SOPHISMS

OF THE

PROTECTIONISTS. 

BY THE LATE

M. FREDERIC BASTIAT, _Member of the Institute of France_. 

 * * * * *

Part I. Sophisms of Protection--First Series. Part II. Sophisms of Protection--Second Series. Part III. Spoliation and Law. Part IV. Capital and Interest. 

TRANSLATED FROM THE PARIS EDITION OF 1863. 

NEW-YORK:AMERICAN FREE TRADE LEAGUE. 

1870. 

Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1869, byTHE WESTERN NEWS COMPANY, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States, for theNorthern District of Illinois. 

PREFACE. 

A previous edition of this work has been published under the title of"Essays on Political Economy, by the late M. Frederic Bastiat. " When itbecame necessary to issue a second edition, the Free-Trade Leagueoffered to buy the stereotype plates and the copyright, with a view tothe publication of the book on a large scale and at a very low price. The primary object of the League is to educate public opinion; toconvince the people of the United States of the folly and wrongfulnessof the Protective system. The methods adopted by the League for thepurpose have been the holding of public meetings and the publication ofbooks, pamphlets, and tracts, some of which are for sale at the cost ofpublication, and others given away gratuitously. 

In publishing this book the League feels that it is offering the mosteffective and most popular work on political economy that has as yetbeen written. M. Bastiat not only enlivens a dull subject with his wit, but also reduces the propositions of the Protectionists to absurdities. 

Free-Traders can do no better service in the cause of truth, justice, and humanity, than by circulating this little book among their friends. It is offered you at what it costs to print it. Will not everyFree-Trader put a copy of the book into the hands of his Protectionistfriends?

It would not be proper to close this short preface without an expressionon the part of the League of its obligation to the able translator ofthe work from the French, Mr. Horace White, of Chicago. 

OFFICE OF THE AMERICAN FREE-TRADE LEAGUE, 9 Nassau Street, New-York, June, 1870. 

PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION. 

This compilation, from the works of the late M. Bastiat, is given to thepublic in the belief that the time has now come when the people, relieved from the absorbing anxieties of the war, and the subsequentstrife on reconstruction, are prepared to give a more earnest andthoughtful attention to economical questions than was possible duringthe previous ten years. That we have retrograded in economical scienceduring this period, while making great strides in moral and politicaladvancement by the abolition of slavery and the enfranchisement of thefreedmen, seems to me incontestable. Professor Perry has described veryconcisely the steps taken by the manufacturers in 1861, after theSouthern members had left their seats in Congress, to reverse the policyof the government in reference to foreign trade. [1] He has noticed buthas not laid so much stress as he might on the fact that while therewas no considerable public opinion to favor them, there was none at allto oppose them. Not only was the attention of the people diverted fromthe tariff by the dangers then impending, but the Republican party, which then came into power, had, in its National Convention, offered abribe to the State of Pennsylvania for its vote in the Presidentialelection, which bribe was set forth in the following words:

 "_Resolved_, That while providing revenue for the support of the General Government by duties upon imports, sound policy requires such an adjustment of these imposts as to encourage the development of the industrial interests of the whole country; and we commend that policy of national exchanges which secures to the workingmen liberal wages, to agriculture remunerative prices, to mechanics and manufacturers an adequate reward for their skill, labor and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence. "--_Chicago Convention Platform_, 1860. 

[Footnote 1: Elements of Political Economy, p. 461]

It is true that this resolution did not commit anybody to the doctrinethat the industrial interests of the whole country are promoted by taxeslevied upon imported property, however "adjusted, " but it wasunderstood, by the Pennsylvanians at least, to be a promise that if theRepublican party were successful in the coming election, the doctrine ofprotection, which had been overthrown in 1846, and had been in anextremely languishing state ever since, should be put upon its legsagain. I am far from asserting that this overture was needed to securethe vote of Pennsylvania for Mr. Lincoln in 1860, or that that Statewas governed by less worthy motives in her political action than otherStates. I only remark that her delegates in the convention thought sucha resolution would be extremely useful, and such was the anxiety tosecure her vote in the election that a much stronger resolution mighthave been conceded if it had been required. I affirm, however, thatthere was no agitation on the tariff question in any other quarter. NewEngland had united in passing the tariff of 1857, which lowered theduties imposed by the act of 1846 about fifty per cent. , i. E. , one-halfof the previously existing scale. The Western States had not petitionedCongress or the convention to disturb the tariff; nor had New York doneso, although Mr. Greeley, then as now, was invoking, more or lessfrequently, the shade of Henry Clay to help re-establish what is deftlystyled the "American System. "

The protective policy was restored, after its fifteen years' sleep, under the auspices of Mr. Morrill, a Representative (now a Senator) fromVermont. Latterly I have noticed in the speeches and votes of thisgentleman (who is, I think, one of the most conscientious, as he is oneof the most amiable, men in public life), a reluctance to follow totheir logical conclusion the principles embodied in the "Morrill tariff"of 1861. His remarks upon the copper bill, during the recent session ofCongress, indicate that, in his opinion, those branches of Americanindustry which are engaged in producing articles sent abroad in exchangefor the products of foreign nations, are entitled to some consideration. This is an important admission, but not so important as another, whichhe made in his speech on the national finances, January 24, 1867, inwhich, referring to the bank note circulation existing in the year 1860, he said: "_And that was a year of as large production and as muchgeneral prosperity as any, perhaps, in our history_. "[2] If the yearimmediately preceding the enactment of the Morrill tariff was a year ofas large production and as much general prosperity as any in ourhistory, of what use has the Morrill tariff been? We have seen that itwas not demanded by any public agitation. We now see that it has been ofno public utility. 

[Footnote 2: Congressional Globe, Second Session Thirty-ninth Congress, p. 724. ]

In combating, by arguments and illustrations adapted to thecomprehension of the mass of mankind, the errors and sophisms with whichprotectionists deceive themselves and others, M. Bastiat is the mostlucid and pointed of all writers on economical science with whose worksI have any acquaintance. It is not necessary to accord to him a placeamong the architects of the science of political economy, although someof his admirers rank him among the highest. [3] It is enough to counthim among the greatest of its expounders and demonstrators. His death, which occurred at Pisa, Italy, on the 24th December, 1850, at the age of49, was a serious loss to France and to the world. His works, though forthe most part fragmentary, and given to the public from time to timethrough the columns of the _Journal des Economistes_, the _Journal desDebats_, and the _Libre Echange_, remain a monument of a noble intellectguided by a noble soul. They have been collected and published(including the _Harmonies Economiques_, which the author left inmanuscript) by Guillaumin & Co. , the proprietors of the _Journal desEconomistes_, in two editions of six volumes each, 8vo. And 12mo. Whenwe reflect that these six volumes were produced between April, 1844, andDecember, 1850, by a young man of feeble constitution, who commencedlife as a clerk in a mercantile establishment, and who spent much of histime during these six years in delivering public lectures, and laboringin the National Assembly, to which he was chosen in 1848, our admirationfor such industry is only modified by the thought that if he had beenmore saving of his strength, he might have rendered even greaterservices to his country and to mankind. 

[Footnote 3: Mr. Macleod (_Dictionary of Political Economy_, vol. I, p. 246) speaks of Bastiat's definition of Value as "the greatest revolutionthat has been effected in any science since the days of Galileo. "

See also Professor Perry's pamphlet, _Recent Phases of Thought inPolitical Economy_, read before the American Social Science Association, October, 1868, in which, it appears to me, that Bastiat's theory ofRent, in announcing which he was anticipated by Mr. Carey, is too highlypraised. ]

The _Sophismes Economiques_, which fill the larger portion of thisvolume, were not expected by their author to outlast the fallacies whichthey sought to overthrow. But these fallacies have lived longer and havespread over more of the earth's surface than any one _a priori_ couldhave believed possible. It is sometimes useful, in opposing doctrineswhich people have been taught to believe are peculiar to their owncountry and time, to show that the same doctrines have been maintainedin other countries and times, and have been exploded in other languages. By what misuse of words the doctrine of Protection came to bedenominated the "American System, " I could never understand. Itprevailed in England nearly two hundred years before our separation fromthe mother country. Adam Smith directed the first formidable attackagainst it in the very year that our independence was declared. It heldits ground in England until it had starved and ruined almost everybranch of industry--agriculture, manufactures, and commerce alike. [4] Itwas not wholly overthrown until 1846, the same year that witnessed itsdiscomfiture in the United States, as already shown. It still exists ina subdued and declining way in France, despite the powerful andbrilliant attacks of Say, Bastiat, and Chevalier, but its end cannot befar distant in that country. The Cobden-Chevalier treaty with Englandhas been attended by consequences so totally at variance with thetheories and prophecies of the protectionists that it must soon succumb. 

[Footnote 4: It is so often affirmed by protectionists that thesuperiority of Great Britain in manufactures was attained by means ofprotection, that it is worth while to dispel that illusion. The factsare precisely the reverse. Protection had brought Great Britain in theyear 1842 to the last stages of penury and decay, and it wanted but ayear or two more of the same regimen to have precipitated the countryinto a bloody revolution. I quote a paragraph from Miss Martineau's"History of England from 1816 to 1854, " Book VI, Chapter 5:

 "Serious as was the task of the Minister (Sir R. Peel) in every view, the most immediate sympathy was felt for him on account of the fearful state of the people. The distress had now so deepened in the manufacturing districts as to render it clearly inevitable that many must die, and a multitude be lowered to a state of sickness and irritability from want of food; while there seemed no chance of any member of the manufacturing classes coming out of the struggle at last with a vestige of property wherewith to begin the world again. The pressure had long extended beyond the interests first affected, and when the new Ministry came into power, there seemed to be no class that was not threatened with ruin. In Carlisle, the Committee of Inquiry reported that a fourth of the population was in a state bordering on starvation--actually certain to die of famine, unless relieved by extraordinary exertions. In the woollen districts of Wiltshire, the allowance to the independent laborer was not two-thirds of the minimum in the workhouse, and the large existing population consumed only a fourth of the bread and meat required by the much smaller population of 1820. In Stockport, more than half the master spinners had failed before the close of 1842; dwelling houses to the number of 3, 000, were shut up; and the occupiers of many hundreds more were unable to pay rates at all. Five thousand persons were walking the streets in compulsory idleness, and the Burnley guardians wrote to the Secretary of State that the distress was far beyond their management; so that a government commissioner and government funds were sent down without delay. At a meeting in Manchester, where humble shopkeepers were the speakers, anecdotes were related which told more than declamation. Rent collectors were afraid to meet their principals, as no money could be collected. Provision dealers were subject to incursions from a wolfish man prowling for food for his children, or from a half frantic woman, with her dying baby at her breast; or from parties of ten or a dozen desperate wretches who were levying contributions along the street. The linen draper told how new clothes had become out of the question with his customers, and they bought only remnants and patches, to mend the old ones. The baker was more and more surprised at the number of people who bought half-pennyworths of bread. A provision dealer used to throw away outside scraps; but now respectable customers of twenty years' standing bought them in pennyworths to moisten their potatoes. These shopkeepers contemplated nothing but ruin from the impoverished condition of their customers. While poor-rates were increasing beyond all precedent, their trade was only one-half, or one-third, or even one-tenth what it had been three years before. In that neighborhood, a gentleman, who had retired from business in 1833, leaving a property worth £60, 000 to his sons, and who had, early in the distress, become security for them, was showing the works for the benefit of the creditors, at a salary of £1 a week. In families where the father had hitherto earned £2 per week, and laid by a portion weekly, and where all was now gone but the sacks of shavings they slept on, exertions were made to get 'blue milk' for children to moisten their oatmeal with; but soon they could have it only on alternate days; and soon water must do. At Leeds the pauper stone-heap amounted to 150, 000 tons; and the guardians offered the paupers 6s. Per week for doing nothing, rather than 7s. 6d. Per week for stone-breaking. The millwrights and other trades were offering a premium on emigration, to induce their hands to go away. At Hinckley, one-third of the inhabitants were paupers; more than a fifth of the houses stood empty; and there was not work enough in the place to employ properly one-third of the weavers. In Dorsetshire a man and his wife had for wages 2s. 6d. Per week, and three loaves; and the ablest laborer had 6s. Or 7s. In Wiltshire, the poor peasants held open-air meetings after work--which was necessarily after dark. There, by the light of one or two flaring tallow candles, the man or the woman who had a story to tell stood on a chair, and related how their children were fed and clothed in old times--poorly enough, but so as to keep body and soul together; and now, how they could nohow manage to do it. The bare details of the ages of their children, and what the little things could do, and the prices of bacon and bread, and calico and coals, had more pathos in them than any oratory heard elsewhere. "

"But all this came from the Corn Laws, " is the ready reply of theAmerican protectionist. The Corn Laws were the doctrine of protectionapplied to breadstuffs, farm products, "raw materials. " But it was notonly protection for corn that vexed England in 1842, but protection forevery thing and every body, from the landlord and the mill-owner to thekelp gatherer. Every species of manufacturing industry had asked andobtained protection. The nation had put in force, logically andthoroughly, the principle of denying themselves any share in theadvantages which nature or art had conferred upon other climates andpeoples, (which is the principle of protection), and with the results sopathetically described by Miss Martineau. The prosperity of Britishmanufactures dates from the year 1846. That they maintained any kind ofexistence prior to that time is a most striking proof of the vitality ofhuman industry under the persecution of bad laws. ]

As these pages are going through the press, a telegram announces thatthe French Government has abolished the discriminating duties leviedupon goods imported in foreign bottoms, and has asked our government toabolish the like discrimination which our laws have created. Commercialfreedom is making rapid progress in Prussia, Austria, Italy, and evenin Spain. The United States alone, among civilized nations, hold to theopposite principle. Our anomalous position in this respect is due, as Ithink, to our anomalous condition during the past eight or nine years, already adverted to--a condition in which the protected classes havebeen restrained by no public opinion--public opinion being too intenselypreoccupied with the means of preserving the national existence tonotice what was doing with the tariff. But evidences of a reawakeningare not wanting. 

There is scarcely an argument current among the protectionists of theUnited States that was not current in France at the time Bastiat wrotethe _Sophismes Economiques_. Nor was there one current in his time thatis not performing its bad office among us. Hence his demonstrations oftheir absurdity and falsity are equally applicable to our time andcountry as to his. They may have even greater force among us if theythoroughly dispel the notion that Protection is an "American system. "Surely they cannot do less than this. 

There are one or two arguments current among the protectionists of theUnited States that were not rife in France when Bastiat wrote his_Sophismes_. It is said, for instance, that protection has failed toachieve all the good results expected from it, because the policy of thegovernment has been variable. If we could have a steady course ofprotection for a sufficient period of time (nobody being bold enough tosay what time would be sufficient), and could be _assured_ of having it, we should see wonderful progress. But, inasmuch as the policy of thegovernment is uncertain, protection has never yet had a fair trial. Thisis like saying, "if the stone which I threw in the air had staid there, my head would not have been broken by its fall. " It would not staythere. The law of gravitation is committed against its staying there. Its only resting-place is on the earth. They begin by violating naturallaws and natural rights--the right to exchange services forservices--and then complain because these natural laws war against themand finally overcome them. But it is not true that protection has nothad a fair trial in the United States. The protection has been greaterat some times than at others, that is all. Prior to the late war, allour revenue was raised from customs; and while the tariffs of 1846 and1857 were designated "free trade tariffs, " to distinguish them fromthose existing before and since, they were necessarily protective to acertain extent. 

Again, it is said that there is need of diversifying our industry--- asthough industry would not diversify itself sufficiently through thediverse tastes and predilections of individuals--as though it werenecessary to supplement the work of the Creator in this behalf, by humanenactments founded upon reciprocal rapine. The only rational object ofdiversifying industry is to make people better and happier. Do men andwomen become better and happier by being huddled together in mills andfactories, in a stifling atmosphere, on scanty wages, ten hours each dayand 313 days each year, than when cultivating our free and fertilelands? Do they have equal opportunities for mental and moralimprovement? The trades-unions tell us, No. Whatever may be theexperience of other countries where the land is either owned by absenteelords, who take all the product except what is necessary to give thetenant a bare subsistence, or where it is cut up in parcels not largerthan an American garden patch, it is an undeniable fact that no otherclass of American workingmen are so independent, so intelligent, so wellprovided with comforts and leisure, or so rapidly advancing inprosperity, as our agriculturists; and this notwithstanding they areenormously overtaxed to maintain other branches of industry, which, according to the protective theory, cannot support themselves. Thenatural tendency of our people to flock to the cities, where their eyesand ears are gratified at the expense of their other senses, physicaland moral, is sufficiently marked not to need the influence oflegislation to stimulate it. 

It is not the purpose of this preface to anticipate the admirablearguments of M. Bastiat; but there is another theory in vogue whichdeserves a moment's consideration. Mr. H. C. Carey tells us, that acountry which exports its food, in reality exports its soil, the foreignconsumers not giving back to the land the fertilizing elementsabstracted from it. Mr. Mill has answered this argument, uponphilosophical principles, at some length, showing that whenever itceases to be advantageous to America to export breadstuffs, she willcease to do so; also, that when it becomes necessary to manure herlands, she will either import manure or make it at home. [5] A shorteranswer is, that the lands are no better manured by having the breadconsumed in Lowell, or Pittsburgh, or even in Chicago, than inBirmingham or Lyons. But it seems to me that Mr. Carey does not takeinto account the fact that the total amount of breadstuffs exported fromany country must be an exceedingly small fraction of the whole amounttaken from the soil, and scarcely appreciable as a source of manure, even if it were practically utilized in that way. Thus, our exportationof flour and meal, wheat and Indian corn, for the year 1860, as comparedwith the total crop produced, was as follows:

 TOTAL CROP. [6]

 Flour and Meal, bbls. Wheat, bu. Corn, bu. 55, 217, 800 173, 104, 924 838, 792, 740

 _Exportation. _ Flour and Meal, bbls. Wheat, bu. Corn, bu. 2, 845, 305 4, 155, 153 1, 314, 155

 _Percentage of Exportation to Total Crop. _ 5. 15 2. 40 . 39

This was the result for the year preceding the enactment of the Morrilltariff. It is true that our exports of wheat and Indian corn rose in thethree years following the enactment of the Morrill tariff, from anaverage of eight million bushels to an average of forty-six millionbushels, but this is contrary to the theory that high tariffs tend tokeep breadstuffs at home, and low ones to send them abroad. There isneed of great caution in making generalizations as to the influence oftariffs on the movement of breadstuffs. Good or bad harvests in variouscountries exercise an uncontrollable influence upon their movement, farbeyond the reach of any legislation short of prohibition. The market forbreadstuffs in the world is as the number of consumers; that is, ofpopulation. It is sometimes said in the way of reproach, (and it is acurious travesty of Mr. Carey's manure argument, ) that foreign nations_will not_ take our breadstuffs. It is not true; but if it were, thatwould not be a good reason for our passing laws to prevent them fromdoing so; that is, to deprive them of the means to pay for them. Everycountry must pay for its imports with its exports. It must pay for theservices which it receives with the services which it renders. Ifforeign nations are not allowed to render services to us, how shall werender them the service of bread?

[Footnote 5: Principles of Political Economy (People's Ed. ), London, 1865, page 557. ]

[Footnote 6: These figures are taken from the census report for the year1860. In this report the total production of flour and meal is given, not in barrels, but in value. The quantity is ascertained by dividingthe total value by the average price per barrel in New York during theyear, the fluctuations then being very slight. Flour being amanufactured article, is it not a little curious that we exported underthe "free trade tariff" twice as large a percentage of breadstuffs inthat form as we did of the "raw material, " wheat?]

The first series of Bastiat's _Sophismes_ were published in 1845, andthe second series in 1848. The first series were translated in 1848, byMrs. D. J. McCord, and published the same year by G. P. Putnam, New York. Mrs. McCord's excellent translation has been followed (by permission ofher publisher, who holds the copyright, ) in this volume, having beenfirst compared with the original, in the Paris edition of 1863. A veryfew verbal alterations have been made, which, however, have no bearingon the accuracy and faithfulness of her work. The translation of theessay on "Capital and Interest" is from a duodecimo volume published inLondon a year or two ago, the name of the translator being unknown tome. The second series of the _Sophismes_, and the essay entitled"Spoliation and Law, " are, I believe, presented in English for the firsttime in these pages. 

H. W. CHICAGO, August 1, 1869. 

PART I. 

SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 

FIRST SERIES. 

INTRODUCTION. 

My object in this little volume has been to refute some of the argumentsusually advanced against Free Trade. 

I am not seeking a combat with the protectionists. I merely advance aprinciple which I am anxious to present clearly to the minds of sinceremen, who hesitate because they doubt. 

I am not of the number of those who maintain that protection issupported by interests. I believe that it is founded upon errors, or, ifyou will, upon _incomplete truths_. Too many fear free trade, for thisapprehension to be other than sincere. 

My aspirations are perhaps high; but I confess that it would give mepleasure to hope that this little work might become, as it were, a_manual_ for such men as may be called upon to decide between the twoprinciples. When one has not made oneself perfectly familiar with thedoctrines of free trade, the sophisms of protection perpetually returnto the mind under one form or another; and, on each occasion, in orderto counteract their effect, it is necessary to enter into a long andlaborious analysis. Few, and least of all legislators, have leisure forthis labor, which I would, on this account, wish to present clearlydrawn up to their hand. 

But it may be said, are then the benefits of free trade so hidden as tobe perceptible only to economists by profession?

Yes; we confess it; our adversaries in the discussion have a signaladvantage over us. They can, in a few words, present an incompletetruth; which, for us to show that it is incomplete, renders necessarylong and uninteresting dissertations. 

This results from the fact that protection accumulates upon a singlepoint the good which it effects, while the evil inflicted is infusedthroughout the mass. The one strikes the eye at a first glance, whilethe other becomes perceptible only to close investigation. With regardto free trade, precisely the reverse is the case. 

It is thus with almost all questions of political economy. 

If you say, for instance: There is a machine which has turned out ofemployment thirty workmen;

Or again: There is a spendthrift who encourages every kind of industry;

Or: The conquest of Algiers has doubled the commerce of Marseilles;

Or, once more: The public taxes support one hundred thousand families;

You are understood at once; your propositions are clear, simple, andtrue in themselves. If you deduce from them the principle that

Machines are an evil;

That sumptuous extravagance, conquest, and heavy imposts are blessings;

Your theory will have the more success, because you will be able to baseit upon indisputable facts. 

But we, for our part, cannot stop at a cause and its immediate effect;for we know that this effect may in its turn become itself a cause. Tojudge of a measure, it is necessary that we should follow it from stepto step, from result to result, until through the successive links ofthe chain of events we arrive at the final effect. We must, in short, _reason_. 

But here we are assailed by clamorous exclamations: You are theorists, metaphysicians, ideologists, utopians, men of maxims! and immediatelyall the prejudices of the public are against us. 

What then shall we do? We must invoke the patience and candor of thereader, giving to our deductions, if we are capable of it, sufficientclearness to throw forward at once, without disguise or palliation, thetrue and the false, in order, once for all, to determine whether thevictory should be for Restriction or Free Trade. 

I wish here to make a remark of some importance. 

Some extracts from this volume have appeared in the "_Journal desEconomistes_. "

In an article otherwise quite complimentary published by the Viscount deRomanet (see _Moniteur Industriel_ of the 15th and 18th of May, 1845), he intimates that I ask for the _suppression of custom houses_. Mr. DeRomanet is mistaken. I ask for the suppression of the _protectivepolicy_. We do not dispute the right of _government_ to impose taxes, but would, if possible, dissuade _producers_ from taxing one another. Itwas said by Napoleon that duties should never be a fiscal instrument, but a means of protecting industry. We plead the contrary, and say, thatduties should never be made an instrument of reciprocal rapine; but thatthey may be employed as a useful fiscal machine. I am so far from askingfor the suppression of duties, that I look upon them as the anchor onwhich the future salvation of our finances will depend. I believe thatthey may bring immense receipts into the treasury, and, to give myentire and undisguised opinion, I am inclined, from the slow progress ofhealthy, economical doctrines, and from the magnitude of our budget, tohope more for the cause of commercial reform from the necessities ofthe Treasury than from the force of an enlightened public opinion. 

I. 

ABUNDANCE--SCARCITY. 

Which is the best for man or for society, abundance or scarcity?

How, it may be exclaimed, can such a question be asked? Has it ever beenpretended, is it possible to maintain, that scarcity can be the basis ofa man's happiness?

Yes; this has been maintained, this is daily maintained; and I do nothesitate to say that the _scarcity theory_ is by far the most popular ofthe day. It furnishes the subject of discussions, in conversations, journals, books, courts of justice; and extraordinary as it may appear, it is certain that political economy will have fulfilled its task andits practical mission, when it shall have rendered common andirrefutable the simple proposition that "in abundance consist man'sriches. "

Do we not hear it said every day, "Foreign nations are inundating uswith their productions"? Then we fear abundance. 

Has not Mr. De Saint Cricq said, "Production is superabundant"? Then hefears abundance. 

Do we not see workmen destroying and breaking machinery? They arefrightened by the excess of production; in other words, they fearabundance. 

Has not Mr. Bugeaud said, "Let bread be dear and the agriculturist willbe rich"? Now bread can only be dear because it is scarce. Then Mr. Bugeaud lauded scarcity. 

Has not Mr. D'Argout produced the fruitfulness of the sugar culture asan argument against it? Has he not said, "The beet cannot have apermanent and extended cultivation, because a few acres given up to itin each department, would furnish sufficient for the consumption of allFrance"? Then, in his opinion, good consists in sterility and scarcity, evil in fertility and abundance. 

"_La Presse_, " "_Le Commerce_, " and the majority of our journals, are, every day, publishing articles whose aim is to prove to the chambers andto government that a wise policy should seek to raise prices by tariffs;and do we not daily see these powers obeying these injunctions of thepress? Now, tariffs can only raise prices by diminishing the quantity ofgoods offered for sale. Then, here we see newspapers, the legislature, the ministry, all guided by the scarcity theory, and I was correct in mystatement that this theory is by far the most popular. 

How then has it happened, that in the eyes at once of laborers, editorsand statesmen, abundance should appear alarming, and scarcityadvantageous? It is my intention to endeavor to show the origin of thisdelusion. 

A man becomes rich, in proportion to the profitableness of his labor;that is to say, _in proportion as he sells his productions at a highprice_. The price of his productions is high in proportion to theirscarcity. It is plain then, that, as far as regards him at least, scarcity enriches him. Applying successively this mode of reasoning toeach class of laborers individually, the _scarcity theory_ is deducedfrom it. To put this theory into practice, and in order to favor eachclass of labor, an artificial scarcity is forced in every kind ofproduction, by prohibition, restriction, suppression of machinery, andother analogous measures. 

In the same manner it is observed that when an article is abundant itbrings a small price. The gains of the producer are, of course, less. Ifthis is the case with all produce, all producers are then poor. Abundance then ruins society. And as any strong conviction will alwaysseek to force itself into practice, we see, in many countries, the lawsaiming to prevent abundance. 

This sophism, stated in a general form, would produce but a slightimpression. But when applied to any particular order of facts, to anyparticular article of industry, to any one class of labor, it isextremely specious, because it is a syllogism which is not _false_, but_incomplete_. And what is true in a syllogism always necessarilypresents itself to the mind, while the _incomplete_, which is a negativequality, an unknown value, is easily forgotten in the calculation. 

Man produces in order to consume. He is at once producer and consumer. The argument given above, considers him only under the first point ofview. Let us look at him in the second character and the conclusion willbe different. We may say, The consumer is rich in proportion as he _buys_ at a low price. He buysat a low price in proportion to the abundance of the article in demand;abundance then enriches him. This reasoning extended to all consumersmust lead to the _theory of abundance_!

It is the imperfectly understood notion of exchange of produce whichleads to these fallacies. If we consult our individual interest, weperceive immediately that it is double. As _sellers_ we are interestedin high prices, consequently in scarcity. As _buyers_ our advantage isin cheapness, or what is the same thing, abundance. It is impossiblethen to found a proper system of reasoning upon either the one or theother of these separate interests before determining which of the twocoincides and identifies itself with the general and permanent interestsof mankind. 

If man were a solitary animal, working exclusively for himself, consuming the fruit of his own personal labor; if, in a word, he did notexchange his produce, the theory of scarcity could never have introduceditself into the world. It would be too strikingly evident, thatabundance, whencesoever derived, is advantageous to him, whether thisabundance might be the result of his own labor, of ingenious tools, orof powerful machinery; whether due to the fertility of the soil, to theliberality of nature, or to an _inundation_ of foreign goods, such asthe sea bringing from distant regions might cast upon his shores. Neverwould the solitary man have dreamed, in order to encourage his ownlabor, of destroying his instruments for facilitating his work, ofneutralizing the fertility of the soil, or of casting back into the seathe produce of its bounty. He would understand that his labor was a_means_ not an _end_, and that it would be absurd to reject the object, in order to encourage the means. He would understand that if he hasrequired two hours per day to supply his necessities, any thing whichspares him an hour of this labor, leaving the result the same, gives himthis hour to dispose of as he pleases in adding to his comforts. In aword, he would understand that every step in the _saving of labor_, is astep in the improvement of his condition. But traffic clouds our visionin the contemplation of this simple truth. In a state of society withthe division of labor to which it leads, the production and consumptionof an article no longer belong to the same individual. Each now looksupon his labor not as a means, but as an end. The exchange of producecreates with regard to each object two separate interests, that of theproducer and that of the consumer; and these two interests are alwaysdirectly opposed to each other. 

It is essential to analyze and study the nature of each. Let us thensuppose a producer of whatever kind; what is his immediate interest? Itconsists in two things: 1st, that the smallest possible number ofindividuals should devote themselves to the business which he follows;and 2dly, that the greatest possible number should seek the articles ofhis produce. In the more succinct terms of Political Economy, the supplyshould be small, the demand large; or yet in other words: limitedcompetition, unlimited consumption. 

What on the other side is the immediate interest of the consumer? Thatthe supply should be large, the demand small. 

As these two interests are immediately opposed to each other, it followsthat if one coincides with the general interest of society the othermust be adverse to it. 

Which then, if either, should legislation favor as contributing most tothe good of the community?

To determine this question, it suffices to inquire in which the secretdesires of the majority of men would be accomplished. 

Inasmuch as we are producers, it must be confessed that we have each ofus anti-social desires. Are we vine-growers? It would not distress _us_were the frost to nip all the vines in the world except our own: _thisis the scarcity theory_. Are we iron-workers? We would desire (whatevermight be the public need) that the market should offer no iron but ourown; and precisely for the reason that this need, painfully felt andimperfectly supplied, causes us to receive a high price for _our_ iron:_again here is the theory of scarcity_. Are we agriculturists? We saywith Mr. Bugeaud, let bread be dear, that is to say scarce, and ourbusiness goes well: _again the theory of scarcity_. 

Are we physicians? We cannot but see that certain physicalameliorations, such as the improved climate of the country, thedevelopment of certain moral virtues, the progress of knowledge pushedto the extent of enabling each individual to take care of his ownhealth, the discovery of certain simple remedies easily applied, wouldbe so many fatal blows to our profession. As physicians, then, oursecret desires are anti-social. I must not be understood to imply thatphysicians allow themselves to form such desires. I am happy to believethat they would hail with joy a universal panacea. But in such asentiment it is the man, the Christian, who manifests himself, and whoby a praiseworthy abnegation of self, takes that point of view of thequestion, which belongs to the consumer. As a physician exercising hisprofession, and gaining from this profession his standing in society, his comforts, even the means of existence of his family, it isimpossible but that his desires, or if you please so to word it, hisinterests, should be anti-social. 

Are we manufacturers of cotton goods? We desire to sell them at theprice most advantageous to _ourselves_. We would willingly consent tothe suppression of all rival manufactories. And if we dare not publiclyexpress this desire, or pursue the complete realization of it with somesuccess, we do so, at least to a certain extent, by indirect means; asfor example, the exclusion of foreign goods, in order to diminish the_quantity offered_, and to produce thus by forcible means, and for ourown profits, a _scarcity_ of clothing. 

We might thus pass in review every business and every profession, andshould always find that the producers, _in their character ofproducers_, have invariably anti-social interests. "The shop-keeper(says Montaigne) succeeds in his business through the extravagance ofyouth; the laborer by the high price of grain; the architect by thedecay of houses; officers of justice by lawsuits and quarrels. Thestanding and occupation even of ministers of religion are drawn from ourdeath and our vices. No physician takes pleasure in the health even ofhis friends; no soldier in the peace of his country; and so on withall. "

If then the secret desires of each producer were realized, the worldwould rapidly retrograde towards barbarism. The sail would proscribesteam; the oar would proscribe the sail, only in its turn to give way towagons, the wagon to the mule, and the mule to the foot-peddler. Woolwould exclude cotton; cotton would exclude wool; and thus on, until thescarcity and want of every thing would cause man himself to disappearfrom the face of the globe. 

If we now go on to consider the immediate interest of the _consumer_, weshall find it in perfect harmony with the public interest, and with thewell-being of humanity. When the buyer presents himself in the market, he desires to find it abundantly furnished. He sees with pleasurepropitious seasons for harvesting; wonderful inventions putting withinhis reach the largest possible quantity of produce; time and laborsaved; distances effaced; the spirit of peace and justice diminishingthe weight of taxes; every barrier to improvement cast down; and in allthis his interest runs parallel with an enlightened public interest. Hemay push his secret desires to an absurd and chimerical height, butnever can they cease to be humanizing in their tendency. He may desirethat food and clothing, house and hearth, instruction and morality, security and peace, strength and health, should come to us without limitand without labor or effort on our part, as the water of the stream, theair which we breathe, and the sunbeams in which we bask, but never couldthe realization of his most extravagant wishes run counter to the goodof society. 

It may be said, perhaps, that were these desires granted, the labor ofthe producer constantly checked would end by being entirely arrestedfor want of support. But why? Because in this extreme supposition everyimaginable need and desire would be completely satisfied. Man, like theAll-powerful, would create by the single act of his will. How in such anhypothesis could laborious production be regretted?

Imagine a legislative assembly composed of producers, of whom eachmember should cause to pass into a law his secret desire as a_producer_; the code which would emanate from such an assembly could benothing but systematized monopoly; the scarcity theory put intopractice. 

In the same manner, an assembly in which each member should consult onlyhis immediate interest of _consumer_ would aim at the systematizing offree trade; the suppression of every restrictive measure; thedestruction of artificial barriers; in a word, would realize the theoryof abundance. 

It follows then, That to consult exclusively the immediate interest of the producer, isto consult an anti-social interest. 

To take exclusively for basis the interest of the consumer, is to takefor basis the general interest. 

 * * * * *

Let me be permitted to insist once more upon this point of view, thoughat the risk of repetition. 

A radical antagonism exists between the seller and the buyer. 

The former wishes the article offered to be _scarce_, supply small, andat a high price. 

The latter wishes it _abundant_, supply large, and at a low price. 

The laws, which should at least remain neutral, take part for the selleragainst the buyer; for the producer against the consumer; for highagainst low prices; for scarcity against abundance. They act, if notintentionally at least logically, upon the principle that _a nation isrich in proportion as it is in want of every thing_. 

For, say they, it is necessary to favor the producer by securing him aprofitable disposal of his goods. To effect this, their price must beraised; to raise the price the supply must be diminished; and todiminish the supply is to create scarcity. 

Let us suppose that at this moment, with these laws in full action, acomplete inventory should be made, not by value, but by weight, measureand quantity, of all articles now in France calculated to supply thenecessities and pleasures of its inhabitants; as grain, meat, woollenand cotton goods, fuel, etc. 

Let us suppose again that to-morrow every barrier to the introduction offoreign goods should be removed. 

Then, to judge of the effect of such a reform, let a new inventory bemade three months hence. 

Is it not certain that at the time of the second inventory, thequantity of grain, cattle, goods, iron, coal, sugar, etc. , will begreater than at the first?

So true is this, that the sole object of our protective tariffs is toprevent such articles from reaching us, to diminish the supply, toprevent low prices, or which is the same thing, the abundance of goods. 

Now I ask, are the people under the action of these laws better fedbecause there is _less_ bread, _less_ meat, and _less_ sugar in thecountry? Are they better dressed because there are _fewer_ goods? Betterwarmed because there is _less_ coal? Or do they prosper better in theirlabor because iron, copper, tools and machinery are scarce?

But, it is answered, if we are inundated with foreign goods and produce, our coin will leave the country. 

Well, and what matters that? Man is not fed with coin. He does not dressin gold, nor warm himself with silver. What difference does it makewhether there be more or less coin in the country, provided there bemore bread in the cupboard, more meat in the larder, more clothing inthe press, and more wood in the cellar?

 * * * * *

To Restrictive Laws, I offer this dilemma:

Either you allow that you produce scarcity, or you do not allow it. 

If you allow it, you confess at once that your end is to injure thepeople as much as possible. If you do not allow it, then you deny yourpower to diminish the supply, to raise the price, and consequently youdeny having favored the producer. 

You are either injurious or inefficient. You can never be useful. 

II. 

OBSTACLE--CAUSE. 

The obstacle mistaken for the cause--scarcity mistaken for abundance. The sophism is the same. It is well to study it under every aspect. 

Man naturally is in a state of entire destitution. 

Between this state and the satisfying of his wants, there exists amultitude of _obstacles_ which it is the object of labor to surmount. Itis interesting to seek how and why he could have been led to look evenupon these obstacles to his happiness as the cause of it. 

I wish to take a journey of some hundred miles. But, between the pointof my departure and my destination, there are interposed, mountains, rivers, swamps, forests, robbers--in a word, _obstacles_; and to conquerthese obstacles, it is necessary that I should bestow much labor andgreat efforts in opposing them;--or, what is the same thing, if othersdo it for me, I must pay them the value of their exertions. It isevident that I should have been better off had these obstacles neverexisted. 

Through the journey of life, in the long series of days from the cradleto the tomb, man has many difficulties to oppose him in his progress. Hunger, thirst, sickness, heat, cold, are so many obstacles scatteredalong his road. In a state of isolation, he would be obliged to combatthem all by hunting, fishing, agriculture, spinning, weaving, architecture, etc. , and it is very evident that it would be better forhim that these difficulties should exist to a less degree, or even notat all. In a state of society he is not obliged, personally, to strugglewith each of these obstacles, but others do it for him; and he, inreturn, must remove some one of them for the benefit of his fellow-men. 

Again it is evident, that, considering mankind as a whole, it would bebetter for society that these obstacles should be as weak and as few aspossible. 

But if we examine closely and in detail the phenomena of society, andthe private interests of men as modified by exchange of produce, weperceive, without difficulty, how it has happened that wants have beenconfounded with riches, and the obstacle with the cause. 

The separation of occupations, which results from the habits ofexchange, causes each man, instead of struggling against all surroundingobstacles to combat only _one_; the effort being made not for himselfalone, but for the benefit of his fellows, who, in their turn, render asimilar service to him. 

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

A physician, for instance, does not busy himself in baking his bread, orin manufacturing his clothing and his instruments; others do it for him, and he, in return, combats the maladies with which his patients areafflicted. The more dangerous and frequent these maladies are, the moreothers are willing, the more, even, are they forced, to work in hisservice. Disease, then, which is an obstacle to the happiness ofmankind, becomes to him the source of his comforts. The reasoning of allproducers is, in what concerns themselves, the same. As the doctor drawshis profits from disease, so does the ship owner from the obstaclecalled _distance_; the agriculturist from that named _hunger_; the clothmanufacturer from _cold_; the schoolmaster lives upon _ignorance_, thejeweler upon _vanity_, the lawyer upon _quarrels_, the notary upon_breach of faith_. Each profession has then an immediate interest inthe continuation, even in the extension, of the particular obstacle towhich 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-beingis well-being: To multiply obstacles is to give food to industry. 

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

The same reasoning will lead to the suppression of machinery. 

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

To sift thoroughly this sophism, it is sufficient to remember that humanlabor is not an _end_, but a _means_. _It is never without employment. _If one obstacle is removed, it seizes another, and mankind is deliveredfrom two obstacles by the same effort which was at first necessary forone. If the labor of coopers becomes useless, it must take anotherdirection. But with what, it may be asked, will they be remunerated?Precisely with what they are at present remunerated. For if a certainquantity of labor becomes free from its original occupation, to beotherwise disposed of, a corresponding quantity of wages must thus alsobecome free. To maintain that human labor can end by wanting employment, it would be necessary to prove that mankind will cease to encounterobstacles. In such a case, labor would be not only impossible, it wouldbe superfluous. We should have nothing to do, because we should beall-powerful, and our _fiat_ alone would satisfy at once our wants andour desires. 

III. 

EFFORT--RESULT. 

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

But by what do we measure our well-being? By the _result_ of our effort, or by the _effort itself_? There exists always a proportion between theeffort employed and the result obtained. Does progress consist in therelative increase of the second or of the first term of this proportion?

Both propositions have been sustained, and in political economy opinionsare divided between them. 

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

The second system maintains that it is the effort itself which forms themeasure of, and constitutes, our riches. Progression is the increase ofthe _proportion of the effort to the result_. Its ideal extreme may berepresented by the eternal and fruitless efforts of Sisyphus. [7]

[Footnote 7: We will therefore beg the reader to allow us in future, forthe sake of conciseness, to designate this system under the term of_Sisyphism_. ]

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

The second as logically inclines to every thing which can augment thedifficulty and diminish the product; as privileges, monopolies, restrictions, prohibitions, suppression of machinery, sterility, etc. 

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

The opposite doctrine is in use with legislators, editors, statesmen, men whose business is to make experiments upon society. And even ofthese we may observe, that in what personally concerns _themselves_, they act, like every body else, upon the principle of obtaining fromtheir 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 extremestconsequences. And this must always be the case when one starts upon awrong principle, because the absurd and injurious results to which itleads, cannot but check it in its progress. For this reason, practicalindustry never can admit of _Sisyphism_. The error is too quicklyfollowed by its punishment to remain concealed. But in the speculativeindustry of theorists and statesmen, a false principle may be for a longtime followed up, before the complication of its consequences, only halfunderstood, can prove its falsity; and even when all is revealed, theopposite principle is acted upon, self is contradicted, andjustification sought, in the incomparably absurd modern axiom, that inpolitical economy there is no principle universally true. 

Let us see then, if the two opposite principles I have laid down do notpredominate, each in its turn;--the one in practical industry, the otherin industrial legislation. 

I have already quoted some words of Mr. Bugeaud; but we must look on Mr. Bugeaud in two separate characters, the agriculturist and thelegislator. 

As agriculturist, Mr. Bugeaud makes every effort to attain the doubleobject of sparing labor, and obtaining bread cheap. When he prefers agood 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 actionof the atmosphere for that of the hoe or the harrow; when he calls tohis aid every improvement that science and experience have revealed, hehas, and can have, but one object, viz. , _to diminish the proportion ofthe effort to the result_. We have indeed no other means of judging ofthe success of an agriculturist, or of the merits of his system, but byobserving how far he has succeeded in lessening the one, while heincreases the other; and as all the farmers in the world act upon thisprinciple, we may say that all mankind are seeking, no doubt for theirown advantage, to obtain at the lowest price, bread, or whatever otherarticle of produce they may need, always diminishing the effortnecessary for obtaining any given quantity thereof. 

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

Yet we have heard Mr. Bugeaud in his character of legislator, exclaim, "I do not understand this theory of cheapness; I would rather see breaddear, and work more abundant. " And consequently the deputy from Dordognevotes in favor of legislative measures whose effect is to shackle andimpede commerce, precisely because by so doing we are prevented fromprocuring by exchange, and at low price, what direct production can onlyfurnish more expensively. 

Now it is very evident that the system of Mr. Bugeaud the deputy, isdirectly opposed to that of Mr. Bugeaud the agriculturist. Were heconsistent with himself, he would as legislator vote against allrestriction; or else as farmer, he would practice in his fields the sameprinciple which he proclaims in the public councils. We should then seehim sowing his grain in his most sterile fields, because he would thussucceed in _laboring much_, to _obtain little_. We should see himforbidding the use of the plough, because he could, by scratching up thesoil with his nails, fully gratify his double wish of "_dear bread_ and_abundant labor_. "

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

Baron Charles Dupin, who is looked upon as the oracle of the peerage inthe science of political economy, accuses railroads of _injuringshipping_, and it is certainly true that the most perfect means ofattaining an object must always limit the use of a less perfect means. But railways can only injure shipping by drawing from it articles oftransportation; this they can only do by transporting more cheaply; andthey can only transport more cheaply, by _diminishing the proportion ofthe effort employed to the result obtained_; for it is in this thatcheapness consists. When, therefore, Baron Dupin laments the suppressionof labor in attaining a given result, he maintains the doctrine of_Sisyphism_. Logically, if he prefers the vessel to the railway, heshould also prefer the wagon to the vessel, the pack-saddle to thewagon, and the wallet to the pack-saddle; for this is, of all knownmeans of transportation, the one which requires the greatest amount oflabor, in proportion to the result obtained. 

"Labor constitutes the riches of the people, " said Mr. De Saint Cricq, aminister who has laid not a few shackles upon our commerce. This was noelliptical expression, meaning that the "results of labor constitute theriches of the people. " No, --this statesman intended to say, that it isthe _intensity_ of labor, which measures riches; and the proof of thisis, that from step to step, from restriction to restriction, he forcedon France (and in so doing believed that he was doing well) to give tothe procuring, of, for instance, a certain quantity of iron, double thenecessary labor. In England, iron was then at eight francs; in France itcost sixteen. Supposing the day's work to be worth one franc, it isevident that France could, by barter, procure a quintal of iron by eightdays' labor taken from the labor of the nation. Thanks to therestrictive measures of Mr. De Saint Cricq, sixteen days' work werenecessary to procure it, by direct production. Here then we have doublelabor for an identical result; therefore double riches; and riches, measured not by the result, but by the intensity of labor. Is not thispure and unadulterated _Sisyphism_?

That there may be nothing equivocal, the minister carries his idea stillfarther, and on the same principle that we have heard him call theintensity of labor _riches_, we will find him calling the abundantresults of labor, and the plenty of every thing proper to the satisfyingof our wants, _poverty_. "Every where, " he remarks, "machinery haspushed aside manual labor; every where production is superabundant;every where the equilibrium is destroyed between the power of productionand that of consumption. " Here then we see that, according to Mr. DeSaint Cricq, if France was in a critical situation, it was because herproductions were too abundant; there was too much intelligence, toomuch efficiency in her national labor. We were too well fed, too wellclothed, too well supplied with every thing; the rapid production wasmore than sufficient for our wants. It was necessary to put an end tothis calamity, and therefore it became needful to force us, byrestrictions, to work more, in order to produce less. 

I also touched upon an opinion expressed by another minister ofcommerce, Mr. D'Argout, which is worthy of being a little more closelylooked into. Wishing to give a death blow to the beet, he said: "Theculture of the beet is undoubtedly useful, _but this usefulness islimited_. It is not capable of the prodigious developments which havebeen predicted of it. To be convinced of this it is enough to remarkthat the cultivation of it must necessarily be confined within thelimits of consumption. Double, treble if you will, the presentconsumption of France, and _you will still find that a very smallportion of her soil will suffice for this consumption_. (Truly a mostsingular cause of complaint!) Do you wish the proof of this? How manyhectares were planted in beets in the year 1828? 3, 130, which is1-10540th of our cultivable soil. How many are there at this time, whenour domestic sugar supplies one-third of the consumption of the country?16, 700 hectares, or 1-1978th of the cultivable soil, or 45 centiares foreach commune. Suppose that our domestic sugar should monopolize thesupply of the whole consumption, we still would have but 48, 000 hectaresor 1-689th of our cultivable soil in beets. "[8]

[Footnote 8: In justice to Mr. D'Argout we should say that this singularlanguage is given by him as the argument of the enemies of the beet. Buthe made it his own, and sanctioned it by the law in justification ofwhich he adduced it. ]

There are two things to consider in this quotation. The facts and thedoctrine. The facts go to prove that very little soil, capital, andlabor would be necessary for the production of a large quantity ofsugar; and that each commune of France would be abundantly provided withit by giving up one hectare to its cultivation. The peculiarity of thedoctrine consists in the looking upon this facility of production as anunfortunate circumstance, and the regarding the very fruitfulness ofthis new branch of industry as a _limitation to its usefulness_. 

It is not my purpose here to constitute myself the defender of the beet, or the judge of the singular facts stated by Mr. D'Argout, but it isworth the trouble of examining into the doctrines of a statesman, towhose judgment France, for a long time, confided the fate of heragriculture and her commerce. 

I began by saying that a variable proportion exists in all industrialpursuits, between the effort and the result. Absolute imperfectionconsists in an infinite effort, without any result; absolute perfectionin an unlimited result, without any effort; and perfectibility, in theprogressive diminution of the effort, compared with the result. 

But Mr. D'Argout tells us, that where we looked for life, we shall findonly death. The importance of any object of industry is, according tohim, in direct proportion to its feebleness. What, for instance, can weexpect from the beet? Do you not see that 48, 000 hectares of land, withcapital and labor in proportion, will suffice to furnish sugar to allFrance? It is then an object of _limited usefulness_; limited, be itunderstood, in the _work_ which it calls for; and this is the solemeasure, according to our minister, of the usefulness of any pursuit. This usefulness would be much more limited still, if, thanks to thefertility of the soil, or the richness of the beet, 24, 000 hectareswould serve instead of 48, 000. If there were only needed twenty times, ahundred times more soil, more capital, more labor, to _attain the sameresult_--Oh! then some hopes might be founded upon this article ofindustry; it would be worthy of the protection of the state, for itwould open a vast field to national labor. But to produce much withlittle is a bad example, and the laws ought to set things to rights. 

What is true with regard to sugar, cannot be false with regard to bread. If therefore the usefulness of an object of industry is to becalculated, not by the comforts which it can furnish with a certainquantum of labor, but, on the contrary, by the increase of labor whichit requires in order to furnish a certain quantity of comforts, it isevident that we ought to desire, that each acre of land should producelittle corn, and that each grain of corn should furnish littlenutriment; in other words, that our territory should be sterile enoughto require a considerably larger proportion of soil, capital, and laborto nourish its population. The demand for human labor could not fail tobe in direct proportion to this sterility, and then truly would thewishes of Messrs. Bugeaud, Saint Cricq, Dupin, and d'Argout besatisfied; bread would be dear, work abundant, and France would berich--rich according to the understanding of these gentlemen. 

All that we could have further to hope for, would be, that humanintellect might sink and become extinct; for, while intellect exists, itcan but seek continually to increase the _proportion of the end to themeans; of the product to the labor_. Indeed it is in this continuouseffort, and in this alone, that intellect consists. 

_Sisyphism_ has then been the doctrine of all those who have beenintrusted with the regulation of the industry of our country. It wouldnot be just to reproach them with this; for this principle becomes thatof our ministry, only because it prevails in the chambers; it prevailsin the chambers, only because it is sent there by the electoral body;and the electoral body is imbued with it, only because public opinionis filled with it to repletion. 

Let me repeat here, that I do not accuse such men as Messrs. Bugeaud, Dupin, Saint Cricq, and d'Argout, of being absolutely and always_Sisyphists_. Very certainly they are not such in their personaltransactions; very certainly each one of them will procure for himself_by barter_, what by _direct production_ would be attainable only at ahigher price. But I maintain that they are _Sisyphists_ when theyprevent the country from acting upon the same principle. 

IV. 

EQUALIZING OF THE FACILITIES OF PRODUCTION. 

It is said . .. But, for fear of being accused of manufacturing Sophismsfor the mouths of the protectionists, I will allow one of their mostable reasoners to speak for himself. 

"It is our belief that protection should correspond to, should be therepresentation of, the difference which exists between the price of anarticle of home production and a similar article of foreignproduction. .. . A protecting duty calculated upon such a basis doesnothing more than secure free competition; . .. Free competition canonly exist where there is an equality in the facilities of production. In a horse-race the load which each horse carries is weighed and alladvantages equalized; otherwise there could be no competition. Incommerce, if one producer can undersell all others, he ceases to be acompetitor and becomes a monopolist. .. . Suppress the protection whichrepresents the difference of price according to each, and foreignproductions must immediately inundate and obtain the monopoly of ourmarket. "[9]

[Footnote 9: M. Le Vicomte de Romanet. ]

"Every one ought to wish, for his own sake and for that of thecommunity, that the productions of the country should be protectedagainst foreign competition, _whenever the latter may be able toundersell the former_. "[10]

[Footnote 10: Mathieu de Dombasle. ]

This argument is constantly recurring in all writings of theprotectionist school. It is my intention to make a careful investigationof its merits, and I must begin by soliciting the attention and thepatience of the reader. I will first examine into the inequalities whichdepend upon natural causes, and afterwards into those which are causedby diversity of taxes. 

Here, as elsewhere, we find the theorists who favor protection, takingpart with the producer. Let us consider the case of the unfortunateconsumer, who seems to have entirely escaped their attention. Theycompare the field of production to the _turf_. But on the turf, the raceis at once a _means and an end_. The public has no interest in thestruggle, independent of the struggle itself. When your horses arestarted in the course with the single object of determining which is thebest runner, nothing is more natural than that their burdens should beequalized. But if your object were to send an important and criticalpiece of intelligence, could you without incongruity place obstacles tothe speed of that one whose fleetness would secure the best means ofattaining 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. 

But we cannot lead our opponents to look at things from our point ofview, 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 thefoundations of all trade. 

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

3. That, even were this the case, protective duties cannot equalize thefacilities 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 thosewhich profit most by freedom of trade. 

I. The equalizing of the facilities of production, is not only theshackling of certain articles of commerce, but it is the attacking ofthe system of mutual exchange in its very foundation principle. For thissystem is based precisely upon the very diversities, or, if theexpression be preferred, upon the inequalities of fertility, climate, temperature, capabilities, which the protectionists seek to render null. If Guyenne sends its wines to Brittany, and Brittany sends corn toGuyenne, it is because these two provinces are, from differentcircumstances, induced to turn their attention to the production ofdifferent articles. Is there any other rule for international exchanges?Again, to bring against such exchanges the very inequalities ofcondition which excite and explain them, is to attack them in their verycause of being. The protective system, closely followed up, would bringmen to live like snails, in a state of complete isolation. In short, there is not one of its Sophisms, which if carried through by vigorousdeductions, would not end in destruction and annihilation. 

II. It is not true that the unequal facility of production, in twosimilar branches of industry, should necessarily cause the destructionof the one which is the least fortunate. On the turf, if one horse gainsthe prize, the other loses it; but when two horses work to produce anyuseful article, each produces in proportion to his strength; and becausethe stronger is the more useful, it does not follow that the weaker isgood for nothing. Wheat is cultivated in every department of France, although there are great differences in the degree of fertility existingamong them. If it happens that there be one which does not cultivate it, it is because, even to itself, such cultivation is not useful. Analogywill show us, that under the influence of an unshackled trade, notwithstanding similar differences, wheat would be produced in everykingdom of Europe; and if any one were induced to abandon entirely thecultivation of it, this would only be, because it would _be herinterest_ to employ otherwise her lands, her capital, and her labor. Andwhy does not the fertility of one department paralyze the agriculture ofa neighboring and less favored one? Because the phenomena of politicaleconomy have a suppleness, an elasticity, and, so to speak, _aself-leveling power_, which seems to escape the attention of the schoolof protectionists. They accuse us of being theorists, but it isthemselves who are theorists to a supreme degree, if being theoreticconsists in building up systems upon the experience of a single fact, instead of profiting by the experience of a series of facts. In theabove example, it is the difference in the value of lands, whichcompensates for the difference in their fertility. Your field producesthree times as much as mine. Yes. But it has cost you three times asmuch, and therefore I can still compete with you: this is the solemystery. And observe how the advantage on one point leads todisadvantage on the other. Precisely because your soil is more fruitful, it is more dear. It is not _accidentally_ but _necessarily_ that theequilibrium is established, or at least inclines to establish itself;and can it be denied that perfect freedom in exchanges is, of all thesystems, the one which favors this tendency?

I have cited an agricultural example; I might as easily have taken onefrom any trade. There are tailors at Quimper, but that does not preventtailors from being in Paris also, although the latter have to pay a muchhigher rent, as well as higher price for furniture, workmen, and food. But their customers are sufficiently numerous not only to re-establishthe 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 isnot the best umpire. 

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

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

We must examine the proposition under other aspects. For the present, Istop at the question, whether, when an advantage and a disadvantage areplaced in juxtaposition, they do not bear in themselves, the former adescending, the latter an ascending power, which must end by placingthem in a just equilibrium. 

Let us suppose the countries A and B. A has every advantage over B; youthence conclude that labor will be concentrated upon A, while B must beabandoned. A, you say, sells much more than it buys; B buys more than itsells. 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 invalue; while labor, iron, coal, lands, food, capital, all being littlesought after in B, soon fall in price. 

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

But where there is abundance of cash, it follows that in all purchases alarge proportion of it will be needed. Then in A, _real dearness_, whichproceeds from a very active demand, is added to _nominal dearness_, theconsequence of a superabundance of the precious metals. 

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

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

Now, to return to what would be the true course of things. As theprogress of such events is always gradual, industry from its naturebeing opposed to sudden transits, let us suppose that, without waitingthe extreme point, it will have gradually divided itself between A andB, according to the laws of supply and demand; that is to say, accordingto the laws of justice and usefulness. 

I do not advance an empty hypothesis when I say, that were it possiblethat industry should concentrate itself upon a single point, there must, from its nature, arise spontaneously, and in its midst, an irresistiblepower of decentralization. 

We will quote the words of a manufacturer to the Chamber of Commerce atManchester (the figures brought into his demonstration are suppressed):

"Formerly we exported goods; this exportation gave way to that of threadfor the manufacture of goods; later, instead of thread, we exportedmachinery for the making of thread; then capital for the constructionof machinery; and lastly, workmen and talent, which are the source ofcapital. All these elements of labor have, one after the other, transferred themselves to other points, where their profits wereincreased, and where the means of subsistence being less difficult toobtain, life is maintained at a less cost. There are at present to beseen in Prussia, Austria, Saxony, Switzerland, and Italy, immensemanufacturing establishments, founded entirely by English capital, worked by English labor, and directed by English talent. "

We may here perceive, that Nature, or rather Providence, with morewisdom and foresight than the narrow rigid system of the protectionistscan suppose, does not permit the concentration of labor, the monopoly ofadvantages, from which they draw their arguments as from an absolute andirremediable fact. It has, by means as simple as they are infallible, provided for dispersion, diffusion, mutual dependence, and simultaneousprogress; all of which, your restrictive laws paralyze as much as is intheir power, by their tendency towards the isolation of nations. By thismeans they render much more decided the differences existing in theconditions of production; they check the self-leveling power ofindustry, prevent fusion of interests, and fence in each nation withinits own peculiar advantages and disadvantages. 

III. To say that by a protective law the conditions of production areequalized, is to disguise an error under false terms. It is not truethat an import duty equalizes the conditions of production. These remainafter the imposition of the duty just as they were before. The most thatthe law can do is to equalize the _conditions of sale_. If it should besaid that I am playing upon words, I retort the accusation upon myadversaries. It is for them to prove that _production_ and _sale_ aresynonymous terms, which if they cannot do, I have a right to accusethem, if not of playing upon words, at least of confounding them. 

Let me be permitted to exemplify my idea. 

Suppose that several Parisian speculators should determine to devotethemselves to the production of oranges. They know that the oranges ofPortugal can be sold in Paris at ten centimes, whilst on account of theboxes, hot-houses, etc. , which are necessary to ward against theseverity of our climate, it is impossible to raise them at less than afranc apiece. They accordingly demand a duty of ninety centimes uponPortugal oranges. With the help of this duty, say they, the _conditionsof production_ will be equalized. The legislative body, yielding asusual to this argument, imposes a duty of ninety centimes on eachforeign orange. 

Now I say that the _relative conditions of production_ are in no wisechanged. The law can take nothing from the heat of the sun in Lisbon, nor from the severity of the frosts in Paris. Oranges continuing tomature themselves _naturally_ on the banks of the Tagus, andartificially upon those of the Seine, must continue to require for theirproduction much more labor on the latter than the former. The law canonly equalize the _conditions of sale_. It is evident that while thePortuguese sell their oranges at a franc apiece, the ninety centimeswhich go to pay the tax are taken from the French consumer. Now look atthe whimsicality of the result. Upon each Portuguese orange, the countryloses nothing; for the ninety centimes which the consumer pays tosatisfy the tax, enter into the treasury. There is improperdistribution, but no loss. Upon each French orange consumed, there willbe about ninety centimes lost; for while the buyer very certainly losesthem, the seller just as certainly does not gain them, for evenaccording to the hypothesis, he will receive only the price ofproduction. I will leave it to the protectionists to draw theirconclusion. 

IV. I have laid some stress upon this distinction between the conditionsof production and those of sale, which perhaps the prohibitionists mayconsider as paradoxical, because it leads me on to what they willconsider as a still stranger paradox. This is: If you really wish toequalize the facilities of production, leave trade free. 

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

If we suppose for the moment, that the common and daily profits of eachFrenchman amount to one franc, it will indisputably follow that toproduce an orange by _direct_ labor in France, one day's work, or itsequivalent, will be requisite; whilst to produce the cost of aPortuguese orange, only one-tenth of this day's labor is required; whichmeans simply this, that the sun does at Lisbon what labor does at Paris. Now is it not evident, that if I can produce an orange, or, what is thesame thing, the means of buying it, with one-tenth of a day's labor, Iam placed exactly in the same condition as the Portuguese producerhimself, excepting the expense of the transportation? It is then certainthat freedom of commerce equalizes the conditions of production director indirect, as much as it is possible to equalize them; for it leavesbut the one inevitable difference, that of transportation. 

I will add that free trade equalizes also the facilities for attainingenjoyments, comforts, and general consumption; the last an object whichis, it would seem, quite forgotten, and which is nevertheless allimportant; since consumption is the main object of all our industrialefforts. Thanks to freedom of trade, we would enjoy here the results ofthe Portuguese sun, as well as Portugal itself; and the inhabitants ofHavre, would have in their reach, as well as those of London, and withthe same facilities, the advantages which nature has in a mineralogicalpoint of view conferred upon Newcastle. 

The protectionists may suppose me in a paradoxical humor, for I gofarther still. I say, and I sincerely believe, that if any two countriesare placed in unequal circumstances as to advantages of production, _that one of the two which is the least favored by nature, will gainmost by freedom of commerce_. To prove this, I shall be obliged to turnsomewhat aside from the form of reasoning which belongs to this work. Iwill do so, however; first, because the question in discussion turnsupon this point; and again, because it will give me the opportunity ofexhibiting a law of political economy of the highest importance, andwhich, well understood, seems to me to be destined to lead back to thisscience all those sects which, in our days, are seeking in the land ofchimeras that social harmony which they have been unable to discover innature. I speak of the law of consumption, which the majority ofpolitical economists may well be reproached with having too muchneglected. 

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

No effect, whether favorable or unfavorable, can be arrested permanentlyupon the producer. The advantages and the disadvantages, which, fromhis relations to nature and to society, are his, both equally passgradually from him, with an almost insensible tendency to be absorbedand fused into the community at large; the community considered asconsumers. 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 rightto say, "I have not, in my passage through the world, forgotten to paymy tribute to society. "

Every circumstance which favors the work of production is of coursehailed with joy by the producer, for its _immediate effect_ is to enablehim to render greater services to the community, and to exact from it agreater remuneration. Every circumstance which injures production, mustequally be the source of uneasiness to him; for its _immediate effect_is to diminish his services, and consequently his remuneration. This isa fortunate and necessary law of nature. The immediate good or evil offavorable or unfavorable circumstances must fall upon the producer, inorder to influence him invincibly to seek the one and to avoid theother. 

Again, when a workman succeeds in his labor, the _immediate_ benefit ofthis success is received by him. This again is necessary, to determinehim to devote his attention to it. It is also just; because it is justthat an effort crowned with success should bring its own reward. 

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

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

Let us go back to the thirteenth century. Men who gave themselves up tothe business of copying, received for this service _a remunerationregulated by the general rate of profits_. Among them is found one, whoseeks and finds the means of multiplying rapidly copies of the samework. He invents printing. The first effect of this is, that theindividual is enriched, while many more are impoverished. At the firstview, wonderful as the discovery is, one hesitates in deciding whetherit is not more injurious than useful. It seems to have introduced intothe world, as I said above, an element of infinite inequality. Guttenberg makes large profits by this invention, and perfects theinvention by the profits, until all other copyists are ruined. As forthe public, --the consumer, --it gains but little, for Guttenberg takescare to lower the price of books only just so much as is necessary toundersell all rivals. 

But the great Mind which put harmony into the movements of celestialbodies, could also give it to the internal mechanism of society. We willsee the advantages of this invention escaping from the individual, tobecome forever the common patrimony of mankind. 

The process finally becomes known. Guttenberg is no longer alone in hisart; others imitate him. Their profits are at first considerable. Theyare recompensed for being the first who make the effort to imitate theprocesses of the newly invented art. This again was necessary, in orderthat they might be induced to the effort, and thus forward the great andfinal result to which we approach. They gain much; but they gain lessthan the inventor, for _competition_ has commenced its work. The priceof books now continually decreases. The gains of the imitators diminishin proportion as the invention becomes older; and in the same proportionimitation becomes less meritorious. Soon the new object of industryattains its normal condition; in other words, the remuneration ofprinters is no longer an exception to the general rules of remuneration, and, like that of copyists formerly, it is only regulated _by thegeneral rate of profits_. Here then the producer, as such, holds onlythe old position. The discovery, however, has been made; the saving oftime, labor, effort, for a fixed result, for a certain number ofvolumes, is realized. But in what is this manifested? In the cheap priceof books. For the good of whom? For the good of the consumer, --ofsociety, --of humanity. Printers, having no longer any peculiar merit, receive no longer a peculiar remuneration. As men, --as consumers, --theyno doubt participate in the advantages which the invention confers uponthe community; but that is all. As printers, as producers, they areplaced upon the ordinary footing of all other producers. Society paysthem for their labor, and not for the usefulness of the invention. _That_ has become a gratuitous benefit, a common heritage to mankind. 

What has been said of printing can be extended to every agent for theadvancement of labor; from the nail and the mallet, up to the locomotiveand the electric telegraph. Society enjoys all, by the abundance of itsuse, its consumption; and it _enjoys all gratuitously_. For as theireffect is to diminish prices, it is evident that just so much of theprice as is taken off by their intervention, renders the production inso far _gratuitous_. There only remains the actual labor of man to bepaid for; and the remainder, which is the result of the invention, issubtracted; at least after the invention has run through the cycle whichI have just described as its destined course. I send for a workman; hebrings a saw with him; I pay him two francs for his day's labor, and hesaws me twenty-five boards. If the saw had not been invented, he wouldperhaps not have been able to make one board, and I would have paid himthe same for his day's labor. The _usefulness_ then of the saw, is forme a gratuitous gift of nature, or rather it is a portion of theinheritance which, _in common_ with my brother men, I have received fromthe genius of my ancestors. I have two workmen in my field; the onedirects the handle of a plough, the other that of a spade. The result oftheir day's labor is very different, but the price is the same, becausethe remuneration is proportioned, not to the usefulness of the result, but to the effort, the labor given to attain it. 

I invoke the patience of the reader, and beg him to believe, that I havenot lost sight of free trade: I entreat him only to remember theconclusion at which I have arrived: _Remuneration is not proportioned tothe usefulness of the articles brought by the producer into the market, but to the labor_. [11]

[Footnote 11: It is true that labor does not receive a uniformremuneration; because labor is more or less intense, dangerous, skillful, etc. Competition establishes for each category a pricecurrent; and it is of this variable price that I speak. ]

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

In every article of production, nature and man must concur. But theportion of nature is always gratuitous. Only so much of the usefulnessof an article as is the result of human labor becomes the object ofmutual exchange, and consequently of remuneration. The remunerationvaries much, no doubt, in proportion to the intensity of the labor, ofthe skill which it requires, of its being _à propos_ to the demand ofthe day, of the need which exists for it, of the momentary absence ofcompetition, etc. But it is not the less true in principle, that theassistance received from natural laws, which belongs to all, counts fornothing in the price. 

We do not pay for the air we breathe, although so useful to us, that wecould not live two minutes without it. We do not pay for it, becauseNature furnishes it without the intervention of man's labor. But if wewish to separate one of the gases which compose it, for instance, tofill a balloon, we must take some trouble and labor; or if another takesit for us, we must give him an equivalent in something which will havecost us the trouble of production. From which we see that the exchangeis between troubles, efforts, labors. It is certainly not for hydrogengas that I pay, for this is every where at my disposal, but for the workthat it has been necessary to accomplish in order to disengage it; workwhich I have been spared, and which I must refund. If I am told thatthere are other things to pay for; as expense, materials, apparatus; Ianswer, that still in these things it is the work that I pay for. Theprice of the coal employed is only the representation of the labornecessary to dig and transport it. 

We do not pay for the light of the sun, because Nature alone gives it tous. But we pay for the light of gas, tallow, oil, wax, because here islabor to be remunerated;--and remark, that it is so entirely labor andnot utility to which remuneration is proportioned, that it may wellhappen that one of these means of lighting, while it may be much moreeffective than another, may still cost less. To cause this, it is onlynecessary that less human labor should be required to furnish it. 

When the water-carrier comes to supply my house, were I to pay him inproportion to the _absolute utility_ of the water, my whole fortunewould not be sufficient. But I pay him only for the trouble he hastaken. If he requires more, I can get others to furnish it, or finallygo and get it myself. The water itself is not the subject of ourbargain; but the labor taken to get the water. This point of view is soimportant, and the consequences that I am going to draw from it soclear, as regards the freedom of international exchanges, that I willstill elucidate my idea by a few more examples. 

The alimentary substance contained in potatoes does not cost us verydear, because a great deal of it is attainable with little work. We paymore for wheat, because, to produce it Nature requires more labor fromman. It is evident that if Nature did for the latter what she does forthe former, their prices would tend to the same level. It is impossiblethat the producer of wheat should permanently gain more than theproducer of potatoes. The law of competition cannot allow it. 

If by a happy miracle the fertility of all arable lands were to beincreased, it would not be the agriculturist, but the consumer, whowould profit by this phenomenon; for the result of it would be, abundance and cheapness. There would be less labor incorporated into anacre of grain, and the agriculturist would be therefore obliged toexchange it for a 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 itis in consumption, in mankind, that at length all political phenomenafind their solution. As long as we fail to follow their effects to thispoint, and look only at _immediate_ effects, which act but uponindividual men or classes of men _as producers_, we know nothing more ofpolitical economy than the quack does of medicine, when, instead offollowing the effects of a prescription in its action upon the wholesystem, he satisfies himself with knowing how it affects the palate andthe throat. 

The tropical regions are very favorable to the production of sugar andcoffee; that is to say, Nature does most of the business and leaves butlittle for labor to accomplish. But who reaps the advantage of thisliberality of Nature? Not these regions, for they are forced bycompetition to receive simply remuneration for their labor. It ismankind 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 ofthe soil; we have but to stoop and take them. At first, I grant, theimmediate inhabitants profit by this fortunate circumstance. But sooncomes competition, and the price of coal and iron falls, until this giftof Nature becomes gratuitous to all, and human labor is only paidaccording 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 ofcompetition, the common and _gratuitous_ patrimony of consumers, ofsociety, of mankind. Countries therefore which do not enjoy theseadvantages, must gain by commerce with those which do; because theexchanges of commerce are between _labor and labor_; subtraction beingmade of all the natural advantages which are combined with these labors;and it is evidently the most favored countries which can incorporateinto a given labor the largest proportion of these _natural advantages_. Their produce representing less labor, receives less recompense; inother words, is _cheaper_. If then all the liberality of Nature resultsin cheapness, it is evidently not the producing, but the consumingcountry, which profits by her benefits. 

Hence we may see the enormous absurdity of the consuming country, whichrejects produce precisely because it is cheap. It is as though we shouldsay: "We will have nothing of that which Nature gives you. You ask ofus an effort equal to two, in order to furnish ourselves with articlesonly attainable at home by an effort equal to four. You can do itbecause with you Nature does half the work. But we will have nothing todo 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 treatwith you _upon an equal footing_. "

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

We will lay down the general rule. 

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

 * * * * *

The theory of which I have attempted, in this chapter, to trace theoutlines, would require great developments. But perhaps the attentivereader will have perceived in it the fruitful seed which is destined inits future growth to smother Protection, at once with Fourierism, SaintSimonism, Commonism, and the various other schools whose object is toexclude the law of COMPETITION from the government of the world. Competition, no doubt, considering man as producer, must often interferewith his individual and _immediate_ interests. But if we consider thegreat object of all labor, the universal good, in a word, _Consumption_, we cannot fail to find that Competition is to the moral world what thelaw of equilibrium is to the material one. It is the foundation of trueCommonism, of true Socialism, of the equality of comforts and condition, so much sought after in our day; and if so many sincere reformers, somany earnest friends to the public rights, seek to reach their end bycommercial _legislation_, it is only because they do not yet understand_commercial freedom_. 

V. 

OUR PRODUCTIONS ARE OVERLOADED WITH TAXES. 

This is but a new wording of the last Sophism. The demand made is, thatthe foreign article should be taxed, in order to neutralize the effectsof the tax, which weighs down national produce. It is still then but thequestion of equalizing the facilities of production. We have but to saythat the tax is an artificial obstacle, which has exactly the sameeffect as a natural obstacle, i. E. The increasing of the price. If thisincrease is so great that there is more loss in producing the article inquestion than in attracting it from foreign parts by the production ofan equivalent value, let it alone. Individual interest will soon learnto choose the lesser of two evils. I might refer the reader to thepreceding demonstration for an answer to this Sophism; but it is onewhich recurs so often in the complaints and the petitions, I had almostsaid the demands, of the protectionist school, that it deserves aspecial discussion. 

If the tax in question should be one of a special kind, directed againstfixed articles of production, I agree that it is perfectly reasonablethat foreign produce should be subjected to it. For instance, it wouldbe absurd to free foreign salt from impost duty; not that in aneconomical point of view France would lose any thing by it; on thecontrary, whatever may be said, principles are invariable, and Francewould gain by it, as she must always gain by avoiding an obstaclewhether natural or artificial. But here the obstacle has been raisedwith a fiscal object. It is necessary that this end should be attained;and if foreign salt were to be sold in our market free from duty, thetreasury would not receive its revenue, and would be obliged to seek itfrom some thing else. There would be evident inconsistency in creatingan obstacle with a given object, and then avoiding the attainment ofthat object. It would have been better at once to seek what was neededin the other impost without taxing French salt. Such are thecircumstances under which I would allow upon any foreign article a duty, _not protecting_ but fiscal. 

But the supposition that a nation, because it is subjected to heavierimposts than those of another neighboring nation, should protect itselfby tariffs against the competition of its rival, is a Sophism, which itis now my purpose to attack. 

I have said more than once, that I am opposing only the theory of theprotectionists, with the hope of discovering the source of their errors. Were I disposed to enter into controversy with them, I would say: Whydirect your tariffs principally against England and Belgium, bothcountries more overloaded with taxes than any in the world? Have I nota right to look upon your argument as a mere pretext? But I am not ofthe number of those who believe that prohibitionists are guided byinterest, and not by conviction. The doctrine of Protection is toopopular not to be sincere. If the majority could believe in freedom, wewould be free. Without doubt it is individual interest which weighs usdown with tariffs; but it acts upon conviction. 

The State may make either a good or a bad use of taxes; it makes a gooduse of them when it renders to the public services equivalent to thevalue received from them; it makes a bad use of them when it expendsthis value, giving nothing in return. 

To say in the first case that they place the country which pays them inmore disadvantageous conditions for production, than the country whichis free from them, is a Sophism. We pay, it is true, twenty millions forthe administration of justice, and the maintenance of the police, but wehave justice and the police; we have the security which they give, thetime which they save for us; and it is most probable that production isneither more easy nor more active among nations, where (if there besuch) each individual takes the administration of justice into his ownhands. We pay, I grant, many hundred millions for roads, bridges, ports, railways; but we have these railways, these ports, bridges androads, and unless we maintain that it is a losing business to establishthem, we cannot say that they place us in a position inferior to that ofnations who have, it is true, no taxes for public works, but wholikewise have no public works. And here we see why (even while we accuseinternal taxes of being a cause of industrial inferiority) we direct ourtariffs precisely against those nations which are the most taxed. It isbecause these taxes, well used, far from injuring, have ameliorated the_conditions of production_ to these nations. Thus we again arrive at theconclusion that the protectionist Sophisms not only wander from, but arethe contrary--the very antithesis of truth. 

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

A protective duty is a tax directed against foreign produce, but whichreturns, let us keep in mind, upon the national consumer. Is it not thena singular argument to say to him, "Because the taxes are heavy, we willraise prices higher for you; and because the State takes a part of yourrevenue, we will give another portion of it to benefit a monopoly?"

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

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

Let us admit that foreign iron could be sold in our market at eightfrancs, but not lower; and French iron at not lower than twelve francs. 

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

The first, is to put upon foreign iron a duty of five francs. This, itis evident, would exclude it, because it could no longer be sold at lessthan thirteen francs; eight francs for the cost price, five for the tax;and at this price it must be driven from the market by French iron, which we have supposed to cost twelve francs. 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 a tax of five francs, and to give it as a premium to the iron manufacturer. The effect wouldin either case be equally a protective measure. Foreign iron would, according to both systems, be alike excluded; for our iron manufacturercould sell at seven francs, what, with the five francs premium, wouldthus bring him in twelve. While the price of sale being seven francs, foreign iron could not obtain a market at eight. 

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 ofprotection is paid by a part, in the second by the whole of thecommunity. 

I frankly confess my preference for the second system, which I regard asmore just, more economical and more legal. More just, because, ifsociety wishes to give bounties to some of its members, the wholecommunity ought to contribute; more economical, because it would banishmany difficulties, and save the expenses of collection; more legal, lastly, because the public would see clearly into the operation, andknow what was required of it. 

But if the protective system had taken this form, would it not have beenlaughable enough to hear it said, "We pay heavy taxes for the army, thenavy, the judiciary, the public works, the schools, the public debt, etc. These amount to more than a thousand million. It would therefore bedesirable that the State should take another thousand million, torelieve the poor iron manufacturers; or the suffering stockholders ofcoal mines; or those unfortunate lumber dealers, or the usefulcodfishery. "

This, it must be perceived, by an attentive investigation, is the resultof the Sophism in question. In vain, gentlemen, are all your efforts;you cannot _give money_ to one without taking it from another. If youare absolutely determined to exhaust the funds of the taxable community, well; but, at least, do not mock them; do not tell them, "We take fromyou 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 thefallacies of this Sophism. I will therefore limit myself to theconsideration of it in three points. 

You argue that France is overburthened with taxes, and deduce thence theconclusion that it is necessary to protect such and such an article ofproduce. But protection does not relieve us from the payment of thesetaxes. If, then, individuals devoting themselves to any one object ofindustry, should advance this demand: "We, from our participation in thepayment of taxes, have our expenses of production increased, andtherefore ask for a protective duty which shall raise our price ofsale;" what is this but a demand on their part to be allowed to freethemselves from the burthen of the tax, by laying it on the rest of thecommunity? Their object is to balance, by the increased price of theirproduce, the amount which _they_ pay in taxes. Now, as the whole amountof these taxes must enter into the treasury, and the increase of pricemust be paid by society, it follows that (where this protective duty isimposed) society has to bear, not only the general tax, but also thatfor the protection of the article in question. But it is answered, let_every thing_ be protected. Firstly, this is impossible; and, again, were it possible, how could such a system give relief? _I_ will pay foryou, _you_ will pay for me; but not the less, still there remains thetax to be paid. 

Thus you are the dupes of an illusion. You determine to raise taxes forthe support of an army, a navy, the church, university, judges, roads, etc. Afterwards you seek to disburthen from its portion of the tax, first one article of industry, then another, then a third; always addingto the burthen of the mass of society. You thus only create interminablecomplications. If you can prove that the increase of price resultingfrom protection, falls upon the foreign producer, I grant somethingspecious in your argument. But if it be true that the French people paidthe tax before the passing of the protective duty, and afterwards thatit has paid not only the tax, but the protective duty also, truly I donot perceive wherein it has profited. 

But I go much further, and maintain that the more oppressive our taxesare, the more anxiously ought we to open our ports and frontiers toforeign nations, less burthened than ourselves. And why? In order thatwe may share with them, as much as possible, the burthen 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, thegreater the portion which will be reimbursed to us, of taxesincorporated in the produce, which we will have sold to foreignconsumers; whilst we, on our part, will have made to them only a lesserreimbursement, because (according to our hypothesis) their produce isless taxed than ours. 

Again, finally, has it ever occurred to you to ask yourself, whetherthese heavy taxes which you adduce as a reason for keeping up theprohibitive system, may not be the result of this very system itself? Towhat purpose would be our great standing armies, and our powerfulnavies, if commerce were free?

VI. 

BALANCE OF TRADE. 

Our adversaries have adopted a system of tactics, which embarrasses usnot a little. Do we prove our doctrine? They admit the truth of it inthe most respectful manner. Do we attack their principles? They abandonthem with the best possible grace. They only ask that our doctrine, which they acknowledge to be true, should be confined to books; and thattheir principles, which they allow to be false, should be established inpractice. If we will give up to them the regulation of our tariffs, theywill leave us triumphant in the domain of theory. 

"Assuredly, " said Mr. Gauthier de Roumilly, lately, "assuredly no onewishes to call up from their graves the defunct theories of the balanceof trade. " And yet Mr. Gauthier, after giving this passing blow toerror, goes on immediately afterwards, and for two hours consecutively, to reason as though this error were a truth. 

Give me Mr. Lestiboudois. Here we have a consistent reasoner! a logicalarguer! There is nothing in his conclusions which cannot be found in hispremises. He asks nothing in practice which he does not justify intheory. His principles may perchance be false, and this is the point inquestion. But he has a principle. He believes, he proclaims aloud, thatif France gives ten to receive fifteen, she loses five; and surely, withsuch a belief, nothing is more natural than that he should make lawsconsistent with it. 

He says: "What it is important to remark, is, that constantly the amountof importation is augmenting, and surpassing that of exportation. Everyyear France buys more foreign produce, and sells less of its ownproduce. This can be proved by figures. In 1842, we see the importationexceed the exportation by two hundred millions. This appears to me toprove, in the clearest manner, that national labor _is not sufficientlyprotected_, that we are provided by foreign labor, and that thecompetition of our rivals _oppresses_ our industry. The law in question, appears to me to be a consecration of the fact, that our politicaleconomists have assumed a false position in declaring, that inproportion to produce bought, there is always a corresponding quantitysold. It is evident that purchases may be made, not with the habitualproductions of a country, not with its revenue, not with the results ofactual labor, but with its capital, with the accumulated savings whichshould serve for reproduction. A country may spend, dissipate itsprofits and savings, may impoverish itself, and by the consumption ofits national capital, progress gradually to its ruin. _This isprecisely what we are doing. We give, every year, two hundred millionsto foreign nations_. "

Well! here, at least, is a man whom we can understand. There is nohypocrisy in this language. The balance of trade is here clearlymaintained and defended. France imports two hundred millions more thanshe exports. Then France loses two hundred millions yearly. And theremedy? It is to check importation. The conclusion is perfectlyconsistent. 

It is, then, with Mr. Lestiboudois that we will argue, for how is itpossible to do so with Mr. Gauthier? If you say to the latter, thebalance of trade is a mistake, he will answer, So I have declared it inmy exordium. If you exclaim, But it is a truth, he will say, Thus I haveclassed it in my conclusions. 

Political economists may blame me for arguing with Mr. Lestiboudois. Tocombat the balance of trade, is, they say, neither more nor less than tofight against a windmill. 

But let us be on our guard. The balance of trade is neither so old, norso sick, nor so dead, as Mr. Gauthier is pleased to imagine; for all thelegislature, Mr. Gauthier himself included, are associated by theirvotes with the theory of Mr. Lestiboudois. 

However, not to fatigue the reader, I will not seek to investigate tooclosely this theory, but will content myself with subjecting it to theexperience of facts. 

It is constantly alleged in opposition to our principles, that they aregood only in theory. But, gentlemen, do you believe that merchants'books are good in practice? It does appear to me that if there is anything which can have a practical authority, when the object is to proveprofit and loss, that this must be commercial accounts. We cannotsuppose that all the merchants of the world, for centuries back, shouldhave so little understood their own affairs, as to have kept their booksin such a manner as to represent gains as losses, and losses as gains. Truly it would be easier to believe that Mr. Lestiboudois is a badpolitical economist. 

A merchant, one of my friends, having had two business transactions, with very different results, I have been curious to compare on thissubject the accounts of the counter with those of the custom-house, interpreted by Mr. Lestiboudois with the sanction of our six hundredlegislators. 

Mr. T. .. Despatched from Havre a vessel, freighted, for the UnitedStates, with French merchandise, principally Parisian articles, valuedat 200, 000 francs. Such was the amount entered at the custom-house. Thecargo, on its arrival at New Orleans, had paid ten per cent. Expenses, and was liable to thirty per cent. Duties; which raised its value to280, 000 francs. It was sold at twenty per cent. Profit on its originalvalue, which being 40, 000 francs, the price of sale was 320, 000 francs, which the assignee converted into cotton. This cotton, again, had topay for expenses of transportation, insurance, commissions, etc. , tenper cent. : so that when the return cargo arrived at Havre, its value hadrisen to 352, 000 francs, 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 francs. The cotton thus sold for the sum of422, 400 francs. 

If Mr. Lestiboudois requires it, I will send him an extract from thebooks of Mr. T. .. He will there see, _credited_ to the account of_profit and loss_, that is to say, set down as gained, two sums; the oneof 40, 000, the other of 70, 000 francs, and Mr. T . .. Feels perfectlycertain that as regards these, there is no mistake in his accounts. 

Now what conclusion does Mr. Lestiboudois draw from the sums enteredinto the custom-house, in this operation? He thence learns that Francehas exported 200, 000 francs, and imported 352, 000; from whence thehonorable deputy concludes "_that she has spent, dissipated the profitsof her previous savings; that she is impoverishing herself andprogressing to her ruin; and that she has squandered on a foreignnation_ 152, 000 _francs of her capital_. "

Some time after this transaction, Mr. T. .. Despatched another vessel, again freighted with domestic produce, to the amount of 200, 000 francs. But the vessel foundered after leaving the port, and Mr. T . .. Had onlyfarther to inscribe on his books two little items, thus worded:

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

"_Profit and loss due to sundries, 200, 000 francs, for final and totalloss of cargo. _"

In the meantime the custom-house inscribed 200, 000 francs upon its listof _exportations_, and as there can of course be nothing to balance thisentry on the list of _importations_, it hence follows that Mr. Lestiboudois and the Chamber must see in this wreck _a clear profit_ toFrance of 200, 000 francs. 

We may draw hence yet another conclusion, viz. : that according to theBalance of Trade theory, France has an exceedingly simple manner ofconstantly doubling her capital. It is only necessary, to accomplishthis, that she should, after entering into the custom-house her articlesfor exportation, cause them to be thrown into the sea. By this course, her exportations can speedily be made to equal her capital; importationswill be nothing, and our gain will be, all which the ocean will haveswallowed up. 

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

The truth is, that the theory of the Balance of Trade should beprecisely _reversed_. The profits accruing to the nation from anyforeign commerce should be calculated by the overplus of theimportation above the exportation. This overplus, after the deduction ofexpenses, is the real gain. Here we have the true theory, and it is onewhich leads directly to freedom in trade. I now, gentlemen, abandon youthis theory, as I have done all those of the preceding chapters. Do withit as you please, exaggerate it as you will; it has nothing to fear. Push it to the farthest extreme; imagine, if it so please you, thatforeign nations should inundate us with useful produce of everydescription, and ask nothing in return; that our importations should be_infinite_, and our exportations _nothing_. Imagine all this, and stillI defy you to prove that we will be the poorer in consequence. 

VII. 

PETITION FROM THE MANUFACTURERS OF CANDLES, WAX-LIGHTS, LAMPS, CHANDELIERS, REFLECTORS, SNUFFERS, EXTINGUISHERS; AND FROM THE PRODUCERSOF TALLOW, OIL, RESIN, ALCOHOL, AND GENERALLY OF EVERY THING USED FORLIGHTS. 

_To the Honorable the Members of the Chamber of Deputies:_

"GENTLEMEN, --You are in the right way: you reject abstract theories;abundance, cheapness, concerns you little. You are entirely occupiedwith the interest of the producer, whom you are anxious to free fromforeign competition. In a word, you wish to secure the _national market_to _national labor_. 

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

"We are subjected to the intolerable competition of a foreign rival, whoenjoys, it would seem, such superior facilities for the production oflight, that he is enabled to _inundate_ our _national market_ at soexceedingly reduced a price, that, the moment he makes his appearance, he draws off all custom from us; and thus an important branch of Frenchindustry, with all its innumerable ramifications, is suddenly reduced toa state of complete stagnation. This rival, who is no other than thesun, carries on so bitter a war against us, that we have every reason tobelieve that he has been excited to this course by our perfidiousneighbor England. (Good diplomacy this, for the present time!) In thisbelief we are confirmed by the fact that in all his transactions withthis proud island, he is much more moderate and careful than with us. 

"Our petition is, that it would please your honorable body to pass a lawwhereby shall be directed the shutting up of all windows, dormers, sky-lights, shutters, curtains, vasistas, oeil-de-boeufs, in a word, allopenings, holes, chinks and fissures through which the light of the sunis used to penetrate into our dwellings, to the prejudice of theprofitable manufactures which we flatter ourselves we have been enabledto bestow upon the country; which country cannot, therefore, withoutingratitude, leave us now to struggle unprotected through so unequal acontest. 

"We pray your honorable body not to mistake our petition for a satire, nor to repulse us without at least hearing the reasons which we have toadvance in its favor. 

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

"If more tallow be consumed, there will arise a necessity for anincrease of cattle and sheep. Thus artificial meadows must be in greaterdemand; and meat, wool, leather, and above all, manure, this basis ofagricultural riches, must become more abundant. 

"If more oil be consumed, it will cause an increase in the cultivationof the olive-tree. This plant, luxuriant and exhausting to the soil, will come in good time to profit by the increased fertility which theraising of cattle will have communicated to our fields. 

"Our heaths will become covered with resinous trees. Numerous swarms ofbees will gather upon our mountains the perfumed treasures, which arenow cast upon the winds, useless as the blossoms from which theyemanate. There is, in short, no branch of agriculture which would not begreatly developed by the granting of our petition. 

"Navigation would equally profit. Thousands of vessels would soon beemployed in the whale fisheries, and thence would arise a navy capableof sustaining the honor of France, and of responding to the patrioticsentiments of the undersigned petitioners, candle merchants, etc. 

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

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

"Gentlemen, if you will be pleased to reflect, you cannot fail to beconvinced that there is perhaps not one Frenchman, from the opulentstockholder of Anzin down to the poorest vendor of matches, who is notinterested in the success of our petition. 

"We foresee your objections, gentlemen; but there is not one that youcan oppose to us which you will not be obliged to gather from the worksof the partisans of free trade. We dare challenge you to pronounce oneword against our petition, which is not equally opposed to your ownpractice and the principle which guides your policy. 

"Do you tell us, that if we gain by this protection, France will notgain, 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. Forwhenever this has been found to compete with that of the producer, youhave invariably sacrificed the first. You have done this to _encouragelabor_, to _increase the demand for labor_. The same reason should nowinduce 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, etc. , your answer was: Yes, but the producer isinterested in their exclusion. Thus, also, if the consumer is interestedin the admission of light, we, the producers, pray for itsinterdiction. 

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

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

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

"Labor and Nature concur in different proportions, according to countryand climate, in every article of production. The portion of Nature isalways gratuitous; that of labor alone regulates the price. 

"If a Lisbon orange can be sold at half the price of a Parisian one, itis because a natural and gratuitous heat does for the one, what theother only obtains from an artificial and consequently expensive one. 

"When, therefore, we purchase a Portuguese orange, we may say that weobtain it half gratuitously and half by the right of labor; in otherwords, at _half price_ compared to those of Paris. 

"Now it is precisely on account of this _demi-gratuity_ (excuse theword) that you argue in favor of exclusion. How, you say, could nationallabor sustain the competition of foreign labor, when the first has everything to do, and the last is rid of half the trouble, the sun taking therest of the business upon himself? If then the _demi-gratuity_ candetermine you to check competition, on what principle can the _entiregratuity_ be alleged as a reason for admitting it? You are no logiciansif, refusing the demi-gratuity as hurtful to human labor, you do not _àfortiori_, and with double zeal, reject the full gratuity. 

"Again, when any article, as coal, iron, cheese, or cloth, comes to usfrom foreign countries with less labor than if we produced it ourselves, the difference in price is a _gratuitous gift_ conferred upon us; andthe gift is more or less considerable, according as the difference isgreater or less. It is the quarter, the half, or the three-quarters ofthe value of the produce, in proportion as the foreign merchant requiresthe three-quarters, the half, or the quarter of the price. It is ascomplete as possible when the producer offers, as the sun does withlight, the whole in free gift. The question is, and we put it formally, whether you wish for France the benefit of gratuitous consumption, orthe supposed advantages of laborious production. Choose, but beconsistent. And does it not argue the greatest inconsistency to check asyou do the importation of coal, iron, cheese, and goods of foreignmanufacture, merely because and even in proportion as their priceapproaches _zero_, while at the same time you freely admit, and withoutlimitation, the light of the sun, whose price is during the whole day at_zero_?"

VIII. 

DISCRIMINATING DUTIES. 

A poor laborer of Gironde had raised, with the greatest possible careand attention, a nursery of vines, from which, after much labor, he atlast succeeded in producing a pipe of wine, and forgot, in the joy ofhis success, that each drop of this precious nectar had cost a drop ofsweat to his brow. I will sell it, said he to his wife, and with theproceeds I will buy thread, which will serve you to make a _trousseau_for our daughter. The honest countryman, arriving in the city, there metan Englishman and a Belgian. The Belgian said to him, Give me your wine, and I in exchange, will give you fifteen bundles of thread. TheEnglishman said, Give it to me, and I will give you twenty bundles, forwe English can spin cheaper than the Belgians. But a custom-houseofficer standing by, said to the laborer, My good fellow, make yourexchange, if you choose, with the Belgian, but it is my duty to preventyour doing so with the Englishman. What! exclaimed the countryman, youwish me to take fifteen bundles of Brussels thread, when I can havetwenty from Manchester? Certainly; do you not see that France would be aloser, if you were to receive twenty bundles instead of fifteen? I canscarcely understand this, said the laborer. Nor can I explain it, saidthe custom-house officer, but there is no doubt of the fact; fordeputies, ministers, and editors, all agree that a people isimpoverished in proportion as it receives a large compensation for anygiven quantity of its produce. The countryman was obliged to concludehis bargain with the Belgian. His daughter received but three-fourths ofher _trousseau_; and these good folks are still puzzling themselves todiscover how it can happen that people are ruined by receiving fourinstead of three; and why they are richer with three dozen towelsinstead of four. 

IX. 

WONDERFUL DISCOVERY!

At this moment, when all minds are occupied in endeavoring to discoverthe most economical means of transportation; when, to put these meansinto practice, we are leveling roads, improving rivers, perfectingsteamboats, establishing railroads, and attempting various systems oftraction, atmospheric, hydraulic, pneumatic, electric, etc. , --at thismoment when, I believe, every one is seeking in sincerity and withardor the solution of this problem--

"_To bring the price of things in their place of consumption, as near aspossible to their price in that of production_"--

I would believe myself acting a culpable part towards my country, towards the age in which I live, and towards myself, if I were longer tokeep secret the wonderful discovery which I have just made. 

I am well aware that the self-illusions of inventors have becomeproverbial, but I have, nevertheless, the most complete certainty ofhaving discovered an infallible means of bringing the produce of theentire world into France, and reciprocally to transport ours, with avery important reduction of price. 

Infallible! and yet this is but a single one of the advantages of myastonishing invention, which requires neither plans nor devices, neitherpreparatory studies, nor engineers, nor machinists, nor capital, norstockholders, nor governmental assistance! There is no danger ofshipwrecks, of explosions, of shocks, of fire, nor of displacement ofrails! It can be put into practice without preparation from one day toanother!

Finally, and this will, no doubt, recommend it to the public, it willnot increase taxes one cent; but the contrary. It will not augment thenumber of government functionaries, nor the exigencies of governmentofficers; but the contrary. It will put in hazard the liberty of no one;but the contrary. 

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

I had this question to determine:

"Why does any article made, for instance, at Brussels, bear an increasedprice on its arrival at Paris?"

It was immediately evident to me that this was the result of _obstacles_of various kinds existing between Brussels and Paris. First, there is_distance_, which cannot be overcome without trouble and loss of time;and either we must submit to these in our own person, or pay another forbearing them for us. Then come rivers, swamps, accidents, heavy andmuddy roads; these are so many _difficulties_ to be overcome; in orderto do which, causeways are constructed, bridges built, roads cut andpaved, railroads established, etc. But all this is costly, and thearticle transported must bear its portion of the expense. There arerobbers, too, on the roads, and this necessitates guards, a police, etc. 

Now, among these _obstacles_, there is one which we ourselves haveplaced, and that at no little expense, between Brussels and Paris. Thisconsists of men planted along the frontier, armed to the teeth, whosebusiness it is to place _difficulties_ in the way of the transportationof goods from one country to another. These men are called custom-houseofficers, and their effect is precisely similar to that of steep andboggy roads. They retard and put obstacles in the way of transportation, thus contributing to the difference which we have remarked between theprice of production and that of consumption; to diminish whichdifference as much as possible, is the problem which we are seeking toresolve. 

Here, then, we have found its solution. _Let our tariff be diminished. _We will thus have constructed a Northern Railroad which will cost usnothing. Nay, more, we will be saved great expenses, and will begin fromthe first day to save capital. 

Really, I cannot but ask myself, in surprise, how our brains could haveadmitted so whimsical a piece of folly, as to induce us to pay manymillions to destroy the _natural obstacles_ interposed between Franceand other nations, only at the same time to pay so many millions more inorder to replace them by _artificial obstacles_, which have exactly thesame effect; so that the obstacle removed, and the obstacle created, neutralize each other; things go on as before, and the only result ofour trouble, is, a double expense. 

An article of Belgian production is worth at Brussels twenty francs, and, from the expenses of transportation, thirty francs at Paris. Asimilar article of Parisian manufacture costs forty francs. What is ourcourse under these circumstances?

First, we impose a duty of at least ten francs on the Belgian article, so as to raise its price to a level with that of the Parisian; thegovernment withal, paying numerous officials to attend to the levying ofthis duty. The article thus pays ten francs for transportation, ten forthe tax. 

This done, we say to ourselves: Transportation between Brussels andParis is very dear; let us spend two or three millions in railways, andwe will reduce it one-half. Evidently the result of such a course willbe to get the Belgian article at Paris for thirty-five francs, viz:

 20 francs--price at Brussels. 10 " duty. 5 " transportation by railroad. -- 35 francs--total, or market price at Paris. 

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

 20 francs--price at Brussels. 5 " duty. 10 " transportation on the common road. -- 35 francs--total, or market price at Paris. 

And this arrangement would have saved us the 200, 000, 000 spent upon therailroad, besides the expense saved in custom-house surveillance, whichwould of course diminish in proportion as the temptation to smugglingwould become less. 

But it is answered, the duty is necessary to protect Parisian industry. So be it; but do not then destroy the effect of it by your railroad. 

For if you persist in your determination to keep the Belgian article ona par with the Parisian at forty francs, you must raise the duty tofifteen francs, in order to have:--

 20 francs--price at Brussels. 15 " protective duty. 5 " transportation by railroad. -- 40 francs--total, at equalized prices. 

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

Frankly, is it not humiliating to the nineteenth century, that it shouldbe destined to transmit to future ages the example of such puerilitiesseriously and gravely practiced? To be the dupe of another, is badenough; but to employ all the forms and ceremonies of legislation inorder to cheat one's self, --to doubly cheat one's self, and that too ina mere mathematical account, --truly this is calculated to lower a littlethe pride of this _enlightened age_. 

X. 

RECIPROCITY. 

We have just seen that all which renders transportation difficult, actsin the same manner as protection; or, if the expression be preferred, that protection tends towards the same result as obstacles totransportation. 

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

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

But they still say, this liberty ought to be reciprocal. If we take offour taxes in favor of Spain, while Spain does not do the same towardsus, it is evident that we are duped. Let us then make _treaties ofcommerce_ upon the basis of a just reciprocity; let us yield where weare yielded to; let us make the _sacrifice_ of buying that we mayobtain the advantage of selling. 

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

I will illustrate this by a fable. 

STULTA AND PUERA (FOOL-TOWN AND BOY-TOWN). 

There were, it matters not where, two towns, _Stulta_ and _Puera_, whichat great expense had a road built which connected them with each other. Some time after this was done, the inhabitants of _Stulta_ becameuneasy, and said: _Puera_ is overwhelming us with its productions; thismust be attended to. They established therefore a corps of_Obstructors_, so called because their business was to place obstaclesin the way of the wagon trains which arrived from _Puera_. Soon after, _Puera_ also established a corps of Obstructors. 

After some centuries, people having become more enlightened, theinhabitants of _Puera_ began to discover that these reciprocal obstaclesmight possibly be reciprocal injuries. They sent therefore an ambassadorto _Stulta_, who (passing over the official phraseology) spoke much tothis effect: "We have built a road, and now we put obstacles in the wayof this road. This is absurd. It would have been far better to have leftthings in their original position, for then we would not have been putto the expense of building our road, and afterwards of creatingdifficulties. In the name of _Puera_, I come to propose to you, not torenounce at once our system of mutual obstacles, for this would beacting according to a theory, and we despise theories as much as you do;but to lighten somewhat these obstacles, weighing at the same timecarefully our respective _sacrifices_. " The ambassador having thusspoken, the town of _Stulta_ asked time to reflect; manufacturers, agriculturists were consulted; and at last, after some years'deliberation, it was declared that the negotiations were broken off. 

At this news, the inhabitants of _Puera_ held a council. An old man (whoit has always been supposed had been secretly bribed by _Stulta_) roseand said: "The obstacles raised by _Stulta_ are injurious to our sales;this is a misfortune. Those which we ourselves create, injure ourpurchases; this is a second misfortune. We have no power over the first, but the second is entirely dependent upon ourselves. Let us then atleast get rid of one, since we cannot be delivered from both. Let ussuppress our corps of _Obstructors_, without waiting for _Stulta_ to dothe same. Some day or other she will learn to understand better her owninterests. "

A second counselor, a man of practice and of facts, uncontrolled bytheories and wise in ancestral experience, replied: "We must not listento this dreamer, this theorist, this innovator, this utopian, thispolitical economist, this friend to _Stulta_. We would be entirelyruined if the embarrassments of the road were not carefully weighed andexactly equalized, between _Stulta_ and _Peura_. There would be moredifficulty in going than in coming; in exportation than in importation. We would be, with regard to _Stulta_, in the inferior condition in whichHavre, Nantes, Bordeaux, Lisbon, London, Hamburg, and New Orleans, are, in relation to cities placed higher up the rivers Seine, Loire, Garonne, Tagus, Thames, the Elbe, and the Mississippi; for the difficulties ofascending must always be greater than those of descending rivers. (Avoice exclaims: 'But the cities near the mouths of rivers have alwaysprospered 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 byspeaking of national independence, national honor, national dignity, national labor, overwhelming importation, tributes, ruinous competition. In short, he succeeded in determining the assembly to continue theirsystem of obstacles, and I can now point out a certain country where youmay see road-builders and _Obstructors_ working with the best possibleunderstanding, by the decree of the same legislative assembly, paid bythe same citizens; the first to improve the road, the last to embarrassit. 

XI. 

ABSOLUTE PRICES. 

If we wish to judge between freedom of trade and protection, tocalculate the probable effect of any political phenomenon, we shouldnotice how far its influence tends to the production of _abundance orscarcity_, and not simply of _cheapness or dearness_ of price. We mustbeware of trusting to _absolute prices_, it would lead to inextricableconfusion. 

Mr. Mathieu de Dombasle, after having established the fact thatprotection raises prices, adds:

"The augmentation of price increases the expenses of life, andconsequently the price of labor, and every one finds in the increase ofthe price of his produce the same proportion as in the increase of hisexpenses. Thus, if every body pays as consumer, every body receives alsoas producer. "

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

Now, what does this prove? Nothing whatever, unless it be thatprotection _transfers_ riches, uselessly and unjustly. Robbery does thesame. 

Again, to prove that the complicated arrangements of this system giveeven simple compensation, it is necessary to adhere to the"_consequently_" of Mr. De Dombasle, and to convince one's self that theprice of labor rises with that of the articles protected. This is aquestion of fact, which I refer to Mr. Moreau de Jonnès, begging him toexamine whether the rate of wages was found to increase with the stockof the mines of Anzin. For my own part I do not believe in it, because Ithink that the price of labor, like every thing else, is governed by theproportion existing between the supply and the demand. Now I canperfectly well understand that _restriction_ will diminish the supply ofcoal, and consequently raise its price; but I do not as clearly see thatit increases the demand for labor, thereby raising the rate of wages. This is the less conceivable to me, because the sum of labor requireddepends upon the quantity of disposable capital; and protection, whileit may change the direction of capital, and transfer it from onebusiness to another, cannot increase it one penny. 

This question, which is of the highest interest, we will examineelsewhere. I return to the discussion of _absolute prices_, and declarethat there is no absurdity which cannot be rendered specious by suchreasoning as that of Mr. De Dombasle. 

Imagine an isolated nation possessing a given quantity of cash, andevery year wantonly burning the half of its produce. I will undertake toprove by the theory of Mr. De Dombasle that this nation will not be theless rich in consequence of such a procedure. 

For, the result of the conflagration must be, that every thing woulddouble in price. An inventory made before this event would offer exactlythe same nominal value, as one made after it. Who then would be theloser? If John buys his cloth dearer, he also sells his corn at a higherprice; and if Peter makes a loss on the purchase of his corn, he gainsit back by the sale of his cloth. Thus "every one finds in the increaseof the price of his produce, the same proportion as in the increase ofhis expenses; and thus if every body pays as consumer, every body alsoreceives as producer. "

All this is nonsense. The simple truth is: that whether men destroytheir corn and cloth by fire or by use, the effect is the same _asregards price_, but not _as regards riches_, for it is precisely in theenjoyment of the use, that riches--in other words, comfort, well-being--exist. 

Protection may, in the same way, while it lessens the abundance ofthings, raise their prices, so as to leave each individual as rich, _numerically speaking_, as when unembarrassed by it. But because we putdown in an inventory three hectolitres of corn at 20 francs, or fourhectolitres at 15 francs, and sum up the nominal value of each at 60francs, does it thence follow that they are equally capable ofcontributing to the necessities of the community?

To this view of consumption, it will be my continual endeavor to leadthe protectionists; for in this is the end of all my efforts, thesolution of every problem. I must continually repeat to them thatrestriction, by impeding commerce, by limiting the division of labor, byforcing it to combat difficulties of situation and temperature, must inits results diminish the quantity produced by any fixed quantum oflabor. And what can it benefit us that the smaller quantity producedunder the protective system bears the same _nominal value_ as thegreater quantity produced under the free trade system? Man does not liveon _nominal values_, but on real articles of produce; and the moreabundant these articles are, no matter what price they may bear, thericher is he. 

XII. 

DOES PROTECTION RAISE THE RATE OF WAGES?

Workmen, your situation is singular! you are robbed, as I will presentlyprove to you. .. . But no; I retract the word; we must avoid anexpression which is violent; perhaps indeed incorrect; inasmuch as thisspoliation, wrapped in the sophisms which disguise it, is practiced, wemust believe, without the intention of the spoiler, and with the consentof the spoiled. But it is nevertheless true that you are deprived of thejust compensation of your labor, while no one thinks of causing_justice_ to be rendered to you. If you could be consoled by noisyappeals to philanthropy, to powerless charity, to degrading alms-giving, or if high-sounding words would relieve you, these indeed you can havein abundance. But _justice_, simple _justice_--nobody thinks ofrendering you this. For would it not be _just_ that after a long day'slabor, when you have received your little wages, you should be permittedto exchange them for the largest possible sum of comforts that you canobtain voluntarily from any man whatsoever upon the face of the earth?

Let us examine if _injustice_ is not done to you, by the legislativelimitation of the persons from whom you are allowed to buy those thingswhich you need; as bread, meat, cotton and woolen cloths, etc. ; thusfixing (so to express myself) the artificial price which these articlesmust bear. 

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

On what does the rate of wages depend?

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

Allow me, in more laconic phrase, to employ a more scientific, thoughperhaps a less striking expression: "The rate of wages depends upon theproportion which the supply of labor bears to the demand. "

On what depends the _demand_ for labor?

On the quantity of disposable national capital. And the law which says, "such or such an article shall be limited to home production and nolonger imported from foreign countries, " can it in any degree increasethis capital? Not in the least. This law may withdraw it from onecourse, 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, from whence comes the capital with which it is founded and maintained?Has it fallen from the moon? or rather is it not drawn either fromagriculture, or navigation, or other industry? We here see why, sincethe reign of protective tariffs, if we see more workmen in our mines andour manufacturing towns, we find also fewer sailors in our ports, andfewer laborers and vine-growers in our fields and upon our hillsides. 

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

A countryman had twenty acres of land, with a capital of 10, 000 francs. He divided his land into four parts, and adopted for it the followingchanges of crops: 1st, maize; 2d, wheat; 3d, clover; and 4th, rye. As heneeded for himself and family but a small portion of the grain, meat, and dairy-produce of the farm, he sold the surplus and bought oil, flax, wine, etc. The whole of his capital was yearly distributed in wages andpayments of accounts to the workmen of the neighborhood. This capitalwas, from his sales, again returned to him, and even increased from yearto year. Our countryman, being fully convinced that idle capitalproduces nothing, caused to circulate among the working classes thisannual increase, which he devoted to the inclosing and clearing oflands, or to improvements in his farming utensils and his buildings. Hedeposited some sums in reserve in the hands of a neighboring banker, whoon his part did not leave these idle in his strong box, but lent them tovarious tradesmen, so that the whole came to be usefully employed in thepayment of wages. 

The countryman died, and his son, become master of the inheritance, saidto himself: "It must be confessed that my father has, all his life, allowed himself to be duped. He bought oil, and thus paid _tribute_ toProvince, while our own land could, by an effort, be made to produceolives. He bought wine, flax, and oranges, thus paying _tribute_ toBrittany, Medoc, and the Hiera islands very unnecessarily, for wine, flax and oranges may be forced to grow upon our own lands. He paidtribute to the miller and the weaver; our own servants could very wellweave our linen, and crush our wheat between two stones. He did all hecould to ruin himself, and gave to strangers what ought to have beenkept for the benefit of his own household. "

Full of this reasoning, our headstrong fellow determined to change theroutine of his crops. He divided his farm into twenty parts. On one hecultivated the olive; on another the mulberry; on a third flax; hedevoted the fourth to vines, the fifth to wheat, etc. , etc. Thus hesucceeded in rendering himself _independent_, and furnished all hisfamily supplies from his own farm. He no longer received any thing fromthe general circulation; neither, it is true, did he cast any thing intoit. Was he the richer for this course? No, for his land did not suit thecultivation of the vine; nor was the climate favorable to the olive. Inshort, the family supply of all these articles was very inferior to whatit had been during the time when the father had obtained them all byexchange of produce. 

With regard to the demand for labor, it certainly was no greater thanformerly. There were, to be sure, five times as many fields tocultivate, but they were five times smaller. If oil was raised, therewas less wheat; and because there was no more flax bought, neither wasthere any more rye sold. Besides, the farmer could not spend in wagesmore than his capital, and his capital, instead of increasing, was nowconstantly diminishing. A great part of it was necessarily devoted tonumerous buildings and utensils, indispensable to a person whodetermines to undertake every thing. In short, the supply of laborcontinued the same, but the means of paying becoming less, there was, necessarily, a reduction of wages. 

The result is precisely similar, when a nation isolates itself by theprohibitive system. Its number of industrial pursuits is certainlymultiplied, but their importance is diminished. In proportion to theirnumber, they become less productive, for the same capital and the sameskill are obliged to meet a greater number of difficulties. The fixedcapital absorbs a greater part of the circulating capital; that is tosay, a greater part of the funds destined to the payment of wages. Whatremains, ramifies itself in vain, the quantity cannot be augmented. Itis like the water of a pond, which, distributed in a multitude ofreservoirs, appears to be more abundant, because it covers a greaterquantity of soil, and presents a larger surface to the sun, while wehardly 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. Therecan be no doubt that protective tariffs, by forcing capital and labor tostruggle against greater difficulties of soil and climate, must causethe general production to be less, or, in other words, diminish theportion of comforts which would thence result to mankind. If, then, there be a general diminution of comforts, how, workmen, can it bepossible that _your_ portion should be increased? Under such asupposition, it would be necessary to believe that the rich, those whomade the law, have so arranged matters, that not only they subjectthemselves to their own proportion of the general loss, but taking thewhole of it upon themselves, that they submit also to a further loss, inorder to increase your gains. Is this credible? Is this possible? It is, indeed, a most suspicious act of generosity, and if you act wisely, youwill reject it. 

XIII. 

THEORY--PRACTICE. 

Partisans of free trade, we are accused of being theorists, and notrelying sufficiently upon practice. 

What a powerful argument against Mr. Say (says Mr. Ferrier, ) is the longsuccession of distinguished ministers, the imposing league of writerswho have all differed from him; and Mr. Say is himself conscious ofthis, for he says: "It has been said, in support of old errors, thatthere must necessarily be some foundation for ideas so generally adoptedby all nations. Ought we not, it is asked, to distrust observations andreasoning which run counter to every thing which has been looked upon ascertain up to this day, and which has been regarded as undoubted by somany who were to be confided in, alike on account of their learning andof their philanthropic intentions? This argument is, I confess, calculated to make a profound impression, and might cast a doubt uponthe most incontestable facts, if the world had not seen so manyopinions, now universally recognized as false, as universally maintain, during a long series of ages, their dominion over the human mind. Theday is not long passed since all nations, from the most ignorant to themost enlightened, and all men, the wisest as well as the mostuninformed, admitted only four elements. Nobody dreamed of disputingthis doctrine, which is, nevertheless, false, and to-day universallydecried. "

Upon this passage Mr. Ferrier makes the following remarks:

"Mr. Say is strangely mistaken, if he believes that he has thus answeredthe very strong objections which he has himself advanced. It is naturalenough that, for ages, men otherwise well informed, might mistake upon aquestion of natural history; this proves nothing. Water, air, earth, andfire, elements or not, were not the less useful to man. .. . Such errorsas this are of no importance. They do not lead to revolutions, nor dothey cause mental uneasiness; above all, they clash with no interests, and might, therefore, without inconvenience, last for millions of years. The physical world progresses as though they did not exist. But can itbe thus with errors which affect the moral world? Can it be conceivedthat a system of government absolutely false, consequently injurious, could be followed for many centuries, and among many nations, with thegeneral consent of well-informed men? Can it be explained how such asystem could be connected with the constantly increasing prosperity ofthese nations? Mr. Say confesses that the argument which he combats iscalculated to make a profound impression. Most certainly it is; andthis impression remains; for Mr. Say has rather increased thandiminished it. "

Let us hear Mr. De Saint Chamans. 

"It has been only towards the middle of the last, the eighteenthcentury, when every subject and every principle have without exceptionbeen given up to the discussion of book-makers, that these furnishers of_speculative_ ideas, applied to every thing and applicable to nothing, have begun to write upon the subject of political economy. There existedpreviously a system of political economy, not written, but _practiced_by governments. Colbert was, it is said, the inventor of it; and Colbertgave the law to every state of Europe. Strange to say, he does so still, in spite of contempt and anathemas, in spite too of the discoveries ofthe modern school. This system, which has been called by our writers the_mercantile system_, consisted in . .. Checking by prohibition or importduties such foreign productions as were calculated to ruin ourmanufactures by competition. .. . This system has been declared, by allwriters on political economy, of every school, [12] to be weak, absurd, and calculated to impoverish the countries where it prevails. Banishedfrom books, it has taken refuge in _the practice_ of all nations, greatly to the surprise of those who cannot conceive that in whatconcerns the wealth of nations, governments should, rather than beguided by the wisdom of authors, prefer the _long experience_ of asystem, etc. .. . It is above all inconceivable to them that the Frenchgovernment . .. Should obstinately resist the new lights of politicaleconomy, and maintain in its _practice_ the old errors, pointed out byall our writers. .. . But I am devoting too much time to this mercantilesystem, which, unsustained by writers, _has only facts_ in its favor!"

[Footnote 12: Might we not say: It is a powerful argument againstMessrs. Ferrier and de Saint Chamans, that all writers on politicaleconomy, of _every school_, that is to say, all men who have studied thequestion, come to this conclusion: After all, freedom is better thanrestriction, and the laws of God wiser than those of Mr. Colbert. ]

Would it not be supposed from this language that political economists, in claiming for each individual the _free disposition of his ownproperty_, have, like the Fourierists, stumbled upon some new, strange, and chimerical system of social government, some wild theory, withoutprecedent in the annals of human nature? It does appear to me, that, ifin all this there is any thing doubtful, and of fanciful or theoreticorigin, it is not free trade, but protection; not the operating ofexchanges, but the custom-house, the duties, imposed to overturnartificially the natural order of things. 

The question, however, is not here to compare and judge of the merits ofthe two systems, but simply to know which of the two is sanctioned byexperience. 

You, Messrs. Monopolists, maintain that _facts_ are for you, and that weon our side have only _theory_. 

You even flatter yourselves that this long series of public acts, thisold experience of Europe which you invoke, appeared imposing to Mr. Say;and I confess that he has not refuted you, with his habitual sagacity. 

I, for my part, cannot consent to give up to you the domain of _facts_;for while on your side you can advance only limited and special facts, _we_ can oppose to them universal facts, the free and voluntary acts ofall men. 

What do _we_ maintain? and what do _you_ maintain?

We maintain that "it is best to buy from others what we ourselves canproduce only at a higher price. "

You maintain that "it is best to make for ourselves, even though itshould cost us more than to buy from others. "

Now gentlemen, putting aside theory, demonstration, reasoning, (thingswhich seem to nauseate you, ) which of these assertions is sanctioned by_universal practice_?

Visit our fields, workshops, forges, stores; look above, below, andaround you; examine what is passing in your own household; observe yourown actions at every moment, and say which principle it is, that directsthese laborers, workmen, contractors, and merchants; say what is yourown personal _practice_. 

Does the agriculturist make his own clothes? Does the tailor produce thegrain which he consumes? Does not your housekeeper cease to make herbread at home, as soon as she finds it more economical to buy it fromthe baker? Do you lay down your pen to take up the blacking-brush inorder to avoid paying tribute to the shoe-black? Does not the wholeeconomy of society depend upon a separation of occupations, a divisionof labor, in a word, upon mutual exchange of production, by which we, one and all, make a calculation which causes us to discontinue directproduction, when indirect acquisition offers us a saving of time andlabor. 

You are not then sustained by _practice_, since it would be impossible, were you to search the world, to show us a single man who acts accordingto your principle. 

You may answer that you never intended to make your principle the ruleof individual relations. You confess that it would thus destroy allsocial ties, and force men to the isolated life of snails. You onlycontend that it governs _in fact_, the relations which are establishedbetween the agglomerations of the human family. 

We say that this assertion too is erroneous. A family, a town, county, department, province, all are so many agglomerations, which, without anyexception, all _practically_ reject your principle; never, indeed, eventhink of it. Each of these procures by barter, what would be moreexpensively procured by production. Nations would do the same, did younot _by force_ prevent them. 

We, then, are the men who are guided by practice and experience. For tocombat the interdict which you have specially put upon someinternational exchanges, we bring forward the practice and experience ofall individuals, and of all agglomerations of individuals, whose actsbeing voluntary, render them proper to be given as proof in thequestion. But you, on your part, begin by _forcing_, by _hindering_, andthen, adducing forced or forbidden acts, you exclaim: "Look; we canprove ourselves justified by example!"

You exclaim against our _theory_, and even against _all theory_. But areyou certain, in laying down your principles, so antagonistic to ours, that you too are not building up theories? Truly, you too have yourtheory; but between yours and ours there is this difference:

Our theory is formed upon the observation of universal _facts_, universal sentiments, universal calculations and acts. We do nothingmore than classify and arrange these, in order to better understandthem. It is so little opposed to practice, that it is in fact only_practice explained_. We look upon the actions of men as prompted by theinstinct of self-preservation and of progress. What they do freely, willingly, --this is what we call _Political Economy_, or economy ofsociety. We must repeat constantly that each man is _practically_ anexcellent political economist, producing or exchanging, as his advantagedictates. Each by experience raises himself to the science; or ratherthe science is nothing more than experience, scrupulously observed andmethodically expounded. 

But _your_ theory is _theory_ in the worst sense of the word. Youimagine procedures which are sanctioned by the experience of no livingman, and then call to your aid constraint and prohibition. You cannotavoid having recourse to force; because, wishing to make men producewhat they can _more advantageously_ buy, you require them to give up anadvantage, and to be led by a doctrine which implies contradiction evenin its terms. 

I defy you too, to take this doctrine, which by your own avowal would beabsurd in individual relations, and apply it, even in speculation, totransactions between families, towns, departments, or provinces. Youyourselves confess that it is only applicable to internal relations. 

Thus it is that you are daily forced to repeat:

"Principles can never be universal. What is _well_ in an individual, afamily, commune, or province, is _ill_ in a nation. What is good indetail--for instance: purchase rather than production, where purchase ismore advantageous--is _bad_ in a society. The political economy ofindividuals is not that of nations;" and other such stuff, _ejusdemfarinæ_. 

And all this for what? To prove to us, that we consumers, we are yourproperty! that we belong to you, soul and body! that you have anexclusive right on our stomachs and our limbs! that it is your right tofeed and dress us at your own price, however great your ignorance, yourrapacity, or the inferiority of your work. 

Truly, then, your system is one not founded upon practice; it is one ofabstraction--of extortion. 

XIV. 

CONFLICTING PRINCIPLES. 

There is one thing which embarrasses me not a little; and it is this:

Sincere men, taking upon the subject of political economy the point ofview of producers, have arrived at this double formula:

"A government should dispose of consumers subject to its laws in favorof home industry. "

"It should subject to its laws foreign consumers, in order to dispose ofthem in favor of home industry. "

The first of the formulas is that of _Protection_; the second that of_Outlets_. 

Both rest upon this proposition, called the _Balance of Trade_, that

"A people is impoverished by importations and enriched by exportations. "

For if every foreign purchase is a _tribute paid_, a loss, nothing canbe more natural than to restrain, even to prohibit importations. 

And if every foreign sale is a _tribute received_, a gain, nothing morenatural than to create _outlets_, even by force. 

_Protective System; Colonial System. _--These are only two aspects of thesame theory. To _prevent_ our citizens from buying from foreigners, andto _force_ foreigners to buy from our citizens. Two consequences of oneidentical principle. 

It is impossible not to perceive that according to this doctrine, if itbe true, the welfare of a country depends upon _monopoly_ or domesticspoliation, and upon _conquest_ or foreign spoliation. 

Let us take a glance into one of these huts, perched upon the side ofour Pyrenean range. 

The father of a family has received the little wages of his labor; buthis half-naked children are shivering before a biting northern blast, beside a fireless hearth, and an empty table. There is wool, and wood, and corn, on the other side of the mountain, but these are forbidden tothem; for the other side of the mountain is not France. Foreign woodmust not warm the hearth of the poor shepherd; his children must nottaste the bread of Biscay, nor cover their numbed limbs with the wool ofNavarre. It is thus that the general good requires!

The disposing by law of consumers, forcing them to the support of homeindustry, is an encroachment upon their liberty, the forbidding of anaction (mutual exchange) which is in no way opposed to morality! In aword, it is an act of _injustice_. 

But this, it is said, is necessary, or else home labor will be arrested, and a severe blow will be given to public prosperity. 

Thus then we must come to the melancholy conclusion, that there is aradical incompatibility between the Just and the Useful. 

Again, if each people is interested in _selling_, and not in _buying_, aviolent action and reaction must form the natural state of their mutualrelations; for each will seek to force its productions upon all, and allwill seek to repulse the productions of each. 

A sale in fact implies a purchase, and since, according to thisdoctrine, to sell is beneficial, and to buy injurious, everyinternational transaction must imply the benefiting of one people by theinjuring of another. 

But men are invincibly inclined to what they feel to be advantageous tothemselves, while they also, instinctively resist that which isinjurious. From hence then we must infer that each nation bears withinitself a natural force of expansion, and a not less natural force ofresistance, which are equally injurious to all others. In other words, antagonism and war are the _natural_ state of human society. 

Thus then the theory in discussion resolves itself into the twofollowing axioms. In the affairs of a nation, Utility is incompatible with the internal administration of justice. 

Utility is incompatible with the maintenance of external peace. 

Well, what embarrasses and confounds me is, to explain how any writerupon public rights, any statesman who has sincerely adopted a doctrineof which the leading principle is so antagonistic to other incontestableprinciples, can enjoy one moment's repose or peace of mind. 

For myself, if such were my entrance upon the threshold of science, if Idid not clearly perceive that Liberty, Utility, Justice, and Peace, arenot only compatible, but closely connected, even identical, I wouldendeavor to forget all I have learned; I would say:

"Can it be possible that God can allow men to attain prosperity onlythrough injustice and war? Can he so direct the affairs of mortals, thatthey can only renounce war and injustice by, at the same time, renouncing their own welfare?

"Am I not deceived by the false lights of a science which can lead me tothe horrible blasphemy implied in this alternative, and shall I dare totake it upon myself to propose this as a basis for the legislation of agreat people? When I find a long succession of illustrious and learnedmen, whose researches in the same science have led to more consolingresults; who, after having devoted their lives to its study, affirm thatthrough it they see Liberty and Utility indissolubly linked with Justiceand Peace, and find these great principles destined to continue onthrough eternity in infinite parallels, have they not in their favor thepresumption which results from all that we know of the goodness andwisdom of God as manifested in the sublime harmony of material creation?Can I lightly believe, in opposition to such a presumption and suchimposing authorities, that this same God has been pleased to putdisagreement and antagonism in the laws of the moral world? No; before Ican believe that all social principles oppose, shock and neutralize eachother; before I can think them in constant, anarchical and eternalconflict; above all, before I can seek to impose upon my fellow-citizensthe impious system to which my reasonings have led me, I must retrace mysteps, hoping, perchance, to find some point where I have wandered frommy road. "

And if, after a sincere investigation twenty times repeated, I shouldstill arrive at the frightful conclusion that I am driven to choosebetween the Desirable and the Good, I would reject the science, plungeinto a voluntary ignorance, above all, avoid participation in theaffairs of my country, and leave to others the weight and responsibilityof so fearful a choice. 

XV. 

RECIPROCITY AGAIN. 

Mr. De Saint Cricq has asked: "Are we sure that our foreign customerswill buy from us as much as they sell us?"

Mr. De Dombasle says: "What reason have we for believing that Englishproducers will come to seek their supplies from us, rather than from anyother nation, or that they will take from us a value equivalent to theirexportations into France?"

I cannot but wonder to see men who boast, above all things, of being_practical_, thus reasoning wide of all practice!

In practice, there is perhaps no traffic which is a direct exchange ofproduce for produce. Since the use of money, no man says, I will seekshoes, hats, advice, lessons, only from the shoemaker, the hatter, thelawyer, or teacher, who will buy from me the exact equivalent of thesein corn. Why should nations impose upon themselves so troublesome arestraint?

Suppose a nation without any exterior relations. One of its citizensmakes a crop of corn. He casts it into the _national_ circulation, andreceives in exchange--what? Money, bank bills, securities, divisible toany extent, by means of which it will be lawful for him to withdraw whenhe pleases, and, unless prevented by just competition from the nationalcirculation, such articles as he may wish. At the end of the operation, he will have withdrawn from the mass the exact equivalent of what hefirst cast into it, and in value, _his consumption will exactly equalhis production_. 

If the exchanges of this nation with foreign nations are free, it is nolonger into the _national_ circulation but into the _general_circulation that each individual casts his produce, and from thence hisconsumption is drawn. He is not obliged to calculate whether what hecasts into this general circulation is purchased by a countryman or by aforeigner; whether the notes he receives are given to him by a Frenchmanor an Englishman, or whether the articles which he procures throughmeans of this money are manufactured on this or the other side of theRhine or the Pyrenees. One thing is certain; that each individual findsan exact balance between what he casts in and what he withdraws from thegreat common reservoir; and if this be true of each individual, it isnot less true of the entire nation. 

The only difference between these two cases is, that in the last, eachindividual has open to him a larger market both for his sales and hispurchases, and has, consequently, a more favorable opportunity of makingboth to advantage. 

The objection advanced against us here, is, that if all were to combinein not withdrawing from circulation the produce from any one individual, he, in his turn, could withdraw nothing from the mass. The same, too, would be the case with regard to a nation. 

Our answer is: If a nation can no longer withdraw any thing from themass of circulation, neither will it any longer cast any thing into it. It will work for itself. It will be obliged to submit to what, inadvance, you wish to force upon it, viz. , _Isolation_. And here you havethe ideal of the prohibitive system. 

Truly, then, is it not ridiculous enough that you should inflict upon itnow, and unnecessarily, this system, merely through fear that some dayor other it might chance to be subjected to it without your assistance?

XVI. 

OBSTRUCTED RIVERS PLEADING FOR THE PROHIBITIONISTS. 

Some years since, being at Madrid, I went to the meeting of the Cortes. The subject in discussion was a proposed treaty with Portugal, forimproving the channel of the Douro. A member rose and said: If the Dourois made navigable, transportation must become cheaper, and Portuguesegrain will come into formidable competition with our _national labor_. Ivote against the project, unless ministers will agree to increase ourtariff so as to re-establish the equilibrium. 

Three months after, I was in Lisbon, and the same question came beforethe Senate. A noble Hidalgo said: Mr. President, the project is absurd. You guard at great expense the banks of the Douro, to prevent the influxinto Portugal of Spanish grain, and at the same time you now propose, atgreat expense, _to facilitate such an event_. There is in this a want ofconsistency in which I can have no part. Let the Douro descend to ourSons as we have received it from our Fathers. 

XVII. 

A NEGATIVE RAILROAD. 

I have already remarked that when the observer has unfortunately takenhis point of view from the position of producer, he cannot fail in hisconclusions to clash with the general interest, because the producer, assuch, must desire the existence of efforts, wants, and obstacles. 

I find a singular exemplification of this remark in a journal ofBordeaux. 

Mr. Simiot puts this question:

Ought the railroad from Paris into Spain to present a break or terminusat Bordeaux?

This question he answers affirmatively. I will only consider one amongthe numerous reasons which he adduces in support of his opinion. 

The railroad from Paris to Bayonne ought (he says) to present a break orterminus at Bordeaux, in order that goods and travelers stopping in thiscity should thus be forced to contribute to the profits of the boatmen, porters, commission merchants, hotel-keepers, etc. 

It is very evident that we have here again the interest of the agents oflabor put before that of the consumer. 

But if Bordeaux would profit by a break in the road, and if such profitbe conformable to the public interest, then Angoulème, Poictiers, Tours, Orleans, and still more all the intermediate points, as Ruffec, Châtellerault, etc. , etc. , would also petition for breaks; and this toowould be for the general good and for the interest of national labor. For it is certain, that in proportion to the number of these breaks ortermini, will be the increase in consignments, commissions, lading, unlading, etc. This system furnishes us the idea of a railroad made upof successive breaks; _a negative railroad_. 

Whether or not the Protectionists will allow it, most certain it is, that the _restrictive principle_ is identical with that which wouldmaintain _this system of breaks_: it is the sacrifice of the consumer tothe producer, of the end to the means. 

XVIII. 

"THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTE PRINCIPLES. "

The facility with which men resign themselves to ignorance in caseswhere knowledge is all-important to them, is often astonishing; and wemay be sure that a man has determined to rest in his ignorance, when heonce brings himself to proclaim as a maxim that there are no absoluteprinciples. 

We enter into the legislative halls, and find that the question is, todetermine whether the law will or will not allow of internationalexchanges. 

A deputy rises and says, If we tolerate these exchanges, foreign nationswill overwhelm us with their produce. We will have cotton goods fromEngland, coal from Belgium, woolens from Spain, silks from Italy, cattlefrom Switzerland, iron from Sweden, corn from Prussia, so that noindustrial pursuit will any longer be possible to us. 

Another answers: Prohibit these exchanges, and the divers advantageswith which nature has endowed these different countries, will be for usas though they did not exist. We will have no share in the benefitsresulting from English skill, or Belgian mines, from the fertility ofthe Polish soil, or the Swiss pastures; neither will we profit by thecheapness of Spanish labor, or the heat of the Italian climate. We willbe obliged to seek by a forced and laborious production, what, by meansof exchanges, would be much more easily obtained. 

Assuredly one or other of these deputies is mistaken. But which? It isworth the trouble of examining. There lie before us two roads, one ofwhich leads inevitably to _wretchedness_. We must choose. 

To throw off the feeling of responsibility, the answer is easy: Thereare no absolute principles. 

This maxim, at present so fashionable, not only pleases idleness, butalso suits ambition. 

If either the theory of prohibition, or that of free trade, shouldfinally triumph, one little law would form our whole economical code. Inthe first case this would be: _foreign trade is forbidden_; in thesecond: _foreign trade is free_; and thus, many great personages wouldlose their importance. 

But if trade has no distinctive character, if it is capriciously usefulor injurious, and is governed by no natural law, if it finds no spur inits usefulness, no check in its inutility, if its effects cannot beappreciated by those who exercise it; in a word, if it has no absoluteprinciples, --oh! then it is necessary to deliberate, weigh, and regulatetransactions, the conditions of labor must be equalized, the level ofprofits sought. This is an important charge, well calculated to give tothose who execute it, large salaries, and extensive influence. 

Contemplating this great city of Paris, I have thought to myself: Hereare a million of human beings who would die in a few days, if provisionsof every kind did not flow in towards this vast metropolis. Theimagination is unable to calculate the multiplicity of objects whichto-morrow must enter its gates, to prevent the life of its inhabitantsfrom terminating in famine, riot, or pillage. And yet at this moment allare asleep, without feeling one moment's uneasiness, from thecontemplation of this frightful possibility. On the other side, we seeeighty departments who have this day labored, without concert, withoutmutual understanding, for the victualing of Paris. How can each daybring just what is necessary, nothing less, nothing more, to thisgigantic market? What is the ingenious and secret power which presidesover the astonishing regularity of such complicated movements, aregularity in which we all have so implicit, though thoughtless, afaith; on which our comfort, our very existence depends? This power isan _absolute principle_, the principle of freedom in exchanges. We havefaith in that inner light which Providence has placed in the heart ofall men; confiding to it the preservation and amelioration of ourspecies; _interest_, since we must give its name, so vigilant, soactive, having so much forecast when allowed its free action. What wouldbe your condition, inhabitants of Paris, if a minister, however superiorhis abilities, should undertake to substitute, in the place of thispower, the combinations of his own genius? If he should think ofsubjecting to his own supreme direction this prodigious mechanism, taking all its springs into his own hand, and deciding by whom, how, andon what conditions each article should be produced, transported, exchanged and consumed? Ah! although there is much suffering within yourwalls; although misery, despair, and perhaps starvation, may call forthmore tears than your warmest charity can wipe away, it is probable, itis certain, that the arbitrary intervention of government wouldinfinitely multiply these sufferings, and would extend among you theevils which now reach but a small number of your citizens. 

If then we have such faith in this principle as applied to our privateconcerns, why should we not extend it to international transactions, which are assuredly less numerous, less delicate, and less complicated?And if it be not necessary for the prefect of Paris to regulate ourindustrial pursuits, to weigh our profits and our losses, to occupyhimself with the quantity of our cash, and to equalize the conditions ofour labor in internal commerce, on what principle can it be necessarythat the custom-house, going beyond its fiscal mission, should pretendto exercise a protective power over our external commerce?

XIX. 

NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE. 

Among the arguments advanced in favor of a restrictive system, we mustnot forget that which is drawn from the plea of _national independence_. 

"What will we do, " it is asked, "in case of war, if we are at the mercyof England for our iron and coal?"

The English monopolists, on their side, do not fail to exclaim: "Whatwill become of Great Britain in case of war if she depends upon Francefor provisions?"

One thing appears to be quite lost sight of, and this is, that thedependence which results from commercial transactions, is a _reciprocal_dependence. We can only be dependent upon foreign supplies, in so far asforeign nations are dependent upon us. This is the essence of _society_. The breaking off of natural relations places a nation, not in anindependent position, but in a state of isolation. 

And remark that the reason given for this isolation, is that it is anecessary provision for war, while the act is itself a commencement ofwar. It renders war easier, less burdensome, and consequently lessunpopular. If nations were to one another permanent outlets for mutualproduce; if their respective relations were such that they could not bebroken without inflicting the double suffering of privation and ofover-supply, there could then no longer be any need of these powerfulfleets which ruin, and these great armies which crush them; the peace ofthe world could no more be compromised by the whim of a Thiers or aPalmerston, and wars would cease, from want of resources, motives, pretexts, and popular sympathy. 

I know that I shall be reproached (for it is the fashion of the day) forplacing interest, vile and prosaic interest, at the foundation of thefraternity of nations. It would be preferred that this should be basedupon charity, upon love; that there should be in it some self-denial, and that clashing a little with the material welfare of men, it shouldbear the merit of a generous sacrifice. 

When will we have done with such puerile declamations? We contemn, werevile _interest_, that is to say, the good and the useful, (for if allmen are interested in an object, how can this object be other than goodin itself?) as though this interest were not the necessary, eternal, andindestructible mover, to the guidance of which Providence has confidedhuman perfectibility! One would suppose that the utterers of suchsentiments must be models of disinterestedness; but does the public notbegin to perceive with disgust, that this affected language is the stainof those pages for which it oftenest pays the highest price?

What! because comfort and peace are correlative, because it has pleasedGod to establish so beautiful a harmony in the moral world, you wouldblame me when I admire and adore his decrees, and for accepting withgratitude his laws, which make justice a requisite for happiness! Youwill consent to have peace only when it clashes with your welfare, andliberty is irksome if it imposes no sacrifices! What then prevents you, if self-denial has so many charms, from exercising it as much as youdesire in your private actions? Society will be benefited by your sodoing, for some one must profit by your sacrifices. But it is the heightof absurdity to wish to impose such a principle upon mankind generally;for the self-denial of all, is the sacrifice of all. This is evilsystematized into theory. 

But, thanks be to Heaven! these declamations may be written and read, and the world continues nevertheless to obey its great mover, its greatcause of action, which, spite of all denials, is _interest_. 

It is singular enough, too, to hear sentiments of such sublimeself-abnegation quoted in support even of Spoliation; and yet to thistends all this pompous show of disinterestedness! These men sosensitively delicate, that they are determined not to enjoy even peace, if it must be propped by the vile _interest_ of men, do not hesitate topick the pockets of other men, and above all of poor men. For whattariff protects the poor? Gentlemen, we pray you, dispose as you pleaseof what belongs to yourselves, but let us entreat you to allow us touse, or to exchange, according to our own fancy, the fruit of our ownlabor, the sweat of our own brows. Declaim as you will aboutself-sacrifice; that is all pretty enough; but we beg of you, do not atthe same time forget to be honest. 

XX. 

HUMAN LABOR--NATIONAL LABOR. 

Destruction of machinery--prohibition of foreign goods. These are twoacts proceeding from the same doctrine. 

We do meet with men who, while they rejoice over the revelation of anygreat invention, favor nevertheless the protective policy; but such menare very inconsistent. 

What is the objection they adduce against free trade? That it causes usto seek from foreign and more easy production, what would otherwise bethe result of home production. In a word, that it injures domesticindustry. 

On the same principle, can it not be objected to machinery, that itaccomplishes through natural agents what would otherwise be the resultof manual labor, and that it is thus injurious to human labor?

The foreign laborer, enjoying greater facilities of production than theFrench laborer, is, with regard to the latter, a veritable _economicalmachine_, which crushes him by competition. Thus, a piece of machinerycapable of executing any work at a less price than could be done by anygiven number of hands, is, as regards these hands, in the position of a_foreign competitor_, who paralyzes them by his rivalry. 

If then it be judicious to protect _home labor_ against the competitionof _foreign labor_, it cannot be less so to protect _human labor_against _mechanical labor_. 

Whoever adheres to the protective system, ought not, if his brain bepossessed of any logical powers, to stop at the prohibition of foreignproduce, but should extend this prohibition to the produce of the loomand of the plough. 

I approve therefore of the logic of those who, whilst they cry outagainst the _inundation_ of foreign merchandise, have the courage todeclaim equally against the _excessive production_ resulting from theinventive power of mind. 

Of this number is Mr. De Saint Chamans. "One of the strongest arguments, (says he) which can be adduced against free trade, and the too extensiveemployment of machines, is, that many workmen are deprived of work, either by foreign competition, which depresses manufactures, or bymachinery, which takes the place of men in workshops. "

Mr. De St. Chamans saw clearly the analogy, or rather the identity whichexists between _importation_ and _machinery_, and was, therefore, infavor of proscribing both. There is some pleasure in having to do withintrepid arguers, who, even in error, thus carry through a chain ofreasoning. 

But let us look at the difficulty into which they are here led. 

If it be true, _à priori_, that the domain of _invention_, and that of_labor_, can be extended only to the injury of one another, it wouldfollow that the fewest _workmen_ would be employed in countries(Lancashire, for instance) where there is the most _machinery_. And ifit be, on the contrary, proved, that machinery and manual labor coexistto a greater extent among rich nations than among savages, it mustnecessarily follow, that these two powers do not interfere with oneanother. 

I cannot understand how a thinking being can rest satisfied with thefollowing dilemma:

Either the inventions of man do not injure labor; and this, from generalfacts, would appear to be the case, for there exists more of both amongthe English and the French, than among the Sioux and the Cherokees. Ifsuch be the fact, I have gone upon a wrong track, although unconsciousat what point. I have wandered from my road, and I would commit hightreason against humanity, were I to introduce such an error into thelegislation of my country. 

Or else the results of the inventions of mind limit manual labor, aswould appear to be proved from limited facts; for every day we see somemachine rendering unnecessary the labor of twenty, or perhaps a hundredworkmen. If this be the case, I am forced to acknowledge, as a fact, the existence of a flagrant, eternal, and incurable antagonism betweenthe intellectual and the physical power of man; between his improvementand his welfare. I cannot avoid feeling that the Creator should havebestowed upon man either reason or bodily strength; moral force, orbrutal force; and that it has been a bitter mockery to confer upon himfaculties which must inevitably counteract and destroy one another. 

This is an important difficulty, and how is it put aside? By thissingular apothegm:

"_In political economy there are no absolute principles. _"

There are no principles! Why, what does this mean, but that there are nofacts? Principles are only formulas, which recapitulate a whole class ofwell-proved facts. 

Machinery and Importation must certainly have effects. These effectsmust be either good or bad. Here there may be a difference of opinion asto which is the correct conclusion, but whichever is adopted, it must becapable of being submitted to the formula of one or other of theseprinciples, viz. : Machinery is a good, or, Machinery is an evil. Importations are beneficial, or, Importations are injurious. Bat to say_there are no principles_, is certainly the last degree of debasement towhich the human mind can lower itself, and I confess that I blush for mycountry, when I hear so monstrous an absurdity uttered before, andapproved by, the French Chambers, the _élite_ of the nation, who thusjustify themselves for imposing upon the country laws, of the merits ordemerits of which they are perfectly ignorant. 

But, it may be said to me, finish, then, by destroying the _Sophism_. Prove to us that machines are not injurious to _human labor_, norimportations to _national labor_. 

In a work of this nature, such demonstrations cannot be very complete. My aim is rather to point out than to explain difficulties, and toexcite reflection rather than to satisfy it. The mind never attains to afirm conviction which is not wrought out by its own labor. I will, however, make an effort to put it upon the right track. 

The adversaries of importations and of machinery are misled by allowingthemselves to form too hasty a judgment from immediate and transitoryeffects, instead of following these up to their general and finalconsequences. 

The immediate effect of an ingenious piece of machinery, is, that itrenders superfluous, in the production of any given result, a certainquantity of manual labor. But its action does not stop here. This resultbeing obtained at less labor, is given to the public at a less price. The amount thus saved to the buyers, enables them to procure othercomforts, and thus to encourage general labor, precisely in proportionto the saving they have made upon the one article which the machine hasgiven to them at an easier price. Thus the standard of labor is notlowered, though that of comfort is raised. 

Let me endeavor to render this double fact more striking by an example. 

I suppose that ten million of hats, at fifteen francs each, are yearlyconsumed in France. This would give to those employed in thismanufacture one hundred and fifty millions. A machine is invented whichenables the manufacturer to furnish hats at ten francs. The sum given tothe maintenance of this branch of industry, is thus reduced (if wesuppose the consumption not to be increased) to one hundred millions. But the other fifty millions are not, therefore, withdrawn from themaintenance of _human labor_. The buyers of hats are, from the surplussaved upon the price of that article, enabled to satisfy other wants, and thus, in the same proportion, to encourage general industry. Johnbuys a pair of shoes; James, a book; Jerome, an article of furniture, etc. Human labor, as a whole, still receives the encouragement of thewhole one hundred and fifty millions, while the consumers, with the samesupply of hats as before, receive also the increased number of comfortsaccruing from the fifty millions, which the use of the machine has beenthe means of saving to them. These comforts are the net gain whichFrance has received from the invention. It is a gratuitous gift; atribute exacted from nature by the genius of man. We grant that, duringthis process, a certain sum of labor will have been _displaced_, forcedto change its direction; but we cannot allow that it has been destroyedor even diminished. 

The case is the same with regard to importations. I will resume myhypothesis. 

France, according to our supposition, manufactured ten millions of hatsat fifteen francs each. Let us now suppose that a foreign producerbrings them into our market at ten francs. I maintain that _nationallabor_ is thus in no wise diminished. It will be obliged to produce theequivalent of the hundred millions which go to pay for the ten millionsof hats at ten francs, and then there remains to each buyer five francs, saved on the purchase of his hat, or, in total, fifty millions, whichserve for the acquisition of other comforts, and the encouragement ofother labor. 

The mass of labor remains, then, what it was, and the additionalcomforts accruing from the fifty millions saved in the purchase of hats, are the net profit of importation or free trade. 

It is no argument to try and alarm us by a picture of the sufferingswhich, in this hypothesis, would result from the displacement or changeof labor. 

For, if prohibition had never existed, labor would have classed itselfin accordance with the laws of trade, and no displacement would havetaken place. 

If prohibition has led to an artificial and unproductive classificationof labor, then it is prohibition, and not free trade, which isresponsible for the inevitable displacement which must result in thetransition from evil to good. 

It is a rather singular argument to maintain that, because an abusewhich has been permitted a temporary existence, cannot be correctedwithout wounding the interests of those who have profited by it, itought, therefore, to claim perpetual duration. 

XXI. 

RAW MATERIAL. 

It is said that no commerce is so advantageous as that in whichmanufactured articles are exchanged for raw material; because the latterfurnishes aliment for _national labor_. 

And it is hence concluded:

That the best regulation of duties, would be to give the greatestpossible facilities to the importation of raw material, and at the sametime to check that of the finished article. 

There is, in political economy, no more generally accredited Sophismthan this. It serves for argument not only to the protectionists, butalso to the pretended free trade school; and it is in the lattercapacity that its most mischievous tendencies are called into action. For a good cause suffers much less in being attacked, than in beingbadly defended. 

Commercial liberty must probably pass through the same ordeal as libertyin every other form. It can only dictate laws, after having first takenthorough possession of men's minds. If, then, it be true that a reform, to be firmly established, must be generally understood, it follows thatnothing can so much retard it, as the misleading of public opinion. Andwhat more calculated to mislead opinion than writings, which, while theyproclaim free trade, support the doctrines of monopoly?

It is some years since three great cities of France, viz. , Lyons, Bordeaux, and Havre, combined in opposition to the restrictive system. France, all Europe, looked anxiously and suspiciously at this apparentdeclaration in favor of free trade. Alas! it was still the banner ofmonopoly which they followed! a monopoly, only a little more sordid, alittle more absurd than that of which they seemed to desire thedestruction! Thanks to the Sophism which I would now endeavor to depriveof its disguise, the petitioners only reproduced, with an additionalincongruity, the old doctrine of _protection to national labor_. Whatis, in fact, the prohibitive system? We will let Mr. De Saint Cricqanswer for us. 

"Labor constitutes the riches of a nation, because it creates suppliesfor the gratification of our necessities; and universal comfort consistsin the abundance of these supplies. " Here we have the principle. 

"But this abundance ought to be the result of _national labor_. If itwere the result of foreign labor, national labor must receive aninevitable check. " Here lies the error. (See the preceding Sophism). 

"What, then, ought to be the course of an agricultural and manufacturingcountry? It ought to reserve its market for the produce of its own soiland its own industry. " Here is the object. 

"In order to effect this, it ought, by restrictive, and, if necessary, by prohibitive duties, to prevent the influx of produce from foreignsoils and foreign industry. " Here is the means. 

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

This divided articles of merchandise into three classes. "The firstclass includes articles of food and _raw material untouched by humanlabor_. _A judicious system of political economy would require that thisclass should be exempt from taxation. _" Here we have the principle of nolabor, no protection. 

"The second class is composed of articles which have received _somepreparation_ for manufacture. This preparation would render reasonablethe imposition of _some duties_. " Here we find the commencement ofprotection, because, at the same time, likewise commences the demand for_national labor_. 

"The third class comprehends finished articles, which can, under nocircumstances, furnish material for national labor. We consider this asthe most fit for taxation. " Here we have at once the maximum of labor, and, consequently, of production. 

The petitioners then, as we here see, proclaimed foreign labor asinjurious to national labor. This is the _error_ of the prohibitivesystem. 

They desired the French market to be reserved for _French labor_. Thisis the _object_ of the prohibitive system. 

They demanded that foreign labor should be subjected to restrictions andtaxes. These are the _means_ of the prohibitive system. 

What difference, then, can we possibly discover to exist between theBordalese petitioners and the Corypheus of restriction? One, alone; andthat is simply the greater or less extension which is given to thesignification of the word _labor_. 

Mr. De Saint Cricq, taking it in its widest sense, is, therefore, infavor of _protecting_ every thing. 

"Labor, " he says, "constitutes _the whole_ wealth of a nation. Protection should be for the agricultural interest, and _the whole_agricultural interest; for the manufacturing interest, and _the whole_manufacturing interest; and this principle I will continually endeavorto impress upon this Chamber. "

The petitioners consider no labor but that of the manufacturers, andaccordingly, it is that, and that alone, which they would wish to admitto the favors of protection. 

"Raw material being entirely _untouched by human labor_, our systemshould exempt it from taxes. Manufactured articles furnishing nomaterial for national labor, we consider as the most fit for taxation. "

There is no question here as to the propriety of protecting nationallabor. Mr. De Saint Cricq and the Bordalese agree entirely upon thispoint. We have, in our preceding chapters, already shown how entirely wediffer from both of them. 

The question to be determined, is, whether it is Mr. De Saint Cricq, orthe Bordalese, who give to the word _labor_ its proper acceptation. Andwe must confess that Mr. De Saint Cricq is here decidedly in the right. The following dialogue might be supposed between them:

_Mr. De Saint Cricq. _--You agree that national labor ought to beprotected. You agree that no foreign labor can be introduced into ourmarket, without destroying an equal quantity of our national labor. Butyou contend that there are numerous articles of merchandise possessing_value_, for they are sold, and which are nevertheless _untouched byhuman labor_. Among these you name corn, flour, meat, cattle, bacon, salt, iron, copper, lead, coal, wool, skins, seeds, etc. 

If you can prove to me, that the _value_ of these things is notdependent upon labor, I will agree that it is useless to protect them. 

But if I can prove to you that there is as much labor put upon a hundredfrancs worth of wool, as upon a hundred francs worth of cloth, you oughtto acknowledge that protection is the right as much of the one, as ofthe other. 

I ask you then why this bag of wool is worth a hundred francs? Is it notbecause this is its price of production? And what is the price ofproduction, but the sum which has been distributed in wages for labor, payment of skill, and interest on money, among the various laborers andcapitalists, who have assisted in the production of the article?

_The Petitioners. _--It is true that with regard to wool you may beright; but a bag of corn, a bar of iron, a hundred weight of coal, arethese the produce of labor? Is it not nature which _creates_ them?

_Mr. De St. Cricq. _--Without doubt, nature _creates_ these substances, but it is labor which gives them their _value_. I have myself, in sayingthat labor _creates_ material objects, used a false expression, whichhas led me into many farther errors. No man can _create_. No man canbring any thing from nothing; and if _production_ is used as a synonymfor _creation_, then indeed our labor must all be useless. 

The agriculturist does not pretend that he has _created_ the corn; buthe has given it its _value_. He has by his own labor, and by that of hisservants, his laborers, and his reapers, transformed into cornsubstances which were entirely dissimilar from it. What more is effectedby the miller who converts it into flour, or by the baker who makes itinto bread?

In order that a man may be dressed in cloth, numerous operations arefirst necessary. Before the intervention of any human labor, the real_primary materials_ of this article are air, water, heat, gas, light, and the various salts which enter into its composition. These are indeed_untouched by human labor_, for they have no _value_, and I have neverdreamed of their needing protection. But a first _labor_ converts thesesubstances into forage; a second into wool; a third into thread; afourth into cloth; and a fifth into garments. Who can pretend to say, that all these contributions to the work, from the first furrow of theplough, to the last stitch of the needle, are not _labor_?

And because, for the sake of speed and greater perfection in theaccomplishment of the final object, these various branches of labor aredivided among as many classes of workmen, you, by an arbitrarydistinction, determine that the order in which the various branches oflabor follow each other shall regulate their importance, so that whilethe first is not allowed to merit the name of labor, the last shallreceive all the favors of protection. 

_The Petitioners. _--Yes, we begin to understand that neither wool norcorn are entirely _independent of human labor_; but certainly theagriculturist has not, like the manufacturer, had every thing to do byhis own labor, and that of his workmen; nature has assisted him; and ifthere is some labor, at least all is not labor, in the production ofcorn. 

_Mr. De St. Cricq. _--But it is the labor alone which gives it _value_. Igrant that nature has assisted in the production of grain. I will evengrant that it is exclusively her work; but I must confess at least thatI have constrained her to it by my labor. And remark, moreover, thatwhen I sell my corn, it is not the _work of nature_ which I make you payfor, but _my own_. 

You will perceive, also, by following up your manner of arguing, thatneither will manufactured articles be the production of labor. Does notthe manufacturer also call upon nature to assist him? Does he not by theassistance of steam-machinery force into his service the weight of theatmosphere, as I, by the use of the plough, take advantage of itshumidity? Is it the cloth-manufacturer who has created the laws ofgravitation, transmission of forces and of affinities?

_The Petitioners. _--Well, well, we will give up wool, but assuredly coalis the work, the exclusive work, of nature. This, at least, is_independent of all human labor_. 

_Mr. De St. Cricq. _--Yes, nature certainly has made coal; but _labor hasmade its value_. Where was the _value_ of coal during the millions ofyears when it lay unknown and buried a hundred feet below the surface ofthe earth? It was necessary to seek it. Here was labor. It was necessaryto transport it to a market. Again this was labor. The price which youpay for coal in the market is the remuneration given to these labors ofdigging and transportation. [13]

[Footnote 13: I do not, for many reasons, make explicit mention of suchportion of the remuneration as belongs to the contractor, capitalist, etc. Firstly: because, if the subject be closely looked into, it will beseen that it is always either the reimbursing in advance, or the paymentof anterior _labor_. Secondly: because, under the general labor, Iinclude not only the salary of the workmen, but the legitimate paymentof all co-operation in the work of production. Thirdly: finally, andabove all, because the production of the manufactured articles is, likethat of the raw material, burdened with interests and remunerations, entirely independent of _manual labor_; and that the objection, initself, might be equally applied to the finest manufacture and to theroughest agricultural process. ]

We see that, so far, all the advantage is on the side of Mr. De St. Cricq, and that the _value_ of unmanufactured as of manufacturedarticles, represents always the expense, or what is the same thing, the_labor_ of production; that it is impossible to conceive of an articlebearing a _value, independent of human labor_; that the distinctionmade by the petitioners is futile in theory, and, as the basis of anunequal division of favors, would be iniquitous in practice; for itwould thence result that the one-third of the French occupied inmanufactures, would receive all the benefits of monopoly, because theyproduce _by labor_; while the two other thirds, formed by theagricultural population, would be left to struggle against competition, under pretense that they produce _without labor_. 

It will, I know, be insisted that it is advantageous to a nation toimport the raw material, whether or not it be the result of labor; andto export manufactured articles. This is a very generally receivedopinion. 

"In proportion, " says the petition of Bordeaux, "as raw material isabundant, manufactures will increase and flourish. "

"The abundance of raw material, " it elsewhere says, "gives an unlimitedscope to labor in those countries where it prevails. "

"Raw material, " says the petition from Havre, "being the element oflabor, should be _regulated on a different system_, and ought to beadmitted _immediately_ and at the _lowest rate_. "

The same petition asks, that the protection of manufactured articlesshould be reduced, not _immediately_, but at some indeterminate time, not to the _lowest rate_ of entrance, but to twenty per cent. 

"Among other articles, " says the petition of Lyons, "of which the lowprice and the abundance are necessary, the manufacturers name all _rawmaterial_. "

All this is based upon error. 

All _value_ is, we have seen, the representative of labor. Now it isundoubtedly true that manufacturing labor increases ten-fold, ahundred-fold, the value of raw material, thus dispensing ten, ahundred-fold increased profits throughout the nation; and from this factis deduced the following argument: The production of a hundred weight ofiron, is the gain of only fifteen francs to the various workers thereinengaged. This hundred weight of iron, converted into watch-springs, isincreased in value by this process, ten thousand francs. Who can pretendthat the nation is not more interested in securing the ten thousandfrancs, than the fifteen francs worth of labor?

In this reasoning it is forgotten, that international exchanges are, nomore than individual exchanges, effected through weight and measure. Theexchange is not between a hundred weight of unmanufactured iron, and ahundred weight of watch-springs, nor between a pound of wool just shorn, and a pound of wool just manufactured into cashmere, but between a fixedvalue in one of these articles, and a fixed equal value in another. Toexchange equal value with equal value, is to exchange equal labor withequal labor, and it is therefore not true that the nation which sellsits hundred francs worth of cloth or of watch-springs, gains more thanthe one which furnishes its hundred francs worth of wool or of iron. 

In a country where no law can be passed, no contribution imposed withoutthe consent of the governed, the public can be robbed, only after it hasfirst been cheated. Our own ignorance is the primary, the _raw material_of every act of extortion to which we are subjected, and it may safelybe predicted of every _Sophism_, that it is the forerunner of an act ofSpoliation. Good Public, whenever therefore you detect a Sophism in apetition, let me advise you, put your hand upon your pocket, for beassured, it is that which is particularly the point of attack. 

Let us then examine what is the secret design which the ship-owners ofBordeaux and Havre, and the manufacturers of Lyons, would smuggle inupon us by this distinction between agricultural produce andmanufactured produce. 

"It is, " say the petitioners of Bordeaux, "principally in this firstclass (that which comprehends raw material, _untouched by human labor_)that we find _the principal encouragement of our merchant vessels_. .. . Awise system of political economy would require that this class shouldnot be taxed. .. . The second class (articles which have received somepreparation) may be considered as taxable. The third (articles whichhave received from labor all the finish of which they are capable) weregard as _most proper for taxation_. "

"Considering, " say the petitioners of Havre, "that it is indispensableto reduce _immediately_ and to the _lowest rate_, the raw material, inorder that manufacturing industry may give employment to our merchantvessels, which furnish its first and indispensable means of labor. "

The manufacturers could not allow themselves to be behindhand incivilities towards the ship-owners, and accordingly the petition ofLyons demands the free introduction of raw material, "in order toprove, " it remarks, "that the interests of manufacturing towns are notopposed to those of maritime cities. "

This may be true enough; but it must be confessed that both, taken inthe sense of the petitioners, are terribly adverse to the interest ofagriculture and of consumers. 

This, then, gentlemen, is the aim of all your subtle distinctions! Youwish the law to oppose the maritime transportation of _manufactured_articles, in order that the much more expensive transportation of theraw material should, by its larger bulk, in its rough, dirty andunimproved condition, furnish a more extensive business to your_merchant vessels_. And this is what you call a _wise system ofpolitical economy_!

Why not also petition for a law requiring that fir-trees, imported fromRussia, should not be admitted without their branches, bark, and roots;that Mexican gold should be imported in the state of ore, and BuenosAyres leathers only allowed an entrance into our ports, while stillhanging to the dead bones and putrefying bodies to which they belong?

The stockholders of railroads, if they can obtain a majority in theChambers, will no doubt soon favor us with a law forbidding themanufacture, at Cognac, of the brandy used in Paris. For, surely, theywould consider it a wise law, which would, by forcing the transportationof ten casks of wine instead of one of brandy, thus furnish to Parisianindustry an _indispensable encouragement to its labor_, and, at the sametime, give employment to railroad locomotives!

Until when will we persist in shutting our eyes upon the followingsimple truth?

Labor and industry, in their general object, have but one legitimateaim, and this is the public good. To create useless industrial pursuits, to favor superfluous transportation, to maintain a superfluous labor, not for the good of the public, but at the expense of the public, is toact upon a _petitio principii_. For it is the result of labor, and notlabor itself, which is a desirable object. All labor, without a result, is clear loss. To pay sailors for transporting rough dirt and filthyrefuse across the ocean, is about as reasonable as it would be toengage their services, and pay them for pelting the water with pebbles. Thus we arrive at the conclusion that _political Sophisms_, notwithstanding their infinite variety, have one point in common, whichis the constant confounding of the _means_ with the _end_, and thedevelopment of the former at the expense of the latter. 

XXII. 

METAPHORS. 

A Sophism will sometimes expand and extend itself through the wholetissue of a long and tedious theory. Oftener it contracts into aprinciple, and hides itself in one word. 

"Heaven preserve us, " said Paul Louis, "from the Devil and from thespirit of metaphor!" And, truly, it might be difficult to determinewhich of the two sheds the most noxious influence over our planet. TheDevil, you will say, because it is he who implants in our hearts thespirit of spoliation. Aye; but he leaves the capacity for checkingabuses, by the resistance of those who suffer. It is the genius ofSophism which paralyzes this resistance. The sword which the spirit ofevil places in the hands of the aggressor, would fall powerless, if theshield of him who is attacked were not shattered in his grasp by thespirit of Sophism. Malbranche has, with great truth, inscribed upon thefrontispiece of his book this sentence: _Error is the cause of humanmisery_. 

Let us notice what passes in the world. Ambitious hypocrites may take asinister interest in spreading, for instance, the germ of nationalenmities. The noxious seed may, in its developments, lead to a generalconflagration, check civilization, spill torrents of blood, and drawupon the country that most terrible of scourges, _invasion_. Suchhateful sentiments cannot fail to degrade, in the opinion of othernations, the people among whom they prevail, and force those who retainsome love of justice to blush for their country. These are fearfulevils, and it would be enough that the public should have a clear viewof them, to induce them to secure themselves against the plotting ofthose who would expose them to such heavy chances. How, then, are theykept in darkness? How, but by metaphors? The meaning of three or fourwords is forced, changed, and depraved--and all is said. 

Such is the use made, for instance, of the word _invasion_. 

A master of French iron-works, exclaims: Save us from the _invasion_ ofEnglish iron. An English landholder cries; Let us oppose the _invasion_of French corn. And forthwith all their efforts are bent upon raisingbarriers between these two nations. Thence follows isolation; isolationleads to hatred; hatred to war; and war to _invasion_. What matters it?say the two _Sophists_; is it not better to expose ourselves to apossible _invasion_, than to meet a certain one? And the people believe;and the barriers are kept up. 

And yet what analogy can exist between an exchange and an invasion? Whatresemblance can possibly be discovered between a man-of-war, vomitingfire, death, and desolation over our cities--and a merchant vessel, which comes to offer in free and peaceable exchange, produce forproduce?

Much in the same way has the word _inundation_ been abused. This word isgenerally taken in a bad sense; and it is certainly of frequentoccurrence for inundations to ruin fields and sweep away harvests. Butif, as is the case in the inundations of the Nile, they were to leaveupon the soil a superior value to that which they carried away, weought, like the Egyptians, to bless and deify them. Would it not bewell, before declaiming against the _inundations_ of foreign produce, and checking them with expensive and embarrassing obstacles, to certifyourselves whether these inundations are of the number which desolate, orof those which fertilize a country? What would we think of Mehemet Ali, if, instead of constructing, at great expense, dams across the Nile toincrease the extent of its inundations, he were to scatter his piastersin attempts to deepen its bed, that he might rescue Egypt from thedefilement of the _foreign_ mud which is swept down upon it from themountains of the Moon? Exactly such a degree of wisdom do we exhibit, when at the expense of millions, we strive to preserve our country. .. . From what? From the blessings with which Nature has gifted otherclimates. 

Among the _metaphors_ which sometimes conceal, each in itself, a wholetheory of evil, there is none more common than that which is presentedunder the words _tribute_ and _tributary_. 

These words are so frequently employed as synonyms of _purchase_ and_purchaser_, that the terms are now used almost indifferently. And yetthere is as distinct a difference between a _tribute_, and a _purchase_, as between a _robbery_ and an _exchange_. It appears to me that it wouldbe quite as correct to say, Cartouche has broken open my strong-box, and, has _bought_ a thousand crowns from me, as to state, as I haveheard done to our honorable deputies, We have paid in _tribute_ toGermany the value of a thousand horses which she has sold us. 

The action of Cartouche was not a _purchase_, because he did not put, and with my consent, into my strong box an equivalent value to thatwhich he took out. Neither could the purchase-money paid to Germany be_tribute_, because it was not on our part a forced payment, gratuitouslyreceived on hers, but a willing compensation from us for a thousandhorses, which we ourselves judged to be worth 500, 000 francs. 

Is it necessary then seriously to criticise such abuses of language?Yes, for very seriously are they put forth in our books and journals. Nor can we flatter ourselves that they are the careless expressions ofuneducated writers, ignorant even of the terms of their own language. They are current with a vast majority, and among the most distinguishedof our writers. We find them in the mouths of our d'Argouts, Dupins, Villèles; of peers, deputies and ministers; men whose words become laws, and whose influence might establish the most revolting Sophisms, as thebasis of the administration of their country. 

A celebrated modern Philosopher has added to the categories of Aristotlethe Sophism which consists in expressing in one word a _petitioprincipii_. He cites several examples, and might have added the word_tributary_ to his nomenclature. For instance, the question is todetermine whether foreign purchases are useful or hurtful. You answer, hurtful. And why? Because they render us _tributary_ to foreigners. Truly here is a word, which begs the question at once. 

How has this delusive figure of speech introduced itself into therhetoric of monopolists?

Money is _withdrawn from the country_ to satisfy the rapacity of avictorious enemy: money is also _withdrawn from the country_ to pay formerchandise. The analogy is established between the two cases, calculating only the point of resemblance and abstracting that by whichthey differ. 

And yet it is certainly true, that the non-reimbursement in the firstcase, and the reimbursement freely agreed upon in the second, establishes between them so decided a difference, as to render itimpossible to class them under the same category. To be obliged, with adagger at your throat, to give a hundred francs, or to give themwillingly in order to obtain a desired object, --truly these are cases inwhich we can perceive little similarity. It might just as correctly besaid, that it is a matter of indifference whether we eat our bread, orhave it thrown into the water, because in both cases it is destroyed. Wehere draw a false conclusion, as in the case of the word _tribute_, by avicious manner of reasoning, which supposes an entire similitude betweentwo cases, their resemblance only being noticed and their differencesuppressed. 

CONCLUSION. 

All the Sophisms which I have so far combated, relate to the restrictivepolicy; and some even on this subject, and those of the most remarkable, I have, in pity to the reader, passed over: _acquired rights_;_unsuitableness_; _exhaustion of money_, _etc. _, _etc. _

But Social economy is not confined within this narrow circle. Fourierism, Saint Simonism, Commonism, agrarianism, anti-rentism, mysticism, sentimentalism, false philanthropy, affected aspirations fora chimerical equality and fraternity; questions relative to luxury, wages, machinery; to the pretended tyranny of capital; to colonies, outlets, population; to emigration, association, imposts, and loans, have encumbered the field of Science with a crowd of parasiticalarguments, --_Sophisms_, whose rank growth calls for the spade and theweeding-hoe. 

I am perfectly sensible of the defect of my plan, or rather absence ofplan. By attacking as I do, one by one, so many incoherent Sophisms, which clash, and then again often mingle with each other, I am consciousthat I condemn myself to a disorderly and capricious struggle, and amexposed to perpetual repetitions. 

I should certainly much prefer to state simply how things _are_, withouttroubling myself to contemplate the thousand aspects under whichignorance _supposes_ them to be. .. . To lay down at once the laws underwhich society prospers or perishes, would be _virtually_ to destroy atonce all Sophisms. When Laplace described what, up to his time, wasknown of the movements of celestial bodies, he dissipated, without evennaming them, all the astrological reveries of the Egyptians, Greeks, andHindoos, much more certainly than he could have done by attempting torefute them directly, through innumerable volumes. Truth is one, and thework which expounds it is an imposing and durable edifice. Error ismultiple, and of ephemereal nature. The work which combats it, cannotbear in itself a principle of greatness or of durability. 

But if power, and perhaps opportunity, have been wanting to me, toenable me to proceed in the manner of Laplace and of Say, I still cannotbut believe that the mode adopted by me has also its modest usefulness. It appears to me likewise to be well suited to the wants of the age, andto the broken moments which it is now the habit to snatch for study. 

A treatise has without doubt an incontestable superiority. But itrequires to be read, meditated, and understood. It addresses itself tothe select few. Its mission is first to fix attention, and then toenlarge the circle of acquired knowledge. 

A work which undertakes the refutation of vulgar prejudices, cannot haveso high an aim. It aspires only to clear the way for the steps of Truth;to prepare the minds of men to receive her; to rectify public opinion, and to snatch from unworthy hands dangerous weapons which they misuse. 

It is above all, in social economy, that this hand-to-hand struggle, this ever-reviving combat with popular errors, has a true practicalutility. 

Sciences might be arranged in two categories. Those of the first classwhose application belongs only to particular professions, can beunderstood only by the learned; but the most ignorant may profit bytheir fruits. We may enjoy the comforts of a watch; we may betransported by locomotives or steamboats, although knowing nothing ofmechanism and astronomy. We walk according to the laws of equilibrium, while entirely ignorant of them. 

But there are sciences whose influence upon the public is proportionedonly to the information of that public itself, and whose efficacyconsists not in the accumulated knowledge of some few learned heads, butin that which has diffused itself into the reason of man in theaggregate. Such are morals, hygiene, social economy, and (in countrieswhere men belong to themselves) political economy. Of these sciencesBentham might above all have said: "It is better to circulate, than toadvance them. " What does it profit us that a great man, even a God, should promulgate moral laws, if the minds of men, steeped in error, will constantly mistake vice for virtue, and virtue for vice? What doesit benefit us that Smith, Say, and, according to Mr. De St. Chamans, political economists of _every school_, should have proclaimed thesuperiority in all commercial transactions, of _liberty_ above_restraint_, if those who make laws, and for whom laws are made, areconvinced of the contrary?

These sciences, which have very properly been named _social_, are againpeculiar in this, that they, being of common application, no one willconfess himself ignorant of them. If the object be to determine aquestion in chemistry or geometry, nobody pretends to have an innateknowledge of the science, or is ashamed to consult Mr. Thénard, or toseek information from the pages of Legendre or Bezout. But in the socialsciences authorities are rarely acknowledged. As each individual dailyacts upon his own notions whether right or wrong, of morals, hygiene, and economy; of politics, whether reasonable or absurd, each one thinkshe has a right to prose, comment, decide, and dictate in these matters. Are you sick? There is not a good old woman in the country who is notready to tell you the cause and the remedy of your sufferings. "It isfrom humors in the blood, " says she, "you must be purged. " But what arethese humors, or are there any humors at all? On this subject shetroubles herself but little. This good old woman comes into my mind, whenever I hear an attempt made to account for all the maladies of thesocial body, by some trivial form of words. It is superabundance ofproduce, tyranny of capital, industrial plethora, or other suchnonsense, of which, it would be fortunate if we could say: _Verba etvoces prætereaque nihil_, for these are errors from which fatalconsequences follow. 

From what precedes, the two following results may be deduced: 1st. Thatthe social sciences, more than others, necessarily abound in _Sophisms_, because in their application, each individual consults only his ownjudgment and his own instincts. 2d. That in these sciences _Sophisms_are especially injurious, because they mislead opinion on a subject inwhich opinion is power--is law. 

Two kinds of books then are necessary in these sciences, those whichteach, and those which circulate; those which expound the truth, andthose which combat error. 

I believe that the inherent defect of this little work, _repetition_, iswhat is likely to be the cause of its principal utility. Among theSophisms which it has discussed, each has undoubtedly its own formulaand tendency, but all have a common root; and this is, the_forgetfulness of the interests of men, considered as consumers_. Byshowing that a thousand mistaken roads all lead to this great_generative_ Sophism, I may perhaps teach the public to recognize, toknow, and to mistrust it, under all circumstances. 

After all, I am less at forcing convictions, than at waking doubts. 

I have no hope that the reader as he lays down my book will exclaim, _Iknow_. My aspirations will be fully satisfied, if he can but sincerelysay, _I doubt_. 

"I doubt, for I begin to fear that there may be something illusory inthe supposed blessings of scarcity. " (Sophism I. )

"I am not so certain of the beneficial effect of obstacles. " (SophismII. )

"_Effort without result_, no longer appears to me so desirable as_result without effort_. " (Sophism III. )

"I understand that the more an article has been labored upon, the moreis its _value_. But in trade, do two _equal_ values cease to be equal, because one comes from the plough, and the other from the workshop?"(Sophism XXI. )

"I confess that I begin to think it singular that mankind should be thebetter of hindrances and obstacles, or should grow rich upon taxes; andtruly I would be relieved from some anxiety, would be really happy tosee the proof of the fact, as stated by the author of "the Sophisms, "that there is no incompatibility between prosperity and justice, betweenpeace and liberty, between the extension of labor and the advance ofintelligence. " (Sophisms XIV and XX. )

"Without, then, giving up entirely to arguments, which I am yet in doubtwhether to look upon as fairly reasoned, or as paradoxical, I will atleast seek enlightenment from the masters of the science. "

 * * * * *

I will now terminate this sketch by a last and important recapitulation. 

The world is not sufficiently conscious of the influence exercised overit by _Sophistry_. 

When _might ceases to be right_, and the government of mere _strength_is dethroned, _Sophistry_ transfers the empire to _cunning andsubtilty_. It would be difficult to determine which of the two tyranniesis most injurious to mankind. 

Men have an immoderate love for pleasure, influence, consideration, power--in a word, for riches; and they are, by an almost unconquerableinclination, pushed to procure these, at the expense of others. 

But these _others_, who form the public, have a no less stronginclination to keep what they have acquired; and this they will do, ifthey have the _strength_ and the _knowledge_ to effect it. 

Spoliation, which plays so important a part in the affairs of thisworld, has then two agents; _Force_ and _Cunning_. She has also twochecks; _Courage_ and _Knowledge_. 

Force applied to spoliation, furnishes the great material for the annalsof men. To retrace its history would be to present almost the entirehistory of every nation: Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Goths, Franks, Huns, Turks, Arabs, Tartars, withoutcounting the more recent expeditions of the English in India, the Frenchin Africa, the Russians in Asia, etc. , etc. 

But among civilized nations surely the producers of riches are nowbecome sufficiently numerous and strong to defend themselves. 

Does this mean that they are no longer robbed? They are as much so asever, and moreover they rob one another. 

The only difference is that Spoliation has changed her agent. She actsno longer by _Force_, but by _Cunning_. 

To rob the public, it is necessary to deceive them. To deceive them, itis necessary to persuade them that they are robbed for their ownadvantage, and to induce them to accept in exchange for their property, imaginary services, and often worse. Hence spring _Sophisms_ in alltheir varieties. Then, since Force is held in check, _Sophistry_ is nolonger only an evil; it is the genius of evil, and requires a check inits turn. This check must be the enlightenment of the public, whichmust be rendered more _subtle_ than the subtle, as it is already_stronger_ than the strong. 

 * * * * *

GOOD PUBLIC! I now dedicate to you this first essay; though it must beconfessed that the Preface is strangely transposed, and the Dedication alittle tardy. 

PART II. 

SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 

SECOND SERIES. 

"The request of Industry to the government is as modest as that ofDiogenes to Alexander: 'Stand out of my sunshine. '"--BENTHAM. 

I. 

NATURAL HISTORY OF SPOLIATION. 

Why do I give myself up to that dry science, political economy?

The question is a proper one. All labor is so repugnant in its naturethat one has the right to ask of what use it is. 

Let us examine and see. 

I do not address myself to those philosophers who, if not in their ownnames, at least in the name of humanity, profess to adore poverty. 

I speak to those who hold wealth in esteem--and understand by this word, not the opulence of the few, but the comfort, the well-being, thesecurity, the independence, the instruction, the dignity of all. 

There are only two ways by which the means essential to thepreservation, the adornment and the perfection of life may beobtained--production and spoliation. Some persons may say: "Spoliationis an accident, a local and transient abuse, denounced by morality, punished by the law, and unworthy the attention of political economy. "

Still, however benevolent or optimistic one may be, he is compelled toadmit that spoliation is practiced on so vast a scale in this world, andis so generally connected with all great human events, that no socialscience, and, least of all, political economy, can refuse to considerit. 

I go farther. That which prevents the perfection of the social system(at least in so far as it is capable of perfection) is the constanteffort of its members to live and prosper at the expense of each other. So that, if spoliation did not exist, society being perfect, the socialsciences would be without an object. 

I go still farther. When spoliation becomes a means of subsistence for abody of men united by social ties, in course of time they make a lawwhich sanctions it, a morality which glorifies it. 

It is enough to name some of the best defined forms of spoliation toindicate the position it occupies in human affairs. 

First comes war. Among savages the conqueror kills the conquered, toobtain an uncontested, if not incontestable, right to game. 

Next slavery. When man learns that he can make the earth fruitful bylabor, he makes this division with his brother: "You work and I eat. "

Then comes superstition. "According as you give or refuse me that whichis yours, I will open to you the gates of heaven or of hell. "

Finally, monopoly appears. Its distinguishing characteristic is to allowthe existence of the grand social law--_service for service_--while itbrings the element of force into the discussion, and thus alters thejust proportion between _service received_ and _service rendered_. 

Spoliation always bears within itself the germ of its own destruction. Very rarely the many despoil the few. In such a case the latter soonbecome so reduced that they can no longer satisfy the cupidity of theformer, and spoliation ceases for want of sustenance. 

Almost always the few oppress the many, and in that case spoliation isnone the less undermined, for, if it has force as an agent, as in warand slavery, it is natural that force in the end should be on the sideof the greater number. And if deception is the agent, as withsuperstition and monopoly, it is natural that the many shouldultimately become enlightened. 

Another law of Providence wars against spoliation. It is this:

Spoliation not only displaces wealth, but always destroys a portion. 

War annihilates values. 

Slavery paralyzes the faculties. 

Monopoly transfers wealth from one pocket to another, but it alwaysoccasions the loss of a portion in the transfer. 

This is an admirable law. Without it, provided the strength ofoppressors and oppressed were equal, spoliation would have no end. 

A moment comes when the destruction of wealth is such that the despoileris poorer than he would have been if he had remained honest. 

So it is with a people when a war costs more than the booty is worth;with a master who pays more for slave labor than for free labor; with apriesthood which has so stupefied the people and destroyed its energythat nothing more can be gotten out of it; with a monopoly whichincreases its attempts at absorption as there is less to absorb, just asthe difficulty of milking increases with the emptiness of the udder. 

Monopoly is a species of the genus spoliation. It has many varieties, among them sinecure, privilege, and restriction upon trade. 

Some of the forms it assumes are simple and _naive_, like feudal rights. Under this _regime_ the masses are despoiled, and know it. 

Other forms are more complicated. Often the masses are plundered, and donot know it. It may even happen that they believe that they owe everything to spoliation, not only what is left them but what is taken fromthem, and what is lost in the operation. I also assert that, in thecourse of time, thanks to the ingenious machinery of habit, many peoplebecome spoilers without knowing it or wishing it. Monopolies of thiskind are begotten by fraud and nurtured by error. They vanish onlybefore the light. 

I have said enough to indicate that political economy has a manifestpractical use. It is the torch which, unveiling deceit and dissipatingerror, destroys that social disorder called spoliation. Some one, awoman I believe, has correctly defined it as "the safety-lock upon theproperty of the people. "

COMMENTARY. 

If this little book were destined to live three or four thousand years, to be read and re-read, pondered and studied, phrase by phrase, word byword, and letter by letter, from generation to generation, like a newKoran; if it were to fill the libraries of the world with avalanches ofannotations, explanations and paraphrases, I might leave to their fate, in their rather obscure conciseness, the thoughts which precede. Butsince they need a commentary, it seems wise to me to furnish it myself. 

The true and equitable law of humanity is the _free exchange of servicefor service_. Spoliation consists in destroying by force or by trickerythe freedom of exchange, in order to receive a service without renderingone. 

Forcible spoliation is exercised thus: Wait till a man has producedsomething; then take it from him by violence. 

It is solemnly condemned by the Decalogue: _Thou shalt not steal. _

When practiced by one individual on another, it is called robbery, andleads to the prison; when practiced among nations, it takes the name ofconquest, and leads to glory. 

Why this difference? It is worth while to search for the cause. It willreveal to us an irresistible power, public opinion, which, like theatmosphere, envelopes us so completely that we do not notice it. Rousseau never said a truer thing than this: "A great deal of philosophyis needed to understand the facts which are very near to us. "

The robber, for the reason that he acts alone, has public opinionagainst him. He terrifies all who are about him. Yet, if he hascompanions, he plumes himself before them on his exploits, and here wemay begin to notice the power of public opinion, for the approbation ofhis band serves to obliterate all consciousness of his turpitude, andeven to make him proud of it. The warrior lives in a differentatmosphere. The public opinion which would rebuke him is among thevanquished. He does not feel its influence. But the opinion of those bywhom he is surrounded approves his acts and sustains him. He and hiscomrades are vividly conscious of the common interest which unites them. The country which has created enemies and dangers, needs to stimulatethe courage of its children. To the most daring, to those who haveenlarged the frontiers, and gathered the spoils of war, are givenhonors, reputation, glory. Poets sing their exploits. Fair women weavegarlands for them. And such is the power of public opinion that itseparates the idea of injustice from spoliation, and even rids thedespoiler of the consciousness of his wrong-doing. 

The public opinion which reacts against military spoliation, (as itexists among the conquered and not among the conquering people), hasvery little influence. But it is not entirely powerless. It gains instrength as nations come together and understand one another better. Thus, it can be seen that the study of languages and the freecommunication of peoples tend to bring about the supremacy of an opinionopposed to this sort of spoliation. 

Unfortunately, it often happens that the nations adjacent to aplundering people are themselves spoilers when opportunity offers, andhence are imbued with the same prejudices. 

Then there is only one remedy--time. It is necessary that nations learnby harsh experience the enormous disadvantage of despoiling each other. 

You say there is another restraint--moral influences. But moralinfluences have for their object the increase of virtuous actions. Howcan they restrain these acts of spoliation when these very acts areraised by public opinion to the level of the highest virtues? Is there amore potent moral influence than religion? Has there ever been areligion more favorable to peace or more universally received thanChristianity? And yet what has been witnessed during eighteen centuries?Men have gone out to battle, not merely in spite of religion, but in thevery name of religion. 

A conquering nation does not always wage offensive war. Its soldiers areobliged to protect the hearthstones, the property, the families, theindependence and liberty of their native land. At such a time warassumes a character of sanctity and grandeur. The flag, blessed by theministers of the God of Peace, represents all that is sacred on earth;the people rally to it as the living image of their country and theirhonor; the warlike virtues are exalted above all others. When the dangeris over, the opinion remains, and by a natural reaction of that spiritof vengeance which confounds itself with patriotism, they love to bearthe cherished flag from capital to capital. It seems that nature hasthus prepared the punishment of the aggressor. 

It is the fear of this punishment, and not the progress of philosophy, which keeps arms in the arsenals, for it cannot be denied that thosepeople who are most advanced in civilization make war, and botherthemselves very little with justice when they have no reprisals to fear. Witness the Himalayas, the Atlas, and the Caucasus. 

If religion has been impotent, if philosophy is powerless, how is war tocease?

Political economy demonstrates that even if the victors alone areconsidered, war is always begun in the interest of the few, and at theexpense of the many. All that is needed, then, is that the masses shouldclearly perceive this truth. The weight of public opinion, which is yetdivided, would then be cast entirely on the side of peace. 

Forcible spoliation also takes another form. Without waiting for a manto produce something in order to rob him, they take possession of theman himself, deprive him of his freedom, and force him to work. They donot say to him, "If you will do this for me, I will do that for you, "but they say to him, "You take all the troubles; we all the enjoyments. "This is slavery. 

Now it is important to inquire whether it is not in the nature ofuncontrolled power always to abuse itself. 

For my part I have no doubt of it, and should as soon expect to see thepower that could arrest a stone in falling proceed from the stoneitself, as to trust force within any defined limits. 

I should like to be shown a country where slavery has been abolished bythe voluntary action of the masters. 

Slavery furnishes a second striking example of the impotence ofphilosophical and religious sentiments in a conflict with the energeticactivity of self-interest. 

This may seem sad to some modern schools which seek the reformation ofsociety in self-denial. Let them begin by reforming the nature of man. 

In the Antilles the masters, from father to son, have, since slavery wasestablished, professed the Christian religion. Many times a day theyrepeat these words: "All men are brothers. Love thy neighbor as thyself;in this are the law and the prophets fulfilled. " Yet they hold slaves, and nothing seems to them more legitimate or natural. Do modernreformers hope that their moral creed will ever be as universallyaccepted, as popular, as authoritative, or as often on all lips as theGospel? If _that_ has not passed from the lips to the heart, over orthrough the great barrier of self-interest, how can they hope that theirsystem will work this miracle?

Well, then, is slavery invulnerable? No; self-interest, which foundedit, will one day destroy it, provided the special interests which havecreated it do not stifle those general interests which tend to overthrowit. 

Another truth demonstrated by political economy is, that free labor isprogressive, and slave labor stationary. Hence the triumph of the firstover the second is inevitable. What has become of the cultivation ofindigo by the blacks?

Free labor, applied to the production of sugar, is constantly causing areduction in the price. Slave property is becoming proportionately lessvaluable to the master. Slavery will soon die out in America unless theprice of sugar is artificially raised by legislation. Accordingly we seeto-day the masters, their creditors and representatives, making vigorousefforts to maintain these laws, which are the pillars of the edifice. 

Unfortunately they still have the sympathy of people among whom slaveryhas disappeared, from which circumstance the sovereignty of publicopinion may again be observed. If public opinion is sovereign in thedomain of force, it is much more so in the domain of fraud. Fraud is itsproper sphere. Stratagem is the abuse of intelligence. Imposture on thepart of the despoiler implies credulity on the part of the despoiled, and the natural antidote of credulity is truth. It follows that toenlighten the mind is to deprive this species of spoliation of itssupport. 

I will briefly pass in review a few of the different kinds of spoliationwhich are practiced on an exceedingly large scale. The first whichpresents itself is spoliation through the avenue of superstition. Inwhat does it consist? In the exchange of food, clothing, luxury, distinction, influence, power--substantial services for fictitiousservices. If I tell a man: "I will render you an immediate service, " Iam obliged to keep my word, or he would soon know what to depend upon, and my trickery would be unmasked. 

But if I should tell him, "In exchange for your services I will do youimmense service, not in this world but in another; after this life youmay be eternally happy or miserable, and that happiness or miserydepends upon me; I am a vicar between God and man, and can open to youthe gates of heaven or of hell;" if that man believes me he is at mymercy. 

This method of imposture has been very extensively practiced since thebeginning of the world, and it is well known to what omnipotence theEgyptian priests attained by such means. 

It is easy to see how impostors proceed. It is enough to ask one's selfwhat he would do in their place. 

If I, entertaining views of this kind, had arrived in the midst of anignorant population, and were to succeed by some extraordinary act ormarvelous appearance in passing myself off as a supernatural being, Iwould claim to be a messenger from God, having an absolute control overthe future destinies of men. 

Then I would forbid all examination of my claims. I would go stillfurther, and, as reason would be my most dangerous enemy, I wouldinterdict the use of reason--at least as applied to this dangeroussubject. I would _taboo_, as the savages say, this question, and allthose connected with it. To agitate them, discuss them, or even think ofthem, should be an unpardonable crime. 

Certainly it would be the acme of art thus to put the barrier of the_taboo_ upon all intellectual avenues which might lead to the discoveryof my imposture. What better guarantee of its perpetuity than to makeeven doubt sacrilege?

However, I would add accessory guarantees to this fundamental one. Forinstance, in order that knowledge might never be disseminated among themasses, I would appropriate to myself and my accomplices the monopoly ofthe sciences. I would hide them under the veil of a dead language andhieroglyphic writing; and, in order that no danger might take meunawares, I would be careful to invent some ceremony which day by daywould give me access to the privacy of all consciences. 

It would not be amiss for me to supply some of the real wants of mypeople, especially if by doing so I could add to my influence andauthority. For instance, men need education and moral teaching, and Iwould be the source of both. Thus I would guide as I pleased the mindsand hearts of my people. I would join morality to my authority by anindissoluble chain, and I would proclaim that one could not existwithout the other, so that if any audacious individual attempted tomeddle with a _tabooed_ question, society, which cannot exist withoutmorality, would feel the very earth tremble under its feet, and wouldturn its wrath upon the rash innovator. 

When things have come to this pass, it is plain that these people aremore mine than if they were my slaves. The slave curses his chain, butmy people will bless theirs, and I shall succeed in stamping, not ontheir foreheads, but in the very centre of their consciences, the sealof slavery. 

Public opinion alone can overturn such a structure of iniquity; butwhere can it begin, if each stone is _tabooed_? It is the work of timeand the printing press. 

God forbid that I should seek to disturb those consoling beliefs whichlink this life of sorrows to a life of felicity. But, that theirresistible longing which attracts us toward religion has been abused, no one, not even the Head of Christianity, can deny. There is, it seemsto me, one sign by which you can know whether the people are or are notdupes. Examine religion and the priest, and see whether the priest isthe instrument of religion, or religion the instrument of the priest. 

If the priest is the instrument of religion, if his only thought is todisseminate its morality and its benefits on the earth, he will begentle, tolerant, humble, charitable, and full of zeal; his life willreflect that of his divine model; he will preach liberty and equalityamong men, and peace and fraternity among nations; he will repel theallurements of temporal power, and will not ally himself with thatwhich, of all things in this world, has the most need of restraint; hewill be the man of the people, the man of good advice and tenderconsolations, the man of public opinion, the man of the Evangelist. 

If, on the contrary, religion is the instrument of the priest, he willtreat it as one does an instrument which is changed, bent and twisted inall ways so as to get out of it the greatest possible advantage forone's self. He will multiply _tabooed_ questions; his morality will beas flexible as seasons, men, and circumstances. He will seek to imposeon humanity by gesticulations and studied attitudes; an hundred times aday he will mumble over words whose sense has evaporated and which havebecome empty conventionalities. He will traffic in holy things, but justenough not to shake faith in their sanctity, and he will take care thatthe more intelligent the people are, the less open shall the traffic be. He will take part in the intrigues of the world, and he will alwaysside with the powerful, on the simple condition that they side with him. In a word, it will be easy to see in all his actions that he does notdesire to advance religion by the clergy, but the clergy by religion, and as so many efforts indicate an object, and as this object, accordingto the hypothesis, can be only power and wealth, the decisive proof thatthe people are dupes is when the priest is rich and powerful. 

It is very plain that a true religion can be abused as well as a falseone. The higher its authority the greater the fear that it may beseverely tested. But there is much difference in the results. Abusealways stirs up to revolt the sound, enlightened, intelligent portion ofa people. This inevitably weakens faith, and the weakening of a truereligion is far more lamentable than of a false one. This kind ofspoliation, and popular enlightenment, are always in an inverse ratio toone another, for it is in the nature of abuses to go as far as possible. Not that pure and devoted priests cannot be found in the midst of themost ignorant population, but how can the knave be prevented fromdonning the cassock and nursing the ambitious hope of wearing the mitre?Despoilers obey the Malthusian law; they multiply with the means ofexistence, and the means of existence of knaves is the credulity oftheir dupes. Turn whichever way you please, you always find the need ofan enlightened public opinion. There is no other cure-all. 

Another species of spoliation is _commercial fraud_, a term which seemsto me too limited because the tradesman who changes his weights andmeasures is not alone culpable, but also the physician who receives afee for evil counsel, the lawyer who provokes litigation, etc. In theexchange of two services one may be of less value than the other, butwhen the service received is that which has been agreed upon, it isevident that spoliation of that nature will diminish with the increaseof public intelligence. 

The next in order is the abuse in the _public service_--an immense fieldof spoliation, so immense that we can give it but partial consideration. 

If God had made man a solitary animal, every one would labor forhimself. Individual wealth would be in proportion to the services eachone rendered to himself. But since _man is a social animal, one serviceis exchanged for another_. A proposition which you can transpose if itsuits you. 

In society there are certain requirements so general, so universal intheir nature, that provision has been made for them in the organizing ofthe public service. Among these is the necessity of security. Societyagrees to compensate in services of a different nature those who renderit the service of guarding the public safety. In this there is nothingcontrary to the principles of political economy. _Do this for me, I willdo that for you. _ The principle of the transaction is the same, althoughthe process is different, but the circumstance has great significance. 

In private transactions each individual remains the judge both of theservice which he renders and of that which he receives. He can alwaysdecline an exchange, or negotiate elsewhere. There is no necessity of aninterchange of services, except by previous voluntary agreement. Such isnot the case with the State, especially before the establishment ofrepresentative government. Whether or not we require its services, whether they are good or bad, we are obliged to accept such as areoffered and to pay the price. 

It is the tendency of all men to magnify their own services and todisparage services rendered them, and private matters would be poorlyregulated if there was not some standard of value. This guarantee wehave not, (or we hardly have it, ) in public affairs. But still society, composed of men, however strongly the contrary may be insinuated, obeysthe universal tendency. The government wishes to serve us a great deal, much more than we desire, and forces us to acknowledge as a real servicethat which sometimes is widely different, and this is done for thepurpose of demanding contributions from us in return. 

The State is also subject to the law of Malthus. It is continuallyliving beyond its means, it increases in proportion to its means, anddraws its support solely, from the substance of the people. Woe to thepeople who are incapable of limiting the sphere of action of the State. Liberty, private activity, riches, well-being, independence, dignity, depend upon this. 

There is one circumstance which must be noticed: Chief among theservices which we ask of the State is _security_. That it may guaranteethis to us it must control a force capable of overcoming all individualor collective domestic or foreign forces which might endanger it. Combined with that fatal disposition among men to live at the expense ofeach other, which we have before noticed, this fact suggests a dangerpatent to all. 

You will accordingly observe on what an immense scale spoliation, by theabuses and excesses of the government, has been practiced. 

If one should ask what service has been rendered the public, and whatreturn has been made therefor, by such governments as Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, Rome, Persia, Turkey, China, Russia, England, Spain and France, he would be astonished at the enormous disparity. 

At last representative government was invented, and, _a priori_, onemight have believed that the disorder would have ceased as if byenchantment. 

The principle of these governments is this:

"The people themselves, by their representatives, shall decide as to thenature and extent of the public service and the remuneration for thoseservices. "

The tendency to appropriate the property of another, and the desire todefend one's own, are thus brought in contact. One might suppose thatthe latter would overcome the former. Assuredly I am convinced that thelatter will finally prevail, but we must concede that thus far it hasnot. 

Why? For a very simple reason. Governments have had too much sagacity;people too little. 

Governments are skillful. They act methodically, consecutively, on awell concerted plan, which is constantly improved by tradition andexperience. They study men and their passions. If they perceive, forinstance, that they have warlike instincts, they incite and inflame thisfatal propensity. They surround the nation with dangers through theconduct of diplomats, and then naturally ask for soldiers, sailors, arsenals and fortifications. Often they have but the trouble ofaccepting them. Then they have pensions, places, and promotions tooffer. All this calls for money. Hence loans and taxes. 

If the nation is generous, the government proposes to cure all the illsof humanity. It promises to increase commerce, to make agricultureprosperous, to develop manufactures, to encourage letters and arts, tobanish misery, etc. All that is necessary is to create offices and topay public functionaries. 

In other words, their tactics consist in presenting as actual servicesthings which are but hindrances; then the nation pays, not for beingserved, but for being subservient. Governments assuming giganticproportions end by absorbing half of all the revenues. The people areastonished that while marvelous labor-saving inventions, destined toinfinitely multiply productions, are ever increasing in number, they areobliged to toil on as painfully as ever, and remain as poor as before. 

This happens because, while the government manifests so much ability, the people show so little. Thus, when they are called upon to choosetheir agents, those who are to determine the sphere of, and compensationfor, governmental action, whom do they choose? The agents of thegovernment. They entrust the executive power with the determination ofthe limit of its activity and its requirements. They are like the_Bourgeois Gentilhomme_, who referred the selection and number of hissuits of clothes to his tailor. 

However, things go from bad to worse, and at last the people open theireyes, not to the remedy, for there is none as yet, but to the evil. 

Governing is so pleasant a trade that everybody desires to engage in it. Thus the advisers of the people do not cease to say: "We see yoursufferings, and we weep over them. It would be otherwise if _we_governed you. "

This period, which usually lasts for some time, is one of rebellions andinsurrections. When the people are conquered, the expenses of the warare added to their burdens. When they conquer, there is a change ofthose who govern, and the abuses remain. 

This lasts until the people learn to know and defend their trueinterests. Thus we always come back to this: there is no remedy but inthe progress of public intelligence. 

Certain nations seem remarkably inclined to become the prey ofgovernmental spoliation. They are those where men, not considering theirown dignity and energy, would believe themselves lost, if they were notgoverned and administered upon in all things. Without having traveledmuch, I have seen countries where they think agriculture can make noprogress unless the State keeps up experimental farms; that there willpresently be no horses if the State has no stables; and that fatherswill not have their children educated, or will teach them onlyimmoralities, if the State does not decide what it is proper to learn. In such a country revolutions may rapidly succeed one another, and oneset of rulers after another be overturned. But the governed are none theless governed at the caprice and mercy of their rulers, until thepeople see that it is better to leave the greatest possible number ofservices in the category of those which the parties interested exchangeafter a fair discussion of the price. 

We have seen that society is an exchange of services, and should be butan exchange of good and honest ones. But we have also proven that menhave a great interest in exaggerating the relative value of the servicesthey render one another. I cannot, indeed, see any other limit to theseclaims than the free acceptance or free refusal of those to whom theseservices are offered. 

Hence it comes that certain men resort to the law to curtail the naturalprerogatives of this liberty. This kind of spoliation is calledprivilege or monopoly. We will carefully indicate its origin andcharacter. 

Every one knows that the services which he offers in the general marketare the more valued and better paid for, the scarcer they are. Each one, then, will ask for the enactment of a law to keep out of the market allwho offer services similar to his. 

This variety of spoliation being the chief subject of this volume, Iwill say little of it here, and will restrict myself to one remark:

When the monopoly is an isolated fact, it never fails to enrich theperson to whom the law has granted it. It may then happen that eachclass of workmen, instead of seeking the overthrow of this monopoly, claim a similar one for themselves. This kind of spoliation, thusreduced to a system, becomes then the most ridiculous of mystificationsfor every one, and the definite result is that each one believes that hegains more from a general market impoverished by all. 

It is not necessary to add that this singular _regime_ also brings aboutan universal antagonism between all classes, all professions, and allpeoples; that it requires the constant but always uncertain interferenceof government; that it swarms with the abuses which have been thesubject of the preceding paragraph; that it places all industrialpursuits in hopeless insecurity; and that it accustoms men to place uponthe law, and not upon themselves, the responsibility for their veryexistence. It would be difficult to imagine a more active cause ofsocial disturbance. 

JUSTIFICATION. 

It may be asked, "Why this ugly word--spoliation? It is not only coarse, but it wounds and irritates; it turns calm and moderate men against you, and embitters the controversy. "

I earnestly declare that I respect individuals; I believe in thesincerity of almost all the friends of Protection, and I do not claimthat I have any right to suspect the personal honesty, delicacy offeeling, or philanthropy of any one. I also repeat that Protection isthe work, the fatal work, of a common error, of which all, or nearlyall, are at once victims and accomplices. But I cannot prevent thingsbeing what they are. 

Just imagine some Diogenes putting his head out of his tub and saying, "Athenians, you are served by slaves. Have you never thought that youpractice on your brothers the most iniquitous spoliation?" Or a tribunespeaking in the forum, "Romans! you have laid the foundation of all yourgreatness on the pillage of other nations. "

They would state only undeniable truths. But must we conclude from thisthat Athens and Rome were inhabited only by dishonest persons? thatSocrates and Plato, Cato and Cincinnatus were despicable characters?

Who could harbor such a thought? But these great men lived amidstsurroundings that relieved their consciences of the sense of thisinjustice. Even Aristotle could not conceive the idea of a societyexisting without slavery. In modern times slavery has continued to ourown day without causing many scruples among the planters. Armies haveserved as the instruments of grand conquests--that is to say, of grandspoliations. Is this saying that they are not composed of officers andmen as sensitive of their honor, even more so, perhaps, than men inordinary industrial pursuits--men who would blush at the very thoughtof theft, and who would face a thousand deaths rather than stoop to abase action?

It is not individuals who are to blame, but the general movement ofopinion which deludes and deceives them--a movement for which society ingeneral is culpable. 

Thus is it with monopoly. I accuse the system, and not individuals;society as a mass, and not this or that one of its members. If thegreatest philosophers have been able to deceive themselves as to theiniquity of slavery, how much easier is it for farmers and manufacturersto deceive themselves as to the nature and effects of the protectivesystem. 

II. 

TWO SYSTEMS OF MORALS. 

Arrived at the end of the preceding chapter, if he gets so far, Iimagine I hear the reader say:

"Well, now, was I wrong in accusing political economists of being dryand cold? What a picture of humanity! Spoliation is a fatal power, almost normal, assuming every form, practiced under every pretext, against law and according to law, abusing the most sacred things, alternately playing upon the feebleness and the credulity of themasses, and ever growing by what it feeds on. Could a more mournfulpicture of the world be imagined than this?"

The problem is, not to find whether the picture is mournful, but whetherit is true. And for that we have the testimony of history. 

It is singular that those who decry political economy, because itinvestigates men and the world as it finds them, are more gloomy thanpolitical economy itself, at least as regards the past and the present. Look into their books and their journals. What do you find? Bitternessand hatred of society. The very word _civilization_ is for them asynonym for injustice, disorder and anarchy. They have even come tocurse _liberty_, so little confidence have they in the development ofthe human race, the result of its natural organization. Liberty, according to them, is something which will bring humanity nearer andnearer to destruction. 

It is true that they are optimists as regards the future. For, althoughhumanity, in itself incapable, for six thousand years has gone astray, arevelation has come, which has pointed out to men the way of safety, and, if the flock are docile and obedient to the shepherd's call, willlead them to the promised land, where well-being may be attained withouteffort, where order, security and prosperity are the easy reward ofimprovidence. 

To this end humanity, as Rousseau said, has only to allow thesereformers to change the physical and moral constitution of man. 

Political economy has not taken upon itself the mission of finding outthe probable condition of society had it pleased God to make mendifferent from what they are. It may be unfortunate that Providence, atthe beginning, neglected to call to his counsels a few of our modernreformers. And, as the celestial mechanism would have been entirelydifferent had the Creator consulted _Alphonso the Wise_, society, also, had He not neglected the advice of Fourier, would have been verydifferent from that in which we are compelled to live, and move, andbreathe. But, since we are here, our duty is to study and to understandHis laws, especially if the amelioration of our condition essentiallydepends upon such knowledge. 

We cannot prevent the existence of unsatisfied desires in the hearts ofmen. 

We cannot satisfy these desires except by labor. 

We cannot deny the fact that man has as much repugnance for labor as hehas satisfaction with its results. 

Since man has such characteristics, we cannot prevent the existence of aconstant tendency among men to obtain their part of the enjoyments oflife while throwing upon others, by force or by trickery, the burdens oflabor. It is not for us to belie universal history, to silence thevoice of the past, which attests that this has been the condition ofthings since the beginning of the world. We cannot deny that war, slavery, superstition, the abuses of government, privileges, frauds ofevery nature, and monopolies, have been the incontestable and terriblemanifestations of these two sentiments united in the heart of man:_desire for enjoyment; repugnance to labor_. 

"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread!" But every one wants asmuch bread and as little sweat as possible. This is the conclusion ofhistory. 

Thank Heaven, history also teaches that the division of blessings andburdens tends to a more exact equality among men. Unless one is preparedto deny the light of the sun, it must be admitted that, in this respectat least, society has made some progress. 

If this be true, there exists in society a natural and providentialforce, a law which causes iniquity gradually to cease, and makes justicemore and more a reality. 

We say that this force exists in society, and that God has placed itthere. If it did not exist we should be compelled, with the socialists, to search for it in those artificial means, in those arrangements whichrequire a fundamental change in the physical and moral constitution ofman, or rather we should consider that search idle and vain, for thereason that we could not comprehend the action of a lever without aplace of support. 

Let us, then, endeavor to indicate that beneficent force which tendsprogressively to overcome the maleficent force to which we have giventhe name spoliation, and the existence of which is only too wellexplained by reason and proved by experience. 

Every maleficent act necessarily has two terms--the point of beginningand the point of ending; the man who performs the act and the man uponwhom it is performed; or, in the language of the schools, the active andthe passive agent. There are, then, two means by which the maleficentact can be prevented: by the voluntary absence of the active, or by theresistance of the passive agent. Whence two systems of morals arise, notantagonistic but concurrent; religious or philosophical morality, andthe morality to which I permit myself to apply the name economical(utilitarian). 

Religious morality, to abolish and extirpate the maleficent act, appealsto its author, to man in his capacity of active agent. It says to him:"Reform yourself; purify yourself; cease to do evil; learn to do well;conquer your passions; sacrifice your interests; do not oppress yourneighbor, to succor and relieve whom is your duty; be first just, thengenerous. " This morality will always be the most beautiful, the mosttouching, that which will exhibit the human race in all its majesty;which will the best lend itself to the offices of eloquence, and willmost excite the sympathy and admiration of mankind. 

Utilitarian morality works to the same end, but especially addressesitself to man in his capacity of passive agent. It points out to him theconsequences of human actions, and, by this simple exhibition, stimulates him to struggle against those which injure, and to honorthose which are useful to him. It aims to extend among the oppressedmasses enough good sense, enlightenment and just defiance, to renderoppression both difficult and dangerous. 

It may also be remarked that utilitarian morality is not without itsinfluence upon the oppressor. An act of spoliation causes good andevil--evil for him who suffers it, good for him in whose favor it isexercised--else the act would not have been performed. But the good byno means compensates the evil. The evil always, and necessarily, predominates over the good, because the very fact of oppressionoccasions a loss of force, creates dangers, provokes reprisals, andrequires costly precautions. The simple exhibition of these effects isnot then limited to retaliation of the oppressed; it places all, whosehearts are not perverted, on the side of justice, and alarms thesecurity of the oppressors themselves. 

But it is easy to understand that this morality which is simply ascientific demonstration, and would even lose its efficiency if itchanged its character; which addresses itself not to the heart but tothe intelligence; which seeks not to persuade but to convince; whichgives proofs not counsels; whose mission is not to move but toenlighten, and which obtains over vice no other victory than to depriveit of its booty--it is easy to understand, I say, how this morality hasbeen accused of being dry and prosaic. The reproach is true withoutbeing just. It is equivalent to saying that political economy is noteverything, does not comprehend everything, is not the universalsolvent. But who has ever made such an exorbitant pretension in itsname? The accusation would not be well founded unless political economypresented its processes as final, and denied to philosophy and religionthe use of their direct and proper means of elevating humanity. Look atthe concurrent action of morality, properly so called, and of politicaleconomy--the one inveighing against spoliation by an exposure of itsmoral ugliness, the other bringing it into discredit in our judgment, byshowing its evil consequences. Concede that the triumph of the religiousmoralist, when realized, is more beautiful, more consoling and moreradical; at the same time it is not easy to deny that the triumph ofeconomical science is more facile and more certain. 

In a few lines, more valuable than many volumes, J. B. Say has alreadyremarked that there are two ways of removing the disorder introduced byhypocrisy into an honorable family; to reform Tartuffe, or sharpen thewits of Orgon. Moliere, that great painter of human life, seemsconstantly to have had in view the second process as the more efficient. 

Such is the case on the world's stage. Tell me what Cæsar did, and Iwill tell you what were the Romans of his day. 

Tell me what modern diplomacy has accomplished, and I will describe themoral condition of the nations. 

We should not pay two milliards of taxes if we did not appoint those whoconsume them to vote them. 

We should not have so much trouble, difficulty and expense with theAfrican question if we were as well convinced that two and two make fourin political economy as in arithmetic. 

M. Guizot would never have had occasion to say: "France is rich enoughto pay for her glory, " if France had never conceived a false idea ofglory. 

The same statesman never would have said: "_Liberty is too precious forFrance to traffic in it_, " if France had well understood that _liberty_and a _large budget_ are incompatible. 

Let religious morality then, if it can, touch the heart of theTartuffes, the Cæsars, the conquerors of Algeria, the sinecurists, themonopolists, etc. The mission of political economy is to enlighten theirdupes. Of these two processes, which is the more efficient aid to socialprogress? I believe it is the second. I believe that humanity cannotescape the necessity of first learning a _defensive morality_. I haveread, observed, and made diligent inquiry, and have been unable to findany abuse, practiced to any considerable extent, that has perished byvoluntary renunciation on the part of those who profited by it. On thecontrary, I have seen many that have yielded to the manly resistance ofthose who suffered by them. 

To describe the consequences of abuses, is the most efficient way ofdestroying the abuses themselves. And this is true particularly inregard to abuses which, like the protective system, while inflictingreal evil upon the masses, are to those who seem to profit by them onlyan illusion and a deception. 

Well, then, does this species of morality realize all the socialperfection which the sympathetic nature of the human heart and itsnoblest faculties cause us to hope for? This I by no means pretend. Admit the general diffusion of this defensive morality--which, afterall, is only a knowledge that the best understood interests are inaccord with general utility and justice. A society, although very wellregulated, might not be very attractive, where there were no knaves, only because there were no fools; where vice, always latent, and, so tospeak, overcome by famine, would only stand in need of available plunderin order to be restored to vigor; where the prudence of the individualwould be guarded by the vigilance of the mass, and, finally, wherereforms, regulating external acts, would not have penetrated to theconsciences of men. Such a state of society we sometimes see typified inone of those exact, rigorous and just men who is ever ready to resentthe slightest infringement of his rights, and shrewd in avoidingimpositions. You esteem him--possibly you admire him. You may make himyour deputy, but you would not necessarily choose him for a friend. 

Let, then, the two moral systems, instead of criminating each other, actin concert, and attack vice at its opposite poles. While the economistsperform their task in uprooting prejudice, stimulating just andnecessary opposition, studying and exposing the real nature of actionsand things, let the religious moralist, on his part, perform his moreattractive, but more difficult, labor; let him attack the very body ofiniquity, follow it to its most vital parts, paint the charms ofbeneficence, self-denial and devotion, open the fountains of virtuewhere we can only choke the sources of vice--this is his duty. It isnoble and beautiful. But why does he dispute the utility of that whichbelongs to us?

In a society which, though not superlatively virtuous, shouldnevertheless be regulated by the influences of _economical morality_(which is the knowledge of the economy of society), would there not be afield for the progress of religious morality?

Habit, it has been said, is a second nature. A country where theindividual had become unaccustomed to injustice, simply by the force ofan enlightened public opinion, might, indeed, be pitiable; but it seemsto me it would be well prepared to receive an education more elevatedand more pure. To be disaccustomed to evil is a great step towardsbecoming good. Men cannot remain stationary. Turned aside from the pathsof vice which would lead only to infamy, they appreciate better theattractions of virtue. Possibly it may be necessary for society to passthrough this prosaic state, where men practice virtue by calculation, tobe thence elevated to that more poetic region where they will no longerhave need of such an exercise. 

III. 

THE TWO HATCHETS. 

_Petition of Jacques Bonhomme, Carpenter, to M. Cunin-Gridaine, Ministerof Commerce. _

MR. MANUFACTURER-MINISTER: I am a carpenter, as was Jesus; I handle thehatchet and the plane to serve you. 

In chopping and splitting from morning until night in the domain of mylord, the King, the idea has occurred to me that my labor was as much_national_ as yours. 

And accordingly I don't understand why protection should not visit myshop as well as your manufactory. 

For indeed, if you make cloths, I make roofs. Both by different meansprotect our patrons from cold and rain. But I have to run aftercustomers while business seeks you. You know how to manage this byobtaining a monopoly, while my business is open to any one who choosesto engage in it. 

What is there astonishing in this? Mr. Cunin, the Cabinet Minister, hasnot forgotten Mr. Cunin, the manufacturer, as was very natural. Butunfortunately, my humble occupation has not given a Minister to France, although it has given a Saviour to the world. 

And this Saviour, in the immortal code which he bequeathed to men, didnot utter the smallest word by virtue of which carpenters might feelauthorized to enrich themselves as you do at the expense of others. 

Look, then, at my position. I earn thirty cents every day, exceptsSundays and holidays. If I apply to you for work at the same time with aFlemish workman, you give him the preference. 

But I need clothing. If a Belgian weaver puts his cloth beside yours, you drive both him and his cloth out of the country. Consequently, forced to buy at your shop, where it is dearest, my poor thirty centsare really worth only twenty-eight. 

What did I say? They are worth only twenty-six. For, instead of drivingthe Belgian weaver away at _your own expense_ (which would be the leastyou could do) you compel me to pay those who, in your interest, forcehim out of the market. 

And since a large number of your fellow-legislators, with whom you seemto have an excellent understanding, take away from me a cent or twoeach, under pretext of protecting somebody's coal, or oil, or wheat, when the balance is struck, I find that of my thirty cents I have onlyfifteen left from the pillage. 

Possibly, you may answer that those few pennies which pass thus, withoutcompensation, from my pocket to yours, support a number of people aboutyour _chateau_, and at the same time assist you in keeping up yourestablishment. To which, if you would permit me, I would reply, theywould likewise support a number of persons in my cottage. 

However this may be, Hon. Minister-Manufacturer, knowing that I shouldmeet with a cold reception were I to ask you to renounce the restrictionimposed upon your customers, as I have a right to, I prefer to followthe fashion, and to demand for myself, also, a little morsel of_protection_. 

To this, doubtless you will interpose some objections. "Friend, " youwill say, "I would be glad to protect you and your colleagues; but howcan I confer such favors upon the labor of carpenters? Shall I prohibitthe importation of houses by land and by sea?"

This would seem sufficiently ridiculous, but by giving much thought tothe subject, I have discovered a way to protect the children of St. Joseph, and you will, I trust, the more readily grant it since itdiffers in no respect from the privilege which you vote for yourselfevery year. This wonderful way is to prohibit the use of sharp hatchetsin France. 

I say that this restriction would be neither more illogical norarbitrary than that which you subject us to in regard to your cloth. 

Why do you drive away the Belgians? Because they sell cheaper than youdo. And why do they sell cheaper than you do? Because they are in someway or another your superiors as manufacturers. 

Between you and the Belgians, then, there is exactly the same differencethat there is between a dull hatchet and a sharp one. And you compel me, a carpenter, to buy the workmanship of your dull hatchet!

Consider France a laborer, obliged to live by his daily toil, anddesiring, among other things, to purchase cloth. There are two means ofdoing this. The first is to card the wool and weave the cloth himself;the second is to manufacture clocks, or wines, or wall-paper, orsomething of the sort, and exchange them in Belgium for cloth. 

The process which gives the larger result may be represented by thesharp hatchet; the other process by the dull one. 

You will not deny that at the present day in France it is more difficultto manufacture cloth than to cultivate the vine--the former is the dullhatchet, the latter the sharp one--on the contrary, you make thisgreater difficulty the very reason why you recommend to us the worst ofthe two hatchets. 

Now, then, be consistent, if you will not be just, and treat the poorcarpenters as well as you treat yourself. Make a law which shall read:"It is forbidden to use beams or shingles which have not been fashionedby dull hatchets. "

And you will immediately perceive the result. 

Where we now strike an hundred blows with the ax, we shall be obliged togive three hundred. What a powerful encouragement to industry!Apprentices, journeymen and masters, we should suffer no more. We shouldbe greatly sought after, and go away well paid. Whoever wishes to enjoya roof must leave us to make his tariff, just as buyers of cloth are nowobliged to submit to you. 

As for those free trade theorists, should they ever venture to call theutility of this system in question we should know where to go for anunanswerable argument. Your investigation of 1834 is at our service. Weshould fight them with that, for there you have admirably pleaded thecause of prohibition, and of dull hatchets, which are both the same. 

IV. 

INFERIOR COUNCIL OF LABOR. 

"What! You have the assurance to demand for every citizen the right tobuy, sell, trade, exchange, and to render service for service accordingto his own discretion, on the sole condition that he will conducthimself honestly, and not defraud the revenue? Would you rob theworkingman of his labor, his wages and his bread?"

This is what is said to us. I know what the general opinion is; but Ihave desired to know what the laborers themselves think. I have had anexcellent opportunity of finding out. 

It was not one of those _Superior Councils of Industry_ (Committee onthe Revision of the Tariff), where large manufacturers, who stylethemselves laborers, influential ship-builders who imagine themselvesseamen, and wealthy bondholders who think themselves workmen, meet andlegislate in behalf of that philanthropy with whose nature we are sowell acquainted. 

No, they were workmen "to the manor born, " real, practical laborers, such as joiners, carpenters, masons, tailors, shoemakers, blacksmiths, grocers, etc. , etc. , who had established in my village a _Mutual AidSociety_. Upon my own private authority I transformed it into an_Inferior Council of Labor_ (People's Committee for Revising theTariff), and I obtained a report which is as good as any other, althoughunencumbered by figures, and not distended to the proportions of aquarto volume and printed at the expense of the State. 

The subject of my inquiry was the real or supposed influence of theprotective system upon these poor people. The President, indeed, informed me that the institution of such an inquiry was somewhat incontravention of the principles of the society. For, in France, the landof liberty, those who desire to form associations must renouncepolitical discussions--that is to say, the discussion of their commoninterests. However, after much hesitation, he made the question theorder of the day. 

The assembly was divided into as many sub-committees as there weredifferent trades represented. A blank was handed to each sub-committee, which, after fifteen days' discussion, was to be filled and returned. 

On the appointed day the venerable President took the chair (officialstyle, for it was only a stool) and found upon the table (officialstyle, again, for it was a deal plank across a barrel) a dozen reports, which he read in succession. 

The first presented was that of the tailors. Here it is, as accuratelyas if it had been photographed:

RESULTS OF PROTECTION--REPORT OF THE TAILORS. 

_Disadvantages. _ |_Advantages. _ |1. On account of the protective tariff, we pay | None. More for our own bread, meat, sugar, thread, |etc. , which is equivalent to a considerable | 1. We have examineddiminution of our wages. | the question in | every light, and2. On account of the protective tariff, our patrons | have been unable toare also obliged to pay more for everything, and | perceive a singlehave less to spend for clothes, consequently we | point in regard tohave less work and smaller profits. | which the protective | system is3. On account of the protective tariff, clothes | advantageous toare expensive, and people make them wear longer, | our trade. Which results in a loss of work, and compels us to |offer our services at greatly reduced rates. |

Here is another report:

EFFECTS OF PROTECTION--REPORT OF THE BLACKSMITHS. 

_Disadvantages. _ | _Advantages. _ |1. The protective system imposes a tax (which does |not get into the Treasury) every time we eat, drink, |warm, or clothe ourselves. | |2. It imposes a similar tax upon our neighbors, and |hence, having less money, most of them use wooden |pegs, instead of buying nails, which deprives us of |labor. | |3. It keeps the price of iron so high that it can | None. No longer be used in the country for plows, or gates, |or house fixtures, and our trade, which might give |work to so many who have none, does not even give |ourselves enough to do. | |4. The deficit occasioned in the Treasury by those |goods _which do not enter_ is made up by taxes |on our salt. |

The other reports, with which I will not trouble the reader, told thesame story. Gardeners, carpenters, shoemakers, boatmen, all complainedof the same grievances. 

I am sorry there were no day laborers in our association. Their reportwould certainly have been exceedingly instructive. But, unfortunately, the poor laborers of our province, all _protected_ as they are, have nota cent, and, after having taken care of their cattle, cannot gothemselves to the _Mutual Aid Society_. The pretended favors ofprotection do not prevent them from being the pariahs of modern society. 

What I would especially remark is the good sense with which ourvillagers have perceived not only the direct evil results of protection, but also the indirect evil which, affecting their patrons, reacts uponthemselves. 

This is a fact, it seems to me, which the economists of the school ofthe _Moniteur Industriel_ do not understand. 

And possibly some men, who are fascinated by a very little protection, the agriculturists, for instance, would voluntarily renounce it if theynoticed this side of the question. Possibly, they might say tothemselves: "It is better to support one's self surrounded by well-to-doneighbors, than to be protected in the midst of poverty. " For to seek toencourage every branch of industry by successively creating a voidaround them, is as vain as to attempt to jump away from one's shadow. 

V. 

DEARNESS--CHEAPNESS. 

I consider it my duty to say a few words in regard to the delusioncaused by the words _dear_ and _cheap_. At the first glance, I am aware, you may be disposed to find these remarks somewhat subtile, but whethersubtile or not, the question is whether they are true. For my part Iconsider them perfectly true, and particularly well adapted to causereflection among a large number of those who cherish a sincere faith inthe efficacy of protection. 

Whether advocates of free trade or defenders of protection, we are allobliged to make use of the expression _dearness_ and _cheapness_. Theformer take sides in behalf of _cheapness_, having in view the interestsof consumers. The latter pronounce themselves in favor of _dearness_, preoccupying themselves solely with the interests of the producer. Others intervene, saying, _producer and consumer are one and the same_, which leaves wholly undecided the question whether cheapness or dearnessought to be the object of legislation. 

In this conflict of opinion it seems to me that there is only oneposition for the law to take--to allow prices to regulate themselvesnaturally. But the principle of "let alone" has obstinate enemies. Theyinsist upon legislation without even knowing the desired objects oflegislation. It would seem, however, to be the duty of those who wish tocreate high or low prices artificially, to state, and to substantiate, the reasons of their preference. The burden of proof is upon them. Liberty is always considered beneficial until the contrary is proved, and to allow prices naturally to regulate themselves is liberty. But the_roles_ have been changed. The partisans of high prices have obtained atriumph for their system, and it has fallen to defenders of naturalprices to prove the advantages of their system. The argument on bothsides is conducted with two words. It is very essential, then, tounderstand their meaning. 

It must be granted at the outset that a series of events have happenedwell calculated to disconcert both sides. 

In order to produce _high prices_ the protectionists have obtained hightariffs, and still low prices have come to disappoint theirexpectations. 

In order to produce _low prices_, free traders have sometimes carriedtheir point, and, to their great astonishment, the result in someinstances has been an increase instead of a reduction in prices. 

For instance, in France, to protect farmers, a law was passed imposing aduty of twenty-two per cent. Upon imported wools, and the result hasbeen that native wools have been sold for much lower prices than beforethe passage of the law. 

In England a law in behalf of the consumers was passed, exemptingforeign wools from duty, and the consequence has been that native woolshave sold higher than ever before. 

And this is not an isolated fact, for the price of wool has no specialor peculiar nature which takes it out of the general law governingprices. The same fact has been reproduced under analogous circumstances. Contrary to all expectation, protection has frequently resulted in lowprices, and free trade in high prices. Hence there has been a deal ofperplexity in the discussion, the protectionists saying to theiradversaries: "These low prices that you talk about so much are theresult of our system;" and the free traders replying: "Those high priceswhich you find so profitable are the consequence of free trade. "

There evidently is a misunderstanding, an illusion, which must bedispelled. This I will endeavor to do. 

Suppose two isolated nations, each composed of a million inhabitants;admit that, other things being equal, one nation had exactly twice asmuch of everything as the other--twice as much wheat, wine, iron, fuel, books, clothing, furniture, etc. It will be conceded that one will havetwice as much wealth as the other. 

There is, however, no reason for the statement that the _absoluteprices_ are different in the two nations. They possibly may be higher inthe wealthiest nation. It may happen that in the United Stateseverything is nominally dearer than in Poland, and that, nevertheless, the people there are less generally supplied with everything; by whichit may be seen that the abundance of products, and not the absoluteprice, constitutes wealth. In order, then, accurately to compare freetrade and protection the inquiry should not be which of the two causeshigh prices or low prices, but which of the two produces abundance orscarcity. 

For observe this: Products are exchanged, the one for the other, and arelative scarcity and a relative abundance leave the absolute priceexactly at the same point, but not so the condition of men. 

Let us look into the subject a little further. 

Since the increase and the reduction of duties have been accompanied byresults so different from what had been expected, a fall of pricesfrequently succeeding the increase of the tariff, and a rise sometimesfollowing a reduction of duties, it has become necessary for politicaleconomy to attempt the explanation of a phenomenon which so overthrowsreceived ideas; for, whatever may be said, science is simply a faithfulexposition and a true explanation of facts. 

This phenomenon may be easily explained by one circumstance which shouldnever be lost sight of. 

It is that there are _two causes_ for high prices, and not one merely. 

The same is true of low prices. One of the best established principlesof political economy is that price is determined by the law of supplyand demand. 

The price is then affected by two conditions--the demand and the supply. These conditions are necessarily subject to variation. The relations ofdemand to supply may be exactly counterbalanced, or may be greatlydisproportionate, and the variations of price are almost interminable. 

Prices rise either on account of augmented demand or diminished supply. 

They fall by reason of an augmentation of the supply or a diminution ofthe demand. 

Consequently there are two kinds of _dearness_ and two kinds of_cheapness_. There is a bad dearness, which results from a diminution ofthe supply; for this implies scarcity and privation. There is a gooddearness--that which results from an increase of demand; for thisindicates the augmentation of the general wealth. 

There is also a good cheapness, resulting from abundance. And there is abaneful cheapness--such as results from the cessation of demand, theinability of consumers to purchase. 

And observe this: Prohibition causes at the same time both the dearnessand the cheapness which are of a bad nature; a bad dearness, resultingfrom a diminution of the supply (this indeed is its avowed object), anda bad cheapness, resulting from a diminution of the demand, because itgives a false direction to capital and labor, and overwhelms consumerswith taxes and restrictions. 

So that, _as regards the price_, these two tendencies neutralize eachother; and for this reason, the protective system, restricting thesupply and the demand at the same time, does not realize the highprices which are its object. 

But with respect to the condition of the people, these two tendencies donot neutralize each other; on the contrary, they unite in impoverishingthem. 

The effect of free trade is exactly the opposite. Possibly it does notcause the cheapness which it promises; for it also has two tendencies, the one towards that desirable form of cheapness resulting from theincrease of supply, or from abundance; the other towards that dearnessconsequent upon the increased demand and the development of the generalwealth. These two tendencies neutralize themselves as regards the _mereprice_; but they concur in their tendency to ameliorate the condition ofmankind. In a word, under the protective system men recede towards acondition of feebleness as regards both supply and demand; under thefree trade system, they advance towards a condition where development isgradual without any necessary increase in the absolute prices of things. 

Price is not a good criterion of wealth. It might continue the same whensociety had relapsed into the most abject misery, or had advanced to ahigh state of prosperity. 

Let me make application of this doctrine in a few words: A farmer in thesouth of France supposes himself as rich as Croesus, because he isprotected by law from foreign competition. He is as poor as Job--nomatter, he will none the less suppose that this protection will sooneror later make him rich. Under these circumstances, if the question waspropounded to him, as it was by the committee of the Legislature, inthese terms: "Do you want to be subject to foreign competition? yes orno, " his first answer would be "No, " and the committee would record hisreply with great enthusiasm. 

We should go, however, to the bottom of things. Doubtless foreigncompetition, and competition of any kind, is always inopportune; and, ifany trade could be permanently rid of it, business, for a time, would beprosperous. 

But protection is not an isolated favor. It is a system. If, in order toprotect the farmer, it occasions a scarcity of wheat and of beef, inbehalf of other industries it produces a scarcity of iron, cloth, fuel, tools, etc. --in short, a scarcity of everything. 

If, then, the scarcity of wheat has a tendency to increase the price byreason of the diminution of the supply, the scarcity of all otherproducts for which wheat is exchanged has likewise a tendency todepreciate the value of wheat on account of a falling off of the demand;so that it is by no means certain that wheat will be a mill dearer undera protective tariff than under a system of free trade. This alone iscertain, that inasmuch as there is a smaller amount of everything in thecountry, each individual will be more poorly provided with everything. 

The farmer would do well to consider whether it would not be moredesirable for him to allow the importation of wheat and beef, and, as aconsequence, to be surrounded by a well-to-do community, able to consumeand to pay for every agricultural product. 

There is a certain province where the men are covered with rags, dwellin hovels, and subsist on chestnuts. How can agriculture flourish there?What can they make the earth produce, with the expectation of profit?Meat? They eat none. Milk? They drink only the water of springs. Butter?It is an article of luxury far beyond them. Wool? They get along withoutit as much as possible. Can any one imagine that all these objects ofconsumption can be thus left untouched by the masses, without loweringprices?

That which we say of a farmer, we can say of a manufacturer. Cloth-makers assert that foreign competition will lower prices owing tothe increased quantity offered. Very well, but are not these pricesraised by the increase of the demand? Is the consumption of cloth afixed and invariable quantity? Is each one as well provided with it ashe might and should be? And if the general wealth were developed by theabolition of all these taxes and hindrances, would not the first usemade of it by the population be to clothe themselves better?

Therefore the question, the eternal question, is not whether protectionfavors this or that special branch of industry, but whether, all thingsconsidered, restriction is, in its nature, more profitable than freedom?

Now, no person can maintain that proposition. And just this explains theadmission which our opponents continually make to us: "You are right onprinciple. "

If that is true, if restriction aids each special industry only througha greater injury to the general prosperity, let us understand, then, that the price itself, considering that alone, expresses a relationbetween each special industry and the general industry, between thesupply and the demand, and that, reasoning from these premises, this_remunerative price_ (the object of protection) is more hindered thanfavored by it. 

APPENDIX. 

We published an article entitled _Dearness-Cheapness_, which gained forus the two following letters. We publish them, with the answers:

 "DEAR MR. EDITOR:--You upset all my ideas. I preached in favor of free trade, and found it very convenient to put prominently forward the idea of _cheapness_. I went everywhere, saying, "With free trade, bread, meat, woolens, linen, iron and coal will fall in price. " This displeased those who sold, but delighted those who bought. Now, you raise a doubt as to whether _cheapness_ is the result of free trade. But if not, of what use is it? What will the people gain, if foreign competition, which may interfere with them in their sales, does not favor them in their purchases?"

MY DEAR FREE TRADER:--Allow us to say that you have but half read thearticle which provoked your letter. We said that free trade actedprecisely like roads, canals and railways, like everything whichfacilitates communications, and like everything which destroysobstacles. Its first tendency is to increase the quantity of the articlewhich is relieved from duties, and consequently to lower its price. Butby increasing, at the same time, the quantity of all the things forwhich this article is exchanged, it increases the _demand_, andconsequently the price rises. You ask us what the people will gain. Suppose they have a balance with certain scales, in each one of whichthey have for their use a certain quantity of the articles which youhave enumerated. If a little grain is put in one scale it will graduallysink, but if an equal quantity of cloth, iron and coal is added in theothers, the equilibrium will be maintained. Looking at the beam above, there will be no change. Looking at the people, we shall see them betterfed, clothed and warmed. 

 "DEAR MR. EDITOR:--I am a cloth manufacturer, and a protectionist. I confess that your article on _dearness_ and _cheapness_ has led me to reflect. It has something specious about it, and if well proven, would work my conversion. "

MY DEAR PROTECTIONIST:--We say that the end and aim of your restrictivemeasures is a wrongful one--_artificial dearness_. But we do not saythat they always realize the hopes of those who initiate them. It iscertain that they inflict on the consumer all the evils of dearness. Itis not certain that the producer gets the profit. Why? Because if theydiminish the supply they also diminish the _demand_. 

This proves that in the economical arrangement of this world there is amoral force, a _vis medicatrix_, which in the long run causes inordinateambition to become the prey of a delusion. 

Pray, notice, sir, that one of the elements of the prosperity of eachspecial branch of industry is the general prosperity. The rent of ahouse is not merely in proportion to what it has cost, but also to thenumber and means of the tenants. Do two houses which are precisely alikenecessarily rent for the same sum? Certainly not, if one is in Paris andthe other in Lower Brittany. Let us never speak of a price withoutregarding the _conditions_, and let us understand that there is nothingmore futile than to try to build the prosperity of the parts on the ruinof the whole. This is the attempt of the restrictive system. 

Competition always has been, and always will be, disagreeable to thosewho are affected by it. Thus we see that in all times and in all placesmen try to get rid of it. We know, and you too, perhaps, a municipalcouncil where the resident merchants make a furious war on the foreignones. Their projectiles are import duties, fines, etc. , etc. 

Now, just think what would have become of Paris, for instance, if thiswar had been carried on there with success. 

Suppose that the first shoemaker who settled there had succeeded inkeeping out all others, and that the first tailor, the first mason, thefirst printer, the first watchmaker, the first hair-dresser, the firstphysician, the first baker, had been equally fortunate. Paris wouldstill be a village, with twelve or fifteen hundred inhabitants. But itwas not thus. Each one, except those whom you still keep away, came tomake money in this market, and that is precisely what has built it up. It has been a long series of collisions for the enemies of competition, and from one collision after another, Paris has become a city of amillion inhabitants. The general prosperity has gained by this, doubtless, but have the shoemakers and tailors, individually, lostanything by it? For you, this is the question. As competitors came, yousaid: The price of boots will fail. Has it been so? No, for if the_supply_ has increased, the _demand_ has increased also. 

Thus will it be with cloth; therefore let it come in. It is true thatyou will have more competitors, but you will also have more customers, and richer ones. Did you never think of this when seeing nine-tenths ofyour countrymen deprived during the winter of that superior cloth thatyou make?

This is not a very long lesson to learn. If you wish to prosper, letyour customers do the same. 

When this is once known, each one will seek his welfare in the generalwelfare. Then, jealousies between individuals, cities, provinces andnations, will no longer vex the world. 

VI. 

TO ARTISANS AND LABORERS. 

Many papers have attacked me before you. Will you not read my defense?

I am not mistrustful. When a man writes or speaks, I believe that hethinks what he says. 

What is the question? To ascertain which is the more advantageous foryou, restriction or liberty. 

I believe that it is liberty; they believe it is restriction; it is foreach one to prove his case. 

Was it necessary to insinuate that we are the agents of England?

You will see how easy recrimination would be on this ground. 

We are, they say, agents of the English, because some of us have usedthe English words _meeting_, _free trader_!

And do not they use the English words _drawback_ and _budget_?

We imitate Cobden and the English democracy!

Do not they parody Bentinck and the British aristocracy?

We borrow from perfidious Albion the doctrine of liberty. 

Do not they borrow from her the sophisms of protection?

We follow the commercial impulse of Bordeaux and the South. 

Do not they serve the greed of Lille, and the manufacturing North?

We favor the secret designs of the ministry, which desires to turnpublic attention away from the protective policy. 

Do not they favor the views of the Custom House officers, who gain morethan anybody else by this protective _regime_?

So you see that if we did not ignore this war of epithets, we should notbe without weapons. 

But that is not the point in issue. 

The question which I shall not lose sight of is this:

_Which is better for the working-classes, to be free or not to be freeto purchase from abroad?_

Workmen, they say to you, "If you are free to buy from abroad thesethings which you now make yourselves, you will no longer make them. Youwill be without work, without wages, and without bread. It is then foryour own good that your liberty be restricted. "

This objection recurs in all forms. They say, for instance, "If weclothe ourselves with English cloth, if we make our plowshares withEnglish iron, if we cut our bread with English knives, if we wipe ourhands with English napkins, what will become of the French workmen--whatwill become of the _national labor_?"

Tell me, workmen, if a man stood on the pier at Boulogne, and said toevery Englishman who landed: If you will give me those English boots, Iwill give you this French hat; or, if you will let me have this Englishhorse, I will let you have this French carriage; or, Are you willing toexchange this Birmingham machine for this Paris clock? or, again, Doesit suit you to barter your Newcastle coal for this Champagne wine? I askyou whether, supposing this man makes his proposals with averagejudgment, it can be said that our _national labor_, taken as a whole, would be harmed by it?

Would it be more so if there were twenty of these people offering toexchange services at Boulogne instead of one; if a million barters weremade instead of four; and if the intervention of merchants and money wascalled on to facilitate them and multiply them indefinitely?

Now, let one country buy of another at wholesale to sell again atretail, or at retail to sell again at wholesale, it will always befound, if the matter is followed out to the end, that _commerce consistsof mutual barter of products for products, of services for services_. If, then, _one barter_ does not injure the _national labor_, since itimplies as much _national labor given_ as _foreign labor received_, ahundred million of them cannot hurt the country. 

But, you will say, where is the advantage? The advantage consists inmaking a better use of the resources of each country, so that the sameamount of labor gives more satisfaction and well-being everywhere. 

There are some who employ singular tactics against you. They begin byadmitting the superiority of freedom over the prohibitive system, doubtless in order that they may not have to defend themselves on thatground. 

Next they remark that in going from one system to another there will besome _displacement_ of labor. 

Then they dilate upon the sufferings which, according to themselves, this _displacement_ must cause. They exaggerate and amplify them; theymake of them the principal subject of discussion; they present them asthe exclusive and definite result of reform, and thus try to enlist youunder the standard of monopoly. 

These tactics have been employed in the service of all abuses, and Imust frankly admit one thing, that it always embarrasses even thefriends of those reforms which are most useful to the people. You willunderstand why. 

When an abuse exists, everything arranges itself upon it. 

Human existences connect themselves with it, others with these, thenstill others, and this forms a great edifice. 

Do you raise your hand against it? Each one protests; and notice thisparticularly, those persons who protest always seem at the first glanceto be right, because it is easier to show the disorder which mustaccompany the reform than the order which will follow it. 

The friends of the abuse cite particular instances; they name thepersons and their workmen who will be disturbed, while the poor devil ofa reformer can only refer to the _general good_, which must insensiblydiffuse itself among the masses. This does not have the effect which theother has. 

Thus, supposing it is a question of abolishing slavery. "Unhappypeople, " they say to the colored men, "who will feed you? The masterdistributes floggings, but he also distributes rations. "

It is not seen that it is not the master who feeds the slave, but hisown labor which feeds both himself and master. 

When the convents of Spain were reformed, they said to the beggars, "Where will you find broth and clothing? The Abbot is your providence. Is it not very convenient to apply to him?"

And the beggars said: "That is true. If the Abbot goes, we see what welose, but we do not see what will come in its place. "

They do not notice that if the convents gave alms they lived on alms, sothat the people had to give them more than they could receive back. 

Thus, workmen, a monopoly imperceptibly puts taxes on your shoulders, and then furnishes you work with the proceeds. 

Your false friends say to you: If there was no monopoly, who wouldfurnish you work?

You answer: This is true, this is true. The labor which the monopolistsprocure us is certain. The promises of liberty are uncertain. 

For you do not see that they first take money from you, and then giveyou back a _part_ of it for your labor. 

Do you ask who will furnish you work? Why, you will give each otherwork. With the money which will no longer be taken from you, theshoemaker will dress better, and will make work for the tailor. Thetailor will have new shoes oftener, and keep the shoemaker employed. Soit will be with all occupations. 

They say that with freedom there will be fewer workmen in the mines andthe mills. 

I do not believe it. But if this does happen, it is _necessarily_because there will be more labor freely in the open air. 

For if, as they say, these mines and spinning mills can be sustainedonly by the aid of taxes imposed on _everybody_ for their benefit, thesetaxes once abolished, _everybody_ will be more comfortably off, and itis the comfort of all which feeds the labor of each one. 

Excuse me if I linger at this demonstration. I have so great a desire tosee you on the side of liberty. 

In France, capital invested in manufactures yields, I suppose, five percent. Profit. But here is Mondor, who has one hundred thousand francsinvested in a manufactory, on which he loses five per cent. Thedifference between the loss and gain is ten thousand francs. What dothey do? They assess upon you a little tax of ten thousand francs, whichis given to Mondor, and you do not notice it, for it is very skillfullydisguised. It is not the tax gatherer who comes to ask you your part ofthe tax, but you pay it to Mondor, the manufacturer, every time you buyyour hatchets, your trowels, and your planes. Then they say to you: Ifyou do not pay this tax, Mondor can work no longer, and his employes, John and James, will be without labor. If this tax was remitted, wouldyou not get work yourselves, and on your own account too?

And, then, be easy, when Mondor has no longer this soft method ofobtaining his profit by a tax, he will use his wits to turn his lossinto a gain, and John and James will not be dismissed. Then all will beprofit _for all_. 

You will persist, perhaps, saying: "We understand that after the reformthere will be in general more work than before, but in the meanwhileJohn and James will be on the street. "

To which I answer:

First. When employment changes its place only to increase, the man whohas two arms and a heart is not long on the street. 

Second. There is nothing to hinder the State from reserving some of itsfunds to avoid stoppages of labor in the transition, which I do notmyself believe will occur. 

Third. Finally, if to get out of a rut and get into a condition which isbetter for all, and which is certainly more just, it is absolutelynecessary to brave a few painful moments, the workmen are ready, or Iknow them ill. God grant that it may be the same with employers. 

Well, because you are workmen, are you not intelligent and moral? Itseems that your pretended friends forget it. It is surprising that theydiscuss such a subject before you, speaking of wages and interests, without once pronouncing the word _justice_. They know, however, fullwell that the situation is _unjust_. Why, then, have they not thecourage to tell you so, and say, "Workmen, an iniquity prevails in thecountry, but it is of advantage to you and it must be sustained. " Why?Because they know that you would answer, No. 

But it is not true that this iniquity is profitable to you. Give me yourattention for a few moments and judge for yourselves. 

What do they protect in France? Articles made by great manufacturers ingreat establishments, iron, cloth and silks, and they tell you that thisis done not in the interest of the employer, but in your interest, inorder to insure you wages. 

But every time that foreign labor presents itself in the market in sucha form that it may hurt _you_, but not the great manufacturers, do theynot allow it to come in?

Are there not in Paris thirty thousand Germans who make clothes andshoes? Why are they allowed to establish themselves at your side whencloth is driven away? Because the cloth is made in great mills owned bymanufacturing legislators. But clothes are made by workmen in theirrooms. 

These gentlemen want no competition in the turning of wool into cloth, because that is _their_ business; but when it comes to converting clothinto clothes, they admit competition, because that is _your_ trade. 

When they made railroads they excluded English rails, but they importedEnglish workmen to make them. Why? It is very simple; because Englishrails compete with the great rolling mills, and English muscles competeonly with yours. 

We do not ask them to keep out German tailors and English laborers. Weask that cloth and rails may be allowed to come in. We ask justice forall, equality before the law for all. 

It is a mockery to tell us that these Custom House restrictions have_your_ advantage in view. Tailors, shoemakers, carpenters, millers, masons, blacksmiths, merchants, grocers, jewelers, butchers, bakers anddressmakers, I challenge you to show me a single instance in whichrestriction profits you, and if you wish, I will point out four where ithurts you. 

And after all, just see how much of the appearance of truth thisself-denial, which your journals attribute to the monopolists, has. 

I believe that we can call that the _natural rate of wages_ which wouldestablish itself _naturally_ if there were freedom of trade. Then, whenthey tell you that restriction is for your benefit, it is as if theytold you that it added a _surplus_ to your _natural_ wages. Now, an_extra natural_ surplus of wages must be taken from somewhere; it doesnot fall from the moon; it must be taken from those who pay it. 

You are then brought to this conclusion, that, according to yourpretended friends, the protective system has been created and broughtinto the world in order that capitalists might be sacrificed tolaborers!

Tell me, is that probable?

Where is your place in the Chamber of Peers? When did you sit at thePalais Bourbon? Who has consulted you? Whence came this idea ofestablishing the protective system?

I hear your answer: _We_ did not establish it. We are neither Peers norDeputies, nor Counselors of State. The capitalists have done it. 

By heavens, they were in a delectable mood that day. What! thecapitalists made this law; _they_ established the prohibitive system, sothat you laborers should make profits at their expense!

But here is something stranger still. 

How is it that your pretended friends who speak to you now of thegoodness, generosity and self-denial of capitalists, constantly expressregret that you do not enjoy your political rights? From their point ofview, what could you do with them? The capitalists have the monopoly oflegislation, it is true. Thanks to this monopoly, they have grantedthemselves the monopoly of iron, cloth, coal, wood and meat, which isalso true. But now your pretended friends say that the capitalists, inacting thus, have stripped themselves, without being obliged to do it, to enrich you without your being entitled to it. Surely, if you wereelectors and deputies, you could not manage your affairs better; youwould not even manage them as well. 

If the industrial organization which rules us is made in your interest, it is a perfidy to demand political rights for you; for these democratsof a new species can never get out of this dilemma; the law, made by thepresent law-makers, gives you _more_, or gives you _less_, than yournatural wages. If it gives you _less_, they deceive you in inviting youto support it. If it gives you _more_, they deceive you again by callingon you to claim political rights, when those who now exercise them, makesacrifices for you which you, in your honesty, could not yourselvesvote. 

Workingmen, God forbid that the effect of this article should be to castin your hearts the germs of irritation against the rich. If mistaken_interests_ still support monopoly, let us not forget that it has itsroot in _errors_, which are common to capitalists and workmen. Then, farfrom laboring to excite them against one another, let us strive to bringthem together. What must be done to accomplish this? If it is true thatthe natural social tendencies aid in effacing inequality among men, allwe have to do to let those tendencies act is to remove the artificialobstructions which interfere with their operation, and allow therelations of different classes to establish themselves on the principleof _justice_, which, to my mind, is the principle of FREEDOM. 

VII. 

A CHINESE STORY. 

They exclaim against the greed and the selfishness of the age!

Open the thousand books, the thousand papers, the thousand pamphlets, which the Parisian presses throw out every day on the country; is notall this the work of little saints?

What spirit in the painting of the vices of the time! What touchingtenderness for the masses! With what liberality they invite the rich todivide with the poor, or the poor to divide with the rich! How manyplans of social reform, social improvement, and social organization!Does not even the weakest writer devote himself to the well-being of thelaboring classes? All that is required is to advance them a little moneyto give them time to attend to their humanitarian pursuits. 

There is nothing which does not assume to aid in the well-being andmoral advancement of the people--nothing, not even the Custom House. Youbelieve that it is a tax machine, like a duty or a toll at the end of abridge? Not at all. It is an essentially civilizing, fraternizing andequalizing institution. What would you have? It is the fashion. It isnecessary to put or affect to put feeling or sentimentality everywhere, even in the cure of all troubles. 

But it must be admitted that the Custom House organization has asingular way of going to work to realize these philanthropicaspirations. 

It puts on foot an army of collectors, assistant collectors, inspectors, assistant inspectors, cashiers, accountants, receivers, clerks, supernumeraries, tide-waiters, and all this in order to exercise on theindustry of the people that negative action which is summed up in theword _to prevent_. 

Observe that I do not say _to tax_, but really _to prevent_. 

And _to prevent_, not acts reproved by morality, or opposed to publicorder, but transactions which are innocent, and which they have evenadmitted are favorable to the peace and harmony of nations. 

However, humanity is so flexible and supple that, in one way or another, it always overcomes these attempts at prevention. 

It is for the purpose of increasing labor. If people are kept fromgetting their food from abroad they produce it at home. It is morelaborious, but they must live. If they are kept from passing along thevalley, they must climb the mountains. It is longer, but the point ofdestination must be reached. 

This is sad, but amusing. When the law has thus created a certain amountof obstacles, and when, to overcome them, humanity has diverted acorresponding amount of labor, you are no longer allowed to call for thereform of the law; for, if you point out the _obstacle_, they show youthe labor which it brings into play; and if you say this is not laborcreated but _diverted_, they answer you as does the _EspritPublic_--"The impoverishing only is certain and immediate; as for theenriching, it is more than problematical. "

This recalls to me a Chinese story, which I will tell you. 

There were in China two great cities, Tchin and Tchan. A magnificentcanal connected them. The Emperor thought fit to have immense masses ofrock thrown into it, to make it useless. 

Seeing this, Kouang, his first Mandarin, said to him: "Son of Heaven, you make a mistake. " To which the Emperor replied: "Kouang, you arefoolish. "

You understand, of course, that I give but the substance of thedialogue. 

At the end of three moons the Celestial Emperor had the Mandarinbrought, and said to him: "Kouang, look. "

And Kouang, opening his eyes, looked. 

He saw at a certain distance from the canal a multitude of men_laboring_. Some excavated, some filled up, some leveled, and some laidpavement, and the Mandarin, who was very learned, thought to himself:They are making a road. 

At the end of three more moons, the Emperor, having called Kouang, saidto him: "Look. "

And Kouang looked. 

And he saw that the road was made; and he noticed that at variouspoints, inns were building. A medley of foot passengers, carriages andpalanquins went and came, and innumerable Chinese, oppressed by fatigue, carried back and forth heavy burdens from Tchin to Tchan, and from Tchanto Tchin, and Kouang said: It is the destruction of the canal which hasgiven labor to these poor people. But it did not occur to him that thislabor was _diverted_ from other employments. 

Then more moons passed, and the Emperor said to Kouang: "Look. "

And Kouang looked. 

He saw that the inns were always full of travelers, and that they beinghungry, there had sprung up, near by, the shops of butchers, bakers, charcoal dealers, and bird's nest sellers. Since these worthy men couldnot go naked, tailors, shoemakers and umbrella and fan dealers hadsettled there, and as they do not sleep in the open air, even in theCelestial Empire, carpenters, masons and thatchers congregated there. Then came police officers, judges and fakirs; in a word, around eachstopping place there grew up a city with its suburbs. 

Said the Emperor to Kouang: "What do you think of this?"

And Kouang replied: "I could never have believed that the destruction ofa canal could create so much labor for the people. " For he did not thinkthat it was not labor created, but _diverted_; that travelers ate whenthey went by the canal just as much as they did when they were forced togo by the road. 

However, to the great astonishment of the Chinese, the Emperor died, andthis Son of Heaven was committed to earth. 

His successor sent for Kouang, and said to him: "Clean out the canal. "

And Kouang said to the new Emperor: "Son of Heaven, you are doingwrong. "

And the Emperor replied: "Kouang, you are foolish. "

But Kouang persisted and said: "My Lord, what is your object?"

"My object, " said the Emperor, "is to facilitate the movement of men andthings between Tchin and Tchan; to make transportation less expensive, so that the people may have tea and clothes more cheaply. "

But Kouang was in readiness. He had received, the evening before, somenumbers of the _Moniteur Industriel_, a Chinese paper. Knowing hislesson by heart, he asked permission to answer, and, having obtained it, after striking his forehead nine times against the floor, he said: "MyLord, you try, by facilitating transportation, to reduce the price ofarticles of consumption, in order to bring them within the reach of thepeople; and to do this you begin by making them lose all the labor whichwas created by the destruction of the canal. Sire, in political economy, absolute cheapness"--

The Emperor. "I believe that you are reciting something. "

Kouang. "That is true, and it would be more convenient for me to read. "

Having unfolded the _Esprit Public_, he read: "In political economy theabsolute cheapness of articles of consumption is but a secondaryquestion. The problem lies in the equilibrium of the price of labor andthat of the articles necessary to existence. The abundance of labor isthe wealth of nations, and the best economic system is that whichfurnishes them the greatest possible amount of labor. Do not ask whetherit is better to pay four or eight cents cash for a cup of tea, or fiveor ten shillings for a shirt. These are puerilities unworthy of aserious mind. No one denies your proposition. The question is, whetherit is better to pay more for an article, and to have, through theabundance and price of labor, more means of acquiring it, or whether itis better to impoverish the sources of labor, to diminish the mass ofnational production, and to transport articles of consumption by canals, more cheaply it is true, but, at the same time, to deprive a portion ofour laborers of the power to buy them, even at these reduced prices. "

The Emperor not being altogether convinced, Kouang said to him: "MyLord, be pleased to wait. I have the _Moniteur Industriel_ to quotefrom. "

But the Emperor said: "I do not need your Chinese newspapers to tell methat to create _obstacles_ is to turn labor in that direction. Yet thatis not my mission. Come, let us clear out the canal, and then we willreform the tariff. "

Kouang went away plucking out his beard, and crying: Oh, Fo! Oh, Pe! Oh, Le! and all the monosyllabic and circumflex gods of Cathay, take pity onyour people; for, there has come to us an Emperor of the _Englishschool_, and I see very plainly that, in a little while, we shall be inwant of everything, since it will not be necessary for us to doanything!

VIII. 

POST HOC, ERGO PROPTER HOC. 

"After this, therefore on account of this. " The most common and the mostfalse of arguments. 

Real suffering exists in England. 

This occurrence follows two others:

First. The reduction of the tariff. 

Second. The loss of two consecutive harvests. 

To which of these last two circumstances is the first to be attributed?

The protectionists do not fail to exclaim: "It is this cursed freedomwhich does all the mischief. It promised us wonders and marvels; wewelcomed it, and now the manufactories stop and the people suffer. "

Commercial freedom distributes, in the most uniform and equitablemanner, the fruits which Providence grants to the labor of man. If thesefruits are partially destroyed by any misfortune, it none the less looksafter the fair distribution of what remains. Men are not as wellprovided for, of course, but shall we blame freedom or the bad harvest?

Freedom rests on the same principle as insurance. When a loss happens, it divides, among a great many people, and a great number of years, evils which without it would accumulate on one nation and one season. But have they ever thought of saying that fire was no longer a scourge, since there were insurance companies?

In 1842, '43 and '44, the reduction of taxes began in England. At thesame time the harvests were very abundant, and we can justly believethat these two circumstances had much to do with the wonderfulprosperity shown by that country during that period. 

In 1845 the harvest was bad, and in 1846 it was still worse. Breadstuffsgrew dear, the people spent their money for food, and used less of otherarticles. There was a diminished demand for clothing; the manufactorieswere not so busy, and wages showed a declining tendency. Happily, in thesame year, the restrictive barriers were again lowered, and an enormousquantity of food was enabled to reach the English market. If it had notbeen for this, it is almost certain that a terrible revolution would nowfill Great Britain with blood. 

Yet they make freedom chargeable with disasters, which it prevents andremedies, at least in part. 

A poor leper lived in solitude. No one would touch what he hadcontaminated. Compelled to do everything for himself, he dragged out amiserable existence. A great physician cured him. Here was our hermit infull possession of the _freedom of exchange_. What a beautiful prospectopened before him! He took pleasure in calculating the advantages, which, thanks to his connection with other men, he could draw from hisvigorous arms. Unluckily, he broke both of them. Alas! his fate was mostmiserable. The journalists of that country, witnessing his misfortune, said: "See to what misery this ability to exchange has reduced him!Really, he was less to be pitied when he lived alone. "

"What!" said the physician; "do not you consider his two broken arms? Donot they form a part of his sad destiny? His misfortune is to have losthis arms, and not to have been cured of leprosy. He would be much moreto be pitied if he was both maimed and a leper. "

_Post hoc, ergo propter hoc_; do not trust this sophism. 

IX. 

ROBBERY BY BOUNTIES. 

They find my little book of _Sophisms_ too theoretical, scientific, andmetaphysical. Very well. Let us try a trivial, commonplace, and, ifnecessary, coarse style. Convinced that the public is _duped_ in thematter of protection, I have desired to prove it. But the public wishesto be shouted at. Then let us cry out:

"Midas, King Midas, has asses' ears!"

An outburst of frankness often accomplishes more than the politestcircumlocution. 

To tell the truth, my good people, _they are robbing you_. It is harsh, but it is true. 

The words _robbery_, _to rob_, _robber_, will seem in very bad taste tomany people. I say to them as Harpagon did to Elise, Is it the _word_ orthe _thing_ that alarms you?

Whoever has fraudulently taken that which does not belong to him, isguilty of robbery. (_Penal Code, Art. 379. _)

_To rob_: To take furtively, or by force. (_Dictionary of the Academy. _)

_Robber_: He who takes more than his due. (_The same. _)

Now, does not the monopolist, who, by a law of his own making, obligesme to pay him twenty francs for an article which I can get elsewhere forfifteen, take from me fraudulently five francs, which belong to me?

Does he not take it furtively, or by force?

Does he not require of me more than his due?

He carries off, he takes, he demands, they will say, but not _furtively_or _by force_, which are the characteristics of robbery. 

When our tax levy is burdened with five francs for the bounty which thismonopolist carries off, takes, or demands, what can be more _furtive_, since so few of us suspect it? And for those who are not deceived, whatcan be more _forced_, since, at the first refusal to pay, the officer isat our doors?

Still, let the monopolists reassure themselves. These robberies, bymeans of bounties or tariffs, even if they do violate equity as much asrobbery, do not break the law; on the contrary, they are perpetratedthrough the law. They are all the worse for this, but they have nothingto do with _criminal justice_. 

Besides, willy-nilly, we are all _robbers_ and _robbed_ in the business. Though the author of this book cries _stop thief_, when he buys, otherscan cry the same after him, when he sells. If he differs from many ofhis countrymen, it is only in this: he knows that he loses by this gamemore than he gains, and they do not; if they did know it, the game wouldsoon cease. 

Nor do I boast of having first given this thing its true name. More thansixty years ago, Adam Smith said:

"When manufacturers meet it may be expected that a conspiracy will beplanned against the pockets of the public. " Can we be astonished at thiswhen the public pay no attention to it?

An assembly of manufacturers deliberate officially under the name of_Industrial League_. What goes on there, and what is decided upon?

I give a very brief summary of the proceedings of one meeting:

"A Ship-builder. Our mercantile marine is at the last gasp (warlikedigression). It is not surprising. I cannot build without iron. I canget it at ten francs _in the world's market_; but, through the law, themanagers of the French forges compel me to pay them fifteen francs. Thusthey take five francs from me. I ask freedom to buy where I please. 

"An Iron Manufacturer. _In the world's market_ I can obtaintransportation for twenty francs. The ship-builder, through the law, requires thirty. Thus he _takes_ ten francs from me. He plunders me; Iplunder him. It is all for the best. 

"A Public Official. The conclusion of the ship-builder's argument ishighly imprudent. Oh, let us cultivate the touching union which makesour strength; if we relax an iota from the theory of protection, good-bye to the whole of it. 

"The Ship-builder. But, for us, protection is a failure. I repeat thatthe shipping is nearly gone. 

"A Sailor. Very well, let us raise the discriminating duties againstgoods imported in foreign bottoms, and let the ship-builder, who nowtakes thirty francs from the public, hereafter take forty. 

"A Minister. The government will push to its extreme limits theadmirable mechanism of these discriminating duties, but I fear that itwill not answer the purpose. 

"A Government Employe. You seem to be bothered about a very littlematter. Is there any safety but in the bounty? If the consumer iswilling, the tax-payer is no less so. Let us pile on the taxes, and letthe ship-builder be satisfied. I propose a bounty of five francs, to betaken from the public revenues, to be paid to the ship-builder for eachquintal of iron that he uses. 

"Several Voices. Seconded, seconded. 

"A Farmer. I want a bounty of three francs for each bushel of wheat. 

"A Weaver. And I two francs for each yard of cloth. 

"The Presiding Officer. That is understood. Our meeting will haveoriginated the system of _drawbacks_, and it will be its eternal glory. What branch of manufacturing can lose hereafter, when we have two sosimple means of turning losses into gains--the _tariff_ and _drawbacks_. The meeting is adjourned. "

Some supernatural vision must have shown me in a dream the comingappearance of the _bounty_ (who knows if I did not suggest the thoughtto M. Dupin?), when some months ago I wrote the following words:

"It seems evident to me that protection, without changing its nature oreffects, might take the form of a direct tax levied by the State, anddistributed in indemnifying bounties to privileged manufacturers. "

And after having compared protective duties with the bounty:

"I frankly avow my preference for the latter system; it seems to me morejust, more economical, and more truthful. More just, because if societywishes to give gratuities to some of its members, all should contribute;more economical, because it would save much of the expense ofcollection, and do away with many obstacles; and, finally, moretruthful, because the public could see the operation plainly, and wouldknow what was done. "

Since the opportunity is so kindly offered us, let us study this_robbery by bounties_. What is said of it will also apply to _robbery bytariff_, and as it is a little better disguised, the direct will enableus to understand the indirect, cheating. Thus the mind proceeds from thesimple to the complex. 

But is there no simpler variety of robbery? Certainly, there is _highwayrobbery_, and all it needs is to be legalized, or, as they saynow-a-days, _organized_. 

I once read the following in somebody's travels:

"When we reached the Kingdom of A---- we found all industrial pursuitssuffering. Agriculture groaned, manufactures complained, commercemurmured, the navy growled, and the government did not know whom tolisten to. At first it thought of taxing all the discontented, and ofdividing among them the proceeds of these taxes after having taken itsshare; which would have been like the method of managing lotteries inour dear Spain. There are a thousand of you; the State takes a dollarfrom each one, cunningly steals two hundred and fifty, and then dividesup seven hundred and fifty, in greater or smaller sums, among theplayers. The worthy Hidalgo, who has received three-quarters of adollar, forgetting that he has spent a whole one, is wild with joy, andruns to spend his shillings at the tavern. Something like this oncehappened in France. Barbarous as the country of A---- was, however, thegovernment did not trust the stupidity of the inhabitants enough to makethem accept such singular protection, and hence this was what itdevised:

"The country was intersected with roads. The government had themmeasured, exactly, and then said to the farmers, 'All that you can stealfrom travelers between these boundaries is yours; let it serve you as a_bounty_, a protection, and an encouragement. ' It afterwards assigned toeach manufacturer and each ship-builder, a bit of road to work up, according to this formula:

 Dono tibi et concedo, Virtutem et puissantiam, Robbandi, Pillageandi, Stealandi, Cheatandi, Et Swindlandi, Impune per totam istam, Viam. 

"Now it has come to pass that the natives of the Kingdom of A---- are sofamiliarized with this regime, and so accustomed to think only of whatthey steal, and not of what is stolen from them, so habituated to lookat pillage but from the pillager's point of view, that they consider thesum of all these private robberies as _national profit_, and refuse togive up a system of protection without which, they say, no branch ofindustry can live. "

Do you say, it is not possible that an entire nation could see an_increase of riches_ where the inhabitants plundered one another?

Why not? We have this belief in France, and every day we organize andpractice _reciprocal robbery_ under the name of bounties and protectivetariffs. 

Let us exaggerate nothing, however; let us concede that as far as the_mode of collection_, and the collateral circumstances, are concerned, the system in the Kingdom of A---- may be worse than ours; but let ussay, also, that as far as principles and necessary results areconcerned, there is not an atom of difference between these two kindsof robbery legally organized to eke out the profits of industry. 

Observe, that if _highway robbery_ presents some difficulties ofexecution, it has also certain advantages which are not found in the_tariff robbery_. 

For instance: An equitable division can be made between all theplunderers. It is not thus with tariffs. They are by nature impotent toprotect certain classes of society, such as artizans, merchants, literary men, lawyers, soldiers, etc. , etc. 

It is true that _bounty robbery_ allows of infinite subdivisions, and inthis respect does not yield in perfection to _highway robbery_, but onthe other hand it often leads to results which are so odd and foolish, that the natives of the Kingdom of A---- may laugh at it with greatreason. 

That which the plundered party loses in highway robbery is gained by therobber. The article stolen remains, at least, in the country. But underthe dominion of _bounty robbery_, that which the duty takes from theFrench is often given to the Chinese, the Hottentots, Caffirs, andAlgonquins, as follows:

A piece of cloth is worth a _hundred francs_ at Bordeaux. It isimpossible to sell it below that without loss. It is impossible to sellit for more than that, for the _competition_ between merchants forbids. Under these circumstances, if a Frenchman desires to buy the cloth, hemust pay a _hundred francs_, or do without it. But if an Englishmancomes, the government interferes, and says to the merchant: "Sell yourcloth, and I will make the tax-payers give you _twenty francs_ (throughthe operation of the _drawback_). " The merchant, who wants, and can get, but one hundred francs for his cloth, delivers it to the Englishman foreighty francs. This sum added to the twenty francs, the product of the_bounty robbery_, makes up his price. It is then precisely as if thetax-payers had given twenty francs to the Englishman, on condition thathe would buy French cloth at twenty francs below the cost ofmanufacture, --at twenty francs below what it costs us. Then bountyrobbery has this peculiarity, that the _robbed_ are inhabitants of thecountry which allows it, and the _robbers_ are spread over the face ofthe globe. 

It is truly wonderful that they should persist in holding thisproposition to have been demonstrated: _All that the individual robsfrom the mass is a general gain. _ Perpetual motion, the philosopher'sstone, and the squaring of the circle, are sunk in oblivion; but thetheory of _progress by robbery_ is still held in honor. _A priori_, however, one might have supposed that it would be the shortest lived ofall these follies. 

Some say to us: You are, then, partisans of the _let alone_ policy?economists of the superannuated school of the Smiths and the Says? Youdo not desire the _organization of labor_? Why, gentlemen, organizelabor as much as you please, but we will watch to see that you do notorganize _robbery_. 

Others say, _bounties_, _tariffs_, all these things may have beenoverdone. We must use, without abusing them. A wise liberty, combinedwith moderate protection, is what _serious_ and practical men claim. Letus beware of _absolute principles_. This is exactly what they said inthe Kingdom of A----, according to the Spanish traveler. "Highwayrobbery, " said the wise men, "is neither good nor bad in itself; itdepends on circumstances. Perhaps too much freedom of pillage has beengiven; perhaps not enough. Let us see; let us examine; let us balancethe accounts of each robber. To those who do not make enough, we willgive a little more road to work up. As for those who make too much, wewill reduce their share. "

Those who spoke thus acquired great fame for moderation, prudence, andwisdom. They never failed to attain the highest offices of the State. 

As for those who said, "Let us repress injustice altogether; let usallow neither _robbery_, nor _half robbery_, nor _quarter robbery_, "they passed for theorists, dreamers, bores--always parroting the samething. The people also found their reasoning too easy to understand. Howcan that be true which is so very simple?

X. 

THE TAX COLLECTOR. 

JACQUES BONHOMME, Vine-grower. M. LASOUCHE, Tax Collector. 

L. You have secured twenty hogsheads of wine?

J. Yes, with much care and sweat. 

--Be so kind as to give me six of the best. 

--Six hogsheads out of twenty! Good heavens! You want to ruin me. If youplease, what do you propose to do with them?

--The first will be given to the creditors of the State. When one hasdebts, the least one can do is to pay the interest. 

--Where did the principal go?

--It would take too long to tell. A part of it was once upon a time putin cartridges, which made the finest smoke in the world; with anotherpart men were hired who were maimed on foreign ground, after havingravaged it. Then, when these expenses brought the enemy upon us, hewould not leave without taking money with him, which we had to borrow. 

--What good do I get from it now?

--The satisfaction of saying:

 How proud am I of being a Frenchman When I behold the triumphal column, And the humiliation of leaving to my heirs an estate burdened with aperpetual rent. Still one must pay what he owes, no matter how foolish ause may have been made of the money. That accounts for one hogshead, butthe five others?

--One is required to pay for public services, the civil list, the judgeswho decree the restitution of the bit of land your neighbor wants toappropriate, the policemen who drive away robbers while you sleep, themen who repair the road leading to the city, the priest who baptizesyour children, the teacher who educates them, and myself, your servant, who does not work for nothing. 

--Certainly, service for service. There is nothing to say against that. I had rather make a bargain directly with my priest, but I do not insiston this. So much for the second hogshead. This leaves four, however. 

--Do you believe that two would be too much for your share of the armyand navy expenses?

--Alas, it is little compared with what they have cost me already. Theyhave taken from me two sons whom I tenderly loved. 

--The balance of power in Europe must be maintained. 

--Well, my God! the balance of power would be the same if these forceswere every where reduced a half or three-quarters. We should save ourchildren and our money. All that is needed is to understand it. 

--Yes, but they do not understand it. 

--That is what amazes me. For every one suffers from it. 

--You wished it so, Jacques Bonhomme. 

--You are jesting, my dear Mr. Collector; have I a vote in thelegislative halls?

--Whom did you support for Deputy?

--An excellent General, who will be a Marshal presently, if God spareshis life. 

--On what does this excellent General live?

--My hogsheads, I presume. 

--And what would happen were he to vote for a reduction of the army andyour military establishment?

--Instead of being made a Marshal, he would be retired. 

--Do you now understand that yourself?

--Let us pass to the fifth hogshead, I beg of you. 

--That goes to Algeria. 

--To Algeria! And they tell me that all Mussulmans are temperancepeople, the barbarians! What services will they give me in exchange forthis ambrosia, which has cost me so much labor?

--None at all; it is not intended for Mussulmans, but for goodChristians who spend their days in Barbary. 

--What can they do there which will be of service to me?

--Undertake and undergo raids; kill and be killed; get dysenteries andcome home to be doctored; dig harbors, make roads, build villages andpeople them with Maltese, Italians, Spaniards and Swiss, who live onyour hogshead, and many others which I shall come in the future to askof you. 

--Mercy! This is too much, and I flatly refuse you my hogshead. Theywould send a wine-grower who did such foolish acts to the mad-house. Make roads in the Atlas Mountains, when I cannot get out of my ownhouse! Dig ports in Barbary when the Garonne fills up with sand everyday! Take from me my children whom I love, in order to torment Arabs!Make me pay for the houses, grain and horses, given to the Greeks andMaltese, when there are so many poor around us!

--The poor! Exactly; they free the country of this _superfluity_. 

--Oh, yes, by sending after them to Algeria the money which would enablethem to live here. 

--But then you lay the basis of a _great empire_, you carry_civilization_ into Africa, and you crown your country with immortalglory. 

--You are a poet, my dear Collector; but I am a vine-grower, and Irefuse. 

--Think that in a few thousand years you will get back your advances ahundred-fold. All those who have charge of the enterprise say so. 

--At first they asked me for one barrel of wine to meet expenses, thentwo, then three, and now I am taxed a hogshead. I persist in my refusal. 

--It is too late. Your _representative_ has agreed that you shall give ahogshead. 

--That is but too true. Cursed weakness! It seems to me that I wasunwise in making him my agent; for what is there in common between theGeneral of an army and the poor owner of a vineyard?

--You see well that there is something in common between you, were itonly the wine you make, and which, in your name, he votes to himself. 

--Laugh at me; I deserve it, my dear Collector. But be reasonable, andleave me the sixth hogshead at least. The interest of the debt is paid, the civil list provided for, the public service assured, and the war inAfrica perpetuated. What more do you want?

--The bargain is not made with me. You must tell your desires to theGeneral. _He_ has disposed of your vintage. 

--But what do you propose to do with this poor hogshead, the flower ofmy flock? Come, taste this wine. How mellow, delicate, velvety it is!

--Excellent, delicious! It will suit D----, the cloth manufacturer, admirably. 

--D----, the manufacturer! What do you mean?

--That he will make a good bargain out of it. 

--How? What is that? I do not understand you. 

--Do you not know that D---- has started a magnificent establishmentvery useful to the country, but which loses much money every year?

--I am very sorry. But what can I do to help him?

--The Legislature saw that if things went on thus, D---- would eitherhave to do a better business or close his manufactory. 

--But what connection is there between D----'s bad speculations and myhogshead?

--The Chamber thought that if it gave D---- a little wine from yourcellar, a few bushels of grain taken from your neighbors, and a fewpennies cut from the wages of the workingmen, his losses would changeinto profits. 

--This recipe is as infallible as it is ingenious. But it is shockinglyunjust. What! is D---- to cover his losses by taking my wine?

--Not exactly the wine, but the proceeds of it; That is what we call a_bounty for encouragement_. But you look amazed! Do not you see what agreat service you render to the country?

--You mean to say to D----?

--To the country. D---- asserts that, thanks to this arrangement, hisbusiness prospers, and thus it is, says he, that the country grows rich. That is what he recently said in the Chamber of which he is a member. 

--It is a damnable fraud! What! A fool goes into a silly enterprise, hespends his money, and if he extorts from me wine or grain enough to makegood his losses, and even to make him a profit, he calls it a generalgain!

--Your _representative_ having come to that conclusion, all you have todo is to give me the six hogsheads of wine, and sell the fourteen that Ileave you for as much as possible. 

--That is my business. 

--For, you see, it would be very annoying if you did not get a goodprice for them. 

--I will think of it. 

--For there are many things which the money you receive must procure. 

--I know it, sir. I know it. 

--In the first place, if you buy iron to renew your spades andplowshares, a law declares that you must pay the iron-master twice whatit was worth. 

--Ah, yes; does not the same thing happen in the Black Forest?

--Then, if you need oil, meat, cloth, coal, wool and sugar, each one bythe law will cost you twice what it is worth. 

--But this is horrible, frightful, abominable. 

--What is the use of these hard words? You yourself, through your_authorized_ agent----

--Leave me alone with my authorized agent. I made a very strangedisposition of my vote, it is true. But they shall deceive me no more, and I will be represented by some good and honest countryman. 

--Bah, you will re-elect the worthy General. 

--I? I re-elect the General to give away my wine to Africans andmanufacturers?

--You will re-elect him, I say. 

--That is a little _too much_. I will not re-elect him, if I do not wantto. 

--But you will want to, and you will re-elect him. 

--Let him come here and try. He will see who he will have to settlewith. 

--We shall see. Good bye. I take away your six hogsheads, and willproceed to divide them as the General has directed. 

XI. 

UTOPIAN IDEAS. 

If I were His Majesty's Minister!

--Well, what would you do?

--I should begin by--by--upon my word, by being very much embarrassed. For I should be Minister only because I had the majority, and I shouldhave that only because I had made it, and I could only have made it, honestly at least, by governing according to its ideas. So if Iundertake to carry out my ideas and to run counter to its ideas, I shallnot have the majority, and if I do not, I cannot be His Majesty'sMinister. 

--Just imagine that you are so, and that consequently the majority isnot opposed to you, what would you do?

--I would look to see on which side _justice_ is. 

--And then?

--I would seek to find where _utility_ was. 

--What next?

--I would see whether they agreed, or were in conflict with one another. 

--And if you found they did not agree?

--I would say to the King, take back your portfolio. 

--But suppose you see that _justice_ and _utility_ are one?

--Then I will go straight ahead. 

--Very well, but to realize utility by justice, a third thing isnecessary. 

--What is that?

--Possibility. 

--You conceded that. 

--When?

--Just now. 

--How?

--By giving me the majority. 

--It seems to me that the concession was rather hazardous, for itimplies that the majority clearly sees what is just, clearly sees whatis useful, and clearly sees that these things are in perfect accord. 

--And if it sees this clearly, the good will, so to speak, do itself. 

--This is the point to which you are constantly bringing me--to see apossibility of reform only in the progress of the general intelligence. 

--By this progress all reform is infallible. 

--Certainly. But this preliminary progress takes time. Let us suppose itaccomplished. What will you do? for I am eager to see you at work, doing, practicing. 

--I should begin by reducing letter postage to ten centimes. 

--I heard you speak of five, once. 

--Yes; but as I have other reforms in view, I must move with prudence, to avoid a deficit in the revenues. 

--Prudence? This leaves you with a deficit of thirty millions. 

--Then I will reduce the salt tax to ten francs. 

--Good! Here is another deficit of thirty millions. Doubtless you haveinvented some new tax. 

--Heaven forbid! Besides, I do not flatter myself that I have aninventive mind. 

--It is necessary, however. Oh, I have it. What was I thinking of? Youare simply going to diminish the expense. I did not think of that. 

--You are not the only one. I shall come to that; but I do not count onit at present. 

--What! you diminish the receipts, without lessening expenses, and youavoid a deficit?

--Yes, by diminishing other taxes at the same time. 

(Here the interlocutor, putting the index finger of his right hand onhis forehead, shook his head, which may be translated thus: He isrambling terribly. )

--Well, upon my word, this is ingenious. I pay the Treasury a hundredfrancs; you relieve me of five francs on salt, five on postage; and inorder that the Treasury may nevertheless receive one hundred francs, yourelieve me of ten on some other tax?

--Precisely; you understand me. 

--How can it be true? I am not even sure that I have heard you. 

--I repeat that I balance one remission of taxes by another. 

--I have a little time to give, and I should like to hear you expoundthis paradox. 

--Here is the whole mystery: I know a tax which costs you twenty francs, not a sou of which gets to the Treasury. I relieve you of half of it, and make the other half take its proper destination. 

--You are an unequaled financier. There is but one difficulty. What tax, if you please, do I pay, which does not go to the Treasury?

--How much does this suit of clothes cost you?

--A hundred francs. 

--How much would it have cost you if you had gotten the cloth fromBelgium?

--Eighty francs. 

--Then why did you not get it there?

--Because it is prohibited. 

--Why?

--So that the suit may cost me one hundred francs instead of eighty. 

--This denial, then, costs you twenty francs?

--Undoubtedly. 

--And where do these twenty francs go?

--Where do they go? To the manufacturer of the cloth. 

--Well, give me ten francs for the Treasury, and I will remove therestriction, and you will gain ten francs. 

--Oh, I begin to see. The treasury account shows that it loses fivefrancs on postage and five on salt, and gains ten on cloth. That iseven. 

--Your account is--you gain five francs on salt, five on postage, andten on cloth. 

--Total, twenty francs. This is satisfactory enough. But what becomes ofthe poor cloth manufacturer?

--Oh, I have thought of him. I have secured compensation for him bymeans of the tax reductions which are so profitable to the Treasury. What I have done for you as regards cloth, I do for him in regard towool, coal, machinery, etc. , so that he can lower his price withoutloss. 

--But are you sure that will be an equivalent?

--The balance will be in his favor. The twenty francs that you gain onthe cloth will be multiplied by those which I will save for you ongrain, meat, fuel, etc. This will amount to a large sum, and each one ofyour 35, 000, 000 fellow-citizens will save the same way. There will beenough to consume the cloths of both Belgium and France. The nation willbe better clothed; that is all. 

--I will think on this, for it is somewhat confused in my head. 

--After all, as far as clothes go, the main thing is to be clothed. Yourlimbs are your own, and not the manufacturer's. To shield them from coldis your business and not his. If the law takes sides for him againstyou, the law is unjust, and you allowed me to reason on the hypothesisthat what is unjust is hurtful. 

--Perhaps I admitted too much; but go on and explain your financialplan. 

--Then I will make a tariff. 

--In two folio volumes?

--No, in two sections. 

--Then they will no longer say that this famous axiom "No one issupposed to be ignorant of the law" is a fiction. Let us see yourtariff. 

--Here it is: Section First. All imports shall pay an _ad valorem_ taxof five per cent. 

--Even _raw materials_?

--Unless they are _worthless_. 

--But they all have value, much or little. 

--Then they will pay much or little. 

--How can our manufactories compete with foreign ones which have these_raw materials_ free?

--The expenses of the State being certain, if we close this source ofrevenue, we must open another; this will not diminish the relativeinferiority of our manufactories, and there will be one bureau more toorganize and pay. 

--That is true; I reasoned as if the tax was to be annulled, notchanged. I will reflect on this. What is your second section?

--Section Second. All exports shall pay an _ad valorem_ tax of five percent. 

--Merciful Heavens, Mr. Utopist! You will certainly be stoned, and, ifit comes to that, I will throw the first one. 

--We agreed that the majority were enlightened. 

--Enlightened! Can you claim that an export duty is not onerous?

--All taxes are onerous, but this is less so than others. 

--The carnival justifies many eccentricities. Be so kind as to make thisnew paradox appear specious, if you can. 

--How much did you pay for this wine?

--A franc per quart. 

--How much would you have paid outside the city gates?

--Fifty centimes. 

--Why this difference?

--Ask the _octroi_[14] which added ten sous to it. 

--Who established the _octroi_?

--The municipality of Paris, in order to pave and light the streets. 

--This is, then, an import duty. But if the neighboring countrydistricts had established this _octroi_ for their profit, what wouldhappen?

--I should none the less pay a franc for wine worth only fifty centimes, and the other fifty centimes would pave and light Montmartre and theBatignolles. 

--So that really it is the consumer who pays the tax?

--There is no doubt of that. 

--Then by taxing exports you make foreigners help pay yourexpenses. [15]

--I find you at fault, this is not _justice_. 

--Why not? In order to secure the production of any one thing, theremust be instruction, security, roads, and other costly things in thecountry. Why shall not the foreigner who is to consume this product, bear the charges its production necessitates?

--This is contrary to received ideas. 

--Not the least in the world. The last purchaser must repay all thedirect and indirect expenses of production. 

--No matter what you say, it is plain that such a measure would paralyzecommerce; and cut off all exports. 

--That is an illusion. If you were to pay this tax besides all theothers, you would be right. But, if the hundred millions raised in thisway, relieve you of other taxes to the same amount, you go into foreignmarkets with all your advantages, and even with more, if this duty hasoccasioned less embarrassment and expense. 

--I will reflect on this. So now the salt, postage and customs areregulated. Is all ended there?

--I am just beginning. 

--Pray, initiate me in your Utopian ideas. 

--I have lost sixty millions on salt and postage. I shall regain themthrough the customs; which also gives me something more precious. 

--What, pray?

--International relations founded on justice, and a probability of peacewhich is equivalent to a certainty. I will disband the army. 

--The whole army?

--Except special branches, which will be voluntarily recruited, like allother professions. You see, conscription is abolished. 

--Sir, you should say recruiting. 

--Ah, I forgot, I cannot help admiring the ease with which, in certaincountries, the most unpopular things are perpetuated by giving themother names. 

--Like _consolidated duties_, which have become _indirectcontributions_. 

--And the _gendarmes_, who have taken the name of _municipal guards_. 

--In short, trusting to Utopia, you disarm the country. 

--I said that I would muster out the army, not that I would disarm thecountry. I intend, on the contrary, to give it invincible power. 

--How do you harmonize this mass of contradictions?

--I call all the citizens to service. 

--Is it worth while to relieve a portion from service in order to callout everybody?

--You did not make me Minister in order that I should leave things asthey are. Thus, on my advent to power, I shall say with Richelieu, "theState maxims are changed. " My first maxim, the one which will serve as abasis for my administration, is this: Every citizen must know twothings--How to earn his own living, and defend his country. 

--It seems to me, at the first glance, that there is a spark of goodsense in this. 

--Consequently, I base the national defense on a law consisting of twosections. 

Section First. Every able-bodied citizen, without exception, shall beunder arms for four years, from his twenty-first to his twenty-fifthyear, in order to receive military instruction. --

--This is pretty economy! You send home four hundred thousand soldiersand call out ten millions. 

--Listen to my second section:

SEC. 2. _Unless_ he proves, at the age of twenty-one, that he knows theschool of the soldier perfectly. 

--I did not expect this turn. It is certain that to avoid four years'service, there will be a great emulation among our youth, to learn _bythe right flank_ and _double quick, march_. The idea is odd. 

--It is better than that. For without grieving families and offendingequality, does it not assure the country, in a simple and inexpensivemanner, of ten million defenders, capable of defying a coalition of allthe standing armies of the globe?

--Truly, if I were not on my guard, I should end in getting interestedin your fancies. 

_The Utopist, getting excited:_ Thank Heaven, my estimates are relievedof a hundred millions! I suppress the _octroi_. I refund indirectcontributions. I--

_Getting more and more excited:_ I will proclaim religious freedom andfree instruction. There shall be new resources. I will buy therailroads, pay off the public debt, and starve out the stock gamblers. 

--My dear Utopist!

--Freed from too numerous cares, I will concentrate all the resources ofthe government on the repression of fraud, the administration of promptand even-handed justice. I--

--My dear Utopist, you attempt too much. The nation will not follow you. 

--You gave me the majority. 

--I take it back. 

--Very well; then I am no longer Minister; but my plans remain what theyare--Utopian ideas. 

[Footnote 14: The entrance duty levied at the gates of French towns. ]

[Footnote 15: I understand M. Bastiat to mean merely that export dutiesare not necessarily more onerous than import duties. The statement thatall taxes are paid by the consumer, is liable to importantmodifications. An export duty may be laid in such way, and on sucharticles, that it will be paid wholly by the foreign consumer, withoutloss to the producing country, but it is only when the additional costdoes not lessen the demand, or induce the foreigner to produce the samearticle. _Translator. _]

XII. 

SALT, POSTAGE, AND CUSTOMS. 

[This chapter is an amusing dialogue relating principally to EnglishPostal Reform. Being inapplicable to any condition of things existing inthe United States, it is omitted. --_Translator. _]

XIII. 

THE THREE ALDERMEN. 

A DEMONSTRATION IN FOUR TABLEAUX. 

_First Tableau. _

[The scene is in the hotel of Alderman Pierre. The window looks out on afine park; three persons are seated near a good fire. ]

_Pierre. _ Upon my word, a fire is very comfortable when the stomach issatisfied. It must be agreed that it is a pleasant thing. But, alas! howmany worthy people like the King of Yvetot, "Blow on their fingers for want of wood. "

Unhappy creatures, Heaven inspires me with a charitable thought. You seethese fine trees. I will cut them down and distribute the wood amongthe poor. 

_Paul and Jean. _ What! gratis?

_Pierre. _ Not exactly. There would soon be an end of my good works if Iscattered my property thus. I think that my park is worth twentythousand livres; by cutting it down I shall get much more for it. 

_Paul. _ A mistake. Your wood as it stands is worth more than that in theneighboring forests, for it renders services which that cannot give. When cut down it will, like that, be good for burning only, and will notbe worth a sou more per cord. 

_Pierre. _ Oh! Mr. Theorist, you forget that I am a practical man. Isupposed that my reputation as a speculator was well enough establishedto put me above any charge of stupidity. Do you think that I shall amusemyself by selling my wood at the price of other wood?

_Paul. _ You must. 

_Pierre. _ Simpleton!--Suppose I prevent the bringing of any wood toParis?

_Paul. _ That will alter the case. But how will you manage it?

_Pierre. _ This is the whole secret. You know that wood pays an entranceduty of ten sous per cord. To-morrow I will induce the Aldermen to raisethis duty to one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred livres, so highas to keep out every fagot. Well, do you see? If the good people do notwant to die of cold, they must come to my wood-yard. They will fight formy wood; I shall sell it for its weight in gold, and this well-regulateddeed of charity will enable me to do others of the same sort. 

_Paul. _ This is a fine idea, and it suggests an equally good one to me. 

_Jean. _ Well, what is it?

_Paul. _ How do you find this Normandy butter?

_Jean. _ Excellent. 

_Paul_. Well, it seemed passable a moment ago. But do you not think itis a little strong? I want to make a better article at Paris. I willhave four or five hundred cows, and I will distribute milk, butter andcheese to the poor people. 

_Pierre and Jean. _ What! as a charity?

_Paul. _ Bah, let us always put charity in the foreground. It is such afine thing that its counterfeit even is an excellent card. I will givemy butter to the people and they will give me their money. Is thatcalled selling?

_Jean. _ No, according to the _Bourgeois Gentilhomme_; but call it whatyou please, you ruin yourself. Can Paris compete with Normandy inraising cows?

_Paul. _ I shall save the cost of transportation. 

_Jean. _ Very well; but the Normans are able to _beat_ the Parisians, even if they do have to pay for transportation. 

_Paul. _ Do you call it _beating_ any one to furnish him things at a lowprice?

_Jean. _ It is the time-honored word. You will always be beaten. 

_Paul. _ Yes; like Don Quixote. The blows will fall on Sancho. Jean, myfriend, you forgot the _octroi_. 

_Jean. _ The _octroi_! What has that to do with your butter?

_Paul. _ To-morrow I will demand _protection_, and I will induce theCouncil to prohibit the butter of Normandy and Brittany. The people mustdo without butter, or buy mine, and that at my price, too. 

_Jean. _ Gentlemen, your philanthropy carries me along with it. "In timeone learns to howl with the wolves. " It shall not be said that I am anunworthy Alderman. Pierre, this sparkling fire has illumined your soul;Paul, this butter has given an impulse to your understanding, and Iperceive that this piece of salt pork stimulates my intelligence. To-morrow I will vote myself, and make others vote, for the exclusion ofhogs, dead or alive; this done, I will build superb stock-yards in themiddle of Paris "for the unclean animal forbidden to the Hebrews. " Iwill become swineherd and pork-seller, and we shall see how the goodpeople of Lutetia can help getting their food at my shop. 

_Pierre. _ Gently, my friends; if you thus run up the price of butter andsalt meat, you diminish the profit which I expected from my wood. 

_Paul. _ Nor is my speculation so wonderful, if you ruin me with yourfuel and your hams. 

_Jean. _ What shall I gain by making you pay an extra price for mysausages, if you overcharge me for pastry and fagots?

_Pierre. _ Do you not see that we are getting into a quarrel? Let usrather unite. Let us make _reciprocal concessions_. Besides, it is notwell to listen only to miserable self-interest. _Humanity_ is concerned, and must not the warming of the people be secured?

_Paul. _ That it is true, and people must have butter to spread on theirbread. 

_Jean. _ Certainly. And they must have a bit of pork for their soup. 

_All Together. _ Forward, charity! Long live philanthropy! To-morrow, to-morrow, we will take the octroi by assault. 

_Pierre. _ Ah, I forgot. One word more which is important. My friends, inthis selfish age people are suspicious, and the purest intentions areoften misconstrued. Paul, you plead for _wood_; Jean, defend _butter_;and I will devote myself to domestic _swine_. It is best to head offinvidious suspicions. _Paul and Jean_ (leaving). Upon my word, what aclever fellow!

SECOND TABLEAU. 

_The Common Council. _

_Paul. _ My dear colleagues, every day great quantities of wood come intoParis, and draw out of it large sums of money. If this goes on, we shallall be ruined in three years, and what will become of the poor people?[Bravo. ] Let us prohibit foreign wood. I am not speaking for myself, foryou could not make a tooth-pick out of all the wood I own. I am, therefore, perfectly disinterested. [Good, good. ] But here is Pierre, who has a park, and he will keep our fellow-citizens from freezing. Theywill no longer be in a state of _dependence_ on the charcoal dealers ofthe Yonne. Have you ever thought of the risk we run of dying of cold, ifthe proprietors of these foreign forests should take it into their headsnot to bring any more wood to Paris? Let us, therefore, prohibit wood. By this means we shall stop the drain of specie, we shall start thewood-chopping business, and open to our workmen a new source of laborand wages. [Applause. ]

_Jean. _ I second the motion of the Honorable member--a proposition sophilanthropic and so disinterested, as he remarked. It is time that weshould stop this intolerable _freedom of entry_, which has brought aruinous competition upon our market, so that there is not a provincetolerably well situated for producing some one article which does notinundate us with it, sell it to us at a low price, and depress Parisianlabor. It is the business of the State to _equalize the conditions ofproduction_ by wisely graduated duties; to allow the entrance fromwithout of whatever is dearer there than at Paris, and thus relieve usfrom an unequal _contest_. How, for instance, can they expect us to makemilk and butter in Paris as against Brittany and Normandy? Think, gentlemen; the Bretons have land cheaper, feed more convenient, andlabor more abundant. Does not common sense say that the conditions mustbe equalized by a protecting duty? I ask that the duty on milk andbutter be raised to a thousand per cent. , and more, if necessary. Thebreakfasts of the people will cost a little more, but wages will rise!We shall see the building of stables and dairies, a good trade inchurns, and the foundation of new industries laid. I, myself, have notthe least interest in this plan. I am not a cowherd, nor do I desire tobecome one. I am moved by the single desire to be useful to the laboringclasses. [Expressions of approbation. ]

_Pierre. _ I am happy to see in this assembly statesmen so pure, enlightened, and devoted to the interests of the people. [Cheers. ] Iadmire their self-denial, and cannot do better than follow such nobleexamples. I support their motion, and I also make one to exclude Poitouhogs. It is not that I want to become a swineherd or pork dealer, inwhich case my conscience would forbid my making this motion; but is itnot shameful, gentlemen, that we should be paying tribute to these poorPoitevin peasants who have the audacity to come into our own market, take possession of a business that we could have carried on ourselves, and, after having inundated us with sausages and hams, take from us, perhaps, nothing in return? Anyhow, who says that the balance of tradeis not in their favor, and that we are not compelled to pay them atribute in money? Is it not plain that if this Poitevin industry wereplanted in Paris, it would open new fields to Parisian labor? Moreover, gentlemen, is it not very likely, as Mr. Lestiboudois said, that we buythese Poitevin salted meats, not with our income, but our capital? Wherewill this land us? Let us not allow greedy, avaricious and perfidiousrivals to come here and sell things cheaply, thus making it impossiblefor us to produce them ourselves. Aldermen, Paris has given us itsconfidence, and we must show ourselves worthy of it. The people arewithout labor, and we must create it, and if salted meat costs them alittle more, we shall, at least, have the consciousness that we havesacrificed our interests to those of the masses, as every good Aldermanought to do. [Thunders of applause. ]

_A Voice. _ I hear much said of the poor people; but, under the pretextof giving them labor, you begin by taking away from them that which isworth more than labor itself--wood, butter, and soup. 

_Pierre, Paul and Jean. _ Vote, vote. Away with your theorists andgeneralizers! Let us vote. [The three motions are carried. ]

THIRD TABLEAU. 

_Twenty Years After. _

_Son. _ Father, decide; we must leave Paris. Work is slack, andeverything is dear. 

_Father. _ My son, you do not know how hard it is to leave the placewhere we were born. 

_Son. _ The worst of all things is to die there of misery. 

_Father. _ Go, my son, and seek a more hospitable country. For myself, Iwill not leave the grave where your mother, sisters and brothers lie. Iam eager to find, at last, near them, the rest which is denied me inthis city of desolation. 

_Son. _ Courage, dear father, we will find work elsewhere--in Poitou, Normandy or Brittany. They say that the industry of Paris is graduallytransferring itself to those distant countries. 

_Father. _ It is very natural. Unable to sell us wood and food, theystopped producing more than they needed for themselves, and theydevoted their spare time and capital to making those things which weformerly furnished them. 

_Son. _ Just as at Paris, they quit making handsome furniture and fineclothes, in order to plant trees, and raise hogs and cows. Though quiteyoung, I have seen vast storehouses, sumptuous buildings, and quaysthronged with life on those banks of the Seine which are now given up tomeadows and forests. 

_Father. _ While the provinces are filling up with cities, Paris becomescountry. What a frightful revolution! Three mistaken Aldermen, aided bypublic ignorance, have brought down on us this terrible calamity. 

_Son. _ Tell me this story, my father. 

_Father. _ It is very simple. Under the pretext of establishing three newtrades at Paris, and of thus supplying labor to the workmen, these mensecured the prohibition of wood, butter, and meats. They assumed theright of supplying their fellow-citizens with them. These articles roseimmediately to an exorbitant price. Nobody made enough to buy them, andthe few who could procure them by using up all they made were unable tobuy anything else; consequently all branches of industry stopped atonce--all the more so because the provinces no longer offered a market. Misery, death, and emigration began to depopulate Paris. 

_Son. _ When will this stop?

_Father. _ When Paris has become a meadow and a forest. 

_Son. _ The three Aldermen must have made a great fortune. 

_Father. _ At first they made immense profits, but at length they wereinvolved in the common misery. 

_Son. _ How was that possible?

_Father. _ You see this ruin; it was a magnificent house, surrounded by afine park. If Paris had kept on advancing, Master Pierre would have gotmore rent from it annually than the whole thing is now worth to him. 

_Son. _ How can that be, since he got rid of competition?

_Father. _ Competition in selling has disappeared; but competition inbuying also disappears every day, and will keep on disappearing untilParis is an open field, and Master Pierre's woodland will be worth nomore than an equal number of acres in the forest of Bondy. Thus, amonopoly, like every species of injustice, brings its own punishmentupon itself. 

_Son. _ This does not seem very plain to me, but the decay of Paris isundeniable. Is there, then, no means of repealing this unjust measurethat Pierre and his colleagues adopted twenty years ago?

_Father. _ I will confide my secret to you. I will remain at Paris forthis purpose; I will call the people to my aid. It depends on themwhether they will replace the _octroi_ on its old basis, and dismissfrom it this fatal principle, which is grafted on it, and has grownthere like a parasite fungus. 

_Son. _ You ought to succeed on the very first day. 

_Father. _ No; on the contrary, the work is a difficult and laboriousone. Pierre, Paul and Jean understand one another perfectly. They areready to do anything rather than allow the entrance of wood, butter andmeat into Paris. They even have on their side the people, who clearlysee the labor which these three protected branches of business give, whoknow how many wood-choppers and cow-drivers it gives employment to, butwho cannot obtain so clear an idea of the labor that would spring up inthe free air of liberty. 

_Son. _ If this is all that is needed, you will enlighten them. 

_Father. _ My child, at your age, one doubts at nothing. If I wrote, thepeople would not read; for all their time is occupied in supporting awretched existence. If I speak, the Aldermen will shut my mouth. Thepeople will, therefore, remain long in their fatal error; politicalparties, which build their hopes on their passions, attempt to play upontheir prejudices, rather than to dispel them. I shall then have to dealwith the powers that be--the people and the parties. I see that a stormwill burst on the head of the audacious person who dares to rise againstan iniquity which is so firmly rooted in the country. 

_Son. _ You will have justice and truth on your side. 

_Father. _ And they will have force and calumny. If I were only young!But age and suffering have exhausted my strength. 

_Son. _ Well, father, devote all that you have left to the service of thecountry. Begin this work of emancipation, and leave to me for aninheritance the task of finishing it. 

FOURTH TABLEAU. 

_The Agitation. _

_Jacques Bonhomme. _ Parisians, let us demand the reform of the _octroi_;let it be put back to what it was. Let every citizen be FREE to buywood, butter and meat where it seems good to him. 

_The People. _ Hurrah for LIBERTY!

_Pierre. _ Parisians, do not allow yourselves to be seduced by thesewords. Of what avail is the freedom of purchasing, if you have not themeans? and how can you have the means, if labor is wanting? Can Parisproduce wood as cheaply as the forest of Bondy, or meat at as low priceas Poitou, or butter as easily as Normandy? If you open the doors tothese rival products, what will become of the wood cutters, porkdealers, and cattle drivers? They cannot do without protection. 

_The People. _. Hurrah for PROTECTION!

_Jacques. _ Protection! But do they protect you, workmen? Do not youcompete with one another? Let the wood dealers then suffer competitionin their turn. They have no right to raise the price of their wood bylaw, unless they, also, by law, raise wages. Do you not still loveequality?

_The People. _ Hurrah for EQUALITY!

_Pierre. _ Do not listen to this factious fellow. We have raised theprice of wood, meat, and butter, it is true; but it is in order that wemay give good wages to the workmen. We are moved by charity. 

_The People. _ Hurrah for CHARITY!

_Jacques. _ Use the _octroi_, if you can, to raise wages, or do not useit to raise the price of commodities. The Parisians do not ask forcharity, but justice. 

_The People. _ Hurrah for JUSTICE!

_Pierre. _ It is precisely the dearness of products which will, by reflexaction, raise wages. 

_The People. _ Hurrah for DEARNESS!

_Jacques. _ If butter is dear, it is not because you pay workmen well; itis not even that you may make great profits; it is only because Paris isill situated for this business, and because you desired that theyshould do in the city what ought to be done in the country, and in thecountry what was done in the city. The people have no _more_ labor, onlythey labor at something else. They get no _more_ wages, but they do notbuy things as cheaply. 

_The People. _ Hurrah for CHEAPNESS!

_Pierre. _ This person seduces you with his fine words. Let us state thequestion plainly. Is it not true that if we admit butter, wood, andmeat, we shall be inundated with them, and die of a plethora? There is, then, no other way in which we can preserve ourselves from this newinundation, than to shut the door, and we can keep up the price ofthings only by causing scarcity artificially. 

_A Very Few Voices. _ Hurrah for SCARCITY!

_Jacques. _ Let us state the question as it is. Among all the Parisianswe can divide only what is in Paris; the less wood, butter and meatthere is, the smaller each one's share will be. There will be less if weexclude than if we admit. Parisians, individual abundance can exist onlywhere there is general abundance. 

_The People. _ Hurrah for ABUNDANCE!

_Pierre. _ No matter what this man says, he cannot prove to you that itis to your interest to submit to unbridled competition. 

_The People. _ Down with COMPETITION!

_Jacques. _ Despite all this man's declamation, he cannot make you_enjoy_ the sweets of restriction. 

_The People. _ Down with RESTRICTION!

_Pierre. _ I declare to you that if the poor dealers in cattle and hogsare deprived of their livelihood, if they are sacrificed to theories, Iwill not be answerable for public order. Workmen, distrust this man. Heis an agent of perfidious Normandy; he is under the pay of foreigners. He is a traitor, and must be hanged. [The people keep silent. ]

_Jacques. _ Parisians, all that I say now, I said to you twenty yearsago, when it occurred to Pierre to use the _octroi_ for his gain andyour loss. I am not an agent of Normandy. Hang me if you will, but thiswill not prevent oppression from being oppression. Friends, you mustkill neither Jacques nor Pierre, but liberty if it frightens you, orrestriction if it hurts you. 

_The People. _ Let us hang nobody, but let us emancipate everybody. 

XIV. 

SOMETHING ELSE. 

--What is restriction?

--A partial prohibition. 

--What is prohibition?

--An absolute restriction. 

--So that what is said of one is true of the other?

--Yes, comparatively. They bear the same relation to each other that thearc of the circle does to the circle. 

--Then if prohibition is bad, restriction cannot be good. 

--No more than the arc can be straight if the circle is curved. 

--What is the common name for restriction and prohibition?

--Protection. 

--What is the definite effect of protection?

--To require from men _harder labor for the same result_. 

--Why are men so attached to the protective system?

--Because, since liberty would accomplish the same result _with lesslabor_, this apparent diminution of labor frightens them. 

--Why do you say _apparent_?

--Because all labor economized can be devoted to _something else_. 

--What?

--That cannot and need not be determined. 

--Why?

--Because, if the total of the comforts of France could be gained with adiminution of one-tenth on the total of its labor, no one coulddetermine what comforts it would procure with the labor remaining at itsdisposal. One person would prefer to be better clothed, another betterfed, another better taught, and another more amused. 

--Explain the workings and effect of protection. 

--It is not an easy matter. Before taking hold of a complicatedinstance, it must be studied in the simplest one. 

--Take the simplest you choose. 

--Do you recollect how Robinson Crusoe, having no saw, set to work tomake a plank?

--Yes. He cut down a tree, and then with his ax hewed the trunk on bothsides until he got it down to the thickness of a board. 

--And that gave him an abundance of work?

--Fifteen full days. 

--What did he live on during this time?

--His provisions. 

--What happened to the ax?

--It was all blunted. 

--Very good; but there is one thing which, perhaps, you do not know. Atthe moment that Robinson gave the first blow with his ax, he saw a plankwhich the waves had cast up on the shore. 

--Oh, the lucky accident! He ran to pick it up?

--It was his first impulse; but he checked himself, reasoning thus:

"If I go after this plank, it will cost me but the labor of carrying itand the time spent in going to and returning from the shore. 

"But if I make a plank with my ax, I shall in the first place obtainwork for fifteen days, then I shall wear out my ax, which will give mean opportunity of repairing it, and I shall consume my provisions, whichwill be a third source of labor, since they must be replaced. Now, _labor is wealth_. It is plain that I will ruin myself if I pick up thisstranded board. It is important to protect my _personal labor_, and nowthat I think of it, I can create myself additional labor by kicking thisboard back into the sea. "

--But this reasoning was absurd!

--Certainly. Nevertheless it is that adopted by every nation which_protects_ itself by prohibition. It rejects the plank which is offeredit in exchange for a little labor, in order to give itself more labor. It sees a gain even in the labor of the custom house officer. Thisanswers to the trouble which Robinson took to give back to the wavesthe present they wished to make him. Consider the nation a collectivebeing, and you will not find an atom of difference between its reasoningand that of Robinson. 

--Did not Robinson see that he could use the time saved in doing_something else_?

--What '_something else_'?

--So long as one has wants and time, one has always _something_ to do. Iam not bound to specify the labor that he could undertake. 

--I can specify very easily that which he would have avoided. 

--I assert, that Robinson, with incredible blindness, confounded laborwith its result, the end with the means, and I will prove it to you. 

--It is not necessary. But this is the restrictive or prohibitory systemin its simplest form. If it appears absurd to you, thus stated, it isbecause the two qualities of producer and consumer are here united inthe same person. 

--Let us pass, then, to a more complicated instance. 

--Willingly. Some time after all this, Robinson having met Friday, theyunited, and began to work in common. They hunted for six hours eachmorning and brought home four hampers of game. They worked in the gardenfor six hours each afternoon, and obtained four baskets of vegetables. 

One day a canoe touched at the Island of Despair. A good-lookingstranger landed, and was allowed to dine with our two hermits. Hetasted, and praised the products of the garden, and before taking leaveof his hosts, said to them:

"Generous Islanders, I dwell in a country much richer in game than this, but where horticulture is unknown. It would be easy for me to bring youevery evening four hampers of game if you would give me only two basketsof vegetables. "

At these words Robinson and Friday stepped on one side, to have aconsultation, and the debate which followed is too interesting not to begiven _in extenso_:

_Friday. _ Friend, what do you think of it?

_Robinson. _ If we accept we are ruined. 

_Friday. _ Is that certain? Calculate!

_Robinson. _ It is all calculated. Hunting, crushed out by competition, will be a lost branch of industry for us. 

_Friday. _ What difference does that make, if we have the game?

_Robinson. _ Theory! It will not be the product of our labor. 

_Friday. _ Yes, it will, since we will have to give vegetables to get it. 

_Robinson. _ Then what shall we make?

_Friday. _ The four hampers of game cost us six hours' labor. Thestranger gives them to us for two baskets of vegetables, which take usbut three hours. Thus three hours remain at our disposal. 

_Robinson. _ Say rather that they are taken from our activity. There isour loss. _Labor is wealth_, and if we lose a fourth of our time we areone-fourth poorer. 

_Friday. _ Friend, you make an enormous mistake. The same amount of gameand vegetables and three free hours to boot make progress, or there isnone in the world. 

_Robinson. _ Mere generalities. What will we do with these three hours?

_Friday. _ We will do _something else_. 

_Robinson. _ Ah, now I have you. You can specify nothing. It is very easyto say _something else--something else_. 

_Friday. _ We will fish. We will adorn our houses. We will read theBible. 

_Robinson. _ Utopia! Is it certain that we will do this rather than that?

_Friday. _ Well, if we have no wants, we will rest. Is rest nothing?

_Robinson. _ When one rests one dies of hunger. 

_Friday. _ Friend, you are in a vicious circle. I speak of a rest whichdiminishes neither our gains nor our vegetables. You always forget thatby means of our commerce with this stranger, nine hours of labor willgive us as much food as twelve now do. 

_Robinson. _ It is easy to see that you were not reared in Europe. Perhaps you have never read the _Moniteur Industriel_? It would havetaught you this: "All time saved is a dear loss. Eating is not theimportant matter, but working. Nothing which we consume counts, if it isnot the product of our labor. Do you wish to know whether you are rich?Do not look at your comforts, but at your trouble. " This is what the_Moniteur Industriel_ would have taught you. I, who am not a theorist, see but the loss of our hunting. 

_Friday. _ What a strange perversion of ideas. But--

_Robinson. _ No _buts_. Besides, there are political reasons forrejecting the interested offers of this perfidious stranger. 

_Friday. _ Political reasons!

_Robinson. _ Yes. In the first place he makes these offers only becausethey are for his advantage. 

_Friday. _ So much the better, since they are for ours also. 

_Robinson. _ Then by these exchanges we shall become dependent on him. 

_Friday. _ And he on us. We need his game, he our vegetables, and we willlive in good friendship. 

_Robinson. _ Fancy! Do you want I should leave you without an answer?

_Friday. _ Let us see; I am still waiting a good reason. 

_Robinson. _ Supposing that the stranger learns to cultivate a garden, and that his island is more fertile than ours. Do you see theconsequences?

_Friday. _ Yes. Our relations with the stranger will stop. He will takeno more vegetables from us, since he can get them at home with lesstrouble. He will bring us no more game, since we will have nothing togive in exchange, and we will be then just where you want us to be now. 

_Robinson. _ Short-sighted savage! You do not see that after havingdestroyed our hunting, by inundating us with game, he will kill ourgardening by overwhelming us with vegetables. 

_Friday. _ But he will do that only so long as we give him _somethingelse_; that is to say, so long as we find _something else_ to produce, which will economize our labor. 

_Robinson. _ _Something else--something else!_ You always come back tothat. You are very vague, friend Friday; there is nothing practical inyour views. 

The contest lasted a long time, and, as often happens, left each oneconvinced that he was right. However, Robinson having great influenceover Friday, his views prevailed, and when the stranger came for ananswer, Robinson said to him:

"Stranger, in order that your proposition may be accepted, we must bequite sure of two things:

"The first is, that your island is not richer in game than ours, for wewill struggle but with _equal arms_. 

"The second is, that you will lose by the bargain. For, as in everyexchange there is necessarily a gainer and a loser, we would be cheated, if you were not. What have you to say?". 

"Nothing, nothing, " replied the stranger, who burst out laughing, andreturned to his canoe. 

--The story would not be bad if Robinson was not so foolish. 

--He is no more so than the committee in Hauteville street. 

--Oh, there is a great difference. You suppose one solitary man, or, what comes to the same thing, two men living together. This is not ourworld; the diversity of occupations, and the intervention of merchantsand money, change the question materially. 

--All this complicates transactions, but does not change their nature. 

--What! Do you propose to compare modern commerce to mere exchanges?

--Commerce is but a multitude of exchanges; the real nature of theexchange is identical with the real nature of commerce, as small laboris of the same nature with great, and as the gravitation which impels anatom is of the same nature as that which attracts a world. 

--Thus, according to you, these arguments, which in Robinson's mouth areso false, are no less so in the mouths of our protectionists?

--Yes; only error is hidden better under the complication ofcircumstances. 

--Well, now, select some instance from what has actually occurred. 

--Very well; in France, in view of custom and the exigencies of theclimate, cloth is an useful article. Is it the essential thing _to makeit, or to have it_?

--A pretty question! To have it, we must make it. 

--That is not necessary. It is certain that to have it some one mustmake it; but it is not necessary that the person or country using itshould make it. You did not produce that which clothes you so well, norFrance the coffee it uses for breakfast. 

--But I purchased my cloth, and France its coffee. 

--Exactly, and with what?

--With specie. 

--But you did not make the specie, nor did France. 

--We bought it. 

--With what?

--With our products which went to Peru. 

--Then it is in reality your labor that you exchange for cloth, andFrench labor that is exchanged for coffee?

--Certainly. 

--Then it is not absolutely necessary to make what one consumes?

--No, if one makes _something else_, and gives it in exchange. 

--In other words, France has two ways of procuring a given quantity ofcloth. The first is to make it, and the second is to make _somethingelse_, and exchange _that something else_ abroad for cloth. Of these twoways, which is the best?

--I do not know. 

--Is it not that which, _for a fixed amount of labor, gives the greatestquantity of cloth_?

--It seems so. 

--Which is best for a nation, to have the choice of these two ways, orto have the law forbid its using one of them at the risk of rejectingthe best?

--It seems to me that it would be best for the nation to have thechoice, since in these matters it always makes a good selection. 

--The law which prohibits the introduction of foreign cloth, decides, then, that if France wants cloth, it must make it at home, and that itis forbidden to make that _something else_ with which it could purchaseforeign cloth?

--That is true. 

--And as it is obliged to make cloth, and forbidden to make _somethingelse_, just because the other thing would require less labor (withoutwhich France would have no occasion to do anything with it), the lawvirtually decrees, that for a certain amount of labor, France shallhave but one yard of cloth, making it itself, when, for the same amountof labor, it could have had two yards, by making _something else_. 

--But what other thing?

--No matter what. Being free to choose, it will make _something else_only so long as there is _something else_ to make. 

--That is possible; but I cannot rid myself of the idea that theforeigners may send us cloth and not take something else, in which casewe shall be prettily caught. Under all circumstances, this is theobjection, even from your own point of view. You admit that France willmake this _something else_, which is to be exchanged for cloth, withless labor than if it had made the cloth itself?

--Doubtless. 

--Then a certain quantity of its labor will become inert?

--Yes; but people will be no worse clothed--a little circumstance whichcauses the whole misunderstanding. Robinson lost sight of it, and ourprotectionists do not see it, or pretend not to. The stranded plank thusparalyzed for fifteen days Robinson's labor, so far as it was applied tothe making of a plank, but it did not deprive him of it. Distinguish, then, between these two kinds of diminution of labor, one resulting in_privation_, and the other in _comfort_. These two things are verydifferent, and if you assimilate them, you reason like Robinson. In themost complicated, as in the most simple instances, the sophism consistsin this: _Judging of the utility of labor by its duration and intensity, and not by its results_, which leads to this economic policy, _areduction of the results of labor, in order to increase its duration andintensity_. 

XV. 

THE LITTLE ARSENAL OF THE FREE TRADER. 

--If they say to you: There are no absolute principles; prohibition maybe bad, and restriction good--

Reply: Restriction _prohibits_ all that it keeps from coming in. 

--If they say to you: Agriculture is the nursing mother of the country--

Reply: That which feeds a country is not exactly agriculture, but_grain_. 

--If they say to you: The basis of the sustenance of the people isagriculture--

Reply: The basis of the sustenance of the people is _grain_. Thus a lawwhich causes _two_ bushels of grain to be obtained by agricultural laborat the expense of four bushels, which the same labor would haveproduced but for it, far from being a law of sustenance, is a law ofstarvation. 

--If they say to you: A restriction on the admission of foreign grainleads to more cultivation, and, consequently, to a greater homeproduction--

Reply: It leads to sowing on the rocks of the mountains and the sands ofthe sea. To milk and steadily milk, a cow gives more milk; for who cantell the moment when not a drop more can be obtained? But the drop costsdear. 

--If they say to you: Let bread be dear, and the wealthy farmer willenrich the artisans--

Reply: Bread is dear when there is little of it, a thing which can makebut poor, or, if you please, rich people who are starving. 

--If they insist on it, saying: When food is dear, wages rise--

Reply by showing that in April, 1847, five-sixths of the workingmen werebeggars. 

--If they say to you: The profits of the workingmen must rise with thedearness of food--

Reply: This is equivalent to saying that in an unprovisioned vesseleverybody has the same number of biscuits whether he has any or not. 

--If they say to you: A good price must be secured for those who sellgrain--

Reply: Certainly; but good wages must be secured to those who buy it. 

--If they say to you: The land owners, who make the law, have raised theprice of food without troubling themselves about wages, because theyknow that when food becomes dear, wages _naturally_ rise--

Reply: On this principle, when workingmen come to make the law, do notblame them if they fix a high rate of wages without troubling themselvesto protect grain, for they know that if wages are raised, articles offood will _naturally_ rise in price. 

--If they say to you: What, then, is to be done?

Reply: Be just to everybody. 

--If they say to you: It is essential that a great country shouldmanufacture iron--

Reply: The most essential thing is that this great country _should haveiron_. 

--If they say to you: It is necessary that a great country shouldmanufacture cloth. 

Reply: It is more necessary that the citizens of this great country_should have cloth_. 

--If they say to you: Labor is wealth--

Reply: It is false. 

And, by way of developing this, add: A bleeding is not health, and theproof of it is, that it is done to restore health. 

--If they say to you: To compel men to work over rocks and get an ounceof iron from a ton of ore, is to increase their labor, and, consequently, their wealth--

Reply: To compel men to dig wells, by denying them the use of riverwater, is to add to their _useless_ labor, but not their wealth. 

--If they say to you: The sun gives his heat and light without requiringremuneration--

Reply: So much the better for me, since it costs me nothing to seedistinctly. 

--And if they reply to you: Industry in general loses what you wouldhave paid for lights--

Retort: No, for having paid nothing to the sun, I use that which itsaves me in paying for clothes, furniture and candles. 

--So, if they say to you: These English rascals have capital which paysthem nothing--

Reply: So much the better for us; they will not make us pay interest. 

--If they say to you: These perfidious Englishmen find iron and coal atthe same spot--

Reply: So much the better for us; they will not make us pay anything forbringing them together. 

--If they say to you: The Swiss have rich pastures which cost little--

Reply: The advantage is on our side, for they will ask for a lesserquantity of our labor to furnish our farmers oxen and our stomachs food. 

--If they say to you: The lands in the Crimea are worth nothing, and payno taxes--

Reply: The gain is on our side, since we buy grain free from thosecharges. 

--If they say to you: The serfs of Poland work without wages--

Reply: The loss is theirs and the gain is ours, since their labor isdeducted from the price of the grain which their masters sell us. 

--Then, if they say to you: Other nations have many advantages over us--

Reply: By exchange, they are forced to let us share in them. 

--If they say to you: With liberty we shall be swamped with bread, beef_a la mode_, coal, and coats--

Reply: We shall be neither cold nor hungry. 

--If they say to you: With what shall we pay?

Reply: Do not be troubled about that. If we are to be inundated, it willbe because we are able to pay. If we cannot pay we will not beinundated. 

--If they say to you: I would allow free trade, if a stranger, inbringing us one thing, took away another; but he will carry off ourspecie--

Reply: Neither specie nor coffee grow in the fields of Beauce or comeout of the manufactories of Elbeuf. For us to pay a foreigner withspecie is like paying him with coffee. 

--If they say to you: Eat meat--

Reply: Let it come in. 

--If they say to you, like the _Presse_: When you have not the money tobuy bread with, buy beef--

Reply: This advice is as wise as that of Vautour to his tenant, "If aperson has not money to pay his rent with, he ought to have a house ofhis own. "

--If they say to you, like the _Presse_: The State ought to teach thepeople why and how it should eat meat--

Reply: Only let the State allow the meat free entrance, and the mostcivilized people in the world are old enough to learn to eat it withoutany teacher. 

--If they say to you: The State ought to know everything, and foreseeeverything, to guide the people, and the people have only to letthemselves be guided--

Reply: Is there a State outside of the people, and a human foresightoutside of humanity? Archimedes might have repeated all the days of hislife, "With a lever and a fulcrum I will move the world, " but he couldnot have moved it, for want of those two things. The fulcrum of theState is the nation, and nothing is madder than to build so many hopeson the State; that is to say, to assume a collective science andforesight, after having established individual folly andshort-sightedness. 

--If they say to you: My God! I ask no favors, but only a duty on grainand meat, which may compensate for the heavy taxes to which France issubjected; a mere little duty, equal to what these taxes add to the costof my grain--

Reply: A thousand pardons, but I, too, pay taxes. If, then, theprotection which you vote yourself results in burdening for me, yourgrain with your proportion of the taxes, your insinuating demand aims atnothing less than the establishment between us of the followingarrangement, thus worded by yourself: "Since the public burdens areheavy, I, who sell grain, will pay nothing at all; and you, my neighbor, the buyer, shall pay two parts, to wit, your share and mine. " Myneighbor, the grain dealer, you may have power on your side, but notreason. 

--If they say to you: It is, however, very hard for me, a tax payer, tocompete in my own market with foreigners who pay none--

Reply: First, This is not _your_ market, but _our_ market. I who live ongrain, and pay for it, must be counted for something. 

Secondly. Few foreigners at this time are free from taxes. 

Thirdly. If the tax which you vote repays to you, in roads, canals andsafety, more than it costs you, you are not justified in driving away, at my expense, the competition of foreigners who do not pay the tax butwho do not have the safety, roads and canals. It is the same as saying:I want a compensating duty, because I have fine clothes, stronger horsesand better plows than the Russian laborer. 

Fourthly. If the tax does not repay what it costs, do not vote it. 

Fifthly. If, after you have voted a tax, it is your pleasure to escapeits operation, invent a system which will throw it on foreigners. Butthe tariff only throws your proportion on me, when I already have enoughof my own. 

--If they say to you: Freedom of commerce is necessary among theRussians _that they may exchange their products with advantage_ (opinionof M. Thiers, April, 1847)--

Reply: This freedom is necessary everywhere, and for the same reason. 

--If they say to you: Each country has its wants; it is according tothat that _it must act_ (M. Thiers)--

Reply: It is according to that that _it acts of itself_ when no onehinders it. 

--If they say to you: Since we have no sheet iron, its admission must beallowed (M. Thiers)--

Reply: Thank you, kindly. 

--If they say to you: Our merchant marine must have freight; owing tothe lack of return cargoes our vessels cannot compete with foreignones--

Reply: When you want to do everything at home, you can have cargoesneither going nor coming. It is as absurd to wish for a navy under aprohibitory system as to wish for carts where all transportation isforbidden. 

--If they say to you: Supposing that protection is unjust, everything isfounded on it; there are moneys invested, and rights acquired, and itcannot be abandoned without suffering--

Reply: Every injustice profits some one (except, perhaps, restriction, which in the long run profits no one), and to use as an argument thedisturbance which the cessation of the injustice causes to the personprofiting by it, is to say that an injustice, only because it hasexisted for a moment, should be eternal. 

XVI. 

THE RIGHT AND THE LEFT HAND. 

[_Report to the King. _]

SIRE--When we see these men of the _Libre Echange_ audaciouslydisseminating their doctrines, and maintaining that the right of buyingand selling is implied by that of ownership (a piece of insolence thatM. Billault has criticised like a true lawyer), we may be allowed toentertain serious fears as to the destiny of _national labor_; for whatwill Frenchmen do with their arms and intelligences when they are free?

The Ministry which you have honored with your confidence has naturallypaid great attention to so serious a subject, and has sought in itswisdom for a _protection_ which might be substituted for that whichappears compromised. It proposes to you to forbid your faithful subjectsthe use of the right hand. 

Sire, do not wrong us so far as to think that we lightly adopted ameasure which, at the first glance, may appear odd. Deep study of the_protective system_ has revealed to us this syllogism, on which itentirely rests:

The more one labors, the richer one is. 

The more difficulties one has to conquer, the more one labors. 

_Ergo_, the more difficulties one has to conquer, the richer one is. 

What is _protection_, really, but an ingenious application of thisformal reasoning, which is so compact that it would resist the subtletyof M. Billault himself?

Let us personify the country. Let us look on it as a collective being, with thirty million mouths, and, consequently, sixty million arms. Thisbeing makes a clock, which he proposes to exchange in Belgium for tenquintals of iron. "But, " we say to him, "make the iron yourself. " "Icannot, " says he; "it would take me too much time, and I could not makefive quintals while I can make one clock. " "Utopist!" we reply; "forthis very reason we forbid your making the clock, and order you to makethe iron. Do not you see that we create you labor?"

Sire, it will not have escaped your sagacity, that it is just as if wesaid to the country, _Labor with the left hand, and not with the right_. 

The creation of obstacles to furnish labor an opportunity to developitself, is the principle of the _restriction_ which is dying. It is alsothe principle of the _restriction_ which is about to be created. Sire, to make such regulations is not to innovate, but to preserve. 

The efficacy of the measure is incontestable. It is difficult--much moredifficult than one thinks--to do with the left hand what one wasaccustomed to do with the right. You will convince yourself of it, Sire, if you will condescend to try our system on something which is familiarto you, --like shuffling cards, for instance. We can then flatterourselves that we have opened an illimitable career to labor. 

When workmen of all kinds are reduced to their left hands, consider, Sire, the immense number that will be required to meet the presentconsumption, supposing it to be invariable, which we always do when wecompare differing systems of production. So prodigious a demand formanual labor cannot fail to bring about a considerable increase inwages; and pauperism will disappear from the country as if byenchantment. 

Sire, your paternal heart will rejoice at the thought that the benefitsof this regulation will extend over that interesting portion of thegreat family whose fate excites your liveliest solicitude. 

What is the destiny of women in France? That sex which is the boldestand most hardened to fatigue, is, insensibly, driving them from allfields of labor. 

Formerly they found a refuge in the lottery offices. These have beenclosed by a pitiless philanthropy; and under what pretext? "To save, "said they, "the money of the poor. " Alas! has a poor man ever obtainedfrom a piece of money enjoyments as sweet and innocent as those whichthe mysterious urn of fortune contained for him? Cut off from all thesweets of life, how many delicious hours did he introduce into the bosomof his family when, every two weeks, he put the value of a day's laboron a _quatern_. Hope had always her place at the domestic hearth. Thegarret was peopled with illusions; the wife promised herself that shewould eclipse her neighbors with the splendor of her attire; the son sawhimself drum-major, and the daughter felt herself carried toward thealtar in the arms of her betrothed. To have a beautiful dream iscertainly something. 

The lottery was the poetry of the poor, and we have allowed it to escapethem. 

The lottery dead, what means have we of providing for our_proteges_?--tobacco, and the postal service. 

Tobacco, certainly; it progresses, thanks to Heaven, and thedistinguished habits which august examples have been enabled tointroduce among our elegant youth. 

But the postal service! We will say nothing of that, but make it thesubject of a special report. 

Then what is left to your female subjects except tobacco? Nothing, except embroidery, knitting, and sewing, pitiful resources, which aremore and more restricted by that barbarous science, mechanics. 

But as soon as your ordinance has appeared, as soon as the right handsare cut off or tied up, everything will change face. Twenty, thirtytimes more embroiderers, washers and ironers, seamstresses andshirt-makers, would not meet the consumption (_honi soit qui mal ypense_) of the kingdom; always assuming that it is invariable, accordingto our way of reasoning. 

It is true that this supposition might be denied by cold-bloodedtheorists, for dresses and shirts would be dearer. But they say thesame thing of the iron which France gets from our mines, compared to thevintage it could get on our hillsides. This argument can, therefore, beno more entertained against _left-handedness_ than against _protection_;for this very dearness is the result and the sign of the excess ofefforts and of labors, which is precisely the basis on which, in onecase, as in the other, we claim to found the prosperity of the workingclasses. 

Yes, we make a touching picture of the prosperity of the sewingbusiness. What movement! What activity! What life! Each dress will busya hundred fingers instead of ten. No longer will there be an idle younggirl, and we need not, Sire, point out to your perspicacity the moralresults of this great revolution. Not only will there be more womenemployed, but each one of them will earn more, for they cannot meet thedemand, and if competition still shows itself, it will no longer beamong the workingwomen who make the dresses, but the beautiful ladieswho wear them. 

You see, Sire, that our proposition is not only conformable to theeconomic traditions of the government, but it is also essentially moraland democratic. 

To appreciate its effect, let us suppose it realized; let us transportourselves in thought into the future; let us imagine the system inaction for twenty years. Idleness is banished from the country; easeand concord, contentment and morality, have entered all familiestogether with labor; there is no more misery and no more prostitution. The left hand being very clumsy at its work, there is a superabundanceof labor, and the pay is satisfactory. Everything is based on this, and, as a consequence, the workshops are filled. Is it not true, Sire, thatif Utopians were to suddenly demand the freedom of the right hand, theywould spread alarm throughout the country? Is it not true that thispretended reform would overthrow all existences? Then our system isgood, since it cannot be overthrown without causing great distress. 

However, we have a sad presentiment that some day (so great is theperversity of man) an association will be organized to secure theliberty of right hands. 

It seems to us that we already hear these free-right-handers speak asfollows in the Salle Montesquieu:

"People, you believe yourselves richer because they have taken from youone hand; you see but the increase of labor which results to you fromit. But look also at the dearness it causes, and the forced decrease inthe consumption of all articles. This measure has not made capital, which is the source of wages, more abundant. The waters which flow fromthis great reservoir are directed into other channels; the quantity isnot increased, and the definite result is, for the nation, as a whole, aloss of comfort equal to the excess of the production of severalmillions of right hands, over several millions of left hands. Then letus form a league, and, at the expense of some inevitable disturbances, let us conquer the right of working with both hands. "

Happily, Sire, there will be organized an _association for the defenseof left-handed labor_, and the _Sinistrists_ will have no trouble inreducing to nothing all these generalities and realities, suppositionsand abstractions, reveries and Utopias. They need only to exhume the_Moniteur Industriel_ of 1846, and they will find, ready-made, argumentsagainst _free trade_, which destroy so admirably this _liberty of theright hand_, that all that is required is to substitute one word foranother. 

"The Parisian _Free Trade_ League never doubted but that it would havethe assistance of the workingmen. But the workingmen can no longer beled by the nose. They have their eyes open, and they know politicaleconomy better than our diplomaed professors. _Free trade_, theyreplied, will take from us our labor, and labor is our real, great, sovereign property; _with labor, with much labor, the price of articlesof merchandise is never beyond reach_. But without labor, even if breadshould cost but a penny a pound, the workingman is compelled to die ofhunger. Now, your doctrines, instead of increasing the amount of laborin France, diminish it; that is to say, you reduce us to misery. "(Number of October 13, 1846. )

"It is true, that when there are too many manufactured articles to sell, their price falls; but as wages decrease when these articles sink invalue, the result is, that, instead of being able to buy them, we canbuy nothing. Thus, when they are cheapest, the workingman is mostunhappy. " (Gauthier de Rumilly, _Moniteur Industriel_ of November 17. )

It would not be ill for the Sinistrists to mingle some threats withtheir beautiful theories. This is a sample:

"What! to desire to substitute the labor of the right hand for that ofthe left, and thus to cause a forced reduction, if not an annihilationof wages, the sole resource of almost the entire nation!

"And this at the moment when poor harvests already impose painfulsacrifices on the workingman, disquiet him as to his future, and makehim more accessible to bad counsels and ready to abandon the wise courseof conduct he had hitherto adhered to!"

We are confident, Sire, that thanks to such wise reasonings, if astruggle takes place, the left hand will come out of it victorious. 

Perhaps, also, an association will be formed in order to ascertainwhether the right and the left hand are not both wrong, and if there isnot a third hand between them, in order to conciliate all. 

After having described the _Dexterists_ as seduced by the _apparentliberality of a principle, the correctness of which has not yet beenverified by experience_, and the _Sinistrists_ as encamping in thepositions they have gained, it will say:

 "And yet they deny that there is a third course to pursue in the midst of the conflict; and they do not see that the working classes have to defend themselves, at the same moment, against those who wish to change nothing in the present situation, because they find their advantage in it, and against those who dream of an economic revolution of which they have calculated neither the extent nor the significance. " (_National_ of October 16. )

We do not desire, however, to hide from your Majesty the fact that ourplan has a vulnerable side. They may say to us: In twenty years all lefthands will be as skilled as right ones are now, and you can no longercount on _left-handedness_ to increase the national labor. 

We reply to this, that, according to learned physicians, the left sideof the body has a natural weakness, which is very reassuring for thefuture of labor. 

Finally, Sire, consent to sign the law, and a great principle will haveprevailed: _All wealth comes from the intensity of labor. _ It will beeasy for us to extend it, and vary its application. We will declare, for instance, that it shall be allowable to work only with the feet. This is no more impossible (for there have been instances) than toextract iron from the mud of the Seine. There have even been men whowrote with their backs. You see, Sire, that we do not lack means ofincreasing national labor. If they do begin to fail us, there remainsthe boundless resource of amputation. 

If this report, Sire, was not intended for publication, we would callyour attention to the great influence which systems analogous to the onewe submit to you, are capable of giving to men in power. But this is asubject which we reserve for consideration in private counsel. 

XVII. 

SUPREMACY BY LABOR. 

"As in a time of war, supremacy is attained by superiority in arms, can, in a time of peace, supremacy be secured by superiority in labor?"

This question is of the greatest interest at a time when no one seems todoubt that in the field of industry, as on that of battle, _the strongercrushes the weaker_. 

This must result from the discovery of some sad and discouraging analogybetween labor, which exercises itself on things, and violence, whichexercises itself on men; for how could these two things be identical intheir effects, if they were opposed in their nature?

And if it is true that in manufacturing as in war, supremacy is thenecessary result of superiority, why need we occupy ourselves withprogress or social economy, since we are in a world where all has beenso arranged by Providence that one and the same result, oppression, necessarily flows from the most antagonistic principles?

Referring to the new policy toward which commercial freedom is drawingEngland, many persons make this objection, which, I admit, occupies thesincerest minds. "Is England doing anything more than pursuing the sameend by different means? Does she not constantly aspire to universalsupremacy? Sure of the superiority of her capital and labor, does shenot call in free competition to stifle the industry of the continent, reign as a sovereign, and conquer the privilege of feeding and clothingthe ruined peoples?"

It would be easy for me to demonstrate that these alarms are chimerical;that our pretended inferiority is greatly exaggerated; that all ourgreat branches of industry not only resist foreign competition, butdevelop themselves under its influence, and that its infallible effectis to bring about an increase in general consumption capable ofabsorbing both foreign and domestic products. 

To-day I desire to attack this objection directly, leaving it all itspower and the advantage of the ground it has chosen. Putting English andFrench on one side, I will try to find out in a general way, if, eventhough by superiority in one branch of industry, one nation has crushedout similar industrial pursuits in another one, this nation has made astep toward supremacy, and that one toward dependence; in other words, if both do not gain by the operation, and if the conquered do not gainthe most by it. 

If we see in any product but a cause of labor, it is certain that thealarm of the protectionists is well founded. If we consider iron, forinstance, only in connection with the masters of forges, it might befeared that the competition of a country where iron was a gratuitousgift of nature, would extinguish the furnaces of another country, whereore and fuel were scarce. 

But is this a complete view of the subject? Are there relations onlybetween iron and those who make it? Has it none with those who use it?Is its definite and only destination to be produced? And if it isuseful, not on account of the labor which it causes, but on account ofthe qualities which it possesses, and the numerous services for whichits hardness and malleability fit it, does it not follow thatforeigners cannot reduce its price, even so far as to prevent itsproduction among us, without doing us more good, under the laststatement of the case, than it injures us, under the first?

Please consider well that there are many things which foreigners, owingto the natural advantages which surround them, hinder us from producingdirectly, and in regard to which we are placed, _in reality_, in thehypothetical position which we examined relative to iron. We produce athome neither tea, coffee, gold nor silver. Does it follow that ourlabor, as a whole, is thereby diminished? No; only to create theequivalent of these things, to acquire them by way of exchange, wedetach from our general labor a _smaller_ portion than we would requireto produce them ourselves. More remains to us to use for other things. We are so much the richer and stronger. All that external rivalry cando, even in cases where it absolutely keeps us from any certain form oflabor, is to encourage our labor, and increase our productive power. Isthat the road to _supremacy_, for foreigners?

If a mine of gold were to be discovered in France, it does not followthat it would be for our interests to work it. It is even certain thatthe enterprise ought to be neglected, if each ounce of gold absorbedmore of our labor than an ounce of gold bought in Mexico with cloth. Inthis case, it would be better to keep on seeing our mines in ourmanufactories. What is true of gold is true of iron. 

The illusion comes from the fact that one thing is not seen. That is, that foreign superiority prevents national labor, only under somecertain form, and makes it superfluous under this form, but by puttingat our disposal the very result of the labor thus annihilated. If menlived in diving-bells, under the water, and had to provide themselveswith air by the use of pumps, there would be an immense source of labor. To destroy this labor, _leaving men in this condition_, would be to dothem a terrible injury. But if labor ceases, because the necessity forit has gone; because men are placed in another position, where airreaches their lungs without an effort, then the loss of this labor isnot to be regretted, except in the eyes of those who appreciate inlabor, only the labor itself. 

It is exactly this sort of labor which machines, commercial freedom, andprogress of all sorts, gradually annihilate; not useful labor, but laborwhich has become superfluous, supernumerary, objectless, and withoutresult. On the other hand, protection restores it to activity; itreplaces us under the water, so as to give us an opportunity of pumping;it forces us to ask for gold from the inaccessible national mine, ratherthan from our national manufactories. All its effect is summed up inthis phrase--_loss of power_. 

It must be understood that I speak here of general effects, and not ofthe temporary disturbances occasioned by the transition from a bad to agood system. A momentary disarrangement necessarily accompanies allprogress. This may be a reason for making the transition a gentle one, but not for systematically interdicting all progress, and still less formisunderstanding it. 

They represent industry to us as a conflict. This is not true; or istrue only when you confine yourself to considering each branch ofindustry in its effects on some similar branch--in isolating both, inthe mind, from the rest of humanity. But there is something else; thereare its effects on consumption, and the general well-being. 

This is the reason why it is not allowable to assimilate labor to war asthey do. 

In war, _the strongest overwhelms the weakest_. 

In labor, _the strongest gives strength to the weakest_. This radicallydestroys the analogy. 

Though the English are strong and skilled; possess immense investedcapital, and have at their disposal the two great powers of production, iron and fire, all this is converted into the _cheapness_ of theproduct; and who gains by the cheapness of the product?--he who buys it. 

It is not in their power to absolutely annihilate any portion of ourlabor. All that they can do is to make it superfluous through someresult acquired--to give air at the same time that they suppress thepump; to increase thus the force at our disposal, and, which is aremarkable thing, to render their pretended supremacy more impossible, as their superiority becomes more undeniable. 

Thus, by a rigorous and consoling demonstration, we reach thisconclusion: That _labor_ and _violence_, so opposed in their nature, are, whatever socialists and protectionists may say, no less so in theireffects. 

All we required, to do that, was to distinguish between _annihilated_labor and _economized_ labor. 

Having less iron _because_ one works less, or having more iron_although_ one works less, are things which are more thandifferent, --they are opposites. The protectionists confound them; we donot. That is all. 

Be convinced of one thing. If the English bring into play much activity, labor, capital, intelligence, and natural force, it is not for the loveof us. It is to give themselves many comforts in exchange for theirproducts. They certainly desire to receive at least as much as theygive, and _they make at home the payment for that which they buyelsewhere_. If then, they inundate us with their products, it is becausethey expect to be inundated with ours. In this case, the best way tohave much for ourselves is to be free to choose between these twomethods of production: direct production or indirect production. Allthe British Machiavelism cannot lead us to make a bad choice. 

Let us then stop assimilating industrial competition with war; a falseassimilation, which is specious only when two rival branches of industryare isolated, in order to judge of the effects of competition. As soonas the effect produced on the general well-being is taken intoconsideration, the analogy disappears. 

In a battle, he who is killed is thoroughly killed, and the army isweakened just that much. In manufactures, one manufactory succumbs onlyso far as the total of national labor replaces what it produced, _withan excess_. Imagine a state of affairs where for one man, stretched onthe plain, two spring up full of force and vigor. If there is a planetwhere such things happen, it must be admitted that war is carried onthere under conditions so different from those which obtain here below, that it does not even deserve that name. 

Now, this is the distinguishing character of what they have soinappropriately called an _industrial war_. 

Let the Belgians and English reduce the price of their iron, if theycan, and keep on reducing it, until they bring it down to nothing. Theymay thereby put out one of our furnaces--kill one of our soldiers; but Idefy them to hinder a thousand other industries, more profitable thanthe disabled one, immediately, and, as a necessary consequence of thisvery cheapness, resuscitating and developing themselves. 

Let us decide that supremacy by labor is impossible and contradictory, since all superiority which manifests itself among a people is convertedinto cheapness, and results only in giving force to all others. Let us, then, banish from political economy all these expressions borrowed fromthe vocabulary of battles: _to struggle with equal arms, to conquer, tocrush out, to stifle, to be beaten, invasion, tribute_. What do thesewords mean? Squeeze them, and nothing comes out of them. We aremistaken; there come from them absurd errors and fatal prejudices. Theseare the words which stop the blending of peoples, their peaceful, universal, indissoluble alliance, and the progress of humanity. 

PART III. 

SPOLIATION AND LAW. [16]

[Footnote 16: On the 27th of April, 1850, after a very curiousdiscussion, which was reproduced in the _Moniteur_, the General Councilof Agriculture, Manufactures and Commerce issued the following order:

"Political economy shall be taught by the government professors, notmerely from the theoretical point of view of free trade, but also withspecial regard to the facts and legislation which control Frenchindustry. "

It was in reply to this decree that Bastiat wrote the pamphlet_Spoliation and Law_, which first appeared in the _Journal desEconomistes_, May 15, 1850. ]

_To the Protectionists of the General Council of Manufactures:_

GENTLEMEN--Let us for a few moments interchange moderate and friendlyopinions. 

You are not willing that political economy should believe and teach freetrade. 

This is as though you were to say, "We are not willing that politicaleconomy should occupy itself with society, exchange, value, law, justice, property. We recognize only two principles--oppression andspoliation. "

Can you possibly conceive of political economy without society? Or ofsociety without exchange? Or of exchange without a relative valuebetween the two articles, or the two services, exchanged? Can youpossibly conceive the idea of _value_, except as the result of the_free_ consent of the exchangers? Can you conceive of one product being_worth_ another, if, in the barter, one of the parties is not _free_? Isit possible for you to conceive of the free consent of two partieswithout liberty? Can you possibly conceive that one of the contractingparties is deprived of his liberty unless he is oppressed by the other?Can you possibly conceive of an exchange between an oppressor and oneoppressed, unless the equivalence of the services is altered, or unless, as a consequence, law, justice, and the rights of property have beenviolated?

What do you really want? Answer frankly. 

You are not willing that trade should be free!

You desire, then, that it shall not be free? You desire, then, thattrade shall be carried on under the influence of oppression? For if itis not carried on under the influence of oppression, it will be carriedon under the influence of liberty, and that is what you do not desire. 

Admit, then, that it is law and justice which embarrass you; that thatwhich troubles you is property--not your own, to be sure, butanother's. You are altogether unwilling to allow others to freelydispose of their own property (the essential condition of ownership);but you well understand how to dispose of your own--and of theirs. 

And, accordingly, you ask the political economists to arrange this massof absurdities and monstrosities in a definite and well-ordered system;to establish, in accordance with your practice, the theory ofspoliation. 

But they will never do it; for, in their eyes, spoliation is a principleof hatred and disorder, and the most particularly odious form which itcan assume is _the legal form_. 

And here, Mr. Benoit d' Azy, I take you to task. You are moderate, impartial, and generous. You are willing to sacrifice your interests andyour fortune. This you constantly declare. Recently, in the GeneralCouncil, you said: "If the rich had only to abandon their wealth to makethe people rich we should all be ready to do it. " [Hear, hear. It istrue. ] And yesterday, in the National Assembly, you said: "If I believedthat it was in my power to give to the workingmen all the work theyneed, I would give all I possess to realize this blessing. Unfortunately, it is impossible. "

Although it pains you that the sacrifice is so useless that it shouldnot be made, and you exclaim, with Basile, "Money! money! I detestit--but I will keep it, " assuredly no one will question a generosity soretentive, however barren. It is a virtue which loves to envelop itselfin a veil of modesty, especially when it is purely latent and negative. As for you, you will lose no opportunity to proclaim it in the ears ofall France from the tribune of the _Luxembourg_ and the _PalaisLegislatif_. 

But no one desires you to abandon your fortune, and I admit that itwould not solve the social problem. 

You wish to be generous, but cannot. I only venture to ask that you willbe just. Keep your fortune, but permit me also to keep mine. Respect myproperty as I respect yours. Is this too bold a request on my part?

Suppose we lived in a country under a free trade _regime_, where everyone could dispose of his property and his labor at pleasure. Does thismake your hair stand? Reassure yourself, this is only an hypothesis. 

One would then be as free as the other. There would, indeed, be a law inthe code, but this law, impartial and just, would not infringe ourliberty, but would guarantee it, and it would take effect only when wesought to oppress each other. There would be officers of the law, magistrates and police; but they would only execute the law. Under sucha state of affairs, suppose that you owned an iron foundry, and that Iwas a hatter. I should need iron for my business. Naturally I shouldseek to solve this problem: "How shall I best procure the iron necessaryfor my business with the least possible amount of labor?" Considering mysituation, and my means of knowledge, I should discover that the bestthing for me to do would be to make hats, and sell them to a Belgian whowould give me iron in exchange. 

But you, being the owner of an iron foundry, and considering my case, would say to yourself: "I shall be obliged to _compel_ that fellow tocome to my shop. "

You, accordingly, take your sword and pistols, and, arming your numerousretinue, proceed to the frontier, and, at the moment I am engaged inmaking my trade, you cry out to me: "Stop that, or I will blow yourbrains out!" "But, my lord, I am in need of iron. " "I have it to sell. ""But, sir, you ask too much for it. " "I have my reasons for that. " "But, my good sir, I also have my reasons for preferring cheaper iron. " "Well, we shall see who shall decide between your reasons and mine! Soldiers, advance!"

In short, you forbid the entry of the Belgian iron, and prevent theexport of my hats. 

Under the condition of things which we have supposed (that is, under a_regime_ of liberty), you cannot deny that that would be, on your part, manifestly an act of oppression and spoliation. 

Accordingly, I should resort to the law, the magistrate, and the powerof the government. They would intervene. You would be tried, condemned, and justly punished. 

But this circumstance would suggest to you a bright idea. You would sayto yourself: "I have been very simple to give myself so much trouble. What! place myself in a position where I must kill some one, or bekilled! degrade myself! put my domestics under arms! incur heavyexpenses! give myself the character of a robber, and render myselfliable to the laws of the country! And all this in order to compel amiserable hatter to come to my foundry to buy iron at my price! What ifI should make the interest of the law, of the magistrate, of the publicauthorities, my interests? What if I could get them to perform theodious act on the frontier which I was about to do myself?"

Enchanted by this pleasing prospect, you secure a nomination to theChambers, and obtain the passage of a law conceived in the followingterms:

SECTION 1. There shall be a tax levied upon everybody (but especiallyupon that cursed hat-maker). 

SEC. 2. The proceeds of this tax shall be applied to the payment of mento guard the frontier in the interest of iron-founders. 

SEC. 3. It shall be their duty to prevent the exchange of hats or otherarticles of merchandise with the Belgians for iron. 

SEC. 4. The ministers of the government, the prosecuting attorneys, jailers, customs officers, and all officials, are entrusted with theexecution of this law. 

I admit, sir, that in this form robbery would be far more lucrative, more agreeable, and less perilous than under the arrangements which youhad at first determined upon. I admit that for you it would offer a verypleasant prospect. You could most assuredly laugh in your sleeve, foryou would then have saddled all the expenses upon me. 

But I affirm that you would have introduced into society a viciousprinciple, a principle of immorality, of disorder, of hatred, and ofincessant revolutions; that you would have prepared the way for all thevarious schemes of socialism and communism. 

You, doubtless, find my hypothesis a very bold one. Well, then, let usreverse the case. I consent for the sake of the demonstration. 

Suppose that I am a laborer and you an iron-founder. 

It would be a great advantage to me to buy hatchets cheap, and even toget them for nothing. And I know that there are hatchets and saws inyour establishment. Accordingly, without any ceremony, I enter yourwarehouse and seize everything that I can lay my hands upon. 

But, in the exercise of your legitimate right of self-defense, you atfirst resist force with force; afterwards, invoking the power of thelaw, the magistrate, and the constables, you throw me into prison--andyou do well. 

Oh! ho! the thought suggests itself to me that I have been very awkwardin this business. When a person wishes to enjoy the property of otherpeople, he will, unless he is a fool, act _in accordance_ with the law, and not _in violation_ of it. Consequently, just as you have madeyourself a protectionist, I will make myself a socialist. Since you havelaid claim to the _right to profit_, I claim the _right to labor_, or tothe instruments of labor. 

For the rest, I read my Louis Blanc in prison, and I know by heart thisdoctrine: "In order to disenthrall themselves, the common people haveneed of tools to work with; it is the function of the government toprovide them. " And again: "If one admits that, in order to be reallyfree, a man requires the ability to exercise and to develop hisfaculties, the result is that society owes each of its membersinstruction, without which the human mind is incapable of development, and the instruments of labor, without which human activities have nofield for their exercise. But by what means can society give to each oneof its members the necessary instruction and the necessary instrumentsof labor, except by the intervention of the State?" So that if itbecomes necessary to revolutionize the country, I also will force myway into the halls of legislation. I also will pervert the law, and makeit perform in my behalf and at your expense the very act for which itjust now punished me. 

My decree is modeled after yours:

SECTION 1. There shall be taxes levied upon every citizen, andespecially upon iron founders. 

SEC. 2. The proceeds of this tax shall be applied to the creation ofarmed corps, to which the title of the _fraternal constabulary_ shall begiven. 

SEC. 3. It shall be the duty of the _fraternal constabulary_ to maketheir way into the warehouses of hatchets, saws, etc. , to takepossession of these tools, and to distribute them to such workingmen asmay desire them. 

Thanks to this ingenious device, you see, my lord, that I shall nolonger be obliged to bear the risks, the costs, the odium, or thescruples of robbery. The State will rob for me as it has for you. Weshall both be playing the same game. 

It remains to be seen what would be the condition of French society onthe realization of my second hypothesis, or what, at least, is thecondition of it after the almost complete realization of the firsthypothesis. I do not desire to discuss here the economy of the question. It is generally believed that in advocating free trade we areexclusively influenced by the desire to allow capital and labor to takethe direction most advantageous to them. This is an error. Thisconsideration is merely secondary. That which wounds, afflicts, and isrevolting to us in the protective system, is the denial of right, ofjustice, of property; it is the fact that the system turns the lawagainst justice and against property, when it ought to protect them; itis that it undermines and perverts the very conditions of society. Andto the question in this aspect I invite your most serious consideration. 

What is law, or at least what ought it to be? What is its rational andmoral mission? Is it not to hold the balance even between all rights, all liberties, and all property? Is it not to cause justice to ruleamong all? Is it not to prevent and to repress oppression and robberywherever they are found?

And are you not shocked at the immense, radical, and deplorableinnovation introduced into the world by compelling the law itself tocommit the very crimes to punish which is its especial mission--byturning the law in principle and in fact against liberty and property?

You deplore the condition of modern society. You groan over the disorderwhich prevails in institutions and ideas. But is it not your systemwhich has perverted everything, both institutions and ideas?

What! the law is no longer the refuge of the oppressed, but the arm ofthe oppressor! The law is no longer a shield, but a sword! The law nolonger holds in her august hands a scale, but false weights andmeasures! And you wish to have society well regulated!

Your system has written over the entrance of the legislative halls thesewords: "Whoever acquires any influence here can obtain his share of thelegalized pillage. "

And what has been the result? All classes of society have becomedemoralized by shouting around the gates of the palace: "Give me a shareof the spoils. "

After the revolution of February, when universal suffrage wasproclaimed, I had for a moment hoped to have heard this sentiment: "Nomore pillage for any one, justice for all. " And that would have been thereal solution of the social problem. Such was not the case. The doctrineof protection had for generations too profoundly corrupted the age, public sentiments and ideas. No. In making inroads upon the NationalAssembly, each class, in accordance with your system, has endeavored tomake the law an instrument of rapine. There have been demanded heavierimposts, gratuitous credit, the right to employment, the right toassistance, the guaranty of incomes and of minimum wages, gratuitousinstruction, loans to industry, etc. , etc. ; in short, every one hasendeavored to live and thrive at the expense of others. And upon whathave these pretensions been based? Upon the authority of yourprecedents. What sophisms have been invoked? Those that you havepropagated for two centuries. With you they have talked about_equalizing the conditions of labor_. With you they have declaimedagainst ruinous competition. With you they have ridiculed the _letalone_ principle, that is to say, _liberty_. With you they have saidthat the law should not confine itself to being just, but should come tothe aid of suffering industries, protect the feeble against the strong, secure profits to individuals at the expense of the community, etc. , etc. In short, according to the expression of Mr. Charles Dupin, socialism has come to establish the theory of robbery. It has done whatyou have done, and that which you desire the professors of politicaleconomy to do for you. 

Your cleverness is in vain, _Messieurs Protectionists_, it is useless tolower your tone, to boast of your latent generosity, or to deceive youropponents by sentiment. You cannot prevent logic from being logic. 

You cannot prevent Mr. Billault from telling the legislators, "You havegranted favors to one, you must grant them to all. "

You cannot prevent Mr. Cremieux from telling the legislators: "You haveenriched the manufacturers, you must enrich the common people. "

You cannot prevent Mr. Nadeau from saying to the legislators: "Youcannot refuse to do for the suffering classes that which you have donefor the privileged classes. "

You cannot even prevent the leader of your orchestra, Mr. Mimerel, fromsaying to the legislators: "I demand twenty-five thousand subsidies forthe workingmen's savings banks;" and supporting his motion in thismanner:

 "Is this the first example of the kind that our legislation offers? Would you establish the system that the State should encourage everything, open at its expense courses of scientific lectures, subsidize the fine arts, pension the theatre, give to the classes already favored by fortune the benefits of superior education, the most varied amusements, the enjoyment of the arts, and repose for old age; give all this to those who know nothing of privations, and compel those who have no share in these benefits to bear their part of the burden, while refusing them everything, even the necessaries of life?

 "Gentlemen, our French society, our customs, our laws, are so made that the intervention of the State, however much it may be regretted, is seen everywhere, and nothing seems to be stable or durable if the hand of the State is not manifest in it. It is the State that makes the Sevres porcelain, and the Gobelin tapestry. It is the State that periodically gives expositions of the works of our artists, and of the products of our manufacturers; it is the State which recompenses those who raise its cattle and breed its fish. All this costs a great deal. It is a tax to which every one is obliged to contribute. Everybody, do you understand? And what direct benefit do the people derive from it? Of what direct benefit to the people are your porcelains and tapestries, and your expositions? This general principle of resisting what you call a state of enthusiasm we can understand, although you yesterday voted a bounty for linens; we can understand it on the condition of consulting the present crisis, and especially on the condition of your proving your impartiality. If it is true that, by the means I have indicated, the State thus far seems to have more directly benefited the well-to-do classes than those who are poorer, it is necessary that this appearance should be removed. Shall it be done by closing the manufactories of tapestry and stopping the exhibitions? Assuredly not; _but by giving the poor a direct share in this distribution of benefits_. "

In this long catalogue of favors granted to some at the expense of all, one will remark the extreme prudence with which Mr. Mimerel has left thetariff favors out of sight, although they are the most explicitmanifestations of legal spoliation. All the orators who supported oropposed him have taken upon themselves the same reserve. It is veryshrewd! Possibly they hope, _by giving the poor a direct participationin this distribution of benefits_, to save this great iniquity by whichthey profit, but of which they do not whisper. 

They deceive themselves. Do they suppose that after having realized apartial spoliation by the establishment of customs duties, otherclasses, by the establishment of other institutions, will not attempt torealize universal spoliation?

I know very well you always have a sophism ready. You say: "The favorswhich the law grants us are not given to the _manufacturer_, but to_manufactures_. The profits which it enables us to receive at theexpense of the consumers are merely a trust placed in our hands. Theyenrich us, it is true, but our wealth places us in a position to expendmore, to extend our establishments, and falls like refreshing dew uponthe laboring classes. "

Such is your language, and what I most lament is the circumstance thatyour miserable sophisms have so perverted public opinion that they areappealed to in support of all forms of legalized spoliation. Thesuffering classes also say. "Let us by act of the Legislature helpourselves to the goods of others. We shall be in easier circumstances asthe result of it; we shall buy more wheat, more meat, more cloth, andmore iron; and that which we receive from the public taxes will returnin a beneficent shower to the capitalists and landed proprietors. "

But, as I have already said, I will not to-day discuss the economicaleffects of legal spoliation. Whenever the protectionists desire, theywill find me ready to examine the _sophisms of the ricochets_, which, indeed, may be invoked in support of all species of robbery and fraud. 

We will confine ourselves to the political and moral effects of exchangelegally deprived of liberty. 

I have said: The time has come to know what the law is, and what itought to be. 

If you make the law for all citizens a palladium of liberty and ofproperty; if it is only the organization of the individual law ofself-defense, you will establish, upon the foundation of justice, agovernment rational, simple, economical, comprehended by all, loved byall, useful to all, supported by all, entrusted with a responsibilityperfectly defined and carefully restricted, and endowed withimperishable strength. If, on the other hand, in the interests ofindividuals or of classes, you make the law an instrument of robbery, every one will wish to make laws, and to make them to his own advantage. There will be a riotous crowd at the doors of the legislative halls, there will be a bitter conflict within; minds will be in anarchy, moralswill be shipwrecked; there will be violence in party organs, heatedelections, accusations, recriminations, jealousies, inextinguishablehates, the public forces placed at the service of rapacity instead ofrepressing it, the ability to distinguish the true from the falseeffaced from all minds, as the notion of justice and injustice will beobliterated from all consciences, the government responsible foreverything and bending under the burden of its responsibilities, political convulsions, revolutions without end, ruins over which allforms of socialism and communism attempt to establish themselves; theseare the evils which must necessarily flow from the perversion of law. 

Such, consequently, gentlemen, are the evils for which you have preparedthe way by making use of the law to destroy freedom of exchange; that isto say, to abolish the right of property. Do not declaim againstsocialism; you establish it. Do not cry out against communism; youcreate it. And now you ask us Economists to make you a theory which willjustify you! _Morbleu!_ make it yourselves. 

PART IV. 

CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 

My object in this treatise is to examine into the real nature of theInterest of Capital, for the purpose of proving that it is lawful, andexplaining why it should be perpetual. This may appear singular, andyet, I confess, I am more afraid of being too plain than too obscure. Iam afraid I may weary the reader by a series of mere truisms. But it isno easy matter to avoid this danger, when the facts, with which we haveto deal, are known to every one by personal, familiar, and dailyexperience. 

But, then, you will say, "What is the use of this treatise? Why explainwhat everybody knows?"

But, although this problem appears at first sight so very simple, thereis more in it than you might suppose. I shall endeavor to prove this byan example. Mondor lends an instrument of labor to-day, which will beentirely destroyed in a week, yet the capital will not produce the lessinterest to Mondor or his heirs, through all eternity. Reader, can youhonestly say that you understand the reason of this?

It would be a waste of time to seek any satisfactory explanation fromthe writings of economists. They have not thrown much light upon thereasons of the existence of interest. For this they are not to beblamed; for at the time they wrote, its lawfulness was not called inquestion. Now, however, times are altered; the case is different. Men, who consider themselves to be in advance of their age, have organized anactive crusade against capital and interest; it is the productiveness ofcapital which they are attacking; not certain abuses in theadministration of it, but the principle itself. 

A journal has been established to serve as a vehicle for this crusade. It is conducted by M. Proudhon, and has, it is said, an immensecirculation. The first number of this periodical contains the electoralmanifesto of the _people_. Here we read, "The productiveness of capital, which is condemned by Christianity under the name of usury, is the truecause of misery, the true principle of destitution, the eternal obstacleto the establishment of the Republic. "

Another journal, _La Ruche Populaire_, after having said some excellentthings on labor, adds, "But, above all, labor ought to be free; that is, it ought to be organized in such a manner, _that money lenders andpatrons, or masters, should not be paid_ for this liberty of labor, thisright of labor, which is raised to so high a price by the trafficers ofmen. " The only thought that I notice here, is that expressed by thewords in italics, which imply a denial of the right to interest. Theremainder of the article explains it. 

It is thus that the democratic Socialist, Thoré, expresses himself:

"The revolution will always have to be recommenced, so long as we occupyourselves with consequences only, without having the logic or thecourage to attack the principle itself. This principle is capital, falseproperty, interest, and usury, which by the old _regime_, is made toweigh upon labor. 

"Ever since the aristocrats invented the incredible fiction, _thatcapital possesses the power of reproducing itself_, the workers havebeen at the mercy of the idle. 

"At the end of a year, will you find an additional crown in a bag of onehundred shillings? At the end of fourteen years, will your shillingshave doubled in your bag?

"Will a work of industry or of skill produce another, at the end offourteen years?

"Let us begin, then, by demolishing this fatal fiction. "

I have quoted the above, merely for the sake of establishing the fact, that many persons consider the productiveness of capital a false, afatal, and an iniquitous principle. But quotations are superfluous; itis well known that the people attribute their sufferings to what theycall _the trafficing in man by man_. In fact, the phrase _tyranny ofcapital_ has become proverbial. 

I believe there is not a man in the world, who is aware of the wholeimportance of this question:

"Is the interest of capital natural, just, and lawful, and as useful tothe payer as to the receiver?"

You answer, no; I answer, yes. Then we differ entirely; but it is of theutmost importance to discover which of us is in the right; otherwise weshall incur the danger of making a false solution of the question, amatter of opinion. If the error is on my side, however, the evil wouldnot be so great. It must be inferred that I know nothing about the trueinterests of the masses, or the march of human progress; and that all myarguments are but as so many grains of sand, by which the car of therevolution will certainly not be arrested. 

But if, on the contrary, MM. Proudhon and Thoré are deceivingthemselves, it follows, that they are leading the people astray--thatthey are showing them the evil where it does not exist; and thus givinga false direction to their ideas, to their antipathies, to theirdislikes, and to their attacks. It follows, that the misguided peopleare rushing into a horrible and absurd struggle, in which victory wouldbe more fatal than defeat, since, according to this supposition, theresult would be the realization of universal evils, the destruction ofevery means of emancipation, the consummation of its own misery. 

This is just what M. Proudhon has acknowledged, with perfect good faith. "The foundation stone, " he told me, "of my system is the _gratuitousnessof credit_. If I am mistaken in this, Socialism is a vain dream. " I add, it is a dream, in which the people are tearing themselves to pieces. Will it, therefore, be a cause for surprise, if, when they awake, theyfind themselves mangled and bleeding? Such a danger as this is enough tojustify me fully, if, in the course of the discussion, I allow myself tobe led into some trivialities and some prolixity. 

CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 

I address this treatise to the workmen of Paris, more especially tothose who have enrolled themselves under the banner of Socialistdemocracy. I proceed to consider these two questions:

1st. Is it consistent with the nature of things, and with justice, thatcapital should produce interest?

2nd. Is it consistent with the nature of things, and with justice, thatthe interest of capital should be perpetual?

The working men of Paris will certainly acknowledge that a moreimportant subject could not be discussed. 

Since the world began, it has been allowed, at least in part, thatcapital ought to produce interest. But latterly it has been affirmed, that herein lies the very social error which is the cause of pauperismand inequality. It is, therefore, very essential to know now on whatground we stand. 

For if levying interest from capital is a sin, the workers have a rightto revolt against social order, as it exists; it is in vain to tell themthat they ought to have recourse to legal and pacific means, it would bea hypocritical recommendation. When on the one side there is a strongman, poor, and a victim of robbery--on the other, a weak man, but rich, and a robber--it is singular enough, that we should say to the former, with a hope of persuading him, "Wait till your oppressor voluntarilyrenounces oppression, or till it shall cease of itself. " This cannot be;and those who tell us that capital is, by nature, unproductive, ought toknow that they are provoking a terrible and immediate struggle. 

If, on the contrary, the interest of capital is natural, lawful, consistent with the general good, as favorable to the borrower as tothe lender, the economists who deny it, the tribunes who traffic in thispretended social wound, are leading the workmen into a senseless andunjust struggle, which can have no other issue than the misfortune ofall. In fact, they are arming labor against capital. So much the better, if these two powers are really antagonistic; and may the struggle soonbe ended! But if they are in harmony, the struggle is the greatest evilwhich can be inflicted on society. You see, then, workmen, that there isnot a more important question than this: "Is the interest of capitallawful or not?" In the former case, you must immediately renounce thestruggle to which you are being urged; in the second, you must carry iton bravely, and to the end. 

Productiveness of capital--perpetuity of interest. These are difficultquestions. I must endeavor to make myself clear. And for that purpose Ishall have recourse to example rather than to demonstration; or rather, I shall place the demonstration in the example. I begin byacknowledging, that, at first sight, it may appear strange that capitalshould pretend to a remuneration; and, above all, to a perpetualremuneration. You will say, "Here are two men. One of them works frommorning till night, from one year's end to another; and if he consumesall which he has gained, even by superior energy, he remains poor. WhenChristmas comes, he is no forwarder than he was at the beginning of theyear, and has no other prospect but to begin again. The other man doesnothing, either with his hands or his head; or, at least, if he makesuse of them at all, it is only for his own pleasure; it is allowable forhim to do nothing, for he has an income. He does not work, yet he liveswell; he has everything in abundance, delicate dishes, sumptuousfurniture, elegant equipages; nay, he even consumes, daily, things whichthe workers have been obliged to produce by the sweat of their brow; forthese things do not make themselves; and, as far as he is concerned, hehas had no hand in their production. It is the workmen who have causedthis corn to grow, polished this furniture, woven these carpets; it isour wives and daughters who have spun, cut out, sewed, and embroideredthese stuffs. We work, then, for him and ourselves; for him first, andthen for ourselves, if there is anything left. But here is somethingmore striking still. If the former of these two men, the worker, consumes within the year any profit which may have been left him in thatyear, he is always at the point from which he started, and his destinycondemns him to move incessantly in a perpetual circle, and a monotonyof exertion. Labor, then, is rewarded only once. But if the other, the'gentleman, ' consumes his yearly income in the year, he has, the yearafter, in those which follow, and through all eternity, an incomealways equal, inexhaustible, _perpetual_. Capital, then, is remunerated, not only once or twice, but an indefinite number of times! So that, atthe end of a hundred years, a family, which has placed 20, 000 francs, atfive per cent. , will have had 100, 000 francs; and this will not preventit from having 100, 000 more, in the following century. In other words, for 20, 000 francs, which represent its labor, it will have levied, intwo centuries, a ten-fold value on the labor of others. In this socialarrangement, is there not a monstrous evil to be reformed? And this isnot all. If it should please this family to curtail its enjoyments alittle--to spend, for example, only 900 francs, instead of 1, 000--itmay, without any labor, without any other trouble beyond that ofinvesting 100 francs a year, increase its capital and its income in suchrapid progression, that it will soon be in a position to consume as muchas a hundred families of industrious workmen. Does not all this go toprove, that society itself has in its bosom a hideous cancer, whichought to be eradicated at the risk of some temporary suffering?"

These are, it appears to me, the sad and irritating reflections whichmust be excited in your minds by the active and superficial crusadewhich is being carried on against capital and interest. On the otherhand, there are moments in which, I am convinced, doubts are awakenedin your minds, and scruples in your conscience. You say to yourselvessometimes, "But to assert that capital ought not to produce interest, isto say that he who has created instruments of labor, or materials, orprovisions of any kind, ought to yield them up without compensation. Isthat just? And then, if it is so, who would lend these instruments, these materials, these provisions? who would take care of them? who evenwould create them? Every one would consume his proportion, and the humanrace would never advance a step. Capital would be no longer formed, since there would be no interest in forming it. It will becomeexceedingly scarce. A singular step toward gratuitous loans! A singularmeans of improving the condition of borrowers, to make it impossible forthem to borrow at any price! What would become of labor itself? forthere will be no money advanced, and not one single kind of labor can bementioned, not even the chase, which can be pursued without money inhand. And, as for ourselves, what would become of us? What! we are notto be allowed to borrow, in order to work in the prime of life, nor tolend, that we may enjoy repose in its decline? The law will rob us ofthe prospect of laying by a little property, because it will prevent usfrom gaining any advantage from it. It will deprive us of all stimulusto save at the present time, and of all hope of repose for the future. It is useless to exhaust ourselves with fatigue; we must abandon theidea of leaving our sons and daughters a little property, since modernscience renders it useless, for we should become trafficers in men if wewere to lend it on interest. Alas! the world which these persons wouldopen before us as an imaginary good, is still more dreary and desolatethan that which they condemn, for hope, at any rate, is not banishedfrom the latter. " Thus in all respects, and in every point of view, thequestion is a serious one. Let us hasten to arrive at a solution. 

Our civil code has a chapter entitled, "On the manner of transmittingproperty. " I do not think it gives a very complete nomenclature on thispoint. When a man by his labor has made some useful things--in otherwords, when he has created a _value_--it can only pass into the hands ofanother by one of the following modes: as a gift, by the right ofinheritance, by exchange, loan, or theft. One word upon each of these, except the last, although it plays a greater part in the world than wemay think. 

A gift, needs no definition. It is essentially voluntary andspontaneous. It depends exclusively upon the giver, and the receivercannot be said to have any right to it. Without a doubt, morality andreligion make it a duty for men, especially the rich, to deprivethemselves voluntarily of that which they possess, in favor of theirless fortunate brethren. But this is an entirely moral obligation. If itwere to be asserted on principle, admitted in practice, or sanctioned bylaw, that every man has a right to the property of another, the giftwould have no merit, charity and gratitude would be no longer virtues. Besides, such a doctrine would suddenly and universally arrest labor andproduction, as severe cold congeals water and suspends animation, forwho would work if there was no longer to be any connection between laborand the satisfying of our wants? Political economy has not treated ofgifts. It has hence been concluded that it disowns them, and that it istherefore a science devoid of heart. This is a ridiculous accusation. That science which treats of the laws resulting from the _reciprocity ofservices_, had no business to inquire into the consequences ofgenerosity with respect to him who receives, nor into its effects, perhaps still more precious, on him who gives; such considerationsbelong evidently to the science of morals. We must allow the sciences tohave limits; above all, we must not accuse them of denying orundervaluing what they look upon as foreign to their department. 

The right of inheritance, against which so much has been objected oflate, is one of the forms of gift, and assuredly the most natural ofall. That which a man has produced, he may consume, exchange, or give;what can be more natural than that he should give it to his children? Itis this power, more than any other, which inspires him with courage tolabor and to save. Do you know why the principle of right of inheritanceis thus called in question? Because it is imagined that the propertythus transmitted is plundered from the masses. This is a fatal error;political economy demonstrates, in the most peremptory manner, that allvalue produced is a creation which does no harm to any person whatever. For that reason, it may be consumed, and, still more, transmitted, without hurting any one; but I shall not pursue these reflections, whichdo not belong to the subject. 

Exchange is the principal department of political economy, because it isby far the most frequent method of transmitting property, according tothe free and voluntary agreements of the laws and effects of which thisscience treats. 

Properly speaking, exchange is the reciprocity of services. The partiessay between themselves, "Give me this, and I will give you that;" or, "Do this for me, and I will do that for you. " It is well to remark (forthis will throw a new light on the notion of value), that the secondform is always implied in the first. When it is said, "Do this for me, and I will do that for you, " an exchange of service for service isproposed. Again, when it is said, "Give me this, and I will give youthat, " it is the same as saying, "I yield to you what I have done, yield to me what you have done. " The labor is past, instead of present;but the exchange is not the less governed by the comparative valuationof the two services; so that it is quite correct to say, that theprinciple of _value_ is in the services rendered and received on accountof the productions exchanged, rather than in productions themselves. 

In reality, services are scarcely ever exchanged directly. There is amedium, which is termed _money_. Paul has completed a coat, for which hewishes to receive a little bread, a little wine, a little oil, a visitfrom a doctor, a ticket for the play, etc. The exchange cannot beeffected in kind; so what does Paul do? He first exchanges his coat forsome money, which is called _sale_; then he exchanges this money againfor the things which he wants, which is called _purchase_; and now, only, has the reciprocity of services completed its circuit; now, only, the labor and the compensation are balanced in the same individual, --"Ihave done this for society, it has done that for me. " In a word, it isonly now that the exchange is actually accomplished. Thus, nothing canbe more correct than this observation of J. B. Say: "Since theintroduction of money, every exchange is resolved into two elements, _sale_ and _purchase_. It is the reunion of these two elements whichrenders the exchange complete. "

We must remark, also, that the constant appearance of money in everyexchange has overturned and misled all our ideas; men have ended inthinking that money was true riches, and that to multiply it was tomultiply services and products. Hence the prohibitory system; hencepaper money; hence the celebrated aphorism, "What one gains the otherloses;" and all the errors which have ruined the earth, and imbrued itwith blood. [17] After much research it has been found, that in order tomake the two services exchanged of equivalent value, and in order torender the exchange _equitable_, the best means was to allow it to befree. However plausible, at first sight, the intervention of the Statemight be, it was soon perceived that it is always oppressive to one orother of the contracting parties. When we look into these subjects, weare always compelled to reason upon this maxim, that _equal value_results from liberty. We have, in fact, no other means of knowingwhether, at a given moment, two services are of the same value, but thatof examining whether they can be readily and freely exchanged. Allow theState, which is the same thing as force, to interfere on one side or theother, and from that moment all the means of appreciation will becomplicated and entangled, instead of becoming clear. It ought to be thepart of the State to prevent, and, above all, to repress artifice andfraud; that is, to secure liberty, and not to violate it. I haveenlarged a little upon exchange, although loan is my principal object:my excuse is, that I conceive that there is in a loan an actualexchange, an actual service rendered by the lender, and which makes theborrower liable to an equivalent service, --two services, whosecomparative value can only be appreciated, like that of all possibleservices, by freedom. Now, if it is so, the perfect lawfulness of whatis called house-rent, farm-rent, interest, will be explained andjustified. Let us consider the case of _loan_. 

[Footnote 17: This error will be combated in a pamphlet, entitled"_Cursed Money_. "]

Suppose two men exchange two services or two objects, whose equal valueis beyond all dispute. Suppose, for example, Peter says to Paul, "Giveme ten sixpences, I will give you a five-shilling piece. " We cannotimagine an equal value more unquestionable. When the bargain is made, neither party has any claim upon the other. The exchanged services areequal. Thus it follows, that if one of the parties wishes to introduceinto the bargain an additional clause, advantageous to himself, butunfavorable to the other party, he must agree to a second clause, whichshall re-establish the equilibrium, and the law of justice. It would beabsurd to deny the justice of a second clause of compensation. Thisgranted, we will suppose that Peter, after having said to Paul, "Give meten sixpences, I will give you a crown, " adds, "you shall give me theten sixpences _now_, and I will give you the crown-piece _in a year_;"it is very evident that this new proposition alters the claims andadvantages of the bargain; that it alters the proportion of the twoservices. Does it not appear plainly enough, in fact, that Peter asks ofPaul a new and an additional service; one of a different kind? Is it notas if he had said, "Render me the service of allowing me to use for myprofit, for a year, five shillings which belong to you, and which youmight have used for yourself"? And what good reason have you to maintainthat Paul is bound to render this especial service gratuitously; that hehas no right to demand anything more in consequence of this requisition;that the State ought to interfere to force him to submit? Is it notincomprehensible that the economist, who preaches such a doctrine to thepeople, can reconcile it with his principle of _the reciprocity ofservices_? Here I have introduced cash; I have been led to do so by adesire to place, side by side, two objects of exchange, of a perfect andindisputable equality of value. I was anxious to be prepared forobjections; but, on the other hand, my demonstration would have beenmore striking still, if I had illustrated my principle by an agreementfor exchanging the services or the productions themselves. 

Suppose, for example, a house and a vessel of a value so perfectlyequal that their proprietors are disposed to exchange them even-handed, without excess or abatement. In fact, let the bargain be settled by alawyer. At the moment of each taking possession, the ship-owner says tothe citizen, "Very well; the transaction is completed, and nothing canprove its perfect equity better than our free and voluntary consent. Ourconditions thus fixed, I shall propose to you a little practicalmodification. You shall let me have your house to-day, but I shall notput you in possession of my ship for a year; and the reason I make thisdemand of you is, that, during this year of _delay_, I wish to use thevessel. " That we may not be embarrassed by considerations relative tothe deterioration of the thing lent, I will suppose the ship-owner toadd, "I will engage, at the end of the year, to hand over to you thevessel in the state in which it is to-day. " I ask of every candid man, Iask of M. Proudhon himself, if the citizen has not a right to answer, "The new clause which you propose entirely alters the proportion or theequal value of the exchanged services. By it, I shall be deprived, forthe space of a year, both at once of my house and of your vessel. By it, you will make use of both. If, in the absence of this clause, thebargain was just, for the same reason the clause is injurious to me. Itstipulates for a loss to me, and a gain to you. You are requiring of mea new service; I have a right to refuse, or to require of you, as acompensation, an equivalent service. " If the parties are agreed uponthis compensation, the principle of which is incontestable, we caneasily distinguish two transactions in one, two exchanges of service inone. First, there is the exchange of the house for the vessel; afterthis, there is the delay granted by one of the parties, and thecompensation correspondent to this delay yielded by the other. These twonew services take the generic and abstract names of _credit_ and_interest_. But names do not change the nature of things; and I defy anyone to dare to maintain that there exists here, when all is done, aservice for a service, or a reciprocity of services. To say that one ofthese services does not challenge the other, to say that the first oughtto be rendered gratuitously, without injustice, is to say that injusticeconsists in the reciprocity of services--that justice consists in one ofthe parties giving and not receiving, which is a contradiction in terms. 

To give an idea of interest and its mechanism, allow me to make use oftwo or three anecdotes. But, first, I must say a few words upon capital. 

There are some persons who imagine that capital is money, and this isprecisely the reason why they deny its productiveness; for, as M. Thorésays, crowns are not endowed with the power of reproducing themselves. But it is not true that capital and money are the same thing. Beforethe discovery of the precious metals, there were capitalists in theworld; and I venture to say that at that time, as now, everybody was acapitalist, to a certain extent. 

What is capital, then? It is composed of three things:

1st. Of the materials upon which men operate, when these materials havealready a value communicated by some human effort, which has bestowedupon them the principle of remuneration--wool, flax, leather, silk, wood, etc. 

2nd. Instruments which are used for working--tools, machines, ships, carriages, etc. 

3rd. Provisions which are consumed during labor--victuals, stuffs, houses, etc. 

Without these things, the labor of man would be unproductive, and almostvoid; yet these very things have required much work, especially atfirst. This is the reason that so much value has been attached to thepossession of them, and also that it is perfectly lawful to exchange andto sell them, to make a profit of them if used, to gain remunerationfrom them if lent. 

Now for my anecdotes. 

THE SACK OF CORN. 

Mathurin, in other respects as poor as Job, and obliged to earn hisbread by day-labor, became, nevertheless, by some inheritance, theowner of a fine piece of uncultivated land. He was exceedingly anxiousto cultivate it. "Alas!" said he, "to make ditches, to raise fences, tobreak the soil, to clear away the brambles and stones, to plough it, tosow it, might bring me a living in a year or two; but certainly notto-day, or to-morrow. It is impossible to set about farming it, withoutpreviously saving some provisions for my subsistence until the harvest;and I know, by experience, that preparatory labor is indispensable, inorder to render present labor productive. " The good Mathurin was notcontent with making these reflections. He resolved to work by the day, and to save something from his wages to buy a spade and a sack of corn;without which things, he must give up his fine agricultural projects. Heacted so well, was so active and steady, that he soon saw himself inpossession of the wished-for sack of corn. "I shall take it to themill, " said he, "and then I shall have enough to live upon till my fieldis covered with a rich harvest. " Just as he was starting, Jerome came toborrow his treasure of him. "If you will lend me this sack of corn, "said Jerome, "you will do me a great service; for I have some verylucrative work in view, which I cannot possibly undertake, for want ofprovisions to live upon until it is finished. " "I was in the same case, "answered Mathurin, "and if I have now secured bread for several months, it is at the expense of my arms and my stomach. Upon what principle ofjustice can it be devoted to the realization of _your_ enterpriseinstead of _mine_?"

You may well believe that the bargain was a long one. However, it wasfinished at length, and on these conditions:

First. Jerome promised to give back, at the end of the year, a sack ofcorn of the same quality, and of the same weight, without missing asingle grain. "This first clause is perfectly just, " said he, "forwithout it Mathurin would _give_, and not _lend_. "

Secondly. He engaged to deliver _five litres_ on _every hectolitre_. "This clause is no less just than the other, " thought he; "for withoutit Mathurin would do me a service without compensation; he would inflictupon himself a privation--he would renounce his cherished enterprise--hewould enable me to accomplish mine--he would cause me to enjoy for ayear the fruits of his savings, and all this gratuitously. Since hedelays the cultivation of his land, since he enables me to realize alucrative labor, it is quite natural that I should let him partake, in acertain proportion, of the profits which I shall gain by the sacrificehe makes of his own. "

On his side, Mathurin, who was something of a scholar, made thiscalculation: "Since, by virtue of the first clause, the sack of cornwill return to me at the end of a year, " he said to himself, "I shallbe able to lend it again; it will return to me at the end of the secondyear; I may lend it again, and so on, to all eternity. However, I cannotdeny that it will have been eaten long ago. It is singular that I shouldbe perpetually the owner of a sack of corn, although the one I have lenthas been consumed for ever. But this is explained thus: It will beconsumed in the service of Jerome. It will put it into the power ofJerome to produce a superior value; and, consequently, Jerome will beable to restore me a sack of corn, or the value of it, without havingsuffered the slightest injury; but quite the contrary. And as regardsmyself, this value ought to be my property, as long as I do not consumeit myself; if I had used it to clear my land, I should have received itagain in the form of a fine harvest. Instead of that, I lend it, andshall recover it in the form of repayment. 

"From the second clause, I gain another piece of information. At the endof the year, I shall be in possession of five litres of corn, over the100 that I have just lent. If, then, I were to continue to work by theday, and to save a part of my wages, as I have been doing, in the courseof time I should be able to lend two sacks of corn; then three; thenfour; and when I should have gained a sufficient number to enable me tolive on these additions of five litres over and above each, I shall beat liberty to take a little repose in my old age. But how is this? Inthis case, shall I not be living at the expense of others? No, certainly, for it has been proved that in lending I perform a service; Icomplete the labor of my borrowers; and only deduct a trifling part ofthe excess of production, due to my lendings and savings. It is amarvellous thing, that a man may thus realize a leisure which injures noone, and for which he cannot be envied without injustice. "

THE HOUSE. 

Mondor had a house. In building it, he had extorted nothing from any onewhatever. He owed it to his own personal labor, or, which is the samething, to labor justly rewarded. His first care was to make a bargainwith an architect, in virtue of which, by means of a hundred crowns ayear, the latter engaged to keep the house in constant good repair. Mondor was already congratulating himself on the happy days which hehoped to spend in this retreat, declared sacred by our Constitution. ButValerius wished to make it his residence. "How can you think of such athing?" said Mondor; "it is I who have built it; it has cost me tenyears of painful labor, and now you would enjoy it!" They agreed torefer the matter to judges. They chose no profound economists--therewere none such in the country. But they found some just and sensiblemen; it all comes to the same thing: political economy, justice, goodsense, are all the same thing. Now here is the decision made by thejudges: If Valerius wishes to occupy Mondor's house for a year, he isbound to submit to three conditions. The first is, to quit at the end ofthe year, and to restore the house in good repair, saving the inevitabledecay resulting from mere duration. The second, to refund to Mondor the300 francs, which the latter pays annually to the architect to repairthe injuries of time; for these injuries taking place whilst the houseis in the service of Valerius, it is perfectly just that he should bearthe consequences. The third, that he should render to Mondor a serviceequivalent to that which he receives. As to this equivalence ofservices, it must be freely discussed between Mondor and Valerius. 

THE PLANE. 

A very long time ago there lived, in a poor village, a joiner, who was aphilosopher, as all my heroes are, in their way. James worked frommorning till night with his two strong arms, but his brain was not idle, for all that. He was fond of reviewing his actions, their causes, andtheir effects. He sometimes said to himself, "With my hatchet, my saw, and my hammer, I can make only coarse furniture, and can only get thepay for such. If I only had a _plane_, I should please my customersmore, and they would pay me more. It is quite just; I can only expectservices proportioned to those which I render myself. Yes! I amresolved, I will make myself a _plane_. "

However, just as he was setting to work, James reflected further: "Iwork for my customers 300 days in the year. If I give ten to making myplane, supposing it lasts me a year, only 290 days will remain for me tomake my furniture. Now, in order that I be not the loser in this matter, I must gain henceforth, with the help of the plane, as much in 290 days, as I now do in 300. I must even gain more; for unless I do so, it wouldnot be worth my while to venture upon any innovations. " James began tocalculate. He satisfied himself that he should sell his finishedfurniture at a price which would amply compensate for the ten daysdevoted to the plane; and when no doubt remained on this point, he setto work. I beg the reader to remark, that the power which exists in thetool to increase the productiveness of labor, is the basis of thesolution which follows. 

At the end of ten days, James had in his possession an admirable plane, which he valued all the more for having made it himself. He danced forjoy--for, like the girl with her basket of eggs, he reckoned all theprofits which he expected to derive from the ingenious instrument; butmore fortunate than she, he was not reduced to the necessity of sayinggood-bye to calf, cow, pig, and eggs, together. He was building his finecastles in the air, when he was interrupted by his acquaintance William, a joiner in the neighboring village. William having admired the plane, was struck with the advantages which might be gained from it. He said toJames:

_W. _ You must do me a service. 

_J. _ What service?

_W. _ Lend me the plane for a year. 

As might be expected, James at this proposal did not fail to cry out, "How can you think of such a thing, William? Well, if I do you thisservice, what will you do for me in return?"

_W. _ Nothing. Don't you know that a loan ought to be gratuitous? Don'tyou know that capital is naturally unproductive? Don't you knowfraternity has been proclaimed? If you only do me a service for the sakeof receiving one from me in return, what merit would you have?

_J. _ William, my friend, fraternity does not mean that all thesacrifices are to be on one side; if so, I do not see why they shouldnot be on yours. Whether a loan should be gratuitous I don't know; but Ido know that if I were to lend you my plane for a year, it would begiving it to you. To tell you the truth, that is not what I made it for. 

_W. _ Well, we will say nothing about the modern maxims discovered bythe Socialist gentlemen. I ask you to do me a service; what service doyou ask of me in return?

_J. _ First, then, in a year, the plane will be done for, it will be goodfor nothing. It is only just, that you should let me have anotherexactly like it; or that you should give me money enough to get itrepaired; or that you should supply me the ten days which I must devoteto replacing it. 

_W. _ This is perfectly just. I submit to these conditions. I engage toreturn it, or to let you have one like it, or the value of the same. Ithink you must be satisfied with this, and can require nothing further. 

_J. _ I think otherwise. I made the plane for myself, and not for you. Iexpected to gain some advantage from it, by my work being betterfinished and better paid, by an improvement in my condition. What reasonis there that I should make the plane, and you should gain the profit? Imight as well ask you to give me your saw and hatchet! What a confusion!Is it not natural that each should keep what he has made with his ownhands, as well as his hands themselves? To use without recompense thehands of another, I call slavery; to use without recompense the plane ofanother, can this be called fraternity?

_W. _ But, then, I have agreed to return it to you at the end of a year, as well polished and as sharp as it is now. 

_J. _ We have nothing to do with next year; we are speaking of this year. I have made the plane for the sake of improving my work and mycondition; if you merely return it to me in a year, it is you who willgain the profit of it during the whole of that time. I am not bound todo you such a service without receiving anything from you in return;therefore, if you wish for my plane, independently of the entirerestoration already bargained for, you must do me a service which wewill now discuss; you must grant me remuneration. 

And this was done thus: William granted a remuneration calculated insuch a way that, at the end of the year, James received his plane quitenew, and in addition, a compensation, consisting of a new plank, for theadvantages of which he had deprived himself, and which he had yielded tohis friend. 

It was impossible for any one acquainted with the transaction todiscover the slightest trace in it of oppression or injustice. 

The singular part of it is, that, at the end of the year, the plane cameinto James' possession, and he lent it again; recovered it, and lent ita third and fourth time. It has passed into the hands of his son, whostill lends it. Poor plane! how many times has it changed, sometimes itsblade, sometimes its handle. It is no longer the same plane, but it hasalways the same value, at least for James' posterity. Workmen! let usexamine into these little stories. 

I maintain, first of all, that the _sack of corn_ and the _plane_ arehere the type, the model, a faithful representation, the symbol, of allcapital; as the five litres of corn and the plank are the type, themodel, the representation, the symbol, of all interest. This granted, the following are, it seems to me, a series of consequences, the justiceof which it is impossible to dispute. 

1st. If the yielding of a plank by the borrower to the lender is anatural, equitable, lawful remuneration, the just price of a realservice, we may conclude that, as a general rule, it is in the nature ofcapital to produce interest. When this capital, as in the foregoingexamples, takes the form of an _instrument of labor_, it is clear enoughthat it ought to bring an advantage to its possessor, to him who hasdevoted to it his time, his brains, and his strength. Otherwise, whyshould he have made it? No necessity of life can be immediatelysatisfied with instruments of labor; no one eats planes or drinks saws, except, indeed, he be a conjurer. If a man determines to spend his timein the production of such things, he must have been led to it by theconsideration of the power which these instruments add to his power; ofthe time which they save him; of the perfection and rapidity which theygive to his labor; in a word, of the advantages which they procure forhim. Now, these advantages, which have been prepared by labor, by thesacrifice of time which might have been used in a more immediate manner, are we bound, as soon as they are ready to be enjoyed, to confer themgratuitously upon another? Would it be an advance in social order, ifthe law decided thus, and citizens should pay officials for causing sucha law to be executed by force? I venture to say, that there is not oneamongst you who would support it. It would be to legalize, to organize, to systematize injustice itself, for it would be proclaiming that thereare men born to render, and others born to receive, gratuitous services. Granted, then, that interest is just, natural, and lawful. 

2nd. A second consequence, not less remarkable than the former, and, ifpossible, still more conclusive, to which I call your attention, isthis: _interest is not injurious to the borrower_. I mean to say, theobligation in which the borrower finds himself, to pay a remunerationfor the use of capital, cannot do any harm to his condition. Observe, infact, that James and William are perfectly free, as regards thetransaction to which the plane gave occasion. The transaction cannot beaccomplished without the consent of the one as well as of the other. Theworst which can happen is, that James may be too exacting; and in thiscase, William, refusing the loan, remains as he was before. By the factof his agreeing to borrow, he proves that he considers it an advantageto himself; he proves, that after every calculation, including theremuneration, whatever it may be, required of him, he still finds itmore profitable to borrow than not to borrow. He only determines to doso because he has compared the inconveniences with the advantages. Hehas calculated that the day on which he returns the plane, accompaniedby the remuneration agreed upon, he will have effected more work, withthe same labor, thanks to this tool. A profit will remain to him, otherwise he would not have borrowed. The two services of which we arespeaking are exchanged according to the law which governs all exchanges, the law of supply and demand. The claims of James have a natural andimpassable limit. This is the point in which the remuneration demandedby him would absorb all the advantage which William might find in makinguse of a plane. In this case, the borrowing would not take place. William would be bound either to make a plane for himself, or to dowithout one, which would leave him in his original condition. Heborrows, because he gains by borrowing. I know very well what will betold me. You will say, William may be deceived, or, perhaps, he may begoverned by necessity, and be obliged to submit to a harsh law. 

It may be so. As to errors in calculation, they belong to the infirmityof our nature, and to argue from this against the transaction inquestion, is objecting the possibility of loss in all imaginabletransactions, in every human act. Error is an accidental fact, which isincessantly remedied by experience. In short, everybody must guardagainst it. As far as those hard necessities are concerned, which forcepersons to burdensome borrowings, it is clear that these necessitiesexist previously to the borrowing. If William is in a situation in whichhe cannot possibly do without a plane, and must borrow one at any price, does this situation result from James having taken the trouble to makethe tool? Does it not exist independently of this circumstance? Howeverharsh, however severe James may be, he will never render the supposedcondition of William worse than it is. Morally, it is true, the lenderwill be to blame; but, in an economical point of view, the loan itselfcan never be considered responsible for previous necessities, which ithas not created, and which it relieves, to a certain extent. 

But this proves something to which I shall return. The evident interestsof William, representing here the borrowers, there are many Jameses andplanes. In other words, lenders and capitals. It is very evident, thatif William can say to James--"Your demands are exorbitant; there is nolack of planes in the world;" he will be in a better situation than ifJames' plane was the only one to be borrowed. Assuredly, there is nomaxim more true than this--service for service. But let us not forget, that no service has a fixed and absolute value, compared with others. The contracting parties are free. Each carries his requisitions to thefarthest possible point; and the most favorable circumstance for theserequisitions is the absence of rivalship. Hence it follows, that ifthere is a class of men more interested than any other, in theformation, multiplication, and abundance of capitals, it is mainly thatof the borrowers. Now, since capitals can only be formed and increasedby the stimulus and the prospect of remuneration, let this classunderstand the injury they are inflicting on themselves, when they denythe lawfulness of interest, when they proclaim that credit should begratuitous, when they declaim against the pretended tyranny of capital, when they discourage saving, thus forcing capitals to become scarce, andconsequently interests to rise. 

3rd. The anecdote I have just related enables you to explain thisapparently singular phenomenon, which is termed the duration orperpetuity of interest. Since, in lending his plane, James has beenable, very lawfully, to make it a condition, that it should be returnedto him, at the end of a year, in the same state in which it was when helent it, is it not evident that he may, at the expiration of the term, lend it again on the same conditions. If he resolves upon the latterplan, the plane will return to him at the end of every year, and thatwithout end. James will then be in a condition to lend it without end;that is, he may derive from it a perpetual interest. It will be said, that the plane will be worn out. That is true; but it will be worn outby the hand and for the profit of the borrower. The latter has takeninto account this gradual wear, and taken upon himself, as he ought, theconsequences. He has reckoned that he shall derive from this tool anadvantage, which will allow him to restore it in its original condition, after having realized a profit from it. As long as James does not usethis capital himself, or for his own advantage--as long as he renouncesthe advantages which allow it to be restored to its originalcondition--he will have an incontestable right to have it restored, andthat independently of interest. 

Observe, besides, that if, as I believe I have shown, James, far fromdoing any harm to William, has done him a _service_ in lending him hisplane for a year; for the same reason, he will do no harm to a second, athird, a fourth borrower, in the subsequent periods. Hence you mayunderstand, that the interest of a capital is as natural, as lawful, asuseful, in the thousandth year, as in the first. We may go stillfurther. It may happen, that James lends more than a single plane. It ispossible, that by means of working, of saving, of privations, of order, of activity, he may come to lend a multitude of planes and saws; that isto say, to do a multitude of services. I insist upon this point--that ifthe first loan has been a social good, it will be the same with all theothers; for they are all similar, and based upon the same principle. Itmay happen, then, that the amount of all the remunerations received byour honest operative, in exchange for services rendered by him, maysuffice to maintain him. In this case, there will be a man in the worldwho has a right to live without working. I do not say that he would bedoing right to give himself up to idleness--but I say, that he has aright to do so; and if he does so, it will be at nobody's expense, butquite the contrary. If society at all understands the nature of things, it will acknowledge that this man subsists on services which he receivescertainly (as we all do), but which he lawfully receives in exchange forother services, which he himself has rendered, that he continues torender, and which are quite real, inasmuch as they are freely andvoluntarily accepted. 

And here we have a glimpse of one of the finest harmonies in the socialworld. I allude to _leisure_: not that leisure that the warlike andtyrannical classes arrange for themselves by the plunder of the workers, but that leisure which is the lawful and innocent fruit of past activityand economy. In expressing myself thus, I know that I shall shock manyreceived ideas. But see! Is not leisure an essential spring in thesocial machine? Without it, the world would never have had a Newton, aPascal, a Fenelon; mankind would have been ignorant of all arts, sciences, and of those wonderful inventions, prepared originally byinvestigations of mere curiosity; thought would have been inert--manwould have made no progress. On the other hand, if leisure could only beexplained by plunder and oppression--if it were a benefit which couldonly be enjoyed unjustly, and at the expense of others, there would beno middle path between these two evils; either mankind would be reducedto the necessity of stagnating in a vegetable and stationary life, ineternal ignorance, from the absence of wheels to its machine--or else itwould have to acquire these wheels at the price of inevitable injustice, and would necessarily present the sad spectacle, in one form or other, of the antique classification of human beings into Masters and Slaves. Idefy any one to show me, in this case, any other alternative. We shouldbe compelled to contemplate the Divine plan which governs society, withthe regret of thinking that it presents a deplorable chasm. The stimulusof progress would be forgotten, or, which is worse, this stimulus wouldbe no other than injustice itself. But, no! God has not left such achasm in his work of love. We must take care not to disregard hiswisdom and power; for those whose imperfect meditations cannot explainthe lawfulness of leisure, are very much like the astronomer who said, at a certain point in the heavens there ought to exist a planet whichwill be at last discovered, for without it the celestial world is notharmony, but discord. 

Well, I say that, if well understood, the history of my humble plane, although very modest, is sufficient to raise us to the contemplation ofone of the most consoling, but least understood, of the socialharmonies. 

It is not true that we must choose between the denial or theunlawfulness of leisure; thanks to rent and its natural duration, leisure may arise from labor and saving. It is a pleasing prospect, which every one may have in view; a noble recompense, to which each mayaspire. It makes its appearance in the world; it distributes itselfproportionably to the exercise of certain virtues; it opens all theavenues to intelligence; it ennobles, it raises the morals; itspiritualizes the soul of humanity, not only without laying any weighton those of our brethren whose lot in life devotes them to severe labor, but relieving them gradually from the heaviest and most repugnant partof this labor. It is enough that capitals should be formed, accumulated, multiplied; should be lent on conditions less and less burdensome; thatthey should descend, penetrate into every social circle, and that, by anadmirable progression, after having liberated the lenders, they shouldhasten the liberation of the borrowers themselves. For that end, thelaws and customs ought to be favorable to economy, the source ofcapital. It is enough to say, that the first of all these conditions is, not to alarm, to attack, to deny that which is the stimulus of savingand the reason of its existence--interest. 

As long as we see nothing passing from hand to hand, in the character ofloan, but _provisions_, _materials_, _instruments_, things indispensableto the productiveness of labor itself, the ideas thus far exhibited willnot find many opponents. Who knows, even, that I may not be reproachedfor having made great effort to burst what may be said to be an opendoor. But as soon as _cash_ makes its appearance as the subject of thetransaction (and it is this which appears almost always), immediately acrowd of objections are raised. Money, it will be said, will notreproduce itself, like your _sack of corn_; it does not assist labor, like your _plane_; it does not afford an immediate satisfaction, likeyour _house_. It is incapable, by its nature, of producing interest, ofmultiplying itself, and the remuneration it demands is a positiveextortion. 

Who cannot see the sophistry of this? Who does not see that cash isonly a transient form, which men give at the time to other _values_, toreal objects of usefulness, for the sole object of facilitating theirarrangements? In the midst of social complications, the man who is in acondition to lend, scarcely ever has the exact thing which the borrowerwants. James, it is true, has a plane; but, perhaps, William wants asaw. They cannot negotiate; the transaction favorable to both cannottake place, and then what happens? It happens that James first exchangeshis plane for money; he lends the money to William, and Williamexchanges the money for a saw. The transaction is no longer a simpleone; it is decomposed into two parts, as I explained above in speakingof exchange. But, for all that, it has not changed its nature; it stillcontains all the elements of a direct loan. James has still got rid of atool which was useful to him; William has still received an instrumentwhich perfects his work and increases his profits; there is still aservice rendered by the lender, which entitles him to receive anequivalent service from the borrower; this just balance is not the lessestablished by free mutual bargaining. The very natural obligation torestore at the end of the term the entire _value_, still constitutes theprinciple of the duration of interest. 

At the end of a year, says M. Thoré, will you find an additional crownin a bag of a hundred pounds?

No, certainly, if the borrower puts the bag of one hundred pounds on theshelf. In such a case, neither the plane, nor the sack of corn, wouldreproduce themselves. But it is not for the sake of leaving the money inthe bag, nor the plane on the hook, that they are borrowed. The plane isborrowed to be used, or the money to procure a plane. And if it isclearly proved that this tool enables the borrower to obtain profitswhich he would not have made without it, if it is proved that the lenderhas renounced creating for himself this excess of profits, we mayunderstand how the stipulation of a part of this excess of profits infavor of the lender, is equitable and lawful. 

Ignorance of the true part which cash plays in human transactions, isthe source of the most fatal errors. I intend devoting an entirepamphlet to this subject. From what we may infer from the writings of M. Proudhon, that which has led him to think that gratuitous credit was alogical and definite consequence of social progress, is the observationof the phenomenon which shows a decreasing interest, almost in directproportion to the rate of civilization. In barbarous times it is, infact, cent. Per cent. , and more. Then it descends to eighty, sixty, fifty, forty, twenty, ten, eight, five, four, and three per cent. InHolland, it has even been as low as two per cent. Hence it is concluded, that "in proportion as society comes to perfection, it will descend tozero by the time civilization is complete. In other words, that whichcharacterizes social perfection is the gratuitousness of credit. When, therefore, we shall have abolished interest, we shall have reached thelast step of progress. " This is mere sophistry, and as such falsearguing may contribute to render popular the unjust, dangerous, anddestructive dogma, that credit should be gratuitous, by representing itas coincident with social perfection, with the reader's permission Iwill examine in a few words this new view of the question. 

What is _interest_? It is the service rendered, after a free bargain, bythe borrower to the lender, in remuneration for the service he hasreceived by the loan. By what law is the rate of these remunerativeservices established? By the general law which regulates the equivalentof all services; that is, by the law of supply and demand. 

The more easily a thing is procured, the smaller is the service renderedby yielding it or lending it. The man who gives me a glass of water inthe Pyrenees, does not render me so great a service as he who allows meone in the desert of Sahara. If there are many planes, sacks of corn, orhouses, in a country, the use of them is obtained, other things beingequal, on more favorable conditions than if they were few; for thesimple reason, that the lender renders in this case a smaller _relativeservice_. 

It is not surprising, therefore, that the more abundant capitals are, the lower is the interest. 

Is this saying that it will ever reach zero? No; because, I repeat it, the principle of a remuneration is in the loan. To say that interestwill be annihilated, is to say that there will never be any motive forsaving, for denying ourselves, in order to form new capitals, nor evento preserve the old ones. In this case, the waste would immediatelybring a void, and interest would directly reappear. 

In that, the nature of the services of which we are speaking does notdiffer from any other. Thanks to industrial progress, a pair ofstockings, which used to be worth six francs, has successively beenworth only four, three, and two. No one can say to what point this valuewill descend; but we can affirm, that it will never reach zero, unlessthe stockings finish by producing themselves spontaneously. Why? Becausethe principle of remuneration is in labor; because he who works foranother renders a service, and ought to receive a service. If no onepaid for stockings, they would cease to be made; and, with the scarcity, the price would not fail to reappear. 

The sophism which I am now combating has its root in the infinitedivisibility which belongs to _value_, as it does to matter. 

It appears, at first, paradoxical, but it is well known to allmathematicians, that, through all eternity, fractions may be taken froma weight without the weight ever being annihilated. It is sufficientthat each successive fraction be less than the preceding one, in adetermined and regular proportion. 

There are countries where people apply themselves to increasing the sizeof horses, or diminishing in sheep the size of the head. It isimpossible to say precisely to what point they will arrive in this. Noone can say that he has seen the largest horse or the smallest sheep'shead that will ever appear in the world. But he may safely say that thesize of horses will never attain to infinity, nor the heads of sheep tonothing. 

In the same way, no one can say to what point the price of stockings northe interest of capitals will come down; but we may safely affirm, whenwe know the nature of things, that neither the one nor the other willever arrive at zero, for labor and capital can no more live withoutrecompense than a sheep without a head. 

The arguments of M. Proudhon reduce themselves, then, to this: since themost skillful agriculturists are those who have reduced the heads ofsheep to the smallest size, we shall have arrived at the highestagricultural perfection when sheep have no longer any heads. Therefore, in order to realize the perfection, let us behead them. 

I have now done with this wearisome discussion. Why is it that thebreath of false doctrine has made it needful to examine into theintimate nature of interest? I must not leave off without remarking upona beautiful moral which may be drawn from this law: "The depression ofinterest is proportioned to the abundance of capitals. " This law beinggranted, if there is a class of men to whom it is more important than toany other that capitals be formed, accumulate, multiply, abound, andsuperabound, it is certainly the class which borrows them directly orindirectly; it is those men who operate upon _materials_, who gainassistance by _instruments_, who live upon _provisions_, produced andeconomized by other men. 

Imagine, in a vast and fertile country, a population of a thousandinhabitants, destitute of all capital thus defined. It will assuredlyperish by the pangs of hunger. Let us suppose a case hardly less cruel. Let us suppose that ten of these savages are provided with instrumentsand provisions sufficient to work and to live themselves until harvesttime, as well as to remunerate the services of eighty laborers. Theinevitable result will be the death of nine hundred human beings. It isclear, then, that since nine hundred and ninety men, urged by want, willcrowd upon the supports which would only maintain a hundred, the tencapitalists will be masters of the market. They will obtain labor onthe hardest conditions, for they will put it up to auction, or thehighest bidder. And observe this--if these capitalists entertain suchpious sentiments as would induce them to impose personal privations onthemselves, in order to diminish the sufferings of some of theirbrethren, this generosity, which attaches to morality, will be as noblein its principle as useful in its effects. But if, duped by that falsephilosophy which persons wish so inconsiderately to mingle with economiclaws, they take to remunerating labor largely, far from doing good, theywill do harm. They will give double wages, it may be. But then, forty-five men will be better provided for, whilst forty-five otherswill come to augment the number of those who are sinking into the grave. Upon this supposition, it is not the lowering of wages which is themischief, it is the scarcity of capital. Low wages are not the cause, but the effect of the evil. I may add, that they are to a certain extentthe remedy. It acts in this way; it distributes the burden of sufferingas much as it can, and saves as many lives as a limited quantity ofsustenance permits. 

Suppose now, that instead of ten capitalists, there should be a hundred, two hundred, five hundred--is it not evident that the condition of thewhole population, and, above all, that of the "prolétaires, "[18] will bemore and more improved? Is it not evident that, apart from everyconsideration of generosity, they would obtain more work and better payfor it?--that they themselves will be in a better condition to formcapitals, without being able to fix the limits to this ever-increasingfacility of realizing equality and well-being? Would it not be madnessin them to admit such doctrines, and to act in a way which would drainthe source of wages, and paralyze the activity and stimulus of saving?Let them learn this lesson, then; doubtless, capitals are good for thosewho possess them: who denies it? But they are also useful to those whohave not yet been able to form them; and it is important to those whohave them not, that others should have them. 

[Footnote 18: Common people. ]

Yes, if the "prolétaires" knew their true interests, they would seek, with the greatest care, what circumstances are, and what are notfavorable to saving, in order to favor the former and to discourage thelatter. They would sympathize with every measure which tends to therapid formation of capitals. They would be enthusiastic promoters ofpeace, liberty, order, security, the union of classes and peoples, economy, moderation in public expenses, simplicity in the machinery ofGovernment; for it is under the sway of all these circumstances thatsaving does its work, brings plenty within the reach of the masses, invites those persons to become the formers of capital who wereformerly under the necessity of borrowing upon hard conditions. Theywould repel with energy the warlike spirit, which diverts from its truecourse so large a part of human labor; the monopolizing spirit, whichderanges the equitable distribution of riches, in the way by whichliberty alone can realize it; the multitude of public services, whichattack our purses only to check our liberty; and, in short, thosesubversive, hateful, thoughtless doctrines, which alarm capital, preventits formation, oblige it to flee, and finally to raise its price, to thespecial disadvantage of the workers, who bring it into operation. Well, and in this respect is not the revolution of February a hard lesson? Isit not evident, that the insecurity it has thrown into the world ofbusiness, on the one hand; and, on the other, the advancement of thefatal theories to which I have alluded, and which, from the clubs, havealmost penetrated into the regions of the Legislature, have everywhereraised the rate of interest? Is it not evident, that from that time the"prolétaires" have found greater difficulty in procuring thosematerials, instruments, and provisions, without which labor isimpossible? Is it not that which has caused stoppages; and do notstoppages, in their turn, lower wages? Thus there is a deficiency oflabor to the "prolétaires, " from the same cause which loads the objectsthey consume with an increase of price, in consequence of the rise ofinterest. High interest, low wages, means in other words that the samearticle preserves its price, but that the part of the capitalist hasinvaded, without profiting himself, that of the workman. 

A friend of mine, commissioned to make inquiry into Parisian industry, has assured me that the manufacturers have revealed to him a verystriking fact, which proves, better than any reasoning can, how muchinsecurity and uncertainty injure the formation of capital. It wasremarked, that during the most distressing period, the popular expensesof mere fancy had not diminished. The small theaters, the fightinglists, the public houses, and tobacco depôts, were as much frequented asin prosperous times. In the inquiry, the operatives themselves explainedthis phenomenon thus: "What is the use of pinching? Who knows what willhappen to us? Who knows that interest will not be abolished? Who knowsbut that the State will become a universal and gratuitous lender, andthat it will wish to annihilate all the fruits which we might expectfrom our savings?" Well! I say, that if such ideas could prevail duringtwo single years, it would be enough to turn our beautiful France into aTurkey--misery would become general and endemic, and, most assuredly, the poor would be the first upon whom it would fall. 

Workmen! They talk to you a great deal upon the _artificial_organization of labor;--do you know why they do so? Because they areignorant of the laws of its _natural_ organization; that is, of thewonderful organization which results from liberty. You are told, thatliberty gives rise to what is called the radical antagonism of classes;that it creates, and makes to clash, two opposite interests--that of thecapitalists and that of the "prolétaires. " But we ought to begin byproving that this antagonism exists by a law of nature; and afterwardsit would remain to be shown how far the arrangements of restraint aresuperior to those of liberty, for between liberty and restraint I see nomiddle path. Again, it would remain to be proved, that restraint wouldalways operate to your advantage, and to the prejudice of the rich. But, no; this radical antagonism, this natural opposition of interests, doesnot exist. It is only an evil dream of perverted and intoxicatedimaginations. No; a plan so defective has not proceeded from the DivineMind. To affirm it, we must begin by denying the existence of God. Andsee how, by means of social laws, and because men exchange amongstthemselves their labors, and their productions, see what a harmonioustie attaches the classes, one to the other! There are the landowners;what is their interest? That the soil be fertile, and the sunbeneficent: and what is the result? That corn abounds, that it falls inprice, and the advantage turns to the profit of those who have had nopatrimony. There are the manufacturers; what is their constant thought?To perfect their labor, to increase the power of their machines, toprocure for themselves, upon the best terms, the raw material. And towhat does all this tend? To the abundance and low price of produce; thatis, that all the efforts of the manufacturers, and without theirsuspecting it, result in a profit to the public consumer, of which eachof you is one. It is the same with every profession. Well, thecapitalists are not exempt from this law. They are very busy makingschemes, economizing, and turning them to their advantage. This is allvery well; but the more they succeed, the more do they promote theabundance of capital, and, as a necessary consequence, the reduction ofinterest? Now, who is it that profits by the reduction of interest? Isit not the borrower first, and finally, the consumers of the thingswhich the capitals contribute to produce?

It is, therefore, certain that the final result of the efforts of eachclass, is the common good of all. 

You are told that capital tyrannizes over labor. I do not deny that eachone endeavors to draw the greatest possible advantage from hissituation; but, in this sense, he realizes only that which is possible. Now, it is never more possible for capitals to tyrannize over labor, than when they are scarce; for then it is they who make the law--it isthey who regulate the rate of sale. Never is this tyranny moreimpossible to them, than when they are abundant; for, in that case, itis labor which has the command. 

Away, then, with the jealousies of classes, ill-will, unfounded hatreds, unjust suspicions. These depraved passions injure those who nourish themin their hearts. This is no declamatory morality; it is a chain ofcauses and effects, which is capable of being rigorously, mathematicallydemonstrated. It is not the less sublime, in that it satisfies theintellect as well as the feelings. 

I shall sum up this whole dissertation with these words: Workmen, laborers, "prolétaires, " destitute and suffering classes, will youimprove your condition? You will not succeed by strife, insurrection, hatred, and error. But there are three things which cannot perfect theentire community without extending these benefits to yourselves; thesethings are--peace, liberty, and security.