asked time to
+reflect; manufacturers, office-seekers, congressmen, and custom-house
+officers, were consulted; and at last, after some years' deliberation,
+it was declared that the negotiations were broken off.</p>
+
+<p>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 our
+sales; this is a misfortune. Those which we ourselves create, injure
+our purchases; this is a second misfortune. We have no power over the
+first, but the second is entirely dependent upon ourselves. Let us
+then 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*rk
+to do the same. Some day or other she will learn to better calculate
+her own interests."</p>
+
+<p>A second counsellor, a man of practice and of facts, uncontrolled by
+principles and wise in ancestral experience, replied: "We must not
+listen to this dreamer, this theorist, this innovator, this Utopian,
+this political economist, this friend to N*w Y*rk. We would be
+entirely ruined if the embarrassments of the road were not carefully
+weighed and exactly equalized between N*w Y*rk and M*ntr**l. There
+would be more difficulty in going than in coming; in exportation than
+in importation. We would be with regard to N*w Y*rk,  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89"></a>[89]</span> in the inferior
+condition in which Havre, Nantes, Bordeaux, Lisbon, London, Hamburg,
+and New Orleans, are, in relation to cities placed higher up the
+rivers Seine, Loire, Garonne, Tagus, Thames, Elbe, and Mississippi;
+for the difficulties of ascending must always be greater than those of
+descending rivers."</p>
+
+<p>"(A voice exclaims: 'But the cities near the mouths of rivers have
+always prospered more than those higher up the stream.')</p>
+
+<p>"This is not possible."</p>
+
+<p>"(The same voice: 'But it is a fact.')</p>
+
+<p>"Well, they have then prospered <i>contrary to rule</i>."</p>
+
+<p>Such conclusive reasoning staggered the assembly. The orator went on
+to convince them thoroughly and conclusively by speaking of national
+independence, national honor, national dignity, national labor,
+overwhelming importation, tributes, ruinous competition. In short, he
+succeeded in determining the assembly to continue their system of
+obstacles, and I can now point out a certain country where you may see
+road-workers and Obstructors working with the best possible
+understanding, by the decree of the same legislative assembly, paid by
+the same citizens; the first to improve the road, the last to
+embarrass it.</p><p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90"></a>[90]</span> </p>
+
+
+
+
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XI" id="CHAPTER_XI"></a>CHAPTER XI.</h2>
+
+<h3>ABSOLUTE PRICES.</h3>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>If we wish to judge between freedom of trade and protection, to
+calculate the probable effect of any political phenomenon, we should
+notice how far its influence tends to the production of <i>abundance</i> or
+<i>scarcity</i>, and not simply of <i>cheapness</i> or <i>dearness</i> of price. We
+must beware of trusting to absolute prices: it would lead to
+inextricable confusion.</p>
+
+<p>Mr. Protectionist, after having established the fact that protection
+raises prices, adds:</p>
+
+<p>"The augmentation of price increases the expenses of life, and
+consequently the price of labor, and every one finds in the increase
+of the price of his produce the same proportion as in the increase of
+his expenses. Thus, if everybody pays as consumer, everybody receives
+also as producer."</p>
+
+<p>It is evident that it would be easy to reverse the argument, and say:
+If everybody receives as producer, everybody must pay as consumer.</p>
+
+<p>Now what does this prove? Nothing whatever, unless it be that
+protection <i>transfers</i> riches, uselessly and unjustly. Spoliation does
+the same.</p>
+
+<p>Again, to prove that the complicated arrangements of this system give
+even simple compensation, it is necessary to adhere to the
+"<i>consequently</i>" of Mr. Protectionist,  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91"></a>[91]</span> and to convince oneself that
+the price of labor rises with that of the articles protected. This is
+a question of fact. For my own part I do not believe in it, because I
+think that the price of labor, like everything else, is governed by
+the proportion existing between the supply and the demand. Now I can
+perfectly well understand that <i>restriction</i> will diminish the supply
+of produce, and consequently raise its price; but I do not as clearly
+see that it increases the demand for labor, thereby raising the rate
+of wages. This is the less conceivable to me, because the sum of labor
+required depends upon the quantity of disposable capital; and
+protection, while it may change the direction of capital, and transfer
+it from one business to another, cannot increase it one penny.</p>
+
+<p>This question, which is of the highest interest, we will examine
+elsewhere. I return to the discussion of <i>absolute prices</i>, and
+declare that there is no absurdity which cannot be rendered specious
+by such reasoning as that which is commonly resorted to by
+protectionists.</p>
+
+<p>Imagine an isolated nation possessing a given quantity of cash, and
+every year wantonly burning the half of its produce; I will undertake
+to prove by the protective theory that this nation will not be the
+less rich in consequence of such a procedure. For, the result of the
+conflagration must be, that everything would double in price. An
+inventory made before this event, would offer exactly the same nominal
+value as one made after it. Who, then, would be the loser? If John
+buys his cloth dearer, he also sells his corn at a higher price; and
+if Peter makes a loss on the purchase of  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92"></a>[92]</span> his corn, he gains it back
+by the sale of his cloth. Thus "every one finds in the increase of the
+price of his produce, the same proportion as in the increase of his
+expenses: and thus if everybody pays as consumer, everybody also
+receives as producer."</p>
+
+<p>All this is nonsense, and not science.</p>
+
+<p>The simple truth is, that whether men destroy their corn and cloth by
+fire, or by use, the effect is the same as regards price, but not as
+regards riches, for it is precisely in the enjoyment of the use, that
+riches&mdash;in other words, comfort, well-being&mdash;exist.</p>
+
+<p>Restriction may in the same way, while it lessens the abundance of
+things, raise their prices, so as to leave each individual as rich,
+<i>numerically speaking</i>, as when unembarrassed by it. But because we
+put down in an inventory three bushels of corn at $1, or four bushels
+at 75 cents, and sum up the nominal value of each inventory at $3,
+does it thence follow that they are equally capable of contributing to
+the necessities of the community?</p>
+
+<p>To this truthful and common-sense view of the phenomenon of
+consumption it will be my continual endeavor to lead the
+protectionists; for in this is the end of all my efforts, the solution
+of every problem. I must continually repeat to them that restriction,
+by impeding commerce, by limiting the division of labor, by forcing it
+to combat difficulties of situation and temperature, must in its
+results diminish the quantity produced by any fixed quantum of labor.
+And what can it benefit us that the smaller quantity produced under
+the protective system bears the same <i>nominal value</i> as the greater
+quantity produced under the free  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93"></a>[93]</span> trade system? Man does not live on
+<i>nominal values</i>, but on real articles of produce; and the more
+abundant these articles are, no matter what price they may bear, the
+richer is he.</p>
+
+<p>The following passage occurs in the writings of a French
+protectionist:</p>
+
+<p>"If fifteen millions of merchandise sold to foreign nations, be taken
+from our ordinary produce, calculated at fifty millions, the
+thirty-five millions of merchandise which remain, not being sufficient
+for the ordinary demand, will increase in price to the value of fifty
+millions. The revenue of the country will thus represent fifteen
+millions more in value.... There will then be an increase of fifteen
+millions in the riches of the country; precisely the amount of the
+importation of money."</p>
+
+<p>This is droll enough! If a country has made in the course of the year
+fifty millions of revenue in harvests and merchandise, she need but
+sell one-quarter to foreign nations, in order to make herself
+one-quarter richer than before! If then she sold the half, she would
+increase her riches by one-half; and if the last hair of her wool, the
+last grain of her wheat, were to be changed for cash, she would thus
+raise her product to one hundred millions, where before it was but
+fifty! A singular manner, certainly, of becoming rich. Unlimited price
+produced by unlimited scarcity!</p>
+
+<p>To sum up our judgment of the two systems, let us contemplate their
+different effects when pushed to the most exaggerated extreme.</p>
+
+<p>According to the protectionist just quoted, the French would be quite
+as rich, that is to say, as well provided  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94"></a>[94]</span> with everything, if they
+had but a thousandth part of their annual produce, because this part
+would then be worth a thousand times its natural value! So much for
+looking at prices alone.</p>
+
+<p>According to us, the French would be infinitely rich if their annual
+produce were infinitely abundant, and consequently bearing no value at
+all.</p><p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95"></a>[95]</span> </p>
+
+
+
+
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XII" id="CHAPTER_XII"></a>CHAPTER XII.</h2>
+
+<h3>DOES PROTECTION RAISE THE RATE OF WAGES?</h3>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>When we hear our beardless scribblers, romancers, reformers, our
+perfumed magazine writers, stuffed with ices and champagne, as they
+carefully place in their portfolios the sentimental scissorings which
+fill the current literature of the day, or cause to be decorated with
+gilded ornaments their tirades against the egotism and the
+individualism of the age; when we hear them declaiming against social
+abuses, and groaning over deficient wages and needy families; when we
+see them raising their eyes to heaven and weeping over the
+wretchedness of the laboring classes, while they never visit this
+wretchedness unless it be to draw lucrative sketches of its scenes of
+misery, we are tempted to say to them: The sight of you is enough to
+make me sicken of attempting to teach the truth.</p>
+
+<p>Affectation! Affectation! It is the nauseating disease of the day! If
+a thinking man, a sincere philanthropist, takes into consideration the
+condition of the working classes and endeavors to lay bare their
+necessities, scarcely has his work made an impression before it is
+greedily 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:
+ <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96"></a>[96]</span> Organization, Association; you are flattered and fawned upon until
+you become ashamed of publicly defending the cause of the working man;
+for how can it be possible to introduce sensible ideas in the midst of
+these sickening affectations?</p>
+
+<p>But we must put aside this cowardly indifference, which the
+affectation that provokes it is not enough to justify.</p>
+
+<p>Working men, your situation is singular! You are robbed, as I will
+presently prove to you. But no: I retract the word; we must avoid an
+expression which is violent; perhaps, indeed, incorrect; inasmuch as
+this spoliation, wrapped in the sophisms which disguise it, is
+practised, we must believe, without the intention of the spoiler, and
+with the consent of the spoiled. But it is nevertheless true that you
+are deprived of the just remuneration of your labor, while no one
+thinks of causing <i>justice</i> to be rendered to you. If you could be
+consoled by the noisy appeals of your champions to philanthropy, to
+powerless charity, to degrading almsgiving, or if the high-sounding
+words of Voice of the People, Rights of Labor, &amp;c., would relieve
+you&mdash;these indeed you can have in abundance. But <i>justice</i>, simple
+<i>justice</i>&mdash;this nobody thinks of rendering you. For would it not be
+<i>just</i> that after a long day's labor, when you have received your
+wages, you should be permitted to exchange them for the largest
+possible sum of comforts you can obtain voluntarily from any man upon
+the face of the earth?</p>
+
+<p>I too, perhaps, may some day speak to you of the Voice of the People,
+the Rights of Labor, &amp;c., and may perhaps be able to show you what you
+have to expect  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97"></a>[97]</span> from the chimeras by which you allow yourselves to be
+led astray.</p>
+
+<p>In the meantime let us examine if <i>injustice</i> is not done to you by
+the legislative limitation of the number of persons from whom you are
+allowed to buy those things which you need; as iron, coal, cotton and
+woollen cloths, &amp;c.; thus artificially fixing (so to express myself)
+the price which these articles must bear.</p>
+
+<p>Is it true that protection, which avowedly raises prices, and thus
+injures you, proportionably raises the rate of wages?</p>
+
+<p>On what does the rate of wages depend?</p>
+
+<p>One of your own class has energetically said: "When two workmen run
+after a boss, wages fall; when two bosses run after a workman, wages
+rise."</p>
+
+<p>Allow me, in similar laconic phrase, to employ a more scientific,
+though perhaps a less striking expression: "The rate of wages depends
+upon the proportion which the supply of labor bears to the demand."</p>
+
+<p>On what depends the <i>demand</i> for labor?</p>
+
+<p>On the quantity of disposable capital seeking investment. And the law
+which says, "Such or such an article shall be limited to home
+production and no longer imported from foreign countries," can it in
+any degree increase this capital? Not in the least. This law may
+withdraw it from one course, and transfer it to another; but cannot
+increase it one penny. Then it cannot increase the demand for labor.</p>
+
+<p>While we point with pride to some prosperous manufacture, can we
+answer, whence comes the capital with which it is founded and
+maintained? Has it fallen from the moon? or rather is it not drawn
+either from  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98"></a>[98]</span> agriculture, or stock-breeding, or commerce? We here see
+why, since the reign of protective tariffs, if we see more workmen in
+our mines and our manufacturing towns, we find also fewer vessels in
+our ports, fewer graziers and fewer laborers in our fields and upon
+our hill-sides.</p>
+
+<p>I could speak at great length upon this subject, but prefer
+illustrating my thought by an example.</p>
+
+<p>A countryman had twenty acres of land, with a capital of $10,000. He
+divided his land into four parts, and adopted for it the following
+changes of crops: 1st, maize; 2d, wheat; 3d, clover; and 4th, rye. As
+he needed for himself and family but a small portion of the grain,
+meat, and dairy produce of the farm, he sold the surplus and bought
+iron, coal, cloths, etc. The whole of his capital was yearly
+distributed in wages and payments of accounts to the workingmen of the
+neighborhood. This capital was, from his sales, again returned to him,
+and even increased from year to year. Our countryman, being fully
+convinced that idle capital produces nothing, caused to circulate
+among the working classes this annual increase, which he devoted to
+the inclosing and clearing of lands, or to improvements in his farming
+utensils and his buildings. He deposited some sums in reserve in the
+hands of a neighboring banker, who on his part did not leave these
+idle in his strong-box, but lent them to various tradesmen, so that
+the whole came to be usefully employed in the payment of wages.</p>
+
+<p>The countryman died, and his son, become master of the inheritance,
+said to himself: "It must be confessed that my father has, all his
+life, allowed himself to be  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99"></a>[99]</span> duped. He bought iron, and thus paid
+<i>tribute</i> to England, while our own land could, by an effort, be made
+to produce iron as well as England. He bought coal, cloths, and
+oranges, thus paying <i>tribute</i> to New Brunswick, France, and Sicily,
+very unnecessarily; for coal may be found, doeskins may be made, and
+oranges may be forced to grow, within our own territory. He paid
+tribute to the foreign miner and the weaver; our own servants could
+very well mine our iron and get up native doeskins almost as good as
+the French article. He did all he could to ruin himself, and gave to
+strangers what ought to have been kept for the benefit of his own
+household."</p>
+
+<p>Full of this reasoning, our headstrong fellow determined to change the
+routine of his crops. He divided his farm into twenty parts. On one he
+dug for coal; on another he erected a cloth factory; on a third he put
+a hot-house and cultivated the orange; he devoted the fourth to vines,
+the fifth to wheat, &amp;c., &amp;c. Thus he succeeded in rendering himself
+<i>independent</i>, and furnished all his family supplies from his own
+farm. He no longer received anything from the general circulation;
+neither, it is true, did he cast anything into it. Was he the richer
+for this course? No; for his mine did not yield coal as cheaply as he
+could buy it in the market, nor was the climate favorable to the
+orange. In short, the family supply of these articles was very
+inferior to what it had been during the time when the father had
+obtained them and others by exchange of produce.</p>
+
+<p>With regard to the demand for labor, it certainly was no greater than
+formerly. <span class="smcap">There were, to be sure, five times as many fields to
+cultivate, but they were five times smaller</span>. If coal
+<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100"></a>[100]</span>
+was mined, there was also less wheat; and because there were no more
+oranges bought, neither was there any more rye sold. Besides, the
+farmer could not spend in wages more than his capital, and his
+capital, instead of increasing, was now constantly diminishing. A
+great part of it was necessarily devoted to numerous buildings and
+utensils, indispensable to a person who determines to undertake
+everything. In short, the supply of labor continued the same, but the
+means of paying became less.</p>
+
+<p>The result is precisely similar when a nation isolates itself by the
+prohibitive system. Its number of industrial pursuits is certainly
+multiplied, but their importance is diminished. In proportion to their
+number, they become less productive, for the same capital and the same
+skill are obliged to meet a greater number of difficulties. The fixed
+capital absorbs a greater part of the circulating capital; that is to
+say, a greater part of the funds destined to the payment of wages.
+What remains, ramifies itself in vain; the quantity cannot be
+augmented. It is like the water of a deep pond, which, distributed
+among a multitude of small reservoirs, appears to be more abundant,
+because it covers a greater quantity of soil, and presents a larger
+surface to the sun, while we hardly perceive that, precisely on this
+account, it absorbs, evaporates, and loses itself the quicker.</p>
+
+<p>Capital and labor being given, the result is, a sum of production,
+always the less great in proportion as obstacles are numerous. There
+can be no doubt that international barriers, by forcing capital and
+labor to struggle against greater difficulties of soil and climate,
+must cause the general production to be less, or, in  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101"></a>[101]</span> 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 <i>your</i> portion should be increased? Under such
+a supposition it would be necessary to believe that the rich, those
+who made the law, have so arranged matters, that not only they subject
+themselves to their own proportion of the general diminution, but
+taking the whole of it upon themselves, that they submit also to a
+further loss in order to increase your gains. Is this credible? Is
+this possible? It is, indeed, a most suspicious act of generosity; and
+if you act wisely you will reject it.</p><p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102"></a>[102]</span> </p>
+
+
+
+
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XIII" id="CHAPTER_XIII"></a>CHAPTER XIII.</h2>
+
+<h3>THEORY AND PRACTICE.</h3>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>Defenders of free trade, we are accused of being mere theorists, of
+not giving sufficient weight to the practical.</p>
+
+<p>"What a fearful charge against you, free traders," say the
+protectionists, "is this long succession of distinguished statesmen,
+this imposing race of writers, who have all held opinions differing
+from yours!" This we do not deny. We answer, "It is said, in support
+of established errors, that 'there must be some foundation for ideas
+so generally adopted by all nations. Should not one distrust opinions
+and arguments which overturn that which, until now, has been held as
+settled; that which is held as certain by so many persons whose
+intelligence and motives make them trustworthy?'"</p>
+
+<p>We confess this argument should make a profound impression, and ought
+to throw doubt on the most incontestable points, if we had not seen,
+one after another, opinions the most false, now generally acknowledged
+to be such, received and professed by all the world during a long
+succession of centuries. It is not very long since all nations, from
+the most rude to the most enlightened, and all men, from the
+street-porter to the most learned philosopher, believed in the four
+ <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103"></a>[103]</span> elements. Nobody had thought of contesting this doctrine, which is,
+however, false; so much so, that at this day any mere naturalist's
+assistant, who should consider earth, water, and fire, elements, would
+disgrace himself.</p>
+
+<p>On which our opponents make this observation: "If you suppose you have
+thus answered the very forcible objection you have proposed to
+yourselves, you deceive yourselves strangely. Suppose that men,
+otherwise intelligent, should be mistaken on any point whatever of
+natural history for many centuries, that would signify or prove
+nothing. Would water, air, earth, fire, be less useful to man whether
+they were or were not elements? Such errors are of no consequence;
+they lead to no revolutions, do not unsettle the mind; above all, they
+injure no interests, so they might, without inconvenience, endure for
+millions of years. The physical world would progress just as if they
+did not exist. Would it be thus with errors which attack the moral
+world? 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 we
+explain how such a system could be reconciled with the ever-increasing
+prosperity of nations? You acknowledge that the argument you combat
+ought to make a profound impression. Yes, truly, and this impression
+remains, for you have rather strengthened than destroyed it."</p>
+
+<p>Or again, they say: "It was only in the middle of the last century,
+the eighteenth century, in which all subjects, all principles, without
+exception, were delivered  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104"></a>[104]</span> up to public discussion, that these
+furnishers of speculative ideas which are applied to everything
+without being applicable to anything&mdash;commenced writing on political
+economy. There existed, however, a system of political economy, not
+written, but practised by governments. It is said that Colbert was its
+inventor, and it was the rule of all the States of Europe. What is
+more singular, it has remained so till lately, despite anathemas and
+contempt, and despite the discoveries of the modern school. This
+system, which our writers have called the <i>mercantile system</i>,
+consists in opposing, by prohibitions and duties, such foreign
+productions as might ruin our manufacturers by their competition. This
+system has been pronounced futile, absurd, capable of ruining any
+country, by economical writers of all schools. It has been banished
+from all books, reduced to take refuge in the practice of every
+people; and we do not understand why, in regard to the wealth of
+nations, governments should not have yielded themselves to wise
+authors rather than to <i>the old experience</i> of a system. Above all, we
+cannot conceive why, in political economy, the American government
+should persist in resisting the progress of light, and in preserving,
+in its practice, those old errors which all our economists of the pen
+have designated. But we have said too much about this mercantile
+system, which has in its favor <i>facts</i> alone, though sustained by
+scarcely a single writer of the day."</p>
+
+<p>Would not one say, who listened only to this language, that we
+political economists, in merely claiming for every one <i>the free
+disposition of his own property</i>, had, like the Fourierists, conjured
+up from our brains a new  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105"></a>[105]</span> social order, chimerical and strange; a sort
+of phalanstery, without precedent in the annals of the human race,
+instead of merely talking plain <i>meum</i> and <i>tuum</i> It seems to us that
+if there is in all this anything utopian, anything problematical, it
+is not free trade, but protection; it is not the right to exchange,
+but tariff after tariff applied to overturning the natural order of
+commerce.</p>
+
+<p>But it is not the point to compare and judge of these two systems by
+the light of reason; the question for the moment is, to know which of
+the two is founded upon experience.</p>
+
+<p>So, Messrs. Monopolists, you pretend that the facts are on your side;
+that we have, on our side, theories only.</p>
+
+<p>You even flatter yourselves that this long series of public acts, this
+old experience of the world, which you invoke, has appeared imposing
+to us, and that we confess we have not as yet refuted you as fully as
+we might.</p>
+
+<p>But we do not cede to you the domain of facts, for you have on your
+side only exceptional and contracted facts, while we have universal
+ones to oppose to them; the free and voluntary acts of all men.</p>
+
+<p>What do you say, and what say we?</p>
+
+<p>We say:</p>
+
+<p>"It is better to buy from others anything which would cost more to
+make ourselves."</p>
+
+<p>And on your part you say:</p>
+
+<p>"It is better to make things ourselves, even though it would cost less
+to purchase them from others."</p>
+
+<p>Now, gentlemen, laying aside theory, demonstration,  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106"></a>[106]</span> argument,
+everything which appears to afflict you with nausea, which of these
+assertions has in its favor the sanction of <i>universal practice</i>?</p>
+
+<p>Visit the fields, work-rooms, manufactories, shops; look above,
+beneath, and around you; investigate what is going on in your own
+establishment; observe your own conduct at all times, and then say
+which is the principle that directs these labors, these workmen, these
+inventors, these merchants; say, too, which is your own individual
+practice.</p>
+
+<p>Does the farmer make his clothes? Does the tailor raise the wheat
+which he consumes? Does not your housekeeper cease making bread at
+home 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 tribute
+to the shoe-black? Does not the whole economy of society depend on the
+separation of occupations, on the division of labor; in one word, on
+<i>exchange</i>? And is exchange anything else than the calculation which
+leads us to discontinue, as far as we can, direct production, when
+indirect acquisition spares us time and trouble?</p>
+
+<p>You are not, then, men of <i>practice</i>, since you cannot show a single
+man on the surface of the globe who acts in accordance with your
+principle.</p>
+
+<p>"But," you will say, "we have never heard our principle made the rule
+of individual relations. We comprehend perfectly that this would break
+the social bond, and force men to live, like snails, each one in his
+own shell. We limit ourselves to asserting that it governs <i>in fact</i>
+the relations which are established among the agglomerations of the
+human family."</p><p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107"></a>[107]</span> </p>
+
+<p>But still, this assertion is erroneous. The family, the village, the
+town, the county, the state, are so many agglomerations, which all,
+without any exception, <i>practically</i> reject your principle, and have
+never 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 prevent
+it <i>by force</i>.</p>
+
+<p>It is <i>we</i>, then, who are the men of practice and of experience; for,
+in order to combat the interdict which you have placed exceptionally
+on certain international exchanges, we appeal to the practice and
+experience of all individuals, and all agglomerations of individuals
+whose acts are voluntary, and consequently may be called on for
+testimony. But you commence by <i>constraining</i>, by <i>preventing</i>, and
+then you avail yourself of acts caused by prohibition to exclaim,
+"See! practice justifies us!" You oppose our <i>theory</i>, indeed all
+<i>theory</i>. But when you put a principle in antagonism with ours, do
+you, by chance, fancy that you have formed no <i>theory</i>? No, no; erase
+that from your plea. You form a theory as well as ourselves; but
+between yours and ours there is this difference: our theory consists
+merely in observing universal facts, universal sentiments, universal
+calculations and proceedings, and further, in classifying them and
+arranging them, in order to understand them better. It is so little
+opposed to practice, that it is nothing but <i>practice explained</i>. We
+observe the actions of men moved by the instinct of preservation and
+of progress; and what they do freely, voluntarily, is precisely what
+we call <i>political economy</i>, or the economy of society. We go on
+repeating with  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108"></a>[108]</span> out cessation: "Every man is <i>practically</i> an
+excellent economist, producing or exchanging, according as it is most
+advantageous to him to exchange or to produce. Each one, through
+experience, is educated to science; or rather, science is only that
+same experience scrupulously observed and methodically set forth."</p>
+
+<p>As for you, you form a theory, in the unfavorable sense of the word.
+You imagine, you invent&mdash;proceedings which are not sanctioned by the
+practice of any living man under the vault of heaven&mdash;and then you
+call to your assistance constraint and prohibition. You need, indeed,
+have recourse to <i>force</i>, since, in wishing that men should <i>produce</i>
+that which it would be more advantageous to them to <i>buy</i>, you wish
+them to renounce an <i>advantage</i>; you demand that they should act in
+accordance with a doctrine which implies contradiction even in its
+terms.</p>
+
+<p>Now, this doctrine, which, you argue, would be absurd in individual
+relations, we defy you to extend, even in speculation, to transactions
+between families, towns, counties, states. By your own avowal, it is
+applicable to international relations only.</p>
+
+<p>And this is why you are obliged to repeat daily: "Principles are not
+in their nature absolute. That which is <i>well</i> in the individual, the
+family, the county, the state, is <i>evil</i> in the nation. That which is
+<i>good</i> in detail&mdash;such as, to purchase rather than to produce, when
+purchase is more advantageous than production&mdash;is bad in the mass. The
+political economy of individuals is not that of nations," and other
+rubbish, <i>ejusdem farin&oelig;</i>. And why all this? Look at it closely. It is
+in order to prove to us that we, consumers, are  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109"></a>[109]</span> your property, that
+we belong to you body and soul, that you have an exclusive right to
+our stomachs and limbs, and it is for you to nourish us and clothe us
+at your own price, however great may be your ignorance, your rapacity,
+or the inferiority of your position.</p>
+
+<p>No, you are not men of practice; you are men of abstraction&mdash;and of
+extraction!</p><p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110"></a>[110]</span> </p>
+
+
+
+
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XIV" id="CHAPTER_XIV"></a>CHAPTER XIV.</h2>
+
+<h3>CONFLICT OF PRINCIPLES.</h3>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>There is one thing which confounds us, and it is this:</p>
+
+<p>Some sincere publicists, studying social economy from the point of
+view of producers only, have arrived at this double formula:</p>
+
+<p>"Governments ought to dispose of the consumers subject to the
+influence of their laws, in favor of national labor."</p>
+
+<p>"They should render distant consumers subject to their laws, in order
+to dispose of them in favor of national labor."</p>
+
+<p>The first of these formulas is termed <i>protection</i>; the latter,
+<i>expediency</i>.</p>
+
+<p>Both rest on the principle called Balance of Trade; the formula of
+which is:</p>
+
+<p>"A people impoverishes itself when it imports, and enriches itself
+when it exports."</p>
+
+<p>Of course, if every foreign purchase is a tribute paid, a loss, it is
+perfectly evident we must restrain, even prohibit, importations.</p>
+
+<p>And if all foreign sales are tribute received, profit, it is quite
+natural to create channels of outlet, even by force.</p>
+
+<p>Protective System&mdash;Colonial System: two aspects of the same theory. To
+<i>hinder</i> our fellow-citizens purchasing of foreigners, <i>to force</i>
+foreigners to purchase  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111"></a>[111]</span> from our fellow-citizens, are merely two
+consequences of one identical principle. Now, it is impossible not to
+recognize that according to this doctrine, general utility rests on
+<i>monopoly</i>, or interior spoliation, and on <i>conquest</i>, or exterior
+spoliation.</p>
+
+<p>Let us enter one of the cabins among the Adirondacks. The father of
+the family has received for his work only a slender salary. The icy
+northern blast makes his half naked children shiver, the fire is
+extinguished, and the table bare. There are wool, and wood, and coal,
+just over the St. Lawrence; but these commodities are forbidden to the
+family of the poor day-laborer, for the other side of the river is no
+longer the United States. The foreign pine-logs may not gladden the
+hearth of his cabin; his children may not know the taste of Canadian
+bread, the wool of Upper Canada will not bring back warmth to their
+benumbed limbs. General utility wills it so. All very well! but
+acknowledge that here it contradicts justice. To dispose by
+legislation of consumers, to limit them to the products of national
+labor, is to encroach upon their liberty, to forbid them a resource
+(exchange) in which there is nothing contrary to morality; in one
+word, it is to do them injustice.</p>
+
+<p>"Yet this is necessary," it is said, "under the penalty of seeing
+national labor stopped, under the penalty of striking a fatal blow at
+public prosperity."</p>
+
+<p>The writers of the protectionist school arrive then at this sad
+conclusion; that there is a radical incompatibility between justice
+and utility.</p>
+
+<p>On the other side, if nations are interested in selling, and not in
+buying, violent action and reaction are the  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112"></a>[112]</span> natural condition of
+their relations, for each will seek to impose its products on all, and
+all will do their utmost endeavor to reject the products of each.</p>
+
+<p>As a sale, in effect, implies a purchase, and since, according to this
+doctrine, to sell is to benefit, as to buy is to injure, every
+international transaction implies the amelioration of one people, and
+the deterioration of another.</p>
+
+<p>But, on one side, men are fatally impelled towards that which profits
+them: on the contrary, they resist instinctively whatever injures
+them; whence we must conclude that every people bears within itself a
+natural force of expansion, and a not less natural power of
+resistance, which are equally prejudicial to all the others; or, in
+other terms, that antagonism and war are the natural constitution of
+human society!</p>
+
+<p>So that the theory which we are discussing may be summed up in these
+two axioms:</p>
+
+<p>"Utility is incompatible with justice at home,"</p>
+
+<p>"Utility is incompatible with peace abroad."</p>
+
+<p>Now that which astonishes us, which confounds us, is, that a
+publicist, a statesman, who has sincerely adhered to an economic
+doctrine whose principle clashes so violently with other incontestable
+principles, could enjoy one moment's calm and repose of mind. As for
+us, it seems to us, that if we had penetrated into science by this
+entrance, if we did not clearly perceive that liberty, utility,
+justice, peace, are things not only compatible, but closely allied
+together, so to say, identical with each other, we would try to forget
+all we had learned; we would say to ourselves:</p>
+
+<p>"How could God will that men shall attain prosperity  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_113" id="Page_113"></a>[113]</span> only through
+injustice and war? How could He will that they may remove war and
+injustice only by renouncing their own well-being?"</p>
+
+<p>Does not the science which has conducted us to the horrible blasphemy
+which this alternative implies deceive us by false lights; and shall
+we dare take on ourselves to make it the basis of legislation for a
+great people? And when a long succession of illustrious philosophers
+have brought together more comforting results from this same science,
+to which they have consecrated their whole lives; when they affirm
+that Liberty and Utility are reconciled with Justice and Peace, that
+all these grand principles follow infinite parallels, without
+clashing, throughout all eternity; have they not in their favor the
+presumption which results from all we know of the goodness and the
+wisdom of God, manifested in the sublime harmony of the material
+creation? Ought we lightly to believe, against such a presumption, and
+in face of so many imposing authorities, that it has pleased this same
+God to introduce antagonism and a discord into the laws of the moral
+world?</p>
+
+<p>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 fellow
+citizens the impious system to which such reasoning conducts us, we
+had better go over the whole chain, and assure ourselves that there is
+no point on the way where we may have gone astray.</p>
+
+<p>And if, after a faithful examination, twenty times recommenced, we
+should always return to this frightful conclusion, that we must choose
+between the advantages  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_114" id="Page_114"></a>[114]</span> and the good&mdash;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 our
+country, leaving to the men of another time the burden and the
+responsibility of a choice so difficult.</p><p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115"></a>[115]</span> </p>
+
+
+
+
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XV" id="CHAPTER_XV"></a>CHAPTER XV.</h2>
+
+<h3>RECIPROCITY AGAIN.</h3>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>The protectionists ask, "Are we sure that the foreigner will purchase
+as much from us, as he will sell to us? What reason have we to think
+that the English producer will come to us rather than to any other
+nation on the globe to look for the productions he may need; and for
+productions equivalent in value to his own exportations to this
+country?"</p>
+
+<p>We are surprised that men who call themselves peculiarly <i>practical</i>,
+reason independent of all practice.</p>
+
+<p>In practice, is there one exchange in a hundred, in a thousand, in ten
+thousand perhaps, where there is a direct barter of product for
+product? Since there has been money in the world, has any cultivator
+ever said, "I wish to buy shoes, hats, advice, instruction, from that
+shoemaker, hatter, lawyer, and professor only, who will purchase from
+me just wheat enough to make an equivalent value?"</p>
+
+<p>And why should nations impose such a restraint upon themselves?</p>
+
+<p>How is the matter managed?</p>
+
+<p>Suppose a nation deprived of exterior relations. A man has produced
+wheat. He throws it into the widest national circulation he can find
+for it, and receives in exchange, what? Some dollars; that is to say
+bills,  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116"></a>[116]</span> bonds, infinitely divisible, by means of which it becomes
+lawful for him to withdraw from national circulation, whenever he
+thinks it advisable, and by just agreement, such articles as he may
+need or wish. In fine, at the end of the operation he will have
+withdrawn from the mass the exact equivalent of what he threw into it,
+and in value his consumption will precisely equal his production.</p>
+
+<p>If the foreign exchanges of that nation are free, it is no longer into
+<i>national</i>, but into <i>general</i> circulation that each one throws his
+products, and from which he draws his returns. He has not to inquire
+whether what he delivers up for general circulation is purchased by a
+fellow-countryman or a foreigner; whether the goods he receives came
+to him from a Frenchman or an Englishman; whether the objects for
+which, in accordance with his needs, he, in the end, exchanges his
+bills, are made on this or that side of the Atlantic or the St.
+Lawrence. With each individual there is always an exact balance
+between what he puts into and what he draws out of the grand common
+reservoir; and if that is true of each individual, it is true of the
+nation 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 his
+sales and his purchases, and has consequently more chances of doing
+well by both.</p>
+
+<p>This objection is made: "If every one should agree that they would not
+withdraw from circulation any of the products of a specified
+individual, he in turn would sustain the misfortune of being able to
+draw nothing out. The same of a nation."</p><p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117"></a>[117]</span> </p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">Answer</span>.&mdash;If the nation cannot draw out of the mass, it will
+no longer contribute to it: it will work for itself. It will be
+compelled to that which you would impose on it in advance: that is to
+say, isolation.</p>
+
+<p>And this will be the ideal of prohibitive government. Is it not
+amusing that you inflict upon it, at once and already, the misfortune
+of this system, in the fear that it runs the risk of getting there
+some day without you?</p><p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118"></a>[118]</span> </p>
+
+
+
+
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XVI" id="CHAPTER_XVI"></a>CHAPTER XVI.</h2>
+
+<h3>OBSTRUCTED RIVERS PLEAD FOR THE PROHIBITIONISTS.</h3>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>Some years ago, when the Spanish Cortes were discussing a treaty with
+Portugal on improving the course of the river Douro, a deputy rose and
+said, "If the Douro is turned into a canal, transportation will be
+made at a much lower price. Portuguese cereals will sell cheaper in
+Castile, and will make a formidable opposition to our <i>national
+labor</i>. I oppose the project unless the ministers engage to raise the
+tariff in such a way as to restore the equilibrium." The assembly
+found the argument unanswerable.</p>
+
+<p>Three months later the same question was submitted to the Senate of
+Portugal. A noble hidalgo said: "Mr. President, the project is absurd.
+You post guards, at great expense, on the banks of the Douro, in order
+to prevent the introduction of Castilian cereals into Portugal, while,
+at the same time, you would, also, at great expense, facilitate their
+introduction. This is an inconsistency with which I cannot identify
+myself. Let the Douro pass on to our sons as our fathers left it to
+us."</p>
+
+<p>Now, when it is proposed to alter and confine the course of the
+Mississippi, we recall the arguments of the Iberian orators, and say
+to ourselves, if the member from St. Louis was as good an economist as
+those of Valencia, and the representatives from New Orleans  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_119" id="Page_119"></a>[119]</span> as
+powerful logicians as those of Oporto, assuredly the Mississippi would
+be left</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>"To sleep amid its forests dank and lone,"</p></div>
+
+<p>for to improve the navigation of the Mississippi will favor the
+introduction of New Orleans products to the injury of St. Louis, and
+an inundation of the products of St. Louis to the detriment of New
+Orleans.</p><p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_120" id="Page_120"></a>[120]</span> </p>
+
+
+
+
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XVII" id="CHAPTER_XVII"></a>CHAPTER XVII.</h2>
+
+<h3>A NEGATIVE RAILROAD.</h3>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>We have said that when, unfortunately, we place ourselves at the point
+of view of the producer's interest, we cannot fail to clash with the
+general interest, because the producer, as such, demands only
+<i>efforts</i>, <i>wants</i>, <i>and obstacles</i>.</p>
+
+<p>When the Atlantic and Great Western Railway is finished, the question
+will arise, "Should connection be broken at Pittsburg?" This the
+Pittsburgers will answer affirmatively, for a multitude of reasons,
+but for this among others; the railroad from New York to St. Louis
+ought to have an interruption at Pittsburg, in order that merchandise
+and travellers compelled to stop in the city may leave in it fees to
+the hackmen, pedlars, errand-boys, consignees, hotel-keepers, etc.</p>
+
+<p>It is clear, that here again the interest of the agent of labor is
+placed before the interest of the consumer.</p>
+
+<p>But if Pittsburg ought to profit by the interruption, and if the
+profit is conformable with public interest, Harrisburg, Dayton,
+Indianapolis, Columbus, much more all the intermediate points, ought
+to demand stoppages, and that in the general interest, in the widely
+extended interest of national labor, for the more they are multiplied,
+the more will consignments, commissions, transportations, be
+multiplied on all points of  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_121" id="Page_121"></a>[121]</span> the line. With this system we arrive at a
+railroad of successive stoppages, to a <i>negative railroad</i>.</p>
+
+<p>Whether the protectionists wish it or not, it is not the less certain
+that the principle of restriction is the same as the principle of
+gaps, the sacrifice of the consumers to the producer, of the end to
+the means.</p><p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_122" id="Page_122"></a>[122]</span> </p>
+
+
+
+
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XVIII" id="CHAPTER_XVIII"></a>CHAPTER XVIII.</h2>
+
+<h3>THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTE PRINCIPLES.</h3>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>We cannot be too much astonished at the facility with which men resign
+themselves 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 their
+ignorance when they have brought themselves to proclaim this axiom:
+There are no absolute principles.</p>
+
+<p>Enter the Halls of Congress. The question under discussion is whether
+the law shall interdict or allow international exchanges.</p>
+
+<p>Mr. C****** rises and says:</p>
+
+<p>"If you tolerate these exchanges, the foreigner will inundate you with
+his products, the English with cotton and iron goods, the Nova-Scotian
+with coal, the Spaniard with wool, the Italian with silk, the Canadian
+with cattle, the Swede with iron, the Newfoundlander with salt-fish.
+Industrial pursuits will thus be destroyed."</p>
+
+<p>Mr. G***** replies:</p>
+
+<p>"If you prohibit these exchanges, the varied benefits which nature has
+lavished on different climates will be, to you, as though they were
+not. You will not participate in the mechanical skill of the English,
+nor in the riches of the Nova-Scotian mines, in the abundance of
+Canadian pasturage, in the cheapness of  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_123" id="Page_123"></a>[123]</span> Spanish labor, in the fervor
+of the Italian climate; and you will be obliged to ask through a
+forced production that which you might by exchange have obtained
+through a readier production."</p>
+
+<p>Assuredly, one of the senators deceives himself. But which? It is well
+worth while to ascertain; for we are not dealing with opinions only.
+You stand at the entrance of two roads; you must choose; one of them
+leads necessarily to <i>misery</i>.</p>
+
+<p>To escape from this embarrassment it is said: There are no absolute
+principles.</p>
+
+<p>This axiom, so much in vogue in our day, not only serves laziness, it
+is also in accord with ambition.</p>
+
+<p>If the theory of prohibition should prevail, or again, if the doctrine
+of liberty should triumph, a very small amount of law would suffice
+for our economic code. In the first case it would stand&mdash;<i>All foreign
+exchange is forbidden</i>; in the second, <i>All exchange with abroad is
+free</i>, and many great personages would lose their importance.</p>
+
+<p>But if exchange has not a nature proper to itself; if it is governed
+by no natural law; if it is capriciously useful or injurious; if it
+does not find its spring in the good it accomplishes, its limit when
+it ceases to do good; if its effects cannot be appreciated by those
+who execute them; in one word, if there are no absolute principles, we
+are compelled to measure, weigh, regulate transactions, to equalize
+the conditions of labor, to look for the level of profits&mdash;colossal
+task, well suited to give great entertainments, and high influence to
+those who undertake it.</p>
+
+<p>Here in New York are a million of human beings  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124"></a>[124]</span> who would all die
+within a few days, if the abundant provisioning of nature were not
+flowing towards this great metropolis.</p>
+
+<p>Imagination takes fright in the effort to appreciate the immense
+multiplicity of articles which must cross the Bay, the Hudson, the
+Harlem, and the East rivers, to-morrow, if the lives of its
+inhabitants are not to become the prey of famine, riot, and pillage.
+Yet, as we write, all are sleeping; and their quiet slumbers are not
+disturbed for a moment by the thought of so frightful a perspective.
+On the other hand, forty-five States and Territories have worked
+to-day, without concert, without mutual understanding, to provision
+New York. How is it that every day brings in what is needed, neither
+more nor less, to this gigantic market? What is the intelligent and
+secret power which presides over the astonishing regularity of
+movements so complicated&mdash;a regularity in which each one has a faith
+so undoubting, though comfort and life are at stake.</p>
+
+<p>This power is an <i>absolute principle</i>, the principle of freedom of
+operation, the principle of free conduct.</p>
+
+<p>We have faith in that innate light which Providence has placed in the
+hearts of all men, to which he has confided the preservation and
+improvement of our race-<i>interest</i> (since we must call it by its
+name), which is so active, so vigilant, so provident, when its action
+is free. What would become of you, inhabitants of New York, if a
+Congressional majority should take a fancy to substitute for this
+power the combinations of their genius, however superior it may be
+supposed to be; if they imagined they could submit this prodigious
+mechanism to its supreme direction, unite all its resources  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_125" id="Page_125"></a>[125]</span> in their
+own hands, and decide when, where, how, and on what conditions
+everything should be produced, transported, exchanged, and consumed?
+Ah! though there may be much suffering within your bounds, though
+misery, despair, and perhaps hungry exhaustion may cause more tears to
+flow than your ardent charity can dry, it is probable, it is certain,
+we dare to affirm, that the arbitrary intervention of government would
+multiply these sufferings infinitely, and would extend to you all,
+those evils which at present are confined to a small portion of your
+number.</p>
+
+<p>We all have faith in this principle where our internal transactions
+are concerned; why should we not have faith in the same principle
+applied to our international operations, which are, assuredly, less
+numerous, less delicate, and less complicated. And if it is not
+necessary that the Mayor and Common Council of New York should
+regulate our industries, weigh our change, our profits, and our
+losses, occupy themselves with the regulation of prices, equalize the
+conditions of our labor in internal commerce&mdash;why is it necessary that
+the custom-house, proceeding on its fiscal mission, should pretend to
+exercise protective action upon our exterior commerce?</p><p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_126" id="Page_126"></a>[126]</span> </p>
+
+
+
+
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XIX" id="CHAPTER_XIX"></a>CHAPTER XIX.</h2>
+
+<h3>NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE.</h3>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>Among the arguments which are considered of weight in favor of the
+restriction system, we must not forget that drawn from national
+independence.</p>
+
+<p>"What shall we do in case of war," say they, "if we have placed
+ourselves at the mercy of Great Britain for iron and coal?"</p>
+
+<p>English monopolists did not fail on their side to exclaim, when the
+corn-laws were repealed, "What will become of Great Britain in time of
+war if she depends on the United States for food?"</p>
+
+<p>One thing they fail to observe: it is that this sort of dependence,
+which results from exchange, from commercial operations, is a
+<i>reciprocal</i> dependence. We cannot depend on the foreigner unless the
+foreigner depends on us. This is the very essence of <i>society</i>. We do
+not place ourselves in a state of independence by breaking natural
+relations, but in a state of isolation.</p>
+
+<p>Remark also: we isolate ourselves in the anticipation of war; but the
+very act of isolation is the commencement of war. It renders it more
+easy, less burdensome, therefore less unpopular. Let nations become
+permanent recipient customers each of the other, let the interruption
+of their relations inflict upon them the double suffering of privation
+and surfeit, and they will no longer require  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_127" id="Page_127"></a>[127]</span> the powerful navies
+which ruin them, the great armies which crush them; the peace of the
+world will no longer be compromised by the caprice of a Napoleon or of
+a Bismarck, and war will disappear through lack of aliment, resources,
+motive, pretext, and popular sympathy.</p>
+
+<p>We know well that we shall be reproached (in the cant of the day) for
+proposing interest, vile and prosaic interest, as a foundation for the
+fraternity of nations. It would be preferred that it should have its
+foundation in charity, in love, even in self-renunciation, and that,
+demolishing the material comfort of man, it should have the merit of a
+generous sacrifice.</p>
+
+<p>When shall we have done with such puerile talk? When shall we banish
+charlatanry from science? When shall we cease to manifest this
+disgusting contradiction between our writings and our conduct? We hoot
+at and spit upon <i>interest</i>, that is to say, the useful, the right
+(for to say that all nations are interested in a thing, is to say that
+that thing is good in itself), as if interest were not the necessary,
+eternal, indestructible instrument to which Providence has intrusted
+human perfectibility. Would not one suppose us all angels of
+disinterestedness? And is it supposed that the public does not see
+with disgust that this affected language blackens precisely those
+pages for which it is compelled to pay highest? Affectation is truly
+the malady of this age.</p>
+
+<p>What! because comfort and peace are correlative things; because it has
+pleased God to establish this beautiful harmony in the moral world;
+you are not willing that we should admire and adore His providence,
+ <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_128" id="Page_128"></a>[128]</span> and accept with gratitude laws which make justice the condition of
+happiness. You wish peace only so far as it is destructive to comfort;
+and liberty burdens you because it imposes no sacrifices on you. If
+self-renunciation has so many claims for you, who prevents your
+carrying 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 to
+impose it on humanity as a principle is the height of absurdity, for
+the abnegation of everything is the sacrifice of everything&mdash;it is
+evil set up in theory.</p>
+
+<p>But, thank Heaven, men may write and read a great deal of such talk,
+without causing the world to refrain on that account from rendering
+obedience to its motive-power, which is, whether they will or no,
+<i>interest</i>. After all, it is singular enough to see sentiments of the
+most sublime abnegation invoked in favor of plunder itself. Just see
+to what this ostentatious disinterestedness tends. These men, so
+poetically delicate that they do not wish for peace itself, if it is
+founded on the base interest of men, put their hands in the pockets of
+others, and, above all, of the poor; for what section of the tariff
+protects the poor?</p>
+
+<p>Well, gentlemen, dispose according to your own judgment of what
+belongs to yourselves, but allow us also to dispose of the fruit of
+the sweat of our brows, to avail ourselves of exchange at our own
+pleasure. Talk away about self-renunciation, for that is beautiful;
+but at the same time practice a little honesty.</p><p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_129" id="Page_129"></a>[129]</span> </p>
+
+
+
+
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XX" id="CHAPTER_XX"></a>CHAPTER XX.</h2>
+
+<h3>HUMAN LABOR&mdash;NATIONAL LABOR.</h3>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>To break machines, to reject foreign merchandise&mdash;are two acts
+proceeding from the same doctrine.</p>
+
+<p>We see men who clap their hands when a great invention is made known
+to the world, who nevertheless adhere to the protective system. Such
+men are highly inconsistent.</p>
+
+<p>With what do they upbraid freedom of commerce? With getting foreigners
+more skilful or better situated than ourselves to produce articles,
+which, but for them, we should produce ourselves. In one word, they
+accuse us of damaging national labor.</p>
+
+<p>Might they not as well reproach machines for accomplishing, by natural
+agents, work which, without them, we could perform with our own arms,
+and, in consequence, damaging human labor?</p>
+
+<p>The foreign workman who is more favorably situated than the American
+laborer, is, in respect to the latter, a veritable economic machine,
+which injures him by competition. In the same manner, a machine which
+executes a piece of work at a less price than can be done by a certain
+number of arms, is, relatively to those arms, a true competing
+foreigner, who paralyzes them by his rivalry.</p>
+
+<p>If, then, it is needful to protect national labor against  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_130" id="Page_130"></a>[130]</span> the
+competition of foreign labor, it is not less so, to protect human
+labor against the rivalry of mechanical labor.</p>
+
+<p>So, he who adheres to the protective policy, if he has but a small
+amount of logic in his brain, must not stop when he has prohibited
+foreign products; he must farther proscribe the shuttle and the
+plough.</p>
+
+<p>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 to
+the inventive power of the human mind.</p>
+
+<p>Hear such a Conservative:&mdash;"One of the strongest arguments against
+liberty of commerce, and the too great employment of machines, is,
+that very many workmen are deprived of work, either by foreign
+competition, which is destructive to their manufactures, or by
+machines, which take the place of men in the workshops."</p>
+
+<p>This gentleman perfectly sees the analogy, or rather, let us say, the
+identity, existing between importations and machines; that is the
+reason he proscribes both: and truly there is some pleasure in having
+to do with reasonings, which, even in error, pursue an argument to the
+end.</p>
+
+<p>Let us look at the difficulty in the way of its soundness.</p>
+
+<p>If it be true, <i>&agrave; priori</i>, that the domain of <i>invention</i> and that of
+labor 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 <i>workmen</i>.  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_131" id="Page_131"></a>[131]</span> And if, on
+the contrary, we prove <i>a fact</i>, that mechanical and hand work
+co-exist in a greater degree among wealthy nations than among savages,
+we must necessarily conclude that these two powers do not exclude each
+other.</p>
+
+<p>It is not easy to explain how a thinking being can taste repose in
+presence of this dilemma:</p>
+
+<p>Either&mdash;"The inventions of man do not injure labor, as general facts
+attest, since there are more of both among the English and Americans
+than among the Hottentots and Cherokees. In that case I have made a
+false reckoning, though I know neither where nor when I got astray. I
+should commit the crime of treason to humanity if I should introduce
+my error into the legislation of my country."</p>
+
+<p>Or else&mdash;"The discoveries of the mind limit the work of the arms, as
+some particular facts seem to indicate; for I see daily a machine do
+the labor of from twenty to a hundred workmen, and thus I am forced to
+prove a flagrant, eternal, incurable antithesis between the
+intellectual and physical ability of man; between his progress and his
+comfort; and I cannot forbear saying that the Creator of man ought to
+have given him either reason or arms, moral force, or brutal force,
+but that he has played with him in conferring upon him opposing
+faculties which destroy one another."</p>
+
+<p>The difficulty is pressing. Do you know how they get rid of it? By
+this singular apothegm:</p>
+
+<p>"In political economy there are no absolute principles."</p>
+
+<p>In intelligible and vulgar language, that means: "I  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_132" id="Page_132"></a>[132]</span> do not know where
+is the true nor the false; I am ignorant of what constitutes general
+good or evil; I give myself no trouble about it. The only law which I
+consent to recognize, is the immediate effect of each measure upon my
+personal comfort."</p>
+
+<p>No absolute principles! You might as well say, there are no absolute
+facts; for principles are only the summing up of well proven facts.</p>
+
+<p>Machines, importations, have certainly consequences. These
+consequences are good or bad. On this point there may be difference of
+opinion. But whichever of these we adopt, we express it in one of
+these two <i>principles</i>: "machines are a benefit," or "machines are an
+evil." "Importations are favorable," or "importations are injurious."
+But to say "there are no principles," is the lowest degree of
+abasement to which the human mind can descend; and we confess we blush
+for our country when we hear so monstrous a heresy uttered in the
+presence of the American people, with their consent; that is to say,
+in the presence and with the consent of the greater part of our
+fellow-citizens, in order to justify Congress for imposing laws on us,
+in perfect ignorance of the reasons for them or against them.</p>
+
+<p>But then we shall be told, "destroy <i>the sophism</i>; prove that machines
+do not injure <i>human labor</i>, nor importations <i>national industry</i>."</p>
+
+<p>In an essay of this nature such demonstrations cannot be complete. Our
+aim is more to propose difficulties than to solve them; to excite
+reflection, than to satisfy it. No conviction of the mind is well
+acquired, excepting that which it gains by its own labor. We will try,
+nevertheless, to place it before you.</p><p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_133" id="Page_133"></a>[133]</span> </p>
+
+<p>The opponents of importations and machines are mistaken, because they
+judge by immediate and transitory consequences, instead of looking at
+general and final ones.</p>
+
+<p>The immediate effect of an ingenious machine is to economize, towards
+a given result, a certain amount of handwork. But its action does not
+stop there: inasmuch as this result is obtained with less effort, it
+is given to the public for a lower price; and the amount of the
+savings thus realized by all the purchasers, enables them to procure
+other gratifications&mdash;that is to say, to encourage handwork in
+general, equal in amount to that subtracted from the special handwork
+lately improved upon&mdash;so that the level of work has not fallen, though
+that of gratification has risen. Let us make this connection of
+consequences evident by an example.</p>
+
+<p>Suppose that in the United States ten millions of hats are sold at
+five dollars each: this affords to the hatters' trade an income of
+fifty millions. A machine is invented which allows hats to be afforded
+at 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 <i>human labor</i>.
+Economized by the purchasers of hats, they will serve them in
+satisfying other needs, and by consequence will, to that amount,
+remunerate collective industry. With these two dollars saved, John
+will purchase a pair of shoes, James a book, William a piece of
+furniture, etc. Human labor, in the general, will thus continue to be
+encouraged to the amount of fifty millions; but this sum, beside
+giving  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_134" id="Page_134"></a>[134]</span> the same number of hats as before, will add the gratifications
+obtained by the twenty millions which the machine has spared. These
+gratifications are the net products which America has gained by the
+invention. It is a gratuitous gift, a tax, which the genius of man has
+imposed on Nature. We do not deny that, in the course of the change, a
+certain amount of labor may have been <i>displaced</i>; but we cannot agree
+that it has been destroyed, or even diminished. The same holds true of
+importations.</p>
+
+<p>We will resume the hypothesis. America makes ten millions of hats, of
+which the price was five dollars each. The foreigner invaded our
+market in furnishing us with hats at three dollars. We say that
+national labor will be not at all diminished. For it will have to
+produce to the amount of thirty millions, in order to pay for ten
+millions of hats at three dollars. And then there will remain to each
+purchaser two dollars saved on each hat, or a total of twenty
+millions, which will compensate for other enjoyments; that is to say,
+for other work. So the total of labor remains what it was; and the
+supplementary enjoyments, represented by twenty millions economized on
+the hats, will form the net profit of the importations, or of free
+trade.</p>
+
+<p>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 itself
+in accordance with the law of exchange, and no displacement would have
+taken place. If, on the contrary, prohibition has brought in an
+artificial and unproductive kind of work, it is prohibition, and not
+free trade, which is responsible  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_135" id="Page_135"></a>[135]</span> for the inevitable displacement, in
+the transition from wrong to right.</p>
+
+<p>Unless, indeed, it should be contended that, because an abuse cannot
+be destroyed without hurting those who profit by it, its existence for
+a single moment is reason enough why it should endure forever.</p><p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_136" id="Page_136"></a>[136]</span> </p>
+
+
+
+
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXI" id="CHAPTER_XXI"></a>CHAPTER XXI.</h2>
+
+<h3>RAW MATERIAL.</h3>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>It is said that the most advantageous commerce consists in the
+exchange of manufactured goods for raw material, because this raw
+material is a spur to <i>national labor</i>.</p>
+
+<p>And then the conclusion is drawn, that the best custom-house
+regulation would be that which should give the utmost possible
+facility to the entry of <i>raw material</i>, and oppose the greatest
+obstacles to articles which have received their first manipulation by
+labor.</p>
+
+<p>No sophism of political economy is more widely spread than the
+foregoing. It supports not only the protectionists, but, much more,
+and above all, the pretended liberalists. This is to be regretted; for
+the worst which can happen to a good cause is not to be severely
+attacked, but to be badly defended.</p>
+
+<p>Commercial freedom will probably have the fate of all freedom; it will
+not be introduced into our laws until after it has taken possession of
+our minds. But if it be true that a reform must be generally
+understood, in order that it may be solidly established, it follows
+that nothing can retard it so much as that which misleads public
+opinion; and what is more likely to mislead it than those writings
+which seem to favor freedom by upholding the doctrines of monopoly?</p><p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_137" id="Page_137"></a>[137]</span> </p>
+
+<p>Several years ago, three large cities of France&mdash;Lyons, Bordeaux, and
+Havre&mdash;were greatly agitated against the restrictive policy. The
+nation, and indeed all Europe, was moved at seeing a banner raised,
+which they supposed to be that of free trade. Alas! it was still the
+banner of monopoly; of a monopoly a little more niggardly, and a great
+deal more absurd, than that which they appeared to wish to overturn.
+Owing to the sophism which we are about to unveil, the petitioners
+merely reproduced the doctrine of <i>protection to national labor</i>,
+adding to it, however, another folly.</p>
+
+<p>What is, in effect, the prohibitive system? Let us listen to the
+protectionist: "Labor constitutes the wealth of a people, because it
+alone creates those material things which our necessities demand, and
+because general comfort depends upon these."</p>
+
+<p>This is the principle.</p>
+
+<p>"But this abundance must be the product of <i>national labor</i>. Should it
+be the product of foreign labor, national labor would stop at once."</p>
+
+<p>This is the mistake. (See the close of the last chapter.)</p>
+
+<p>"What shall be done, then, in an agricultural and manufacturing
+country?"</p>
+
+<p>This is the question.</p>
+
+<p>"Restrict its market to the products of its own soil, and its own
+industry."</p>
+
+<p>This is the end proposed.</p>
+
+<p>"And for this end, restrain by prohibitive duties the entrance of the
+products of the industry of other nations."</p>
+
+<p>These are the means.</p><p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_138" id="Page_138"></a>[138]</span> </p>
+
+<p>Let us reconcile with this system that of the petition from Bordeaux.</p>
+
+<p>It divided merchandise into three classes:</p>
+
+<p>"The first includes articles of food, and <i>raw material free from all
+human labor. A wise economy would require that this class should not
+be taxed</i>."</p>
+
+<p>Here there is no labor; consequently no protection.</p>
+
+<p>"The second is composed of articles which have undergone <i>some
+preparation</i>. This preparation warrants us <i>in charging it with some
+tax</i>."</p>
+
+<p>Here protection commences, because, according to the petitioners,
+<i>national labor</i> commences.</p>
+
+<p>"The third comprises perfected articles which can in no way serve
+national labor; we consider these the most taxable."</p>
+
+<p>Here, labor, and with it protection, reach their maximum.</p>
+
+<p>The petitioners assert that foreign labor injures national labor; this
+is <i>the error</i> of the prohibitive school.</p>
+
+<p>They demanded that the French market should be restricted to French
+<i>labor</i>; this is the <i>end</i> of the prohibitive system.</p>
+
+<p>They insisted that foreign labor should be subject to restriction and
+taxation; these are the <i>means</i> of the prohibitive system.</p>
+
+<p>What difference, then, is it possible to discover between the
+petitioners of Bordeaux and the advocate of American restriction? One
+alone: the greater or less extent given to the word <i>labor</i>.</p>
+
+<p>The protectionist extends it to everything&mdash;so he wishes to <i>protect</i>
+everything.</p>
+
+<p>"Labor constitutes <i>all</i> the wealth of a people," says  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_139" id="Page_139"></a>[139]</span> he; "to
+protect national industry, <i>all</i> national industry, manufacturing
+industry, <i>all</i> manufacturing industry, is the idea which should
+always be kept before the people." The petitioners saw no labor
+excepting that of manufacturers; so they would admit that alone to the
+favors of protection. They said:</p>
+
+<p>"Raw material is <i>devoid of all human labor</i>. For that reason we
+should not tax it. Fabricated articles can no longer occupy national
+labor. We consider them the most taxable."</p>
+
+<p>We are not inquiring whether protection to national labor is
+reasonable. The protectionist and the Bordelais agree upon this point,
+and we, as has been seen in the preceding chapters, differ from both.</p>
+
+<p>The question is to ascertain which of the two&mdash;the protectionists or
+the raw-materialists of Bordeaux&mdash;give its just acceptation to the
+word "labor."</p>
+
+<p>Now, upon this ground, it must be said, the protectionist is, by all
+odds, right; for observe the dialogue which might take place between
+them:</p>
+
+<p>The <span class="smcap">Protectionist</span>: "You agree that national labor ought to be
+protected. You agree that no foreign labor can be introduced into our
+market without destroying therein an equal amount of our national
+labor. Yet you assert that there is a host of merchandise possessed of
+<i>value</i> (since it sells), which is, however, free from <i>human labor</i>.
+And, among other things, you name wheat, corn, meats, cattle, lard,
+salt, iron, brass, lead, coal, wool, furs, seeds, etc. If you can
+prove to me that the value of these things is not due to labor, I will
+agree that it is useless to protect them. But, again, if I demonstrate
+to you that there is as much labor in a  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_140" id="Page_140"></a>[140]</span> hundred dollars' worth of
+wool as in a hundred dollars' worth of cloth, you must acknowledge
+that protection is as much due to the one as to the other. Now, why is
+this bag of wool worth a hundred dollars? Is it not because that sum
+is the price of production? And is the price of production anything
+but that which it has been necessary to distribute in wages, salaries,
+manual labor, interest, to all the workmen and capitalists who have
+concurred in producing the article?"</p>
+
+<p>The <span class="smcap">Raw-Materialist</span>: "It is true, that in regard to wool, you
+may be right. But a bag of wheat, an ingot of iron, a quintal of
+coal&mdash;are they the produce of labor? Did not Nature create them?"</p>
+
+<p>The <span class="smcap">Protectionist</span>: "Without doubt Nature <i>creates</i> the
+<i>elements</i> of all things; but it is labor which produces their
+<i>value</i>. I was wrong myself in saying that labor creates material
+objects, and this faulty phrase has led the way to many other errors.
+It does not belong to man, either manufacturer or cultivator, to
+<i>create</i>, to make something out of nothing; if, by <i>production</i>, we
+understand <i>creation</i>, all our labors will be unproductive; that of
+merchants more so than any other, except, perhaps, that of law-makers.
+The farmer has no claim to have <i>created</i> wheat, but he may claim to
+have created its <i>value</i>: he has transformed into wheat substances
+which in no wise resembled it, by his own labor with that of his
+ploughmen and reapers. What more does the miller effect who converts
+it into flour, the baker who turns it into bread? Because man must
+clothe himself in cloth, a host of operations is necessary. Before the
+intervention of any human labor, the true raw materials of this
+product (cloth) are air, water,  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_141" id="Page_141"></a>[141]</span> gas, light, the chemical substances
+which must enter into its composition. These are truly the raw
+materials which are <i>untouched by human labor</i>; therefore, they are of
+no <i>value</i>, and I do not think of protecting them. But a first labor
+converts these substances into hay, straw, etc., a second into wool, a
+third into thread, a fourth into cloth, a fifth into clothing&mdash;who
+will dare to say that every step in this work is not <i>labor</i>, from the
+first stroke of the plough, which begins, to the last stroke of the
+needle, which terminates it? And because, in order to secure more
+celerity and perfection in the accomplishment of a definite work, such
+as a garment, the labors are divided among several classes of
+industry, you wish, by an arbitrary distinction, that the order of
+succession of these labors should be the only reason for their
+importance; so much so that the first shall not deserve even the name
+of labor, and that the last work pre-eminently, shall alone be worthy
+of the favors of protection!"</p>
+
+<p>The <span class="smcap">Raw-Materialist</span>: "Yes, we begin to see that wheat no more
+than wool is entirely devoid of human labor; but, at least, the
+agriculturist has not, like the manufacturer, done all by himself and
+his workmen; Nature aids him, and if there is labor, it is not all
+labor in the wheat."</p>
+
+<p>The <span class="smcap">Protectionist</span>: "But all its <i>value</i> is in the labor it
+has cost. I admit that Nature has assisted in the material formation
+of wheat. I admit even that it may be exclusively her work; but
+confess that I have controlled it by my labor; and when I sell you
+some wheat, observe this well: that it is not the work of <i>Nature</i> for
+which I make you pay, but <i>my own</i>; and,  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_142" id="Page_142"></a>[142]</span> on your supposition,
+manufactured articles would be no more the product of labor than
+agricultural ones. Does not the manufacturer, too, rely upon Nature to
+second him? Does he not avail himself of the weight of the atmosphere
+in aid of the steam-engine, as I avail myself of its humidity in aid
+of the plough? Did he create the laws of gravitation, of correlation
+of forces, of affinities?"</p>
+
+<p>The <span class="smcap">Raw-Materialist</span>: "Come, let the wool go too. But coal is
+assuredly the work, and the exclusive work, of Nature, <i>unaided by any
+human labor</i>."</p>
+
+<p>The <span class="smcap">Protectionist</span>: "Yes, Nature made coal, but <i>labor</i> makes
+its value. Coal had no <i>value</i> during the thousands of years during
+which it was hidden, unknown, a hundred feet below the soil. It was
+necessary to look for it there&mdash;that is a <i>labor</i>: it was necessary to
+transport it to market; that is another <i>labor</i>: and once more, the
+price which you pay for it in the market is nothing else than the
+remuneration for these labors of digging and transportation."</p>
+
+<p>We see that thus far the protectionist has all the advantage on his
+side; that the value of raw material, as well as that of manufactured
+material, represents the expense of production, that is to say, of
+<i>labor</i>; that it is impossible to conceive of a material possessed of
+value while totally unindebted to human labor; that the distinction
+which the raw-materialists make is wholly futile, in theory; that, as
+a basis for an unequal division of <i>favors</i>, it would be iniquitous in
+practice; because the result would be that one-third of the people,
+engaged in manufactures, would obtain the sweets of monopoly, for the
+reason that they produced  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_143" id="Page_143"></a>[143]</span> <i>by labor</i>, while the other two-thirds,
+that is to say the agriculturists, would be abandoned to competition,
+under pretext that they produced without labor.</p>
+
+<p>It will be urged that it is of more advantage to a nation to import
+the materials called raw, whether they are or are not the product of
+labor, and to export manufactured articles.</p>
+
+<p>This is a strongly accredited opinion.</p>
+
+<p>"The more abundant raw materials are," said the petition from
+Bordeaux, "the more manufactories are multiplied and extended." It
+said again, that "raw material opens an unlimited field of labor to
+the inhabitants of the country from which it is imported."</p>
+
+<p>"Raw material," said the other petition, that from Havre, "being the
+aliment of labor, must be submitted to a <i>different system</i>, and
+admitted at once at the lowest duty." The same petition would have the
+protection on manufactured articles reduced, not one after another,
+but at an undetermined time; not to the lowest duty, but to twenty per
+cent.</p>
+
+<p>"Among other articles which necessity requires to be abundant and
+cheap," said the third petition, that from Lyons, "the manufacturers
+name all raw material."</p>
+
+<p>This all rests on an illusion. We have seen that all <i>value</i>
+represents labor. Now, it is true that labor increases ten-fold,
+sometimes a hundred-fold, the value of a rough product, that is to
+say, expands ten-fold, a hundred-fold, the products of a nation.
+Thence it is reasoned, "The production of a bale of cotton causes
+workmen of all classes to earn one hundred dollars only. The
+conversion of this bale into lace collars raises their profits to ten
+thousand dollars; and will  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_144" id="Page_144"></a>[144]</span> you dare to say that the nation is not
+more interested in encouraging labor worth ten thousand than that
+worth one hundred dollars?"</p>
+
+<p>We forget that international exchanges, no more than individual
+exchanges, work by weight or measure. We do not exchange a bale of
+cotton for a bale of lace collars, nor a pound of wool in the grease
+for a pound of wool in cashmere; but a certain value of one of these
+things <i>for an equal value</i> of the other. Now to barter equal value
+against equal value is to barter equal work against equal work. It is
+not true, then, that the nation which gives for a hundred dollars
+cashmere or collars, gains more than the nation which delivers for a
+hundred dollars wool or cotton.</p>
+
+<p>In a country where no law can be adopted, no impost established,
+without the consent of those whom this law is to govern, the public
+cannot be robbed without being first deceived. Our ignorance is the
+"raw material" of all extortion which is practised upon us, and we may
+be sure in advance that every sophism is the forerunner of a
+spoliation. Good public, when you see a sophism, clap your hand on
+your pocket; for that is certainly the point at which it aims. What
+was the secret thought which the shipowners of Bordeaux and of Havre,
+and the manufacturers of Lyons, conceived in this distinction between
+agricultural products and manufactured articles?</p>
+
+<p>"It is principally in this first class (that which comprehends raw
+material <i>unmodified by human labor</i>)," said the Raw-Materialists of
+Bordeaux, "that the chief aliment of our merchant marine is found. At
+the outset, a wise economy would require that this class  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_145" id="Page_145"></a>[145]</span> should not
+be taxed. The second (articles which have received some preparation)
+may be charged; the third (articles on which no more work has to be
+done) we consider the most taxable."</p>
+
+<p>"Consider," said those of Havre, "that it is indispensable to reduce
+all raw materials one after another to the lowest rate, in order that
+industry may successively bring into operation the naval forces which
+will furnish to it its first and indispensable means of labor." The
+manufacturers could not in exchange of politeness be behind the
+ship-owners; so the petition from Lyons demanded the free introduction
+of raw material, "in order to prove," said they, "that the interests
+of manufacturing towns are not always opposed to those of maritime
+ones!"</p>
+
+<p>True; but it must be said that both interests were, understood as the
+petitioners understood them, terribly opposed to the interests of the
+country, of agriculture, and of consumers.</p>
+
+<p>See, then, where you would come out! See the end of these subtle
+economical distinctions! You would legislate against allowing
+<i>perfected</i> produce to traverse the ocean, in order that the much more
+expensive transportation of rough materials, dirty, loaded with waste
+matter, may offer more employment to our merchant service, and put our
+naval force into wider operation. This is what these petitioners
+termed <i>a wise economy</i>. Why did they not demand that the firs of
+Russia should be brought to them with their branches, bark, and roots;
+the gold of California in its mineral state, and the hides from Buenos
+Ayres still attached to the bones of the tainted skeleton?</p><p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_146" id="Page_146"></a>[146]</span> </p>
+
+<p>Industry, the navy, labor, have for their end, the general good, the
+public good. To create a useless industry, in order to favor
+superfluous transportation; to feed superfluous labor, not for the
+good of the public, but for the expense of the public&mdash;this is to
+realize a veritable begging the question. Work, in itself, is not a
+desirable thing; its result is; all work without result is a loss. To
+pay sailors for carrying useless waste matter across the sea is like
+paying them for skipping stones across the surface of the water. So we
+arrive at this result: that all economical sophisms, despite their
+infinite variety, have this in common, that they confound the means
+with the end, and develop one at the expense of the other.</p><p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_147" id="Page_147"></a>[147]</span> </p>
+
+
+
+
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXII" id="CHAPTER_XXII"></a>CHAPTER XXII.</h2>
+
+<h3>METAPHORS.</h3>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>Sometimes a sophism dilates itself, and penetrates through the whole
+extent 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 from
+metaphors!" In truth, it would be difficult to say which of the two
+creates the more evil upon our planet. It is the demon, say you; he
+alone, so long as we live, puts the spirit of spoliation in our
+hearts. Yes; but he does not prevent the repression of abuses by the
+resistance of those who suffer from them. <i>Sophistry</i> paralyzes this
+resistance. The sword which malice puts in the assailant's hand would
+be powerless, if sophistry did not break the shield upon the arm of
+the assailed; and it is with good reason that Malebranche has
+inscribed at the opening of his book, "Error is the cause of human
+misery."</p>
+
+<p>See how it comes to pass. Ambitious hypocrites will have some sinister
+purpose; for example, sowing national hatred in the public mind. This
+fatal germ may develop, lead to general conflagration, arrest
+civilization, pour out torrents of blood, draw upon the land the most
+terrible of scourges&mdash;<i>invasion</i>. In every case of indulgence in such
+sentiments of hatred they lower us in the opinion of nations, and
+compel those Americans,  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_148" id="Page_148"></a>[148]</span> who have retained some love of justice, to
+blush for their country. Certainly these are great evils; and in order
+that the public should protect itself from the guidance of those who
+would lead it into such risks, it is only necessary to give it a clear
+view of them. How do they succeed in veiling it from them? It is by
+<i>metaphor</i>. They alter, they force, they deprave the meaning of three
+or four words, and all is done.</p>
+
+<p>Such a word is <i>invasion</i> itself. An owner of an American furnace
+says, "Preserve us from the <i>invasion</i> of English iron." An English
+landlord exclaims, "Let us repel the <i>invasion</i> of American wheat!"
+And so they propose to erect barriers between the two nations.
+Barriers constitute isolation, isolation leads to hatred, hatred to
+war, and war to <i>invasion</i>. "Suppose it does," say the two sophists;
+"is it not better to expose ourselves to the chance of an eventual
+<i>invasion</i>, than to accept a certain one?" And the people still
+believe, and the barriers still remain.</p>
+
+<p>Yet what analogy is there between an exchange and an <i>invasion</i>? What
+resemblance can possibly be established between a vessel of war, which
+comes to pour fire, shot, and devastation into our cities, and a
+merchant ship, which comes to offer to barter with us freely,
+voluntarily, commodity for commodity?</p>
+
+<p>As much may be said of the word <i>inundation</i>. This word is generally
+taken in bad part, because <i>inundations</i> often ravage fields and
+crops. If, however, they deposit upon the soil a greater value than
+that which they take from it; as is the case in the inundations of the
+Nile, we might bless and deify them as the Egyptians do. Well! before
+declaiming against the inundation  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_149" id="Page_149"></a>[149]</span> of foreign produces, before
+opposing to them restraining and costly obstacles, let us inquire if
+they are the inundations which ravage or those which fertilize? What
+should we think of Mehemet Ali, if, instead of building, at great
+expense, dams across the Nile for the purpose of extending its field
+of inundation, he should expend his money in digging for it a deeper
+bed, so that Egypt should not be defiled by this <i>foreign</i> slime,
+brought down from the Mountains of the Moon? We exhibit precisely the
+same amount of reason, when we wish, by the expenditure of millions,
+to preserve our country&mdash;From what? The advantages with which Nature
+has endowed other climates.</p>
+
+<p>Among the metaphors which conceal an injurious theory, none is more
+common than that embodied in the words <i>tribute, tributary</i>.</p>
+
+<p>These words are so much used that they have become synonymous with the
+words <i>purchase, purchaser</i>, and one is used indifferently for the
+other.</p>
+
+<p>Yet a <i>tribute</i> or <i>tax</i> differs as much from <i>purchase</i> as a theft
+from an exchange, and we should like quite as well to hear it said,
+"Dick Turpin has broken open my safe, and has <i>purchased</i> out of it a
+thousand dollars," as we do to have it remarked by our sage
+representatives, "We have paid to England the <i>tribute</i> for a thousand
+gross of knives which she has sold to us."</p>
+
+<p>For the reason why Turpin's act is not a <i>purchase</i> is, that he has
+not paid into my safe, with my consent, value equivalent to what he
+has taken from it, and the reason why the payment of five hundred
+thousand dollars, which we have made to England, is not a <i>tribute</i>,
+is simply because she has not received them gratuitously,  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_150" id="Page_150"></a>[150]</span> but in
+exchange for the delivery to us of a thousand gross of knives, which
+we ourselves have judged worth five hundred thousand dollars.</p>
+
+<p>But is it necessary to take up seriously such abuses of language? Why
+not, when they are seriously paraded in newspapers and in books?</p>
+
+<p>Do not imagine that they escape from writers who are ignorant of their
+language; for one who abstains from them, we could point you to ten
+who employ them, and they persons of consideration&mdash;that is to say,
+men whose words are laws, and whose most shocking sophisms serve as
+the basis of administration for the country.</p>
+
+<p>A celebrated modern philosopher has added to the categories of
+Aristotle, the sophism which consists in including in one word the
+begging of the question. He cites several examples. He should have
+added the word <i>tributary</i> to his vocabulary. In effect the question
+is, are purchases made abroad useful or injurious? "They are
+injurious," you say. And why? "Because they make us <i>tributary</i> to the
+foreigner." Here is certainly a word which presents as a fact that
+which is a question.</p>
+
+<p>How is this abusive trope introduced into the rhetoric of monopolists?</p>
+
+<p>Some specie <i>goes out of a country</i> to satisfy the rapacity of a
+victorious enemy&mdash;other specie, also, goes out of a country to settle
+an account for merchandise. The analogy between the two cases is
+established, by taking account of the one point in which they resemble
+one another, and leaving out of view that in which they differ.</p><p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_151" id="Page_151"></a>[151]</span> </p>
+
+<p>This circumstance, however,&mdash;that is to say, non-reimbursement in the
+one case, and reimbursement freely agreed upon in the
+other&mdash;establishes such a difference between them, that it is not
+possible to class them under the same title. To deliver a hundred
+dollars <i>by compulsion</i> to him who says "Stand and deliver," or
+<i>voluntarily</i> to pay the same sum to him who sells you the object of
+your wishes&mdash;truly, these are things which cannot be made to
+assimilate. As well might you say, it is a matter of indifference
+whether you throw bread into the river or eat it, because in either
+case it is bread <i>destroyed</i>. The fault of this reasoning, as in that
+which the word <i>tribute</i> is made to imply, consists in founding an
+exact similitude between two cases on their points of resemblance, and
+omitting those of difference.</p><p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_152" id="Page_152"></a>[152]</span> </p>
+
+
+
+
+<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXIII" id="CHAPTER_XXIII"></a>CHAPTER XXIII.</h2>
+
+<h3>CONCLUSION.</h3>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>All the sophisms we have hitherto combated are connected with one
+single question: the restrictive system; and, out of pity for the
+reader, we pass by acquired rights, untimeliness, misuse of the
+currency, etc., etc.</p>
+
+<p>But social economy is not confined to this narrow circle. Fourierism,
+Saint-Simonism, communism, mysticism, sentimentalism, false
+philanthropy, affected aspirations to equality and chimerical
+fraternity, questions relative to luxury, to salaries, to machines, to
+the pretended tyranny of capital, to distant territorial acquisitions,
+to outlets, to conquests, to population, to association, to
+emigration, to imposts, to loans, have encumbered the field of science
+with a host of parasitical <i>sophisms</i>, which demand the hoe and the
+sickle of the diligent economist. It is not because we do not
+recognize the fault of this plan, or rather of this absence of plan.
+To attack, one by one, so many incoherent sophisms which sometimes
+clash, although more frequently one runs into the other, is to condemn
+one's self to a disorderly, capricious struggle, and to expose one's
+self to perpetual repetitions.</p>
+
+<p>How much we should prefer to say simply how things are, without
+occupying ourselves with the thousand aspects in which the ignorant
+see them! To  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_153" id="Page_153"></a>[153]</span> explain the laws under which societies prosper or decay,
+is virtually to destroy all sophistry at once. When La Place had
+described all that can, as yet, be known of the movements of the
+heavenly bodies, he had dispersed, without even naming them, all the
+astrological dreams of the Egyptians, Greeks, and Hindoos, much more
+surely than he could have done by directly refuting them through
+innumerable volumes. Truth is one; the book which exposes it is an
+imposing and durable monument:</p>
+
+<div class="poem">
+  Il brave les tyrans avides, <br />
+  Plus hardi que les Pyramides <br />
+  Et  plus durable que l'airain.
+</div>
+
+<p>Error is manifold, and of ephemeral duration; the work which combats
+it does not carry within itself a principle of greatness or of
+endurance.</p>
+
+<p>But if the power, and perhaps the opportunity, have failed us for
+proceeding in the manner of La Place and of Say, we cannot refuse to
+believe that the form which we have adopted has, also, its modest
+utility. It appears to us especially well suited to the wants of the
+age, to the hurried moments which it can consecrate to study.</p>
+
+<p>A treatise has, doubtless, an incontestable superiority; but upon
+condition that it be read, meditated upon, searched into. It addresses
+itself to a select public only. Its mission is, at first, to fix, and
+afterwards to enlarge, the circle of acquired knowledge.</p>
+
+<p>The refutation of vulgar prejudices could not carry with it this high
+bearing. It aspires only to disencumber the route before the march of
+truth, to prepare the  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_154" id="Page_154"></a>[154]</span> mind, to reform public opinion, to blunt
+dangerous tools in improper hands. It is in social economy above all,
+that these hand-to-hand struggles, these constantly recurring combats
+with popular errors, have a true practical utility.</p>
+
+<p>We might arrange the sciences under two classes. The one, strictly,
+can be known to philosophers only. They are those whose application
+demands a special occupation. The public profit by their labor,
+despite their ignorance of them. They do not enjoy the use of a watch
+the less, because they do not understand mechanics and astronomy. They
+are not the less carried along by the locomotive and the steamboat
+through their faith in the engineer and the pilot. We walk according
+to the laws of equilibrium without being acquainted with them.</p>
+
+<p>But there are sciences which exercise upon the public an influence
+proportionate with the light of the public itself, not from knowledge
+accumulated in a few exceptional heads, but from that which is
+diffused 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 have
+said: "That which spreads them is worth more than that which advances
+them." Of what consequence is it that a great man, a God even, should
+have promulgated moral laws, so long as men, imbued with false
+notions, take virtues for vices, and vices for virtues? Of what value
+is it that Smith, Say, and, according to Chamans, economists of all
+schools, have proclaimed the superiority of liberty to restraint in
+commercial transactions, if those  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_155" id="Page_155"></a>[155]</span> who make the laws and those for
+whom the laws are made, are convinced to the contrary.</p>
+
+<p>These sciences, which are well named social, have this peculiarity:
+that for the very reason that they are of a general application, no
+one confesses himself ignorant of them. Do we wish to decide a
+question in chemistry or geometry? No one pretends to have the
+knowledge instinctively; we are not ashamed to consult Draper; we make
+no difficulty about referring to Euclid.</p>
+
+<p>But in social science authority is but little recognized. As such a
+one has to do daily with morals, good or bad, with hygiene, with
+economy, with politics reasonable or absurd, each one considers
+himself skilled to comment, discuss, decide, and dogmatize in these
+matters.</p>
+
+<p>Are you ill? There is no good nurse who does not tell you, at the
+first moment, the cause and cure of your malady.</p>
+
+<p>"They are humors," affirms she; "you must be purged."</p>
+
+<p>But what are humors? and are these humors?</p>
+
+<p>She does not trouble herself about that. I involuntarily think of this
+good nurse when I hear all social evils explained by these common
+phrases: "It is the superabundance of products, the tyranny of
+capital, industrial plethora," and other idle stories of which we
+cannot even say: <i>verba et voces pr&aelig;tereaque nihil</i>: for they are also
+fatal mistakes.</p>
+
+<p>From what precedes, two things result&mdash;</p>
+
+<p>1st. That the social sciences must abound in sophistry much more than
+the other sciences, because in them each one consults his own judgment
+or instinct alone.</p><p> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_156" id="Page_156"></a>[156]</span> </p>
+
+<p>2d. That in these sciences sophistry is especially injurious, because
+it misleads public opinion where opinion is a power&mdash;that is, law.</p>
+
+<p>Two sorts of books, then, are required by these sciences; those which
+expound them, and those which propagate them; those which show the
+truth, and those which combat error.</p>
+
+<p>It appears to us that the inherent defect in the form of this little
+Essay&mdash;<i>repetition</i>&mdash;is that which constitutes its principal value.</p>
+
+<p>In the question we have treated, each sophism has, doubtless, its own
+set form, and its own range, but all have one common root, which is,
+"<i>forgetfulness of the interests of man, insomuch as they forget the
+interests of consumers</i>." To show that the thousand roads of error
+conduct to this generating sophism, is to teach the public to
+recognize it, to appreciate it&mdash;to distrust it under all
+circumstances.</p>
+
+<p>After all, we do not aspire to arouse convictions, but doubts.</p>
+
+<p>We have no expectation that in laying down the book, the reader shall
+exclaim: "<i>I know</i>." Please Heaven he may be induced to say, "<i>I am
+ignorant</i>."</p>
+
+
+<p>"I am ignorant, for I begin to believe there is something delusive in
+the sweets of Scarcity."</p>
+
+<p>"I am no longer so much edified by the charms of Obstruction."</p>
+
+<p>"Effort without Result no longer seems to me so desirable as Result
+without Effort."</p>
+
+<p>"It may probably be true that the secret of commerce does not consist,
+as that of arms does, <i>in giving and not receiving</i>, according to the
+definition which the duellist in the play gives of it."</p>
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_157" id="Page_157"></a>[157]</span></p>
+
+<p>"I consider an article is increased in value by passing through
+several processes of manufacture; but, in exchange, do two equal
+values cease to be equal because the one comes from the plough and the
+other from the power-loom?"</p>
+
+<p>"I confess that I begin to think it singular that humanity should be
+ameliorated by shackles, or enriched by taxes: and, frankly, I should
+be relieved of a heavy weight, I should experience a pure joy, if I
+could see demonstrated, which the author assures us of, that there is
+no incompatibility between comfort and justice, between peace and
+liberty, between the extension of labor and the progress of
+intelligence."</p>
+
+<p>"So, without feeling satisfied by his arguments, to which I do not
+know whether to give the name of reasoning or of objections, I will
+interrogate the masters of the science."</p>
+
+<p>Let us terminate by a last and important observation this monograph of
+sophisms. The world does not know, as it ought, the influence which
+sophistry exerts upon it. If we must say what we think, when the Right
+of the Strongest was dethroned, sophistry placed the empire in the
+Right of the Most Cunning; and it would be difficult to say which of
+these two tyrants has been the more fatal to humanity.</p>
+
+<p>Men have an immoderate love for pleasure, influence, position,
+power&mdash;in one word, for wealth.</p>
+
+<p>And at the same time men are impelled by a powerful impulse to procure
+these things at the expense of another. But this other, which is the
+public, has an inclination  <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_158" id="Page_158"></a>[158]</span> not less strong to keep what it has
+acquired, provided it can and knows how. Spoliation, which plays so
+large a part in the affairs of the world, has, then, two agents only:
+Strength and Cunning; and two limits: Courage and Right.</p>
+
+<p>Power applied to spoliation forms the groundwork of human savagism. To
+retrace its history would be to reproduce almost entire the history of
+all nations&mdash;Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes, Persians, Egyptians,
+Greeks, Romans, Goths, Franks, Huns, Turks, Arabs, Moguls,
+Tartars&mdash;without counting that of the Spaniards in America, the
+English in India, the French in Africa, the Russians in Asia, etc.,
+etc.</p>
+
+<p>But, at least, among civilized nations, the men who produce wealth
+have become sufficiently numerous and sufficiently strong to defend
+it.</p>
+
+<p>Is that to say that they are no longer despoiled? By no means; they
+are robbed as much as ever, and, what is more, they despoil one
+another. The agent alone is changed; it is no longer by violence, but
+by stratagem, that the public wealth is seized upon.</p>
+
+<p>In order to rob the public, it must be deceived. To deceive it, is to
+persuade it that it is robbed for its own advantage; it is to make it
+accept fictitious services, and often worse, in exchange for its
+property. Hence sophistry, economical sophistry, political sophistry,
+and financial sophistry&mdash;and, since force is held in check, sophistry
+is not only an evil, it is the parent of other evils. So it becomes
+necessary to hold it in check, <i>in its turn</i>, and for this purpose to
+render the public more acute than the cunning; just as it has become
+more peaceful than the strong.</p>
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<hr class="full" />
+<p>***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WHAT IS FREE TRADE?***</p>
+<p>******* This file should be named 16106-h.txt or 16106-h.zip *******</p>
+<p>This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:<br />
+<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/6/1/0/16106">https://www.gutenberg.org/1/6/1/0/16106</a></p>
+<p>Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.</p>
+
+<p>Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.</p>
+
+
+
+<pre>
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+<a href="https://gutenberg.org/license">https://gutenberg.org/license)</a>.
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS,' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at https://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/pglaf.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at https://www.gutenberg.org/about/contact
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit https://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/pglaf
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including including checks, online payments and credit card
+donations.  To donate, please visit:
+https://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+Each eBook is in a subdirectory of the same number as the eBook's
+eBook number, often in several formats including plain vanilla ASCII,
+compressed (zipped), HTML and others.
+
+Corrected EDITIONS of our eBooks replace the old file and take over
+the old filename and etext number.  The replaced older file is renamed.
+VERSIONS based on separate sources are treated as new eBooks receiving
+new filenames and etext numbers.
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">https://www.gutenberg.org</a>
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
+
+EBooks posted prior to November 2003, with eBook numbers BELOW #10000,
+are filed in directories based on their release date.  If you want to
+download any of these eBooks directly, rather than using the regular
+search system you may utilize the following addresses and just
+download by the etext year.
+
+<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext06/">https://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext06/</a>
+
+    (Or /etext 05, 04, 03, 02, 01, 00, 99,
+     98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 92, 91 or 90)
+
+EBooks posted since November 2003, with etext numbers OVER #10000, are
+filed in a different way.  The year of a release date is no longer part
+of the directory path.  The path is based on the etext number (which is
+identical to the filename).  The path to the file is made up of single
+digits corresponding to all but the last digit in the filename.  For
+example an eBook of filename 10234 would be found at:
+
+https://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/0/2/3/10234
+
+or filename 24689 would be found at:
+https://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/2/4/6/8/24689
+
+An alternative method of locating eBooks:
+<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/GUTINDEX.ALL">https://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/GUTINDEX.ALL</a>
+
+*** END: FULL LICENSE ***
+</pre>
+</body>
+</html>
diff --git a/16106-h/images/image_001.jpg b/16106-h/images/image_001.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6350d36
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16106-h/images/image_001.jpg
diff --git a/16106.txt b/16106.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..923bb90
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16106.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,4642 @@
+The Project Gutenberg eBook, What Is Free Trade?, by Frederick Bastiat,
+Translated by Emile Walter
+
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+
+
+
+
+Title: What Is Free Trade?
+       An Adaptation of Frederic Bastiat's "Sophismes Econimiques" 
+       Designed for the American Reader
+
+
+Author: Frederick Bastiat
+
+
+
+Release Date: June 22, 2005  [eBook #16106]
+[Date last updated: January 1, 2006]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ISO-646-US (US-ASCII)
+
+
+***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WHAT IS FREE TRADE?***
+
+
+E-text prepared by Sankar Viswanathan and the Project Gutenberg Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team (https://www.pgdp.net) from page images
+generously made available by the Making of America Collection of the
+University of Michigan Library (http://www.hti.umich.edu/m/moagrp/)
+
+
+
+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 Economiques"
+Designed for the American Reader
+
+by
+
+EMILE WALTER
+A 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 meant
+some cunning policy of British statesmen designed to subject the world
+to British interests. Coming across Bastiat's inimitable _Sophismes
+Economiques_ I learnt to my surprise that there were Frenchmen also
+who advocated Free Trade, and deplored the mischiefs of the Protective
+Policy. This made me examine the subject, and think a good deal upon
+it; and the result of this thought was the unalterable conviction I
+now hold--a conviction that harmonizes with every noble belief that
+our race entertains; with Civil and Religious Freedom for All,
+regardless of race or color; with the Harmony of God's works; with
+Peace and Goodwill to all Mankind. That conviction is this: that to
+make taxation the incident of protection to special interests, and
+those engaged in them, is robbery to the rest of the community, and
+subversive of National Morality and National Prosperity. I believe
+that taxes are necessary for the support of government, I believe they
+must be raised by levy, I even believe that some customs taxes may be
+more practicable and economical than some internal taxes; but I am
+entirely opposed to making anything the object of taxation but the
+revenue required by government for its economical maintenance.
+
+I do not espouse Free Trade because it is British, as some suppose it
+to be. Independent of other things, that would rather set me against
+it than otherwise, because generally those things which best fit
+European society ill befit our society--the structure of each being so
+different. Free Trade is no more British than any other kind of
+freedom: indeed, Great Britain has only followed quite older examples
+in adopting it, as for instance the republics of Venice and Holland,
+both of which countries owed their extraordinary prosperity to the
+fact of their having set the example of relaxing certain absurd
+though time-honored restrictions on commerce. I espouse Free Trade
+because it is just, it is unselfish, and it is profitable.
+
+For these reasons have I, a Worker, deeply interested in the welfare
+of the fellow-workers who are my countrymen, lent to Truth and Justice
+what little aid I could, by adapting Bastiat's keen and cogent Essay
+to 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 it
+possible 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 in
+number) 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 foreign
+productions by the maintenance of excessive duties? Does not the
+_Tribune_ maintain that it is advantageous to limit the supply of iron
+manufactures and cotton fabrics, by restraining any one from bringing
+them to market, but the manufacturers in New England and Pennsylvania?
+Do we not hear it complained every day: Our importations are too
+large; We are buying too much from abroad? Is there not an
+Association of Ladies, who, though they have not kept their promise,
+still, promised each other not to wear any clothing which was
+manufactured in other countries?
+
+Now tariffs can only raise prices by diminishing the quantity of goods
+offered for sale. Therefore, statesmen, editors, and the public
+generally, believe that scarcity is better than abundance.
+
+But why is this; why should men be so blind as to maintain that
+scarcity 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 his
+labor; that is to say, _in proportion as he sells his produce at a
+high price_. The price of his produce is high in proportion to its
+scarcity. It is plain, then, that, so far as regards him at least,
+scarcity enriches him. Applying, in turn, this manner of reasoning to
+each class of laborers individually, the _scarcity theory_ is deduced
+from it. To put this theory into practice, and in order to favor each
+class of labor, an artificial scarcity is produced in every kind of
+produce 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, it
+brings 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 will
+always seek to force itself into practice, we see the laws of the
+country struggling to prevent abundance.
+
+Now, what is the defect in this argument? Something tells us that it
+must be wrong; but _where_ is it wrong? Is it false? No. And yet it is
+wrong? 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 of
+view. Let us look at him in the second character, and the conclusion
+will be different. We may say:
+
+The consumer is rich in proportion as he _buys_ at a low price. He
+buys at a low price in proportion to the abundance of the articles in
+demand; _abundance_, then, enriches him. This reasoning, extended to
+all consumers, must lead to the _theory of abundance_.
+
+Which theory is right?
+
+Can we hesitate to say? Suppose that by following out the _scarcity
+theory_, suppose that through prohibitions and restrictions we were
+compelled not only to make our own iron, but to grow our own coffee;
+in short, to obtain everything with difficulty and great outlay of
+labor. We then take an account of stock and see what our savings are.
+
+Afterward, to test the other theory, suppose we remove the duties on
+iron, the duties on coffee, and the duties on everything else, so that
+we shall obtain everything with as little difficulty and outlay of
+labor as possible. If we then take an account of stock, is it not
+certain that we shall find more iron in the country, more coffee, more
+everything else?
+
+Choose then, fellow-countrymen, between scarcity and abundance,
+between much and little, between Protection and Free Trade. You now
+know which theory is the right one, for you know the fruits they each
+bear.
+
+But, it will be answered, if we are inundated with foreign goods and
+produce, 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 in
+gold, nor warm himself with silver. What does it matter, then, whether
+there be more or less specie in the country, provided there be more
+bread in the cupboard, more meat in the larder, more clothes in the
+wardrobe, and more fuel in the cellar?
+
+Again, it will be objected, if we accustom ourselves to depend upon
+England 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 no
+furnaces in blast, no forges ready. True; neither will there be any
+time when war shall occur that the country will not be already filled
+with all the iron we shall want until we can make it here. Did the
+Confederates in the late war lack for iron? Why, then, shall we
+manufacture our own staples and bolts because we may some day or other
+have 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 supply
+to be small, so that the price may be high.
+
+The latter wishes it _abundant_ and the supply to be large, so that
+the price may be low.
+
+The laws, which should at least remain neutral, take part for the
+vender against the buyer; for the producer against the consumer; for
+high against low prices; for scarcity against abundance; for
+protection against free trade. They act, if not intentionally, at
+least logically, upon the principle that _a nation is rich in
+proportion 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 a
+number of obstacles which it is the object of labor to surmount.
+
+I wish to make a journey of some hundred miles. But between the point
+of my departure and my destination there are interposed mountains,
+rivers, swamps, forests, robbers; in a word--_obstacles_. To overcome
+these obstacles it is necessary that I should bestow much labor and
+great efforts in opposing them; or, what is the same thing, if others
+do it for me, I must pay them the value of their exertions. IT IS
+EVIDENT THAT I WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER OFF HAD THESE OBSTACLES NEVER
+EXISTED. Remember this.
+
+Through the journey of life, in the long series of days from the
+cradle to the tomb, man has many difficulties to oppose him. Hunger,
+thirst, sickness, heat, cold, are so many obstacles scattered along
+his road. In a state of isolation he would be obliged to combat them
+all by hunting, fishing, agriculture, spinning, weaving, architecture,
+etc., and it is very evident that it would be better for him that
+these difficulties should exist to a less degree, or even not at all.
+In a state of society he is not obliged personally to struggle with
+each 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. This
+doing one kind of labor for another, is called the division of labor.
+
+Considering mankind as a whole, _let us remember once more that it
+would be better for society that these obstacles should be as weak and
+as few as possible_.
+
+But mark how, in viewing this simple truth from a narrow point of
+view, we come to believe that obstacles, instead of being a
+disadvantage, are actually a source of wealth!
+
+If we examine closely and in detail the phenomena of society and the
+private interests of men _as modified by the division of labor_, we
+perceive, without difficulty, how it has happened that wants have been
+confounded with riches, and the obstacle with the cause.
+
+The separation of occupations, which results from the division of
+labor, causes each man, instead of struggling against _all_
+surrounding obstacles, to combat only _one_; the effort being made not
+for himself alone, but for the benefit of his fellows, who, in their
+turn, render a similar service to him.
+
+It hence results that this man looks upon the obstacle which he has
+made it his profession to combat for the benefit of others, as the
+immediate cause of his riches. The greater, the more serious, the more
+stringent, may be this obstacle, the more he is remunerated for the
+conquering 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 it
+for him, and he, in return, combats the maladies with which his
+patients are afflicted. The more dangerous and frequent these maladies
+are, the more others are willing, the more, even, are they forced, to
+work in his service. Disease, then, which is an obstacle to the
+happiness of mankind, becomes to him the source of his comforts. The
+reasoning of all producers is, in what concerns themselves, the same.
+As the doctor draws his profits from _disease_, so does the ship-owner
+from the obstacle called _distance_; the agriculturist from that named
+_hunger_; the cloth manufacturer from _cold_; the schoolmaster lives
+upon _ignorance_, the jeweler upon _vanity_, the lawyer upon _cupidity
+and breach of faith_. Each profession has then an immediate interest
+in the continuation, even in the extension, of the particular obstacle
+to which its attention has been directed.
+
+Theorists hence go on to found a system upon these individual
+interests, and say: Wants are riches: Labor is riches: The obstacle to
+well-being is well-being: To multiply obstacles is to give food to
+industry.
+
+Then comes the statesman; and as the developing and propagating of
+obstacles is the developing and propagating of riches, what more
+natural than that he should bend his efforts to that point? He says,
+for instance: If we prevent a large importation of iron, we create a
+difficulty in procuring it. This obstacle severely felt, obliges
+individuals to pay, in order to relieve themselves from it. A certain
+number of our citizens, giving themselves up to the combating of this
+obstacle, will thereby make their fortunes. In proportion, too, as the
+obstacle is great, and the mineral scarce, inaccessible, and of
+difficult and distant transportation, in the same proportion will be
+the number of laborers maintained by the various branches of this
+industry.
+
+The same reasoning will lead to the proscription of machinery.
+
+Here are men who are at a loss how to dispose of their petroleum. This
+is an obstacle which other men set about removing for them by the
+manufacture of casks. It is fortunate, say our statesmen, that this
+obstacle exists, since it occupies a portion of the labor of the
+nation, and enriches a certain number of our citizens. But here is
+presented to us an ingenious machine, which cuts down the oak, squares
+it, makes it into staves, and, gathering these together, forms them
+into casks. The obstacle is thus diminished, and with it the fortunes
+of the coopers. We must prevent this. Let us proscribe the machine!
+
+To sift thoroughly this sophism, it is sufficient to remember that
+human labor is not an _end_ but a _means_.
+
+_Labor is never without employment._ If one obstacle is removed, it
+seizes another, and mankind is delivered from two obstacles by the
+same effort which was at first necessary for one. If the labor of
+coopers could become useless, it must take another direction. To
+maintain that human labor can end by wanting employment, it would be
+necessary to prove that mankind will cease to encounter obstacles.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER III.
+
+EFFORT--RESULT.
+
+
+We have seen that between our wants and their gratification many
+obstacles are interposed. We conquer or weaken these by the employment
+of our faculties. It may be said, in general terms, that industry is
+an effort followed by a result.
+
+But by what do we measure our well-being? By our riches? By the result
+of our effort, or by the effort itself? There exists always a
+proportion between the effort employed and the result obtained. Does
+progress consist in the relative increase of the second or of the
+first term of this proportion--between effort or result?
+
+Both propositions have been sustained, and in political economy
+opinions are divided between them.
+
+According to the first system, riches are the result of labor. They
+increase in the same ratio as _the result does to the effort_.
+Absolute perfection, of which God is the type, consists in the
+infinite distance between these two terms in this relation, viz.,
+effort none, result infinite.
+
+The second system maintains that it is the effort itself which forms
+the measure of, and constitutes, our riches. Progression is the
+increase of the _proportion of the effect to the result_. Its ideal
+extreme may be represented by the eternal and fruitless efforts of
+Sisyphus.[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 term
+of _Sisyphism_, from Sisyphus, who, in punishment of his crimes, was
+compelled to roll a stone up hill, which fell to the bottom as fast as
+he rolled it to the top, so that his labor was interminable as well as
+fruitless.]
+
+The first system tends naturally to the encouragement of everything
+which diminishes difficulties, and augments production--as powerful
+machinery, which adds to the strength of man; the exchange of produce,
+which allows us to profit by the various natural agents distributed in
+different degrees over the surface of our globe; the intellect which
+discovers, the experience which proves, and the emulation which
+excites.
+
+The second as logically inclines to everything which can augment the
+difficulty 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 always
+guided by the principle of the first system. Every _workman_, whether
+agriculturist, manufacturer, merchant, soldier, writer or philosopher,
+devotes the strength of his intellect to do better, to do more
+quickly, 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. And
+even of these we may observe, that in what personally concerns
+themselves, they act, like everybody else, upon the principle of
+obtaining from their labor the greatest possible quantity of useful
+results.
+
+It may be supposed that I exaggerate, and that there are no true
+Sisyphists.
+
+I grant that in practice the principle is not pushed to its extreme
+consequences. And this must always be the case when one starts upon a
+wrong principle, because the absurd and injurious results to which it
+leads, cannot but check it in its progress. For this reason, practical
+industry never can admit of Sisyphism. The error is too quickly
+followed by its punishment to remain concealed. But in the speculative
+industry of theorists and statesmen, a false principle may be for a
+long time followed up, before the complication of its consequences,
+only half understood, can prove its falsity; and even when all is
+revealed, 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 do
+not predominate, each in its turn; the one in practical industry, the
+other in industrial legislation. When a man prefers a good plough to a
+bad one; when he improves the quality of his manures; when, to loosen
+his soil, he substitutes as much as possible the action of the
+atmosphere for that of the hoe or the harrow; when he calls to his aid
+every improvement that science and experience have revealed, he has,
+and can have, but one object, viz., to _diminish the proportion of the
+effort to the result_. We have indeed no other means of judging of
+the success of an agriculturist or of the merits of his system, but by
+observing how far he has succeeded in lessening the one, while he
+increases the other; and as all the farmers in the world act upon this
+principle, we may say that all mankind are seeking, no doubt for their
+own advantage, to obtain at the lowest price, bread, or whatever other
+article of produce they may need, always diminishing the effort
+necessary for obtaining any given quantity thereof.
+
+This incontestable tendency of human nature, once proved, would, one
+might suppose, be sufficient to point out the true principle to the
+legislator, and to show him how he ought to assist industry (if indeed
+it is any part of his business to assist it at all), for it would be
+absurd to say that the laws of men should operate in an inverse ratio
+from those of Providence.
+
+Yet we have heard members of Congress exclaim, "I do not understand
+this theory of cheapness; I would rather see bread dear, and work more
+abundant." And consequently these gentlemen vote in favor of
+legislative measures whose effect is to shackle and impede commerce,
+precisely because by so doing we are prevented from procuring
+indirectly, and at low price, what direct production can only furnish
+more expensively.
+
+Now it is very evident that the system of Mr. So-and-so, the
+Congressman, is directly opposed to that of Mr. So-and-so, the
+agriculturist. Were he consistent with himself, he would as legislator
+vote against all restriction; or else as farmer, he would practise in
+his fields the same principle which he proclaims in the public
+councils. We would then see him sowing his grain in his most sterile
+fields, because he would thus succeed in _laboring much_, to _obtain
+little_. We would see him forbidding the use of the plough, because he
+could, by scratching up the soil with his nails, fully gratify his
+double wish of "_dear bread_ and _abundant labor_."
+
+Restriction has for its avowed object and acknowledged effect, the
+augmentation of labor. And again, equally avowed and acknowledged, its
+object and effect are, the increase of prices--a synonymous term for
+scarcity of produce. Pushed then to its greatest extreme, it is pure
+Sisyphism as we have defined it; _labor infinite; result nothing_.
+
+There have been men who accused railways of _injuring shipping_; and
+it is certainly true that the most perfect means of attaining an
+object must always limit the use of a less perfect means. But railways
+can only injure shipping by drawing from it articles of
+transportation; this they can only do by transporting more cheaply;
+and they can only transport more cheaply, by _diminishing the
+proportion of the effort employed to the result obtained_--for it is
+in this that cheapness consists. When, therefore, these men lament the
+suppression of labor in attaining a given result, they maintain the
+doctrine of Sisyphism. Logically, if they prefer the vessel to the
+railway, they should also prefer the wagon to the vessel, the
+pack-saddle to the wagon, and the sack to the pack-saddle: for this
+is, of all known means of transportation, the one which requires the
+greatest amount of labor, in proportion to the result obtained.
+
+"Labor constitutes the riches of the people," say some theorists. This
+was no elliptical expression, meaning that the "results of labor
+constitute the riches of the people." No; these theorists intended to
+say, that it is the _intensity_ of labor which measures riches; and
+the proof of this is that from step to step, from restriction to
+restriction, they forced on the United States (and in so doing
+believed that they were doing well) to give to the procuring of, for
+instance, a certain quantity of iron, double the necessary labor. In
+England, 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 the
+United States could, by barter, procure a ton of iron by eight days'
+labor taken from the labor of the nation. Thanks to the restrictive
+measures of these gentlemen, sixteen days' work were necessary to
+procure it, by direct production. Here then we have double labor for
+an identical result; therefore double riches; and riches, measured not
+by the result, but by the intensity of labor. Is not this pure and
+unadulterated Sisyphism?
+
+That there may be nothing equivocal, these gentlemen carry their idea
+still farther, and on the same principle that we have heard them call
+the intensity of labor _riches_, we will find them calling the
+abundant results of labor and the plenty of everything proper to the
+satisfying of our wants, _poverty_. "Everywhere," they remark,
+"machinery has pushed aside manual labor; everywhere production is
+superabundant; everywhere the equilibrium is destroyed between the
+power of production and that of consumption." Here then we see that,
+according to these gentlemen, if the United States was in a critical
+situation it was because her productions were too abundant; there was
+too much intelligence, too much efficiency in her national labor. We
+were too well fed, too well clothed, too well supplied with
+everything; the rapid production was more than sufficient for our
+wants. It was necessary to put an end to this calamity, and therefore
+it became needful to force us, by restrictions, to work more in order
+to produce less.
+
+All that we could have further to hope for, would be, that human
+intellect might sink and become extinct; for, while intellect exists,
+it cannot but seek continually to increase the _proportion of the end
+to the means; of the product to the labor_. Indeed it is in this
+continuous effort, and in this alone, that intellect consists.
+
+Sisyphism has been the doctrine of all those who have been intrusted
+with the regulation of the industry of our country. It would not be
+just to reproach them with this; for this principle becomes that of
+our administration only because it prevails in Congress; it prevails
+in Congress only because it is sent there by the voters; and the
+voters are imbued with it only because public opinion is filled with
+it to repletion.
+
+Let me repeat here, that I do not accuse the protectionists in
+Congress of being absolutely and always Sisyphists. Very certainly
+they are not such in their personal transactions; very certainly each
+of them will procure for himself _by barter_, what by _direct
+production_ would be attainable only at a higher price. But I maintain
+that they are Sisyphists when they prevent the country from acting
+upon 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 the
+representation of, the difference which exists between the price of an
+article of home production and a similar article of foreign
+production. A protective duty calculated upon such a basis does
+nothing more than secure free competition; free competition can only
+exist where there is an equality in the facilities of production. In a
+horse-race the load which each horse carries is weighed and all
+advantages equalized; otherwise there could be no competition. In
+commerce, if one producer can undersell all others, he ceases to be a
+competitor and becomes a monopolist. Suppress the protection which
+represents the difference of price according to each, and foreign
+produce must immediately inundate and obtain the monopoly of our
+market. Every one ought to wish, for his own sake and for that of the
+community, that the productions of the country should be protected
+against foreign competition, _whenever the latter may be able to
+undersell the former_."
+
+This argument is constantly recurring in all writings of the
+protectionist school. It is my intention to make a careful
+investigation of its merits, and I must begin by soliciting the
+attention and the patience of the reader. I will first examine into
+the inequalities which depend upon natural causes, and afterwards into
+those which are caused by diversity of taxes.
+
+Here, as elsewhere, we find the theorists who favor protection taking
+part with the producer. Let us consider the case of the unfortunate
+consumer, who seems to have entirely escaped their attention. They
+compare the field of protection to the _turf_. But on the turf, the
+race is at once a _means and an end_. The public has no interest in
+the struggle, independent of the struggle itself. When your horses are
+started in the course with the single object of determining which is
+the best runner, nothing is more natural than that their burdens
+should be equalized. But if your object were to send an important and
+critical piece of intelligence, could you without incongruity place
+obstacles to the speed of that one whose fleetness would secure you
+the best means of attaining your end? And yet this is your course in
+relation to industry. You forget the end aimed at, which is the
+_well-being_ of the community; you set it aside; more, you sacrifice
+it by a perfect _petitio principii_.
+
+But we cannot lead our opponents to look at things from our point of
+view; let us now take theirs: let us examine the question as
+producers.
+
+I will seek to prove:
+
+1. That equalizing the facilities of production is to attack the
+foundations of mutual exchange.
+
+2. That it is not true that the labor of one country can be crushed by
+the competition of more favored climates.
+
+3. That, even were this the case, protective duties cannot equalize
+the facilities of production.
+
+4. That freedom of trade equalizes these conditions as much as
+possible; and
+
+5. That the countries which are the least favored by nature are those
+which profit most by mutual exchange.
+
+1. _Equalizing the facilities of production is to attack the
+foundations of mutual exchange._ The equalizing of the facilities of
+production, is not only the shackling of certain articles of commerce,
+but it is the attacking of the system of mutual exchange in its very
+foundation principle. For this system is based precisely upon the very
+diversities, or, if the expression be preferred, upon the inequalities
+of fertility, climate, temperature, capabilities, which the
+protectionists seek to render null. If New England sends its
+manufactures to the West, and the West sends corn to New England, it
+is because these two sections are, from different circumstances,
+induced to turn their attention to the production of different
+articles. Is there any other rule for international exchanges?
+
+Again, to bring against such exchanges the very inequalities of
+condition which excite and explain them, is to attack them in their
+very cause of being. The protective system, closely followed up, would
+bring men to live like snails, in a state of complete isolation. In
+short, there is not one of its sophisms, which, if carried through by
+vigorous deductions, would not end in destruction and annihilation.
+
+2. _It is not true that the labor of one country can be crushed by the
+competition of more favored climates._ The statement is not true that
+the unequal facility of production, between two similar branches of
+industry, should necessarily cause the destruction of the one which is
+the least fortunate. On the turf, if one horse gains the prize, the
+other loses it; but when two horses work to produce any useful
+article, each produces in proportion to his strength; and because the
+stronger is the more useful it does not follow that the weaker is good
+for nothing. Wheat is cultivated in every section of the United
+States, although there are great differences in the degree of
+fertility existing among them. If it happens that there be one which
+does not cultivate it, it is because, even to itself, such cultivation
+is not useful. Analogy will show us, that under the influences of an
+unshackled trade, notwithstanding similar differences, wheat would be
+produced in every portion of the world; and if any nation were induced
+to entirely abandon the cultivation of it, this would only be because
+it would _be her interest_ to otherwise employ her lands, her capital,
+and her labor. And why does not the fertility of one department
+paralyze the agriculture of a neighboring and less favored one?
+Because the phenomena of political economy have a suppleness, an
+elasticity, and, so to speak, _a self-levelling power_, which seems to
+escape the attention of the school of protectionists. They accuse us
+of being theoretic, but it is themselves who are so to a supreme
+degree, if the being theoretic consists in building up systems upon
+the experience of a single fact, instead of profiting by the
+experience of a series of facts. In the above example, it is the
+difference in the value of lands which compensates for the difference
+in 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 still
+compete with you: this is the sole mystery. And observe how the
+advantage on one point leads to disadvantage on the other. Precisely
+because 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 that
+perfect freedom in exchanges is of all systems the one which favors
+this tendency?
+
+I have cited an agricultural example; I might as easily have taken one
+from any trade. There are tailors at Barnegat, but that does not
+prevent tailors from being in New York also, although the latter have
+to pay a much higher rent, as well as higher price for furniture,
+workmen, and food. But their customers are sufficiently numerous not
+only to reestablish the balance, but also to make it lean on their
+side.
+
+When, therefore, the question is about equalizing the advantages of
+labor, it would be well to consider whether the natural freedom of
+exchange 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 the
+providential wisdom which presides over the equalizing government of
+society, that I must ask permission a little longer to turn to it the
+attention of the reader.
+
+The protectionists say, Such a nation has the advantage over us, in
+being able to procure cheaply, coal, iron, machinery, capital; it is
+impossible for us to compete with it.
+
+We must examine this proposition under other aspects. For the
+present, I stop at the question, whether, when an advantage and a
+disadvantage are placed in juxtaposition, they do not bear in
+themselves, 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 B
+must be abandoned. A, you say, sells much more than it buys; B buys
+much more than it sells. I might dispute this, but I will meet you
+upon your own ground.
+
+In the hypothesis, labor being in great demand in A, soon rises in
+value; while labor, iron, coal, lands, food, capital, all being little
+sought after in B, soon fall in price.
+
+Again: A being always selling and B always buying, cash passes from B
+to A. It is abundant in A, very scarce in B.
+
+But where there is abundance of cash, it follows that in all purchases
+a large proportion of it will be needed. Then in A, _real dearness_,
+which proceeds from a very active demand, is added to _nominal
+dearness_, 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 possible
+motives for deserting A to establish itself in B.
+
+Now, to return to what would be the true course of things. As the
+progress of such events is always gradual, industry from its nature
+being opposed to sudden transits, let us suppose that, without
+waiting the extreme point, it will have gradually divided itself
+between A and B, according to the laws of supply and demand; that is
+to say, according to the laws of justice and usefulness.
+
+_I do not advance an empty hypothesis when I say, that were it
+possible 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 Commerce
+at Manchester (the figures brought into his demonstration being
+suppressed):
+
+"Formerly we exported goods; this exportation gave way to that of
+thread for the manufacture of goods; later, instead of thread, we
+exported machinery for the making of thread; then capital for the
+construction of machinery; and lastly, workmen and talent, which are
+the source of capital. All these elements of labor have, one after the
+other, transferred themselves to other points, where their profits
+were increased, and where the means of subsistence being less
+difficult to obtain, life is maintained at less cost. There are at
+present to be seen in Prussia, Austria, Saxony, Switzerland, and
+Italy, immense manufacturing establishments, founded entirely by
+English capital, worked by English labor, and directed by English
+talent."
+
+We may here perceive that Nature, with more wisdom and foresight than
+the narrow and rigid system of the protectionists can suppose, does
+not permit the concentration of labor, and the monopoly of advantages,
+from which they draw their arguments as from an absolute and
+irremediable fact. It has, by means as simple as they are infallible,
+provided for dispersion, diffusion, mutual dependence, and
+simultaneous progress; all of which, your restrictive laws paralyze as
+much as is in their power, by their tendency towards the isolation of
+nations. By this means they render much more decided the differences
+existing in the conditions of production; they check the
+self-levelling power of industry, prevent fusion of interests,
+neutralize the counterpoise, and fence in each nation within its own
+peculiar advantages and disadvantages.
+
+3. _Even were the labor of one country crushed by the competition of
+more favored climates (which is denied), protective duties cannot
+equalize the facilities of production._ To say that by a protective
+law the conditions of production are equalized, is to disguise an
+error under false terms. It is not true that an import duty equalizes
+the conditions of production. These remain after the imposition of the
+duty just as they were before. The most that law can do is to equalize
+the _conditions of sale_. If it should be said that I am playing upon
+words, I retort the accusation upon my adversaries. It is for them to
+prove that _production_ and _sale_ are synonymous terms, which if they
+cannot do, I have a right to accuse them, if not of playing upon
+words, at least of confounding them.
+
+Let me be permitted to exemplify my idea.
+
+Suppose that several New York speculators should determine to devote
+themselves to the production of oranges. They know that the oranges of
+Portugal can be sold in New York at one cent each, whilst on account
+of the boxes, hot-houses, &c., which are necessary to ward against
+the severity of our climate, it is impossible to raise them at less
+than a dollar apiece. They accordingly demand a duty of ninety-nine
+cents upon Portugal oranges. With the help of this duty, say they, the
+_conditions of production_ will be equalized. Congress, yielding as
+usual to this argument, imposes a duty of ninety-nine cents on each
+foreign orange.
+
+Now I say that the _relative conditions of production_ are in no wise
+changed. 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 to
+mature themselves _naturally_ on the banks of the Tagus, and
+artificially upon those of the Hudson, must continue to require for
+their production much more labor on the latter than the former. The
+law can only equalize the _conditions of sale_. It is evident that
+while the Portuguese sell their oranges here at a dollar apiece, the
+ninety-nine cents which go to pay the tax are taken from the American
+consumer. Now look at the whimsicality of the result. Upon each
+Portuguese orange, the country loses nothing; for the ninety-nine
+cents which the consumer pays to satisfy the impost tax, enter into
+the treasury. There is improper distribution; but no loss. But upon
+each American orange consumed, there will be about ninety-nine cents
+lost; for while the buyer very certainly loses them, the seller just
+as certainly does not gain them; for, even according to the
+hypothesis, he will receive only the price of production, I will leave
+it to the protectionists to draw their conclusion.
+
+4. _But freedom of trade equalizes these conditions as much as is
+possible._ I have laid some stress upon this distinction between the
+conditions of production and those of sale, which perhaps the
+prohibitionists may consider as paradoxical, because it leads me on to
+what they will consider as a still stranger paradox. This is: If you
+really wish to equalize the facilities of production, leave trade
+free.
+
+This may surprise the protectionists; but let me entreat them to
+listen, if it be only through curiosity, to the end of my argument. It
+shall 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 of
+each American amount to one dollar, it will indisputably follow that
+to produce an orange by _direct_ labor in America, one day's work, or
+its equivalent, will be requisite; whilst to produce the cost of a
+Portuguese orange, only one-hundredth of this day's labor is required;
+which means simply this, that the sun does at Lisbon what labor does
+at 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-hundredth
+of a day's labor, I am placed exactly in the same condition as the
+Portuguese producer himself, excepting the expense of the
+transportation? It therefore follows that freedom of commerce
+equalizes the conditions of production direct or indirect, as much as
+it is possible to equalize them; for it leaves but the one inevitable
+difference, that of transportation.
+
+I will add that free trade equalizes also the facilities for attaining
+enjoyments, comforts, and general consumption; the last, an object
+which is, it would seem, quite forgotten, and which is nevertheless
+all-important; since, in fine, consumption is the main object of all
+our industrial efforts. Thanks to freedom of trade, we would enjoy
+here the results of the Portuguese sun, as well as Portugal itself;
+and the inhabitants of New York would have in their reach, as well as
+those of London, and with the same facilities, the advantages which
+nature has in a mineralogical point of view conferred upon Cornwall.
+
+5. _Countries least favored by nature (countries not yet cleared of
+forests, for example) are those which profit most by mutual exchange._
+The protectionists may suppose me in a paradoxical humor, for I go
+further still. I say, and I sincerely believe, that if any two
+countries are placed in unequal circumstances as to advantages of
+production, _the one of the two which is the less favored by nature,
+will gain more by freedom of commerce_. To prove this, I will be
+obliged to turn somewhat aside from the form of reasoning which
+belongs to this work. I will do so, however; first, because the
+question in discussion turns upon this point; and again, because it
+will give me the opportunity of exhibiting a law of political economy
+of the highest importance, and which, well understood, seems to me to
+be destined to lead back to this science all those sects which, in our
+days, are seeking in the land of chimeras that social harmony which
+they have been unable to discover in nature. I speak of the law of
+consumption, which the majority of political economists may well be
+reproached with having too much neglected.
+
+Consumption is the _end_, the final cause of all the phenomena of
+political economy, and, consequently, in it is found their final
+solution.
+
+No effect, whether favorable or unfavorable, can be vested permanently
+in the producer. His advantages and disadvantages, derived from his
+relations to nature and to society, both pass gradually from him; and
+by an almost insensible tendency are absorbed and fused into the
+community at large--the community considered as consumers. This is an
+admirable law, alike in its cause and its effects; and he who shall
+succeed in making it well understood, will have a right to say, "I
+have not, in my passage through the world, forgotten to pay my tribute
+to society."
+
+Every circumstance which favors the work of production is of course
+hailed with joy by the producer, for its _immediate effect_ is to
+enable him to render greater services to the community, and to exact
+from it a greater remuneration. Every circumstance which injures
+production, must equally be the source of uneasiness to him; for its
+_immediate effect_ is to diminish his services, and consequently his
+remuneration. This is a fortunate and necessary law of nature. The
+immediate good or evil of favorable or unfavorable circumstances must
+fall upon the producer, in order to influence him invisibly to seek
+the 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 is
+necessary, to determine him to devote his attention to it. It is also
+just; because it is just that an effort crowned with success should
+bring its own reward.
+
+But these effects, good and bad, although permanent in themselves, are
+not so as regards the producer. If they had been so, a principle of
+progressive and consequently infinite inequality would have been
+introduced among men. This good, and this evil, both therefore pass
+on, to become absorbed in the general destinies of humanity.
+
+How does this come about? I will try to make it understood by some
+examples.
+
+Let us go back to the thirteenth century. Men who gave themselves up
+to the business of copying, received for this service _a remuneration
+regulated by the general rate of the profits_. Among them is found
+one, who seeks and finds the means of rapidly multiplying copies of
+the same work. He invents printing. The first effect of this is, that
+the individual is enriched, while many more are impoverished. At the
+first view, wonderful as the discovery is, one hesitates in deciding
+whether it is not more injurious than useful. It seems to have
+introduced into the world, as I said above, an element of infinite
+inequality. Guttenberg makes large profits by this invention, and
+perfects the invention by the profits, until all other copyists are
+ruined. As for the public--the consumer--it gains but little, for
+Guttenberg takes care to lower the price of books only just so much as
+is necessary to undersell all rivals.
+
+But the great Mind which put harmony into the movements of celestial
+bodies, could also give it to the internal mechanism of society. We
+will see the advantages of this invention escaping from the
+individual, to become for ever the common patrimony of mankind.
+
+The process finally becomes known. Guttenberg is no longer alone in
+his art; others imitate him. Their profits are at first considerable.
+They are recompensed for being the first who made the effort to
+imitate the processes of the newly-invented art. This again was
+necessary, in order that they might be induced to the effort, and thus
+forward the great and final result to which we approach. They gain
+largely; but they gain less than the inventor, for _competition_ has
+commenced its work. The price of books now continually decreases. The
+gains of the imitators diminish in proportion as the invention becomes
+older; and in the same proportion imitation becomes less meritorious.
+Soon the new object of industry attains its normal condition; in other
+words, the remuneration of printers is no longer an exception to the
+general rules of remuneration, and, like that of copyists formerly, it
+is only regulated _by the general rate of profits_. Here then the
+producer, as such, holds only the old position. The discovery,
+however, has been made; the saving of time, labor, effort, for a fixed
+result, for a certain number of volumes, is realized. But in what is
+this 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 peculiar
+remuneration. As men--as consumers--they no doubt participate in the
+advantages which the invention confers upon the community; but that is
+all. As printers, as producers, they are placed upon the ordinary
+footing of all other producers. Society pays them for their labor, and
+not for the usefulness of the invention. _That_ has become a
+gratuitous benefit, a common heritage to mankind.
+
+The wisdom and beauty of these laws strike me with admiration and
+reverence.
+
+What has been said of printing, can be extended to every agent for the
+advancement of labor--from the nail and the mallet, up to the
+locomotive and the electric telegraph. Society enjoys all, by the
+abundance of its use, its consumption; and it _enjoys all
+gratuitously_. For as their effect is to diminish prices, it is
+evident that just so much of the price as is taken off by their
+intervention, renders the production in so far _gratuitous_. There
+only remains the actual labor of man to be paid for; and the
+remainder, which is the result of the invention, is subtracted; at
+least after the invention has run through the cycle which I have just
+described as its destined course. I send for a workman; he brings a
+saw with him; I pay him two dollars for his day's labor, and he saws
+me twenty-five boards. If the saw had not been invented, he would
+perhaps not have been able to make one board, and I would none the
+less have paid him for his day's labor. The _usefulness_, then, of the
+saw, is for me a gratuitous gift of nature, or rather, is a portion of
+the inheritance which, _in common_ with my brother men, I have
+received from the genius of my ancestors. I have two workmen in my
+field; the one directs the handle of a plough, the other that of a
+spade. The result of their day's labor is very different, but the
+price is the same, because the remuneration is proportioned, not to
+the usefulness of the result, but to the effort, the [time, and] labor
+given to attain it.
+
+I invoke the patience of the reader, and beg him to believe, that I
+have not lost sight of free trade: I entreat him only to remember the
+conclusion at which I have arrived: _Remuneration is not proportioned
+to the usefulness of the articles brought by the producer into the
+market, but to the [time and] labor required for their production._[B]
+
+[Footnote B: It is true that [time and] labor do not receive a uniform
+remuneration; because labor is more or less intense, dangerous,
+skilful, &c., [and time more or less valuable.] Competition
+establishes for each category a price current: and it is of this
+variable price that I speak.]
+
+I have so far taken my examples from human inventions, but will now go
+on to speak of natural advantages.
+
+In every article of production, nature and man must concur. But the
+portion of nature is always gratuitous. Only so much of the usefulness
+of an article as is the result of human labor becomes the object of
+mutual exchange, and consequently of remuneration. The remuneration
+varies much, no doubt, in proportion to the intensity of the labor, of
+the skill, which it requires, of its being _a-propos_ to the demand of
+the day, of the need which exists for it, of the momentary absence of
+competition, &c. But it is not the less true in principle, that the
+assistance received from natural laws, which belongs to all, counts
+for nothing in the price.
+
+We do not pay for the air we breathe, although so useful to us, that
+we 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 for
+instance, to fill a balloon, we must take some [time and] labor; or if
+another takes it for us, we must give him an equivalent in something
+which will have cost us the trouble of production. From which we see
+that the exchange is between efforts, [time and] labor. It is
+certainly not for hydrogen gas that I pay, for this is everywhere at
+my disposal, but for the work that it has been necessary to accomplish
+in order to disengage it; work which I have been spared, and which I
+must refund. If I am told that there are other things to pay for, as
+expense, materials, apparatus, I answer, that still in these things it
+is the work that I pay for. The price of the coal employed is only the
+representation of the [time and] labor necessary to dig and transport
+it.
+
+We do not pay for the light of the sun, because nature alone gives it
+to us. But we pay for the light of gas, tallow, oil, wax, because here
+is labor to be remunerated;--and remark, that it is so entirely [time
+and] labor and not utility to which remuneration is proportioned, that
+it may well happen that one of these means of lighting, while it may
+be much more effective than another, may still cost less. To cause
+this, it is only necessary that less [time and] human labor should be
+required to furnish it.
+
+When the water-boat comes to supply my ship, were I to pay in
+proportion to the _absolute utility_ of the water, my whole fortune
+would not be sufficient. But I pay only for the trouble taken. If more
+is required, I can get another boat to furnish it, or finally go and
+get it myself. The water itself is not the subject of the bargain, but
+the labor required to obtain the water. This point of view is so
+important, and the consequences that I am going to draw from it so
+clear, as regards the freedom of international exchanges, that I will
+still elucidate my idea by a few more examples.
+
+The alimentary substance contained in potatoes does not cost us very
+dear, because a great deal of it is attainable with little work. We
+pay more for wheat, because, to produce it, Nature requires more labor
+from man. It is evident that if Nature did for the latter what she
+does for the former, their prices would tend to the same level. It is
+impossible that the producer of wheat should permanently gain more
+than the producer of potatoes. The law of competition cannot allow it.
+
+Again, if by a happy miracle the fertility of all arable lands were to
+be increased, it would not be the agriculturist, but the consumer, who
+would profit by this phenomenon; for the result of it would be
+abundance and cheapness. There would be less labor incorporated into
+an acre of grain, and the agriculturist would be therefore obliged to
+exchange it for less labor incorporated into some other article. If,
+on the contrary, the fertility of the soil were suddenly to
+deteriorate, the share of nature in production would be less, that of
+labor greater, and the result would be higher prices.
+
+I am right then in saying that it is in consumption, in mankind, that
+at length all political phenomena find their solution. As long as we
+fail to follow their effects to this point, and look only at
+_immediate_ effects, which act but upon individual men or classes of
+men _as producers_, we know nothing more of political economy than the
+quack does of medicine, when instead of following the effects of a
+prescription in its action upon the whole system, he satisfies himself
+with knowing how it affects the palate and the throat.
+
+The tropical regions are very favorable to the production of sugar and
+coffee; that is to say, Nature does most of the business and leaves
+but little for labor to accomplish. But who reaps the advantage of
+this liberality of Nature? NOT THESE REGIONS, for they are
+forced by competition to receive remuneration simply for their labor.
+It is MANKIND who is the gainer; for the result of this
+liberality is _cheapness_, and cheapness belongs to the world.
+
+Here in the temperate zone, we find coal and iron ore on the surface
+of the soil; we have but to stoop and take them. At first, I grant,
+the immediate inhabitants profit by this fortunate circumstance. But
+soon comes competition, and the price of coal and iron falls, until
+this gift of nature becomes gratuitous to all, and human labor is only
+paid according to the general rate of profits.
+
+Thus, natural advantages, like improvements in the process of
+production, are, or have, a constant tendency to become, under the law
+of competition, the common and _gratuitous_ patrimony of consumers, of
+society, of mankind. Countries, therefore, which do not enjoy these
+advantages, must gain by commerce with those which do; because the
+exchanges of commerce are between _labor and labor_, subtraction being
+made of all the natural advantages which are combined with these
+labors; and it is evidently the most favored countries which can
+incorporate into a given labor the largest proportion of these
+_natural advantages_. Their produce representing less labor, receives
+less recompense; in other words, is _cheaper_. If then all the
+liberality of Nature results in cheapness, it is evidently not the
+producing, 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 though
+we 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 ourselves
+with produce only attainable at home by an effort equal to four. You
+can do it because with you Nature does half the work. But we will have
+nothing to do with it; we will wait till your climate, becoming more
+inclement, forces you to ask of us a labor equal to four, and then we
+can treat with you _upon an equal footing_!"
+
+A is a favored country; B is maltreated by Nature. Mutual traffic then
+is advantageous to both, but principally to B, because the exchange is
+not between _utility_ and _utility_, but between _value_ and _value_.
+Now A furnishes a greater _utility in a similar value_, because the
+utility of any article includes at once what Nature and what labor
+have done; whereas the value of it only corresponds to the portion
+accomplished by labor. B then makes an entirely advantageous bargain;
+for by simply paying the producer from A for his labor, it receives in
+return not only the results of that labor, but in addition there is
+thrown in whatever may have accrued from the superior bounty of
+Nature.
+
+We will lay down the general rule.
+
+Traffic is an exchange of _values_; and as value is reduced by
+competition to the simple representation of labor, traffic is the
+exchange of equal labors. Whatever Nature has done towards the
+production of the articles exchanged, is given on both sides
+_gratuitously_; from whence it necessarily follows, that the most
+advantageous commerce is transacted with those countries which are
+the least favored by Nature.
+
+The theory of which I have attempted in this chapter to trace the
+outlines, deserves a much greater elaboration. But perhaps the
+attentive reader will have perceived in it the fruitful seed which is
+destined in its future growth to smother Protectionism, at once with
+the various other isms whose object is to exclude the law of
+COMPETITION from the government of the world. Competition, no
+doubt, considering man as producer, must often interfere with his
+individual and _immediate_ interests. But if we consider the great
+object of all labor, the universal good, in a word, Consumption, we
+cannot fail to find that Competition is to the moral world what the
+law of equilibrium is to the material one. It is the foundation of
+true gratification, of true Liberty and Equality, of the equality of
+comforts and condition, so much sought after in our day; and if so
+many sincere reformers, so many earnest friends to public right, seek
+to reach their end by _commercial legislation_, it is only because
+they 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. The
+demand made is, that the foreign article should be taxed, in order to
+neutralize the effects of the internal tax, which weighs down domestic
+produce. It is still then but the question of equalizing the
+facilities of production. We have but to say that the tax is an
+artificial obstacle, which has exactly the same effect as a natural
+obstacle, i.e. the increasing of the price. If this increase is so
+great that there is more loss in producing the article in question at
+home than in attracting it from foreign parts by the production of an
+equivalent value of something else--_laissez faire_. Individual
+interest will soon learn to choose the lesser of two evils. I might
+refer the reader to the preceding demonstration for an answer to this
+Sophism; but it is one which recurs so often, that it deserves a
+special discussion.
+
+I have said more than once, that I am opposing only the theory of the
+protectionists, with the hope of discovering the source of their
+errors. Were I disposed to enter into controversy with them, I would
+say: Why direct your tariffs principally against England, a country
+more overloaded with taxes than any in the world? Have I not a right
+to look upon your argument as a mere pretext? But I am not of the
+number of those who believe that prohibitionists are guided by
+interest, and not by conviction. The doctrine of Protection is too
+popular not to be sincere. If the majority could believe in freedom,
+we would be free. Without doubt it is individual interest which weighs
+us down with tariffs; but it acts upon conviction. "The will (said
+Pascal) is one of the principal organs of belief." But belief does not
+the less exist because it is rooted in the will and in the secret
+inspirations 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 makes
+a good use of them when it renders to the public services equivalent
+to the value received from them; it makes a bad use of them when it
+expends this value, giving nothing in return. To say in the first case
+that they place the country which pays them in more disadvantageous
+conditions for production, than the country which is free from them,
+is a Sophism. We pay, it is true, so many millions for the
+administration of justice, and the maintenance of order, but we have
+justice and order; we have the security which they give, the time
+which they save for us; and it is most probable that production is
+neither more easy nor more active among nations, where (if there be
+such) each individual takes the administration of justice into his own
+hands. We pay, I grant, many millions for roads, bridges, ports,
+steamships; but we have these steamships, these ports, bridges, and
+roads; and unless we maintain that it is a losing business to
+establish them, we cannot say that they place us in a position
+inferior to that of nations who have, it is true, no budget of public
+works, but who likewise have no public works. And here we see why
+(even while we accuse taxes of being a cause of industrial
+inferiority) we direct our tariffs precisely against those nations
+which are the most taxed. It is because these taxes, well used, far
+from injuring, have ameliorated the _conditions of production_ to
+these nations. Thus we again arrive at the conclusion that the
+protectionist Sophisms not only wander from, but are the contrary--the
+very antithesis--of truth.
+
+As to unproductive taxes, suppress them if you can; but surely it is a
+most singular idea to suppose, that their evil effect is to be
+neutralized by the addition of individual taxes to public taxes. Many
+thanks for the compensation! The State, you say, has taxed us too
+much; surely this is no reason that we should tax each other!
+
+A protective duty is a tax directed against foreign produce, but which
+returns, let us keep in mind, upon the national consumer. Is it not
+then a singular argument to say to him, "Because the taxes are heavy,
+we will raise prices higher for you; and because the State takes a
+part of your revenue, we will give another portion of it to benefit a
+monopoly?"
+
+But let us examine more closely this Sophism so accredited among our
+legislators; although, strange to say, it is precisely those who keep
+up the unproductive taxes (according to our present hypothesis) who
+attribute to them afterwards our supposed inferiority, and seek to
+re-establish the equilibrium by further taxes and new clogs.
+
+It appears to me to be evident that protection, without any change in
+its nature and effects, might have taken the form of a direct tax,
+raised by the State, and distributed as a premium to privileged
+industry.
+
+Let us admit that foreign iron could be sold in our market at $16, but
+not lower; and American iron at not lower than $24.
+
+In this hypothesis there are two ways in which the State can secure
+the national market to the home producer.
+
+The first, is to put upon foreign iron a duty of $10. This, it is
+evident, would exclude it, because it could no longer be sold at less
+than $26; $16 for the indemnifying price, $10 for the tax; and at this
+price it must be driven from the market by American iron, which we
+have supposed to cost $24. In this case the buyer, the consumer, will
+have paid all the expenses of the protection given.
+
+The second means would be to lay upon the public an Internal Revenue
+tax of $10, and to give it as a premium to the iron manufacturer. The
+effect would in either case be equally a protective measure. Foreign
+iron would, according to both systems, be alike excluded; for our iron
+manufacturer could sell at $14, what, with the $10 premium, would thus
+bring him in $24. While the price of sale being $14, foreign iron
+could not obtain a market at $16.
+
+In these two systems the principle is the same; the effect is the
+same. There is but this single difference; in the first case the
+expense of protection is paid by a part, in the second by the whole
+of the community. I frankly confess my preference for the second
+system, which I regard as more just, more economical, and more legal.
+More just, because, if society wishes to give bounties to some of its
+members, the whole community ought to contribute; more economical,
+because it would banish many difficulties, and save the expenses of
+collection; more legal, because the public would see clearly into the
+operation, and know what was required of it.
+
+But if the protective system had taken this form, would it not have
+been laughable enough to hear it said: "We pay heavy taxes for the
+army, the navy, the judiciary, the public works, the debt, &c. These
+amount to more than 200 millions. It would therefore be desirable that
+the State should take another 200 millions to relieve the poor iron
+manufacturers."
+
+This, it must certainly be perceived, by an attentive investigation,
+is the result of the Sophism in question. In vain, gentlemen, are all
+your efforts; you cannot give money to one without taking it from
+another. If you are absolutely determined to exhaust the funds of the
+taxable community, well; but, at least, do not mock them; do not tell
+them, "We take from you again, in order to compensate you for what we
+have already taken."
+
+It would be a too tedious undertaking to endeavor to point out all the
+fallacies of this Sophism. I will therefore limit myself to the
+consideration of it in three points.
+
+You argue that the United States are overburdened with taxes, and
+deduce thence the conclusion that it is necessary to protect such and
+such an article of produce. But protection does not relieve us from
+the payment of these taxes. If, then, individuals devoting themselves
+to any one object of industry, should advance this demand: "We, from
+our participation in the payment of taxes, have our expenses of
+production increased, and therefore ask for a protective duty which
+shall raise our price of sale:" what is this but a demand on their
+part to be allowed to free themselves from the burden of the tax, by
+laying it on the rest of the community? Their object is to balance, by
+the increased price of their produce, the amount which they pay in
+taxes. Now, as the whole amount of these taxes must enter into the
+Treasury, and the increase of price must be paid by society, it
+follows that (where this protective duty is imposed) society has to
+bear, not only the general tax, but also that for the protection of
+the article in question. But, it is answered, let _everything_ be
+protected. Firstly, this is impossible; and, again, were it possible,
+how could such a system give relief? _I_ will pay for you, _you_ will
+pay 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 taxes
+for the support of an army, a navy, judges, roads, &c. Afterwards you
+seek to disburden from its portion of the tax, first one article of
+industry, then another, then a third; always adding to the burden of
+the 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 your
+argument. But if it be true that the American people paid the tax
+before the passing of the protective duty, and afterwards that it has
+paid not only the tax but the protective duty also, truly I do not
+perceive wherein it has profited.
+
+But I go much further, and maintain that the more oppressive our taxes
+are, the more anxiously ought we to open our ports and frontiers to
+foreign nations, less burdened than ourselves. And why? _In order that
+we may_ SHARE WITH THEM, _as much as possible, the burden
+which we bear._ Is it not an incontestable maxim in political economy,
+that taxes must, in the end, fall upon the consumer? _The greater then
+our commerce, the greater the portion which will be reimbursed to us,
+of taxes incorporated in the produce which we will have sold to
+foreign consumers; whilst we on our part will have made to them only a
+lesser reimbursement, because (according to our hypothesis) their
+produce is less taxed than ours._
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER VI.
+
+BALANCE OF TRADE.
+
+
+Our adversaries have adopted a system of tactics, which
+embarrasses us not a little. Do we prove our doctrine? They admit the
+truth of it in the most respectful manner. Do we attack their
+principles? They abandon them with the best possible grace. They only
+ask that our doctrine, which they acknowledge to be true, should be
+confined to books; and that their principles, which they allow to be
+false, should be established in practice. If we will give up to them
+the regulation of our tariffs, they will leave us triumphant in the
+domain of literature.
+
+It is constantly alleged in opposition to our principles, that they
+are good only in theory. But, gentlemen, do you believe that
+merchants' books are good in practice? It does appear to me, if there
+is anything which can have a practical authority, when the object is
+to prove profit and loss, that this must be commercial accounts. We
+cannot suppose that all the merchants of the world, for centuries
+back, should have so little understood their own affairs, as to have
+kept their books in such a manner as to represent gains as losses, and
+losses as gains. Truly it would be easier to believe that our
+legislators are bad political economists. A merchant, one of my
+friends, having had two business transactions, with very different
+results, I have been curious to compare on this subject the accounts
+of the counter with those of the custom-house, interpreted by our
+legislators.
+
+Mr. T dispatched from New Orleans a vessel freighted for France with
+cotton valued at $200,000. Such was the amount entered at the
+custom-house. The cargo, on its arrival at Havre, had paid ten per
+cent. expenses, and was liable to thirty per cent. duties, which
+raised its value to $280,000. It was sold at twenty per cent. profit
+on its original value, which equalled $40,000, and the price of sale
+was $320,000, which the consignee converted into merchandise,
+principally Parisian goods. These goods, again, had to pay for
+transportation to the sea-board, insurance, commissions, &c., ten per
+cent.; so that when the return cargo arrived at New Orleans, its value
+had 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 the
+books 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; the
+one of $40,000, the other of $70,400, and Mr. T feels perfectly
+certain that, as regards these, there is no mistake in his accounts.
+
+Now what conclusion do our Congressmen draw from the sums entered into
+the custom-house, in this operation? They thence learn that the United
+States have exported $200,000, and imported $352,000; from whence
+they conclude "_that she has spent, dissipated, the profits of her
+previous savings; that she is impoverishing herself and progressing to
+her 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. But
+the vessel foundered in leaving the port, and Mr. T had only further
+to inscribe upon his books two little items, thus worded:
+
+"_Sundries due to X_, $200,000, for purchase of divers articles
+dispatched by vessel N."
+
+"_Profit and loss due, to sundries_, $200,000, _for final and total
+loss 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 this
+entry on the list of _importations_, it hence follows that our
+enlightened members of Congress must see in this wreck _a clear
+profit_ to the United States of $200,000.
+
+We may draw hence yet another conclusion, viz.: that according to the
+Balance of Trade theory, the United States has an exceedingly simple
+manner of constantly doubling her capital. It is only necessary, to
+accomplish this, that she should, after entering into the custom-house
+her articles for exportation, cause them to be thrown into the sea. By
+this course, her exportations can speedily be made to equal her
+capital; importations will be nothing, and our gain will be, all which
+the ocean will have swallowed up.
+
+You are joking, the protectionists will reply. You know that it is
+impossible that we should utter such absurdities. Nevertheless, I
+answer, you do utter them, and what is more, you give them life, you
+exercise them practically upon your fellow-citizens, as much, at
+least, as is in your power to do.
+
+But lest even Mr. T's books may not be deemed of sufficient weight to
+counterbalance the convictions of the Horace Greeley school of
+prohibition, I shall proceed to furnish a table exhibiting various
+classes of commercial transactions, embracing most of the classes
+usually effected by importing and exporting houses, all of which may
+result in undoubted profits to the parties engaged in them, and to the
+country at large, and yet which, as they appear in the annual Commerce
+and Navigation Reports issued by the government, would be made to
+prove by Mr. Greeley that the result has in each case been a loss to
+the country. The sums are all stated in gold:
+
+A, represents one hundred merchants, who shipped to London beef, boots
+and shoes, butter, cheese, cotton, hams and bacon, flour, Indian corn,
+lard, lumber, machinery, oils, pork, staves, tallow, tobacco and
+cigars, worth in New York, in the aggregate, ten millions of dollars,
+gold, but worth in London plus the cost of transportation, &c., eleven
+millions of dollars, gold, in bond. After being sold in London, the
+proceeds (eleven millions) were invested in British goods, worth
+eleven millions in London, but worth twelve millions in bond in New
+York, and plus the cost of transportation, &c. After having these
+goods sold in New York, a net profit of two millions was the result of
+the whole transaction, a profit both to the merchants and the country;
+yet, according to the Commerce and Navigation Returns, the exports
+were ten millions, and the imports eleven millions (valued at the
+foreign place of production as the law directs), showing, according to
+Mr. Greeley's solitary point of view, a loss to the country of one
+million.
+
+B, owned a gold mine in Nevada, and had no capital with which to
+develop 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, ex
+duty and plus transportation, &c. These sold, B netted an undoubted
+profit of $100,000, besides getting rid of his mine; but, according to
+the Commerce and Navigation Returns, the exports were nothing, and the
+imports $1,000,000; showing, according to Mr. Greeley's solitary point
+of view, a loss to the country of $1,000,000.
+
+C, the French owner of the Nevada mine, had a million more with which
+to develop it. Hearing that French cloths and gloves had a good sale
+in Boston, he invested his million in these goods, sailed for Boston
+with 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 the
+Commerce and Navigation Returns, the exports were nothing, and the
+imports $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. D
+ordered 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, ex
+duty and plus transportation. Upon selling them D was clearly worth
+$1,100,000; yet, according to the Commerce and Navigation Reports, as
+there had been no exports, but simply $1,000,000 of imports, the
+transaction, from Mr. Greeley's solitary point of view, seemed a loss
+to 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 in
+Russia, ex duty and plus transportation, $1,210,000. Disposing of
+these in turn, and investing the proceeds in Russian iron worth
+$1,210,000 in Russia, but $1,331,000 in Venezuela, ex duty and plus
+transportation, he shipped the iron to Venezuela, where he realized on
+it, investing the proceeds this time in South American products worth
+in Spain $1,464,100. He sold these products in Spain, bought olive oil
+with 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 he
+makes no profit, but barely clears his charges. Yet on the whole he
+has made a net gain of $610,510; but, according to the Commerce and
+Navigation Reports, the exports have been $1,000,000 and the imports
+$1,610,510, showing, from Mr. Greeley's solitary point of view, a loss
+to the country of $610,510. Nay more, for Mr. Greeley balances his
+trade accounts each year by itself, and as E's outward shipment was
+made in 1850 and his importation in 1853, the country, according to
+H.G., lost in 1853, by over importation, $1,610,500. Yet not to be
+hard on H.G., and to be perfectly honest in our accounts, we will only
+set 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 that
+large vessels were in demand in England as troop transports to the
+Crimea, 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 it
+in Swiss watches worth $200,000 in Geneva, but $210,000 in New
+Orleans, ex duty and plus transportation. To New Orleans he
+accordingly shipped the watches, and they were sold. By these
+transactions he not only got rid of his elephant, but both he and the
+country clearly gained $50,000. Yet according to Mr. Greeley's single
+eye the country suffered to the extent of $200,000, for in the exports
+appeared nothing, but among the imports $200,000 worth of foreign
+gewgaws, only fit to keep time with.
+
+G, (an actual transaction) shipped by the Great Eastern on her last
+voyage from New York, lard and other merchandise, worth in New York
+$600,000, the fact of which, in the hurry of business, he failed to
+report to the Custom House, and it therefore did not appear in the
+exports. This lard was carried to England, where it found no sale, and
+was reshipped to New York. G only escaped being charged duty on it
+when it arrived, by swearing that it had been originally shipped from
+here 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 was
+on the road to ruin $600,000 worth.
+
+H, lived in Brownsville, Texas, where he had a lot of arms and
+gunpowder, worth $100,000. The Mexicans levied a very high import duty
+on these articles, and they consequently bore a very high price in
+Matamoras, just opposite, being worth in the market of that town no
+less than $250,000. He accordingly conceived the idea of smuggling
+them into Mexican territory, and, with the connivance of the Mexican
+officials, (what rascals these foreign custom-house officials are, to
+be sure!) actually succeeded in doing so, and thus realized the very
+handsome profit of $150,000 in gold. The entire proceeds he invested
+in Mexican indigo and cochineal, worth in Mexico $250,000, and in
+Boston $275,000, in bond, plus charges. Of course, no export entry was
+furnished to the customs collector at Brownsville; but Mr. Greeley
+fastened his one eye on the indigo and cochineal, when it arrived in
+Boston, and made up his mind that the country had lost $250,000. As
+for H, he has invested $100,000 in more gunpowder and arms, and starts
+for Brownsville next week, to try his luck again. With the other
+$175,000 he has a notion of buying out the New York _Tribune_, and
+setting it right on free trade, and other matters of the sort.
+
+I, and his friends owned a fine fleet of merchantmen when the war
+broke out. The aggregate burden of the vessels was nearly a million of
+tons, and they were worth $40 a ton. When the rebel cruisers commenced
+their operations, there were no United States cruisers prepared to
+capture them, because our best vessels were on blockade service. This
+being the case, insurance on American merchantmen rose very high--so
+high that I and his friends were reluctantly compelled to sell their
+vessels 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 thus
+gained $4,000,000 by these transactions. The entire proceeds,
+$44,000,000, they then lent to the government with which to carry on
+its war of existence with the Southern insurgents. Profitable as these
+transactions clearly were to I and his friends, and to the government,
+Mr. Greeley, nevertheless, only sees the import of $40,000,000 worth
+of foreign extravagances, and consequently wants the tariff on iron
+increased in order to make water run up hill.
+
+J, had $2,000,000 in five-twenty bonds, which cost him $1,400,000
+gold. As the market price in New York was only 70 gold, while it was
+72-1/4 in London, he conceived the inhuman idea of selling them in the
+latter 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 rags
+in Italy, which he sold in New York for $1,584,000, ex duty and plus
+transportation, a clear profit of $184,000 from the start. No export
+appearing in the Commerce and Navigation Returns, and nothing but the
+rags meeting his unital gaze, Mr. Greeley at once posted his national
+ledger 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 his
+account books), an exchange broker, doing business in New York. He
+buys notes on the banks of England, Ireland, Scotland, France and
+Canada--indeed, foreign banknotes of all kinds--for which he usually
+pays about ninety per cent, of their face value. By the end of last
+year he had invested $200,000 in these notes brought here by
+travellers. He then inclosed them in letters, and sent them to their
+proper destinations to be redeemed. Redeemed they were in due time,
+and the proceeds remitted in gold. In this business he earned the neat
+profit of $22,222, and the country was that much richer thereby. But
+Mr. 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 when
+the war broke out, for fear they might be drafted. Together with the
+colored folks who fled there, and the many travellers who went there
+from time to time, they carried with them most of our silver
+half-dollars, quarters, dimes, half-dimes, and three-cent pieces.
+These amounted to $25,000,000, which the skedaddlers, the colored
+folks, and the travellers, as with returning peace they slowly
+straggled back into the country, invested in Canadian knick-knacks,
+which they disposed of in the United States. The incoming goods
+were duly entered at our frontier custom-houses, but the outgoing
+silver was not. Mr. Greeley, unaware of this fact, detects an
+over-importation of $25,000,000, and is waiting to be elected to
+Congress in order to legislate the matter right.
+
+M, (an actual transaction) had $1,000,000 in Illinois Central Railroad
+bonds, for which he desired to obtain $1,000,000 worth of iron rails
+to repair the road with. Not being able to effect the transaction in
+the United States, he sent the bonds to Germany, where they were sold,
+and the proceeds invested in English railroad iron, worth $1,000,000
+in Glasgow, but $1,100,000 in Chicago, ex duty, and plus
+transportation. By this transaction M, besides effecting the desired
+exchange, netted a profit of $100,000. Yet, according to the Commerce
+and Navigation Reports, and Mr. Greeley's one eye, as there had been
+no exports and $1,000,000 of imports, the country was a sufferer by
+the latter sum.
+
+N, was a body of incorporators who owned a tract of land lying in the
+bend of a river. Standing in need of water power for manufacturing
+purposes, they resolved to cut a canal across the bend. As this would
+essentially benefit the navigation of the river, the State agreed to
+guaranty their bonds for a loan of money to the extent of $1,000,000.
+Finding no purchaser for these bonds in the United States, they
+remitted them to Europe, and there sold them at par. With the proceeds
+they purchased army blankets for the Boston market, on which they
+realized ten per cent. net profit. These sold, the avails were
+invested in barrows, spades, water-wheels, wages, &c., and in good
+time the canal was cut and the manufactory set a-going. Profitable as
+this thing was to N, Mr. Greeley's single-barrelled telescope sees in
+it only a loss to the country of $1,000,000.
+
+O, represents the Illinois Central, Union Pacific, and other western
+railroads, owning grants of land along their respective roads, to sell
+which to actual settlers they open agencies in London, Havre, Antwerp,
+and other European cities. The emigrants who buy these lands pay for
+them in Europe, and set sail for America with their title-deeds in
+their pockets, and their axes on their shoulders, ready for a conquest
+over forest and prairie. The agents of the Illinois Central Railroad
+(see report of the Company), who have sold 1,664,422 acres, say at an
+average of ten dollars per acre, invested the proceeds, $16,644,220,
+in iron rails for the road, worth that sum in England, but ten per
+cent. more in Illinois, less duty and plus transportation. The road
+has thus not only netted a profit of $1,664,422 on the transaction,
+but sold their wild lands to actual settlers, who will soon convert
+them into productive farms. But Mr. Greeley, upon seeing an import of
+$16,644,220 of iron rails, declares the thing must be stopped or the
+country will perish.
+
+P, is Sir Morton Peto and other European capitalists, who, believing
+that eight per cent., the average rate of interest in the United
+States, is better than three per cent., the average rate in England,
+invest $10,000,000 of capital in American enterprises. This capital is
+sent hither in the form of merchandise, to stock our railroads, farms,
+factories, etc., and is so much clear benefit to the country; but to
+Mr. 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 United
+States altogether. These vessels have an aggregate burden of one
+million tons, are worth forty dollars, gold, per ton, and earn a net
+profit per annum of ten per cent. on their cost. Although in this kind
+of carrying trade we are wofully behind other nations, yet it yields,
+in twelve years (the average age of the vessels engaged in it), the
+neat 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 profit
+of ten per cent. Although an unquestionable gain to Q and the country
+at large of $52,800,000, Mr. Greeley, with his contracted views, only
+regards it as a dead loss on the import side of our Commerce and
+Navigation Returns.
+
+R, was a bank which had a defaulting cashier, who ran away in 1857
+with $500,000 of its funds. (Sch*yl*r carried off a million of New
+Haven Railroad bonds). These funds were recovered and converted into
+gold, which was shipped to the United States. According to Mr.
+Greeley, who could find no record of exports to counterbalance it, the
+same was a dead loss to the country.
+
+S, and his friends own 76,990 tons of whaling ships (see Commerce and
+Navigation Reports, 1866), worth $40 per ton, gold, or $3,079,600.
+These ships are sent annually to the Arctic regions and earn for S and
+his friends ten per cent., or $307,960 net profit each year. Five
+years' profits, consisting of whale oil, bone, etc., which, after an
+active and profitable trade at the Sandwich Islands, they returned
+with this year, were valued at $1,655,659, and were duly entered among
+the imports, furnishing to Mr. Greeley an indubitable proof that the
+country was losing money in this business, and that the attention of
+Congress should at once be directed toward supplying a proper remedy.
+
+T, was a South American refugee, who brought with him a million of
+dollars in gold doubloons. After living here for many years, by which
+time, through foreign trading, his capital had doubled, he invested
+the entire avails in United States bonds, as a last and striking
+evidence of his faith in our institutions, and departed to his native
+country, there to rest his bones. This man clearly prospered, and so
+did the country in which he settled, and on whose national faith he
+lent all his fortune. Yet Mr. Greeley concludes the whole thing to
+have 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 vessel
+at sea laden with a valuable cargo of teas, and bravely tows her into
+port, receiving $200,000 of the proceeds of the sale of her cargo as
+salvage for his skill and intrepidity. From Mr. Greeley's point of
+view U is a traitor to his country, and suffering a merited poverty
+for over-importing. But U drives his carriage about town, and has his
+own 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 to
+improve American breeds. The horses arrive in good order, and on being
+sold, yield V a net profit of $30,000, besides enriching our native
+breeds of these useful animals. Mr. Greeley still holds out, and jots
+the whole transaction down as an additional evidence of national
+decadence.
+
+
+TABULAR EXPOSE.
+
+
+Official Returns of these Transactions as they would appear per
+Commerce 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 commercial
+transactions, in all of which the parties to them and the countries in
+which they live make money, but which, regarded from Mr. Greeley's
+solitary point of view, should be stopped at once by appropriate
+legislation.
+
+These various transactions, it will be perceived, have netted to the
+individuals engaged in them a clear profit of $66,391,813, while the
+country has added to its immediate stock of wealth not only this sum,
+but $58,344,220 over, viz: $124,736,033; while, according to the
+Balance of Trade chimera, which simply weighs the custom-house reports
+of the value of the exports with that of the imports (and their values
+in their respective countries of production, too), this commerce has
+been 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 be
+precisely _reversed_. The profits accruing to the nation from any
+foreign commerce should be calculated by the overplus of the
+importation above the exportation. This overplus, after the deduction
+of expenses, is the real gain. Here we have the true theory, and it is
+one which leads directly to freedom in trade. I now, gentlemen,
+abandon you this theory, as I have done all those of the preceding
+chapters. Do with it as you please, exaggerate it as you will; it has
+nothing to fear. Push it to the furthest extreme; imagine, if it so
+please you, that foreign nations should inundate us with useful
+produce of every description, and ask nothing in return; that our
+importations should be _infinite_, and our exportations _nothing_.
+Imagine all this, and still I defy you to prove that we will be the
+poorer in consequence.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER VII.
+
+A PETITION.
+
+
+Petition from the Manufacturers of Candles, Wax-Lights, Lamps,
+Chandeliers, Reflectors, Snuffers, Extinguishers; and from the
+Producers of Tallow, Oil, Resin, Petroleum, Kerosene, Alcohol, and
+generally of every thing used for lights.
+
+"_To the Honorable the Senators and Representatives of the United
+States in Congress assembled._
+
+"GENTLEMEN:--You are in the right way: you reject abstract
+theories; abundance, cheapness, concerns you little. You are entirely
+occupied with the interest of the producer, whom you are anxious to
+free 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 application
+of your--what shall we say? your theory? no, nothing is more
+deceiving than theory--your doctrine? your system? your principle? But
+you do not like doctrines; you hold systems in horror; and, as for
+principles, you declare that there are no such things in political
+economy. We will say, then, your practice; your practice without
+theory, and without principle.
+
+"We are subjected to the intolerable competition of a FOREIGN RIVAL,
+who enjoys, it would seem, such superior facilities for the production
+of light, that he is enabled to _inundate_ our _national market_ at so
+exceedingly reduced a price, that, the moment he makes his appearance,
+he draws off all custom from us; and thus an important branch of
+American industry, with all its innumerable ramifications, is suddenly
+reduced to a state of complete stagnation. This rival, who is no other
+than the sun, carries on so bitter a war against us, that we have
+every reason to believe that he has been excited to this course by our
+perfidious cousins, the Britishers. (Good diplomacy this, for the
+present time!) In this belief we are confirmed by the fact that in all
+his transactions with their befogged island, he is much more moderate
+and careful than with us.
+
+"Our petition is, that it would please your Honorable Body to pass a
+law 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 to
+penetrate into our dwellings, to the prejudice of the profitable
+manufactures which we flatter ourselves we have been enabled to bestow
+upon the country; which country cannot, therefore, without
+ingratitude, leave us now to struggle unprotected through so unequal a
+contest.
+
+"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 have
+to advance in its favor.
+
+"And first, if, by shutting out as much as possible all access to
+natural light, you thus create the necessity for artificial light, is
+there in the United States an industrial pursuit which will not,
+through some connection with this important object, be benefited by
+it?
+
+"If more tallow be consumed, there will arise a necessity for an
+increase of cattle and sheep. Thus artificial meadows must be in
+greater demand; and meat, wool, leather, and above all, manure, this
+basis of agricultural riches, must become more abundant.
+
+"If more oil be consumed, it will effect a great impetus to our
+petroleum trade. Pit-Hole, Tack, and Oil Creek stock will go up
+exceedingly, and an immense revenue will thereby accrue to the
+numerous possessors of oil lands, who will be able to pay such a large
+tax that the national debt can be paid off at once. Besides that, the
+patent hermetical barrel trade, and numerous other industries
+connected 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 be
+employed in the whale fisheries, and thence would arise a navy capable
+of sustaining the honor of the United States, and of responding to the
+patriotic sentiments of the undersigned petitioners, candle-merchants,
+&c.
+
+"But what words can express the magnificence which New York will then
+exhibit! Cast an eye upon the future, and behold the gildings, the
+bronzes, the magnificent crystal chandeliers, lamps, lusters, and
+candelabras, which will glitter in the spacious stores, compared to
+which the splendor of the present day will appear little and
+insignificant.
+
+"There is none, not even the poor manufacturer of resin in the midst
+of his pine forests, nor the miserable miner in his dark dwelling, but
+who would enjoy an increase of salary and of comforts.
+
+"Gentlemen, if you will be pleased to reflect, you cannot fail to be
+convinced that there is perhaps not one American, from the opulent
+stockholder of Pit-Hole, down to the poorest vender of matches, who is
+not interested in the success of our petition.
+
+"We foresee your objections, gentlemen; but there is not one that you
+can oppose to us which you will not be obliged to gather from the
+works of the partisans of free trade. We dare challenge you to
+pronounce one word against our petition, which is not equally opposed
+to your own practice and the principle which guides your policy.
+
+"If you tell us that, though we may gain by this protection, the
+United States will not gain, because the consumer must pay the price
+of 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 reason
+should now induce you to act in the same manner.
+
+"You have yourselves already answered the objection. When you were
+told: The consumer is interested in the free introduction of iron,
+coal, corn, wheat, cloths, &c., your answer was: Yes, but the producer
+is interested in their exclusion. Thus, also, if the consumer is
+interested in the admission of light, we, the producers, pray for its
+interdiction.
+
+"You have also said the producer and the consumer are one. If the
+manufacturer gains by protection, he will cause the agriculturist to
+gain also; if agriculture prospers, it opens a market for manufactured
+goods. Thus we, if you confer upon us the monopoly of furnishing light
+during the day, will as a first consequence buy large quantities of
+tallow, coal, oil, resin, kerosene, wax, alcohol, silver, iron,
+bronze, crystal, for the supply of our business; and then we and our
+numerous contractors having become rich, our consumption will be
+great, and will become a means of contributing to the comfort and
+competency of the workers in every branch of national labor.
+
+"Will you say that the light of the sun is a gratuitous gift, and that
+to repulse gratuitous gifts is to repulse riches under pretence of
+encouraging the means of obtaining them?
+
+"Take care--you carry the death-blow to your own policy. Remember that
+hitherto you have always repulsed foreign produce, _because_ it was an
+approach to a gratuitous gift, and _the more in proportion_ as this
+approach was more close. You have, in obeying the wishes of other
+monopolists, acted only from a _half-motive_; to grant our petition
+there is a much _fuller inducement_. To repulse us, precisely for the
+reason that our case is a more complete one than any which have
+preceded it, would be to lay down the following equation: + x + = -; in
+other words, it would be to accumulate absurdity upon absurdity.
+
+"Labor and Nature concur in different proportions, according to
+country and climate, in every article of production. The portion of
+Nature is always gratuitous; that of labor alone regulates the price.
+
+"If a Lisbon orange can be sold at one hundredth the price of a New
+York one, it is because a natural and gratuitous heat does for the
+one, what the other only obtains from an artificial and consequently
+expensive one.
+
+"When, therefore, we purchase a Portuguese orange, we may say that we
+obtain it 99/100 gratuitously and 1/100 by the right of labor; in
+other words, at a mere song compared to those of New York.
+
+"Now it is precisely on account of this 99/100 _gratuity_ (excuse the
+phrase) that you argue in favor of exclusion. How, you say, could
+national labor sustain the competition of foreign labor, when the
+first has every thing to do, and the last is rid of nearly all the
+trouble, the sun taking the rest of the business upon himself? If then
+the 99/100 _gratuity_ can determine you to check competition, on what
+principle can the _entire gratuity_ be alleged as a reason for
+admitting it? You are no logicians if, refusing the 99/100 gratuity as
+hurtful to human labor, you do not _a fortiori_, and with double zeal,
+reject the full gratuity.
+
+"Again, when any article, as coal, iron, cheese, or cloth, comes to us
+from foreign countries with less labor than if we produced it
+ourselves, the difference in price is a _gratuitous gift_ conferred
+upon us; and the gift is more or less considerable, according as the
+difference is greater or less. It is the quarter, the half, or the
+three-quarters of the value of the produce, in proportion as the
+foreign merchant requires the three-quarters, the half, or the
+quarter of the price. It is as complete as possible when the producer
+offers, as the sun does with light, the whole, in free gift. The
+question is, and we put it formally, whether you wish for the United
+States the benefit of gratuitous consumption, or the supposed
+advantages of laborious production. Choose: but be consistent. And
+does it not argue the greatest inconsistency to check, as you do, the
+importation of iron-ware, dry-goods, and other foreign manufactures,
+merely because, and even in proportion as, their price approaches
+zero, 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 possible
+care 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 had
+cost a drop of sweat to his brow.
+
+"I will sell it," said he to his wife, "and with the proceeds I will
+buy lace, which will serve you to make a present for our daughter."
+
+The honest countryman, arriving in the city of Cincinnati, there met
+an Englishman and a Yankee.
+
+The Yankee said to him, "Give me your wine, and I in exchange will
+give you fifteen bundles of Yankee lace."
+
+The Englishman said, "Give it to me, and I will give you twenty
+bundles of English lace, for we English can spin cheaper than the
+Yankees."
+
+But a custom-house officer standing by, said to the laborer, "My good
+fellow, make your exchange, if you choose, with Brother Jonathan, but
+it is my duty to prevent your doing so with the Englishman."
+
+"What!" exclaimed the countryman, "you wish me to take fifteen bundles
+of New England lace, when I can have twenty from Manchester!"
+
+"Certainly," replied the custom-house officer; "do you not see that
+the United States would be a loser if you were to receive twenty
+bundles instead of fifteen?"
+
+"I can scarcely understand this," said the laborer.
+
+"Nor can I explain it," said the custom-house officer, "but there is
+no doubt of the fact; for congressmen, ministers, and editors, all
+agree that a people is impoverished in proportion as it receives a
+large 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 good
+folks are still puzzling themselves to discover how it can happen that
+people are ruined by receiving four instead of three; and why they are
+richer with three dozen bundles of lace instead of four.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER IX.
+
+A WONDERFUL DISCOVERY.
+
+
+At this moment, when all minds are occupied in endeavoring to
+discover the most economical means of transportation; when, to put
+these means into practice, we are levelling roads, improving rivers,
+perfecting steamboats, establishing railroads, and attempting various
+systems of traction, atmospheric, hydraulic, pneumatic, electric, &c.;
+at this moment, when, I believe, every one is seeking in sincerity and
+with ardor the solution of this problem--"_To bring the price of
+things in their place of consumption, as near as possible to their
+price in that of production_"--I would believe myself to be acting a
+culpable part towards my country, towards the age in which I live, and
+towards myself, if I were longer to keep secret the wonderful
+discovery which I have just made.
+
+I am well aware that the self-illusions of inventors have become
+proverbial, but I have, nevertheless, the most complete certainty of
+having discovered an infallible means of bringing produce from all
+parts of the world into the United States, and reciprocally to
+transport ours, with a very important reduction of price.
+
+Infallible! and yet this is but a single one of the advantages of my
+astonishing invention, which requires neither plans nor devices,
+neither preparatory studies, nor engineers, nor machinists, nor
+capital, nor stockholders, nor governmental assistance! There is no
+danger of shipwrecks, of explosions, of shocks of fire, nor of
+displacement of rails! It can be put into practice without preparation
+almost any day we think proper!
+
+Finally: and this will, no doubt, recommend it to the public, it will
+not increase the Budget one cent; but the contrary. It will not
+augment the number of office-holders, nor the exigencies of State; but
+the contrary. It will put in hazard the liberty of no one; but on the
+contrary, it will secure to each a greater freedom.
+
+I have been led to this discovery, not from accident, but from
+observation, and I will tell you how.
+
+I had this question to determine:
+
+"Why does any article made, for instance, at Montreal, bear an
+increased 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 trouble
+and loss of time; and either we must submit to these troubles and
+losses in our own person, or pay another for bearing them for us. Then
+come rivers, hills, accidents, heavy and muddy roads. These are so
+many _difficulties_ to be overcome; in order to do which, causeways
+are constructed, bridges built, roads cut and paved, railroads
+established, &c. But all this is costly, and the article transported
+must bear its portion of the expense. There are robbers, too, on the
+roads, sometimes, and this necessitates railway guards, a police
+force, &c.
+
+Now, among these _obstacles_, there is one which we ourselves have
+lately placed, and that at no little expense, between Montreal and New
+York. This consists of men planted along the frontier, armed to the
+teeth, whose business it is to place _difficulties_ in the way of the
+transportation of goods from one country to another. These men are
+called custom-house officers, and their effect is precisely similar to
+that of rutted and boggy roads. They retard and put obstacles in the
+way of transportation, thus contributing to the difference which we
+have remarked between the price of production and that of consumption;
+to diminish which difference, as much as possible, is the problem
+which 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 us
+nothing. 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 could
+have admitted so whimsical a piece of folly as to induce us to pay
+many millions to destroy the _natural obstacles_ interposed between
+the United States and other nations, only at the same time to pay so
+many millions more in order to replace them by _artificial obstacles_,
+which have exactly the same effect; so that the obstacle removed and
+the 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, twenty
+dollars, and, from the expenses of transportation, thirty dollars at
+New York. A similar article of New York manufacture costs forty
+dollars. What is our course under these circumstances?
+
+First, we impose a duty of at least ten dollars on the Canadian
+article, so as to raise its price to a level with that of the New York
+one--the government, withal, paying numerous officials to attend to
+the levying of this duty. The article thus pays ten dollars for
+transportation, and ten for the tax.
+
+This done, we say to ourselves: Transportation between Montreal and
+New 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 course
+will be to get the Canadian article at New York for thirty-five
+dollars, 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 five
+dollars? 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 the
+railway, besides the expense saved in custom-house surveillance, which
+would of course diminish in proportion as the temptation to smuggling
+would become less.
+
+But it is answered: The duty is necessary to protect New York
+industry. So be it; but do not then destroy the effect of it by your
+railway. For if you persist in your determination to keep the Canadian
+article on a par with the New York one at forty dollars, you must
+raise 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 the
+railway?
+
+Frankly, is it not humiliating to the nineteenth century, that it
+should be destined to transmit to future ages the example of such
+puerilities seriously and gravely practised? To be the dupe of
+another, is bad enough; but to employ all the forms and ceremonies of
+representation in order to cheat oneself--to doubly cheat oneself, and
+that too in a mere numerical account--truly this is calculated to
+lower 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 be
+preferred, that protection tends towards the same result as all
+obstacles to transportation.
+
+A tariff may be truly spoken of as a swamp, a rut, a steep hill; in a
+word, an _obstacle_, whose effect is to augment the difference between
+the price of consumption and that of production. It is equally
+incontestable that a swamp, a bog, &c., are veritable protective
+tariffs.
+
+There are people (few in number, it is true, but such there are) who
+begin to understand that obstacles are not the less obstacles because
+they are artificially created, and that our well-being is more
+advanced by freedom of trade than by protection; precisely as a canal
+is more desirable than a sandy, hilly, and difficult road.
+
+But they still say, this liberty ought to be reciprocal. If we take
+off our taxes in favor of Canada, while Canada does not do the same
+towards us, it is evident that we are duped. Let us, then, make
+_treaties of commerce_ upon the basis of a just reciprocity; let us
+yield where we are yielded to; let us make the _sacrifice_ of buying
+that we may obtain the advantage of selling.
+
+Persons who reason thus, are (I am sorry to say), whether they know it
+or not, governed by the protectionist principle. They are only a
+little more inconsistent than the pure protectionists, as these are
+more 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 with
+each other. Some time after this was done, the inhabitants of N*w Y*rk
+became uneasy, and said: "M*ntr**l is overwhelming us with its
+productions; this must be attended to." They established, therefore, a
+corps of _Obstructors_, so called, because their business was to place
+obstacles in the way of the convoys which arrived from M*ntr**l. Soon
+after, M*ntr**l also established a corps of Obstructors.
+
+After some years, people having become more enlightened, the
+inhabitants of M*ntr**l began to discover that these reciprocal
+obstacles 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 put
+obstacles in the way of this road. This is absurd. It would have been
+far better to have left things in their original position, for then we
+would not have been put to the expense of building our road, and
+afterwards of creating difficulties. In the name of M*ntr**l I come to
+propose to you not to renounce at once our system of mutual obstacles,
+for this would be acting according to a principle, and we despise
+principles as much as you do; but to somewhat lighten these obstacles,
+weighing at the same time carefully our respective _sacrifices_." The
+ambassador having thus spoken, the town of N*w Y*rk asked time to
+reflect; manufacturers, office-seekers, congressmen, and custom-house
+officers, 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 our
+sales; this is a misfortune. Those which we ourselves create, injure
+our purchases; this is a second misfortune. We have no power over the
+first, but the second is entirely dependent upon ourselves. Let us
+then 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*rk
+to do the same. Some day or other she will learn to better calculate
+her own interests."
+
+A second counsellor, a man of practice and of facts, uncontrolled by
+principles and wise in ancestral experience, replied: "We must not
+listen to this dreamer, this theorist, this innovator, this Utopian,
+this political economist, this friend to N*w Y*rk. We would be
+entirely ruined if the embarrassments of the road were not carefully
+weighed and exactly equalized between N*w Y*rk and M*ntr**l. There
+would be more difficulty in going than in coming; in exportation than
+in importation. We would be with regard to N*w Y*rk, in the inferior
+condition in which Havre, Nantes, Bordeaux, Lisbon, London, Hamburg,
+and New Orleans, are, in relation to cities placed higher up the
+rivers Seine, Loire, Garonne, Tagus, Thames, Elbe, and Mississippi;
+for the difficulties of ascending must always be greater than those of
+descending rivers."
+
+"(A voice exclaims: 'But the cities near the mouths of rivers have
+always 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 on
+to convince them thoroughly and conclusively by speaking of national
+independence, national honor, national dignity, national labor,
+overwhelming importation, tributes, ruinous competition. In short, he
+succeeded in determining the assembly to continue their system of
+obstacles, and I can now point out a certain country where you may see
+road-workers and Obstructors working with the best possible
+understanding, by the decree of the same legislative assembly, paid by
+the same citizens; the first to improve the road, the last to
+embarrass it.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XI.
+
+ABSOLUTE PRICES.
+
+
+If we wish to judge between freedom of trade and protection, to
+calculate the probable effect of any political phenomenon, we should
+notice how far its influence tends to the production of _abundance_ or
+_scarcity_, and not simply of _cheapness_ or _dearness_ of price. We
+must beware of trusting to absolute prices: it would lead to
+inextricable confusion.
+
+Mr. Protectionist, after having established the fact that protection
+raises prices, adds:
+
+"The augmentation of price increases the expenses of life, and
+consequently the price of labor, and every one finds in the increase
+of the price of his produce the same proportion as in the increase of
+his expenses. Thus, if everybody pays as consumer, everybody receives
+also 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 that
+protection _transfers_ riches, uselessly and unjustly. Spoliation does
+the same.
+
+Again, to prove that the complicated arrangements of this system give
+even simple compensation, it is necessary to adhere to the
+"_consequently_" of Mr. Protectionist, and to convince oneself that
+the price of labor rises with that of the articles protected. This is
+a question of fact. For my own part I do not believe in it, because I
+think that the price of labor, like everything else, is governed by
+the proportion existing between the supply and the demand. Now I can
+perfectly well understand that _restriction_ will diminish the supply
+of produce, and consequently raise its price; but I do not as clearly
+see that it increases the demand for labor, thereby raising the rate
+of wages. This is the less conceivable to me, because the sum of labor
+required depends upon the quantity of disposable capital; and
+protection, while it may change the direction of capital, and transfer
+it from one business to another, cannot increase it one penny.
+
+This question, which is of the highest interest, we will examine
+elsewhere. I return to the discussion of _absolute prices_, and
+declare that there is no absurdity which cannot be rendered specious
+by such reasoning as that which is commonly resorted to by
+protectionists.
+
+Imagine an isolated nation possessing a given quantity of cash, and
+every year wantonly burning the half of its produce; I will undertake
+to prove by the protective theory that this nation will not be the
+less rich in consequence of such a procedure. For, the result of the
+conflagration must be, that everything would double in price. An
+inventory made before this event, would offer exactly the same nominal
+value as one made after it. Who, then, would be the loser? If John
+buys his cloth dearer, he also sells his corn at a higher price; and
+if Peter makes a loss on the purchase of his corn, he gains it back
+by the sale of his cloth. Thus "every one finds in the increase of the
+price of his produce, the same proportion as in the increase of his
+expenses: and thus if everybody pays as consumer, everybody also
+receives as producer."
+
+All this is nonsense, and not science.
+
+The simple truth is, that whether men destroy their corn and cloth by
+fire, or by use, the effect is the same as regards price, but not as
+regards riches, for it is precisely in the enjoyment of the use, that
+riches--in other words, comfort, well-being--exist.
+
+Restriction may in the same way, while it lessens the abundance of
+things, raise their prices, so as to leave each individual as rich,
+_numerically speaking_, as when unembarrassed by it. But because we
+put down in an inventory three bushels of corn at $1, or four bushels
+at 75 cents, and sum up the nominal value of each inventory at $3,
+does it thence follow that they are equally capable of contributing to
+the necessities of the community?
+
+To this truthful and common-sense view of the phenomenon of
+consumption it will be my continual endeavor to lead the
+protectionists; for in this is the end of all my efforts, the solution
+of every problem. I must continually repeat to them that restriction,
+by impeding commerce, by limiting the division of labor, by forcing it
+to combat difficulties of situation and temperature, must in its
+results diminish the quantity produced by any fixed quantum of labor.
+And what can it benefit us that the smaller quantity produced under
+the protective system bears the same _nominal value_ as the greater
+quantity produced under the free trade system? Man does not live on
+_nominal values_, but on real articles of produce; and the more
+abundant these articles are, no matter what price they may bear, the
+richer is he.
+
+The following passage occurs in the writings of a French
+protectionist:
+
+"If fifteen millions of merchandise sold to foreign nations, be taken
+from our ordinary produce, calculated at fifty millions, the
+thirty-five millions of merchandise which remain, not being sufficient
+for the ordinary demand, will increase in price to the value of fifty
+millions. The revenue of the country will thus represent fifteen
+millions more in value.... There will then be an increase of fifteen
+millions in the riches of the country; precisely the amount of the
+importation of money."
+
+This is droll enough! If a country has made in the course of the year
+fifty millions of revenue in harvests and merchandise, she need but
+sell one-quarter to foreign nations, in order to make herself
+one-quarter richer than before! If then she sold the half, she would
+increase her riches by one-half; and if the last hair of her wool, the
+last grain of her wheat, were to be changed for cash, she would thus
+raise her product to one hundred millions, where before it was but
+fifty! A singular manner, certainly, of becoming rich. Unlimited price
+produced by unlimited scarcity!
+
+To sum up our judgment of the two systems, let us contemplate their
+different effects when pushed to the most exaggerated extreme.
+
+According to the protectionist just quoted, the French would be quite
+as rich, that is to say, as well provided with everything, if they
+had but a thousandth part of their annual produce, because this part
+would then be worth a thousand times its natural value! So much for
+looking at prices alone.
+
+According to us, the French would be infinitely rich if their annual
+produce were infinitely abundant, and consequently bearing no value at
+all.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XII.
+
+DOES PROTECTION RAISE THE RATE OF WAGES?
+
+
+When we hear our beardless scribblers, romancers, reformers, our
+perfumed magazine writers, stuffed with ices and champagne, as they
+carefully place in their portfolios the sentimental scissorings which
+fill the current literature of the day, or cause to be decorated with
+gilded ornaments their tirades against the egotism and the
+individualism of the age; when we hear them declaiming against social
+abuses, and groaning over deficient wages and needy families; when we
+see them raising their eyes to heaven and weeping over the
+wretchedness of the laboring classes, while they never visit this
+wretchedness unless it be to draw lucrative sketches of its scenes of
+misery, we are tempted to say to them: The sight of you is enough to
+make me sicken of attempting to teach the truth.
+
+Affectation! Affectation! It is the nauseating disease of the day! If
+a thinking man, a sincere philanthropist, takes into consideration the
+condition of the working classes and endeavors to lay bare their
+necessities, scarcely has his work made an impression before it is
+greedily 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 until
+you become ashamed of publicly defending the cause of the working man;
+for how can it be possible to introduce sensible ideas in the midst of
+these sickening affectations?
+
+But we must put aside this cowardly indifference, which the
+affectation that provokes it is not enough to justify.
+
+Working men, your situation is singular! You are robbed, as I will
+presently prove to you. But no: I retract the word; we must avoid an
+expression which is violent; perhaps, indeed, incorrect; inasmuch as
+this spoliation, wrapped in the sophisms which disguise it, is
+practised, we must believe, without the intention of the spoiler, and
+with the consent of the spoiled. But it is nevertheless true that you
+are deprived of the just remuneration of your labor, while no one
+thinks of causing _justice_ to be rendered to you. If you could be
+consoled by the noisy appeals of your champions to philanthropy, to
+powerless charity, to degrading almsgiving, or if the high-sounding
+words of Voice of the People, Rights of Labor, &c., would relieve
+you--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 your
+wages, you should be permitted to exchange them for the largest
+possible sum of comforts you can obtain voluntarily from any man upon
+the 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 you
+have to expect from the chimeras by which you allow yourselves to be
+led astray.
+
+In the meantime let us examine if _injustice_ is not done to you by
+the legislative limitation of the number of persons from whom you are
+allowed to buy those things which you need; as iron, coal, cotton and
+woollen 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 thus
+injures 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 run
+after a boss, wages fall; when two bosses run after a workman, wages
+rise."
+
+Allow me, in similar laconic phrase, to employ a more scientific,
+though perhaps a less striking expression: "The rate of wages depends
+upon 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 law
+which says, "Such or such an article shall be limited to home
+production and no longer imported from foreign countries," can it in
+any degree increase this capital? Not in the least. This law may
+withdraw it from one course, and transfer it to another; but cannot
+increase it one penny. Then it cannot increase the demand for labor.
+
+While we point with pride to some prosperous manufacture, can we
+answer, whence comes the capital with which it is founded and
+maintained? Has it fallen from the moon? or rather is it not drawn
+either from agriculture, or stock-breeding, or commerce? We here see
+why, since the reign of protective tariffs, if we see more workmen in
+our mines and our manufacturing towns, we find also fewer vessels in
+our ports, fewer graziers and fewer laborers in our fields and upon
+our hill-sides.
+
+I could speak at great length upon this subject, but prefer
+illustrating my thought by an example.
+
+A countryman had twenty acres of land, with a capital of $10,000. He
+divided his land into four parts, and adopted for it the following
+changes of crops: 1st, maize; 2d, wheat; 3d, clover; and 4th, rye. As
+he needed for himself and family but a small portion of the grain,
+meat, and dairy produce of the farm, he sold the surplus and bought
+iron, coal, cloths, etc. The whole of his capital was yearly
+distributed in wages and payments of accounts to the workingmen of the
+neighborhood. This capital was, from his sales, again returned to him,
+and even increased from year to year. Our countryman, being fully
+convinced that idle capital produces nothing, caused to circulate
+among the working classes this annual increase, which he devoted to
+the inclosing and clearing of lands, or to improvements in his farming
+utensils and his buildings. He deposited some sums in reserve in the
+hands of a neighboring banker, who on his part did not leave these
+idle in his strong-box, but lent them to various tradesmen, so that
+the 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 his
+life, allowed himself to be duped. He bought iron, and thus paid
+_tribute_ to England, while our own land could, by an effort, be made
+to produce iron as well as England. He bought coal, cloths, and
+oranges, thus paying _tribute_ to New Brunswick, France, and Sicily,
+very unnecessarily; for coal may be found, doeskins may be made, and
+oranges may be forced to grow, within our own territory. He paid
+tribute to the foreign miner and the weaver; our own servants could
+very well mine our iron and get up native doeskins almost as good as
+the French article. He did all he could to ruin himself, and gave to
+strangers what ought to have been kept for the benefit of his own
+household."
+
+Full of this reasoning, our headstrong fellow determined to change the
+routine of his crops. He divided his farm into twenty parts. On one he
+dug for coal; on another he erected a cloth factory; on a third he put
+a 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 own
+farm. He no longer received anything from the general circulation;
+neither, it is true, did he cast anything into it. Was he the richer
+for this course? No; for his mine did not yield coal as cheaply as he
+could buy it in the market, nor was the climate favorable to the
+orange. In short, the family supply of these articles was very
+inferior to what it had been during the time when the father had
+obtained them and others by exchange of produce.
+
+With regard to the demand for labor, it certainly was no greater than
+formerly. THERE WERE, TO BE SURE, FIVE TIMES AS MANY FIELDS TO
+CULTIVATE, BUT THEY WERE FIVE TIMES SMALLER. If coal was mined, there
+was also less wheat; and because there were no more oranges bought,
+neither was there any more rye sold. Besides, the farmer could not
+spend in wages more than his capital, and his capital, instead of
+increasing, was now constantly diminishing. A great part of it was
+necessarily devoted to numerous buildings and utensils, indispensable
+to a person who determines to undertake everything. In short, the
+supply of labor continued the same, but the means of paying became
+less.
+
+The result is precisely similar when a nation isolates itself by the
+prohibitive system. Its number of industrial pursuits is certainly
+multiplied, but their importance is diminished. In proportion to their
+number, they become less productive, for the same capital and the same
+skill are obliged to meet a greater number of difficulties. The fixed
+capital absorbs a greater part of the circulating capital; that is to
+say, a greater part of the funds destined to the payment of wages.
+What remains, ramifies itself in vain; the quantity cannot be
+augmented. It is like the water of a deep pond, which, distributed
+among a multitude of small reservoirs, appears to be more abundant,
+because it covers a greater quantity of soil, and presents a larger
+surface to the sun, while we hardly perceive that, precisely on this
+account, 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. There
+can be no doubt that international barriers, by forcing capital and
+labor 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 such
+a supposition it would be necessary to believe that the rich, those
+who made the law, have so arranged matters, that not only they subject
+themselves to their own proportion of the general diminution, but
+taking the whole of it upon themselves, that they submit also to a
+further loss in order to increase your gains. Is this credible? Is
+this possible? It is, indeed, a most suspicious act of generosity; and
+if you act wisely you will reject it.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XIII.
+
+THEORY AND PRACTICE.
+
+
+Defenders of free trade, we are accused of being mere theorists, of
+not giving sufficient weight to the practical.
+
+"What a fearful charge against you, free traders," say the
+protectionists, "is this long succession of distinguished statesmen,
+this imposing race of writers, who have all held opinions differing
+from yours!" This we do not deny. We answer, "It is said, in support
+of established errors, that 'there must be some foundation for ideas
+so generally adopted by all nations. Should not one distrust opinions
+and arguments which overturn that which, until now, has been held as
+settled; that which is held as certain by so many persons whose
+intelligence and motives make them trustworthy?'"
+
+We confess this argument should make a profound impression, and ought
+to throw doubt on the most incontestable points, if we had not seen,
+one after another, opinions the most false, now generally acknowledged
+to be such, received and professed by all the world during a long
+succession of centuries. It is not very long since all nations, from
+the most rude to the most enlightened, and all men, from the
+street-porter to the most learned philosopher, believed in the four
+elements. Nobody had thought of contesting this doctrine, which is,
+however, false; so much so, that at this day any mere naturalist's
+assistant, who should consider earth, water, and fire, elements, would
+disgrace himself.
+
+On which our opponents make this observation: "If you suppose you have
+thus answered the very forcible objection you have proposed to
+yourselves, you deceive yourselves strangely. Suppose that men,
+otherwise intelligent, should be mistaken on any point whatever of
+natural history for many centuries, that would signify or prove
+nothing. Would water, air, earth, fire, be less useful to man whether
+they were or were not elements? Such errors are of no consequence;
+they lead to no revolutions, do not unsettle the mind; above all, they
+injure no interests, so they might, without inconvenience, endure for
+millions of years. The physical world would progress just as if they
+did not exist. Would it be thus with errors which attack the moral
+world? 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 we
+explain how such a system could be reconciled with the ever-increasing
+prosperity of nations? You acknowledge that the argument you combat
+ought to make a profound impression. Yes, truly, and this impression
+remains, 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, without
+exception, were delivered up to public discussion, that these
+furnishers of speculative ideas which are applied to everything
+without being applicable to anything--commenced writing on political
+economy. There existed, however, a system of political economy, not
+written, but practised by governments. It is said that Colbert was its
+inventor, and it was the rule of all the States of Europe. What is
+more singular, it has remained so till lately, despite anathemas and
+contempt, and despite the discoveries of the modern school. This
+system, which our writers have called the _mercantile system_,
+consists in opposing, by prohibitions and duties, such foreign
+productions as might ruin our manufacturers by their competition. This
+system has been pronounced futile, absurd, capable of ruining any
+country, by economical writers of all schools. It has been banished
+from all books, reduced to take refuge in the practice of every
+people; and we do not understand why, in regard to the wealth of
+nations, governments should not have yielded themselves to wise
+authors rather than to _the old experience_ of a system. Above all, we
+cannot conceive why, in political economy, the American government
+should persist in resisting the progress of light, and in preserving,
+in its practice, those old errors which all our economists of the pen
+have designated. But we have said too much about this mercantile
+system, which has in its favor _facts_ alone, though sustained by
+scarcely a single writer of the day."
+
+Would not one say, who listened only to this language, that we
+political economists, in merely claiming for every one _the free
+disposition of his own property_, had, like the Fourierists, conjured
+up from our brains a new social order, chimerical and strange; a sort
+of phalanstery, without precedent in the annals of the human race,
+instead of merely talking plain _meum_ and _tuum_ It seems to us that
+if there is in all this anything utopian, anything problematical, it
+is not free trade, but protection; it is not the right to exchange,
+but tariff after tariff applied to overturning the natural order of
+commerce.
+
+But it is not the point to compare and judge of these two systems by
+the light of reason; the question for the moment is, to know which of
+the 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, this
+old experience of the world, which you invoke, has appeared imposing
+to us, and that we confess we have not as yet refuted you as fully as
+we might.
+
+But we do not cede to you the domain of facts, for you have on your
+side only exceptional and contracted facts, while we have universal
+ones 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 to
+make ourselves."
+
+And on your part you say:
+
+"It is better to make things ourselves, even though it would cost less
+to purchase them from others."
+
+Now, gentlemen, laying aside theory, demonstration, argument,
+everything which appears to afflict you with nausea, which of these
+assertions 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 own
+establishment; observe your own conduct at all times, and then say
+which is the principle that directs these labors, these workmen, these
+inventors, these merchants; say, too, which is your own individual
+practice.
+
+Does the farmer make his clothes? Does the tailor raise the wheat
+which he consumes? Does not your housekeeper cease making bread at
+home 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 tribute
+to the shoe-black? Does not the whole economy of society depend on the
+separation of occupations, on the division of labor; in one word, on
+_exchange_? And is exchange anything else than the calculation which
+leads us to discontinue, as far as we can, direct production, when
+indirect acquisition spares us time and trouble?
+
+You are not, then, men of _practice_, since you cannot show a single
+man on the surface of the globe who acts in accordance with your
+principle.
+
+"But," you will say, "we have never heard our principle made the rule
+of individual relations. We comprehend perfectly that this would break
+the social bond, and force men to live, like snails, each one in his
+own shell. We limit ourselves to asserting that it governs _in fact_
+the relations which are established among the agglomerations of the
+human family."
+
+But still, this assertion is erroneous. The family, the village, the
+town, the county, the state, are so many agglomerations, which all,
+without any exception, _practically_ reject your principle, and have
+never 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 prevent
+it _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 exceptionally
+on certain international exchanges, we appeal to the practice and
+experience of all individuals, and all agglomerations of individuals
+whose acts are voluntary, and consequently may be called on for
+testimony. But you commence by _constraining_, by _preventing_, and
+then 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, do
+you, by chance, fancy that you have formed no _theory_? No, no; erase
+that from your plea. You form a theory as well as ourselves; but
+between yours and ours there is this difference: our theory consists
+merely in observing universal facts, universal sentiments, universal
+calculations and proceedings, and further, in classifying them and
+arranging them, in order to understand them better. It is so little
+opposed to practice, that it is nothing but _practice explained_. We
+observe the actions of men moved by the instinct of preservation and
+of progress; and what they do freely, voluntarily, is precisely what
+we call _political economy_, or the economy of society. We go on
+repeating with out cessation: "Every man is _practically_ an
+excellent economist, producing or exchanging, according as it is most
+advantageous to him to exchange or to produce. Each one, through
+experience, is educated to science; or rather, science is only that
+same 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 the
+practice of any living man under the vault of heaven--and then you
+call 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 wish
+them to renounce an _advantage_; you demand that they should act in
+accordance with a doctrine which implies contradiction even in its
+terms.
+
+Now, this doctrine, which, you argue, would be absurd in individual
+relations, we defy you to extend, even in speculation, to transactions
+between families, towns, counties, states. By your own avowal, it is
+applicable to international relations only.
+
+And this is why you are obliged to repeat daily: "Principles are not
+in their nature absolute. That which is _well_ in the individual, the
+family, the county, the state, is _evil_ in the nation. That which is
+_good_ in detail--such as, to purchase rather than to produce, when
+purchase is more advantageous than production--is bad in the mass. The
+political economy of individuals is not that of nations," and other
+rubbish, _ejusdem farinae_. And why all this? Look at it closely. It is
+in order to prove to us that we, consumers, are your property, that
+we belong to you body and soul, that you have an exclusive right to
+our stomachs and limbs, and it is for you to nourish us and clothe us
+at 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 of
+extraction!
+
+
+
+
+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 of
+view of producers only, have arrived at this double formula:
+
+"Governments ought to dispose of the consumers subject to the
+influence of their laws, in favor of national labor."
+
+"They should render distant consumers subject to their laws, in order
+to 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 of
+which is:
+
+"A people impoverishes itself when it imports, and enriches itself
+when it exports."
+
+Of course, if every foreign purchase is a tribute paid, a loss, it is
+perfectly evident we must restrain, even prohibit, importations.
+
+And if all foreign sales are tribute received, profit, it is quite
+natural 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 two
+consequences of one identical principle. Now, it is impossible not to
+recognize that according to this doctrine, general utility rests on
+_monopoly_, or interior spoliation, and on _conquest_, or exterior
+spoliation.
+
+Let us enter one of the cabins among the Adirondacks. The father of
+the family has received for his work only a slender salary. The icy
+northern blast makes his half naked children shiver, the fire is
+extinguished, and the table bare. There are wool, and wood, and coal,
+just over the St. Lawrence; but these commodities are forbidden to the
+family of the poor day-laborer, for the other side of the river is no
+longer the United States. The foreign pine-logs may not gladden the
+hearth of his cabin; his children may not know the taste of Canadian
+bread, the wool of Upper Canada will not bring back warmth to their
+benumbed limbs. General utility wills it so. All very well! but
+acknowledge that here it contradicts justice. To dispose by
+legislation of consumers, to limit them to the products of national
+labor, is to encroach upon their liberty, to forbid them a resource
+(exchange) in which there is nothing contrary to morality; in one
+word, it is to do them injustice.
+
+"Yet this is necessary," it is said, "under the penalty of seeing
+national labor stopped, under the penalty of striking a fatal blow at
+public prosperity."
+
+The writers of the protectionist school arrive then at this sad
+conclusion; that there is a radical incompatibility between justice
+and utility.
+
+On the other side, if nations are interested in selling, and not in
+buying, violent action and reaction are the natural condition of
+their relations, for each will seek to impose its products on all, and
+all will do their utmost endeavor to reject the products of each.
+
+As a sale, in effect, implies a purchase, and since, according to this
+doctrine, to sell is to benefit, as to buy is to injure, every
+international transaction implies the amelioration of one people, and
+the deterioration of another.
+
+But, on one side, men are fatally impelled towards that which profits
+them: on the contrary, they resist instinctively whatever injures
+them; whence we must conclude that every people bears within itself a
+natural force of expansion, and a not less natural power of
+resistance, which are equally prejudicial to all the others; or, in
+other terms, that antagonism and war are the natural constitution of
+human society!
+
+So that the theory which we are discussing may be summed up in these
+two axioms:
+
+"Utility is incompatible with justice at home,"
+
+"Utility is incompatible with peace abroad."
+
+Now that which astonishes us, which confounds us, is, that a
+publicist, a statesman, who has sincerely adhered to an economic
+doctrine whose principle clashes so violently with other incontestable
+principles, could enjoy one moment's calm and repose of mind. As for
+us, it seems to us, that if we had penetrated into science by this
+entrance, if we did not clearly perceive that liberty, utility,
+justice, peace, are things not only compatible, but closely allied
+together, so to say, identical with each other, we would try to forget
+all we had learned; we would say to ourselves:
+
+"How could God will that men shall attain prosperity only through
+injustice and war? How could He will that they may remove war and
+injustice only by renouncing their own well-being?"
+
+Does not the science which has conducted us to the horrible blasphemy
+which this alternative implies deceive us by false lights; and shall
+we dare take on ourselves to make it the basis of legislation for a
+great people? And when a long succession of illustrious philosophers
+have brought together more comforting results from this same science,
+to which they have consecrated their whole lives; when they affirm
+that Liberty and Utility are reconciled with Justice and Peace, that
+all these grand principles follow infinite parallels, without
+clashing, throughout all eternity; have they not in their favor the
+presumption which results from all we know of the goodness and the
+wisdom of God, manifested in the sublime harmony of the material
+creation? Ought we lightly to believe, against such a presumption, and
+in face of so many imposing authorities, that it has pleased this same
+God to introduce antagonism and a discord into the laws of the moral
+world?
+
+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 fellow
+citizens the impious system to which such reasoning conducts us, we
+had better go over the whole chain, and assure ourselves that there is
+no point on the way where we may have gone astray.
+
+And if, after a faithful examination, twenty times recommenced, we
+should always return to this frightful conclusion, that we must choose
+between 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 our
+country, leaving to the men of another time the burden and the
+responsibility of a choice so difficult.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XV.
+
+RECIPROCITY AGAIN.
+
+
+The protectionists ask, "Are we sure that the foreigner will purchase
+as much from us, as he will sell to us? What reason have we to think
+that the English producer will come to us rather than to any other
+nation on the globe to look for the productions he may need; and for
+productions equivalent in value to his own exportations to this
+country?"
+
+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 ten
+thousand perhaps, where there is a direct barter of product for
+product? Since there has been money in the world, has any cultivator
+ever said, "I wish to buy shoes, hats, advice, instruction, from that
+shoemaker, hatter, lawyer, and professor only, who will purchase from
+me 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 produced
+wheat. He throws it into the widest national circulation he can find
+for it, and receives in exchange, what? Some dollars; that is to say
+bills, bonds, infinitely divisible, by means of which it becomes
+lawful for him to withdraw from national circulation, whenever he
+thinks it advisable, and by just agreement, such articles as he may
+need or wish. In fine, at the end of the operation he will have
+withdrawn 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 his
+products, and from which he draws his returns. He has not to inquire
+whether what he delivers up for general circulation is purchased by a
+fellow-countryman or a foreigner; whether the goods he receives came
+to him from a Frenchman or an Englishman; whether the objects for
+which, in accordance with his needs, he, in the end, exchanges his
+bills, are made on this or that side of the Atlantic or the St.
+Lawrence. With each individual there is always an exact balance
+between what he puts into and what he draws out of the grand common
+reservoir; and if that is true of each individual, it is true of the
+nation 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 his
+sales and his purchases, and has consequently more chances of doing
+well by both.
+
+This objection is made: "If every one should agree that they would not
+withdraw from circulation any of the products of a specified
+individual, he in turn would sustain the misfortune of being able to
+draw nothing out. The same of a nation."
+
+ANSWER.--If the nation cannot draw out of the mass, it will
+no longer contribute to it: it will work for itself. It will be
+compelled to that which you would impose on it in advance: that is to
+say, isolation.
+
+And this will be the ideal of prohibitive government. Is it not
+amusing that you inflict upon it, at once and already, the misfortune
+of this system, in the fear that it runs the risk of getting there
+some day without you?
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XVI.
+
+OBSTRUCTED RIVERS PLEAD FOR THE PROHIBITIONISTS.
+
+
+Some years ago, when the Spanish Cortes were discussing a treaty with
+Portugal on improving the course of the river Douro, a deputy rose and
+said, "If the Douro is turned into a canal, transportation will be
+made at a much lower price. Portuguese cereals will sell cheaper in
+Castile, and will make a formidable opposition to our _national
+labor_. I oppose the project unless the ministers engage to raise the
+tariff in such a way as to restore the equilibrium." The assembly
+found the argument unanswerable.
+
+Three months later the same question was submitted to the Senate of
+Portugal. A noble hidalgo said: "Mr. President, the project is absurd.
+You post guards, at great expense, on the banks of the Douro, in order
+to prevent the introduction of Castilian cereals into Portugal, while,
+at the same time, you would, also, at great expense, facilitate their
+introduction. This is an inconsistency with which I cannot identify
+myself. Let the Douro pass on to our sons as our fathers left it to
+us."
+
+Now, when it is proposed to alter and confine the course of the
+Mississippi, we recall the arguments of the Iberian orators, and say
+to ourselves, if the member from St. Louis was as good an economist as
+those of Valencia, and the representatives from New Orleans as
+powerful logicians as those of Oporto, assuredly the Mississippi would
+be left
+
+     "To sleep amid its forests dank and lone,"
+
+for to improve the navigation of the Mississippi will favor the
+introduction of New Orleans products to the injury of St. Louis, and
+an inundation of the products of St. Louis to the detriment of New
+Orleans.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XVII.
+
+A NEGATIVE RAILROAD.
+
+
+We have said that when, unfortunately, we place ourselves at the point
+of view of the producer's interest, we cannot fail to clash with the
+general interest, because the producer, as such, demands only
+_efforts_, _wants_, _and obstacles_.
+
+When the Atlantic and Great Western Railway is finished, the question
+will arise, "Should connection be broken at Pittsburg?" This the
+Pittsburgers will answer affirmatively, for a multitude of reasons,
+but for this among others; the railroad from New York to St. Louis
+ought to have an interruption at Pittsburg, in order that merchandise
+and travellers compelled to stop in the city may leave in it fees to
+the hackmen, pedlars, errand-boys, consignees, hotel-keepers, etc.
+
+It is clear, that here again the interest of the agent of labor is
+placed before the interest of the consumer.
+
+But if Pittsburg ought to profit by the interruption, and if the
+profit is conformable with public interest, Harrisburg, Dayton,
+Indianapolis, Columbus, much more all the intermediate points, ought
+to demand stoppages, and that in the general interest, in the widely
+extended interest of national labor, for the more they are multiplied,
+the more will consignments, commissions, transportations, be
+multiplied on all points of the line. With this system we arrive at a
+railroad of successive stoppages, to a _negative railroad_.
+
+Whether the protectionists wish it or not, it is not the less certain
+that the principle of restriction is the same as the principle of
+gaps, the sacrifice of the consumers to the producer, of the end to
+the means.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XVIII.
+
+THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTE PRINCIPLES.
+
+
+We cannot be too much astonished at the facility with which men resign
+themselves 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 their
+ignorance when they have brought themselves to proclaim this axiom:
+There are no absolute principles.
+
+Enter the Halls of Congress. The question under discussion is whether
+the law shall interdict or allow international exchanges.
+
+Mr. C****** rises and says:
+
+"If you tolerate these exchanges, the foreigner will inundate you with
+his products, the English with cotton and iron goods, the Nova-Scotian
+with coal, the Spaniard with wool, the Italian with silk, the Canadian
+with 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 has
+lavished on different climates will be, to you, as though they were
+not. You will not participate in the mechanical skill of the English,
+nor in the riches of the Nova-Scotian mines, in the abundance of
+Canadian pasturage, in the cheapness of Spanish labor, in the fervor
+of the Italian climate; and you will be obliged to ask through a
+forced production that which you might by exchange have obtained
+through a readier production."
+
+Assuredly, one of the senators deceives himself. But which? It is well
+worth while to ascertain; for we are not dealing with opinions only.
+You stand at the entrance of two roads; you must choose; one of them
+leads necessarily to _misery_.
+
+To escape from this embarrassment it is said: There are no absolute
+principles.
+
+This axiom, so much in vogue in our day, not only serves laziness, it
+is also in accord with ambition.
+
+If the theory of prohibition should prevail, or again, if the doctrine
+of liberty should triumph, a very small amount of law would suffice
+for our economic code. In the first case it would stand--_All foreign
+exchange is forbidden_; in the second, _All exchange with abroad is
+free_, and many great personages would lose their importance.
+
+But if exchange has not a nature proper to itself; if it is governed
+by no natural law; if it is capriciously useful or injurious; if it
+does not find its spring in the good it accomplishes, its limit when
+it ceases to do good; if its effects cannot be appreciated by those
+who execute them; in one word, if there are no absolute principles, we
+are compelled to measure, weigh, regulate transactions, to equalize
+the conditions of labor, to look for the level of profits--colossal
+task, well suited to give great entertainments, and high influence to
+those who undertake it.
+
+Here in New York are a million of human beings who would all die
+within a few days, if the abundant provisioning of nature were not
+flowing towards this great metropolis.
+
+Imagination takes fright in the effort to appreciate the immense
+multiplicity of articles which must cross the Bay, the Hudson, the
+Harlem, and the East rivers, to-morrow, if the lives of its
+inhabitants are not to become the prey of famine, riot, and pillage.
+Yet, as we write, all are sleeping; and their quiet slumbers are not
+disturbed for a moment by the thought of so frightful a perspective.
+On the other hand, forty-five States and Territories have worked
+to-day, without concert, without mutual understanding, to provision
+New York. How is it that every day brings in what is needed, neither
+more nor less, to this gigantic market? What is the intelligent and
+secret power which presides over the astonishing regularity of
+movements so complicated--a regularity in which each one has a faith
+so undoubting, though comfort and life are at stake.
+
+This power is an _absolute principle_, the principle of freedom of
+operation, the principle of free conduct.
+
+We have faith in that innate light which Providence has placed in the
+hearts of all men, to which he has confided the preservation and
+improvement of our race-_interest_ (since we must call it by its
+name), which is so active, so vigilant, so provident, when its action
+is free. What would become of you, inhabitants of New York, if a
+Congressional majority should take a fancy to substitute for this
+power the combinations of their genius, however superior it may be
+supposed to be; if they imagined they could submit this prodigious
+mechanism to its supreme direction, unite all its resources in their
+own hands, and decide when, where, how, and on what conditions
+everything should be produced, transported, exchanged, and consumed?
+Ah! though there may be much suffering within your bounds, though
+misery, despair, and perhaps hungry exhaustion may cause more tears to
+flow than your ardent charity can dry, it is probable, it is certain,
+we dare to affirm, that the arbitrary intervention of government would
+multiply these sufferings infinitely, and would extend to you all,
+those evils which at present are confined to a small portion of your
+number.
+
+We all have faith in this principle where our internal transactions
+are concerned; why should we not have faith in the same principle
+applied to our international operations, which are, assuredly, less
+numerous, less delicate, and less complicated. And if it is not
+necessary that the Mayor and Common Council of New York should
+regulate our industries, weigh our change, our profits, and our
+losses, occupy themselves with the regulation of prices, equalize the
+conditions of our labor in internal commerce--why is it necessary that
+the custom-house, proceeding on its fiscal mission, should pretend to
+exercise protective action upon our exterior commerce?
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XIX.
+
+NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE.
+
+
+Among the arguments which are considered of weight in favor of the
+restriction system, we must not forget that drawn from national
+independence.
+
+"What shall we do in case of war," say they, "if we have placed
+ourselves at the mercy of Great Britain for iron and coal?"
+
+English monopolists did not fail on their side to exclaim, when the
+corn-laws were repealed, "What will become of Great Britain in time of
+war 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 the
+foreigner depends on us. This is the very essence of _society_. We do
+not place ourselves in a state of independence by breaking natural
+relations, but in a state of isolation.
+
+Remark also: we isolate ourselves in the anticipation of war; but the
+very act of isolation is the commencement of war. It renders it more
+easy, less burdensome, therefore less unpopular. Let nations become
+permanent recipient customers each of the other, let the interruption
+of their relations inflict upon them the double suffering of privation
+and surfeit, and they will no longer require the powerful navies
+which ruin them, the great armies which crush them; the peace of the
+world will no longer be compromised by the caprice of a Napoleon or of
+a 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) for
+proposing interest, vile and prosaic interest, as a foundation for the
+fraternity of nations. It would be preferred that it should have its
+foundation in charity, in love, even in self-renunciation, and that,
+demolishing the material comfort of man, it should have the merit of a
+generous sacrifice.
+
+When shall we have done with such puerile talk? When shall we banish
+charlatanry from science? When shall we cease to manifest this
+disgusting contradiction between our writings and our conduct? We hoot
+at 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 that
+that thing is good in itself), as if interest were not the necessary,
+eternal, indestructible instrument to which Providence has intrusted
+human perfectibility. Would not one suppose us all angels of
+disinterestedness? And is it supposed that the public does not see
+with disgust that this affected language blackens precisely those
+pages for which it is compelled to pay highest? Affectation is truly
+the malady of this age.
+
+What! because comfort and peace are correlative things; because it has
+pleased 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 of
+happiness. You wish peace only so far as it is destructive to comfort;
+and liberty burdens you because it imposes no sacrifices on you. If
+self-renunciation has so many claims for you, who prevents your
+carrying 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 to
+impose it on humanity as a principle is the height of absurdity, for
+the abnegation of everything is the sacrifice of everything--it is
+evil 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 rendering
+obedience to its motive-power, which is, whether they will or no,
+_interest_. After all, it is singular enough to see sentiments of the
+most sublime abnegation invoked in favor of plunder itself. Just see
+to what this ostentatious disinterestedness tends. These men, so
+poetically delicate that they do not wish for peace itself, if it is
+founded on the base interest of men, put their hands in the pockets of
+others, and, above all, of the poor; for what section of the tariff
+protects the poor?
+
+Well, gentlemen, dispose according to your own judgment of what
+belongs to yourselves, but allow us also to dispose of the fruit of
+the sweat of our brows, to avail ourselves of exchange at our own
+pleasure. 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 acts
+proceeding from the same doctrine.
+
+We see men who clap their hands when a great invention is made known
+to the world, who nevertheless adhere to the protective system. Such
+men are highly inconsistent.
+
+With what do they upbraid freedom of commerce? With getting foreigners
+more skilful or better situated than ourselves to produce articles,
+which, but for them, we should produce ourselves. In one word, they
+accuse us of damaging national labor.
+
+Might they not as well reproach machines for accomplishing, by natural
+agents, 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 American
+laborer, is, in respect to the latter, a veritable economic machine,
+which injures him by competition. In the same manner, a machine which
+executes a piece of work at a less price than can be done by a certain
+number of arms, is, relatively to those arms, a true competing
+foreigner, who paralyzes them by his rivalry.
+
+If, then, it is needful to protect national labor against the
+competition of foreign labor, it is not less so, to protect human
+labor against the rivalry of mechanical labor.
+
+So, he who adheres to the protective policy, if he has but a small
+amount of logic in his brain, must not stop when he has prohibited
+foreign products; he must farther proscribe the shuttle and the
+plough.
+
+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 to
+the inventive power of the human mind.
+
+Hear such a Conservative:--"One of the strongest arguments against
+liberty of commerce, and the too great employment of machines, is,
+that very many workmen are deprived of work, either by foreign
+competition, which is destructive to their manufactures, or by
+machines, which take the place of men in the workshops."
+
+This gentleman perfectly sees the analogy, or rather, let us say, the
+identity, existing between importations and machines; that is the
+reason he proscribes both: and truly there is some pleasure in having
+to do with reasonings, which, even in error, pursue an argument to the
+end.
+
+Let us look at the difficulty in the way of its soundness.
+
+If it be true, _a priori_, that the domain of _invention_ and that of
+labor 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, on
+the contrary, we prove _a fact_, that mechanical and hand work
+co-exist in a greater degree among wealthy nations than among savages,
+we must necessarily conclude that these two powers do not exclude each
+other.
+
+It is not easy to explain how a thinking being can taste repose in
+presence of this dilemma:
+
+Either--"The inventions of man do not injure labor, as general facts
+attest, since there are more of both among the English and Americans
+than among the Hottentots and Cherokees. In that case I have made a
+false reckoning, though I know neither where nor when I got astray. I
+should commit the crime of treason to humanity if I should introduce
+my error into the legislation of my country."
+
+Or else--"The discoveries of the mind limit the work of the arms, as
+some particular facts seem to indicate; for I see daily a machine do
+the labor of from twenty to a hundred workmen, and thus I am forced to
+prove a flagrant, eternal, incurable antithesis between the
+intellectual and physical ability of man; between his progress and his
+comfort; and I cannot forbear saying that the Creator of man ought to
+have given him either reason or arms, moral force, or brutal force,
+but that he has played with him in conferring upon him opposing
+faculties which destroy one another."
+
+The difficulty is pressing. Do you know how they get rid of it? By
+this singular apothegm:
+
+"In political economy there are no absolute principles."
+
+In intelligible and vulgar language, that means: "I do not know where
+is the true nor the false; I am ignorant of what constitutes general
+good or evil; I give myself no trouble about it. The only law which I
+consent to recognize, is the immediate effect of each measure upon my
+personal comfort."
+
+No absolute principles! You might as well say, there are no absolute
+facts; for principles are only the summing up of well proven facts.
+
+Machines, importations, have certainly consequences. These
+consequences are good or bad. On this point there may be difference of
+opinion. But whichever of these we adopt, we express it in one of
+these two _principles_: "machines are a benefit," or "machines are an
+evil." "Importations are favorable," or "importations are injurious."
+But to say "there are no principles," is the lowest degree of
+abasement to which the human mind can descend; and we confess we blush
+for our country when we hear so monstrous a heresy uttered in the
+presence of the American people, with their consent; that is to say,
+in the presence and with the consent of the greater part of our
+fellow-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 machines
+do not injure _human labor_, nor importations _national industry_."
+
+In an essay of this nature such demonstrations cannot be complete. Our
+aim is more to propose difficulties than to solve them; to excite
+reflection, than to satisfy it. No conviction of the mind is well
+acquired, 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 they
+judge by immediate and transitory consequences, instead of looking at
+general and final ones.
+
+The immediate effect of an ingenious machine is to economize, towards
+a given result, a certain amount of handwork. But its action does not
+stop there: inasmuch as this result is obtained with less effort, it
+is given to the public for a lower price; and the amount of the
+savings thus realized by all the purchasers, enables them to procure
+other gratifications--that is to say, to encourage handwork in
+general, equal in amount to that subtracted from the special handwork
+lately improved upon--so that the level of work has not fallen, though
+that of gratification has risen. Let us make this connection of
+consequences evident by an example.
+
+Suppose that in the United States ten millions of hats are sold at
+five dollars each: this affords to the hatters' trade an income of
+fifty millions. A machine is invented which allows hats to be afforded
+at 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 in
+satisfying other needs, and by consequence will, to that amount,
+remunerate collective industry. With these two dollars saved, John
+will purchase a pair of shoes, James a book, William a piece of
+furniture, etc. Human labor, in the general, will thus continue to be
+encouraged to the amount of fifty millions; but this sum, beside
+giving the same number of hats as before, will add the gratifications
+obtained by the twenty millions which the machine has spared. These
+gratifications are the net products which America has gained by the
+invention. It is a gratuitous gift, a tax, which the genius of man has
+imposed on Nature. We do not deny that, in the course of the change, a
+certain amount of labor may have been _displaced_; but we cannot agree
+that it has been destroyed, or even diminished. The same holds true of
+importations.
+
+We will resume the hypothesis. America makes ten millions of hats, of
+which the price was five dollars each. The foreigner invaded our
+market in furnishing us with hats at three dollars. We say that
+national labor will be not at all diminished. For it will have to
+produce to the amount of thirty millions, in order to pay for ten
+millions of hats at three dollars. And then there will remain to each
+purchaser two dollars saved on each hat, or a total of twenty
+millions, which will compensate for other enjoyments; that is to say,
+for other work. So the total of labor remains what it was; and the
+supplementary enjoyments, represented by twenty millions economized on
+the hats, will form the net profit of the importations, or of free
+trade.
+
+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 itself
+in accordance with the law of exchange, and no displacement would have
+taken place. If, on the contrary, prohibition has brought in an
+artificial and unproductive kind of work, it is prohibition, and not
+free trade, which is responsible for the inevitable displacement, in
+the transition from wrong to right.
+
+Unless, indeed, it should be contended that, because an abuse cannot
+be destroyed without hurting those who profit by it, its existence for
+a single moment is reason enough why it should endure forever.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XXI.
+
+RAW MATERIAL.
+
+
+It is said that the most advantageous commerce consists in the
+exchange of manufactured goods for raw material, because this raw
+material is a spur to _national labor_.
+
+And then the conclusion is drawn, that the best custom-house
+regulation would be that which should give the utmost possible
+facility to the entry of _raw material_, and oppose the greatest
+obstacles to articles which have received their first manipulation by
+labor.
+
+No sophism of political economy is more widely spread than the
+foregoing. It supports not only the protectionists, but, much more,
+and above all, the pretended liberalists. This is to be regretted; for
+the worst which can happen to a good cause is not to be severely
+attacked, but to be badly defended.
+
+Commercial freedom will probably have the fate of all freedom; it will
+not be introduced into our laws until after it has taken possession of
+our minds. But if it be true that a reform must be generally
+understood, in order that it may be solidly established, it follows
+that nothing can retard it so much as that which misleads public
+opinion; and what is more likely to mislead it than those writings
+which seem to favor freedom by upholding the doctrines of monopoly?
+
+Several years ago, three large cities of France--Lyons, Bordeaux, and
+Havre--were greatly agitated against the restrictive policy. The
+nation, and indeed all Europe, was moved at seeing a banner raised,
+which they supposed to be that of free trade. Alas! it was still the
+banner of monopoly; of a monopoly a little more niggardly, and a great
+deal more absurd, than that which they appeared to wish to overturn.
+Owing to the sophism which we are about to unveil, the petitioners
+merely 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 the
+protectionist: "Labor constitutes the wealth of a people, because it
+alone creates those material things which our necessities demand, and
+because general comfort depends upon these."
+
+This is the principle.
+
+"But this abundance must be the product of _national labor_. Should it
+be 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 manufacturing
+country?"
+
+This is the question.
+
+"Restrict its market to the products of its own soil, and its own
+industry."
+
+This is the end proposed.
+
+"And for this end, restrain by prohibitive duties the entrance of the
+products 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 all
+human labor. A wise economy would require that this class should not
+be taxed_."
+
+Here there is no labor; consequently no protection.
+
+"The second is composed of articles which have undergone _some
+preparation_. This preparation warrants us _in charging it with some
+tax_."
+
+Here protection commences, because, according to the petitioners,
+_national labor_ commences.
+
+"The third comprises perfected articles which can in no way serve
+national 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; this
+is _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 and
+taxation; these are the _means_ of the prohibitive system.
+
+What difference, then, is it possible to discover between the
+petitioners of Bordeaux and the advocate of American restriction? One
+alone: 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; "to
+protect national industry, _all_ national industry, manufacturing
+industry, _all_ manufacturing industry, is the idea which should
+always be kept before the people." The petitioners saw no labor
+excepting that of manufacturers; so they would admit that alone to the
+favors of protection. They said:
+
+"Raw material is _devoid of all human labor_. For that reason we
+should not tax it. Fabricated articles can no longer occupy national
+labor. We consider them the most taxable."
+
+We are not inquiring whether protection to national labor is
+reasonable. 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 or
+the raw-materialists of Bordeaux--give its just acceptation to the
+word "labor."
+
+Now, upon this ground, it must be said, the protectionist is, by all
+odds, right; for observe the dialogue which might take place between
+them:
+
+The PROTECTIONIST: "You agree that national labor ought to be
+protected. You agree that no foreign labor can be introduced into our
+market without destroying therein an equal amount of our national
+labor. 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 can
+prove to me that the value of these things is not due to labor, I will
+agree that it is useless to protect them. But, again, if I demonstrate
+to you that there is as much labor in a hundred dollars' worth of
+wool as in a hundred dollars' worth of cloth, you must acknowledge
+that protection is as much due to the one as to the other. Now, why is
+this bag of wool worth a hundred dollars? Is it not because that sum
+is the price of production? And is the price of production anything
+but that which it has been necessary to distribute in wages, salaries,
+manual labor, interest, to all the workmen and capitalists who have
+concurred in producing the article?"
+
+The RAW-MATERIALIST: "It is true, that in regard to wool, you
+may be right. But a bag of wheat, an ingot of iron, a quintal of
+coal--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 material
+objects, 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_, we
+understand _creation_, all our labors will be unproductive; that of
+merchants more so than any other, except, perhaps, that of law-makers.
+The farmer has no claim to have _created_ wheat, but he may claim to
+have created its _value_: he has transformed into wheat substances
+which in no wise resembled it, by his own labor with that of his
+ploughmen and reapers. What more does the miller effect who converts
+it into flour, the baker who turns it into bread? Because man must
+clothe himself in cloth, a host of operations is necessary. Before the
+intervention of any human labor, the true raw materials of this
+product (cloth) are air, water, gas, light, the chemical substances
+which must enter into its composition. These are truly the raw
+materials which are _untouched by human labor_; therefore, they are of
+no _value_, and I do not think of protecting them. But a first labor
+converts these substances into hay, straw, etc., a second into wool, a
+third into thread, a fourth into cloth, a fifth into clothing--who
+will dare to say that every step in this work is not _labor_, from the
+first stroke of the plough, which begins, to the last stroke of the
+needle, which terminates it? And because, in order to secure more
+celerity and perfection in the accomplishment of a definite work, such
+as a garment, the labors are divided among several classes of
+industry, you wish, by an arbitrary distinction, that the order of
+succession of these labors should be the only reason for their
+importance; so much so that the first shall not deserve even the name
+of labor, and that the last work pre-eminently, shall alone be worthy
+of the favors of protection!"
+
+The RAW-MATERIALIST: "Yes, we begin to see that wheat no more
+than wool is entirely devoid of human labor; but, at least, the
+agriculturist has not, like the manufacturer, done all by himself and
+his workmen; Nature aids him, and if there is labor, it is not all
+labor in the wheat."
+
+The PROTECTIONIST: "But all its _value_ is in the labor it
+has cost. I admit that Nature has assisted in the material formation
+of wheat. I admit even that it may be exclusively her work; but
+confess that I have controlled it by my labor; and when I sell you
+some wheat, observe this well: that it is not the work of _Nature_ for
+which I make you pay, but _my own_; and, on your supposition,
+manufactured articles would be no more the product of labor than
+agricultural ones. Does not the manufacturer, too, rely upon Nature to
+second him? Does he not avail himself of the weight of the atmosphere
+in aid of the steam-engine, as I avail myself of its humidity in aid
+of the plough? Did he create the laws of gravitation, of correlation
+of forces, of affinities?"
+
+The RAW-MATERIALIST: "Come, let the wool go too. But coal is
+assuredly the work, and the exclusive work, of Nature, _unaided by any
+human labor_."
+
+The PROTECTIONIST: "Yes, Nature made coal, but _labor_ makes
+its value. Coal had no _value_ during the thousands of years during
+which it was hidden, unknown, a hundred feet below the soil. It was
+necessary to look for it there--that is a _labor_: it was necessary to
+transport it to market; that is another _labor_: and once more, the
+price which you pay for it in the market is nothing else than the
+remuneration for these labors of digging and transportation."
+
+We see that thus far the protectionist has all the advantage on his
+side; that the value of raw material, as well as that of manufactured
+material, represents the expense of production, that is to say, of
+_labor_; that it is impossible to conceive of a material possessed of
+value while totally unindebted to human labor; that the distinction
+which the raw-materialists make is wholly futile, in theory; that, as
+a basis for an unequal division of _favors_, it would be iniquitous in
+practice; because the result would be that one-third of the people,
+engaged in manufactures, would obtain the sweets of monopoly, for the
+reason 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 import
+the materials called raw, whether they are or are not the product of
+labor, and to export manufactured articles.
+
+This is a strongly accredited opinion.
+
+"The more abundant raw materials are," said the petition from
+Bordeaux, "the more manufactories are multiplied and extended." It
+said again, that "raw material opens an unlimited field of labor to
+the inhabitants of the country from which it is imported."
+
+"Raw material," said the other petition, that from Havre, "being the
+aliment of labor, must be submitted to a _different system_, and
+admitted at once at the lowest duty." The same petition would have the
+protection on manufactured articles reduced, not one after another,
+but at an undetermined time; not to the lowest duty, but to twenty per
+cent.
+
+"Among other articles which necessity requires to be abundant and
+cheap," said the third petition, that from Lyons, "the manufacturers
+name 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 to
+say, expands ten-fold, a hundred-fold, the products of a nation.
+Thence it is reasoned, "The production of a bale of cotton causes
+workmen of all classes to earn one hundred dollars only. The
+conversion of this bale into lace collars raises their profits to ten
+thousand dollars; and will you dare to say that the nation is not
+more interested in encouraging labor worth ten thousand than that
+worth one hundred dollars?"
+
+We forget that international exchanges, no more than individual
+exchanges, work by weight or measure. We do not exchange a bale of
+cotton for a bale of lace collars, nor a pound of wool in the grease
+for a pound of wool in cashmere; but a certain value of one of these
+things _for an equal value_ of the other. Now to barter equal value
+against equal value is to barter equal work against equal work. It is
+not true, then, that the nation which gives for a hundred dollars
+cashmere or collars, gains more than the nation which delivers for a
+hundred 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 public
+cannot be robbed without being first deceived. Our ignorance is the
+"raw material" of all extortion which is practised upon us, and we may
+be sure in advance that every sophism is the forerunner of a
+spoliation. Good public, when you see a sophism, clap your hand on
+your pocket; for that is certainly the point at which it aims. What
+was the secret thought which the shipowners of Bordeaux and of Havre,
+and the manufacturers of Lyons, conceived in this distinction between
+agricultural products and manufactured articles?
+
+"It is principally in this first class (that which comprehends raw
+material _unmodified by human labor_)," said the Raw-Materialists of
+Bordeaux, "that the chief aliment of our merchant marine is found. At
+the outset, a wise economy would require that this class should not
+be taxed. The second (articles which have received some preparation)
+may be charged; the third (articles on which no more work has to be
+done) we consider the most taxable."
+
+"Consider," said those of Havre, "that it is indispensable to reduce
+all raw materials one after another to the lowest rate, in order that
+industry may successively bring into operation the naval forces which
+will furnish to it its first and indispensable means of labor." The
+manufacturers could not in exchange of politeness be behind the
+ship-owners; so the petition from Lyons demanded the free introduction
+of raw material, "in order to prove," said they, "that the interests
+of manufacturing towns are not always opposed to those of maritime
+ones!"
+
+True; but it must be said that both interests were, understood as the
+petitioners understood them, terribly opposed to the interests of the
+country, of agriculture, and of consumers.
+
+See, then, where you would come out! See the end of these subtle
+economical distinctions! You would legislate against allowing
+_perfected_ produce to traverse the ocean, in order that the much more
+expensive transportation of rough materials, dirty, loaded with waste
+matter, may offer more employment to our merchant service, and put our
+naval force into wider operation. This is what these petitioners
+termed _a wise economy_. Why did they not demand that the firs of
+Russia should be brought to them with their branches, bark, and roots;
+the gold of California in its mineral state, and the hides from Buenos
+Ayres still attached to the bones of the tainted skeleton?
+
+Industry, the navy, labor, have for their end, the general good, the
+public good. To create a useless industry, in order to favor
+superfluous transportation; to feed superfluous labor, not for the
+good of the public, but for the expense of the public--this is to
+realize a veritable begging the question. Work, in itself, is not a
+desirable thing; its result is; all work without result is a loss. To
+pay sailors for carrying useless waste matter across the sea is like
+paying them for skipping stones across the surface of the water. So we
+arrive at this result: that all economical sophisms, despite their
+infinite variety, have this in common, that they confound the means
+with the end, and develop one at the expense of the other.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XXII.
+
+METAPHORS.
+
+
+Sometimes a sophism dilates itself, and penetrates through the whole
+extent 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 from
+metaphors!" In truth, it would be difficult to say which of the two
+creates the more evil upon our planet. It is the demon, say you; he
+alone, so long as we live, puts the spirit of spoliation in our
+hearts. Yes; but he does not prevent the repression of abuses by the
+resistance of those who suffer from them. _Sophistry_ paralyzes this
+resistance. The sword which malice puts in the assailant's hand would
+be powerless, if sophistry did not break the shield upon the arm of
+the assailed; and it is with good reason that Malebranche has
+inscribed at the opening of his book, "Error is the cause of human
+misery."
+
+See how it comes to pass. Ambitious hypocrites will have some sinister
+purpose; for example, sowing national hatred in the public mind. This
+fatal germ may develop, lead to general conflagration, arrest
+civilization, pour out torrents of blood, draw upon the land the most
+terrible of scourges--_invasion_. In every case of indulgence in such
+sentiments of hatred they lower us in the opinion of nations, and
+compel those Americans, who have retained some love of justice, to
+blush for their country. Certainly these are great evils; and in order
+that the public should protect itself from the guidance of those who
+would lead it into such risks, it is only necessary to give it a clear
+view of them. How do they succeed in veiling it from them? It is by
+_metaphor_. They alter, they force, they deprave the meaning of three
+or four words, and all is done.
+
+Such a word is _invasion_ itself. An owner of an American furnace
+says, "Preserve us from the _invasion_ of English iron." An English
+landlord 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 to
+war, 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 still
+believe, and the barriers still remain.
+
+Yet what analogy is there between an exchange and an _invasion_? What
+resemblance can possibly be established between a vessel of war, which
+comes to pour fire, shot, and devastation into our cities, and a
+merchant 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 generally
+taken in bad part, because _inundations_ often ravage fields and
+crops. If, however, they deposit upon the soil a greater value than
+that which they take from it; as is the case in the inundations of the
+Nile, we might bless and deify them as the Egyptians do. Well! before
+declaiming against the inundation of foreign produces, before
+opposing to them restraining and costly obstacles, let us inquire if
+they are the inundations which ravage or those which fertilize? What
+should we think of Mehemet Ali, if, instead of building, at great
+expense, dams across the Nile for the purpose of extending its field
+of inundation, he should expend his money in digging for it a deeper
+bed, so that Egypt should not be defiled by this _foreign_ slime,
+brought down from the Mountains of the Moon? We exhibit precisely the
+same amount of reason, when we wish, by the expenditure of millions,
+to preserve our country--From what? The advantages with which Nature
+has endowed other climates.
+
+Among the metaphors which conceal an injurious theory, none is more
+common than that embodied in the words _tribute, tributary_.
+
+These words are so much used that they have become synonymous with the
+words _purchase, purchaser_, and one is used indifferently for the
+other.
+
+Yet a _tribute_ or _tax_ differs as much from _purchase_ as a theft
+from 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 a
+thousand dollars," as we do to have it remarked by our sage
+representatives, "We have paid to England the _tribute_ for a thousand
+gross of knives which she has sold to us."
+
+For the reason why Turpin's act is not a _purchase_ is, that he has
+not paid into my safe, with my consent, value equivalent to what he
+has taken from it, and the reason why the payment of five hundred
+thousand dollars, which we have made to England, is not a _tribute_,
+is simply because she has not received them gratuitously, but in
+exchange for the delivery to us of a thousand gross of knives, which
+we ourselves have judged worth five hundred thousand dollars.
+
+But is it necessary to take up seriously such abuses of language? Why
+not, when they are seriously paraded in newspapers and in books?
+
+Do not imagine that they escape from writers who are ignorant of their
+language; for one who abstains from them, we could point you to ten
+who employ them, and they persons of consideration--that is to say,
+men whose words are laws, and whose most shocking sophisms serve as
+the basis of administration for the country.
+
+A celebrated modern philosopher has added to the categories of
+Aristotle, the sophism which consists in including in one word the
+begging of the question. He cites several examples. He should have
+added the word _tributary_ to his vocabulary. In effect the question
+is, are purchases made abroad useful or injurious? "They are
+injurious," you say. And why? "Because they make us _tributary_ to the
+foreigner." Here is certainly a word which presents as a fact that
+which 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 a
+victorious enemy--other specie, also, goes out of a country to settle
+an account for merchandise. The analogy between the two cases is
+established, by taking account of the one point in which they resemble
+one another, and leaving out of view that in which they differ.
+
+This circumstance, however,--that is to say, non-reimbursement
+in the one case, and reimbursement freely agreed upon in the
+other--establishes such a difference between them, that it is not
+possible to class them under the same title. To deliver a hundred
+dollars _by compulsion_ to him who says "Stand and deliver," or
+_voluntarily_ to pay the same sum to him who sells you the object of
+your wishes--truly, these are things which cannot be made to
+assimilate. As well might you say, it is a matter of indifference
+whether you throw bread into the river or eat it, because in either
+case it is bread _destroyed_. The fault of this reasoning, as in that
+which the word _tribute_ is made to imply, consists in founding an
+exact similitude between two cases on their points of resemblance, and
+omitting those of difference.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER XXIII.
+
+CONCLUSION.
+
+
+All the sophisms we have hitherto combated are connected with one
+single question: the restrictive system; and, out of pity for the
+reader, we pass by acquired rights, untimeliness, misuse of the
+currency, etc., etc.
+
+But social economy is not confined to this narrow circle. Fourierism,
+Saint-Simonism, communism, mysticism, sentimentalism, false
+philanthropy, affected aspirations to equality and chimerical
+fraternity, questions relative to luxury, to salaries, to machines, to
+the pretended tyranny of capital, to distant territorial acquisitions,
+to outlets, to conquests, to population, to association, to
+emigration, to imposts, to loans, have encumbered the field of science
+with a host of parasitical _sophisms_, which demand the hoe and the
+sickle of the diligent economist. It is not because we do not
+recognize the fault of this plan, or rather of this absence of plan.
+To attack, one by one, so many incoherent sophisms which sometimes
+clash, although more frequently one runs into the other, is to condemn
+one's self to a disorderly, capricious struggle, and to expose one's
+self to perpetual repetitions.
+
+How much we should prefer to say simply how things are, without
+occupying ourselves with the thousand aspects in which the ignorant
+see them! To explain the laws under which societies prosper or decay,
+is virtually to destroy all sophistry at once. When La Place had
+described all that can, as yet, be known of the movements of the
+heavenly bodies, he had dispersed, without even naming them, all the
+astrological dreams of the Egyptians, Greeks, and Hindoos, much more
+surely than he could have done by directly refuting them through
+innumerable volumes. Truth is one; the book which exposes it is an
+imposing 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 combats
+it does not carry within itself a principle of greatness or of
+endurance.
+
+But if the power, and perhaps the opportunity, have failed us for
+proceeding in the manner of La Place and of Say, we cannot refuse to
+believe that the form which we have adopted has, also, its modest
+utility. It appears to us especially well suited to the wants of the
+age, to the hurried moments which it can consecrate to study.
+
+A treatise has, doubtless, an incontestable superiority; but upon
+condition that it be read, meditated upon, searched into. It addresses
+itself to a select public only. Its mission is, at first, to fix, and
+afterwards to enlarge, the circle of acquired knowledge.
+
+The refutation of vulgar prejudices could not carry with it this high
+bearing. It aspires only to disencumber the route before the march of
+truth, to prepare the mind, to reform public opinion, to blunt
+dangerous tools in improper hands. It is in social economy above all,
+that these hand-to-hand struggles, these constantly recurring combats
+with 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 application
+demands a special occupation. The public profit by their labor,
+despite their ignorance of them. They do not enjoy the use of a watch
+the less, because they do not understand mechanics and astronomy. They
+are not the less carried along by the locomotive and the steamboat
+through their faith in the engineer and the pilot. We walk according
+to the laws of equilibrium without being acquainted with them.
+
+But there are sciences which exercise upon the public an influence
+proportionate with the light of the public itself, not from knowledge
+accumulated in a few exceptional heads, but from that which is
+diffused 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 have
+said: "That which spreads them is worth more than that which advances
+them." Of what consequence is it that a great man, a God even, should
+have promulgated moral laws, so long as men, imbued with false
+notions, take virtues for vices, and vices for virtues? Of what value
+is it that Smith, Say, and, according to Chamans, economists of all
+schools, have proclaimed the superiority of liberty to restraint in
+commercial transactions, if those who make the laws and those for
+whom 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, no
+one confesses himself ignorant of them. Do we wish to decide a
+question in chemistry or geometry? No one pretends to have the
+knowledge instinctively; we are not ashamed to consult Draper; we make
+no difficulty about referring to Euclid.
+
+But in social science authority is but little recognized. As such a
+one has to do daily with morals, good or bad, with hygiene, with
+economy, with politics reasonable or absurd, each one considers
+himself skilled to comment, discuss, decide, and dogmatize in these
+matters.
+
+Are you ill? There is no good nurse who does not tell you, at the
+first 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 this
+good nurse when I hear all social evils explained by these common
+phrases: "It is the superabundance of products, the tyranny of
+capital, industrial plethora," and other idle stories of which we
+cannot even say: _verba et voces praetereaque nihil_: for they are also
+fatal mistakes.
+
+From what precedes, two things result--
+
+1st. That the social sciences must abound in sophistry much more than
+the other sciences, because in them each one consults his own judgment
+or instinct alone.
+
+2d. That in these sciences sophistry is especially injurious, because
+it misleads public opinion where opinion is a power--that is, law.
+
+Two sorts of books, then, are required by these sciences; those which
+expound them, and those which propagate them; those which show the
+truth, and those which combat error.
+
+It appears to us that the inherent defect in the form of this little
+Essay--_repetition_--is that which constitutes its principal value.
+
+In the question we have treated, each sophism has, doubtless, its own
+set form, and its own range, but all have one common root, which is,
+"_forgetfulness of the interests of man, insomuch as they forget the
+interests of consumers_." To show that the thousand roads of error
+conduct to this generating sophism, is to teach the public to
+recognize it, to appreciate it--to distrust it under all
+circumstances.
+
+After all, we do not aspire to arouse convictions, but doubts.
+
+We have no expectation that in laying down the book, the reader shall
+exclaim: "_I know_." Please Heaven he may be induced to say, "_I am
+ignorant_."
+
+"I am ignorant, for I begin to believe there is something delusive in
+the 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 Result
+without 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 the
+definition which the duellist in the play gives of it."
+
+"I consider an article is increased in value by passing through
+several processes of manufacture; but, in exchange, do two equal
+values cease to be equal because the one comes from the plough and the
+other from the power-loom?"
+
+"I confess that I begin to think it singular that humanity should be
+ameliorated by shackles, or enriched by taxes: and, frankly, I should
+be relieved of a heavy weight, I should experience a pure joy, if I
+could see demonstrated, which the author assures us of, that there is
+no incompatibility between comfort and justice, between peace and
+liberty, between the extension of labor and the progress of
+intelligence."
+
+"So, without feeling satisfied by his arguments, to which I do not
+know whether to give the name of reasoning or of objections, I will
+interrogate the masters of the science."
+
+Let us terminate by a last and important observation this monograph of
+sophisms. The world does not know, as it ought, the influence which
+sophistry exerts upon it. If we must say what we think, when the Right
+of the Strongest was dethroned, sophistry placed the empire in the
+Right of the Most Cunning; and it would be difficult to say which of
+these 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 procure
+these things at the expense of another. But this other, which is the
+public, has an inclination not less strong to keep what it has
+acquired, provided it can and knows how. Spoliation, which plays so
+large 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. To
+retrace its history would be to reproduce almost entire the history of
+all nations--Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes, Persians, Egyptians,
+Greeks, Romans, Goths, Franks, Huns, Turks, Arabs, Moguls,
+Tartars--without counting that of the Spaniards in America, the
+English in India, the French in Africa, the Russians in Asia, etc.,
+etc.
+
+But, at least, among civilized nations, the men who produce wealth
+have become sufficiently numerous and sufficiently strong to defend
+it.
+
+Is that to say that they are no longer despoiled? By no means; they
+are robbed as much as ever, and, what is more, they despoil one
+another. The agent alone is changed; it is no longer by violence, but
+by stratagem, that the public wealth is seized upon.
+
+In order to rob the public, it must be deceived. To deceive it, is to
+persuade it that it is robbed for its own advantage; it is to make it
+accept fictitious services, and often worse, in exchange for its
+property. Hence sophistry, economical sophistry, political sophistry,
+and financial sophistry--and, since force is held in check, sophistry
+is not only an evil, it is the parent of other evils. So it becomes
+necessary to hold it in check, _in its turn_, and for this purpose to
+render the public more acute than the cunning; just as it has become
+more peaceful than the strong.
+
+
+
+***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WHAT IS FREE TRADE?***
+
+
+******* This file should be named 16106.txt or 16106.zip *******
+
+
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+https://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/6/1/0/16106
+
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+https://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at https://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/pglaf.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at https://www.gutenberg.org/about/contact
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit https://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/donate
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including including checks, online payments and credit card
+donations.  To donate, please visit:
+https://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     https://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
+
diff --git a/16106.zip b/16106.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..70b29f1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/16106.zip
diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6312041
--- /dev/null
+++ b/LICENSE.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements,
+metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be
+in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES.
+
+Procedures for determining public domain status are described in
+the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org.
+
+No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in
+jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize
+this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright
+status under the laws that apply to them.
diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5d10324
--- /dev/null
+++ b/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for
+eBook #16106 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/16106)