diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 3 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 20161-8.txt | 11129 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 20161-8.zip | bin | 0 -> 209883 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 20161-h.zip | bin | 0 -> 215557 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 20161-h/20161-h.htm | 11320 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 20161.txt | 11129 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 20161.zip | bin | 0 -> 209824 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 |
9 files changed, 33594 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6833f05 --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +* text=auto +*.txt text +*.md text diff --git a/20161-8.txt b/20161-8.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8700b79 --- /dev/null +++ b/20161-8.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11129 @@ +Project Gutenberg's Sophisms of the Protectionists, by Frederic Bastiat + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: Sophisms of the Protectionists + +Author: Frederic Bastiat + +Translator: Horace White + +Release Date: December 22, 2006 [EBook #20161] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SOPHISMS OF THE PROTECTIONISTS *** + + + + +Produced by Graeme Mackreth, Curtis Weyant and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net + + + + + + + +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, by +THE WESTERN NEWS COMPANY, +In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States, for the +Northern 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 it +became necessary to issue a second edition, the Free-Trade League +offered to buy the stereotype plates and the copyright, with a view to +the 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; to +convince the people of the United States of the folly and wrongfulness +of the Protective system. The methods adopted by the League for the +purpose have been the holding of public meetings and the publication of +books, pamphlets, and tracts, some of which are for sale at the cost of +publication, and others given away gratuitously. + +In publishing this book the League feels that it is offering the most +effective and most popular work on political economy that has as yet +been 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 every +Free-Trader put a copy of the book into the hands of his Protectionist +friends? + +It would not be proper to close this short preface without an expression +on the part of the League of its obligation to the able translator of +the 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 the +public in the belief that the time has now come when the people, +relieved from the absorbing anxieties of the war, and the subsequent +strife on reconstruction, are prepared to give a more earnest and +thoughtful attention to economical questions than was possible during +the previous ten years. That we have retrograded in economical science +during this period, while making great strides in moral and political +advancement by the abolition of slavery and the enfranchisement of the +freedmen, seems to me incontestable. Professor Perry has described very +concisely the steps taken by the manufacturers in 1861, after the +Southern members had left their seats in Congress, to reverse the policy +of the government in reference to foreign trade.[1] He has noticed but +has not laid so much stress as he might on the fact that while there +was no considerable public opinion to favor them, there was none at all +to oppose them. Not only was the attention of the people diverted from +the tariff by the dangers then impending, but the Republican party, +which then came into power, had, in its National Convention, offered a +bribe to the State of Pennsylvania for its vote in the Presidential +election, 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 doctrine +that the industrial interests of the whole country are promoted by taxes +levied upon imported property, however "adjusted," but it was +understood, by the Pennsylvanians at least, to be a promise that if the +Republican party were successful in the coming election, the doctrine of +protection, which had been overthrown in 1846, and had been in an +extremely languishing state ever since, should be put upon its legs +again. I am far from asserting that this overture was needed to secure +the vote of Pennsylvania for Mr. Lincoln in 1860, or that that State +was governed by less worthy motives in her political action than other +States. I only remark that her delegates in the convention thought such +a resolution would be extremely useful, and such was the anxiety to +secure her vote in the election that a much stronger resolution might +have been conceded if it had been required. I affirm, however, that +there was no agitation on the tariff question in any other quarter. New +England had united in passing the tariff of 1857, which lowered the +duties imposed by the act of 1846 about fifty per cent., i.e., one-half +of the previously existing scale. The Western States had not petitioned +Congress or the convention to disturb the tariff; nor had New York done +so, although Mr. Greeley, then as now, was invoking, more or less +frequently, the shade of Henry Clay to help re-establish what is deftly +styled the "American System." + +The protective policy was restored, after its fifteen years' sleep, +under the auspices of Mr. Morrill, a Representative (now a Senator) from +Vermont. Latterly I have noticed in the speeches and votes of this +gentleman (who is, I think, one of the most conscientious, as he is one +of the most amiable, men in public life), a reluctance to follow to +their logical conclusion the principles embodied in the "Morrill tariff" +of 1861. His remarks upon the copper bill, during the recent session of +Congress, indicate that, in his opinion, those branches of American +industry which are engaged in producing articles sent abroad in exchange +for the products of foreign nations, are entitled to some consideration. +This is an important admission, but not so important as another, which +he made in his speech on the national finances, January 24, 1867, in +which, referring to the bank note circulation existing in the year 1860, +he said: "_And that was a year of as large production and as much +general prosperity as any, perhaps, in our history_."[2] If the year +immediately preceding the enactment of the Morrill tariff was a year of +as large production and as much general prosperity as any in our +history, of what use has the Morrill tariff been? We have seen that it +was not demanded by any public agitation. We now see that it has been of +no public utility. + +[Footnote 2: Congressional Globe, Second Session Thirty-ninth Congress, +p. 724.] + +In combating, by arguments and illustrations adapted to the +comprehension of the mass of mankind, the errors and sophisms with which +protectionists deceive themselves and others, M. Bastiat is the most +lucid and pointed of all writers on economical science with whose works +I have any acquaintance. It is not necessary to accord to him a place +among the architects of the science of political economy, although some +of his admirers rank him among the highest.[3] It is enough to count +him among the greatest of its expounders and demonstrators. His death, +which occurred at Pisa, Italy, on the 24th December, 1850, at the age of +49, was a serious loss to France and to the world. His works, though for +the most part fragmentary, and given to the public from time to time +through the columns of the _Journal des Economistes_, the _Journal des +Debats_, and the _Libre Echange_, remain a monument of a noble intellect +guided by a noble soul. They have been collected and published +(including the _Harmonies Economiques_, which the author left in +manuscript) by Guillaumin & Co., the proprietors of the _Journal des +Economistes_, in two editions of six volumes each, 8vo. and 12mo. When +we reflect that these six volumes were produced between April, 1844, and +December, 1850, by a young man of feeble constitution, who commenced +life as a clerk in a mercantile establishment, and who spent much of his +time during these six years in delivering public lectures, and laboring +in the National Assembly, to which he was chosen in 1848, our admiration +for such industry is only modified by the thought that if he had been +more saving of his strength, he might have rendered even greater +services 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 revolution +that has been effected in any science since the days of Galileo." + +See also Professor Perry's pamphlet, _Recent Phases of Thought in +Political Economy_, read before the American Social Science Association, +October, 1868, in which, it appears to me, that Bastiat's theory of +Rent, in announcing which he was anticipated by Mr. Carey, is too highly +praised.] + +The _Sophismes Economiques_, which fill the larger portion of this +volume, were not expected by their author to outlast the fallacies which +they sought to overthrow. But these fallacies have lived longer and have +spread over more of the earth's surface than any one _a priori_ could +have believed possible. It is sometimes useful, in opposing doctrines +which people have been taught to believe are peculiar to their own +country and time, to show that the same doctrines have been maintained +in other countries and times, and have been exploded in other languages. +By what misuse of words the doctrine of Protection came to be +denominated the "American System," I could never understand. It +prevailed in England nearly two hundred years before our separation from +the mother country. Adam Smith directed the first formidable attack +against it in the very year that our independence was declared. It held +its ground in England until it had starved and ruined almost every +branch of industry--agriculture, manufactures, and commerce alike.[4] It +was not wholly overthrown until 1846, the same year that witnessed its +discomfiture in the United States, as already shown. It still exists in +a subdued and declining way in France, despite the powerful and +brilliant attacks of Say, Bastiat, and Chevalier, but its end cannot be +far distant in that country. The Cobden-Chevalier treaty with England +has been attended by consequences so totally at variance with the +theories and prophecies of the protectionists that it must soon succumb. + +[Footnote 4: It is so often affirmed by protectionists that the +superiority of Great Britain in manufactures was attained by means of +protection, that it is worth while to dispel that illusion. The facts +are precisely the reverse. Protection had brought Great Britain in the +year 1842 to the last stages of penury and decay, and it wanted but a +year or two more of the same regimen to have precipitated the country +into 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 the +American protectionist. The Corn Laws were the doctrine of protection +applied to breadstuffs, farm products, "raw materials." But it was not +only protection for corn that vexed England in 1842, but protection for +every thing and every body, from the landlord and the mill-owner to the +kelp gatherer. Every species of manufacturing industry had asked and +obtained protection. The nation had put in force, logically and +thoroughly, the principle of denying themselves any share in the +advantages which nature or art had conferred upon other climates and +peoples, (which is the principle of protection), and with the results so +pathetically described by Miss Martineau. The prosperity of British +manufactures dates from the year 1846. That they maintained any kind of +existence prior to that time is a most striking proof of the vitality of +human industry under the persecution of bad laws.] + +As these pages are going through the press, a telegram announces that +the French Government has abolished the discriminating duties levied +upon goods imported in foreign bottoms, and has asked our government to +abolish the like discrimination which our laws have created. Commercial +freedom is making rapid progress in Prussia, Austria, Italy, and even +in Spain. The United States alone, among civilized nations, hold to the +opposite principle. Our anomalous position in this respect is due, as I +think, to our anomalous condition during the past eight or nine years, +already adverted to--a condition in which the protected classes have +been restrained by no public opinion--public opinion being too intensely +preoccupied with the means of preserving the national existence to +notice what was doing with the tariff. But evidences of a reawakening +are not wanting. + +There is scarcely an argument current among the protectionists of the +United States that was not current in France at the time Bastiat wrote +the _Sophismes Economiques_. Nor was there one current in his time that +is not performing its bad office among us. Hence his demonstrations of +their absurdity and falsity are equally applicable to our time and +country as to his. They may have even greater force among us if they +thoroughly 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 the +United States that were not rife in France when Bastiat wrote his +_Sophismes_. It is said, for instance, that protection has failed to +achieve all the good results expected from it, because the policy of the +government has been variable. If we could have a steady course of +protection for a sufficient period of time (nobody being bold enough to +say what time would be sufficient), and could be _assured_ of having it, +we should see wonderful progress. But, inasmuch as the policy of the +government is uncertain, protection has never yet had a fair trial. This +is 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 stay +there. The law of gravitation is committed against its staying there. +Its only resting-place is on the earth. They begin by violating natural +laws and natural rights--the right to exchange services for +services--and then complain because these natural laws war against them +and finally overcome them. But it is not true that protection has not +had a fair trial in the United States. The protection has been greater +at some times than at others, that is all. Prior to the late war, all +our revenue was raised from customs; and while the tariffs of 1846 and +1857 were designated "free trade tariffs," to distinguish them from +those existing before and since, they were necessarily protective to a +certain extent. + +Again, it is said that there is need of diversifying our industry--- as +though industry would not diversify itself sufficiently through the +diverse tastes and predilections of individuals--as though it were +necessary to supplement the work of the Creator in this behalf, by human +enactments founded upon reciprocal rapine. The only rational object of +diversifying industry is to make people better and happier. Do men and +women become better and happier by being huddled together in mills and +factories, in a stifling atmosphere, on scanty wages, ten hours each day +and 313 days each year, than when cultivating our free and fertile +lands? Do they have equal opportunities for mental and moral +improvement? The trades-unions tell us, No. Whatever may be the +experience of other countries where the land is either owned by absentee +lords, who take all the product except what is necessary to give the +tenant a bare subsistence, or where it is cut up in parcels not larger +than an American garden patch, it is an undeniable fact that no other +class of American workingmen are so independent, so intelligent, so well +provided with comforts and leisure, or so rapidly advancing in +prosperity, as our agriculturists; and this notwithstanding they are +enormously overtaxed to maintain other branches of industry, which, +according to the protective theory, cannot support themselves. The +natural tendency of our people to flock to the cities, where their eyes +and ears are gratified at the expense of their other senses, physical +and moral, is sufficiently marked not to need the influence of +legislation to stimulate it. + +It is not the purpose of this preface to anticipate the admirable +arguments of M. Bastiat; but there is another theory in vogue which +deserves a moment's consideration. Mr. H.C. Carey tells us, that a +country which exports its food, in reality exports its soil, the foreign +consumers not giving back to the land the fertilizing elements +abstracted from it. Mr. Mill has answered this argument, upon +philosophical principles, at some length, showing that whenever it +ceases to be advantageous to America to export breadstuffs, she will +cease to do so; also, that when it becomes necessary to manure her +lands, she will either import manure or make it at home.[5] A shorter +answer is, that the lands are no better manured by having the bread +consumed in Lowell, or Pittsburgh, or even in Chicago, than in +Birmingham or Lyons. But it seems to me that Mr. Carey does not take +into account the fact that the total amount of breadstuffs exported from +any country must be an exceedingly small fraction of the whole amount +taken from the soil, and scarcely appreciable as a source of manure, +even if it were practically utilized in that way. Thus, our exportation +of flour and meal, wheat and Indian corn, for the year 1860, as compared +with 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 Morrill +tariff. It is true that our exports of wheat and Indian corn rose in the +three years following the enactment of the Morrill tariff, from an +average of eight million bushels to an average of forty-six million +bushels, but this is contrary to the theory that high tariffs tend to +keep breadstuffs at home, and low ones to send them abroad. There is +need of great caution in making generalizations as to the influence of +tariffs on the movement of breadstuffs. Good or bad harvests in various +countries exercise an uncontrollable influence upon their movement, far +beyond the reach of any legislation short of prohibition. The market for +breadstuffs in the world is as the number of consumers; that is, of +population. It is sometimes said in the way of reproach, (and it is a +curious travesty of Mr. Carey's manure argument,) that foreign nations +_will not_ take our breadstuffs. It is not true; but if it were, that +would not be a good reason for our passing laws to prevent them from +doing so; that is, to deprive them of the means to pay for them. Every +country must pay for its imports with its exports. It must pay for the +services which it receives with the services which it renders. If +foreign nations are not allowed to render services to us, how shall we +render 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 year +1860. In this report the total production of flour and meal is given, +not in barrels, but in value. The quantity is ascertained by dividing +the total value by the average price per barrel in New York during the +year, the fluctuations then being very slight. Flour being a +manufactured article, is it not a little curious that we exported under +the "free trade tariff" twice as large a percentage of breadstuffs in +that form as we did of the "raw material," wheat?] + +The first series of Bastiat's _Sophismes_ were published in 1845, and +the second series in 1848. The first series were translated in 1848, by +Mrs. D.J. McCord, and published the same year by G.P. Putnam, New York. +Mrs. McCord's excellent translation has been followed (by permission of +her publisher, who holds the copyright,) in this volume, having been +first compared with the original, in the Paris edition of 1863. A very +few verbal alterations have been made, which, however, have no bearing +on the accuracy and faithfulness of her work. The translation of the +essay on "Capital and Interest" is from a duodecimo volume published in +London a year or two ago, the name of the translator being unknown to +me. The second series of the _Sophismes_, and the essay entitled +"Spoliation and Law," are, I believe, presented in English for the first +time 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 arguments +usually advanced against Free Trade. + +I am not seeking a combat with the protectionists. I merely advance a +principle which I am anxious to present clearly to the minds of sincere +men, who hesitate because they doubt. + +I am not of the number of those who maintain that protection is +supported by interests. I believe that it is founded upon errors, or, if +you will, upon _incomplete truths_. Too many fear free trade, for this +apprehension to be other than sincere. + +My aspirations are perhaps high; but I confess that it would give me +pleasure 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 two +principles. When one has not made oneself perfectly familiar with the +doctrines of free trade, the sophisms of protection perpetually return +to the mind under one form or another; and, on each occasion, in order +to counteract their effect, it is necessary to enter into a long and +laborious analysis. Few, and least of all legislators, have leisure for +this labor, which I would, on this account, wish to present clearly +drawn up to their hand. + +But it may be said, are then the benefits of free trade so hidden as to +be perceptible only to economists by profession? + +Yes; we confess it; our adversaries in the discussion have a signal +advantage over us. They can, in a few words, present an incomplete +truth; which, for us to show that it is incomplete, renders necessary +long and uninteresting dissertations. + +This results from the fact that protection accumulates upon a single +point the good which it effects, while the evil inflicted is infused +throughout the mass. The one strikes the eye at a first glance, while +the other becomes perceptible only to close investigation. With regard +to 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 of +employment 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, and +true 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 base +it 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. To +judge of a measure, it is necessary that we should follow it from step +to step, from result to result, until through the successive links of +the 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 immediately +all the prejudices of the public are against us. + +What then shall we do? We must invoke the patience and candor of the +reader, giving to our deductions, if we are capable of it, sufficient +clearness to throw forward at once, without disguise or palliation, the +true and the false, in order, once for all, to determine whether the +victory 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 des +Economistes_." + +In an article otherwise quite complimentary published by the Viscount de +Romanet (see _Moniteur Industriel_ of the 15th and 18th of May, 1845), +he intimates that I ask for the _suppression of custom houses_. Mr. de +Romanet is mistaken. I ask for the suppression of the _protective +policy_. We do not dispute the right of _government_ to impose taxes, +but would, if possible, dissuade _producers_ from taxing one another. It +was said by Napoleon that duties should never be a fiscal instrument, +but a means of protecting industry. We plead the contrary, and say, that +duties should never be made an instrument of reciprocal rapine; but that +they may be employed as a useful fiscal machine. I am so far from asking +for the suppression of duties, that I look upon them as the anchor on +which the future salvation of our finances will depend. I believe that +they may bring immense receipts into the treasury, and, to give my +entire and undisguised opinion, I am inclined, from the slow progress of +healthy, economical doctrines, and from the magnitude of our budget, to +hope more for the cause of commercial reform from the necessities of +the 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 been +pretended, is it possible to maintain, that scarcity can be the basis of +a man's happiness? + +Yes; this has been maintained, this is daily maintained; and I do not +hesitate to say that the _scarcity theory_ is by far the most popular of +the 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 and +its practical mission, when it shall have rendered common and +irrefutable the simple proposition that "in abundance consist man's +riches." + +Do we not hear it said every day, "Foreign nations are inundating us +with their productions"? Then we fear abundance. + +Has not Mr. de Saint Cricq said, "Production is superabundant"? Then he +fears abundance. + +Do we not see workmen destroying and breaking machinery? They are +frightened by the excess of production; in other words, they fear +abundance. + +Has not Mr. Bugeaud said, "Let bread be dear and the agriculturist will +be 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 as +an argument against it? Has he not said, "The beet cannot have a +permanent and extended cultivation, because a few acres given up to it +in each department, would furnish sufficient for the consumption of all +France"? 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 and +to government that a wise policy should seek to raise prices by tariffs; +and do we not daily see these powers obeying these injunctions of the +press? Now, tariffs can only raise prices by diminishing the quantity of +goods offered for sale. Then, here we see newspapers, the legislature, +the ministry, all guided by the scarcity theory, and I was correct in my +statement that this theory is by far the most popular. + +How then has it happened, that in the eyes at once of laborers, editors +and statesmen, abundance should appear alarming, and scarcity +advantageous? It is my intention to endeavor to show the origin of this +delusion. + +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 high +price_. The price of his productions is high in proportion to their +scarcity. It is plain then, that, as far as regards him at least, +scarcity enriches him. Applying successively this mode of reasoning to +each class of laborers individually, the _scarcity theory_ is deduced +from it. To put this theory into practice, and in order to favor each +class of labor, an artificial scarcity is forced in every kind of +production, by prohibition, restriction, suppression of machinery, and +other analogous measures. + +In the same manner it is observed that when an article is abundant it +brings a small price. The gains of the producer are, of course, less. If +this is the case with all produce, all producers are then poor. +Abundance then ruins society. And as any strong conviction will always +seek to force itself into practice, we see, in many countries, the laws +aiming to prevent abundance. + +This sophism, stated in a general form, would produce but a slight +impression. But when applied to any particular order of facts, to any +particular article of industry, to any one class of labor, it is +extremely specious, because it is a syllogism which is not _false_, but +_incomplete_. And what is true in a syllogism always necessarily +presents itself to the mind, while the _incomplete_, which is a negative +quality, 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 of +view. Let us look at him in the second character and the conclusion will +be different. We may say, + +The consumer is rich in proportion as he _buys_ at a low price. He buys +at a low price in proportion to the abundance of the article in demand; +abundance then enriches him. This reasoning extended to all consumers +must lead to the _theory of abundance_! + +It is the imperfectly understood notion of exchange of produce which +leads to these fallacies. If we consult our individual interest, we +perceive immediately that it is double. As _sellers_ we are interested +in high prices, consequently in scarcity. As _buyers_ our advantage is +in cheapness, or what is the same thing, abundance. It is impossible +then to found a proper system of reasoning upon either the one or the +other of these separate interests before determining which of the two +coincides and identifies itself with the general and permanent interests +of 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 not +exchange his produce, the theory of scarcity could never have introduced +itself into the world. It would be too strikingly evident, that +abundance, whencesoever derived, is advantageous to him, whether this +abundance might be the result of his own labor, of ingenious tools, or +of powerful machinery; whether due to the fertility of the soil, to the +liberality of nature, or to an _inundation_ of foreign goods, such as +the sea bringing from distant regions might cast upon his shores. Never +would the solitary man have dreamed, in order to encourage his own +labor, of destroying his instruments for facilitating his work, of +neutralizing the fertility of the soil, or of casting back into the sea +the 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 has +required two hours per day to supply his necessities, any thing which +spares him an hour of this labor, leaving the result the same, gives him +this hour to dispose of as he pleases in adding to his comforts. In a +word, he would understand that every step in the _saving of labor_, is a +step in the improvement of his condition. But traffic clouds our vision +in the contemplation of this simple truth. In a state of society with +the division of labor to which it leads, the production and consumption +of an article no longer belong to the same individual. Each now looks +upon his labor not as a means, but as an end. The exchange of produce +creates with regard to each object two separate interests, that of the +producer and that of the consumer; and these two interests are always +directly opposed to each other. + +It is essential to analyze and study the nature of each. Let us then +suppose a producer of whatever kind; what is his immediate interest? It +consists in two things: 1st, that the smallest possible number of +individuals should devote themselves to the business which he follows; +and 2dly, that the greatest possible number should seek the articles of +his produce. In the more succinct terms of Political Economy, the supply +should be small, the demand large; or yet in other words: limited +competition, unlimited consumption. + +What on the other side is the immediate interest of the consumer? That +the supply should be large, the demand small. + +As these two interests are immediately opposed to each other, it follows +that if one coincides with the general interest of society the other +must be adverse to it. + +Which then, if either, should legislation favor as contributing most to +the good of the community? + +To determine this question, it suffices to inquire in which the secret +desires of the majority of men would be accomplished. + +Inasmuch as we are producers, it must be confessed that we have each of +us 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: _this +is the scarcity theory_. Are we iron-workers? We would desire (whatever +might be the public need) that the market should offer no iron but our +own; and precisely for the reason that this need, painfully felt and +imperfectly supplied, causes us to receive a high price for _our_ iron: +_again here is the theory of scarcity_. Are we agriculturists? We say +with Mr. Bugeaud, let bread be dear, that is to say scarce, and our +business goes well: _again the theory of scarcity_. + +Are we physicians? We cannot but see that certain physical +ameliorations, such as the improved climate of the country, the +development of certain moral virtues, the progress of knowledge pushed +to the extent of enabling each individual to take care of his own +health, the discovery of certain simple remedies easily applied, would +be so many fatal blows to our profession. As physicians, then, our +secret desires are anti-social. I must not be understood to imply that +physicians allow themselves to form such desires. I am happy to believe +that they would hail with joy a universal panacea. But in such a +sentiment it is the man, the Christian, who manifests himself, and who +by a praiseworthy abnegation of self, takes that point of view of the +question, which belongs to the consumer. As a physician exercising his +profession, and gaining from this profession his standing in society, +his comforts, even the means of existence of his family, it is +impossible but that his desires, or if you please so to word it, his +interests, should be anti-social. + +Are we manufacturers of cotton goods? We desire to sell them at the +price most advantageous to _ourselves_. We would willingly consent to +the suppression of all rival manufactories. And if we dare not publicly +express this desire, or pursue the complete realization of it with some +success, we do so, at least to a certain extent, by indirect means; as +for example, the exclusion of foreign goods, in order to diminish the +_quantity offered_, and to produce thus by forcible means, and for our +own profits, a _scarcity_ of clothing. + +We might thus pass in review every business and every profession, and +should always find that the producers, _in their character of +producers_, have invariably anti-social interests. "The shop-keeper +(says Montaigne) succeeds in his business through the extravagance of +youth; the laborer by the high price of grain; the architect by the +decay of houses; officers of justice by lawsuits and quarrels. The +standing and occupation even of ministers of religion are drawn from our +death and our vices. No physician takes pleasure in the health even of +his friends; no soldier in the peace of his country; and so on with +all." + +If then the secret desires of each producer were realized, the world +would rapidly retrograde towards barbarism. The sail would proscribe +steam; the oar would proscribe the sail, only in its turn to give way to +wagons, the wagon to the mule, and the mule to the foot-peddler. Wool +would exclude cotton; cotton would exclude wool; and thus on, until the +scarcity and want of every thing would cause man himself to disappear +from the face of the globe. + +If we now go on to consider the immediate interest of the _consumer_, we +shall find it in perfect harmony with the public interest, and with the +well-being of humanity. When the buyer presents himself in the market, +he desires to find it abundantly furnished. He sees with pleasure +propitious seasons for harvesting; wonderful inventions putting within +his reach the largest possible quantity of produce; time and labor +saved; distances effaced; the spirit of peace and justice diminishing +the weight of taxes; every barrier to improvement cast down; and in all +this his interest runs parallel with an enlightened public interest. He +may push his secret desires to an absurd and chimerical height, but +never can they cease to be humanizing in their tendency. He may desire +that food and clothing, house and hearth, instruction and morality, +security and peace, strength and health, should come to us without limit +and without labor or effort on our part, as the water of the stream, the +air which we breathe, and the sunbeams in which we bask, but never could +the realization of his most extravagant wishes run counter to the good +of society. + +It may be said, perhaps, that were these desires granted, the labor of +the producer constantly checked would end by being entirely arrested +for want of support. But why? Because in this extreme supposition every +imaginable need and desire would be completely satisfied. Man, like the +All-powerful, would create by the single act of his will. How in such an +hypothesis could laborious production be regretted? + +Imagine a legislative assembly composed of producers, of whom each +member should cause to pass into a law his secret desire as a +_producer_; the code which would emanate from such an assembly could be +nothing but systematized monopoly; the scarcity theory put into +practice. + +In the same manner, an assembly in which each member should consult only +his immediate interest of _consumer_ would aim at the systematizing of +free trade; the suppression of every restrictive measure; the +destruction of artificial barriers; in a word, would realize the theory +of abundance. + +It follows then, + +That to consult exclusively the immediate interest of the producer, is +to consult an anti-social interest. + +To take exclusively for basis the interest of the consumer, is to take +for basis the general interest. + + * * * * * + +Let me be permitted to insist once more upon this point of view, though +at 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, and +at 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 seller +against the buyer; for the producer against the consumer; for high +against low prices; for scarcity against abundance. They act, if not +intentionally at least logically, upon the principle that _a nation is +rich in proportion as it is in want of every thing_. + +For, say they, it is necessary to favor the producer by securing him a +profitable disposal of his goods. To effect this, their price must be +raised; to raise the price the supply must be diminished; and to +diminish the supply is to create scarcity. + +Let us suppose that at this moment, with these laws in full action, a +complete inventory should be made, not by value, but by weight, measure +and quantity, of all articles now in France calculated to supply the +necessities and pleasures of its inhabitants; as grain, meat, woollen +and cotton goods, fuel, etc. + +Let us suppose again that to-morrow every barrier to the introduction of +foreign goods should be removed. + +Then, to judge of the effect of such a reform, let a new inventory be +made three months hence. + +Is it not certain that at the time of the second inventory, the +quantity of grain, cattle, goods, iron, coal, sugar, etc., will be +greater than at the first? + +So true is this, that the sole object of our protective tariffs is to +prevent such articles from reaching us, to diminish the supply, to +prevent 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 fed +because there is _less_ bread, _less_ meat, and _less_ sugar in the +country? Are they better dressed because there are _fewer_ goods? Better +warmed because there is _less_ coal? Or do they prosper better in their +labor 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 dress +in gold, nor warm himself with silver. What difference does it make +whether there be more or less coin in the country, provided there be +more bread in the cupboard, more meat in the larder, more clothing in +the 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 the +people as much as possible. If you do not allow it, then you deny your +power to diminish the supply, to raise the price, and consequently you +deny 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 a +multitude of _obstacles_ which it is the object of labor to surmount. It +is interesting to seek how and why he could have been led to look even +upon these obstacles to his happiness as the cause of it. + +I wish to take a journey of some hundred miles. But, between the point +of my departure and my destination, there are interposed, mountains, +rivers, swamps, forests, robbers--in a word, _obstacles_; and to conquer +these obstacles, it is necessary that I should bestow much labor and +great efforts in opposing them;--or, what is the same thing, if others +do it for me, I must pay them the value of their exertions. It is +evident that I should have been better off had these obstacles never +existed. + +Through the journey of life, in the long series of days from the cradle +to the tomb, man has many difficulties to oppose him in his progress. +Hunger, thirst, sickness, heat, cold, are so many obstacles scattered +along his road. In a state of isolation, he would be obliged to combat +them all by hunting, fishing, agriculture, spinning, weaving, +architecture, etc., and it is very evident that it would be better for +him that these difficulties should exist to a less degree, or even not +at all. In a state of society he is not obliged, personally, to struggle +with each of these obstacles, but others do it for him; and he, in +return, 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 be +better for society that these obstacles should be as weak and as few as +possible. + +But if we examine closely and in detail the phenomena of society, and +the private interests of men as modified by exchange of produce, we +perceive, without difficulty, how it has happened that wants have been +confounded with riches, and the obstacle with the cause. + +The separation of occupations, which results from the habits of +exchange, causes each man, instead of struggling against all surrounding +obstacles to combat only _one_; the effort being made not for himself +alone, but for the benefit of his fellows, who, in their turn, render a +similar service to him. + +Now, it hence results, that this man looks upon the obstacle which he +has made it his profession to combat for the benefit of others, as the +immediate cause of his riches. The greater, the more serious, the more +stringent may be this obstacle, the more he is remunerated for the +conquering of it, by those who are relieved by his labors. + +A physician, for instance, does not busy himself in baking his bread, or +in manufacturing his clothing and his instruments; others do it for him, +and he, in return, combats the maladies with which his patients are +afflicted. The more dangerous and frequent these maladies are, the more +others are willing, the more, even, are they forced, to work in his +service. Disease, then, which is an obstacle to the happiness of +mankind, becomes to him the source of his comforts. The reasoning of all +producers is, in what concerns themselves, the same. As the doctor draws +his profits from disease, so does the ship owner from the obstacle +called _distance_; the agriculturist from that named _hunger_; the cloth +manufacturer from _cold_; the schoolmaster lives upon _ignorance_, the +jeweler upon _vanity_, the lawyer upon _quarrels_, the notary upon +_breach of faith_. Each profession has then an immediate interest in +the continuation, even in the extension, of the particular obstacle to +which its attention has been directed. + +Theorists hence go on to found a system upon these individual interests, +and say: Wants are riches: Labor is riches: The obstacle to well-being +is well-being: To multiply obstacles is to give food to industry. + +Then comes the statesman;--and as the developing and propagating of +obstacles is the developing and propagating of riches, what more natural +than that he should bend his efforts to that point? He says, for +instance: If we prevent a large importation of iron, we create a +difficulty in procuring it. This obstacle severely felt, obliges +individuals to pay, in order to relieve themselves from it. A certain +number of our citizens, giving themselves up to the combating of this +obstacle, will thereby make their fortunes. In proportion, too, as the +obstacle is great, and the mineral scarce, inaccessible, and of +difficult and distant transportation, in the same proportion will be the +number of laborers maintained by the various branches of this industry. + +The same reasoning will lead to the 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 the +manufacture of casks. It is fortunate, say our statesmen, that this +obstacle exists, since it occupies a portion of the labor of the +nation, and enriches a certain number of our citizens. But here is +presented to us an ingenious machine, which cuts down the oak, squares +it, makes it into staves, and, gathering these together, forms them into +casks. The obstacle is thus diminished, and with it the profits of the +coopers. We must prevent this. Let us proscribe the machine! + +To sift thoroughly this sophism, it is sufficient to remember that human +labor is not an _end_, but a _means_. _It is never without employment._ +If one obstacle is removed, it seizes another, and mankind is delivered +from two obstacles by the same effort which was at first necessary for +one. If the labor of coopers becomes useless, it must take another +direction. But with what, it may be asked, will they be remunerated? +Precisely with what they are at present remunerated. For if a certain +quantity of labor becomes free from its original occupation, to be +otherwise disposed of, a corresponding quantity of wages must thus also +become free. To maintain that human labor can end by wanting employment, +it would be necessary to prove that mankind will cease to encounter +obstacles. In such a case, labor would be not only impossible, it would +be superfluous. We should have nothing to do, because we should be +all-powerful, and our _fiat_ alone would satisfy at once our wants and +our desires. + + + + +III. + +EFFORT--RESULT. + + +We have seen that between our wants and their gratification many +obstacles are interposed. We conquer or weaken these by the employment +of our faculties. It may be said, in general terms, that industry is an +effort followed by a result. + +But by what do we measure our well-being? By the _result_ of our effort, +or by the _effort itself_? There exists always a proportion between the +effort employed and the result obtained. Does progress consist in the +relative increase of the second or of the first term of this proportion? + +Both propositions have been sustained, and in political economy opinions +are divided between them. + +According to the first system, riches are the result of labor. They +increase in the same ratio as _the result does to the effort_. Absolute +perfection, of which _God_ is the type, consists in the infinite +distance between these two terms in this relation, viz., effort none, +result infinite. + +The second system maintains that it is the effort itself which forms the +measure of, and constitutes, our riches. Progression is the increase of +the _proportion of the effort to the result_. Its ideal extreme may be +represented by the eternal and fruitless efforts of Sisyphus.[7] + +[Footnote 7: We will therefore beg the reader to allow us in future, for +the sake of conciseness, to designate this system under the term of +_Sisyphism_.] + +The first system tends naturally to the encouragement of every thing +which diminishes difficulties, and augments production,--as powerful +machinery, which adds to the strength of man; the exchange of produce, +which allows us to profit by the various natural agents distributed in +different degrees over the surface of our globe; the intellect which +discovers, experience which proves, and emulation which excites. + +The second as logically inclines to every thing which can augment the +difficulty 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 always +guided by the principle of the first system. Every _workman_, whether +agriculturist, manufacturer, merchant, soldier, writer or philosopher, +devotes the strength of his intellect to do better, to do more quickly, +more economically,--in a word, _to do more with less_. + +The opposite doctrine is in use with legislators, editors, statesmen, +men whose business is to make experiments upon society. And even of +these we may observe, that in what personally concerns _themselves_, +they act, like every body else, upon the principle of obtaining from +their labor the greatest possible quantity of useful results. + +It may be supposed that I exaggerate, and that there are no true +_Sisyphists_. + +I grant that in practice the principle is not pushed to its extremest +consequences. And this must always be the case when one starts upon a +wrong principle, because the absurd and injurious results to which it +leads, cannot but check it in its progress. For this reason, practical +industry never can admit of _Sisyphism_. The error is too quickly +followed by its punishment to remain concealed. But in the speculative +industry of theorists and statesmen, a false principle may be for a long +time followed up, before the complication of its consequences, only half +understood, can prove its falsity; and even when all is revealed, the +opposite principle is acted upon, self is contradicted, and +justification sought, in the incomparably absurd modern axiom, that in +political economy there is no principle universally true. + +Let us see then, if the two opposite principles I have laid down do not +predominate, each in its turn;--the one in practical industry, the other +in industrial legislation. + +I have already quoted some words of Mr. Bugeaud; but we must look on Mr. +Bugeaud in two separate characters, the agriculturist and the +legislator. + +As agriculturist, Mr. Bugeaud makes every effort to attain the double +object of sparing labor, and obtaining bread cheap. When he prefers a +good plough to a bad one, when he improves the quality of his manures; +when, to loosen his soil, he substitutes as much as possible the action +of the atmosphere for that of the hoe or the harrow; when he calls to +his aid every improvement that science and experience have revealed, he +has, and can have, but one object, viz., _to diminish the proportion of +the effort to the result_. We have indeed no other means of judging of +the success of an agriculturist, or of the merits of his system, but by +observing how far he has succeeded in lessening the one, while he +increases the other; and as all the farmers in the world act upon this +principle, we may say that all mankind are seeking, no doubt for their +own advantage, to obtain at the lowest price, bread, or whatever other +article of produce they may need, always diminishing the effort +necessary for obtaining any given quantity thereof. + +This incontestable tendency of human nature, once proved, would, one +might suppose, be sufficient to point out the true principle to the +legislator, and to show him how he ought to assist industry (if indeed +it is any part of his business to assist it at all), for it would be +absurd to say that the laws of men should operate in an inverse ratio +from those of Providence. + +Yet we have heard Mr. Bugeaud in his character of legislator, exclaim, +"I do not understand this theory of cheapness; I would rather see bread +dear, and work more abundant." And consequently the deputy from Dordogne +votes in favor of legislative measures whose effect is to shackle and +impede commerce, precisely because by so doing we are prevented from +procuring by exchange, and at low price, what direct production can only +furnish more expensively. + +Now it is very evident that the system of Mr. Bugeaud the deputy, is +directly opposed to that of Mr. Bugeaud the agriculturist. Were he +consistent with himself, he would as legislator vote against all +restriction; or else as farmer, he would practice in his fields the same +principle which he proclaims in the public councils. We should then see +him sowing his grain in his most sterile fields, because he would thus +succeed in _laboring much_, to _obtain little_. We should see him +forbidding the use of the plough, because he could, by scratching up the +soil with his nails, fully gratify his double wish of "_dear bread_ and +_abundant labor_." + +Restriction has for its avowed object, and acknowledged effect, the +augmentation of labor. And again, equally avowed and acknowledged, its +object and effect are, the increase of prices;--a synonymous term for +scarcity of produce. Pushed then to its greatest extreme, it is pure +_Sisyphism_ as we have defined it: _labor infinite; result nothing_. + +Baron Charles Dupin, who is looked upon as the oracle of the peerage in +the science of political economy, accuses railroads of _injuring +shipping_, and it is certainly true that the most perfect means of +attaining an object must always limit the use of a less perfect means. +But railways can only injure shipping by drawing from it articles of +transportation; this they can only do by transporting more cheaply; and +they can only transport more cheaply, by _diminishing the proportion of +the effort employed to the result obtained_; for it is in this that +cheapness consists. When, therefore, Baron Dupin laments the suppression +of labor in attaining a given result, he maintains the doctrine of +_Sisyphism_. Logically, if he prefers the vessel to the railway, he +should also prefer the wagon to the vessel, the pack-saddle to the +wagon, and the wallet to the pack-saddle; for this is, of all known +means of transportation, the one which requires the greatest amount of +labor, in proportion to the result obtained. + +"Labor constitutes the riches of the people," said Mr. de Saint Cricq, a +minister who has laid not a few shackles upon our commerce. This was no +elliptical expression, meaning that the "results of labor constitute the +riches of the people." No,--this statesman intended to say, that it is +the _intensity_ of labor, which measures riches; and the proof of this +is, that from step to step, from restriction to restriction, he forced +on France (and in so doing believed that he was doing well) to give to +the procuring, of, for instance, a certain quantity of iron, double the +necessary labor. In England, iron was then at eight francs; in France it +cost sixteen. Supposing the day's work to be worth one franc, it is +evident that France could, by barter, procure a quintal of iron by eight +days' labor taken from the labor of the nation. Thanks to the +restrictive measures of Mr. de Saint Cricq, sixteen days' work were +necessary to procure it, by direct production. Here then we have double +labor for an identical result; therefore double riches; and riches, +measured not by the result, but by the intensity of labor. Is not this +pure and unadulterated _Sisyphism_? + +That there may be nothing equivocal, the minister carries his idea still +farther, and on the same principle that we have heard him call the +intensity of labor _riches_, we will find him calling the abundant +results of labor, and the plenty of every thing proper to the satisfying +of our wants, _poverty_. "Every where," he remarks, "machinery has +pushed aside manual labor; every where production is superabundant; +every where the equilibrium is destroyed between the power of production +and that of consumption." Here then we see that, according to Mr. de +Saint Cricq, if France was in a critical situation, it was because her +productions were too abundant; there was too much intelligence, too +much efficiency in her national labor. We were too well fed, too well +clothed, too well supplied with every thing; the rapid production was +more than sufficient for our wants. It was necessary to put an end to +this calamity, and therefore it became needful to force us, by +restrictions, to work more, in order to produce less. + +I also touched upon an opinion expressed by another minister of +commerce, Mr. d'Argout, which is worthy of being a little more closely +looked into. Wishing to give a death blow to the beet, he said: "The +culture of the beet is undoubtedly useful, _but this usefulness is +limited_. It is not capable of the prodigious developments which have +been predicted of it. To be convinced of this it is enough to remark +that the cultivation of it must necessarily be confined within the +limits of consumption. Double, treble if you will, the present +consumption of France, and _you will still find that a very small +portion of her soil will suffice for this consumption_. (Truly a most +singular cause of complaint!) Do you wish the proof of this? How many +hectares were planted in beets in the year 1828? 3,130, which is +1-10540th of our cultivable soil. How many are there at this time, when +our domestic sugar supplies one-third of the consumption of the country? +16,700 hectares, or 1-1978th of the cultivable soil, or 45 centiares for +each commune. Suppose that our domestic sugar should monopolize the +supply of the whole consumption, we still would have but 48,000 hectares +or 1-689th of our cultivable soil in beets."[8] + +[Footnote 8: In justice to Mr. d'Argout we should say that this singular +language is given by him as the argument of the enemies of the beet. But +he made it his own, and sanctioned it by the law in justification of +which he adduced it.] + +There are two things to consider in this quotation. The facts and the +doctrine. The facts go to prove that very little soil, capital, and +labor would be necessary for the production of a large quantity of +sugar; and that each commune of France would be abundantly provided with +it by giving up one hectare to its cultivation. The peculiarity of the +doctrine consists in the looking upon this facility of production as an +unfortunate circumstance, and the regarding the very fruitfulness of +this 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 is +worth the trouble of examining into the doctrines of a statesman, to +whose judgment France, for a long time, confided the fate of her +agriculture and her commerce. + +I began by saying that a variable proportion exists in all industrial +pursuits, between the effort and the result. Absolute imperfection +consists in an infinite effort, without any result; absolute perfection +in an unlimited result, without any effort; and perfectibility, in the +progressive diminution of the effort, compared with the result. + +But Mr. d'Argout tells us, that where we looked for life, we shall find +only death. The importance of any object of industry is, according to +him, in direct proportion to its feebleness. What, for instance, can we +expect from the beet? Do you not see that 48,000 hectares of land, with +capital and labor in proportion, will suffice to furnish sugar to all +France? It is then an object of _limited usefulness_; limited, be it +understood, in the _work_ which it calls for; and this is the sole +measure, according to our minister, of the usefulness of any pursuit. +This usefulness would be much more limited still, if, thanks to the +fertility of the soil, or the richness of the beet, 24,000 hectares +would serve instead of 48,000. If there were only needed twenty times, a +hundred times more soil, more capital, more labor, to _attain the same +result_--Oh! then some hopes might be founded upon this article of +industry; it would be worthy of the protection of the state, for it +would open a vast field to national labor. But to produce much with +little 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 be +calculated, not by the comforts which it can furnish with a certain +quantum of labor, but, on the contrary, by the increase of labor which +it requires in order to furnish a certain quantity of comforts, it is +evident that we ought to desire, that each acre of land should produce +little corn, and that each grain of corn should furnish little +nutriment; in other words, that our territory should be sterile enough +to require a considerably larger proportion of soil, capital, and labor +to nourish its population. The demand for human labor could not fail to +be in direct proportion to this sterility, and then truly would the +wishes of Messrs. Bugeaud, Saint Cricq, Dupin, and d'Argout be +satisfied; bread would be dear, work abundant, and France would be +rich--rich according to the understanding of these gentlemen. + +All that we could have further to hope for, would be, that human +intellect might sink and become extinct; for, while intellect exists, it +can but seek continually to increase the _proportion of the end to the +means; of the product to the labor_. Indeed it is in this continuous +effort, and in this alone, that intellect consists. + +_Sisyphism_ has then been the doctrine of all those who have been +intrusted with the regulation of the industry of our country. It would +not be just to reproach them with this; for this principle becomes that +of our ministry, only because it prevails in the chambers; it prevails +in the chambers, only because it is sent there by the electoral body; +and the electoral body is imbued with it, only because public opinion +is 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 personal +transactions; very certainly each one of them will procure for himself +_by barter_, what by _direct production_ would be attainable only at a +higher price. But I maintain that they are _Sisyphists_ when they +prevent the country from acting upon the same principle. + + + + +IV. + +EQUALIZING OF THE FACILITIES OF PRODUCTION. + + +It is said ... but, for fear of being accused of manufacturing Sophisms +for the mouths of the protectionists, I will allow one of their most +able reasoners to speak for himself. + +"It is our belief that protection should correspond to, should be the +representation of, the difference which exists between the price of an +article of home production and a similar article of foreign +production.... A protecting duty calculated upon such a basis does +nothing more than secure free competition; ... free competition can +only exist where there is an equality in the facilities of production. +In a horse-race the load which each horse carries is weighed and all +advantages equalized; otherwise there could be no competition. In +commerce, if one producer can undersell all others, he ceases to be a +competitor and becomes a monopolist.... Suppress the protection which +represents the difference of price according to each, and foreign +productions must immediately inundate and obtain the monopoly of our +market."[9] + +[Footnote 9: M. le Vicomte de Romanet.] + +"Every one ought to wish, for his own sake and for that of the +community, that the productions of the country should be protected +against foreign competition, _whenever the latter may be able to +undersell the former_."[10] + +[Footnote 10: Mathieu de Dombasle.] + +This argument is constantly recurring in all writings of the +protectionist school. It is my intention to make a careful investigation +of its merits, and I must begin by soliciting the attention and the +patience of the reader. I will first examine into the inequalities which +depend upon natural causes, and afterwards into those which are caused +by diversity of taxes. + +Here, as elsewhere, we find the theorists who favor protection, taking +part with the producer. Let us consider the case of the unfortunate +consumer, who seems to have entirely escaped their attention. They +compare the field of production to the _turf_. But on the turf, the race +is at once a _means and an end_. The public has no interest in the +struggle, independent of the struggle itself. When your horses are +started in the course with the single object of determining which is the +best runner, nothing is more natural than that their burdens should be +equalized. But if your object were to send an important and critical +piece of intelligence, could you without incongruity place obstacles to +the speed of that one whose fleetness would secure the best means of +attaining your end? And yet this is your course in relation to industry. +You forget the end aimed at, which is the _well-being_ of the community. + +But we cannot lead our opponents to look at things from our point of +view, let us now take theirs; let us examine the question as producers. + +I will seek to prove + +1. That equalizing the facilities of production is to attack the +foundations of all trade. + +2. That it is not true that the labor of one country can be crushed by +the competition of more favored climates. + +3. That, even were this the case, protective duties cannot equalize the +facilities of production. + +4. That freedom of trade equalizes these conditions as much as possible; +and + +5. That the countries which are the least favored by nature are those +which profit most by freedom of trade. + +I. The equalizing of the facilities of production, is not only the +shackling of certain articles of commerce, but it is the attacking of +the system of mutual exchange in its very foundation principle. For this +system is based precisely upon the very diversities, or, if the +expression be preferred, upon the inequalities of fertility, climate, +temperature, capabilities, which the protectionists seek to render null. +If Guyenne sends its wines to Brittany, and Brittany sends corn to +Guyenne, it is because these two provinces are, from different +circumstances, induced to turn their attention to the production of +different articles. Is there any other rule for international exchanges? +Again, to bring against such exchanges the very inequalities of +condition which excite and explain them, is to attack them in their very +cause of being. The protective system, closely followed up, would bring +men to live like snails, in a state of complete isolation. In short, +there is not one of its Sophisms, which if carried through by vigorous +deductions, would not end in destruction and annihilation. + +II. It is not true that the unequal facility of production, in two +similar branches of industry, should necessarily cause the destruction +of the one which is the least fortunate. On the turf, if one horse gains +the prize, the other loses it; but when two horses work to produce any +useful article, each produces in proportion to his strength; and because +the stronger is the more useful, it does not follow that the weaker is +good for nothing. Wheat is cultivated in every department of France, +although there are great differences in the degree of fertility existing +among them. If it happens that there be one which does not cultivate it, +it is because, even to itself, such cultivation is not useful. Analogy +will show us, that under the influence of an unshackled trade, +notwithstanding similar differences, wheat would be produced in every +kingdom of Europe; and if any one were induced to abandon entirely the +cultivation of it, this would only be, because it would _be her +interest_ to employ otherwise her lands, her capital, and her labor. And +why does not the fertility of one department paralyze the agriculture of +a neighboring and less favored one? Because the phenomena of political +economy have a suppleness, an elasticity, and, so to speak, _a +self-leveling power_, which seems to escape the attention of the school +of protectionists. They accuse us of being theorists, but it is +themselves who are theorists to a supreme degree, if being theoretic +consists in building up systems upon the experience of a single fact, +instead of profiting by the experience of a series of facts. In the +above example, it is the difference in the value of lands, which +compensates for the difference in their fertility. Your field produces +three times as much as mine. Yes. But it has cost you three times as +much, and therefore I can still compete with you: this is the sole +mystery. And observe how the advantage on one point leads to +disadvantage on the other. Precisely because your soil is more fruitful, +it is more dear. It is not _accidentally_ but _necessarily_ that the +equilibrium is established, or at least inclines to establish itself; +and can it be denied that perfect freedom in exchanges is, of all the +systems, the one which favors this tendency? + +I have cited an agricultural example; I might as easily have taken one +from any trade. There are tailors at Quimper, but that does not prevent +tailors from being in Paris also, although the latter have to pay a much +higher rent, as well as higher price for furniture, workmen, and food. +But their customers are sufficiently numerous not only to re-establish +the balance, but also to make it lean on their side. + +When therefore the question is about equalizing the advantages of labor, +it would be well to consider whether the natural freedom of exchange is +not the best umpire. + +This self-leveling faculty of political phenomena is so important, and +at the same time so well calculated to cause us to admire the +providential wisdom which presides over the equalizing government of +society, that I must ask permission a little longer, to turn to it the +attention of the reader. + +The protectionists say, Such a nation has the advantage over us, in +being able to procure cheaply, coal, iron, machinery, capital; it is +impossible for us to compete with it. + +We must examine the proposition under other aspects. For the present, I +stop at the question, whether, when an advantage and a disadvantage are +placed in juxtaposition, they do not bear in themselves, the former a +descending, the latter an ascending power, which must end by placing +them in a just equilibrium. + +Let us suppose the countries A and B. A has every advantage over B; you +thence conclude that labor will be concentrated upon A, while B must be +abandoned. A, you say, sells much more than it buys; B buys more than it +sells. I might dispute this, but I will meet you upon your own ground. + +In the hypothesis, labor, being in great demand in A, soon rises in +value; while labor, iron, coal, lands, food, capital, all being little +sought after in B, soon fall in price. + +Again: A being always selling and B always buying, cash passes from B to +A. It is abundant in A--very scarce in B. + +But where there is abundance of cash, it follows that in all purchases a +large proportion of it will be needed. Then in A, _real dearness_, which +proceeds from a very active demand, is added to _nominal dearness_, the +consequence of a superabundance of the precious metals. + +Scarcity of money implies that little is necessary for each purchase. +Then in B, a _nominal cheapness_ is combined with _real cheapness_. + +Under these circumstances, industry will have the strongest possible +motives for deserting A, to establish itself in B. + +Now, to return to what would be the true course of things. As the +progress of such events is always gradual, industry from its nature +being opposed to sudden transits, let us suppose that, without waiting +the extreme point, it will have gradually divided itself between A and +B, according to the laws of supply and demand; that is to say, according +to the laws of justice and usefulness. + +I do not advance an empty hypothesis when I say, that were it possible +that industry should concentrate itself upon a single point, there must, +from its nature, arise spontaneously, and in its midst, an irresistible +power of decentralization. + +We will quote the words of a manufacturer to the Chamber of Commerce at +Manchester (the figures brought into his demonstration are suppressed): + +"Formerly we exported goods; this exportation gave way to that of thread +for the manufacture of goods; later, instead of thread, we exported +machinery for the making of thread; then capital for the construction +of machinery; and lastly, workmen and talent, which are the source of +capital. All these elements of labor have, one after the other, +transferred themselves to other points, where their profits were +increased, and where the means of subsistence being less difficult to +obtain, life is maintained at a less cost. There are at present to be +seen in Prussia, Austria, Saxony, Switzerland, and Italy, immense +manufacturing establishments, founded entirely by English capital, +worked by English labor, and directed by English talent." + +We may here perceive, that Nature, or rather Providence, with more +wisdom and foresight than the narrow rigid system of the protectionists +can suppose, does not permit the concentration of labor, the monopoly of +advantages, from which they draw their arguments as from an absolute and +irremediable fact. It has, by means as simple as they are infallible, +provided for dispersion, diffusion, mutual dependence, and simultaneous +progress; all of which, your restrictive laws paralyze as much as is in +their power, by their tendency towards the isolation of nations. By this +means they render much more decided the differences existing in the +conditions of production; they check the self-leveling power of +industry, prevent fusion of interests, and fence in each nation within +its own peculiar advantages and disadvantages. + +III. To say that by a protective law the conditions of production are +equalized, is to disguise an error under false terms. It is not true +that an import duty equalizes the conditions of production. These remain +after the imposition of the duty just as they were before. The most that +the law can do is to equalize the _conditions of sale_. If it should be +said that I am playing upon words, I retort the accusation upon my +adversaries. It is for them to prove that _production_ and _sale_ are +synonymous terms, which if they cannot do, I have a right to accuse +them, if not of playing upon words, at least of confounding them. + +Let me be permitted to exemplify my idea. + +Suppose that several Parisian speculators should determine to devote +themselves to the production of oranges. They know that the oranges of +Portugal can be sold in Paris at ten centimes, whilst on account of the +boxes, hot-houses, etc., which are necessary to ward against the +severity of our climate, it is impossible to raise them at less than a +franc apiece. They accordingly demand a duty of ninety centimes upon +Portugal oranges. With the help of this duty, say they, the _conditions +of production_ will be equalized. The legislative body, yielding as +usual to this argument, imposes a duty of ninety centimes on each +foreign orange. + +Now I say that the _relative conditions of production_ are in no wise +changed. The law can take nothing from the heat of the sun in Lisbon, +nor from the severity of the frosts in Paris. Oranges continuing to +mature themselves _naturally_ on the banks of the Tagus, and +artificially upon those of the Seine, must continue to require for their +production much more labor on the latter than the former. The law can +only equalize the _conditions of sale_. It is evident that while the +Portuguese sell their oranges at a franc apiece, the ninety centimes +which go to pay the tax are taken from the French consumer. Now look at +the whimsicality of the result. Upon each Portuguese orange, the country +loses nothing; for the ninety centimes which the consumer pays to +satisfy the tax, enter into the treasury. There is improper +distribution, but no loss. Upon each French orange consumed, there will +be about ninety centimes lost; for while the buyer very certainly loses +them, the seller just as certainly does not gain them, for even +according to the hypothesis, he will receive only the price of +production. I will leave it to the protectionists to draw their +conclusion. + +IV. I have laid some stress upon this distinction between the conditions +of production and those of sale, which perhaps the prohibitionists may +consider as paradoxical, because it leads me on to what they will +consider as a still stranger paradox. This is: If you really wish to +equalize the facilities of production, leave trade free. + +This may surprise the protectionists; but let me entreat them to +listen, if it be only through curiosity, to the end of my argument. It +shall not be long. I will now take it up where we left off. + +If we suppose for the moment, that the common and daily profits of each +Frenchman amount to one franc, it will indisputably follow that to +produce an orange by _direct_ labor in France, one day's work, or its +equivalent, will be requisite; whilst to produce the cost of a +Portuguese orange, only one-tenth of this day's labor is required; which +means 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 the +same thing, the means of buying it, with one-tenth of a day's labor, I +am placed exactly in the same condition as the Portuguese producer +himself, excepting the expense of the transportation? It is then certain +that freedom of commerce equalizes the conditions of production direct +or indirect, as much as it is possible to equalize them; for it leaves +but the one inevitable difference, that of transportation. + +I will add that free trade equalizes also the facilities for attaining +enjoyments, comforts, and general consumption; the last an object which +is, it would seem, quite forgotten, and which is nevertheless all +important; since consumption is the main object of all our industrial +efforts. Thanks to freedom of trade, we would enjoy here the results of +the Portuguese sun, as well as Portugal itself; and the inhabitants of +Havre, would have in their reach, as well as those of London, and with +the same facilities, the advantages which nature has in a mineralogical +point of view conferred upon Newcastle. + +The protectionists may suppose me in a paradoxical humor, for I go +farther still. I say, and I sincerely believe, that if any two countries +are placed in unequal circumstances as to advantages of production, +_that one of the two which is the least favored by nature, will gain +most by freedom of commerce_. To prove this, I shall be obliged to turn +somewhat aside from the form of reasoning which belongs to this work. I +will do so, however; first, because the question in discussion turns +upon this point; and again, because it will give me the opportunity of +exhibiting a law of political economy of the highest importance, and +which, well understood, seems to me to be destined to lead back to this +science all those sects which, in our days, are seeking in the land of +chimeras that social harmony which they have been unable to discover in +nature. I speak of the law of consumption, which the majority of +political economists may well be reproached with having too much +neglected. + +Consumption is the _end_, the final cause, of all the phenomena of +political economy, and, consequently, in it is found their final +solution. + +No effect, whether favorable or unfavorable, can be arrested permanently +upon the producer. The advantages and the disadvantages, which, from +his relations to nature and to society, are his, both equally pass +gradually from him, with an almost insensible tendency to be absorbed +and fused into the community at large; the community considered as +consumers. This is an admirable law, alike in its cause and its effects, +and he who shall succeed in making it well understood, will have a right +to say, "I have not, in my passage through the world, forgotten to pay +my tribute to society." + +Every circumstance which favors the work of production is of course +hailed with joy by the producer, for its _immediate effect_ is to enable +him to render greater services to the community, and to exact from it a +greater remuneration. Every circumstance which injures production, must +equally be the source of uneasiness to him; for its _immediate effect_ +is to diminish his services, and consequently his remuneration. This is +a fortunate and necessary law of nature. The immediate good or evil of +favorable or unfavorable circumstances must fall upon the producer, in +order to influence him invincibly to seek the one and to avoid the +other. + +Again, when a workman succeeds in his labor, the _immediate_ benefit of +this success is received by him. This again is necessary, to determine +him to devote his attention to it. It is also just; because it is just +that an effort crowned with success should bring its own reward. + +But these effects, good and bad, although permanent in themselves, are +not so as regards the producer. If they had been so, a principle of +progressive and consequently infinite _inequality_ would have been +introduced among men. This good, and this evil, both therefore pass on, +to become absorbed in the general destinies of humanity. + +How does this come about? I will try to make it understood by some +examples. + +Let us go back to the thirteenth century. Men who gave themselves up to +the business of copying, received for this service _a remuneration +regulated by the general rate of profits_. Among them is found one, who +seeks and finds the means of multiplying rapidly copies of the same +work. He invents printing. The first effect of this is, that the +individual is enriched, while many more are impoverished. At the first +view, wonderful as the discovery is, one hesitates in deciding whether +it is not more injurious than useful. It seems to have introduced into +the world, as I said above, an element of infinite inequality. +Guttenberg makes large profits by this invention, and perfects the +invention by the profits, until all other copyists are ruined. As for +the public,--the consumer,--it gains but little, for Guttenberg takes +care to lower the price of books only just so much as is necessary to +undersell all rivals. + +But the great Mind which put harmony into the movements of celestial +bodies, could also give it to the internal mechanism of society. We will +see the advantages of this invention escaping from the individual, to +become forever the common patrimony of mankind. + +The process finally becomes known. Guttenberg is no longer alone in his +art; others imitate him. Their profits are at first considerable. They +are recompensed for being the first who make the effort to imitate the +processes of the newly invented art. This again was necessary, in order +that they might be induced to the effort, and thus forward the great and +final result to which we approach. They gain much; but they gain less +than the inventor, for _competition_ has commenced its work. The price +of books now continually decreases. The gains of the imitators diminish +in proportion as the invention becomes older; and in the same proportion +imitation becomes less meritorious. Soon the new object of industry +attains its normal condition; in other words, the remuneration of +printers is no longer an exception to the general rules of remuneration, +and, like that of copyists formerly, it is only regulated _by the +general rate of profits_. Here then the producer, as such, holds only +the old position. The discovery, however, has been made; the saving of +time, labor, effort, for a fixed result, for a certain number of +volumes, is realized. But in what is this manifested? In the cheap price +of books. For the good of whom? For the good of the consumer,--of +society,--of humanity. Printers, having no longer any peculiar merit, +receive no longer a peculiar remuneration. As men,--as consumers,--they +no doubt participate in the advantages which the invention confers upon +the community; but that is all. As printers, as producers, they are +placed upon the ordinary footing of all other producers. Society pays +them for their labor, and not for the usefulness of the invention. +_That_ has become a gratuitous benefit, a common heritage to mankind. + +What has been said of printing can be extended to every agent for the +advancement of labor; from the nail and the mallet, up to the locomotive +and the electric telegraph. Society enjoys all, by the abundance of its +use, its consumption; and it _enjoys all gratuitously_. For as their +effect is to diminish prices, it is evident that just so much of the +price as is taken off by their intervention, renders the production in +so far _gratuitous_. There only remains the actual labor of man to be +paid for; and the remainder, which is the result of the invention, is +subtracted; at least after the invention has run through the cycle which +I have just described as its destined course. I send for a workman; he +brings a saw with him; I pay him two francs for his day's labor, and he +saws me twenty-five boards. If the saw had not been invented, he would +perhaps not have been able to make one board, and I would have paid him +the same for his day's labor. The _usefulness_ then of the saw, is for +me a gratuitous gift of nature, or rather it is a portion of the +inheritance which, _in common_ with my brother men, I have received from +the genius of my ancestors. I have two workmen in my field; the one +directs the handle of a plough, the other that of a spade. The result of +their day's labor is very different, but the price is the same, because +the remuneration is proportioned, not to the usefulness of the result, +but to the effort, the labor given to attain it. + +I invoke the patience of the reader, and beg him to believe, that I have +not lost sight of free trade: I entreat him only to remember the +conclusion at which I have arrived: _Remuneration is not proportioned to +the usefulness of the articles brought by the producer into the market, +but to the labor_.[11] + +[Footnote 11: It is true that labor does not receive a uniform +remuneration; because labor is more or less intense, dangerous, +skillful, etc. Competition establishes for each category a price +current; and it is of this variable price that I speak.] + +I have so far taken my examples from human inventions, but will now go +on to speak of natural advantages. + +In every article of production, nature and man must concur. But the +portion of nature is always gratuitous. Only so much of the usefulness +of an article as is the result of human labor becomes the object of +mutual exchange, and consequently of remuneration. The remuneration +varies much, no doubt, in proportion to the intensity of the labor, of +the skill which it requires, of its being _à propos_ to the demand of +the day, of the need which exists for it, of the momentary absence of +competition, etc. But it is not the less true in principle, that the +assistance received from natural laws, which belongs to all, counts for +nothing in the price. + +We do not pay for the air we breathe, although so useful to us, that we +could not live two minutes without it. We do not pay for it, because +Nature furnishes it without the intervention of man's labor. But if we +wish to separate one of the gases which compose it, for instance, to +fill a balloon, we must take some trouble and labor; or if another takes +it for us, we must give him an equivalent in something which will have +cost us the trouble of production. From which we see that the exchange +is between troubles, efforts, labors. It is certainly not for hydrogen +gas that I pay, for this is every where at my disposal, but for the work +that it has been necessary to accomplish in order to disengage it; work +which I have been spared, and which I must refund. If I am told that +there are other things to pay for; as expense, materials, apparatus; I +answer, that still in these things it is the work that I pay for. The +price of the coal employed is only the representation of the labor +necessary to dig and transport it. + +We do not pay for the light of the sun, because Nature alone gives it to +us. But we pay for the light of gas, tallow, oil, wax, because here is +labor to be remunerated;--and remark, that it is so entirely labor and +not utility to which remuneration is proportioned, that it may well +happen that one of these means of lighting, while it may be much more +effective than another, may still cost less. To cause this, it is only +necessary that less human labor should be required to furnish it. + +When the water-carrier comes to supply my house, were I to pay him in +proportion to the _absolute utility_ of the water, my whole fortune +would not be sufficient. But I pay him only for the trouble he has +taken. If he requires more, I can get others to furnish it, or finally +go and get it myself. The water itself is not the subject of our +bargain; but the labor taken to get the water. This point of view is so +important, and the consequences that I am going to draw from it so +clear, as regards the freedom of international exchanges, that I will +still elucidate my idea by a few more examples. + +The alimentary substance contained in potatoes does not cost us very +dear, because a great deal of it is attainable with little work. We pay +more for wheat, because, to produce it Nature requires more labor from +man. It is evident that if Nature did for the latter what she does for +the former, their prices would tend to the same level. It is impossible +that the producer of wheat should permanently gain more than the +producer of potatoes. The law of competition cannot allow it. + +If by a happy miracle the fertility of all arable lands were to be +increased, it would not be the agriculturist, but the consumer, who +would profit by this phenomenon; for the result of it would be, +abundance and cheapness. There would be less labor incorporated into an +acre of grain, and the agriculturist would be therefore obliged to +exchange it for 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 it +is in consumption, in mankind, that at length all political phenomena +find their solution. As long as we fail to follow their effects to this +point, and look only at _immediate_ effects, which act but upon +individual men or classes of men _as producers_, we know nothing more of +political economy than the quack does of medicine, when, instead of +following the effects of a prescription in its action upon the whole +system, he satisfies himself with knowing how it affects the palate and +the throat. + +The tropical regions are very favorable to the production of sugar and +coffee; that is to say, Nature does most of the business and leaves but +little for labor to accomplish. But who reaps the advantage of this +liberality of Nature? Not these regions, for they are forced by +competition to receive simply remuneration for their labor. It is +mankind who is the gainer; for the result of this liberality is +_cheapness_, and cheapness belongs to the world. + +Here in the temperate zone, we find coal and iron ore, on the surface of +the soil; we have but to stoop and take them. At first, I grant, the +immediate inhabitants profit by this fortunate circumstance. But soon +comes competition, and the price of coal and iron falls, until this gift +of Nature becomes gratuitous to all, and human labor is only paid +according to the general rate of profits. + +Thus natural advantages, like improvements in the process of production, +are, or have a constant tendency to become, under the law of +competition, the common and _gratuitous_ patrimony of consumers, of +society, of mankind. Countries therefore which do not enjoy these +advantages, must gain by commerce with those which do; because the +exchanges of commerce are between _labor and labor_; subtraction being +made of all the natural advantages which are combined with these labors; +and it is evidently the most favored countries which can incorporate +into a given labor the largest proportion of these _natural advantages_. +Their produce representing less labor, receives less recompense; in +other words, is _cheaper_. If then all the liberality of Nature results +in cheapness, it is evidently not the producing, but the consuming +country, which profits by her benefits. + +Hence we may see the enormous absurdity of the consuming country, which +rejects produce precisely because it is cheap. It is as though we should +say: "We will have nothing of that which Nature gives you. You ask of +us an effort equal to two, in order to furnish ourselves with articles +only attainable at home by an effort equal to four. You can do it +because with you Nature does half the work. But we will have nothing to +do with it; we will wait till your climate, becoming more inclement, +forces you to ask of us a labor equal to four, and then we can treat +with you _upon an equal footing_." + +A is a favored country; B is maltreated by Nature. Mutual traffic then +is advantageous to both, but principally to B, because the exchange is +not between _utility_ and _utility_, but between _value_ and _value_. +Now A furnishes a greater _utility in a similar value_, because the +_utility_ of any article includes at once what Nature and what labor +have done; whereas the _value_ of it only corresponds to the portion +accomplished by labor. B then makes an entirely advantageous bargain; +for by simply paying the producer from A for his labor, it receives in +return not only the results of that labor, but in addition there is +thrown in whatever may have accrued from the superior bounty of Nature. + +We will lay down the general rule. + +Traffic is an exchange of _values_; and as value is reduced by +competition to the simple representation of labor, traffic is the +exchange of equal labors. Whatever Nature has done towards the +production of the articles exchanged, is given on both sides +_gratuitously_; from whence it necessarily follows, that the most +advantageous commerce is transacted with those countries which are the +most favored by Nature. + + * * * * * + +The theory of which I have attempted, in this chapter, to trace the +outlines, would require great developments. But perhaps the attentive +reader will have perceived in it the fruitful seed which is destined in +its future growth to smother Protection, at once with Fourierism, Saint +Simonism, Commonism, and the various other schools whose object is to +exclude the law of COMPETITION from the government of the world. +Competition, no doubt, considering man as producer, must often interfere +with his individual and _immediate_ interests. But if we consider the +great object of all labor, the universal good, in a word, _Consumption_, +we cannot fail to find that Competition is to the moral world what the +law of equilibrium is to the material one. It is the foundation of true +Commonism, of true Socialism, of the equality of comforts and condition, +so much sought after in our day; and if so many sincere reformers, so +many earnest friends to the public rights, seek to reach their end by +commercial _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, that +the foreign article should be taxed, in order to neutralize the effects +of the tax, which weighs down national produce. It is still then but the +question of equalizing the facilities of production. We have but to say +that the tax is an artificial obstacle, which has exactly the same +effect as a natural obstacle, i.e. the increasing of the price. If this +increase is so great that there is more loss in producing the article in +question than in attracting it from foreign parts by the production of +an equivalent value, let it alone. Individual interest will soon learn +to choose the lesser of two evils. I might refer the reader to the +preceding demonstration for an answer to this Sophism; but it is one +which recurs so often in the complaints and the petitions, I had almost +said the demands, of the protectionist school, that it deserves a +special discussion. + +If the tax in question should be one of a special kind, directed against +fixed articles of production, I agree that it is perfectly reasonable +that foreign produce should be subjected to it. For instance, it would +be absurd to free foreign salt from impost duty; not that in an +economical point of view France would lose any thing by it; on the +contrary, whatever may be said, principles are invariable, and France +would gain by it, as she must always gain by avoiding an obstacle +whether natural or artificial. But here the obstacle has been raised +with 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, the +treasury would not receive its revenue, and would be obliged to seek it +from some thing else. There would be evident inconsistency in creating +an obstacle with a given object, and then avoiding the attainment of +that object. It would have been better at once to seek what was needed +in the other impost without taxing French salt. Such are the +circumstances 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 heavier +imposts than those of another neighboring nation, should protect itself +by tariffs against the competition of its rival, is a Sophism, which it +is now my purpose to attack. + +I have said more than once, that I am opposing only the theory of the +protectionists, with the hope of discovering the source of their errors. +Were I disposed to enter into controversy with them, I would say: Why +direct your tariffs principally against England and Belgium, both +countries more overloaded with taxes than any in the world? Have I not +a right to look upon your argument as a mere pretext? But I am not of +the number of those who believe that prohibitionists are guided by +interest, and not by conviction. The doctrine of Protection is too +popular not to be sincere. If the majority could believe in freedom, we +would be free. Without doubt it is individual interest which weighs us +down with tariffs; but it acts upon conviction. + +The State may make either a good or a bad use of taxes; it makes a good +use of them when it renders to the public services equivalent to the +value received from them; it makes a bad use of them when it expends +this value, giving nothing in return. + +To say in the first case that they place the country which pays them in +more disadvantageous conditions for production, than the country which +is free from them, is a Sophism. We pay, it is true, twenty millions for +the administration of justice, and the maintenance of the police, but we +have justice and the police; we have the security which they give, the +time which they save for us; and it is most probable that production is +neither more easy nor more active among nations, where (if there be +such) each individual takes the administration of justice into his own +hands. We pay, I grant, many hundred millions for roads, bridges, +ports, railways; but we have these railways, these ports, bridges and +roads, and unless we maintain that it is a losing business to establish +them, we cannot say that they place us in a position inferior to that of +nations who have, it is true, no taxes for public works, but who +likewise have no public works. And here we see why (even while we accuse +internal taxes of being a cause of industrial inferiority) we direct our +tariffs precisely against those nations which are the most taxed. It is +because these taxes, well used, far from injuring, have ameliorated the +_conditions of production_ to these nations. Thus we again arrive at the +conclusion that the protectionist Sophisms not only wander from, but are +the contrary--the very antithesis of truth. + +As to unproductive imposts, suppress them if you can; but surely it is a +most singular idea to suppose, that their evil effect is to be +neutralized by the addition of individual taxes to public taxes. Many +thanks for the compensation! The State, you say, has taxed us too much; +surely this is no reason why we should tax each other! + +A protective duty is a tax directed against foreign produce, but which +returns, let us keep in mind, upon the national consumer. Is it not then +a singular argument to say to him, "Because the taxes are heavy, we will +raise prices higher for you; and because the State takes a part of your +revenue, we will give another portion of it to benefit a monopoly?" + +But let us examine more closely this Sophism so accredited among our +legislators; although, strange to say, it is precisely those who keep up +the unproductive imposts (according to our present hypothesis) who +attribute to them afterwards our supposed inferiority, and seek to +re-establish the equilibrium by further imposts and new clogs. + +It appears to me to be evident that protection, without any change in +its nature and effects, might have taken the form of a direct tax, +raised by the State, and distributed as a premium to privileged +industry. + +Let us admit that foreign iron could be sold in our market at eight +francs, 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 the +national market to the home producer. + +The first, is to put upon foreign iron a duty of five francs. This, it +is evident, would exclude it, because it could no longer be sold at less +than 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 would +in either case be equally a protective measure. Foreign iron would, +according to both systems, be alike excluded; for our iron manufacturer +could sell at seven francs, what, with the five francs premium, would +thus 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 of +protection is paid by a part, in the second by the whole of the +community. + +I frankly confess my preference for the second system, which I regard as +more just, more economical and more legal. More just, because, if +society wishes to give bounties to some of its members, the whole +community ought to contribute; more economical, because it would banish +many difficulties, and save the expenses of collection; more legal, +lastly, because the public would see clearly into the operation, and +know what was required of it. + +But if the protective system had taken this form, would it not have been +laughable enough to hear it said, "We pay heavy taxes for the army, the +navy, the judiciary, the public works, the schools, the public debt, +etc. These amount to more than a thousand million. It would therefore be +desirable that the State should take another thousand million, to +relieve the poor iron manufacturers; or the suffering stockholders of +coal mines; or those unfortunate lumber dealers, or the useful +codfishery." + +This, it must be perceived, by an attentive investigation, is the result +of the Sophism in question. In vain, gentlemen, are all your efforts; +you cannot _give money_ to one without taking it from another. If you +are absolutely determined to exhaust the funds of the taxable community, +well; but, at least, do not mock them; do not tell them, "We take from +you again, in order to compensate you for what we have already taken." + +It would be a too tedious undertaking to endeavor to point out all the +fallacies of this Sophism. I will therefore limit myself to the +consideration of it in three points. + +You argue that France is overburthened with taxes, and deduce thence the +conclusion that it is necessary to protect such and such an article of +produce. But protection does not relieve us from the payment of these +taxes. If, then, individuals devoting themselves to any one object of +industry, should advance this demand: "We, from our participation in the +payment of taxes, have our expenses of production increased, and +therefore ask for a protective duty which shall raise our price of +sale;" what is this but a demand on their part to be allowed to free +themselves from the burthen of the tax, by laying it on the rest of the +community? Their object is to balance, by the increased price of their +produce, the amount which _they_ pay in taxes. Now, as the whole amount +of these taxes must enter into the treasury, and the increase of price +must be paid by society, it follows that (where this protective duty is +imposed) society has to bear, not only the general tax, but also that +for the protection of the article in question. But it is answered, let +_every thing_ be protected. Firstly, this is impossible; and, again, +were it possible, how could such a system give relief? _I_ will pay for +you, _you_ will pay for me; but not the less, still there remains the +tax to be paid. + +Thus you are the dupes of an illusion. You determine to raise taxes for +the support of an army, a navy, 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 adding +to the burthen of the mass of society. You thus only create interminable +complications. If you can prove that the increase of price resulting +from protection, falls upon the foreign producer, I grant something +specious in your argument. But if it be true that the French people paid +the tax before the passing of the protective duty, and afterwards that +it has paid not only the tax, but the protective duty also, truly I do +not perceive wherein it has profited. + +But I go much further, and maintain that the more oppressive our taxes +are, the more anxiously ought we to open our ports and frontiers to +foreign nations, less burthened than ourselves. And why? In order that +we 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, the +greater the portion which will be reimbursed to us, of taxes +incorporated in the produce, which we will have sold to foreign +consumers; whilst we, on our part, will have made to them only a lesser +reimbursement, because (according to our hypothesis) their produce is +less taxed than ours. + +Again, finally, has it ever occurred to you to ask yourself, whether +these heavy taxes which you adduce as a reason for keeping up the +prohibitive system, may not be the result of this very system itself? To +what purpose would be our great standing armies, and our powerful +navies, if commerce were free? + + + + +VI. + +BALANCE OF TRADE. + + +Our adversaries have adopted a system of tactics, which embarrasses us +not a little. Do we prove our doctrine? They admit the truth of it in +the most respectful manner. Do we attack their principles? They abandon +them with the best possible grace. They only ask that our doctrine, +which they acknowledge to be true, should be confined to books; and that +their principles, which they allow to be false, should be established in +practice. If we will give up to them the regulation of our tariffs, they +will leave us triumphant in the domain of theory. + +"Assuredly," said Mr. Gauthier de Roumilly, lately, "assuredly no one +wishes to call up from their graves the defunct theories of the balance +of trade." And yet Mr. Gauthier, after giving this passing blow to +error, 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 logical +arguer! There is nothing in his conclusions which cannot be found in his +premises. He asks nothing in practice which he does not justify in +theory. His principles may perchance be false, and this is the point in +question. But he has a principle. He believes, he proclaims aloud, that +if France gives ten to receive fifteen, she loses five; and surely, with +such a belief, nothing is more natural than that he should make laws +consistent with it. + +He says: "What it is important to remark, is, that constantly the amount +of importation is augmenting, and surpassing that of exportation. Every +year France buys more foreign produce, and sells less of its own +produce. This can be proved by figures. In 1842, we see the importation +exceed the exportation by two hundred millions. This appears to me to +prove, in the clearest manner, that national labor _is not sufficiently +protected_, that we are provided by foreign labor, and that the +competition of our rivals _oppresses_ our industry. The law in question, +appears to me to be a consecration of the fact, that our political +economists have assumed a false position in declaring, that in +proportion to produce bought, there is always a corresponding quantity +sold. It is evident that purchases may be made, not with the habitual +productions of a country, not with its revenue, not with the results of +actual labor, but with its capital, with the accumulated savings which +should serve for reproduction. A country may spend, dissipate its +profits and savings, may impoverish itself, and by the consumption of +its national capital, progress gradually to its ruin. _This is +precisely what we are doing. We give, every year, two hundred millions +to foreign nations_." + +Well! here, at least, is a man whom we can understand. There is no +hypocrisy in this language. The balance of trade is here clearly +maintained and defended. France imports two hundred millions more than +she exports. Then France loses two hundred millions yearly. And the +remedy? It is to check importation. The conclusion is perfectly +consistent. + +It is, then, with Mr. Lestiboudois that we will argue, for how is it +possible to do so with Mr. Gauthier? If you say to the latter, the +balance of trade is a mistake, he will answer, So I have declared it in +my exordium. If you exclaim, But it is a truth, he will say, Thus I have +classed it in my conclusions. + +Political economists may blame me for arguing with Mr. Lestiboudois. To +combat the balance of trade, is, they say, neither more nor less than to +fight against a windmill. + +But let us be on our guard. The balance of trade is neither so old, nor +so sick, nor so dead, as Mr. Gauthier is pleased to imagine; for all the +legislature, Mr. Gauthier himself included, are associated by their +votes with the theory of Mr. Lestiboudois. + +However, not to fatigue the reader, I will not seek to investigate too +closely this theory, but will content myself with subjecting it to the +experience of facts. + +It is constantly alleged in opposition to our principles, that they are +good only in theory. But, gentlemen, do you believe that merchants' +books are good in practice? It does appear to me that if there is any +thing which can have a practical authority, when the object is to prove +profit and loss, that this must be commercial accounts. We cannot +suppose that all the merchants of the world, for centuries back, should +have so little understood their own affairs, as to have kept their books +in such a manner as to represent gains as losses, and losses as gains. +Truly it would be easier to believe that Mr. Lestiboudois is a bad +political economist. + +A merchant, one of my friends, having had two business transactions, +with very different results, I have been curious to compare on this +subject the accounts of the counter with those of the custom-house, +interpreted by Mr. Lestiboudois with the sanction of our six hundred +legislators. + +Mr. T... despatched from Havre a vessel, freighted, for the United +States, with French merchandise, principally Parisian articles, valued +at 200,000 francs. Such was the amount entered at the custom-house. The +cargo, on its arrival at New Orleans, had paid ten per cent. expenses, +and was liable to thirty per cent. duties; which raised its value to +280,000 francs. It was sold at twenty per cent. profit on its original +value, which being 40,000 francs, the price of sale was 320,000 francs, +which the assignee converted into cotton. This cotton, again, had to +pay for expenses of transportation, insurance, commissions, etc., ten +per cent.: so that when the return cargo arrived at Havre, its value had +risen 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 of +422,400 francs. + +If Mr. Lestiboudois requires it, I will send him an extract from the +books 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 one +of 40,000, the other of 70,000 francs, and Mr. T ... feels perfectly +certain that as regards these, there is no mistake in his accounts. + +Now what conclusion does Mr. Lestiboudois draw from the sums entered +into the custom-house, in this operation? He thence learns that France +has exported 200,000 francs, and imported 352,000; from whence the +honorable deputy concludes "_that she has spent, dissipated the profits +of her previous savings; that she is impoverishing herself and +progressing to her ruin; and that she has squandered on a foreign +nation_ 152,000 _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 only +farther to inscribe on his books two little items, thus worded: + +"_Sundries due to X_, 200,000 francs, for purchase of divers articles +despatched by vessel N. + +"_Profit and loss due to sundries, 200,000 francs, for final and total +loss of cargo._" + +In the meantime the custom-house inscribed 200,000 francs upon its list +of _exportations_, and as there can of course be nothing to balance this +entry on the list of _importations_, it hence follows that Mr. +Lestiboudois and the Chamber must see in this wreck _a clear profit_ to +France of 200,000 francs. + +We may draw hence yet another conclusion, viz.: that according to the +Balance of Trade theory, France has an exceedingly simple manner of +constantly doubling her capital. It is only necessary, to accomplish +this, that she should, after entering into the custom-house her articles +for exportation, cause them to be thrown into the sea. By this course, +her exportations can speedily be made to equal her capital; importations +will be nothing, and our gain will be, all which the ocean will have +swallowed up. + +You are joking, the protectionists will reply. You know that it is +impossible that we should utter such absurdities. Nevertheless, I +answer, you do utter them, and what is more, you give them life, you +exercise them practically upon your fellow citizens, as much, at least, +as is in your power to do. + +The truth is, that the theory of the Balance of Trade should be +precisely _reversed_. The profits accruing to the nation from any +foreign commerce should be calculated by the overplus of the +importation above the exportation. This overplus, after the deduction of +expenses, is the real gain. Here we have the true theory, and it is one +which leads directly to freedom in trade. I now, gentlemen, abandon you +this theory, as I have done all those of the preceding chapters. Do with +it as you please, exaggerate it as you will; it has nothing to fear. +Push it to the farthest extreme; imagine, if it so please you, that +foreign nations should inundate us with useful produce of every +description, and ask nothing in return; that our importations should be +_infinite_, and our exportations _nothing_. Imagine all this, and still +I defy you to prove that we will be the poorer in consequence. + + + + +VII. + +PETITION FROM THE MANUFACTURERS OF CANDLES, WAX-LIGHTS, LAMPS, +CHANDELIERS, REFLECTORS, SNUFFERS, EXTINGUISHERS; AND FROM THE PRODUCERS +OF TALLOW, OIL, RESIN, ALCOHOL, AND GENERALLY OF EVERY THING USED FOR +LIGHTS. + + +_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 occupied +with the interest of the producer, whom you are anxious to free from +foreign competition. In a word, you wish to secure the _national market_ +to _national labor_. + +"We come now to offer you an admirable opportunity for the application +of your----what shall we say? your theory? no, nothing is more +deceiving than theory;--your doctrine? your system? your principle? But +you do not like doctrines; you hold systems in horror; and, as for +principles, you declare that there are no such things in political +economy. We will say then, your practice; your practice without theory, +and without principle. + +"We are subjected to the intolerable competition of a foreign rival, who +enjoys, it would seem, such superior facilities for the production of +light, that he is enabled to _inundate_ our _national market_ at so +exceedingly reduced a price, that, the moment he makes his appearance, +he draws off all custom from us; and thus an important branch of French +industry, with all its innumerable ramifications, is suddenly reduced to +a state of complete stagnation. This rival, who is no other than the +sun, carries on so bitter a war against us, that we have every reason to +believe that he has been excited to this course by our perfidious +neighbor England. (Good diplomacy this, for the present time!) In this +belief we are confirmed by the fact that in all his transactions with +this 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 law +whereby shall be directed the shutting up of all windows, dormers, +sky-lights, shutters, curtains, vasistas, oeil-de-boeufs, in a word, all +openings, holes, chinks and fissures through which the light of the sun +is used to penetrate into our dwellings, to the prejudice of the +profitable manufactures which we flatter ourselves we have been enabled +to bestow upon the country; which country cannot, therefore, without +ingratitude, leave us now to struggle unprotected through so unequal a +contest. + +"We pray your honorable body not to mistake our petition for a satire, +nor to repulse us without at least hearing the reasons which we have to +advance in its favor. + +"And first, if, by shutting out as much as possible all access to +natural light, you thus create the necessity for artificial light, is +there in France an industrial pursuit which will not, through some +connection with this important object, be benefited by it? + +"If more tallow be consumed, there will arise a necessity for an +increase of cattle and sheep. Thus artificial meadows must be in greater +demand; and meat, wool, leather, and above all, manure, this basis of +agricultural riches, must become more abundant. + +"If more oil be consumed, it will cause an increase in the cultivation +of the olive-tree. This plant, luxuriant and exhausting to the soil, +will come in good time to profit by the increased fertility which the +raising of cattle will have communicated to our fields. + +"Our heaths will become covered with resinous trees. Numerous swarms of +bees will gather upon our mountains the perfumed treasures, which are +now cast upon the winds, useless as the blossoms from which they +emanate. There is, in short, no branch of agriculture which would not be +greatly developed by the granting of our petition. + +"Navigation would equally profit. Thousands of vessels would soon be +employed in the whale fisheries, and thence would arise a navy capable +of sustaining the honor of France, and of responding to the patriotic +sentiments of the undersigned petitioners, candle merchants, etc. + +"But what words can express the magnificence which _Paris_ will then +exhibit! Cast an eye upon the future and behold the gildings, the +bronzes, the magnificent crystal chandeliers, lamps, reflectors and +candelabras, which will glitter in the spacious stores, compared with +which the splendor of the present day will appear trifling and +insignificant. + +"There is none, not even the poor manufacturer of resin in the midst of +his pine forests, nor the miserable miner in his dark dwelling, but who +would enjoy an increase of salary and of comforts. + +"Gentlemen, if you will be pleased to reflect, you cannot fail to be +convinced that there is perhaps not one Frenchman, from the opulent +stockholder of Anzin down to the poorest vendor of matches, who is not +interested in the success of our petition. + +"We foresee your objections, gentlemen; but there is not one that you +can oppose to us which you will not be obliged to gather from the works +of the partisans of free trade. We dare challenge you to pronounce one +word against our petition, which is not equally opposed to your own +practice and the principle which guides your policy. + +"Do you tell us, that if we gain by this protection, France will not +gain, because the consumer must pay the price of it? + +"We answer you: + +"You have no longer any right to cite the interest of the consumer. For +whenever this has been found to compete with that of the producer, you +have invariably sacrificed the first. You have done this to _encourage +labor_, to _increase the demand for labor_. The same reason should now +induce you to act in the same manner. + +"You have yourselves already answered the objection. When you were told: +The consumer is interested in the free introduction of iron, coal, corn, +wheat, cloths, etc., your answer was: Yes, but the producer is +interested in their exclusion. Thus, also, if the consumer is interested +in the admission of light, we, the producers, pray for its +interdiction. + +"You have also said, the producer and the consumer are one. If the +manufacturer gains by protection, he will cause the agriculturist to +gain also; if agriculture prospers, it opens a market for manufactured +goods. Thus we, if you confer upon us the monopoly of furnishing light +during the day, will as a first consequence buy large quantities of +tallow, coals, oil, resin, wax, alcohol, silver, iron, bronze, crystal, +for the supply of our business; and then we and our numerous contractors +having become rich, our consumption will be great, and will become a +means of contributing to the comfort and competency of the workers in +every branch of national labor. + +"Will you say that the light of the sun is a gratuitous gift, and that +to repulse gratuitous gifts, is to repulse riches under pretence of +encouraging the means of obtaining them? + +"Take care,--you carry the death-blow to your own policy. Remember that +hitherto you have always repulsed foreign produce, _because_ it was an +approach to a gratuitous gift, and _the more in proportion_ as this +approach was more close. You have, in obeying the wishes of other +monopolists, acted only from a _half-motive_; to grant our petition +there is a much _fuller inducement_. To repulse us, precisely for the +reason that our case is a more complete one than any which have preceded +it, would be to lay down the following equation: + × + =-; in other +words, it would be to accumulate absurdity upon absurdity. + +"Labor and Nature concur in different proportions, according to country +and climate, in every article of production. The portion of Nature is +always gratuitous; that of labor alone regulates the price. + +"If a Lisbon orange can be sold at half the price of a Parisian one, it +is because a natural and gratuitous heat does for the one, what the +other only obtains from an artificial and consequently expensive one. + +"When, therefore, we purchase a Portuguese orange, we may say that we +obtain it half gratuitously and half by the right of labor; in other +words, at _half price_ compared to those of Paris. + +"Now it is precisely on account of this _demi-gratuity_ (excuse the +word) that you argue in favor of exclusion. How, you say, could national +labor sustain the competition of foreign labor, when the first has every +thing to do, and the last is rid of half the trouble, the sun taking the +rest of the business upon himself? If then the _demi-gratuity_ can +determine you to check competition, on what principle can the _entire +gratuity_ be alleged as a reason for admitting it? You are no logicians +if, refusing the demi-gratuity as hurtful to human labor, you do not _à +fortiori_, and with double zeal, reject the full gratuity. + +"Again, when any article, as coal, iron, cheese, or cloth, comes to us +from foreign countries with less labor than if we produced it ourselves, +the difference in price is a _gratuitous gift_ conferred upon us; and +the gift is more or less considerable, according as the difference is +greater or less. It is the quarter, the half, or the three-quarters of +the value of the produce, in proportion as the foreign merchant requires +the three-quarters, the half, or the quarter of the price. It is as +complete as possible when the producer offers, as the sun does with +light, the whole in free gift. The question is, and we put it formally, +whether you wish for France the benefit of gratuitous consumption, or +the supposed advantages of laborious production. Choose, but be +consistent. And does it not argue the greatest inconsistency to check as +you do the importation of coal, iron, cheese, and goods of foreign +manufacture, merely because and even in proportion as their price +approaches _zero_, while at the same time you freely admit, and without +limitation, the light of the sun, whose price is during the whole day at +_zero_?" + + + + +VIII. + +DISCRIMINATING DUTIES. + + +A poor laborer of Gironde had raised, with the greatest possible care +and attention, a nursery of vines, from which, after much labor, he at +last succeeded in producing a pipe of wine, and forgot, in the joy of +his success, that each drop of this precious nectar had cost a drop of +sweat to his brow. I will sell it, said he to his wife, and with the +proceeds I will buy thread, which will serve you to make a _trousseau_ +for our daughter. The honest countryman, arriving in the city, there met +an Englishman and a Belgian. The Belgian said to him, Give me your wine, +and I in exchange, will give you fifteen bundles of thread. The +Englishman said, Give it to me, and I will give you twenty bundles, for +we English can spin cheaper than the Belgians. But a custom-house +officer standing by, said to the laborer, My good fellow, make your +exchange, if you choose, with the Belgian, but it is my duty to prevent +your doing so with the Englishman. What! exclaimed the countryman, you +wish me to take fifteen bundles of Brussels thread, when I can have +twenty from Manchester? Certainly; do you not see that France would be a +loser, if you were to receive twenty bundles instead of fifteen? I can +scarcely understand this, said the laborer. Nor can I explain it, said +the custom-house officer, but there is no doubt of the fact; for +deputies, ministers, and editors, all agree that a people is +impoverished in proportion as it receives a large compensation for any +given quantity of its produce. The countryman was obliged to conclude +his bargain with the Belgian. His daughter received but three-fourths of +her _trousseau_; and these good folks are still puzzling themselves to +discover how it can happen that people are ruined by receiving four +instead of three; and why they are richer with three dozen towels +instead of four. + + + + +IX. + +WONDERFUL DISCOVERY! + + +At this moment, when all minds are occupied in endeavoring to discover +the most economical means of transportation; when, to put these means +into practice, we are leveling roads, improving rivers, perfecting +steamboats, establishing railroads, and attempting various systems of +traction, atmospheric, hydraulic, pneumatic, electric, etc.,--at this +moment when, I believe, every one is seeking in sincerity and with +ardor the solution of this problem-- + +"_To bring the price of things in their place of consumption, as near as +possible to their price in that of production_"-- + +I would believe myself acting a culpable part towards my country, +towards the age in which I live, and towards myself, if I were longer to +keep secret the wonderful discovery which I have just made. + +I am well aware that the self-illusions of inventors have become +proverbial, but I have, nevertheless, the most complete certainty of +having discovered an infallible means of bringing the produce of the +entire world into France, and reciprocally to transport ours, with a +very important reduction of price. + +Infallible! and yet this is but a single one of the advantages of my +astonishing invention, which requires neither plans nor devices, neither +preparatory studies, nor engineers, nor machinists, nor capital, nor +stockholders, nor governmental assistance! There is no danger of +shipwrecks, of explosions, of shocks, of fire, nor of displacement of +rails! It can be put into practice without preparation from one day to +another! + +Finally, and this will, no doubt, recommend it to the public, it will +not increase taxes one cent; but the contrary. It will not augment the +number of government functionaries, nor the exigencies of government +officers; 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 increased +price 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 for +bearing them for us. Then come rivers, swamps, accidents, heavy and +muddy roads; these are so many _difficulties_ to be overcome; in order +to do which, causeways are constructed, bridges built, roads cut and +paved, railroads established, etc. But all this is costly, and the +article transported must bear its portion of the expense. There are +robbers, too, on the roads, and this necessitates guards, a police, etc. + +Now, among these _obstacles_, there is one which we ourselves have +placed, and that at no little expense, between Brussels and Paris. This +consists of men planted along the frontier, armed to the teeth, whose +business it is to place _difficulties_ in the way of the transportation +of goods from one country to another. These men are called custom-house +officers, and their effect is precisely similar to that of steep and +boggy roads. They retard and put obstacles in the way of transportation, +thus contributing to the difference which we have remarked between the +price of production and that of consumption; to diminish which +difference as much as possible, is the problem which we are seeking to +resolve. + +Here, then, we have found its solution. _Let our tariff be diminished._ +We will thus have constructed a Northern Railroad which will cost us +nothing. Nay, more, we will be saved great expenses, and will begin from +the first day to save capital. + +Really, I cannot but ask myself, in surprise, how our brains could have +admitted so whimsical a piece of folly, as to induce us to pay many +millions to destroy the _natural obstacles_ interposed between France +and other nations, only at the same time to pay so many millions more in +order to replace them by _artificial obstacles_, which have exactly the +same effect; so that the obstacle removed, and the obstacle created, +neutralize each other; things go on as before, and the only result of +our trouble, is, a double expense. + +An article of Belgian production is worth at Brussels twenty francs, +and, from the expenses of transportation, thirty francs at Paris. A +similar article of Parisian manufacture costs forty francs. What is our +course 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; the +government withal, paying numerous officials to attend to the levying of +this duty. The article thus pays ten francs for transportation, ten for +the tax. + +This done, we say to ourselves: Transportation between Brussels and +Paris is very dear; let us spend two or three millions in railways, and +we will reduce it one-half. Evidently the result of such a course will +be to get the 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 five +francs? 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 the +railroad, besides the expense saved in custom-house surveillance, which +would of course diminish in proportion as the temptation to smuggling +would become less. + +But it is answered, the duty is necessary to protect 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 on +a par with the Parisian at forty francs, you must raise the duty to +fifteen 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 the +railroad? + +Frankly, is it not humiliating to the nineteenth century, that it should +be destined to transmit to future ages the example of such puerilities +seriously and gravely practiced? To be the dupe of another, is bad +enough; but to employ all the forms and ceremonies of legislation in +order to cheat one's self,--to doubly cheat one's self, and that too in +a mere mathematical account,--truly this is calculated to lower a little +the pride of this _enlightened age_. + + + + +X. + +RECIPROCITY. + + +We have just seen that all which renders transportation difficult, acts +in the same manner as protection; or, if the expression be preferred, +that protection tends towards the same result as obstacles to +transportation. + +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 difference +between the price of consumption and that of production. It is equally +incontestable that a swamp, a bog, etc., are veritable protective +tariffs. + +There are people (few in number, it is true, but such there are) who +begin to understand that obstacles are not the less obstacles, because +they are artificially created, and that our well-being is more advanced +by freedom of trade than by protection; precisely as a canal is more +desirable than a sandy, hilly, and difficult road. + +But they still say, this liberty ought to be reciprocal. If we take off +our taxes in favor of Spain, while Spain does not do the same towards +us, it is evident that we are duped. Let us then make _treaties of +commerce_ upon the basis of a just reciprocity; let us yield where we +are yielded to; let us make the _sacrifice_ of buying that we may +obtain the advantage of selling. + +Persons who reason thus, are (I am sorry to say), whether they know it +or not, governed by the protectionist principle. They are only a little +more inconsistent than the pure protectionists, as these are more +inconsistent than the absolute prohibitionists. + +I will illustrate this by a fable. + +STULTA AND PUERA (FOOL-TOWN AND BOY-TOWN). + +There were, it matters not where, two towns, _Stulta_ and _Puera_, which +at great expense had a road built which connected them with each other. +Some time after this was done, the inhabitants of _Stulta_ became +uneasy, and said: _Puera_ is overwhelming us with its productions; this +must be attended to. They established therefore a corps of +_Obstructors_, so called because their business was to place obstacles +in the way of the wagon trains which arrived from _Puera_. Soon after, +_Puera_ also established a corps of Obstructors. + +After some centuries, people having become more enlightened, the +inhabitants of _Puera_ began to discover that these reciprocal obstacles +might possibly be reciprocal injuries. They sent therefore an ambassador +to _Stulta_, who (passing over the official phraseology) spoke much to +this effect: "We have built a road, and now we put obstacles in the way +of this road. This is absurd. It would have been far better to have left +things in their original position, for then we would not have been put +to the expense of building our road, and afterwards of creating +difficulties. In the name of _Puera_, I come to propose to you, not to +renounce at once our system of mutual obstacles, for this would be +acting according to a theory, and we despise theories as much as you do; +but to lighten somewhat these obstacles, weighing at the same time +carefully our respective _sacrifices_." The ambassador having thus +spoken, 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 (who +it has always been supposed had been secretly bribed by _Stulta_) rose +and said: "The obstacles raised by _Stulta_ are injurious to our sales; +this is a misfortune. Those which we ourselves create, injure our +purchases; this is a second misfortune. We have no power over the first, +but the second is entirely dependent upon ourselves. Let us then at +least get rid of one, since we cannot be delivered from both. Let us +suppress our corps of _Obstructors_, without waiting for _Stulta_ to do +the same. Some day or other she will learn to understand better her own +interests." + +A second counselor, a man of practice and of facts, uncontrolled by +theories and wise in ancestral experience, replied: "We must not listen +to this dreamer, this theorist, this innovator, this utopian, this +political economist, this friend to _Stulta_. We would be entirely +ruined if the embarrassments of the road were not carefully weighed and +exactly equalized, between _Stulta_ and _Peura_. There would be more +difficulty in going than in coming; in exportation than in importation. +We would be, with regard to _Stulta_, in the inferior condition in which +Havre, Nantes, Bordeaux, Lisbon, London, Hamburg, and New Orleans, are, +in relation to cities placed higher up the rivers Seine, Loire, Garonne, +Tagus, Thames, the Elbe, and the Mississippi; for the difficulties of +ascending must always be greater than those of descending rivers. (A +voice exclaims: 'But the cities near the mouths of rivers have always +prospered more than those higher up the stream.') This is not possible. +(The same voice: 'But it is a fact.') Well, they have then prospered +_contrary to rule_." Such conclusive reasoning staggered the assembly. +The orator went on to convince them thoroughly and conclusively by +speaking of national independence, national honor, national dignity, +national labor, overwhelming importation, tributes, ruinous competition. +In short, he succeeded in determining the assembly to continue their +system of obstacles, and I can now point out a certain country where you +may see road-builders and _Obstructors_ working with the best possible +understanding, by the decree of the same legislative assembly, paid by +the same citizens; the first to improve the road, the last to embarrass +it. + + + + +XI. + +ABSOLUTE PRICES. + + +If we wish to judge between freedom of trade and protection, to +calculate the probable effect of any political phenomenon, we should +notice how far its influence tends to the production of _abundance or +scarcity_, and not simply of _cheapness or dearness_ of price. We must +beware of trusting to _absolute prices_, it would lead to inextricable +confusion. + +Mr. Mathieu de Dombasle, after having established the fact that +protection raises prices, adds: + +"The augmentation of price increases the expenses of life, and +consequently the price of labor, and every one finds in the increase of +the price of his produce the same proportion as in the increase of his +expenses. Thus, if every body pays as consumer, every body receives also +as producer." + +It is evident that it would be easy to reverse the argument and say: If +every body receives as producer, every body must pay as consumer. + +Now, what does this prove? Nothing whatever, unless it be that +protection _transfers_ riches, uselessly and unjustly. Robbery does the +same. + +Again, to prove that the complicated arrangements of this system give +even simple compensation, it is necessary to adhere to the +"_consequently_" of Mr. de Dombasle, and to convince one's self that the +price of labor rises with that of the articles protected. This is a +question of fact, which I refer to Mr. Moreau de Jonnès, begging him to +examine whether the rate of wages was found to increase with the stock +of the mines of Anzin. For my own part I do not believe in it, because I +think that the price of labor, like every thing else, is governed by the +proportion existing between the supply and the demand. Now I can +perfectly well understand that _restriction_ will diminish the supply of +coal, and consequently raise its price; but I do not as clearly see that +it increases the demand for labor, thereby raising the rate of wages. +This is the less conceivable to me, because the sum of labor required +depends upon the quantity of disposable capital; and protection, while +it may change the direction of capital, and transfer it from one +business to another, cannot increase it one penny. + +This question, which is of the highest interest, we will examine +elsewhere. I return to the discussion of _absolute prices_, and declare +that there is no absurdity which cannot be rendered specious by such +reasoning as that of Mr. de Dombasle. + +Imagine an isolated nation possessing a given quantity of cash, and +every year wantonly burning the half of its produce. I will undertake to +prove by the theory of Mr. de Dombasle that this nation will not be the +less rich in consequence of such a procedure. + +For, the result of the conflagration must be, that every thing would +double in price. An inventory made before this event would offer exactly +the same nominal value, as one made after it. Who then would be the +loser? If John buys his cloth dearer, he also sells his corn at a higher +price; and if Peter makes a loss on the purchase of his corn, he gains +it back by the sale of his cloth. Thus "every one finds in the increase +of the price of his produce, the same proportion as in the increase of +his expenses; and thus if every body pays as consumer, every body also +receives as producer." + +All this is nonsense. The simple truth is: that whether men destroy +their corn and cloth by fire or by use, the effect is the same _as +regards price_, but not _as regards riches_, for it is precisely in the +enjoyment of the use, that riches--in other words, comfort, +well-being--exist. + +Protection may, in the same way, while it lessens the abundance of +things, raise their prices, so as to leave each individual as rich, +_numerically speaking_, as when unembarrassed by it. But because we put +down in an inventory three hectolitres of corn at 20 francs, or four +hectolitres at 15 francs, and sum up the nominal value of each at 60 +francs, does it thence follow that they are equally capable of +contributing to the necessities of the community? + +To this view of consumption, it will be my continual endeavor to lead +the protectionists; for in this is the end of all my efforts, the +solution of every problem. I must continually repeat to them that +restriction, by impeding commerce, by limiting the division of labor, by +forcing it to combat difficulties of situation and temperature, must in +its results diminish the quantity produced by any fixed quantum of +labor. And what can it benefit us that the smaller quantity produced +under the protective system bears the same _nominal value_ as the +greater quantity produced under the free trade system? Man does not live +on _nominal values_, but on real articles of produce; and the more +abundant these articles are, no matter what price they may bear, the +richer is he. + + + + +XII. + +DOES PROTECTION RAISE THE RATE OF WAGES? + + +Workmen, your situation is singular! you are robbed, as I will presently +prove to you.... But no; I retract the word; we must avoid an +expression which is violent; perhaps indeed incorrect; inasmuch as this +spoliation, wrapped in the sophisms which disguise it, is practiced, we +must believe, without the intention of the spoiler, and with the consent +of the spoiled. But it is nevertheless true that you are deprived of the +just compensation of your labor, while no one thinks of causing +_justice_ to be rendered to you. If you could be consoled by noisy +appeals to philanthropy, to powerless charity, to degrading alms-giving, +or if high-sounding words would relieve you, these indeed you can have +in abundance. But _justice_, simple _justice_--nobody thinks of +rendering you this. For would it not be _just_ that after a long day's +labor, when you have received your little wages, you should be permitted +to exchange them for the largest possible sum of comforts that you can +obtain voluntarily from any man whatsoever upon the face of the earth? + +Let us examine if _injustice_ is not done to you, by the legislative +limitation of the persons from whom you are allowed to buy those things +which you need; as bread, meat, cotton and woolen cloths, etc.; thus +fixing (so to express myself) the artificial price which these articles +must bear. + +Is it true that protection, which avowedly raises prices, and thus +injures 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 run +after a master, wages fall; when two masters run after a workman, wages +rise." + +Allow me, in more laconic phrase, to employ a more scientific, though +perhaps a less striking expression: "The rate of wages depends upon the +proportion which the supply of labor bears to the demand." + +On what depends the _demand_ for labor? + +On the quantity of disposable national capital. And the law which says, +"such or such an article shall be limited to home production and no +longer imported from foreign countries," can it in any degree increase +this capital? Not in the least. This law may withdraw it from one +course, and transfer it to another; but cannot increase it one penny. +Then it cannot increase the demand for labor. + +While we point with pride to some prosperous manufacture, can we answer, +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 from +agriculture, or navigation, or other industry? We here see why, since +the reign of protective tariffs, if we see more workmen in our mines and +our manufacturing towns, we find also fewer sailors in our ports, and +fewer laborers and vine-growers in our fields and upon our hillsides. + +I could speak at great length upon this subject, but prefer illustrating +my thought by an example. + +A countryman had twenty acres of land, with a capital of 10,000 francs. +He divided his land into four parts, and adopted for it the following +changes of crops: 1st, maize; 2d, wheat; 3d, clover; and 4th, rye. As he +needed for himself and family but a small portion of the grain, meat, +and dairy-produce of the farm, he sold the surplus and bought oil, flax, +wine, etc. The whole of his capital was yearly distributed in wages and +payments of accounts to the workmen of the neighborhood. This capital +was, from his sales, again returned to him, and even increased from year +to year. Our countryman, being fully convinced that idle capital +produces nothing, caused to circulate among the working classes this +annual increase, which he devoted to the inclosing and clearing of +lands, or to improvements in his farming utensils and his buildings. He +deposited some sums in reserve in the hands of a neighboring banker, who +on his part did not leave these idle in his strong box, but lent them to +various tradesmen, so that the whole came to be usefully employed in the +payment of wages. + +The countryman died, and his son, become master of the inheritance, said +to himself: "It must be confessed that my father has, all his life, +allowed himself to be duped. He bought oil, and thus paid _tribute_ to +Province, while our own land could, by an effort, be made to produce +olives. He bought wine, flax, and oranges, thus paying _tribute_ to +Brittany, Medoc, and the Hiera islands very unnecessarily, for wine, +flax and oranges may be forced to grow upon our own lands. He paid +tribute to the miller and the weaver; our own servants could very well +weave our linen, and crush our wheat between two stones. He did all he +could to ruin himself, and gave to strangers what ought to have been +kept for the benefit of his own household." + +Full of this reasoning, our headstrong fellow determined to change the +routine of his crops. He divided his farm into twenty parts. On one he +cultivated the olive; on another the mulberry; on a third flax; he +devoted the fourth to vines, the fifth to wheat, etc., etc. Thus he +succeeded in rendering himself _independent_, and furnished all his +family supplies from his own farm. He no longer received any thing from +the general circulation; neither, it is true, did he cast any thing into +it. Was he the richer for this course? No, for his land did not suit the +cultivation of the vine; nor was the climate favorable to the olive. In +short, the family supply of all these articles was very inferior to what +it had been during the time when the father had obtained them all by +exchange of produce. + +With regard to the demand for labor, it certainly was no greater than +formerly. There were, to be sure, five times as many fields to +cultivate, but they were five times smaller. If oil was raised, there +was less wheat; and because there was no more flax bought, neither was +there any more rye sold. Besides, the farmer could not spend in wages +more than his capital, and his capital, instead of increasing, was now +constantly diminishing. A great part of it was necessarily devoted to +numerous buildings and utensils, indispensable to a person who +determines to undertake every thing. In short, the supply of labor +continued 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 the +prohibitive system. Its number of industrial pursuits is certainly +multiplied, but their importance is diminished. In proportion to their +number, they become less productive, for the same capital and the same +skill are obliged to meet a greater number of difficulties. The fixed +capital absorbs a greater part of the circulating capital; that is to +say, a greater part of the funds destined to the payment of wages. What +remains, ramifies itself in vain, the quantity cannot be augmented. It +is like the water of a pond, which, distributed in a multitude of +reservoirs, appears to be more abundant, because it covers a greater +quantity of soil, and presents a larger surface to the sun, while we +hardly perceive that, precisely on this account, it absorbs, evaporates, +and loses itself the quicker. + +Capital and labor being given, the result is, a sum of production, +always the less great, in proportion as obstacles are numerous. There +can be no doubt that protective tariffs, by forcing capital and labor to +struggle against greater difficulties of soil and climate, must cause +the general production to be less, or, in other words, diminish the +portion of comforts which would thence result to mankind. If, then, +there be a general diminution of comforts, how, workmen, can it be +possible that _your_ portion should be increased? Under such a +supposition, it would be necessary to believe that the rich, those who +made the law, have so arranged matters, that not only they subject +themselves to their own proportion of the general loss, but taking the +whole of it upon themselves, that they submit also to a further loss, in +order to increase your gains. Is this credible? Is this possible? It is, +indeed, a most suspicious act of generosity, and if you act wisely, you +will reject it. + + + + +XIII. + +THEORY--PRACTICE. + + +Partisans of free trade, we are accused of being theorists, and not +relying sufficiently upon practice. + +What a powerful argument against Mr. Say (says Mr. Ferrier,) is the long +succession of distinguished ministers, the imposing league of writers +who have all differed from him; and Mr. Say is himself conscious of +this, for he says: "It has been said, in support of old errors, that +there must necessarily be some foundation for ideas so generally adopted +by all nations. Ought we not, it is asked, to distrust observations and +reasoning which run counter to every thing which has been looked upon as +certain up to this day, and which has been regarded as undoubted by so +many who were to be confided in, alike on account of their learning and +of their philanthropic intentions? This argument is, I confess, +calculated to make a profound impression, and might cast a doubt upon +the most incontestable facts, if the world had not seen so many +opinions, now universally recognized as false, as universally maintain, +during a long series of ages, their dominion over the human mind. The +day is not long passed since all nations, from the most ignorant to the +most enlightened, and all men, the wisest as well as the most +uninformed, admitted only four elements. Nobody dreamed of disputing +this doctrine, which is, nevertheless, false, and to-day universally +decried." + +Upon this passage Mr. Ferrier makes the following remarks: + +"Mr. Say is strangely mistaken, if he believes that he has thus answered +the very strong objections which he has himself advanced. It is natural +enough that, for ages, men otherwise well informed, might mistake upon a +question of natural history; this proves nothing. Water, air, earth, and +fire, elements or not, were not the less useful to man.... Such errors +as this are of no importance. They do not lead to revolutions, nor do +they 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 it +be thus with errors which affect the moral world? Can it be conceived +that a system of government absolutely false, consequently injurious, +could be followed for many centuries, and among many nations, with the +general consent of well-informed men? Can it be explained how such a +system could be connected with the constantly increasing prosperity of +these nations? Mr. Say confesses that the argument which he combats is +calculated to make a profound impression. Most certainly it is; and +this impression remains; for Mr. Say has rather increased than +diminished it." + +Let us hear Mr. de Saint Chamans. + +"It has been only towards the middle of the last, the eighteenth +century, when every subject and every principle have without exception +been 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 existed +previously a system of political economy, not written, but _practiced_ +by governments. Colbert was, it is said, the inventor of it; and Colbert +gave 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 of +the modern school. This system, which has been called by our writers the +_mercantile system_, consisted in ... checking by prohibition or import +duties such foreign productions as were calculated to ruin our +manufactures by competition.... This system has been declared, by all +writers on political economy, of every school,[12] to be weak, absurd, +and calculated to impoverish the countries where it prevails. Banished +from books, it has taken refuge in _the practice_ of all nations, +greatly to the surprise of those who cannot conceive that in what +concerns the wealth of nations, governments should, rather than be +guided by the wisdom of authors, prefer the _long experience_ of a +system, etc.... It is above all inconceivable to them that the French +government ... should obstinately resist the new lights of political +economy, and maintain in its _practice_ the old errors, pointed out by +all our writers.... But I am devoting too much time to this mercantile +system, which, unsustained by writers, _has only facts_ in its favor!" + +[Footnote 12: Might we not say: It is a powerful argument against +Messrs. Ferrier and de Saint Chamans, that all writers on political +economy, of _every school_, that is to say, all men who have studied the +question, come to this conclusion: After all, freedom is better than +restriction, 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 own +property_, have, like the Fourierists, stumbled upon some new, strange, +and chimerical system of social government, some wild theory, without +precedent in the annals of human nature? It does appear to me, that, if +in all this there is any thing doubtful, and of fanciful or theoretic +origin, it is not free trade, but protection; not the operating of +exchanges, but the custom-house, the duties, imposed to overturn +artificially the natural order of things. + +The question, however, is not here to compare and judge of the merits of +the two systems, but simply to know which of the two is sanctioned by +experience. + +You, Messrs. monopolists, maintain that _facts_ are for you, and that we +on our side have only _theory_. + +You even flatter yourselves that this long series of public acts, this +old 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 of +all men. + +What do _we_ maintain? and what do _you_ maintain? + +We maintain that "it is best to buy from others what we ourselves can +produce only at a higher price." + +You maintain that "it is best to make for ourselves, even though it +should cost us more than to buy from others." + +Now gentlemen, putting aside theory, demonstration, reasoning, (things +which seem to nauseate you,) which of these assertions is sanctioned by +_universal practice_? + +Visit our fields, workshops, forges, stores; look above, below, and +around you; examine what is passing in your own household; observe your +own actions at every moment, and say which principle it is, that directs +these laborers, workmen, contractors, and merchants; say what is your +own personal _practice_. + +Does the agriculturist make his own clothes? Does the tailor produce the +grain which he consumes? Does not your housekeeper cease to make her +bread at home, as soon as she finds it more economical to buy it from +the baker? Do you lay down your pen to take up the blacking-brush in +order to avoid paying tribute to the shoe-black? Does not the whole +economy of society depend upon a separation of occupations, a division +of labor, in a word, upon mutual exchange of production, by which we, +one and all, make a calculation which causes us to discontinue direct +production, when indirect acquisition offers us a saving of time and +labor. + +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 according +to your principle. + +You may answer that you never intended to make your principle the rule +of individual relations. You confess that it would thus destroy all +social ties, and force men to the isolated life of snails. You only +contend that it governs _in fact_, the relations which are established +between 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 any +exception, all _practically_ reject your principle; never, indeed, even +think of it. Each of these procures by barter, what would be more +expensively procured by production. Nations would do the same, did you +not _by force_ prevent them. + +We, then, are the men who are guided by practice and experience. For to +combat the interdict which you have specially put upon some +international exchanges, we bring forward the practice and experience of +all individuals, and of all agglomerations of individuals, whose acts +being voluntary, render them proper to be given as proof in the +question. But you, on your part, begin by _forcing_, by _hindering_, and +then, adducing forced or forbidden acts, you exclaim: "Look; we can +prove ourselves justified by example!" + +You exclaim against our _theory_, and even against _all theory_. But are +you certain, in laying down your principles, so antagonistic to ours, +that you too are not building up theories? Truly, you too have your +theory; 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 nothing +more than classify and arrange these, in order to better understand +them. 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 the +instinct of self-preservation and of progress. What they do freely, +willingly,--this is what we call _Political Economy_, or economy of +society. We must repeat constantly that each man is _practically_ an +excellent political economist, producing or exchanging, as his advantage +dictates. Each by experience raises himself to the science; or rather +the science is nothing more than experience, scrupulously observed and +methodically expounded. + +But _your_ theory is _theory_ in the worst sense of the word. You +imagine procedures which are sanctioned by the experience of no living +man, and then call to your aid constraint and prohibition. You cannot +avoid having recourse to force; because, wishing to make men produce +what they can _more advantageously_ buy, you require them to give up an +advantage, and to be led by a doctrine which implies contradiction even +in its terms. + +I defy you too, to take this doctrine, which by your own avowal would be +absurd in individual relations, and apply it, even in speculation, to +transactions between families, towns, departments, or provinces. You +yourselves 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, a +family, commune, or province, is _ill_ in a nation. What is good in +detail--for instance: purchase rather than production, where purchase is +more advantageous--is _bad_ in a society. The political economy of +individuals is not that of nations;" and other such stuff, _ejusdem +farinæ_. + +And all this for what? To prove to us, that we consumers, we are your +property! that we belong to you, soul and body! that you have an +exclusive right on our stomachs and our limbs! that it is your right to +feed and dress us at your own price, however great your ignorance, your +rapacity, or the inferiority of your work. + +Truly, then, your system is one not founded upon practice; it is one of +abstraction--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 of +view of producers, have arrived at this double formula: + +"A government should dispose of consumers subject to its laws in favor +of home industry." + +"It should subject to its laws foreign consumers, in order to dispose of +them 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 can +be more natural than to restrain, even to prohibit importations. + +And if every foreign sale is a _tribute received_, a gain, nothing more +natural than to create _outlets_, even by force. + +_Protective System; Colonial System._--These are only two aspects of the +same theory. To _prevent_ our citizens from buying from foreigners, and +to _force_ foreigners to buy from our citizens. Two consequences of one +identical principle. + +It is impossible not to perceive that according to this doctrine, if it +be true, the welfare of a country depends upon _monopoly_ or domestic +spoliation, and upon _conquest_ or foreign spoliation. + +Let us take a glance into one of these huts, perched upon the side of +our Pyrenean range. + +The father of a family has received the little wages of his labor; but +his 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 to +them; for the other side of the mountain is not France. Foreign wood +must not warm the hearth of the poor shepherd; his children must not +taste the bread of Biscay, nor cover their numbed limbs with the wool of +Navarre. It is thus that the general good requires! + +The disposing by law of consumers, forcing them to the support of home +industry, is an encroachment upon their liberty, the forbidding of an +action (mutual exchange) which is in no way opposed to morality! In a +word, 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 a +radical incompatibility between the Just and the Useful. + +Again, if each people is interested in _selling_, and not in _buying_, a +violent action and reaction must form the natural state of their mutual +relations; for each will seek to force its productions upon all, and all +will seek to repulse the productions of each. + +A sale in fact implies a purchase, and since, according to this +doctrine, to sell is beneficial, and to buy injurious, every +international transaction must imply the benefiting of one people by the +injuring of another. + +But men are invincibly inclined to what they feel to be advantageous to +themselves, while they also, instinctively resist that which is +injurious. From hence then we must infer that each nation bears within +itself a natural force of expansion, and a not less natural force of +resistance, 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 two +following 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 writer +upon public rights, any statesman who has sincerely adopted a doctrine +of which the leading principle is so antagonistic to other incontestable +principles, can enjoy one moment's repose or peace of mind. + +For myself, if such were my entrance upon the threshold of science, if I +did not clearly perceive that Liberty, Utility, Justice, and Peace, are +not only compatible, but closely connected, even identical, I would +endeavor to forget all I have learned; I would say: + +"Can it be possible that God can allow men to attain prosperity only +through injustice and war? Can he so direct the affairs of mortals, that +they 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 to +the horrible blasphemy implied in this alternative, and shall I dare to +take it upon myself to propose this as a basis for the legislation of a +great people? When I find a long succession of illustrious and learned +men, whose researches in the same science have led to more consoling +results; who, after having devoted their lives to its study, affirm that +through it they see Liberty and Utility indissolubly linked with Justice +and Peace, and find these great principles destined to continue on +through eternity in infinite parallels, have they not in their favor the +presumption which results from all that we know of the goodness and +wisdom of God as manifested in the sublime harmony of material creation? +Can I lightly believe, in opposition to such a presumption and such +imposing authorities, that this same God has been pleased to put +disagreement and antagonism in the laws of the moral world? No; before I +can believe that all social principles oppose, shock and neutralize each +other; before I can think them in constant, anarchical and eternal +conflict; above all, before I can seek to impose upon my fellow-citizens +the impious system to which my reasonings have led me, I must retrace my +steps, hoping, perchance, to find some point where I have wandered from +my road." + +And if, after a sincere investigation twenty times repeated, I should +still arrive at the frightful conclusion that I am driven to choose +between the Desirable and the Good, I would reject the science, plunge +into a voluntary ignorance, above all, avoid participation in the +affairs of my country, and leave to others the weight and responsibility +of so fearful a choice. + + + + +XV. + +RECIPROCITY AGAIN. + + +Mr. de Saint Cricq has asked: "Are we sure that our foreign customers +will buy from us as much as they sell us?" + +Mr. de Dombasle says: "What reason have we for believing that English +producers will come to seek their supplies from us, rather than from any +other nation, or that they will take from us a value equivalent to their +exportations 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 of +produce for produce. Since the use of money, no man says, I will seek +shoes, hats, advice, lessons, only from the shoemaker, the hatter, the +lawyer, or teacher, who will buy from me the exact equivalent of these +in corn. Why should nations impose upon themselves so troublesome a +restraint? + +Suppose a nation without any exterior relations. One of its citizens +makes a crop of corn. He casts it into the _national_ circulation, and +receives in exchange--what? Money, bank bills, securities, divisible to +any extent, by means of which it will be lawful for him to withdraw when +he pleases, and, unless prevented by just competition from the national +circulation, such articles as he may wish. At the end of the operation, +he will have withdrawn from the mass the exact equivalent of what he +first cast into it, and in value, _his consumption will exactly equal +his production_. + +If the exchanges of this nation with foreign nations are free, it is no +longer into the _national_ circulation but into the _general_ +circulation that each individual casts his produce, and from thence his +consumption is drawn. He is not obliged to calculate whether what he +casts into this general circulation is purchased by a countryman or by a +foreigner; whether the notes he receives are given to him by a Frenchman +or an Englishman, or whether the articles which he procures through +means of this money are manufactured on this or the other side of the +Rhine or the Pyrenees. One thing is certain; that each individual finds +an exact balance between what he casts in and what he withdraws from the +great common reservoir; and if this be true of each individual, it is +not less true of the entire nation. + +The only difference between these two cases is, that in the last, each +individual has open to him a larger market both for his sales and his +purchases, and has, consequently, a more favorable opportunity of making +both to advantage. + +The objection advanced against us here, is, that if all were to combine +in 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 the +mass 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, in +advance, you wish to force upon it, viz., _Isolation_. And here you have +the ideal of the prohibitive system. + +Truly, then, is it not ridiculous enough that you should inflict upon it +now, and unnecessarily, this system, merely through fear that some day +or 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, for +improving the channel of the Douro. A member rose and said: If the Douro +is made navigable, transportation must become cheaper, and Portuguese +grain will come into formidable competition with our _national labor_. I +vote against the project, unless ministers will agree to increase our +tariff so as to re-establish the equilibrium. + +Three months after, I was in Lisbon, and the same question came before +the Senate. A noble Hidalgo said: Mr. President, the project is absurd. +You guard at great expense the banks of the Douro, to prevent the influx +into Portugal of Spanish grain, and at the same time you now propose, at +great expense, _to facilitate such an event_. There is in this a want of +consistency in which I can have no part. Let the Douro descend to our +Sons as we have received it from our Fathers. + + + + +XVII. + +A NEGATIVE RAILROAD. + + +I have already remarked that when the observer has unfortunately taken +his point of view from the position of producer, he cannot fail in his +conclusions to clash with the general interest, because the producer, as +such, must desire the existence of efforts, wants, and obstacles. + +I find a singular exemplification of this remark in a journal of +Bordeaux. + +Mr. Simiot puts this question: + +Ought the railroad from Paris into Spain to present a break or terminus +at Bordeaux? + +This question he answers affirmatively. I will only consider one among +the numerous reasons which he adduces in support of his opinion. + +The railroad from Paris to Bayonne ought (he says) to present a break or +terminus at Bordeaux, in order that goods and travelers stopping in this +city 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 of +labor put before that of the consumer. + +But if Bordeaux would profit by a break in the road, and if such profit +be 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 too +would 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 or +termini, will be the increase in consignments, commissions, lading, +unlading, etc. This system furnishes us the idea of a railroad made up +of 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 would +maintain _this system of breaks_: it is the sacrifice of the consumer to +the producer, of the end to the means. + + + + +XVIII. + +"THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTE PRINCIPLES." + + +The facility with which men resign themselves to ignorance in cases +where knowledge is all-important to them, is often astonishing; and we +may be sure that a man has determined to rest in his ignorance, when he +once brings himself to proclaim as a maxim that there are no absolute +principles. + +We enter into the legislative halls, and find that the question is, to +determine whether the law will or will not allow of international +exchanges. + +A deputy rises and says, If we tolerate these exchanges, foreign nations +will overwhelm us with their produce. We will have cotton goods from +England, coal from Belgium, woolens from Spain, silks from Italy, cattle +from Switzerland, iron from Sweden, corn from Prussia, so that no +industrial pursuit will any longer be possible to us. + +Another answers: Prohibit these exchanges, and the divers advantages +with which nature has endowed these different countries, will be for us +as though they did not exist. We will have no share in the benefits +resulting from English skill, or Belgian mines, from the fertility of +the Polish soil, or the Swiss pastures; neither will we profit by the +cheapness of Spanish labor, or the heat of the Italian climate. We will +be obliged to seek by a forced and laborious production, what, by means +of exchanges, would be much more easily obtained. + +Assuredly one or other of these deputies is mistaken. But which? It is +worth the trouble of examining. There lie before us two roads, one of +which leads inevitably to _wretchedness_. We must choose. + +To throw off the feeling of responsibility, the answer is easy: There +are no absolute principles. + +This maxim, at present so fashionable, not only pleases idleness, but +also suits ambition. + +If either the theory of prohibition, or that of free trade, should +finally triumph, one little law would form our whole economical code. In +the first case this would be: _foreign trade is forbidden_; in the +second: _foreign trade is free_; and thus, many great personages would +lose their importance. + +But if trade has no distinctive character, if it is capriciously useful +or injurious, and is governed by no natural law, if it finds no spur in +its usefulness, no check in its inutility, if its effects cannot be +appreciated by those who exercise it; in a word, if it has no absolute +principles,--oh! then it is necessary to deliberate, weigh, and regulate +transactions, the conditions of labor must be equalized, the level of +profits sought. This is an important charge, well calculated to give to +those who execute it, large salaries, and extensive influence. + +Contemplating this great city of Paris, I have thought to myself: Here +are a million of human beings who would die in a few days, if provisions +of every kind did not flow in towards this vast metropolis. The +imagination is unable to calculate the multiplicity of objects which +to-morrow must enter its gates, to prevent the life of its inhabitants +from terminating in famine, riot, or pillage. And yet at this moment all +are asleep, without feeling one moment's uneasiness, from the +contemplation of this frightful possibility. On the other side, we see +eighty departments who have this day labored, without concert, without +mutual understanding, for the victualing of Paris. How can each day +bring just what is necessary, nothing less, nothing more, to this +gigantic market? What is the ingenious and secret power which presides +over the astonishing regularity of such complicated movements, a +regularity in which we all have so implicit, though thoughtless, a +faith; on which our comfort, our very existence depends? This power is +an _absolute principle_, the principle of freedom in exchanges. We have +faith in that inner light which Providence has placed in the heart of +all men; confiding to it the preservation and amelioration of our +species; _interest_, since we must give its name, so vigilant, so +active, having so much forecast when allowed its free action. What would +be your condition, inhabitants of Paris, if a minister, however superior +his abilities, should undertake to substitute, in the place of this +power, the combinations of his own genius? If he should think of +subjecting to his own supreme direction this prodigious mechanism, +taking all its springs into his own hand, and deciding by whom, how, and +on what conditions each article should be produced, transported, +exchanged and consumed? Ah! although there is much suffering within your +walls; although misery, despair, and perhaps starvation, may call forth +more tears than your warmest charity can wipe away, it is probable, it +is certain, that the arbitrary intervention of government would +infinitely multiply these sufferings, and would extend among you the +evils which now reach but a small number of your citizens. + +If then we have such faith in this principle as applied to our private +concerns, 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 our +industrial pursuits, to weigh our profits and our losses, to occupy +himself with the quantity of our cash, and to equalize the conditions of +our labor in internal commerce, on what principle can it be necessary +that the custom-house, going beyond its fiscal mission, should pretend +to exercise a protective power over our external commerce? + + + + +XIX. + +NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE. + + +Among the arguments advanced in favor of a restrictive system, we must +not 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 mercy +of England for our iron and coal?" + +The English monopolists, on their side, do not fail to exclaim: "What +will become of Great Britain in case of war if she depends upon France +for provisions?" + +One thing appears to be quite lost sight of, and this is, that the +dependence which results from commercial transactions, is a _reciprocal_ +dependence. We can only be dependent upon foreign supplies, in so far as +foreign nations are dependent upon us. This is the essence of _society_. +The breaking off of natural relations places a nation, not in an +independent position, but in a state of isolation. + +And remark that the reason given for this isolation, is that it is a +necessary provision for war, while the act is itself a commencement of +war. It renders war easier, less burdensome, and consequently less +unpopular. If nations were to one another permanent outlets for mutual +produce; if their respective relations were such that they could not be +broken without inflicting the double suffering of privation and of +over-supply, there could then no longer be any need of these powerful +fleets which ruin, and these great armies which crush them; the peace of +the world could no more be compromised by the whim of a Thiers or a +Palmerston, 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) for +placing interest, vile and prosaic interest, at the foundation of the +fraternity of nations. It would be preferred that this should be based +upon charity, upon love; that there should be in it some self-denial, +and that clashing a little with the material welfare of men, it should +bear the merit of a generous sacrifice. + +When will we have done with such puerile declamations? We contemn, we +revile _interest_, that is to say, the good and the useful, (for if all +men are interested in an object, how can this object be other than good +in itself?) as though this interest were not the necessary, eternal, and +indestructible mover, to the guidance of which Providence has confided +human perfectibility! One would suppose that the utterers of such +sentiments must be models of disinterestedness; but does the public not +begin to perceive with disgust, that this affected language is the stain +of those pages for which it oftenest pays the highest price? + +What! because comfort and peace are correlative, because it has pleased +God to establish so beautiful a harmony in the moral world, you would +blame me when I admire and adore his decrees, and for accepting with +gratitude his laws, which make justice a requisite for happiness! You +will consent to have peace only when it clashes with your welfare, and +liberty is irksome if it imposes no sacrifices! What then prevents you, +if self-denial has so many charms, from exercising it as much as you +desire in your private actions? Society will be benefited by your so +doing, for some one must profit by your sacrifices. But it is the height +of absurdity to wish to impose such a principle upon mankind generally; +for the self-denial of all, is the sacrifice of all. This is evil +systematized 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 great +cause of action, which, spite of all denials, is _interest_. + +It is singular enough, too, to hear sentiments of such sublime +self-abnegation quoted in support even of Spoliation; and yet to this +tends all this pompous show of disinterestedness! These men so +sensitively delicate, that they are determined not to enjoy even peace, +if it must be propped by the vile _interest_ of men, do not hesitate to +pick the pockets of other men, and above all of poor men. For what +tariff protects the poor? Gentlemen, we pray you, dispose as you please +of what belongs to yourselves, but let us entreat you to allow us to +use, or to exchange, according to our own fancy, the fruit of our own +labor, the sweat of our own brows. Declaim as you will about +self-sacrifice; that is all pretty enough; but we beg of you, do not at +the same time forget to be honest. + + + + +XX. + +HUMAN LABOR--NATIONAL LABOR. + + +Destruction of machinery--prohibition of foreign goods. These are two +acts proceeding from the same doctrine. + +We do meet with men who, while they rejoice over the revelation of any +great invention, favor nevertheless the protective policy; but such men +are very inconsistent. + +What is the objection they adduce against free trade? That it causes us +to seek from foreign and more easy production, what would otherwise be +the result of home production. In a word, that it injures domestic +industry. + +On the same principle, can it not be objected to machinery, that it +accomplishes through natural agents what would otherwise be the result +of manual labor, and that it is thus injurious to human labor? + +The foreign laborer, enjoying greater facilities of production than the +French laborer, is, with regard to the latter, a veritable _economical +machine_, which crushes him by competition. Thus, a piece of machinery +capable of executing any work at a less price than could be done by any +given 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 competition +of _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 be +possessed of any logical powers, to stop at the prohibition of foreign +produce, but should extend this prohibition to the produce of the loom +and of the plough. + +I approve therefore of the logic of those who, whilst they cry out +against the _inundation_ of foreign merchandise, have the courage to +declaim equally against the _excessive production_ resulting from the +inventive 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 extensive +employment of machines, is, that many workmen are deprived of work, +either by foreign competition, which depresses manufactures, or by +machinery, which takes the place of men in workshops." + +Mr. de St. Chamans saw clearly the analogy, or rather the identity which +exists between _importation_ and _machinery_, and was, therefore, in +favor of proscribing both. There is some pleasure in having to do with +intrepid arguers, who, even in error, thus carry through a chain of +reasoning. + +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 would +follow that the fewest _workmen_ would be employed in countries +(Lancashire, for instance) where there is the most _machinery_. And if +it be, on the contrary, proved, that machinery and manual labor coexist +to a greater extent among rich nations than among savages, it must +necessarily follow, that these two powers do not interfere with one +another. + +I cannot understand how a thinking being can rest satisfied with the +following dilemma: + +Either the inventions of man do not injure labor; and this, from general +facts, would appear to be the case, for there exists more of both among +the English and the French, than among the Sioux and the Cherokees. If +such be the fact, I have gone upon a wrong track, although unconscious +at what point. I have wandered from my road, and I would commit high +treason against humanity, were I to introduce such an error into the +legislation of my country. + +Or else the results of the inventions of mind limit manual labor, as +would appear to be proved from limited facts; for every day we see some +machine rendering unnecessary the labor of twenty, or perhaps a hundred +workmen. If this be the case, I am forced to acknowledge, as a fact, +the existence of a flagrant, eternal, and incurable antagonism between +the intellectual and the physical power of man; between his improvement +and his welfare. I cannot avoid feeling that the Creator should have +bestowed upon man either reason or bodily strength; moral force, or +brutal force; and that it has been a bitter mockery to confer upon him +faculties which must inevitably counteract and destroy one another. + +This is an important difficulty, and how is it put aside? By this +singular apothegm: + +"_In political economy there are no absolute principles._" + +There are no principles! Why, what does this mean, but that there are no +facts? Principles are only formulas, which recapitulate a whole class of +well-proved facts. + +Machinery and Importation must certainly have effects. These effects +must be either good or bad. Here there may be a difference of opinion as +to which is the correct conclusion, but whichever is adopted, it must be +capable of being submitted to the formula of one or other of these +principles, 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 to +which the human mind can lower itself, and I confess that I blush for my +country, when I hear so monstrous an absurdity uttered before, and +approved by, the French Chambers, the _élite_ of the nation, who thus +justify themselves for imposing upon the country laws, of the merits or +demerits 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_, nor +importations 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 to +excite reflection rather than to satisfy it. The mind never attains to a +firm 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 allowing +themselves to form too hasty a judgment from immediate and transitory +effects, instead of following these up to their general and final +consequences. + +The immediate effect of an ingenious piece of machinery, is, that it +renders superfluous, in the production of any given result, a certain +quantity of manual labor. But its action does not stop here. This result +being obtained at less labor, is given to the public at a less price. +The amount thus saved to the buyers, enables them to procure other +comforts, and thus to encourage general labor, precisely in proportion +to the saving they have made upon the one article which the machine has +given to them at an easier price. Thus the standard of labor is not +lowered, 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 yearly +consumed in France. This would give to those employed in this +manufacture one hundred and fifty millions. A machine is invented which +enables the manufacturer to furnish hats at ten francs. The sum given to +the maintenance of this branch of industry, is thus reduced (if we +suppose the consumption not to be increased) to one hundred millions. +But the other fifty millions are not, therefore, withdrawn from the +maintenance of _human labor_. The buyers of hats are, from the surplus +saved upon the price of that article, enabled to satisfy other wants, +and thus, in the same proportion, to encourage general industry. John +buys a pair of shoes; James, a book; Jerome, an article of furniture, +etc. Human labor, as a whole, still receives the encouragement of the +whole one hundred and fifty millions, while the consumers, with the same +supply of hats as before, receive also the increased number of comforts +accruing from the fifty millions, which the use of the machine has been +the means of saving to them. These comforts are the net gain which +France has received from the invention. It is a gratuitous gift; a +tribute exacted from nature by the genius of man. We grant that, during +this process, a certain sum of labor will have been _displaced_, forced +to change its direction; but we cannot allow that it has been destroyed +or even diminished. + +The case is the same with regard to importations. I will resume my +hypothesis. + +France, according to our supposition, manufactured ten millions of hats +at fifteen francs each. Let us now suppose that a foreign producer +brings them into our market at ten francs. I maintain that _national +labor_ is thus in no wise diminished. It will be obliged to produce the +equivalent of the hundred millions which go to pay for the ten millions +of 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, which +serve for the acquisition of other comforts, and the encouragement of +other labor. + +The mass of labor remains, then, what it was, and the additional +comforts 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 sufferings +which, in this hypothesis, would result from the displacement or change +of labor. + +For, if prohibition had never existed, labor would have classed itself +in accordance with the laws of trade, and no displacement would have +taken place. + +If prohibition has led to an artificial and unproductive classification +of labor, then it is prohibition, and not free trade, which is +responsible for the inevitable displacement which must result in the +transition from evil to good. + +It is a rather singular argument to maintain that, because an abuse +which has been permitted a temporary existence, cannot be corrected +without wounding the interests of those who have profited by it, it +ought, therefore, to claim perpetual duration. + + + + +XXI. + +RAW MATERIAL. + + +It is said that no commerce is so advantageous as that in which +manufactured articles are exchanged for raw material; because the latter +furnishes aliment for _national labor_. + +And it is hence concluded: + +That the best regulation of duties, would be to give the greatest +possible facilities to the importation of raw material, and at the same +time to check that of the finished article. + +There is, in political economy, no more generally accredited Sophism +than this. It serves for argument not only to the protectionists, but +also to the pretended free trade school; and it is in the latter +capacity that its most mischievous tendencies are called into action. +For a good cause suffers much less in being attacked, than in being +badly defended. + +Commercial liberty must probably pass through the same ordeal as liberty +in every other form. It can only dictate laws, after having first taken +thorough possession of men's minds. If, then, it be true that a reform, +to be firmly established, must be generally understood, it follows that +nothing can so much retard it, as the misleading of public opinion. And +what more calculated to mislead opinion than writings, which, while they +proclaim 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 apparent +declaration in favor of free trade. Alas! it was still the banner of +monopoly which they followed! a monopoly, only a little more sordid, a +little more absurd than that of which they seemed to desire the +destruction! Thanks to the Sophism which I would now endeavor to deprive +of its disguise, the petitioners only reproduced, with an additional +incongruity, the old doctrine of _protection to national labor_. What +is, in fact, the prohibitive system? We will let Mr. de Saint Cricq +answer for us. + +"Labor constitutes the riches of a nation, because it creates supplies +for the gratification of our necessities; and universal comfort consists +in the abundance of these supplies." Here we have the principle. + +"But this abundance ought to be the result of _national labor_. If it +were the result of foreign labor, national labor must receive an +inevitable check." Here lies the error. (See the preceding Sophism). + +"What, then, ought to be the course of an agricultural and manufacturing +country? It ought to reserve its market for the produce of its own soil +and 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 foreign +soils 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 first +class includes articles of food and _raw material untouched by human +labor_. _A judicious system of political economy would require that this +class should be exempt from taxation._" Here we have the principle of no +labor, no protection. + +"The second class is composed of articles which have received _some +preparation_ for manufacture. This preparation would render reasonable +the imposition of _some duties_." Here we find the commencement of +protection, because, at the same time, likewise commences the demand for +_national labor_. + +"The third class comprehends finished articles, which can, under no +circumstances, furnish material for national labor. We consider this as +the 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 as +injurious to national labor. This is the _error_ of the prohibitive +system. + +They desired the French market to be reserved for _French labor_. This +is the _object_ of the prohibitive system. + +They demanded that foreign labor should be subjected to restrictions and +taxes. These are the _means_ of the prohibitive system. + +What difference, then, can we possibly discover to exist between the +Bordalese petitioners and the Corypheus of restriction? One, alone; and +that is simply the greater or less extension which is given to the +signification of the word _labor_. + +Mr. de Saint Cricq, taking it in its widest sense, is, therefore, in +favor 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 endeavor +to impress upon this Chamber." + +The petitioners consider no labor but that of the manufacturers, and +accordingly, it is that, and that alone, which they would wish to admit +to the favors of protection. + +"Raw material being entirely _untouched by human labor_, our system +should exempt it from taxes. Manufactured articles furnishing no +material for national labor, we consider as the most fit for taxation." + +There is no question here as to the propriety of protecting national +labor. Mr. de Saint Cricq and the Bordalese agree entirely upon this +point. We have, in our preceding chapters, already shown how entirely we +differ from both of them. + +The question to be determined, is, whether it is Mr. de Saint Cricq, or +the Bordalese, who give to the word _labor_ its proper acceptation. And +we 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 be +protected. You agree that no foreign labor can be introduced into our +market, without destroying an equal quantity of our national labor. But +you contend that there are numerous articles of merchandise possessing +_value_, for they are sold, and which are nevertheless _untouched by +human 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 not +dependent 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 hundred +francs worth of wool, as upon a hundred francs worth of cloth, you ought +to acknowledge that protection is the right as much of the one, as of +the other. + +I ask you then why this bag of wool is worth a hundred francs? Is it not +because this is its price of production? And what is the price of +production, but the sum which has been distributed in wages for labor, +payment of skill, and interest on money, among the various laborers and +capitalists, who have assisted in the production of the article? + +_The Petitioners._--It is true that with regard to wool you may be +right; but a bag of corn, a bar of iron, a hundred weight of coal, are +these 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 saying +that labor _creates_ material objects, used a false expression, which +has led me into many farther errors. No man can _create_. No man can +bring any thing from nothing; and if _production_ is used as a synonym +for _creation_, then indeed our labor must all be useless. + +The agriculturist does not pretend that he has _created_ the corn; but +he has given it its _value_. He has by his own labor, and by that of his +servants, his laborers, and his reapers, transformed into corn +substances which were entirely dissimilar from it. What more is effected +by the miller who converts it into flour, or by the baker who makes it +into bread? + +In order that a man may be dressed in cloth, numerous operations are +first 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 never +dreamed of their needing protection. But a first _labor_ converts these +substances into forage; a second into wool; a third into thread; a +fourth into cloth; and a fifth into garments. Who can pretend to say, +that all these contributions to the work, from the first furrow of the +plough, to the last stitch of the needle, are not _labor_? + +And because, for the sake of speed and greater perfection in the +accomplishment of the final object, these various branches of labor are +divided among as many classes of workmen, you, by an arbitrary +distinction, determine that the order in which the various branches of +labor follow each other shall regulate their importance, so that while +the first is not allowed to merit the name of labor, the last shall +receive all the favors of protection. + +_The Petitioners._--Yes, we begin to understand that neither wool nor +corn are entirely _independent of human labor_; but certainly the +agriculturist has not, like the manufacturer, had every thing to do by +his own labor, and that of his workmen; nature has assisted him; and if +there is some labor, at least all is not labor, in the production of +corn. + +_Mr. de St. Cricq._--But it is the labor alone which gives it _value_. I +grant that nature has assisted in the production of grain. I will even +grant that it is exclusively her work; but I must confess at least that +I have constrained her to it by my labor. And remark, moreover, that +when I sell my corn, it is not the _work of nature_ which I make you pay +for, but _my own_. + +You will perceive, also, by following up your manner of arguing, that +neither will manufactured articles be the production of labor. Does not +the manufacturer also call upon nature to assist him? Does he not by the +assistance of steam-machinery force into his service the weight of the +atmosphere, as I, by the use of the plough, take advantage of its +humidity? Is it the cloth-manufacturer who has created the laws of +gravitation, transmission of forces and of affinities? + +_The Petitioners._--Well, well, we will give up wool, but assuredly coal +is 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 has +made its value_. Where was the _value_ of coal during the millions of +years when it lay unknown and buried a hundred feet below the surface of +the earth? It was necessary to seek it. Here was labor. It was necessary +to transport it to a market. Again this was labor. The price which you +pay for coal in the market is the remuneration given to these labors of +digging and transportation.[13] + +[Footnote 13: I do not, for many reasons, make explicit mention of such +portion of the remuneration as belongs to the contractor, capitalist, +etc. Firstly: because, if the subject be closely looked into, it will be +seen that it is always either the reimbursing in advance, or the payment +of anterior _labor_. Secondly: because, under the general labor, I +include not only the salary of the workmen, but the legitimate payment +of all co-operation in the work of production. Thirdly: finally, and +above all, because the production of the manufactured articles is, like +that of the raw material, burdened with interests and remunerations, +entirely independent of _manual labor_; and that the objection, in +itself, might be equally applied to the finest manufacture and to the +roughest 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 manufactured +articles, represents always the expense, or what is the same thing, the +_labor_ of production; that it is impossible to conceive of an article +bearing a _value, independent of human labor_; that the distinction +made by the petitioners is futile in theory, and, as the basis of an +unequal division of favors, would be iniquitous in practice; for it +would thence result that the one-third of the French occupied in +manufactures, would receive all the benefits of monopoly, because they +produce _by labor_; while the two other thirds, formed by the +agricultural 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 to +import the raw material, whether or not it be the result of labor; and +to export manufactured articles. This is a very generally received +opinion. + +"In proportion," says the petition of Bordeaux, "as raw material is +abundant, manufactures will increase and flourish." + +"The abundance of raw material," it elsewhere says, "gives an unlimited +scope to labor in those countries where it prevails." + +"Raw material," says the petition from Havre, "being the element of +labor, should be _regulated on a different system_, and ought to be +admitted _immediately_ and at the _lowest rate_." + +The same petition asks, that the protection of manufactured articles +should 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 low +price and the abundance are necessary, the manufacturers name all _raw +material_." + +All this is based upon error. + +All _value_ is, we have seen, the representative of labor. Now it is +undoubtedly true that manufacturing labor increases ten-fold, a +hundred-fold, the value of raw material, thus dispensing ten, a +hundred-fold increased profits throughout the nation; and from this fact +is deduced the following argument: The production of a hundred weight of +iron, is the gain of only fifteen francs to the various workers therein +engaged. This hundred weight of iron, converted into watch-springs, is +increased in value by this process, ten thousand francs. Who can pretend +that the nation is not more interested in securing the ten thousand +francs, than the fifteen francs worth of labor? + +In this reasoning it is forgotten, that international exchanges are, no +more than individual exchanges, effected through weight and measure. The +exchange is not between a hundred weight of unmanufactured iron, and a +hundred weight of watch-springs, nor between a pound of wool just shorn, +and a pound of wool just manufactured into cashmere, but between a fixed +value in one of these articles, and a fixed equal value in another. To +exchange equal value with equal value, is to exchange equal labor with +equal labor, and it is therefore not true that the nation which sells +its hundred francs worth of cloth or of watch-springs, gains more than +the one which furnishes its hundred francs worth of wool or of iron. + +In a country where no law can be passed, no contribution imposed without +the consent of the governed, the public can be robbed, only after it has +first been cheated. Our own ignorance is the primary, the _raw material_ +of every act of extortion to which we are subjected, and it may safely +be predicted of every _Sophism_, that it is the forerunner of an act of +Spoliation. Good Public, whenever therefore you detect a Sophism in a +petition, let me advise you, put your hand upon your pocket, for be +assured, it is that which is particularly the point of attack. + +Let us then examine what is the secret design which the ship-owners of +Bordeaux and Havre, and the manufacturers of Lyons, would smuggle in +upon us by this distinction between agricultural produce and +manufactured produce. + +"It is," say the petitioners of Bordeaux, "principally in this first +class (that which comprehends raw material, _untouched by human labor_) +that we find _the principal encouragement of our merchant vessels_.... A +wise system of political economy would require that this class should +not be taxed.... The second class (articles which have received some +preparation) may be considered as taxable. The third (articles which +have received from labor all the finish of which they are capable) we +regard as _most proper for taxation_." + +"Considering," say the petitioners of Havre, "that it is indispensable +to reduce _immediately_ and to the _lowest rate_, the raw material, in +order that manufacturing industry may give employment to our merchant +vessels, which furnish its first and indispensable means of labor." + +The manufacturers could not allow themselves to be behindhand in +civilities towards the ship-owners, and accordingly the petition of +Lyons demands the free introduction of raw material, "in order to +prove," it remarks, "that the interests of manufacturing towns are not +opposed to those of maritime cities." + +This may be true enough; but it must be confessed that both, taken in +the sense of the petitioners, are terribly adverse to the interest of +agriculture and of consumers. + +This, then, gentlemen, is the aim of all your subtle distinctions! You +wish the law to oppose the maritime transportation of _manufactured_ +articles, in order that the much more expensive transportation of the +raw material should, by its larger bulk, in its rough, dirty and +unimproved condition, furnish a more extensive business to your +_merchant vessels_. And this is what you call a _wise system of +political economy_! + +Why not also petition for a law requiring that fir-trees, imported from +Russia, should not be admitted without their branches, bark, and roots; +that Mexican gold should be imported in the state of ore, and Buenos +Ayres leathers only allowed an entrance into our ports, while still +hanging to the dead bones and putrefying bodies to which they belong? + +The stockholders of railroads, if they can obtain a majority in the +Chambers, will no doubt soon favor us with a law forbidding the +manufacture, at Cognac, of the brandy used in Paris. For, surely, they +would consider it a wise law, which would, by forcing the transportation +of ten casks of wine instead of one of brandy, thus furnish to Parisian +industry an _indispensable encouragement to its labor_, and, at the same +time, give employment to railroad locomotives! + +Until when will we persist in shutting our eyes upon the following +simple truth? + +Labor and industry, in their general object, have but one legitimate +aim, 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 to +act upon a _petitio principii_. For it is the result of labor, and not +labor itself, which is a desirable object. All labor, without a result, +is clear loss. To pay sailors for transporting rough dirt and filthy +refuse across the ocean, is about as reasonable as it would be to +engage 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, which +is the constant confounding of the _means_ with the _end_, and the +development of the former at the expense of the latter. + + + + +XXII. + +METAPHORS. + + +A Sophism will sometimes expand and extend itself through the whole +tissue of a long and tedious theory. Oftener it contracts into a +principle, and hides itself in one word. + +"Heaven preserve us," said Paul Louis, "from the Devil and from the +spirit of metaphor!" And, truly, it might be difficult to determine +which of the two sheds the most noxious influence over our planet. The +Devil, you will say, because it is he who implants in our hearts the +spirit of spoliation. Aye; but he leaves the capacity for checking +abuses, by the resistance of those who suffer. It is the genius of +Sophism which paralyzes this resistance. The sword which the spirit of +evil places in the hands of the aggressor, would fall powerless, if the +shield of him who is attacked were not shattered in his grasp by the +spirit of Sophism. Malbranche has, with great truth, inscribed upon the +frontispiece of his book this sentence: _Error is the cause of human +misery_. + +Let us notice what passes in the world. Ambitious hypocrites may take a +sinister interest in spreading, for instance, the germ of national +enmities. The noxious seed may, in its developments, lead to a general +conflagration, check civilization, spill torrents of blood, and draw +upon the country that most terrible of scourges, _invasion_. Such +hateful sentiments cannot fail to degrade, in the opinion of other +nations, the people among whom they prevail, and force those who retain +some love of justice to blush for their country. These are fearful +evils, and it would be enough that the public should have a clear view +of them, to induce them to secure themselves against the plotting of +those who would expose them to such heavy chances. How, then, are they +kept in darkness? How, but by metaphors? The meaning of three or four +words 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_ of +English iron. An English landholder cries; Let us oppose the _invasion_ +of French corn. And forthwith all their efforts are bent upon raising +barriers between these two nations. Thence follows isolation; isolation +leads to hatred; hatred to war; and war to _invasion_. What matters it? +say the two _Sophists_; is it not better to expose ourselves to a +possible _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? What +resemblance can possibly be discovered between a man-of-war, vomiting +fire, death, and desolation over our cities--and a merchant vessel, +which comes to offer in free and peaceable exchange, produce for +produce? + +Much in the same way has the word _inundation_ been abused. This word is +generally taken in a bad sense; and it is certainly of frequent +occurrence for inundations to ruin fields and sweep away harvests. But +if, as is the case in the inundations of the Nile, they were to leave +upon the soil a superior value to that which they carried away, we +ought, like the Egyptians, to bless and deify them. Would it not be +well, before declaiming against the _inundations_ of foreign produce, +and checking them with expensive and embarrassing obstacles, to certify +ourselves whether these inundations are of the number which desolate, or +of those which fertilize a country? What would we think of Mehemet Ali, +if, instead of constructing, at great expense, dams across the Nile to +increase the extent of its inundations, he were to scatter his piasters +in attempts to deepen its bed, that he might rescue Egypt from the +defilement of the _foreign_ mud which is swept down upon it from the +mountains 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 other +climates. + +Among the _metaphors_ which sometimes conceal, each in itself, a whole +theory of evil, there is none more common than that which is presented +under 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 yet +there is as distinct a difference between a _tribute_, and a _purchase_, +as between a _robbery_ and an _exchange_. It appears to me that it would +be 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 have +heard done to our honorable deputies, We have paid in _tribute_ to +Germany 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 that +which he took out. Neither could the purchase-money paid to Germany be +_tribute_, because it was not on our part a forced payment, gratuitously +received on hers, but a willing compensation from us for a thousand +horses, 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 of +uneducated writers, ignorant even of the terms of their own language. +They are current with a vast majority, and among the most distinguished +of 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 the +basis of the administration of their country. + +A celebrated modern Philosopher has added to the categories of Aristotle +the Sophism which consists in expressing in one word a _petitio +principii_. He cites several examples, and might have added the word +_tributary_ to his nomenclature. For instance, the question is to +determine 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 the +rhetoric of monopolists? + +Money is _withdrawn from the country_ to satisfy the rapacity of a +victorious enemy: money is also _withdrawn from the country_ to pay for +merchandise. The analogy is established between the two cases, +calculating only the point of resemblance and abstracting that by which +they differ. + +And yet it is certainly true, that the non-reimbursement in the first +case, and the reimbursement freely agreed upon in the second, +establishes between them so decided a difference, as to render it +impossible to class them under the same category. To be obliged, with a +dagger at your throat, to give a hundred francs, or to give them +willingly in order to obtain a desired object,--truly these are cases in +which we can perceive little similarity. It might just as correctly be +said, that it is a matter of indifference whether we eat our bread, or +have it thrown into the water, because in both cases it is destroyed. We +here draw a false conclusion, as in the case of the word _tribute_, by a +vicious manner of reasoning, which supposes an entire similitude between +two cases, their resemblance only being noticed and their difference +suppressed. + + + + +CONCLUSION. + + +All the Sophisms which I have so far combated, relate to the restrictive +policy; 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 for +a 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 parasitical +arguments,--_Sophisms_, whose rank growth calls for the spade and the +weeding-hoe. + +I am perfectly sensible of the defect of my plan, or rather absence of +plan. By attacking as I do, one by one, so many incoherent Sophisms, +which clash, and then again often mingle with each other, I am conscious +that I condemn myself to a disorderly and capricious struggle, and am +exposed to perpetual repetitions. + +I should certainly much prefer to state simply how things _are_, without +troubling myself to contemplate the thousand aspects under which +ignorance _supposes_ them to be.... To lay down at once the laws under +which society prospers or perishes, would be _virtually_ to destroy at +once all Sophisms. When Laplace described what, up to his time, was +known of the movements of celestial bodies, he dissipated, without even +naming them, all the astrological reveries of the Egyptians, Greeks, and +Hindoos, much more certainly than he could have done by attempting to +refute them directly, through innumerable volumes. Truth is one, and the +work which expounds it is an imposing and durable edifice. Error is +multiple, and of ephemereal nature. The work which combats it, cannot +bear in itself a principle of greatness or of durability. + +But if power, and perhaps opportunity, have been wanting to me, to +enable me to proceed in the manner of Laplace and of Say, I still cannot +but 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, and +to the broken moments which it is now the habit to snatch for study. + +A treatise has without doubt an incontestable superiority. But it +requires to be read, meditated, and understood. It addresses itself to +the select few. Its mission is first to fix attention, and then to +enlarge the circle of acquired knowledge. + +A work which undertakes the refutation of vulgar prejudices, cannot have +so 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 practical +utility. + +Sciences might be arranged in two categories. Those of the first class +whose application belongs only to particular professions, can be +understood only by the learned; but the most ignorant may profit by +their fruits. We may enjoy the comforts of a watch; we may be +transported by locomotives or steamboats, although knowing nothing of +mechanism 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 proportioned +only to the information of that public itself, and whose efficacy +consists not in the accumulated knowledge of some few learned heads, but +in that which has diffused itself into the reason of man in the +aggregate. Such are morals, hygiene, social economy, and (in countries +where men belong to themselves) political economy. Of these sciences +Bentham might above all have said: "It is better to circulate, than to +advance 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 does +it benefit us that Smith, Say, and, according to Mr. de St. Chamans, +political economists of _every school_, should have proclaimed the +superiority in all commercial transactions, of _liberty_ above +_restraint_, if those who make laws, and for whom laws are made, are +convinced of the contrary? + +These sciences, which have very properly been named _social_, are again +peculiar in this, that they, being of common application, no one will +confess himself ignorant of them. If the object be to determine a +question in chemistry or geometry, nobody pretends to have an innate +knowledge of the science, or is ashamed to consult Mr. Thénard, or to +seek information from the pages of Legendre or Bezout. But in the social +sciences authorities are rarely acknowledged. As each individual daily +acts upon his own notions whether right or wrong, of morals, hygiene, +and economy; of politics, whether reasonable or absurd, each one thinks +he 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 not +ready to tell you the cause and the remedy of your sufferings. "It is +from humors in the blood," says she, "you must be purged." But what are +these humors, or are there any humors at all? On this subject she +troubles herself but little. This good old woman comes into my mind, +whenever I hear an attempt made to account for all the maladies of the +social body, by some trivial form of words. It is superabundance of +produce, tyranny of capital, industrial plethora, or other such +nonsense, of which, it would be fortunate if we could say: _Verba et +voces prætereaque nihil_, for these are errors from which fatal +consequences follow. + +From what precedes, the two following results may be deduced: 1st. That +the social sciences, more than others, necessarily abound in _Sophisms_, +because in their application, each individual consults only his own +judgment and his own instincts. 2d. That in these sciences _Sophisms_ +are especially injurious, because they mislead opinion on a subject in +which opinion is power--is law. + +Two kinds of books then are necessary in these sciences, those which +teach, and those which circulate; those which expound the truth, and +those which combat error. + +I believe that the inherent defect of this little work, _repetition_, is +what is likely to be the cause of its principal utility. Among the +Sophisms which it has discussed, each has undoubtedly its own formula +and tendency, but all have a common root; and this is, the +_forgetfulness of the interests of men, considered as consumers_. By +showing that a thousand mistaken roads all lead to this great +_generative_ Sophism, I may perhaps teach the public to recognize, to +know, 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, _I +know_. My aspirations will be fully satisfied, if he can but sincerely +say, _I doubt_. + +"I doubt, for I begin to fear that there may be something illusory in +the supposed blessings of scarcity." (Sophism I.) + +"I am not so certain of the beneficial effect of obstacles." (Sophism +II.) + +"_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 more +is 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 the +better of hindrances and obstacles, or should grow rich upon taxes; and +truly I would be relieved from some anxiety, would be really happy to +see the proof of the fact, as stated by the author of "the Sophisms," +that there is no incompatibility between prosperity and justice, between +peace and liberty, between the extension of labor and the advance of +intelligence." (Sophisms XIV and XX.) + +"Without, then, giving up entirely to arguments, which I am yet in doubt +whether to look upon as fairly reasoned, or as paradoxical, I will at +least 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 over +it by _Sophistry_. + +When _might ceases to be right_, and the government of mere _strength_ +is dethroned, _Sophistry_ transfers the empire to _cunning and +subtilty_. It would be difficult to determine which of the two tyrannies +is 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 unconquerable +inclination, pushed to procure these, at the expense of others. + +But these _others_, who form the public, have a no less strong +inclination to keep what they have acquired; and this they will do, if +they have the _strength_ and the _knowledge_ to effect it. + +Spoliation, which plays so important a part in the affairs of this +world, has then two agents; _Force_ and _Cunning_. She has also two +checks; _Courage_ and _Knowledge_. + +Force applied to spoliation, furnishes the great material for the annals +of men. To retrace its history would be to present almost the entire +history of every nation: Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes, Persians, +Greeks, Romans, Goths, Franks, Huns, Turks, Arabs, Tartars, without +counting the more recent expeditions of the English in India, the French +in Africa, the Russians in Asia, etc., etc. + +But among civilized nations surely the producers of riches are now +become sufficiently numerous and strong to defend themselves. + +Does this mean that they are no longer robbed? They are as much so as +ever, and moreover they rob one another. + +The only difference is that Spoliation has changed her agent. She acts +no longer by _Force_, but by _Cunning_. + +To rob the public, it is necessary to deceive them. To deceive them, it +is necessary to persuade them that they are robbed for their own +advantage, and to induce them to accept in exchange for their property, +imaginary services, and often worse. Hence spring _Sophisms_ in all +their varieties. Then, since Force is held in check, _Sophistry_ is no +longer only an evil; it is the genius of evil, and requires a check in +its turn. This check must be the enlightenment of the public, which +must 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 be +confessed that the Preface is strangely transposed, and the Dedication a +little tardy. + + + + +PART II. + +SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. + +SECOND SERIES. + + +"The request of Industry to the government is as modest as that of +Diogenes 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 nature +that 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 own +names, 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, the +security, the independence, the instruction, the dignity of all. + +There are only two ways by which the means essential to the +preservation, the adornment and the perfection of life may be +obtained--production and spoliation. Some persons may say: "Spoliation +is 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 to +admit that spoliation is practiced on so vast a scale in this world, and +is so generally connected with all great human events, that no social +science, and, least of all, political economy, can refuse to consider +it. + +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 constant +effort of its members to live and prosper at the expense of each other. +So that, if spoliation did not exist, society being perfect, the social +sciences would be without an object. + +I go still farther. When spoliation becomes a means of subsistence for a +body of men united by social ties, in course of time they make a law +which sanctions it, a morality which glorifies it. + +It is enough to name some of the best defined forms of spoliation to +indicate the position it occupies in human affairs. + +First comes war. Among savages the conqueror kills the conquered, to +obtain an uncontested, if not incontestable, right to game. + +Next slavery. When man learns that he can make the earth fruitful by +labor, he makes this division with his brother: "You work and I eat." + +Then comes superstition. "According as you give or refuse me that which +is yours, I will open to you the gates of heaven or of hell." + +Finally, monopoly appears. Its distinguishing characteristic is to allow +the existence of the grand social law--_service for service_--while it +brings the element of force into the discussion, and thus alters the +just 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 soon +become so reduced that they can no longer satisfy the cupidity of the +former, and spoliation ceases for want of sustenance. + +Almost always the few oppress the many, and in that case spoliation is +none the less undermined, for, if it has force as an agent, as in war +and slavery, it is natural that force in the end should be on the side +of the greater number. And if deception is the agent, as with +superstition and monopoly, it is natural that the many should +ultimately 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 always +occasions the loss of a portion in the transfer. + +This is an admirable law. Without it, provided the strength of +oppressors and oppressed were equal, spoliation would have no end. + +A moment comes when the destruction of wealth is such that the despoiler +is 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 a +priesthood which has so stupefied the people and destroyed its energy +that nothing more can be gotten out of it; with a monopoly which +increases its attempts at absorption as there is less to absorb, just as +the 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 do +not know it. It may even happen that they believe that they owe every +thing to spoliation, not only what is left them but what is taken from +them, and what is lost in the operation. I also assert that, in the +course of time, thanks to the ingenious machinery of habit, many people +become spoilers without knowing it or wishing it. Monopolies of this +kind are begotten by fraud and nurtured by error. They vanish only +before the light. + +I have said enough to indicate that political economy has a manifest +practical use. It is the torch which, unveiling deceit and dissipating +error, destroys that social disorder called spoliation. Some one, a +woman I believe, has correctly defined it as "the safety-lock upon the +property 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 by +word, and letter by letter, from generation to generation, like a new +Koran; if it were to fill the libraries of the world with avalanches of +annotations, explanations and paraphrases, I might leave to their fate, +in their rather obscure conciseness, the thoughts which precede. But +since 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 service +for service_. Spoliation consists in destroying by force or by trickery +the freedom of exchange, in order to receive a service without rendering +one. + +Forcible spoliation is exercised thus: Wait till a man has produced +something; 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, and +leads to the prison; when practiced among nations, it takes the name of +conquest, and leads to glory. + +Why this difference? It is worth while to search for the cause. It will +reveal to us an irresistible power, public opinion, which, like the +atmosphere, envelopes us so completely that we do not notice it. +Rousseau never said a truer thing than this: "A great deal of philosophy +is needed to understand the facts which are very near to us." + +The robber, for the reason that he acts alone, has public opinion +against him. He terrifies all who are about him. Yet, if he has +companions, he plumes himself before them on his exploits, and here we +may begin to notice the power of public opinion, for the approbation of +his band serves to obliterate all consciousness of his turpitude, and +even to make him proud of it. The warrior lives in a different +atmosphere. The public opinion which would rebuke him is among the +vanquished. He does not feel its influence. But the opinion of those by +whom he is surrounded approves his acts and sustains him. He and his +comrades are vividly conscious of the common interest which unites them. +The country which has created enemies and dangers, needs to stimulate +the courage of its children. To the most daring, to those who have +enlarged the frontiers, and gathered the spoils of war, are given +honors, reputation, glory. Poets sing their exploits. Fair women weave +garlands for them. And such is the power of public opinion that it +separates the idea of injustice from spoliation, and even rids the +despoiler of the consciousness of his wrong-doing. + +The public opinion which reacts against military spoliation, (as it +exists among the conquered and not among the conquering people), has +very little influence. But it is not entirely powerless. It gains in +strength as nations come together and understand one another better. +Thus, it can be seen that the study of languages and the free +communication of peoples tend to bring about the supremacy of an opinion +opposed to this sort of spoliation. + +Unfortunately, it often happens that the nations adjacent to a +plundering people are themselves spoilers when opportunity offers, and +hence are imbued with the same prejudices. + +Then there is only one remedy--time. It is necessary that nations learn +by harsh experience the enormous disadvantage of despoiling each other. + +You say there is another restraint--moral influences. But moral +influences have for their object the increase of virtuous actions. How +can they restrain these acts of spoliation when these very acts are +raised by public opinion to the level of the highest virtues? Is there a +more potent moral influence than religion? Has there ever been a +religion more favorable to peace or more universally received than +Christianity? And yet what has been witnessed during eighteen centuries? +Men have gone out to battle, not merely in spite of religion, but in the +very name of religion. + +A conquering nation does not always wage offensive war. Its soldiers are +obliged to protect the hearthstones, the property, the families, the +independence and liberty of their native land. At such a time war +assumes a character of sanctity and grandeur. The flag, blessed by the +ministers 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 their +honor; the warlike virtues are exalted above all others. When the danger +is over, the opinion remains, and by a natural reaction of that spirit +of vengeance which confounds itself with patriotism, they love to bear +the cherished flag from capital to capital. It seems that nature has +thus 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 those +people who are most advanced in civilization make war, and bother +themselves 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 to +cease? + +Political economy demonstrates that even if the victors alone are +considered, war is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the +expense of the many. All that is needed, then, is that the masses should +clearly perceive this truth. The weight of public opinion, which is yet +divided, would then be cast entirely on the side of peace. + +Forcible spoliation also takes another form. Without waiting for a man +to produce something in order to rob him, they take possession of the +man himself, deprive him of his freedom, and force him to work. They do +not 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 of +uncontrolled power always to abuse itself. + +For my part I have no doubt of it, and should as soon expect to see the +power that could arrest a stone in falling proceed from the stone +itself, as to trust force within any defined limits. + +I should like to be shown a country where slavery has been abolished by +the voluntary action of the masters. + +Slavery furnishes a second striking example of the impotence of +philosophical and religious sentiments in a conflict with the energetic +activity of self-interest. + +This may seem sad to some modern schools which seek the reformation of +society in self-denial. Let them begin by reforming the nature of man. + +In the Antilles the masters, from father to son, have, since slavery was +established, professed the Christian religion. Many times a day they +repeat 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 modern +reformers hope that their moral creed will ever be as universally +accepted, as popular, as authoritative, or as often on all lips as the +Gospel? If _that_ has not passed from the lips to the heart, over or +through the great barrier of self-interest, how can they hope that their +system will work this miracle? + +Well, then, is slavery invulnerable? No; self-interest, which founded +it, will one day destroy it, provided the special interests which have +created it do not stifle those general interests which tend to overthrow +it. + +Another truth demonstrated by political economy is, that free labor is +progressive, and slave labor stationary. Hence the triumph of the first +over the second is inevitable. What has become of the cultivation of +indigo by the blacks? + +Free labor, applied to the production of sugar, is constantly causing a +reduction in the price. Slave property is becoming proportionately less +valuable to the master. Slavery will soon die out in America unless the +price of sugar is artificially raised by legislation. Accordingly we see +to-day the masters, their creditors and representatives, making vigorous +efforts to maintain these laws, which are the pillars of the edifice. + +Unfortunately they still have the sympathy of people among whom slavery +has disappeared, from which circumstance the sovereignty of public +opinion may again be observed. If public opinion is sovereign in the +domain of force, it is much more so in the domain of fraud. Fraud is its +proper sphere. Stratagem is the abuse of intelligence. Imposture on the +part of the despoiler implies credulity on the part of the despoiled, +and the natural antidote of credulity is truth. It follows that to +enlighten the mind is to deprive this species of spoliation of its +support. + +I will briefly pass in review a few of the different kinds of spoliation +which are practiced on an exceedingly large scale. The first which +presents itself is spoliation through the avenue of superstition. In +what does it consist? In the exchange of food, clothing, luxury, +distinction, influence, power--substantial services for fictitious +services. If I tell a man: "I will render you an immediate service," I +am 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 you +immense service, not in this world but in another; after this life you +may be eternally happy or miserable, and that happiness or misery +depends upon me; I am a vicar between God and man, and can open to you +the gates of heaven or of hell;" if that man believes me he is at my +mercy. + +This method of imposture has been very extensively practiced since the +beginning of the world, and it is well known to what omnipotence the +Egyptian priests attained by such means. + +It is easy to see how impostors proceed. It is enough to ask one's self +what he would do in their place. + +If I, entertaining views of this kind, had arrived in the midst of an +ignorant population, and were to succeed by some extraordinary act or +marvelous appearance in passing myself off as a supernatural being, I +would claim to be a messenger from God, having an absolute control over +the future destinies of men. + +Then I would forbid all examination of my claims. I would go still +further, and, as reason would be my most dangerous enemy, I would +interdict the use of reason--at least as applied to this dangerous +subject. I would _taboo_, as the savages say, this question, and all +those connected with it. To agitate them, discuss them, or even think of +them, 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 discovery +of my imposture. What better guarantee of its perpetuity than to make +even doubt sacrilege? + +However, I would add accessory guarantees to this fundamental one. For +instance, in order that knowledge might never be disseminated among the +masses, I would appropriate to myself and my accomplices the monopoly of +the sciences. I would hide them under the veil of a dead language and +hieroglyphic writing; and, in order that no danger might take me +unawares, I would be careful to invent some ceremony which day by day +would give me access to the privacy of all consciences. + +It would not be amiss for me to supply some of the real wants of my +people, especially if by doing so I could add to my influence and +authority. For instance, men need education and moral teaching, and I +would be the source of both. Thus I would guide as I pleased the minds +and hearts of my people. I would join morality to my authority by an +indissoluble chain, and I would proclaim that one could not exist +without the other, so that if any audacious individual attempted to +meddle with a _tabooed_ question, society, which cannot exist without +morality, would feel the very earth tremble under its feet, and would +turn its wrath upon the rash innovator. + +When things have come to this pass, it is plain that these people are +more mine than if they were my slaves. The slave curses his chain, but +my people will bless theirs, and I shall succeed in stamping, not on +their foreheads, but in the very centre of their consciences, the seal +of slavery. + +Public opinion alone can overturn such a structure of iniquity; but +where can it begin, if each stone is _tabooed_? It is the work of time +and the printing press. + +God forbid that I should seek to disturb those consoling beliefs which +link this life of sorrows to a life of felicity. But, that the +irresistible longing which attracts us toward religion has been abused, +no one, not even the Head of Christianity, can deny. There is, it seems +to me, one sign by which you can know whether the people are or are not +dupes. Examine religion and the priest, and see whether the priest is +the instrument of religion, or religion the instrument of the priest. + +If the priest is the instrument of religion, if his only thought is to +disseminate its morality and its benefits on the earth, he will be +gentle, tolerant, humble, charitable, and full of zeal; his life will +reflect that of his divine model; he will preach liberty and equality +among men, and peace and fraternity among nations; he will repel the +allurements of temporal power, and will not ally himself with that +which, of all things in this world, has the most need of restraint; he +will be the man of the people, the man of good advice and tender +consolations, the man of public opinion, the man of the Evangelist. + +If, on the contrary, religion is the instrument of the priest, he will +treat it as one does an instrument which is changed, bent and twisted in +all ways so as to get out of it the greatest possible advantage for +one's self. He will multiply _tabooed_ questions; his morality will be +as flexible as seasons, men, and circumstances. He will seek to impose +on humanity by gesticulations and studied attitudes; an hundred times a +day he will mumble over words whose sense has evaporated and which have +become empty conventionalities. He will traffic in holy things, but just +enough not to shake faith in their sanctity, and he will take care that +the 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 always +side 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 not +desire to advance religion by the clergy, but the clergy by religion, +and as so many efforts indicate an object, and as this object, according +to the hypothesis, can be only power and wealth, the decisive proof that +the 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 false +one. The higher its authority the greater the fear that it may be +severely tested. But there is much difference in the results. Abuse +always stirs up to revolt the sound, enlightened, intelligent portion of +a people. This inevitably weakens faith, and the weakening of a true +religion is far more lamentable than of a false one. This kind of +spoliation, and popular enlightenment, are always in an inverse ratio to +one 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 the +most ignorant population, but how can the knave be prevented from +donning the cassock and nursing the ambitious hope of wearing the mitre? +Despoilers obey the Malthusian law; they multiply with the means of +existence, and the means of existence of knaves is the credulity of +their dupes. Turn whichever way you please, you always find the need of +an enlightened public opinion. There is no other cure-all. + +Another species of spoliation is _commercial fraud_, a term which seems +to me too limited because the tradesman who changes his weights and +measures is not alone culpable, but also the physician who receives a +fee for evil counsel, the lawyer who provokes litigation, etc. In the +exchange of two services one may be of less value than the other, but +when the service received is that which has been agreed upon, it is +evident that spoliation of that nature will diminish with the increase +of public intelligence. + +The next in order is the abuse in the _public service_--an immense field +of spoliation, so immense that we can give it but partial consideration. + +If God had made man a solitary animal, every one would labor for +himself. Individual wealth would be in proportion to the services each +one rendered to himself. But since _man is a social animal, one service +is exchanged for another_. A proposition which you can transpose if it +suits you. + +In society there are certain requirements so general, so universal in +their nature, that provision has been made for them in the organizing of +the public service. Among these is the necessity of security. Society +agrees to compensate in services of a different nature those who render +it the service of guarding the public safety. In this there is nothing +contrary to the principles of political economy. _Do this for me, I will +do that for you._ The principle of the transaction is the same, although +the process is different, but the circumstance has great significance. + +In private transactions each individual remains the judge both of the +service which he renders and of that which he receives. He can always +decline an exchange, or negotiate elsewhere. There is no necessity of an +interchange of services, except by previous voluntary agreement. Such is +not the case with the State, especially before the establishment of +representative government. Whether or not we require its services, +whether they are good or bad, we are obliged to accept such as are +offered and to pay the price. + +It is the tendency of all men to magnify their own services and to +disparage services rendered them, and private matters would be poorly +regulated if there was not some standard of value. This guarantee we +have not, (or we hardly have it,) in public affairs. But still society, +composed of men, however strongly the contrary may be insinuated, obeys +the universal tendency. The government wishes to serve us a great deal, +much more than we desire, and forces us to acknowledge as a real service +that which sometimes is widely different, and this is done for the +purpose of demanding contributions from us in return. + +The State is also subject to the law of Malthus. It is continually +living beyond its means, it increases in proportion to its means, and +draws its support solely, from the substance of the people. Woe to the +people 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 the +services which we ask of the State is _security_. That it may guarantee +this to us it must control a force capable of overcoming all individual +or collective domestic or foreign forces which might endanger it. +Combined with that fatal disposition among men to live at the expense of +each other, which we have before noticed, this fact suggests a danger +patent to all. + +You will accordingly observe on what an immense scale spoliation, by the +abuses and excesses of the government, has been practiced. + +If one should ask what service has been rendered the public, and what +return 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_, one +might have believed that the disorder would have ceased as if by +enchantment. + +The principle of these governments is this: + +"The people themselves, by their representatives, shall decide as to the +nature and extent of the public service and the remuneration for those +services." + +The tendency to appropriate the property of another, and the desire to +defend one's own, are thus brought in contact. One might suppose that +the latter would overcome the former. Assuredly I am convinced that the +latter will finally prevail, but we must concede that thus far it has +not. + +Why? For a very simple reason. Governments have had too much sagacity; +people too little. + +Governments are skillful. They act methodically, consecutively, on a +well concerted plan, which is constantly improved by tradition and +experience. They study men and their passions. If they perceive, for +instance, that they have warlike instincts, they incite and inflame this +fatal propensity. They surround the nation with dangers through the +conduct of diplomats, and then naturally ask for soldiers, sailors, +arsenals and fortifications. Often they have but the trouble of +accepting them. Then they have pensions, places, and promotions to +offer. All this calls for money. Hence loans and taxes. + +If the nation is generous, the government proposes to cure all the ills +of humanity. It promises to increase commerce, to make agriculture +prosperous, to develop manufactures, to encourage letters and arts, to +banish misery, etc. All that is necessary is to create offices and to +pay public functionaries. + +In other words, their tactics consist in presenting as actual services +things which are but hindrances; then the nation pays, not for being +served, but for being subservient. Governments assuming gigantic +proportions end by absorbing half of all the revenues. The people are +astonished that while marvelous labor-saving inventions, destined to +infinitely multiply productions, are ever increasing in number, they are +obliged 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 choose +their agents, those who are to determine the sphere of, and compensation +for, governmental action, whom do they choose? The agents of the +government. They entrust the executive power with the determination of +the limit of its activity and its requirements. They are like the +_Bourgeois Gentilhomme_, who referred the selection and number of his +suits of clothes to his tailor. + +However, things go from bad to worse, and at last the people open their +eyes, 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 your +sufferings, 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 and +insurrections. When the people are conquered, the expenses of the war +are added to their burdens. When they conquer, there is a change of +those who govern, and the abuses remain. + +This lasts until the people learn to know and defend their true +interests. Thus we always come back to this: there is no remedy but in +the progress of public intelligence. + +Certain nations seem remarkably inclined to become the prey of +governmental spoliation. They are those where men, not considering their +own dignity and energy, would believe themselves lost, if they were not +governed and administered upon in all things. Without having traveled +much, I have seen countries where they think agriculture can make no +progress unless the State keeps up experimental farms; that there will +presently be no horses if the State has no stables; and that fathers +will not have their children educated, or will teach them only +immoralities, if the State does not decide what it is proper to learn. +In such a country revolutions may rapidly succeed one another, and one +set of rulers after another be overturned. But the governed are none the +less governed at the caprice and mercy of their rulers, until the +people see that it is better to leave the greatest possible number of +services in the category of those which the parties interested exchange +after a fair discussion of the price. + +We have seen that society is an exchange of services, and should be but +an exchange of good and honest ones. But we have also proven that men +have a great interest in exaggerating the relative value of the services +they render one another. I cannot, indeed, see any other limit to these +claims than the free acceptance or free refusal of those to whom these +services are offered. + +Hence it comes that certain men resort to the law to curtail the natural +prerogatives of this liberty. This kind of spoliation is called +privilege or monopoly. We will carefully indicate its origin and +character. + +Every one knows that the services which he offers in the general market +are 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 all +who offer services similar to his. + +This variety of spoliation being the chief subject of this volume, I +will say little of it here, and will restrict myself to one remark: + +When the monopoly is an isolated fact, it never fails to enrich the +person to whom the law has granted it. It may then happen that each +class of workmen, instead of seeking the overthrow of this monopoly, +claim a similar one for themselves. This kind of spoliation, thus +reduced to a system, becomes then the most ridiculous of mystifications +for every one, and the definite result is that each one believes that he +gains more from a general market impoverished by all. + +It is not necessary to add that this singular _regime_ also brings about +an universal antagonism between all classes, all professions, and all +peoples; that it requires the constant but always uncertain interference +of government; that it swarms with the abuses which have been the +subject of the preceding paragraph; that it places all industrial +pursuits in hopeless insecurity; and that it accustoms men to place upon +the law, and not upon themselves, the responsibility for their very +existence. It would be difficult to imagine a more active cause of +social 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 the +sincerity of almost all the friends of Protection, and I do not claim +that I have any right to suspect the personal honesty, delicacy of +feeling, or philanthropy of any one. I also repeat that Protection is +the work, the fatal work, of a common error, of which all, or nearly +all, are at once victims and accomplices. But I cannot prevent things +being 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 you +practice on your brothers the most iniquitous spoliation?" Or a tribune +speaking in the forum, "Romans! you have laid the foundation of all your +greatness on the pillage of other nations." + +They would state only undeniable truths. But must we conclude from this +that Athens and Rome were inhabited only by dishonest persons? that +Socrates and Plato, Cato and Cincinnatus were despicable characters? + +Who could harbor such a thought? But these great men lived amidst +surroundings that relieved their consciences of the sense of this +injustice. Even Aristotle could not conceive the idea of a society +existing without slavery. In modern times slavery has continued to our +own day without causing many scruples among the planters. Armies have +served as the instruments of grand conquests--that is to say, of grand +spoliations. Is this saying that they are not composed of officers and +men as sensitive of their honor, even more so, perhaps, than men in +ordinary industrial pursuits--men who would blush at the very thought +of theft, and who would face a thousand deaths rather than stoop to a +base action? + +It is not individuals who are to blame, but the general movement of +opinion which deludes and deceives them--a movement for which society in +general 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 the +greatest philosophers have been able to deceive themselves as to the +iniquity of slavery, how much easier is it for farmers and manufacturers +to deceive themselves as to the nature and effects of the protective +system. + + + + +II. + +TWO SYSTEMS OF MORALS. + + +Arrived at the end of the preceding chapter, if he gets so far, I +imagine I hear the reader say: + +"Well, now, was I wrong in accusing political economists of being dry +and 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 the +masses, and ever growing by what it feeds on. Could a more mournful +picture of the world be imagined than this?" + +The problem is, not to find whether the picture is mournful, but whether +it is true. And for that we have the testimony of history. + +It is singular that those who decry political economy, because it +investigates men and the world as it finds them, are more gloomy than +political economy itself, at least as regards the past and the present. +Look into their books and their journals. What do you find? Bitterness +and hatred of society. The very word _civilization_ is for them a +synonym for injustice, disorder and anarchy. They have even come to +curse _liberty_, so little confidence have they in the development of +the human race, the result of its natural organization. Liberty, +according to them, is something which will bring humanity nearer and +nearer to destruction. + +It is true that they are optimists as regards the future. For, although +humanity, in itself incapable, for six thousand years has gone astray, a +revelation 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, will +lead them to the promised land, where well-being may be attained without +effort, where order, security and prosperity are the easy reward of +improvidence. + +To this end humanity, as Rousseau said, has only to allow these +reformers to change the physical and moral constitution of man. + +Political economy has not taken upon itself the mission of finding out +the probable condition of society had it pleased God to make men +different from what they are. It may be unfortunate that Providence, at +the beginning, neglected to call to his counsels a few of our modern +reformers. And, as the celestial mechanism would have been entirely +different had the Creator consulted _Alphonso the Wise_, society, also, +had He not neglected the advice of Fourier, would have been very +different from that in which we are compelled to live, and move, and +breathe. But, since we are here, our duty is to study and to understand +His laws, especially if the amelioration of our condition essentially +depends upon such knowledge. + +We cannot prevent the existence of unsatisfied desires in the hearts of +men. + +We cannot satisfy these desires except by labor. + +We cannot deny the fact that man has as much repugnance for labor as he +has satisfaction with its results. + +Since man has such characteristics, we cannot prevent the existence of a +constant tendency among men to obtain their part of the enjoyments of +life while throwing upon others, by force or by trickery, the burdens of +labor. It is not for us to belie universal history, to silence the +voice of the past, which attests that this has been the condition of +things since the beginning of the world. We cannot deny that war, +slavery, superstition, the abuses of government, privileges, frauds of +every nature, and monopolies, have been the incontestable and terrible +manifestations 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 as +much bread and as little sweat as possible. This is the conclusion of +history. + +Thank Heaven, history also teaches that the division of blessings and +burdens tends to a more exact equality among men. Unless one is prepared +to deny the light of the sun, it must be admitted that, in this respect +at least, society has made some progress. + +If this be true, there exists in society a natural and providential +force, a law which causes iniquity gradually to cease, and makes justice +more and more a reality. + +We say that this force exists in society, and that God has placed it +there. If it did not exist we should be compelled, with the socialists, +to search for it in those artificial means, in those arrangements which +require a fundamental change in the physical and moral constitution of +man, or rather we should consider that search idle and vain, for the +reason that we could not comprehend the action of a lever without a +place of support. + +Let us, then, endeavor to indicate that beneficent force which tends +progressively to overcome the maleficent force to which we have given +the name spoliation, and the existence of which is only too well +explained by reason and proved by experience. + +Every maleficent act necessarily has two terms--the point of beginning +and the point of ending; the man who performs the act and the man upon +whom it is performed; or, in the language of the schools, the active and +the passive agent. There are, then, two means by which the maleficent +act can be prevented: by the voluntary absence of the active, or by the +resistance of the passive agent. Whence two systems of morals arise, not +antagonistic but concurrent; religious or philosophical morality, and +the morality to which I permit myself to apply the name economical +(utilitarian). + +Religious morality, to abolish and extirpate the maleficent act, appeals +to 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 your +neighbor, to succor and relieve whom is your duty; be first just, then +generous." This morality will always be the most beautiful, the most +touching, that which will exhibit the human race in all its majesty; +which will the best lend itself to the offices of eloquence, and will +most excite the sympathy and admiration of mankind. + +Utilitarian morality works to the same end, but especially addresses +itself to man in his capacity of passive agent. It points out to him the +consequences of human actions, and, by this simple exhibition, +stimulates him to struggle against those which injure, and to honor +those which are useful to him. It aims to extend among the oppressed +masses enough good sense, enlightenment and just defiance, to render +oppression both difficult and dangerous. + +It may also be remarked that utilitarian morality is not without its +influence upon the oppressor. An act of spoliation causes good and +evil--evil for him who suffers it, good for him in whose favor it is +exercised--else the act would not have been performed. But the good by +no means compensates the evil. The evil always, and necessarily, +predominates over the good, because the very fact of oppression +occasions a loss of force, creates dangers, provokes reprisals, and +requires costly precautions. The simple exhibition of these effects is +not then limited to retaliation of the oppressed; it places all, whose +hearts are not perverted, on the side of justice, and alarms the +security of the oppressors themselves. + +But it is easy to understand that this morality which is simply a +scientific demonstration, and would even lose its efficiency if it +changed its character; which addresses itself not to the heart but to +the intelligence; which seeks not to persuade but to convince; which +gives proofs not counsels; whose mission is not to move but to +enlighten, and which obtains over vice no other victory than to deprive +it of its booty--it is easy to understand, I say, how this morality has +been accused of being dry and prosaic. The reproach is true without +being just. It is equivalent to saying that political economy is not +everything, does not comprehend everything, is not the universal +solvent. But who has ever made such an exorbitant pretension in its +name? The accusation would not be well founded unless political economy +presented its processes as final, and denied to philosophy and religion +the use of their direct and proper means of elevating humanity. Look at +the concurrent action of morality, properly so called, and of political +economy--the one inveighing against spoliation by an exposure of its +moral ugliness, the other bringing it into discredit in our judgment, by +showing its evil consequences. Concede that the triumph of the religious +moralist, when realized, is more beautiful, more consoling and more +radical; at the same time it is not easy to deny that the triumph of +economical science is more facile and more certain. + +In a few lines, more valuable than many volumes, J.B. Say has already +remarked that there are two ways of removing the disorder introduced by +hypocrisy into an honorable family; to reform Tartuffe, or sharpen the +wits of Orgon. Moliere, that great painter of human life, seems +constantly 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 I +will tell you what were the Romans of his day. + +Tell me what modern diplomacy has accomplished, and I will describe the +moral condition of the nations. + +We should not pay two milliards of taxes if we did not appoint those who +consume them to vote them. + +We should not have so much trouble, difficulty and expense with the +African question if we were as well convinced that two and two make four +in political economy as in arithmetic. + +M. Guizot would never have had occasion to say: "France is rich enough +to pay for her glory," if France had never conceived a false idea of +glory. + +The same statesman never would have said: "_Liberty is too precious for +France 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 the +Tartuffes, the Cæsars, the conquerors of Algeria, the sinecurists, the +monopolists, etc. The mission of political economy is to enlighten their +dupes. Of these two processes, which is the more efficient aid to social +progress? I believe it is the second. I believe that humanity cannot +escape the necessity of first learning a _defensive morality_. I have +read, observed, and made diligent inquiry, and have been unable to find +any abuse, practiced to any considerable extent, that has perished by +voluntary renunciation on the part of those who profited by it. On the +contrary, I have seen many that have yielded to the manly resistance of +those who suffered by them. + +To describe the consequences of abuses, is the most efficient way of +destroying the abuses themselves. And this is true particularly in +regard to abuses which, like the protective system, while inflicting +real evil upon the masses, are to those who seem to profit by them only +an illusion and a deception. + +Well, then, does this species of morality realize all the social +perfection which the sympathetic nature of the human heart and its +noblest faculties cause us to hope for? This I by no means pretend. +Admit the general diffusion of this defensive morality--which, after +all, is only a knowledge that the best understood interests are in +accord with general utility and justice. A society, although very well +regulated, might not be very attractive, where there were no knaves, +only because there were no fools; where vice, always latent, and, so to +speak, overcome by famine, would only stand in need of available plunder +in order to be restored to vigor; where the prudence of the individual +would be guarded by the vigilance of the mass, and, finally, where +reforms, regulating external acts, would not have penetrated to the +consciences of men. Such a state of society we sometimes see typified in +one of those exact, rigorous and just men who is ever ready to resent +the slightest infringement of his rights, and shrewd in avoiding +impositions. You esteem him--possibly you admire him. You may make him +your deputy, but you would not necessarily choose him for a friend. + +Let, then, the two moral systems, instead of criminating each other, act +in concert, and attack vice at its opposite poles. While the economists +perform their task in uprooting prejudice, stimulating just and +necessary opposition, studying and exposing the real nature of actions +and things, let the religious moralist, on his part, perform his more +attractive, but more difficult, labor; let him attack the very body of +iniquity, follow it to its most vital parts, paint the charms of +beneficence, self-denial and devotion, open the fountains of virtue +where we can only choke the sources of vice--this is his duty. It is +noble and beautiful. But why does he dispute the utility of that which +belongs to us? + +In a society which, though not superlatively virtuous, should +nevertheless be regulated by the influences of _economical morality_ +(which is the knowledge of the economy of society), would there not be a +field for the progress of religious morality? + +Habit, it has been said, is a second nature. A country where the +individual had become unaccustomed to injustice, simply by the force of +an enlightened public opinion, might, indeed, be pitiable; but it seems +to me it would be well prepared to receive an education more elevated +and more pure. To be disaccustomed to evil is a great step towards +becoming good. Men cannot remain stationary. Turned aside from the paths +of vice which would lead only to infamy, they appreciate better the +attractions of virtue. Possibly it may be necessary for society to pass +through this prosaic state, where men practice virtue by calculation, to +be thence elevated to that more poetic region where they will no longer +have need of such an exercise. + + + + +III. + +THE TWO HATCHETS. + +_Petition of Jacques Bonhomme, Carpenter, to M. Cunin-Gridaine, Minister +of Commerce._ + + +MR. MANUFACTURER-MINISTER: I am a carpenter, as was Jesus; I handle the +hatchet and the plane to serve you. + +In chopping and splitting from morning until night in the domain of my +lord, 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 my +shop as well as your manufactory. + +For indeed, if you make cloths, I make roofs. Both by different means +protect our patrons from cold and rain. But I have to run after +customers while business seeks you. You know how to manage this by +obtaining a monopoly, while my business is open to any one who chooses +to engage in it. + +What is there astonishing in this? Mr. Cunin, the Cabinet Minister, has +not forgotten Mr. Cunin, the manufacturer, as was very natural. But +unfortunately, 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, did +not utter the smallest word by virtue of which carpenters might feel +authorized to enrich themselves as you do at the expense of others. + +Look, then, at my position. I earn thirty cents every day, excepts +Sundays and holidays. If I apply to you for work at the same time with a +Flemish 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 cents +are really worth only twenty-eight. + +What did I say? They are worth only twenty-six. For, instead of driving +the Belgian weaver away at _your own expense_ (which would be the least +you could do) you compel me to pay those who, in your interest, force +him out of the market. + +And since a large number of your fellow-legislators, with whom you seem +to have an excellent understanding, take away from me a cent or two +each, 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 only +fifteen left from the pillage. + +Possibly, you may answer that those few pennies which pass thus, without +compensation, from my pocket to yours, support a number of people about +your _chateau_, and at the same time assist you in keeping up your +establishment. To which, if you would permit me, I would reply, they +would likewise support a number of persons in my cottage. + +However this may be, Hon. Minister-Manufacturer, knowing that I should +meet with a cold reception were I to ask you to renounce the restriction +imposed upon your customers, as I have a right to, I prefer to follow +the fashion, and to demand for myself, also, a little morsel of +_protection_. + +To this, doubtless you will interpose some objections. "Friend," you +will say, "I would be glad to protect you and your colleagues; but how +can I confer such favors upon the labor of carpenters? Shall I prohibit +the importation of houses by land and by sea?" + +This would seem sufficiently ridiculous, but by giving much thought to +the subject, I have discovered a way to protect the children of St. +Joseph, and you will, I trust, the more readily grant it since it +differs in no respect from the privilege which you vote for yourself +every year. This wonderful way is to prohibit the use of sharp hatchets +in France. + +I say that this restriction would be neither more illogical nor +arbitrary than that which you subject us to in regard to your cloth. + +Why do you drive away the Belgians? Because they sell cheaper than you +do. And why do they sell cheaper than you do? Because they are in some +way or another your superiors as manufacturers. + +Between you and the Belgians, then, there is exactly the same difference +that 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, and +desiring, among other things, to purchase cloth. There are two means of +doing this. The first is to card the wool and weave the cloth himself; +the second is to manufacture clocks, or wines, or wall-paper, or +something of the sort, and exchange them in Belgium for cloth. + +The process which gives the larger result may be represented by the +sharp hatchet; the other process by the dull one. + +You will not deny that at the present day in France it is more difficult +to manufacture cloth than to cultivate the vine--the former is the dull +hatchet, the latter the sharp one--on the contrary, you make this +greater difficulty the very reason why you recommend to us the worst of +the two hatchets. + +Now, then, be consistent, if you will not be just, and treat the poor +carpenters as well as you treat yourself. Make a law which shall read: +"It is forbidden to use beams or shingles which have not been fashioned +by dull hatchets." + +And you will immediately perceive the result. + +Where we now strike an hundred blows with the ax, we shall be obliged to +give three hundred. What a powerful encouragement to industry! +Apprentices, journeymen and masters, we should suffer no more. We should +be greatly sought after, and go away well paid. Whoever wishes to enjoy +a roof must leave us to make his tariff, just as buyers of cloth are now +obliged to submit to you. + +As for those free trade theorists, should they ever venture to call the +utility of this system in question we should know where to go for an +unanswerable argument. Your investigation of 1834 is at our service. We +should fight them with that, for there you have admirably pleaded the +cause 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 to +buy, sell, trade, exchange, and to render service for service according +to his own discretion, on the sole condition that he will conduct +himself honestly, and not defraud the revenue? Would you rob the +workingman of his labor, his wages and his bread?" + +This is what is said to us. I know what the general opinion is; but I +have desired to know what the laborers themselves think. I have had an +excellent opportunity of finding out. + +It was not one of those _Superior Councils of Industry_ (Committee on +the Revision of the Tariff), where large manufacturers, who style +themselves laborers, influential ship-builders who imagine themselves +seamen, and wealthy bondholders who think themselves workmen, meet and +legislate in behalf of that philanthropy with whose nature we are so +well 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 Aid +Society_. Upon my own private authority I transformed it into an +_Inferior Council of Labor_ (People's Committee for Revising the +Tariff), and I obtained a report which is as good as any other, although +unencumbered by figures, and not distended to the proportions of a +quarto volume and printed at the expense of the State. + +The subject of my inquiry was the real or supposed influence of the +protective system upon these poor people. The President, indeed, +informed me that the institution of such an inquiry was somewhat in +contravention of the principles of the society. For, in France, the land +of liberty, those who desire to form associations must renounce +political discussions--that is to say, the discussion of their common +interests. However, after much hesitation, he made the question the +order of the day. + +The assembly was divided into as many sub-committees as there were +different 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 (official +style, for it was only a stool) and found upon the table (official +style, 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 accurately +as 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 examined +diminution of our wages. | the question in + | every light, and +2. On account of the protective tariff, our patrons | have been unable to +are also obliged to pay more for everything, and | perceive a single +have less to spend for clothes, consequently we | point in regard to +have less work and smaller profits. | which the protective + | system is +3. On account of the protective tariff, clothes | advantageous to +are 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 the +same story. Gardeners, carpenters, shoemakers, boatmen, all complained +of the same grievances. + +I am sorry there were no day laborers in our association. Their report +would certainly have been exceedingly instructive. But, unfortunately, +the poor laborers of our province, all _protected_ as they are, have not +a cent, and, after having taken care of their cattle, cannot go +themselves to the _Mutual Aid Society_. The pretended favors of +protection do not prevent them from being the pariahs of modern society. + +What I would especially remark is the good sense with which our +villagers have perceived not only the direct evil results of protection, +but also the indirect evil which, affecting their patrons, reacts upon +themselves. + +This is a fact, it seems to me, which the economists of the school of +the _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 they +noticed this side of the question. Possibly, they might say to +themselves: "It is better to support one's self surrounded by well-to-do +neighbors, than to be protected in the midst of poverty." For to seek to +encourage every branch of industry by successively creating a void +around 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 delusion +caused by the words _dear_ and _cheap_. At the first glance, I am aware, +you may be disposed to find these remarks somewhat subtile, but whether +subtile or not, the question is whether they are true. For my part I +consider them perfectly true, and particularly well adapted to cause +reflection among a large number of those who cherish a sincere faith in +the efficacy of protection. + +Whether advocates of free trade or defenders of protection, we are all +obliged to make use of the expression _dearness_ and _cheapness_. The +former take sides in behalf of _cheapness_, having in view the interests +of 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 dearness +ought to be the object of legislation. + +In this conflict of opinion it seems to me that there is only one +position for the law to take--to allow prices to regulate themselves +naturally. But the principle of "let alone" has obstinate enemies. They +insist upon legislation without even knowing the desired objects of +legislation. It would seem, however, to be the duty of those who wish to +create 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 a +triumph for their system, and it has fallen to defenders of natural +prices to prove the advantages of their system. The argument on both +sides is conducted with two words. It is very essential, then, to +understand their meaning. + +It must be granted at the outset that a series of events have happened +well calculated to disconcert both sides. + +In order to produce _high prices_ the protectionists have obtained high +tariffs, and still low prices have come to disappoint their +expectations. + +In order to produce _low prices_, free traders have sometimes carried +their point, and, to their great astonishment, the result in some +instances has been an increase instead of a reduction in prices. + +For instance, in France, to protect farmers, a law was passed imposing a +duty of twenty-two per cent. upon imported wools, and the result has +been that native wools have been sold for much lower prices than before +the passage of the law. + +In England a law in behalf of the consumers was passed, exempting +foreign wools from duty, and the consequence has been that native wools +have sold higher than ever before. + +And this is not an isolated fact, for the price of wool has no special +or peculiar nature which takes it out of the general law governing +prices. The same fact has been reproduced under analogous circumstances. +Contrary to all expectation, protection has frequently resulted in low +prices, and free trade in high prices. Hence there has been a deal of +perplexity in the discussion, the protectionists saying to their +adversaries: "These low prices that you talk about so much are the +result of our system;" and the free traders replying: "Those high prices +which you find so profitable are the consequence of free trade." + +There evidently is a misunderstanding, an illusion, which must be +dispelled. 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 as +much of everything as the other--twice as much wheat, wine, iron, fuel, +books, clothing, furniture, etc. It will be conceded that one will have +twice as much wealth as the other. + +There is, however, no reason for the statement that the _absolute +prices_ are different in the two nations. They possibly may be higher in +the wealthiest nation. It may happen that in the United States +everything is nominally dearer than in Poland, and that, nevertheless, +the people there are less generally supplied with everything; by which +it may be seen that the abundance of products, and not the absolute +price, constitutes wealth. In order, then, accurately to compare free +trade and protection the inquiry should not be which of the two causes +high prices or low prices, but which of the two produces abundance or +scarcity. + +For observe this: Products are exchanged, the one for the other, and a +relative scarcity and a relative abundance leave the absolute price +exactly 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 by +results so different from what had been expected, a fall of prices +frequently succeeding the increase of the tariff, and a rise sometimes +following a reduction of duties, it has become necessary for political +economy to attempt the explanation of a phenomenon which so overthrows +received ideas; for, whatever may be said, science is simply a faithful +exposition and a true explanation of facts. + +This phenomenon may be easily explained by one circumstance which should +never 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 principles +of political economy is that price is determined by the law of supply +and demand. + +The price is then affected by two conditions--the demand and the supply. +These conditions are necessarily subject to variation. The relations of +demand to supply may be exactly counterbalanced, or may be greatly +disproportionate, 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 of +the demand. + +Consequently there are two kinds of _dearness_ and two kinds of +_cheapness_. There is a bad dearness, which results from a diminution of +the supply; for this implies scarcity and privation. There is a good +dearness--that which results from an increase of demand; for this +indicates the augmentation of the general wealth. + +There is also a good cheapness, resulting from abundance. And there is a +baneful cheapness--such as results from the cessation of demand, the +inability of consumers to purchase. + +And observe this: Prohibition causes at the same time both the dearness +and the cheapness which are of a bad nature; a bad dearness, resulting +from a diminution of the supply (this indeed is its avowed object), and +a bad cheapness, resulting from a diminution of the demand, because it +gives a false direction to capital and labor, and overwhelms consumers +with taxes and restrictions. + +So that, _as regards the price_, these two tendencies neutralize each +other; and for this reason, the protective system, restricting the +supply and the demand at the same time, does not realize the high +prices which are its object. + +But with respect to the condition of the people, these two tendencies do +not neutralize each other; on the contrary, they unite in impoverishing +them. + +The effect of free trade is exactly the opposite. Possibly it does not +cause the cheapness which it promises; for it also has two tendencies, +the one towards that desirable form of cheapness resulting from the +increase of supply, or from abundance; the other towards that dearness +consequent upon the increased demand and the development of the general +wealth. These two tendencies neutralize themselves as regards the _mere +price_; but they concur in their tendency to ameliorate the condition of +mankind. In a word, under the protective system men recede towards a +condition of feebleness as regards both supply and demand; under the +free trade system, they advance towards a condition where development is +gradual without any necessary increase in the absolute prices of things. + +Price is not a good criterion of wealth. It might continue the same when +society had relapsed into the most abject misery, or had advanced to a +high state of prosperity. + +Let me make application of this doctrine in a few words: A farmer in the +south of France supposes himself as rich as Croesus, because he is +protected by law from foreign competition. He is as poor as Job--no +matter, he will none the less suppose that this protection will sooner +or later make him rich. Under these circumstances, if the question was +propounded to him, as it was by the committee of the Legislature, in +these terms: "Do you want to be subject to foreign competition? yes or +no," his first answer would be "No," and the committee would record his +reply with great enthusiasm. + +We should go, however, to the bottom of things. Doubtless foreign +competition, and competition of any kind, is always inopportune; and, if +any trade could be permanently rid of it, business, for a time, would be +prosperous. + +But protection is not an isolated favor. It is a system. If, in order to +protect the farmer, it occasions a scarcity of wheat and of beef, in +behalf 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 by +reason of the diminution of the supply, the scarcity of all other +products for which wheat is exchanged has likewise a tendency to +depreciate 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 under +a protective tariff than under a system of free trade. This alone is +certain, that inasmuch as there is a smaller amount of everything in the +country, each individual will be more poorly provided with everything. + +The farmer would do well to consider whether it would not be more +desirable for him to allow the importation of wheat and beef, and, as a +consequence, to be surrounded by a well-to-do community, able to consume +and to pay for every agricultural product. + +There is a certain province where the men are covered with rags, dwell +in 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 without +it as much as possible. Can any one imagine that all these objects of +consumption can be thus left untouched by the masses, without lowering +prices? + +That which we say of a farmer, we can say of a manufacturer. +Cloth-makers assert that foreign competition will lower prices owing to +the increased quantity offered. Very well, but are not these prices +raised by the increase of the demand? Is the consumption of cloth a +fixed and invariable quantity? Is each one as well provided with it as +he might and should be? And if the general wealth were developed by the +abolition of all these taxes and hindrances, would not the first use +made of it by the population be to clothe themselves better? + +Therefore the question, the eternal question, is not whether protection +favors this or that special branch of industry, but whether, all things +considered, restriction is, in its nature, more profitable than freedom? + +Now, no person can maintain that proposition. And just this explains the +admission which our opponents continually make to us: "You are right on +principle." + +If that is true, if restriction aids each special industry only through +a greater injury to the general prosperity, let us understand, then, +that the price itself, considering that alone, expresses a relation +between each special industry and the general industry, between the +supply and the demand, and that, reasoning from these premises, this +_remunerative price_ (the object of protection) is more hindered than +favored by it. + + +APPENDIX. + +We published an article entitled _Dearness-Cheapness_, which gained for +us 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 the +article which provoked your letter. We said that free trade acted +precisely like roads, canals and railways, like everything which +facilitates communications, and like everything which destroys +obstacles. Its first tendency is to increase the quantity of the article +which is relieved from duties, and consequently to lower its price. But +by increasing, at the same time, the quantity of all the things for +which this article is exchanged, it increases the _demand_, and +consequently the price rises. You ask us what the people will gain. +Suppose they have a balance with certain scales, in each one of which +they have for their use a certain quantity of the articles which you +have enumerated. If a little grain is put in one scale it will gradually +sink, but if an equal quantity of cloth, iron and coal is added in the +others, the equilibrium will be maintained. Looking at the beam above, +there will be no change. Looking at the people, we shall see them better +fed, 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 restrictive +measures is a wrongful one--_artificial dearness_. But we do not say +that they always realize the hopes of those who initiate them. It is +certain that they inflict on the consumer all the evils of dearness. It +is not certain that the producer gets the profit. Why? Because if they +diminish the supply they also diminish the _demand_. + +This proves that in the economical arrangement of this world there is a +moral force, a _vis medicatrix_, which in the long run causes inordinate +ambition to become the prey of a delusion. + +Pray, notice, sir, that one of the elements of the prosperity of each +special branch of industry is the general prosperity. The rent of a +house is not merely in proportion to what it has cost, but also to the +number and means of the tenants. Do two houses which are precisely alike +necessarily rent for the same sum? Certainly not, if one is in Paris and +the other in Lower Brittany. Let us never speak of a price without +regarding the _conditions_, and let us understand that there is nothing +more futile than to try to build the prosperity of the parts on the ruin +of the whole. This is the attempt of the restrictive system. + +Competition always has been, and always will be, disagreeable to those +who are affected by it. Thus we see that in all times and in all places +men try to get rid of it. We know, and you too, perhaps, a municipal +council where the resident merchants make a furious war on the foreign +ones. Their projectiles are import duties, fines, etc., etc. + +Now, just think what would have become of Paris, for instance, if this +war had been carried on there with success. + +Suppose that the first shoemaker who settled there had succeeded in +keeping out all others, and that the first tailor, the first mason, the +first printer, the first watchmaker, the first hair-dresser, the first +physician, the first baker, had been equally fortunate. Paris would +still be a village, with twelve or fifteen hundred inhabitants. But it +was not thus. Each one, except those whom you still keep away, came to +make 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 a +million inhabitants. The general prosperity has gained by this, +doubtless, but have the shoemakers and tailors, individually, lost +anything by it? For you, this is the question. As competitors came, you +said: 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 that +you will have more competitors, but you will also have more customers, +and richer ones. Did you never think of this when seeing nine-tenths of +your countrymen deprived during the winter of that superior cloth that +you make? + +This is not a very long lesson to learn. If you wish to prosper, let +your customers do the same. + +When this is once known, each one will seek his welfare in the general +welfare. Then, jealousies between individuals, cities, provinces and +nations, 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 he +thinks what he says. + +What is the question? To ascertain which is the more advantageous for +you, restriction or liberty. + +I believe that it is liberty; they believe it is restriction; it is for +each 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 used +the 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 turn +public attention away from the protective policy. + +Do not they favor the views of the Custom House officers, who gain more +than anybody else by this protective _regime_? + +So you see that if we did not ignore this war of epithets, we should not +be 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 free +to purchase from abroad?_ + +Workmen, they say to you, "If you are free to buy from abroad these +things which you now make yourselves, you will no longer make them. You +will be without work, without wages, and without bread. It is then for +your own good that your liberty be restricted." + +This objection recurs in all forms. They say, for instance, "If we +clothe ourselves with English cloth, if we make our plowshares with +English iron, if we cut our bread with English knives, if we wipe our +hands with English napkins, what will become of the French workmen--what +will become of the _national labor_?" + +Tell me, workmen, if a man stood on the pier at Boulogne, and said to +every Englishman who landed: If you will give me those English boots, I +will give you this French hat; or, if you will let me have this English +horse, I will let you have this French carriage; or, Are you willing to +exchange this Birmingham machine for this Paris clock? or, again, Does +it suit you to barter your Newcastle coal for this Champagne wine? I ask +you whether, supposing this man makes his proposals with average +judgment, 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 to +exchange services at Boulogne instead of one; if a million barters were +made instead of four; and if the intervention of merchants and money was +called on to facilitate them and multiply them indefinitely? + +Now, let one country buy of another at wholesale to sell again at +retail, or at retail to sell again at wholesale, it will always be +found, if the matter is followed out to the end, that _commerce consists +of mutual barter of products for products, of services for services_. +If, then, _one barter_ does not injure the _national labor_, since it +implies as much _national labor given_ as _foreign labor received_, a +hundred million of them cannot hurt the country. + +But, you will say, where is the advantage? The advantage consists in +making a better use of the resources of each country, so that the same +amount of labor gives more satisfaction and well-being everywhere. + +There are some who employ singular tactics against you. They begin by +admitting the superiority of freedom over the prohibitive system, +doubtless in order that they may not have to defend themselves on that +ground. + +Next they remark that in going from one system to another there will be +some _displacement_ of labor. + +Then they dilate upon the sufferings which, according to themselves, +this _displacement_ must cause. They exaggerate and amplify them; they +make of them the principal subject of discussion; they present them as +the exclusive and definite result of reform, and thus try to enlist you +under the standard of monopoly. + +These tactics have been employed in the service of all abuses, and I +must frankly admit one thing, that it always embarrasses even the +friends of those reforms which are most useful to the people. You will +understand why. + +When an abuse exists, everything arranges itself upon it. + +Human existences connect themselves with it, others with these, then +still others, and this forms a great edifice. + +Do you raise your hand against it? Each one protests; and notice this +particularly, those persons who protest always seem at the first glance +to be right, because it is easier to show the disorder which must +accompany the reform than the order which will follow it. + +The friends of the abuse cite particular instances; they name the +persons and their workmen who will be disturbed, while the poor devil of +a reformer can only refer to the _general good_, which must insensibly +diffuse itself among the masses. This does not have the effect which the +other has. + +Thus, supposing it is a question of abolishing slavery. "Unhappy +people," they say to the colored men, "who will feed you? The master +distributes floggings, but he also distributes rations." + +It is not seen that it is not the master who feeds the slave, but his +own 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 we +lose, 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, so +that 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 would +furnish you work? + +You answer: This is true, this is true. The labor which the monopolists +procure us is certain. The promises of liberty are uncertain. + +For you do not see that they first take money from you, and then give +you back a _part_ of it for your labor. + +Do you ask who will furnish you work? Why, you will give each other +work. With the money which will no longer be taken from you, the +shoemaker will dress better, and will make work for the tailor. The +tailor will have new shoes oftener, and keep the shoemaker employed. So +it will be with all occupations. + +They say that with freedom there will be fewer workmen in the mines and +the 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 sustained +only by the aid of taxes imposed on _everybody_ for their benefit, these +taxes once abolished, _everybody_ will be more comfortably off, and it +is 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 to +see you on the side of liberty. + +In France, capital invested in manufactures yields, I suppose, five per +cent. profit. But here is Mondor, who has one hundred thousand francs +invested in a manufactory, on which he loses five per cent. The +difference between the loss and gain is ten thousand francs. What do +they do? They assess upon you a little tax of ten thousand francs, which +is given to Mondor, and you do not notice it, for it is very skillfully +disguised. It is not the tax gatherer who comes to ask you your part of +the tax, but you pay it to Mondor, the manufacturer, every time you buy +your hatchets, your trowels, and your planes. Then they say to you: If +you 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, would +you not get work yourselves, and on your own account too? + +And, then, be easy, when Mondor has no longer this soft method of +obtaining his profit by a tax, he will use his wits to turn his loss +into a gain, and John and James will not be dismissed. Then all will be +profit _for all_. + +You will persist, perhaps, saying: "We understand that after the reform +there will be in general more work than before, but in the meanwhile +John and James will be on the street." + +To which I answer: + +First. When employment changes its place only to increase, the man who +has two arms and a heart is not long on the street. + +Second. There is nothing to hinder the State from reserving some of its +funds to avoid stoppages of labor in the transition, which I do not +myself believe will occur. + +Third. Finally, if to get out of a rut and get into a condition which is +better for all, and which is certainly more just, it is absolutely +necessary to brave a few painful moments, the workmen are ready, or I +know them ill. God grant that it may be the same with employers. + +Well, because you are workmen, are you not intelligent and moral? It +seems that your pretended friends forget it. It is surprising that they +discuss such a subject before you, speaking of wages and interests, +without once pronouncing the word _justice_. They know, however, full +well that the situation is _unjust_. Why, then, have they not the +courage to tell you so, and say, "Workmen, an iniquity prevails in the +country, 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 your +attention for a few moments and judge for yourselves. + +What do they protect in France? Articles made by great manufacturers in +great establishments, iron, cloth and silks, and they tell you that this +is done not in the interest of the employer, but in your interest, in +order to insure you wages. + +But every time that foreign labor presents itself in the market in such +a form that it may hurt _you_, but not the great manufacturers, do they +not allow it to come in? + +Are there not in Paris thirty thousand Germans who make clothes and +shoes? Why are they allowed to establish themselves at your side when +cloth is driven away? Because the cloth is made in great mills owned by +manufacturing legislators. But clothes are made by workmen in their +rooms. + +These gentlemen want no competition in the turning of wool into cloth, +because that is _their_ business; but when it comes to converting cloth +into clothes, they admit competition, because that is _your_ trade. + +When they made railroads they excluded English rails, but they imported +English workmen to make them. Why? It is very simple; because English +rails compete with the great rolling mills, and English muscles compete +only with yours. + +We do not ask them to keep out German tailors and English laborers. We +ask that cloth and rails may be allowed to come in. We ask justice for +all, 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 and +dressmakers, I challenge you to show me a single instance in which +restriction profits you, and if you wish, I will point out four where it +hurts you. + +And after all, just see how much of the appearance of truth this +self-denial, which your journals attribute to the monopolists, has. + +I believe that we can call that the _natural rate of wages_ which would +establish itself _naturally_ if there were freedom of trade. Then, when +they tell you that restriction is for your benefit, it is as if they +told you that it added a _surplus_ to your _natural_ wages. Now, an +_extra natural_ surplus of wages must be taken from somewhere; it does +not fall from the moon; it must be taken from those who pay it. + +You are then brought to this conclusion, that, according to your +pretended friends, the protective system has been created and brought +into the world in order that capitalists might be sacrificed to +laborers! + +Tell me, is that probable? + +Where is your place in the Chamber of Peers? When did you sit at the +Palais Bourbon? Who has consulted you? Whence came this idea of +establishing the protective system? + +I hear your answer: _We_ did not establish it. We are neither Peers nor +Deputies, nor Counselors of State. The capitalists have done it. + +By heavens, they were in a delectable mood that day. What! the +capitalists made this law; _they_ established the prohibitive system, so +that 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 the +goodness, generosity and self-denial of capitalists, constantly express +regret that you do not enjoy your political rights? From their point of +view, what could you do with them? The capitalists have the monopoly of +legislation, it is true. Thanks to this monopoly, they have granted +themselves the monopoly of iron, cloth, coal, wood and meat, which is +also true. But now your pretended friends say that the capitalists, in +acting thus, have stripped themselves, without being obliged to do it, +to enrich you without your being entitled to it. Surely, if you were +electors and deputies, you could not manage your affairs better; you +would 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 democrats +of a new species can never get out of this dilemma; the law, made by the +present law-makers, gives you _more_, or gives you _less_, than your +natural wages. If it gives you _less_, they deceive you in inviting you +to support it. If it gives you _more_, they deceive you again by calling +on you to claim political rights, when those who now exercise them, make +sacrifices for you which you, in your honesty, could not yourselves +vote. + +Workingmen, God forbid that the effect of this article should be to cast +in your hearts the germs of irritation against the rich. If mistaken +_interests_ still support monopoly, let us not forget that it has its +root in _errors_, which are common to capitalists and workmen. Then, far +from laboring to excite them against one another, let us strive to bring +them together. What must be done to accomplish this? If it is true that +the natural social tendencies aid in effacing inequality among men, all +we have to do to let those tendencies act is to remove the artificial +obstructions which interfere with their operation, and allow the +relations of different classes to establish themselves on the principle +of _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 not +all this the work of little saints? + +What spirit in the painting of the vices of the time! What touching +tenderness for the masses! With what liberality they invite the rich to +divide with the poor, or the poor to divide with the rich! How many +plans of social reform, social improvement, and social organization! +Does not even the weakest writer devote himself to the well-being of the +laboring classes? All that is required is to advance them a little money +to give them time to attend to their humanitarian pursuits. + +There is nothing which does not assume to aid in the well-being and +moral advancement of the people--nothing, not even the Custom House. You +believe that it is a tax machine, like a duty or a toll at the end of a +bridge? Not at all. It is an essentially civilizing, fraternizing and +equalizing institution. What would you have? It is the fashion. It is +necessary 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 a +singular way of going to work to realize these philanthropic +aspirations. + +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 the +industry of the people that negative action which is summed up in the +word _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 public +order, but transactions which are innocent, and which they have even +admitted 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 from +getting their food from abroad they produce it at home. It is more +laborious, but they must live. If they are kept from passing along the +valley, they must climb the mountains. It is longer, but the point of +destination must be reached. + +This is sad, but amusing. When the law has thus created a certain amount +of obstacles, and when, to overcome them, humanity has diverted a +corresponding amount of labor, you are no longer allowed to call for the +reform of the law; for, if you point out the _obstacle_, they show you +the labor which it brings into play; and if you say this is not labor +created but _diverted_, they answer you as does the _Esprit +Public_--"The impoverishing only is certain and immediate; as for the +enriching, 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 magnificent +canal connected them. The Emperor thought fit to have immense masses of +rock 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 are +foolish." + +You understand, of course, that I give but the substance of the +dialogue. + +At the end of three moons the Celestial Emperor had the Mandarin +brought, 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 laid +pavement, 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, said +to him: "Look." + +And Kouang looked. + +And he saw that the road was made; and he noticed that at various +points, inns were building. A medley of foot passengers, carriages and +palanquins went and came, and innumerable Chinese, oppressed by fatigue, +carried back and forth heavy burdens from Tchin to Tchan, and from Tchan +to Tchin, and Kouang said: It is the destruction of the canal which has +given labor to these poor people. But it did not occur to him that this +labor 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 being +hungry, there had sprung up, near by, the shops of butchers, bakers, +charcoal dealers, and bird's nest sellers. Since these worthy men could +not go naked, tailors, shoemakers and umbrella and fan dealers had +settled there, and as they do not sleep in the open air, even in the +Celestial Empire, carpenters, masons and thatchers congregated there. +Then came police officers, judges and fakirs; in a word, around each +stopping 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 of +a canal could create so much labor for the people." For he did not think +that it was not labor created, but _diverted_; that travelers ate when +they went by the canal just as much as they did when they were forced to +go by the road. + +However, to the great astonishment of the Chinese, the Emperor died, and +this 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 doing +wrong." + +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 and +things 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, some +numbers of the _Moniteur Industriel_, a Chinese paper. Knowing his +lesson by heart, he asked permission to answer, and, having obtained it, +after striking his forehead nine times against the floor, he said: "My +Lord, you try, by facilitating transportation, to reduce the price of +articles of consumption, in order to bring them within the reach of the +people; and to do this you begin by making them lose all the labor which +was 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 the +absolute cheapness of articles of consumption is but a secondary +question. The problem lies in the equilibrium of the price of labor and +that of the articles necessary to existence. The abundance of labor is +the wealth of nations, and the best economic system is that which +furnishes them the greatest possible amount of labor. Do not ask whether +it is better to pay four or eight cents cash for a cup of tea, or five +or ten shillings for a shirt. These are puerilities unworthy of a +serious mind. No one denies your proposition. The question is, whether +it is better to pay more for an article, and to have, through the +abundance and price of labor, more means of acquiring it, or whether it +is better to impoverish the sources of labor, to diminish the mass of +national production, and to transport articles of consumption by canals, +more cheaply it is true, but, at the same time, to deprive a portion of +our laborers of the power to buy them, even at these reduced prices." + +The Emperor not being altogether convinced, Kouang said to him: "My +Lord, be pleased to wait. I have the _Moniteur Industriel_ to quote +from." + +But the Emperor said: "I do not need your Chinese newspapers to tell me +that to create _obstacles_ is to turn labor in that direction. Yet that +is not my mission. Come, let us clear out the canal, and then we will +reform 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 on +your people; for, there has come to us an Emperor of the _English +school_, and I see very plainly that, in a little while, we shall be in +want of everything, since it will not be necessary for us to do +anything! + + + + +VIII. + +POST HOC, ERGO PROPTER HOC. + + +"After this, therefore on account of this." The most common and the most +false 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 freedom +which does all the mischief. It promised us wonders and marvels; we +welcomed it, and now the manufactories stop and the people suffer." + +Commercial freedom distributes, in the most uniform and equitable +manner, the fruits which Providence grants to the labor of man. If these +fruits are partially destroyed by any misfortune, it none the less looks +after the fair distribution of what remains. Men are not as well +provided 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 the +same time the harvests were very abundant, and we can justly believe +that these two circumstances had much to do with the wonderful +prosperity shown by that country during that period. + +In 1845 the harvest was bad, and in 1846 it was still worse. Breadstuffs +grew dear, the people spent their money for food, and used less of other +articles. There was a diminished demand for clothing; the manufactories +were not so busy, and wages showed a declining tendency. Happily, in the +same year, the restrictive barriers were again lowered, and an enormous +quantity of food was enabled to reach the English market. If it had not +been for this, it is almost certain that a terrible revolution would now +fill Great Britain with blood. + +Yet they make freedom chargeable with disasters, which it prevents and +remedies, at least in part. + +A poor leper lived in solitude. No one would touch what he had +contaminated. Compelled to do everything for himself, he dragged out a +miserable existence. A great physician cured him. Here was our hermit in +full possession of the _freedom of exchange_. What a beautiful prospect +opened before him! He took pleasure in calculating the advantages, +which, thanks to his connection with other men, he could draw from his +vigorous arms. Unluckily, he broke both of them. Alas! his fate was most +miserable. 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? Do +not they form a part of his sad destiny? His misfortune is to have lost +his arms, and not to have been cured of leprosy. He would be much more +to 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, and +metaphysical. Very well. Let us try a trivial, commonplace, and, if +necessary, coarse style. Convinced that the public is _duped_ in the +matter of protection, I have desired to prove it. But the public wishes +to be shouted at. Then let us cry out: + +"Midas, King Midas, has asses' ears!" + +An outburst of frankness often accomplishes more than the politest +circumlocution. + +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 to +many people. I say to them as Harpagon did to Elise, Is it the _word_ or +the _thing_ that alarms you? + +Whoever has fraudulently taken that which does not belong to him, is +guilty 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, obliges +me to pay him twenty francs for an article which I can get elsewhere for +fifteen, 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 this +monopolist carries off, takes, or demands, what can be more _furtive_, +since so few of us suspect it? And for those who are not deceived, what +can be more _forced_, since, at the first refusal to pay, the officer is +at our doors? + +Still, let the monopolists reassure themselves. These robberies, by +means of bounties or tariffs, even if they do violate equity as much as +robbery, do not break the law; on the contrary, they are perpetrated +through the law. They are all the worse for this, but they have nothing +to 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, others +can cry the same after him, when he sells. If he differs from many of +his countrymen, it is only in this: he knows that he loses by this game +more than he gains, and they do not; if they did know it, the game would +soon cease. + +Nor do I boast of having first given this thing its true name. More than +sixty years ago, Adam Smith said: + +"When manufacturers meet it may be expected that a conspiracy will be +planned against the pockets of the public." Can we be astonished at this +when 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 (warlike +digression). It is not surprising. I cannot build without iron. I can +get it at ten francs _in the world's market_; but, through the law, the +managers of the French forges compel me to pay them fifteen francs. Thus +they take five francs from me. I ask freedom to buy where I please. + +"An Iron Manufacturer. _In the world's market_ I can obtain +transportation for twenty francs. The ship-builder, through the law, +requires thirty. Thus he _takes_ ten francs from me. He plunders me; I +plunder him. It is all for the best. + +"A Public Official. The conclusion of the ship-builder's argument is +highly imprudent. Oh, let us cultivate the touching union which makes +our 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 that +the shipping is nearly gone. + +"A Sailor. Very well, let us raise the discriminating duties against +goods imported in foreign bottoms, and let the ship-builder, who now +takes thirty francs from the public, hereafter take forty. + +"A Minister. The government will push to its extreme limits the +admirable mechanism of these discriminating duties, but I fear that it +will not answer the purpose. + +"A Government Employe. You seem to be bothered about a very little +matter. Is there any safety but in the bounty? If the consumer is +willing, the tax-payer is no less so. Let us pile on the taxes, and let +the ship-builder be satisfied. I propose a bounty of five francs, to be +taken from the public revenues, to be paid to the ship-builder for each +quintal 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 have +originated the system of _drawbacks_, and it will be its eternal glory. +What branch of manufacturing can lose hereafter, when we have two so +simple 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 coming +appearance of the _bounty_ (who knows if I did not suggest the thought +to M. Dupin?), when some months ago I wrote the following words: + +"It seems evident to me that protection, without changing its nature or +effects, might take the form of a direct tax levied by the State, and +distributed 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 more +just, more economical, and more truthful. More just, because if society +wishes to give gratuities to some of its members, all should contribute; +more economical, because it would save much of the expense of +collection, and do away with many obstacles; and, finally, more +truthful, because the public could see the operation plainly, and would +know 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 by +tariff_, and as it is a little better disguised, the direct will enable +us to understand the indirect, cheating. Thus the mind proceeds from the +simple to the complex. + +But is there no simpler variety of robbery? Certainly, there is _highway +robbery_, and all it needs is to be legalized, or, as they say +now-a-days, _organized_. + +I once read the following in somebody's travels: + +"When we reached the Kingdom of A---- we found all industrial pursuits +suffering. Agriculture groaned, manufactures complained, commerce +murmured, the navy growled, and the government did not know whom to +listen to. At first it thought of taxing all the discontented, and of +dividing among them the proceeds of these taxes after having taken its +share; which would have been like the method of managing lotteries in +our dear Spain. There are a thousand of you; the State takes a dollar +from each one, cunningly steals two hundred and fifty, and then divides +up seven hundred and fifty, in greater or smaller sums, among the +players. The worthy Hidalgo, who has received three-quarters of a +dollar, forgetting that he has spent a whole one, is wild with joy, and +runs to spend his shillings at the tavern. Something like this once +happened in France. Barbarous as the country of A---- was, however, the +government did not trust the stupidity of the inhabitants enough to make +them accept such singular protection, and hence this was what it +devised: + +"The country was intersected with roads. The government had them +measured, exactly, and then said to the farmers, 'All that you can steal +from travelers between these boundaries is yours; let it serve you as a +_bounty_, a protection, and an encouragement.' It afterwards assigned to +each 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 so +familiarized with this regime, and so accustomed to think only of what +they steal, and not of what is stolen from them, so habituated to look +at pillage but from the pillager's point of view, that they consider the +sum of all these private robberies as _national profit_, and refuse to +give up a system of protection without which, they say, no branch of +industry 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 and +practice _reciprocal robbery_ under the name of bounties and protective +tariffs. + +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 us +say, also, that as far as principles and necessary results are +concerned, there is not an atom of difference between these two kinds +of robbery legally organized to eke out the profits of industry. + +Observe, that if _highway robbery_ presents some difficulties of +execution, it has also certain advantages which are not found in the +_tariff robbery_. + +For instance: An equitable division can be made between all the +plunderers. It is not thus with tariffs. They are by nature impotent to +protect 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 in +this respect does not yield in perfection to _highway robbery_, but on +the 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 great +reason. + +That which the plundered party loses in highway robbery is gained by the +robber. The article stolen remains, at least, in the country. But under +the dominion of _bounty robbery_, that which the duty takes from the +French is often given to the Chinese, the Hottentots, Caffirs, and +Algonquins, as follows: + +A piece of cloth is worth a _hundred francs_ at Bordeaux. It is +impossible to sell it below that without loss. It is impossible to sell +it for more than that, for the _competition_ between merchants forbids. +Under these circumstances, if a Frenchman desires to buy the cloth, he +must pay a _hundred francs_, or do without it. But if an Englishman +comes, the government interferes, and says to the merchant: "Sell your +cloth, and I will make the tax-payers give you _twenty francs_ (through +the operation of the _drawback_)." The merchant, who wants, and can get, +but one hundred francs for his cloth, delivers it to the Englishman for +eighty francs. This sum added to the twenty francs, the product of the +_bounty robbery_, makes up his price. It is then precisely as if the +tax-payers had given twenty francs to the Englishman, on condition that +he would buy French cloth at twenty francs below the cost of +manufacture,--at twenty francs below what it costs us. Then bounty +robbery has this peculiarity, that the _robbed_ are inhabitants of the +country which allows it, and the _robbers_ are spread over the face of +the globe. + +It is truly wonderful that they should persist in holding this +proposition to have been demonstrated: _All that the individual robs +from the mass is a general gain._ Perpetual motion, the philosopher's +stone, and the squaring of the circle, are sunk in oblivion; but the +theory of _progress by robbery_ is still held in honor. _A priori_, +however, one might have supposed that it would be the shortest lived of +all 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? You +do not desire the _organization of labor_? Why, gentlemen, organize +labor as much as you please, but we will watch to see that you do not +organize _robbery_. + +Others say, _bounties_, _tariffs_, all these things may have been +overdone. We must use, without abusing them. A wise liberty, combined +with moderate protection, is what _serious_ and practical men claim. Let +us beware of _absolute principles_. This is exactly what they said in +the Kingdom of A----, according to the Spanish traveler. "Highway +robbery," said the wise men, "is neither good nor bad in itself; it +depends on circumstances. Perhaps too much freedom of pillage has been +given; perhaps not enough. Let us see; let us examine; let us balance +the accounts of each robber. To those who do not make enough, we will +give a little more road to work up. As for those who make too much, we +will reduce their share." + +Those who spoke thus acquired great fame for moderation, prudence, and +wisdom. They never failed to attain the highest offices of the State. + +As for those who said, "Let us repress injustice altogether; let us +allow neither _robbery_, nor _half robbery_, nor _quarter robbery_," +they passed for theorists, dreamers, bores--always parroting the same +thing. The people also found their reasoning too easy to understand. How +can 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 you +please, what do you propose to do with them? + +--The first will be given to the creditors of the State. When one has +debts, 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 put +in cartridges, which made the finest smoke in the world; with another +part men were hired who were maimed on foreign ground, after having +ravaged it. Then, when these expenses brought the enemy upon us, he +would 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 a +perpetual rent. Still one must pay what he owes, no matter how foolish a +use may have been made of the money. That accounts for one hogshead, but +the five others? + +--One is required to pay for public services, the civil list, the judges +who decree the restitution of the bit of land your neighbor wants to +appropriate, the policemen who drive away robbers while you sleep, the +men who repair the road leading to the city, the priest who baptizes +your 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 insist +on 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 army +and navy expenses? + +--Alas, it is little compared with what they have cost me already. They +have 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 forces +were every where reduced a half or three-quarters. We should save our +children 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 the +legislative halls? + +--Whom did you support for Deputy? + +--An excellent General, who will be a Marshal presently, if God spares +his 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 and +your 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 temperance +people, the barbarians! What services will they give me in exchange for +this ambrosia, which has cost me so much labor? + +--None at all; it is not intended for Mussulmans, but for good +Christians 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 and +come home to be doctored; dig harbors, make roads, build villages and +people them with Maltese, Italians, Spaniards and Swiss, who live on +your hogshead, and many others which I shall come in the future to ask +of you. + +--Mercy! This is too much, and I flatly refuse you my hogshead. They +would 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 own +house! Dig ports in Barbary when the Garonne fills up with sand every +day! 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 and +Maltese, 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 enable +them to live here. + +--But then you lay the basis of a _great empire_, you carry +_civilization_ into Africa, and you crown your country with immortal +glory. + +--You are a poet, my dear Collector; but I am a vine-grower, and I +refuse. + +--Think that in a few thousand years you will get back your advances a +hundred-fold. All those who have charge of the enterprise say so. + +--At first they asked me for one barrel of wine to meet expenses, then +two, 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 a +hogshead. + +--That is but too true. Cursed weakness! It seems to me that I was +unwise in making him my agent; for what is there in common between the +General of an army and the poor owner of a vineyard? + +--You see well that there is something in common between you, were it +only 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, and +leave 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 in +Africa perpetuated. What more do you want? + +--The bargain is not made with me. You must tell your desires to the +General. _He_ has disposed of your vintage. + +--But what do you propose to do with this poor hogshead, the flower of +my 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 establishment +very 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 either +have to do a better business or close his manufactory. + +--But what connection is there between D----'s bad speculations and my +hogshead? + +--The Chamber thought that if it gave D---- a little wine from your +cellar, a few bushels of grain taken from your neighbors, and a few +pennies cut from the wages of the workingmen, his losses would change +into profits. + +--This recipe is as infallible as it is ingenious. But it is shockingly +unjust. 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 a +great service you render to the country? + +--You mean to say to D----? + +--To the country. D---- asserts that, thanks to this arrangement, his +business 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, he +spends his money, and if he extorts from me wine or grain enough to make +good his losses, and even to make him a profit, he calls it a general +gain! + +--Your _representative_ having come to that conclusion, all you have to +do is to give me the six hogsheads of wine, and sell the fourteen that I +leave you for as much as possible. + +--That is my business. + +--For, you see, it would be very annoying if you did not get a good +price 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 and +plowshares, a law declares that you must pay the iron-master twice what +it 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 by +the 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 strange +disposition 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 and +manufacturers? + +--You will re-elect him, I say. + +--That is a little _too much_. I will not re-elect him, if I do not want +to. + +--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 settle +with. + +--We shall see. Good bye. I take away your six hogsheads, and will +proceed 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 should +have 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 I +undertake to carry out my ideas and to run counter to its ideas, I shall +not have the majority, and if I do not, I cannot be His Majesty's +Minister. + +--Just imagine that you are so, and that consequently the majority is +not 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 is +necessary. + +--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 it +implies that the majority clearly sees what is just, clearly sees what +is 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 a +possibility 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 it +accomplished. 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 have +invented some new tax. + +--Heaven forbid! Besides, I do not flatter myself that I have an +inventive mind. + +--It is necessary, however. Oh, I have it. What was I thinking of? You +are 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 on +it at present. + +--What! you diminish the receipts, without lessening expenses, and you +avoid a deficit? + +--Yes, by diminishing other taxes at the same time. + +(Here the interlocutor, putting the index finger of his right hand on +his forehead, shook his head, which may be translated thus: He is +rambling terribly.) + +--Well, upon my word, this is ingenious. I pay the Treasury a hundred +francs; you relieve me of five francs on salt, five on postage; and in +order that the Treasury may nevertheless receive one hundred francs, you +relieve 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 expound +this 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 from +Belgium? + +--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 the +restriction, and you will gain ten francs. + +--Oh, I begin to see. The treasury account shows that it loses five +francs on postage and five on salt, and gains ten on cloth. That is +even. + +--Your account is--you gain five francs on salt, five on postage, and +ten on cloth. + +--Total, twenty francs. This is satisfactory enough. But what becomes of +the poor cloth manufacturer? + +--Oh, I have thought of him. I have secured compensation for him by +means 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 to +wool, coal, machinery, etc., so that he can lower his price without +loss. + +--But are you sure that will be an equivalent? + +--The balance will be in his favor. The twenty francs that you gain on +the cloth will be multiplied by those which I will save for you on +grain, meat, fuel, etc. This will amount to a large sum, and each one of +your 35,000,000 fellow-citizens will save the same way. There will be +enough to consume the cloths of both Belgium and France. The nation will +be 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. Your +limbs are your own, and not the manufacturer's. To shield them from cold +is your business and not his. If the law takes sides for him against +you, the law is unjust, and you allowed me to reason on the hypothesis +that what is unjust is hurtful. + +--Perhaps I admitted too much; but go on and explain your financial +plan. + +--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 is +supposed to be ignorant of the law" is a fiction. Let us see your +tariff. + +--Here it is: Section First. All imports shall pay an _ad valorem_ tax +of 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 of +revenue, we must open another; this will not diminish the relative +inferiority of our manufactories, and there will be one bureau more to +organize and pay. + +--That is true; I reasoned as if the tax was to be annulled, not +changed. I will reflect on this. What is your second section? + +--Section Second. All exports shall pay an _ad valorem_ tax of five per +cent. + +--Merciful Heavens, Mr. Utopist! You will certainly be stoned, and, if +it 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 this +new 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 country +districts had established this _octroi_ for their profit, what would +happen? + +--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 the +Batignolles. + +--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 your +expenses.[15] + +--I find you at fault, this is not _justice_. + +--Why not? In order to secure the production of any one thing, there +must be instruction, security, roads, and other costly things in the +country. 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 the +direct and indirect expenses of production. + +--No matter what you say, it is plain that such a measure would paralyze +commerce; and cut off all exports. + +--That is an illusion. If you were to pay this tax besides all the +others, you would be right. But, if the hundred millions raised in this +way, relieve you of other taxes to the same amount, you go into foreign +markets with all your advantages, and even with more, if this duty has +occasioned less embarrassment and expense. + +--I will reflect on this. So now the salt, postage and customs are +regulated. 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 them +through the customs; which also gives me something more precious. + +--What, pray? + +--International relations founded on justice, and a probability of peace +which is equivalent to a certainty. I will disband the army. + +--The whole army? + +--Except special branches, which will be voluntarily recruited, like all +other professions. You see, conscription is abolished. + +--Sir, you should say recruiting. + +--Ah, I forgot, I cannot help admiring the ease with which, in certain +countries, the most unpopular things are perpetuated by giving them +other names. + +--Like _consolidated duties_, which have become _indirect +contributions_. + +--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 the +country. 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 call +out everybody? + +--You did not make me Minister in order that I should leave things as +they are. Thus, on my advent to power, I shall say with Richelieu, "the +State maxims are changed." My first maxim, the one which will serve as a +basis for my administration, is this: Every citizen must know two +things--How to earn his own living, and defend his country. + +--It seems to me, at the first glance, that there is a spark of good +sense in this. + +--Consequently, I base the national defense on a law consisting of two +sections. + +Section First. Every able-bodied citizen, without exception, shall be +under arms for four years, from his twenty-first to his twenty-fifth +year, in order to receive military instruction.-- + +--This is pretty economy! You send home four hundred thousand soldiers +and call out ten millions. + +--Listen to my second section: + +SEC. 2. _Unless_ he proves, at the age of twenty-one, that he knows the +school 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 _by +the right flank_ and _double quick, march_. The idea is odd. + +--It is better than that. For without grieving families and offending +equality, does it not assure the country, in a simple and inexpensive +manner, of ten million defenders, capable of defying a coalition of all +the standing armies of the globe? + +--Truly, if I were not on my guard, I should end in getting interested +in your fancies. + +_The Utopist, getting excited:_ Thank Heaven, my estimates are relieved +of a hundred millions! I suppress the _octroi_. I refund indirect +contributions. I-- + +_Getting more and more excited:_ I will proclaim religious freedom and +free instruction. There shall be new resources. I will buy the +railroads, 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 of +the government on the repression of fraud, the administration of prompt +and 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 they +are--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 duties +are not necessarily more onerous than import duties. The statement that +all taxes are paid by the consumer, is liable to important +modifications. An export duty may be laid in such way, and on such +articles, that it will be paid wholly by the foreign consumer, without +loss to the producing country, but it is only when the additional cost +does not lessen the demand, or induce the foreigner to produce the same +article. _Translator._] + +XII. + +SALT, POSTAGE, AND CUSTOMS. + + +[This chapter is an amusing dialogue relating principally to English +Postal Reform. Being inapplicable to any condition of things existing in +the 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 a +fine park; three persons are seated near a good fire.] + +_Pierre._ Upon my word, a fire is very comfortable when the stomach is +satisfied. It must be agreed that it is a pleasant thing. But, alas! how +many 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 see +these fine trees. I will cut them down and distribute the wood among +the poor. + +_Paul and Jean._ What! gratis? + +_Pierre._ Not exactly. There would soon be an end of my good works if I +scattered my property thus. I think that my park is worth twenty +thousand 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 the +neighboring forests, for it renders services which that cannot give. +When cut down it will, like that, be good for burning only, and will not +be worth a sou more per cord. + +_Pierre._ Oh! Mr. Theorist, you forget that I am a practical man. I +supposed that my reputation as a speculator was well enough established +to put me above any charge of stupidity. Do you think that I shall amuse +myself by selling my wood at the price of other wood? + +_Paul._ You must. + +_Pierre._ Simpleton!--Suppose I prevent the bringing of any wood to +Paris? + +_Paul._ That will alter the case. But how will you manage it? + +_Pierre._ This is the whole secret. You know that wood pays an entrance +duty of ten sous per cord. To-morrow I will induce the Aldermen to raise +this duty to one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred livres, so high +as to keep out every fagot. Well, do you see? If the good people do not +want to die of cold, they must come to my wood-yard. They will fight for +my wood; I shall sell it for its weight in gold, and this well-regulated +deed 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 it +is a little strong? I want to make a better article at Paris. I will +have four or five hundred cows, and I will distribute milk, butter and +cheese to the poor people. + +_Pierre and Jean._ What! as a charity? + +_Paul._ Bah, let us always put charity in the foreground. It is such a +fine thing that its counterfeit even is an excellent card. I will give +my butter to the people and they will give me their money. Is that +called selling? + +_Jean._ No, according to the _Bourgeois Gentilhomme_; but call it what +you please, you ruin yourself. Can Paris compete with Normandy in +raising 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 low +price? + +_Jean._ It is the time-honored word. You will always be beaten. + +_Paul._ Yes; like Don Quixote. The blows will fall on Sancho. Jean, my +friend, 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 the +Council to prohibit the butter of Normandy and Brittany. The people must +do without butter, or buy mine, and that at my price, too. + +_Jean._ Gentlemen, your philanthropy carries me along with it. "In time +one learns to howl with the wolves." It shall not be said that I am an +unworthy Alderman. Pierre, this sparkling fire has illumined your soul; +Paul, this butter has given an impulse to your understanding, and I +perceive that this piece of salt pork stimulates my intelligence. +To-morrow I will vote myself, and make others vote, for the exclusion of +hogs, dead or alive; this done, I will build superb stock-yards in the +middle of Paris "for the unclean animal forbidden to the Hebrews." I +will become swineherd and pork-seller, and we shall see how the good +people of Lutetia can help getting their food at my shop. + +_Pierre._ Gently, my friends; if you thus run up the price of butter and +salt meat, you diminish the profit which I expected from my wood. + +_Paul._ Nor is my speculation so wonderful, if you ruin me with your +fuel and your hams. + +_Jean._ What shall I gain by making you pay an extra price for my +sausages, if you overcharge me for pastry and fagots? + +_Pierre._ Do you not see that we are getting into a quarrel? Let us +rather unite. Let us make _reciprocal concessions_. Besides, it is not +well 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 their +bread. + +_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, in +this selfish age people are suspicious, and the purest intentions are +often misconstrued. Paul, you plead for _wood_; Jean, defend _butter_; +and I will devote myself to domestic _swine_. It is best to head off +invidious suspicions. _Paul and Jean_ (leaving). Upon my word, what a +clever fellow! + + +SECOND TABLEAU. + +_The Common Council._ + +_Paul._ My dear colleagues, every day great quantities of wood come into +Paris, and draw out of it large sums of money. If this goes on, we shall +all 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, for +you 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. They +will no longer be in a state of _dependence_ on the charcoal dealers of +the Yonne. Have you ever thought of the risk we run of dying of cold, if +the proprietors of these foreign forests should take it into their heads +not 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 the +wood-chopping business, and open to our workmen a new source of labor +and wages. [Applause.] + +_Jean._ I second the motion of the Honorable member--a proposition so +philanthropic and so disinterested, as he remarked. It is time that we +should stop this intolerable _freedom of entry_, which has brought a +ruinous competition upon our market, so that there is not a province +tolerably well situated for producing some one article which does not +inundate us with it, sell it to us at a low price, and depress Parisian +labor. It is the business of the State to _equalize the conditions of +production_ by wisely graduated duties; to allow the entrance from +without of whatever is dearer there than at Paris, and thus relieve us +from an unequal _contest_. How, for instance, can they expect us to make +milk and butter in Paris as against Brittany and Normandy? Think, +gentlemen; the Bretons have land cheaper, feed more convenient, and +labor more abundant. Does not common sense say that the conditions must +be equalized by a protecting duty? I ask that the duty on milk and +butter be raised to a thousand per cent., and more, if necessary. The +breakfasts of the people will cost a little more, but wages will rise! +We shall see the building of stables and dairies, a good trade in +churns, and the foundation of new industries laid. I, myself, have not +the least interest in this plan. I am not a cowherd, nor do I desire to +become one. I am moved by the single desire to be useful to the laboring +classes. [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.] I +admire their self-denial, and cannot do better than follow such noble +examples. I support their motion, and I also make one to exclude Poitou +hogs. It is not that I want to become a swineherd or pork dealer, in +which case my conscience would forbid my making this motion; but is it +not shameful, gentlemen, that we should be paying tribute to these poor +Poitevin 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 trade +is not in their favor, and that we are not compelled to pay them a +tribute in money? Is it not plain that if this Poitevin industry were +planted in Paris, it would open new fields to Parisian labor? Moreover, +gentlemen, is it not very likely, as Mr. Lestiboudois said, that we buy +these Poitevin salted meats, not with our income, but our capital? Where +will this land us? Let us not allow greedy, avaricious and perfidious +rivals to come here and sell things cheaply, thus making it impossible +for us to produce them ourselves. Aldermen, Paris has given us its +confidence, and we must show ourselves worthy of it. The people are +without labor, and we must create it, and if salted meat costs them a +little more, we shall, at least, have the consciousness that we have +sacrificed our interests to those of the masses, as every good Alderman +ought to do. [Thunders of applause.] + +_A Voice._ I hear much said of the poor people; but, under the pretext +of giving them labor, you begin by taking away from them that which is +worth more than labor itself--wood, butter, and soup. + +_Pierre, Paul and Jean._ Vote, vote. Away with your theorists and +generalizers! Let us vote. [The three motions are carried.] + + +THIRD TABLEAU. + +_Twenty Years After._ + +_Son._ Father, decide; we must leave Paris. Work is slack, and +everything is dear. + +_Father._ My son, you do not know how hard it is to leave the place +where 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, I +will not leave the grave where your mother, sisters and brothers lie. I +am eager to find, at last, near them, the rest which is denied me in +this 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 gradually +transferring itself to those distant countries. + +_Father._ It is very natural. Unable to sell us wood and food, they +stopped producing more than they needed for themselves, and they +devoted their spare time and capital to making those things which we +formerly furnished them. + +_Son._ Just as at Paris, they quit making handsome furniture and fine +clothes, in order to plant trees, and raise hogs and cows. Though quite +young, I have seen vast storehouses, sumptuous buildings, and quays +thronged with life on those banks of the Seine which are now given up to +meadows and forests. + +_Father._ While the provinces are filling up with cities, Paris becomes +country. What a frightful revolution! Three mistaken Aldermen, aided by +public 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 new +trades at Paris, and of thus supplying labor to the workmen, these men +secured the prohibition of wood, butter, and meats. They assumed the +right of supplying their fellow-citizens with them. These articles rose +immediately to an exorbitant price. Nobody made enough to buy them, and +the few who could procure them by using up all they made were unable to +buy anything else; consequently all branches of industry stopped at +once--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 were +involved in the common misery. + +_Son._ How was that possible? + +_Father._ You see this ruin; it was a magnificent house, surrounded by a +fine park. If Paris had kept on advancing, Master Pierre would have got +more 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 in +buying also disappears every day, and will keep on disappearing until +Paris is an open field, and Master Pierre's woodland will be worth no +more than an equal number of acres in the forest of Bondy. Thus, a +monopoly, like every species of injustice, brings its own punishment +upon itself. + +_Son._ This does not seem very plain to me, but the decay of Paris is +undeniable. Is there, then, no means of repealing this unjust measure +that Pierre and his colleagues adopted twenty years ago? + +_Father._ I will confide my secret to you. I will remain at Paris for +this purpose; I will call the people to my aid. It depends on them +whether they will replace the _octroi_ on its old basis, and dismiss +from it this fatal principle, which is grafted on it, and has grown +there 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 laborious +one. Pierre, Paul and Jean understand one another perfectly. They are +ready to do anything rather than allow the entrance of wood, butter and +meat into Paris. They even have on their side the people, who clearly +see the labor which these three protected branches of business give, who +know how many wood-choppers and cow-drivers it gives employment to, but +who cannot obtain so clear an idea of the labor that would spring up in +the 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, the +people would not read; for all their time is occupied in supporting a +wretched existence. If I speak, the Aldermen will shut my mouth. The +people will, therefore, remain long in their fatal error; political +parties, which build their hopes on their passions, attempt to play upon +their prejudices, rather than to dispel them. I shall then have to deal +with the powers that be--the people and the parties. I see that a storm +will burst on the head of the audacious person who dares to rise against +an 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 the +country. Begin this work of emancipation, and leave to me for an +inheritance 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 buy +wood, butter and meat where it seems good to him. + +_The People._ Hurrah for LIBERTY! + +_Pierre._ Parisians, do not allow yourselves to be seduced by these +words. Of what avail is the freedom of purchasing, if you have not the +means? and how can you have the means, if labor is wanting? Can Paris +produce wood as cheaply as the forest of Bondy, or meat at as low price +as Poitou, or butter as easily as Normandy? If you open the doors to +these rival products, what will become of the wood cutters, pork +dealers, and cattle drivers? They cannot do without protection. + +_The People._. Hurrah for PROTECTION! + +_Jacques._ Protection! But do they protect you, workmen? Do not you +compete with one another? Let the wood dealers then suffer competition +in their turn. They have no right to raise the price of their wood by +law, unless they, also, by law, raise wages. Do you not still love +equality? + +_The People._ Hurrah for EQUALITY! + +_Pierre._ Do not listen to this factious fellow. We have raised the +price of wood, meat, and butter, it is true; but it is in order that we +may 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 use +it to raise the price of commodities. The Parisians do not ask for +charity, but justice. + +_The People._ Hurrah for JUSTICE! + +_Pierre._ It is precisely the dearness of products which will, by reflex +action, raise wages. + +_The People._ Hurrah for DEARNESS! + +_Jacques._ If butter is dear, it is not because you pay workmen well; it +is not even that you may make great profits; it is only because Paris is +ill situated for this business, and because you desired that they +should do in the city what ought to be done in the country, and in the +country what was done in the city. The people have no _more_ labor, only +they labor at something else. They get no _more_ wages, but they do not +buy things as cheaply. + +_The People._ Hurrah for CHEAPNESS! + +_Pierre._ This person seduces you with his fine words. Let us state the +question plainly. Is it not true that if we admit butter, wood, and +meat, 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 new +inundation, than to shut the door, and we can keep up the price of +things only by causing scarcity artificially. + +_A Very Few Voices._ Hurrah for SCARCITY! + +_Jacques._ Let us state the question as it is. Among all the Parisians +we can divide only what is in Paris; the less wood, butter and meat +there is, the smaller each one's share will be. There will be less if we +exclude than if we admit. Parisians, individual abundance can exist only +where there is general abundance. + +_The People._ Hurrah for ABUNDANCE! + +_Pierre._ No matter what this man says, he cannot prove to you that it +is 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 hogs +are deprived of their livelihood, if they are sacrificed to theories, I +will not be answerable for public order. Workmen, distrust this man. He +is 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 years +ago, when it occurred to Pierre to use the _octroi_ for his gain and +your loss. I am not an agent of Normandy. Hang me if you will, but this +will not prevent oppression from being oppression. Friends, you must +kill neither Jacques nor Pierre, but liberty if it frightens you, or +restriction 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 the +arc 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 less +labor_, 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 a +diminution of one-tenth on the total of its labor, no one could +determine what comforts it would procure with the labor remaining at its +disposal. One person would prefer to be better clothed, another better +fed, 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 complicated +instance, 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 to +make a plank? + +--Yes. He cut down a tree, and then with his ax hewed the trunk on both +sides 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. At +the moment that Robinson gave the first blow with his ax, he saw a plank +which 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 it +and 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 obtain +work for fifteen days, then I shall wear out my ax, which will give me +an opportunity of repairing it, and I shall consume my provisions, which +will 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 this +stranded board. It is important to protect my _personal labor_, and now +that I think of it, I can create myself additional labor by kicking this +board 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 offered +it 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. This +answers to the trouble which Robinson took to give back to the waves +the present they wished to make him. Consider the nation a collective +being, and you will not find an atom of difference between its reasoning +and 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. I +am 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 labor +with 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 system +in its simplest form. If it appears absurd to you, thus stated, it is +because the two qualities of producer and consumer are here united in +the same person. + +--Let us pass, then, to a more complicated instance. + +--Willingly. Some time after all this, Robinson having met Friday, they +united, and began to work in common. They hunted for six hours each +morning and brought home four hampers of game. They worked in the garden +for six hours each afternoon, and obtained four baskets of vegetables. + +One day a canoe touched at the Island of Despair. A good-looking +stranger landed, and was allowed to dine with our two hermits. He +tasted, and praised the products of the garden, and before taking leave +of 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 you +every evening four hampers of game if you would give me only two baskets +of vegetables." + +At these words Robinson and Friday stepped on one side, to have a +consultation, and the debate which followed is too interesting not to be +given _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. The +stranger gives them to us for two baskets of vegetables, which take us +but three hours. Thus three hours remain at our disposal. + +_Robinson._ Say rather that they are taken from our activity. There is +our loss. _Labor is wealth_, and if we lose a fourth of our time we are +one-fourth poorer. + +_Friday._ Friend, you make an enormous mistake. The same amount of game +and vegetables and three free hours to boot make progress, or there is +none 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 easy +to say _something else--something else_. + +_Friday._ We will fish. We will adorn our houses. We will read the +Bible. + +_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 which +diminishes neither our gains nor our vegetables. You always forget that +by means of our commerce with this stranger, nine hours of labor will +give 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 have +taught you this: "All time saved is a dear loss. Eating is not the +important matter, but working. Nothing which we consume counts, if it is +not 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 for +rejecting the interested offers of this perfidious stranger. + +_Friday._ Political reasons! + +_Robinson._ Yes. In the first place he makes these offers only because +they 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 will +live 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 the +consequences? + +_Friday._ Yes. Our relations with the stranger will stop. He will take +no more vegetables from us, since he can get them at home with less +trouble. He will bring us no more game, since we will have nothing to +give 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 having +destroyed our hunting, by inundating us with game, he will kill our +gardening by overwhelming us with vegetables. + +_Friday._ But he will do that only so long as we give him _something +else_; 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 to +that. You are very vague, friend Friday; there is nothing practical in +your views. + +The contest lasted a long time, and, as often happens, left each one +convinced that he was right. However, Robinson having great influence +over Friday, his views prevailed, and when the stranger came for an +answer, Robinson said to him: + +"Stranger, in order that your proposition may be accepted, we must be +quite sure of two things: + +"The first is, that your island is not richer in game than ours, for we +will struggle but with _equal arms_. + +"The second is, that you will lose by the bargain. For, as in every +exchange 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, and +returned 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 our +world; the diversity of occupations, and the intervention of merchants +and 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 the +exchange is identical with the real nature of commerce, as small labor +is of the same nature with great, and as the gravitation which impels an +atom is of the same nature as that which attracts a world. + +--Thus, according to you, these arguments, which in Robinson's mouth are +so false, are no less so in the mouths of our protectionists? + +--Yes; only error is hidden better under the complication of +circumstances. + +--Well, now, select some instance from what has actually occurred. + +--Very well; in France, in view of custom and the exigencies of the +climate, cloth is an useful article. Is it the essential thing _to make +it, 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 must +make it; but it is not necessary that the person or country using it +should make it. You did not produce that which clothes you so well, nor +France 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, and +French 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 of +cloth. The first is to make it, and the second is to make _something +else_, and exchange _that something else_ abroad for cloth. Of these two +ways, which is the best? + +--I do not know. + +--Is it not that which, _for a fixed amount of labor, gives the greatest +quantity of cloth_? + +--It seems so. + +--Which is best for a nation, to have the choice of these two ways, or +to have the law forbid its using one of them at the risk of rejecting +the best? + +--It seems to me that it would be best for the nation to have the +choice, 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 it +is forbidden to make that _something else_ with which it could purchase +foreign cloth? + +--That is true. + +--And as it is obliged to make cloth, and forbidden to make _something +else_, just because the other thing would require less labor (without +which France would have no occasion to do anything with it), the law +virtually decrees, that for a certain amount of labor, France shall +have but one yard of cloth, making it itself, when, for the same amount +of 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 the +foreigners may send us cloth and not take something else, in which case +we shall be prettily caught. Under all circumstances, this is the +objection, even from your own point of view. You admit that France will +make this _something else_, which is to be exchanged for cloth, with +less 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 which +causes the whole misunderstanding. Robinson lost sight of it, and our +protectionists do not see it, or pretend not to. The stranded plank thus +paralyzed for fifteen days Robinson's labor, so far as it was applied to +the 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 very +different, and if you assimilate them, you reason like Robinson. In the +most complicated, as in the most simple instances, the sophism consists +in this: _Judging of the utility of labor by its duration and intensity, +and not by its results_, which leads to this economic policy, _a +reduction of the results of labor, in order to increase its duration and +intensity_. + + + + +XV. + +THE LITTLE ARSENAL OF THE FREE TRADER. + + +--If they say to you: There are no absolute principles; prohibition may +be 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 is +agriculture-- + +Reply: The basis of the sustenance of the people is _grain_. Thus a law +which causes _two_ bushels of grain to be obtained by agricultural labor +at the expense of four bushels, which the same labor would have +produced but for it, far from being a law of sustenance, is a law of +starvation. + +--If they say to you: A restriction on the admission of foreign grain +leads to more cultivation, and, consequently, to a greater home +production-- + +Reply: It leads to sowing on the rocks of the mountains and the sands of +the sea. To milk and steadily milk, a cow gives more milk; for who can +tell the moment when not a drop more can be obtained? But the drop costs +dear. + +--If they say to you: Let bread be dear, and the wealthy farmer will +enrich the artisans-- + +Reply: Bread is dear when there is little of it, a thing which can make +but 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 were +beggars. + +--If they say to you: The profits of the workingmen must rise with the +dearness of food-- + +Reply: This is equivalent to saying that in an unprovisioned vessel +everybody 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 sell +grain-- + +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 the +price of food without troubling themselves about wages, because they +know that when food becomes dear, wages _naturally_ rise-- + +Reply: On this principle, when workingmen come to make the law, do not +blame them if they fix a high rate of wages without troubling themselves +to protect grain, for they know that if wages are raised, articles of +food 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 should +manufacture iron-- + +Reply: The most essential thing is that this great country _should have +iron_. + +--If they say to you: It is necessary that a great country should +manufacture 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 the +proof 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 ounce +of 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 river +water, is to add to their _useless_ labor, but not their wealth. + +--If they say to you: The sun gives his heat and light without requiring +remuneration-- + +Reply: So much the better for me, since it costs me nothing to see +distinctly. + +--And if they reply to you: Industry in general loses what you would +have paid for lights-- + +Retort: No, for having paid nothing to the sun, I use that which it +saves me in paying for clothes, furniture and candles. + +--So, if they say to you: These English rascals have capital which pays +them 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 at +the same spot-- + +Reply: So much the better for us; they will not make us pay anything for +bringing 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 lesser +quantity 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 pay +no taxes-- + +Reply: The gain is on our side, since we buy grain free from those +charges. + +--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 is +deducted 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 will +be because we are able to pay. If we cannot pay we will not be +inundated. + +--If they say to you: I would allow free trade, if a stranger, in +bringing us one thing, took away another; but he will carry off our +specie-- + +Reply: Neither specie nor coffee grow in the fields of Beauce or come +out of the manufactories of Elbeuf. For us to pay a foreigner with +specie 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 to +buy bread with, buy beef-- + +Reply: This advice is as wise as that of Vautour to his tenant, "If a +person has not money to pay his rent with, he ought to have a house of +his own." + +--If they say to you, like the _Presse_: The State ought to teach the +people why and how it should eat meat-- + +Reply: Only let the State allow the meat free entrance, and the most +civilized people in the world are old enough to learn to eat it without +any teacher. + +--If they say to you: The State ought to know everything, and foresee +everything, to guide the people, and the people have only to let +themselves be guided-- + +Reply: Is there a State outside of the people, and a human foresight +outside of humanity? Archimedes might have repeated all the days of his +life, "With a lever and a fulcrum I will move the world," but he could +not have moved it, for want of those two things. The fulcrum of the +State is the nation, and nothing is madder than to build so many hopes +on the State; that is to say, to assume a collective science and +foresight, after having established individual folly and +short-sightedness. + +--If they say to you: My God! I ask no favors, but only a duty on grain +and meat, which may compensate for the heavy taxes to which France is +subjected; a mere little duty, equal to what these taxes add to the cost +of my grain-- + +Reply: A thousand pardons, but I, too, pay taxes. If, then, the +protection which you vote yourself results in burdening for me, your +grain with your proportion of the taxes, your insinuating demand aims at +nothing less than the establishment between us of the following +arrangement, thus worded by yourself: "Since the public burdens are +heavy, 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." My +neighbor, the grain dealer, you may have power on your side, but not +reason. + +--If they say to you: It is, however, very hard for me, a tax payer, to +compete in my own market with foreigners who pay none-- + +Reply: First, This is not _your_ market, but _our_ market. I who live on +grain, 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 and +safety, 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 but +who 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 horses +and 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 escape +its operation, invent a system which will throw it on foreigners. But +the tariff only throws your proportion on me, when I already have enough +of my own. + +--If they say to you: Freedom of commerce is necessary among the +Russians _that they may exchange their products with advantage_ (opinion +of 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 to +that that _it must act_ (M. Thiers)-- + +Reply: It is according to that that _it acts of itself_ when no one +hinders it. + +--If they say to you: Since we have no sheet iron, its admission must be +allowed (M. Thiers)-- + +Reply: Thank you, kindly. + +--If they say to you: Our merchant marine must have freight; owing to +the lack of return cargoes our vessels cannot compete with foreign +ones-- + +Reply: When you want to do everything at home, you can have cargoes +neither going nor coming. It is as absurd to wish for a navy under a +prohibitory system as to wish for carts where all transportation is +forbidden. + +--If they say to you: Supposing that protection is unjust, everything is +founded on it; there are moneys invested, and rights acquired, and it +cannot 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 the +disturbance which the cessation of the injustice causes to the person +profiting by it, is to say that an injustice, only because it has +existed 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_ audaciously +disseminating their doctrines, and maintaining that the right of buying +and selling is implied by that of ownership (a piece of insolence that +M. Billault has criticised like a true lawyer), we may be allowed to +entertain serious fears as to the destiny of _national labor_; for what +will Frenchmen do with their arms and intelligences when they are free? + +The Ministry which you have honored with your confidence has naturally +paid great attention to so serious a subject, and has sought in its +wisdom for a _protection_ which might be substituted for that which +appears compromised. It proposes to you to forbid your faithful subjects +the use of the right hand. + +Sire, do not wrong us so far as to think that we lightly adopted a +measure which, at the first glance, may appear odd. Deep study of the +_protective system_ has revealed to us this syllogism, on which it +entirely 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 this +formal reasoning, which is so compact that it would resist the subtlety +of 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. This +being makes a clock, which he proposes to exchange in Belgium for ten +quintals of iron. "But," we say to him, "make the iron yourself." "I +cannot," says he; "it would take me too much time, and I could not make +five quintals while I can make one clock." "Utopist!" we reply; "for +this very reason we forbid your making the clock, and order you to make +the iron. Do not you see that we create you labor?" + +Sire, it will not have escaped your sagacity, that it is just as if we +said to the country, _Labor with the left hand, and not with the right_. + +The creation of obstacles to furnish labor an opportunity to develop +itself, is the principle of the _restriction_ which is dying. It is also +the 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 more +difficult than one thinks--to do with the left hand what one was +accustomed to do with the right. You will convince yourself of it, Sire, +if you will condescend to try our system on something which is familiar +to you,--like shuffling cards, for instance. We can then flatter +ourselves 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 present +consumption, supposing it to be invariable, which we always do when we +compare differing systems of production. So prodigious a demand for +manual labor cannot fail to bring about a considerable increase in +wages; and pauperism will disappear from the country as if by +enchantment. + +Sire, your paternal heart will rejoice at the thought that the benefits +of this regulation will extend over that interesting portion of the +great family whose fate excites your liveliest solicitude. + +What is the destiny of women in France? That sex which is the boldest +and most hardened to fatigue, is, insensibly, driving them from all +fields of labor. + +Formerly they found a refuge in the lottery offices. These have been +closed by a pitiless philanthropy; and under what pretext? "To save," +said they, "the money of the poor." Alas! has a poor man ever obtained +from a piece of money enjoyments as sweet and innocent as those which +the mysterious urn of fortune contained for him? Cut off from all the +sweets of life, how many delicious hours did he introduce into the bosom +of his family when, every two weeks, he put the value of a day's labor +on a _quatern_. Hope had always her place at the domestic hearth. The +garret was peopled with illusions; the wife promised herself that she +would eclipse her neighbors with the splendor of her attire; the son saw +himself drum-major, and the daughter felt herself carried toward the +altar in the arms of her betrothed. To have a beautiful dream is +certainly something. + +The lottery was the poetry of the poor, and we have allowed it to escape +them. + +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 the +distinguished habits which august examples have been enabled to +introduce among our elegant youth. + +But the postal service! We will say nothing of that, but make it the +subject of a special report. + +Then what is left to your female subjects except tobacco? Nothing, +except embroidery, knitting, and sewing, pitiful resources, which are +more and more restricted by that barbarous science, mechanics. + +But as soon as your ordinance has appeared, as soon as the right hands +are cut off or tied up, everything will change face. Twenty, thirty +times more embroiderers, washers and ironers, seamstresses and +shirt-makers, would not meet the consumption (_honi soit qui mal y +pense_) of the kingdom; always assuming that it is invariable, according +to our way of reasoning. + +It is true that this supposition might be denied by cold-blooded +theorists, for dresses and shirts would be dearer. But they say the +same thing of the iron which France gets from our mines, compared to the +vintage it could get on our hillsides. This argument can, therefore, be +no more entertained against _left-handedness_ than against _protection_; +for this very dearness is the result and the sign of the excess of +efforts and of labors, which is precisely the basis on which, in one +case, as in the other, we claim to found the prosperity of the working +classes. + +Yes, we make a touching picture of the prosperity of the sewing +business. What movement! What activity! What life! Each dress will busy +a hundred fingers instead of ten. No longer will there be an idle young +girl, and we need not, Sire, point out to your perspicacity the moral +results of this great revolution. Not only will there be more women +employed, but each one of them will earn more, for they cannot meet the +demand, and if competition still shows itself, it will no longer be +among the workingwomen who make the dresses, but the beautiful ladies +who wear them. + +You see, Sire, that our proposition is not only conformable to the +economic traditions of the government, but it is also essentially moral +and democratic. + +To appreciate its effect, let us suppose it realized; let us transport +ourselves in thought into the future; let us imagine the system in +action for twenty years. Idleness is banished from the country; ease +and concord, contentment and morality, have entered all families +together with labor; there is no more misery and no more prostitution. +The left hand being very clumsy at its work, there is a superabundance +of labor, and the pay is satisfactory. Everything is based on this, and, +as a consequence, the workshops are filled. Is it not true, Sire, that +if Utopians were to suddenly demand the freedom of the right hand, they +would spread alarm throughout the country? Is it not true that this +pretended reform would overthrow all existences? Then our system is +good, since it cannot be overthrown without causing great distress. + +However, we have a sad presentiment that some day (so great is the +perversity of man) an association will be organized to secure the +liberty of right hands. + +It seems to us that we already hear these free-right-handers speak as +follows in the Salle Montesquieu: + +"People, you believe yourselves richer because they have taken from you +one hand; you see but the increase of labor which results to you from +it. But look also at the dearness it causes, and the forced decrease in +the consumption of all articles. This measure has not made capital, +which is the source of wages, more abundant. The waters which flow from +this great reservoir are directed into other channels; the quantity is +not increased, and the definite result is, for the nation, as a whole, a +loss of comfort equal to the excess of the production of several +millions of right hands, over several millions of left hands. Then let +us 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 defense +of left-handed labor_, and the _Sinistrists_ will have no trouble in +reducing to nothing all these generalities and realities, suppositions +and abstractions, reveries and Utopias. They need only to exhume the +_Moniteur Industriel_ of 1846, and they will find, ready-made, arguments +against _free trade_, which destroy so admirably this _liberty of the +right hand_, that all that is required is to substitute one word for +another. + +"The Parisian _Free Trade_ League never doubted but that it would have +the assistance of the workingmen. But the workingmen can no longer be +led by the nose. They have their eyes open, and they know political +economy better than our diplomaed professors. _Free trade_, they +replied, will take from us our labor, and labor is our real, great, +sovereign property; _with labor, with much labor, the price of articles +of merchandise is never beyond reach_. But without labor, even if bread +should cost but a penny a pound, the workingman is compelled to die of +hunger. Now, your doctrines, instead of increasing the amount of labor +in 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 in +value, the result is, that, instead of being able to buy them, we can +buy nothing. Thus, when they are cheapest, the workingman is most +unhappy." (Gauthier de Rumilly, _Moniteur Industriel_ of November 17.) + +It would not be ill for the Sinistrists to mingle some threats with +their beautiful theories. This is a sample: + +"What! to desire to substitute the labor of the right hand for that of +the left, and thus to cause a forced reduction, if not an annihilation +of wages, the sole resource of almost the entire nation! + +"And this at the moment when poor harvests already impose painful +sacrifices on the workingman, disquiet him as to his future, and make +him more accessible to bad counsels and ready to abandon the wise course +of conduct he had hitherto adhered to!" + +We are confident, Sire, that thanks to such wise reasonings, if a +struggle takes place, the left hand will come out of it victorious. + +Perhaps, also, an association will be formed in order to ascertain +whether the right and the left hand are not both wrong, and if there is +not a third hand between them, in order to conciliate all. + +After having described the _Dexterists_ as seduced by the _apparent +liberality of a principle, the correctness of which has not yet been +verified by experience_, and the _Sinistrists_ as encamping in the +positions 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 our +plan has a vulnerable side. They may say to us: In twenty years all left +hands will be as skilled as right ones are now, and you can no longer +count on _left-handedness_ to increase the national labor. + +We reply to this, that, according to learned physicians, the left side +of the body has a natural weakness, which is very reassuring for the +future of labor. + +Finally, Sire, consent to sign the law, and a great principle will have +prevailed: _All wealth comes from the intensity of labor._ It will be +easy 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 to +extract iron from the mud of the Seine. There have even been men who +wrote with their backs. You see, Sire, that we do not lack means of +increasing national labor. If they do begin to fail us, there remains +the boundless resource of amputation. + +If this report, Sire, was not intended for publication, we would call +your attention to the great influence which systems analogous to the one +we submit to you, are capable of giving to men in power. But this is a +subject 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 to +doubt that in the field of industry, as on that of battle, _the stronger +crushes the weaker_. + +This must result from the discovery of some sad and discouraging analogy +between labor, which exercises itself on things, and violence, which +exercises itself on men; for how could these two things be identical in +their effects, if they were opposed in their nature? + +And if it is true that in manufacturing as in war, supremacy is the +necessary result of superiority, why need we occupy ourselves with +progress or social economy, since we are in a world where all has been +so 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 drawing +England, many persons make this objection, which, I admit, occupies the +sincerest minds. "Is England doing anything more than pursuing the same +end by different means? Does she not constantly aspire to universal +supremacy? Sure of the superiority of her capital and labor, does she +not call in free competition to stifle the industry of the continent, +reign as a sovereign, and conquer the privilege of feeding and clothing +the ruined peoples?" + +It would be easy for me to demonstrate that these alarms are chimerical; +that our pretended inferiority is greatly exaggerated; that all our +great branches of industry not only resist foreign competition, but +develop themselves under its influence, and that its infallible effect +is to bring about an increase in general consumption capable of +absorbing both foreign and domestic products. + +To-day I desire to attack this objection directly, leaving it all its +power and the advantage of the ground it has chosen. Putting English and +French on one side, I will try to find out in a general way, if, even +though by superiority in one branch of industry, one nation has crushed +out similar industrial pursuits in another one, this nation has made a +step toward supremacy, and that one toward dependence; in other words, +if both do not gain by the operation, and if the conquered do not gain +the most by it. + +If we see in any product but a cause of labor, it is certain that the +alarm of the protectionists is well founded. If we consider iron, for +instance, only in connection with the masters of forges, it might be +feared that the competition of a country where iron was a gratuitous +gift of nature, would extinguish the furnaces of another country, where +ore and fuel were scarce. + +But is this a complete view of the subject? Are there relations only +between 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 is +useful, not on account of the labor which it causes, but on account of +the qualities which it possesses, and the numerous services for which +its hardness and malleability fit it, does it not follow that +foreigners cannot reduce its price, even so far as to prevent its +production among us, without doing us more good, under the last +statement of the case, than it injures us, under the first? + +Please consider well that there are many things which foreigners, owing +to the natural advantages which surround them, hinder us from producing +directly, and in regard to which we are placed, _in reality_, in the +hypothetical position which we examined relative to iron. We produce at +home neither tea, coffee, gold nor silver. Does it follow that our +labor, as a whole, is thereby diminished? No; only to create the +equivalent of these things, to acquire them by way of exchange, we +detach from our general labor a _smaller_ portion than we would require +to produce them ourselves. More remains to us to use for other things. +We are so much the richer and stronger. All that external rivalry can +do, even in cases where it absolutely keeps us from any certain form of +labor, is to encourage our labor, and increase our productive power. Is +that the road to _supremacy_, for foreigners? + +If a mine of gold were to be discovered in France, it does not follow +that it would be for our interests to work it. It is even certain that +the enterprise ought to be neglected, if each ounce of gold absorbed +more of our labor than an ounce of gold bought in Mexico with cloth. In +this case, it would be better to keep on seeing our mines in our +manufactories. 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 some +certain form, and makes it superfluous under this form, but by putting +at our disposal the very result of the labor thus annihilated. If men +lived in diving-bells, under the water, and had to provide themselves +with 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 do +them a terrible injury. But if labor ceases, because the necessity for +it has gone; because men are placed in another position, where air +reaches their lungs without an effort, then the loss of this labor is +not to be regretted, except in the eyes of those who appreciate in +labor, only the labor itself. + +It is exactly this sort of labor which machines, commercial freedom, and +progress of all sorts, gradually annihilate; not useful labor, but labor +which has become superfluous, supernumerary, objectless, and without +result. On the other hand, protection restores it to activity; it +replaces 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, rather +than from our national manufactories. All its effect is summed up in +this phrase--_loss of power_. + +It must be understood that I speak here of general effects, and not of +the temporary disturbances occasioned by the transition from a bad to a +good system. A momentary disarrangement necessarily accompanies all +progress. This may be a reason for making the transition a gentle one, +but not for systematically interdicting all progress, and still less for +misunderstanding it. + +They represent industry to us as a conflict. This is not true; or is +true only when you confine yourself to considering each branch of +industry in its effects on some similar branch--in isolating both, in +the mind, from the rest of humanity. But there is something else; there +are its effects on consumption, and the general well-being. + +This is the reason why it is not allowable to assimilate labor to war as +they do. + +In war, _the strongest overwhelms the weakest_. + +In labor, _the strongest gives strength to the weakest_. This radically +destroys the analogy. + +Though the English are strong and skilled; possess immense invested +capital, and have at their disposal the two great powers of production, +iron and fire, all this is converted into the _cheapness_ of the +product; 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 our +labor. All that they can do is to make it superfluous through some +result acquired--to give air at the same time that they suppress the +pump; to increase thus the force at our disposal, and, which is a +remarkable thing, to render their pretended supremacy more impossible, +as their superiority becomes more undeniable. + +Thus, by a rigorous and consoling demonstration, we reach this +conclusion: That _labor_ and _violence_, so opposed in their nature, +are, whatever socialists and protectionists may say, no less so in their +effects. + +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 than +different,--they are opposites. The protectionists confound them; we do +not. 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 love +of us. It is to give themselves many comforts in exchange for their +products. They certainly desire to receive at least as much as they +give, and _they make at home the payment for that which they buy +elsewhere_. If then, they inundate us with their products, it is because +they expect to be inundated with ours. In this case, the best way to +have much for ourselves is to be free to choose between these two +methods of production: direct production or indirect production. All +the British Machiavelism cannot lead us to make a bad choice. + +Let us then stop assimilating industrial competition with war; a false +assimilation, which is specious only when two rival branches of industry +are isolated, in order to judge of the effects of competition. As soon +as the effect produced on the general well-being is taken into +consideration, the analogy disappears. + +In a battle, he who is killed is thoroughly killed, and the army is +weakened just that much. In manufactures, one manufactory succumbs only +so far as the total of national labor replaces what it produced, _with +an excess_. Imagine a state of affairs where for one man, stretched on +the plain, two spring up full of force and vigor. If there is a planet +where such things happen, it must be admitted that war is carried on +there 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 so +inappropriately called an _industrial war_. + +Let the Belgians and English reduce the price of their iron, if they +can, and keep on reducing it, until they bring it down to nothing. They +may thereby put out one of our furnaces--kill one of our soldiers; but I +defy them to hinder a thousand other industries, more profitable than +the disabled one, immediately, and, as a necessary consequence of this +very 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 converted +into cheapness, and results only in giving force to all others. Let us, +then, banish from political economy all these expressions borrowed from +the vocabulary of battles: _to struggle with equal arms, to conquer, to +crush out, to stifle, to be beaten, invasion, tribute_. What do these +words mean? Squeeze them, and nothing comes out of them. We are +mistaken; there come from them absurd errors and fatal prejudices. These +are 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 curious +discussion, which was reproduced in the _Moniteur_, the General Council +of Agriculture, Manufactures and Commerce issued the following order: + + +"Political economy shall be taught by the government professors, not +merely from the theoretical point of view of free trade, but also with +special regard to the facts and legislation which control French +industry." + +It was in reply to this decree that Bastiat wrote the pamphlet +_Spoliation and Law_, which first appeared in the _Journal des +Economistes_, May 15, 1850.] + +_To the Protectionists of the General Council of Manufactures:_ + +GENTLEMEN--Let us for a few moments interchange moderate and friendly +opinions. + +You are not willing that political economy should believe and teach free +trade. + +This is as though you were to say, "We are not willing that political +economy should occupy itself with society, exchange, value, law, +justice, property. We recognize only two principles--oppression and +spoliation." + +Can you possibly conceive of political economy without society? Or of +society without exchange? Or of exchange without a relative value +between the two articles, or the two services, exchanged? Can you +possibly 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_? Is +it possible for you to conceive of the free consent of two parties +without liberty? Can you possibly conceive that one of the contracting +parties is deprived of his liberty unless he is oppressed by the other? +Can you possibly conceive of an exchange between an oppressor and one +oppressed, unless the equivalence of the services is altered, or unless, +as a consequence, law, justice, and the rights of property have been +violated? + +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, that +trade shall be carried on under the influence of oppression? For if it +is not carried on under the influence of oppression, it will be carried +on 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 that +which troubles you is property--not your own, to be sure, but +another's. You are altogether unwilling to allow others to freely +dispose 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 mass +of absurdities and monstrosities in a definite and well-ordered system; +to establish, in accordance with your practice, the theory of +spoliation. + +But they will never do it; for, in their eyes, spoliation is a principle +of hatred and disorder, and the most particularly odious form which it +can 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 and +your fortune. This you constantly declare. Recently, in the General +Council, you said: "If the rich had only to abandon their wealth to make +the people rich we should all be ready to do it." [Hear, hear. It is +true.] And yesterday, in the National Assembly, you said: "If I believed +that it was in my power to give to the workingmen all the work they +need, 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 should +not be made, and you exclaim, with Basile, "Money! money! I detest +it--but I will keep it," assuredly no one will question a generosity so +retentive, however barren. It is a virtue which loves to envelop itself +in 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 of +all France from the tribune of the _Luxembourg_ and the _Palais +Legislatif_. + +But no one desires you to abandon your fortune, and I admit that it +would not solve the social problem. + +You wish to be generous, but cannot. I only venture to ask that you will +be just. Keep your fortune, but permit me also to keep mine. Respect my +property 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 every +one could dispose of his property and his labor at pleasure. Does this +make 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 in +the code, but this law, impartial and just, would not infringe our +liberty, but would guarantee it, and it would take effect only when we +sought to oppress each other. There would be officers of the law, +magistrates and police; but they would only execute the law. Under such +a state of affairs, suppose that you owned an iron foundry, and that I +was a hatter. I should need iron for my business. Naturally I should +seek to solve this problem: "How shall I best procure the iron necessary +for my business with the least possible amount of labor?" Considering my +situation, and my means of knowledge, I should discover that the best +thing for me to do would be to make hats, and sell them to a Belgian who +would 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 to +come to my shop." + +You, accordingly, take your sword and pistols, and, arming your numerous +retinue, proceed to the frontier, and, at the moment I am engaged in +making my trade, you cry out to me: "Stop that, or I will blow your +brains 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 the +export 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 power +of 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 say +to 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 be +killed! degrade myself! put my domestics under arms! incur heavy +expenses! give myself the character of a robber, and render myself +liable to the laws of the country! And all this in order to compel a +miserable hatter to come to my foundry to buy iron at my price! What if +I should make the interest of the law, of the magistrate, of the public +authorities, my interests? What if I could get them to perform the +odious act on the frontier which I was about to do myself?" + +Enchanted by this pleasing prospect, you secure a nomination to the +Chambers, and obtain the passage of a law conceived in the following +terms: + +SECTION 1. There shall be a tax levied upon everybody (but especially +upon that cursed hat-maker). + +SEC. 2. The proceeds of this tax shall be applied to the payment of men +to guard the frontier in the interest of iron-founders. + +SEC. 3. It shall be their duty to prevent the exchange of hats or other +articles 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 the +execution 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 you +had at first determined upon. I admit that for you it would offer a very +pleasant prospect. You could most assuredly laugh in your sleeve, for +you would then have saddled all the expenses upon me. + +But I affirm that you would have introduced into society a vicious +principle, a principle of immorality, of disorder, of hatred, and of +incessant revolutions; that you would have prepared the way for all the +various schemes of socialism and communism. + +You, doubtless, find my hypothesis a very bold one. Well, then, let us +reverse 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 to +get them for nothing. And I know that there are hatchets and saws in +your establishment. Accordingly, without any ceremony, I enter your +warehouse and seize everything that I can lay my hands upon. + +But, in the exercise of your legitimate right of self-defense, you at +first resist force with force; afterwards, invoking the power of the +law, the magistrate, and the constables, you throw me into prison--and +you do well. + +Oh! ho! the thought suggests itself to me that I have been very awkward +in this business. When a person wishes to enjoy the property of other +people, he will, unless he is a fool, act _in accordance_ with the law, +and not _in violation_ of it. Consequently, just as you have made +yourself a protectionist, I will make myself a socialist. Since you have +laid claim to the _right to profit_, I claim the _right to labor_, or to +the instruments of labor. + +For the rest, I read my Louis Blanc in prison, and I know by heart this +doctrine: "In order to disenthrall themselves, the common people have +need of tools to work with; it is the function of the government to +provide them." And again: "If one admits that, in order to be really +free, a man requires the ability to exercise and to develop his +faculties, the result is that society owes each of its members +instruction, without which the human mind is incapable of development, +and the instruments of labor, without which human activities have no +field for their exercise. But by what means can society give to each one +of its members the necessary instruction and the necessary instruments +of labor, except by the intervention of the State?" So that if it +becomes necessary to revolutionize the country, I also will force my +way into the halls of legislation. I also will pervert the law, and make +it perform in my behalf and at your expense the very act for which it +just now punished me. + +My decree is modeled after yours: + +SECTION 1. There shall be taxes levied upon every citizen, and +especially upon iron founders. + +SEC. 2. The proceeds of this tax shall be applied to the creation of +armed corps, to which the title of the _fraternal constabulary_ shall be +given. + +SEC. 3. It shall be the duty of the _fraternal constabulary_ to make +their way into the warehouses of hatchets, saws, etc., to take +possession of these tools, and to distribute them to such workingmen as +may desire them. + +Thanks to this ingenious device, you see, my lord, that I shall no +longer be obliged to bear the risks, the costs, the odium, or the +scruples of robbery. The State will rob for me as it has for you. We +shall both be playing the same game. + +It remains to be seen what would be the condition of French society on +the realization of my second hypothesis, or what, at least, is the +condition of it after the almost complete realization of the first +hypothesis. I do not desire to discuss here the economy of the question. +It is generally believed that in advocating free trade we are +exclusively influenced by the desire to allow capital and labor to take +the direction most advantageous to them. This is an error. This +consideration is merely secondary. That which wounds, afflicts, and is +revolting to us in the protective system, is the denial of right, of +justice, of property; it is the fact that the system turns the law +against justice and against property, when it ought to protect them; it +is that it undermines and perverts the very conditions of society. And +to 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 and +moral mission? Is it not to hold the balance even between all rights, +all liberties, and all property? Is it not to cause justice to rule +among all? Is it not to prevent and to repress oppression and robbery +wherever they are found? + +And are you not shocked at the immense, radical, and deplorable +innovation introduced into the world by compelling the law itself to +commit the very crimes to punish which is its especial mission--by +turning the law in principle and in fact against liberty and property? + +You deplore the condition of modern society. You groan over the disorder +which prevails in institutions and ideas. But is it not your system +which has perverted everything, both institutions and ideas? + +What! the law is no longer the refuge of the oppressed, but the arm of +the oppressor! The law is no longer a shield, but a sword! The law no +longer holds in her august hands a scale, but false weights and +measures! And you wish to have society well regulated! + +Your system has written over the entrance of the legislative halls these +words: "Whoever acquires any influence here can obtain his share of the +legalized pillage." + +And what has been the result? All classes of society have become +demoralized by shouting around the gates of the palace: "Give me a share +of the spoils." + +After the revolution of February, when universal suffrage was +proclaimed, I had for a moment hoped to have heard this sentiment: "No +more pillage for any one, justice for all." And that would have been the +real solution of the social problem. Such was not the case. The doctrine +of protection had for generations too profoundly corrupted the age, +public sentiments and ideas. No. In making inroads upon the National +Assembly, each class, in accordance with your system, has endeavored to +make the law an instrument of rapine. There have been demanded heavier +imposts, gratuitous credit, the right to employment, the right to +assistance, the guaranty of incomes and of minimum wages, gratuitous +instruction, loans to industry, etc., etc.; in short, every one has +endeavored to live and thrive at the expense of others. And upon what +have these pretensions been based? Upon the authority of your +precedents. What sophisms have been invoked? Those that you have +propagated for two centuries. With you they have talked about +_equalizing the conditions of labor_. With you they have declaimed +against ruinous competition. With you they have ridiculed the _let +alone_ principle, that is to say, _liberty_. With you they have said +that the law should not confine itself to being just, but should come to +the 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 what +you have done, and that which you desire the professors of political +economy to do for you. + +Your cleverness is in vain, _Messieurs Protectionists_, it is useless to +lower your tone, to boast of your latent generosity, or to deceive your +opponents by sentiment. You cannot prevent logic from being logic. + +You cannot prevent Mr. Billault from telling the legislators, "You have +granted favors to one, you must grant them to all." + +You cannot prevent Mr. Cremieux from telling the legislators: "You have +enriched the manufacturers, you must enrich the common people." + +You cannot prevent Mr. Nadeau from saying to the legislators: "You +cannot refuse to do for the suffering classes that which you have done +for the privileged classes." + +You cannot even prevent the leader of your orchestra, Mr. Mimerel, from +saying to the legislators: "I demand twenty-five thousand subsidies for +the workingmen's savings banks;" and supporting his motion in this +manner: + + "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 the +tariff favors out of sight, although they are the most explicit +manifestations of legal spoliation. All the orators who supported or +opposed him have taken upon themselves the same reserve. It is very +shrewd! Possibly they hope, _by giving the poor a direct participation +in this distribution of benefits_, to save this great iniquity by which +they profit, but of which they do not whisper. + +They deceive themselves. Do they suppose that after having realized a +partial spoliation by the establishment of customs duties, other +classes, by the establishment of other institutions, will not attempt to +realize universal spoliation? + +I know very well you always have a sophism ready. You say: "The favors +which the law grants us are not given to the _manufacturer_, but to +_manufactures_. The profits which it enables us to receive at the +expense of the consumers are merely a trust placed in our hands. They +enrich us, it is true, but our wealth places us in a position to expend +more, to extend our establishments, and falls like refreshing dew upon +the laboring classes." + +Such is your language, and what I most lament is the circumstance that +your miserable sophisms have so perverted public opinion that they are +appealed to in support of all forms of legalized spoliation. The +suffering classes also say. "Let us by act of the Legislature help +ourselves to the goods of others. We shall be in easier circumstances as +the result of it; we shall buy more wheat, more meat, more cloth, and +more iron; and that which we receive from the public taxes will return +in a beneficent shower to the capitalists and landed proprietors." + +But, as I have already said, I will not to-day discuss the economical +effects of legal spoliation. Whenever the protectionists desire, they +will 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 exchange +legally deprived of liberty. + +I have said: The time has come to know what the law is, and what it +ought to be. + +If you make the law for all citizens a palladium of liberty and of +property; if it is only the organization of the individual law of +self-defense, you will establish, upon the foundation of justice, a +government rational, simple, economical, comprehended by all, loved by +all, useful to all, supported by all, entrusted with a responsibility +perfectly defined and carefully restricted, and endowed with +imperishable strength. If, on the other hand, in the interests of +individuals 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, morals +will be shipwrecked; there will be violence in party organs, heated +elections, accusations, recriminations, jealousies, inextinguishable +hates, the public forces placed at the service of rapacity instead of +repressing it, the ability to distinguish the true from the false +effaced from all minds, as the notion of justice and injustice will be +obliterated from all consciences, the government responsible for +everything and bending under the burden of its responsibilities, +political convulsions, revolutions without end, ruins over which all +forms of socialism and communism attempt to establish themselves; these +are the evils which must necessarily flow from the perversion of law. + +Such, consequently, gentlemen, are the evils for which you have prepared +the way by making use of the law to destroy freedom of exchange; that is +to say, to abolish the right of property. Do not declaim against +socialism; you establish it. Do not cry out against communism; you +create it. And now you ask us Economists to make you a theory which will +justify you! _Morbleu!_ make it yourselves. + + + + +PART IV. + +CAPITAL AND INTEREST. + + +My object in this treatise is to examine into the real nature of the +Interest of Capital, for the purpose of proving that it is lawful, and +explaining why it should be perpetual. This may appear singular, and +yet, I confess, I am more afraid of being too plain than too obscure. I +am afraid I may weary the reader by a series of mere truisms. But it is +no easy matter to avoid this danger, when the facts, with which we have +to deal, are known to every one by personal, familiar, and daily +experience. + +But, then, you will say, "What is the use of this treatise? Why explain +what everybody knows?" + +But, although this problem appears at first sight so very simple, there +is more in it than you might suppose. I shall endeavor to prove this by +an example. Mondor lends an instrument of labor to-day, which will be +entirely destroyed in a week, yet the capital will not produce the less +interest to Mondor or his heirs, through all eternity. Reader, can you +honestly say that you understand the reason of this? + +It would be a waste of time to seek any satisfactory explanation from +the writings of economists. They have not thrown much light upon the +reasons of the existence of interest. For this they are not to be +blamed; for at the time they wrote, its lawfulness was not called in +question. Now, however, times are altered; the case is different. Men, +who consider themselves to be in advance of their age, have organized an +active crusade against capital and interest; it is the productiveness of +capital which they are attacking; not certain abuses in the +administration 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 immense +circulation. The first number of this periodical contains the electoral +manifesto of the _people_. Here we read, "The productiveness of capital, +which is condemned by Christianity under the name of usury, is the true +cause of misery, the true principle of destitution, the eternal obstacle +to the establishment of the Republic." + +Another journal, _La Ruche Populaire_, after having said some excellent +things 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 and +patrons, or masters, should not be paid_ for this liberty of labor, this +right of labor, which is raised to so high a price by the trafficers of +men." The only thought that I notice here, is that expressed by the +words in italics, which imply a denial of the right to interest. The +remainder 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 occupy +ourselves with consequences only, without having the logic or the +courage to attack the principle itself. This principle is capital, false +property, interest, and usury, which by the old _regime_, is made to +weigh upon labor. + +"Ever since the aristocrats invented the incredible fiction, _that +capital possesses the power of reproducing itself_, the workers have +been at the mercy of the idle. + +"At the end of a year, will you find an additional crown in a bag of one +hundred shillings? At the end of fourteen years, will your shillings +have doubled in your bag? + +"Will a work of industry or of skill produce another, at the end of +fourteen 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, a +fatal, and an iniquitous principle. But quotations are superfluous; it +is well known that the people attribute their sufferings to what they +call _the trafficing in man by man_. In fact, the phrase _tyranny of +capital_ has become proverbial. + +I believe there is not a man in the world, who is aware of the whole +importance of this question: + +"Is the interest of capital natural, just, and lawful, and as useful to +the payer as to the receiver?" + +You answer, no; I answer, yes. Then we differ entirely; but it is of the +utmost importance to discover which of us is in the right; otherwise we +shall incur the danger of making a false solution of the question, a +matter of opinion. If the error is on my side, however, the evil would +not be so great. It must be inferred that I know nothing about the true +interests of the masses, or the march of human progress; and that all my +arguments are but as so many grains of sand, by which the car of the +revolution will certainly not be arrested. + +But if, on the contrary, MM. Proudhon and Thoré are deceiving +themselves, it follows, that they are leading the people astray--that +they are showing them the evil where it does not exist; and thus giving +a false direction to their ideas, to their antipathies, to their +dislikes, and to their attacks. It follows, that the misguided people +are rushing into a horrible and absurd struggle, in which victory would +be more fatal than defeat, since, according to this supposition, the +result would be the realization of universal evils, the destruction of +every 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 _gratuitousness +of 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, they +find themselves mangled and bleeding? Such a danger as this is enough to +justify me fully, if, in the course of the discussion, I allow myself to +be led into some trivialities and some prolixity. + + +CAPITAL AND INTEREST. + +I address this treatise to the workmen of Paris, more especially to +those who have enrolled themselves under the banner of Socialist +democracy. I proceed to consider these two questions: + +1st. Is it consistent with the nature of things, and with justice, that +capital should produce interest? + +2nd. Is it consistent with the nature of things, and with justice, that +the interest of capital should be perpetual? + +The working men of Paris will certainly acknowledge that a more +important subject could not be discussed. + +Since the world began, it has been allowed, at least in part, that +capital ought to produce interest. But latterly it has been affirmed, +that herein lies the very social error which is the cause of pauperism +and inequality. It is, therefore, very essential to know now on what +ground we stand. + +For if levying interest from capital is a sin, the workers have a right +to revolt against social order, as it exists; it is in vain to tell them +that they ought to have recourse to legal and pacific means, it would be +a hypocritical recommendation. When on the one side there is a strong +man, 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 voluntarily +renounces oppression, or till it shall cease of itself." This cannot be; +and those who tell us that capital is, by nature, unproductive, ought to +know 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 to +the lender, the economists who deny it, the tribunes who traffic in this +pretended social wound, are leading the workmen into a senseless and +unjust struggle, which can have no other issue than the misfortune of +all. In fact, they are arming labor against capital. So much the better, +if these two powers are really antagonistic; and may the struggle soon +be ended! But if they are in harmony, the struggle is the greatest evil +which can be inflicted on society. You see, then, workmen, that there is +not a more important question than this: "Is the interest of capital +lawful or not?" In the former case, you must immediately renounce the +struggle to which you are being urged; in the second, you must carry it +on bravely, and to the end. + +Productiveness of capital--perpetuity of interest. These are difficult +questions. I must endeavor to make myself clear. And for that purpose I +shall have recourse to example rather than to demonstration; or rather, +I shall place the demonstration in the example. I begin by +acknowledging, that, at first sight, it may appear strange that capital +should pretend to a remuneration; and, above all, to a perpetual +remuneration. You will say, "Here are two men. One of them works from +morning till night, from one year's end to another; and if he consumes +all which he has gained, even by superior energy, he remains poor. When +Christmas comes, he is no forwarder than he was at the beginning of the +year, and has no other prospect but to begin again. The other man does +nothing, either with his hands or his head; or, at least, if he makes +use of them at all, it is only for his own pleasure; it is allowable for +him to do nothing, for he has an income. He does not work, yet he lives +well; he has everything in abundance, delicate dishes, sumptuous +furniture, elegant equipages; nay, he even consumes, daily, things which +the workers have been obliged to produce by the sweat of their brow; for +these things do not make themselves; and, as far as he is concerned, he +has had no hand in their production. It is the workmen who have caused +this corn to grow, polished this furniture, woven these carpets; it is +our wives and daughters who have spun, cut out, sewed, and embroidered +these stuffs. We work, then, for him and ourselves; for him first, and +then for ourselves, if there is anything left. But here is something +more striking still. If the former of these two men, the worker, +consumes within the year any profit which may have been left him in that +year, he is always at the point from which he started, and his destiny +condemns him to move incessantly in a perpetual circle, and a monotony +of exertion. Labor, then, is rewarded only once. But if the other, the +'gentleman,' consumes his yearly income in the year, he has, the year +after, in those which follow, and through all eternity, an income +always equal, inexhaustible, _perpetual_. Capital, then, is remunerated, +not only once or twice, but an indefinite number of times! So that, at +the end of a hundred years, a family, which has placed 20,000 francs, at +five per cent., will have had 100,000 francs; and this will not prevent +it from having 100,000 more, in the following century. In other words, +for 20,000 francs, which represent its labor, it will have levied, in +two centuries, a ten-fold value on the labor of others. In this social +arrangement, is there not a monstrous evil to be reformed? And this is +not all. If it should please this family to curtail its enjoyments a +little--to spend, for example, only 900 francs, instead of 1,000--it +may, without any labor, without any other trouble beyond that of +investing 100 francs a year, increase its capital and its income in such +rapid progression, that it will soon be in a position to consume as much +as a hundred families of industrious workmen. Does not all this go to +prove, that society itself has in its bosom a hideous cancer, which +ought to be eradicated at the risk of some temporary suffering?" + +These are, it appears to me, the sad and irritating reflections which +must be excited in your minds by the active and superficial crusade +which is being carried on against capital and interest. On the other +hand, there are moments in which, I am convinced, doubts are awakened +in your minds, and scruples in your conscience. You say to yourselves +sometimes, "But to assert that capital ought not to produce interest, is +to say that he who has created instruments of labor, or materials, or +provisions of any kind, ought to yield them up without compensation. Is +that just? And then, if it is so, who would lend these instruments, +these materials, these provisions? who would take care of them? who even +would create them? Every one would consume his proportion, and the human +race would never advance a step. Capital would be no longer formed, +since there would be no interest in forming it. It will become +exceedingly scarce. A singular step toward gratuitous loans! A singular +means of improving the condition of borrowers, to make it impossible for +them to borrow at any price! What would become of labor itself? for +there will be no money advanced, and not one single kind of labor can be +mentioned, not even the chase, which can be pursued without money in +hand. And, as for ourselves, what would become of us? What! we are not +to be allowed to borrow, in order to work in the prime of life, nor to +lend, that we may enjoy repose in its decline? The law will rob us of +the prospect of laying by a little property, because it will prevent us +from gaining any advantage from it. It will deprive us of all stimulus +to 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 the +idea of leaving our sons and daughters a little property, since modern +science renders it useless, for we should become trafficers in men if we +were to lend it on interest. Alas! the world which these persons would +open before us as an imaginary good, is still more dreary and desolate +than that which they condemn, for hope, at any rate, is not banished +from the latter." Thus in all respects, and in every point of view, the +question is a serious one. Let us hasten to arrive at a solution. + +Our civil code has a chapter entitled, "On the manner of transmitting +property." I do not think it gives a very complete nomenclature on this +point. When a man by his labor has made some useful things--in other +words, when he has created a _value_--it can only pass into the hands of +another by one of the following modes: as a gift, by the right of +inheritance, by exchange, loan, or theft. One word upon each of these, +except the last, although it plays a greater part in the world than we +may think. + +A gift, needs no definition. It is essentially voluntary and +spontaneous. It depends exclusively upon the giver, and the receiver +cannot be said to have any right to it. Without a doubt, morality and +religion make it a duty for men, especially the rich, to deprive +themselves voluntarily of that which they possess, in favor of their +less fortunate brethren. But this is an entirely moral obligation. If it +were to be asserted on principle, admitted in practice, or sanctioned by +law, that every man has a right to the property of another, the gift +would have no merit, charity and gratitude would be no longer virtues. +Besides, such a doctrine would suddenly and universally arrest labor and +production, as severe cold congeals water and suspends animation, for +who would work if there was no longer to be any connection between labor +and the satisfying of our wants? Political economy has not treated of +gifts. It has hence been concluded that it disowns them, and that it is +therefore a science devoid of heart. This is a ridiculous accusation. +That science which treats of the laws resulting from the _reciprocity of +services_, had no business to inquire into the consequences of +generosity with respect to him who receives, nor into its effects, +perhaps still more precious, on him who gives; such considerations +belong evidently to the science of morals. We must allow the sciences to +have limits; above all, we must not accuse them of denying or +undervaluing what they look upon as foreign to their department. + +The right of inheritance, against which so much has been objected of +late, is one of the forms of gift, and assuredly the most natural of +all. 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? It +is this power, more than any other, which inspires him with courage to +labor and to save. Do you know why the principle of right of inheritance +is thus called in question? Because it is imagined that the property +thus transmitted is plundered from the masses. This is a fatal error; +political economy demonstrates, in the most peremptory manner, that all +value 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, which +do not belong to the subject. + +Exchange is the principal department of political economy, because it is +by far the most frequent method of transmitting property, according to +the free and voluntary agreements of the laws and effects of which this +science treats. + +Properly speaking, exchange is the reciprocity of services. The parties +say 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 (for +this will throw a new light on the notion of value), that the second +form 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 is +proposed. Again, when it is said, "Give me this, and I will give you +that," 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 valuation +of the two services; so that it is quite correct to say, that the +principle of _value_ is in the services rendered and received on account +of the productions exchanged, rather than in productions themselves. + +In reality, services are scarcely ever exchanged directly. There is a +medium, which is termed _money_. Paul has completed a coat, for which he +wishes to receive a little bread, a little wine, a little oil, a visit +from a doctor, a ticket for the play, etc. The exchange cannot be +effected in kind; so what does Paul do? He first exchanges his coat for +some money, which is called _sale_; then he exchanges this money again +for 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,--"I +have done this for society, it has done that for me." In a word, it is +only now that the exchange is actually accomplished. Thus, nothing can +be more correct than this observation of J.B. Say: "Since the +introduction of money, every exchange is resolved into two elements, +_sale_ and _purchase_. It is the reunion of these two elements which +renders the exchange complete." + +We must remark, also, that the constant appearance of money in every +exchange has overturned and misled all our ideas; men have ended in +thinking that money was true riches, and that to multiply it was to +multiply services and products. Hence the prohibitory system; hence +paper money; hence the celebrated aphorism, "What one gains the other +loses;" and all the errors which have ruined the earth, and imbrued it +with blood.[17] After much research it has been found, that in order to +make the two services exchanged of equivalent value, and in order to +render the exchange _equitable_, the best means was to allow it to be +free. However plausible, at first sight, the intervention of the State +might be, it was soon perceived that it is always oppressive to one or +other of the contracting parties. When we look into these subjects, we +are always compelled to reason upon this maxim, that _equal value_ +results from liberty. We have, in fact, no other means of knowing +whether, at a given moment, two services are of the same value, but that +of examining whether they can be readily and freely exchanged. Allow the +State, which is the same thing as force, to interfere on one side or the +other, and from that moment all the means of appreciation will be +complicated and entangled, instead of becoming clear. It ought to be the +part of the State to prevent, and, above all, to repress artifice and +fraud; that is, to secure liberty, and not to violate it. I have +enlarged a little upon exchange, although loan is my principal object: +my excuse is, that I conceive that there is in a loan an actual +exchange, an actual service rendered by the lender, and which makes the +borrower liable to an equivalent service,--two services, whose +comparative value can only be appreciated, like that of all possible +services, by freedom. Now, if it is so, the perfect lawfulness of what +is called house-rent, farm-rent, interest, will be explained and +justified. 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 value +is beyond all dispute. Suppose, for example, Peter says to Paul, "Give +me ten sixpences, I will give you a five-shilling piece." We cannot +imagine an equal value more unquestionable. When the bargain is made, +neither party has any claim upon the other. The exchanged services are +equal. Thus it follows, that if one of the parties wishes to introduce +into the bargain an additional clause, advantageous to himself, but +unfavorable to the other party, he must agree to a second clause, which +shall re-establish the equilibrium, and the law of justice. It would be +absurd to deny the justice of a second clause of compensation. This +granted, we will suppose that Peter, after having said to Paul, "Give me +ten sixpences, I will give you a crown," adds, "you shall give me the +ten sixpences _now_, and I will give you the crown-piece _in a year_;" +it is very evident that this new proposition alters the claims and +advantages of the bargain; that it alters the proportion of the two +services. Does it not appear plainly enough, in fact, that Peter asks of +Paul a new and an additional service; one of a different kind? Is it not +as if he had said, "Render me the service of allowing me to use for my +profit, for a year, five shillings which belong to you, and which you +might have used for yourself"? And what good reason have you to maintain +that Paul is bound to render this especial service gratuitously; that he +has no right to demand anything more in consequence of this requisition; +that the State ought to interfere to force him to submit? Is it not +incomprehensible that the economist, who preaches such a doctrine to the +people, can reconcile it with his principle of _the reciprocity of +services_? Here I have introduced cash; I have been led to do so by a +desire to place, side by side, two objects of exchange, of a perfect and +indisputable equality of value. I was anxious to be prepared for +objections; but, on the other hand, my demonstration would have been +more striking still, if I had illustrated my principle by an agreement +for exchanging the services or the productions themselves. + +Suppose, for example, a house and a vessel of a value so perfectly +equal that their proprietors are disposed to exchange them even-handed, +without excess or abatement. In fact, let the bargain be settled by a +lawyer. At the moment of each taking possession, the ship-owner says to +the citizen, "Very well; the transaction is completed, and nothing can +prove its perfect equity better than our free and voluntary consent. Our +conditions thus fixed, I shall propose to you a little practical +modification. You shall let me have your house to-day, but I shall not +put you in possession of my ship for a year; and the reason I make this +demand of you is, that, during this year of _delay_, I wish to use the +vessel." That we may not be embarrassed by considerations relative to +the deterioration of the thing lent, I will suppose the ship-owner to +add, "I will engage, at the end of the year, to hand over to you the +vessel in the state in which it is to-day." I ask of every candid man, I +ask of M. Proudhon himself, if the citizen has not a right to answer, +"The new clause which you propose entirely alters the proportion or the +equal value of the exchanged services. By it, I shall be deprived, for +the 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, the +bargain was just, for the same reason the clause is injurious to me. It +stipulates for a loss to me, and a gain to you. You are requiring of me +a new service; I have a right to refuse, or to require of you, as a +compensation, an equivalent service." If the parties are agreed upon +this compensation, the principle of which is incontestable, we can +easily distinguish two transactions in one, two exchanges of service in +one. First, there is the exchange of the house for the vessel; after +this, there is the delay granted by one of the parties, and the +compensation correspondent to this delay yielded by the other. These two +new services take the generic and abstract names of _credit_ and +_interest_. But names do not change the nature of things; and I defy any +one to dare to maintain that there exists here, when all is done, a +service for a service, or a reciprocity of services. To say that one of +these services does not challenge the other, to say that the first ought +to be rendered gratuitously, without injustice, is to say that injustice +consists in the reciprocity of services--that justice consists in one of +the 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 of +two 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 is +precisely the reason why they deny its productiveness; for, as M. Thoré +says, crowns are not endowed with the power of reproducing themselves. +But it is not true that capital and money are the same thing. Before +the discovery of the precious metals, there were capitalists in the +world; and I venture to say that at that time, as now, everybody was a +capitalist, 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 have +already a value communicated by some human effort, which has bestowed +upon 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 almost +void; yet these very things have required much work, especially at +first. This is the reason that so much value has been attached to the +possession of them, and also that it is perfectly lawful to exchange and +to sell them, to make a profit of them if used, to gain remuneration +from them if lent. + +Now for my anecdotes. + + +THE SACK OF CORN. + +Mathurin, in other respects as poor as Job, and obliged to earn his +bread by day-labor, became, nevertheless, by some inheritance, the +owner of a fine piece of uncultivated land. He was exceedingly anxious +to cultivate it. "Alas!" said he, "to make ditches, to raise fences, to +break the soil, to clear away the brambles and stones, to plough it, to +sow it, might bring me a living in a year or two; but certainly not +to-day, or to-morrow. It is impossible to set about farming it, without +previously saving some provisions for my subsistence until the harvest; +and I know, by experience, that preparatory labor is indispensable, in +order to render present labor productive." The good Mathurin was not +content 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. He +acted so well, was so active and steady, that he soon saw himself in +possession of the wished-for sack of corn. "I shall take it to the +mill," said he, "and then I shall have enough to live upon till my field +is covered with a rich harvest." Just as he was starting, Jerome came to +borrow 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 very +lucrative work in view, which I cannot possibly undertake, for want of +provisions 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 of +justice can it be devoted to the realization of _your_ enterprise +instead of _mine_?" + +You may well believe that the bargain was a long one. However, it was +finished at length, and on these conditions: + +First. Jerome promised to give back, at the end of the year, a sack of +corn of the same quality, and of the same weight, without missing a +single grain. "This first clause is perfectly just," said he, "for +without 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 without +it Mathurin would do me a service without compensation; he would inflict +upon himself a privation--he would renounce his cherished enterprise--he +would enable me to accomplish mine--he would cause me to enjoy for a +year the fruits of his savings, and all this gratuitously. Since he +delays the cultivation of his land, since he enables me to realize a +lucrative labor, it is quite natural that I should let him partake, in a +certain proportion, of the profits which I shall gain by the sacrifice +he makes of his own." + +On his side, Mathurin, who was something of a scholar, made this +calculation: "Since, by virtue of the first clause, the sack of corn +will return to me at the end of a year," he said to himself, "I shall +be able to lend it again; it will return to me at the end of the second +year; I may lend it again, and so on, to all eternity. However, I cannot +deny that it will have been eaten long ago. It is singular that I should +be perpetually the owner of a sack of corn, although the one I have lent +has been consumed for ever. But this is explained thus: It will be +consumed in the service of Jerome. It will put it into the power of +Jerome to produce a superior value; and, consequently, Jerome will be +able to restore me a sack of corn, or the value of it, without having +suffered the slightest injury; but quite the contrary. And as regards +myself, this value ought to be my property, as long as I do not consume +it myself; if I had used it to clear my land, I should have received it +again in the form of a fine harvest. Instead of that, I lend it, and +shall recover it in the form of repayment. + +"From the second clause, I gain another piece of information. At the end +of the year, I shall be in possession of five litres of corn, over the +100 that I have just lent. If, then, I were to continue to work by the +day, and to save a part of my wages, as I have been doing, in the course +of time I should be able to lend two sacks of corn; then three; then +four; and when I should have gained a sufficient number to enable me to +live on these additions of five litres over and above each, I shall be +at liberty to take a little repose in my old age. But how is this? In +this 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; I +complete the labor of my borrowers; and only deduct a trifling part of +the excess of production, due to my lendings and savings. It is a +marvellous thing, that a man may thus realize a leisure which injures no +one, and for which he cannot be envied without injustice." + + +THE HOUSE. + +Mondor had a house. In building it, he had extorted nothing from any one +whatever. He owed it to his own personal labor, or, which is the same +thing, to labor justly rewarded. His first care was to make a bargain +with an architect, in virtue of which, by means of a hundred crowns a +year, the latter engaged to keep the house in constant good repair. +Mondor was already congratulating himself on the happy days which he +hoped to spend in this retreat, declared sacred by our Constitution. But +Valerius wished to make it his residence. "How can you think of such a +thing?" said Mondor; "it is I who have built it; it has cost me ten +years of painful labor, and now you would enjoy it!" They agreed to +refer the matter to judges. They chose no profound economists--there +were none such in the country. But they found some just and sensible +men; it all comes to the same thing: political economy, justice, good +sense, are all the same thing. Now here is the decision made by the +judges: If Valerius wishes to occupy Mondor's house for a year, he is +bound to submit to three conditions. The first is, to quit at the end of +the year, and to restore the house in good repair, saving the inevitable +decay resulting from mere duration. The second, to refund to Mondor the +300 francs, which the latter pays annually to the architect to repair +the injuries of time; for these injuries taking place whilst the house +is in the service of Valerius, it is perfectly just that he should bear +the consequences. The third, that he should render to Mondor a service +equivalent to that which he receives. As to this equivalence of +services, 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 a +philosopher, as all my heroes are, in their way. James worked from +morning 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, and +their effects. He sometimes said to himself, "With my hatchet, my saw, +and my hammer, I can make only coarse furniture, and can only get the +pay for such. If I only had a _plane_, I should please my customers +more, and they would pay me more. It is quite just; I can only expect +services proportioned to those which I render myself. Yes! I am +resolved, I will make myself a _plane_." + +However, just as he was setting to work, James reflected further: "I +work for my customers 300 days in the year. If I give ten to making my +plane, supposing it lasts me a year, only 290 days will remain for me to +make 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 would +not be worth my while to venture upon any innovations." James began to +calculate. He satisfied himself that he should sell his finished +furniture at a price which would amply compensate for the ten days +devoted to the plane; and when no doubt remained on this point, he set +to work. I beg the reader to remark, that the power which exists in the +tool to increase the productiveness of labor, is the basis of the +solution 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 for +joy--for, like the girl with her basket of eggs, he reckoned all the +profits which he expected to derive from the ingenious instrument; but +more fortunate than she, he was not reduced to the necessity of saying +good-bye to calf, cow, pig, and eggs, together. He was building his fine +castles 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 to +James: + +_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 this +service, what will you do for me in return?" + +_W._ Nothing. Don't you know that a loan ought to be gratuitous? Don't +you know that capital is naturally unproductive? Don't you know +fraternity has been proclaimed? If you only do me a service for the sake +of receiving one from me in return, what merit would you have? + +_J._ William, my friend, fraternity does not mean that all the +sacrifices are to be on one side; if so, I do not see why they should +not be on yours. Whether a loan should be gratuitous I don't know; but I +do know that if I were to lend you my plane for a year, it would be +giving 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 by +the Socialist gentlemen. I ask you to do me a service; what service do +you ask of me in return? + +_J._ First, then, in a year, the plane will be done for, it will be good +for nothing. It is only just, that you should let me have another +exactly like it; or that you should give me money enough to get it +repaired; or that you should supply me the ten days which I must devote +to replacing it. + +_W._ This is perfectly just. I submit to these conditions. I engage to +return it, or to let you have one like it, or the value of the same. I +think 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. I +expected to gain some advantage from it, by my work being better +finished and better paid, by an improvement in my condition. What reason +is there that I should make the plane, and you should gain the profit? I +might 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 own +hands, as well as his hands themselves? To use without recompense the +hands of another, I call slavery; to use without recompense the plane of +another, 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 my +condition; if you merely return it to me in a year, it is you who will +gain the profit of it during the whole of that time. I am not bound to +do you such a service without receiving anything from you in return; +therefore, if you wish for my plane, independently of the entire +restoration already bargained for, you must do me a service which we +will now discuss; you must grant me remuneration. + +And this was done thus: William granted a remuneration calculated in +such a way that, at the end of the year, James received his plane quite +new, and in addition, a compensation, consisting of a new plank, for the +advantages of which he had deprived himself, and which he had yielded to +his friend. + +It was impossible for any one acquainted with the transaction to +discover the slightest trace in it of oppression or injustice. + +The singular part of it is, that, at the end of the year, the plane came +into James' possession, and he lent it again; recovered it, and lent it +a third and fourth time. It has passed into the hands of his son, who +still lends it. Poor plane! how many times has it changed, sometimes its +blade, sometimes its handle. It is no longer the same plane, but it has +always the same value, at least for James' posterity. Workmen! let us +examine into these little stories. + +I maintain, first of all, that the _sack of corn_ and the _plane_ are +here the type, the model, a faithful representation, the symbol, of all +capital; as the five litres of corn and the plank are the type, the +model, the representation, the symbol, of all interest. This granted, +the following are, it seems to me, a series of consequences, the justice +of which it is impossible to dispute. + +1st. If the yielding of a plank by the borrower to the lender is a +natural, equitable, lawful remuneration, the just price of a real +service, we may conclude that, as a general rule, it is in the nature of +capital to produce interest. When this capital, as in the foregoing +examples, takes the form of an _instrument of labor_, it is clear enough +that it ought to bring an advantage to its possessor, to him who has +devoted to it his time, his brains, and his strength. Otherwise, why +should he have made it? No necessity of life can be immediately +satisfied with instruments of labor; no one eats planes or drinks saws, +except, indeed, he be a conjurer. If a man determines to spend his time +in the production of such things, he must have been led to it by the +consideration of the power which these instruments add to his power; of +the time which they save him; of the perfection and rapidity which they +give to his labor; in a word, of the advantages which they procure for +him. Now, these advantages, which have been prepared by labor, by the +sacrifice 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 them +gratuitously upon another? Would it be an advance in social order, if +the law decided thus, and citizens should pay officials for causing such +a law to be executed by force? I venture to say, that there is not one +amongst you who would support it. It would be to legalize, to organize, +to systematize injustice itself, for it would be proclaiming that there +are 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, if +possible, still more conclusive, to which I call your attention, is +this: _interest is not injurious to the borrower_. I mean to say, the +obligation in which the borrower finds himself, to pay a remuneration +for the use of capital, cannot do any harm to his condition. Observe, in +fact, that James and William are perfectly free, as regards the +transaction to which the plane gave occasion. The transaction cannot be +accomplished without the consent of the one as well as of the other. The +worst which can happen is, that James may be too exacting; and in this +case, William, refusing the loan, remains as he was before. By the fact +of his agreeing to borrow, he proves that he considers it an advantage +to himself; he proves, that after every calculation, including the +remuneration, whatever it may be, required of him, he still finds it +more profitable to borrow than not to borrow. He only determines to do +so because he has compared the inconveniences with the advantages. He +has calculated that the day on which he returns the plane, accompanied +by the remuneration agreed upon, he will have effected more work, with +the same labor, thanks to this tool. A profit will remain to him, +otherwise he would not have borrowed. The two services of which we are +speaking are exchanged according to the law which governs all exchanges, +the law of supply and demand. The claims of James have a natural and +impassable limit. This is the point in which the remuneration demanded +by him would absorb all the advantage which William might find in making +use 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 do +without one, which would leave him in his original condition. He +borrows, because he gains by borrowing. I know very well what will be +told me. You will say, William may be deceived, or, perhaps, he may be +governed by necessity, and be obliged to submit to a harsh law. + +It may be so. As to errors in calculation, they belong to the infirmity +of our nature, and to argue from this against the transaction in +question, is objecting the possibility of loss in all imaginable +transactions, in every human act. Error is an accidental fact, which is +incessantly remedied by experience. In short, everybody must guard +against it. As far as those hard necessities are concerned, which force +persons to burdensome borrowings, it is clear that these necessities +exist previously to the borrowing. If William is in a situation in which +he cannot possibly do without a plane, and must borrow one at any price, +does this situation result from James having taken the trouble to make +the tool? Does it not exist independently of this circumstance? However +harsh, however severe James may be, he will never render the supposed +condition of William worse than it is. Morally, it is true, the lender +will be to blame; but, in an economical point of view, the loan itself +can never be considered responsible for previous necessities, which it +has not created, and which it relieves, to a certain extent. + +But this proves something to which I shall return. The evident interests +of William, representing here the borrowers, there are many Jameses and +planes. In other words, lenders and capitals. It is very evident, that +if William can say to James--"Your demands are exorbitant; there is no +lack of planes in the world;" he will be in a better situation than if +James' plane was the only one to be borrowed. Assuredly, there is no +maxim 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 the +farthest possible point; and the most favorable circumstance for these +requisitions is the absence of rivalship. Hence it follows, that if +there is a class of men more interested than any other, in the +formation, multiplication, and abundance of capitals, it is mainly that +of the borrowers. Now, since capitals can only be formed and increased +by the stimulus and the prospect of remuneration, let this class +understand the injury they are inflicting on themselves, when they deny +the lawfulness of interest, when they proclaim that credit should be +gratuitous, when they declaim against the pretended tyranny of capital, +when they discourage saving, thus forcing capitals to become scarce, and +consequently interests to rise. + +3rd. The anecdote I have just related enables you to explain this +apparently singular phenomenon, which is termed the duration or +perpetuity of interest. Since, in lending his plane, James has been +able, very lawfully, to make it a condition, that it should be returned +to him, at the end of a year, in the same state in which it was when he +lent 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 latter +plan, the plane will return to him at the end of every year, and that +without 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 out +by the hand and for the profit of the borrower. The latter has taken +into account this gradual wear, and taken upon himself, as he ought, the +consequences. He has reckoned that he shall derive from this tool an +advantage, which will allow him to restore it in its original condition, +after having realized a profit from it. As long as James does not use +this capital himself, or for his own advantage--as long as he renounces +the advantages which allow it to be restored to its original +condition--he will have an incontestable right to have it restored, and +that independently of interest. + +Observe, besides, that if, as I believe I have shown, James, far from +doing any harm to William, has done him a _service_ in lending him his +plane for a year; for the same reason, he will do no harm to a second, a +third, a fourth borrower, in the subsequent periods. Hence you may +understand, that the interest of a capital is as natural, as lawful, as +useful, in the thousandth year, as in the first. We may go still +further. It may happen, that James lends more than a single plane. It is +possible, 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 is +to say, to do a multitude of services. I insist upon this point--that if +the first loan has been a social good, it will be the same with all the +others; for they are all similar, and based upon the same principle. It +may happen, then, that the amount of all the remunerations received by +our honest operative, in exchange for services rendered by him, may +suffice to maintain him. In this case, there will be a man in the world +who has a right to live without working. I do not say that he would be +doing right to give himself up to idleness--but I say, that he has a +right to do so; and if he does so, it will be at nobody's expense, but +quite the contrary. If society at all understands the nature of things, +it will acknowledge that this man subsists on services which he receives +certainly (as we all do), but which he lawfully receives in exchange for +other services, which he himself has rendered, that he continues to +render, and which are quite real, inasmuch as they are freely and +voluntarily accepted. + +And here we have a glimpse of one of the finest harmonies in the social +world. I allude to _leisure_: not that leisure that the warlike and +tyrannical classes arrange for themselves by the plunder of the workers, +but that leisure which is the lawful and innocent fruit of past activity +and economy. In expressing myself thus, I know that I shall shock many +received ideas. But see! Is not leisure an essential spring in the +social machine? Without it, the world would never have had a Newton, a +Pascal, a Fenelon; mankind would have been ignorant of all arts, +sciences, and of those wonderful inventions, prepared originally by +investigations of mere curiosity; thought would have been inert--man +would have made no progress. On the other hand, if leisure could only be +explained by plunder and oppression--if it were a benefit which could +only be enjoyed unjustly, and at the expense of others, there would be +no middle path between these two evils; either mankind would be reduced +to the necessity of stagnating in a vegetable and stationary life, in +eternal ignorance, from the absence of wheels to its machine--or else it +would 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. I +defy any one to show me, in this case, any other alternative. We should +be compelled to contemplate the Divine plan which governs society, with +the regret of thinking that it presents a deplorable chasm. The stimulus +of progress would be forgotten, or, which is worse, this stimulus would +be no other than injustice itself. But, no! God has not left such a +chasm in his work of love. We must take care not to disregard his +wisdom and power; for those whose imperfect meditations cannot explain +the lawfulness of leisure, are very much like the astronomer who said, +at a certain point in the heavens there ought to exist a planet which +will be at last discovered, for without it the celestial world is not +harmony, 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 of +one of the most consoling, but least understood, of the social +harmonies. + +It is not true that we must choose between the denial or the +unlawfulness 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 may +aspire. It makes its appearance in the world; it distributes itself +proportionably to the exercise of certain virtues; it opens all the +avenues to intelligence; it ennobles, it raises the morals; it +spiritualizes the soul of humanity, not only without laying any weight +on those of our brethren whose lot in life devotes them to severe labor, +but relieving them gradually from the heaviest and most repugnant part +of this labor. It is enough that capitals should be formed, accumulated, +multiplied; should be lent on conditions less and less burdensome; that +they should descend, penetrate into every social circle, and that, by an +admirable progression, after having liberated the lenders, they should +hasten the liberation of the borrowers themselves. For that end, the +laws and customs ought to be favorable to economy, the source of +capital. 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 saving +and the reason of its existence--interest. + +As long as we see nothing passing from hand to hand, in the character of +loan, but _provisions_, _materials_, _instruments_, things indispensable +to the productiveness of labor itself, the ideas thus far exhibited will +not find many opponents. Who knows, even, that I may not be reproached +for having made great effort to burst what may be said to be an open +door. But as soon as _cash_ makes its appearance as the subject of the +transaction (and it is this which appears almost always), immediately a +crowd of objections are raised. Money, it will be said, will not +reproduce itself, like your _sack of corn_; it does not assist labor, +like your _plane_; it does not afford an immediate satisfaction, like +your _house_. It is incapable, by its nature, of producing interest, of +multiplying itself, and the remuneration it demands is a positive +extortion. + +Who cannot see the sophistry of this? Who does not see that cash is +only a transient form, which men give at the time to other _values_, to +real objects of usefulness, for the sole object of facilitating their +arrangements? In the midst of social complications, the man who is in a +condition to lend, scarcely ever has the exact thing which the borrower +wants. James, it is true, has a plane; but, perhaps, William wants a +saw. They cannot negotiate; the transaction favorable to both cannot +take place, and then what happens? It happens that James first exchanges +his plane for money; he lends the money to William, and William +exchanges the money for a saw. The transaction is no longer a simple +one; it is decomposed into two parts, as I explained above in speaking +of exchange. But, for all that, it has not changed its nature; it still +contains all the elements of a direct loan. James has still got rid of a +tool which was useful to him; William has still received an instrument +which perfects his work and increases his profits; there is still a +service rendered by the lender, which entitles him to receive an +equivalent service from the borrower; this just balance is not the less +established by free mutual bargaining. The very natural obligation to +restore at the end of the term the entire _value_, still constitutes the +principle of the duration of interest. + +At the end of a year, says M. Thoré, will you find an additional crown +in a bag of a hundred pounds? + +No, certainly, if the borrower puts the bag of one hundred pounds on the +shelf. In such a case, neither the plane, nor the sack of corn, would +reproduce themselves. But it is not for the sake of leaving the money in +the bag, nor the plane on the hook, that they are borrowed. The plane is +borrowed to be used, or the money to procure a plane. And if it is +clearly proved that this tool enables the borrower to obtain profits +which he would not have made without it, if it is proved that the lender +has renounced creating for himself this excess of profits, we may +understand how the stipulation of a part of this excess of profits in +favor of the lender, is equitable and lawful. + +Ignorance of the true part which cash plays in human transactions, is +the source of the most fatal errors. I intend devoting an entire +pamphlet 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 a +logical and definite consequence of social progress, is the observation +of the phenomenon which shows a decreasing interest, almost in direct +proportion to the rate of civilization. In barbarous times it is, in +fact, cent. per cent., and more. Then it descends to eighty, sixty, +fifty, forty, twenty, ten, eight, five, four, and three per cent. In +Holland, 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 to +zero by the time civilization is complete. In other words, that which +characterizes social perfection is the gratuitousness of credit. When, +therefore, we shall have abolished interest, we shall have reached the +last step of progress." This is mere sophistry, and as such false +arguing may contribute to render popular the unjust, dangerous, and +destructive dogma, that credit should be gratuitous, by representing it +as coincident with social perfection, with the reader's permission I +will examine in a few words this new view of the question. + +What is _interest_? It is the service rendered, after a free bargain, by +the borrower to the lender, in remuneration for the service he has +received by the loan. By what law is the rate of these remunerative +services established? By the general law which regulates the equivalent +of all services; that is, by the law of supply and demand. + +The more easily a thing is procured, the smaller is the service rendered +by yielding it or lending it. The man who gives me a glass of water in +the Pyrenees, does not render me so great a service as he who allows me +one in the desert of Sahara. If there are many planes, sacks of corn, or +houses, in a country, the use of them is obtained, other things being +equal, on more favorable conditions than if they were few; for the +simple reason, that the lender renders in this case a smaller _relative +service_. + +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 interest +will be annihilated, is to say that there will never be any motive for +saving, for denying ourselves, in order to form new capitals, nor even +to preserve the old ones. In this case, the waste would immediately +bring a void, and interest would directly reappear. + +In that, the nature of the services of which we are speaking does not +differ from any other. Thanks to industrial progress, a pair of +stockings, which used to be worth six francs, has successively been +worth only four, three, and two. No one can say to what point this value +will descend; but we can affirm, that it will never reach zero, unless +the stockings finish by producing themselves spontaneously. Why? Because +the principle of remuneration is in labor; because he who works for +another renders a service, and ought to receive a service. If no one +paid 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 infinite +divisibility which belongs to _value_, as it does to matter. + +It appears, at first, paradoxical, but it is well known to all +mathematicians, that, through all eternity, fractions may be taken from +a weight without the weight ever being annihilated. It is sufficient +that each successive fraction be less than the preceding one, in a +determined and regular proportion. + +There are countries where people apply themselves to increasing the size +of horses, or diminishing in sheep the size of the head. It is +impossible to say precisely to what point they will arrive in this. No +one can say that he has seen the largest horse or the smallest sheep's +head that will ever appear in the world. But he may safely say that the +size of horses will never attain to infinity, nor the heads of sheep to +nothing. + +In the same way, no one can say to what point the price of stockings nor +the interest of capitals will come down; but we may safely affirm, when +we know the nature of things, that neither the one nor the other will +ever arrive at zero, for labor and capital can no more live without +recompense than a sheep without a head. + +The arguments of M. Proudhon reduce themselves, then, to this: since the +most skillful agriculturists are those who have reduced the heads of +sheep to the smallest size, we shall have arrived at the highest +agricultural 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 the +breath of false doctrine has made it needful to examine into the +intimate nature of interest? I must not leave off without remarking upon +a beautiful moral which may be drawn from this law: "The depression of +interest is proportioned to the abundance of capitals." This law being +granted, if there is a class of men to whom it is more important than to +any other that capitals be formed, accumulate, multiply, abound, and +superabound, it is certainly the class which borrows them directly or +indirectly; it is those men who operate upon _materials_, who gain +assistance by _instruments_, who live upon _provisions_, produced and +economized by other men. + +Imagine, in a vast and fertile country, a population of a thousand +inhabitants, destitute of all capital thus defined. It will assuredly +perish by the pangs of hunger. Let us suppose a case hardly less cruel. +Let us suppose that ten of these savages are provided with instruments +and provisions sufficient to work and to live themselves until harvest +time, as well as to remunerate the services of eighty laborers. The +inevitable result will be the death of nine hundred human beings. It is +clear, then, that since nine hundred and ninety men, urged by want, will +crowd upon the supports which would only maintain a hundred, the ten +capitalists will be masters of the market. They will obtain labor on +the hardest conditions, for they will put it up to auction, or the +highest bidder. And observe this--if these capitalists entertain such +pious sentiments as would induce them to impose personal privations on +themselves, in order to diminish the sufferings of some of their +brethren, this generosity, which attaches to morality, will be as noble +in its principle as useful in its effects. But if, duped by that false +philosophy which persons wish so inconsiderately to mingle with economic +laws, they take to remunerating labor largely, far from doing good, they +will do harm. They will give double wages, it may be. But then, +forty-five men will be better provided for, whilst forty-five others +will 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 the +mischief, 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 extent +the remedy. It acts in this way; it distributes the burden of suffering +as much as it can, and saves as many lives as a limited quantity of +sustenance 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 the +whole population, and, above all, that of the "prolétaires,"[18] will be +more and more improved? Is it not evident that, apart from every +consideration of generosity, they would obtain more work and better pay +for it?--that they themselves will be in a better condition to form +capitals, without being able to fix the limits to this ever-increasing +facility of realizing equality and well-being? Would it not be madness +in them to admit such doctrines, and to act in a way which would drain +the source of wages, and paralyze the activity and stimulus of saving? +Let them learn this lesson, then; doubtless, capitals are good for those +who possess them: who denies it? But they are also useful to those who +have not yet been able to form them; and it is important to those who +have 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 not +favorable to saving, in order to favor the former and to discourage the +latter. They would sympathize with every measure which tends to the +rapid formation of capitals. They would be enthusiastic promoters of +peace, liberty, order, security, the union of classes and peoples, +economy, moderation in public expenses, simplicity in the machinery of +Government; for it is under the sway of all these circumstances that +saving does its work, brings plenty within the reach of the masses, +invites those persons to become the formers of capital who were +formerly under the necessity of borrowing upon hard conditions. They +would repel with energy the warlike spirit, which diverts from its true +course so large a part of human labor; the monopolizing spirit, which +deranges the equitable distribution of riches, in the way by which +liberty alone can realize it; the multitude of public services, which +attack our purses only to check our liberty; and, in short, those +subversive, hateful, thoughtless doctrines, which alarm capital, prevent +its formation, oblige it to flee, and finally to raise its price, to the +special disadvantage of the workers, who bring it into operation. Well, +and in this respect is not the revolution of February a hard lesson? Is +it not evident, that the insecurity it has thrown into the world of +business, on the one hand; and, on the other, the advancement of the +fatal theories to which I have alluded, and which, from the clubs, have +almost penetrated into the regions of the Legislature, have everywhere +raised the rate of interest? Is it not evident, that from that time the +"prolétaires" have found greater difficulty in procuring those +materials, instruments, and provisions, without which labor is +impossible? Is it not that which has caused stoppages; and do not +stoppages, in their turn, lower wages? Thus there is a deficiency of +labor to the "prolétaires," from the same cause which loads the objects +they consume with an increase of price, in consequence of the rise of +interest. High interest, low wages, means in other words that the same +article preserves its price, but that the part of the capitalist has +invaded, 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 very +striking fact, which proves, better than any reasoning can, how much +insecurity and uncertainty injure the formation of capital. It was +remarked, that during the most distressing period, the popular expenses +of mere fancy had not diminished. The small theaters, the fighting +lists, the public houses, and tobacco depôts, were as much frequented as +in prosperous times. In the inquiry, the operatives themselves explained +this phenomenon thus: "What is the use of pinching? Who knows what will +happen to us? Who knows that interest will not be abolished? Who knows +but that the State will become a universal and gratuitous lender, and +that it will wish to annihilate all the fruits which we might expect +from our savings?" Well! I say, that if such ideas could prevail during +two single years, it would be enough to turn our beautiful France into a +Turkey--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 are +ignorant of the laws of its _natural_ organization; that is, of the +wonderful organization which results from liberty. You are told, that +liberty gives rise to what is called the radical antagonism of classes; +that it creates, and makes to clash, two opposite interests--that of the +capitalists and that of the "prolétaires." But we ought to begin by +proving that this antagonism exists by a law of nature; and afterwards +it would remain to be shown how far the arrangements of restraint are +superior to those of liberty, for between liberty and restraint I see no +middle path. Again, it would remain to be proved, that restraint would +always operate to your advantage, and to the prejudice of the rich. But, +no; this radical antagonism, this natural opposition of interests, does +not exist. It is only an evil dream of perverted and intoxicated +imaginations. No; a plan so defective has not proceeded from the Divine +Mind. To affirm it, we must begin by denying the existence of God. And +see how, by means of social laws, and because men exchange amongst +themselves their labors, and their productions, see what a harmonious +tie attaches the classes, one to the other! There are the landowners; +what is their interest? That the soil be fertile, and the sun +beneficent: and what is the result? That corn abounds, that it falls in +price, and the advantage turns to the profit of those who have had no +patrimony. There are the manufacturers; what is their constant thought? +To perfect their labor, to increase the power of their machines, to +procure for themselves, upon the best terms, the raw material. And to +what does all this tend? To the abundance and low price of produce; that +is, that all the efforts of the manufacturers, and without their +suspecting it, result in a profit to the public consumer, of which each +of you is one. It is the same with every profession. Well, the +capitalists are not exempt from this law. They are very busy making +schemes, economizing, and turning them to their advantage. This is all +very well; but the more they succeed, the more do they promote the +abundance of capital, and, as a necessary consequence, the reduction of +interest? Now, who is it that profits by the reduction of interest? Is +it not the borrower first, and finally, the consumers of the things +which the capitals contribute to produce? + +It is, therefore, certain that the final result of the efforts of each +class, is the common good of all. + +You are told that capital tyrannizes over labor. I do not deny that each +one endeavors to draw the greatest possible advantage from his +situation; 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 is +they who regulate the rate of sale. Never is this tyranny more +impossible to them, than when they are abundant; for, in that case, it +is 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 them +in their hearts. This is no declamatory morality; it is a chain of +causes and effects, which is capable of being rigorously, mathematically +demonstrated. It is not the less sublime, in that it satisfies the +intellect as well as the feelings. + +I shall sum up this whole dissertation with these words: Workmen, +laborers, "prolétaires," destitute and suffering classes, will you +improve your condition? You will not succeed by strife, insurrection, +hatred, and error. But there are three things which cannot perfect the +entire community without extending these benefits to yourselves; these +things are--peace, liberty, and security. + + + + + +End of Project Gutenberg's Sophisms of the Protectionists, by Frederic Bastiat + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SOPHISMS OF THE PROTECTIONISTS *** + +***** This file should be named 20161-8.txt or 20161-8.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/2/0/1/6/20161/ + +Produced by Graeme Mackreth, Curtis Weyant and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. diff --git a/20161-8.zip b/20161-8.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..78d305c --- /dev/null +++ b/20161-8.zip diff --git a/20161-h.zip b/20161-h.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..a4e23e9 --- /dev/null +++ b/20161-h.zip diff --git a/20161-h/20161-h.htm b/20161-h/20161-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..396b80f --- /dev/null +++ b/20161-h/20161-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,11320 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> + +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> + <head> + <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1" /> + <title> + The Project Gutenberg eBook of Sophisms of the Protectionists, by Frederic Bastiat. + </title> + <style type="text/css"> +/*<![CDATA[ XML blockout */ +<!-- + p { margin-top: .75em; + text-align: justify; + margin-bottom: .75em; + } + h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 { + text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ + clear: both; + } + hr { width: 33%; + margin-top: 2em; + margin-bottom: 2em; + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; + clear: both; + } + + table {margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;} + + body{margin-left: 10%; + margin-right: 10%; + } + + .pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */ + /* visibility: hidden; */ + position: absolute; + left: 92%; + font-size: smaller; + text-align: right; + } /* page numbers */ + + .linenum {position: absolute; top: auto; left: 4%;} /* poetry number */ + .blockquot{margin-left: 5%; margin-right: 10%;} + + + .bb {border-bottom: solid 2px;} + .bl {border-left: solid 2px;} + .bt {border-top: solid 2px;} + .br {border-right: solid 2px;} + .bbox {border: solid 2px;} + + .center {text-align: center;} + .smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} + .u {text-decoration: underline;} + + + .footnotes {border: dashed 1px;} + .footnote {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;} + .footnote .label {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;} + .fnanchor {vertical-align: super; font-size: .8em; text-decoration: none;} + + + // --> + /* XML end ]]>*/ + </style> + </head> +<body> + + +<pre> + +Project Gutenberg's Sophisms of the Protectionists, by Frederic Bastiat + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: Sophisms of the Protectionists + +Author: Frederic Bastiat + +Translator: Horace White + +Release Date: December 22, 2006 [EBook #20161] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SOPHISMS OF THE PROTECTIONISTS *** + + + + +Produced by Graeme Mackreth, Curtis Weyant and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net + + + + + + +</pre> + + + + + +<h1> +SOPHISMS</h1> + +<h4>OF THE</h4> + +<h1>PROTECTIONISTS.</h1> + + +<h4>BY THE LATE</h4> + +<h3>M. FREDERIC BASTIAT,</h3> + +<h5><i>Member of the Institute of France</i>.</h5> + +<hr style='width: 45%;' /> + + +<p class='center'><a href="#PART_I">Part I. Sophisms of Protection—First Series.</a><br /> +<a href="#PART_II">Part II. Sophisms of Protection—Second Series.</a><br /> +<a href="#PART_III">Part III. Spoliation and Law.</a><br /> +<a href="#PART_IV">Part IV. Capital and Interest.</a></p> + + + +<p class='center' style="margin-top: 5em;"><span class="smcap">Translated from the Paris Edition of 1863.</span></p> + + +<p class='center' style="margin-top: 5em;"><small>NEW-YORK:<br /> +AMERICAN FREE TRADE LEAGUE.</small></p> + +<p class='center'><small>1870.</small> +</p> + + + + +<p class='center' style="margin-top: 5em;"><small> +Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1869, by<br /> +THE WESTERN NEWS COMPANY,<br /> +In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States, for the<br /> +Northern District of Illinois.<br /></small> +</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>PREFACE.</h2> + + +<p>A previous edition of this work has been published under the title of +"Essays on Political Economy, by the late M. Frederic Bastiat." When it +became necessary to issue a second edition, the Free-Trade League +offered to buy the stereotype plates and the copyright, with a view to +the 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; to +convince the people of the United States of the folly and wrongfulness +of the Protective system. The methods adopted by the League for the +purpose have been the holding of public meetings and the publication of +books, pamphlets, and tracts, some of which are for sale at the cost of +publication, and others given away gratuitously.</p> + +<p>In publishing this book the League feels that it is offering the most +effective and most popular work on political economy that has as yet +been written. M. Bastiat not only enlivens a dull subject with his wit, +but also reduces the propositions of the Protectionists to absurdities.</p> + +<p>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 every +Free-Trader put a copy of the book into the hands of his Protectionist +friends?</p> + +<p>It would not be proper to close this short preface without an expression +on the part of the League of its obligation to the able translator of +the work from the French, Mr. Horace White, of Chicago.</p> + +<p class='center'> +<span class="smcap">Office of The American Free-Trade League</span>,<br /> +9 Nassau Street, New-York, June, 1870.<br /> +</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION.</h2> + + +<p>This compilation, from the works of the late M. Bastiat, is given to the +public in the belief that the time has now come when the people, +relieved from the absorbing anxieties of the war, and the subsequent +strife on reconstruction, are prepared to give a more earnest and +thoughtful attention to economical questions than was possible during +the previous ten years. That we have retrograded in economical science +during this period, while making great strides in moral and political +advancement by the abolition of slavery and the enfranchisement of the +freedmen, seems to me incontestable. Professor Perry has described very +concisely the steps taken by the manufacturers in 1861, after the +Southern members had left their seats in Congress, to reverse the policy +of the government in reference to foreign trade.<a name="FNanchor_1_1" id="FNanchor_1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> He has noticed but +has not laid so much stress as he might on the fact that while there +was no considerable public opinion to favor them, there was none at all +to oppose them. Not only was the attention of the people diverted from +the tariff by the dangers then impending, but the Republican party, +which then came into power, had, in its National Convention, offered a +bribe to the State of Pennsylvania for its vote in the Presidential +election, which bribe was set forth in the following words:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"<i>Resolved</i>, 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."—<i>Chicago Convention +Platform</i>, 1860.</p></div> + +<p>It is true that this resolution did not commit anybody to the doctrine +that the industrial interests of the whole country are promoted by taxes +levied upon imported property, however "adjusted," but it was +understood, by the Pennsylvanians at least, to be a promise that if the +Republican party were successful in the coming election, the doctrine of +protection, which had been overthrown in 1846, and had been in an +extremely languishing state ever since, should be put upon its legs +again. I am far from asserting that this overture was needed to secure +the vote of Pennsylvania for Mr. Lincoln in 1860, or that that State +was governed by less worthy motives in her political action than other +States. I only remark that her delegates in the convention thought such +a resolution would be extremely useful, and such was the anxiety to +secure her vote in the election that a much stronger resolution might +have been conceded if it had been required. I affirm, however, that +there was no agitation on the tariff question in any other quarter. New +England had united in passing the tariff of 1857, which lowered the +duties imposed by the act of 1846 about fifty per cent., i.e., +one-half of the previously existing scale. The Western States had not +petitioned Congress or the convention to disturb the tariff; nor had New +York done so, although Mr. Greeley, then as now, was invoking, more or +less frequently, the shade of Henry Clay to help re-establish what is +deftly styled the "American System."</p> + +<p>The protective policy was restored, after its fifteen years' sleep, +under the auspices of Mr. Morrill, a Representative (now a Senator) from +Vermont. Latterly I have noticed in the speeches and votes of this +gentleman (who is, I think, one of the most conscientious, as he is one +of the most amiable, men in public life), a reluctance to follow to +their logical conclusion the principles embodied in the "Morrill tariff" +of 1861. His remarks upon the copper bill, during the recent session of +Congress, indicate that, in his opinion, those branches of American +industry which are engaged in producing articles sent abroad in exchange +for the products of foreign nations, are entitled to some consideration. +This is an important admission, but not so important as another, which +he made in his speech on the national finances, January 24, 1867, in +which, referring to the bank note circulation existing in the year 1860, +he said: "<i>And that was a year of as large production and as much +general prosperity as any, perhaps, in our history</i>."<a name="FNanchor_2_2" id="FNanchor_2_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> If the year +immediately preceding the enactment of the Morrill tariff was a year of +as large production and as much general prosperity as any in our +history, of what use has the Morrill tariff been? We have seen that it +was not demanded by any public agitation. We now see that it has been of +no public utility.</p> + +<p>In combating, by arguments and illustrations adapted to the +comprehension of the mass of mankind, the errors and sophisms with which +protectionists deceive themselves and others, M. Bastiat is the most +lucid and pointed of all writers on economical science with whose works +I have any acquaintance. It is not necessary to accord to him a place +among the architects of the science of political economy, although some +of his admirers rank him among the highest.<a name="FNanchor_3_3" id="FNanchor_3_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> It is enough to count +him among the greatest of its expounders and demonstrators. His death, +which occurred at Pisa, Italy, on the 24th December, 1850, at the age of +49, was a serious loss to France and to the world. His works, though for +the most part fragmentary, and given to the public from time to time +through the columns of the <i>Journal des Economistes</i>, the <i>Journal des +Debats</i>, and the <i>Libre Echange</i>, remain a monument of a noble intellect +guided by a noble soul. They have been collected and published +(including the <i>Harmonies Economiques</i>, which the author left in +manuscript) by Guillaumin & Co., the proprietors of the <i>Journal des +Economistes</i>, in two editions of six volumes each, 8vo. and 12mo. When +we reflect that these six volumes were produced between April, 1844, and +December, 1850, by a young man of feeble constitution, who commenced +life as a clerk in a mercantile establishment, and who spent much of his +time during these six years in delivering public lectures, and laboring +in the National Assembly, to which he was chosen in 1848, our admiration +for such industry is only modified by the thought that if he had been +more saving of his strength, he might have rendered even greater +services to his country and to mankind.</p> + +<p>The <i>Sophismes Economiques</i>, which fill the larger portion of this +volume, were not expected by their author to outlast the fallacies which +they sought to overthrow. But these fallacies have lived longer and have +spread over more of the earth's surface than any one <i>a priori</i> could +have believed possible. It is sometimes useful, in opposing doctrines +which people have been taught to believe are peculiar to their own +country and time, to show that the same doctrines have been maintained +in other countries and times, and have been exploded in other languages. +By what misuse of words the doctrine of Protection came to be +denominated the "American System," I could never understand. It +prevailed in England nearly two hundred years before our separation from +the mother country. Adam Smith directed the first formidable attack +against it in the very year that our independence was declared. It held +its ground in England until it had starved and ruined almost every +branch of industry—agriculture, manufactures, and commerce alike.<a name="FNanchor_4_4" id="FNanchor_4_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> It +was not wholly overthrown until 1846, the same year that witnessed its +discomfiture in the United States, as already shown. It still exists in +a subdued and declining way in France, despite the powerful and +brilliant attacks of Say, Bastiat, and Chevalier, but its end cannot be +far distant in that country. The Cobden-Chevalier treaty with England +has been attended by consequences so totally at variance with the +theories and prophecies of the protectionists that it must soon succumb.</p> + +<p>As these pages are going through the press, a telegram announces that +the French Government has abolished the discriminating duties levied +upon goods imported in foreign bottoms, and has asked our government to +abolish the like discrimination which our laws have created. Commercial +freedom is making rapid progress in Prussia, Austria, Italy, and even +in Spain. The United States alone, among civilized nations, hold to the +opposite principle. Our anomalous position in this respect is due, as I +think, to our anomalous condition during the past eight or nine years, +already adverted to—a condition in which the protected classes have +been restrained by no public opinion—public opinion being too intensely +preoccupied with the means of preserving the national existence to +notice what was doing with the tariff. But evidences of a reawakening +are not wanting.</p> + +<p>There is scarcely an argument current among the protectionists of the +United States that was not current in France at the time Bastiat wrote +the <i>Sophismes Economiques</i>. Nor was there one current in his time that +is not performing its bad office among us. Hence his demonstrations of +their absurdity and falsity are equally applicable to our time and +country as to his. They may have even greater force among us if they +thoroughly dispel the notion that Protection is an "American system." +Surely they cannot do less than this.</p> + +<p>There are one or two arguments current among the protectionists of the +United States that were not rife in France when Bastiat wrote his +<i>Sophismes</i>. It is said, for instance, that protection has failed to +achieve all the good results expected from it, because the policy of the +government has been variable. If we could have a steady course of +protection for a sufficient period of time (nobody being bold enough to +say what time would be sufficient), and could be <i>assured</i> of having it, +we should see wonderful progress. But, inasmuch as the policy of the +government is uncertain, protection has never yet had a fair trial. This +is 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 stay +there. The law of gravitation is committed against its staying there. +Its only resting-place is on the earth. They begin by violating natural +laws and natural rights—the right to exchange services for +services—and then complain because these natural laws war against them +and finally overcome them. But it is not true that protection has not +had a fair trial in the United States. The protection has been greater +at some times than at others, that is all. Prior to the late war, all +our revenue was raised from customs; and while the tariffs of 1846 and +1857 were designated "free trade tariffs," to distinguish them from +those existing before and since, they were necessarily protective to a +certain extent.</p> + +<p>Again, it is said that there is need of diversifying our industry—- as +though industry would not diversify itself sufficiently through the +diverse tastes and predilections of individuals—as though it were +necessary to supplement the work of the Creator in this behalf, by human +enactments founded upon reciprocal rapine. The only rational object of +diversifying industry is to make people better and happier. Do men and +women become better and happier by being huddled together in mills and +factories, in a stifling atmosphere, on scanty wages, ten hours each day +and 313 days each year, than when cultivating our free and fertile +lands? Do they have equal opportunities for mental and moral +improvement? The trades-unions tell us, No. Whatever may be the +experience of other countries where the land is either owned by absentee +lords, who take all the product except what is necessary to give the +tenant a bare subsistence, or where it is cut up in parcels not larger +than an American garden patch, it is an undeniable fact that no other +class of American workingmen are so independent, so intelligent, so well +provided with comforts and leisure, or so rapidly advancing in +prosperity, as our agriculturists; and this notwithstanding they are +enormously overtaxed to maintain other branches of industry, which, +according to the protective theory, cannot support themselves. The +natural tendency of our people to flock to the cities, where their eyes +and ears are gratified at the expense of their other senses, physical +and moral, is sufficiently marked not to need the influence of +legislation to stimulate it.</p> + +<p>It is not the purpose of this preface to anticipate the admirable +arguments of M. Bastiat; but there is another theory in vogue which +deserves a moment's consideration. Mr. H.C. Carey tells us, that a +country which exports its food, in reality exports its soil, the foreign +consumers not giving back to the land the fertilizing elements +abstracted from it. Mr. Mill has answered this argument, upon +philosophical principles, at some length, showing that whenever it +ceases to be advantageous to America to export breadstuffs, she will +cease to do so; also, that when it becomes necessary to manure her +lands, she will either import manure or make it at home.<a name="FNanchor_5_5" id="FNanchor_5_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> A shorter +answer is, that the lands are no better manured by having the bread +consumed in Lowell, or Pittsburgh, or even in Chicago, than in +Birmingham or Lyons. But it seems to me that Mr. Carey does not take +into account the fact that the total amount of breadstuffs exported from +any country must be an exceedingly small fraction of the whole amount +taken from the soil, and scarcely appreciable as a source of manure, +even if it were practically utilized in that way. Thus, our exportation +of flour and meal, wheat and Indian corn, for the year 1860, as compared +with the total crop produced, was as follows:</p> + +<table width='500' summary='exports' > +<tr> +<td colspan='3' align='center'>TOTAL CROP.<a name="FNanchor_6_6" id="FNanchor_6_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a></td> +<td></td> +<td></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td align='right'>Flour and Meal, bbls.</td> +<td align='right'> Wheat, bu.</td> +<td align='right'>Corn, bu.</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td align='right'>55,217,800</td> +<td align='right'>173,104,924</td> +<td align='right'>838,792,740</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td colspan='3' align='center'><i>Exportation.</i></td> +<td></td> +<td></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td align='right'>Flour and Meal, bbls.</td> +<td align='right'>Wheat, bu.</td> +<td align='right'>Corn, bu.</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td align='right'>2,845,305</td> +<td align='right'>4,155,153</td> +<td align='right'>1,314,155</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td colspan='3' align='center'><i>Percentage of Exportation to Total Crop.</i></td> +<td></td> +<td></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td align='right'>5.15</td> +<td align='right'>2.40</td> +<td align='right'> .39</td> +</tr> +</table> + + +<p>This was the result for the year preceding the enactment of the Morrill +tariff. It is true that our exports of wheat and Indian corn rose in the +three years following the enactment of the Morrill tariff, from an +average of eight million bushels to an average of forty-six million +bushels, but this is contrary to the theory that high tariffs tend to +keep breadstuffs at home, and low ones to send them abroad. There is +need of great caution in making generalizations as to the influence of +tariffs on the movement of breadstuffs. Good or bad harvests in various +countries exercise an uncontrollable influence upon their movement, far +beyond the reach of any legislation short of prohibition. The market for +breadstuffs in the world is as the number of consumers; that is, of +population. It is sometimes said in the way of reproach, (and it is a +curious travesty of Mr. Carey's manure argument,) that foreign nations +<i>will not</i> take our breadstuffs. It is not true; but if it were, that +would not be a good reason for our passing laws to prevent them from +doing so; that is, to deprive them of the means to pay for them. Every +country must pay for its imports with its exports. It must pay for the +services which it receives with the services which it renders. If +foreign nations are not allowed to render services to us, how shall we +render them the service of bread?</p> + +<p>The first series of Bastiat's <i>Sophismes</i> were published in 1845, and +the second series in 1848. The first series were translated in 1848, by +Mrs. D.J. McCord, and published the same year by G.P. Putnam, New York. +Mrs. McCord's excellent translation has been followed (by permission of +her publisher, who holds the copyright,) in this volume, having been +first compared with the original, in the Paris edition of 1863. A very +few verbal alterations have been made, which, however, have no bearing +on the accuracy and faithfulness of her work. The translation of the +essay on "Capital and Interest" is from a duodecimo volume published in +London a year or two ago, the name of the translator being unknown to +me. The second series of the <i>Sophismes</i>, and the essay entitled +"Spoliation and Law," are, I believe, presented in English for the first +time in these pages.</p> + +<p style="margin-left: 35em;"> +H.W.</p> +<p style="margin-left: 5em;"><span class="smcap">Chicago</span>, August 1, 1869. +</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h4><a name="PART_I" id="PART_I"></a>PART I.</h4> + +<h2>SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION.</h2> + +<h5>FIRST SERIES.</h5> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h3>INTRODUCTION.</h3> + + +<p>My object in this little volume has been to refute some of the arguments +usually advanced against Free Trade.</p> + +<p>I am not seeking a combat with the protectionists. I merely advance a +principle which I am anxious to present clearly to the minds of sincere +men, who hesitate because they doubt.</p> + +<p>I am not of the number of those who maintain that protection is +supported by interests. I believe that it is founded upon errors, or, if +you will, upon <i>incomplete truths</i>. Too many fear free trade, for this +apprehension to be other than sincere.</p> + +<p>My aspirations are perhaps high; but I confess that it would give me +pleasure to hope that this little work might become, as it were, a +<i>manual</i> for such men as may be called upon to decide between the two +principles. When one has not made oneself perfectly familiar with the +doctrines of free trade, the sophisms of protection perpetually return +to the mind under one form or another; and, on each occasion, in order +to counteract their effect, it is necessary to enter into a long and +laborious analysis. Few, and least of all legislators, have leisure for +this labor, which I would, on this account, wish to present clearly +drawn up to their hand.</p> + +<p>But it may be said, are then the benefits of free trade so hidden as to +be perceptible only to economists by profession?</p> + +<p>Yes; we confess it; our adversaries in the discussion have a signal +advantage over us. They can, in a few words, present an incomplete +truth; which, for us to show that it is incomplete, renders necessary +long and uninteresting dissertations.</p> + +<p>This results from the fact that protection accumulates upon a single +point the good which it effects, while the evil inflicted is infused +throughout the mass. The one strikes the eye at a first glance, while +the other becomes perceptible only to close investigation. With regard +to free trade, precisely the reverse is the case.</p> + +<p>It is thus with almost all questions of political economy.</p> + +<p>If you say, for instance: There is a machine which has turned out of +employment thirty workmen;</p> + +<p>Or again: There is a spendthrift who encourages every kind of industry;</p> + +<p>Or: The conquest of Algiers has doubled the commerce of Marseilles;</p> + +<p>Or, once more: The public taxes support one hundred thousand families;</p> + +<p>You are understood at once; your propositions are clear, simple, and +true in themselves. If you deduce from them the principle that</p> + +<p>Machines are an evil;</p> + +<p>That sumptuous extravagance, conquest, and heavy imposts are blessings;</p> + +<p>Your theory will have the more success, because you will be able to base +it upon indisputable facts.</p> + +<p>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. To +judge of a measure, it is necessary that we should follow it from step +to step, from result to result, until through the successive links of +the chain of events we arrive at the final effect. We must, in short, +<i>reason</i>.</p> + +<p>But here we are assailed by clamorous exclamations: You are theorists, +metaphysicians, ideologists, utopians, men of maxims! and immediately +all the prejudices of the public are against us.</p> + +<p>What then shall we do? We must invoke the patience and candor of the +reader, giving to our deductions, if we are capable of it, sufficient +clearness to throw forward at once, without disguise or palliation, the +true and the false, in order, once for all, to determine whether the +victory should be for Restriction or Free Trade.</p> + +<p>I wish here to make a remark of some importance.</p> + +<p>Some extracts from this volume have appeared in the "<i>Journal des +Economistes</i>."</p> + +<p>In an article otherwise quite complimentary published by the Viscount de +Romanet (see <i>Moniteur Industriel</i> of the 15th and 18th of May, 1845), +he intimates that I ask for the <i>suppression of custom houses</i>. Mr. de +Romanet is mistaken. I ask for the suppression of the <i>protective +policy</i>. We do not dispute the right of <i>government</i> to impose taxes, +but would, if possible, dissuade <i>producers</i> from taxing one another. It +was said by Napoleon that duties should never be a fiscal instrument, +but a means of protecting industry. We plead the contrary, and say, that +duties should never be made an instrument of reciprocal rapine; but that +they may be employed as a useful fiscal machine. I am so far from asking +for the suppression of duties, that I look upon them as the anchor on +which the future salvation of our finances will depend. I believe that +they may bring immense receipts into the treasury, and, to give my +entire and undisguised opinion, I am inclined, from the slow progress of +healthy, economical doctrines, and from the magnitude of our budget, to +hope more for the cause of commercial reform from the necessities of +the Treasury than from the force of an enlightened public opinion.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>I.</h2> + +<h3>ABUNDANCE—SCARCITY.</h3> + + +<p>Which is the best for man or for society, abundance or scarcity?</p> + +<p>How, it may be exclaimed, can such a question be asked? Has it ever been +pretended, is it possible to maintain, that scarcity can be the basis of +a man's happiness?</p> + +<p>Yes; this has been maintained, this is daily maintained; and I do not +hesitate to say that the <i>scarcity theory</i> is by far the most popular of +the 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 and +its practical mission, when it shall have rendered common and +irrefutable the simple proposition that "in abundance consist man's +riches."</p> + +<p>Do we not hear it said every day, "Foreign nations are inundating us +with their productions"? Then we fear abundance.</p> + +<p>Has not Mr. de Saint Cricq said, "Production is superabundant"? Then he +fears abundance.</p> + +<p>Do we not see workmen destroying and breaking machinery? They are +frightened by the excess of production; in other words, they fear +abundance.</p> + +<p>Has not Mr. Bugeaud said, "Let bread be dear and the agriculturist will +be rich"? Now bread can only be dear because it is scarce. Then Mr. +Bugeaud lauded scarcity.</p> + +<p>Has not Mr. d'Argout produced the fruitfulness of the sugar culture as +an argument against it? Has he not said, "The beet cannot have a +permanent and extended cultivation, because a few acres given up to it +in each department, would furnish sufficient for the consumption of all +France"? Then, in his opinion, good consists in sterility and scarcity, +evil in fertility and abundance.</p> + +<p>"<i>La Presse</i>," "<i>Le Commerce</i>," and the majority of our journals, are, +every day, publishing articles whose aim is to prove to the chambers and +to government that a wise policy should seek to raise prices by tariffs; +and do we not daily see these powers obeying these injunctions of the +press? Now, tariffs can only raise prices by diminishing the quantity of +goods offered for sale. Then, here we see newspapers, the legislature, +the ministry, all guided by the scarcity theory, and I was correct in my +statement that this theory is by far the most popular.</p> + +<p>How then has it happened, that in the eyes at once of laborers, editors +and statesmen, abundance should appear alarming, and scarcity +advantageous? It is my intention to endeavor to show the origin of this +delusion.</p> + +<p>A man becomes rich, in proportion to the profitableness of his labor; +that is to say, <i>in proportion as he sells his productions at a high +price</i>. The price of his productions is high in proportion to their +scarcity. It is plain then, that, as far as regards him at least, +scarcity enriches him. Applying successively this mode of reasoning to +each class of laborers individually, the <i>scarcity theory</i> is deduced +from it. To put this theory into practice, and in order to favor each +class of labor, an artificial scarcity is forced in every kind of +production, by prohibition, restriction, suppression of machinery, and +other analogous measures.</p> + +<p>In the same manner it is observed that when an article is abundant it +brings a small price. The gains of the producer are, of course, less. If +this is the case with all produce, all producers are then poor. +Abundance then ruins society. And as any strong conviction will always +seek to force itself into practice, we see, in many countries, the laws +aiming to prevent abundance.</p> + +<p>This sophism, stated in a general form, would produce but a slight +impression. But when applied to any particular order of facts, to any +particular article of industry, to any one class of labor, it is +extremely specious, because it is a syllogism which is not <i>false</i>, but +<i>incomplete</i>. And what is true in a syllogism always necessarily +presents itself to the mind, while the <i>incomplete</i>, which is a negative +quality, an unknown value, is easily forgotten in the calculation.</p> + +<p>Man produces in order to consume. He is at once producer and consumer. +The argument given above, considers him only under the first point of +view. Let us look at him in the second character and the conclusion will +be different. We may say,</p> + +<p>The consumer is rich in proportion as he <i>buys</i> at a low price. He buys +at a low price in proportion to the abundance of the article in demand; +abundance then enriches him. This reasoning extended to all consumers +must lead to the <i>theory of abundance</i>!</p> + +<p>It is the imperfectly understood notion of exchange of produce which +leads to these fallacies. If we consult our individual interest, we +perceive immediately that it is double. As <i>sellers</i> we are interested +in high prices, consequently in scarcity. As <i>buyers</i> our advantage is +in cheapness, or what is the same thing, abundance. It is impossible +then to found a proper system of reasoning upon either the one or the +other of these separate interests before determining which of the two +coincides and identifies itself with the general and permanent interests +of mankind.</p> + +<p>If man were a solitary animal, working exclusively for himself, +consuming the fruit of his own personal labor; if, in a word, he did not +exchange his produce, the theory of scarcity could never have introduced +itself into the world. It would be too strikingly evident, that +abundance, whencesoever derived, is advantageous to him, whether this +abundance might be the result of his own labor, of ingenious tools, or +of powerful machinery; whether due to the fertility of the soil, to the +liberality of nature, or to an <i>inundation</i> of foreign goods, such as +the sea bringing from distant regions might cast upon his shores. Never +would the solitary man have dreamed, in order to encourage his own +labor, of destroying his instruments for facilitating his work, of +neutralizing the fertility of the soil, or of casting back into the sea +the produce of its bounty. He would understand that his labor was a +<i>means</i> not an <i>end</i>, and that it would be absurd to reject the object, +in order to encourage the means. He would understand that if he has +required two hours per day to supply his necessities, any thing which +spares him an hour of this labor, leaving the result the same, gives him +this hour to dispose of as he pleases in adding to his comforts. In a +word, he would understand that every step in the <i>saving of labor</i>, is a +step in the improvement of his condition. But traffic clouds our vision +in the contemplation of this simple truth. In a state of society with +the division of labor to which it leads, the production and consumption +of an article no longer belong to the same individual. Each now looks +upon his labor not as a means, but as an end. The exchange of produce +creates with regard to each object two separate interests, that of the +producer and that of the consumer; and these two interests are always +directly opposed to each other.</p> + +<p>It is essential to analyze and study the nature of each. Let us then +suppose a producer of whatever kind; what is his immediate interest? It +consists in two things: 1st, that the smallest possible number of +individuals should devote themselves to the business which he follows; +and 2dly, that the greatest possible number should seek the articles of +his produce. In the more succinct terms of Political Economy, the supply +should be small, the demand large; or yet in other words: limited +competition, unlimited consumption.</p> + +<p>What on the other side is the immediate interest of the consumer? That +the supply should be large, the demand small.</p> + +<p>As these two interests are immediately opposed to each other, it follows +that if one coincides with the general interest of society the other +must be adverse to it.</p> + +<p>Which then, if either, should legislation favor as contributing most to +the good of the community?</p> + +<p>To determine this question, it suffices to inquire in which the secret +desires of the majority of men would be accomplished.</p> + +<p>Inasmuch as we are producers, it must be confessed that we have each of +us anti-social desires. Are we vine-growers? It would not distress <i>us</i> +were the frost to nip all the vines in the world except our own: <i>this +is the scarcity theory</i>. Are we iron-workers? We would desire (whatever +might be the public need) that the market should offer no iron but our +own; and precisely for the reason that this need, painfully felt and +imperfectly supplied, causes us to receive a high price for <i>our</i> iron: +<i>again here is the theory of scarcity</i>. Are we agriculturists? We say +with Mr. Bugeaud, let bread be dear, that is to say scarce, and our +business goes well: <i>again the theory of scarcity</i>.</p> + +<p>Are we physicians? We cannot but see that certain physical +ameliorations, such as the improved climate of the country, the +development of certain moral virtues, the progress of knowledge pushed +to the extent of enabling each individual to take care of his own +health, the discovery of certain simple remedies easily applied, would +be so many fatal blows to our profession. As physicians, then, our +secret desires are anti-social. I must not be understood to imply that +physicians allow themselves to form such desires. I am happy to believe +that they would hail with joy a universal panacea. But in such a +sentiment it is the man, the Christian, who manifests himself, and who +by a praiseworthy abnegation of self, takes that point of view of the +question, which belongs to the consumer. As a physician exercising his +profession, and gaining from this profession his standing in society, +his comforts, even the means of existence of his family, it is +impossible but that his desires, or if you please so to word it, his +interests, should be anti-social.</p> + +<p>Are we manufacturers of cotton goods? We desire to sell them at the +price most advantageous to <i>ourselves</i>. We would willingly consent to +the suppression of all rival manufactories. And if we dare not publicly +express this desire, or pursue the complete realization of it with some +success, we do so, at least to a certain extent, by indirect means; as +for example, the exclusion of foreign goods, in order to diminish the +<i>quantity offered</i>, and to produce thus by forcible means, and for our +own profits, a <i>scarcity</i> of clothing.</p> + +<p>We might thus pass in review every business and every profession, and +should always find that the producers, <i>in their character of +producers</i>, have invariably anti-social interests. "The shop-keeper +(says Montaigne) succeeds in his business through the extravagance of +youth; the laborer by the high price of grain; the architect by the +decay of houses; officers of justice by lawsuits and quarrels. The +standing and occupation even of ministers of religion are drawn from our +death and our vices. No physician takes pleasure in the health even of +his friends; no soldier in the peace of his country; and so on with +all."</p> + +<p>If then the secret desires of each producer were realized, the world +would rapidly retrograde towards barbarism. The sail would proscribe +steam; the oar would proscribe the sail, only in its turn to give way to +wagons, the wagon to the mule, and the mule to the foot-peddler. Wool +would exclude cotton; cotton would exclude wool; and thus on, until the +scarcity and want of every thing would cause man himself to disappear +from the face of the globe.</p> + +<p>If we now go on to consider the immediate interest of the <i>consumer</i>, we +shall find it in perfect harmony with the public interest, and with the +well-being of humanity. When the buyer presents himself in the market, +he desires to find it abundantly furnished. He sees with pleasure +propitious seasons for harvesting; wonderful inventions putting within +his reach the largest possible quantity of produce; time and labor +saved; distances effaced; the spirit of peace and justice diminishing +the weight of taxes; every barrier to improvement cast down; and in all +this his interest runs parallel with an enlightened public interest. He +may push his secret desires to an absurd and chimerical height, but +never can they cease to be humanizing in their tendency. He may desire +that food and clothing, house and hearth, instruction and morality, +security and peace, strength and health, should come to us without limit +and without labor or effort on our part, as the water of the stream, the +air which we breathe, and the sunbeams in which we bask, but never could +the realization of his most extravagant wishes run counter to the good +of society.</p> + +<p>It may be said, perhaps, that were these desires granted, the labor of +the producer constantly checked would end by being entirely arrested +for want of support. But why? Because in this extreme supposition every +imaginable need and desire would be completely satisfied. Man, like the +All-powerful, would create by the single act of his will. How in such an +hypothesis could laborious production be regretted?</p> + +<p>Imagine a legislative assembly composed of producers, of whom each +member should cause to pass into a law his secret desire as a +<i>producer</i>; the code which would emanate from such an assembly could be +nothing but systematized monopoly; the scarcity theory put into +practice.</p> + +<p>In the same manner, an assembly in which each member should consult only +his immediate interest of <i>consumer</i> would aim at the systematizing of +free trade; the suppression of every restrictive measure; the +destruction of artificial barriers; in a word, would realize the theory +of abundance.</p> + +<p>It follows then,</p> + +<p>That to consult exclusively the immediate interest of the producer, is +to consult an anti-social interest.</p> + +<p>To take exclusively for basis the interest of the consumer, is to take +for basis the general interest.</p> + +<hr style='width: 45%;' /> + +<p>Let me be permitted to insist once more upon this point of view, though +at the risk of repetition.</p> + +<p>A radical antagonism exists between the seller and the buyer.</p> + +<p>The former wishes the article offered to be <i>scarce</i>, supply small, and +at a high price.</p> + +<p>The latter wishes it <i>abundant</i>, supply large, and at a low price.</p> + +<p>The laws, which should at least remain neutral, take part for the seller +against the buyer; for the producer against the consumer; for high +against low prices; for scarcity against abundance. They act, if not +intentionally at least logically, upon the principle that <i>a nation is +rich in proportion as it is in want of every thing</i>.</p> + +<p>For, say they, it is necessary to favor the producer by securing him a +profitable disposal of his goods. To effect this, their price must be +raised; to raise the price the supply must be diminished; and to +diminish the supply is to create scarcity.</p> + +<p>Let us suppose that at this moment, with these laws in full action, a +complete inventory should be made, not by value, but by weight, measure +and quantity, of all articles now in France calculated to supply the +necessities and pleasures of its inhabitants; as grain, meat, woollen +and cotton goods, fuel, etc.</p> + +<p>Let us suppose again that to-morrow every barrier to the introduction of +foreign goods should be removed.</p> + +<p>Then, to judge of the effect of such a reform, let a new inventory be +made three months hence.</p> + +<p>Is it not certain that at the time of the second inventory, the +quantity of grain, cattle, goods, iron, coal, sugar, etc., will be +greater than at the first?</p> + +<p>So true is this, that the sole object of our protective tariffs is to +prevent such articles from reaching us, to diminish the supply, to +prevent low prices, or which is the same thing, the abundance of goods.</p> + +<p>Now I ask, are the people under the action of these laws better fed +because there is <i>less</i> bread, <i>less</i> meat, and <i>less</i> sugar in the +country? Are they better dressed because there are <i>fewer</i> goods? Better +warmed because there is <i>less</i> coal? Or do they prosper better in their +labor because iron, copper, tools and machinery are scarce?</p> + +<p>But, it is answered, if we are inundated with foreign goods and produce, +our coin will leave the country.</p> + +<p>Well, and what matters that? Man is not fed with coin. He does not dress +in gold, nor warm himself with silver. What difference does it make +whether there be more or less coin in the country, provided there be +more bread in the cupboard, more meat in the larder, more clothing in +the press, and more wood in the cellar?</p> + +<hr style='width: 45%;' /> + +<p>To Restrictive Laws, I offer this dilemma:</p> + +<p>Either you allow that you produce scarcity, or you do not allow it.</p> + +<p>If you allow it, you confess at once that your end is to injure the +people as much as possible. If you do not allow it, then you deny your +power to diminish the supply, to raise the price, and consequently you +deny having favored the producer.</p> + +<p>You are either injurious or inefficient. You can never be useful.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>II.</h2> + +<h3>OBSTACLE—CAUSE.</h3> + + +<p>The obstacle mistaken for the cause—scarcity mistaken for abundance. +The sophism is the same. It is well to study it under every aspect.</p> + +<p>Man naturally is in a state of entire destitution.</p> + +<p>Between this state and the satisfying of his wants, there exists a +multitude of <i>obstacles</i> which it is the object of labor to surmount. It +is interesting to seek how and why he could have been led to look even +upon these obstacles to his happiness as the cause of it.</p> + +<p>I wish to take a journey of some hundred miles. But, between the point +of my departure and my destination, there are interposed, mountains, +rivers, swamps, forests, robbers—in a word, <i>obstacles</i>; and to conquer +these obstacles, it is necessary that I should bestow much labor and +great efforts in opposing them;—or, what is the same thing, if others +do it for me, I must pay them the value of their exertions. It is +evident that I should have been better off had these obstacles never +existed.</p> + +<p>Through the journey of life, in the long series of days from the cradle +to the tomb, man has many difficulties to oppose him in his progress. +Hunger, thirst, sickness, heat, cold, are so many obstacles scattered +along his road. In a state of isolation, he would be obliged to combat +them all by hunting, fishing, agriculture, spinning, weaving, +architecture, etc., and it is very evident that it would be better for +him that these difficulties should exist to a less degree, or even not +at all. In a state of society he is not obliged, personally, to struggle +with each of these obstacles, but others do it for him; and he, in +return, must remove some one of them for the benefit of his fellow-men.</p> + +<p>Again it is evident, that, considering mankind as a whole, it would be +better for society that these obstacles should be as weak and as few as +possible.</p> + +<p>But if we examine closely and in detail the phenomena of society, and +the private interests of men as modified by exchange of produce, we +perceive, without difficulty, how it has happened that wants have been +confounded with riches, and the obstacle with the cause.</p> + +<p>The separation of occupations, which results from the habits of +exchange, causes each man, instead of struggling against all surrounding +obstacles to combat only <i>one</i>; the effort being made not for himself +alone, but for the benefit of his fellows, who, in their turn, render a +similar service to him.</p> + +<p>Now, it hence results, that this man looks upon the obstacle which he +has made it his profession to combat for the benefit of others, as the +immediate cause of his riches. The greater, the more serious, the more +stringent may be this obstacle, the more he is remunerated for the +conquering of it, by those who are relieved by his labors.</p> + +<p>A physician, for instance, does not busy himself in baking his bread, or +in manufacturing his clothing and his instruments; others do it for him, +and he, in return, combats the maladies with which his patients are +afflicted. The more dangerous and frequent these maladies are, the more +others are willing, the more, even, are they forced, to work in his +service. Disease, then, which is an obstacle to the happiness of +mankind, becomes to him the source of his comforts. The reasoning of all +producers is, in what concerns themselves, the same. As the doctor draws +his profits from disease, so does the ship owner from the obstacle +called <i>distance</i>; the agriculturist from that named <i>hunger</i>; the cloth +manufacturer from <i>cold</i>; the schoolmaster lives upon <i>ignorance</i>, the +jeweler upon <i>vanity</i>, the lawyer upon <i>quarrels</i>, the notary upon +<i>breach of faith</i>. Each profession has then an immediate interest in +the continuation, even in the extension, of the particular obstacle to +which its attention has been directed.</p> + +<p>Theorists hence go on to found a system upon these individual interests, +and say: Wants are riches: Labor is riches: The obstacle to well-being +is well-being: To multiply obstacles is to give food to industry.</p> + +<p>Then comes the statesman;—and as the developing and propagating of +obstacles is the developing and propagating of riches, what more natural +than that he should bend his efforts to that point? He says, for +instance: If we prevent a large importation of iron, we create a +difficulty in procuring it. This obstacle severely felt, obliges +individuals to pay, in order to relieve themselves from it. A certain +number of our citizens, giving themselves up to the combating of this +obstacle, will thereby make their fortunes. In proportion, too, as the +obstacle is great, and the mineral scarce, inaccessible, and of +difficult and distant transportation, in the same proportion will be the +number of laborers maintained by the various branches of this industry.</p> + +<p>The same reasoning will lead to the suppression of machinery.</p> + +<p>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 the +manufacture of casks. It is fortunate, say our statesmen, that this +obstacle exists, since it occupies a portion of the labor of the +nation, and enriches a certain number of our citizens. But here is +presented to us an ingenious machine, which cuts down the oak, squares +it, makes it into staves, and, gathering these together, forms them into +casks. The obstacle is thus diminished, and with it the profits of the +coopers. We must prevent this. Let us proscribe the machine!</p> + +<p>To sift thoroughly this sophism, it is sufficient to remember that human +labor is not an <i>end</i>, but a <i>means</i>. <i>It is never without employment.</i> +If one obstacle is removed, it seizes another, and mankind is delivered +from two obstacles by the same effort which was at first necessary for +one. If the labor of coopers becomes useless, it must take another +direction. But with what, it may be asked, will they be remunerated? +Precisely with what they are at present remunerated. For if a certain +quantity of labor becomes free from its original occupation, to be +otherwise disposed of, a corresponding quantity of wages must thus also +become free. To maintain that human labor can end by wanting employment, +it would be necessary to prove that mankind will cease to encounter +obstacles. In such a case, labor would be not only impossible, it would +be superfluous. We should have nothing to do, because we should be +all-powerful, and our <i>fiat</i> alone would satisfy at once our wants and +our desires.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>III.</h2> + +<h3>EFFORT—RESULT.</h3> + + +<p>We have seen that between our wants and their gratification many +obstacles are interposed. We conquer or weaken these by the employment +of our faculties. It may be said, in general terms, that industry is an +effort followed by a result.</p> + +<p>But by what do we measure our well-being? By the <i>result</i> of our effort, +or by the <i>effort itself</i>? There exists always a proportion between the +effort employed and the result obtained. Does progress consist in the +relative increase of the second or of the first term of this proportion?</p> + +<p>Both propositions have been sustained, and in political economy opinions +are divided between them.</p> + +<p>According to the first system, riches are the result of labor. They +increase in the same ratio as <i>the result does to the effort</i>. Absolute +perfection, of which <i>God</i> is the type, consists in the infinite +distance between these two terms in this relation, viz., effort none, +result infinite.</p> + +<p>The second system maintains that it is the effort itself which forms the +measure of, and constitutes, our riches. Progression is the increase of +the <i>proportion of the effort to the result</i>. Its ideal extreme may be +represented by the eternal and fruitless efforts of Sisyphus.<a name="FNanchor_7_7" id="FNanchor_7_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a></p> + +<p>The first system tends naturally to the encouragement of every thing +which diminishes difficulties, and augments production,—as powerful +machinery, which adds to the strength of man; the exchange of produce, +which allows us to profit by the various natural agents distributed in +different degrees over the surface of our globe; the intellect which +discovers, experience which proves, and emulation which excites.</p> + +<p>The second as logically inclines to every thing which can augment the +difficulty and diminish the product; as privileges, monopolies, +restrictions, prohibitions, suppression of machinery, sterility, etc.</p> + +<p>It is well to remark here that the universal practice of men is always +guided by the principle of the first system. Every <i>workman</i>, whether +agriculturist, manufacturer, merchant, soldier, writer or philosopher, +devotes the strength of his intellect to do better, to do more quickly, +more economically,—in a word, <i>to do more with less</i>.</p> + +<p>The opposite doctrine is in use with legislators, editors, statesmen, +men whose business is to make experiments upon society. And even of +these we may observe, that in what personally concerns <i>themselves</i>, +they act, like every body else, upon the principle of obtaining from +their labor the greatest possible quantity of useful results.</p> + +<p>It may be supposed that I exaggerate, and that there are no true +<i>Sisyphists</i>.</p> + +<p>I grant that in practice the principle is not pushed to its extremest +consequences. And this must always be the case when one starts upon a +wrong principle, because the absurd and injurious results to which it +leads, cannot but check it in its progress. For this reason, practical +industry never can admit of <i>Sisyphism</i>. The error is too quickly +followed by its punishment to remain concealed. But in the speculative +industry of theorists and statesmen, a false principle may be for a long +time followed up, before the complication of its consequences, only half +understood, can prove its falsity; and even when all is revealed, the +opposite principle is acted upon, self is contradicted, and +justification sought, in the incomparably absurd modern axiom, that in +political economy there is no principle universally true.</p> + +<p>Let us see then, if the two opposite principles I have laid down do not +predominate, each in its turn;—the one in practical industry, the other +in industrial legislation.</p> + +<p>I have already quoted some words of Mr. Bugeaud; but we must look on Mr. +Bugeaud in two separate characters, the agriculturist and the +legislator.</p> + +<p>As agriculturist, Mr. Bugeaud makes every effort to attain the double +object of sparing labor, and obtaining bread cheap. When he prefers a +good plough to a bad one, when he improves the quality of his manures; +when, to loosen his soil, he substitutes as much as possible the action +of the atmosphere for that of the hoe or the harrow; when he calls to +his aid every improvement that science and experience have revealed, he +has, and can have, but one object, viz., <i>to diminish the proportion of +the effort to the result</i>. We have indeed no other means of judging of +the success of an agriculturist, or of the merits of his system, but by +observing how far he has succeeded in lessening the one, while he +increases the other; and as all the farmers in the world act upon this +principle, we may say that all mankind are seeking, no doubt for their +own advantage, to obtain at the lowest price, bread, or whatever other +article of produce they may need, always diminishing the effort +necessary for obtaining any given quantity thereof.</p> + +<p>This incontestable tendency of human nature, once proved, would, one +might suppose, be sufficient to point out the true principle to the +legislator, and to show him how he ought to assist industry (if indeed +it is any part of his business to assist it at all), for it would be +absurd to say that the laws of men should operate in an inverse ratio +from those of Providence.</p> + +<p>Yet we have heard Mr. Bugeaud in his character of legislator, exclaim, +"I do not understand this theory of cheapness; I would rather see bread +dear, and work more abundant." And consequently the deputy from Dordogne +votes in favor of legislative measures whose effect is to shackle and +impede commerce, precisely because by so doing we are prevented from +procuring by exchange, and at low price, what direct production can only +furnish more expensively.</p> + +<p>Now it is very evident that the system of Mr. Bugeaud the deputy, is +directly opposed to that of Mr. Bugeaud the agriculturist. Were he +consistent with himself, he would as legislator vote against all +restriction; or else as farmer, he would practice in his fields the same +principle which he proclaims in the public councils. We should then see +him sowing his grain in his most sterile fields, because he would thus +succeed in <i>laboring much</i>, to <i>obtain little</i>. We should see him +forbidding the use of the plough, because he could, by scratching up the +soil with his nails, fully gratify his double wish of "<i>dear bread</i> and +<i>abundant labor</i>."</p> + +<p>Restriction has for its avowed object, and acknowledged effect, the +augmentation of labor. And again, equally avowed and acknowledged, its +object and effect are, the increase of prices;—a synonymous term for +scarcity of produce. Pushed then to its greatest extreme, it is pure +<i>Sisyphism</i> as we have defined it: <i>labor infinite; result nothing</i>.</p> + +<p>Baron Charles Dupin, who is looked upon as the oracle of the peerage in +the science of political economy, accuses railroads of <i>injuring +shipping</i>, and it is certainly true that the most perfect means of +attaining an object must always limit the use of a less perfect means. +But railways can only injure shipping by drawing from it articles of +transportation; this they can only do by transporting more cheaply; and +they can only transport more cheaply, by <i>diminishing the proportion of +the effort employed to the result obtained</i>; for it is in this that +cheapness consists. When, therefore, Baron Dupin laments the suppression +of labor in attaining a given result, he maintains the doctrine of +<i>Sisyphism</i>. Logically, if he prefers the vessel to the railway, he +should also prefer the wagon to the vessel, the pack-saddle to the +wagon, and the wallet to the pack-saddle; for this is, of all known +means of transportation, the one which requires the greatest amount of +labor, in proportion to the result obtained.</p> + +<p>"Labor constitutes the riches of the people," said Mr. de Saint Cricq, a +minister who has laid not a few shackles upon our commerce. This was no +elliptical expression, meaning that the "results of labor constitute the +riches of the people." No,—this statesman intended to say, that it is +the <i>intensity</i> of labor, which measures riches; and the proof of this +is, that from step to step, from restriction to restriction, he forced +on France (and in so doing believed that he was doing well) to give to +the procuring, of, for instance, a certain quantity of iron, double the +necessary labor. In England, iron was then at eight francs; in France it +cost sixteen. Supposing the day's work to be worth one franc, it is +evident that France could, by barter, procure a quintal of iron by eight +days' labor taken from the labor of the nation. Thanks to the +restrictive measures of Mr. de Saint Cricq, sixteen days' work were +necessary to procure it, by direct production. Here then we have double +labor for an identical result; therefore double riches; and riches, +measured not by the result, but by the intensity of labor. Is not this +pure and unadulterated <i>Sisyphism</i>?</p> + +<p>That there may be nothing equivocal, the minister carries his idea still +farther, and on the same principle that we have heard him call the +intensity of labor <i>riches</i>, we will find him calling the abundant +results of labor, and the plenty of every thing proper to the satisfying +of our wants, <i>poverty</i>. "Every where," he remarks, "machinery has +pushed aside manual labor; every where production is superabundant; +every where the equilibrium is destroyed between the power of production +and that of consumption." Here then we see that, according to Mr. de +Saint Cricq, if France was in a critical situation, it was because her +productions were too abundant; there was too much intelligence, too +much efficiency in her national labor. We were too well fed, too well +clothed, too well supplied with every thing; the rapid production was +more than sufficient for our wants. It was necessary to put an end to +this calamity, and therefore it became needful to force us, by +restrictions, to work more, in order to produce less.</p> + +<p>I also touched upon an opinion expressed by another minister of +commerce, Mr. d'Argout, which is worthy of being a little more closely +looked into. Wishing to give a death blow to the beet, he said: "The +culture of the beet is undoubtedly useful, <i>but this usefulness is +limited</i>. It is not capable of the prodigious developments which have +been predicted of it. To be convinced of this it is enough to remark +that the cultivation of it must necessarily be confined within the +limits of consumption. Double, treble if you will, the present +consumption of France, and <i>you will still find that a very small +portion of her soil will suffice for this consumption</i>. (Truly a most +singular cause of complaint!) Do you wish the proof of this? How many +hectares were planted in beets in the year 1828? 3,130, which is +1-10540th of our cultivable soil. How many are there at this time, when +our domestic sugar supplies one-third of the consumption of the country? +16,700 hectares, or 1-1978th of the cultivable soil, or 45 centiares for +each commune. Suppose that our domestic sugar should monopolize the +supply of the whole consumption, we still would have but 48,000 hectares +or 1-689th of our cultivable soil in beets."<a name="FNanchor_8_8" id="FNanchor_8_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a></p> + +<p>There are two things to consider in this quotation. The facts and the +doctrine. The facts go to prove that very little soil, capital, and +labor would be necessary for the production of a large quantity of +sugar; and that each commune of France would be abundantly provided with +it by giving up one hectare to its cultivation. The peculiarity of the +doctrine consists in the looking upon this facility of production as an +unfortunate circumstance, and the regarding the very fruitfulness of +this new branch of industry as a <i>limitation to its usefulness</i>.</p> + +<p>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 is +worth the trouble of examining into the doctrines of a statesman, to +whose judgment France, for a long time, confided the fate of her +agriculture and her commerce.</p> + +<p>I began by saying that a variable proportion exists in all industrial +pursuits, between the effort and the result. Absolute imperfection +consists in an infinite effort, without any result; absolute perfection +in an unlimited result, without any effort; and perfectibility, in the +progressive diminution of the effort, compared with the result.</p> + +<p>But Mr. d'Argout tells us, that where we looked for life, we shall find +only death. The importance of any object of industry is, according to +him, in direct proportion to its feebleness. What, for instance, can we +expect from the beet? Do you not see that 48,000 hectares of land, with +capital and labor in proportion, will suffice to furnish sugar to all +France? It is then an object of <i>limited usefulness</i>; limited, be it +understood, in the <i>work</i> which it calls for; and this is the sole +measure, according to our minister, of the usefulness of any pursuit. +This usefulness would be much more limited still, if, thanks to the +fertility of the soil, or the richness of the beet, 24,000 hectares +would serve instead of 48,000. If there were only needed twenty times, a +hundred times more soil, more capital, more labor, to <i>attain the same +result</i>—Oh! then some hopes might be founded upon this article of +industry; it would be worthy of the protection of the state, for it +would open a vast field to national labor. But to produce much with +little is a bad example, and the laws ought to set things to rights.</p> + +<p>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 be +calculated, not by the comforts which it can furnish with a certain +quantum of labor, but, on the contrary, by the increase of labor which +it requires in order to furnish a certain quantity of comforts, it is +evident that we ought to desire, that each acre of land should produce +little corn, and that each grain of corn should furnish little +nutriment; in other words, that our territory should be sterile enough +to require a considerably larger proportion of soil, capital, and labor +to nourish its population. The demand for human labor could not fail to +be in direct proportion to this sterility, and then truly would the +wishes of Messrs. Bugeaud, Saint Cricq, Dupin, and d'Argout be +satisfied; bread would be dear, work abundant, and France would be +rich—rich according to the understanding of these gentlemen.</p> + +<p>All that we could have further to hope for, would be, that human +intellect might sink and become extinct; for, while intellect exists, it +can but seek continually to increase the <i>proportion of the end to the +means; of the product to the labor</i>. Indeed it is in this continuous +effort, and in this alone, that intellect consists.</p> + +<p><i>Sisyphism</i> has then been the doctrine of all those who have been +intrusted with the regulation of the industry of our country. It would +not be just to reproach them with this; for this principle becomes that +of our ministry, only because it prevails in the chambers; it prevails +in the chambers, only because it is sent there by the electoral body; +and the electoral body is imbued with it, only because public opinion +is filled with it to repletion.</p> + +<p>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 +<i>Sisyphists</i>. Very certainly they are not such in their personal +transactions; very certainly each one of them will procure for himself +<i>by barter</i>, what by <i>direct production</i> would be attainable only at a +higher price. But I maintain that they are <i>Sisyphists</i> when they +prevent the country from acting upon the same principle.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>IV.</h2> + +<h3>EQUALIZING OF THE FACILITIES OF PRODUCTION.</h3> + + +<p>It is said ... but, for fear of being accused of manufacturing Sophisms +for the mouths of the protectionists, I will allow one of their most +able reasoners to speak for himself.</p> + +<p>"It is our belief that protection should correspond to, should be the +representation of, the difference which exists between the price of an +article of home production and a similar article of foreign +production.... A protecting duty calculated upon such a basis does +nothing more than secure free competition; ... free competition can +only exist where there is an equality in the facilities of production. +In a horse-race the load which each horse carries is weighed and all +advantages equalized; otherwise there could be no competition. In +commerce, if one producer can undersell all others, he ceases to be a +competitor and becomes a monopolist.... Suppress the protection which +represents the difference of price according to each, and foreign +productions must immediately inundate and obtain the monopoly of our +market."<a name="FNanchor_9_9" id="FNanchor_9_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a></p> + +<p>"Every one ought to wish, for his own sake and for that of the +community, that the productions of the country should be protected +against foreign competition, <i>whenever the latter may be able to +undersell the former</i>."<a name="FNanchor_10_10" id="FNanchor_10_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_10_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a></p> + +<p>This argument is constantly recurring in all writings of the +protectionist school. It is my intention to make a careful investigation +of its merits, and I must begin by soliciting the attention and the +patience of the reader. I will first examine into the inequalities which +depend upon natural causes, and afterwards into those which are caused +by diversity of taxes.</p> + +<p>Here, as elsewhere, we find the theorists who favor protection, taking +part with the producer. Let us consider the case of the unfortunate +consumer, who seems to have entirely escaped their attention. They +compare the field of production to the <i>turf</i>. But on the turf, the race +is at once a <i>means and an end</i>. The public has no interest in the +struggle, independent of the struggle itself. When your horses are +started in the course with the single object of determining which is the +best runner, nothing is more natural than that their burdens should be +equalized. But if your object were to send an important and critical +piece of intelligence, could you without incongruity place obstacles to +the speed of that one whose fleetness would secure the best means of +attaining your end? And yet this is your course in relation to industry. +You forget the end aimed at, which is the <i>well-being</i> of the community.</p> + +<p>But we cannot lead our opponents to look at things from our point of +view, let us now take theirs; let us examine the question as producers.</p> + +<p>I will seek to prove</p> + +<p>1. That equalizing the facilities of production is to attack the +foundations of all trade.</p> + +<p>2. That it is not true that the labor of one country can be crushed by +the competition of more favored climates.</p> + +<p>3. That, even were this the case, protective duties cannot equalize the +facilities of production.</p> + +<p>4. That freedom of trade equalizes these conditions as much as possible; +and</p> + +<p>5. That the countries which are the least favored by nature are those +which profit most by freedom of trade.</p> + +<p>I. The equalizing of the facilities of production, is not only the +shackling of certain articles of commerce, but it is the attacking of +the system of mutual exchange in its very foundation principle. For this +system is based precisely upon the very diversities, or, if the +expression be preferred, upon the inequalities of fertility, climate, +temperature, capabilities, which the protectionists seek to render null. +If Guyenne sends its wines to Brittany, and Brittany sends corn to +Guyenne, it is because these two provinces are, from different +circumstances, induced to turn their attention to the production of +different articles. Is there any other rule for international exchanges? +Again, to bring against such exchanges the very inequalities of +condition which excite and explain them, is to attack them in their very +cause of being. The protective system, closely followed up, would bring +men to live like snails, in a state of complete isolation. In short, +there is not one of its Sophisms, which if carried through by vigorous +deductions, would not end in destruction and annihilation.</p> + +<p>II. It is not true that the unequal facility of production, in two +similar branches of industry, should necessarily cause the destruction +of the one which is the least fortunate. On the turf, if one horse gains +the prize, the other loses it; but when two horses work to produce any +useful article, each produces in proportion to his strength; and because +the stronger is the more useful, it does not follow that the weaker is +good for nothing. Wheat is cultivated in every department of France, +although there are great differences in the degree of fertility existing +among them. If it happens that there be one which does not cultivate it, +it is because, even to itself, such cultivation is not useful. Analogy +will show us, that under the influence of an unshackled trade, +notwithstanding similar differences, wheat would be produced in every +kingdom of Europe; and if any one were induced to abandon entirely the +cultivation of it, this would only be, because it would <i>be her +interest</i> to employ otherwise her lands, her capital, and her labor. And +why does not the fertility of one department paralyze the agriculture of +a neighboring and less favored one? Because the phenomena of political +economy have a suppleness, an elasticity, and, so to speak, <i>a +self-leveling power</i>, which seems to escape the attention of the school +of protectionists. They accuse us of being theorists, but it is +themselves who are theorists to a supreme degree, if being theoretic +consists in building up systems upon the experience of a single fact, +instead of profiting by the experience of a series of facts. In the +above example, it is the difference in the value of lands, which +compensates for the difference in their fertility. Your field produces +three times as much as mine. Yes. But it has cost you three times as +much, and therefore I can still compete with you: this is the sole +mystery. And observe how the advantage on one point leads to +disadvantage on the other. Precisely because your soil is more fruitful, +it is more dear. It is not <i>accidentally</i> but <i>necessarily</i> that the +equilibrium is established, or at least inclines to establish itself; +and can it be denied that perfect freedom in exchanges is, of all the +systems, the one which favors this tendency?</p> + +<p>I have cited an agricultural example; I might as easily have taken one +from any trade. There are tailors at Quimper, but that does not prevent +tailors from being in Paris also, although the latter have to pay a much +higher rent, as well as higher price for furniture, workmen, and food. +But their customers are sufficiently numerous not only to re-establish +the balance, but also to make it lean on their side.</p> + +<p>When therefore the question is about equalizing the advantages of labor, +it would be well to consider whether the natural freedom of exchange is +not the best umpire.</p> + +<p>This self-leveling faculty of political phenomena is so important, and +at the same time so well calculated to cause us to admire the +providential wisdom which presides over the equalizing government of +society, that I must ask permission a little longer, to turn to it the +attention of the reader.</p> + +<p>The protectionists say, Such a nation has the advantage over us, in +being able to procure cheaply, coal, iron, machinery, capital; it is +impossible for us to compete with it.</p> + +<p>We must examine the proposition under other aspects. For the present, I +stop at the question, whether, when an advantage and a disadvantage are +placed in juxtaposition, they do not bear in themselves, the former a +descending, the latter an ascending power, which must end by placing +them in a just equilibrium.</p> + +<p>Let us suppose the countries A and B. A has every advantage over B; you +thence conclude that labor will be concentrated upon A, while B must be +abandoned. A, you say, sells much more than it buys; B buys more than it +sells. I might dispute this, but I will meet you upon your own ground.</p> + +<p>In the hypothesis, labor, being in great demand in A, soon rises in +value; while labor, iron, coal, lands, food, capital, all being little +sought after in B, soon fall in price.</p> + +<p>Again: A being always selling and B always buying, cash passes from B to +A. It is abundant in A—very scarce in B.</p> + +<p>But where there is abundance of cash, it follows that in all purchases a +large proportion of it will be needed. Then in A, <i>real dearness</i>, which +proceeds from a very active demand, is added to <i>nominal dearness</i>, the +consequence of a superabundance of the precious metals.</p> + +<p>Scarcity of money implies that little is necessary for each purchase. +Then in B, a <i>nominal cheapness</i> is combined with <i>real cheapness</i>.</p> + +<p>Under these circumstances, industry will have the strongest possible +motives for deserting A, to establish itself in B.</p> + +<p>Now, to return to what would be the true course of things. As the +progress of such events is always gradual, industry from its nature +being opposed to sudden transits, let us suppose that, without waiting +the extreme point, it will have gradually divided itself between A and +B, according to the laws of supply and demand; that is to say, according +to the laws of justice and usefulness.</p> + +<p>I do not advance an empty hypothesis when I say, that were it possible +that industry should concentrate itself upon a single point, there must, +from its nature, arise spontaneously, and in its midst, an irresistible +power of decentralization.</p> + +<p>We will quote the words of a manufacturer to the Chamber of Commerce at +Manchester (the figures brought into his demonstration are suppressed):</p> + +<p>"Formerly we exported goods; this exportation gave way to that of thread +for the manufacture of goods; later, instead of thread, we exported +machinery for the making of thread; then capital for the construction +of machinery; and lastly, workmen and talent, which are the source of +capital. All these elements of labor have, one after the other, +transferred themselves to other points, where their profits were +increased, and where the means of subsistence being less difficult to +obtain, life is maintained at a less cost. There are at present to be +seen in Prussia, Austria, Saxony, Switzerland, and Italy, immense +manufacturing establishments, founded entirely by English capital, +worked by English labor, and directed by English talent."</p> + +<p>We may here perceive, that Nature, or rather Providence, with more +wisdom and foresight than the narrow rigid system of the protectionists +can suppose, does not permit the concentration of labor, the monopoly of +advantages, from which they draw their arguments as from an absolute and +irremediable fact. It has, by means as simple as they are infallible, +provided for dispersion, diffusion, mutual dependence, and simultaneous +progress; all of which, your restrictive laws paralyze as much as is in +their power, by their tendency towards the isolation of nations. By this +means they render much more decided the differences existing in the +conditions of production; they check the self-leveling power of +industry, prevent fusion of interests, and fence in each nation within +its own peculiar advantages and disadvantages.</p> + +<p>III. To say that by a protective law the conditions of production are +equalized, is to disguise an error under false terms. It is not true +that an import duty equalizes the conditions of production. These remain +after the imposition of the duty just as they were before. The most that +the law can do is to equalize the <i>conditions of sale</i>. If it should be +said that I am playing upon words, I retort the accusation upon my +adversaries. It is for them to prove that <i>production</i> and <i>sale</i> are +synonymous terms, which if they cannot do, I have a right to accuse +them, if not of playing upon words, at least of confounding them.</p> + +<p>Let me be permitted to exemplify my idea.</p> + +<p>Suppose that several Parisian speculators should determine to devote +themselves to the production of oranges. They know that the oranges of +Portugal can be sold in Paris at ten centimes, whilst on account of the +boxes, hot-houses, etc., which are necessary to ward against the +severity of our climate, it is impossible to raise them at less than a +franc apiece. They accordingly demand a duty of ninety centimes upon +Portugal oranges. With the help of this duty, say they, the <i>conditions +of production</i> will be equalized. The legislative body, yielding as +usual to this argument, imposes a duty of ninety centimes on each +foreign orange.</p> + +<p>Now I say that the <i>relative conditions of production</i> are in no wise +changed. The law can take nothing from the heat of the sun in Lisbon, +nor from the severity of the frosts in Paris. Oranges continuing to +mature themselves <i>naturally</i> on the banks of the Tagus, and +artificially upon those of the Seine, must continue to require for their +production much more labor on the latter than the former. The law can +only equalize the <i>conditions of sale</i>. It is evident that while the +Portuguese sell their oranges at a franc apiece, the ninety centimes +which go to pay the tax are taken from the French consumer. Now look at +the whimsicality of the result. Upon each Portuguese orange, the country +loses nothing; for the ninety centimes which the consumer pays to +satisfy the tax, enter into the treasury. There is improper +distribution, but no loss. Upon each French orange consumed, there will +be about ninety centimes lost; for while the buyer very certainly loses +them, the seller just as certainly does not gain them, for even +according to the hypothesis, he will receive only the price of +production. I will leave it to the protectionists to draw their +conclusion.</p> + +<p>IV. I have laid some stress upon this distinction between the conditions +of production and those of sale, which perhaps the prohibitionists may +consider as paradoxical, because it leads me on to what they will +consider as a still stranger paradox. This is: If you really wish to +equalize the facilities of production, leave trade free.</p> + +<p>This may surprise the protectionists; but let me entreat them to +listen, if it be only through curiosity, to the end of my argument. It +shall not be long. I will now take it up where we left off.</p> + +<p>If we suppose for the moment, that the common and daily profits of each +Frenchman amount to one franc, it will indisputably follow that to +produce an orange by <i>direct</i> labor in France, one day's work, or its +equivalent, will be requisite; whilst to produce the cost of a +Portuguese orange, only one-tenth of this day's labor is required; which +means 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 the +same thing, the means of buying it, with one-tenth of a day's labor, I +am placed exactly in the same condition as the Portuguese producer +himself, excepting the expense of the transportation? It is then certain +that freedom of commerce equalizes the conditions of production direct +or indirect, as much as it is possible to equalize them; for it leaves +but the one inevitable difference, that of transportation.</p> + +<p>I will add that free trade equalizes also the facilities for attaining +enjoyments, comforts, and general consumption; the last an object which +is, it would seem, quite forgotten, and which is nevertheless all +important; since consumption is the main object of all our industrial +efforts. Thanks to freedom of trade, we would enjoy here the results of +the Portuguese sun, as well as Portugal itself; and the inhabitants of +Havre, would have in their reach, as well as those of London, and with +the same facilities, the advantages which nature has in a mineralogical +point of view conferred upon Newcastle.</p> + +<p>The protectionists may suppose me in a paradoxical humor, for I go +farther still. I say, and I sincerely believe, that if any two countries +are placed in unequal circumstances as to advantages of production, +<i>that one of the two which is the least favored by nature, will gain +most by freedom of commerce</i>. To prove this, I shall be obliged to turn +somewhat aside from the form of reasoning which belongs to this work. I +will do so, however; first, because the question in discussion turns +upon this point; and again, because it will give me the opportunity of +exhibiting a law of political economy of the highest importance, and +which, well understood, seems to me to be destined to lead back to this +science all those sects which, in our days, are seeking in the land of +chimeras that social harmony which they have been unable to discover in +nature. I speak of the law of consumption, which the majority of +political economists may well be reproached with having too much +neglected.</p> + +<p>Consumption is the <i>end</i>, the final cause, of all the phenomena of +political economy, and, consequently, in it is found their final +solution.</p> + +<p>No effect, whether favorable or unfavorable, can be arrested permanently +upon the producer. The advantages and the disadvantages, which, from +his relations to nature and to society, are his, both equally pass +gradually from him, with an almost insensible tendency to be absorbed +and fused into the community at large; the community considered as +consumers. This is an admirable law, alike in its cause and its effects, +and he who shall succeed in making it well understood, will have a right +to say, "I have not, in my passage through the world, forgotten to pay +my tribute to society."</p> + +<p>Every circumstance which favors the work of production is of course +hailed with joy by the producer, for its <i>immediate effect</i> is to enable +him to render greater services to the community, and to exact from it a +greater remuneration. Every circumstance which injures production, must +equally be the source of uneasiness to him; for its <i>immediate effect</i> +is to diminish his services, and consequently his remuneration. This is +a fortunate and necessary law of nature. The immediate good or evil of +favorable or unfavorable circumstances must fall upon the producer, in +order to influence him invincibly to seek the one and to avoid the +other.</p> + +<p>Again, when a workman succeeds in his labor, the <i>immediate</i> benefit of +this success is received by him. This again is necessary, to determine +him to devote his attention to it. It is also just; because it is just +that an effort crowned with success should bring its own reward.</p> + +<p>But these effects, good and bad, although permanent in themselves, are +not so as regards the producer. If they had been so, a principle of +progressive and consequently infinite <i>inequality</i> would have been +introduced among men. This good, and this evil, both therefore pass on, +to become absorbed in the general destinies of humanity.</p> + +<p>How does this come about? I will try to make it understood by some +examples.</p> + +<p>Let us go back to the thirteenth century. Men who gave themselves up to +the business of copying, received for this service <i>a remuneration +regulated by the general rate of profits</i>. Among them is found one, who +seeks and finds the means of multiplying rapidly copies of the same +work. He invents printing. The first effect of this is, that the +individual is enriched, while many more are impoverished. At the first +view, wonderful as the discovery is, one hesitates in deciding whether +it is not more injurious than useful. It seems to have introduced into +the world, as I said above, an element of infinite inequality. +Guttenberg makes large profits by this invention, and perfects the +invention by the profits, until all other copyists are ruined. As for +the public,—the consumer,—it gains but little, for Guttenberg takes +care to lower the price of books only just so much as is necessary to +undersell all rivals.</p> + +<p>But the great Mind which put harmony into the movements of celestial +bodies, could also give it to the internal mechanism of society. We will +see the advantages of this invention escaping from the individual, to +become forever the common patrimony of mankind.</p> + +<p>The process finally becomes known. Guttenberg is no longer alone in his +art; others imitate him. Their profits are at first considerable. They +are recompensed for being the first who make the effort to imitate the +processes of the newly invented art. This again was necessary, in order +that they might be induced to the effort, and thus forward the great and +final result to which we approach. They gain much; but they gain less +than the inventor, for <i>competition</i> has commenced its work. The price +of books now continually decreases. The gains of the imitators diminish +in proportion as the invention becomes older; and in the same proportion +imitation becomes less meritorious. Soon the new object of industry +attains its normal condition; in other words, the remuneration of +printers is no longer an exception to the general rules of remuneration, +and, like that of copyists formerly, it is only regulated <i>by the +general rate of profits</i>. Here then the producer, as such, holds only +the old position. The discovery, however, has been made; the saving of +time, labor, effort, for a fixed result, for a certain number of +volumes, is realized. But in what is this manifested? In the cheap price +of books. For the good of whom? For the good of the consumer,—of +society,—of humanity. Printers, having no longer any peculiar merit, +receive no longer a peculiar remuneration. As men,—as consumers,—they +no doubt participate in the advantages which the invention confers upon +the community; but that is all. As printers, as producers, they are +placed upon the ordinary footing of all other producers. Society pays +them for their labor, and not for the usefulness of the invention. +<i>That</i> has become a gratuitous benefit, a common heritage to mankind.</p> + +<p>What has been said of printing can be extended to every agent for the +advancement of labor; from the nail and the mallet, up to the locomotive +and the electric telegraph. Society enjoys all, by the abundance of its +use, its consumption; and it <i>enjoys all gratuitously</i>. For as their +effect is to diminish prices, it is evident that just so much of the +price as is taken off by their intervention, renders the production in +so far <i>gratuitous</i>. There only remains the actual labor of man to be +paid for; and the remainder, which is the result of the invention, is +subtracted; at least after the invention has run through the cycle which +I have just described as its destined course. I send for a workman; he +brings a saw with him; I pay him two francs for his day's labor, and he +saws me twenty-five boards. If the saw had not been invented, he would +perhaps not have been able to make one board, and I would have paid him +the same for his day's labor. The <i>usefulness</i> then of the saw, is for +me a gratuitous gift of nature, or rather it is a portion of the +inheritance which, <i>in common</i> with my brother men, I have received from +the genius of my ancestors. I have two workmen in my field; the one +directs the handle of a plough, the other that of a spade. The result of +their day's labor is very different, but the price is the same, because +the remuneration is proportioned, not to the usefulness of the result, +but to the effort, the labor given to attain it.</p> + +<p>I invoke the patience of the reader, and beg him to believe, that I have +not lost sight of free trade: I entreat him only to remember the +conclusion at which I have arrived: <i>Remuneration is not proportioned to +the usefulness of the articles brought by the producer into the market, +but to the labor</i>.<a name="FNanchor_11_11" id="FNanchor_11_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_11_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a></p> + +<p>I have so far taken my examples from human inventions, but will now go +on to speak of natural advantages.</p> + +<p>In every article of production, nature and man must concur. But the +portion of nature is always gratuitous. Only so much of the usefulness +of an article as is the result of human labor becomes the object of +mutual exchange, and consequently of remuneration. The remuneration +varies much, no doubt, in proportion to the intensity of the labor, of +the skill which it requires, of its being <i>à propos</i> to the demand of +the day, of the need which exists for it, of the momentary absence of +competition, etc. But it is not the less true in principle, that the +assistance received from natural laws, which belongs to all, counts for +nothing in the price.</p> + +<p>We do not pay for the air we breathe, although so useful to us, that we +could not live two minutes without it. We do not pay for it, because +Nature furnishes it without the intervention of man's labor. But if we +wish to separate one of the gases which compose it, for instance, to +fill a balloon, we must take some trouble and labor; or if another takes +it for us, we must give him an equivalent in something which will have +cost us the trouble of production. From which we see that the exchange +is between troubles, efforts, labors. It is certainly not for hydrogen +gas that I pay, for this is every where at my disposal, but for the work +that it has been necessary to accomplish in order to disengage it; work +which I have been spared, and which I must refund. If I am told that +there are other things to pay for; as expense, materials, apparatus; I +answer, that still in these things it is the work that I pay for. The +price of the coal employed is only the representation of the labor +necessary to dig and transport it.</p> + +<p>We do not pay for the light of the sun, because Nature alone gives it to +us. But we pay for the light of gas, tallow, oil, wax, because here is +labor to be remunerated;—and remark, that it is so entirely labor and +not utility to which remuneration is proportioned, that it may well +happen that one of these means of lighting, while it may be much more +effective than another, may still cost less. To cause this, it is only +necessary that less human labor should be required to furnish it.</p> + +<p>When the water-carrier comes to supply my house, were I to pay him in +proportion to the <i>absolute utility</i> of the water, my whole fortune +would not be sufficient. But I pay him only for the trouble he has +taken. If he requires more, I can get others to furnish it, or finally +go and get it myself. The water itself is not the subject of our +bargain; but the labor taken to get the water. This point of view is so +important, and the consequences that I am going to draw from it so +clear, as regards the freedom of international exchanges, that I will +still elucidate my idea by a few more examples.</p> + +<p>The alimentary substance contained in potatoes does not cost us very +dear, because a great deal of it is attainable with little work. We pay +more for wheat, because, to produce it Nature requires more labor from +man. It is evident that if Nature did for the latter what she does for +the former, their prices would tend to the same level. It is impossible +that the producer of wheat should permanently gain more than the +producer of potatoes. The law of competition cannot allow it.</p> + +<p>If by a happy miracle the fertility of all arable lands were to be +increased, it would not be the agriculturist, but the consumer, who +would profit by this phenomenon; for the result of it would be, +abundance and cheapness. There would be less labor incorporated into an +acre of grain, and the agriculturist would be therefore obliged to +exchange it for 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 it +is in consumption, in mankind, that at length all political phenomena +find their solution. As long as we fail to follow their effects to this +point, and look only at <i>immediate</i> effects, which act but upon +individual men or classes of men <i>as producers</i>, we know nothing more of +political economy than the quack does of medicine, when, instead of +following the effects of a prescription in its action upon the whole +system, he satisfies himself with knowing how it affects the palate and +the throat.</p> + +<p>The tropical regions are very favorable to the production of sugar and +coffee; that is to say, Nature does most of the business and leaves but +little for labor to accomplish. But who reaps the advantage of this +liberality of Nature? Not these regions, for they are forced by +competition to receive simply remuneration for their labor. It is +mankind who is the gainer; for the result of this liberality is +<i>cheapness</i>, and cheapness belongs to the world.</p> + +<p>Here in the temperate zone, we find coal and iron ore, on the surface of +the soil; we have but to stoop and take them. At first, I grant, the +immediate inhabitants profit by this fortunate circumstance. But soon +comes competition, and the price of coal and iron falls, until this gift +of Nature becomes gratuitous to all, and human labor is only paid +according to the general rate of profits.</p> + +<p>Thus natural advantages, like improvements in the process of production, +are, or have a constant tendency to become, under the law of +competition, the common and <i>gratuitous</i> patrimony of consumers, of +society, of mankind. Countries therefore which do not enjoy these +advantages, must gain by commerce with those which do; because the +exchanges of commerce are between <i>labor and labor</i>; subtraction being +made of all the natural advantages which are combined with these labors; +and it is evidently the most favored countries which can incorporate +into a given labor the largest proportion of these <i>natural advantages</i>. +Their produce representing less labor, receives less recompense; in +other words, is <i>cheaper</i>. If then all the liberality of Nature results +in cheapness, it is evidently not the producing, but the consuming +country, which profits by her benefits.</p> + +<p>Hence we may see the enormous absurdity of the consuming country, which +rejects produce precisely because it is cheap. It is as though we should +say: "We will have nothing of that which Nature gives you. You ask of +us an effort equal to two, in order to furnish ourselves with articles +only attainable at home by an effort equal to four. You can do it +because with you Nature does half the work. But we will have nothing to +do with it; we will wait till your climate, becoming more inclement, +forces you to ask of us a labor equal to four, and then we can treat +with you <i>upon an equal footing</i>."</p> + +<p>A is a favored country; B is maltreated by Nature. Mutual traffic then +is advantageous to both, but principally to B, because the exchange is +not between <i>utility</i> and <i>utility</i>, but between <i>value</i> and <i>value</i>. +Now A furnishes a greater <i>utility in a similar value</i>, because the +<i>utility</i> of any article includes at once what Nature and what labor +have done; whereas the <i>value</i> of it only corresponds to the portion +accomplished by labor. B then makes an entirely advantageous bargain; +for by simply paying the producer from A for his labor, it receives in +return not only the results of that labor, but in addition there is +thrown in whatever may have accrued from the superior bounty of Nature.</p> + +<p>We will lay down the general rule.</p> + +<p>Traffic is an exchange of <i>values</i>; and as value is reduced by +competition to the simple representation of labor, traffic is the +exchange of equal labors. Whatever Nature has done towards the +production of the articles exchanged, is given on both sides +<i>gratuitously</i>; from whence it necessarily follows, that the most +advantageous commerce is transacted with those countries which are the +most favored by Nature.</p> + +<hr style='width: 45%;' /> + +<p>The theory of which I have attempted, in this chapter, to trace the +outlines, would require great developments. But perhaps the attentive +reader will have perceived in it the fruitful seed which is destined in +its future growth to smother Protection, at once with Fourierism, Saint +Simonism, Commonism, and the various other schools whose object is to +exclude the law of <span class="smcap">Competition</span> from the government of the +world. Competition, no doubt, considering man as producer, must often +interfere with his individual and <i>immediate</i> interests. But if we +consider the great object of all labor, the universal good, in a word, +<i>Consumption</i>, we cannot fail to find that Competition is to the moral +world what the law of equilibrium is to the material one. It is the +foundation of true Commonism, of true Socialism, of the equality of +comforts and condition, so much sought after in our day; and if so many +sincere reformers, so many earnest friends to the public rights, seek to +reach their end by commercial <i>legislation</i>, it is only because they do +not yet understand <i>commercial freedom</i>.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>V.</h2> + +<h3>OUR PRODUCTIONS ARE OVERLOADED WITH TAXES.</h3> + + +<p>This is but a new wording of the last Sophism. The demand made is, that +the foreign article should be taxed, in order to neutralize the effects +of the tax, which weighs down national produce. It is still then but the +question of equalizing the facilities of production. We have but to say +that the tax is an artificial obstacle, which has exactly the same +effect as a natural obstacle, i.e. the increasing of the price. If this +increase is so great that there is more loss in producing the article in +question than in attracting it from foreign parts by the production of +an equivalent value, let it alone. Individual interest will soon learn +to choose the lesser of two evils. I might refer the reader to the +preceding demonstration for an answer to this Sophism; but it is one +which recurs so often in the complaints and the petitions, I had almost +said the demands, of the protectionist school, that it deserves a +special discussion.</p> + +<p>If the tax in question should be one of a special kind, directed against +fixed articles of production, I agree that it is perfectly reasonable +that foreign produce should be subjected to it. For instance, it would +be absurd to free foreign salt from impost duty; not that in an +economical point of view France would lose any thing by it; on the +contrary, whatever may be said, principles are invariable, and France +would gain by it, as she must always gain by avoiding an obstacle +whether natural or artificial. But here the obstacle has been raised +with 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, the +treasury would not receive its revenue, and would be obliged to seek it +from some thing else. There would be evident inconsistency in creating +an obstacle with a given object, and then avoiding the attainment of +that object. It would have been better at once to seek what was needed +in the other impost without taxing French salt. Such are the +circumstances under which I would allow upon any foreign article a duty, +<i>not protecting</i> but fiscal.</p> + +<p>But the supposition that a nation, because it is subjected to heavier +imposts than those of another neighboring nation, should protect itself +by tariffs against the competition of its rival, is a Sophism, which it +is now my purpose to attack.</p> + +<p>I have said more than once, that I am opposing only the theory of the +protectionists, with the hope of discovering the source of their errors. +Were I disposed to enter into controversy with them, I would say: Why +direct your tariffs principally against England and Belgium, both +countries more overloaded with taxes than any in the world? Have I not +a right to look upon your argument as a mere pretext? But I am not of +the number of those who believe that prohibitionists are guided by +interest, and not by conviction. The doctrine of Protection is too +popular not to be sincere. If the majority could believe in freedom, we +would be free. Without doubt it is individual interest which weighs us +down with tariffs; but it acts upon conviction.</p> + +<p>The State may make either a good or a bad use of taxes; it makes a good +use of them when it renders to the public services equivalent to the +value received from them; it makes a bad use of them when it expends +this value, giving nothing in return.</p> + +<p>To say in the first case that they place the country which pays them in +more disadvantageous conditions for production, than the country which +is free from them, is a Sophism. We pay, it is true, twenty millions for +the administration of justice, and the maintenance of the police, but we +have justice and the police; we have the security which they give, the +time which they save for us; and it is most probable that production is +neither more easy nor more active among nations, where (if there be +such) each individual takes the administration of justice into his own +hands. We pay, I grant, many hundred millions for roads, bridges, +ports, railways; but we have these railways, these ports, bridges and +roads, and unless we maintain that it is a losing business to establish +them, we cannot say that they place us in a position inferior to that of +nations who have, it is true, no taxes for public works, but who +likewise have no public works. And here we see why (even while we accuse +internal taxes of being a cause of industrial inferiority) we direct our +tariffs precisely against those nations which are the most taxed. It is +because these taxes, well used, far from injuring, have ameliorated the +<i>conditions of production</i> to these nations. Thus we again arrive at the +conclusion that the protectionist Sophisms not only wander from, but are +the contrary—the very antithesis of truth.</p> + +<p>As to unproductive imposts, suppress them if you can; but surely it is a +most singular idea to suppose, that their evil effect is to be +neutralized by the addition of individual taxes to public taxes. Many +thanks for the compensation! The State, you say, has taxed us too much; +surely this is no reason why we should tax each other!</p> + +<p>A protective duty is a tax directed against foreign produce, but which +returns, let us keep in mind, upon the national consumer. Is it not then +a singular argument to say to him, "Because the taxes are heavy, we will +raise prices higher for you; and because the State takes a part of your +revenue, we will give another portion of it to benefit a monopoly?"</p> + +<p>But let us examine more closely this Sophism so accredited among our +legislators; although, strange to say, it is precisely those who keep up +the unproductive imposts (according to our present hypothesis) who +attribute to them afterwards our supposed inferiority, and seek to +re-establish the equilibrium by further imposts and new clogs.</p> + +<p>It appears to me to be evident that protection, without any change in +its nature and effects, might have taken the form of a direct tax, +raised by the State, and distributed as a premium to privileged +industry.</p> + +<p>Let us admit that foreign iron could be sold in our market at eight +francs, but not lower; and French iron at not lower than twelve francs.</p> + +<p>In this hypothesis there are two ways in which the State can secure the +national market to the home producer.</p> + +<p>The first, is to put upon foreign iron a duty of five francs. This, it +is evident, would exclude it, because it could no longer be sold at less +than 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.</p> + +<p>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 would +in either case be equally a protective measure. Foreign iron would, +according to both systems, be alike excluded; for our iron manufacturer +could sell at seven francs, what, with the five francs premium, would +thus bring him in twelve. While the price of sale being seven francs, +foreign iron could not obtain a market at eight.</p> + +<p>In these two systems the principle is the same; the effect is the same. +There is but this single difference; in the first case the expense of +protection is paid by a part, in the second by the whole of the +community.</p> + +<p>I frankly confess my preference for the second system, which I regard as +more just, more economical and more legal. More just, because, if +society wishes to give bounties to some of its members, the whole +community ought to contribute; more economical, because it would banish +many difficulties, and save the expenses of collection; more legal, +lastly, because the public would see clearly into the operation, and +know what was required of it.</p> + +<p>But if the protective system had taken this form, would it not have been +laughable enough to hear it said, "We pay heavy taxes for the army, the +navy, the judiciary, the public works, the schools, the public debt, +etc. These amount to more than a thousand million. It would therefore be +desirable that the State should take another thousand million, to +relieve the poor iron manufacturers; or the suffering stockholders of +coal mines; or those unfortunate lumber dealers, or the useful +codfishery."</p> + +<p>This, it must be perceived, by an attentive investigation, is the result +of the Sophism in question. In vain, gentlemen, are all your efforts; +you cannot <i>give money</i> to one without taking it from another. If you +are absolutely determined to exhaust the funds of the taxable community, +well; but, at least, do not mock them; do not tell them, "We take from +you again, in order to compensate you for what we have already taken."</p> + +<p>It would be a too tedious undertaking to endeavor to point out all the +fallacies of this Sophism. I will therefore limit myself to the +consideration of it in three points.</p> + +<p>You argue that France is overburthened with taxes, and deduce thence the +conclusion that it is necessary to protect such and such an article of +produce. But protection does not relieve us from the payment of these +taxes. If, then, individuals devoting themselves to any one object of +industry, should advance this demand: "We, from our participation in the +payment of taxes, have our expenses of production increased, and +therefore ask for a protective duty which shall raise our price of +sale;" what is this but a demand on their part to be allowed to free +themselves from the burthen of the tax, by laying it on the rest of the +community? Their object is to balance, by the increased price of their +produce, the amount which <i>they</i> pay in taxes. Now, as the whole amount +of these taxes must enter into the treasury, and the increase of price +must be paid by society, it follows that (where this protective duty is +imposed) society has to bear, not only the general tax, but also that +for the protection of the article in question. But it is answered, let +<i>every thing</i> be protected. Firstly, this is impossible; and, again, +were it possible, how could such a system give relief? <i>I</i> will pay for +you, <i>you</i> will pay for me; but not the less, still there remains the +tax to be paid.</p> + +<p>Thus you are the dupes of an illusion. You determine to raise taxes for +the support of an army, a navy, 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 adding +to the burthen of the mass of society. You thus only create interminable +complications. If you can prove that the increase of price resulting +from protection, falls upon the foreign producer, I grant something +specious in your argument. But if it be true that the French people paid +the tax before the passing of the protective duty, and afterwards that +it has paid not only the tax, but the protective duty also, truly I do +not perceive wherein it has profited.</p> + +<p>But I go much further, and maintain that the more oppressive our taxes +are, the more anxiously ought we to open our ports and frontiers to +foreign nations, less burthened than ourselves. And why? In order that +we 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, the +greater the portion which will be reimbursed to us, of taxes +incorporated in the produce, which we will have sold to foreign +consumers; whilst we, on our part, will have made to them only a lesser +reimbursement, because (according to our hypothesis) their produce is +less taxed than ours.</p> + +<p>Again, finally, has it ever occurred to you to ask yourself, whether +these heavy taxes which you adduce as a reason for keeping up the +prohibitive system, may not be the result of this very system itself? To +what purpose would be our great standing armies, and our powerful +navies, if commerce were free?</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>VI.</h2> + +<h3>BALANCE OF TRADE.</h3> + + +<p>Our adversaries have adopted a system of tactics, which embarrasses us +not a little. Do we prove our doctrine? They admit the truth of it in +the most respectful manner. Do we attack their principles? They abandon +them with the best possible grace. They only ask that our doctrine, +which they acknowledge to be true, should be confined to books; and that +their principles, which they allow to be false, should be established in +practice. If we will give up to them the regulation of our tariffs, they +will leave us triumphant in the domain of theory.</p> + +<p>"Assuredly," said Mr. Gauthier de Roumilly, lately, "assuredly no one +wishes to call up from their graves the defunct theories of the balance +of trade." And yet Mr. Gauthier, after giving this passing blow to +error, goes on immediately afterwards, and for two hours consecutively, +to reason as though this error were a truth.</p> + +<p>Give me Mr. Lestiboudois. Here we have a consistent reasoner! a logical +arguer! There is nothing in his conclusions which cannot be found in his +premises. He asks nothing in practice which he does not justify in +theory. His principles may perchance be false, and this is the point in +question. But he has a principle. He believes, he proclaims aloud, that +if France gives ten to receive fifteen, she loses five; and surely, with +such a belief, nothing is more natural than that he should make laws +consistent with it.</p> + +<p>He says: "What it is important to remark, is, that constantly the amount +of importation is augmenting, and surpassing that of exportation. Every +year France buys more foreign produce, and sells less of its own +produce. This can be proved by figures. In 1842, we see the importation +exceed the exportation by two hundred millions. This appears to me to +prove, in the clearest manner, that national labor <i>is not sufficiently +protected</i>, that we are provided by foreign labor, and that the +competition of our rivals <i>oppresses</i> our industry. The law in question, +appears to me to be a consecration of the fact, that our political +economists have assumed a false position in declaring, that in +proportion to produce bought, there is always a corresponding quantity +sold. It is evident that purchases may be made, not with the habitual +productions of a country, not with its revenue, not with the results of +actual labor, but with its capital, with the accumulated savings which +should serve for reproduction. A country may spend, dissipate its +profits and savings, may impoverish itself, and by the consumption of +its national capital, progress gradually to its ruin. <i>This is +precisely what we are doing. We give, every year, two hundred millions +to foreign nations</i>."</p> + +<p>Well! here, at least, is a man whom we can understand. There is no +hypocrisy in this language. The balance of trade is here clearly +maintained and defended. France imports two hundred millions more than +she exports. Then France loses two hundred millions yearly. And the +remedy? It is to check importation. The conclusion is perfectly +consistent.</p> + +<p>It is, then, with Mr. Lestiboudois that we will argue, for how is it +possible to do so with Mr. Gauthier? If you say to the latter, the +balance of trade is a mistake, he will answer, So I have declared it in +my exordium. If you exclaim, But it is a truth, he will say, Thus I have +classed it in my conclusions.</p> + +<p>Political economists may blame me for arguing with Mr. Lestiboudois. To +combat the balance of trade, is, they say, neither more nor less than to +fight against a windmill.</p> + +<p>But let us be on our guard. The balance of trade is neither so old, nor +so sick, nor so dead, as Mr. Gauthier is pleased to imagine; for all the +legislature, Mr. Gauthier himself included, are associated by their +votes with the theory of Mr. Lestiboudois.</p> + +<p>However, not to fatigue the reader, I will not seek to investigate too +closely this theory, but will content myself with subjecting it to the +experience of facts.</p> + +<p>It is constantly alleged in opposition to our principles, that they are +good only in theory. But, gentlemen, do you believe that merchants' +books are good in practice? It does appear to me that if there is any +thing which can have a practical authority, when the object is to prove +profit and loss, that this must be commercial accounts. We cannot +suppose that all the merchants of the world, for centuries back, should +have so little understood their own affairs, as to have kept their books +in such a manner as to represent gains as losses, and losses as gains. +Truly it would be easier to believe that Mr. Lestiboudois is a bad +political economist.</p> + +<p>A merchant, one of my friends, having had two business transactions, +with very different results, I have been curious to compare on this +subject the accounts of the counter with those of the custom-house, +interpreted by Mr. Lestiboudois with the sanction of our six hundred +legislators.</p> + +<p>Mr. T ... despatched from Havre a vessel, freighted, for the United +States, with French merchandise, principally Parisian articles, valued +at 200,000 francs. Such was the amount entered at the custom-house. The +cargo, on its arrival at New Orleans, had paid ten per cent. expenses, +and was liable to thirty per cent. duties; which raised its value to +280,000 francs. It was sold at twenty per cent. profit on its original +value, which being 40,000 francs, the price of sale was 320,000 francs, +which the assignee converted into cotton. This cotton, again, had to +pay for expenses of transportation, insurance, commissions, etc., ten +per cent.: so that when the return cargo arrived at Havre, its value had +risen 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 of +422,400 francs.</p> + +<p>If Mr. Lestiboudois requires it, I will send him an extract from the +books of Mr. T ... He will there see, <i>credited</i> to the account of +<i>profit and loss</i>, that is to say, set down as gained, two sums; the one +of 40,000, the other of 70,000 francs, and Mr. T ... feels perfectly +certain that as regards these, there is no mistake in his accounts.</p> + +<p>Now what conclusion does Mr. Lestiboudois draw from the sums entered +into the custom-house, in this operation? He thence learns that France +has exported 200,000 francs, and imported 352,000; from whence the +honorable deputy concludes "<i>that she has spent, dissipated the profits +of her previous savings; that she is impoverishing herself and +progressing to her ruin; and that she has squandered on a foreign +nation</i> 152,000 <i>francs of her capital</i>."</p> + +<p>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 only +farther to inscribe on his books two little items, thus worded:</p> + +<p>"<i>Sundries due to X</i>, 200,000 francs, for purchase of divers articles +despatched by vessel N.</p> + +<p>"<i>Profit and loss due to sundries, 200,000 francs, for final and total +loss of cargo.</i>"</p> + +<p>In the meantime the custom-house inscribed 200,000 francs upon its list +of <i>exportations</i>, and as there can of course be nothing to balance this +entry on the list of <i>importations</i>, it hence follows that Mr. +Lestiboudois and the Chamber must see in this wreck <i>a clear profit</i> to +France of 200,000 francs.</p> + +<p>We may draw hence yet another conclusion, viz.: that according to the +Balance of Trade theory, France has an exceedingly simple manner of +constantly doubling her capital. It is only necessary, to accomplish +this, that she should, after entering into the custom-house her articles +for exportation, cause them to be thrown into the sea. By this course, +her exportations can speedily be made to equal her capital; importations +will be nothing, and our gain will be, all which the ocean will have +swallowed up.</p> + +<p>You are joking, the protectionists will reply. You know that it is +impossible that we should utter such absurdities. Nevertheless, I +answer, you do utter them, and what is more, you give them life, you +exercise them practically upon your fellow citizens, as much, at least, +as is in your power to do.</p> + +<p>The truth is, that the theory of the Balance of Trade should be +precisely <i>reversed</i>. The profits accruing to the nation from any +foreign commerce should be calculated by the overplus of the +importation above the exportation. This overplus, after the deduction of +expenses, is the real gain. Here we have the true theory, and it is one +which leads directly to freedom in trade. I now, gentlemen, abandon you +this theory, as I have done all those of the preceding chapters. Do with +it as you please, exaggerate it as you will; it has nothing to fear. +Push it to the farthest extreme; imagine, if it so please you, that +foreign nations should inundate us with useful produce of every +description, and ask nothing in return; that our importations should be +<i>infinite</i>, and our exportations <i>nothing</i>. Imagine all this, and still +I defy you to prove that we will be the poorer in consequence.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>VII.</h2> + +<h3>PETITION FROM THE MANUFACTURERS OF CANDLES, WAX-LIGHTS, LAMPS, +CHANDELIERS, REFLECTORS, SNUFFERS, EXTINGUISHERS; AND FROM THE PRODUCERS +OF TALLOW, OIL, RESIN, ALCOHOL, AND GENERALLY OF EVERY THING USED FOR +LIGHTS.</h3> + + +<p class='center'><i>To the Honorable the Members of the Chamber of Deputies:</i></p> + +<p>"<span class="smcap">Gentlemen</span>,—You are in the right way: you reject abstract +theories; abundance, cheapness, concerns you little. You are entirely +occupied with the interest of the producer, whom you are anxious to +free from foreign competition. In a word, you wish to secure the +<i>national market</i> to <i>national labor</i>.</p> + +<p>"We come now to offer you an admirable opportunity for the application +of your——what shall we say? your theory? no, nothing is more +deceiving than theory;—your doctrine? your system? your principle? But +you do not like doctrines; you hold systems in horror; and, as for +principles, you declare that there are no such things in political +economy. We will say then, your practice; your practice without theory, +and without principle.</p> + +<p>"We are subjected to the intolerable competition of a foreign rival, who +enjoys, it would seem, such superior facilities for the production of +light, that he is enabled to <i>inundate</i> our <i>national market</i> at so +exceedingly reduced a price, that, the moment he makes his appearance, +he draws off all custom from us; and thus an important branch of French +industry, with all its innumerable ramifications, is suddenly reduced to +a state of complete stagnation. This rival, who is no other than the +sun, carries on so bitter a war against us, that we have every reason to +believe that he has been excited to this course by our perfidious +neighbor England. (Good diplomacy this, for the present time!) In this +belief we are confirmed by the fact that in all his transactions with +this proud island, he is much more moderate and careful than with us.</p> + +<p>"Our petition is, that it would please your honorable body to pass a law +whereby shall be directed the shutting up of all windows, dormers, +sky-lights, shutters, curtains, vasistas, œil-de-bœufs, in a word, +all openings, holes, chinks and fissures through which the light of the +sun is used to penetrate into our dwellings, to the prejudice of the +profitable manufactures which we flatter ourselves we have been enabled +to bestow upon the country; which country cannot, therefore, without +ingratitude, leave us now to struggle unprotected through so unequal a +contest.</p> + +<p>"We pray your honorable body not to mistake our petition for a satire, +nor to repulse us without at least hearing the reasons which we have to +advance in its favor.</p> + +<p>"And first, if, by shutting out as much as possible all access to +natural light, you thus create the necessity for artificial light, is +there in France an industrial pursuit which will not, through some +connection with this important object, be benefited by it?</p> + +<p>"If more tallow be consumed, there will arise a necessity for an +increase of cattle and sheep. Thus artificial meadows must be in greater +demand; and meat, wool, leather, and above all, manure, this basis of +agricultural riches, must become more abundant.</p> + +<p>"If more oil be consumed, it will cause an increase in the cultivation +of the olive-tree. This plant, luxuriant and exhausting to the soil, +will come in good time to profit by the increased fertility which the +raising of cattle will have communicated to our fields.</p> + +<p>"Our heaths will become covered with resinous trees. Numerous swarms of +bees will gather upon our mountains the perfumed treasures, which are +now cast upon the winds, useless as the blossoms from which they +emanate. There is, in short, no branch of agriculture which would not be +greatly developed by the granting of our petition.</p> + +<p>"Navigation would equally profit. Thousands of vessels would soon be +employed in the whale fisheries, and thence would arise a navy capable +of sustaining the honor of France, and of responding to the patriotic +sentiments of the undersigned petitioners, candle merchants, etc.</p> + +<p>"But what words can express the magnificence which <i>Paris</i> will then +exhibit! Cast an eye upon the future and behold the gildings, the +bronzes, the magnificent crystal chandeliers, lamps, reflectors and +candelabras, which will glitter in the spacious stores, compared with +which the splendor of the present day will appear trifling and +insignificant.</p> + +<p>"There is none, not even the poor manufacturer of resin in the midst of +his pine forests, nor the miserable miner in his dark dwelling, but who +would enjoy an increase of salary and of comforts.</p> + +<p>"Gentlemen, if you will be pleased to reflect, you cannot fail to be +convinced that there is perhaps not one Frenchman, from the opulent +stockholder of Anzin down to the poorest vendor of matches, who is not +interested in the success of our petition.</p> + +<p>"We foresee your objections, gentlemen; but there is not one that you +can oppose to us which you will not be obliged to gather from the works +of the partisans of free trade. We dare challenge you to pronounce one +word against our petition, which is not equally opposed to your own +practice and the principle which guides your policy.</p> + +<p>"Do you tell us, that if we gain by this protection, France will not +gain, because the consumer must pay the price of it?</p> + +<p>"We answer you:</p> + +<p>"You have no longer any right to cite the interest of the consumer. For +whenever this has been found to compete with that of the producer, you +have invariably sacrificed the first. You have done this to <i>encourage +labor</i>, to <i>increase the demand for labor</i>. The same reason should now +induce you to act in the same manner.</p> + +<p>"You have yourselves already answered the objection. When you were told: +The consumer is interested in the free introduction of iron, coal, corn, +wheat, cloths, etc., your answer was: Yes, but the producer is +interested in their exclusion. Thus, also, if the consumer is interested +in the admission of light, we, the producers, pray for its +interdiction.</p> + +<p>"You have also said, the producer and the consumer are one. If the +manufacturer gains by protection, he will cause the agriculturist to +gain also; if agriculture prospers, it opens a market for manufactured +goods. Thus we, if you confer upon us the monopoly of furnishing light +during the day, will as a first consequence buy large quantities of +tallow, coals, oil, resin, wax, alcohol, silver, iron, bronze, crystal, +for the supply of our business; and then we and our numerous contractors +having become rich, our consumption will be great, and will become a +means of contributing to the comfort and competency of the workers in +every branch of national labor.</p> + +<p>"Will you say that the light of the sun is a gratuitous gift, and that +to repulse gratuitous gifts, is to repulse riches under pretence of +encouraging the means of obtaining them?</p> + +<p>"Take care,—you carry the death-blow to your own policy. Remember that +hitherto you have always repulsed foreign produce, <i>because</i> it was an +approach to a gratuitous gift, and <i>the more in proportion</i> as this +approach was more close. You have, in obeying the wishes of other +monopolists, acted only from a <i>half-motive</i>; to grant our petition +there is a much <i>fuller inducement</i>. To repulse us, precisely for the +reason that our case is a more complete one than any which have preceded +it, would be to lay down the following equation: + × + =-; in other +words, it would be to accumulate absurdity upon absurdity.</p> + +<p>"Labor and Nature concur in different proportions, according to country +and climate, in every article of production. The portion of Nature is +always gratuitous; that of labor alone regulates the price.</p> + +<p>"If a Lisbon orange can be sold at half the price of a Parisian one, it +is because a natural and gratuitous heat does for the one, what the +other only obtains from an artificial and consequently expensive one.</p> + +<p>"When, therefore, we purchase a Portuguese orange, we may say that we +obtain it half gratuitously and half by the right of labor; in other +words, at <i>half price</i> compared to those of Paris.</p> + +<p>"Now it is precisely on account of this <i>demi-gratuity</i> (excuse the +word) that you argue in favor of exclusion. How, you say, could national +labor sustain the competition of foreign labor, when the first has every +thing to do, and the last is rid of half the trouble, the sun taking the +rest of the business upon himself? If then the <i>demi-gratuity</i> can +determine you to check competition, on what principle can the <i>entire +gratuity</i> be alleged as a reason for admitting it? You are no logicians +if, refusing the demi-gratuity as hurtful to human labor, you do not <i>à +fortiori</i>, and with double zeal, reject the full gratuity.</p> + +<p>"Again, when any article, as coal, iron, cheese, or cloth, comes to us +from foreign countries with less labor than if we produced it ourselves, +the difference in price is a <i>gratuitous gift</i> conferred upon us; and +the gift is more or less considerable, according as the difference is +greater or less. It is the quarter, the half, or the three-quarters of +the value of the produce, in proportion as the foreign merchant requires +the three-quarters, the half, or the quarter of the price. It is as +complete as possible when the producer offers, as the sun does with +light, the whole in free gift. The question is, and we put it formally, +whether you wish for France the benefit of gratuitous consumption, or +the supposed advantages of laborious production. Choose, but be +consistent. And does it not argue the greatest inconsistency to check as +you do the importation of coal, iron, cheese, and goods of foreign +manufacture, merely because and even in proportion as their price +approaches <i>zero</i>, while at the same time you freely admit, and without +limitation, the light of the sun, whose price is during the whole day at +<i>zero</i>?"</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>VIII.</h2> + +<h3>DISCRIMINATING DUTIES.</h3> + + +<p>A poor laborer of Gironde had raised, with the greatest possible care +and attention, a nursery of vines, from which, after much labor, he at +last succeeded in producing a pipe of wine, and forgot, in the joy of +his success, that each drop of this precious nectar had cost a drop of +sweat to his brow. I will sell it, said he to his wife, and with the +proceeds I will buy thread, which will serve you to make a <i>trousseau</i> +for our daughter. The honest countryman, arriving in the city, there met +an Englishman and a Belgian. The Belgian said to him, Give me your wine, +and I in exchange, will give you fifteen bundles of thread. The +Englishman said, Give it to me, and I will give you twenty bundles, for +we English can spin cheaper than the Belgians. But a custom-house +officer standing by, said to the laborer, My good fellow, make your +exchange, if you choose, with the Belgian, but it is my duty to prevent +your doing so with the Englishman. What! exclaimed the countryman, you +wish me to take fifteen bundles of Brussels thread, when I can have +twenty from Manchester? Certainly; do you not see that France would be a +loser, if you were to receive twenty bundles instead of fifteen? I can +scarcely understand this, said the laborer. Nor can I explain it, said +the custom-house officer, but there is no doubt of the fact; for +deputies, ministers, and editors, all agree that a people is +impoverished in proportion as it receives a large compensation for any +given quantity of its produce. The countryman was obliged to conclude +his bargain with the Belgian. His daughter received but three-fourths of +her <i>trousseau</i>; and these good folks are still puzzling themselves to +discover how it can happen that people are ruined by receiving four +instead of three; and why they are richer with three dozen towels +instead of four.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>IX.</h2> + +<h3>WONDERFUL DISCOVERY!</h3> + + +<p>At this moment, when all minds are occupied in endeavoring to discover +the most economical means of transportation; when, to put these means +into practice, we are leveling roads, improving rivers, perfecting +steamboats, establishing railroads, and attempting various systems of +traction, atmospheric, hydraulic, pneumatic, electric, etc.,—at this +moment when, I believe, every one is seeking in sincerity and with +ardor the solution of this problem—</p> + +<p>"<i>To bring the price of things in their place of consumption, as near as +possible to their price in that of production</i>"—</p> + +<p>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 to +keep secret the wonderful discovery which I have just made.</p> + +<p>I am well aware that the self-illusions of inventors have become +proverbial, but I have, nevertheless, the most complete certainty of +having discovered an infallible means of bringing the produce of the +entire world into France, and reciprocally to transport ours, with a +very important reduction of price.</p> + +<p>Infallible! and yet this is but a single one of the advantages of my +astonishing invention, which requires neither plans nor devices, neither +preparatory studies, nor engineers, nor machinists, nor capital, nor +stockholders, nor governmental assistance! There is no danger of +shipwrecks, of explosions, of shocks, of fire, nor of displacement of +rails! It can be put into practice without preparation from one day to +another!</p> + +<p>Finally, and this will, no doubt, recommend it to the public, it will +not increase taxes one cent; but the contrary. It will not augment the +number of government functionaries, nor the exigencies of government +officers; but the contrary. It will put in hazard the liberty of no one; +but the contrary.</p> + +<p>I have been led to this discovery not from accident, but observation, +and I will tell you how.</p> + +<p>I had this question to determine:</p> + +<p>"Why does any article made, for instance, at Brussels, bear an increased +price on its arrival at Paris?"</p> + +<p>It was immediately evident to me that this was the result of <i>obstacles</i> +of various kinds existing between Brussels and Paris. First, there is +<i>distance</i>, which cannot be overcome without trouble and loss of time; +and either we must submit to these in our own person, or pay another for +bearing them for us. Then come rivers, swamps, accidents, heavy and +muddy roads; these are so many <i>difficulties</i> to be overcome; in order +to do which, causeways are constructed, bridges built, roads cut and +paved, railroads established, etc. But all this is costly, and the +article transported must bear its portion of the expense. There are +robbers, too, on the roads, and this necessitates guards, a police, etc.</p> + +<p>Now, among these <i>obstacles</i>, there is one which we ourselves have +placed, and that at no little expense, between Brussels and Paris. This +consists of men planted along the frontier, armed to the teeth, whose +business it is to place <i>difficulties</i> in the way of the transportation +of goods from one country to another. These men are called custom-house +officers, and their effect is precisely similar to that of steep and +boggy roads. They retard and put obstacles in the way of transportation, +thus contributing to the difference which we have remarked between the +price of production and that of consumption; to diminish which +difference as much as possible, is the problem which we are seeking to +resolve.</p> + +<p>Here, then, we have found its solution. <i>Let our tariff be diminished.</i> +We will thus have constructed a Northern Railroad which will cost us +nothing. Nay, more, we will be saved great expenses, and will begin from +the first day to save capital.</p> + +<p>Really, I cannot but ask myself, in surprise, how our brains could have +admitted so whimsical a piece of folly, as to induce us to pay many +millions to destroy the <i>natural obstacles</i> interposed between France +and other nations, only at the same time to pay so many millions more in +order to replace them by <i>artificial obstacles</i>, which have exactly the +same effect; so that the obstacle removed, and the obstacle created, +neutralize each other; things go on as before, and the only result of +our trouble, is, a double expense.</p> + +<p>An article of Belgian production is worth at Brussels twenty francs, +and, from the expenses of transportation, thirty francs at Paris. A +similar article of Parisian manufacture costs forty francs. What is our +course under these circumstances?</p> + +<p>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; the +government withal, paying numerous officials to attend to the levying of +this duty. The article thus pays ten francs for transportation, ten for +the tax.</p> + +<p>This done, we say to ourselves: Transportation between Brussels and +Paris is very dear; let us spend two or three millions in railways, and +we will reduce it one-half. Evidently the result of such a course will +be to get the Belgian article at Paris for thirty-five francs, viz:</p> + +<p> +<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">20 francs—price at Brussels.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">10 " duty.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">5 " transportation by railroad.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">—</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">35 francs—total, or market price at Paris.</span><br /> +</p> + +<p>Could we not have attained the same end by lowering the tariff to five +francs? We would then have—</p> + +<p> +<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">20 francs—price at Brussels.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">5 " duty.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">10 " transportation on the common road.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">—</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">35 francs—total, or market price at Paris.</span><br /> +</p> + +<p>And this arrangement would have saved us the 200,000,000 spent upon the +railroad, besides the expense saved in custom-house surveillance, which +would of course diminish in proportion as the temptation to smuggling +would become less.</p> + +<p>But it is answered, the duty is necessary to protect Parisian industry. +So be it; but do not then destroy the effect of it by your railroad.</p> + +<p>For if you persist in your determination to keep the Belgian article on +a par with the Parisian at forty francs, you must raise the duty to +fifteen francs, in order to have:—</p> + +<p> +<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">20 francs—price at Brussels.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">15 " protective duty.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">5 " transportation by railroad.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">—</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">40 francs—total, at equalized prices.</span><br /> +</p> + +<p>And I now ask, of what benefit, under these circumstances, is the +railroad?</p> + +<p>Frankly, is it not humiliating to the nineteenth century, that it should +be destined to transmit to future ages the example of such puerilities +seriously and gravely practiced? To be the dupe of another, is bad +enough; but to employ all the forms and ceremonies of legislation in +order to cheat one's self,—to doubly cheat one's self, and that too in +a mere mathematical account,—truly this is calculated to lower a little +the pride of this <i>enlightened age</i>.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>X.</h2> + +<h3>RECIPROCITY.</h3> + + +<p>We have just seen that all which renders transportation difficult, acts +in the same manner as protection; or, if the expression be preferred, +that protection tends towards the same result as obstacles to +transportation.</p> + +<p>A tariff may then be truly spoken of, as a swamp, a rut, a steep hill; +in a word, an <i>obstacle</i>, whose effect is to augment the difference +between the price of consumption and that of production. It is equally +incontestable that a swamp, a bog, etc., are veritable protective +tariffs.</p> + +<p>There are people (few in number, it is true, but such there are) who +begin to understand that obstacles are not the less obstacles, because +they are artificially created, and that our well-being is more advanced +by freedom of trade than by protection; precisely as a canal is more +desirable than a sandy, hilly, and difficult road.</p> + +<p>But they still say, this liberty ought to be reciprocal. If we take off +our taxes in favor of Spain, while Spain does not do the same towards +us, it is evident that we are duped. Let us then make <i>treaties of +commerce</i> upon the basis of a just reciprocity; let us yield where we +are yielded to; let us make the <i>sacrifice</i> of buying that we may +obtain the advantage of selling.</p> + +<p>Persons who reason thus, are (I am sorry to say), whether they know it +or not, governed by the protectionist principle. They are only a little +more inconsistent than the pure protectionists, as these are more +inconsistent than the absolute prohibitionists.</p> + +<p>I will illustrate this by a fable.</p> + + +<p><span class="smcap">Stulta and Puera (Fool-town and Boy-town).</span></p> + +<p>There were, it matters not where, two towns, <i>Stulta</i> and <i>Puera</i>, which +at great expense had a road built which connected them with each other. +Some time after this was done, the inhabitants of <i>Stulta</i> became +uneasy, and said: <i>Puera</i> is overwhelming us with its productions; this +must be attended to. They established therefore a corps of +<i>Obstructors</i>, so called because their business was to place obstacles +in the way of the wagon trains which arrived from <i>Puera</i>. Soon after, +<i>Puera</i> also established a corps of Obstructors.</p> + +<p>After some centuries, people having become more enlightened, the +inhabitants of <i>Puera</i> began to discover that these reciprocal obstacles +might possibly be reciprocal injuries. They sent therefore an ambassador +to <i>Stulta</i>, who (passing over the official phraseology) spoke much to +this effect: "We have built a road, and now we put obstacles in the way +of this road. This is absurd. It would have been far better to have left +things in their original position, for then we would not have been put +to the expense of building our road, and afterwards of creating +difficulties. In the name of <i>Puera</i>, I come to propose to you, not to +renounce at once our system of mutual obstacles, for this would be +acting according to a theory, and we despise theories as much as you do; +but to lighten somewhat these obstacles, weighing at the same time +carefully our respective <i>sacrifices</i>." The ambassador having thus +spoken, the town of <i>Stulta</i> asked time to reflect; manufacturers, +agriculturists were consulted; and at last, after some years' +deliberation, it was declared that the negotiations were broken off.</p> + +<p>At this news, the inhabitants of <i>Puera</i> held a council. An old man (who +it has always been supposed had been secretly bribed by <i>Stulta</i>) rose +and said: "The obstacles raised by <i>Stulta</i> are injurious to our sales; +this is a misfortune. Those which we ourselves create, injure our +purchases; this is a second misfortune. We have no power over the first, +but the second is entirely dependent upon ourselves. Let us then at +least get rid of one, since we cannot be delivered from both. Let us +suppress our corps of <i>Obstructors</i>, without waiting for <i>Stulta</i> to do +the same. Some day or other she will learn to understand better her own +interests."</p> + +<p>A second counselor, a man of practice and of facts, uncontrolled by +theories and wise in ancestral experience, replied: "We must not listen +to this dreamer, this theorist, this innovator, this utopian, this +political economist, this friend to <i>Stulta</i>. We would be entirely +ruined if the embarrassments of the road were not carefully weighed and +exactly equalized, between <i>Stulta</i> and <i>Peura</i>. There would be more +difficulty in going than in coming; in exportation than in importation. +We would be, with regard to <i>Stulta</i>, in the inferior condition in which +Havre, Nantes, Bordeaux, Lisbon, London, Hamburg, and New Orleans, are, +in relation to cities placed higher up the rivers Seine, Loire, Garonne, +Tagus, Thames, the Elbe, and the Mississippi; for the difficulties of +ascending must always be greater than those of descending rivers. (A +voice exclaims: 'But the cities near the mouths of rivers have always +prospered more than those higher up the stream.') This is not possible. +(The same voice: 'But it is a fact.') Well, they have then prospered +<i>contrary to rule</i>." Such conclusive reasoning staggered the assembly. +The orator went on to convince them thoroughly and conclusively by +speaking of national independence, national honor, national dignity, +national labor, overwhelming importation, tributes, ruinous competition. +In short, he succeeded in determining the assembly to continue their +system of obstacles, and I can now point out a certain country where you +may see road-builders and <i>Obstructors</i> working with the best possible +understanding, by the decree of the same legislative assembly, paid by +the same citizens; the first to improve the road, the last to embarrass +it.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>XI.</h2> + +<h3>ABSOLUTE PRICES.</h3> + + +<p>If we wish to judge between freedom of trade and protection, to +calculate the probable effect of any political phenomenon, we should +notice how far its influence tends to the production of <i>abundance or +scarcity</i>, and not simply of <i>cheapness or dearness</i> of price. We must +beware of trusting to <i>absolute prices</i>, it would lead to inextricable +confusion.</p> + +<p>Mr. Mathieu de Dombasle, after having established the fact that +protection raises prices, adds:</p> + +<p>"The augmentation of price increases the expenses of life, and +consequently the price of labor, and every one finds in the increase of +the price of his produce the same proportion as in the increase of his +expenses. Thus, if every body pays as consumer, every body receives also +as producer."</p> + +<p>It is evident that it would be easy to reverse the argument and say: If +every body receives as producer, every body must pay as consumer.</p> + +<p>Now, what does this prove? Nothing whatever, unless it be that +protection <i>transfers</i> riches, uselessly and unjustly. Robbery does the +same.</p> + +<p>Again, to prove that the complicated arrangements of this system give +even simple compensation, it is necessary to adhere to the +"<i>consequently</i>" of Mr. de Dombasle, and to convince one's self that the +price of labor rises with that of the articles protected. This is a +question of fact, which I refer to Mr. Moreau de Jonnès, begging him to +examine whether the rate of wages was found to increase with the stock +of the mines of Anzin. For my own part I do not believe in it, because I +think that the price of labor, like every thing else, is governed by the +proportion existing between the supply and the demand. Now I can +perfectly well understand that <i>restriction</i> will diminish the supply of +coal, and consequently raise its price; but I do not as clearly see that +it increases the demand for labor, thereby raising the rate of wages. +This is the less conceivable to me, because the sum of labor required +depends upon the quantity of disposable capital; and protection, while +it may change the direction of capital, and transfer it from one +business to another, cannot increase it one penny.</p> + +<p>This question, which is of the highest interest, we will examine +elsewhere. I return to the discussion of <i>absolute prices</i>, and declare +that there is no absurdity which cannot be rendered specious by such +reasoning as that of Mr. de Dombasle.</p> + +<p>Imagine an isolated nation possessing a given quantity of cash, and +every year wantonly burning the half of its produce. I will undertake to +prove by the theory of Mr. de Dombasle that this nation will not be the +less rich in consequence of such a procedure.</p> + +<p>For, the result of the conflagration must be, that every thing would +double in price. An inventory made before this event would offer exactly +the same nominal value, as one made after it. Who then would be the +loser? If John buys his cloth dearer, he also sells his corn at a higher +price; and if Peter makes a loss on the purchase of his corn, he gains +it back by the sale of his cloth. Thus "every one finds in the increase +of the price of his produce, the same proportion as in the increase of +his expenses; and thus if every body pays as consumer, every body also +receives as producer."</p> + +<p>All this is nonsense. The simple truth is: that whether men destroy +their corn and cloth by fire or by use, the effect is the same <i>as +regards price</i>, but not <i>as regards riches</i>, for it is precisely in the +enjoyment of the use, that riches—in other words, comfort, +well-being—exist.</p> + +<p>Protection may, in the same way, while it lessens the abundance of +things, raise their prices, so as to leave each individual as rich, +<i>numerically speaking</i>, as when unembarrassed by it. But because we put +down in an inventory three hectolitres of corn at 20 francs, or four +hectolitres at 15 francs, and sum up the nominal value of each at 60 +francs, does it thence follow that they are equally capable of +contributing to the necessities of the community?</p> + +<p>To this view of consumption, it will be my continual endeavor to lead +the protectionists; for in this is the end of all my efforts, the +solution of every problem. I must continually repeat to them that +restriction, by impeding commerce, by limiting the division of labor, by +forcing it to combat difficulties of situation and temperature, must in +its results diminish the quantity produced by any fixed quantum of +labor. And what can it benefit us that the smaller quantity produced +under the protective system bears the same <i>nominal value</i> as the +greater quantity produced under the free trade system? Man does not live +on <i>nominal values</i>, but on real articles of produce; and the more +abundant these articles are, no matter what price they may bear, the +richer is he.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>XII.</h2> + +<h3>DOES PROTECTION RAISE THE RATE OF WAGES?</h3> + + +<p>Workmen, your situation is singular! you are robbed, as I will presently +prove to you.... But no; I retract the word; we must avoid an +expression which is violent; perhaps indeed incorrect; inasmuch as this +spoliation, wrapped in the sophisms which disguise it, is practiced, we +must believe, without the intention of the spoiler, and with the consent +of the spoiled. But it is nevertheless true that you are deprived of the +just compensation of your labor, while no one thinks of causing +<i>justice</i> to be rendered to you. If you could be consoled by noisy +appeals to philanthropy, to powerless charity, to degrading alms-giving, +or if high-sounding words would relieve you, these indeed you can have +in abundance. But <i>justice</i>, simple <i>justice</i>—nobody thinks of +rendering you this. For would it not be <i>just</i> that after a long day's +labor, when you have received your little wages, you should be permitted +to exchange them for the largest possible sum of comforts that you can +obtain voluntarily from any man whatsoever upon the face of the earth?</p> + +<p>Let us examine if <i>injustice</i> is not done to you, by the legislative +limitation of the persons from whom you are allowed to buy those things +which you need; as bread, meat, cotton and woolen cloths, etc.; thus +fixing (so to express myself) the artificial price which these articles +must bear.</p> + +<p>Is it true that protection, which avowedly raises prices, and thus +injures you, raises proportionably the rate of wages?</p> + +<p>On what does the rate of wages depend?</p> + +<p>One of your own class has energetically said: "When two workmen run +after a master, wages fall; when two masters run after a workman, wages +rise."</p> + +<p>Allow me, in more laconic phrase, to employ a more scientific, though +perhaps a less striking expression: "The rate of wages depends upon the +proportion which the supply of labor bears to the demand."</p> + +<p>On what depends the <i>demand</i> for labor?</p> + +<p>On the quantity of disposable national capital. And the law which says, +"such or such an article shall be limited to home production and no +longer imported from foreign countries," can it in any degree increase +this capital? Not in the least. This law may withdraw it from one +course, and transfer it to another; but cannot increase it one penny. +Then it cannot increase the demand for labor.</p> + +<p>While we point with pride to some prosperous manufacture, can we answer, +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 from +agriculture, or navigation, or other industry? We here see why, since +the reign of protective tariffs, if we see more workmen in our mines and +our manufacturing towns, we find also fewer sailors in our ports, and +fewer laborers and vine-growers in our fields and upon our hillsides.</p> + +<p>I could speak at great length upon this subject, but prefer illustrating +my thought by an example.</p> + +<p>A countryman had twenty acres of land, with a capital of 10,000 francs. +He divided his land into four parts, and adopted for it the following +changes of crops: 1st, maize; 2d, wheat; 3d, clover; and 4th, rye. As he +needed for himself and family but a small portion of the grain, meat, +and dairy-produce of the farm, he sold the surplus and bought oil, flax, +wine, etc. The whole of his capital was yearly distributed in wages and +payments of accounts to the workmen of the neighborhood. This capital +was, from his sales, again returned to him, and even increased from year +to year. Our countryman, being fully convinced that idle capital +produces nothing, caused to circulate among the working classes this +annual increase, which he devoted to the inclosing and clearing of +lands, or to improvements in his farming utensils and his buildings. He +deposited some sums in reserve in the hands of a neighboring banker, who +on his part did not leave these idle in his strong box, but lent them to +various tradesmen, so that the whole came to be usefully employed in the +payment of wages.</p> + +<p>The countryman died, and his son, become master of the inheritance, said +to himself: "It must be confessed that my father has, all his life, +allowed himself to be duped. He bought oil, and thus paid <i>tribute</i> to +Province, while our own land could, by an effort, be made to produce +olives. He bought wine, flax, and oranges, thus paying <i>tribute</i> to +Brittany, Medoc, and the Hiera islands very unnecessarily, for wine, +flax and oranges may be forced to grow upon our own lands. He paid +tribute to the miller and the weaver; our own servants could very well +weave our linen, and crush our wheat between two stones. He did all he +could to ruin himself, and gave to strangers what ought to have been +kept for the benefit of his own household."</p> + +<p>Full of this reasoning, our headstrong fellow determined to change the +routine of his crops. He divided his farm into twenty parts. On one he +cultivated the olive; on another the mulberry; on a third flax; he +devoted the fourth to vines, the fifth to wheat, etc., etc. Thus he +succeeded in rendering himself <i>independent</i>, and furnished all his +family supplies from his own farm. He no longer received any thing from +the general circulation; neither, it is true, did he cast any thing into +it. Was he the richer for this course? No, for his land did not suit the +cultivation of the vine; nor was the climate favorable to the olive. In +short, the family supply of all these articles was very inferior to what +it had been during the time when the father had obtained them all by +exchange of produce.</p> + +<p>With regard to the demand for labor, it certainly was no greater than +formerly. There were, to be sure, five times as many fields to +cultivate, but they were five times smaller. If oil was raised, there +was less wheat; and because there was no more flax bought, neither was +there any more rye sold. Besides, the farmer could not spend in wages +more than his capital, and his capital, instead of increasing, was now +constantly diminishing. A great part of it was necessarily devoted to +numerous buildings and utensils, indispensable to a person who +determines to undertake every thing. In short, the supply of labor +continued the same, but the means of paying becoming less, there was, +necessarily, a reduction of wages.</p> + +<p>The result is precisely similar, when a nation isolates itself by the +prohibitive system. Its number of industrial pursuits is certainly +multiplied, but their importance is diminished. In proportion to their +number, they become less productive, for the same capital and the same +skill are obliged to meet a greater number of difficulties. The fixed +capital absorbs a greater part of the circulating capital; that is to +say, a greater part of the funds destined to the payment of wages. What +remains, ramifies itself in vain, the quantity cannot be augmented. It +is like the water of a pond, which, distributed in a multitude of +reservoirs, appears to be more abundant, because it covers a greater +quantity of soil, and presents a larger surface to the sun, while we +hardly perceive that, precisely on this account, it absorbs, evaporates, +and loses itself the quicker.</p> + +<p>Capital and labor being given, the result is, a sum of production, +always the less great, in proportion as obstacles are numerous. There +can be no doubt that protective tariffs, by forcing capital and labor to +struggle against greater difficulties of soil and climate, must cause +the general production to be less, or, in other words, diminish the +portion of comforts which would thence result to mankind. If, then, +there be a general diminution of comforts, how, workmen, can it be +possible that <i>your</i> portion should be increased? Under such a +supposition, it would be necessary to believe that the rich, those who +made the law, have so arranged matters, that not only they subject +themselves to their own proportion of the general loss, but taking the +whole of it upon themselves, that they submit also to a further loss, in +order to increase your gains. Is this credible? Is this possible? It is, +indeed, a most suspicious act of generosity, and if you act wisely, you +will reject it.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>XIII.</h2> + +<h3>THEORY—PRACTICE.</h3> + + +<p>Partisans of free trade, we are accused of being theorists, and not +relying sufficiently upon practice.</p> + +<p>What a powerful argument against Mr. Say (says Mr. Ferrier,) is the long +succession of distinguished ministers, the imposing league of writers +who have all differed from him; and Mr. Say is himself conscious of +this, for he says: "It has been said, in support of old errors, that +there must necessarily be some foundation for ideas so generally adopted +by all nations. Ought we not, it is asked, to distrust observations and +reasoning which run counter to every thing which has been looked upon as +certain up to this day, and which has been regarded as undoubted by so +many who were to be confided in, alike on account of their learning and +of their philanthropic intentions? This argument is, I confess, +calculated to make a profound impression, and might cast a doubt upon +the most incontestable facts, if the world had not seen so many +opinions, now universally recognized as false, as universally maintain, +during a long series of ages, their dominion over the human mind. The +day is not long passed since all nations, from the most ignorant to the +most enlightened, and all men, the wisest as well as the most +uninformed, admitted only four elements. Nobody dreamed of disputing +this doctrine, which is, nevertheless, false, and to-day universally +decried."</p> + +<p>Upon this passage Mr. Ferrier makes the following remarks:</p> + +<p>"Mr. Say is strangely mistaken, if he believes that he has thus answered +the very strong objections which he has himself advanced. It is natural +enough that, for ages, men otherwise well informed, might mistake upon a +question of natural history; this proves nothing. Water, air, earth, and +fire, elements or not, were not the less useful to man.... Such errors +as this are of no importance. They do not lead to revolutions, nor do +they 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 it +be thus with errors which affect the moral world? Can it be conceived +that a system of government absolutely false, consequently injurious, +could be followed for many centuries, and among many nations, with the +general consent of well-informed men? Can it be explained how such a +system could be connected with the constantly increasing prosperity of +these nations? Mr. Say confesses that the argument which he combats is +calculated to make a profound impression. Most certainly it is; and +this impression remains; for Mr. Say has rather increased than +diminished it."</p> + +<p>Let us hear Mr. de Saint Chamans.</p> + +<p>"It has been only towards the middle of the last, the eighteenth +century, when every subject and every principle have without exception +been given up to the discussion of book-makers, that these furnishers of +<i>speculative</i> ideas, applied to every thing and applicable to nothing, +have begun to write upon the subject of political economy. There existed +previously a system of political economy, not written, but <i>practiced</i> +by governments. Colbert was, it is said, the inventor of it; and Colbert +gave 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 of +the modern school. This system, which has been called by our writers the +<i>mercantile system</i>, consisted in ... checking by prohibition or import +duties such foreign productions as were calculated to ruin our +manufactures by competition.... This system has been declared, by all +writers on political economy, of every school,<a name="FNanchor_12_12" id="FNanchor_12_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_12_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a> to be weak, absurd, +and calculated to impoverish the countries where it prevails. Banished +from books, it has taken refuge in <i>the practice</i> of all nations, +greatly to the surprise of those who cannot conceive that in what +concerns the wealth of nations, governments should, rather than be +guided by the wisdom of authors, prefer the <i>long experience</i> of a +system, etc.... It is above all inconceivable to them that the French +government ... should obstinately resist the new lights of political +economy, and maintain in its <i>practice</i> the old errors, pointed out by +all our writers.... But I am devoting too much time to this mercantile +system, which, unsustained by writers, <i>has only facts</i> in its favor!"</p> + +<p>Would it not be supposed from this language that political economists, +in claiming for each individual the <i>free disposition of his own +property</i>, have, like the Fourierists, stumbled upon some new, strange, +and chimerical system of social government, some wild theory, without +precedent in the annals of human nature? It does appear to me, that, if +in all this there is any thing doubtful, and of fanciful or theoretic +origin, it is not free trade, but protection; not the operating of +exchanges, but the custom-house, the duties, imposed to overturn +artificially the natural order of things.</p> + +<p>The question, however, is not here to compare and judge of the merits of +the two systems, but simply to know which of the two is sanctioned by +experience.</p> + +<p>You, Messrs. monopolists, maintain that <i>facts</i> are for you, and that we +on our side have only <i>theory</i>.</p> + +<p>You even flatter yourselves that this long series of public acts, this +old experience of Europe which you invoke, appeared imposing to Mr. Say; +and I confess that he has not refuted you, with his habitual sagacity.</p> + +<p>I, for my part, cannot consent to give up to you the domain of <i>facts</i>; +for while on your side you can advance only limited and special facts, +<i>we</i> can oppose to them universal facts, the free and voluntary acts of +all men.</p> + +<p>What do <i>we</i> maintain? and what do <i>you</i> maintain?</p> + +<p>We maintain that "it is best to buy from others what we ourselves can +produce only at a higher price."</p> + +<p>You maintain that "it is best to make for ourselves, even though it +should cost us more than to buy from others."</p> + +<p>Now gentlemen, putting aside theory, demonstration, reasoning, (things +which seem to nauseate you,) which of these assertions is sanctioned by +<i>universal practice</i>?</p> + +<p>Visit our fields, workshops, forges, stores; look above, below, and +around you; examine what is passing in your own household; observe your +own actions at every moment, and say which principle it is, that directs +these laborers, workmen, contractors, and merchants; say what is your +own personal <i>practice</i>.</p> + +<p>Does the agriculturist make his own clothes? Does the tailor produce the +grain which he consumes? Does not your housekeeper cease to make her +bread at home, as soon as she finds it more economical to buy it from +the baker? Do you lay down your pen to take up the blacking-brush in +order to avoid paying tribute to the shoe-black? Does not the whole +economy of society depend upon a separation of occupations, a division +of labor, in a word, upon mutual exchange of production, by which we, +one and all, make a calculation which causes us to discontinue direct +production, when indirect acquisition offers us a saving of time and +labor.</p> + +<p>You are not then sustained by <i>practice</i>, since it would be impossible, +were you to search the world, to show us a single man who acts according +to your principle.</p> + +<p>You may answer that you never intended to make your principle the rule +of individual relations. You confess that it would thus destroy all +social ties, and force men to the isolated life of snails. You only +contend that it governs <i>in fact</i>, the relations which are established +between the agglomerations of the human family.</p> + +<p>We say that this assertion too is erroneous. A family, a town, county, +department, province, all are so many agglomerations, which, without any +exception, all <i>practically</i> reject your principle; never, indeed, even +think of it. Each of these procures by barter, what would be more +expensively procured by production. Nations would do the same, did you +not <i>by force</i> prevent them.</p> + +<p>We, then, are the men who are guided by practice and experience. For to +combat the interdict which you have specially put upon some +international exchanges, we bring forward the practice and experience of +all individuals, and of all agglomerations of individuals, whose acts +being voluntary, render them proper to be given as proof in the +question. But you, on your part, begin by <i>forcing</i>, by <i>hindering</i>, and +then, adducing forced or forbidden acts, you exclaim: "Look; we can +prove ourselves justified by example!"</p> + +<p>You exclaim against our <i>theory</i>, and even against <i>all theory</i>. But are +you certain, in laying down your principles, so antagonistic to ours, +that you too are not building up theories? Truly, you too have your +theory; but between yours and ours there is this difference:</p> + +<p>Our theory is formed upon the observation of universal <i>facts</i>, +universal sentiments, universal calculations and acts. We do nothing +more than classify and arrange these, in order to better understand +them. It is so little opposed to practice, that it is in fact only +<i>practice explained</i>. We look upon the actions of men as prompted by the +instinct of self-preservation and of progress. What they do freely, +willingly,—this is what we call <i>Political Economy</i>, or economy of +society. We must repeat constantly that each man is <i>practically</i> an +excellent political economist, producing or exchanging, as his advantage +dictates. Each by experience raises himself to the science; or rather +the science is nothing more than experience, scrupulously observed and +methodically expounded.</p> + +<p>But <i>your</i> theory is <i>theory</i> in the worst sense of the word. You +imagine procedures which are sanctioned by the experience of no living +man, and then call to your aid constraint and prohibition. You cannot +avoid having recourse to force; because, wishing to make men produce +what they can <i>more advantageously</i> buy, you require them to give up an +advantage, and to be led by a doctrine which implies contradiction even +in its terms.</p> + +<p>I defy you too, to take this doctrine, which by your own avowal would be +absurd in individual relations, and apply it, even in speculation, to +transactions between families, towns, departments, or provinces. You +yourselves confess that it is only applicable to internal relations.</p> + +<p>Thus it is that you are daily forced to repeat:</p> + +<p>"Principles can never be universal. What is <i>well</i> in an individual, a +family, commune, or province, is <i>ill</i> in a nation. What is good in +detail—for instance: purchase rather than production, where purchase is +more advantageous—is <i>bad</i> in a society. The political economy of +individuals is not that of nations;" and other such stuff, <i>ejusdem +farinæ</i>.</p> + +<p>And all this for what? To prove to us, that we consumers, we are your +property! that we belong to you, soul and body! that you have an +exclusive right on our stomachs and our limbs! that it is your right to +feed and dress us at your own price, however great your ignorance, your +rapacity, or the inferiority of your work.</p> + +<p>Truly, then, your system is one not founded upon practice; it is one of +abstraction—of extortion.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>XIV.</h2> + +<h3>CONFLICTING PRINCIPLES.</h3> + + +<p>There is one thing which embarrasses me not a little; and it is this:</p> + +<p>Sincere men, taking upon the subject of political economy the point of +view of producers, have arrived at this double formula:</p> + +<p>"A government should dispose of consumers subject to its laws in favor +of home industry."</p> + +<p>"It should subject to its laws foreign consumers, in order to dispose of +them in favor of home industry."</p> + +<p>The first of the formulas is that of <i>Protection</i>; the second that of +<i>Outlets</i>.</p> + +<p>Both rest upon this proposition, called the <i>Balance of Trade</i>, that</p> + +<p>"A people is impoverished by importations and enriched by exportations."</p> + +<p>For if every foreign purchase is a <i>tribute paid</i>, a loss, nothing can +be more natural than to restrain, even to prohibit importations.</p> + +<p>And if every foreign sale is a <i>tribute received</i>, a gain, nothing more +natural than to create <i>outlets</i>, even by force.</p> + +<p><i>Protective System; Colonial System.</i>—These are only two aspects of the +same theory. To <i>prevent</i> our citizens from buying from foreigners, and +to <i>force</i> foreigners to buy from our citizens. Two consequences of one +identical principle.</p> + +<p>It is impossible not to perceive that according to this doctrine, if it +be true, the welfare of a country depends upon <i>monopoly</i> or domestic +spoliation, and upon <i>conquest</i> or foreign spoliation.</p> + +<p>Let us take a glance into one of these huts, perched upon the side of +our Pyrenean range.</p> + +<p>The father of a family has received the little wages of his labor; but +his 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 to +them; for the other side of the mountain is not France. Foreign wood +must not warm the hearth of the poor shepherd; his children must not +taste the bread of Biscay, nor cover their numbed limbs with the wool of +Navarre. It is thus that the general good requires!</p> + +<p>The disposing by law of consumers, forcing them to the support of home +industry, is an encroachment upon their liberty, the forbidding of an +action (mutual exchange) which is in no way opposed to morality! In a +word, it is an act of <i>injustice</i>.</p> + +<p>But this, it is said, is necessary, or else home labor will be arrested, +and a severe blow will be given to public prosperity.</p> + +<p>Thus then we must come to the melancholy conclusion, that there is a +radical incompatibility between the Just and the Useful.</p> + +<p>Again, if each people is interested in <i>selling</i>, and not in <i>buying</i>, a +violent action and reaction must form the natural state of their mutual +relations; for each will seek to force its productions upon all, and all +will seek to repulse the productions of each.</p> + +<p>A sale in fact implies a purchase, and since, according to this +doctrine, to sell is beneficial, and to buy injurious, every +international transaction must imply the benefiting of one people by the +injuring of another.</p> + +<p>But men are invincibly inclined to what they feel to be advantageous to +themselves, while they also, instinctively resist that which is +injurious. From hence then we must infer that each nation bears within +itself a natural force of expansion, and a not less natural force of +resistance, which are equally injurious to all others. In other words, +antagonism and war are the <i>natural</i> state of human society.</p> + +<p>Thus then the theory in discussion resolves itself into the two +following axioms. In the affairs of a nation,</p> + +<p>Utility is incompatible with the internal administration of justice.</p> + +<p>Utility is incompatible with the maintenance of external peace.</p> + +<p>Well, what embarrasses and confounds me is, to explain how any writer +upon public rights, any statesman who has sincerely adopted a doctrine +of which the leading principle is so antagonistic to other incontestable +principles, can enjoy one moment's repose or peace of mind.</p> + +<p>For myself, if such were my entrance upon the threshold of science, if I +did not clearly perceive that Liberty, Utility, Justice, and Peace, are +not only compatible, but closely connected, even identical, I would +endeavor to forget all I have learned; I would say:</p> + +<p>"Can it be possible that God can allow men to attain prosperity only +through injustice and war? Can he so direct the affairs of mortals, that +they can only renounce war and injustice by, at the same time, +renouncing their own welfare?</p> + +<p>"Am I not deceived by the false lights of a science which can lead me to +the horrible blasphemy implied in this alternative, and shall I dare to +take it upon myself to propose this as a basis for the legislation of a +great people? When I find a long succession of illustrious and learned +men, whose researches in the same science have led to more consoling +results; who, after having devoted their lives to its study, affirm that +through it they see Liberty and Utility indissolubly linked with Justice +and Peace, and find these great principles destined to continue on +through eternity in infinite parallels, have they not in their favor the +presumption which results from all that we know of the goodness and +wisdom of God as manifested in the sublime harmony of material creation? +Can I lightly believe, in opposition to such a presumption and such +imposing authorities, that this same God has been pleased to put +disagreement and antagonism in the laws of the moral world? No; before I +can believe that all social principles oppose, shock and neutralize each +other; before I can think them in constant, anarchical and eternal +conflict; above all, before I can seek to impose upon my fellow-citizens +the impious system to which my reasonings have led me, I must retrace my +steps, hoping, perchance, to find some point where I have wandered from +my road."</p> + +<p>And if, after a sincere investigation twenty times repeated, I should +still arrive at the frightful conclusion that I am driven to choose +between the Desirable and the Good, I would reject the science, plunge +into a voluntary ignorance, above all, avoid participation in the +affairs of my country, and leave to others the weight and responsibility +of so fearful a choice.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>XV.</h2> + +<h3>RECIPROCITY AGAIN.</h3> + + +<p>Mr. de Saint Cricq has asked: "Are we sure that our foreign customers +will buy from us as much as they sell us?"</p> + +<p>Mr. de Dombasle says: "What reason have we for believing that English +producers will come to seek their supplies from us, rather than from any +other nation, or that they will take from us a value equivalent to their +exportations into France?"</p> + +<p>I cannot but wonder to see men who boast, above all things, of being +<i>practical</i>, thus reasoning wide of all practice!</p> + +<p>In practice, there is perhaps no traffic which is a direct exchange of +produce for produce. Since the use of money, no man says, I will seek +shoes, hats, advice, lessons, only from the shoemaker, the hatter, the +lawyer, or teacher, who will buy from me the exact equivalent of these +in corn. Why should nations impose upon themselves so troublesome a +restraint?</p> + +<p>Suppose a nation without any exterior relations. One of its citizens +makes a crop of corn. He casts it into the <i>national</i> circulation, and +receives in exchange—what? Money, bank bills, securities, divisible to +any extent, by means of which it will be lawful for him to withdraw when +he pleases, and, unless prevented by just competition from the national +circulation, such articles as he may wish. At the end of the operation, +he will have withdrawn from the mass the exact equivalent of what he +first cast into it, and in value, <i>his consumption will exactly equal +his production</i>.</p> + +<p>If the exchanges of this nation with foreign nations are free, it is no +longer into the <i>national</i> circulation but into the <i>general</i> +circulation that each individual casts his produce, and from thence his +consumption is drawn. He is not obliged to calculate whether what he +casts into this general circulation is purchased by a countryman or by a +foreigner; whether the notes he receives are given to him by a Frenchman +or an Englishman, or whether the articles which he procures through +means of this money are manufactured on this or the other side of the +Rhine or the Pyrenees. One thing is certain; that each individual finds +an exact balance between what he casts in and what he withdraws from the +great common reservoir; and if this be true of each individual, it is +not less true of the entire nation.</p> + +<p>The only difference between these two cases is, that in the last, each +individual has open to him a larger market both for his sales and his +purchases, and has, consequently, a more favorable opportunity of making +both to advantage.</p> + +<p>The objection advanced against us here, is, that if all were to combine +in 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.</p> + +<p>Our answer is: If a nation can no longer withdraw any thing from the +mass 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, in +advance, you wish to force upon it, viz., <i>Isolation</i>. And here you have +the ideal of the prohibitive system.</p> + +<p>Truly, then, is it not ridiculous enough that you should inflict upon it +now, and unnecessarily, this system, merely through fear that some day +or other it might chance to be subjected to it without your assistance?</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>XVI.</h2> + +<h3>OBSTRUCTED RIVERS PLEADING FOR THE PROHIBITIONISTS.</h3> + + +<p>Some years since, being at Madrid, I went to the meeting of the Cortes. +The subject in discussion was a proposed treaty with Portugal, for +improving the channel of the Douro. A member rose and said: If the Douro +is made navigable, transportation must become cheaper, and Portuguese +grain will come into formidable competition with our <i>national labor</i>. I +vote against the project, unless ministers will agree to increase our +tariff so as to re-establish the equilibrium.</p> + +<p>Three months after, I was in Lisbon, and the same question came before +the Senate. A noble Hidalgo said: Mr. President, the project is absurd. +You guard at great expense the banks of the Douro, to prevent the influx +into Portugal of Spanish grain, and at the same time you now propose, at +great expense, <i>to facilitate such an event</i>. There is in this a want of +consistency in which I can have no part. Let the Douro descend to our +Sons as we have received it from our Fathers.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>XVII.</h2> + +<h3>A NEGATIVE RAILROAD.</h3> + + +<p>I have already remarked that when the observer has unfortunately taken +his point of view from the position of producer, he cannot fail in his +conclusions to clash with the general interest, because the producer, as +such, must desire the existence of efforts, wants, and obstacles.</p> + +<p>I find a singular exemplification of this remark in a journal of +Bordeaux.</p> + +<p>Mr. Simiot puts this question:</p> + +<p>Ought the railroad from Paris into Spain to present a break or terminus +at Bordeaux?</p> + +<p>This question he answers affirmatively. I will only consider one among +the numerous reasons which he adduces in support of his opinion.</p> + +<p>The railroad from Paris to Bayonne ought (he says) to present a break or +terminus at Bordeaux, in order that goods and travelers stopping in this +city should thus be forced to contribute to the profits of the boatmen, +porters, commission merchants, hotel-keepers, etc.</p> + +<p>It is very evident that we have here again the interest of the agents of +labor put before that of the consumer.</p> + +<p>But if Bordeaux would profit by a break in the road, and if such profit +be 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 too +would 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 or +termini, will be the increase in consignments, commissions, lading, +unlading, etc. This system furnishes us the idea of a railroad made up +of successive breaks; <i>a negative railroad</i>.</p> + +<p>Whether or not the Protectionists will allow it, most certain it is, +that the <i>restrictive principle</i> is identical with that which would +maintain <i>this system of breaks</i>: it is the sacrifice of the consumer to +the producer, of the end to the means.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>XVIII.</h2> + +<h3>"THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTE PRINCIPLES."</h3> + + +<p>The facility with which men resign themselves to ignorance in cases +where knowledge is all-important to them, is often astonishing; and we +may be sure that a man has determined to rest in his ignorance, when he +once brings himself to proclaim as a maxim that there are no absolute +principles.</p> + +<p>We enter into the legislative halls, and find that the question is, to +determine whether the law will or will not allow of international +exchanges.</p> + +<p>A deputy rises and says, If we tolerate these exchanges, foreign nations +will overwhelm us with their produce. We will have cotton goods from +England, coal from Belgium, woolens from Spain, silks from Italy, cattle +from Switzerland, iron from Sweden, corn from Prussia, so that no +industrial pursuit will any longer be possible to us.</p> + +<p>Another answers: Prohibit these exchanges, and the divers advantages +with which nature has endowed these different countries, will be for us +as though they did not exist. We will have no share in the benefits +resulting from English skill, or Belgian mines, from the fertility of +the Polish soil, or the Swiss pastures; neither will we profit by the +cheapness of Spanish labor, or the heat of the Italian climate. We will +be obliged to seek by a forced and laborious production, what, by means +of exchanges, would be much more easily obtained.</p> + +<p>Assuredly one or other of these deputies is mistaken. But which? It is +worth the trouble of examining. There lie before us two roads, one of +which leads inevitably to <i>wretchedness</i>. We must choose.</p> + +<p>To throw off the feeling of responsibility, the answer is easy: There +are no absolute principles.</p> + +<p>This maxim, at present so fashionable, not only pleases idleness, but +also suits ambition.</p> + +<p>If either the theory of prohibition, or that of free trade, should +finally triumph, one little law would form our whole economical code. In +the first case this would be: <i>foreign trade is forbidden</i>; in the +second: <i>foreign trade is free</i>; and thus, many great personages would +lose their importance.</p> + +<p>But if trade has no distinctive character, if it is capriciously useful +or injurious, and is governed by no natural law, if it finds no spur in +its usefulness, no check in its inutility, if its effects cannot be +appreciated by those who exercise it; in a word, if it has no absolute +principles,—oh! then it is necessary to deliberate, weigh, and regulate +transactions, the conditions of labor must be equalized, the level of +profits sought. This is an important charge, well calculated to give to +those who execute it, large salaries, and extensive influence.</p> + +<p>Contemplating this great city of Paris, I have thought to myself: Here +are a million of human beings who would die in a few days, if provisions +of every kind did not flow in towards this vast metropolis. The +imagination is unable to calculate the multiplicity of objects which +to-morrow must enter its gates, to prevent the life of its inhabitants +from terminating in famine, riot, or pillage. And yet at this moment all +are asleep, without feeling one moment's uneasiness, from the +contemplation of this frightful possibility. On the other side, we see +eighty departments who have this day labored, without concert, without +mutual understanding, for the victualing of Paris. How can each day +bring just what is necessary, nothing less, nothing more, to this +gigantic market? What is the ingenious and secret power which presides +over the astonishing regularity of such complicated movements, a +regularity in which we all have so implicit, though thoughtless, a +faith; on which our comfort, our very existence depends? This power is +an <i>absolute principle</i>, the principle of freedom in exchanges. We have +faith in that inner light which Providence has placed in the heart of +all men; confiding to it the preservation and amelioration of our +species; <i>interest</i>, since we must give its name, so vigilant, so +active, having so much forecast when allowed its free action. What would +be your condition, inhabitants of Paris, if a minister, however superior +his abilities, should undertake to substitute, in the place of this +power, the combinations of his own genius? If he should think of +subjecting to his own supreme direction this prodigious mechanism, +taking all its springs into his own hand, and deciding by whom, how, and +on what conditions each article should be produced, transported, +exchanged and consumed? Ah! although there is much suffering within your +walls; although misery, despair, and perhaps starvation, may call forth +more tears than your warmest charity can wipe away, it is probable, it +is certain, that the arbitrary intervention of government would +infinitely multiply these sufferings, and would extend among you the +evils which now reach but a small number of your citizens.</p> + +<p>If then we have such faith in this principle as applied to our private +concerns, 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 our +industrial pursuits, to weigh our profits and our losses, to occupy +himself with the quantity of our cash, and to equalize the conditions of +our labor in internal commerce, on what principle can it be necessary +that the custom-house, going beyond its fiscal mission, should pretend +to exercise a protective power over our external commerce?</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>XIX.</h2> + +<h3>NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE.</h3> + + +<p>Among the arguments advanced in favor of a restrictive system, we must +not forget that which is drawn from the plea of <i>national independence</i>.</p> + +<p>"What will we do," it is asked, "in case of war, if we are at the mercy +of England for our iron and coal?"</p> + +<p>The English monopolists, on their side, do not fail to exclaim: "What +will become of Great Britain in case of war if she depends upon France +for provisions?"</p> + +<p>One thing appears to be quite lost sight of, and this is, that the +dependence which results from commercial transactions, is a <i>reciprocal</i> +dependence. We can only be dependent upon foreign supplies, in so far as +foreign nations are dependent upon us. This is the essence of <i>society</i>. +The breaking off of natural relations places a nation, not in an +independent position, but in a state of isolation.</p> + +<p>And remark that the reason given for this isolation, is that it is a +necessary provision for war, while the act is itself a commencement of +war. It renders war easier, less burdensome, and consequently less +unpopular. If nations were to one another permanent outlets for mutual +produce; if their respective relations were such that they could not be +broken without inflicting the double suffering of privation and of +over-supply, there could then no longer be any need of these powerful +fleets which ruin, and these great armies which crush them; the peace of +the world could no more be compromised by the whim of a Thiers or a +Palmerston, and wars would cease, from want of resources, motives, +pretexts, and popular sympathy.</p> + +<p>I know that I shall be reproached (for it is the fashion of the day) for +placing interest, vile and prosaic interest, at the foundation of the +fraternity of nations. It would be preferred that this should be based +upon charity, upon love; that there should be in it some self-denial, +and that clashing a little with the material welfare of men, it should +bear the merit of a generous sacrifice.</p> + +<p>When will we have done with such puerile declamations? We contemn, we +revile <i>interest</i>, that is to say, the good and the useful, (for if all +men are interested in an object, how can this object be other than good +in itself?) as though this interest were not the necessary, eternal, and +indestructible mover, to the guidance of which Providence has confided +human perfectibility! One would suppose that the utterers of such +sentiments must be models of disinterestedness; but does the public not +begin to perceive with disgust, that this affected language is the stain +of those pages for which it oftenest pays the highest price?</p> + +<p>What! because comfort and peace are correlative, because it has pleased +God to establish so beautiful a harmony in the moral world, you would +blame me when I admire and adore his decrees, and for accepting with +gratitude his laws, which make justice a requisite for happiness! You +will consent to have peace only when it clashes with your welfare, and +liberty is irksome if it imposes no sacrifices! What then prevents you, +if self-denial has so many charms, from exercising it as much as you +desire in your private actions? Society will be benefited by your so +doing, for some one must profit by your sacrifices. But it is the height +of absurdity to wish to impose such a principle upon mankind generally; +for the self-denial of all, is the sacrifice of all. This is evil +systematized into theory.</p> + +<p>But, thanks be to Heaven! these declamations may be written and read, +and the world continues nevertheless to obey its great mover, its great +cause of action, which, spite of all denials, is <i>interest</i>.</p> + +<p>It is singular enough, too, to hear sentiments of such sublime +self-abnegation quoted in support even of Spoliation; and yet to this +tends all this pompous show of disinterestedness! These men so +sensitively delicate, that they are determined not to enjoy even peace, +if it must be propped by the vile <i>interest</i> of men, do not hesitate to +pick the pockets of other men, and above all of poor men. For what +tariff protects the poor? Gentlemen, we pray you, dispose as you please +of what belongs to yourselves, but let us entreat you to allow us to +use, or to exchange, according to our own fancy, the fruit of our own +labor, the sweat of our own brows. Declaim as you will about +self-sacrifice; that is all pretty enough; but we beg of you, do not at +the same time forget to be honest.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>XX.</h2> + +<h3>HUMAN LABOR—NATIONAL LABOR.</h3> + + +<p>Destruction of machinery—prohibition of foreign goods. These are two +acts proceeding from the same doctrine.</p> + +<p>We do meet with men who, while they rejoice over the revelation of any +great invention, favor nevertheless the protective policy; but such men +are very inconsistent.</p> + +<p>What is the objection they adduce against free trade? That it causes us +to seek from foreign and more easy production, what would otherwise be +the result of home production. In a word, that it injures domestic +industry.</p> + +<p>On the same principle, can it not be objected to machinery, that it +accomplishes through natural agents what would otherwise be the result +of manual labor, and that it is thus injurious to human labor?</p> + +<p>The foreign laborer, enjoying greater facilities of production than the +French laborer, is, with regard to the latter, a veritable <i>economical +machine</i>, which crushes him by competition. Thus, a piece of machinery +capable of executing any work at a less price than could be done by any +given number of hands, is, as regards these hands, in the position of a +<i>foreign competitor</i>, who paralyzes them by his rivalry.</p> + +<p>If then it be judicious to protect <i>home labor</i> against the competition +of <i>foreign labor</i>, it cannot be less so to protect <i>human labor</i> +against <i>mechanical labor</i>.</p> + +<p>Whoever adheres to the protective system, ought not, if his brain be +possessed of any logical powers, to stop at the prohibition of foreign +produce, but should extend this prohibition to the produce of the loom +and of the plough.</p> + +<p>I approve therefore of the logic of those who, whilst they cry out +against the <i>inundation</i> of foreign merchandise, have the courage to +declaim equally against the <i>excessive production</i> resulting from the +inventive power of mind.</p> + +<p>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 extensive +employment of machines, is, that many workmen are deprived of work, +either by foreign competition, which depresses manufactures, or by +machinery, which takes the place of men in workshops."</p> + +<p>Mr. de St. Chamans saw clearly the analogy, or rather the identity which +exists between <i>importation</i> and <i>machinery</i>, and was, therefore, in +favor of proscribing both. There is some pleasure in having to do with +intrepid arguers, who, even in error, thus carry through a chain of +reasoning.</p> + +<p>But let us look at the difficulty into which they are here led.</p> + +<p>If it be true, <i>à priori</i>, that the domain of <i>invention</i>, and that of +<i>labor</i>, can be extended only to the injury of one another, it would +follow that the fewest <i>workmen</i> would be employed in countries +(Lancashire, for instance) where there is the most <i>machinery</i>. And if +it be, on the contrary, proved, that machinery and manual labor coexist +to a greater extent among rich nations than among savages, it must +necessarily follow, that these two powers do not interfere with one +another.</p> + +<p>I cannot understand how a thinking being can rest satisfied with the +following dilemma:</p> + +<p>Either the inventions of man do not injure labor; and this, from general +facts, would appear to be the case, for there exists more of both among +the English and the French, than among the Sioux and the Cherokees. If +such be the fact, I have gone upon a wrong track, although unconscious +at what point. I have wandered from my road, and I would commit high +treason against humanity, were I to introduce such an error into the +legislation of my country.</p> + +<p>Or else the results of the inventions of mind limit manual labor, as +would appear to be proved from limited facts; for every day we see some +machine rendering unnecessary the labor of twenty, or perhaps a hundred +workmen. If this be the case, I am forced to acknowledge, as a fact, +the existence of a flagrant, eternal, and incurable antagonism between +the intellectual and the physical power of man; between his improvement +and his welfare. I cannot avoid feeling that the Creator should have +bestowed upon man either reason or bodily strength; moral force, or +brutal force; and that it has been a bitter mockery to confer upon him +faculties which must inevitably counteract and destroy one another.</p> + +<p>This is an important difficulty, and how is it put aside? By this +singular apothegm:</p> + +<p>"<i>In political economy there are no absolute principles.</i>"</p> + +<p>There are no principles! Why, what does this mean, but that there are no +facts? Principles are only formulas, which recapitulate a whole class of +well-proved facts.</p> + +<p>Machinery and Importation must certainly have effects. These effects +must be either good or bad. Here there may be a difference of opinion as +to which is the correct conclusion, but whichever is adopted, it must be +capable of being submitted to the formula of one or other of these +principles, viz.: Machinery is a good, or, Machinery is an evil. +Importations are beneficial, or, Importations are injurious. Bat to say +<i>there are no principles</i>, is certainly the last degree of debasement to +which the human mind can lower itself, and I confess that I blush for my +country, when I hear so monstrous an absurdity uttered before, and +approved by, the French Chambers, the <i>élite</i> of the nation, who thus +justify themselves for imposing upon the country laws, of the merits or +demerits of which they are perfectly ignorant.</p> + +<p>But, it may be said to me, finish, then, by destroying the <i>Sophism</i>. +Prove to us that machines are not injurious to <i>human labor</i>, nor +importations to <i>national labor</i>.</p> + +<p>In a work of this nature, such demonstrations cannot be very complete. +My aim is rather to point out than to explain difficulties, and to +excite reflection rather than to satisfy it. The mind never attains to a +firm conviction which is not wrought out by its own labor. I will, +however, make an effort to put it upon the right track.</p> + +<p>The adversaries of importations and of machinery are misled by allowing +themselves to form too hasty a judgment from immediate and transitory +effects, instead of following these up to their general and final +consequences.</p> + +<p>The immediate effect of an ingenious piece of machinery, is, that it +renders superfluous, in the production of any given result, a certain +quantity of manual labor. But its action does not stop here. This result +being obtained at less labor, is given to the public at a less price. +The amount thus saved to the buyers, enables them to procure other +comforts, and thus to encourage general labor, precisely in proportion +to the saving they have made upon the one article which the machine has +given to them at an easier price. Thus the standard of labor is not +lowered, though that of comfort is raised.</p> + +<p>Let me endeavor to render this double fact more striking by an example.</p> + +<p>I suppose that ten million of hats, at fifteen francs each, are yearly +consumed in France. This would give to those employed in this +manufacture one hundred and fifty millions. A machine is invented which +enables the manufacturer to furnish hats at ten francs. The sum given to +the maintenance of this branch of industry, is thus reduced (if we +suppose the consumption not to be increased) to one hundred millions. +But the other fifty millions are not, therefore, withdrawn from the +maintenance of <i>human labor</i>. The buyers of hats are, from the surplus +saved upon the price of that article, enabled to satisfy other wants, +and thus, in the same proportion, to encourage general industry. John +buys a pair of shoes; James, a book; Jerome, an article of furniture, +etc. Human labor, as a whole, still receives the encouragement of the +whole one hundred and fifty millions, while the consumers, with the same +supply of hats as before, receive also the increased number of comforts +accruing from the fifty millions, which the use of the machine has been +the means of saving to them. These comforts are the net gain which +France has received from the invention. It is a gratuitous gift; a +tribute exacted from nature by the genius of man. We grant that, during +this process, a certain sum of labor will have been <i>displaced</i>, forced +to change its direction; but we cannot allow that it has been destroyed +or even diminished.</p> + +<p>The case is the same with regard to importations. I will resume my +hypothesis.</p> + +<p>France, according to our supposition, manufactured ten millions of hats +at fifteen francs each. Let us now suppose that a foreign producer +brings them into our market at ten francs. I maintain that <i>national +labor</i> is thus in no wise diminished. It will be obliged to produce the +equivalent of the hundred millions which go to pay for the ten millions +of 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, which +serve for the acquisition of other comforts, and the encouragement of +other labor.</p> + +<p>The mass of labor remains, then, what it was, and the additional +comforts accruing from the fifty millions saved in the purchase of hats, +are the net profit of importation or free trade.</p> + +<p>It is no argument to try and alarm us by a picture of the sufferings +which, in this hypothesis, would result from the displacement or change +of labor.</p> + +<p>For, if prohibition had never existed, labor would have classed itself +in accordance with the laws of trade, and no displacement would have +taken place.</p> + +<p>If prohibition has led to an artificial and unproductive classification +of labor, then it is prohibition, and not free trade, which is +responsible for the inevitable displacement which must result in the +transition from evil to good.</p> + +<p>It is a rather singular argument to maintain that, because an abuse +which has been permitted a temporary existence, cannot be corrected +without wounding the interests of those who have profited by it, it +ought, therefore, to claim perpetual duration.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>XXI.</h2> + +<h3>RAW MATERIAL.</h3> + + +<p>It is said that no commerce is so advantageous as that in which +manufactured articles are exchanged for raw material; because the latter +furnishes aliment for <i>national labor</i>.</p> + +<p>And it is hence concluded:</p> + +<p>That the best regulation of duties, would be to give the greatest +possible facilities to the importation of raw material, and at the same +time to check that of the finished article.</p> + +<p>There is, in political economy, no more generally accredited Sophism +than this. It serves for argument not only to the protectionists, but +also to the pretended free trade school; and it is in the latter +capacity that its most mischievous tendencies are called into action. +For a good cause suffers much less in being attacked, than in being +badly defended.</p> + +<p>Commercial liberty must probably pass through the same ordeal as liberty +in every other form. It can only dictate laws, after having first taken +thorough possession of men's minds. If, then, it be true that a reform, +to be firmly established, must be generally understood, it follows that +nothing can so much retard it, as the misleading of public opinion. And +what more calculated to mislead opinion than writings, which, while they +proclaim free trade, support the doctrines of monopoly?</p> + +<p>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 apparent +declaration in favor of free trade. Alas! it was still the banner of +monopoly which they followed! a monopoly, only a little more sordid, a +little more absurd than that of which they seemed to desire the +destruction! Thanks to the Sophism which I would now endeavor to deprive +of its disguise, the petitioners only reproduced, with an additional +incongruity, the old doctrine of <i>protection to national labor</i>. What +is, in fact, the prohibitive system? We will let Mr. de Saint Cricq +answer for us.</p> + +<p>"Labor constitutes the riches of a nation, because it creates supplies +for the gratification of our necessities; and universal comfort consists +in the abundance of these supplies." Here we have the principle.</p> + +<p>"But this abundance ought to be the result of <i>national labor</i>. If it +were the result of foreign labor, national labor must receive an +inevitable check." Here lies the error. (See the preceding Sophism).</p> + +<p>"What, then, ought to be the course of an agricultural and manufacturing +country? It ought to reserve its market for the produce of its own soil +and its own industry." Here is the object.</p> + +<p>"In order to effect this, it ought, by restrictive, and, if necessary, +by prohibitive duties, to prevent the influx of produce from foreign +soils and foreign industry." Here is the means.</p> + +<p>Let us now compare this system with that of the petition from Bordeaux.</p> + +<p>This divided articles of merchandise into three classes. "The first +class includes articles of food and <i>raw material untouched by human +labor</i>. <i>A judicious system of political economy would require that this +class should be exempt from taxation.</i>" Here we have the principle of no +labor, no protection.</p> + +<p>"The second class is composed of articles which have received <i>some +preparation</i> for manufacture. This preparation would render reasonable +the imposition of <i>some duties</i>." Here we find the commencement of +protection, because, at the same time, likewise commences the demand for +<i>national labor</i>.</p> + +<p>"The third class comprehends finished articles, which can, under no +circumstances, furnish material for national labor. We consider this as +the most fit for taxation." Here we have at once the maximum of labor, +and, consequently, of production.</p> + +<p>The petitioners then, as we here see, proclaimed foreign labor as +injurious to national labor. This is the <i>error</i> of the prohibitive +system.</p> + +<p>They desired the French market to be reserved for <i>French labor</i>. This +is the <i>object</i> of the prohibitive system.</p> + +<p>They demanded that foreign labor should be subjected to restrictions and +taxes. These are the <i>means</i> of the prohibitive system.</p> + +<p>What difference, then, can we possibly discover to exist between the +Bordalese petitioners and the Corypheus of restriction? One, alone; and +that is simply the greater or less extension which is given to the +signification of the word <i>labor</i>.</p> + +<p>Mr. de Saint Cricq, taking it in its widest sense, is, therefore, in +favor of <i>protecting</i> every thing.</p> + +<p>"Labor," he says, "constitutes <i>the whole</i> wealth of a nation. +Protection should be for the agricultural interest, and <i>the whole</i> +agricultural interest; for the manufacturing interest, and <i>the whole</i> +manufacturing interest; and this principle I will continually endeavor +to impress upon this Chamber."</p> + +<p>The petitioners consider no labor but that of the manufacturers, and +accordingly, it is that, and that alone, which they would wish to admit +to the favors of protection.</p> + +<p>"Raw material being entirely <i>untouched by human labor</i>, our system +should exempt it from taxes. Manufactured articles furnishing no +material for national labor, we consider as the most fit for taxation."</p> + +<p>There is no question here as to the propriety of protecting national +labor. Mr. de Saint Cricq and the Bordalese agree entirely upon this +point. We have, in our preceding chapters, already shown how entirely we +differ from both of them.</p> + +<p>The question to be determined, is, whether it is Mr. de Saint Cricq, or +the Bordalese, who give to the word <i>labor</i> its proper acceptation. And +we must confess that Mr. de Saint Cricq is here decidedly in the right. +The following dialogue might be supposed between them:</p> + +<p><i>Mr. de Saint Cricq.</i>—You agree that national labor ought to be +protected. You agree that no foreign labor can be introduced into our +market, without destroying an equal quantity of our national labor. But +you contend that there are numerous articles of merchandise possessing +<i>value</i>, for they are sold, and which are nevertheless <i>untouched by +human labor</i>. Among these you name corn, flour, meat, cattle, bacon, +salt, iron, copper, lead, coal, wool, skins, seeds, etc.</p> + +<p>If you can prove to me, that the <i>value</i> of these things is not +dependent upon labor, I will agree that it is useless to protect them.</p> + +<p>But if I can prove to you that there is as much labor put upon a hundred +francs worth of wool, as upon a hundred francs worth of cloth, you ought +to acknowledge that protection is the right as much of the one, as of +the other.</p> + +<p>I ask you then why this bag of wool is worth a hundred francs? Is it not +because this is its price of production? And what is the price of +production, but the sum which has been distributed in wages for labor, +payment of skill, and interest on money, among the various laborers and +capitalists, who have assisted in the production of the article?</p> + +<p><i>The Petitioners.</i>—It is true that with regard to wool you may be +right; but a bag of corn, a bar of iron, a hundred weight of coal, are +these the produce of labor? Is it not nature which <i>creates</i> them?</p> + +<p><i>Mr. de St. Cricq.</i>—Without doubt, nature <i>creates</i> these substances, +but it is labor which gives them their <i>value</i>. I have myself, in saying +that labor <i>creates</i> material objects, used a false expression, which +has led me into many farther errors. No man can <i>create</i>. No man can +bring any thing from nothing; and if <i>production</i> is used as a synonym +for <i>creation</i>, then indeed our labor must all be useless.</p> + +<p>The agriculturist does not pretend that he has <i>created</i> the corn; but +he has given it its <i>value</i>. He has by his own labor, and by that of his +servants, his laborers, and his reapers, transformed into corn +substances which were entirely dissimilar from it. What more is effected +by the miller who converts it into flour, or by the baker who makes it +into bread?</p> + +<p>In order that a man may be dressed in cloth, numerous operations are +first necessary. Before the intervention of any human labor, the real +<i>primary materials</i> of this article are air, water, heat, gas, light, +and the various salts which enter into its composition. These are indeed +<i>untouched by human labor</i>, for they have no <i>value</i>, and I have never +dreamed of their needing protection. But a first <i>labor</i> converts these +substances into forage; a second into wool; a third into thread; a +fourth into cloth; and a fifth into garments. Who can pretend to say, +that all these contributions to the work, from the first furrow of the +plough, to the last stitch of the needle, are not <i>labor</i>?</p> + +<p>And because, for the sake of speed and greater perfection in the +accomplishment of the final object, these various branches of labor are +divided among as many classes of workmen, you, by an arbitrary +distinction, determine that the order in which the various branches of +labor follow each other shall regulate their importance, so that while +the first is not allowed to merit the name of labor, the last shall +receive all the favors of protection.</p> + +<p><i>The Petitioners.</i>—Yes, we begin to understand that neither wool nor +corn are entirely <i>independent of human labor</i>; but certainly the +agriculturist has not, like the manufacturer, had every thing to do by +his own labor, and that of his workmen; nature has assisted him; and if +there is some labor, at least all is not labor, in the production of +corn.</p> + +<p><i>Mr. de St. Cricq.</i>—But it is the labor alone which gives it <i>value</i>. I +grant that nature has assisted in the production of grain. I will even +grant that it is exclusively her work; but I must confess at least that +I have constrained her to it by my labor. And remark, moreover, that +when I sell my corn, it is not the <i>work of nature</i> which I make you pay +for, but <i>my own</i>.</p> + +<p>You will perceive, also, by following up your manner of arguing, that +neither will manufactured articles be the production of labor. Does not +the manufacturer also call upon nature to assist him? Does he not by the +assistance of steam-machinery force into his service the weight of the +atmosphere, as I, by the use of the plough, take advantage of its +humidity? Is it the cloth-manufacturer who has created the laws of +gravitation, transmission of forces and of affinities?</p> + +<p><i>The Petitioners.</i>—Well, well, we will give up wool, but assuredly coal +is the work, the exclusive work, of nature. This, at least, is +<i>independent of all human labor</i>.</p> + +<p><i>Mr. de St. Cricq.</i>—Yes, nature certainly has made coal; but <i>labor has +made its value</i>. Where was the <i>value</i> of coal during the millions of +years when it lay unknown and buried a hundred feet below the surface of +the earth? It was necessary to seek it. Here was labor. It was necessary +to transport it to a market. Again this was labor. The price which you +pay for coal in the market is the remuneration given to these labors of +digging and transportation.<a name="FNanchor_13_13" id="FNanchor_13_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_13_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a></p> + +<p>We see that, so far, all the advantage is on the side of Mr. de St. +Cricq, and that the <i>value</i> of unmanufactured as of manufactured +articles, represents always the expense, or what is the same thing, the +<i>labor</i> of production; that it is impossible to conceive of an article +bearing a <i>value, independent of human labor</i>; that the distinction +made by the petitioners is futile in theory, and, as the basis of an +unequal division of favors, would be iniquitous in practice; for it +would thence result that the one-third of the French occupied in +manufactures, would receive all the benefits of monopoly, because they +produce <i>by labor</i>; while the two other thirds, formed by the +agricultural population, would be left to struggle against competition, +under pretense that they produce <i>without labor</i>.</p> + +<p>It will, I know, be insisted that it is advantageous to a nation to +import the raw material, whether or not it be the result of labor; and +to export manufactured articles. This is a very generally received +opinion.</p> + +<p>"In proportion," says the petition of Bordeaux, "as raw material is +abundant, manufactures will increase and flourish."</p> + +<p>"The abundance of raw material," it elsewhere says, "gives an unlimited +scope to labor in those countries where it prevails."</p> + +<p>"Raw material," says the petition from Havre, "being the element of +labor, should be <i>regulated on a different system</i>, and ought to be +admitted <i>immediately</i> and at the <i>lowest rate</i>."</p> + +<p>The same petition asks, that the protection of manufactured articles +should be reduced, not <i>immediately</i>, but at some indeterminate time, +not to the <i>lowest rate</i> of entrance, but to twenty per cent.</p> + +<p>"Among other articles," says the petition of Lyons, "of which the low +price and the abundance are necessary, the manufacturers name all <i>raw +material</i>."</p> + +<p>All this is based upon error.</p> + +<p>All <i>value</i> is, we have seen, the representative of labor. Now it is +undoubtedly true that manufacturing labor increases ten-fold, a +hundred-fold, the value of raw material, thus dispensing ten, a +hundred-fold increased profits throughout the nation; and from this fact +is deduced the following argument: The production of a hundred weight of +iron, is the gain of only fifteen francs to the various workers therein +engaged. This hundred weight of iron, converted into watch-springs, is +increased in value by this process, ten thousand francs. Who can pretend +that the nation is not more interested in securing the ten thousand +francs, than the fifteen francs worth of labor?</p> + +<p>In this reasoning it is forgotten, that international exchanges are, no +more than individual exchanges, effected through weight and measure. The +exchange is not between a hundred weight of unmanufactured iron, and a +hundred weight of watch-springs, nor between a pound of wool just shorn, +and a pound of wool just manufactured into cashmere, but between a fixed +value in one of these articles, and a fixed equal value in another. To +exchange equal value with equal value, is to exchange equal labor with +equal labor, and it is therefore not true that the nation which sells +its hundred francs worth of cloth or of watch-springs, gains more than +the one which furnishes its hundred francs worth of wool or of iron.</p> + +<p>In a country where no law can be passed, no contribution imposed without +the consent of the governed, the public can be robbed, only after it has +first been cheated. Our own ignorance is the primary, the <i>raw material</i> +of every act of extortion to which we are subjected, and it may safely +be predicted of every <i>Sophism</i>, that it is the forerunner of an act of +Spoliation. Good Public, whenever therefore you detect a Sophism in a +petition, let me advise you, put your hand upon your pocket, for be +assured, it is that which is particularly the point of attack.</p> + +<p>Let us then examine what is the secret design which the ship-owners of +Bordeaux and Havre, and the manufacturers of Lyons, would smuggle in +upon us by this distinction between agricultural produce and +manufactured produce.</p> + +<p>"It is," say the petitioners of Bordeaux, "principally in this first +class (that which comprehends raw material, <i>untouched by human labor</i>) +that we find <i>the principal encouragement of our merchant vessels</i>.... A +wise system of political economy would require that this class should +not be taxed.... The second class (articles which have received some +preparation) may be considered as taxable. The third (articles which +have received from labor all the finish of which they are capable) we +regard as <i>most proper for taxation</i>."</p> + +<p>"Considering," say the petitioners of Havre, "that it is indispensable +to reduce <i>immediately</i> and to the <i>lowest rate</i>, the raw material, in +order that manufacturing industry may give employment to our merchant +vessels, which furnish its first and indispensable means of labor."</p> + +<p>The manufacturers could not allow themselves to be behindhand in +civilities towards the ship-owners, and accordingly the petition of +Lyons demands the free introduction of raw material, "in order to +prove," it remarks, "that the interests of manufacturing towns are not +opposed to those of maritime cities."</p> + +<p>This may be true enough; but it must be confessed that both, taken in +the sense of the petitioners, are terribly adverse to the interest of +agriculture and of consumers.</p> + +<p>This, then, gentlemen, is the aim of all your subtle distinctions! You +wish the law to oppose the maritime transportation of <i>manufactured</i> +articles, in order that the much more expensive transportation of the +raw material should, by its larger bulk, in its rough, dirty and +unimproved condition, furnish a more extensive business to your +<i>merchant vessels</i>. And this is what you call a <i>wise system of +political economy</i>!</p> + +<p>Why not also petition for a law requiring that fir-trees, imported from +Russia, should not be admitted without their branches, bark, and roots; +that Mexican gold should be imported in the state of ore, and Buenos +Ayres leathers only allowed an entrance into our ports, while still +hanging to the dead bones and putrefying bodies to which they belong?</p> + +<p>The stockholders of railroads, if they can obtain a majority in the +Chambers, will no doubt soon favor us with a law forbidding the +manufacture, at Cognac, of the brandy used in Paris. For, surely, they +would consider it a wise law, which would, by forcing the transportation +of ten casks of wine instead of one of brandy, thus furnish to Parisian +industry an <i>indispensable encouragement to its labor</i>, and, at the same +time, give employment to railroad locomotives!</p> + +<p>Until when will we persist in shutting our eyes upon the following +simple truth?</p> + +<p>Labor and industry, in their general object, have but one legitimate +aim, 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 to +act upon a <i>petitio principii</i>. For it is the result of labor, and not +labor itself, which is a desirable object. All labor, without a result, +is clear loss. To pay sailors for transporting rough dirt and filthy +refuse across the ocean, is about as reasonable as it would be to +engage their services, and pay them for pelting the water with pebbles. +Thus we arrive at the conclusion that <i>political Sophisms</i>, +notwithstanding their infinite variety, have one point in common, which +is the constant confounding of the <i>means</i> with the <i>end</i>, and the +development of the former at the expense of the latter.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>XXII.</h2> + +<h3>METAPHORS.</h3> + + +<p>A Sophism will sometimes expand and extend itself through the whole +tissue of a long and tedious theory. Oftener it contracts into a +principle, and hides itself in one word.</p> + +<p>"Heaven preserve us," said Paul Louis, "from the Devil and from the +spirit of metaphor!" And, truly, it might be difficult to determine +which of the two sheds the most noxious influence over our planet. The +Devil, you will say, because it is he who implants in our hearts the +spirit of spoliation. Aye; but he leaves the capacity for checking +abuses, by the resistance of those who suffer. It is the genius of +Sophism which paralyzes this resistance. The sword which the spirit of +evil places in the hands of the aggressor, would fall powerless, if the +shield of him who is attacked were not shattered in his grasp by the +spirit of Sophism. Malbranche has, with great truth, inscribed upon the +frontispiece of his book this sentence: <i>Error is the cause of human +misery</i>.</p> + +<p>Let us notice what passes in the world. Ambitious hypocrites may take a +sinister interest in spreading, for instance, the germ of national +enmities. The noxious seed may, in its developments, lead to a general +conflagration, check civilization, spill torrents of blood, and draw +upon the country that most terrible of scourges, <i>invasion</i>. Such +hateful sentiments cannot fail to degrade, in the opinion of other +nations, the people among whom they prevail, and force those who retain +some love of justice to blush for their country. These are fearful +evils, and it would be enough that the public should have a clear view +of them, to induce them to secure themselves against the plotting of +those who would expose them to such heavy chances. How, then, are they +kept in darkness? How, but by metaphors? The meaning of three or four +words is forced, changed, and depraved—and all is said.</p> + +<p>Such is the use made, for instance, of the word <i>invasion</i>.</p> + +<p>A master of French iron-works, exclaims: Save us from the <i>invasion</i> of +English iron. An English landholder cries; Let us oppose the <i>invasion</i> +of French corn. And forthwith all their efforts are bent upon raising +barriers between these two nations. Thence follows isolation; isolation +leads to hatred; hatred to war; and war to <i>invasion</i>. What matters it? +say the two <i>Sophists</i>; is it not better to expose ourselves to a +possible <i>invasion</i>, than to meet a certain one? And the people believe; +and the barriers are kept up.</p> + +<p>And yet what analogy can exist between an exchange and an invasion? What +resemblance can possibly be discovered between a man-of-war, vomiting +fire, death, and desolation over our cities—and a merchant vessel, +which comes to offer in free and peaceable exchange, produce for +produce?</p> + +<p>Much in the same way has the word <i>inundation</i> been abused. This word is +generally taken in a bad sense; and it is certainly of frequent +occurrence for inundations to ruin fields and sweep away harvests. But +if, as is the case in the inundations of the Nile, they were to leave +upon the soil a superior value to that which they carried away, we +ought, like the Egyptians, to bless and deify them. Would it not be +well, before declaiming against the <i>inundations</i> of foreign produce, +and checking them with expensive and embarrassing obstacles, to certify +ourselves whether these inundations are of the number which desolate, or +of those which fertilize a country? What would we think of Mehemet Ali, +if, instead of constructing, at great expense, dams across the Nile to +increase the extent of its inundations, he were to scatter his piasters +in attempts to deepen its bed, that he might rescue Egypt from the +defilement of the <i>foreign</i> mud which is swept down upon it from the +mountains 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 other +climates.</p> + +<p>Among the <i>metaphors</i> which sometimes conceal, each in itself, a whole +theory of evil, there is none more common than that which is presented +under the words <i>tribute</i> and <i>tributary</i>.</p> + +<p>These words are so frequently employed as synonyms of <i>purchase</i> and +<i>purchaser</i>, that the terms are now used almost indifferently. And yet +there is as distinct a difference between a <i>tribute</i>, and a <i>purchase</i>, +as between a <i>robbery</i> and an <i>exchange</i>. It appears to me that it would +be quite as correct to say, Cartouche has broken open my strong-box, +and, has <i>bought</i> a thousand crowns from me, as to state, as I have +heard done to our honorable deputies, We have paid in <i>tribute</i> to +Germany the value of a thousand horses which she has sold us.</p> + +<p>The action of Cartouche was not a <i>purchase</i>, because he did not put, +and with my consent, into my strong box an equivalent value to that +which he took out. Neither could the purchase-money paid to Germany be +<i>tribute</i>, because it was not on our part a forced payment, gratuitously +received on hers, but a willing compensation from us for a thousand +horses, which we ourselves judged to be worth 500,000 francs.</p> + +<p>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 of +uneducated writers, ignorant even of the terms of their own language. +They are current with a vast majority, and among the most distinguished +of 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 the +basis of the administration of their country.</p> + +<p>A celebrated modern Philosopher has added to the categories of Aristotle +the Sophism which consists in expressing in one word a <i>petitio +principii</i>. He cites several examples, and might have added the word +<i>tributary</i> to his nomenclature. For instance, the question is to +determine whether foreign purchases are useful or hurtful. You answer, +hurtful. And why? Because they render us <i>tributary</i> to foreigners. +Truly here is a word, which begs the question at once.</p> + +<p>How has this delusive figure of speech introduced itself into the +rhetoric of monopolists?</p> + +<p>Money is <i>withdrawn from the country</i> to satisfy the rapacity of a +victorious enemy: money is also <i>withdrawn from the country</i> to pay for +merchandise. The analogy is established between the two cases, +calculating only the point of resemblance and abstracting that by which +they differ.</p> + +<p>And yet it is certainly true, that the non-reimbursement in the first +case, and the reimbursement freely agreed upon in the second, +establishes between them so decided a difference, as to render it +impossible to class them under the same category. To be obliged, with a +dagger at your throat, to give a hundred francs, or to give them +willingly in order to obtain a desired object,—truly these are cases in +which we can perceive little similarity. It might just as correctly be +said, that it is a matter of indifference whether we eat our bread, or +have it thrown into the water, because in both cases it is destroyed. We +here draw a false conclusion, as in the case of the word <i>tribute</i>, by a +vicious manner of reasoning, which supposes an entire similitude between +two cases, their resemblance only being noticed and their difference +suppressed.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>CONCLUSION.</h2> + + +<p>All the Sophisms which I have so far combated, relate to the restrictive +policy; and some even on this subject, and those of the most remarkable, +I have, in pity to the reader, passed over: <i>acquired rights</i>; +<i>unsuitableness</i>; <i>exhaustion of money</i>, <i>etc.</i>, <i>etc.</i></p> + +<p>But Social economy is not confined within this narrow circle. +Fourierism, Saint Simonism, Commonism, agrarianism, anti-rentism, +mysticism, sentimentalism, false philanthropy, affected aspirations for +a 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 parasitical +arguments,—<i>Sophisms</i>, whose rank growth calls for the spade and the +weeding-hoe.</p> + +<p>I am perfectly sensible of the defect of my plan, or rather absence of +plan. By attacking as I do, one by one, so many incoherent Sophisms, +which clash, and then again often mingle with each other, I am conscious +that I condemn myself to a disorderly and capricious struggle, and am +exposed to perpetual repetitions.</p> + +<p>I should certainly much prefer to state simply how things <i>are</i>, without +troubling myself to contemplate the thousand aspects under which +ignorance <i>supposes</i> them to be.... To lay down at once the laws under +which society prospers or perishes, would be <i>virtually</i> to destroy at +once all Sophisms. When Laplace described what, up to his time, was +known of the movements of celestial bodies, he dissipated, without even +naming them, all the astrological reveries of the Egyptians, Greeks, and +Hindoos, much more certainly than he could have done by attempting to +refute them directly, through innumerable volumes. Truth is one, and the +work which expounds it is an imposing and durable edifice. Error is +multiple, and of ephemereal nature. The work which combats it, cannot +bear in itself a principle of greatness or of durability.</p> + +<p>But if power, and perhaps opportunity, have been wanting to me, to +enable me to proceed in the manner of Laplace and of Say, I still cannot +but 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, and +to the broken moments which it is now the habit to snatch for study.</p> + +<p>A treatise has without doubt an incontestable superiority. But it +requires to be read, meditated, and understood. It addresses itself to +the select few. Its mission is first to fix attention, and then to +enlarge the circle of acquired knowledge.</p> + +<p>A work which undertakes the refutation of vulgar prejudices, cannot have +so 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.</p> + +<p>It is above all, in social economy, that this hand-to-hand struggle, +this ever-reviving combat with popular errors, has a true practical +utility.</p> + +<p>Sciences might be arranged in two categories. Those of the first class +whose application belongs only to particular professions, can be +understood only by the learned; but the most ignorant may profit by +their fruits. We may enjoy the comforts of a watch; we may be +transported by locomotives or steamboats, although knowing nothing of +mechanism and astronomy. We walk according to the laws of equilibrium, +while entirely ignorant of them.</p> + +<p>But there are sciences whose influence upon the public is proportioned +only to the information of that public itself, and whose efficacy +consists not in the accumulated knowledge of some few learned heads, but +in that which has diffused itself into the reason of man in the +aggregate. Such are morals, hygiene, social economy, and (in countries +where men belong to themselves) political economy. Of these sciences +Bentham might above all have said: "It is better to circulate, than to +advance 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 does +it benefit us that Smith, Say, and, according to Mr. de St. Chamans, +political economists of <i>every school</i>, should have proclaimed the +superiority in all commercial transactions, of <i>liberty</i> above +<i>restraint</i>, if those who make laws, and for whom laws are made, are +convinced of the contrary?</p> + +<p>These sciences, which have very properly been named <i>social</i>, are again +peculiar in this, that they, being of common application, no one will +confess himself ignorant of them. If the object be to determine a +question in chemistry or geometry, nobody pretends to have an innate +knowledge of the science, or is ashamed to consult Mr. Thénard, or to +seek information from the pages of Legendre or Bezout. But in the social +sciences authorities are rarely acknowledged. As each individual daily +acts upon his own notions whether right or wrong, of morals, hygiene, +and economy; of politics, whether reasonable or absurd, each one thinks +he 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 not +ready to tell you the cause and the remedy of your sufferings. "It is +from humors in the blood," says she, "you must be purged." But what are +these humors, or are there any humors at all? On this subject she +troubles herself but little. This good old woman comes into my mind, +whenever I hear an attempt made to account for all the maladies of the +social body, by some trivial form of words. It is superabundance of +produce, tyranny of capital, industrial plethora, or other such +nonsense, of which, it would be fortunate if we could say: <i>Verba et +voces prætereaque nihil</i>, for these are errors from which fatal +consequences follow.</p> + +<p>From what precedes, the two following results may be deduced: 1st. That +the social sciences, more than others, necessarily abound in <i>Sophisms</i>, +because in their application, each individual consults only his own +judgment and his own instincts. 2d. That in these sciences <i>Sophisms</i> +are especially injurious, because they mislead opinion on a subject in +which opinion is power—is law.</p> + +<p>Two kinds of books then are necessary in these sciences, those which +teach, and those which circulate; those which expound the truth, and +those which combat error.</p> + +<p>I believe that the inherent defect of this little work, <i>repetition</i>, is +what is likely to be the cause of its principal utility. Among the +Sophisms which it has discussed, each has undoubtedly its own formula +and tendency, but all have a common root; and this is, the +<i>forgetfulness of the interests of men, considered as consumers</i>. By +showing that a thousand mistaken roads all lead to this great +<i>generative</i> Sophism, I may perhaps teach the public to recognize, to +know, and to mistrust it, under all circumstances.</p> + +<p>After all, I am less at forcing convictions, than at waking doubts.</p> + +<p>I have no hope that the reader as he lays down my book will exclaim, <i>I +know</i>. My aspirations will be fully satisfied, if he can but sincerely +say, <i>I doubt</i>.</p> + +<p>"I doubt, for I begin to fear that there may be something illusory in +the supposed blessings of scarcity." (Sophism I.)</p> + +<p>"I am not so certain of the beneficial effect of obstacles." (Sophism +II.)</p> + +<p>"<i>Effort without result</i>, no longer appears to me so desirable as +<i>result without effort</i>." (Sophism III.)</p> + +<p>"I understand that the more an article has been labored upon, the more +is its <i>value</i>. But in trade, do two <i>equal</i> values cease to be equal, +because one comes from the plough, and the other from the workshop?" +(Sophism XXI.)</p> + +<p>"I confess that I begin to think it singular that mankind should be the +better of hindrances and obstacles, or should grow rich upon taxes; and +truly I would be relieved from some anxiety, would be really happy to +see the proof of the fact, as stated by the author of "the Sophisms," +that there is no incompatibility between prosperity and justice, between +peace and liberty, between the extension of labor and the advance of +intelligence." (Sophisms XIV and XX.)</p> + +<p>"Without, then, giving up entirely to arguments, which I am yet in doubt +whether to look upon as fairly reasoned, or as paradoxical, I will at +least seek enlightenment from the masters of the science."</p> + +<hr style='width: 45%;' /> + +<p>I will now terminate this sketch by a last and important recapitulation.</p> + +<p>The world is not sufficiently conscious of the influence exercised over +it by <i>Sophistry</i>.</p> + +<p>When <i>might ceases to be right</i>, and the government of mere <i>strength</i> +is dethroned, <i>Sophistry</i> transfers the empire to <i>cunning and +subtilty</i>. It would be difficult to determine which of the two tyrannies +is most injurious to mankind.</p> + +<p>Men have an immoderate love for pleasure, influence, consideration, +power—in a word, for riches; and they are, by an almost unconquerable +inclination, pushed to procure these, at the expense of others.</p> + +<p>But these <i>others</i>, who form the public, have a no less strong +inclination to keep what they have acquired; and this they will do, if +they have the <i>strength</i> and the <i>knowledge</i> to effect it.</p> + +<p>Spoliation, which plays so important a part in the affairs of this +world, has then two agents; <i>Force</i> and <i>Cunning</i>. She has also two +checks; <i>Courage</i> and <i>Knowledge</i>.</p> + +<p>Force applied to spoliation, furnishes the great material for the annals +of men. To retrace its history would be to present almost the entire +history of every nation: Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes, Persians, +Greeks, Romans, Goths, Franks, Huns, Turks, Arabs, Tartars, without +counting the more recent expeditions of the English in India, the French +in Africa, the Russians in Asia, etc., etc.</p> + +<p>But among civilized nations surely the producers of riches are now +become sufficiently numerous and strong to defend themselves.</p> + +<p>Does this mean that they are no longer robbed? They are as much so as +ever, and moreover they rob one another.</p> + +<p>The only difference is that Spoliation has changed her agent. She acts +no longer by <i>Force</i>, but by <i>Cunning</i>.</p> + +<p>To rob the public, it is necessary to deceive them. To deceive them, it +is necessary to persuade them that they are robbed for their own +advantage, and to induce them to accept in exchange for their property, +imaginary services, and often worse. Hence spring <i>Sophisms</i> in all +their varieties. Then, since Force is held in check, <i>Sophistry</i> is no +longer only an evil; it is the genius of evil, and requires a check in +its turn. This check must be the enlightenment of the public, which +must be rendered more <i>subtle</i> than the subtle, as it is already +<i>stronger</i> than the strong.</p> + +<hr style='width: 45%;' /> + +<p><span class="smcap">Good Public!</span> I now dedicate to you this first essay; though it +must be confessed that the Preface is strangely transposed, and the +Dedication a little tardy.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h4><a name="PART_II" id="PART_II"></a>PART II.</h4> + +<h2>SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION.</h2> + +<h5>SECOND SERIES.</h5> + + +<p>"The request of Industry to the government is as modest as that of +Diogenes to Alexander: 'Stand out of my sunshine.'"—<span class="smcap">Bentham.</span></p> + + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>I.</h2> + +<h3>NATURAL HISTORY OF SPOLIATION.</h3> + + +<p>Why do I give myself up to that dry science, political economy?</p> + +<p>The question is a proper one. All labor is so repugnant in its nature +that one has the right to ask of what use it is.</p> + +<p>Let us examine and see.</p> + +<p>I do not address myself to those philosophers who, if not in their own +names, at least in the name of humanity, profess to adore poverty.</p> + +<p>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, the +security, the independence, the instruction, the dignity of all.</p> + +<p>There are only two ways by which the means essential to the +preservation, the adornment and the perfection of life may be +obtained—production and spoliation. Some persons may say: "Spoliation +is an accident, a local and transient abuse, denounced by morality, +punished by the law, and unworthy the attention of political economy."</p> + +<p>Still, however benevolent or optimistic one may be, he is compelled to +admit that spoliation is practiced on so vast a scale in this world, and +is so generally connected with all great human events, that no social +science, and, least of all, political economy, can refuse to consider +it.</p> + +<p>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 constant +effort of its members to live and prosper at the expense of each other. +So that, if spoliation did not exist, society being perfect, the social +sciences would be without an object.</p> + +<p>I go still farther. When spoliation becomes a means of subsistence for a +body of men united by social ties, in course of time they make a law +which sanctions it, a morality which glorifies it.</p> + +<p>It is enough to name some of the best defined forms of spoliation to +indicate the position it occupies in human affairs.</p> + +<p>First comes war. Among savages the conqueror kills the conquered, to +obtain an uncontested, if not incontestable, right to game.</p> + +<p>Next slavery. When man learns that he can make the earth fruitful by +labor, he makes this division with his brother: "You work and I eat."</p> + +<p>Then comes superstition. "According as you give or refuse me that which +is yours, I will open to you the gates of heaven or of hell."</p> + +<p>Finally, monopoly appears. Its distinguishing characteristic is to allow +the existence of the grand social law—<i>service for service</i>—while it +brings the element of force into the discussion, and thus alters the +just proportion between <i>service received</i> and <i>service rendered</i>.</p> + +<p>Spoliation always bears within itself the germ of its own destruction. +Very rarely the many despoil the few. In such a case the latter soon +become so reduced that they can no longer satisfy the cupidity of the +former, and spoliation ceases for want of sustenance.</p> + +<p>Almost always the few oppress the many, and in that case spoliation is +none the less undermined, for, if it has force as an agent, as in war +and slavery, it is natural that force in the end should be on the side +of the greater number. And if deception is the agent, as with +superstition and monopoly, it is natural that the many should +ultimately become enlightened.</p> + +<p>Another law of Providence wars against spoliation. It is this:</p> + +<p>Spoliation not only displaces wealth, but always destroys a portion.</p> + +<p>War annihilates values.</p> + +<p>Slavery paralyzes the faculties.</p> + +<p>Monopoly transfers wealth from one pocket to another, but it always +occasions the loss of a portion in the transfer.</p> + +<p>This is an admirable law. Without it, provided the strength of +oppressors and oppressed were equal, spoliation would have no end.</p> + +<p>A moment comes when the destruction of wealth is such that the despoiler +is poorer than he would have been if he had remained honest.</p> + +<p>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 a +priesthood which has so stupefied the people and destroyed its energy +that nothing more can be gotten out of it; with a monopoly which +increases its attempts at absorption as there is less to absorb, just as +the difficulty of milking increases with the emptiness of the udder.</p> + +<p>Monopoly is a species of the genus spoliation. It has many varieties, +among them sinecure, privilege, and restriction upon trade.</p> + +<p>Some of the forms it assumes are simple and <i>naive</i>, like feudal rights. +Under this <i>regime</i> the masses are despoiled, and know it.</p> + +<p>Other forms are more complicated. Often the masses are plundered, and do +not know it. It may even happen that they believe that they owe every +thing to spoliation, not only what is left them but what is taken from +them, and what is lost in the operation. I also assert that, in the +course of time, thanks to the ingenious machinery of habit, many people +become spoilers without knowing it or wishing it. Monopolies of this +kind are begotten by fraud and nurtured by error. They vanish only +before the light.</p> + +<p>I have said enough to indicate that political economy has a manifest +practical use. It is the torch which, unveiling deceit and dissipating +error, destroys that social disorder called spoliation. Some one, a +woman I believe, has correctly defined it as "the safety-lock upon the +property of the people."</p> + + +<p class='center'><b>COMMENTARY.</b></p> + +<p>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 by +word, and letter by letter, from generation to generation, like a new +Koran; if it were to fill the libraries of the world with avalanches of +annotations, explanations and paraphrases, I might leave to their fate, +in their rather obscure conciseness, the thoughts which precede. But +since they need a commentary, it seems wise to me to furnish it myself.</p> + +<p>The true and equitable law of humanity is the <i>free exchange of service +for service</i>. Spoliation consists in destroying by force or by trickery +the freedom of exchange, in order to receive a service without rendering +one.</p> + +<p>Forcible spoliation is exercised thus: Wait till a man has produced +something; then take it from him by violence.</p> + +<p>It is solemnly condemned by the Decalogue: <i>Thou shalt not steal.</i></p> + +<p>When practiced by one individual on another, it is called robbery, and +leads to the prison; when practiced among nations, it takes the name of +conquest, and leads to glory.</p> + +<p>Why this difference? It is worth while to search for the cause. It will +reveal to us an irresistible power, public opinion, which, like the +atmosphere, envelopes us so completely that we do not notice it. +Rousseau never said a truer thing than this: "A great deal of philosophy +is needed to understand the facts which are very near to us."</p> + +<p>The robber, for the reason that he acts alone, has public opinion +against him. He terrifies all who are about him. Yet, if he has +companions, he plumes himself before them on his exploits, and here we +may begin to notice the power of public opinion, for the approbation of +his band serves to obliterate all consciousness of his turpitude, and +even to make him proud of it. The warrior lives in a different +atmosphere. The public opinion which would rebuke him is among the +vanquished. He does not feel its influence. But the opinion of those by +whom he is surrounded approves his acts and sustains him. He and his +comrades are vividly conscious of the common interest which unites them. +The country which has created enemies and dangers, needs to stimulate +the courage of its children. To the most daring, to those who have +enlarged the frontiers, and gathered the spoils of war, are given +honors, reputation, glory. Poets sing their exploits. Fair women weave +garlands for them. And such is the power of public opinion that it +separates the idea of injustice from spoliation, and even rids the +despoiler of the consciousness of his wrong-doing.</p> + +<p>The public opinion which reacts against military spoliation, (as it +exists among the conquered and not among the conquering people), has +very little influence. But it is not entirely powerless. It gains in +strength as nations come together and understand one another better. +Thus, it can be seen that the study of languages and the free +communication of peoples tend to bring about the supremacy of an opinion +opposed to this sort of spoliation.</p> + +<p>Unfortunately, it often happens that the nations adjacent to a +plundering people are themselves spoilers when opportunity offers, and +hence are imbued with the same prejudices.</p> + +<p>Then there is only one remedy—time. It is necessary that nations learn +by harsh experience the enormous disadvantage of despoiling each other.</p> + +<p>You say there is another restraint—moral influences. But moral +influences have for their object the increase of virtuous actions. How +can they restrain these acts of spoliation when these very acts are +raised by public opinion to the level of the highest virtues? Is there a +more potent moral influence than religion? Has there ever been a +religion more favorable to peace or more universally received than +Christianity? And yet what has been witnessed during eighteen centuries? +Men have gone out to battle, not merely in spite of religion, but in the +very name of religion.</p> + +<p>A conquering nation does not always wage offensive war. Its soldiers are +obliged to protect the hearthstones, the property, the families, the +independence and liberty of their native land. At such a time war +assumes a character of sanctity and grandeur. The flag, blessed by the +ministers 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 their +honor; the warlike virtues are exalted above all others. When the danger +is over, the opinion remains, and by a natural reaction of that spirit +of vengeance which confounds itself with patriotism, they love to bear +the cherished flag from capital to capital. It seems that nature has +thus prepared the punishment of the aggressor.</p> + +<p>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 those +people who are most advanced in civilization make war, and bother +themselves very little with justice when they have no reprisals to fear. +Witness the Himalayas, the Atlas, and the Caucasus.</p> + +<p>If religion has been impotent, if philosophy is powerless, how is war to +cease?</p> + +<p>Political economy demonstrates that even if the victors alone are +considered, war is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the +expense of the many. All that is needed, then, is that the masses should +clearly perceive this truth. The weight of public opinion, which is yet +divided, would then be cast entirely on the side of peace.</p> + +<p>Forcible spoliation also takes another form. Without waiting for a man +to produce something in order to rob him, they take possession of the +man himself, deprive him of his freedom, and force him to work. They do +not 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.</p> + +<p>Now it is important to inquire whether it is not in the nature of +uncontrolled power always to abuse itself.</p> + +<p>For my part I have no doubt of it, and should as soon expect to see the +power that could arrest a stone in falling proceed from the stone +itself, as to trust force within any defined limits.</p> + +<p>I should like to be shown a country where slavery has been abolished by +the voluntary action of the masters.</p> + +<p>Slavery furnishes a second striking example of the impotence of +philosophical and religious sentiments in a conflict with the energetic +activity of self-interest.</p> + +<p>This may seem sad to some modern schools which seek the reformation of +society in self-denial. Let them begin by reforming the nature of man.</p> + +<p>In the Antilles the masters, from father to son, have, since slavery was +established, professed the Christian religion. Many times a day they +repeat 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 modern +reformers hope that their moral creed will ever be as universally +accepted, as popular, as authoritative, or as often on all lips as the +Gospel? If <i>that</i> has not passed from the lips to the heart, over or +through the great barrier of self-interest, how can they hope that their +system will work this miracle?</p> + +<p>Well, then, is slavery invulnerable? No; self-interest, which founded +it, will one day destroy it, provided the special interests which have +created it do not stifle those general interests which tend to overthrow +it.</p> + +<p>Another truth demonstrated by political economy is, that free labor is +progressive, and slave labor stationary. Hence the triumph of the first +over the second is inevitable. What has become of the cultivation of +indigo by the blacks?</p> + +<p>Free labor, applied to the production of sugar, is constantly causing a +reduction in the price. Slave property is becoming proportionately less +valuable to the master. Slavery will soon die out in America unless the +price of sugar is artificially raised by legislation. Accordingly we see +to-day the masters, their creditors and representatives, making vigorous +efforts to maintain these laws, which are the pillars of the edifice.</p> + +<p>Unfortunately they still have the sympathy of people among whom slavery +has disappeared, from which circumstance the sovereignty of public +opinion may again be observed. If public opinion is sovereign in the +domain of force, it is much more so in the domain of fraud. Fraud is its +proper sphere. Stratagem is the abuse of intelligence. Imposture on the +part of the despoiler implies credulity on the part of the despoiled, +and the natural antidote of credulity is truth. It follows that to +enlighten the mind is to deprive this species of spoliation of its +support.</p> + +<p>I will briefly pass in review a few of the different kinds of spoliation +which are practiced on an exceedingly large scale. The first which +presents itself is spoliation through the avenue of superstition. In +what does it consist? In the exchange of food, clothing, luxury, +distinction, influence, power—substantial services for fictitious +services. If I tell a man: "I will render you an immediate service," I +am obliged to keep my word, or he would soon know what to depend upon, +and my trickery would be unmasked.</p> + +<p>But if I should tell him, "In exchange for your services I will do you +immense service, not in this world but in another; after this life you +may be eternally happy or miserable, and that happiness or misery +depends upon me; I am a vicar between God and man, and can open to you +the gates of heaven or of hell;" if that man believes me he is at my +mercy.</p> + +<p>This method of imposture has been very extensively practiced since the +beginning of the world, and it is well known to what omnipotence the +Egyptian priests attained by such means.</p> + +<p>It is easy to see how impostors proceed. It is enough to ask one's self +what he would do in their place.</p> + +<p>If I, entertaining views of this kind, had arrived in the midst of an +ignorant population, and were to succeed by some extraordinary act or +marvelous appearance in passing myself off as a supernatural being, I +would claim to be a messenger from God, having an absolute control over +the future destinies of men.</p> + +<p>Then I would forbid all examination of my claims. I would go still +further, and, as reason would be my most dangerous enemy, I would +interdict the use of reason—at least as applied to this dangerous +subject. I would <i>taboo</i>, as the savages say, this question, and all +those connected with it. To agitate them, discuss them, or even think of +them, should be an unpardonable crime.</p> + +<p>Certainly it would be the acme of art thus to put the barrier of the +<i>taboo</i> upon all intellectual avenues which might lead to the discovery +of my imposture. What better guarantee of its perpetuity than to make +even doubt sacrilege?</p> + +<p>However, I would add accessory guarantees to this fundamental one. For +instance, in order that knowledge might never be disseminated among the +masses, I would appropriate to myself and my accomplices the monopoly of +the sciences. I would hide them under the veil of a dead language and +hieroglyphic writing; and, in order that no danger might take me +unawares, I would be careful to invent some ceremony which day by day +would give me access to the privacy of all consciences.</p> + +<p>It would not be amiss for me to supply some of the real wants of my +people, especially if by doing so I could add to my influence and +authority. For instance, men need education and moral teaching, and I +would be the source of both. Thus I would guide as I pleased the minds +and hearts of my people. I would join morality to my authority by an +indissoluble chain, and I would proclaim that one could not exist +without the other, so that if any audacious individual attempted to +meddle with a <i>tabooed</i> question, society, which cannot exist without +morality, would feel the very earth tremble under its feet, and would +turn its wrath upon the rash innovator.</p> + +<p>When things have come to this pass, it is plain that these people are +more mine than if they were my slaves. The slave curses his chain, but +my people will bless theirs, and I shall succeed in stamping, not on +their foreheads, but in the very centre of their consciences, the seal +of slavery.</p> + +<p>Public opinion alone can overturn such a structure of iniquity; but +where can it begin, if each stone is <i>tabooed</i>? It is the work of time +and the printing press.</p> + +<p>God forbid that I should seek to disturb those consoling beliefs which +link this life of sorrows to a life of felicity. But, that the +irresistible longing which attracts us toward religion has been abused, +no one, not even the Head of Christianity, can deny. There is, it seems +to me, one sign by which you can know whether the people are or are not +dupes. Examine religion and the priest, and see whether the priest is +the instrument of religion, or religion the instrument of the priest.</p> + +<p>If the priest is the instrument of religion, if his only thought is to +disseminate its morality and its benefits on the earth, he will be +gentle, tolerant, humble, charitable, and full of zeal; his life will +reflect that of his divine model; he will preach liberty and equality +among men, and peace and fraternity among nations; he will repel the +allurements of temporal power, and will not ally himself with that +which, of all things in this world, has the most need of restraint; he +will be the man of the people, the man of good advice and tender +consolations, the man of public opinion, the man of the Evangelist.</p> + +<p>If, on the contrary, religion is the instrument of the priest, he will +treat it as one does an instrument which is changed, bent and twisted in +all ways so as to get out of it the greatest possible advantage for +one's self. He will multiply <i>tabooed</i> questions; his morality will be +as flexible as seasons, men, and circumstances. He will seek to impose +on humanity by gesticulations and studied attitudes; an hundred times a +day he will mumble over words whose sense has evaporated and which have +become empty conventionalities. He will traffic in holy things, but just +enough not to shake faith in their sanctity, and he will take care that +the 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 always +side 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 not +desire to advance religion by the clergy, but the clergy by religion, +and as so many efforts indicate an object, and as this object, according +to the hypothesis, can be only power and wealth, the decisive proof that +the people are dupes is when the priest is rich and powerful.</p> + +<p>It is very plain that a true religion can be abused as well as a false +one. The higher its authority the greater the fear that it may be +severely tested. But there is much difference in the results. Abuse +always stirs up to revolt the sound, enlightened, intelligent portion of +a people. This inevitably weakens faith, and the weakening of a true +religion is far more lamentable than of a false one. This kind of +spoliation, and popular enlightenment, are always in an inverse ratio to +one 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 the +most ignorant population, but how can the knave be prevented from +donning the cassock and nursing the ambitious hope of wearing the mitre? +Despoilers obey the Malthusian law; they multiply with the means of +existence, and the means of existence of knaves is the credulity of +their dupes. Turn whichever way you please, you always find the need of +an enlightened public opinion. There is no other cure-all.</p> + +<p>Another species of spoliation is <i>commercial fraud</i>, a term which seems +to me too limited because the tradesman who changes his weights and +measures is not alone culpable, but also the physician who receives a +fee for evil counsel, the lawyer who provokes litigation, etc. In the +exchange of two services one may be of less value than the other, but +when the service received is that which has been agreed upon, it is +evident that spoliation of that nature will diminish with the increase +of public intelligence.</p> + +<p>The next in order is the abuse in the <i>public service</i>—an immense field +of spoliation, so immense that we can give it but partial consideration.</p> + +<p>If God had made man a solitary animal, every one would labor for +himself. Individual wealth would be in proportion to the services each +one rendered to himself. But since <i>man is a social animal, one service +is exchanged for another</i>. A proposition which you can transpose if it +suits you.</p> + +<p>In society there are certain requirements so general, so universal in +their nature, that provision has been made for them in the organizing of +the public service. Among these is the necessity of security. Society +agrees to compensate in services of a different nature those who render +it the service of guarding the public safety. In this there is nothing +contrary to the principles of political economy. <i>Do this for me, I will +do that for you.</i> The principle of the transaction is the same, although +the process is different, but the circumstance has great significance.</p> + +<p>In private transactions each individual remains the judge both of the +service which he renders and of that which he receives. He can always +decline an exchange, or negotiate elsewhere. There is no necessity of an +interchange of services, except by previous voluntary agreement. Such is +not the case with the State, especially before the establishment of +representative government. Whether or not we require its services, +whether they are good or bad, we are obliged to accept such as are +offered and to pay the price.</p> + +<p>It is the tendency of all men to magnify their own services and to +disparage services rendered them, and private matters would be poorly +regulated if there was not some standard of value. This guarantee we +have not, (or we hardly have it,) in public affairs. But still society, +composed of men, however strongly the contrary may be insinuated, obeys +the universal tendency. The government wishes to serve us a great deal, +much more than we desire, and forces us to acknowledge as a real service +that which sometimes is widely different, and this is done for the +purpose of demanding contributions from us in return.</p> + +<p>The State is also subject to the law of Malthus. It is continually +living beyond its means, it increases in proportion to its means, and +draws its support solely, from the substance of the people. Woe to the +people who are incapable of limiting the sphere of action of the State. +Liberty, private activity, riches, well-being, independence, dignity, +depend upon this.</p> + +<p>There is one circumstance which must be noticed: Chief among the +services which we ask of the State is <i>security</i>. That it may guarantee +this to us it must control a force capable of overcoming all individual +or collective domestic or foreign forces which might endanger it. +Combined with that fatal disposition among men to live at the expense of +each other, which we have before noticed, this fact suggests a danger +patent to all.</p> + +<p>You will accordingly observe on what an immense scale spoliation, by the +abuses and excesses of the government, has been practiced.</p> + +<p>If one should ask what service has been rendered the public, and what +return 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.</p> + +<p>At last representative government was invented, and, <i>a priori</i>, one +might have believed that the disorder would have ceased as if by +enchantment.</p> + +<p>The principle of these governments is this:</p> + +<p>"The people themselves, by their representatives, shall decide as to the +nature and extent of the public service and the remuneration for those +services."</p> + +<p>The tendency to appropriate the property of another, and the desire to +defend one's own, are thus brought in contact. One might suppose that +the latter would overcome the former. Assuredly I am convinced that the +latter will finally prevail, but we must concede that thus far it has +not.</p> + +<p>Why? For a very simple reason. Governments have had too much sagacity; +people too little.</p> + +<p>Governments are skillful. They act methodically, consecutively, on a +well concerted plan, which is constantly improved by tradition and +experience. They study men and their passions. If they perceive, for +instance, that they have warlike instincts, they incite and inflame this +fatal propensity. They surround the nation with dangers through the +conduct of diplomats, and then naturally ask for soldiers, sailors, +arsenals and fortifications. Often they have but the trouble of +accepting them. Then they have pensions, places, and promotions to +offer. All this calls for money. Hence loans and taxes.</p> + +<p>If the nation is generous, the government proposes to cure all the ills +of humanity. It promises to increase commerce, to make agriculture +prosperous, to develop manufactures, to encourage letters and arts, to +banish misery, etc. All that is necessary is to create offices and to +pay public functionaries.</p> + +<p>In other words, their tactics consist in presenting as actual services +things which are but hindrances; then the nation pays, not for being +served, but for being subservient. Governments assuming gigantic +proportions end by absorbing half of all the revenues. The people are +astonished that while marvelous labor-saving inventions, destined to +infinitely multiply productions, are ever increasing in number, they are +obliged to toil on as painfully as ever, and remain as poor as before.</p> + +<p>This happens because, while the government manifests so much ability, +the people show so little. Thus, when they are called upon to choose +their agents, those who are to determine the sphere of, and compensation +for, governmental action, whom do they choose? The agents of the +government. They entrust the executive power with the determination of +the limit of its activity and its requirements. They are like the +<i>Bourgeois Gentilhomme</i>, who referred the selection and number of his +suits of clothes to his tailor.</p> + +<p>However, things go from bad to worse, and at last the people open their +eyes, not to the remedy, for there is none as yet, but to the evil.</p> + +<p>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 your +sufferings, and we weep over them. It would be otherwise if <i>we</i> +governed you."</p> + +<p>This period, which usually lasts for some time, is one of rebellions and +insurrections. When the people are conquered, the expenses of the war +are added to their burdens. When they conquer, there is a change of +those who govern, and the abuses remain.</p> + +<p>This lasts until the people learn to know and defend their true +interests. Thus we always come back to this: there is no remedy but in +the progress of public intelligence.</p> + +<p>Certain nations seem remarkably inclined to become the prey of +governmental spoliation. They are those where men, not considering their +own dignity and energy, would believe themselves lost, if they were not +governed and administered upon in all things. Without having traveled +much, I have seen countries where they think agriculture can make no +progress unless the State keeps up experimental farms; that there will +presently be no horses if the State has no stables; and that fathers +will not have their children educated, or will teach them only +immoralities, if the State does not decide what it is proper to learn. +In such a country revolutions may rapidly succeed one another, and one +set of rulers after another be overturned. But the governed are none the +less governed at the caprice and mercy of their rulers, until the +people see that it is better to leave the greatest possible number of +services in the category of those which the parties interested exchange +after a fair discussion of the price.</p> + +<p>We have seen that society is an exchange of services, and should be but +an exchange of good and honest ones. But we have also proven that men +have a great interest in exaggerating the relative value of the services +they render one another. I cannot, indeed, see any other limit to these +claims than the free acceptance or free refusal of those to whom these +services are offered.</p> + +<p>Hence it comes that certain men resort to the law to curtail the natural +prerogatives of this liberty. This kind of spoliation is called +privilege or monopoly. We will carefully indicate its origin and +character.</p> + +<p>Every one knows that the services which he offers in the general market +are 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 all +who offer services similar to his.</p> + +<p>This variety of spoliation being the chief subject of this volume, I +will say little of it here, and will restrict myself to one remark:</p> + +<p>When the monopoly is an isolated fact, it never fails to enrich the +person to whom the law has granted it. It may then happen that each +class of workmen, instead of seeking the overthrow of this monopoly, +claim a similar one for themselves. This kind of spoliation, thus +reduced to a system, becomes then the most ridiculous of mystifications +for every one, and the definite result is that each one believes that he +gains more from a general market impoverished by all.</p> + +<p>It is not necessary to add that this singular <i>regime</i> also brings about +an universal antagonism between all classes, all professions, and all +peoples; that it requires the constant but always uncertain interference +of government; that it swarms with the abuses which have been the +subject of the preceding paragraph; that it places all industrial +pursuits in hopeless insecurity; and that it accustoms men to place upon +the law, and not upon themselves, the responsibility for their very +existence. It would be difficult to imagine a more active cause of +social disturbance.</p> + + +<p class='center'><b>JUSTIFICATION.</b></p> + +<p>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."</p> + +<p>I earnestly declare that I respect individuals; I believe in the +sincerity of almost all the friends of Protection, and I do not claim +that I have any right to suspect the personal honesty, delicacy of +feeling, or philanthropy of any one. I also repeat that Protection is +the work, the fatal work, of a common error, of which all, or nearly +all, are at once victims and accomplices. But I cannot prevent things +being what they are.</p> + +<p>Just imagine some Diogenes putting his head out of his tub and saying, +"Athenians, you are served by slaves. Have you never thought that you +practice on your brothers the most iniquitous spoliation?" Or a tribune +speaking in the forum, "Romans! you have laid the foundation of all your +greatness on the pillage of other nations."</p> + +<p>They would state only undeniable truths. But must we conclude from this +that Athens and Rome were inhabited only by dishonest persons? that +Socrates and Plato, Cato and Cincinnatus were despicable characters?</p> + +<p>Who could harbor such a thought? But these great men lived amidst +surroundings that relieved their consciences of the sense of this +injustice. Even Aristotle could not conceive the idea of a society +existing without slavery. In modern times slavery has continued to our +own day without causing many scruples among the planters. Armies have +served as the instruments of grand conquests—that is to say, of grand +spoliations. Is this saying that they are not composed of officers and +men as sensitive of their honor, even more so, perhaps, than men in +ordinary industrial pursuits—men who would blush at the very thought +of theft, and who would face a thousand deaths rather than stoop to a +base action?</p> + +<p>It is not individuals who are to blame, but the general movement of +opinion which deludes and deceives them—a movement for which society in +general is culpable.</p> + +<p>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 the +greatest philosophers have been able to deceive themselves as to the +iniquity of slavery, how much easier is it for farmers and manufacturers +to deceive themselves as to the nature and effects of the protective +system.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>II.</h2> + +<h3>TWO SYSTEMS OF MORALS.</h3> + + +<p>Arrived at the end of the preceding chapter, if he gets so far, I +imagine I hear the reader say:</p> + +<p>"Well, now, was I wrong in accusing political economists of being dry +and 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 the +masses, and ever growing by what it feeds on. Could a more mournful +picture of the world be imagined than this?"</p> + +<p>The problem is, not to find whether the picture is mournful, but whether +it is true. And for that we have the testimony of history.</p> + +<p>It is singular that those who decry political economy, because it +investigates men and the world as it finds them, are more gloomy than +political economy itself, at least as regards the past and the present. +Look into their books and their journals. What do you find? Bitterness +and hatred of society. The very word <i>civilization</i> is for them a +synonym for injustice, disorder and anarchy. They have even come to +curse <i>liberty</i>, so little confidence have they in the development of +the human race, the result of its natural organization. Liberty, +according to them, is something which will bring humanity nearer and +nearer to destruction.</p> + +<p>It is true that they are optimists as regards the future. For, although +humanity, in itself incapable, for six thousand years has gone astray, a +revelation 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, will +lead them to the promised land, where well-being may be attained without +effort, where order, security and prosperity are the easy reward of +improvidence.</p> + +<p>To this end humanity, as Rousseau said, has only to allow these +reformers to change the physical and moral constitution of man.</p> + +<p>Political economy has not taken upon itself the mission of finding out +the probable condition of society had it pleased God to make men +different from what they are. It may be unfortunate that Providence, at +the beginning, neglected to call to his counsels a few of our modern +reformers. And, as the celestial mechanism would have been entirely +different had the Creator consulted <i>Alphonso the Wise</i>, society, also, +had He not neglected the advice of Fourier, would have been very +different from that in which we are compelled to live, and move, and +breathe. But, since we are here, our duty is to study and to understand +His laws, especially if the amelioration of our condition essentially +depends upon such knowledge.</p> + +<p>We cannot prevent the existence of unsatisfied desires in the hearts of +men.</p> + +<p>We cannot satisfy these desires except by labor.</p> + +<p>We cannot deny the fact that man has as much repugnance for labor as he +has satisfaction with its results.</p> + +<p>Since man has such characteristics, we cannot prevent the existence of a +constant tendency among men to obtain their part of the enjoyments of +life while throwing upon others, by force or by trickery, the burdens of +labor. It is not for us to belie universal history, to silence the +voice of the past, which attests that this has been the condition of +things since the beginning of the world. We cannot deny that war, +slavery, superstition, the abuses of government, privileges, frauds of +every nature, and monopolies, have been the incontestable and terrible +manifestations of these two sentiments united in the heart of man: +<i>desire for enjoyment; repugnance to labor</i>.</p> + +<p>"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread!" But every one wants as +much bread and as little sweat as possible. This is the conclusion of +history.</p> + +<p>Thank Heaven, history also teaches that the division of blessings and +burdens tends to a more exact equality among men. Unless one is prepared +to deny the light of the sun, it must be admitted that, in this respect +at least, society has made some progress.</p> + +<p>If this be true, there exists in society a natural and providential +force, a law which causes iniquity gradually to cease, and makes justice +more and more a reality.</p> + +<p>We say that this force exists in society, and that God has placed it +there. If it did not exist we should be compelled, with the socialists, +to search for it in those artificial means, in those arrangements which +require a fundamental change in the physical and moral constitution of +man, or rather we should consider that search idle and vain, for the +reason that we could not comprehend the action of a lever without a +place of support.</p> + +<p>Let us, then, endeavor to indicate that beneficent force which tends +progressively to overcome the maleficent force to which we have given +the name spoliation, and the existence of which is only too well +explained by reason and proved by experience.</p> + +<p>Every maleficent act necessarily has two terms—the point of beginning +and the point of ending; the man who performs the act and the man upon +whom it is performed; or, in the language of the schools, the active and +the passive agent. There are, then, two means by which the maleficent +act can be prevented: by the voluntary absence of the active, or by the +resistance of the passive agent. Whence two systems of morals arise, not +antagonistic but concurrent; religious or philosophical morality, and +the morality to which I permit myself to apply the name economical +(utilitarian).</p> + +<p>Religious morality, to abolish and extirpate the maleficent act, appeals +to 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 your +neighbor, to succor and relieve whom is your duty; be first just, then +generous." This morality will always be the most beautiful, the most +touching, that which will exhibit the human race in all its majesty; +which will the best lend itself to the offices of eloquence, and will +most excite the sympathy and admiration of mankind.</p> + +<p>Utilitarian morality works to the same end, but especially addresses +itself to man in his capacity of passive agent. It points out to him the +consequences of human actions, and, by this simple exhibition, +stimulates him to struggle against those which injure, and to honor +those which are useful to him. It aims to extend among the oppressed +masses enough good sense, enlightenment and just defiance, to render +oppression both difficult and dangerous.</p> + +<p>It may also be remarked that utilitarian morality is not without its +influence upon the oppressor. An act of spoliation causes good and +evil—evil for him who suffers it, good for him in whose favor it is +exercised—else the act would not have been performed. But the good by +no means compensates the evil. The evil always, and necessarily, +predominates over the good, because the very fact of oppression +occasions a loss of force, creates dangers, provokes reprisals, and +requires costly precautions. The simple exhibition of these effects is +not then limited to retaliation of the oppressed; it places all, whose +hearts are not perverted, on the side of justice, and alarms the +security of the oppressors themselves.</p> + +<p>But it is easy to understand that this morality which is simply a +scientific demonstration, and would even lose its efficiency if it +changed its character; which addresses itself not to the heart but to +the intelligence; which seeks not to persuade but to convince; which +gives proofs not counsels; whose mission is not to move but to +enlighten, and which obtains over vice no other victory than to deprive +it of its booty—it is easy to understand, I say, how this morality has +been accused of being dry and prosaic. The reproach is true without +being just. It is equivalent to saying that political economy is not +everything, does not comprehend everything, is not the universal +solvent. But who has ever made such an exorbitant pretension in its +name? The accusation would not be well founded unless political economy +presented its processes as final, and denied to philosophy and religion +the use of their direct and proper means of elevating humanity. Look at +the concurrent action of morality, properly so called, and of political +economy—the one inveighing against spoliation by an exposure of its +moral ugliness, the other bringing it into discredit in our judgment, by +showing its evil consequences. Concede that the triumph of the religious +moralist, when realized, is more beautiful, more consoling and more +radical; at the same time it is not easy to deny that the triumph of +economical science is more facile and more certain.</p> + +<p>In a few lines, more valuable than many volumes, J.B. Say has already +remarked that there are two ways of removing the disorder introduced by +hypocrisy into an honorable family; to reform Tartuffe, or sharpen the +wits of Orgon. Moliere, that great painter of human life, seems +constantly to have had in view the second process as the more efficient.</p> + +<p>Such is the case on the world's stage. Tell me what Cæsar did, and I +will tell you what were the Romans of his day.</p> + +<p>Tell me what modern diplomacy has accomplished, and I will describe the +moral condition of the nations.</p> + +<p>We should not pay two milliards of taxes if we did not appoint those who +consume them to vote them.</p> + +<p>We should not have so much trouble, difficulty and expense with the +African question if we were as well convinced that two and two make four +in political economy as in arithmetic.</p> + +<p>M. Guizot would never have had occasion to say: "France is rich enough +to pay for her glory," if France had never conceived a false idea of +glory.</p> + +<p>The same statesman never would have said: "<i>Liberty is too precious for +France to traffic in it</i>," if France had well understood that <i>liberty</i> +and a <i>large budget</i> are incompatible.</p> + +<p>Let religious morality then, if it can, touch the heart of the +Tartuffes, the Cæsars, the conquerors of Algeria, the sinecurists, the +monopolists, etc. The mission of political economy is to enlighten their +dupes. Of these two processes, which is the more efficient aid to social +progress? I believe it is the second. I believe that humanity cannot +escape the necessity of first learning a <i>defensive morality</i>. I have +read, observed, and made diligent inquiry, and have been unable to find +any abuse, practiced to any considerable extent, that has perished by +voluntary renunciation on the part of those who profited by it. On the +contrary, I have seen many that have yielded to the manly resistance of +those who suffered by them.</p> + +<p>To describe the consequences of abuses, is the most efficient way of +destroying the abuses themselves. And this is true particularly in +regard to abuses which, like the protective system, while inflicting +real evil upon the masses, are to those who seem to profit by them only +an illusion and a deception.</p> + +<p>Well, then, does this species of morality realize all the social +perfection which the sympathetic nature of the human heart and its +noblest faculties cause us to hope for? This I by no means pretend. +Admit the general diffusion of this defensive morality—which, after +all, is only a knowledge that the best understood interests are in +accord with general utility and justice. A society, although very well +regulated, might not be very attractive, where there were no knaves, +only because there were no fools; where vice, always latent, and, so to +speak, overcome by famine, would only stand in need of available plunder +in order to be restored to vigor; where the prudence of the individual +would be guarded by the vigilance of the mass, and, finally, where +reforms, regulating external acts, would not have penetrated to the +consciences of men. Such a state of society we sometimes see typified in +one of those exact, rigorous and just men who is ever ready to resent +the slightest infringement of his rights, and shrewd in avoiding +impositions. You esteem him—possibly you admire him. You may make him +your deputy, but you would not necessarily choose him for a friend.</p> + +<p>Let, then, the two moral systems, instead of criminating each other, act +in concert, and attack vice at its opposite poles. While the economists +perform their task in uprooting prejudice, stimulating just and +necessary opposition, studying and exposing the real nature of actions +and things, let the religious moralist, on his part, perform his more +attractive, but more difficult, labor; let him attack the very body of +iniquity, follow it to its most vital parts, paint the charms of +beneficence, self-denial and devotion, open the fountains of virtue +where we can only choke the sources of vice—this is his duty. It is +noble and beautiful. But why does he dispute the utility of that which +belongs to us?</p> + +<p>In a society which, though not superlatively virtuous, should +nevertheless be regulated by the influences of <i>economical morality</i> +(which is the knowledge of the economy of society), would there not be a +field for the progress of religious morality?</p> + +<p>Habit, it has been said, is a second nature. A country where the +individual had become unaccustomed to injustice, simply by the force of +an enlightened public opinion, might, indeed, be pitiable; but it seems +to me it would be well prepared to receive an education more elevated +and more pure. To be disaccustomed to evil is a great step towards +becoming good. Men cannot remain stationary. Turned aside from the paths +of vice which would lead only to infamy, they appreciate better the +attractions of virtue. Possibly it may be necessary for society to pass +through this prosaic state, where men practice virtue by calculation, to +be thence elevated to that more poetic region where they will no longer +have need of such an exercise.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>III.</h2> + +<h3>THE TWO HATCHETS.</h3> + +<p class='center'><i>Petition of Jacques Bonhomme, Carpenter, to M. Cunin-Gridaine, Minister +of Commerce.</i></p> + + +<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Manufacturer-Minister:</span> I am a carpenter, as was Jesus; I +handle the hatchet and the plane to serve you.</p> + +<p>In chopping and splitting from morning until night in the domain of my +lord, the King, the idea has occurred to me that my labor was as much +<i>national</i> as yours.</p> + +<p>And accordingly I don't understand why protection should not visit my +shop as well as your manufactory.</p> + +<p>For indeed, if you make cloths, I make roofs. Both by different means +protect our patrons from cold and rain. But I have to run after +customers while business seeks you. You know how to manage this by +obtaining a monopoly, while my business is open to any one who chooses +to engage in it.</p> + +<p>What is there astonishing in this? Mr. Cunin, the Cabinet Minister, has +not forgotten Mr. Cunin, the manufacturer, as was very natural. But +unfortunately, my humble occupation has not given a Minister to France, +although it has given a Saviour to the world.</p> + +<p>And this Saviour, in the immortal code which he bequeathed to men, did +not utter the smallest word by virtue of which carpenters might feel +authorized to enrich themselves as you do at the expense of others.</p> + +<p>Look, then, at my position. I earn thirty cents every day, excepts +Sundays and holidays. If I apply to you for work at the same time with a +Flemish workman, you give him the preference.</p> + +<p>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 cents +are really worth only twenty-eight.</p> + +<p>What did I say? They are worth only twenty-six. For, instead of driving +the Belgian weaver away at <i>your own expense</i> (which would be the least +you could do) you compel me to pay those who, in your interest, force +him out of the market.</p> + +<p>And since a large number of your fellow-legislators, with whom you seem +to have an excellent understanding, take away from me a cent or two +each, 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 only +fifteen left from the pillage.</p> + +<p>Possibly, you may answer that those few pennies which pass thus, without +compensation, from my pocket to yours, support a number of people about +your <i>chateau</i>, and at the same time assist you in keeping up your +establishment. To which, if you would permit me, I would reply, they +would likewise support a number of persons in my cottage.</p> + +<p>However this may be, Hon. Minister-Manufacturer, knowing that I should +meet with a cold reception were I to ask you to renounce the restriction +imposed upon your customers, as I have a right to, I prefer to follow +the fashion, and to demand for myself, also, a little morsel of +<i>protection</i>.</p> + +<p>To this, doubtless you will interpose some objections. "Friend," you +will say, "I would be glad to protect you and your colleagues; but how +can I confer such favors upon the labor of carpenters? Shall I prohibit +the importation of houses by land and by sea?"</p> + +<p>This would seem sufficiently ridiculous, but by giving much thought to +the subject, I have discovered a way to protect the children of St. +Joseph, and you will, I trust, the more readily grant it since it +differs in no respect from the privilege which you vote for yourself +every year. This wonderful way is to prohibit the use of sharp hatchets +in France.</p> + +<p>I say that this restriction would be neither more illogical nor +arbitrary than that which you subject us to in regard to your cloth.</p> + +<p>Why do you drive away the Belgians? Because they sell cheaper than you +do. And why do they sell cheaper than you do? Because they are in some +way or another your superiors as manufacturers.</p> + +<p>Between you and the Belgians, then, there is exactly the same difference +that there is between a dull hatchet and a sharp one. And you compel me, +a carpenter, to buy the workmanship of your dull hatchet!</p> + +<p>Consider France a laborer, obliged to live by his daily toil, and +desiring, among other things, to purchase cloth. There are two means of +doing this. The first is to card the wool and weave the cloth himself; +the second is to manufacture clocks, or wines, or wall-paper, or +something of the sort, and exchange them in Belgium for cloth.</p> + +<p>The process which gives the larger result may be represented by the +sharp hatchet; the other process by the dull one.</p> + +<p>You will not deny that at the present day in France it is more difficult +to manufacture cloth than to cultivate the vine—the former is the dull +hatchet, the latter the sharp one—on the contrary, you make this +greater difficulty the very reason why you recommend to us the worst of +the two hatchets.</p> + +<p>Now, then, be consistent, if you will not be just, and treat the poor +carpenters as well as you treat yourself. Make a law which shall read: +"It is forbidden to use beams or shingles which have not been fashioned +by dull hatchets."</p> + +<p>And you will immediately perceive the result.</p> + +<p>Where we now strike an hundred blows with the ax, we shall be obliged to +give three hundred. What a powerful encouragement to industry! +Apprentices, journeymen and masters, we should suffer no more. We should +be greatly sought after, and go away well paid. Whoever wishes to enjoy +a roof must leave us to make his tariff, just as buyers of cloth are now +obliged to submit to you.</p> + +<p>As for those free trade theorists, should they ever venture to call the +utility of this system in question we should know where to go for an +unanswerable argument. Your investigation of 1834 is at our service. We +should fight them with that, for there you have admirably pleaded the +cause of prohibition, and of dull hatchets, which are both the same.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>IV.</h2> + +<h3>INFERIOR COUNCIL OF LABOR.</h3> + + +<p>"What! You have the assurance to demand for every citizen the right to +buy, sell, trade, exchange, and to render service for service according +to his own discretion, on the sole condition that he will conduct +himself honestly, and not defraud the revenue? Would you rob the +workingman of his labor, his wages and his bread?"</p> + +<p>This is what is said to us. I know what the general opinion is; but I +have desired to know what the laborers themselves think. I have had an +excellent opportunity of finding out.</p> + +<p>It was not one of those <i>Superior Councils of Industry</i> (Committee on +the Revision of the Tariff), where large manufacturers, who style +themselves laborers, influential ship-builders who imagine themselves +seamen, and wealthy bondholders who think themselves workmen, meet and +legislate in behalf of that philanthropy with whose nature we are so +well acquainted.</p> + +<p>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 <i>Mutual Aid +Society</i>. Upon my own private authority I transformed it into an +<i>Inferior Council of Labor</i> (People's Committee for Revising the +Tariff), and I obtained a report which is as good as any other, although +unencumbered by figures, and not distended to the proportions of a +quarto volume and printed at the expense of the State.</p> + +<p>The subject of my inquiry was the real or supposed influence of the +protective system upon these poor people. The President, indeed, +informed me that the institution of such an inquiry was somewhat in +contravention of the principles of the society. For, in France, the land +of liberty, those who desire to form associations must renounce +political discussions—that is to say, the discussion of their common +interests. However, after much hesitation, he made the question the +order of the day.</p> + +<p>The assembly was divided into as many sub-committees as there were +different trades represented. A blank was handed to each sub-committee, +which, after fifteen days' discussion, was to be filled and returned.</p> + +<p>On the appointed day the venerable President took the chair (official +style, for it was only a stool) and found upon the table (official +style, again, for it was a deal plank across a barrel) a dozen reports, +which he read in succession.</p> + +<p>The first presented was that of the tailors. Here it is, as accurately +as if it had been photographed:</p> + +<p class='center'>RESULTS OF PROTECTION—REPORT OF THE TAILORS.</p> + +<table width='600' summary='report'> +<colgroup width='400'> +</colgroup> +<colgroup width='200'> +</colgroup> +<tr> +<td><i>Disadvantages.</i></td> + +<td align='center'><i>Advantages.</i></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td>1. On account of the protective tariff, we pay more for our own bread, meat, sugar, thread, +etc., which is equivalent to a considerable diminution of our wages. </td> + +<td align='center'> None.</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td>2. On account of the protective tariff, our patrons are also obliged to pay more for everything, and +have less to spend for clothes, consequently we have less work and smaller profits. </td> +<td rowspan='3' > 1. We have examined the question in every light, and + have been unable to perceive a single point in regard to which the protective +system is advantangeous our trade.</td> + +</tr> +<tr> +<td>3. On account of the protective tariff clothes, are expensive, and people make them wear longer, +which results in a loss of work, and compels us to offer our services at greatly reduced rates. </td> +<td></td> +</tr> +</table> + + + +<p>Here is another report:</p> + +<p class='center'>EFFECTS OF PROTECTION—REPORT OF THE BLACKSMITHS.</p> +<table width='600' summary='report'> +<colgroup width='400'> +</colgroup> +<colgroup width='200'> +</colgroup> + +<tr> +<td><i>Disadvantages.</i></td> +<td align='center'><i>Advantages.</i></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td>1. The protective system imposes a tax (which does +not get into the Treasury) every time we eat, drink, +warm, or clothe ourselves. </td> +<td rowspan='3' align='center' valign='middle'>None.</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td>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. </td> +<td></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td>3. It keeps the price of iron so high that it can +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. </td> +<td></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td>4. The deficit occasioned in the Treasury by those +goods <i>which do not enter</i> is made up by taxes +on our salt. </td> +<td></td> +</tr> +</table> + + + +<p>The other reports, with which I will not trouble the reader, told the +same story. Gardeners, carpenters, shoemakers, boatmen, all complained +of the same grievances.</p> + +<p>I am sorry there were no day laborers in our association. Their report +would certainly have been exceedingly instructive. But, unfortunately, +the poor laborers of our province, all <i>protected</i> as they are, have not +a cent, and, after having taken care of their cattle, cannot go +themselves to the <i>Mutual Aid Society</i>. The pretended favors of +protection do not prevent them from being the pariahs of modern society.</p> + +<p>What I would especially remark is the good sense with which our +villagers have perceived not only the direct evil results of protection, +but also the indirect evil which, affecting their patrons, reacts upon +themselves.</p> + +<p>This is a fact, it seems to me, which the economists of the school of +the <i>Moniteur Industriel</i> do not understand.</p> + +<p>And possibly some men, who are fascinated by a very little protection, +the agriculturists, for instance, would voluntarily renounce it if they +noticed this side of the question. Possibly, they might say to +themselves: "It is better to support one's self surrounded by well-to-do +neighbors, than to be protected in the midst of poverty." For to seek to +encourage every branch of industry by successively creating a void +around them, is as vain as to attempt to jump away from one's shadow.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>V.</h2> + +<h3>DEARNESS—CHEAPNESS.</h3> + + +<p>I consider it my duty to say a few words in regard to the delusion +caused by the words <i>dear</i> and <i>cheap</i>. At the first glance, I am aware, +you may be disposed to find these remarks somewhat subtile, but whether +subtile or not, the question is whether they are true. For my part I +consider them perfectly true, and particularly well adapted to cause +reflection among a large number of those who cherish a sincere faith in +the efficacy of protection.</p> + +<p>Whether advocates of free trade or defenders of protection, we are all +obliged to make use of the expression <i>dearness</i> and <i>cheapness</i>. The +former take sides in behalf of <i>cheapness</i>, having in view the interests +of consumers. The latter pronounce themselves in favor of <i>dearness</i>, +preoccupying themselves solely with the interests of the producer. +Others intervene, saying, <i>producer and consumer are one and the same</i>, +which leaves wholly undecided the question whether cheapness or dearness +ought to be the object of legislation.</p> + +<p>In this conflict of opinion it seems to me that there is only one +position for the law to take—to allow prices to regulate themselves +naturally. But the principle of "let alone" has obstinate enemies. They +insist upon legislation without even knowing the desired objects of +legislation. It would seem, however, to be the duty of those who wish to +create 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 +<i>roles</i> have been changed. The partisans of high prices have obtained a +triumph for their system, and it has fallen to defenders of natural +prices to prove the advantages of their system. The argument on both +sides is conducted with two words. It is very essential, then, to +understand their meaning.</p> + +<p>It must be granted at the outset that a series of events have happened +well calculated to disconcert both sides.</p> + +<p>In order to produce <i>high prices</i> the protectionists have obtained high +tariffs, and still low prices have come to disappoint their +expectations.</p> + +<p>In order to produce <i>low prices</i>, free traders have sometimes carried +their point, and, to their great astonishment, the result in some +instances has been an increase instead of a reduction in prices.</p> + +<p>For instance, in France, to protect farmers, a law was passed imposing a +duty of twenty-two per cent. upon imported wools, and the result has +been that native wools have been sold for much lower prices than before +the passage of the law.</p> + +<p>In England a law in behalf of the consumers was passed, exempting +foreign wools from duty, and the consequence has been that native wools +have sold higher than ever before.</p> + +<p>And this is not an isolated fact, for the price of wool has no special +or peculiar nature which takes it out of the general law governing +prices. The same fact has been reproduced under analogous circumstances. +Contrary to all expectation, protection has frequently resulted in low +prices, and free trade in high prices. Hence there has been a deal of +perplexity in the discussion, the protectionists saying to their +adversaries: "These low prices that you talk about so much are the +result of our system;" and the free traders replying: "Those high prices +which you find so profitable are the consequence of free trade."</p> + +<p>There evidently is a misunderstanding, an illusion, which must be +dispelled. This I will endeavor to do.</p> + +<p>Suppose two isolated nations, each composed of a million inhabitants; +admit that, other things being equal, one nation had exactly twice as +much of everything as the other—twice as much wheat, wine, iron, fuel, +books, clothing, furniture, etc. It will be conceded that one will have +twice as much wealth as the other.</p> + +<p>There is, however, no reason for the statement that the <i>absolute +prices</i> are different in the two nations. They possibly may be higher in +the wealthiest nation. It may happen that in the United States +everything is nominally dearer than in Poland, and that, nevertheless, +the people there are less generally supplied with everything; by which +it may be seen that the abundance of products, and not the absolute +price, constitutes wealth. In order, then, accurately to compare free +trade and protection the inquiry should not be which of the two causes +high prices or low prices, but which of the two produces abundance or +scarcity.</p> + +<p>For observe this: Products are exchanged, the one for the other, and a +relative scarcity and a relative abundance leave the absolute price +exactly at the same point, but not so the condition of men.</p> + +<p>Let us look into the subject a little further.</p> + +<p>Since the increase and the reduction of duties have been accompanied by +results so different from what had been expected, a fall of prices +frequently succeeding the increase of the tariff, and a rise sometimes +following a reduction of duties, it has become necessary for political +economy to attempt the explanation of a phenomenon which so overthrows +received ideas; for, whatever may be said, science is simply a faithful +exposition and a true explanation of facts.</p> + +<p>This phenomenon may be easily explained by one circumstance which should +never be lost sight of.</p> + +<p>It is that there are <i>two causes</i> for high prices, and not one merely.</p> + +<p>The same is true of low prices. One of the best established principles +of political economy is that price is determined by the law of supply +and demand.</p> + +<p>The price is then affected by two conditions—the demand and the supply. +These conditions are necessarily subject to variation. The relations of +demand to supply may be exactly counterbalanced, or may be greatly +disproportionate, and the variations of price are almost interminable.</p> + +<p>Prices rise either on account of augmented demand or diminished supply.</p> + +<p>They fall by reason of an augmentation of the supply or a diminution of +the demand.</p> + +<p>Consequently there are two kinds of <i>dearness</i> and two kinds of +<i>cheapness</i>. There is a bad dearness, which results from a diminution of +the supply; for this implies scarcity and privation. There is a good +dearness—that which results from an increase of demand; for this +indicates the augmentation of the general wealth.</p> + +<p>There is also a good cheapness, resulting from abundance. And there is a +baneful cheapness—such as results from the cessation of demand, the +inability of consumers to purchase.</p> + +<p>And observe this: Prohibition causes at the same time both the dearness +and the cheapness which are of a bad nature; a bad dearness, resulting +from a diminution of the supply (this indeed is its avowed object), and +a bad cheapness, resulting from a diminution of the demand, because it +gives a false direction to capital and labor, and overwhelms consumers +with taxes and restrictions.</p> + +<p>So that, <i>as regards the price</i>, these two tendencies neutralize each +other; and for this reason, the protective system, restricting the +supply and the demand at the same time, does not realize the high +prices which are its object.</p> + +<p>But with respect to the condition of the people, these two tendencies do +not neutralize each other; on the contrary, they unite in impoverishing +them.</p> + +<p>The effect of free trade is exactly the opposite. Possibly it does not +cause the cheapness which it promises; for it also has two tendencies, +the one towards that desirable form of cheapness resulting from the +increase of supply, or from abundance; the other towards that dearness +consequent upon the increased demand and the development of the general +wealth. These two tendencies neutralize themselves as regards the <i>mere +price</i>; but they concur in their tendency to ameliorate the condition of +mankind. In a word, under the protective system men recede towards a +condition of feebleness as regards both supply and demand; under the +free trade system, they advance towards a condition where development is +gradual without any necessary increase in the absolute prices of things.</p> + +<p>Price is not a good criterion of wealth. It might continue the same when +society had relapsed into the most abject misery, or had advanced to a +high state of prosperity.</p> + +<p>Let me make application of this doctrine in a few words: A farmer in the +south of France supposes himself as rich as Crœsus, because he is +protected by law from foreign competition. He is as poor as Job—no +matter, he will none the less suppose that this protection will sooner +or later make him rich. Under these circumstances, if the question was +propounded to him, as it was by the committee of the Legislature, in +these terms: "Do you want to be subject to foreign competition? yes or +no," his first answer would be "No," and the committee would record his +reply with great enthusiasm.</p> + +<p>We should go, however, to the bottom of things. Doubtless foreign +competition, and competition of any kind, is always inopportune; and, if +any trade could be permanently rid of it, business, for a time, would be +prosperous.</p> + +<p>But protection is not an isolated favor. It is a system. If, in order to +protect the farmer, it occasions a scarcity of wheat and of beef, in +behalf of other industries it produces a scarcity of iron, cloth, fuel, +tools, etc.—in short, a scarcity of everything.</p> + +<p>If, then, the scarcity of wheat has a tendency to increase the price by +reason of the diminution of the supply, the scarcity of all other +products for which wheat is exchanged has likewise a tendency to +depreciate 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 under +a protective tariff than under a system of free trade. This alone is +certain, that inasmuch as there is a smaller amount of everything in the +country, each individual will be more poorly provided with everything.</p> + +<p>The farmer would do well to consider whether it would not be more +desirable for him to allow the importation of wheat and beef, and, as a +consequence, to be surrounded by a well-to-do community, able to consume +and to pay for every agricultural product.</p> + +<p>There is a certain province where the men are covered with rags, dwell +in 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 without +it as much as possible. Can any one imagine that all these objects of +consumption can be thus left untouched by the masses, without lowering +prices?</p> + +<p>That which we say of a farmer, we can say of a manufacturer. +Cloth-makers assert that foreign competition will lower prices owing to +the increased quantity offered. Very well, but are not these prices +raised by the increase of the demand? Is the consumption of cloth a +fixed and invariable quantity? Is each one as well provided with it as +he might and should be? And if the general wealth were developed by the +abolition of all these taxes and hindrances, would not the first use +made of it by the population be to clothe themselves better?</p> + +<p>Therefore the question, the eternal question, is not whether protection +favors this or that special branch of industry, but whether, all things +considered, restriction is, in its nature, more profitable than freedom?</p> + +<p>Now, no person can maintain that proposition. And just this explains the +admission which our opponents continually make to us: "You are right on +principle."</p> + +<p>If that is true, if restriction aids each special industry only through +a greater injury to the general prosperity, let us understand, then, +that the price itself, considering that alone, expresses a relation +between each special industry and the general industry, between the +supply and the demand, and that, reasoning from these premises, this +<i>remunerative price</i> (the object of protection) is more hindered than +favored by it.</p> + + +<p class='center'><b>APPENDIX.</b></p> + +<p>We published an article entitled <i>Dearness-Cheapness</i>, which gained for +us the two following letters. We publish them, with the answers:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"<span class="smcap">Dear Mr. Editor:</span>—You upset all my ideas. I preached in +favor of free trade, and found it very convenient to put prominently +forward the idea of <i>cheapness</i>. 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 <i>cheapness</i> 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?"</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">My Dear Free Trader:</span>—Allow us to say that you have but half +read the article which provoked your letter. We said that free trade +acted precisely like roads, canals and railways, like everything which +facilitates communications, and like everything which destroys +obstacles. Its first tendency is to increase the quantity of the article +which is relieved from duties, and consequently to lower its price. But +by increasing, at the same time, the quantity of all the things for +which this article is exchanged, it increases the <i>demand</i>, and +consequently the price rises. You ask us what the people will gain. +Suppose they have a balance with certain scales, in each one of which +they have for their use a certain quantity of the articles which you +have enumerated. If a little grain is put in one scale it will gradually +sink, but if an equal quantity of cloth, iron and coal is added in the +others, the equilibrium will be maintained. Looking at the beam above, +there will be no change. Looking at the people, we shall see them better +fed, clothed and warmed.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"<span class="smcap">Dear Mr. Editor:</span>—I am a cloth manufacturer, and a +protectionist. I confess that your article on <i>dearness</i> and +<i>cheapness</i> has led me to reflect. It has something specious about +it, and if well proven, would work my conversion."</p></div> + +<p><span class="smcap">My Dear Protectionist:</span>—We say that the end and aim of your +restrictive measures is a wrongful one—<i>artificial dearness</i>. But we do +not say that they always realize the hopes of those who initiate them. +It is certain that they inflict on the consumer all the evils of +dearness. It is not certain that the producer gets the profit. Why? +Because if they diminish the supply they also diminish the <i>demand</i>.</p> + +<p>This proves that in the economical arrangement of this world there is a +moral force, a <i>vis medicatrix</i>, which in the long run causes inordinate +ambition to become the prey of a delusion.</p> + +<p>Pray, notice, sir, that one of the elements of the prosperity of each +special branch of industry is the general prosperity. The rent of a +house is not merely in proportion to what it has cost, but also to the +number and means of the tenants. Do two houses which are precisely alike +necessarily rent for the same sum? Certainly not, if one is in Paris and +the other in Lower Brittany. Let us never speak of a price without +regarding the <i>conditions</i>, and let us understand that there is nothing +more futile than to try to build the prosperity of the parts on the ruin +of the whole. This is the attempt of the restrictive system.</p> + +<p>Competition always has been, and always will be, disagreeable to those +who are affected by it. Thus we see that in all times and in all places +men try to get rid of it. We know, and you too, perhaps, a municipal +council where the resident merchants make a furious war on the foreign +ones. Their projectiles are import duties, fines, etc., etc.</p> + +<p>Now, just think what would have become of Paris, for instance, if this +war had been carried on there with success.</p> + +<p>Suppose that the first shoemaker who settled there had succeeded in +keeping out all others, and that the first tailor, the first mason, the +first printer, the first watchmaker, the first hair-dresser, the first +physician, the first baker, had been equally fortunate. Paris would +still be a village, with twelve or fifteen hundred inhabitants. But it +was not thus. Each one, except those whom you still keep away, came to +make 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 a +million inhabitants. The general prosperity has gained by this, +doubtless, but have the shoemakers and tailors, individually, lost +anything by it? For you, this is the question. As competitors came, you +said: The price of boots will fail. Has it been so? No, for if the +<i>supply</i> has increased, the <i>demand</i> has increased also.</p> + +<p>Thus will it be with cloth; therefore let it come in. It is true that +you will have more competitors, but you will also have more customers, +and richer ones. Did you never think of this when seeing nine-tenths of +your countrymen deprived during the winter of that superior cloth that +you make?</p> + +<p>This is not a very long lesson to learn. If you wish to prosper, let +your customers do the same.</p> + +<p>When this is once known, each one will seek his welfare in the general +welfare. Then, jealousies between individuals, cities, provinces and +nations, will no longer vex the world.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>VI.</h2> + +<h3>TO ARTISANS AND LABORERS.</h3> + + +<p>Many papers have attacked me before you. Will you not read my defense?</p> + +<p>I am not mistrustful. When a man writes or speaks, I believe that he +thinks what he says.</p> + +<p>What is the question? To ascertain which is the more advantageous for +you, restriction or liberty.</p> + +<p>I believe that it is liberty; they believe it is restriction; it is for +each one to prove his case.</p> + +<p>Was it necessary to insinuate that we are the agents of England?</p> + +<p>You will see how easy recrimination would be on this ground.</p> + +<p>We are, they say, agents of the English, because some of us have used +the English words <i>meeting</i>, <i>free trader</i>!</p> + +<p>And do not they use the English words <i>drawback</i> and <i>budget</i>?</p> + +<p>We imitate Cobden and the English democracy!</p> + +<p>Do not they parody Bentinck and the British aristocracy?</p> + +<p>We borrow from perfidious Albion the doctrine of liberty.</p> + +<p>Do not they borrow from her the sophisms of protection?</p> + +<p>We follow the commercial impulse of Bordeaux and the South.</p> + +<p>Do not they serve the greed of Lille, and the manufacturing North?</p> + +<p>We favor the secret designs of the ministry, which desires to turn +public attention away from the protective policy.</p> + +<p>Do not they favor the views of the Custom House officers, who gain more +than anybody else by this protective <i>regime</i>?</p> + +<p>So you see that if we did not ignore this war of epithets, we should not +be without weapons.</p> + +<p>But that is not the point in issue.</p> + +<p>The question which I shall not lose sight of is this:</p> + +<p><i>Which is better for the working-classes, to be free or not to be free +to purchase from abroad?</i></p> + +<p>Workmen, they say to you, "If you are free to buy from abroad these +things which you now make yourselves, you will no longer make them. You +will be without work, without wages, and without bread. It is then for +your own good that your liberty be restricted."</p> + +<p>This objection recurs in all forms. They say, for instance, "If we +clothe ourselves with English cloth, if we make our plowshares with +English iron, if we cut our bread with English knives, if we wipe our +hands with English napkins, what will become of the French workmen—what +will become of the <i>national labor</i>?"</p> + +<p>Tell me, workmen, if a man stood on the pier at Boulogne, and said to +every Englishman who landed: If you will give me those English boots, I +will give you this French hat; or, if you will let me have this English +horse, I will let you have this French carriage; or, Are you willing to +exchange this Birmingham machine for this Paris clock? or, again, Does +it suit you to barter your Newcastle coal for this Champagne wine? I ask +you whether, supposing this man makes his proposals with average +judgment, it can be said that our <i>national labor</i>, taken as a whole, +would be harmed by it?</p> + +<p>Would it be more so if there were twenty of these people offering to +exchange services at Boulogne instead of one; if a million barters were +made instead of four; and if the intervention of merchants and money was +called on to facilitate them and multiply them indefinitely?</p> + +<p>Now, let one country buy of another at wholesale to sell again at +retail, or at retail to sell again at wholesale, it will always be +found, if the matter is followed out to the end, that <i>commerce consists +of mutual barter of products for products, of services for services</i>. +If, then, <i>one barter</i> does not injure the <i>national labor</i>, since it +implies as much <i>national labor given</i> as <i>foreign labor received</i>, a +hundred million of them cannot hurt the country.</p> + +<p>But, you will say, where is the advantage? The advantage consists in +making a better use of the resources of each country, so that the same +amount of labor gives more satisfaction and well-being everywhere.</p> + +<p>There are some who employ singular tactics against you. They begin by +admitting the superiority of freedom over the prohibitive system, +doubtless in order that they may not have to defend themselves on that +ground.</p> + +<p>Next they remark that in going from one system to another there will be +some <i>displacement</i> of labor.</p> + +<p>Then they dilate upon the sufferings which, according to themselves, +this <i>displacement</i> must cause. They exaggerate and amplify them; they +make of them the principal subject of discussion; they present them as +the exclusive and definite result of reform, and thus try to enlist you +under the standard of monopoly.</p> + +<p>These tactics have been employed in the service of all abuses, and I +must frankly admit one thing, that it always embarrasses even the +friends of those reforms which are most useful to the people. You will +understand why.</p> + +<p>When an abuse exists, everything arranges itself upon it.</p> + +<p>Human existences connect themselves with it, others with these, then +still others, and this forms a great edifice.</p> + +<p>Do you raise your hand against it? Each one protests; and notice this +particularly, those persons who protest always seem at the first glance +to be right, because it is easier to show the disorder which must +accompany the reform than the order which will follow it.</p> + +<p>The friends of the abuse cite particular instances; they name the +persons and their workmen who will be disturbed, while the poor devil of +a reformer can only refer to the <i>general good</i>, which must insensibly +diffuse itself among the masses. This does not have the effect which the +other has.</p> + +<p>Thus, supposing it is a question of abolishing slavery. "Unhappy +people," they say to the colored men, "who will feed you? The master +distributes floggings, but he also distributes rations."</p> + +<p>It is not seen that it is not the master who feeds the slave, but his +own labor which feeds both himself and master.</p> + +<p>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?"</p> + +<p>And the beggars said: "That is true. If the Abbot goes, we see what we +lose, but we do not see what will come in its place."</p> + +<p>They do not notice that if the convents gave alms they lived on alms, so +that the people had to give them more than they could receive back.</p> + +<p>Thus, workmen, a monopoly imperceptibly puts taxes on your shoulders, +and then furnishes you work with the proceeds.</p> + +<p>Your false friends say to you: If there was no monopoly, who would +furnish you work?</p> + +<p>You answer: This is true, this is true. The labor which the monopolists +procure us is certain. The promises of liberty are uncertain.</p> + +<p>For you do not see that they first take money from you, and then give +you back a <i>part</i> of it for your labor.</p> + +<p>Do you ask who will furnish you work? Why, you will give each other +work. With the money which will no longer be taken from you, the +shoemaker will dress better, and will make work for the tailor. The +tailor will have new shoes oftener, and keep the shoemaker employed. So +it will be with all occupations.</p> + +<p>They say that with freedom there will be fewer workmen in the mines and +the mills.</p> + +<p>I do not believe it. But if this does happen, it is <i>necessarily</i> +because there will be more labor freely in the open air.</p> + +<p>For if, as they say, these mines and spinning mills can be sustained +only by the aid of taxes imposed on <i>everybody</i> for their benefit, these +taxes once abolished, <i>everybody</i> will be more comfortably off, and it +is the comfort of all which feeds the labor of each one.</p> + +<p>Excuse me if I linger at this demonstration. I have so great a desire to +see you on the side of liberty.</p> + +<p>In France, capital invested in manufactures yields, I suppose, five per +cent. profit. But here is Mondor, who has one hundred thousand francs +invested in a manufactory, on which he loses five per cent. The +difference between the loss and gain is ten thousand francs. What do +they do? They assess upon you a little tax of ten thousand francs, which +is given to Mondor, and you do not notice it, for it is very skillfully +disguised. It is not the tax gatherer who comes to ask you your part of +the tax, but you pay it to Mondor, the manufacturer, every time you buy +your hatchets, your trowels, and your planes. Then they say to you: If +you 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, would +you not get work yourselves, and on your own account too?</p> + +<p>And, then, be easy, when Mondor has no longer this soft method of +obtaining his profit by a tax, he will use his wits to turn his loss +into a gain, and John and James will not be dismissed. Then all will be +profit <i>for all</i>.</p> + +<p>You will persist, perhaps, saying: "We understand that after the reform +there will be in general more work than before, but in the meanwhile +John and James will be on the street."</p> + +<p>To which I answer:</p> + +<p>First. When employment changes its place only to increase, the man who +has two arms and a heart is not long on the street.</p> + +<p>Second. There is nothing to hinder the State from reserving some of its +funds to avoid stoppages of labor in the transition, which I do not +myself believe will occur.</p> + +<p>Third. Finally, if to get out of a rut and get into a condition which is +better for all, and which is certainly more just, it is absolutely +necessary to brave a few painful moments, the workmen are ready, or I +know them ill. God grant that it may be the same with employers.</p> + +<p>Well, because you are workmen, are you not intelligent and moral? It +seems that your pretended friends forget it. It is surprising that they +discuss such a subject before you, speaking of wages and interests, +without once pronouncing the word <i>justice</i>. They know, however, full +well that the situation is <i>unjust</i>. Why, then, have they not the +courage to tell you so, and say, "Workmen, an iniquity prevails in the +country, but it is of advantage to you and it must be sustained." Why? +Because they know that you would answer, No.</p> + +<p>But it is not true that this iniquity is profitable to you. Give me your +attention for a few moments and judge for yourselves.</p> + +<p>What do they protect in France? Articles made by great manufacturers in +great establishments, iron, cloth and silks, and they tell you that this +is done not in the interest of the employer, but in your interest, in +order to insure you wages.</p> + +<p>But every time that foreign labor presents itself in the market in such +a form that it may hurt <i>you</i>, but not the great manufacturers, do they +not allow it to come in?</p> + +<p>Are there not in Paris thirty thousand Germans who make clothes and +shoes? Why are they allowed to establish themselves at your side when +cloth is driven away? Because the cloth is made in great mills owned by +manufacturing legislators. But clothes are made by workmen in their +rooms.</p> + +<p>These gentlemen want no competition in the turning of wool into cloth, +because that is <i>their</i> business; but when it comes to converting cloth +into clothes, they admit competition, because that is <i>your</i> trade.</p> + +<p>When they made railroads they excluded English rails, but they imported +English workmen to make them. Why? It is very simple; because English +rails compete with the great rolling mills, and English muscles compete +only with yours.</p> + +<p>We do not ask them to keep out German tailors and English laborers. We +ask that cloth and rails may be allowed to come in. We ask justice for +all, equality before the law for all.</p> + +<p>It is a mockery to tell us that these Custom House restrictions have +<i>your</i> advantage in view. Tailors, shoemakers, carpenters, millers, +masons, blacksmiths, merchants, grocers, jewelers, butchers, bakers and +dressmakers, I challenge you to show me a single instance in which +restriction profits you, and if you wish, I will point out four where it +hurts you.</p> + +<p>And after all, just see how much of the appearance of truth this +self-denial, which your journals attribute to the monopolists, has.</p> + +<p>I believe that we can call that the <i>natural rate of wages</i> which would +establish itself <i>naturally</i> if there were freedom of trade. Then, when +they tell you that restriction is for your benefit, it is as if they +told you that it added a <i>surplus</i> to your <i>natural</i> wages. Now, an +<i>extra natural</i> surplus of wages must be taken from somewhere; it does +not fall from the moon; it must be taken from those who pay it.</p> + +<p>You are then brought to this conclusion, that, according to your +pretended friends, the protective system has been created and brought +into the world in order that capitalists might be sacrificed to +laborers!</p> + +<p>Tell me, is that probable?</p> + +<p>Where is your place in the Chamber of Peers? When did you sit at the +Palais Bourbon? Who has consulted you? Whence came this idea of +establishing the protective system?</p> + +<p>I hear your answer: <i>We</i> did not establish it. We are neither Peers nor +Deputies, nor Counselors of State. The capitalists have done it.</p> + +<p>By heavens, they were in a delectable mood that day. What! the +capitalists made this law; <i>they</i> established the prohibitive system, so +that you laborers should make profits at their expense!</p> + +<p>But here is something stranger still.</p> + +<p>How is it that your pretended friends who speak to you now of the +goodness, generosity and self-denial of capitalists, constantly express +regret that you do not enjoy your political rights? From their point of +view, what could you do with them? The capitalists have the monopoly of +legislation, it is true. Thanks to this monopoly, they have granted +themselves the monopoly of iron, cloth, coal, wood and meat, which is +also true. But now your pretended friends say that the capitalists, in +acting thus, have stripped themselves, without being obliged to do it, +to enrich you without your being entitled to it. Surely, if you were +electors and deputies, you could not manage your affairs better; you +would not even manage them as well.</p> + +<p>If the industrial organization which rules us is made in your interest, +it is a perfidy to demand political rights for you; for these democrats +of a new species can never get out of this dilemma; the law, made by the +present law-makers, gives you <i>more</i>, or gives you <i>less</i>, than your +natural wages. If it gives you <i>less</i>, they deceive you in inviting you +to support it. If it gives you <i>more</i>, they deceive you again by calling +on you to claim political rights, when those who now exercise them, make +sacrifices for you which you, in your honesty, could not yourselves +vote.</p> + +<p>Workingmen, God forbid that the effect of this article should be to cast +in your hearts the germs of irritation against the rich. If mistaken +<i>interests</i> still support monopoly, let us not forget that it has its +root in <i>errors</i>, which are common to capitalists and workmen. Then, far +from laboring to excite them against one another, let us strive to bring +them together. What must be done to accomplish this? If it is true that +the natural social tendencies aid in effacing inequality among men, all +we have to do to let those tendencies act is to remove the artificial +obstructions which interfere with their operation, and allow the +relations of different classes to establish themselves on the principle +of <i>justice</i>, which, to my mind, is the principle of <span class="smcap">FREEDOM</span>.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>VII.</h2> + +<h3>A CHINESE STORY.</h3> + + +<p>They exclaim against the greed and the selfishness of the age!</p> + +<p>Open the thousand books, the thousand papers, the thousand pamphlets, +which the Parisian presses throw out every day on the country; is not +all this the work of little saints?</p> + +<p>What spirit in the painting of the vices of the time! What touching +tenderness for the masses! With what liberality they invite the rich to +divide with the poor, or the poor to divide with the rich! How many +plans of social reform, social improvement, and social organization! +Does not even the weakest writer devote himself to the well-being of the +laboring classes? All that is required is to advance them a little money +to give them time to attend to their humanitarian pursuits.</p> + +<p>There is nothing which does not assume to aid in the well-being and +moral advancement of the people—nothing, not even the Custom House. You +believe that it is a tax machine, like a duty or a toll at the end of a +bridge? Not at all. It is an essentially civilizing, fraternizing and +equalizing institution. What would you have? It is the fashion. It is +necessary to put or affect to put feeling or sentimentality everywhere, +even in the cure of all troubles.</p> + +<p>But it must be admitted that the Custom House organization has a +singular way of going to work to realize these philanthropic +aspirations.</p> + +<p>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 the +industry of the people that negative action which is summed up in the +word <i>to prevent</i>.</p> + +<p>Observe that I do not say <i>to tax</i>, but really <i>to prevent</i>.</p> + +<p>And <i>to prevent</i>, not acts reproved by morality, or opposed to public +order, but transactions which are innocent, and which they have even +admitted are favorable to the peace and harmony of nations.</p> + +<p>However, humanity is so flexible and supple that, in one way or another, +it always overcomes these attempts at prevention.</p> + +<p>It is for the purpose of increasing labor. If people are kept from +getting their food from abroad they produce it at home. It is more +laborious, but they must live. If they are kept from passing along the +valley, they must climb the mountains. It is longer, but the point of +destination must be reached.</p> + +<p>This is sad, but amusing. When the law has thus created a certain amount +of obstacles, and when, to overcome them, humanity has diverted a +corresponding amount of labor, you are no longer allowed to call for the +reform of the law; for, if you point out the <i>obstacle</i>, they show you +the labor which it brings into play; and if you say this is not labor +created but <i>diverted</i>, they answer you as does the <i>Esprit +Public</i>—"The impoverishing only is certain and immediate; as for the +enriching, it is more than problematical."</p> + +<p>This recalls to me a Chinese story, which I will tell you.</p> + +<p>There were in China two great cities, Tchin and Tchan. A magnificent +canal connected them. The Emperor thought fit to have immense masses of +rock thrown into it, to make it useless.</p> + +<p>Seeing this, Kouang, his first Mandarin, said to him: "Son of Heaven, +you make a mistake." To which the Emperor replied: "Kouang, you are +foolish."</p> + +<p>You understand, of course, that I give but the substance of the +dialogue.</p> + +<p>At the end of three moons the Celestial Emperor had the Mandarin +brought, and said to him: "Kouang, look."</p> + +<p>And Kouang, opening his eyes, looked.</p> + +<p>He saw at a certain distance from the canal a multitude of men +<i>laboring</i>. Some excavated, some filled up, some leveled, and some laid +pavement, and the Mandarin, who was very learned, thought to himself: +They are making a road.</p> + +<p>At the end of three more moons, the Emperor, having called Kouang, said +to him: "Look."</p> + +<p>And Kouang looked.</p> + +<p>And he saw that the road was made; and he noticed that at various +points, inns were building. A medley of foot passengers, carriages and +palanquins went and came, and innumerable Chinese, oppressed by fatigue, +carried back and forth heavy burdens from Tchin to Tchan, and from Tchan +to Tchin, and Kouang said: It is the destruction of the canal which has +given labor to these poor people. But it did not occur to him that this +labor was <i>diverted</i> from other employments.</p> + +<p>Then more moons passed, and the Emperor said to Kouang: "Look."</p> + +<p>And Kouang looked.</p> + +<p>He saw that the inns were always full of travelers, and that they being +hungry, there had sprung up, near by, the shops of butchers, bakers, +charcoal dealers, and bird's nest sellers. Since these worthy men could +not go naked, tailors, shoemakers and umbrella and fan dealers had +settled there, and as they do not sleep in the open air, even in the +Celestial Empire, carpenters, masons and thatchers congregated there. +Then came police officers, judges and fakirs; in a word, around each +stopping place there grew up a city with its suburbs.</p> + +<p>Said the Emperor to Kouang: "What do you think of this?"</p> + +<p>And Kouang replied: "I could never have believed that the destruction of +a canal could create so much labor for the people." For he did not think +that it was not labor created, but <i>diverted</i>; that travelers ate when +they went by the canal just as much as they did when they were forced to +go by the road.</p> + +<p>However, to the great astonishment of the Chinese, the Emperor died, and +this Son of Heaven was committed to earth.</p> + +<p>His successor sent for Kouang, and said to him: "Clean out the canal."</p> + +<p>And Kouang said to the new Emperor: "Son of Heaven, you are doing +wrong."</p> + +<p>And the Emperor replied: "Kouang, you are foolish."</p> + +<p>But Kouang persisted and said: "My Lord, what is your object?"</p> + +<p>"My object," said the Emperor, "is to facilitate the movement of men and +things between Tchin and Tchan; to make transportation less expensive, +so that the people may have tea and clothes more cheaply."</p> + +<p>But Kouang was in readiness. He had received, the evening before, some +numbers of the <i>Moniteur Industriel</i>, a Chinese paper. Knowing his +lesson by heart, he asked permission to answer, and, having obtained it, +after striking his forehead nine times against the floor, he said: "My +Lord, you try, by facilitating transportation, to reduce the price of +articles of consumption, in order to bring them within the reach of the +people; and to do this you begin by making them lose all the labor which +was created by the destruction of the canal. Sire, in political economy, +absolute cheapness"—</p> + +<p>The Emperor. "I believe that you are reciting something."</p> + +<p>Kouang. "That is true, and it would be more convenient for me to read."</p> + +<p>Having unfolded the <i>Esprit Public</i>, he read: "In political economy the +absolute cheapness of articles of consumption is but a secondary +question. The problem lies in the equilibrium of the price of labor and +that of the articles necessary to existence. The abundance of labor is +the wealth of nations, and the best economic system is that which +furnishes them the greatest possible amount of labor. Do not ask whether +it is better to pay four or eight cents cash for a cup of tea, or five +or ten shillings for a shirt. These are puerilities unworthy of a +serious mind. No one denies your proposition. The question is, whether +it is better to pay more for an article, and to have, through the +abundance and price of labor, more means of acquiring it, or whether it +is better to impoverish the sources of labor, to diminish the mass of +national production, and to transport articles of consumption by canals, +more cheaply it is true, but, at the same time, to deprive a portion of +our laborers of the power to buy them, even at these reduced prices."</p> + +<p>The Emperor not being altogether convinced, Kouang said to him: "My +Lord, be pleased to wait. I have the <i>Moniteur Industriel</i> to quote +from."</p> + +<p>But the Emperor said: "I do not need your Chinese newspapers to tell me +that to create <i>obstacles</i> is to turn labor in that direction. Yet that +is not my mission. Come, let us clear out the canal, and then we will +reform the tariff."</p> + +<p>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 on +your people; for, there has come to us an Emperor of the <i>English +school</i>, and I see very plainly that, in a little while, we shall be in +want of everything, since it will not be necessary for us to do +anything!</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>VIII.</h2> + +<h3>POST HOC, ERGO PROPTER HOC.</h3> + + +<p>"After this, therefore on account of this." The most common and the most +false of arguments.</p> + +<p>Real suffering exists in England.</p> + +<p>This occurrence follows two others:</p> + +<p>First. The reduction of the tariff.</p> + +<p>Second. The loss of two consecutive harvests.</p> + +<p>To which of these last two circumstances is the first to be attributed?</p> + +<p>The protectionists do not fail to exclaim: "It is this cursed freedom +which does all the mischief. It promised us wonders and marvels; we +welcomed it, and now the manufactories stop and the people suffer."</p> + +<p>Commercial freedom distributes, in the most uniform and equitable +manner, the fruits which Providence grants to the labor of man. If these +fruits are partially destroyed by any misfortune, it none the less looks +after the fair distribution of what remains. Men are not as well +provided for, of course, but shall we blame freedom or the bad harvest?</p> + +<p>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?</p> + +<p>In 1842, '43 and '44, the reduction of taxes began in England. At the +same time the harvests were very abundant, and we can justly believe +that these two circumstances had much to do with the wonderful +prosperity shown by that country during that period.</p> + +<p>In 1845 the harvest was bad, and in 1846 it was still worse. Breadstuffs +grew dear, the people spent their money for food, and used less of other +articles. There was a diminished demand for clothing; the manufactories +were not so busy, and wages showed a declining tendency. Happily, in the +same year, the restrictive barriers were again lowered, and an enormous +quantity of food was enabled to reach the English market. If it had not +been for this, it is almost certain that a terrible revolution would now +fill Great Britain with blood.</p> + +<p>Yet they make freedom chargeable with disasters, which it prevents and +remedies, at least in part.</p> + +<p>A poor leper lived in solitude. No one would touch what he had +contaminated. Compelled to do everything for himself, he dragged out a +miserable existence. A great physician cured him. Here was our hermit in +full possession of the <i>freedom of exchange</i>. What a beautiful prospect +opened before him! He took pleasure in calculating the advantages, +which, thanks to his connection with other men, he could draw from his +vigorous arms. Unluckily, he broke both of them. Alas! his fate was most +miserable. 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."</p> + +<p>"What!" said the physician; "do not you consider his two broken arms? Do +not they form a part of his sad destiny? His misfortune is to have lost +his arms, and not to have been cured of leprosy. He would be much more +to be pitied if he was both maimed and a leper."</p> + +<p><i>Post hoc, ergo propter hoc</i>; do not trust this sophism.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>IX.</h2> + +<h3>ROBBERY BY BOUNTIES.</h3> + + +<p>They find my little book of <i>Sophisms</i> too theoretical, scientific, and +metaphysical. Very well. Let us try a trivial, commonplace, and, if +necessary, coarse style. Convinced that the public is <i>duped</i> in the +matter of protection, I have desired to prove it. But the public wishes +to be shouted at. Then let us cry out:</p> + +<p>"Midas, King Midas, has asses' ears!"</p> + +<p>An outburst of frankness often accomplishes more than the politest +circumlocution.</p> + +<p>To tell the truth, my good people, <i>they are robbing you</i>. It is harsh, +but it is true.</p> + +<p>The words <i>robbery</i>, <i>to rob</i>, <i>robber</i>, will seem in very bad taste to +many people. I say to them as Harpagon did to Elise, Is it the <i>word</i> or +the <i>thing</i> that alarms you?</p> + +<p>Whoever has fraudulently taken that which does not belong to him, is +guilty of robbery. (<i>Penal Code, Art. 379.</i>)</p> + +<p><i>To rob</i>: To take furtively, or by force. (<i>Dictionary of the Academy.</i>)</p> + +<p><i>Robber</i>: He who takes more than his due. (<i>The same.</i>)</p> + +<p>Now, does not the monopolist, who, by a law of his own making, obliges +me to pay him twenty francs for an article which I can get elsewhere for +fifteen, take from me fraudulently five francs, which belong to me?</p> + +<p>Does he not take it furtively, or by force?</p> + +<p>Does he not require of me more than his due?</p> + +<p>He carries off, he takes, he demands, they will say, but not <i>furtively</i> +or <i>by force</i>, which are the characteristics of robbery.</p> + +<p>When our tax levy is burdened with five francs for the bounty which +this monopolist carries off, takes, or demands, what can be more +<i>furtive</i>, since so few of us suspect it? And for those who are not +deceived, what can be more <i>forced</i>, since, at the first refusal to pay, +the officer is at our doors?</p> + +<p>Still, let the monopolists reassure themselves. These robberies, by +means of bounties or tariffs, even if they do violate equity as much as +robbery, do not break the law; on the contrary, they are perpetrated +through the law. They are all the worse for this, but they have nothing +to do with <i>criminal justice</i>.</p> + +<p>Besides, willy-nilly, we are all <i>robbers</i> and <i>robbed</i> in the business. +Though the author of this book cries <i>stop thief</i>, when he buys, others +can cry the same after him, when he sells. If he differs from many of +his countrymen, it is only in this: he knows that he loses by this game +more than he gains, and they do not; if they did know it, the game would +soon cease.</p> + +<p>Nor do I boast of having first given this thing its true name. More than +sixty years ago, Adam Smith said:</p> + +<p>"When manufacturers meet it may be expected that a conspiracy will be +planned against the pockets of the public." Can we be astonished at this +when the public pay no attention to it?</p> + +<p>An assembly of manufacturers deliberate officially under the name of +<i>Industrial League</i>. What goes on there, and what is decided upon?</p> + +<p>I give a very brief summary of the proceedings of one meeting:</p> + +<p>"A Ship-builder. Our mercantile marine is at the last gasp (warlike +digression). It is not surprising. I cannot build without iron. I can +get it at ten francs <i>in the world's market</i>; but, through the law, the +managers of the French forges compel me to pay them fifteen francs. Thus +they take five francs from me. I ask freedom to buy where I please.</p> + +<p>"An Iron Manufacturer. <i>In the world's market</i> I can obtain +transportation for twenty francs. The ship-builder, through the law, +requires thirty. Thus he <i>takes</i> ten francs from me. He plunders me; I +plunder him. It is all for the best.</p> + +<p>"A Public Official. The conclusion of the ship-builder's argument is +highly imprudent. Oh, let us cultivate the touching union which makes +our strength; if we relax an iota from the theory of protection, +good-bye to the whole of it.</p> + +<p>"The Ship-builder. But, for us, protection is a failure. I repeat that +the shipping is nearly gone.</p> + +<p>"A Sailor. Very well, let us raise the discriminating duties against +goods imported in foreign bottoms, and let the ship-builder, who now +takes thirty francs from the public, hereafter take forty.</p> + +<p>"A Minister. The government will push to its extreme limits the +admirable mechanism of these discriminating duties, but I fear that it +will not answer the purpose.</p> + +<p>"A Government Employe. You seem to be bothered about a very little +matter. Is there any safety but in the bounty? If the consumer is +willing, the tax-payer is no less so. Let us pile on the taxes, and let +the ship-builder be satisfied. I propose a bounty of five francs, to be +taken from the public revenues, to be paid to the ship-builder for each +quintal of iron that he uses.</p> + +<p>"Several Voices. Seconded, seconded.</p> + +<p>"A Farmer. I want a bounty of three francs for each bushel of wheat.</p> + +<p>"A Weaver. And I two francs for each yard of cloth.</p> + +<p>"The Presiding Officer. That is understood. Our meeting will have +originated the system of <i>drawbacks</i>, and it will be its eternal glory. +What branch of manufacturing can lose hereafter, when we have two so +simple means of turning losses into gains—the <i>tariff</i> and <i>drawbacks</i>. +The meeting is adjourned."</p> + +<p>Some supernatural vision must have shown me in a dream the coming +appearance of the <i>bounty</i> (who knows if I did not suggest the thought +to M. Dupin?), when some months ago I wrote the following words:</p> + +<p>"It seems evident to me that protection, without changing its nature or +effects, might take the form of a direct tax levied by the State, and +distributed in indemnifying bounties to privileged manufacturers."</p> + +<p>And after having compared protective duties with the bounty:</p> + +<p>"I frankly avow my preference for the latter system; it seems to me more +just, more economical, and more truthful. More just, because if society +wishes to give gratuities to some of its members, all should contribute; +more economical, because it would save much of the expense of +collection, and do away with many obstacles; and, finally, more +truthful, because the public could see the operation plainly, and would +know what was done."</p> + +<p>Since the opportunity is so kindly offered us, let us study this +<i>robbery by bounties</i>. What is said of it will also apply to <i>robbery by +tariff</i>, and as it is a little better disguised, the direct will enable +us to understand the indirect, cheating. Thus the mind proceeds from the +simple to the complex.</p> + +<p>But is there no simpler variety of robbery? Certainly, there is <i>highway +robbery</i>, and all it needs is to be legalized, or, as they say +now-a-days, <i>organized</i>.</p> + +<p>I once read the following in somebody's travels:</p> + +<p>"When we reached the Kingdom of A—— we found all industrial pursuits +suffering. Agriculture groaned, manufactures complained, commerce +murmured, the navy growled, and the government did not know whom to +listen to. At first it thought of taxing all the discontented, and of +dividing among them the proceeds of these taxes after having taken its +share; which would have been like the method of managing lotteries in +our dear Spain. There are a thousand of you; the State takes a dollar +from each one, cunningly steals two hundred and fifty, and then divides +up seven hundred and fifty, in greater or smaller sums, among the +players. The worthy Hidalgo, who has received three-quarters of a +dollar, forgetting that he has spent a whole one, is wild with joy, and +runs to spend his shillings at the tavern. Something like this once +happened in France. Barbarous as the country of A—— was, however, the +government did not trust the stupidity of the inhabitants enough to make +them accept such singular protection, and hence this was what it +devised:</p> + +<p>"The country was intersected with roads. The government had them +measured, exactly, and then said to the farmers, 'All that you can steal +from travelers between these boundaries is yours; let it serve you as a +<i>bounty</i>, a protection, and an encouragement.' It afterwards assigned to +each manufacturer and each ship-builder, a bit of road to work up, +according to this formula:</p> + +<p style="margin-left: 5em;"> +<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">Dono tibi et concedo,</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">Virtutem et puissantiam,</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 3.5em;">Robbandi,</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 3.5em;">Pillageandi,</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 3.5em;">Stealandi,</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 3.5em;">Cheatandi,</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 3.5em;">Et Swindlandi,</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">Impune per totam istam,</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 4.5em;">Viam.</span><br /> +</p> + +<p>"Now it has come to pass that the natives of the Kingdom of A—— are so +familiarized with this regime, and so accustomed to think only of what +they steal, and not of what is stolen from them, so habituated to look +at pillage but from the pillager's point of view, that they consider the +sum of all these private robberies as <i>national profit</i>, and refuse to +give up a system of protection without which, they say, no branch of +industry can live."</p> + +<p>Do you say, it is not possible that an entire nation could see an +<i>increase of riches</i> where the inhabitants plundered one another?</p> + +<p>Why not? We have this belief in France, and every day we organize and +practice <i>reciprocal robbery</i> under the name of bounties and protective +tariffs.</p> + +<p>Let us exaggerate nothing, however; let us concede that as far as the +<i>mode of collection</i>, and the collateral circumstances, are concerned, +the system in the Kingdom of A—— may be worse than ours; but let us +say, also, that as far as principles and necessary results are +concerned, there is not an atom of difference between these two kinds +of robbery legally organized to eke out the profits of industry.</p> + +<p>Observe, that if <i>highway robbery</i> presents some difficulties of +execution, it has also certain advantages which are not found in the +<i>tariff robbery</i>.</p> + +<p>For instance: An equitable division can be made between all the +plunderers. It is not thus with tariffs. They are by nature impotent to +protect certain classes of society, such as artizans, merchants, +literary men, lawyers, soldiers, etc., etc.</p> + +<p>It is true that <i>bounty robbery</i> allows of infinite subdivisions, and in +this respect does not yield in perfection to <i>highway robbery</i>, but on +the 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 great +reason.</p> + +<p>That which the plundered party loses in highway robbery is gained by the +robber. The article stolen remains, at least, in the country. But under +the dominion of <i>bounty robbery</i>, that which the duty takes from the +French is often given to the Chinese, the Hottentots, Caffirs, and +Algonquins, as follows:</p> + +<p>A piece of cloth is worth a <i>hundred francs</i> at Bordeaux. It is +impossible to sell it below that without loss. It is impossible to sell +it for more than that, for the <i>competition</i> between merchants forbids. +Under these circumstances, if a Frenchman desires to buy the cloth, he +must pay a <i>hundred francs</i>, or do without it. But if an Englishman +comes, the government interferes, and says to the merchant: "Sell your +cloth, and I will make the tax-payers give you <i>twenty francs</i> (through +the operation of the <i>drawback</i>)." The merchant, who wants, and can get, +but one hundred francs for his cloth, delivers it to the Englishman for +eighty francs. This sum added to the twenty francs, the product of the +<i>bounty robbery</i>, makes up his price. It is then precisely as if the +tax-payers had given twenty francs to the Englishman, on condition that +he would buy French cloth at twenty francs below the cost of +manufacture,—at twenty francs below what it costs us. Then bounty +robbery has this peculiarity, that the <i>robbed</i> are inhabitants of the +country which allows it, and the <i>robbers</i> are spread over the face of +the globe.</p> + +<p>It is truly wonderful that they should persist in holding this +proposition to have been demonstrated: <i>All that the individual robs +from the mass is a general gain.</i> Perpetual motion, the philosopher's +stone, and the squaring of the circle, are sunk in oblivion; but the +theory of <i>progress by robbery</i> is still held in honor. <i>A priori</i>, +however, one might have supposed that it would be the shortest lived of +all these follies.</p> + +<p>Some say to us: You are, then, partisans of the <i>let alone</i> policy? +economists of the superannuated school of the Smiths and the Says? You +do not desire the <i>organization of labor</i>? Why, gentlemen, organize +labor as much as you please, but we will watch to see that you do not +organize <i>robbery</i>.</p> + +<p>Others say, <i>bounties</i>, <i>tariffs</i>, all these things may have been +overdone. We must use, without abusing them. A wise liberty, combined +with moderate protection, is what <i>serious</i> and practical men claim. Let +us beware of <i>absolute principles</i>. This is exactly what they said in +the Kingdom of A——, according to the Spanish traveler. "Highway +robbery," said the wise men, "is neither good nor bad in itself; it +depends on circumstances. Perhaps too much freedom of pillage has been +given; perhaps not enough. Let us see; let us examine; let us balance +the accounts of each robber. To those who do not make enough, we will +give a little more road to work up. As for those who make too much, we +will reduce their share."</p> + +<p>Those who spoke thus acquired great fame for moderation, prudence, and +wisdom. They never failed to attain the highest offices of the State.</p> + +<p>As for those who said, "Let us repress injustice altogether; let us +allow neither <i>robbery</i>, nor <i>half robbery</i>, nor <i>quarter robbery</i>," +they passed for theorists, dreamers, bores—always parroting the same +thing. The people also found their reasoning too easy to understand. How +can that be true which is so very simple?</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>X.</h2> + +<h3>THE TAX COLLECTOR.</h3> + + +<p> +<span class="smcap">Jacques Bonhomme</span>, Vine-grower.<br /> +<span class="smcap">M. Lasouche</span>, Tax Collector.<br /> +</p> + +<p>L. You have secured twenty hogsheads of wine?</p> + +<p>J. Yes, with much care and sweat.</p> + +<p>—Be so kind as to give me six of the best.</p> + +<p>—Six hogsheads out of twenty! Good heavens! You want to ruin me. If you +please, what do you propose to do with them?</p> + +<p>—The first will be given to the creditors of the State. When one has +debts, the least one can do is to pay the interest.</p> + +<p>—Where did the principal go?</p> + +<p>—It would take too long to tell. A part of it was once upon a time put +in cartridges, which made the finest smoke in the world; with another +part men were hired who were maimed on foreign ground, after having +ravaged it. Then, when these expenses brought the enemy upon us, he +would not leave without taking money with him, which we had to borrow.</p> + +<p>—What good do I get from it now?</p> + +<p>—The satisfaction of saying:</p> + +<p style="margin-left: 5em;"> +How proud am I of being a Frenchman<br /> +When I behold the triumphal column,<br /> +</p> + +<p>And the humiliation of leaving to my heirs an estate burdened with a +perpetual rent. Still one must pay what he owes, no matter how foolish a +use may have been made of the money. That accounts for one hogshead, but +the five others?</p> + +<p>—One is required to pay for public services, the civil list, the judges +who decree the restitution of the bit of land your neighbor wants to +appropriate, the policemen who drive away robbers while you sleep, the +men who repair the road leading to the city, the priest who baptizes +your children, the teacher who educates them, and myself, your servant, +who does not work for nothing.</p> + +<p>—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 insist +on this. So much for the second hogshead. This leaves four, however.</p> + +<p>—Do you believe that two would be too much for your share of the army +and navy expenses?</p> + +<p>—Alas, it is little compared with what they have cost me already. They +have taken from me two sons whom I tenderly loved.</p> + +<p>—The balance of power in Europe must be maintained.</p> + +<p>—Well, my God! the balance of power would be the same if these forces +were every where reduced a half or three-quarters. We should save our +children and our money. All that is needed is to understand it.</p> + +<p>—Yes, but they do not understand it.</p> + +<p>—That is what amazes me. For every one suffers from it.</p> + +<p>—You wished it so, Jacques Bonhomme.</p> + +<p>—You are jesting, my dear Mr. Collector; have I a vote in the +legislative halls?</p> + +<p>—Whom did you support for Deputy?</p> + +<p>—An excellent General, who will be a Marshal presently, if God spares +his life.</p> + +<p>—On what does this excellent General live?</p> + +<p>—My hogsheads, I presume.</p> + +<p>—And what would happen were he to vote for a reduction of the army and +your military establishment?</p> + +<p>—Instead of being made a Marshal, he would be retired.</p> + +<p>—Do you now understand that yourself?</p> + +<p>—Let us pass to the fifth hogshead, I beg of you.</p> + +<p>—That goes to Algeria.</p> + +<p>—To Algeria! And they tell me that all Mussulmans are temperance +people, the barbarians! What services will they give me in exchange for +this ambrosia, which has cost me so much labor?</p> + +<p>—None at all; it is not intended for Mussulmans, but for good +Christians who spend their days in Barbary.</p> + +<p>—What can they do there which will be of service to me?</p> + +<p>—Undertake and undergo raids; kill and be killed; get dysenteries and +come home to be doctored; dig harbors, make roads, build villages and +people them with Maltese, Italians, Spaniards and Swiss, who live on +your hogshead, and many others which I shall come in the future to ask +of you.</p> + +<p>—Mercy! This is too much, and I flatly refuse you my hogshead. They +would 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 own +house! Dig ports in Barbary when the Garonne fills up with sand every +day! 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 and +Maltese, when there are so many poor around us!</p> + +<p>—The poor! Exactly; they free the country of this <i>superfluity</i>.</p> + +<p>—Oh, yes, by sending after them to Algeria the money which would enable +them to live here.</p> + +<p>—But then you lay the basis of a <i>great empire</i>, you carry +<i>civilization</i> into Africa, and you crown your country with immortal +glory.</p> + +<p>—You are a poet, my dear Collector; but I am a vine-grower, and I +refuse.</p> + +<p>—Think that in a few thousand years you will get back your advances a +hundred-fold. All those who have charge of the enterprise say so.</p> + +<p>—At first they asked me for one barrel of wine to meet expenses, then +two, then three, and now I am taxed a hogshead. I persist in my refusal.</p> + +<p>—It is too late. Your <i>representative</i> has agreed that you shall give a +hogshead.</p> + +<p>—That is but too true. Cursed weakness! It seems to me that I was +unwise in making him my agent; for what is there in common between the +General of an army and the poor owner of a vineyard?</p> + +<p>—You see well that there is something in common between you, were it +only the wine you make, and which, in your name, he votes to himself.</p> + +<p>—Laugh at me; I deserve it, my dear Collector. But be reasonable, and +leave 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 in +Africa perpetuated. What more do you want?</p> + +<p>—The bargain is not made with me. You must tell your desires to the +General. <i>He</i> has disposed of your vintage.</p> + +<p>—But what do you propose to do with this poor hogshead, the flower of +my flock? Come, taste this wine. How mellow, delicate, velvety it is!</p> + +<p>—Excellent, delicious! It will suit D——, the cloth manufacturer, +admirably.</p> + +<p>—D——, the manufacturer! What do you mean?</p> + +<p>—That he will make a good bargain out of it.</p> + +<p>—How? What is that? I do not understand you.</p> + +<p>—Do you not know that D—— has started a magnificent establishment +very useful to the country, but which loses much money every year?</p> + +<p>—I am very sorry. But what can I do to help him?</p> + +<p>—The Legislature saw that if things went on thus, D—— would either +have to do a better business or close his manufactory.</p> + +<p>—But what connection is there between D——'s bad speculations and my +hogshead?</p> + +<p>—The Chamber thought that if it gave D—— a little wine from your +cellar, a few bushels of grain taken from your neighbors, and a few +pennies cut from the wages of the workingmen, his losses would change +into profits.</p> + +<p>—This recipe is as infallible as it is ingenious. But it is shockingly +unjust. What! is D—— to cover his losses by taking my wine?</p> + +<p>—Not exactly the wine, but the proceeds of it; That is what we call a +<i>bounty for encouragement</i>. But you look amazed! Do not you see what a +great service you render to the country?</p> + +<p>—You mean to say to D——?</p> + +<p>—To the country. D—— asserts that, thanks to this arrangement, his +business 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.</p> + +<p>—It is a damnable fraud! What! A fool goes into a silly enterprise, he +spends his money, and if he extorts from me wine or grain enough to make +good his losses, and even to make him a profit, he calls it a general +gain!</p> + +<p>—Your <i>representative</i> having come to that conclusion, all you have to +do is to give me the six hogsheads of wine, and sell the fourteen that I +leave you for as much as possible.</p> + +<p>—That is my business.</p> + +<p>—For, you see, it would be very annoying if you did not get a good +price for them.</p> + +<p>—I will think of it.</p> + +<p>—For there are many things which the money you receive must procure.</p> + +<p>—I know it, sir. I know it.</p> + +<p>—In the first place, if you buy iron to renew your spades and +plowshares, a law declares that you must pay the iron-master twice what +it was worth.</p> + +<p>—Ah, yes; does not the same thing happen in the Black Forest?</p> + +<p>—Then, if you need oil, meat, cloth, coal, wool and sugar, each one by +the law will cost you twice what it is worth.</p> + +<p>—But this is horrible, frightful, abominable.</p> + +<p>—What is the use of these hard words? You yourself, through your +<i>authorized</i> agent——</p> + +<p>—Leave me alone with my authorized agent. I made a very strange +disposition of my vote, it is true. But they shall deceive me no more, +and I will be represented by some good and honest countryman.</p> + +<p>—Bah, you will re-elect the worthy General.</p> + +<p>—I? I re-elect the General to give away my wine to Africans and +manufacturers?</p> + +<p>—You will re-elect him, I say.</p> + +<p>—That is a little <i>too much</i>. I will not re-elect him, if I do not want +to.</p> + +<p>—But you will want to, and you will re-elect him.</p> + +<p>—Let him come here and try. He will see who he will have to settle +with.</p> + +<p>—We shall see. Good bye. I take away your six hogsheads, and will +proceed to divide them as the General has directed.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>XI.</h2> + +<h3>UTOPIAN IDEAS.</h3> + + +<p>If I were His Majesty's Minister!</p> + +<p>—Well, what would you do?</p> + +<p>—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 should +have 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 I +undertake to carry out my ideas and to run counter to its ideas, I shall +not have the majority, and if I do not, I cannot be His Majesty's +Minister.</p> + +<p>—Just imagine that you are so, and that consequently the majority is +not opposed to you, what would you do?</p> + +<p>—I would look to see on which side <i>justice</i> is.</p> + +<p>—And then?</p> + +<p>—I would seek to find where <i>utility</i> was.</p> + +<p>—What next?</p> + +<p>—I would see whether they agreed, or were in conflict with one another.</p> + +<p>—And if you found they did not agree?</p> + +<p>—I would say to the King, take back your portfolio.</p> + +<p>—But suppose you see that <i>justice</i> and <i>utility</i> are one?</p> + +<p>—Then I will go straight ahead.</p> + +<p>—Very well, but to realize utility by justice, a third thing is +necessary.</p> + +<p>—What is that?</p> + +<p>—Possibility.</p> + +<p>—You conceded that.</p> + +<p>—When?</p> + +<p>—Just now.</p> + +<p>—How?</p> + +<p>—By giving me the majority.</p> + +<p>—It seems to me that the concession was rather hazardous, for it +implies that the majority clearly sees what is just, clearly sees what +is useful, and clearly sees that these things are in perfect accord.</p> + +<p>—And if it sees this clearly, the good will, so to speak, do itself.</p> + +<p>—This is the point to which you are constantly bringing me—to see a +possibility of reform only in the progress of the general intelligence.</p> + +<p>—By this progress all reform is infallible.</p> + +<p>—Certainly. But this preliminary progress takes time. Let us suppose it +accomplished. What will you do? for I am eager to see you at work, +doing, practicing.</p> + +<p>—I should begin by reducing letter postage to ten centimes.</p> + +<p>—I heard you speak of five, once.</p> + +<p>—Yes; but as I have other reforms in view, I must move with prudence, +to avoid a deficit in the revenues.</p> + +<p>—Prudence? This leaves you with a deficit of thirty millions.</p> + +<p>—Then I will reduce the salt tax to ten francs.</p> + +<p>—Good! Here is another deficit of thirty millions. Doubtless you have +invented some new tax.</p> + +<p>—Heaven forbid! Besides, I do not flatter myself that I have an +inventive mind.</p> + +<p>—It is necessary, however. Oh, I have it. What was I thinking of? You +are simply going to diminish the expense. I did not think of that.</p> + +<p>—You are not the only one. I shall come to that; but I do not count on +it at present.</p> + +<p>—What! you diminish the receipts, without lessening expenses, and you +avoid a deficit?</p> + +<p>—Yes, by diminishing other taxes at the same time.</p> + +<p>(Here the interlocutor, putting the index finger of his right hand on +his forehead, shook his head, which may be translated thus: He is +rambling terribly.)</p> + +<p>—Well, upon my word, this is ingenious. I pay the Treasury a hundred +francs; you relieve me of five francs on salt, five on postage; and in +order that the Treasury may nevertheless receive one hundred francs, you +relieve me of ten on some other tax?</p> + +<p>—Precisely; you understand me.</p> + +<p>—How can it be true? I am not even sure that I have heard you.</p> + +<p>—I repeat that I balance one remission of taxes by another.</p> + +<p>—I have a little time to give, and I should like to hear you expound +this paradox.</p> + +<p>—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.</p> + +<p>—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?</p> + +<p>—How much does this suit of clothes cost you?</p> + +<p>—A hundred francs.</p> + +<p>—How much would it have cost you if you had gotten the cloth from +Belgium?</p> + +<p>—Eighty francs.</p> + +<p>—Then why did you not get it there?</p> + +<p>—Because it is prohibited.</p> + +<p>—Why?</p> + +<p>—So that the suit may cost me one hundred francs instead of eighty.</p> + +<p>—This denial, then, costs you twenty francs?</p> + +<p>—Undoubtedly.</p> + +<p>—And where do these twenty francs go?</p> + +<p>—Where do they go? To the manufacturer of the cloth.</p> + +<p>—Well, give me ten francs for the Treasury, and I will remove the +restriction, and you will gain ten francs.</p> + +<p>—Oh, I begin to see. The treasury account shows that it loses five +francs on postage and five on salt, and gains ten on cloth. That is +even.</p> + +<p>—Your account is—you gain five francs on salt, five on postage, and +ten on cloth.</p> + +<p>—Total, twenty francs. This is satisfactory enough. But what becomes of +the poor cloth manufacturer?</p> + +<p>—Oh, I have thought of him. I have secured compensation for him by +means 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 to +wool, coal, machinery, etc., so that he can lower his price without +loss.</p> + +<p>—But are you sure that will be an equivalent?</p> + +<p>—The balance will be in his favor. The twenty francs that you gain on +the cloth will be multiplied by those which I will save for you on +grain, meat, fuel, etc. This will amount to a large sum, and each one of +your 35,000,000 fellow-citizens will save the same way. There will be +enough to consume the cloths of both Belgium and France. The nation will +be better clothed; that is all.</p> + +<p>—I will think on this, for it is somewhat confused in my head.</p> + +<p>—After all, as far as clothes go, the main thing is to be clothed. Your +limbs are your own, and not the manufacturer's. To shield them from cold +is your business and not his. If the law takes sides for him against +you, the law is unjust, and you allowed me to reason on the hypothesis +that what is unjust is hurtful.</p> + +<p>—Perhaps I admitted too much; but go on and explain your financial +plan.</p> + +<p>—Then I will make a tariff.</p> + +<p>—In two folio volumes?</p> + +<p>—No, in two sections.</p> + +<p>—Then they will no longer say that this famous axiom "No one is +supposed to be ignorant of the law" is a fiction. Let us see your +tariff.</p> + +<p>—Here it is: Section First. All imports shall pay an <i>ad valorem</i> tax +of five per cent.</p> + +<p>—Even <i>raw materials</i>?</p> + +<p>—Unless they are <i>worthless</i>.</p> + +<p>—But they all have value, much or little.</p> + +<p>—Then they will pay much or little.</p> + +<p>—How can our manufactories compete with foreign ones which have these +<i>raw materials</i> free?</p> + +<p>—The expenses of the State being certain, if we close this source of +revenue, we must open another; this will not diminish the relative +inferiority of our manufactories, and there will be one bureau more to +organize and pay.</p> + +<p>—That is true; I reasoned as if the tax was to be annulled, not +changed. I will reflect on this. What is your second section?</p> + +<p>—Section Second. All exports shall pay an <i>ad valorem</i> tax of five per +cent.</p> + +<p>—Merciful Heavens, Mr. Utopist! You will certainly be stoned, and, if +it comes to that, I will throw the first one.</p> + +<p>—We agreed that the majority were enlightened.</p> + +<p>—Enlightened! Can you claim that an export duty is not onerous?</p> + +<p>—All taxes are onerous, but this is less so than others.</p> + +<p>—The carnival justifies many eccentricities. Be so kind as to make this +new paradox appear specious, if you can.</p> + +<p>—How much did you pay for this wine?</p> + +<p>—A franc per quart.</p> + +<p>—How much would you have paid outside the city gates?</p> + +<p>—Fifty centimes.</p> + +<p>—Why this difference?</p> + +<p>—Ask the <i>octroi</i><a name="FNanchor_14_14" id="FNanchor_14_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_14_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a> which added ten sous to it.</p> + +<p>—Who established the <i>octroi</i>?</p> + +<p>—The municipality of Paris, in order to pave and light the streets.</p> + +<p>—This is, then, an import duty. But if the neighboring country +districts had established this <i>octroi</i> for their profit, what would +happen?</p> + +<p>—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 the +Batignolles.</p> + +<p>—So that really it is the consumer who pays the tax?</p> + +<p>—There is no doubt of that.</p> + +<p>—Then by taxing exports you make foreigners help pay your +expenses.<a name="FNanchor_15_15" id="FNanchor_15_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_15_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a></p> + +<p>—I find you at fault, this is not <i>justice</i>.</p> + +<p>—Why not? In order to secure the production of any one thing, there +must be instruction, security, roads, and other costly things in the +country. Why shall not the foreigner who is to consume this product, +bear the charges its production necessitates?</p> + +<p>—This is contrary to received ideas.</p> + +<p>—Not the least in the world. The last purchaser must repay all the +direct and indirect expenses of production.</p> + +<p>—No matter what you say, it is plain that such a measure would paralyze +commerce; and cut off all exports.</p> + +<p>—That is an illusion. If you were to pay this tax besides all the +others, you would be right. But, if the hundred millions raised in this +way, relieve you of other taxes to the same amount, you go into foreign +markets with all your advantages, and even with more, if this duty has +occasioned less embarrassment and expense.</p> + +<p>—I will reflect on this. So now the salt, postage and customs are +regulated. Is all ended there?</p> + +<p>—I am just beginning.</p> + +<p>—Pray, initiate me in your Utopian ideas.</p> + +<p>—I have lost sixty millions on salt and postage. I shall regain them +through the customs; which also gives me something more precious.</p> + +<p>—What, pray?</p> + +<p>—International relations founded on justice, and a probability of peace +which is equivalent to a certainty. I will disband the army.</p> + +<p>—The whole army?</p> + +<p>—Except special branches, which will be voluntarily recruited, like all +other professions. You see, conscription is abolished.</p> + +<p>—Sir, you should say recruiting.</p> + +<p>—Ah, I forgot, I cannot help admiring the ease with which, in certain +countries, the most unpopular things are perpetuated by giving them +other names.</p> + +<p>—Like <i>consolidated duties</i>, which have become <i>indirect +contributions</i>.</p> + +<p>—And the <i>gendarmes</i>, who have taken the name of <i>municipal guards</i>.</p> + +<p>—In short, trusting to Utopia, you disarm the country.</p> + +<p>—I said that I would muster out the army, not that I would disarm the +country. I intend, on the contrary, to give it invincible power.</p> + +<p>—How do you harmonize this mass of contradictions?</p> + +<p>—I call all the citizens to service.</p> + +<p>—Is it worth while to relieve a portion from service in order to call +out everybody?</p> + +<p>—You did not make me Minister in order that I should leave things as +they are. Thus, on my advent to power, I shall say with Richelieu, "the +State maxims are changed." My first maxim, the one which will serve as a +basis for my administration, is this: Every citizen must know two +things—How to earn his own living, and defend his country.</p> + +<p>—It seems to me, at the first glance, that there is a spark of good +sense in this.</p> + +<p>—Consequently, I base the national defense on a law consisting of two +sections.</p> + +<p>Section First. Every able-bodied citizen, without exception, shall be +under arms for four years, from his twenty-first to his twenty-fifth +year, in order to receive military instruction.—</p> + +<p>—This is pretty economy! You send home four hundred thousand soldiers +and call out ten millions.</p> + +<p>—Listen to my second section:</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 2.</span> <i>Unless</i> he proves, at the age of twenty-one, that he +knows the school of the soldier perfectly.</p> + +<p>—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 <i>by +the right flank</i> and <i>double quick, march</i>. The idea is odd.</p> + +<p>—It is better than that. For without grieving families and offending +equality, does it not assure the country, in a simple and inexpensive +manner, of ten million defenders, capable of defying a coalition of all +the standing armies of the globe?</p> + +<p>—Truly, if I were not on my guard, I should end in getting interested +in your fancies.</p> + +<p><i>The Utopist, getting excited:</i> Thank Heaven, my estimates are relieved +of a hundred millions! I suppress the <i>octroi</i>. I refund indirect +contributions. I—</p> + +<p><i>Getting more and more excited:</i> I will proclaim religious freedom and +free instruction. There shall be new resources. I will buy the +railroads, pay off the public debt, and starve out the stock gamblers.</p> + +<p>—My dear Utopist!</p> + +<p>—Freed from too numerous cares, I will concentrate all the resources of +the government on the repression of fraud, the administration of prompt +and even-handed justice. I—</p> + +<p>—My dear Utopist, you attempt too much. The nation will not follow you.</p> + +<p>—You gave me the majority.</p> + +<p>—I take it back.</p> + +<p>—Very well; then I am no longer Minister; but my plans remain what they +are—Utopian ideas.</p> + + + + +<h2>XII.</h2> + +<h3>SALT, POSTAGE, AND CUSTOMS.</h3> + + +<p>[This chapter is an amusing dialogue relating principally to English +Postal Reform. Being inapplicable to any condition of things existing in +the United States, it is omitted.—<i>Translator.</i>]</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>XIII.</h2> + +<h3>THE THREE ALDERMEN.</h3> + +<p class='center'><b>A DEMONSTRATION IN FOUR TABLEAUX.</b></p> + + +<p class='center'><i>First Tableau.</i></p> + +<p>[The scene is in the hotel of Alderman Pierre. The window looks out on a +fine park; three persons are seated near a good fire.]</p> + +<p><i>Pierre.</i> Upon my word, a fire is very comfortable when the stomach is +satisfied. It must be agreed that it is a pleasant thing. But, alas! how +many worthy people like the King of Yvetot,</p> + +<p style="margin-left: 5em;"> +"Blow on their fingers for want of wood."<br /> +</p> + +<p>Unhappy creatures, Heaven inspires me with a charitable thought. You see +these fine trees. I will cut them down and distribute the wood among +the poor.</p> + +<p><i>Paul and Jean.</i> What! gratis?</p> + +<p><i>Pierre.</i> Not exactly. There would soon be an end of my good works if I +scattered my property thus. I think that my park is worth twenty +thousand livres; by cutting it down I shall get much more for it.</p> + +<p><i>Paul.</i> A mistake. Your wood as it stands is worth more than that in the +neighboring forests, for it renders services which that cannot give. +When cut down it will, like that, be good for burning only, and will not +be worth a sou more per cord.</p> + +<p><i>Pierre.</i> Oh! Mr. Theorist, you forget that I am a practical man. I +supposed that my reputation as a speculator was well enough established +to put me above any charge of stupidity. Do you think that I shall amuse +myself by selling my wood at the price of other wood?</p> + +<p><i>Paul.</i> You must.</p> + +<p><i>Pierre.</i> Simpleton!—Suppose I prevent the bringing of any wood to +Paris?</p> + +<p><i>Paul.</i> That will alter the case. But how will you manage it?</p> + +<p><i>Pierre.</i> This is the whole secret. You know that wood pays an entrance +duty of ten sous per cord. To-morrow I will induce the Aldermen to raise +this duty to one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred livres, so high +as to keep out every fagot. Well, do you see? If the good people do not +want to die of cold, they must come to my wood-yard. They will fight for +my wood; I shall sell it for its weight in gold, and this well-regulated +deed of charity will enable me to do others of the same sort.</p> + +<p><i>Paul.</i> This is a fine idea, and it suggests an equally good one to me.</p> + +<p><i>Jean.</i> Well, what is it?</p> + +<p><i>Paul.</i> How do you find this Normandy butter?</p> + +<p><i>Jean.</i> Excellent.</p> + +<p><i>Paul</i>. Well, it seemed passable a moment ago. But do you not think it +is a little strong? I want to make a better article at Paris. I will +have four or five hundred cows, and I will distribute milk, butter and +cheese to the poor people.</p> + +<p><i>Pierre and Jean.</i> What! as a charity?</p> + +<p><i>Paul.</i> Bah, let us always put charity in the foreground. It is such a +fine thing that its counterfeit even is an excellent card. I will give +my butter to the people and they will give me their money. Is that +called selling?</p> + +<p><i>Jean.</i> No, according to the <i>Bourgeois Gentilhomme</i>; but call it what +you please, you ruin yourself. Can Paris compete with Normandy in +raising cows?</p> + +<p><i>Paul.</i> I shall save the cost of transportation.</p> + +<p><i>Jean.</i> Very well; but the Normans are able to <i>beat</i> the Parisians, +even if they do have to pay for transportation.</p> + +<p><i>Paul.</i> Do you call it <i>beating</i> any one to furnish him things at a low +price?</p> + +<p><i>Jean.</i> It is the time-honored word. You will always be beaten.</p> + +<p><i>Paul.</i> Yes; like Don Quixote. The blows will fall on Sancho. Jean, my +friend, you forgot the <i>octroi</i>.</p> + +<p><i>Jean.</i> The <i>octroi</i>! What has that to do with your butter?</p> + +<p><i>Paul.</i> To-morrow I will demand <i>protection</i>, and I will induce the +Council to prohibit the butter of Normandy and Brittany. The people must +do without butter, or buy mine, and that at my price, too.</p> + +<p><i>Jean.</i> Gentlemen, your philanthropy carries me along with it. "In time +one learns to howl with the wolves." It shall not be said that I am an +unworthy Alderman. Pierre, this sparkling fire has illumined your soul; +Paul, this butter has given an impulse to your understanding, and I +perceive that this piece of salt pork stimulates my intelligence. +To-morrow I will vote myself, and make others vote, for the exclusion of +hogs, dead or alive; this done, I will build superb stock-yards in the +middle of Paris "for the unclean animal forbidden to the Hebrews." I +will become swineherd and pork-seller, and we shall see how the good +people of Lutetia can help getting their food at my shop.</p> + +<p><i>Pierre.</i> Gently, my friends; if you thus run up the price of butter and +salt meat, you diminish the profit which I expected from my wood.</p> + +<p><i>Paul.</i> Nor is my speculation so wonderful, if you ruin me with your +fuel and your hams.</p> + +<p><i>Jean.</i> What shall I gain by making you pay an extra price for my +sausages, if you overcharge me for pastry and fagots?</p> + +<p><i>Pierre.</i> Do you not see that we are getting into a quarrel? Let us +rather unite. Let us make <i>reciprocal concessions</i>. Besides, it is not +well to listen only to miserable self-interest. <i>Humanity</i> is concerned, +and must not the warming of the people be secured?</p> + +<p><i>Paul.</i> That it is true, and people must have butter to spread on their +bread.</p> + +<p><i>Jean.</i> Certainly. And they must have a bit of pork for their soup.</p> + +<p><i>All Together.</i> Forward, charity! Long live philanthropy! To-morrow, +to-morrow, we will take the octroi by assault.</p> + +<p><i>Pierre.</i> Ah, I forgot. One word more which is important. My friends, in +this selfish age people are suspicious, and the purest intentions are +often misconstrued. Paul, you plead for <i>wood</i>; Jean, defend <i>butter</i>; +and I will devote myself to domestic <i>swine</i>. It is best to head off +invidious suspicions. <i>Paul and Jean</i> (leaving). Upon my word, what a +clever fellow!</p> + + +<p class='center'><b>SECOND TABLEAU.</b></p> + +<p class='center'><i>The Common Council.</i></p> + +<p><i>Paul.</i> My dear colleagues, every day great quantities of wood come into +Paris, and draw out of it large sums of money. If this goes on, we shall +all 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, for +you 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. They +will no longer be in a state of <i>dependence</i> on the charcoal dealers of +the Yonne. Have you ever thought of the risk we run of dying of cold, if +the proprietors of these foreign forests should take it into their heads +not 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 the +wood-chopping business, and open to our workmen a new source of labor +and wages. [Applause.]</p> + +<p><i>Jean.</i> I second the motion of the Honorable member—a proposition so +philanthropic and so disinterested, as he remarked. It is time that we +should stop this intolerable <i>freedom of entry</i>, which has brought a +ruinous competition upon our market, so that there is not a province +tolerably well situated for producing some one article which does not +inundate us with it, sell it to us at a low price, and depress Parisian +labor. It is the business of the State to <i>equalize the conditions of +production</i> by wisely graduated duties; to allow the entrance from +without of whatever is dearer there than at Paris, and thus relieve us +from an unequal <i>contest</i>. How, for instance, can they expect us to make +milk and butter in Paris as against Brittany and Normandy? Think, +gentlemen; the Bretons have land cheaper, feed more convenient, and +labor more abundant. Does not common sense say that the conditions must +be equalized by a protecting duty? I ask that the duty on milk and +butter be raised to a thousand per cent., and more, if necessary. The +breakfasts of the people will cost a little more, but wages will rise! +We shall see the building of stables and dairies, a good trade in +churns, and the foundation of new industries laid. I, myself, have not +the least interest in this plan. I am not a cowherd, nor do I desire to +become one. I am moved by the single desire to be useful to the laboring +classes. [Expressions of approbation.]</p> + +<p><i>Pierre.</i> I am happy to see in this assembly statesmen so pure, +enlightened, and devoted to the interests of the people. [Cheers.] I +admire their self-denial, and cannot do better than follow such noble +examples. I support their motion, and I also make one to exclude Poitou +hogs. It is not that I want to become a swineherd or pork dealer, in +which case my conscience would forbid my making this motion; but is it +not shameful, gentlemen, that we should be paying tribute to these poor +Poitevin 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 trade +is not in their favor, and that we are not compelled to pay them a +tribute in money? Is it not plain that if this Poitevin industry were +planted in Paris, it would open new fields to Parisian labor? Moreover, +gentlemen, is it not very likely, as Mr. Lestiboudois said, that we buy +these Poitevin salted meats, not with our income, but our capital? Where +will this land us? Let us not allow greedy, avaricious and perfidious +rivals to come here and sell things cheaply, thus making it impossible +for us to produce them ourselves. Aldermen, Paris has given us its +confidence, and we must show ourselves worthy of it. The people are +without labor, and we must create it, and if salted meat costs them a +little more, we shall, at least, have the consciousness that we have +sacrificed our interests to those of the masses, as every good Alderman +ought to do. [Thunders of applause.]</p> + +<p><i>A Voice.</i> I hear much said of the poor people; but, under the pretext +of giving them labor, you begin by taking away from them that which is +worth more than labor itself—wood, butter, and soup.</p> + +<p><i>Pierre, Paul and Jean.</i> Vote, vote. Away with your theorists and +generalizers! Let us vote. [The three motions are carried.]</p> + + +<p class='center'><b>THIRD TABLEAU.</b></p> + +<p class='center'><i>Twenty Years After.</i></p> + +<p><i>Son.</i> Father, decide; we must leave Paris. Work is slack, and +everything is dear.</p> + +<p><i>Father.</i> My son, you do not know how hard it is to leave the place +where we were born.</p> + +<p><i>Son.</i> The worst of all things is to die there of misery.</p> + +<p><i>Father.</i> Go, my son, and seek a more hospitable country. For myself, I +will not leave the grave where your mother, sisters and brothers lie. I +am eager to find, at last, near them, the rest which is denied me in +this city of desolation.</p> + +<p><i>Son.</i> Courage, dear father, we will find work elsewhere—in Poitou, +Normandy or Brittany. They say that the industry of Paris is gradually +transferring itself to those distant countries.</p> + +<p><i>Father.</i> It is very natural. Unable to sell us wood and food, they +stopped producing more than they needed for themselves, and they +devoted their spare time and capital to making those things which we +formerly furnished them.</p> + +<p><i>Son.</i> Just as at Paris, they quit making handsome furniture and fine +clothes, in order to plant trees, and raise hogs and cows. Though quite +young, I have seen vast storehouses, sumptuous buildings, and quays +thronged with life on those banks of the Seine which are now given up to +meadows and forests.</p> + +<p><i>Father.</i> While the provinces are filling up with cities, Paris becomes +country. What a frightful revolution! Three mistaken Aldermen, aided by +public ignorance, have brought down on us this terrible calamity.</p> + +<p><i>Son.</i> Tell me this story, my father.</p> + +<p><i>Father.</i> It is very simple. Under the pretext of establishing three new +trades at Paris, and of thus supplying labor to the workmen, these men +secured the prohibition of wood, butter, and meats. They assumed the +right of supplying their fellow-citizens with them. These articles rose +immediately to an exorbitant price. Nobody made enough to buy them, and +the few who could procure them by using up all they made were unable to +buy anything else; consequently all branches of industry stopped at +once—all the more so because the provinces no longer offered a market. +Misery, death, and emigration began to depopulate Paris.</p> + +<p><i>Son.</i> When will this stop?</p> + +<p><i>Father.</i> When Paris has become a meadow and a forest.</p> + +<p><i>Son.</i> The three Aldermen must have made a great fortune.</p> + +<p><i>Father.</i> At first they made immense profits, but at length they were +involved in the common misery.</p> + +<p><i>Son.</i> How was that possible?</p> + +<p><i>Father.</i> You see this ruin; it was a magnificent house, surrounded by a +fine park. If Paris had kept on advancing, Master Pierre would have got +more rent from it annually than the whole thing is now worth to him.</p> + +<p><i>Son.</i> How can that be, since he got rid of competition?</p> + +<p><i>Father.</i> Competition in selling has disappeared; but competition in +buying also disappears every day, and will keep on disappearing until +Paris is an open field, and Master Pierre's woodland will be worth no +more than an equal number of acres in the forest of Bondy. Thus, a +monopoly, like every species of injustice, brings its own punishment +upon itself.</p> + +<p><i>Son.</i> This does not seem very plain to me, but the decay of Paris is +undeniable. Is there, then, no means of repealing this unjust measure +that Pierre and his colleagues adopted twenty years ago?</p> + +<p><i>Father.</i> I will confide my secret to you. I will remain at Paris for +this purpose; I will call the people to my aid. It depends on them +whether they will replace the <i>octroi</i> on its old basis, and dismiss +from it this fatal principle, which is grafted on it, and has grown +there like a parasite fungus.</p> + +<p><i>Son.</i> You ought to succeed on the very first day.</p> + +<p><i>Father.</i> No; on the contrary, the work is a difficult and laborious +one. Pierre, Paul and Jean understand one another perfectly. They are +ready to do anything rather than allow the entrance of wood, butter and +meat into Paris. They even have on their side the people, who clearly +see the labor which these three protected branches of business give, who +know how many wood-choppers and cow-drivers it gives employment to, but +who cannot obtain so clear an idea of the labor that would spring up in +the free air of liberty.</p> + +<p><i>Son.</i> If this is all that is needed, you will enlighten them.</p> + +<p><i>Father.</i> My child, at your age, one doubts at nothing. If I wrote, the +people would not read; for all their time is occupied in supporting a +wretched existence. If I speak, the Aldermen will shut my mouth. The +people will, therefore, remain long in their fatal error; political +parties, which build their hopes on their passions, attempt to play upon +their prejudices, rather than to dispel them. I shall then have to deal +with the powers that be—the people and the parties. I see that a storm +will burst on the head of the audacious person who dares to rise against +an iniquity which is so firmly rooted in the country.</p> + +<p><i>Son.</i> You will have justice and truth on your side.</p> + +<p><i>Father.</i> And they will have force and calumny. If I were only young! +But age and suffering have exhausted my strength.</p> + +<p><i>Son.</i> Well, father, devote all that you have left to the service of the +country. Begin this work of emancipation, and leave to me for an +inheritance the task of finishing it.</p> + + +<p class='center'><b>FOURTH TABLEAU.</b></p> + +<p class='center'><i>The Agitation.</i></p> + +<p><i>Jacques Bonhomme.</i> Parisians, let us demand the reform of the <i>octroi</i>; +let it be put back to what it was. Let every citizen be <span class="smcap">FREE</span> to +buy wood, butter and meat where it seems good to him.</p> + +<p><i>The People.</i> Hurrah for <span class="smcap">LIBERTY</span>!</p> + +<p><i>Pierre.</i> Parisians, do not allow yourselves to be seduced by these +words. Of what avail is the freedom of purchasing, if you have not the +means? and how can you have the means, if labor is wanting? Can Paris +produce wood as cheaply as the forest of Bondy, or meat at as low price +as Poitou, or butter as easily as Normandy? If you open the doors to +these rival products, what will become of the wood cutters, pork +dealers, and cattle drivers? They cannot do without protection.</p> + +<p><i>The People.</i>. Hurrah for <span class="smcap">PROTECTION</span>!</p> + +<p><i>Jacques.</i> Protection! But do they protect you, workmen? Do not you +compete with one another? Let the wood dealers then suffer competition +in their turn. They have no right to raise the price of their wood by +law, unless they, also, by law, raise wages. Do you not still love +equality?</p> + +<p><i>The People.</i> Hurrah for <span class="smcap">EQUALITY</span>!</p> + +<p><i>Pierre.</i> Do not listen to this factious fellow. We have raised the +price of wood, meat, and butter, it is true; but it is in order that we +may give good wages to the workmen. We are moved by charity.</p> + +<p><i>The People.</i> Hurrah for <span class="smcap">CHARITY</span>!</p> + +<p><i>Jacques.</i> Use the <i>octroi</i>, if you can, to raise wages, or do not use +it to raise the price of commodities. The Parisians do not ask for +charity, but justice.</p> + +<p><i>The People.</i> Hurrah for <span class="smcap">JUSTICE</span>!</p> + +<p><i>Pierre.</i> It is precisely the dearness of products which will, by reflex +action, raise wages.</p> + +<p><i>The People.</i> Hurrah for <span class="smcap">DEARNESS</span>!</p> + +<p><i>Jacques.</i> If butter is dear, it is not because you pay workmen well; it +is not even that you may make great profits; it is only because Paris is +ill situated for this business, and because you desired that they +should do in the city what ought to be done in the country, and in the +country what was done in the city. The people have no <i>more</i> labor, only +they labor at something else. They get no <i>more</i> wages, but they do not +buy things as cheaply.</p> + +<p><i>The People.</i> Hurrah for <span class="smcap">CHEAPNESS</span>!</p> + +<p><i>Pierre.</i> This person seduces you with his fine words. Let us state the +question plainly. Is it not true that if we admit butter, wood, and +meat, 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 new +inundation, than to shut the door, and we can keep up the price of +things only by causing scarcity artificially.</p> + +<p><i>A Very Few Voices.</i> Hurrah for <span class="smcap">SCARCITY</span>!</p> + +<p><i>Jacques.</i> Let us state the question as it is. Among all the Parisians +we can divide only what is in Paris; the less wood, butter and meat +there is, the smaller each one's share will be. There will be less if we +exclude than if we admit. Parisians, individual abundance can exist only +where there is general abundance.</p> + +<p><i>The People.</i> Hurrah for <span class="smcap">ABUNDANCE</span>!</p> + +<p><i>Pierre.</i> No matter what this man says, he cannot prove to you that it +is to your interest to submit to unbridled competition.</p> + +<p><i>The People.</i> Down with <span class="smcap">COMPETITION</span>!</p> + +<p><i>Jacques.</i> Despite all this man's declamation, he cannot make you +<i>enjoy</i> the sweets of restriction.</p> + +<p><i>The People.</i> Down with <span class="smcap">RESTRICTION</span>!</p> + +<p><i>Pierre.</i> I declare to you that if the poor dealers in cattle and hogs +are deprived of their livelihood, if they are sacrificed to theories, I +will not be answerable for public order. Workmen, distrust this man. He +is an agent of perfidious Normandy; he is under the pay of foreigners. +He is a traitor, and must be hanged. [The people keep silent.]</p> + +<p><i>Jacques.</i> Parisians, all that I say now, I said to you twenty years +ago, when it occurred to Pierre to use the <i>octroi</i> for his gain and +your loss. I am not an agent of Normandy. Hang me if you will, but this +will not prevent oppression from being oppression. Friends, you must +kill neither Jacques nor Pierre, but liberty if it frightens you, or +restriction if it hurts you.</p> + +<p><i>The People.</i> Let us hang nobody, but let us emancipate everybody.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>XIV.</h2> + +<h3>SOMETHING ELSE.</h3> + + +<p>—What is restriction?</p> + +<p>—A partial prohibition.</p> + +<p>—What is prohibition?</p> + +<p>—An absolute restriction.</p> + +<p>—So that what is said of one is true of the other?</p> + +<p>—Yes, comparatively. They bear the same relation to each other that the +arc of the circle does to the circle.</p> + +<p>—Then if prohibition is bad, restriction cannot be good.</p> + +<p>—No more than the arc can be straight if the circle is curved.</p> + +<p>—What is the common name for restriction and prohibition?</p> + +<p>—Protection.</p> + +<p>—What is the definite effect of protection?</p> + +<p>—To require from men <i>harder labor for the same result</i>.</p> + +<p>—Why are men so attached to the protective system?</p> + +<p>—Because, since liberty would accomplish the same result <i>with less +labor</i>, this apparent diminution of labor frightens them.</p> + +<p>—Why do you say <i>apparent</i>?</p> + +<p>—Because all labor economized can be devoted to <i>something else</i>.</p> + +<p>—What?</p> + +<p>—That cannot and need not be determined.</p> + +<p>—Why?</p> + +<p>—Because, if the total of the comforts of France could be gained with a +diminution of one-tenth on the total of its labor, no one could +determine what comforts it would procure with the labor remaining at its +disposal. One person would prefer to be better clothed, another better +fed, another better taught, and another more amused.</p> + +<p>—Explain the workings and effect of protection.</p> + +<p>—It is not an easy matter. Before taking hold of a complicated +instance, it must be studied in the simplest one.</p> + +<p>—Take the simplest you choose.</p> + +<p>—Do you recollect how Robinson Crusoe, having no saw, set to work to +make a plank?</p> + +<p>—Yes. He cut down a tree, and then with his ax hewed the trunk on both +sides until he got it down to the thickness of a board.</p> + +<p>—And that gave him an abundance of work?</p> + +<p>—Fifteen full days.</p> + +<p>—What did he live on during this time?</p> + +<p>—His provisions.</p> + +<p>—What happened to the ax?</p> + +<p>—It was all blunted.</p> + +<p>—Very good; but there is one thing which, perhaps, you do not know. At +the moment that Robinson gave the first blow with his ax, he saw a plank +which the waves had cast up on the shore.</p> + +<p>—Oh, the lucky accident! He ran to pick it up?</p> + +<p>—It was his first impulse; but he checked himself, reasoning thus:</p> + +<p>"If I go after this plank, it will cost me but the labor of carrying it +and the time spent in going to and returning from the shore.</p> + +<p>"But if I make a plank with my ax, I shall in the first place obtain +work for fifteen days, then I shall wear out my ax, which will give me +an opportunity of repairing it, and I shall consume my provisions, which +will be a third source of labor, since they must be replaced. Now, +<i>labor is wealth</i>. It is plain that I will ruin myself if I pick up this +stranded board. It is important to protect my <i>personal labor</i>, and now +that I think of it, I can create myself additional labor by kicking this +board back into the sea."</p> + +<p>—But this reasoning was absurd!</p> + +<p>—Certainly. Nevertheless it is that adopted by every nation which +<i>protects</i> itself by prohibition. It rejects the plank which is offered +it 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. This +answers to the trouble which Robinson took to give back to the waves +the present they wished to make him. Consider the nation a collective +being, and you will not find an atom of difference between its reasoning +and that of Robinson.</p> + +<p>—Did not Robinson see that he could use the time saved in doing +<i>something else</i>?</p> + +<p>—What '<i>something else</i>'?</p> + +<p>—So long as one has wants and time, one has always <i>something</i> to do. I +am not bound to specify the labor that he could undertake.</p> + +<p>—I can specify very easily that which he would have avoided.</p> + +<p>—I assert, that Robinson, with incredible blindness, confounded labor +with its result, the end with the means, and I will prove it to you.</p> + +<p>—It is not necessary. But this is the restrictive or prohibitory system +in its simplest form. If it appears absurd to you, thus stated, it is +because the two qualities of producer and consumer are here united in +the same person.</p> + +<p>—Let us pass, then, to a more complicated instance.</p> + +<p>—Willingly. Some time after all this, Robinson having met Friday, they +united, and began to work in common. They hunted for six hours each +morning and brought home four hampers of game. They worked in the garden +for six hours each afternoon, and obtained four baskets of vegetables.</p> + +<p>One day a canoe touched at the Island of Despair. A good-looking +stranger landed, and was allowed to dine with our two hermits. He +tasted, and praised the products of the garden, and before taking leave +of his hosts, said to them:</p> + +<p>"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 you +every evening four hampers of game if you would give me only two baskets +of vegetables."</p> + +<p>At these words Robinson and Friday stepped on one side, to have a +consultation, and the debate which followed is too interesting not to be +given <i>in extenso</i>:</p> + +<p><i>Friday.</i> Friend, what do you think of it?</p> + +<p><i>Robinson.</i> If we accept we are ruined.</p> + +<p><i>Friday.</i> Is that certain? Calculate!</p> + +<p><i>Robinson.</i> It is all calculated. Hunting, crushed out by competition, +will be a lost branch of industry for us.</p> + +<p><i>Friday.</i> What difference does that make, if we have the game?</p> + +<p><i>Robinson.</i> Theory! It will not be the product of our labor.</p> + +<p><i>Friday.</i> Yes, it will, since we will have to give vegetables to get it.</p> + +<p><i>Robinson.</i> Then what shall we make?</p> + +<p><i>Friday.</i> The four hampers of game cost us six hours' labor. The +stranger gives them to us for two baskets of vegetables, which take us +but three hours. Thus three hours remain at our disposal.</p> + +<p><i>Robinson.</i> Say rather that they are taken from our activity. There is +our loss. <i>Labor is wealth</i>, and if we lose a fourth of our time we are +one-fourth poorer.</p> + +<p><i>Friday.</i> Friend, you make an enormous mistake. The same amount of game +and vegetables and three free hours to boot make progress, or there is +none in the world.</p> + +<p><i>Robinson.</i> Mere generalities. What will we do with these three hours?</p> + +<p><i>Friday.</i> We will do <i>something else</i>.</p> + +<p><i>Robinson.</i> Ah, now I have you. You can specify nothing. It is very easy +to say <i>something else—something else</i>.</p> + +<p><i>Friday.</i> We will fish. We will adorn our houses. We will read the +Bible.</p> + +<p><i>Robinson.</i> Utopia! Is it certain that we will do this rather than that?</p> + +<p><i>Friday.</i> Well, if we have no wants, we will rest. Is rest nothing?</p> + +<p><i>Robinson.</i> When one rests one dies of hunger.</p> + +<p><i>Friday.</i> Friend, you are in a vicious circle. I speak of a rest which +diminishes neither our gains nor our vegetables. You always forget that +by means of our commerce with this stranger, nine hours of labor will +give us as much food as twelve now do.</p> + +<p><i>Robinson.</i> It is easy to see that you were not reared in Europe. +Perhaps you have never read the <i>Moniteur Industriel</i>? It would have +taught you this: "All time saved is a dear loss. Eating is not the +important matter, but working. Nothing which we consume counts, if it is +not 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 +<i>Moniteur Industriel</i> would have taught you. I, who am not a theorist, +see but the loss of our hunting.</p> + +<p><i>Friday.</i> What a strange perversion of ideas. But—</p> + +<p><i>Robinson.</i> No <i>buts</i>. Besides, there are political reasons for +rejecting the interested offers of this perfidious stranger.</p> + +<p><i>Friday.</i> Political reasons!</p> + +<p><i>Robinson.</i> Yes. In the first place he makes these offers only because +they are for his advantage.</p> + +<p><i>Friday.</i> So much the better, since they are for ours also.</p> + +<p><i>Robinson.</i> Then by these exchanges we shall become dependent on him.</p> + +<p><i>Friday.</i> And he on us. We need his game, he our vegetables, and we will +live in good friendship.</p> + +<p><i>Robinson.</i> Fancy! Do you want I should leave you without an answer?</p> + +<p><i>Friday.</i> Let us see; I am still waiting a good reason.</p> + +<p><i>Robinson.</i> Supposing that the stranger learns to cultivate a garden, +and that his island is more fertile than ours. Do you see the +consequences?</p> + +<p><i>Friday.</i> Yes. Our relations with the stranger will stop. He will take +no more vegetables from us, since he can get them at home with less +trouble. He will bring us no more game, since we will have nothing to +give in exchange, and we will be then just where you want us to be now.</p> + +<p><i>Robinson.</i> Short-sighted savage! You do not see that after having +destroyed our hunting, by inundating us with game, he will kill our +gardening by overwhelming us with vegetables.</p> + +<p><i>Friday.</i> But he will do that only so long as we give him <i>something +else</i>; that is to say, so long as we find <i>something else</i> to produce, +which will economize our labor.</p> + +<p><i>Robinson.</i> <i>Something else—something else!</i> You always come back to +that. You are very vague, friend Friday; there is nothing practical in +your views.</p> + +<p>The contest lasted a long time, and, as often happens, left each one +convinced that he was right. However, Robinson having great influence +over Friday, his views prevailed, and when the stranger came for an +answer, Robinson said to him:</p> + +<p>"Stranger, in order that your proposition may be accepted, we must be +quite sure of two things:</p> + +<p>"The first is, that your island is not richer in game than ours, for we +will struggle but with <i>equal arms</i>.</p> + +<p>"The second is, that you will lose by the bargain. For, as in every +exchange there is necessarily a gainer and a loser, we would be cheated, +if you were not. What have you to say?".</p> + +<p>"Nothing, nothing," replied the stranger, who burst out laughing, and +returned to his canoe.</p> + +<p>—The story would not be bad if Robinson was not so foolish.</p> + +<p>—He is no more so than the committee in Hauteville street.</p> + +<p>—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 our +world; the diversity of occupations, and the intervention of merchants +and money, change the question materially.</p> + +<p>—All this complicates transactions, but does not change their nature.</p> + +<p>—What! Do you propose to compare modern commerce to mere exchanges?</p> + +<p>—Commerce is but a multitude of exchanges; the real nature of the +exchange is identical with the real nature of commerce, as small labor +is of the same nature with great, and as the gravitation which impels an +atom is of the same nature as that which attracts a world.</p> + +<p>—Thus, according to you, these arguments, which in Robinson's mouth are +so false, are no less so in the mouths of our protectionists?</p> + +<p>—Yes; only error is hidden better under the complication of +circumstances.</p> + +<p>—Well, now, select some instance from what has actually occurred.</p> + +<p>—Very well; in France, in view of custom and the exigencies of the +climate, cloth is an useful article. Is it the essential thing <i>to make +it, or to have it</i>?</p> + +<p>—A pretty question! To have it, we must make it.</p> + +<p>—That is not necessary. It is certain that to have it some one must +make it; but it is not necessary that the person or country using it +should make it. You did not produce that which clothes you so well, nor +France the coffee it uses for breakfast.</p> + +<p>—But I purchased my cloth, and France its coffee.</p> + +<p>—Exactly, and with what?</p> + +<p>—With specie.</p> + +<p>—But you did not make the specie, nor did France.</p> + +<p>—We bought it.</p> + +<p>—With what?</p> + +<p>—With our products which went to Peru.</p> + +<p>—Then it is in reality your labor that you exchange for cloth, and +French labor that is exchanged for coffee?</p> + +<p>—Certainly.</p> + +<p>—Then it is not absolutely necessary to make what one consumes?</p> + +<p>—No, if one makes <i>something else</i>, and gives it in exchange.</p> + +<p>—In other words, France has two ways of procuring a given quantity of +cloth. The first is to make it, and the second is to make <i>something +else</i>, and exchange <i>that something else</i> abroad for cloth. Of these two +ways, which is the best?</p> + +<p>—I do not know.</p> + +<p>—Is it not that which, <i>for a fixed amount of labor, gives the greatest +quantity of cloth</i>?</p> + +<p>—It seems so.</p> + +<p>—Which is best for a nation, to have the choice of these two ways, or +to have the law forbid its using one of them at the risk of rejecting +the best?</p> + +<p>—It seems to me that it would be best for the nation to have the +choice, since in these matters it always makes a good selection.</p> + +<p>—The law which prohibits the introduction of foreign cloth, decides, +then, that if France wants cloth, it must make it at home, and that it +is forbidden to make that <i>something else</i> with which it could purchase +foreign cloth?</p> + +<p>—That is true.</p> + +<p>—And as it is obliged to make cloth, and forbidden to make <i>something +else</i>, just because the other thing would require less labor (without +which France would have no occasion to do anything with it), the law +virtually decrees, that for a certain amount of labor, France shall +have but one yard of cloth, making it itself, when, for the same amount +of labor, it could have had two yards, by making <i>something else</i>.</p> + +<p>—But what other thing?</p> + +<p>—No matter what. Being free to choose, it will make <i>something else</i> +only so long as there is <i>something else</i> to make.</p> + +<p>—That is possible; but I cannot rid myself of the idea that the +foreigners may send us cloth and not take something else, in which case +we shall be prettily caught. Under all circumstances, this is the +objection, even from your own point of view. You admit that France will +make this <i>something else</i>, which is to be exchanged for cloth, with +less labor than if it had made the cloth itself?</p> + +<p>—Doubtless.</p> + +<p>—Then a certain quantity of its labor will become inert?</p> + +<p>—Yes; but people will be no worse clothed—a little circumstance which +causes the whole misunderstanding. Robinson lost sight of it, and our +protectionists do not see it, or pretend not to. The stranded plank thus +paralyzed for fifteen days Robinson's labor, so far as it was applied to +the 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 +<i>privation</i>, and the other in <i>comfort</i>. These two things are very +different, and if you assimilate them, you reason like Robinson. In the +most complicated, as in the most simple instances, the sophism consists +in this: <i>Judging of the utility of labor by its duration and intensity, +and not by its results</i>, which leads to this economic policy, <i>a +reduction of the results of labor, in order to increase its duration and +intensity</i>.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>XV.</h2> + +<h3>THE LITTLE ARSENAL OF THE FREE TRADER.</h3> + + +<p>—If they say to you: There are no absolute principles; prohibition may +be bad, and restriction good—</p> + +<p>Reply: Restriction <i>prohibits</i> all that it keeps from coming in.</p> + +<p>—If they say to you: Agriculture is the nursing mother of the country—</p> + +<p>Reply: That which feeds a country is not exactly agriculture, but +<i>grain</i>.</p> + +<p>—If they say to you: The basis of the sustenance of the people is +agriculture—</p> + +<p>Reply: The basis of the sustenance of the people is <i>grain</i>. Thus a law +which causes <i>two</i> bushels of grain to be obtained by agricultural labor +at the expense of four bushels, which the same labor would have +produced but for it, far from being a law of sustenance, is a law of +starvation.</p> + +<p>—If they say to you: A restriction on the admission of foreign grain +leads to more cultivation, and, consequently, to a greater home +production—</p> + +<p>Reply: It leads to sowing on the rocks of the mountains and the sands of +the sea. To milk and steadily milk, a cow gives more milk; for who can +tell the moment when not a drop more can be obtained? But the drop costs +dear.</p> + +<p>—If they say to you: Let bread be dear, and the wealthy farmer will +enrich the artisans—</p> + +<p>Reply: Bread is dear when there is little of it, a thing which can make +but poor, or, if you please, rich people who are starving.</p> + +<p>—If they insist on it, saying: When food is dear, wages rise—</p> + +<p>Reply by showing that in April, 1847, five-sixths of the workingmen were +beggars.</p> + +<p>—If they say to you: The profits of the workingmen must rise with the +dearness of food—</p> + +<p>Reply: This is equivalent to saying that in an unprovisioned vessel +everybody has the same number of biscuits whether he has any or not.</p> + +<p>—If they say to you: A good price must be secured for those who sell +grain—</p> + +<p>Reply: Certainly; but good wages must be secured to those who buy it.</p> + +<p>—If they say to you: The land owners, who make the law, have raised the +price of food without troubling themselves about wages, because they +know that when food becomes dear, wages <i>naturally</i> rise—</p> + +<p>Reply: On this principle, when workingmen come to make the law, do not +blame them if they fix a high rate of wages without troubling themselves +to protect grain, for they know that if wages are raised, articles of +food will <i>naturally</i> rise in price.</p> + +<p>—If they say to you: What, then, is to be done?</p> + +<p>Reply: Be just to everybody.</p> + +<p>—If they say to you: It is essential that a great country should +manufacture iron—</p> + +<p>Reply: The most essential thing is that this great country <i>should have +iron</i>.</p> + +<p>—If they say to you: It is necessary that a great country should +manufacture cloth.</p> + +<p>Reply: It is more necessary that the citizens of this great country +<i>should have cloth</i>.</p> + +<p>—If they say to you: Labor is wealth—</p> + +<p>Reply: It is false.</p> + +<p>And, by way of developing this, add: A bleeding is not health, and the +proof of it is, that it is done to restore health.</p> + +<p>—If they say to you: To compel men to work over rocks and get an ounce +of iron from a ton of ore, is to increase their labor, and, +consequently, their wealth—</p> + +<p>Reply: To compel men to dig wells, by denying them the use of river +water, is to add to their <i>useless</i> labor, but not their wealth.</p> + +<p>—If they say to you: The sun gives his heat and light without requiring +remuneration—</p> + +<p>Reply: So much the better for me, since it costs me nothing to see +distinctly.</p> + +<p>—And if they reply to you: Industry in general loses what you would +have paid for lights—</p> + +<p>Retort: No, for having paid nothing to the sun, I use that which it +saves me in paying for clothes, furniture and candles.</p> + +<p>—So, if they say to you: These English rascals have capital which pays +them nothing—</p> + +<p>Reply: So much the better for us; they will not make us pay interest.</p> + +<p>—If they say to you: These perfidious Englishmen find iron and coal at +the same spot—</p> + +<p>Reply: So much the better for us; they will not make us pay anything for +bringing them together.</p> + +<p>—If they say to you: The Swiss have rich pastures which cost little—</p> + +<p>Reply: The advantage is on our side, for they will ask for a lesser +quantity of our labor to furnish our farmers oxen and our stomachs food.</p> + +<p>—If they say to you: The lands in the Crimea are worth nothing, and pay +no taxes—</p> + +<p>Reply: The gain is on our side, since we buy grain free from those +charges.</p> + +<p>—If they say to you: The serfs of Poland work without wages—</p> + +<p>Reply: The loss is theirs and the gain is ours, since their labor is +deducted from the price of the grain which their masters sell us.</p> + +<p>—Then, if they say to you: Other nations have many advantages over us—</p> + +<p>Reply: By exchange, they are forced to let us share in them.</p> + +<p>—If they say to you: With liberty we shall be swamped with bread, beef +<i>a la mode</i>, coal, and coats—</p> + +<p>Reply: We shall be neither cold nor hungry.</p> + +<p>—If they say to you: With what shall we pay?</p> + +<p>Reply: Do not be troubled about that. If we are to be inundated, it will +be because we are able to pay. If we cannot pay we will not be +inundated.</p> + +<p>—If they say to you: I would allow free trade, if a stranger, in +bringing us one thing, took away another; but he will carry off our +specie—</p> + +<p>Reply: Neither specie nor coffee grow in the fields of Beauce or come +out of the manufactories of Elbeuf. For us to pay a foreigner with +specie is like paying him with coffee.</p> + +<p>—If they say to you: Eat meat—</p> + +<p>Reply: Let it come in.</p> + +<p>—If they say to you, like the <i>Presse</i>: When you have not the money to +buy bread with, buy beef—</p> + +<p>Reply: This advice is as wise as that of Vautour to his tenant, "If a +person has not money to pay his rent with, he ought to have a house of +his own."</p> + +<p>—If they say to you, like the <i>Presse</i>: The State ought to teach the +people why and how it should eat meat—</p> + +<p>Reply: Only let the State allow the meat free entrance, and the most +civilized people in the world are old enough to learn to eat it without +any teacher.</p> + +<p>—If they say to you: The State ought to know everything, and foresee +everything, to guide the people, and the people have only to let +themselves be guided—</p> + +<p>Reply: Is there a State outside of the people, and a human foresight +outside of humanity? Archimedes might have repeated all the days of his +life, "With a lever and a fulcrum I will move the world," but he could +not have moved it, for want of those two things. The fulcrum of the +State is the nation, and nothing is madder than to build so many hopes +on the State; that is to say, to assume a collective science and +foresight, after having established individual folly and +short-sightedness.</p> + +<p>—If they say to you: My God! I ask no favors, but only a duty on grain +and meat, which may compensate for the heavy taxes to which France is +subjected; a mere little duty, equal to what these taxes add to the cost +of my grain—</p> + +<p>Reply: A thousand pardons, but I, too, pay taxes. If, then, the +protection which you vote yourself results in burdening for me, your +grain with your proportion of the taxes, your insinuating demand aims at +nothing less than the establishment between us of the following +arrangement, thus worded by yourself: "Since the public burdens are +heavy, 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." My +neighbor, the grain dealer, you may have power on your side, but not +reason.</p> + +<p>—If they say to you: It is, however, very hard for me, a tax payer, to +compete in my own market with foreigners who pay none—</p> + +<p>Reply: First, This is not <i>your</i> market, but <i>our</i> market. I who live on +grain, and pay for it, must be counted for something.</p> + +<p>Secondly. Few foreigners at this time are free from taxes.</p> + +<p>Thirdly. If the tax which you vote repays to you, in roads, canals and +safety, 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 but +who 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 horses +and better plows than the Russian laborer.</p> + +<p>Fourthly. If the tax does not repay what it costs, do not vote it.</p> + +<p>Fifthly. If, after you have voted a tax, it is your pleasure to escape +its operation, invent a system which will throw it on foreigners. But +the tariff only throws your proportion on me, when I already have enough +of my own.</p> + +<p>—If they say to you: Freedom of commerce is necessary among the +Russians <i>that they may exchange their products with advantage</i> (opinion +of M. Thiers, April, 1847)—</p> + +<p>Reply: This freedom is necessary everywhere, and for the same reason.</p> + +<p>—If they say to you: Each country has its wants; it is according to +that that <i>it must act</i> (M. Thiers)—</p> + +<p>Reply: It is according to that that <i>it acts of itself</i> when no one +hinders it.</p> + +<p>—If they say to you: Since we have no sheet iron, its admission must be +allowed (M. Thiers)—</p> + +<p>Reply: Thank you, kindly.</p> + +<p>—If they say to you: Our merchant marine must have freight; owing to +the lack of return cargoes our vessels cannot compete with foreign +ones—</p> + +<p>Reply: When you want to do everything at home, you can have cargoes +neither going nor coming. It is as absurd to wish for a navy under a +prohibitory system as to wish for carts where all transportation is +forbidden.</p> + +<p>—If they say to you: Supposing that protection is unjust, everything is +founded on it; there are moneys invested, and rights acquired, and it +cannot be abandoned without suffering—</p> + +<p>Reply: Every injustice profits some one (except, perhaps, restriction, +which in the long run profits no one), and to use as an argument the +disturbance which the cessation of the injustice causes to the person +profiting by it, is to say that an injustice, only because it has +existed for a moment, should be eternal.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>XVI.</h2> + +<h3>THE RIGHT AND THE LEFT HAND.</h3> + + +<p class='center'>[<i>Report to the King.</i>]</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Sire</span>—When we see these men of the <i>Libre Echange</i> audaciously +disseminating their doctrines, and maintaining that the right of buying +and selling is implied by that of ownership (a piece of insolence that +M. Billault has criticised like a true lawyer), we may be allowed to +entertain serious fears as to the destiny of <i>national labor</i>; for what +will Frenchmen do with their arms and intelligences when they are free?</p> + +<p>The Ministry which you have honored with your confidence has naturally +paid great attention to so serious a subject, and has sought in its +wisdom for a <i>protection</i> which might be substituted for that which +appears compromised. It proposes to you to forbid your faithful subjects +the use of the right hand.</p> + +<p>Sire, do not wrong us so far as to think that we lightly adopted a +measure which, at the first glance, may appear odd. Deep study of the +<i>protective system</i> has revealed to us this syllogism, on which it +entirely rests:</p> + +<p>The more one labors, the richer one is.</p> + +<p>The more difficulties one has to conquer, the more one labors.</p> + +<p><i>Ergo</i>, the more difficulties one has to conquer, the richer one is.</p> + +<p>What is <i>protection</i>, really, but an ingenious application of this +formal reasoning, which is so compact that it would resist the subtlety +of M. Billault himself?</p> + +<p>Let us personify the country. Let us look on it as a collective being, +with thirty million mouths, and, consequently, sixty million arms. This +being makes a clock, which he proposes to exchange in Belgium for ten +quintals of iron. "But," we say to him, "make the iron yourself." "I +cannot," says he; "it would take me too much time, and I could not make +five quintals while I can make one clock." "Utopist!" we reply; "for +this very reason we forbid your making the clock, and order you to make +the iron. Do not you see that we create you labor?"</p> + +<p>Sire, it will not have escaped your sagacity, that it is just as if we +said to the country, <i>Labor with the left hand, and not with the right</i>.</p> + +<p>The creation of obstacles to furnish labor an opportunity to develop +itself, is the principle of the <i>restriction</i> which is dying. It is also +the principle of the <i>restriction</i> which is about to be created. Sire, +to make such regulations is not to innovate, but to preserve.</p> + +<p>The efficacy of the measure is incontestable. It is difficult—much more +difficult than one thinks—to do with the left hand what one was +accustomed to do with the right. You will convince yourself of it, Sire, +if you will condescend to try our system on something which is familiar +to you,—like shuffling cards, for instance. We can then flatter +ourselves that we have opened an illimitable career to labor.</p> + +<p>When workmen of all kinds are reduced to their left hands, consider, +Sire, the immense number that will be required to meet the present +consumption, supposing it to be invariable, which we always do when we +compare differing systems of production. So prodigious a demand for +manual labor cannot fail to bring about a considerable increase in +wages; and pauperism will disappear from the country as if by +enchantment.</p> + +<p>Sire, your paternal heart will rejoice at the thought that the benefits +of this regulation will extend over that interesting portion of the +great family whose fate excites your liveliest solicitude.</p> + +<p>What is the destiny of women in France? That sex which is the boldest +and most hardened to fatigue, is, insensibly, driving them from all +fields of labor.</p> + +<p>Formerly they found a refuge in the lottery offices. These have been +closed by a pitiless philanthropy; and under what pretext? "To save," +said they, "the money of the poor." Alas! has a poor man ever obtained +from a piece of money enjoyments as sweet and innocent as those which +the mysterious urn of fortune contained for him? Cut off from all the +sweets of life, how many delicious hours did he introduce into the bosom +of his family when, every two weeks, he put the value of a day's labor +on a <i>quatern</i>. Hope had always her place at the domestic hearth. The +garret was peopled with illusions; the wife promised herself that she +would eclipse her neighbors with the splendor of her attire; the son saw +himself drum-major, and the daughter felt herself carried toward the +altar in the arms of her betrothed. To have a beautiful dream is +certainly something.</p> + +<p>The lottery was the poetry of the poor, and we have allowed it to escape +them.</p> + +<p>The lottery dead, what means have we of providing for our +<i>proteges</i>?—tobacco, and the postal service.</p> + +<p>Tobacco, certainly; it progresses, thanks to Heaven, and the +distinguished habits which august examples have been enabled to +introduce among our elegant youth.</p> + +<p>But the postal service! We will say nothing of that, but make it the +subject of a special report.</p> + +<p>Then what is left to your female subjects except tobacco? Nothing, +except embroidery, knitting, and sewing, pitiful resources, which are +more and more restricted by that barbarous science, mechanics.</p> + +<p>But as soon as your ordinance has appeared, as soon as the right hands +are cut off or tied up, everything will change face. Twenty, thirty +times more embroiderers, washers and ironers, seamstresses and +shirt-makers, would not meet the consumption (<i>honi soit qui mal y +pense</i>) of the kingdom; always assuming that it is invariable, according +to our way of reasoning.</p> + +<p>It is true that this supposition might be denied by cold-blooded +theorists, for dresses and shirts would be dearer. But they say the +same thing of the iron which France gets from our mines, compared to the +vintage it could get on our hillsides. This argument can, therefore, be +no more entertained against <i>left-handedness</i> than against <i>protection</i>; +for this very dearness is the result and the sign of the excess of +efforts and of labors, which is precisely the basis on which, in one +case, as in the other, we claim to found the prosperity of the working +classes.</p> + +<p>Yes, we make a touching picture of the prosperity of the sewing +business. What movement! What activity! What life! Each dress will busy +a hundred fingers instead of ten. No longer will there be an idle young +girl, and we need not, Sire, point out to your perspicacity the moral +results of this great revolution. Not only will there be more women +employed, but each one of them will earn more, for they cannot meet the +demand, and if competition still shows itself, it will no longer be +among the workingwomen who make the dresses, but the beautiful ladies +who wear them.</p> + +<p>You see, Sire, that our proposition is not only conformable to the +economic traditions of the government, but it is also essentially moral +and democratic.</p> + +<p>To appreciate its effect, let us suppose it realized; let us transport +ourselves in thought into the future; let us imagine the system in +action for twenty years. Idleness is banished from the country; ease +and concord, contentment and morality, have entered all families +together with labor; there is no more misery and no more prostitution. +The left hand being very clumsy at its work, there is a superabundance +of labor, and the pay is satisfactory. Everything is based on this, and, +as a consequence, the workshops are filled. Is it not true, Sire, that +if Utopians were to suddenly demand the freedom of the right hand, they +would spread alarm throughout the country? Is it not true that this +pretended reform would overthrow all existences? Then our system is +good, since it cannot be overthrown without causing great distress.</p> + +<p>However, we have a sad presentiment that some day (so great is the +perversity of man) an association will be organized to secure the +liberty of right hands.</p> + +<p>It seems to us that we already hear these free-right-handers speak as +follows in the Salle Montesquieu:</p> + +<p>"People, you believe yourselves richer because they have taken from you +one hand; you see but the increase of labor which results to you from +it. But look also at the dearness it causes, and the forced decrease in +the consumption of all articles. This measure has not made capital, +which is the source of wages, more abundant. The waters which flow from +this great reservoir are directed into other channels; the quantity is +not increased, and the definite result is, for the nation, as a whole, a +loss of comfort equal to the excess of the production of several +millions of right hands, over several millions of left hands. Then let +us form a league, and, at the expense of some inevitable disturbances, +let us conquer the right of working with both hands."</p> + +<p>Happily, Sire, there will be organized an <i>association for the defense +of left-handed labor</i>, and the <i>Sinistrists</i> will have no trouble in +reducing to nothing all these generalities and realities, suppositions +and abstractions, reveries and Utopias. They need only to exhume the +<i>Moniteur Industriel</i> of 1846, and they will find, ready-made, arguments +against <i>free trade</i>, which destroy so admirably this <i>liberty of the +right hand</i>, that all that is required is to substitute one word for +another.</p> + +<p>"The Parisian <i>Free Trade</i> League never doubted but that it would have +the assistance of the workingmen. But the workingmen can no longer be +led by the nose. They have their eyes open, and they know political +economy better than our diplomaed professors. <i>Free trade</i>, they +replied, will take from us our labor, and labor is our real, great, +sovereign property; <i>with labor, with much labor, the price of articles +of merchandise is never beyond reach</i>. But without labor, even if bread +should cost but a penny a pound, the workingman is compelled to die of +hunger. Now, your doctrines, instead of increasing the amount of labor +in France, diminish it; that is to say, you reduce us to misery." +(Number of October 13, 1846.)</p> + +<p>"It is true, that when there are too many manufactured articles to sell, +their price falls; but as wages decrease when these articles sink in +value, the result is, that, instead of being able to buy them, we can +buy nothing. Thus, when they are cheapest, the workingman is most +unhappy." (Gauthier de Rumilly, <i>Moniteur Industriel</i> of November 17.)</p> + +<p>It would not be ill for the Sinistrists to mingle some threats with +their beautiful theories. This is a sample:</p> + +<p>"What! to desire to substitute the labor of the right hand for that of +the left, and thus to cause a forced reduction, if not an annihilation +of wages, the sole resource of almost the entire nation!</p> + +<p>"And this at the moment when poor harvests already impose painful +sacrifices on the workingman, disquiet him as to his future, and make +him more accessible to bad counsels and ready to abandon the wise course +of conduct he had hitherto adhered to!"</p> + +<p>We are confident, Sire, that thanks to such wise reasonings, if a +struggle takes place, the left hand will come out of it victorious.</p> + +<p>Perhaps, also, an association will be formed in order to ascertain +whether the right and the left hand are not both wrong, and if there is +not a third hand between them, in order to conciliate all.</p> + +<p>After having described the <i>Dexterists</i> as seduced by the <i>apparent +liberality of a principle, the correctness of which has not yet been +verified by experience</i>, and the <i>Sinistrists</i> as encamping in the +positions they have gained, it will say:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"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." (<i>National</i> of October 16.)</p></div> + +<p>We do not desire, however, to hide from your Majesty the fact that our +plan has a vulnerable side. They may say to us: In twenty years all left +hands will be as skilled as right ones are now, and you can no longer +count on <i>left-handedness</i> to increase the national labor.</p> + +<p>We reply to this, that, according to learned physicians, the left side +of the body has a natural weakness, which is very reassuring for the +future of labor.</p> + +<p>Finally, Sire, consent to sign the law, and a great principle will have +prevailed: <i>All wealth comes from the intensity of labor.</i> It will be +easy 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 to +extract iron from the mud of the Seine. There have even been men who +wrote with their backs. You see, Sire, that we do not lack means of +increasing national labor. If they do begin to fail us, there remains +the boundless resource of amputation.</p> + +<p>If this report, Sire, was not intended for publication, we would call +your attention to the great influence which systems analogous to the one +we submit to you, are capable of giving to men in power. But this is a +subject which we reserve for consideration in private counsel.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>XVII.</h2> + +<h3>SUPREMACY BY LABOR.</h3> + + +<p>"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?"</p> + +<p>This question is of the greatest interest at a time when no one seems to +doubt that in the field of industry, as on that of battle, <i>the stronger +crushes the weaker</i>.</p> + +<p>This must result from the discovery of some sad and discouraging analogy +between labor, which exercises itself on things, and violence, which +exercises itself on men; for how could these two things be identical in +their effects, if they were opposed in their nature?</p> + +<p>And if it is true that in manufacturing as in war, supremacy is the +necessary result of superiority, why need we occupy ourselves with +progress or social economy, since we are in a world where all has been +so arranged by Providence that one and the same result, oppression, +necessarily flows from the most antagonistic principles?</p> + +<p>Referring to the new policy toward which commercial freedom is drawing +England, many persons make this objection, which, I admit, occupies the +sincerest minds. "Is England doing anything more than pursuing the same +end by different means? Does she not constantly aspire to universal +supremacy? Sure of the superiority of her capital and labor, does she +not call in free competition to stifle the industry of the continent, +reign as a sovereign, and conquer the privilege of feeding and clothing +the ruined peoples?"</p> + +<p>It would be easy for me to demonstrate that these alarms are chimerical; +that our pretended inferiority is greatly exaggerated; that all our +great branches of industry not only resist foreign competition, but +develop themselves under its influence, and that its infallible effect +is to bring about an increase in general consumption capable of +absorbing both foreign and domestic products.</p> + +<p>To-day I desire to attack this objection directly, leaving it all its +power and the advantage of the ground it has chosen. Putting English and +French on one side, I will try to find out in a general way, if, even +though by superiority in one branch of industry, one nation has crushed +out similar industrial pursuits in another one, this nation has made a +step toward supremacy, and that one toward dependence; in other words, +if both do not gain by the operation, and if the conquered do not gain +the most by it.</p> + +<p>If we see in any product but a cause of labor, it is certain that the +alarm of the protectionists is well founded. If we consider iron, for +instance, only in connection with the masters of forges, it might be +feared that the competition of a country where iron was a gratuitous +gift of nature, would extinguish the furnaces of another country, where +ore and fuel were scarce.</p> + +<p>But is this a complete view of the subject? Are there relations only +between 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 is +useful, not on account of the labor which it causes, but on account of +the qualities which it possesses, and the numerous services for which +its hardness and malleability fit it, does it not follow that +foreigners cannot reduce its price, even so far as to prevent its +production among us, without doing us more good, under the last +statement of the case, than it injures us, under the first?</p> + +<p>Please consider well that there are many things which foreigners, owing +to the natural advantages which surround them, hinder us from producing +directly, and in regard to which we are placed, <i>in reality</i>, in the +hypothetical position which we examined relative to iron. We produce at +home neither tea, coffee, gold nor silver. Does it follow that our +labor, as a whole, is thereby diminished? No; only to create the +equivalent of these things, to acquire them by way of exchange, we +detach from our general labor a <i>smaller</i> portion than we would require +to produce them ourselves. More remains to us to use for other things. +We are so much the richer and stronger. All that external rivalry can +do, even in cases where it absolutely keeps us from any certain form of +labor, is to encourage our labor, and increase our productive power. Is +that the road to <i>supremacy</i>, for foreigners?</p> + +<p>If a mine of gold were to be discovered in France, it does not follow +that it would be for our interests to work it. It is even certain that +the enterprise ought to be neglected, if each ounce of gold absorbed +more of our labor than an ounce of gold bought in Mexico with cloth. In +this case, it would be better to keep on seeing our mines in our +manufactories. What is true of gold is true of iron.</p> + +<p>The illusion comes from the fact that one thing is not seen. That is, +that foreign superiority prevents national labor, only under some +certain form, and makes it superfluous under this form, but by putting +at our disposal the very result of the labor thus annihilated. If men +lived in diving-bells, under the water, and had to provide themselves +with air by the use of pumps, there would be an immense source of labor. +To destroy this labor, <i>leaving men in this condition</i>, would be to do +them a terrible injury. But if labor ceases, because the necessity for +it has gone; because men are placed in another position, where air +reaches their lungs without an effort, then the loss of this labor is +not to be regretted, except in the eyes of those who appreciate in +labor, only the labor itself.</p> + +<p>It is exactly this sort of labor which machines, commercial freedom, and +progress of all sorts, gradually annihilate; not useful labor, but labor +which has become superfluous, supernumerary, objectless, and without +result. On the other hand, protection restores it to activity; it +replaces 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, rather +than from our national manufactories. All its effect is summed up in +this phrase—<i>loss of power</i>.</p> + +<p>It must be understood that I speak here of general effects, and not of +the temporary disturbances occasioned by the transition from a bad to a +good system. A momentary disarrangement necessarily accompanies all +progress. This may be a reason for making the transition a gentle one, +but not for systematically interdicting all progress, and still less for +misunderstanding it.</p> + +<p>They represent industry to us as a conflict. This is not true; or is +true only when you confine yourself to considering each branch of +industry in its effects on some similar branch—in isolating both, in +the mind, from the rest of humanity. But there is something else; there +are its effects on consumption, and the general well-being.</p> + +<p>This is the reason why it is not allowable to assimilate labor to war as +they do.</p> + +<p>In war, <i>the strongest overwhelms the weakest</i>.</p> + +<p>In labor, <i>the strongest gives strength to the weakest</i>. This radically +destroys the analogy.</p> + +<p>Though the English are strong and skilled; possess immense invested +capital, and have at their disposal the two great powers of production, +iron and fire, all this is converted into the <i>cheapness</i> of the +product; and who gains by the cheapness of the product?—he who buys it.</p> + +<p>It is not in their power to absolutely annihilate any portion of our +labor. All that they can do is to make it superfluous through some +result acquired—to give air at the same time that they suppress the +pump; to increase thus the force at our disposal, and, which is a +remarkable thing, to render their pretended supremacy more impossible, +as their superiority becomes more undeniable.</p> + +<p>Thus, by a rigorous and consoling demonstration, we reach this +conclusion: That <i>labor</i> and <i>violence</i>, so opposed in their nature, +are, whatever socialists and protectionists may say, no less so in their +effects.</p> + +<p>All we required, to do that, was to distinguish between <i>annihilated</i> +labor and <i>economized</i> labor.</p> + +<p>Having less iron <i>because</i> one works less, or having more iron +<i>although</i> one works less, are things which are more than +different,—they are opposites. The protectionists confound them; we do +not. That is all.</p> + +<p>Be convinced of one thing. If the English bring into play much activity, +labor, capital, intelligence, and natural force, it is not for the love +of us. It is to give themselves many comforts in exchange for their +products. They certainly desire to receive at least as much as they +give, and <i>they make at home the payment for that which they buy +elsewhere</i>. If then, they inundate us with their products, it is because +they expect to be inundated with ours. In this case, the best way to +have much for ourselves is to be free to choose between these two +methods of production: direct production or indirect production. All +the British Machiavelism cannot lead us to make a bad choice.</p> + +<p>Let us then stop assimilating industrial competition with war; a false +assimilation, which is specious only when two rival branches of industry +are isolated, in order to judge of the effects of competition. As soon +as the effect produced on the general well-being is taken into +consideration, the analogy disappears.</p> + +<p>In a battle, he who is killed is thoroughly killed, and the army is +weakened just that much. In manufactures, one manufactory succumbs only +so far as the total of national labor replaces what it produced, <i>with +an excess</i>. Imagine a state of affairs where for one man, stretched on +the plain, two spring up full of force and vigor. If there is a planet +where such things happen, it must be admitted that war is carried on +there under conditions so different from those which obtain here below, +that it does not even deserve that name.</p> + +<p>Now, this is the distinguishing character of what they have so +inappropriately called an <i>industrial war</i>.</p> + +<p>Let the Belgians and English reduce the price of their iron, if they +can, and keep on reducing it, until they bring it down to nothing. They +may thereby put out one of our furnaces—kill one of our soldiers; but I +defy them to hinder a thousand other industries, more profitable than +the disabled one, immediately, and, as a necessary consequence of this +very cheapness, resuscitating and developing themselves.</p> + +<p>Let us decide that supremacy by labor is impossible and contradictory, +since all superiority which manifests itself among a people is converted +into cheapness, and results only in giving force to all others. Let us, +then, banish from political economy all these expressions borrowed from +the vocabulary of battles: <i>to struggle with equal arms, to conquer, to +crush out, to stifle, to be beaten, invasion, tribute</i>. What do these +words mean? Squeeze them, and nothing comes out of them. We are +mistaken; there come from them absurd errors and fatal prejudices. These +are the words which stop the blending of peoples, their peaceful, +universal, indissoluble alliance, and the progress of humanity.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h4><a name="PART_III" id="PART_III"></a>PART III.</h4> + +<h2>SPOLIATION AND LAW.<a name="FNanchor_16_16" id="FNanchor_16_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_16_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a></h2> + +<p class='center'><i>To the Protectionists of the General Council of Manufactures:</i></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Gentlemen</span>—Let us for a few moments interchange moderate and +friendly opinions.</p> + +<p>You are not willing that political economy should believe and teach free +trade.</p> + +<p>This is as though you were to say, "We are not willing that political +economy should occupy itself with society, exchange, value, law, +justice, property. We recognize only two principles—oppression and +spoliation."</p> + +<p>Can you possibly conceive of political economy without society? Or of +society without exchange? Or of exchange without a relative value +between the two articles, or the two services, exchanged? Can you +possibly conceive the idea of <i>value</i>, except as the result of the +<i>free</i> consent of the exchangers? Can you conceive of one product being +<i>worth</i> another, if, in the barter, one of the parties is not <i>free</i>? Is +it possible for you to conceive of the free consent of two parties +without liberty? Can you possibly conceive that one of the contracting +parties is deprived of his liberty unless he is oppressed by the other? +Can you possibly conceive of an exchange between an oppressor and one +oppressed, unless the equivalence of the services is altered, or unless, +as a consequence, law, justice, and the rights of property have been +violated?</p> + +<p>What do you really want? Answer frankly.</p> + +<p>You are not willing that trade should be free!</p> + +<p>You desire, then, that it shall not be free? You desire, then, that +trade shall be carried on under the influence of oppression? For if it +is not carried on under the influence of oppression, it will be carried +on under the influence of liberty, and that is what you do not desire.</p> + +<p>Admit, then, that it is law and justice which embarrass you; that that +which troubles you is property—not your own, to be sure, but +another's. You are altogether unwilling to allow others to freely +dispose of their own property (the essential condition of ownership); +but you well understand how to dispose of your own—and of theirs.</p> + +<p>And, accordingly, you ask the political economists to arrange this mass +of absurdities and monstrosities in a definite and well-ordered system; +to establish, in accordance with your practice, the theory of +spoliation.</p> + +<p>But they will never do it; for, in their eyes, spoliation is a principle +of hatred and disorder, and the most particularly odious form which it +can assume is <i>the legal form</i>.</p> + +<p>And here, Mr. Benoit d' Azy, I take you to task. You are moderate, +impartial, and generous. You are willing to sacrifice your interests and +your fortune. This you constantly declare. Recently, in the General +Council, you said: "If the rich had only to abandon their wealth to make +the people rich we should all be ready to do it." [Hear, hear. It is +true.] And yesterday, in the National Assembly, you said: "If I believed +that it was in my power to give to the workingmen all the work they +need, I would give all I possess to realize this blessing. +Unfortunately, it is impossible."</p> + +<p>Although it pains you that the sacrifice is so useless that it should +not be made, and you exclaim, with Basile, "Money! money! I detest +it—but I will keep it," assuredly no one will question a generosity so +retentive, however barren. It is a virtue which loves to envelop itself +in 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 of +all France from the tribune of the <i>Luxembourg</i> and the <i>Palais +Legislatif</i>.</p> + +<p>But no one desires you to abandon your fortune, and I admit that it +would not solve the social problem.</p> + +<p>You wish to be generous, but cannot. I only venture to ask that you will +be just. Keep your fortune, but permit me also to keep mine. Respect my +property as I respect yours. Is this too bold a request on my part?</p> + +<p>Suppose we lived in a country under a free trade <i>regime</i>, where every +one could dispose of his property and his labor at pleasure. Does this +make your hair stand? Reassure yourself, this is only an hypothesis.</p> + +<p>One would then be as free as the other. There would, indeed, be a law in +the code, but this law, impartial and just, would not infringe our +liberty, but would guarantee it, and it would take effect only when we +sought to oppress each other. There would be officers of the law, +magistrates and police; but they would only execute the law. Under such +a state of affairs, suppose that you owned an iron foundry, and that I +was a hatter. I should need iron for my business. Naturally I should +seek to solve this problem: "How shall I best procure the iron necessary +for my business with the least possible amount of labor?" Considering my +situation, and my means of knowledge, I should discover that the best +thing for me to do would be to make hats, and sell them to a Belgian who +would give me iron in exchange.</p> + +<p>But you, being the owner of an iron foundry, and considering my case, +would say to yourself: "I shall be obliged to <i>compel</i> that fellow to +come to my shop."</p> + +<p>You, accordingly, take your sword and pistols, and, arming your numerous +retinue, proceed to the frontier, and, at the moment I am engaged in +making my trade, you cry out to me: "Stop that, or I will blow your +brains 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!"</p> + +<p>In short, you forbid the entry of the Belgian iron, and prevent the +export of my hats.</p> + +<p>Under the condition of things which we have supposed (that is, under a +<i>regime</i> of liberty), you cannot deny that that would be, on your part, +manifestly an act of oppression and spoliation.</p> + +<p>Accordingly, I should resort to the law, the magistrate, and the power +of the government. They would intervene. You would be tried, condemned, +and justly punished.</p> + +<p>But this circumstance would suggest to you a bright idea. You would say +to 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 be +killed! degrade myself! put my domestics under arms! incur heavy +expenses! give myself the character of a robber, and render myself +liable to the laws of the country! And all this in order to compel a +miserable hatter to come to my foundry to buy iron at my price! What if +I should make the interest of the law, of the magistrate, of the public +authorities, my interests? What if I could get them to perform the +odious act on the frontier which I was about to do myself?"</p> + +<p>Enchanted by this pleasing prospect, you secure a nomination to the +Chambers, and obtain the passage of a law conceived in the following +terms:</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Section 1.</span> There shall be a tax levied upon everybody (but +especially upon that cursed hat-maker).</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 2.</span> The proceeds of this tax shall be applied to the +payment of men to guard the frontier in the interest of iron-founders.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 3.</span> It shall be their duty to prevent the exchange of hats +or other articles of merchandise with the Belgians for iron.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 4.</span> The ministers of the government, the prosecuting +attorneys, jailers, customs officers, and all officials, are entrusted +with the execution of this law.</p> + +<p>I admit, sir, that in this form robbery would be far more lucrative, +more agreeable, and less perilous than under the arrangements which you +had at first determined upon. I admit that for you it would offer a very +pleasant prospect. You could most assuredly laugh in your sleeve, for +you would then have saddled all the expenses upon me.</p> + +<p>But I affirm that you would have introduced into society a vicious +principle, a principle of immorality, of disorder, of hatred, and of +incessant revolutions; that you would have prepared the way for all the +various schemes of socialism and communism.</p> + +<p>You, doubtless, find my hypothesis a very bold one. Well, then, let us +reverse the case. I consent for the sake of the demonstration.</p> + +<p>Suppose that I am a laborer and you an iron-founder.</p> + +<p>It would be a great advantage to me to buy hatchets cheap, and even to +get them for nothing. And I know that there are hatchets and saws in +your establishment. Accordingly, without any ceremony, I enter your +warehouse and seize everything that I can lay my hands upon.</p> + +<p>But, in the exercise of your legitimate right of self-defense, you at +first resist force with force; afterwards, invoking the power of the +law, the magistrate, and the constables, you throw me into prison—and +you do well.</p> + +<p>Oh! ho! the thought suggests itself to me that I have been very awkward +in this business. When a person wishes to enjoy the property of other +people, he will, unless he is a fool, act <i>in accordance</i> with the law, +and not <i>in violation</i> of it. Consequently, just as you have made +yourself a protectionist, I will make myself a socialist. Since you have +laid claim to the <i>right to profit</i>, I claim the <i>right to labor</i>, or to +the instruments of labor.</p> + +<p>For the rest, I read my Louis Blanc in prison, and I know by heart this +doctrine: "In order to disenthrall themselves, the common people have +need of tools to work with; it is the function of the government to +provide them." And again: "If one admits that, in order to be really +free, a man requires the ability to exercise and to develop his +faculties, the result is that society owes each of its members +instruction, without which the human mind is incapable of development, +and the instruments of labor, without which human activities have no +field for their exercise. But by what means can society give to each one +of its members the necessary instruction and the necessary instruments +of labor, except by the intervention of the State?" So that if it +becomes necessary to revolutionize the country, I also will force my +way into the halls of legislation. I also will pervert the law, and make +it perform in my behalf and at your expense the very act for which it +just now punished me.</p> + +<p>My decree is modeled after yours:</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Section 1.</span> There shall be taxes levied upon every citizen, and +especially upon iron founders.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 2.</span> The proceeds of this tax shall be applied to the +creation of armed corps, to which the title of the <i>fraternal +constabulary</i> shall be given.</p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 3.</span> It shall be the duty of the <i>fraternal constabulary</i> to +make their way into the warehouses of hatchets, saws, etc., to take +possession of these tools, and to distribute them to such workingmen as +may desire them.</p> + +<p>Thanks to this ingenious device, you see, my lord, that I shall no +longer be obliged to bear the risks, the costs, the odium, or the +scruples of robbery. The State will rob for me as it has for you. We +shall both be playing the same game.</p> + +<p>It remains to be seen what would be the condition of French society on +the realization of my second hypothesis, or what, at least, is the +condition of it after the almost complete realization of the first +hypothesis. I do not desire to discuss here the economy of the question. +It is generally believed that in advocating free trade we are +exclusively influenced by the desire to allow capital and labor to take +the direction most advantageous to them. This is an error. This +consideration is merely secondary. That which wounds, afflicts, and is +revolting to us in the protective system, is the denial of right, of +justice, of property; it is the fact that the system turns the law +against justice and against property, when it ought to protect them; it +is that it undermines and perverts the very conditions of society. And +to the question in this aspect I invite your most serious consideration.</p> + +<p>What is law, or at least what ought it to be? What is its rational and +moral mission? Is it not to hold the balance even between all rights, +all liberties, and all property? Is it not to cause justice to rule +among all? Is it not to prevent and to repress oppression and robbery +wherever they are found?</p> + +<p>And are you not shocked at the immense, radical, and deplorable +innovation introduced into the world by compelling the law itself to +commit the very crimes to punish which is its especial mission—by +turning the law in principle and in fact against liberty and property?</p> + +<p>You deplore the condition of modern society. You groan over the disorder +which prevails in institutions and ideas. But is it not your system +which has perverted everything, both institutions and ideas?</p> + +<p>What! the law is no longer the refuge of the oppressed, but the arm of +the oppressor! The law is no longer a shield, but a sword! The law no +longer holds in her august hands a scale, but false weights and +measures! And you wish to have society well regulated!</p> + +<p>Your system has written over the entrance of the legislative halls these +words: "Whoever acquires any influence here can obtain his share of the +legalized pillage."</p> + +<p>And what has been the result? All classes of society have become +demoralized by shouting around the gates of the palace: "Give me a share +of the spoils."</p> + +<p>After the revolution of February, when universal suffrage was +proclaimed, I had for a moment hoped to have heard this sentiment: "No +more pillage for any one, justice for all." And that would have been the +real solution of the social problem. Such was not the case. The doctrine +of protection had for generations too profoundly corrupted the age, +public sentiments and ideas. No. In making inroads upon the National +Assembly, each class, in accordance with your system, has endeavored to +make the law an instrument of rapine. There have been demanded heavier +imposts, gratuitous credit, the right to employment, the right to +assistance, the guaranty of incomes and of minimum wages, gratuitous +instruction, loans to industry, etc., etc.; in short, every one has +endeavored to live and thrive at the expense of others. And upon what +have these pretensions been based? Upon the authority of your +precedents. What sophisms have been invoked? Those that you have +propagated for two centuries. With you they have talked about +<i>equalizing the conditions of labor</i>. With you they have declaimed +against ruinous competition. With you they have ridiculed the <i>let +alone</i> principle, that is to say, <i>liberty</i>. With you they have said +that the law should not confine itself to being just, but should come to +the 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 what +you have done, and that which you desire the professors of political +economy to do for you.</p> + +<p>Your cleverness is in vain, <i>Messieurs Protectionists</i>, it is useless to +lower your tone, to boast of your latent generosity, or to deceive your +opponents by sentiment. You cannot prevent logic from being logic.</p> + +<p>You cannot prevent Mr. Billault from telling the legislators, "You have +granted favors to one, you must grant them to all."</p> + +<p>You cannot prevent Mr. Cremieux from telling the legislators: "You have +enriched the manufacturers, you must enrich the common people."</p> + +<p>You cannot prevent Mr. Nadeau from saying to the legislators: "You +cannot refuse to do for the suffering classes that which you have done +for the privileged classes."</p> + +<p>You cannot even prevent the leader of your orchestra, Mr. Mimerel, from +saying to the legislators: "I demand twenty-five thousand subsidies for +the workingmen's savings banks;" and supporting his motion in this +manner:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>"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?</p> + +<p>"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; <i>but by giving the poor a +direct share in this distribution of benefits</i>."</p></div> + +<p>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 the +tariff favors out of sight, although they are the most explicit +manifestations of legal spoliation. All the orators who supported or +opposed him have taken upon themselves the same reserve. It is very +shrewd! Possibly they hope, <i>by giving the poor a direct participation +in this distribution of benefits</i>, to save this great iniquity by which +they profit, but of which they do not whisper.</p> + +<p>They deceive themselves. Do they suppose that after having realized a +partial spoliation by the establishment of customs duties, other +classes, by the establishment of other institutions, will not attempt to +realize universal spoliation?</p> + +<p>I know very well you always have a sophism ready. You say: "The favors +which the law grants us are not given to the <i>manufacturer</i>, but to +<i>manufactures</i>. The profits which it enables us to receive at the +expense of the consumers are merely a trust placed in our hands. They +enrich us, it is true, but our wealth places us in a position to expend +more, to extend our establishments, and falls like refreshing dew upon +the laboring classes."</p> + +<p>Such is your language, and what I most lament is the circumstance that +your miserable sophisms have so perverted public opinion that they are +appealed to in support of all forms of legalized spoliation. The +suffering classes also say. "Let us by act of the Legislature help +ourselves to the goods of others. We shall be in easier circumstances as +the result of it; we shall buy more wheat, more meat, more cloth, and +more iron; and that which we receive from the public taxes will return +in a beneficent shower to the capitalists and landed proprietors."</p> + +<p>But, as I have already said, I will not to-day discuss the economical +effects of legal spoliation. Whenever the protectionists desire, they +will find me ready to examine the <i>sophisms of the ricochets</i>, which, +indeed, may be invoked in support of all species of robbery and fraud.</p> + +<p>We will confine ourselves to the political and moral effects of exchange +legally deprived of liberty.</p> + +<p>I have said: The time has come to know what the law is, and what it +ought to be.</p> + +<p>If you make the law for all citizens a palladium of liberty and of +property; if it is only the organization of the individual law of +self-defense, you will establish, upon the foundation of justice, a +government rational, simple, economical, comprehended by all, loved by +all, useful to all, supported by all, entrusted with a responsibility +perfectly defined and carefully restricted, and endowed with +imperishable strength. If, on the other hand, in the interests of +individuals 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, morals +will be shipwrecked; there will be violence in party organs, heated +elections, accusations, recriminations, jealousies, inextinguishable +hates, the public forces placed at the service of rapacity instead of +repressing it, the ability to distinguish the true from the false +effaced from all minds, as the notion of justice and injustice will be +obliterated from all consciences, the government responsible for +everything and bending under the burden of its responsibilities, +political convulsions, revolutions without end, ruins over which all +forms of socialism and communism attempt to establish themselves; these +are the evils which must necessarily flow from the perversion of law.</p> + +<p>Such, consequently, gentlemen, are the evils for which you have prepared +the way by making use of the law to destroy freedom of exchange; that is +to say, to abolish the right of property. Do not declaim against +socialism; you establish it. Do not cry out against communism; you +create it. And now you ask us Economists to make you a theory which will +justify you! <i>Morbleu!</i> make it yourselves.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h4><a name="PART_IV" id="PART_IV"></a>PART IV.</h4> + +<h2>CAPITAL AND INTEREST.</h2> + + +<p>My object in this treatise is to examine into the real nature of the +Interest of Capital, for the purpose of proving that it is lawful, and +explaining why it should be perpetual. This may appear singular, and +yet, I confess, I am more afraid of being too plain than too obscure. I +am afraid I may weary the reader by a series of mere truisms. But it is +no easy matter to avoid this danger, when the facts, with which we have +to deal, are known to every one by personal, familiar, and daily +experience.</p> + +<p>But, then, you will say, "What is the use of this treatise? Why explain +what everybody knows?"</p> + +<p>But, although this problem appears at first sight so very simple, there +is more in it than you might suppose. I shall endeavor to prove this by +an example. Mondor lends an instrument of labor to-day, which will be +entirely destroyed in a week, yet the capital will not produce the less +interest to Mondor or his heirs, through all eternity. Reader, can you +honestly say that you understand the reason of this?</p> + +<p>It would be a waste of time to seek any satisfactory explanation from +the writings of economists. They have not thrown much light upon the +reasons of the existence of interest. For this they are not to be +blamed; for at the time they wrote, its lawfulness was not called in +question. Now, however, times are altered; the case is different. Men, +who consider themselves to be in advance of their age, have organized an +active crusade against capital and interest; it is the productiveness of +capital which they are attacking; not certain abuses in the +administration of it, but the principle itself.</p> + +<p>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 immense +circulation. The first number of this periodical contains the electoral +manifesto of the <i>people</i>. Here we read, "The productiveness of capital, +which is condemned by Christianity under the name of usury, is the true +cause of misery, the true principle of destitution, the eternal obstacle +to the establishment of the Republic."</p> + +<p>Another journal, <i>La Ruche Populaire</i>, after having said some excellent +things on labor, adds, "But, above all, labor ought to be free; that is, +it ought to be organized in such a manner, <i>that money lenders and +patrons, or masters, should not be paid</i> for this liberty of labor, this +right of labor, which is raised to so high a price by the trafficers of +men." The only thought that I notice here, is that expressed by the +words in italics, which imply a denial of the right to interest. The +remainder of the article explains it.</p> + +<p>It is thus that the democratic Socialist, Thoré, expresses himself:</p> + +<p>"The revolution will always have to be recommenced, so long as we occupy +ourselves with consequences only, without having the logic or the +courage to attack the principle itself. This principle is capital, false +property, interest, and usury, which by the old <i>regime</i>, is made to +weigh upon labor.</p> + +<p>"Ever since the aristocrats invented the incredible fiction, <i>that +capital possesses the power of reproducing itself</i>, the workers have +been at the mercy of the idle.</p> + +<p>"At the end of a year, will you find an additional crown in a bag of one +hundred shillings? At the end of fourteen years, will your shillings +have doubled in your bag?</p> + +<p>"Will a work of industry or of skill produce another, at the end of +fourteen years?</p> + +<p>"Let us begin, then, by demolishing this fatal fiction."</p> + +<p>I have quoted the above, merely for the sake of establishing the fact, +that many persons consider the productiveness of capital a false, a +fatal, and an iniquitous principle. But quotations are superfluous; it +is well known that the people attribute their sufferings to what they +call <i>the trafficing in man by man</i>. In fact, the phrase <i>tyranny of +capital</i> has become proverbial.</p> + +<p>I believe there is not a man in the world, who is aware of the whole +importance of this question:</p> + +<p>"Is the interest of capital natural, just, and lawful, and as useful to +the payer as to the receiver?"</p> + +<p>You answer, no; I answer, yes. Then we differ entirely; but it is of the +utmost importance to discover which of us is in the right; otherwise we +shall incur the danger of making a false solution of the question, a +matter of opinion. If the error is on my side, however, the evil would +not be so great. It must be inferred that I know nothing about the true +interests of the masses, or the march of human progress; and that all my +arguments are but as so many grains of sand, by which the car of the +revolution will certainly not be arrested.</p> + +<p>But if, on the contrary, MM. Proudhon and Thoré are deceiving +themselves, it follows, that they are leading the people astray—that +they are showing them the evil where it does not exist; and thus giving +a false direction to their ideas, to their antipathies, to their +dislikes, and to their attacks. It follows, that the misguided people +are rushing into a horrible and absurd struggle, in which victory would +be more fatal than defeat, since, according to this supposition, the +result would be the realization of universal evils, the destruction of +every means of emancipation, the consummation of its own misery.</p> + +<p>This is just what M. Proudhon has acknowledged, with perfect good faith. +"The foundation stone," he told me, "of my system is the <i>gratuitousness +of credit</i>. 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, they +find themselves mangled and bleeding? Such a danger as this is enough to +justify me fully, if, in the course of the discussion, I allow myself to +be led into some trivialities and some prolixity.</p> + + +<p class='center'><b>CAPITAL AND INTEREST.</b></p> + +<p>I address this treatise to the workmen of Paris, more especially to +those who have enrolled themselves under the banner of Socialist +democracy. I proceed to consider these two questions:</p> + +<p>1st. Is it consistent with the nature of things, and with justice, that +capital should produce interest?</p> + +<p>2nd. Is it consistent with the nature of things, and with justice, that +the interest of capital should be perpetual?</p> + +<p>The working men of Paris will certainly acknowledge that a more +important subject could not be discussed.</p> + +<p>Since the world began, it has been allowed, at least in part, that +capital ought to produce interest. But latterly it has been affirmed, +that herein lies the very social error which is the cause of pauperism +and inequality. It is, therefore, very essential to know now on what +ground we stand.</p> + +<p>For if levying interest from capital is a sin, the workers have a right +to revolt against social order, as it exists; it is in vain to tell them +that they ought to have recourse to legal and pacific means, it would be +a hypocritical recommendation. When on the one side there is a strong +man, 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 voluntarily +renounces oppression, or till it shall cease of itself." This cannot be; +and those who tell us that capital is, by nature, unproductive, ought to +know that they are provoking a terrible and immediate struggle.</p> + +<p>If, on the contrary, the interest of capital is natural, lawful, +consistent with the general good, as favorable to the borrower as to +the lender, the economists who deny it, the tribunes who traffic in this +pretended social wound, are leading the workmen into a senseless and +unjust struggle, which can have no other issue than the misfortune of +all. In fact, they are arming labor against capital. So much the better, +if these two powers are really antagonistic; and may the struggle soon +be ended! But if they are in harmony, the struggle is the greatest evil +which can be inflicted on society. You see, then, workmen, that there is +not a more important question than this: "Is the interest of capital +lawful or not?" In the former case, you must immediately renounce the +struggle to which you are being urged; in the second, you must carry it +on bravely, and to the end.</p> + +<p>Productiveness of capital—perpetuity of interest. These are difficult +questions. I must endeavor to make myself clear. And for that purpose I +shall have recourse to example rather than to demonstration; or rather, +I shall place the demonstration in the example. I begin by +acknowledging, that, at first sight, it may appear strange that capital +should pretend to a remuneration; and, above all, to a perpetual +remuneration. You will say, "Here are two men. One of them works from +morning till night, from one year's end to another; and if he consumes +all which he has gained, even by superior energy, he remains poor. When +Christmas comes, he is no forwarder than he was at the beginning of the +year, and has no other prospect but to begin again. The other man does +nothing, either with his hands or his head; or, at least, if he makes +use of them at all, it is only for his own pleasure; it is allowable for +him to do nothing, for he has an income. He does not work, yet he lives +well; he has everything in abundance, delicate dishes, sumptuous +furniture, elegant equipages; nay, he even consumes, daily, things which +the workers have been obliged to produce by the sweat of their brow; for +these things do not make themselves; and, as far as he is concerned, he +has had no hand in their production. It is the workmen who have caused +this corn to grow, polished this furniture, woven these carpets; it is +our wives and daughters who have spun, cut out, sewed, and embroidered +these stuffs. We work, then, for him and ourselves; for him first, and +then for ourselves, if there is anything left. But here is something +more striking still. If the former of these two men, the worker, +consumes within the year any profit which may have been left him in that +year, he is always at the point from which he started, and his destiny +condemns him to move incessantly in a perpetual circle, and a monotony +of exertion. Labor, then, is rewarded only once. But if the other, the +'gentleman,' consumes his yearly income in the year, he has, the year +after, in those which follow, and through all eternity, an income +always equal, inexhaustible, <i>perpetual</i>. Capital, then, is remunerated, +not only once or twice, but an indefinite number of times! So that, at +the end of a hundred years, a family, which has placed 20,000 francs, at +five per cent., will have had 100,000 francs; and this will not prevent +it from having 100,000 more, in the following century. In other words, +for 20,000 francs, which represent its labor, it will have levied, in +two centuries, a ten-fold value on the labor of others. In this social +arrangement, is there not a monstrous evil to be reformed? And this is +not all. If it should please this family to curtail its enjoyments a +little—to spend, for example, only 900 francs, instead of 1,000—it +may, without any labor, without any other trouble beyond that of +investing 100 francs a year, increase its capital and its income in such +rapid progression, that it will soon be in a position to consume as much +as a hundred families of industrious workmen. Does not all this go to +prove, that society itself has in its bosom a hideous cancer, which +ought to be eradicated at the risk of some temporary suffering?"</p> + +<p>These are, it appears to me, the sad and irritating reflections which +must be excited in your minds by the active and superficial crusade +which is being carried on against capital and interest. On the other +hand, there are moments in which, I am convinced, doubts are awakened +in your minds, and scruples in your conscience. You say to yourselves +sometimes, "But to assert that capital ought not to produce interest, is +to say that he who has created instruments of labor, or materials, or +provisions of any kind, ought to yield them up without compensation. Is +that just? And then, if it is so, who would lend these instruments, +these materials, these provisions? who would take care of them? who even +would create them? Every one would consume his proportion, and the human +race would never advance a step. Capital would be no longer formed, +since there would be no interest in forming it. It will become +exceedingly scarce. A singular step toward gratuitous loans! A singular +means of improving the condition of borrowers, to make it impossible for +them to borrow at any price! What would become of labor itself? for +there will be no money advanced, and not one single kind of labor can be +mentioned, not even the chase, which can be pursued without money in +hand. And, as for ourselves, what would become of us? What! we are not +to be allowed to borrow, in order to work in the prime of life, nor to +lend, that we may enjoy repose in its decline? The law will rob us of +the prospect of laying by a little property, because it will prevent us +from gaining any advantage from it. It will deprive us of all stimulus +to 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 the +idea of leaving our sons and daughters a little property, since modern +science renders it useless, for we should become trafficers in men if we +were to lend it on interest. Alas! the world which these persons would +open before us as an imaginary good, is still more dreary and desolate +than that which they condemn, for hope, at any rate, is not banished +from the latter." Thus in all respects, and in every point of view, the +question is a serious one. Let us hasten to arrive at a solution.</p> + +<p>Our civil code has a chapter entitled, "On the manner of transmitting +property." I do not think it gives a very complete nomenclature on this +point. When a man by his labor has made some useful things—in other +words, when he has created a <i>value</i>—it can only pass into the hands of +another by one of the following modes: as a gift, by the right of +inheritance, by exchange, loan, or theft. One word upon each of these, +except the last, although it plays a greater part in the world than we +may think.</p> + +<p>A gift, needs no definition. It is essentially voluntary and +spontaneous. It depends exclusively upon the giver, and the receiver +cannot be said to have any right to it. Without a doubt, morality and +religion make it a duty for men, especially the rich, to deprive +themselves voluntarily of that which they possess, in favor of their +less fortunate brethren. But this is an entirely moral obligation. If it +were to be asserted on principle, admitted in practice, or sanctioned by +law, that every man has a right to the property of another, the gift +would have no merit, charity and gratitude would be no longer virtues. +Besides, such a doctrine would suddenly and universally arrest labor and +production, as severe cold congeals water and suspends animation, for +who would work if there was no longer to be any connection between labor +and the satisfying of our wants? Political economy has not treated of +gifts. It has hence been concluded that it disowns them, and that it is +therefore a science devoid of heart. This is a ridiculous accusation. +That science which treats of the laws resulting from the <i>reciprocity of +services</i>, had no business to inquire into the consequences of +generosity with respect to him who receives, nor into its effects, +perhaps still more precious, on him who gives; such considerations +belong evidently to the science of morals. We must allow the sciences to +have limits; above all, we must not accuse them of denying or +undervaluing what they look upon as foreign to their department.</p> + +<p>The right of inheritance, against which so much has been objected of +late, is one of the forms of gift, and assuredly the most natural of +all. 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? It +is this power, more than any other, which inspires him with courage to +labor and to save. Do you know why the principle of right of inheritance +is thus called in question? Because it is imagined that the property +thus transmitted is plundered from the masses. This is a fatal error; +political economy demonstrates, in the most peremptory manner, that all +value 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, which +do not belong to the subject.</p> + +<p>Exchange is the principal department of political economy, because it is +by far the most frequent method of transmitting property, according to +the free and voluntary agreements of the laws and effects of which this +science treats.</p> + +<p>Properly speaking, exchange is the reciprocity of services. The parties +say 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 (for +this will throw a new light on the notion of value), that the second +form 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 is +proposed. Again, when it is said, "Give me this, and I will give you +that," 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 valuation +of the two services; so that it is quite correct to say, that the +principle of <i>value</i> is in the services rendered and received on account +of the productions exchanged, rather than in productions themselves.</p> + +<p>In reality, services are scarcely ever exchanged directly. There is a +medium, which is termed <i>money</i>. Paul has completed a coat, for which he +wishes to receive a little bread, a little wine, a little oil, a visit +from a doctor, a ticket for the play, etc. The exchange cannot be +effected in kind; so what does Paul do? He first exchanges his coat for +some money, which is called <i>sale</i>; then he exchanges this money again +for the things which he wants, which is called <i>purchase</i>; and now, +only, has the reciprocity of services completed its circuit; now, only, +the labor and the compensation are balanced in the same individual,—"I +have done this for society, it has done that for me." In a word, it is +only now that the exchange is actually accomplished. Thus, nothing can +be more correct than this observation of J.B. Say: "Since the +introduction of money, every exchange is resolved into two elements, +<i>sale</i> and <i>purchase</i>. It is the reunion of these two elements which +renders the exchange complete."</p> + +<p>We must remark, also, that the constant appearance of money in every +exchange has overturned and misled all our ideas; men have ended in +thinking that money was true riches, and that to multiply it was to +multiply services and products. Hence the prohibitory system; hence +paper money; hence the celebrated aphorism, "What one gains the other +loses;" and all the errors which have ruined the earth, and imbrued it +with blood.<a name="FNanchor_17_17" id="FNanchor_17_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_17_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a> After much research it has been found, that in order to +make the two services exchanged of equivalent value, and in order to +render the exchange <i>equitable</i>, the best means was to allow it to be +free. However plausible, at first sight, the intervention of the State +might be, it was soon perceived that it is always oppressive to one or +other of the contracting parties. When we look into these subjects, we +are always compelled to reason upon this maxim, that <i>equal value</i> +results from liberty. We have, in fact, no other means of knowing +whether, at a given moment, two services are of the same value, but that +of examining whether they can be readily and freely exchanged. Allow the +State, which is the same thing as force, to interfere on one side or the +other, and from that moment all the means of appreciation will be +complicated and entangled, instead of becoming clear. It ought to be the +part of the State to prevent, and, above all, to repress artifice and +fraud; that is, to secure liberty, and not to violate it. I have +enlarged a little upon exchange, although loan is my principal object: +my excuse is, that I conceive that there is in a loan an actual +exchange, an actual service rendered by the lender, and which makes the +borrower liable to an equivalent service,—two services, whose +comparative value can only be appreciated, like that of all possible +services, by freedom. Now, if it is so, the perfect lawfulness of what +is called house-rent, farm-rent, interest, will be explained and +justified. Let us consider the case of <i>loan</i>.</p> + +<p>Suppose two men exchange two services or two objects, whose equal value +is beyond all dispute. Suppose, for example, Peter says to Paul, "Give +me ten sixpences, I will give you a five-shilling piece." We cannot +imagine an equal value more unquestionable. When the bargain is made, +neither party has any claim upon the other. The exchanged services are +equal. Thus it follows, that if one of the parties wishes to introduce +into the bargain an additional clause, advantageous to himself, but +unfavorable to the other party, he must agree to a second clause, which +shall re-establish the equilibrium, and the law of justice. It would be +absurd to deny the justice of a second clause of compensation. This +granted, we will suppose that Peter, after having said to Paul, "Give me +ten sixpences, I will give you a crown," adds, "you shall give me the +ten sixpences <i>now</i>, and I will give you the crown-piece <i>in a year</i>;" +it is very evident that this new proposition alters the claims and +advantages of the bargain; that it alters the proportion of the two +services. Does it not appear plainly enough, in fact, that Peter asks of +Paul a new and an additional service; one of a different kind? Is it not +as if he had said, "Render me the service of allowing me to use for my +profit, for a year, five shillings which belong to you, and which you +might have used for yourself"? And what good reason have you to maintain +that Paul is bound to render this especial service gratuitously; that he +has no right to demand anything more in consequence of this requisition; +that the State ought to interfere to force him to submit? Is it not +incomprehensible that the economist, who preaches such a doctrine to the +people, can reconcile it with his principle of <i>the reciprocity of +services</i>? Here I have introduced cash; I have been led to do so by a +desire to place, side by side, two objects of exchange, of a perfect and +indisputable equality of value. I was anxious to be prepared for +objections; but, on the other hand, my demonstration would have been +more striking still, if I had illustrated my principle by an agreement +for exchanging the services or the productions themselves.</p> + +<p>Suppose, for example, a house and a vessel of a value so perfectly +equal that their proprietors are disposed to exchange them even-handed, +without excess or abatement. In fact, let the bargain be settled by a +lawyer. At the moment of each taking possession, the ship-owner says to +the citizen, "Very well; the transaction is completed, and nothing can +prove its perfect equity better than our free and voluntary consent. Our +conditions thus fixed, I shall propose to you a little practical +modification. You shall let me have your house to-day, but I shall not +put you in possession of my ship for a year; and the reason I make this +demand of you is, that, during this year of <i>delay</i>, I wish to use the +vessel." That we may not be embarrassed by considerations relative to +the deterioration of the thing lent, I will suppose the ship-owner to +add, "I will engage, at the end of the year, to hand over to you the +vessel in the state in which it is to-day." I ask of every candid man, I +ask of M. Proudhon himself, if the citizen has not a right to answer, +"The new clause which you propose entirely alters the proportion or the +equal value of the exchanged services. By it, I shall be deprived, for +the 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, the +bargain was just, for the same reason the clause is injurious to me. It +stipulates for a loss to me, and a gain to you. You are requiring of me +a new service; I have a right to refuse, or to require of you, as a +compensation, an equivalent service." If the parties are agreed upon +this compensation, the principle of which is incontestable, we can +easily distinguish two transactions in one, two exchanges of service in +one. First, there is the exchange of the house for the vessel; after +this, there is the delay granted by one of the parties, and the +compensation correspondent to this delay yielded by the other. These two +new services take the generic and abstract names of <i>credit</i> and +<i>interest</i>. But names do not change the nature of things; and I defy any +one to dare to maintain that there exists here, when all is done, a +service for a service, or a reciprocity of services. To say that one of +these services does not challenge the other, to say that the first ought +to be rendered gratuitously, without injustice, is to say that injustice +consists in the reciprocity of services—that justice consists in one of +the parties giving and not receiving, which is a contradiction in terms.</p> + +<p>To give an idea of interest and its mechanism, allow me to make use of +two or three anecdotes. But, first, I must say a few words upon capital.</p> + +<p>There are some persons who imagine that capital is money, and this is +precisely the reason why they deny its productiveness; for, as M. Thoré +says, crowns are not endowed with the power of reproducing themselves. +But it is not true that capital and money are the same thing. Before +the discovery of the precious metals, there were capitalists in the +world; and I venture to say that at that time, as now, everybody was a +capitalist, to a certain extent.</p> + +<p>What is capital, then? It is composed of three things:</p> + +<p>1st. Of the materials upon which men operate, when these materials have +already a value communicated by some human effort, which has bestowed +upon them the principle of remuneration—wool, flax, leather, silk, +wood, etc.</p> + +<p>2nd. Instruments which are used for working—tools, machines, ships, +carriages, etc.</p> + +<p>3rd. Provisions which are consumed during labor—victuals, stuffs, +houses, etc.</p> + +<p>Without these things, the labor of man would be unproductive, and almost +void; yet these very things have required much work, especially at +first. This is the reason that so much value has been attached to the +possession of them, and also that it is perfectly lawful to exchange and +to sell them, to make a profit of them if used, to gain remuneration +from them if lent.</p> + +<p>Now for my anecdotes.</p> + + +<p class='center'><b>THE SACK OF CORN.</b></p> + +<p>Mathurin, in other respects as poor as Job, and obliged to earn his +bread by day-labor, became, nevertheless, by some inheritance, the +owner of a fine piece of uncultivated land. He was exceedingly anxious +to cultivate it. "Alas!" said he, "to make ditches, to raise fences, to +break the soil, to clear away the brambles and stones, to plough it, to +sow it, might bring me a living in a year or two; but certainly not +to-day, or to-morrow. It is impossible to set about farming it, without +previously saving some provisions for my subsistence until the harvest; +and I know, by experience, that preparatory labor is indispensable, in +order to render present labor productive." The good Mathurin was not +content 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. He +acted so well, was so active and steady, that he soon saw himself in +possession of the wished-for sack of corn. "I shall take it to the +mill," said he, "and then I shall have enough to live upon till my field +is covered with a rich harvest." Just as he was starting, Jerome came to +borrow 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 very +lucrative work in view, which I cannot possibly undertake, for want of +provisions 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 of +justice can it be devoted to the realization of <i>your</i> enterprise +instead of <i>mine</i>?"</p> + +<p>You may well believe that the bargain was a long one. However, it was +finished at length, and on these conditions:</p> + +<p>First. Jerome promised to give back, at the end of the year, a sack of +corn of the same quality, and of the same weight, without missing a +single grain. "This first clause is perfectly just," said he, "for +without it Mathurin would <i>give</i>, and not <i>lend</i>."</p> + +<p>Secondly. He engaged to deliver <i>five litres</i> on <i>every hectolitre</i>. +"This clause is no less just than the other," thought he; "for without +it Mathurin would do me a service without compensation; he would inflict +upon himself a privation—he would renounce his cherished enterprise—he +would enable me to accomplish mine—he would cause me to enjoy for a +year the fruits of his savings, and all this gratuitously. Since he +delays the cultivation of his land, since he enables me to realize a +lucrative labor, it is quite natural that I should let him partake, in a +certain proportion, of the profits which I shall gain by the sacrifice +he makes of his own."</p> + +<p>On his side, Mathurin, who was something of a scholar, made this +calculation: "Since, by virtue of the first clause, the sack of corn +will return to me at the end of a year," he said to himself, "I shall +be able to lend it again; it will return to me at the end of the second +year; I may lend it again, and so on, to all eternity. However, I cannot +deny that it will have been eaten long ago. It is singular that I should +be perpetually the owner of a sack of corn, although the one I have lent +has been consumed for ever. But this is explained thus: It will be +consumed in the service of Jerome. It will put it into the power of +Jerome to produce a superior value; and, consequently, Jerome will be +able to restore me a sack of corn, or the value of it, without having +suffered the slightest injury; but quite the contrary. And as regards +myself, this value ought to be my property, as long as I do not consume +it myself; if I had used it to clear my land, I should have received it +again in the form of a fine harvest. Instead of that, I lend it, and +shall recover it in the form of repayment.</p> + +<p>"From the second clause, I gain another piece of information. At the end +of the year, I shall be in possession of five litres of corn, over the +100 that I have just lent. If, then, I were to continue to work by the +day, and to save a part of my wages, as I have been doing, in the course +of time I should be able to lend two sacks of corn; then three; then +four; and when I should have gained a sufficient number to enable me to +live on these additions of five litres over and above each, I shall be +at liberty to take a little repose in my old age. But how is this? In +this 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; I +complete the labor of my borrowers; and only deduct a trifling part of +the excess of production, due to my lendings and savings. It is a +marvellous thing, that a man may thus realize a leisure which injures no +one, and for which he cannot be envied without injustice."</p> + + +<p class='center'><b>THE HOUSE.</b></p> + +<p>Mondor had a house. In building it, he had extorted nothing from any one +whatever. He owed it to his own personal labor, or, which is the same +thing, to labor justly rewarded. His first care was to make a bargain +with an architect, in virtue of which, by means of a hundred crowns a +year, the latter engaged to keep the house in constant good repair. +Mondor was already congratulating himself on the happy days which he +hoped to spend in this retreat, declared sacred by our Constitution. But +Valerius wished to make it his residence. "How can you think of such a +thing?" said Mondor; "it is I who have built it; it has cost me ten +years of painful labor, and now you would enjoy it!" They agreed to +refer the matter to judges. They chose no profound economists—there +were none such in the country. But they found some just and sensible +men; it all comes to the same thing: political economy, justice, good +sense, are all the same thing. Now here is the decision made by the +judges: If Valerius wishes to occupy Mondor's house for a year, he is +bound to submit to three conditions. The first is, to quit at the end of +the year, and to restore the house in good repair, saving the inevitable +decay resulting from mere duration. The second, to refund to Mondor the +300 francs, which the latter pays annually to the architect to repair +the injuries of time; for these injuries taking place whilst the house +is in the service of Valerius, it is perfectly just that he should bear +the consequences. The third, that he should render to Mondor a service +equivalent to that which he receives. As to this equivalence of +services, it must be freely discussed between Mondor and Valerius.</p> + + +<p class='center'><b>THE PLANE.</b></p> + +<p>A very long time ago there lived, in a poor village, a joiner, who was a +philosopher, as all my heroes are, in their way. James worked from +morning 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, and +their effects. He sometimes said to himself, "With my hatchet, my saw, +and my hammer, I can make only coarse furniture, and can only get the +pay for such. If I only had a <i>plane</i>, I should please my customers +more, and they would pay me more. It is quite just; I can only expect +services proportioned to those which I render myself. Yes! I am +resolved, I will make myself a <i>plane</i>."</p> + +<p>However, just as he was setting to work, James reflected further: "I +work for my customers 300 days in the year. If I give ten to making my +plane, supposing it lasts me a year, only 290 days will remain for me to +make 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 would +not be worth my while to venture upon any innovations." James began to +calculate. He satisfied himself that he should sell his finished +furniture at a price which would amply compensate for the ten days +devoted to the plane; and when no doubt remained on this point, he set +to work. I beg the reader to remark, that the power which exists in the +tool to increase the productiveness of labor, is the basis of the +solution which follows.</p> + +<p>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 for +joy—for, like the girl with her basket of eggs, he reckoned all the +profits which he expected to derive from the ingenious instrument; but +more fortunate than she, he was not reduced to the necessity of saying +good-bye to calf, cow, pig, and eggs, together. He was building his fine +castles 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 to +James:</p> + +<p><i>W.</i> You must do me a service.</p> + +<p><i>J.</i> What service?</p> + +<p><i>W.</i> Lend me the plane for a year.</p> + +<p>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 this +service, what will you do for me in return?"</p> + +<p><i>W.</i> Nothing. Don't you know that a loan ought to be gratuitous? Don't +you know that capital is naturally unproductive? Don't you know +fraternity has been proclaimed? If you only do me a service for the sake +of receiving one from me in return, what merit would you have?</p> + +<p><i>J.</i> William, my friend, fraternity does not mean that all the +sacrifices are to be on one side; if so, I do not see why they should +not be on yours. Whether a loan should be gratuitous I don't know; but I +do know that if I were to lend you my plane for a year, it would be +giving it to you. To tell you the truth, that is not what I made it for.</p> + +<p><i>W.</i> Well, we will say nothing about the modern maxims discovered by +the Socialist gentlemen. I ask you to do me a service; what service do +you ask of me in return?</p> + +<p><i>J.</i> First, then, in a year, the plane will be done for, it will be good +for nothing. It is only just, that you should let me have another +exactly like it; or that you should give me money enough to get it +repaired; or that you should supply me the ten days which I must devote +to replacing it.</p> + +<p><i>W.</i> This is perfectly just. I submit to these conditions. I engage to +return it, or to let you have one like it, or the value of the same. I +think you must be satisfied with this, and can require nothing further.</p> + +<p><i>J.</i> I think otherwise. I made the plane for myself, and not for you. I +expected to gain some advantage from it, by my work being better +finished and better paid, by an improvement in my condition. What reason +is there that I should make the plane, and you should gain the profit? I +might 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 own +hands, as well as his hands themselves? To use without recompense the +hands of another, I call slavery; to use without recompense the plane of +another, can this be called fraternity?</p> + +<p><i>W.</i> 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.</p> + +<p><i>J.</i> 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 my +condition; if you merely return it to me in a year, it is you who will +gain the profit of it during the whole of that time. I am not bound to +do you such a service without receiving anything from you in return; +therefore, if you wish for my plane, independently of the entire +restoration already bargained for, you must do me a service which we +will now discuss; you must grant me remuneration.</p> + +<p>And this was done thus: William granted a remuneration calculated in +such a way that, at the end of the year, James received his plane quite +new, and in addition, a compensation, consisting of a new plank, for the +advantages of which he had deprived himself, and which he had yielded to +his friend.</p> + +<p>It was impossible for any one acquainted with the transaction to +discover the slightest trace in it of oppression or injustice.</p> + +<p>The singular part of it is, that, at the end of the year, the plane came +into James' possession, and he lent it again; recovered it, and lent it +a third and fourth time. It has passed into the hands of his son, who +still lends it. Poor plane! how many times has it changed, sometimes its +blade, sometimes its handle. It is no longer the same plane, but it has +always the same value, at least for James' posterity. Workmen! let us +examine into these little stories.</p> + +<p>I maintain, first of all, that the <i>sack of corn</i> and the <i>plane</i> are +here the type, the model, a faithful representation, the symbol, of all +capital; as the five litres of corn and the plank are the type, the +model, the representation, the symbol, of all interest. This granted, +the following are, it seems to me, a series of consequences, the justice +of which it is impossible to dispute.</p> + +<p>1st. If the yielding of a plank by the borrower to the lender is a +natural, equitable, lawful remuneration, the just price of a real +service, we may conclude that, as a general rule, it is in the nature of +capital to produce interest. When this capital, as in the foregoing +examples, takes the form of an <i>instrument of labor</i>, it is clear enough +that it ought to bring an advantage to its possessor, to him who has +devoted to it his time, his brains, and his strength. Otherwise, why +should he have made it? No necessity of life can be immediately +satisfied with instruments of labor; no one eats planes or drinks saws, +except, indeed, he be a conjurer. If a man determines to spend his time +in the production of such things, he must have been led to it by the +consideration of the power which these instruments add to his power; of +the time which they save him; of the perfection and rapidity which they +give to his labor; in a word, of the advantages which they procure for +him. Now, these advantages, which have been prepared by labor, by the +sacrifice 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 them +gratuitously upon another? Would it be an advance in social order, if +the law decided thus, and citizens should pay officials for causing such +a law to be executed by force? I venture to say, that there is not one +amongst you who would support it. It would be to legalize, to organize, +to systematize injustice itself, for it would be proclaiming that there +are men born to render, and others born to receive, gratuitous services. +Granted, then, that interest is just, natural, and lawful.</p> + +<p>2nd. A second consequence, not less remarkable than the former, and, if +possible, still more conclusive, to which I call your attention, is +this: <i>interest is not injurious to the borrower</i>. I mean to say, the +obligation in which the borrower finds himself, to pay a remuneration +for the use of capital, cannot do any harm to his condition. Observe, in +fact, that James and William are perfectly free, as regards the +transaction to which the plane gave occasion. The transaction cannot be +accomplished without the consent of the one as well as of the other. The +worst which can happen is, that James may be too exacting; and in this +case, William, refusing the loan, remains as he was before. By the fact +of his agreeing to borrow, he proves that he considers it an advantage +to himself; he proves, that after every calculation, including the +remuneration, whatever it may be, required of him, he still finds it +more profitable to borrow than not to borrow. He only determines to do +so because he has compared the inconveniences with the advantages. He +has calculated that the day on which he returns the plane, accompanied +by the remuneration agreed upon, he will have effected more work, with +the same labor, thanks to this tool. A profit will remain to him, +otherwise he would not have borrowed. The two services of which we are +speaking are exchanged according to the law which governs all exchanges, +the law of supply and demand. The claims of James have a natural and +impassable limit. This is the point in which the remuneration demanded +by him would absorb all the advantage which William might find in making +use 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 do +without one, which would leave him in his original condition. He +borrows, because he gains by borrowing. I know very well what will be +told me. You will say, William may be deceived, or, perhaps, he may be +governed by necessity, and be obliged to submit to a harsh law.</p> + +<p>It may be so. As to errors in calculation, they belong to the infirmity +of our nature, and to argue from this against the transaction in +question, is objecting the possibility of loss in all imaginable +transactions, in every human act. Error is an accidental fact, which is +incessantly remedied by experience. In short, everybody must guard +against it. As far as those hard necessities are concerned, which force +persons to burdensome borrowings, it is clear that these necessities +exist previously to the borrowing. If William is in a situation in which +he cannot possibly do without a plane, and must borrow one at any price, +does this situation result from James having taken the trouble to make +the tool? Does it not exist independently of this circumstance? However +harsh, however severe James may be, he will never render the supposed +condition of William worse than it is. Morally, it is true, the lender +will be to blame; but, in an economical point of view, the loan itself +can never be considered responsible for previous necessities, which it +has not created, and which it relieves, to a certain extent.</p> + +<p>But this proves something to which I shall return. The evident interests +of William, representing here the borrowers, there are many Jameses and +planes. In other words, lenders and capitals. It is very evident, that +if William can say to James—"Your demands are exorbitant; there is no +lack of planes in the world;" he will be in a better situation than if +James' plane was the only one to be borrowed. Assuredly, there is no +maxim 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 the +farthest possible point; and the most favorable circumstance for these +requisitions is the absence of rivalship. Hence it follows, that if +there is a class of men more interested than any other, in the +formation, multiplication, and abundance of capitals, it is mainly that +of the borrowers. Now, since capitals can only be formed and increased +by the stimulus and the prospect of remuneration, let this class +understand the injury they are inflicting on themselves, when they deny +the lawfulness of interest, when they proclaim that credit should be +gratuitous, when they declaim against the pretended tyranny of capital, +when they discourage saving, thus forcing capitals to become scarce, and +consequently interests to rise.</p> + +<p>3rd. The anecdote I have just related enables you to explain this +apparently singular phenomenon, which is termed the duration or +perpetuity of interest. Since, in lending his plane, James has been +able, very lawfully, to make it a condition, that it should be returned +to him, at the end of a year, in the same state in which it was when he +lent 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 latter +plan, the plane will return to him at the end of every year, and that +without 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 out +by the hand and for the profit of the borrower. The latter has taken +into account this gradual wear, and taken upon himself, as he ought, the +consequences. He has reckoned that he shall derive from this tool an +advantage, which will allow him to restore it in its original condition, +after having realized a profit from it. As long as James does not use +this capital himself, or for his own advantage—as long as he renounces +the advantages which allow it to be restored to its original +condition—he will have an incontestable right to have it restored, and +that independently of interest.</p> + +<p>Observe, besides, that if, as I believe I have shown, James, far from +doing any harm to William, has done him a <i>service</i> in lending him his +plane for a year; for the same reason, he will do no harm to a second, a +third, a fourth borrower, in the subsequent periods. Hence you may +understand, that the interest of a capital is as natural, as lawful, as +useful, in the thousandth year, as in the first. We may go still +further. It may happen, that James lends more than a single plane. It is +possible, 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 is +to say, to do a multitude of services. I insist upon this point—that if +the first loan has been a social good, it will be the same with all the +others; for they are all similar, and based upon the same principle. It +may happen, then, that the amount of all the remunerations received by +our honest operative, in exchange for services rendered by him, may +suffice to maintain him. In this case, there will be a man in the world +who has a right to live without working. I do not say that he would be +doing right to give himself up to idleness—but I say, that he has a +right to do so; and if he does so, it will be at nobody's expense, but +quite the contrary. If society at all understands the nature of things, +it will acknowledge that this man subsists on services which he receives +certainly (as we all do), but which he lawfully receives in exchange for +other services, which he himself has rendered, that he continues to +render, and which are quite real, inasmuch as they are freely and +voluntarily accepted.</p> + +<p>And here we have a glimpse of one of the finest harmonies in the social +world. I allude to <i>leisure</i>: not that leisure that the warlike and +tyrannical classes arrange for themselves by the plunder of the workers, +but that leisure which is the lawful and innocent fruit of past activity +and economy. In expressing myself thus, I know that I shall shock many +received ideas. But see! Is not leisure an essential spring in the +social machine? Without it, the world would never have had a Newton, a +Pascal, a Fenelon; mankind would have been ignorant of all arts, +sciences, and of those wonderful inventions, prepared originally by +investigations of mere curiosity; thought would have been inert—man +would have made no progress. On the other hand, if leisure could only be +explained by plunder and oppression—if it were a benefit which could +only be enjoyed unjustly, and at the expense of others, there would be +no middle path between these two evils; either mankind would be reduced +to the necessity of stagnating in a vegetable and stationary life, in +eternal ignorance, from the absence of wheels to its machine—or else it +would 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. I +defy any one to show me, in this case, any other alternative. We should +be compelled to contemplate the Divine plan which governs society, with +the regret of thinking that it presents a deplorable chasm. The stimulus +of progress would be forgotten, or, which is worse, this stimulus would +be no other than injustice itself. But, no! God has not left such a +chasm in his work of love. We must take care not to disregard his +wisdom and power; for those whose imperfect meditations cannot explain +the lawfulness of leisure, are very much like the astronomer who said, +at a certain point in the heavens there ought to exist a planet which +will be at last discovered, for without it the celestial world is not +harmony, but discord.</p> + +<p>Well, I say that, if well understood, the history of my humble plane, +although very modest, is sufficient to raise us to the contemplation of +one of the most consoling, but least understood, of the social +harmonies.</p> + +<p>It is not true that we must choose between the denial or the +unlawfulness 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 may +aspire. It makes its appearance in the world; it distributes itself +proportionably to the exercise of certain virtues; it opens all the +avenues to intelligence; it ennobles, it raises the morals; it +spiritualizes the soul of humanity, not only without laying any weight +on those of our brethren whose lot in life devotes them to severe labor, +but relieving them gradually from the heaviest and most repugnant part +of this labor. It is enough that capitals should be formed, accumulated, +multiplied; should be lent on conditions less and less burdensome; that +they should descend, penetrate into every social circle, and that, by an +admirable progression, after having liberated the lenders, they should +hasten the liberation of the borrowers themselves. For that end, the +laws and customs ought to be favorable to economy, the source of +capital. 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 saving +and the reason of its existence—interest.</p> + +<p>As long as we see nothing passing from hand to hand, in the character of +loan, but <i>provisions</i>, <i>materials</i>, <i>instruments</i>, things indispensable +to the productiveness of labor itself, the ideas thus far exhibited will +not find many opponents. Who knows, even, that I may not be reproached +for having made great effort to burst what may be said to be an open +door. But as soon as <i>cash</i> makes its appearance as the subject of the +transaction (and it is this which appears almost always), immediately a +crowd of objections are raised. Money, it will be said, will not +reproduce itself, like your <i>sack of corn</i>; it does not assist labor, +like your <i>plane</i>; it does not afford an immediate satisfaction, like +your <i>house</i>. It is incapable, by its nature, of producing interest, of +multiplying itself, and the remuneration it demands is a positive +extortion.</p> + +<p>Who cannot see the sophistry of this? Who does not see that cash is +only a transient form, which men give at the time to other <i>values</i>, to +real objects of usefulness, for the sole object of facilitating their +arrangements? In the midst of social complications, the man who is in a +condition to lend, scarcely ever has the exact thing which the borrower +wants. James, it is true, has a plane; but, perhaps, William wants a +saw. They cannot negotiate; the transaction favorable to both cannot +take place, and then what happens? It happens that James first exchanges +his plane for money; he lends the money to William, and William +exchanges the money for a saw. The transaction is no longer a simple +one; it is decomposed into two parts, as I explained above in speaking +of exchange. But, for all that, it has not changed its nature; it still +contains all the elements of a direct loan. James has still got rid of a +tool which was useful to him; William has still received an instrument +which perfects his work and increases his profits; there is still a +service rendered by the lender, which entitles him to receive an +equivalent service from the borrower; this just balance is not the less +established by free mutual bargaining. The very natural obligation to +restore at the end of the term the entire <i>value</i>, still constitutes the +principle of the duration of interest.</p> + +<p>At the end of a year, says M. Thoré, will you find an additional crown +in a bag of a hundred pounds?</p> + +<p>No, certainly, if the borrower puts the bag of one hundred pounds on the +shelf. In such a case, neither the plane, nor the sack of corn, would +reproduce themselves. But it is not for the sake of leaving the money in +the bag, nor the plane on the hook, that they are borrowed. The plane is +borrowed to be used, or the money to procure a plane. And if it is +clearly proved that this tool enables the borrower to obtain profits +which he would not have made without it, if it is proved that the lender +has renounced creating for himself this excess of profits, we may +understand how the stipulation of a part of this excess of profits in +favor of the lender, is equitable and lawful.</p> + +<p>Ignorance of the true part which cash plays in human transactions, is +the source of the most fatal errors. I intend devoting an entire +pamphlet 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 a +logical and definite consequence of social progress, is the observation +of the phenomenon which shows a decreasing interest, almost in direct +proportion to the rate of civilization. In barbarous times it is, in +fact, cent. per cent., and more. Then it descends to eighty, sixty, +fifty, forty, twenty, ten, eight, five, four, and three per cent. In +Holland, 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 to +zero by the time civilization is complete. In other words, that which +characterizes social perfection is the gratuitousness of credit. When, +therefore, we shall have abolished interest, we shall have reached the +last step of progress." This is mere sophistry, and as such false +arguing may contribute to render popular the unjust, dangerous, and +destructive dogma, that credit should be gratuitous, by representing it +as coincident with social perfection, with the reader's permission I +will examine in a few words this new view of the question.</p> + +<p>What is <i>interest</i>? It is the service rendered, after a free bargain, by +the borrower to the lender, in remuneration for the service he has +received by the loan. By what law is the rate of these remunerative +services established? By the general law which regulates the equivalent +of all services; that is, by the law of supply and demand.</p> + +<p>The more easily a thing is procured, the smaller is the service rendered +by yielding it or lending it. The man who gives me a glass of water in +the Pyrenees, does not render me so great a service as he who allows me +one in the desert of Sahara. If there are many planes, sacks of corn, or +houses, in a country, the use of them is obtained, other things being +equal, on more favorable conditions than if they were few; for the +simple reason, that the lender renders in this case a smaller <i>relative +service</i>.</p> + +<p>It is not surprising, therefore, that the more abundant capitals are, +the lower is the interest.</p> + +<p>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 interest +will be annihilated, is to say that there will never be any motive for +saving, for denying ourselves, in order to form new capitals, nor even +to preserve the old ones. In this case, the waste would immediately +bring a void, and interest would directly reappear.</p> + +<p>In that, the nature of the services of which we are speaking does not +differ from any other. Thanks to industrial progress, a pair of +stockings, which used to be worth six francs, has successively been +worth only four, three, and two. No one can say to what point this value +will descend; but we can affirm, that it will never reach zero, unless +the stockings finish by producing themselves spontaneously. Why? Because +the principle of remuneration is in labor; because he who works for +another renders a service, and ought to receive a service. If no one +paid for stockings, they would cease to be made; and, with the scarcity, +the price would not fail to reappear.</p> + +<p>The sophism which I am now combating has its root in the infinite +divisibility which belongs to <i>value</i>, as it does to matter.</p> + +<p>It appears, at first, paradoxical, but it is well known to all +mathematicians, that, through all eternity, fractions may be taken from +a weight without the weight ever being annihilated. It is sufficient +that each successive fraction be less than the preceding one, in a +determined and regular proportion.</p> + +<p>There are countries where people apply themselves to increasing the size +of horses, or diminishing in sheep the size of the head. It is +impossible to say precisely to what point they will arrive in this. No +one can say that he has seen the largest horse or the smallest sheep's +head that will ever appear in the world. But he may safely say that the +size of horses will never attain to infinity, nor the heads of sheep to +nothing.</p> + +<p>In the same way, no one can say to what point the price of stockings nor +the interest of capitals will come down; but we may safely affirm, when +we know the nature of things, that neither the one nor the other will +ever arrive at zero, for labor and capital can no more live without +recompense than a sheep without a head.</p> + +<p>The arguments of M. Proudhon reduce themselves, then, to this: since the +most skillful agriculturists are those who have reduced the heads of +sheep to the smallest size, we shall have arrived at the highest +agricultural perfection when sheep have no longer any heads. Therefore, +in order to realize the perfection, let us behead them.</p> + +<p>I have now done with this wearisome discussion. Why is it that the +breath of false doctrine has made it needful to examine into the +intimate nature of interest? I must not leave off without remarking upon +a beautiful moral which may be drawn from this law: "The depression of +interest is proportioned to the abundance of capitals." This law being +granted, if there is a class of men to whom it is more important than to +any other that capitals be formed, accumulate, multiply, abound, and +superabound, it is certainly the class which borrows them directly or +indirectly; it is those men who operate upon <i>materials</i>, who gain +assistance by <i>instruments</i>, who live upon <i>provisions</i>, produced and +economized by other men.</p> + +<p>Imagine, in a vast and fertile country, a population of a thousand +inhabitants, destitute of all capital thus defined. It will assuredly +perish by the pangs of hunger. Let us suppose a case hardly less cruel. +Let us suppose that ten of these savages are provided with instruments +and provisions sufficient to work and to live themselves until harvest +time, as well as to remunerate the services of eighty laborers. The +inevitable result will be the death of nine hundred human beings. It is +clear, then, that since nine hundred and ninety men, urged by want, will +crowd upon the supports which would only maintain a hundred, the ten +capitalists will be masters of the market. They will obtain labor on +the hardest conditions, for they will put it up to auction, or the +highest bidder. And observe this—if these capitalists entertain such +pious sentiments as would induce them to impose personal privations on +themselves, in order to diminish the sufferings of some of their +brethren, this generosity, which attaches to morality, will be as noble +in its principle as useful in its effects. But if, duped by that false +philosophy which persons wish so inconsiderately to mingle with economic +laws, they take to remunerating labor largely, far from doing good, they +will do harm. They will give double wages, it may be. But then, +forty-five men will be better provided for, whilst forty-five others +will 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 the +mischief, 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 extent +the remedy. It acts in this way; it distributes the burden of suffering +as much as it can, and saves as many lives as a limited quantity of +sustenance permits.</p> + +<p>Suppose now, that instead of ten capitalists, there should be a hundred, +two hundred, five hundred—is it not evident that the condition of the +whole population, and, above all, that of the "prolétaires,"<a name="FNanchor_18_18" id="FNanchor_18_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_18_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a> will be +more and more improved? Is it not evident that, apart from every +consideration of generosity, they would obtain more work and better pay +for it?—that they themselves will be in a better condition to form +capitals, without being able to fix the limits to this ever-increasing +facility of realizing equality and well-being? Would it not be madness +in them to admit such doctrines, and to act in a way which would drain +the source of wages, and paralyze the activity and stimulus of saving? +Let them learn this lesson, then; doubtless, capitals are good for those +who possess them: who denies it? But they are also useful to those who +have not yet been able to form them; and it is important to those who +have them not, that others should have them.</p> + +<p>Yes, if the "prolétaires" knew their true interests, they would seek, +with the greatest care, what circumstances are, and what are not +favorable to saving, in order to favor the former and to discourage the +latter. They would sympathize with every measure which tends to the +rapid formation of capitals. They would be enthusiastic promoters of +peace, liberty, order, security, the union of classes and peoples, +economy, moderation in public expenses, simplicity in the machinery of +Government; for it is under the sway of all these circumstances that +saving does its work, brings plenty within the reach of the masses, +invites those persons to become the formers of capital who were +formerly under the necessity of borrowing upon hard conditions. They +would repel with energy the warlike spirit, which diverts from its true +course so large a part of human labor; the monopolizing spirit, which +deranges the equitable distribution of riches, in the way by which +liberty alone can realize it; the multitude of public services, which +attack our purses only to check our liberty; and, in short, those +subversive, hateful, thoughtless doctrines, which alarm capital, prevent +its formation, oblige it to flee, and finally to raise its price, to the +special disadvantage of the workers, who bring it into operation. Well, +and in this respect is not the revolution of February a hard lesson? Is +it not evident, that the insecurity it has thrown into the world of +business, on the one hand; and, on the other, the advancement of the +fatal theories to which I have alluded, and which, from the clubs, have +almost penetrated into the regions of the Legislature, have everywhere +raised the rate of interest? Is it not evident, that from that time the +"prolétaires" have found greater difficulty in procuring those +materials, instruments, and provisions, without which labor is +impossible? Is it not that which has caused stoppages; and do not +stoppages, in their turn, lower wages? Thus there is a deficiency of +labor to the "prolétaires," from the same cause which loads the objects +they consume with an increase of price, in consequence of the rise of +interest. High interest, low wages, means in other words that the same +article preserves its price, but that the part of the capitalist has +invaded, without profiting himself, that of the workman.</p> + +<p>A friend of mine, commissioned to make inquiry into Parisian industry, +has assured me that the manufacturers have revealed to him a very +striking fact, which proves, better than any reasoning can, how much +insecurity and uncertainty injure the formation of capital. It was +remarked, that during the most distressing period, the popular expenses +of mere fancy had not diminished. The small theaters, the fighting +lists, the public houses, and tobacco depôts, were as much frequented as +in prosperous times. In the inquiry, the operatives themselves explained +this phenomenon thus: "What is the use of pinching? Who knows what will +happen to us? Who knows that interest will not be abolished? Who knows +but that the State will become a universal and gratuitous lender, and +that it will wish to annihilate all the fruits which we might expect +from our savings?" Well! I say, that if such ideas could prevail during +two single years, it would be enough to turn our beautiful France into a +Turkey—misery would become general and endemic, and, most assuredly, +the poor would be the first upon whom it would fall.</p> + +<p>Workmen! They talk to you a great deal upon the <i>artificial</i> +organization of labor;—do you know why they do so? Because they are +ignorant of the laws of its <i>natural</i> organization; that is, of the +wonderful organization which results from liberty. You are told, that +liberty gives rise to what is called the radical antagonism of classes; +that it creates, and makes to clash, two opposite interests—that of the +capitalists and that of the "prolétaires." But we ought to begin by +proving that this antagonism exists by a law of nature; and afterwards +it would remain to be shown how far the arrangements of restraint are +superior to those of liberty, for between liberty and restraint I see no +middle path. Again, it would remain to be proved, that restraint would +always operate to your advantage, and to the prejudice of the rich. But, +no; this radical antagonism, this natural opposition of interests, does +not exist. It is only an evil dream of perverted and intoxicated +imaginations. No; a plan so defective has not proceeded from the Divine +Mind. To affirm it, we must begin by denying the existence of God. And +see how, by means of social laws, and because men exchange amongst +themselves their labors, and their productions, see what a harmonious +tie attaches the classes, one to the other! There are the landowners; +what is their interest? That the soil be fertile, and the sun +beneficent: and what is the result? That corn abounds, that it falls in +price, and the advantage turns to the profit of those who have had no +patrimony. There are the manufacturers; what is their constant thought? +To perfect their labor, to increase the power of their machines, to +procure for themselves, upon the best terms, the raw material. And to +what does all this tend? To the abundance and low price of produce; that +is, that all the efforts of the manufacturers, and without their +suspecting it, result in a profit to the public consumer, of which each +of you is one. It is the same with every profession. Well, the +capitalists are not exempt from this law. They are very busy making +schemes, economizing, and turning them to their advantage. This is all +very well; but the more they succeed, the more do they promote the +abundance of capital, and, as a necessary consequence, the reduction of +interest? Now, who is it that profits by the reduction of interest? Is +it not the borrower first, and finally, the consumers of the things +which the capitals contribute to produce?</p> + +<p>It is, therefore, certain that the final result of the efforts of each +class, is the common good of all.</p> + +<p>You are told that capital tyrannizes over labor. I do not deny that each +one endeavors to draw the greatest possible advantage from his +situation; 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 is +they who regulate the rate of sale. Never is this tyranny more +impossible to them, than when they are abundant; for, in that case, it +is labor which has the command.</p> + +<p>Away, then, with the jealousies of classes, ill-will, unfounded hatreds, +unjust suspicions. These depraved passions injure those who nourish them +in their hearts. This is no declamatory morality; it is a chain of +causes and effects, which is capable of being rigorously, mathematically +demonstrated. It is not the less sublime, in that it satisfies the +intellect as well as the feelings.</p> + +<p>I shall sum up this whole dissertation with these words: Workmen, +laborers, "prolétaires," destitute and suffering classes, will you +improve your condition? You will not succeed by strife, insurrection, +hatred, and error. But there are three things which cannot perfect the +entire community without extending these benefits to yourselves; these +things are—peace, liberty, and security.</p> + +<h4>Footnotes</h4> +<div class="footnotes"> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_1_1" id="Footnote_1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> Elements of Political Economy, p. 461</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_2_2" id="Footnote_2_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> Congressional Globe, Second Session Thirty-ninth Congress, +p. 724.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_3_3" id="Footnote_3_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> Mr. Macleod (<i>Dictionary of Political Economy</i>, vol. I, p. +246) speaks of Bastiat's definition of Value as "the greatest revolution +that has been effected in any science since the days of Galileo." +</p><p> +See also Professor Perry's pamphlet, <i>Recent Phases of Thought in +Political Economy</i>, read before the American Social Science Association, +October, 1868, in which, it appears to me, that Bastiat's theory of +Rent, in announcing which he was anticipated by Mr. Carey, is too highly +praised.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_4_4" id="Footnote_4_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> It is so often affirmed by protectionists that the +superiority of Great Britain in manufactures was attained by means of +protection, that it is worth while to dispel that illusion. The facts +are precisely the reverse. Protection had brought Great Britain in the +year 1842 to the last stages of penury and decay, and it wanted but a +year or two more of the same regimen to have precipitated the country +into a bloody revolution. I quote a paragraph from Miss Martineau's +"History of England from 1816 to 1854," Book VI, Chapter 5: +</p> +<div class="blockquot"><p>"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."</p></div> +<p> +"But all this came from the Corn Laws," is the ready reply of the +American protectionist. The Corn Laws were the doctrine of protection +applied to breadstuffs, farm products, "raw materials." But it was not +only protection for corn that vexed England in 1842, but protection for +every thing and every body, from the landlord and the mill-owner to the +kelp gatherer. Every species of manufacturing industry had asked and +obtained protection. The nation had put in force, logically and +thoroughly, the principle of denying themselves any share in the +advantages which nature or art had conferred upon other climates and +peoples, (which is the principle of protection), and with the results so +pathetically described by Miss Martineau. The prosperity of British +manufactures dates from the year 1846. That they maintained any kind of +existence prior to that time is a most striking proof of the vitality of +human industry under the persecution of bad laws.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_5_5" id="Footnote_5_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> Principles of Political Economy (People's Ed.), London, +1865, page 557.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_6_6" id="Footnote_6_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_6"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> These figures are taken from the census report for the year +1860. In this report the total production of flour and meal is given, +not in barrels, but in value. The quantity is ascertained by dividing +the total value by the average price per barrel in New York during the +year, the fluctuations then being very slight. Flour being a +manufactured article, is it not a little curious that we exported under +the "free trade tariff" twice as large a percentage of breadstuffs in +that form as we did of the "raw material," wheat?</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_7_7" id="Footnote_7_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_7"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> We will therefore beg the reader to allow us in future, for +the sake of conciseness, to designate this system under the term of +<i>Sisyphism</i>.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_8_8" id="Footnote_8_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8_8"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> In justice to Mr. d'Argout we should say that this singular +language is given by him as the argument of the enemies of the beet. But +he made it his own, and sanctioned it by the law in justification of +which he adduced it.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_9_9" id="Footnote_9_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9_9"><span class="label">[9]</span></a> M. le Vicomte de Romanet.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_10_10" id="Footnote_10_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10_10"><span class="label">[10]</span></a> Mathieu de Dombasle.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_11_11" id="Footnote_11_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11_11"><span class="label">[11]</span></a> It is true that labor does not receive a uniform +remuneration; because labor is more or less intense, dangerous, +skillful, etc. Competition establishes for each category a price +current; and it is of this variable price that I speak.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_12_12" id="Footnote_12_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12_12"><span class="label">[12]</span></a> Might we not say: It is a powerful argument against +Messrs. Ferrier and de Saint Chamans, that all writers on political +economy, of <i>every school</i>, that is to say, all men who have studied the +question, come to this conclusion: After all, freedom is better than +restriction, and the laws of God wiser than those of Mr. Colbert.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_13_13" id="Footnote_13_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13_13"><span class="label">[13]</span></a> I do not, for many reasons, make explicit mention of such +portion of the remuneration as belongs to the contractor, capitalist, +etc. Firstly: because, if the subject be closely looked into, it will be +seen that it is always either the reimbursing in advance, or the payment +of anterior <i>labor</i>. Secondly: because, under the general labor, I +include not only the salary of the workmen, but the legitimate payment +of all co-operation in the work of production. Thirdly: finally, and +above all, because the production of the manufactured articles is, like +that of the raw material, burdened with interests and remunerations, +entirely independent of <i>manual labor</i>; and that the objection, in +itself, might be equally applied to the finest manufacture and to the +roughest agricultural process.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_14_14" id="Footnote_14_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14_14"><span class="label">[14]</span></a> The entrance duty levied at the gates of French towns.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_15_15" id="Footnote_15_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15_15"><span class="label">[15]</span></a> I understand M. Bastiat to mean merely that export duties +are not necessarily more onerous than import duties. The statement that +all taxes are paid by the consumer, is liable to important +modifications. An export duty may be laid in such way, and on such +articles, that it will be paid wholly by the foreign consumer, without +loss to the producing country, but it is only when the additional cost +does not lessen the demand, or induce the foreigner to produce the same +article. <i>Translator.</i></p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_16_16" id="Footnote_16_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_16_16"><span class="label">[16]</span></a> On the 27th of April, 1850, after a very curious +discussion, which was reproduced in the <i>Moniteur</i>, the General Council +of Agriculture, Manufactures and Commerce issued the following order: +</p><p> +"Political economy shall be taught by the government professors, not +merely from the theoretical point of view of free trade, but also with +special regard to the facts and legislation which control French +industry." +</p><p> +It was in reply to this decree that Bastiat wrote the pamphlet +<i>Spoliation and Law</i>, which first appeared in the <i>Journal des +Economistes</i>, May 15, 1850.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_17_17" id="Footnote_17_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_17_17"><span class="label">[17]</span></a> This error will be combated in a pamphlet, entitled +"<i>Cursed Money</i>."</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_18_18" id="Footnote_18_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_18_18"><span class="label">[18]</span></a> Common people.</p></div></div> + + + + + + + +<pre> + + + + + +End of Project Gutenberg's Sophisms of the Protectionists, by Frederic Bastiat + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SOPHISMS OF THE PROTECTIONISTS *** + +***** This file should be named 20161-h.htm or 20161-h.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/2/0/1/6/20161/ + +Produced by Graeme Mackreth, Curtis Weyant and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + + +</pre> + +</body> +</html> diff --git a/20161.txt b/20161.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..3043ca6 --- /dev/null +++ b/20161.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11129 @@ +Project Gutenberg's Sophisms of the Protectionists, by Frederic Bastiat + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: Sophisms of the Protectionists + +Author: Frederic Bastiat + +Translator: Horace White + +Release Date: December 22, 2006 [EBook #20161] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ASCII + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SOPHISMS OF THE PROTECTIONISTS *** + + + + +Produced by Graeme Mackreth, Curtis Weyant and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net + + + + + + + +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, by +THE WESTERN NEWS COMPANY, +In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States, for the +Northern 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 it +became necessary to issue a second edition, the Free-Trade League +offered to buy the stereotype plates and the copyright, with a view to +the 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; to +convince the people of the United States of the folly and wrongfulness +of the Protective system. The methods adopted by the League for the +purpose have been the holding of public meetings and the publication of +books, pamphlets, and tracts, some of which are for sale at the cost of +publication, and others given away gratuitously. + +In publishing this book the League feels that it is offering the most +effective and most popular work on political economy that has as yet +been 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 every +Free-Trader put a copy of the book into the hands of his Protectionist +friends? + +It would not be proper to close this short preface without an expression +on the part of the League of its obligation to the able translator of +the 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 the +public in the belief that the time has now come when the people, +relieved from the absorbing anxieties of the war, and the subsequent +strife on reconstruction, are prepared to give a more earnest and +thoughtful attention to economical questions than was possible during +the previous ten years. That we have retrograded in economical science +during this period, while making great strides in moral and political +advancement by the abolition of slavery and the enfranchisement of the +freedmen, seems to me incontestable. Professor Perry has described very +concisely the steps taken by the manufacturers in 1861, after the +Southern members had left their seats in Congress, to reverse the policy +of the government in reference to foreign trade.[1] He has noticed but +has not laid so much stress as he might on the fact that while there +was no considerable public opinion to favor them, there was none at all +to oppose them. Not only was the attention of the people diverted from +the tariff by the dangers then impending, but the Republican party, +which then came into power, had, in its National Convention, offered a +bribe to the State of Pennsylvania for its vote in the Presidential +election, 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 doctrine +that the industrial interests of the whole country are promoted by taxes +levied upon imported property, however "adjusted," but it was +understood, by the Pennsylvanians at least, to be a promise that if the +Republican party were successful in the coming election, the doctrine of +protection, which had been overthrown in 1846, and had been in an +extremely languishing state ever since, should be put upon its legs +again. I am far from asserting that this overture was needed to secure +the vote of Pennsylvania for Mr. Lincoln in 1860, or that that State +was governed by less worthy motives in her political action than other +States. I only remark that her delegates in the convention thought such +a resolution would be extremely useful, and such was the anxiety to +secure her vote in the election that a much stronger resolution might +have been conceded if it had been required. I affirm, however, that +there was no agitation on the tariff question in any other quarter. New +England had united in passing the tariff of 1857, which lowered the +duties imposed by the act of 1846 about fifty per cent., i.e., one-half +of the previously existing scale. The Western States had not petitioned +Congress or the convention to disturb the tariff; nor had New York done +so, although Mr. Greeley, then as now, was invoking, more or less +frequently, the shade of Henry Clay to help re-establish what is deftly +styled the "American System." + +The protective policy was restored, after its fifteen years' sleep, +under the auspices of Mr. Morrill, a Representative (now a Senator) from +Vermont. Latterly I have noticed in the speeches and votes of this +gentleman (who is, I think, one of the most conscientious, as he is one +of the most amiable, men in public life), a reluctance to follow to +their logical conclusion the principles embodied in the "Morrill tariff" +of 1861. His remarks upon the copper bill, during the recent session of +Congress, indicate that, in his opinion, those branches of American +industry which are engaged in producing articles sent abroad in exchange +for the products of foreign nations, are entitled to some consideration. +This is an important admission, but not so important as another, which +he made in his speech on the national finances, January 24, 1867, in +which, referring to the bank note circulation existing in the year 1860, +he said: "_And that was a year of as large production and as much +general prosperity as any, perhaps, in our history_."[2] If the year +immediately preceding the enactment of the Morrill tariff was a year of +as large production and as much general prosperity as any in our +history, of what use has the Morrill tariff been? We have seen that it +was not demanded by any public agitation. We now see that it has been of +no public utility. + +[Footnote 2: Congressional Globe, Second Session Thirty-ninth Congress, +p. 724.] + +In combating, by arguments and illustrations adapted to the +comprehension of the mass of mankind, the errors and sophisms with which +protectionists deceive themselves and others, M. Bastiat is the most +lucid and pointed of all writers on economical science with whose works +I have any acquaintance. It is not necessary to accord to him a place +among the architects of the science of political economy, although some +of his admirers rank him among the highest.[3] It is enough to count +him among the greatest of its expounders and demonstrators. His death, +which occurred at Pisa, Italy, on the 24th December, 1850, at the age of +49, was a serious loss to France and to the world. His works, though for +the most part fragmentary, and given to the public from time to time +through the columns of the _Journal des Economistes_, the _Journal des +Debats_, and the _Libre Echange_, remain a monument of a noble intellect +guided by a noble soul. They have been collected and published +(including the _Harmonies Economiques_, which the author left in +manuscript) by Guillaumin & Co., the proprietors of the _Journal des +Economistes_, in two editions of six volumes each, 8vo. and 12mo. When +we reflect that these six volumes were produced between April, 1844, and +December, 1850, by a young man of feeble constitution, who commenced +life as a clerk in a mercantile establishment, and who spent much of his +time during these six years in delivering public lectures, and laboring +in the National Assembly, to which he was chosen in 1848, our admiration +for such industry is only modified by the thought that if he had been +more saving of his strength, he might have rendered even greater +services 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 revolution +that has been effected in any science since the days of Galileo." + +See also Professor Perry's pamphlet, _Recent Phases of Thought in +Political Economy_, read before the American Social Science Association, +October, 1868, in which, it appears to me, that Bastiat's theory of +Rent, in announcing which he was anticipated by Mr. Carey, is too highly +praised.] + +The _Sophismes Economiques_, which fill the larger portion of this +volume, were not expected by their author to outlast the fallacies which +they sought to overthrow. But these fallacies have lived longer and have +spread over more of the earth's surface than any one _a priori_ could +have believed possible. It is sometimes useful, in opposing doctrines +which people have been taught to believe are peculiar to their own +country and time, to show that the same doctrines have been maintained +in other countries and times, and have been exploded in other languages. +By what misuse of words the doctrine of Protection came to be +denominated the "American System," I could never understand. It +prevailed in England nearly two hundred years before our separation from +the mother country. Adam Smith directed the first formidable attack +against it in the very year that our independence was declared. It held +its ground in England until it had starved and ruined almost every +branch of industry--agriculture, manufactures, and commerce alike.[4] It +was not wholly overthrown until 1846, the same year that witnessed its +discomfiture in the United States, as already shown. It still exists in +a subdued and declining way in France, despite the powerful and +brilliant attacks of Say, Bastiat, and Chevalier, but its end cannot be +far distant in that country. The Cobden-Chevalier treaty with England +has been attended by consequences so totally at variance with the +theories and prophecies of the protectionists that it must soon succumb. + +[Footnote 4: It is so often affirmed by protectionists that the +superiority of Great Britain in manufactures was attained by means of +protection, that it is worth while to dispel that illusion. The facts +are precisely the reverse. Protection had brought Great Britain in the +year 1842 to the last stages of penury and decay, and it wanted but a +year or two more of the same regimen to have precipitated the country +into 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 L60,000 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 L1 a week. + In families where the father had hitherto earned L2 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 the +American protectionist. The Corn Laws were the doctrine of protection +applied to breadstuffs, farm products, "raw materials." But it was not +only protection for corn that vexed England in 1842, but protection for +every thing and every body, from the landlord and the mill-owner to the +kelp gatherer. Every species of manufacturing industry had asked and +obtained protection. The nation had put in force, logically and +thoroughly, the principle of denying themselves any share in the +advantages which nature or art had conferred upon other climates and +peoples, (which is the principle of protection), and with the results so +pathetically described by Miss Martineau. The prosperity of British +manufactures dates from the year 1846. That they maintained any kind of +existence prior to that time is a most striking proof of the vitality of +human industry under the persecution of bad laws.] + +As these pages are going through the press, a telegram announces that +the French Government has abolished the discriminating duties levied +upon goods imported in foreign bottoms, and has asked our government to +abolish the like discrimination which our laws have created. Commercial +freedom is making rapid progress in Prussia, Austria, Italy, and even +in Spain. The United States alone, among civilized nations, hold to the +opposite principle. Our anomalous position in this respect is due, as I +think, to our anomalous condition during the past eight or nine years, +already adverted to--a condition in which the protected classes have +been restrained by no public opinion--public opinion being too intensely +preoccupied with the means of preserving the national existence to +notice what was doing with the tariff. But evidences of a reawakening +are not wanting. + +There is scarcely an argument current among the protectionists of the +United States that was not current in France at the time Bastiat wrote +the _Sophismes Economiques_. Nor was there one current in his time that +is not performing its bad office among us. Hence his demonstrations of +their absurdity and falsity are equally applicable to our time and +country as to his. They may have even greater force among us if they +thoroughly 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 the +United States that were not rife in France when Bastiat wrote his +_Sophismes_. It is said, for instance, that protection has failed to +achieve all the good results expected from it, because the policy of the +government has been variable. If we could have a steady course of +protection for a sufficient period of time (nobody being bold enough to +say what time would be sufficient), and could be _assured_ of having it, +we should see wonderful progress. But, inasmuch as the policy of the +government is uncertain, protection has never yet had a fair trial. This +is 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 stay +there. The law of gravitation is committed against its staying there. +Its only resting-place is on the earth. They begin by violating natural +laws and natural rights--the right to exchange services for +services--and then complain because these natural laws war against them +and finally overcome them. But it is not true that protection has not +had a fair trial in the United States. The protection has been greater +at some times than at others, that is all. Prior to the late war, all +our revenue was raised from customs; and while the tariffs of 1846 and +1857 were designated "free trade tariffs," to distinguish them from +those existing before and since, they were necessarily protective to a +certain extent. + +Again, it is said that there is need of diversifying our industry--- as +though industry would not diversify itself sufficiently through the +diverse tastes and predilections of individuals--as though it were +necessary to supplement the work of the Creator in this behalf, by human +enactments founded upon reciprocal rapine. The only rational object of +diversifying industry is to make people better and happier. Do men and +women become better and happier by being huddled together in mills and +factories, in a stifling atmosphere, on scanty wages, ten hours each day +and 313 days each year, than when cultivating our free and fertile +lands? Do they have equal opportunities for mental and moral +improvement? The trades-unions tell us, No. Whatever may be the +experience of other countries where the land is either owned by absentee +lords, who take all the product except what is necessary to give the +tenant a bare subsistence, or where it is cut up in parcels not larger +than an American garden patch, it is an undeniable fact that no other +class of American workingmen are so independent, so intelligent, so well +provided with comforts and leisure, or so rapidly advancing in +prosperity, as our agriculturists; and this notwithstanding they are +enormously overtaxed to maintain other branches of industry, which, +according to the protective theory, cannot support themselves. The +natural tendency of our people to flock to the cities, where their eyes +and ears are gratified at the expense of their other senses, physical +and moral, is sufficiently marked not to need the influence of +legislation to stimulate it. + +It is not the purpose of this preface to anticipate the admirable +arguments of M. Bastiat; but there is another theory in vogue which +deserves a moment's consideration. Mr. H.C. Carey tells us, that a +country which exports its food, in reality exports its soil, the foreign +consumers not giving back to the land the fertilizing elements +abstracted from it. Mr. Mill has answered this argument, upon +philosophical principles, at some length, showing that whenever it +ceases to be advantageous to America to export breadstuffs, she will +cease to do so; also, that when it becomes necessary to manure her +lands, she will either import manure or make it at home.[5] A shorter +answer is, that the lands are no better manured by having the bread +consumed in Lowell, or Pittsburgh, or even in Chicago, than in +Birmingham or Lyons. But it seems to me that Mr. Carey does not take +into account the fact that the total amount of breadstuffs exported from +any country must be an exceedingly small fraction of the whole amount +taken from the soil, and scarcely appreciable as a source of manure, +even if it were practically utilized in that way. Thus, our exportation +of flour and meal, wheat and Indian corn, for the year 1860, as compared +with 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 Morrill +tariff. It is true that our exports of wheat and Indian corn rose in the +three years following the enactment of the Morrill tariff, from an +average of eight million bushels to an average of forty-six million +bushels, but this is contrary to the theory that high tariffs tend to +keep breadstuffs at home, and low ones to send them abroad. There is +need of great caution in making generalizations as to the influence of +tariffs on the movement of breadstuffs. Good or bad harvests in various +countries exercise an uncontrollable influence upon their movement, far +beyond the reach of any legislation short of prohibition. The market for +breadstuffs in the world is as the number of consumers; that is, of +population. It is sometimes said in the way of reproach, (and it is a +curious travesty of Mr. Carey's manure argument,) that foreign nations +_will not_ take our breadstuffs. It is not true; but if it were, that +would not be a good reason for our passing laws to prevent them from +doing so; that is, to deprive them of the means to pay for them. Every +country must pay for its imports with its exports. It must pay for the +services which it receives with the services which it renders. If +foreign nations are not allowed to render services to us, how shall we +render 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 year +1860. In this report the total production of flour and meal is given, +not in barrels, but in value. The quantity is ascertained by dividing +the total value by the average price per barrel in New York during the +year, the fluctuations then being very slight. Flour being a +manufactured article, is it not a little curious that we exported under +the "free trade tariff" twice as large a percentage of breadstuffs in +that form as we did of the "raw material," wheat?] + +The first series of Bastiat's _Sophismes_ were published in 1845, and +the second series in 1848. The first series were translated in 1848, by +Mrs. D.J. McCord, and published the same year by G.P. Putnam, New York. +Mrs. McCord's excellent translation has been followed (by permission of +her publisher, who holds the copyright,) in this volume, having been +first compared with the original, in the Paris edition of 1863. A very +few verbal alterations have been made, which, however, have no bearing +on the accuracy and faithfulness of her work. The translation of the +essay on "Capital and Interest" is from a duodecimo volume published in +London a year or two ago, the name of the translator being unknown to +me. The second series of the _Sophismes_, and the essay entitled +"Spoliation and Law," are, I believe, presented in English for the first +time 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 arguments +usually advanced against Free Trade. + +I am not seeking a combat with the protectionists. I merely advance a +principle which I am anxious to present clearly to the minds of sincere +men, who hesitate because they doubt. + +I am not of the number of those who maintain that protection is +supported by interests. I believe that it is founded upon errors, or, if +you will, upon _incomplete truths_. Too many fear free trade, for this +apprehension to be other than sincere. + +My aspirations are perhaps high; but I confess that it would give me +pleasure 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 two +principles. When one has not made oneself perfectly familiar with the +doctrines of free trade, the sophisms of protection perpetually return +to the mind under one form or another; and, on each occasion, in order +to counteract their effect, it is necessary to enter into a long and +laborious analysis. Few, and least of all legislators, have leisure for +this labor, which I would, on this account, wish to present clearly +drawn up to their hand. + +But it may be said, are then the benefits of free trade so hidden as to +be perceptible only to economists by profession? + +Yes; we confess it; our adversaries in the discussion have a signal +advantage over us. They can, in a few words, present an incomplete +truth; which, for us to show that it is incomplete, renders necessary +long and uninteresting dissertations. + +This results from the fact that protection accumulates upon a single +point the good which it effects, while the evil inflicted is infused +throughout the mass. The one strikes the eye at a first glance, while +the other becomes perceptible only to close investigation. With regard +to 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 of +employment 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, and +true 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 base +it 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. To +judge of a measure, it is necessary that we should follow it from step +to step, from result to result, until through the successive links of +the 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 immediately +all the prejudices of the public are against us. + +What then shall we do? We must invoke the patience and candor of the +reader, giving to our deductions, if we are capable of it, sufficient +clearness to throw forward at once, without disguise or palliation, the +true and the false, in order, once for all, to determine whether the +victory 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 des +Economistes_." + +In an article otherwise quite complimentary published by the Viscount de +Romanet (see _Moniteur Industriel_ of the 15th and 18th of May, 1845), +he intimates that I ask for the _suppression of custom houses_. Mr. de +Romanet is mistaken. I ask for the suppression of the _protective +policy_. We do not dispute the right of _government_ to impose taxes, +but would, if possible, dissuade _producers_ from taxing one another. It +was said by Napoleon that duties should never be a fiscal instrument, +but a means of protecting industry. We plead the contrary, and say, that +duties should never be made an instrument of reciprocal rapine; but that +they may be employed as a useful fiscal machine. I am so far from asking +for the suppression of duties, that I look upon them as the anchor on +which the future salvation of our finances will depend. I believe that +they may bring immense receipts into the treasury, and, to give my +entire and undisguised opinion, I am inclined, from the slow progress of +healthy, economical doctrines, and from the magnitude of our budget, to +hope more for the cause of commercial reform from the necessities of +the 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 been +pretended, is it possible to maintain, that scarcity can be the basis of +a man's happiness? + +Yes; this has been maintained, this is daily maintained; and I do not +hesitate to say that the _scarcity theory_ is by far the most popular of +the 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 and +its practical mission, when it shall have rendered common and +irrefutable the simple proposition that "in abundance consist man's +riches." + +Do we not hear it said every day, "Foreign nations are inundating us +with their productions"? Then we fear abundance. + +Has not Mr. de Saint Cricq said, "Production is superabundant"? Then he +fears abundance. + +Do we not see workmen destroying and breaking machinery? They are +frightened by the excess of production; in other words, they fear +abundance. + +Has not Mr. Bugeaud said, "Let bread be dear and the agriculturist will +be 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 as +an argument against it? Has he not said, "The beet cannot have a +permanent and extended cultivation, because a few acres given up to it +in each department, would furnish sufficient for the consumption of all +France"? 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 and +to government that a wise policy should seek to raise prices by tariffs; +and do we not daily see these powers obeying these injunctions of the +press? Now, tariffs can only raise prices by diminishing the quantity of +goods offered for sale. Then, here we see newspapers, the legislature, +the ministry, all guided by the scarcity theory, and I was correct in my +statement that this theory is by far the most popular. + +How then has it happened, that in the eyes at once of laborers, editors +and statesmen, abundance should appear alarming, and scarcity +advantageous? It is my intention to endeavor to show the origin of this +delusion. + +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 high +price_. The price of his productions is high in proportion to their +scarcity. It is plain then, that, as far as regards him at least, +scarcity enriches him. Applying successively this mode of reasoning to +each class of laborers individually, the _scarcity theory_ is deduced +from it. To put this theory into practice, and in order to favor each +class of labor, an artificial scarcity is forced in every kind of +production, by prohibition, restriction, suppression of machinery, and +other analogous measures. + +In the same manner it is observed that when an article is abundant it +brings a small price. The gains of the producer are, of course, less. If +this is the case with all produce, all producers are then poor. +Abundance then ruins society. And as any strong conviction will always +seek to force itself into practice, we see, in many countries, the laws +aiming to prevent abundance. + +This sophism, stated in a general form, would produce but a slight +impression. But when applied to any particular order of facts, to any +particular article of industry, to any one class of labor, it is +extremely specious, because it is a syllogism which is not _false_, but +_incomplete_. And what is true in a syllogism always necessarily +presents itself to the mind, while the _incomplete_, which is a negative +quality, 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 of +view. Let us look at him in the second character and the conclusion will +be different. We may say, + +The consumer is rich in proportion as he _buys_ at a low price. He buys +at a low price in proportion to the abundance of the article in demand; +abundance then enriches him. This reasoning extended to all consumers +must lead to the _theory of abundance_! + +It is the imperfectly understood notion of exchange of produce which +leads to these fallacies. If we consult our individual interest, we +perceive immediately that it is double. As _sellers_ we are interested +in high prices, consequently in scarcity. As _buyers_ our advantage is +in cheapness, or what is the same thing, abundance. It is impossible +then to found a proper system of reasoning upon either the one or the +other of these separate interests before determining which of the two +coincides and identifies itself with the general and permanent interests +of 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 not +exchange his produce, the theory of scarcity could never have introduced +itself into the world. It would be too strikingly evident, that +abundance, whencesoever derived, is advantageous to him, whether this +abundance might be the result of his own labor, of ingenious tools, or +of powerful machinery; whether due to the fertility of the soil, to the +liberality of nature, or to an _inundation_ of foreign goods, such as +the sea bringing from distant regions might cast upon his shores. Never +would the solitary man have dreamed, in order to encourage his own +labor, of destroying his instruments for facilitating his work, of +neutralizing the fertility of the soil, or of casting back into the sea +the 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 has +required two hours per day to supply his necessities, any thing which +spares him an hour of this labor, leaving the result the same, gives him +this hour to dispose of as he pleases in adding to his comforts. In a +word, he would understand that every step in the _saving of labor_, is a +step in the improvement of his condition. But traffic clouds our vision +in the contemplation of this simple truth. In a state of society with +the division of labor to which it leads, the production and consumption +of an article no longer belong to the same individual. Each now looks +upon his labor not as a means, but as an end. The exchange of produce +creates with regard to each object two separate interests, that of the +producer and that of the consumer; and these two interests are always +directly opposed to each other. + +It is essential to analyze and study the nature of each. Let us then +suppose a producer of whatever kind; what is his immediate interest? It +consists in two things: 1st, that the smallest possible number of +individuals should devote themselves to the business which he follows; +and 2dly, that the greatest possible number should seek the articles of +his produce. In the more succinct terms of Political Economy, the supply +should be small, the demand large; or yet in other words: limited +competition, unlimited consumption. + +What on the other side is the immediate interest of the consumer? That +the supply should be large, the demand small. + +As these two interests are immediately opposed to each other, it follows +that if one coincides with the general interest of society the other +must be adverse to it. + +Which then, if either, should legislation favor as contributing most to +the good of the community? + +To determine this question, it suffices to inquire in which the secret +desires of the majority of men would be accomplished. + +Inasmuch as we are producers, it must be confessed that we have each of +us 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: _this +is the scarcity theory_. Are we iron-workers? We would desire (whatever +might be the public need) that the market should offer no iron but our +own; and precisely for the reason that this need, painfully felt and +imperfectly supplied, causes us to receive a high price for _our_ iron: +_again here is the theory of scarcity_. Are we agriculturists? We say +with Mr. Bugeaud, let bread be dear, that is to say scarce, and our +business goes well: _again the theory of scarcity_. + +Are we physicians? We cannot but see that certain physical +ameliorations, such as the improved climate of the country, the +development of certain moral virtues, the progress of knowledge pushed +to the extent of enabling each individual to take care of his own +health, the discovery of certain simple remedies easily applied, would +be so many fatal blows to our profession. As physicians, then, our +secret desires are anti-social. I must not be understood to imply that +physicians allow themselves to form such desires. I am happy to believe +that they would hail with joy a universal panacea. But in such a +sentiment it is the man, the Christian, who manifests himself, and who +by a praiseworthy abnegation of self, takes that point of view of the +question, which belongs to the consumer. As a physician exercising his +profession, and gaining from this profession his standing in society, +his comforts, even the means of existence of his family, it is +impossible but that his desires, or if you please so to word it, his +interests, should be anti-social. + +Are we manufacturers of cotton goods? We desire to sell them at the +price most advantageous to _ourselves_. We would willingly consent to +the suppression of all rival manufactories. And if we dare not publicly +express this desire, or pursue the complete realization of it with some +success, we do so, at least to a certain extent, by indirect means; as +for example, the exclusion of foreign goods, in order to diminish the +_quantity offered_, and to produce thus by forcible means, and for our +own profits, a _scarcity_ of clothing. + +We might thus pass in review every business and every profession, and +should always find that the producers, _in their character of +producers_, have invariably anti-social interests. "The shop-keeper +(says Montaigne) succeeds in his business through the extravagance of +youth; the laborer by the high price of grain; the architect by the +decay of houses; officers of justice by lawsuits and quarrels. The +standing and occupation even of ministers of religion are drawn from our +death and our vices. No physician takes pleasure in the health even of +his friends; no soldier in the peace of his country; and so on with +all." + +If then the secret desires of each producer were realized, the world +would rapidly retrograde towards barbarism. The sail would proscribe +steam; the oar would proscribe the sail, only in its turn to give way to +wagons, the wagon to the mule, and the mule to the foot-peddler. Wool +would exclude cotton; cotton would exclude wool; and thus on, until the +scarcity and want of every thing would cause man himself to disappear +from the face of the globe. + +If we now go on to consider the immediate interest of the _consumer_, we +shall find it in perfect harmony with the public interest, and with the +well-being of humanity. When the buyer presents himself in the market, +he desires to find it abundantly furnished. He sees with pleasure +propitious seasons for harvesting; wonderful inventions putting within +his reach the largest possible quantity of produce; time and labor +saved; distances effaced; the spirit of peace and justice diminishing +the weight of taxes; every barrier to improvement cast down; and in all +this his interest runs parallel with an enlightened public interest. He +may push his secret desires to an absurd and chimerical height, but +never can they cease to be humanizing in their tendency. He may desire +that food and clothing, house and hearth, instruction and morality, +security and peace, strength and health, should come to us without limit +and without labor or effort on our part, as the water of the stream, the +air which we breathe, and the sunbeams in which we bask, but never could +the realization of his most extravagant wishes run counter to the good +of society. + +It may be said, perhaps, that were these desires granted, the labor of +the producer constantly checked would end by being entirely arrested +for want of support. But why? Because in this extreme supposition every +imaginable need and desire would be completely satisfied. Man, like the +All-powerful, would create by the single act of his will. How in such an +hypothesis could laborious production be regretted? + +Imagine a legislative assembly composed of producers, of whom each +member should cause to pass into a law his secret desire as a +_producer_; the code which would emanate from such an assembly could be +nothing but systematized monopoly; the scarcity theory put into +practice. + +In the same manner, an assembly in which each member should consult only +his immediate interest of _consumer_ would aim at the systematizing of +free trade; the suppression of every restrictive measure; the +destruction of artificial barriers; in a word, would realize the theory +of abundance. + +It follows then, + +That to consult exclusively the immediate interest of the producer, is +to consult an anti-social interest. + +To take exclusively for basis the interest of the consumer, is to take +for basis the general interest. + + * * * * * + +Let me be permitted to insist once more upon this point of view, though +at 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, and +at 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 seller +against the buyer; for the producer against the consumer; for high +against low prices; for scarcity against abundance. They act, if not +intentionally at least logically, upon the principle that _a nation is +rich in proportion as it is in want of every thing_. + +For, say they, it is necessary to favor the producer by securing him a +profitable disposal of his goods. To effect this, their price must be +raised; to raise the price the supply must be diminished; and to +diminish the supply is to create scarcity. + +Let us suppose that at this moment, with these laws in full action, a +complete inventory should be made, not by value, but by weight, measure +and quantity, of all articles now in France calculated to supply the +necessities and pleasures of its inhabitants; as grain, meat, woollen +and cotton goods, fuel, etc. + +Let us suppose again that to-morrow every barrier to the introduction of +foreign goods should be removed. + +Then, to judge of the effect of such a reform, let a new inventory be +made three months hence. + +Is it not certain that at the time of the second inventory, the +quantity of grain, cattle, goods, iron, coal, sugar, etc., will be +greater than at the first? + +So true is this, that the sole object of our protective tariffs is to +prevent such articles from reaching us, to diminish the supply, to +prevent 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 fed +because there is _less_ bread, _less_ meat, and _less_ sugar in the +country? Are they better dressed because there are _fewer_ goods? Better +warmed because there is _less_ coal? Or do they prosper better in their +labor 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 dress +in gold, nor warm himself with silver. What difference does it make +whether there be more or less coin in the country, provided there be +more bread in the cupboard, more meat in the larder, more clothing in +the 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 the +people as much as possible. If you do not allow it, then you deny your +power to diminish the supply, to raise the price, and consequently you +deny 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 a +multitude of _obstacles_ which it is the object of labor to surmount. It +is interesting to seek how and why he could have been led to look even +upon these obstacles to his happiness as the cause of it. + +I wish to take a journey of some hundred miles. But, between the point +of my departure and my destination, there are interposed, mountains, +rivers, swamps, forests, robbers--in a word, _obstacles_; and to conquer +these obstacles, it is necessary that I should bestow much labor and +great efforts in opposing them;--or, what is the same thing, if others +do it for me, I must pay them the value of their exertions. It is +evident that I should have been better off had these obstacles never +existed. + +Through the journey of life, in the long series of days from the cradle +to the tomb, man has many difficulties to oppose him in his progress. +Hunger, thirst, sickness, heat, cold, are so many obstacles scattered +along his road. In a state of isolation, he would be obliged to combat +them all by hunting, fishing, agriculture, spinning, weaving, +architecture, etc., and it is very evident that it would be better for +him that these difficulties should exist to a less degree, or even not +at all. In a state of society he is not obliged, personally, to struggle +with each of these obstacles, but others do it for him; and he, in +return, 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 be +better for society that these obstacles should be as weak and as few as +possible. + +But if we examine closely and in detail the phenomena of society, and +the private interests of men as modified by exchange of produce, we +perceive, without difficulty, how it has happened that wants have been +confounded with riches, and the obstacle with the cause. + +The separation of occupations, which results from the habits of +exchange, causes each man, instead of struggling against all surrounding +obstacles to combat only _one_; the effort being made not for himself +alone, but for the benefit of his fellows, who, in their turn, render a +similar service to him. + +Now, it hence results, that this man looks upon the obstacle which he +has made it his profession to combat for the benefit of others, as the +immediate cause of his riches. The greater, the more serious, the more +stringent may be this obstacle, the more he is remunerated for the +conquering of it, by those who are relieved by his labors. + +A physician, for instance, does not busy himself in baking his bread, or +in manufacturing his clothing and his instruments; others do it for him, +and he, in return, combats the maladies with which his patients are +afflicted. The more dangerous and frequent these maladies are, the more +others are willing, the more, even, are they forced, to work in his +service. Disease, then, which is an obstacle to the happiness of +mankind, becomes to him the source of his comforts. The reasoning of all +producers is, in what concerns themselves, the same. As the doctor draws +his profits from disease, so does the ship owner from the obstacle +called _distance_; the agriculturist from that named _hunger_; the cloth +manufacturer from _cold_; the schoolmaster lives upon _ignorance_, the +jeweler upon _vanity_, the lawyer upon _quarrels_, the notary upon +_breach of faith_. Each profession has then an immediate interest in +the continuation, even in the extension, of the particular obstacle to +which its attention has been directed. + +Theorists hence go on to found a system upon these individual interests, +and say: Wants are riches: Labor is riches: The obstacle to well-being +is well-being: To multiply obstacles is to give food to industry. + +Then comes the statesman;--and as the developing and propagating of +obstacles is the developing and propagating of riches, what more natural +than that he should bend his efforts to that point? He says, for +instance: If we prevent a large importation of iron, we create a +difficulty in procuring it. This obstacle severely felt, obliges +individuals to pay, in order to relieve themselves from it. A certain +number of our citizens, giving themselves up to the combating of this +obstacle, will thereby make their fortunes. In proportion, too, as the +obstacle is great, and the mineral scarce, inaccessible, and of +difficult and distant transportation, in the same proportion will be the +number of laborers maintained by the various branches of this industry. + +The same reasoning will lead to the 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 the +manufacture of casks. It is fortunate, say our statesmen, that this +obstacle exists, since it occupies a portion of the labor of the +nation, and enriches a certain number of our citizens. But here is +presented to us an ingenious machine, which cuts down the oak, squares +it, makes it into staves, and, gathering these together, forms them into +casks. The obstacle is thus diminished, and with it the profits of the +coopers. We must prevent this. Let us proscribe the machine! + +To sift thoroughly this sophism, it is sufficient to remember that human +labor is not an _end_, but a _means_. _It is never without employment._ +If one obstacle is removed, it seizes another, and mankind is delivered +from two obstacles by the same effort which was at first necessary for +one. If the labor of coopers becomes useless, it must take another +direction. But with what, it may be asked, will they be remunerated? +Precisely with what they are at present remunerated. For if a certain +quantity of labor becomes free from its original occupation, to be +otherwise disposed of, a corresponding quantity of wages must thus also +become free. To maintain that human labor can end by wanting employment, +it would be necessary to prove that mankind will cease to encounter +obstacles. In such a case, labor would be not only impossible, it would +be superfluous. We should have nothing to do, because we should be +all-powerful, and our _fiat_ alone would satisfy at once our wants and +our desires. + + + + +III. + +EFFORT--RESULT. + + +We have seen that between our wants and their gratification many +obstacles are interposed. We conquer or weaken these by the employment +of our faculties. It may be said, in general terms, that industry is an +effort followed by a result. + +But by what do we measure our well-being? By the _result_ of our effort, +or by the _effort itself_? There exists always a proportion between the +effort employed and the result obtained. Does progress consist in the +relative increase of the second or of the first term of this proportion? + +Both propositions have been sustained, and in political economy opinions +are divided between them. + +According to the first system, riches are the result of labor. They +increase in the same ratio as _the result does to the effort_. Absolute +perfection, of which _God_ is the type, consists in the infinite +distance between these two terms in this relation, viz., effort none, +result infinite. + +The second system maintains that it is the effort itself which forms the +measure of, and constitutes, our riches. Progression is the increase of +the _proportion of the effort to the result_. Its ideal extreme may be +represented by the eternal and fruitless efforts of Sisyphus.[7] + +[Footnote 7: We will therefore beg the reader to allow us in future, for +the sake of conciseness, to designate this system under the term of +_Sisyphism_.] + +The first system tends naturally to the encouragement of every thing +which diminishes difficulties, and augments production,--as powerful +machinery, which adds to the strength of man; the exchange of produce, +which allows us to profit by the various natural agents distributed in +different degrees over the surface of our globe; the intellect which +discovers, experience which proves, and emulation which excites. + +The second as logically inclines to every thing which can augment the +difficulty 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 always +guided by the principle of the first system. Every _workman_, whether +agriculturist, manufacturer, merchant, soldier, writer or philosopher, +devotes the strength of his intellect to do better, to do more quickly, +more economically,--in a word, _to do more with less_. + +The opposite doctrine is in use with legislators, editors, statesmen, +men whose business is to make experiments upon society. And even of +these we may observe, that in what personally concerns _themselves_, +they act, like every body else, upon the principle of obtaining from +their labor the greatest possible quantity of useful results. + +It may be supposed that I exaggerate, and that there are no true +_Sisyphists_. + +I grant that in practice the principle is not pushed to its extremest +consequences. And this must always be the case when one starts upon a +wrong principle, because the absurd and injurious results to which it +leads, cannot but check it in its progress. For this reason, practical +industry never can admit of _Sisyphism_. The error is too quickly +followed by its punishment to remain concealed. But in the speculative +industry of theorists and statesmen, a false principle may be for a long +time followed up, before the complication of its consequences, only half +understood, can prove its falsity; and even when all is revealed, the +opposite principle is acted upon, self is contradicted, and +justification sought, in the incomparably absurd modern axiom, that in +political economy there is no principle universally true. + +Let us see then, if the two opposite principles I have laid down do not +predominate, each in its turn;--the one in practical industry, the other +in industrial legislation. + +I have already quoted some words of Mr. Bugeaud; but we must look on Mr. +Bugeaud in two separate characters, the agriculturist and the +legislator. + +As agriculturist, Mr. Bugeaud makes every effort to attain the double +object of sparing labor, and obtaining bread cheap. When he prefers a +good plough to a bad one, when he improves the quality of his manures; +when, to loosen his soil, he substitutes as much as possible the action +of the atmosphere for that of the hoe or the harrow; when he calls to +his aid every improvement that science and experience have revealed, he +has, and can have, but one object, viz., _to diminish the proportion of +the effort to the result_. We have indeed no other means of judging of +the success of an agriculturist, or of the merits of his system, but by +observing how far he has succeeded in lessening the one, while he +increases the other; and as all the farmers in the world act upon this +principle, we may say that all mankind are seeking, no doubt for their +own advantage, to obtain at the lowest price, bread, or whatever other +article of produce they may need, always diminishing the effort +necessary for obtaining any given quantity thereof. + +This incontestable tendency of human nature, once proved, would, one +might suppose, be sufficient to point out the true principle to the +legislator, and to show him how he ought to assist industry (if indeed +it is any part of his business to assist it at all), for it would be +absurd to say that the laws of men should operate in an inverse ratio +from those of Providence. + +Yet we have heard Mr. Bugeaud in his character of legislator, exclaim, +"I do not understand this theory of cheapness; I would rather see bread +dear, and work more abundant." And consequently the deputy from Dordogne +votes in favor of legislative measures whose effect is to shackle and +impede commerce, precisely because by so doing we are prevented from +procuring by exchange, and at low price, what direct production can only +furnish more expensively. + +Now it is very evident that the system of Mr. Bugeaud the deputy, is +directly opposed to that of Mr. Bugeaud the agriculturist. Were he +consistent with himself, he would as legislator vote against all +restriction; or else as farmer, he would practice in his fields the same +principle which he proclaims in the public councils. We should then see +him sowing his grain in his most sterile fields, because he would thus +succeed in _laboring much_, to _obtain little_. We should see him +forbidding the use of the plough, because he could, by scratching up the +soil with his nails, fully gratify his double wish of "_dear bread_ and +_abundant labor_." + +Restriction has for its avowed object, and acknowledged effect, the +augmentation of labor. And again, equally avowed and acknowledged, its +object and effect are, the increase of prices;--a synonymous term for +scarcity of produce. Pushed then to its greatest extreme, it is pure +_Sisyphism_ as we have defined it: _labor infinite; result nothing_. + +Baron Charles Dupin, who is looked upon as the oracle of the peerage in +the science of political economy, accuses railroads of _injuring +shipping_, and it is certainly true that the most perfect means of +attaining an object must always limit the use of a less perfect means. +But railways can only injure shipping by drawing from it articles of +transportation; this they can only do by transporting more cheaply; and +they can only transport more cheaply, by _diminishing the proportion of +the effort employed to the result obtained_; for it is in this that +cheapness consists. When, therefore, Baron Dupin laments the suppression +of labor in attaining a given result, he maintains the doctrine of +_Sisyphism_. Logically, if he prefers the vessel to the railway, he +should also prefer the wagon to the vessel, the pack-saddle to the +wagon, and the wallet to the pack-saddle; for this is, of all known +means of transportation, the one which requires the greatest amount of +labor, in proportion to the result obtained. + +"Labor constitutes the riches of the people," said Mr. de Saint Cricq, a +minister who has laid not a few shackles upon our commerce. This was no +elliptical expression, meaning that the "results of labor constitute the +riches of the people." No,--this statesman intended to say, that it is +the _intensity_ of labor, which measures riches; and the proof of this +is, that from step to step, from restriction to restriction, he forced +on France (and in so doing believed that he was doing well) to give to +the procuring, of, for instance, a certain quantity of iron, double the +necessary labor. In England, iron was then at eight francs; in France it +cost sixteen. Supposing the day's work to be worth one franc, it is +evident that France could, by barter, procure a quintal of iron by eight +days' labor taken from the labor of the nation. Thanks to the +restrictive measures of Mr. de Saint Cricq, sixteen days' work were +necessary to procure it, by direct production. Here then we have double +labor for an identical result; therefore double riches; and riches, +measured not by the result, but by the intensity of labor. Is not this +pure and unadulterated _Sisyphism_? + +That there may be nothing equivocal, the minister carries his idea still +farther, and on the same principle that we have heard him call the +intensity of labor _riches_, we will find him calling the abundant +results of labor, and the plenty of every thing proper to the satisfying +of our wants, _poverty_. "Every where," he remarks, "machinery has +pushed aside manual labor; every where production is superabundant; +every where the equilibrium is destroyed between the power of production +and that of consumption." Here then we see that, according to Mr. de +Saint Cricq, if France was in a critical situation, it was because her +productions were too abundant; there was too much intelligence, too +much efficiency in her national labor. We were too well fed, too well +clothed, too well supplied with every thing; the rapid production was +more than sufficient for our wants. It was necessary to put an end to +this calamity, and therefore it became needful to force us, by +restrictions, to work more, in order to produce less. + +I also touched upon an opinion expressed by another minister of +commerce, Mr. d'Argout, which is worthy of being a little more closely +looked into. Wishing to give a death blow to the beet, he said: "The +culture of the beet is undoubtedly useful, _but this usefulness is +limited_. It is not capable of the prodigious developments which have +been predicted of it. To be convinced of this it is enough to remark +that the cultivation of it must necessarily be confined within the +limits of consumption. Double, treble if you will, the present +consumption of France, and _you will still find that a very small +portion of her soil will suffice for this consumption_. (Truly a most +singular cause of complaint!) Do you wish the proof of this? How many +hectares were planted in beets in the year 1828? 3,130, which is +1-10540th of our cultivable soil. How many are there at this time, when +our domestic sugar supplies one-third of the consumption of the country? +16,700 hectares, or 1-1978th of the cultivable soil, or 45 centiares for +each commune. Suppose that our domestic sugar should monopolize the +supply of the whole consumption, we still would have but 48,000 hectares +or 1-689th of our cultivable soil in beets."[8] + +[Footnote 8: In justice to Mr. d'Argout we should say that this singular +language is given by him as the argument of the enemies of the beet. But +he made it his own, and sanctioned it by the law in justification of +which he adduced it.] + +There are two things to consider in this quotation. The facts and the +doctrine. The facts go to prove that very little soil, capital, and +labor would be necessary for the production of a large quantity of +sugar; and that each commune of France would be abundantly provided with +it by giving up one hectare to its cultivation. The peculiarity of the +doctrine consists in the looking upon this facility of production as an +unfortunate circumstance, and the regarding the very fruitfulness of +this 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 is +worth the trouble of examining into the doctrines of a statesman, to +whose judgment France, for a long time, confided the fate of her +agriculture and her commerce. + +I began by saying that a variable proportion exists in all industrial +pursuits, between the effort and the result. Absolute imperfection +consists in an infinite effort, without any result; absolute perfection +in an unlimited result, without any effort; and perfectibility, in the +progressive diminution of the effort, compared with the result. + +But Mr. d'Argout tells us, that where we looked for life, we shall find +only death. The importance of any object of industry is, according to +him, in direct proportion to its feebleness. What, for instance, can we +expect from the beet? Do you not see that 48,000 hectares of land, with +capital and labor in proportion, will suffice to furnish sugar to all +France? It is then an object of _limited usefulness_; limited, be it +understood, in the _work_ which it calls for; and this is the sole +measure, according to our minister, of the usefulness of any pursuit. +This usefulness would be much more limited still, if, thanks to the +fertility of the soil, or the richness of the beet, 24,000 hectares +would serve instead of 48,000. If there were only needed twenty times, a +hundred times more soil, more capital, more labor, to _attain the same +result_--Oh! then some hopes might be founded upon this article of +industry; it would be worthy of the protection of the state, for it +would open a vast field to national labor. But to produce much with +little 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 be +calculated, not by the comforts which it can furnish with a certain +quantum of labor, but, on the contrary, by the increase of labor which +it requires in order to furnish a certain quantity of comforts, it is +evident that we ought to desire, that each acre of land should produce +little corn, and that each grain of corn should furnish little +nutriment; in other words, that our territory should be sterile enough +to require a considerably larger proportion of soil, capital, and labor +to nourish its population. The demand for human labor could not fail to +be in direct proportion to this sterility, and then truly would the +wishes of Messrs. Bugeaud, Saint Cricq, Dupin, and d'Argout be +satisfied; bread would be dear, work abundant, and France would be +rich--rich according to the understanding of these gentlemen. + +All that we could have further to hope for, would be, that human +intellect might sink and become extinct; for, while intellect exists, it +can but seek continually to increase the _proportion of the end to the +means; of the product to the labor_. Indeed it is in this continuous +effort, and in this alone, that intellect consists. + +_Sisyphism_ has then been the doctrine of all those who have been +intrusted with the regulation of the industry of our country. It would +not be just to reproach them with this; for this principle becomes that +of our ministry, only because it prevails in the chambers; it prevails +in the chambers, only because it is sent there by the electoral body; +and the electoral body is imbued with it, only because public opinion +is 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 personal +transactions; very certainly each one of them will procure for himself +_by barter_, what by _direct production_ would be attainable only at a +higher price. But I maintain that they are _Sisyphists_ when they +prevent the country from acting upon the same principle. + + + + +IV. + +EQUALIZING OF THE FACILITIES OF PRODUCTION. + + +It is said ... but, for fear of being accused of manufacturing Sophisms +for the mouths of the protectionists, I will allow one of their most +able reasoners to speak for himself. + +"It is our belief that protection should correspond to, should be the +representation of, the difference which exists between the price of an +article of home production and a similar article of foreign +production.... A protecting duty calculated upon such a basis does +nothing more than secure free competition; ... free competition can +only exist where there is an equality in the facilities of production. +In a horse-race the load which each horse carries is weighed and all +advantages equalized; otherwise there could be no competition. In +commerce, if one producer can undersell all others, he ceases to be a +competitor and becomes a monopolist.... Suppress the protection which +represents the difference of price according to each, and foreign +productions must immediately inundate and obtain the monopoly of our +market."[9] + +[Footnote 9: M. le Vicomte de Romanet.] + +"Every one ought to wish, for his own sake and for that of the +community, that the productions of the country should be protected +against foreign competition, _whenever the latter may be able to +undersell the former_."[10] + +[Footnote 10: Mathieu de Dombasle.] + +This argument is constantly recurring in all writings of the +protectionist school. It is my intention to make a careful investigation +of its merits, and I must begin by soliciting the attention and the +patience of the reader. I will first examine into the inequalities which +depend upon natural causes, and afterwards into those which are caused +by diversity of taxes. + +Here, as elsewhere, we find the theorists who favor protection, taking +part with the producer. Let us consider the case of the unfortunate +consumer, who seems to have entirely escaped their attention. They +compare the field of production to the _turf_. But on the turf, the race +is at once a _means and an end_. The public has no interest in the +struggle, independent of the struggle itself. When your horses are +started in the course with the single object of determining which is the +best runner, nothing is more natural than that their burdens should be +equalized. But if your object were to send an important and critical +piece of intelligence, could you without incongruity place obstacles to +the speed of that one whose fleetness would secure the best means of +attaining your end? And yet this is your course in relation to industry. +You forget the end aimed at, which is the _well-being_ of the community. + +But we cannot lead our opponents to look at things from our point of +view, let us now take theirs; let us examine the question as producers. + +I will seek to prove + +1. That equalizing the facilities of production is to attack the +foundations of all trade. + +2. That it is not true that the labor of one country can be crushed by +the competition of more favored climates. + +3. That, even were this the case, protective duties cannot equalize the +facilities of production. + +4. That freedom of trade equalizes these conditions as much as possible; +and + +5. That the countries which are the least favored by nature are those +which profit most by freedom of trade. + +I. The equalizing of the facilities of production, is not only the +shackling of certain articles of commerce, but it is the attacking of +the system of mutual exchange in its very foundation principle. For this +system is based precisely upon the very diversities, or, if the +expression be preferred, upon the inequalities of fertility, climate, +temperature, capabilities, which the protectionists seek to render null. +If Guyenne sends its wines to Brittany, and Brittany sends corn to +Guyenne, it is because these two provinces are, from different +circumstances, induced to turn their attention to the production of +different articles. Is there any other rule for international exchanges? +Again, to bring against such exchanges the very inequalities of +condition which excite and explain them, is to attack them in their very +cause of being. The protective system, closely followed up, would bring +men to live like snails, in a state of complete isolation. In short, +there is not one of its Sophisms, which if carried through by vigorous +deductions, would not end in destruction and annihilation. + +II. It is not true that the unequal facility of production, in two +similar branches of industry, should necessarily cause the destruction +of the one which is the least fortunate. On the turf, if one horse gains +the prize, the other loses it; but when two horses work to produce any +useful article, each produces in proportion to his strength; and because +the stronger is the more useful, it does not follow that the weaker is +good for nothing. Wheat is cultivated in every department of France, +although there are great differences in the degree of fertility existing +among them. If it happens that there be one which does not cultivate it, +it is because, even to itself, such cultivation is not useful. Analogy +will show us, that under the influence of an unshackled trade, +notwithstanding similar differences, wheat would be produced in every +kingdom of Europe; and if any one were induced to abandon entirely the +cultivation of it, this would only be, because it would _be her +interest_ to employ otherwise her lands, her capital, and her labor. And +why does not the fertility of one department paralyze the agriculture of +a neighboring and less favored one? Because the phenomena of political +economy have a suppleness, an elasticity, and, so to speak, _a +self-leveling power_, which seems to escape the attention of the school +of protectionists. They accuse us of being theorists, but it is +themselves who are theorists to a supreme degree, if being theoretic +consists in building up systems upon the experience of a single fact, +instead of profiting by the experience of a series of facts. In the +above example, it is the difference in the value of lands, which +compensates for the difference in their fertility. Your field produces +three times as much as mine. Yes. But it has cost you three times as +much, and therefore I can still compete with you: this is the sole +mystery. And observe how the advantage on one point leads to +disadvantage on the other. Precisely because your soil is more fruitful, +it is more dear. It is not _accidentally_ but _necessarily_ that the +equilibrium is established, or at least inclines to establish itself; +and can it be denied that perfect freedom in exchanges is, of all the +systems, the one which favors this tendency? + +I have cited an agricultural example; I might as easily have taken one +from any trade. There are tailors at Quimper, but that does not prevent +tailors from being in Paris also, although the latter have to pay a much +higher rent, as well as higher price for furniture, workmen, and food. +But their customers are sufficiently numerous not only to re-establish +the balance, but also to make it lean on their side. + +When therefore the question is about equalizing the advantages of labor, +it would be well to consider whether the natural freedom of exchange is +not the best umpire. + +This self-leveling faculty of political phenomena is so important, and +at the same time so well calculated to cause us to admire the +providential wisdom which presides over the equalizing government of +society, that I must ask permission a little longer, to turn to it the +attention of the reader. + +The protectionists say, Such a nation has the advantage over us, in +being able to procure cheaply, coal, iron, machinery, capital; it is +impossible for us to compete with it. + +We must examine the proposition under other aspects. For the present, I +stop at the question, whether, when an advantage and a disadvantage are +placed in juxtaposition, they do not bear in themselves, the former a +descending, the latter an ascending power, which must end by placing +them in a just equilibrium. + +Let us suppose the countries A and B. A has every advantage over B; you +thence conclude that labor will be concentrated upon A, while B must be +abandoned. A, you say, sells much more than it buys; B buys more than it +sells. I might dispute this, but I will meet you upon your own ground. + +In the hypothesis, labor, being in great demand in A, soon rises in +value; while labor, iron, coal, lands, food, capital, all being little +sought after in B, soon fall in price. + +Again: A being always selling and B always buying, cash passes from B to +A. It is abundant in A--very scarce in B. + +But where there is abundance of cash, it follows that in all purchases a +large proportion of it will be needed. Then in A, _real dearness_, which +proceeds from a very active demand, is added to _nominal dearness_, the +consequence of a superabundance of the precious metals. + +Scarcity of money implies that little is necessary for each purchase. +Then in B, a _nominal cheapness_ is combined with _real cheapness_. + +Under these circumstances, industry will have the strongest possible +motives for deserting A, to establish itself in B. + +Now, to return to what would be the true course of things. As the +progress of such events is always gradual, industry from its nature +being opposed to sudden transits, let us suppose that, without waiting +the extreme point, it will have gradually divided itself between A and +B, according to the laws of supply and demand; that is to say, according +to the laws of justice and usefulness. + +I do not advance an empty hypothesis when I say, that were it possible +that industry should concentrate itself upon a single point, there must, +from its nature, arise spontaneously, and in its midst, an irresistible +power of decentralization. + +We will quote the words of a manufacturer to the Chamber of Commerce at +Manchester (the figures brought into his demonstration are suppressed): + +"Formerly we exported goods; this exportation gave way to that of thread +for the manufacture of goods; later, instead of thread, we exported +machinery for the making of thread; then capital for the construction +of machinery; and lastly, workmen and talent, which are the source of +capital. All these elements of labor have, one after the other, +transferred themselves to other points, where their profits were +increased, and where the means of subsistence being less difficult to +obtain, life is maintained at a less cost. There are at present to be +seen in Prussia, Austria, Saxony, Switzerland, and Italy, immense +manufacturing establishments, founded entirely by English capital, +worked by English labor, and directed by English talent." + +We may here perceive, that Nature, or rather Providence, with more +wisdom and foresight than the narrow rigid system of the protectionists +can suppose, does not permit the concentration of labor, the monopoly of +advantages, from which they draw their arguments as from an absolute and +irremediable fact. It has, by means as simple as they are infallible, +provided for dispersion, diffusion, mutual dependence, and simultaneous +progress; all of which, your restrictive laws paralyze as much as is in +their power, by their tendency towards the isolation of nations. By this +means they render much more decided the differences existing in the +conditions of production; they check the self-leveling power of +industry, prevent fusion of interests, and fence in each nation within +its own peculiar advantages and disadvantages. + +III. To say that by a protective law the conditions of production are +equalized, is to disguise an error under false terms. It is not true +that an import duty equalizes the conditions of production. These remain +after the imposition of the duty just as they were before. The most that +the law can do is to equalize the _conditions of sale_. If it should be +said that I am playing upon words, I retort the accusation upon my +adversaries. It is for them to prove that _production_ and _sale_ are +synonymous terms, which if they cannot do, I have a right to accuse +them, if not of playing upon words, at least of confounding them. + +Let me be permitted to exemplify my idea. + +Suppose that several Parisian speculators should determine to devote +themselves to the production of oranges. They know that the oranges of +Portugal can be sold in Paris at ten centimes, whilst on account of the +boxes, hot-houses, etc., which are necessary to ward against the +severity of our climate, it is impossible to raise them at less than a +franc apiece. They accordingly demand a duty of ninety centimes upon +Portugal oranges. With the help of this duty, say they, the _conditions +of production_ will be equalized. The legislative body, yielding as +usual to this argument, imposes a duty of ninety centimes on each +foreign orange. + +Now I say that the _relative conditions of production_ are in no wise +changed. The law can take nothing from the heat of the sun in Lisbon, +nor from the severity of the frosts in Paris. Oranges continuing to +mature themselves _naturally_ on the banks of the Tagus, and +artificially upon those of the Seine, must continue to require for their +production much more labor on the latter than the former. The law can +only equalize the _conditions of sale_. It is evident that while the +Portuguese sell their oranges at a franc apiece, the ninety centimes +which go to pay the tax are taken from the French consumer. Now look at +the whimsicality of the result. Upon each Portuguese orange, the country +loses nothing; for the ninety centimes which the consumer pays to +satisfy the tax, enter into the treasury. There is improper +distribution, but no loss. Upon each French orange consumed, there will +be about ninety centimes lost; for while the buyer very certainly loses +them, the seller just as certainly does not gain them, for even +according to the hypothesis, he will receive only the price of +production. I will leave it to the protectionists to draw their +conclusion. + +IV. I have laid some stress upon this distinction between the conditions +of production and those of sale, which perhaps the prohibitionists may +consider as paradoxical, because it leads me on to what they will +consider as a still stranger paradox. This is: If you really wish to +equalize the facilities of production, leave trade free. + +This may surprise the protectionists; but let me entreat them to +listen, if it be only through curiosity, to the end of my argument. It +shall not be long. I will now take it up where we left off. + +If we suppose for the moment, that the common and daily profits of each +Frenchman amount to one franc, it will indisputably follow that to +produce an orange by _direct_ labor in France, one day's work, or its +equivalent, will be requisite; whilst to produce the cost of a +Portuguese orange, only one-tenth of this day's labor is required; which +means 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 the +same thing, the means of buying it, with one-tenth of a day's labor, I +am placed exactly in the same condition as the Portuguese producer +himself, excepting the expense of the transportation? It is then certain +that freedom of commerce equalizes the conditions of production direct +or indirect, as much as it is possible to equalize them; for it leaves +but the one inevitable difference, that of transportation. + +I will add that free trade equalizes also the facilities for attaining +enjoyments, comforts, and general consumption; the last an object which +is, it would seem, quite forgotten, and which is nevertheless all +important; since consumption is the main object of all our industrial +efforts. Thanks to freedom of trade, we would enjoy here the results of +the Portuguese sun, as well as Portugal itself; and the inhabitants of +Havre, would have in their reach, as well as those of London, and with +the same facilities, the advantages which nature has in a mineralogical +point of view conferred upon Newcastle. + +The protectionists may suppose me in a paradoxical humor, for I go +farther still. I say, and I sincerely believe, that if any two countries +are placed in unequal circumstances as to advantages of production, +_that one of the two which is the least favored by nature, will gain +most by freedom of commerce_. To prove this, I shall be obliged to turn +somewhat aside from the form of reasoning which belongs to this work. I +will do so, however; first, because the question in discussion turns +upon this point; and again, because it will give me the opportunity of +exhibiting a law of political economy of the highest importance, and +which, well understood, seems to me to be destined to lead back to this +science all those sects which, in our days, are seeking in the land of +chimeras that social harmony which they have been unable to discover in +nature. I speak of the law of consumption, which the majority of +political economists may well be reproached with having too much +neglected. + +Consumption is the _end_, the final cause, of all the phenomena of +political economy, and, consequently, in it is found their final +solution. + +No effect, whether favorable or unfavorable, can be arrested permanently +upon the producer. The advantages and the disadvantages, which, from +his relations to nature and to society, are his, both equally pass +gradually from him, with an almost insensible tendency to be absorbed +and fused into the community at large; the community considered as +consumers. This is an admirable law, alike in its cause and its effects, +and he who shall succeed in making it well understood, will have a right +to say, "I have not, in my passage through the world, forgotten to pay +my tribute to society." + +Every circumstance which favors the work of production is of course +hailed with joy by the producer, for its _immediate effect_ is to enable +him to render greater services to the community, and to exact from it a +greater remuneration. Every circumstance which injures production, must +equally be the source of uneasiness to him; for its _immediate effect_ +is to diminish his services, and consequently his remuneration. This is +a fortunate and necessary law of nature. The immediate good or evil of +favorable or unfavorable circumstances must fall upon the producer, in +order to influence him invincibly to seek the one and to avoid the +other. + +Again, when a workman succeeds in his labor, the _immediate_ benefit of +this success is received by him. This again is necessary, to determine +him to devote his attention to it. It is also just; because it is just +that an effort crowned with success should bring its own reward. + +But these effects, good and bad, although permanent in themselves, are +not so as regards the producer. If they had been so, a principle of +progressive and consequently infinite _inequality_ would have been +introduced among men. This good, and this evil, both therefore pass on, +to become absorbed in the general destinies of humanity. + +How does this come about? I will try to make it understood by some +examples. + +Let us go back to the thirteenth century. Men who gave themselves up to +the business of copying, received for this service _a remuneration +regulated by the general rate of profits_. Among them is found one, who +seeks and finds the means of multiplying rapidly copies of the same +work. He invents printing. The first effect of this is, that the +individual is enriched, while many more are impoverished. At the first +view, wonderful as the discovery is, one hesitates in deciding whether +it is not more injurious than useful. It seems to have introduced into +the world, as I said above, an element of infinite inequality. +Guttenberg makes large profits by this invention, and perfects the +invention by the profits, until all other copyists are ruined. As for +the public,--the consumer,--it gains but little, for Guttenberg takes +care to lower the price of books only just so much as is necessary to +undersell all rivals. + +But the great Mind which put harmony into the movements of celestial +bodies, could also give it to the internal mechanism of society. We will +see the advantages of this invention escaping from the individual, to +become forever the common patrimony of mankind. + +The process finally becomes known. Guttenberg is no longer alone in his +art; others imitate him. Their profits are at first considerable. They +are recompensed for being the first who make the effort to imitate the +processes of the newly invented art. This again was necessary, in order +that they might be induced to the effort, and thus forward the great and +final result to which we approach. They gain much; but they gain less +than the inventor, for _competition_ has commenced its work. The price +of books now continually decreases. The gains of the imitators diminish +in proportion as the invention becomes older; and in the same proportion +imitation becomes less meritorious. Soon the new object of industry +attains its normal condition; in other words, the remuneration of +printers is no longer an exception to the general rules of remuneration, +and, like that of copyists formerly, it is only regulated _by the +general rate of profits_. Here then the producer, as such, holds only +the old position. The discovery, however, has been made; the saving of +time, labor, effort, for a fixed result, for a certain number of +volumes, is realized. But in what is this manifested? In the cheap price +of books. For the good of whom? For the good of the consumer,--of +society,--of humanity. Printers, having no longer any peculiar merit, +receive no longer a peculiar remuneration. As men,--as consumers,--they +no doubt participate in the advantages which the invention confers upon +the community; but that is all. As printers, as producers, they are +placed upon the ordinary footing of all other producers. Society pays +them for their labor, and not for the usefulness of the invention. +_That_ has become a gratuitous benefit, a common heritage to mankind. + +What has been said of printing can be extended to every agent for the +advancement of labor; from the nail and the mallet, up to the locomotive +and the electric telegraph. Society enjoys all, by the abundance of its +use, its consumption; and it _enjoys all gratuitously_. For as their +effect is to diminish prices, it is evident that just so much of the +price as is taken off by their intervention, renders the production in +so far _gratuitous_. There only remains the actual labor of man to be +paid for; and the remainder, which is the result of the invention, is +subtracted; at least after the invention has run through the cycle which +I have just described as its destined course. I send for a workman; he +brings a saw with him; I pay him two francs for his day's labor, and he +saws me twenty-five boards. If the saw had not been invented, he would +perhaps not have been able to make one board, and I would have paid him +the same for his day's labor. The _usefulness_ then of the saw, is for +me a gratuitous gift of nature, or rather it is a portion of the +inheritance which, _in common_ with my brother men, I have received from +the genius of my ancestors. I have two workmen in my field; the one +directs the handle of a plough, the other that of a spade. The result of +their day's labor is very different, but the price is the same, because +the remuneration is proportioned, not to the usefulness of the result, +but to the effort, the labor given to attain it. + +I invoke the patience of the reader, and beg him to believe, that I have +not lost sight of free trade: I entreat him only to remember the +conclusion at which I have arrived: _Remuneration is not proportioned to +the usefulness of the articles brought by the producer into the market, +but to the labor_.[11] + +[Footnote 11: It is true that labor does not receive a uniform +remuneration; because labor is more or less intense, dangerous, +skillful, etc. Competition establishes for each category a price +current; and it is of this variable price that I speak.] + +I have so far taken my examples from human inventions, but will now go +on to speak of natural advantages. + +In every article of production, nature and man must concur. But the +portion of nature is always gratuitous. Only so much of the usefulness +of an article as is the result of human labor becomes the object of +mutual exchange, and consequently of remuneration. The remuneration +varies much, no doubt, in proportion to the intensity of the labor, of +the skill which it requires, of its being _a propos_ to the demand of +the day, of the need which exists for it, of the momentary absence of +competition, etc. But it is not the less true in principle, that the +assistance received from natural laws, which belongs to all, counts for +nothing in the price. + +We do not pay for the air we breathe, although so useful to us, that we +could not live two minutes without it. We do not pay for it, because +Nature furnishes it without the intervention of man's labor. But if we +wish to separate one of the gases which compose it, for instance, to +fill a balloon, we must take some trouble and labor; or if another takes +it for us, we must give him an equivalent in something which will have +cost us the trouble of production. From which we see that the exchange +is between troubles, efforts, labors. It is certainly not for hydrogen +gas that I pay, for this is every where at my disposal, but for the work +that it has been necessary to accomplish in order to disengage it; work +which I have been spared, and which I must refund. If I am told that +there are other things to pay for; as expense, materials, apparatus; I +answer, that still in these things it is the work that I pay for. The +price of the coal employed is only the representation of the labor +necessary to dig and transport it. + +We do not pay for the light of the sun, because Nature alone gives it to +us. But we pay for the light of gas, tallow, oil, wax, because here is +labor to be remunerated;--and remark, that it is so entirely labor and +not utility to which remuneration is proportioned, that it may well +happen that one of these means of lighting, while it may be much more +effective than another, may still cost less. To cause this, it is only +necessary that less human labor should be required to furnish it. + +When the water-carrier comes to supply my house, were I to pay him in +proportion to the _absolute utility_ of the water, my whole fortune +would not be sufficient. But I pay him only for the trouble he has +taken. If he requires more, I can get others to furnish it, or finally +go and get it myself. The water itself is not the subject of our +bargain; but the labor taken to get the water. This point of view is so +important, and the consequences that I am going to draw from it so +clear, as regards the freedom of international exchanges, that I will +still elucidate my idea by a few more examples. + +The alimentary substance contained in potatoes does not cost us very +dear, because a great deal of it is attainable with little work. We pay +more for wheat, because, to produce it Nature requires more labor from +man. It is evident that if Nature did for the latter what she does for +the former, their prices would tend to the same level. It is impossible +that the producer of wheat should permanently gain more than the +producer of potatoes. The law of competition cannot allow it. + +If by a happy miracle the fertility of all arable lands were to be +increased, it would not be the agriculturist, but the consumer, who +would profit by this phenomenon; for the result of it would be, +abundance and cheapness. There would be less labor incorporated into an +acre of grain, and the agriculturist would be therefore obliged to +exchange it for 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 it +is in consumption, in mankind, that at length all political phenomena +find their solution. As long as we fail to follow their effects to this +point, and look only at _immediate_ effects, which act but upon +individual men or classes of men _as producers_, we know nothing more of +political economy than the quack does of medicine, when, instead of +following the effects of a prescription in its action upon the whole +system, he satisfies himself with knowing how it affects the palate and +the throat. + +The tropical regions are very favorable to the production of sugar and +coffee; that is to say, Nature does most of the business and leaves but +little for labor to accomplish. But who reaps the advantage of this +liberality of Nature? Not these regions, for they are forced by +competition to receive simply remuneration for their labor. It is +mankind who is the gainer; for the result of this liberality is +_cheapness_, and cheapness belongs to the world. + +Here in the temperate zone, we find coal and iron ore, on the surface of +the soil; we have but to stoop and take them. At first, I grant, the +immediate inhabitants profit by this fortunate circumstance. But soon +comes competition, and the price of coal and iron falls, until this gift +of Nature becomes gratuitous to all, and human labor is only paid +according to the general rate of profits. + +Thus natural advantages, like improvements in the process of production, +are, or have a constant tendency to become, under the law of +competition, the common and _gratuitous_ patrimony of consumers, of +society, of mankind. Countries therefore which do not enjoy these +advantages, must gain by commerce with those which do; because the +exchanges of commerce are between _labor and labor_; subtraction being +made of all the natural advantages which are combined with these labors; +and it is evidently the most favored countries which can incorporate +into a given labor the largest proportion of these _natural advantages_. +Their produce representing less labor, receives less recompense; in +other words, is _cheaper_. If then all the liberality of Nature results +in cheapness, it is evidently not the producing, but the consuming +country, which profits by her benefits. + +Hence we may see the enormous absurdity of the consuming country, which +rejects produce precisely because it is cheap. It is as though we should +say: "We will have nothing of that which Nature gives you. You ask of +us an effort equal to two, in order to furnish ourselves with articles +only attainable at home by an effort equal to four. You can do it +because with you Nature does half the work. But we will have nothing to +do with it; we will wait till your climate, becoming more inclement, +forces you to ask of us a labor equal to four, and then we can treat +with you _upon an equal footing_." + +A is a favored country; B is maltreated by Nature. Mutual traffic then +is advantageous to both, but principally to B, because the exchange is +not between _utility_ and _utility_, but between _value_ and _value_. +Now A furnishes a greater _utility in a similar value_, because the +_utility_ of any article includes at once what Nature and what labor +have done; whereas the _value_ of it only corresponds to the portion +accomplished by labor. B then makes an entirely advantageous bargain; +for by simply paying the producer from A for his labor, it receives in +return not only the results of that labor, but in addition there is +thrown in whatever may have accrued from the superior bounty of Nature. + +We will lay down the general rule. + +Traffic is an exchange of _values_; and as value is reduced by +competition to the simple representation of labor, traffic is the +exchange of equal labors. Whatever Nature has done towards the +production of the articles exchanged, is given on both sides +_gratuitously_; from whence it necessarily follows, that the most +advantageous commerce is transacted with those countries which are the +most favored by Nature. + + * * * * * + +The theory of which I have attempted, in this chapter, to trace the +outlines, would require great developments. But perhaps the attentive +reader will have perceived in it the fruitful seed which is destined in +its future growth to smother Protection, at once with Fourierism, Saint +Simonism, Commonism, and the various other schools whose object is to +exclude the law of COMPETITION from the government of the world. +Competition, no doubt, considering man as producer, must often interfere +with his individual and _immediate_ interests. But if we consider the +great object of all labor, the universal good, in a word, _Consumption_, +we cannot fail to find that Competition is to the moral world what the +law of equilibrium is to the material one. It is the foundation of true +Commonism, of true Socialism, of the equality of comforts and condition, +so much sought after in our day; and if so many sincere reformers, so +many earnest friends to the public rights, seek to reach their end by +commercial _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, that +the foreign article should be taxed, in order to neutralize the effects +of the tax, which weighs down national produce. It is still then but the +question of equalizing the facilities of production. We have but to say +that the tax is an artificial obstacle, which has exactly the same +effect as a natural obstacle, i.e. the increasing of the price. If this +increase is so great that there is more loss in producing the article in +question than in attracting it from foreign parts by the production of +an equivalent value, let it alone. Individual interest will soon learn +to choose the lesser of two evils. I might refer the reader to the +preceding demonstration for an answer to this Sophism; but it is one +which recurs so often in the complaints and the petitions, I had almost +said the demands, of the protectionist school, that it deserves a +special discussion. + +If the tax in question should be one of a special kind, directed against +fixed articles of production, I agree that it is perfectly reasonable +that foreign produce should be subjected to it. For instance, it would +be absurd to free foreign salt from impost duty; not that in an +economical point of view France would lose any thing by it; on the +contrary, whatever may be said, principles are invariable, and France +would gain by it, as she must always gain by avoiding an obstacle +whether natural or artificial. But here the obstacle has been raised +with 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, the +treasury would not receive its revenue, and would be obliged to seek it +from some thing else. There would be evident inconsistency in creating +an obstacle with a given object, and then avoiding the attainment of +that object. It would have been better at once to seek what was needed +in the other impost without taxing French salt. Such are the +circumstances 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 heavier +imposts than those of another neighboring nation, should protect itself +by tariffs against the competition of its rival, is a Sophism, which it +is now my purpose to attack. + +I have said more than once, that I am opposing only the theory of the +protectionists, with the hope of discovering the source of their errors. +Were I disposed to enter into controversy with them, I would say: Why +direct your tariffs principally against England and Belgium, both +countries more overloaded with taxes than any in the world? Have I not +a right to look upon your argument as a mere pretext? But I am not of +the number of those who believe that prohibitionists are guided by +interest, and not by conviction. The doctrine of Protection is too +popular not to be sincere. If the majority could believe in freedom, we +would be free. Without doubt it is individual interest which weighs us +down with tariffs; but it acts upon conviction. + +The State may make either a good or a bad use of taxes; it makes a good +use of them when it renders to the public services equivalent to the +value received from them; it makes a bad use of them when it expends +this value, giving nothing in return. + +To say in the first case that they place the country which pays them in +more disadvantageous conditions for production, than the country which +is free from them, is a Sophism. We pay, it is true, twenty millions for +the administration of justice, and the maintenance of the police, but we +have justice and the police; we have the security which they give, the +time which they save for us; and it is most probable that production is +neither more easy nor more active among nations, where (if there be +such) each individual takes the administration of justice into his own +hands. We pay, I grant, many hundred millions for roads, bridges, +ports, railways; but we have these railways, these ports, bridges and +roads, and unless we maintain that it is a losing business to establish +them, we cannot say that they place us in a position inferior to that of +nations who have, it is true, no taxes for public works, but who +likewise have no public works. And here we see why (even while we accuse +internal taxes of being a cause of industrial inferiority) we direct our +tariffs precisely against those nations which are the most taxed. It is +because these taxes, well used, far from injuring, have ameliorated the +_conditions of production_ to these nations. Thus we again arrive at the +conclusion that the protectionist Sophisms not only wander from, but are +the contrary--the very antithesis of truth. + +As to unproductive imposts, suppress them if you can; but surely it is a +most singular idea to suppose, that their evil effect is to be +neutralized by the addition of individual taxes to public taxes. Many +thanks for the compensation! The State, you say, has taxed us too much; +surely this is no reason why we should tax each other! + +A protective duty is a tax directed against foreign produce, but which +returns, let us keep in mind, upon the national consumer. Is it not then +a singular argument to say to him, "Because the taxes are heavy, we will +raise prices higher for you; and because the State takes a part of your +revenue, we will give another portion of it to benefit a monopoly?" + +But let us examine more closely this Sophism so accredited among our +legislators; although, strange to say, it is precisely those who keep up +the unproductive imposts (according to our present hypothesis) who +attribute to them afterwards our supposed inferiority, and seek to +re-establish the equilibrium by further imposts and new clogs. + +It appears to me to be evident that protection, without any change in +its nature and effects, might have taken the form of a direct tax, +raised by the State, and distributed as a premium to privileged +industry. + +Let us admit that foreign iron could be sold in our market at eight +francs, 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 the +national market to the home producer. + +The first, is to put upon foreign iron a duty of five francs. This, it +is evident, would exclude it, because it could no longer be sold at less +than 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 would +in either case be equally a protective measure. Foreign iron would, +according to both systems, be alike excluded; for our iron manufacturer +could sell at seven francs, what, with the five francs premium, would +thus 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 of +protection is paid by a part, in the second by the whole of the +community. + +I frankly confess my preference for the second system, which I regard as +more just, more economical and more legal. More just, because, if +society wishes to give bounties to some of its members, the whole +community ought to contribute; more economical, because it would banish +many difficulties, and save the expenses of collection; more legal, +lastly, because the public would see clearly into the operation, and +know what was required of it. + +But if the protective system had taken this form, would it not have been +laughable enough to hear it said, "We pay heavy taxes for the army, the +navy, the judiciary, the public works, the schools, the public debt, +etc. These amount to more than a thousand million. It would therefore be +desirable that the State should take another thousand million, to +relieve the poor iron manufacturers; or the suffering stockholders of +coal mines; or those unfortunate lumber dealers, or the useful +codfishery." + +This, it must be perceived, by an attentive investigation, is the result +of the Sophism in question. In vain, gentlemen, are all your efforts; +you cannot _give money_ to one without taking it from another. If you +are absolutely determined to exhaust the funds of the taxable community, +well; but, at least, do not mock them; do not tell them, "We take from +you again, in order to compensate you for what we have already taken." + +It would be a too tedious undertaking to endeavor to point out all the +fallacies of this Sophism. I will therefore limit myself to the +consideration of it in three points. + +You argue that France is overburthened with taxes, and deduce thence the +conclusion that it is necessary to protect such and such an article of +produce. But protection does not relieve us from the payment of these +taxes. If, then, individuals devoting themselves to any one object of +industry, should advance this demand: "We, from our participation in the +payment of taxes, have our expenses of production increased, and +therefore ask for a protective duty which shall raise our price of +sale;" what is this but a demand on their part to be allowed to free +themselves from the burthen of the tax, by laying it on the rest of the +community? Their object is to balance, by the increased price of their +produce, the amount which _they_ pay in taxes. Now, as the whole amount +of these taxes must enter into the treasury, and the increase of price +must be paid by society, it follows that (where this protective duty is +imposed) society has to bear, not only the general tax, but also that +for the protection of the article in question. But it is answered, let +_every thing_ be protected. Firstly, this is impossible; and, again, +were it possible, how could such a system give relief? _I_ will pay for +you, _you_ will pay for me; but not the less, still there remains the +tax to be paid. + +Thus you are the dupes of an illusion. You determine to raise taxes for +the support of an army, a navy, 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 adding +to the burthen of the mass of society. You thus only create interminable +complications. If you can prove that the increase of price resulting +from protection, falls upon the foreign producer, I grant something +specious in your argument. But if it be true that the French people paid +the tax before the passing of the protective duty, and afterwards that +it has paid not only the tax, but the protective duty also, truly I do +not perceive wherein it has profited. + +But I go much further, and maintain that the more oppressive our taxes +are, the more anxiously ought we to open our ports and frontiers to +foreign nations, less burthened than ourselves. And why? In order that +we 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, the +greater the portion which will be reimbursed to us, of taxes +incorporated in the produce, which we will have sold to foreign +consumers; whilst we, on our part, will have made to them only a lesser +reimbursement, because (according to our hypothesis) their produce is +less taxed than ours. + +Again, finally, has it ever occurred to you to ask yourself, whether +these heavy taxes which you adduce as a reason for keeping up the +prohibitive system, may not be the result of this very system itself? To +what purpose would be our great standing armies, and our powerful +navies, if commerce were free? + + + + +VI. + +BALANCE OF TRADE. + + +Our adversaries have adopted a system of tactics, which embarrasses us +not a little. Do we prove our doctrine? They admit the truth of it in +the most respectful manner. Do we attack their principles? They abandon +them with the best possible grace. They only ask that our doctrine, +which they acknowledge to be true, should be confined to books; and that +their principles, which they allow to be false, should be established in +practice. If we will give up to them the regulation of our tariffs, they +will leave us triumphant in the domain of theory. + +"Assuredly," said Mr. Gauthier de Roumilly, lately, "assuredly no one +wishes to call up from their graves the defunct theories of the balance +of trade." And yet Mr. Gauthier, after giving this passing blow to +error, 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 logical +arguer! There is nothing in his conclusions which cannot be found in his +premises. He asks nothing in practice which he does not justify in +theory. His principles may perchance be false, and this is the point in +question. But he has a principle. He believes, he proclaims aloud, that +if France gives ten to receive fifteen, she loses five; and surely, with +such a belief, nothing is more natural than that he should make laws +consistent with it. + +He says: "What it is important to remark, is, that constantly the amount +of importation is augmenting, and surpassing that of exportation. Every +year France buys more foreign produce, and sells less of its own +produce. This can be proved by figures. In 1842, we see the importation +exceed the exportation by two hundred millions. This appears to me to +prove, in the clearest manner, that national labor _is not sufficiently +protected_, that we are provided by foreign labor, and that the +competition of our rivals _oppresses_ our industry. The law in question, +appears to me to be a consecration of the fact, that our political +economists have assumed a false position in declaring, that in +proportion to produce bought, there is always a corresponding quantity +sold. It is evident that purchases may be made, not with the habitual +productions of a country, not with its revenue, not with the results of +actual labor, but with its capital, with the accumulated savings which +should serve for reproduction. A country may spend, dissipate its +profits and savings, may impoverish itself, and by the consumption of +its national capital, progress gradually to its ruin. _This is +precisely what we are doing. We give, every year, two hundred millions +to foreign nations_." + +Well! here, at least, is a man whom we can understand. There is no +hypocrisy in this language. The balance of trade is here clearly +maintained and defended. France imports two hundred millions more than +she exports. Then France loses two hundred millions yearly. And the +remedy? It is to check importation. The conclusion is perfectly +consistent. + +It is, then, with Mr. Lestiboudois that we will argue, for how is it +possible to do so with Mr. Gauthier? If you say to the latter, the +balance of trade is a mistake, he will answer, So I have declared it in +my exordium. If you exclaim, But it is a truth, he will say, Thus I have +classed it in my conclusions. + +Political economists may blame me for arguing with Mr. Lestiboudois. To +combat the balance of trade, is, they say, neither more nor less than to +fight against a windmill. + +But let us be on our guard. The balance of trade is neither so old, nor +so sick, nor so dead, as Mr. Gauthier is pleased to imagine; for all the +legislature, Mr. Gauthier himself included, are associated by their +votes with the theory of Mr. Lestiboudois. + +However, not to fatigue the reader, I will not seek to investigate too +closely this theory, but will content myself with subjecting it to the +experience of facts. + +It is constantly alleged in opposition to our principles, that they are +good only in theory. But, gentlemen, do you believe that merchants' +books are good in practice? It does appear to me that if there is any +thing which can have a practical authority, when the object is to prove +profit and loss, that this must be commercial accounts. We cannot +suppose that all the merchants of the world, for centuries back, should +have so little understood their own affairs, as to have kept their books +in such a manner as to represent gains as losses, and losses as gains. +Truly it would be easier to believe that Mr. Lestiboudois is a bad +political economist. + +A merchant, one of my friends, having had two business transactions, +with very different results, I have been curious to compare on this +subject the accounts of the counter with those of the custom-house, +interpreted by Mr. Lestiboudois with the sanction of our six hundred +legislators. + +Mr. T... despatched from Havre a vessel, freighted, for the United +States, with French merchandise, principally Parisian articles, valued +at 200,000 francs. Such was the amount entered at the custom-house. The +cargo, on its arrival at New Orleans, had paid ten per cent. expenses, +and was liable to thirty per cent. duties; which raised its value to +280,000 francs. It was sold at twenty per cent. profit on its original +value, which being 40,000 francs, the price of sale was 320,000 francs, +which the assignee converted into cotton. This cotton, again, had to +pay for expenses of transportation, insurance, commissions, etc., ten +per cent.: so that when the return cargo arrived at Havre, its value had +risen 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 of +422,400 francs. + +If Mr. Lestiboudois requires it, I will send him an extract from the +books 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 one +of 40,000, the other of 70,000 francs, and Mr. T ... feels perfectly +certain that as regards these, there is no mistake in his accounts. + +Now what conclusion does Mr. Lestiboudois draw from the sums entered +into the custom-house, in this operation? He thence learns that France +has exported 200,000 francs, and imported 352,000; from whence the +honorable deputy concludes "_that she has spent, dissipated the profits +of her previous savings; that she is impoverishing herself and +progressing to her ruin; and that she has squandered on a foreign +nation_ 152,000 _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 only +farther to inscribe on his books two little items, thus worded: + +"_Sundries due to X_, 200,000 francs, for purchase of divers articles +despatched by vessel N. + +"_Profit and loss due to sundries, 200,000 francs, for final and total +loss of cargo._" + +In the meantime the custom-house inscribed 200,000 francs upon its list +of _exportations_, and as there can of course be nothing to balance this +entry on the list of _importations_, it hence follows that Mr. +Lestiboudois and the Chamber must see in this wreck _a clear profit_ to +France of 200,000 francs. + +We may draw hence yet another conclusion, viz.: that according to the +Balance of Trade theory, France has an exceedingly simple manner of +constantly doubling her capital. It is only necessary, to accomplish +this, that she should, after entering into the custom-house her articles +for exportation, cause them to be thrown into the sea. By this course, +her exportations can speedily be made to equal her capital; importations +will be nothing, and our gain will be, all which the ocean will have +swallowed up. + +You are joking, the protectionists will reply. You know that it is +impossible that we should utter such absurdities. Nevertheless, I +answer, you do utter them, and what is more, you give them life, you +exercise them practically upon your fellow citizens, as much, at least, +as is in your power to do. + +The truth is, that the theory of the Balance of Trade should be +precisely _reversed_. The profits accruing to the nation from any +foreign commerce should be calculated by the overplus of the +importation above the exportation. This overplus, after the deduction of +expenses, is the real gain. Here we have the true theory, and it is one +which leads directly to freedom in trade. I now, gentlemen, abandon you +this theory, as I have done all those of the preceding chapters. Do with +it as you please, exaggerate it as you will; it has nothing to fear. +Push it to the farthest extreme; imagine, if it so please you, that +foreign nations should inundate us with useful produce of every +description, and ask nothing in return; that our importations should be +_infinite_, and our exportations _nothing_. Imagine all this, and still +I defy you to prove that we will be the poorer in consequence. + + + + +VII. + +PETITION FROM THE MANUFACTURERS OF CANDLES, WAX-LIGHTS, LAMPS, +CHANDELIERS, REFLECTORS, SNUFFERS, EXTINGUISHERS; AND FROM THE PRODUCERS +OF TALLOW, OIL, RESIN, ALCOHOL, AND GENERALLY OF EVERY THING USED FOR +LIGHTS. + + +_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 occupied +with the interest of the producer, whom you are anxious to free from +foreign competition. In a word, you wish to secure the _national market_ +to _national labor_. + +"We come now to offer you an admirable opportunity for the application +of your----what shall we say? your theory? no, nothing is more +deceiving than theory;--your doctrine? your system? your principle? But +you do not like doctrines; you hold systems in horror; and, as for +principles, you declare that there are no such things in political +economy. We will say then, your practice; your practice without theory, +and without principle. + +"We are subjected to the intolerable competition of a foreign rival, who +enjoys, it would seem, such superior facilities for the production of +light, that he is enabled to _inundate_ our _national market_ at so +exceedingly reduced a price, that, the moment he makes his appearance, +he draws off all custom from us; and thus an important branch of French +industry, with all its innumerable ramifications, is suddenly reduced to +a state of complete stagnation. This rival, who is no other than the +sun, carries on so bitter a war against us, that we have every reason to +believe that he has been excited to this course by our perfidious +neighbor England. (Good diplomacy this, for the present time!) In this +belief we are confirmed by the fact that in all his transactions with +this 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 law +whereby shall be directed the shutting up of all windows, dormers, +sky-lights, shutters, curtains, vasistas, oeil-de-boeufs, in a word, all +openings, holes, chinks and fissures through which the light of the sun +is used to penetrate into our dwellings, to the prejudice of the +profitable manufactures which we flatter ourselves we have been enabled +to bestow upon the country; which country cannot, therefore, without +ingratitude, leave us now to struggle unprotected through so unequal a +contest. + +"We pray your honorable body not to mistake our petition for a satire, +nor to repulse us without at least hearing the reasons which we have to +advance in its favor. + +"And first, if, by shutting out as much as possible all access to +natural light, you thus create the necessity for artificial light, is +there in France an industrial pursuit which will not, through some +connection with this important object, be benefited by it? + +"If more tallow be consumed, there will arise a necessity for an +increase of cattle and sheep. Thus artificial meadows must be in greater +demand; and meat, wool, leather, and above all, manure, this basis of +agricultural riches, must become more abundant. + +"If more oil be consumed, it will cause an increase in the cultivation +of the olive-tree. This plant, luxuriant and exhausting to the soil, +will come in good time to profit by the increased fertility which the +raising of cattle will have communicated to our fields. + +"Our heaths will become covered with resinous trees. Numerous swarms of +bees will gather upon our mountains the perfumed treasures, which are +now cast upon the winds, useless as the blossoms from which they +emanate. There is, in short, no branch of agriculture which would not be +greatly developed by the granting of our petition. + +"Navigation would equally profit. Thousands of vessels would soon be +employed in the whale fisheries, and thence would arise a navy capable +of sustaining the honor of France, and of responding to the patriotic +sentiments of the undersigned petitioners, candle merchants, etc. + +"But what words can express the magnificence which _Paris_ will then +exhibit! Cast an eye upon the future and behold the gildings, the +bronzes, the magnificent crystal chandeliers, lamps, reflectors and +candelabras, which will glitter in the spacious stores, compared with +which the splendor of the present day will appear trifling and +insignificant. + +"There is none, not even the poor manufacturer of resin in the midst of +his pine forests, nor the miserable miner in his dark dwelling, but who +would enjoy an increase of salary and of comforts. + +"Gentlemen, if you will be pleased to reflect, you cannot fail to be +convinced that there is perhaps not one Frenchman, from the opulent +stockholder of Anzin down to the poorest vendor of matches, who is not +interested in the success of our petition. + +"We foresee your objections, gentlemen; but there is not one that you +can oppose to us which you will not be obliged to gather from the works +of the partisans of free trade. We dare challenge you to pronounce one +word against our petition, which is not equally opposed to your own +practice and the principle which guides your policy. + +"Do you tell us, that if we gain by this protection, France will not +gain, because the consumer must pay the price of it? + +"We answer you: + +"You have no longer any right to cite the interest of the consumer. For +whenever this has been found to compete with that of the producer, you +have invariably sacrificed the first. You have done this to _encourage +labor_, to _increase the demand for labor_. The same reason should now +induce you to act in the same manner. + +"You have yourselves already answered the objection. When you were told: +The consumer is interested in the free introduction of iron, coal, corn, +wheat, cloths, etc., your answer was: Yes, but the producer is +interested in their exclusion. Thus, also, if the consumer is interested +in the admission of light, we, the producers, pray for its +interdiction. + +"You have also said, the producer and the consumer are one. If the +manufacturer gains by protection, he will cause the agriculturist to +gain also; if agriculture prospers, it opens a market for manufactured +goods. Thus we, if you confer upon us the monopoly of furnishing light +during the day, will as a first consequence buy large quantities of +tallow, coals, oil, resin, wax, alcohol, silver, iron, bronze, crystal, +for the supply of our business; and then we and our numerous contractors +having become rich, our consumption will be great, and will become a +means of contributing to the comfort and competency of the workers in +every branch of national labor. + +"Will you say that the light of the sun is a gratuitous gift, and that +to repulse gratuitous gifts, is to repulse riches under pretence of +encouraging the means of obtaining them? + +"Take care,--you carry the death-blow to your own policy. Remember that +hitherto you have always repulsed foreign produce, _because_ it was an +approach to a gratuitous gift, and _the more in proportion_ as this +approach was more close. You have, in obeying the wishes of other +monopolists, acted only from a _half-motive_; to grant our petition +there is a much _fuller inducement_. To repulse us, precisely for the +reason that our case is a more complete one than any which have preceded +it, would be to lay down the following equation: + x + =-; in other +words, it would be to accumulate absurdity upon absurdity. + +"Labor and Nature concur in different proportions, according to country +and climate, in every article of production. The portion of Nature is +always gratuitous; that of labor alone regulates the price. + +"If a Lisbon orange can be sold at half the price of a Parisian one, it +is because a natural and gratuitous heat does for the one, what the +other only obtains from an artificial and consequently expensive one. + +"When, therefore, we purchase a Portuguese orange, we may say that we +obtain it half gratuitously and half by the right of labor; in other +words, at _half price_ compared to those of Paris. + +"Now it is precisely on account of this _demi-gratuity_ (excuse the +word) that you argue in favor of exclusion. How, you say, could national +labor sustain the competition of foreign labor, when the first has every +thing to do, and the last is rid of half the trouble, the sun taking the +rest of the business upon himself? If then the _demi-gratuity_ can +determine you to check competition, on what principle can the _entire +gratuity_ be alleged as a reason for admitting it? You are no logicians +if, refusing the demi-gratuity as hurtful to human labor, you do not _a +fortiori_, and with double zeal, reject the full gratuity. + +"Again, when any article, as coal, iron, cheese, or cloth, comes to us +from foreign countries with less labor than if we produced it ourselves, +the difference in price is a _gratuitous gift_ conferred upon us; and +the gift is more or less considerable, according as the difference is +greater or less. It is the quarter, the half, or the three-quarters of +the value of the produce, in proportion as the foreign merchant requires +the three-quarters, the half, or the quarter of the price. It is as +complete as possible when the producer offers, as the sun does with +light, the whole in free gift. The question is, and we put it formally, +whether you wish for France the benefit of gratuitous consumption, or +the supposed advantages of laborious production. Choose, but be +consistent. And does it not argue the greatest inconsistency to check as +you do the importation of coal, iron, cheese, and goods of foreign +manufacture, merely because and even in proportion as their price +approaches _zero_, while at the same time you freely admit, and without +limitation, the light of the sun, whose price is during the whole day at +_zero_?" + + + + +VIII. + +DISCRIMINATING DUTIES. + + +A poor laborer of Gironde had raised, with the greatest possible care +and attention, a nursery of vines, from which, after much labor, he at +last succeeded in producing a pipe of wine, and forgot, in the joy of +his success, that each drop of this precious nectar had cost a drop of +sweat to his brow. I will sell it, said he to his wife, and with the +proceeds I will buy thread, which will serve you to make a _trousseau_ +for our daughter. The honest countryman, arriving in the city, there met +an Englishman and a Belgian. The Belgian said to him, Give me your wine, +and I in exchange, will give you fifteen bundles of thread. The +Englishman said, Give it to me, and I will give you twenty bundles, for +we English can spin cheaper than the Belgians. But a custom-house +officer standing by, said to the laborer, My good fellow, make your +exchange, if you choose, with the Belgian, but it is my duty to prevent +your doing so with the Englishman. What! exclaimed the countryman, you +wish me to take fifteen bundles of Brussels thread, when I can have +twenty from Manchester? Certainly; do you not see that France would be a +loser, if you were to receive twenty bundles instead of fifteen? I can +scarcely understand this, said the laborer. Nor can I explain it, said +the custom-house officer, but there is no doubt of the fact; for +deputies, ministers, and editors, all agree that a people is +impoverished in proportion as it receives a large compensation for any +given quantity of its produce. The countryman was obliged to conclude +his bargain with the Belgian. His daughter received but three-fourths of +her _trousseau_; and these good folks are still puzzling themselves to +discover how it can happen that people are ruined by receiving four +instead of three; and why they are richer with three dozen towels +instead of four. + + + + +IX. + +WONDERFUL DISCOVERY! + + +At this moment, when all minds are occupied in endeavoring to discover +the most economical means of transportation; when, to put these means +into practice, we are leveling roads, improving rivers, perfecting +steamboats, establishing railroads, and attempting various systems of +traction, atmospheric, hydraulic, pneumatic, electric, etc.,--at this +moment when, I believe, every one is seeking in sincerity and with +ardor the solution of this problem-- + +"_To bring the price of things in their place of consumption, as near as +possible to their price in that of production_"-- + +I would believe myself acting a culpable part towards my country, +towards the age in which I live, and towards myself, if I were longer to +keep secret the wonderful discovery which I have just made. + +I am well aware that the self-illusions of inventors have become +proverbial, but I have, nevertheless, the most complete certainty of +having discovered an infallible means of bringing the produce of the +entire world into France, and reciprocally to transport ours, with a +very important reduction of price. + +Infallible! and yet this is but a single one of the advantages of my +astonishing invention, which requires neither plans nor devices, neither +preparatory studies, nor engineers, nor machinists, nor capital, nor +stockholders, nor governmental assistance! There is no danger of +shipwrecks, of explosions, of shocks, of fire, nor of displacement of +rails! It can be put into practice without preparation from one day to +another! + +Finally, and this will, no doubt, recommend it to the public, it will +not increase taxes one cent; but the contrary. It will not augment the +number of government functionaries, nor the exigencies of government +officers; 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 increased +price 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 for +bearing them for us. Then come rivers, swamps, accidents, heavy and +muddy roads; these are so many _difficulties_ to be overcome; in order +to do which, causeways are constructed, bridges built, roads cut and +paved, railroads established, etc. But all this is costly, and the +article transported must bear its portion of the expense. There are +robbers, too, on the roads, and this necessitates guards, a police, etc. + +Now, among these _obstacles_, there is one which we ourselves have +placed, and that at no little expense, between Brussels and Paris. This +consists of men planted along the frontier, armed to the teeth, whose +business it is to place _difficulties_ in the way of the transportation +of goods from one country to another. These men are called custom-house +officers, and their effect is precisely similar to that of steep and +boggy roads. They retard and put obstacles in the way of transportation, +thus contributing to the difference which we have remarked between the +price of production and that of consumption; to diminish which +difference as much as possible, is the problem which we are seeking to +resolve. + +Here, then, we have found its solution. _Let our tariff be diminished._ +We will thus have constructed a Northern Railroad which will cost us +nothing. Nay, more, we will be saved great expenses, and will begin from +the first day to save capital. + +Really, I cannot but ask myself, in surprise, how our brains could have +admitted so whimsical a piece of folly, as to induce us to pay many +millions to destroy the _natural obstacles_ interposed between France +and other nations, only at the same time to pay so many millions more in +order to replace them by _artificial obstacles_, which have exactly the +same effect; so that the obstacle removed, and the obstacle created, +neutralize each other; things go on as before, and the only result of +our trouble, is, a double expense. + +An article of Belgian production is worth at Brussels twenty francs, +and, from the expenses of transportation, thirty francs at Paris. A +similar article of Parisian manufacture costs forty francs. What is our +course 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; the +government withal, paying numerous officials to attend to the levying of +this duty. The article thus pays ten francs for transportation, ten for +the tax. + +This done, we say to ourselves: Transportation between Brussels and +Paris is very dear; let us spend two or three millions in railways, and +we will reduce it one-half. Evidently the result of such a course will +be to get the 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 five +francs? 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 the +railroad, besides the expense saved in custom-house surveillance, which +would of course diminish in proportion as the temptation to smuggling +would become less. + +But it is answered, the duty is necessary to protect 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 on +a par with the Parisian at forty francs, you must raise the duty to +fifteen 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 the +railroad? + +Frankly, is it not humiliating to the nineteenth century, that it should +be destined to transmit to future ages the example of such puerilities +seriously and gravely practiced? To be the dupe of another, is bad +enough; but to employ all the forms and ceremonies of legislation in +order to cheat one's self,--to doubly cheat one's self, and that too in +a mere mathematical account,--truly this is calculated to lower a little +the pride of this _enlightened age_. + + + + +X. + +RECIPROCITY. + + +We have just seen that all which renders transportation difficult, acts +in the same manner as protection; or, if the expression be preferred, +that protection tends towards the same result as obstacles to +transportation. + +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 difference +between the price of consumption and that of production. It is equally +incontestable that a swamp, a bog, etc., are veritable protective +tariffs. + +There are people (few in number, it is true, but such there are) who +begin to understand that obstacles are not the less obstacles, because +they are artificially created, and that our well-being is more advanced +by freedom of trade than by protection; precisely as a canal is more +desirable than a sandy, hilly, and difficult road. + +But they still say, this liberty ought to be reciprocal. If we take off +our taxes in favor of Spain, while Spain does not do the same towards +us, it is evident that we are duped. Let us then make _treaties of +commerce_ upon the basis of a just reciprocity; let us yield where we +are yielded to; let us make the _sacrifice_ of buying that we may +obtain the advantage of selling. + +Persons who reason thus, are (I am sorry to say), whether they know it +or not, governed by the protectionist principle. They are only a little +more inconsistent than the pure protectionists, as these are more +inconsistent than the absolute prohibitionists. + +I will illustrate this by a fable. + +STULTA AND PUERA (FOOL-TOWN AND BOY-TOWN). + +There were, it matters not where, two towns, _Stulta_ and _Puera_, which +at great expense had a road built which connected them with each other. +Some time after this was done, the inhabitants of _Stulta_ became +uneasy, and said: _Puera_ is overwhelming us with its productions; this +must be attended to. They established therefore a corps of +_Obstructors_, so called because their business was to place obstacles +in the way of the wagon trains which arrived from _Puera_. Soon after, +_Puera_ also established a corps of Obstructors. + +After some centuries, people having become more enlightened, the +inhabitants of _Puera_ began to discover that these reciprocal obstacles +might possibly be reciprocal injuries. They sent therefore an ambassador +to _Stulta_, who (passing over the official phraseology) spoke much to +this effect: "We have built a road, and now we put obstacles in the way +of this road. This is absurd. It would have been far better to have left +things in their original position, for then we would not have been put +to the expense of building our road, and afterwards of creating +difficulties. In the name of _Puera_, I come to propose to you, not to +renounce at once our system of mutual obstacles, for this would be +acting according to a theory, and we despise theories as much as you do; +but to lighten somewhat these obstacles, weighing at the same time +carefully our respective _sacrifices_." The ambassador having thus +spoken, 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 (who +it has always been supposed had been secretly bribed by _Stulta_) rose +and said: "The obstacles raised by _Stulta_ are injurious to our sales; +this is a misfortune. Those which we ourselves create, injure our +purchases; this is a second misfortune. We have no power over the first, +but the second is entirely dependent upon ourselves. Let us then at +least get rid of one, since we cannot be delivered from both. Let us +suppress our corps of _Obstructors_, without waiting for _Stulta_ to do +the same. Some day or other she will learn to understand better her own +interests." + +A second counselor, a man of practice and of facts, uncontrolled by +theories and wise in ancestral experience, replied: "We must not listen +to this dreamer, this theorist, this innovator, this utopian, this +political economist, this friend to _Stulta_. We would be entirely +ruined if the embarrassments of the road were not carefully weighed and +exactly equalized, between _Stulta_ and _Peura_. There would be more +difficulty in going than in coming; in exportation than in importation. +We would be, with regard to _Stulta_, in the inferior condition in which +Havre, Nantes, Bordeaux, Lisbon, London, Hamburg, and New Orleans, are, +in relation to cities placed higher up the rivers Seine, Loire, Garonne, +Tagus, Thames, the Elbe, and the Mississippi; for the difficulties of +ascending must always be greater than those of descending rivers. (A +voice exclaims: 'But the cities near the mouths of rivers have always +prospered more than those higher up the stream.') This is not possible. +(The same voice: 'But it is a fact.') Well, they have then prospered +_contrary to rule_." Such conclusive reasoning staggered the assembly. +The orator went on to convince them thoroughly and conclusively by +speaking of national independence, national honor, national dignity, +national labor, overwhelming importation, tributes, ruinous competition. +In short, he succeeded in determining the assembly to continue their +system of obstacles, and I can now point out a certain country where you +may see road-builders and _Obstructors_ working with the best possible +understanding, by the decree of the same legislative assembly, paid by +the same citizens; the first to improve the road, the last to embarrass +it. + + + + +XI. + +ABSOLUTE PRICES. + + +If we wish to judge between freedom of trade and protection, to +calculate the probable effect of any political phenomenon, we should +notice how far its influence tends to the production of _abundance or +scarcity_, and not simply of _cheapness or dearness_ of price. We must +beware of trusting to _absolute prices_, it would lead to inextricable +confusion. + +Mr. Mathieu de Dombasle, after having established the fact that +protection raises prices, adds: + +"The augmentation of price increases the expenses of life, and +consequently the price of labor, and every one finds in the increase of +the price of his produce the same proportion as in the increase of his +expenses. Thus, if every body pays as consumer, every body receives also +as producer." + +It is evident that it would be easy to reverse the argument and say: If +every body receives as producer, every body must pay as consumer. + +Now, what does this prove? Nothing whatever, unless it be that +protection _transfers_ riches, uselessly and unjustly. Robbery does the +same. + +Again, to prove that the complicated arrangements of this system give +even simple compensation, it is necessary to adhere to the +"_consequently_" of Mr. de Dombasle, and to convince one's self that the +price of labor rises with that of the articles protected. This is a +question of fact, which I refer to Mr. Moreau de Jonnes, begging him to +examine whether the rate of wages was found to increase with the stock +of the mines of Anzin. For my own part I do not believe in it, because I +think that the price of labor, like every thing else, is governed by the +proportion existing between the supply and the demand. Now I can +perfectly well understand that _restriction_ will diminish the supply of +coal, and consequently raise its price; but I do not as clearly see that +it increases the demand for labor, thereby raising the rate of wages. +This is the less conceivable to me, because the sum of labor required +depends upon the quantity of disposable capital; and protection, while +it may change the direction of capital, and transfer it from one +business to another, cannot increase it one penny. + +This question, which is of the highest interest, we will examine +elsewhere. I return to the discussion of _absolute prices_, and declare +that there is no absurdity which cannot be rendered specious by such +reasoning as that of Mr. de Dombasle. + +Imagine an isolated nation possessing a given quantity of cash, and +every year wantonly burning the half of its produce. I will undertake to +prove by the theory of Mr. de Dombasle that this nation will not be the +less rich in consequence of such a procedure. + +For, the result of the conflagration must be, that every thing would +double in price. An inventory made before this event would offer exactly +the same nominal value, as one made after it. Who then would be the +loser? If John buys his cloth dearer, he also sells his corn at a higher +price; and if Peter makes a loss on the purchase of his corn, he gains +it back by the sale of his cloth. Thus "every one finds in the increase +of the price of his produce, the same proportion as in the increase of +his expenses; and thus if every body pays as consumer, every body also +receives as producer." + +All this is nonsense. The simple truth is: that whether men destroy +their corn and cloth by fire or by use, the effect is the same _as +regards price_, but not _as regards riches_, for it is precisely in the +enjoyment of the use, that riches--in other words, comfort, +well-being--exist. + +Protection may, in the same way, while it lessens the abundance of +things, raise their prices, so as to leave each individual as rich, +_numerically speaking_, as when unembarrassed by it. But because we put +down in an inventory three hectolitres of corn at 20 francs, or four +hectolitres at 15 francs, and sum up the nominal value of each at 60 +francs, does it thence follow that they are equally capable of +contributing to the necessities of the community? + +To this view of consumption, it will be my continual endeavor to lead +the protectionists; for in this is the end of all my efforts, the +solution of every problem. I must continually repeat to them that +restriction, by impeding commerce, by limiting the division of labor, by +forcing it to combat difficulties of situation and temperature, must in +its results diminish the quantity produced by any fixed quantum of +labor. And what can it benefit us that the smaller quantity produced +under the protective system bears the same _nominal value_ as the +greater quantity produced under the free trade system? Man does not live +on _nominal values_, but on real articles of produce; and the more +abundant these articles are, no matter what price they may bear, the +richer is he. + + + + +XII. + +DOES PROTECTION RAISE THE RATE OF WAGES? + + +Workmen, your situation is singular! you are robbed, as I will presently +prove to you.... But no; I retract the word; we must avoid an +expression which is violent; perhaps indeed incorrect; inasmuch as this +spoliation, wrapped in the sophisms which disguise it, is practiced, we +must believe, without the intention of the spoiler, and with the consent +of the spoiled. But it is nevertheless true that you are deprived of the +just compensation of your labor, while no one thinks of causing +_justice_ to be rendered to you. If you could be consoled by noisy +appeals to philanthropy, to powerless charity, to degrading alms-giving, +or if high-sounding words would relieve you, these indeed you can have +in abundance. But _justice_, simple _justice_--nobody thinks of +rendering you this. For would it not be _just_ that after a long day's +labor, when you have received your little wages, you should be permitted +to exchange them for the largest possible sum of comforts that you can +obtain voluntarily from any man whatsoever upon the face of the earth? + +Let us examine if _injustice_ is not done to you, by the legislative +limitation of the persons from whom you are allowed to buy those things +which you need; as bread, meat, cotton and woolen cloths, etc.; thus +fixing (so to express myself) the artificial price which these articles +must bear. + +Is it true that protection, which avowedly raises prices, and thus +injures 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 run +after a master, wages fall; when two masters run after a workman, wages +rise." + +Allow me, in more laconic phrase, to employ a more scientific, though +perhaps a less striking expression: "The rate of wages depends upon the +proportion which the supply of labor bears to the demand." + +On what depends the _demand_ for labor? + +On the quantity of disposable national capital. And the law which says, +"such or such an article shall be limited to home production and no +longer imported from foreign countries," can it in any degree increase +this capital? Not in the least. This law may withdraw it from one +course, and transfer it to another; but cannot increase it one penny. +Then it cannot increase the demand for labor. + +While we point with pride to some prosperous manufacture, can we answer, +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 from +agriculture, or navigation, or other industry? We here see why, since +the reign of protective tariffs, if we see more workmen in our mines and +our manufacturing towns, we find also fewer sailors in our ports, and +fewer laborers and vine-growers in our fields and upon our hillsides. + +I could speak at great length upon this subject, but prefer illustrating +my thought by an example. + +A countryman had twenty acres of land, with a capital of 10,000 francs. +He divided his land into four parts, and adopted for it the following +changes of crops: 1st, maize; 2d, wheat; 3d, clover; and 4th, rye. As he +needed for himself and family but a small portion of the grain, meat, +and dairy-produce of the farm, he sold the surplus and bought oil, flax, +wine, etc. The whole of his capital was yearly distributed in wages and +payments of accounts to the workmen of the neighborhood. This capital +was, from his sales, again returned to him, and even increased from year +to year. Our countryman, being fully convinced that idle capital +produces nothing, caused to circulate among the working classes this +annual increase, which he devoted to the inclosing and clearing of +lands, or to improvements in his farming utensils and his buildings. He +deposited some sums in reserve in the hands of a neighboring banker, who +on his part did not leave these idle in his strong box, but lent them to +various tradesmen, so that the whole came to be usefully employed in the +payment of wages. + +The countryman died, and his son, become master of the inheritance, said +to himself: "It must be confessed that my father has, all his life, +allowed himself to be duped. He bought oil, and thus paid _tribute_ to +Province, while our own land could, by an effort, be made to produce +olives. He bought wine, flax, and oranges, thus paying _tribute_ to +Brittany, Medoc, and the Hiera islands very unnecessarily, for wine, +flax and oranges may be forced to grow upon our own lands. He paid +tribute to the miller and the weaver; our own servants could very well +weave our linen, and crush our wheat between two stones. He did all he +could to ruin himself, and gave to strangers what ought to have been +kept for the benefit of his own household." + +Full of this reasoning, our headstrong fellow determined to change the +routine of his crops. He divided his farm into twenty parts. On one he +cultivated the olive; on another the mulberry; on a third flax; he +devoted the fourth to vines, the fifth to wheat, etc., etc. Thus he +succeeded in rendering himself _independent_, and furnished all his +family supplies from his own farm. He no longer received any thing from +the general circulation; neither, it is true, did he cast any thing into +it. Was he the richer for this course? No, for his land did not suit the +cultivation of the vine; nor was the climate favorable to the olive. In +short, the family supply of all these articles was very inferior to what +it had been during the time when the father had obtained them all by +exchange of produce. + +With regard to the demand for labor, it certainly was no greater than +formerly. There were, to be sure, five times as many fields to +cultivate, but they were five times smaller. If oil was raised, there +was less wheat; and because there was no more flax bought, neither was +there any more rye sold. Besides, the farmer could not spend in wages +more than his capital, and his capital, instead of increasing, was now +constantly diminishing. A great part of it was necessarily devoted to +numerous buildings and utensils, indispensable to a person who +determines to undertake every thing. In short, the supply of labor +continued 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 the +prohibitive system. Its number of industrial pursuits is certainly +multiplied, but their importance is diminished. In proportion to their +number, they become less productive, for the same capital and the same +skill are obliged to meet a greater number of difficulties. The fixed +capital absorbs a greater part of the circulating capital; that is to +say, a greater part of the funds destined to the payment of wages. What +remains, ramifies itself in vain, the quantity cannot be augmented. It +is like the water of a pond, which, distributed in a multitude of +reservoirs, appears to be more abundant, because it covers a greater +quantity of soil, and presents a larger surface to the sun, while we +hardly perceive that, precisely on this account, it absorbs, evaporates, +and loses itself the quicker. + +Capital and labor being given, the result is, a sum of production, +always the less great, in proportion as obstacles are numerous. There +can be no doubt that protective tariffs, by forcing capital and labor to +struggle against greater difficulties of soil and climate, must cause +the general production to be less, or, in other words, diminish the +portion of comforts which would thence result to mankind. If, then, +there be a general diminution of comforts, how, workmen, can it be +possible that _your_ portion should be increased? Under such a +supposition, it would be necessary to believe that the rich, those who +made the law, have so arranged matters, that not only they subject +themselves to their own proportion of the general loss, but taking the +whole of it upon themselves, that they submit also to a further loss, in +order to increase your gains. Is this credible? Is this possible? It is, +indeed, a most suspicious act of generosity, and if you act wisely, you +will reject it. + + + + +XIII. + +THEORY--PRACTICE. + + +Partisans of free trade, we are accused of being theorists, and not +relying sufficiently upon practice. + +What a powerful argument against Mr. Say (says Mr. Ferrier,) is the long +succession of distinguished ministers, the imposing league of writers +who have all differed from him; and Mr. Say is himself conscious of +this, for he says: "It has been said, in support of old errors, that +there must necessarily be some foundation for ideas so generally adopted +by all nations. Ought we not, it is asked, to distrust observations and +reasoning which run counter to every thing which has been looked upon as +certain up to this day, and which has been regarded as undoubted by so +many who were to be confided in, alike on account of their learning and +of their philanthropic intentions? This argument is, I confess, +calculated to make a profound impression, and might cast a doubt upon +the most incontestable facts, if the world had not seen so many +opinions, now universally recognized as false, as universally maintain, +during a long series of ages, their dominion over the human mind. The +day is not long passed since all nations, from the most ignorant to the +most enlightened, and all men, the wisest as well as the most +uninformed, admitted only four elements. Nobody dreamed of disputing +this doctrine, which is, nevertheless, false, and to-day universally +decried." + +Upon this passage Mr. Ferrier makes the following remarks: + +"Mr. Say is strangely mistaken, if he believes that he has thus answered +the very strong objections which he has himself advanced. It is natural +enough that, for ages, men otherwise well informed, might mistake upon a +question of natural history; this proves nothing. Water, air, earth, and +fire, elements or not, were not the less useful to man.... Such errors +as this are of no importance. They do not lead to revolutions, nor do +they 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 it +be thus with errors which affect the moral world? Can it be conceived +that a system of government absolutely false, consequently injurious, +could be followed for many centuries, and among many nations, with the +general consent of well-informed men? Can it be explained how such a +system could be connected with the constantly increasing prosperity of +these nations? Mr. Say confesses that the argument which he combats is +calculated to make a profound impression. Most certainly it is; and +this impression remains; for Mr. Say has rather increased than +diminished it." + +Let us hear Mr. de Saint Chamans. + +"It has been only towards the middle of the last, the eighteenth +century, when every subject and every principle have without exception +been 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 existed +previously a system of political economy, not written, but _practiced_ +by governments. Colbert was, it is said, the inventor of it; and Colbert +gave 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 of +the modern school. This system, which has been called by our writers the +_mercantile system_, consisted in ... checking by prohibition or import +duties such foreign productions as were calculated to ruin our +manufactures by competition.... This system has been declared, by all +writers on political economy, of every school,[12] to be weak, absurd, +and calculated to impoverish the countries where it prevails. Banished +from books, it has taken refuge in _the practice_ of all nations, +greatly to the surprise of those who cannot conceive that in what +concerns the wealth of nations, governments should, rather than be +guided by the wisdom of authors, prefer the _long experience_ of a +system, etc.... It is above all inconceivable to them that the French +government ... should obstinately resist the new lights of political +economy, and maintain in its _practice_ the old errors, pointed out by +all our writers.... But I am devoting too much time to this mercantile +system, which, unsustained by writers, _has only facts_ in its favor!" + +[Footnote 12: Might we not say: It is a powerful argument against +Messrs. Ferrier and de Saint Chamans, that all writers on political +economy, of _every school_, that is to say, all men who have studied the +question, come to this conclusion: After all, freedom is better than +restriction, 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 own +property_, have, like the Fourierists, stumbled upon some new, strange, +and chimerical system of social government, some wild theory, without +precedent in the annals of human nature? It does appear to me, that, if +in all this there is any thing doubtful, and of fanciful or theoretic +origin, it is not free trade, but protection; not the operating of +exchanges, but the custom-house, the duties, imposed to overturn +artificially the natural order of things. + +The question, however, is not here to compare and judge of the merits of +the two systems, but simply to know which of the two is sanctioned by +experience. + +You, Messrs. monopolists, maintain that _facts_ are for you, and that we +on our side have only _theory_. + +You even flatter yourselves that this long series of public acts, this +old 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 of +all men. + +What do _we_ maintain? and what do _you_ maintain? + +We maintain that "it is best to buy from others what we ourselves can +produce only at a higher price." + +You maintain that "it is best to make for ourselves, even though it +should cost us more than to buy from others." + +Now gentlemen, putting aside theory, demonstration, reasoning, (things +which seem to nauseate you,) which of these assertions is sanctioned by +_universal practice_? + +Visit our fields, workshops, forges, stores; look above, below, and +around you; examine what is passing in your own household; observe your +own actions at every moment, and say which principle it is, that directs +these laborers, workmen, contractors, and merchants; say what is your +own personal _practice_. + +Does the agriculturist make his own clothes? Does the tailor produce the +grain which he consumes? Does not your housekeeper cease to make her +bread at home, as soon as she finds it more economical to buy it from +the baker? Do you lay down your pen to take up the blacking-brush in +order to avoid paying tribute to the shoe-black? Does not the whole +economy of society depend upon a separation of occupations, a division +of labor, in a word, upon mutual exchange of production, by which we, +one and all, make a calculation which causes us to discontinue direct +production, when indirect acquisition offers us a saving of time and +labor. + +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 according +to your principle. + +You may answer that you never intended to make your principle the rule +of individual relations. You confess that it would thus destroy all +social ties, and force men to the isolated life of snails. You only +contend that it governs _in fact_, the relations which are established +between 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 any +exception, all _practically_ reject your principle; never, indeed, even +think of it. Each of these procures by barter, what would be more +expensively procured by production. Nations would do the same, did you +not _by force_ prevent them. + +We, then, are the men who are guided by practice and experience. For to +combat the interdict which you have specially put upon some +international exchanges, we bring forward the practice and experience of +all individuals, and of all agglomerations of individuals, whose acts +being voluntary, render them proper to be given as proof in the +question. But you, on your part, begin by _forcing_, by _hindering_, and +then, adducing forced or forbidden acts, you exclaim: "Look; we can +prove ourselves justified by example!" + +You exclaim against our _theory_, and even against _all theory_. But are +you certain, in laying down your principles, so antagonistic to ours, +that you too are not building up theories? Truly, you too have your +theory; 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 nothing +more than classify and arrange these, in order to better understand +them. 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 the +instinct of self-preservation and of progress. What they do freely, +willingly,--this is what we call _Political Economy_, or economy of +society. We must repeat constantly that each man is _practically_ an +excellent political economist, producing or exchanging, as his advantage +dictates. Each by experience raises himself to the science; or rather +the science is nothing more than experience, scrupulously observed and +methodically expounded. + +But _your_ theory is _theory_ in the worst sense of the word. You +imagine procedures which are sanctioned by the experience of no living +man, and then call to your aid constraint and prohibition. You cannot +avoid having recourse to force; because, wishing to make men produce +what they can _more advantageously_ buy, you require them to give up an +advantage, and to be led by a doctrine which implies contradiction even +in its terms. + +I defy you too, to take this doctrine, which by your own avowal would be +absurd in individual relations, and apply it, even in speculation, to +transactions between families, towns, departments, or provinces. You +yourselves 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, a +family, commune, or province, is _ill_ in a nation. What is good in +detail--for instance: purchase rather than production, where purchase is +more advantageous--is _bad_ in a society. The political economy of +individuals is not that of nations;" and other such stuff, _ejusdem +farinae_. + +And all this for what? To prove to us, that we consumers, we are your +property! that we belong to you, soul and body! that you have an +exclusive right on our stomachs and our limbs! that it is your right to +feed and dress us at your own price, however great your ignorance, your +rapacity, or the inferiority of your work. + +Truly, then, your system is one not founded upon practice; it is one of +abstraction--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 of +view of producers, have arrived at this double formula: + +"A government should dispose of consumers subject to its laws in favor +of home industry." + +"It should subject to its laws foreign consumers, in order to dispose of +them 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 can +be more natural than to restrain, even to prohibit importations. + +And if every foreign sale is a _tribute received_, a gain, nothing more +natural than to create _outlets_, even by force. + +_Protective System; Colonial System._--These are only two aspects of the +same theory. To _prevent_ our citizens from buying from foreigners, and +to _force_ foreigners to buy from our citizens. Two consequences of one +identical principle. + +It is impossible not to perceive that according to this doctrine, if it +be true, the welfare of a country depends upon _monopoly_ or domestic +spoliation, and upon _conquest_ or foreign spoliation. + +Let us take a glance into one of these huts, perched upon the side of +our Pyrenean range. + +The father of a family has received the little wages of his labor; but +his 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 to +them; for the other side of the mountain is not France. Foreign wood +must not warm the hearth of the poor shepherd; his children must not +taste the bread of Biscay, nor cover their numbed limbs with the wool of +Navarre. It is thus that the general good requires! + +The disposing by law of consumers, forcing them to the support of home +industry, is an encroachment upon their liberty, the forbidding of an +action (mutual exchange) which is in no way opposed to morality! In a +word, 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 a +radical incompatibility between the Just and the Useful. + +Again, if each people is interested in _selling_, and not in _buying_, a +violent action and reaction must form the natural state of their mutual +relations; for each will seek to force its productions upon all, and all +will seek to repulse the productions of each. + +A sale in fact implies a purchase, and since, according to this +doctrine, to sell is beneficial, and to buy injurious, every +international transaction must imply the benefiting of one people by the +injuring of another. + +But men are invincibly inclined to what they feel to be advantageous to +themselves, while they also, instinctively resist that which is +injurious. From hence then we must infer that each nation bears within +itself a natural force of expansion, and a not less natural force of +resistance, 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 two +following 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 writer +upon public rights, any statesman who has sincerely adopted a doctrine +of which the leading principle is so antagonistic to other incontestable +principles, can enjoy one moment's repose or peace of mind. + +For myself, if such were my entrance upon the threshold of science, if I +did not clearly perceive that Liberty, Utility, Justice, and Peace, are +not only compatible, but closely connected, even identical, I would +endeavor to forget all I have learned; I would say: + +"Can it be possible that God can allow men to attain prosperity only +through injustice and war? Can he so direct the affairs of mortals, that +they 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 to +the horrible blasphemy implied in this alternative, and shall I dare to +take it upon myself to propose this as a basis for the legislation of a +great people? When I find a long succession of illustrious and learned +men, whose researches in the same science have led to more consoling +results; who, after having devoted their lives to its study, affirm that +through it they see Liberty and Utility indissolubly linked with Justice +and Peace, and find these great principles destined to continue on +through eternity in infinite parallels, have they not in their favor the +presumption which results from all that we know of the goodness and +wisdom of God as manifested in the sublime harmony of material creation? +Can I lightly believe, in opposition to such a presumption and such +imposing authorities, that this same God has been pleased to put +disagreement and antagonism in the laws of the moral world? No; before I +can believe that all social principles oppose, shock and neutralize each +other; before I can think them in constant, anarchical and eternal +conflict; above all, before I can seek to impose upon my fellow-citizens +the impious system to which my reasonings have led me, I must retrace my +steps, hoping, perchance, to find some point where I have wandered from +my road." + +And if, after a sincere investigation twenty times repeated, I should +still arrive at the frightful conclusion that I am driven to choose +between the Desirable and the Good, I would reject the science, plunge +into a voluntary ignorance, above all, avoid participation in the +affairs of my country, and leave to others the weight and responsibility +of so fearful a choice. + + + + +XV. + +RECIPROCITY AGAIN. + + +Mr. de Saint Cricq has asked: "Are we sure that our foreign customers +will buy from us as much as they sell us?" + +Mr. de Dombasle says: "What reason have we for believing that English +producers will come to seek their supplies from us, rather than from any +other nation, or that they will take from us a value equivalent to their +exportations 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 of +produce for produce. Since the use of money, no man says, I will seek +shoes, hats, advice, lessons, only from the shoemaker, the hatter, the +lawyer, or teacher, who will buy from me the exact equivalent of these +in corn. Why should nations impose upon themselves so troublesome a +restraint? + +Suppose a nation without any exterior relations. One of its citizens +makes a crop of corn. He casts it into the _national_ circulation, and +receives in exchange--what? Money, bank bills, securities, divisible to +any extent, by means of which it will be lawful for him to withdraw when +he pleases, and, unless prevented by just competition from the national +circulation, such articles as he may wish. At the end of the operation, +he will have withdrawn from the mass the exact equivalent of what he +first cast into it, and in value, _his consumption will exactly equal +his production_. + +If the exchanges of this nation with foreign nations are free, it is no +longer into the _national_ circulation but into the _general_ +circulation that each individual casts his produce, and from thence his +consumption is drawn. He is not obliged to calculate whether what he +casts into this general circulation is purchased by a countryman or by a +foreigner; whether the notes he receives are given to him by a Frenchman +or an Englishman, or whether the articles which he procures through +means of this money are manufactured on this or the other side of the +Rhine or the Pyrenees. One thing is certain; that each individual finds +an exact balance between what he casts in and what he withdraws from the +great common reservoir; and if this be true of each individual, it is +not less true of the entire nation. + +The only difference between these two cases is, that in the last, each +individual has open to him a larger market both for his sales and his +purchases, and has, consequently, a more favorable opportunity of making +both to advantage. + +The objection advanced against us here, is, that if all were to combine +in 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 the +mass 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, in +advance, you wish to force upon it, viz., _Isolation_. And here you have +the ideal of the prohibitive system. + +Truly, then, is it not ridiculous enough that you should inflict upon it +now, and unnecessarily, this system, merely through fear that some day +or 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, for +improving the channel of the Douro. A member rose and said: If the Douro +is made navigable, transportation must become cheaper, and Portuguese +grain will come into formidable competition with our _national labor_. I +vote against the project, unless ministers will agree to increase our +tariff so as to re-establish the equilibrium. + +Three months after, I was in Lisbon, and the same question came before +the Senate. A noble Hidalgo said: Mr. President, the project is absurd. +You guard at great expense the banks of the Douro, to prevent the influx +into Portugal of Spanish grain, and at the same time you now propose, at +great expense, _to facilitate such an event_. There is in this a want of +consistency in which I can have no part. Let the Douro descend to our +Sons as we have received it from our Fathers. + + + + +XVII. + +A NEGATIVE RAILROAD. + + +I have already remarked that when the observer has unfortunately taken +his point of view from the position of producer, he cannot fail in his +conclusions to clash with the general interest, because the producer, as +such, must desire the existence of efforts, wants, and obstacles. + +I find a singular exemplification of this remark in a journal of +Bordeaux. + +Mr. Simiot puts this question: + +Ought the railroad from Paris into Spain to present a break or terminus +at Bordeaux? + +This question he answers affirmatively. I will only consider one among +the numerous reasons which he adduces in support of his opinion. + +The railroad from Paris to Bayonne ought (he says) to present a break or +terminus at Bordeaux, in order that goods and travelers stopping in this +city 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 of +labor put before that of the consumer. + +But if Bordeaux would profit by a break in the road, and if such profit +be conformable to the public interest, then Angouleme, Poictiers, Tours, +Orleans, and still more all the intermediate points, as Ruffec, +Chatellerault, etc., etc., would also petition for breaks; and this too +would 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 or +termini, will be the increase in consignments, commissions, lading, +unlading, etc. This system furnishes us the idea of a railroad made up +of 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 would +maintain _this system of breaks_: it is the sacrifice of the consumer to +the producer, of the end to the means. + + + + +XVIII. + +"THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTE PRINCIPLES." + + +The facility with which men resign themselves to ignorance in cases +where knowledge is all-important to them, is often astonishing; and we +may be sure that a man has determined to rest in his ignorance, when he +once brings himself to proclaim as a maxim that there are no absolute +principles. + +We enter into the legislative halls, and find that the question is, to +determine whether the law will or will not allow of international +exchanges. + +A deputy rises and says, If we tolerate these exchanges, foreign nations +will overwhelm us with their produce. We will have cotton goods from +England, coal from Belgium, woolens from Spain, silks from Italy, cattle +from Switzerland, iron from Sweden, corn from Prussia, so that no +industrial pursuit will any longer be possible to us. + +Another answers: Prohibit these exchanges, and the divers advantages +with which nature has endowed these different countries, will be for us +as though they did not exist. We will have no share in the benefits +resulting from English skill, or Belgian mines, from the fertility of +the Polish soil, or the Swiss pastures; neither will we profit by the +cheapness of Spanish labor, or the heat of the Italian climate. We will +be obliged to seek by a forced and laborious production, what, by means +of exchanges, would be much more easily obtained. + +Assuredly one or other of these deputies is mistaken. But which? It is +worth the trouble of examining. There lie before us two roads, one of +which leads inevitably to _wretchedness_. We must choose. + +To throw off the feeling of responsibility, the answer is easy: There +are no absolute principles. + +This maxim, at present so fashionable, not only pleases idleness, but +also suits ambition. + +If either the theory of prohibition, or that of free trade, should +finally triumph, one little law would form our whole economical code. In +the first case this would be: _foreign trade is forbidden_; in the +second: _foreign trade is free_; and thus, many great personages would +lose their importance. + +But if trade has no distinctive character, if it is capriciously useful +or injurious, and is governed by no natural law, if it finds no spur in +its usefulness, no check in its inutility, if its effects cannot be +appreciated by those who exercise it; in a word, if it has no absolute +principles,--oh! then it is necessary to deliberate, weigh, and regulate +transactions, the conditions of labor must be equalized, the level of +profits sought. This is an important charge, well calculated to give to +those who execute it, large salaries, and extensive influence. + +Contemplating this great city of Paris, I have thought to myself: Here +are a million of human beings who would die in a few days, if provisions +of every kind did not flow in towards this vast metropolis. The +imagination is unable to calculate the multiplicity of objects which +to-morrow must enter its gates, to prevent the life of its inhabitants +from terminating in famine, riot, or pillage. And yet at this moment all +are asleep, without feeling one moment's uneasiness, from the +contemplation of this frightful possibility. On the other side, we see +eighty departments who have this day labored, without concert, without +mutual understanding, for the victualing of Paris. How can each day +bring just what is necessary, nothing less, nothing more, to this +gigantic market? What is the ingenious and secret power which presides +over the astonishing regularity of such complicated movements, a +regularity in which we all have so implicit, though thoughtless, a +faith; on which our comfort, our very existence depends? This power is +an _absolute principle_, the principle of freedom in exchanges. We have +faith in that inner light which Providence has placed in the heart of +all men; confiding to it the preservation and amelioration of our +species; _interest_, since we must give its name, so vigilant, so +active, having so much forecast when allowed its free action. What would +be your condition, inhabitants of Paris, if a minister, however superior +his abilities, should undertake to substitute, in the place of this +power, the combinations of his own genius? If he should think of +subjecting to his own supreme direction this prodigious mechanism, +taking all its springs into his own hand, and deciding by whom, how, and +on what conditions each article should be produced, transported, +exchanged and consumed? Ah! although there is much suffering within your +walls; although misery, despair, and perhaps starvation, may call forth +more tears than your warmest charity can wipe away, it is probable, it +is certain, that the arbitrary intervention of government would +infinitely multiply these sufferings, and would extend among you the +evils which now reach but a small number of your citizens. + +If then we have such faith in this principle as applied to our private +concerns, 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 our +industrial pursuits, to weigh our profits and our losses, to occupy +himself with the quantity of our cash, and to equalize the conditions of +our labor in internal commerce, on what principle can it be necessary +that the custom-house, going beyond its fiscal mission, should pretend +to exercise a protective power over our external commerce? + + + + +XIX. + +NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE. + + +Among the arguments advanced in favor of a restrictive system, we must +not 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 mercy +of England for our iron and coal?" + +The English monopolists, on their side, do not fail to exclaim: "What +will become of Great Britain in case of war if she depends upon France +for provisions?" + +One thing appears to be quite lost sight of, and this is, that the +dependence which results from commercial transactions, is a _reciprocal_ +dependence. We can only be dependent upon foreign supplies, in so far as +foreign nations are dependent upon us. This is the essence of _society_. +The breaking off of natural relations places a nation, not in an +independent position, but in a state of isolation. + +And remark that the reason given for this isolation, is that it is a +necessary provision for war, while the act is itself a commencement of +war. It renders war easier, less burdensome, and consequently less +unpopular. If nations were to one another permanent outlets for mutual +produce; if their respective relations were such that they could not be +broken without inflicting the double suffering of privation and of +over-supply, there could then no longer be any need of these powerful +fleets which ruin, and these great armies which crush them; the peace of +the world could no more be compromised by the whim of a Thiers or a +Palmerston, 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) for +placing interest, vile and prosaic interest, at the foundation of the +fraternity of nations. It would be preferred that this should be based +upon charity, upon love; that there should be in it some self-denial, +and that clashing a little with the material welfare of men, it should +bear the merit of a generous sacrifice. + +When will we have done with such puerile declamations? We contemn, we +revile _interest_, that is to say, the good and the useful, (for if all +men are interested in an object, how can this object be other than good +in itself?) as though this interest were not the necessary, eternal, and +indestructible mover, to the guidance of which Providence has confided +human perfectibility! One would suppose that the utterers of such +sentiments must be models of disinterestedness; but does the public not +begin to perceive with disgust, that this affected language is the stain +of those pages for which it oftenest pays the highest price? + +What! because comfort and peace are correlative, because it has pleased +God to establish so beautiful a harmony in the moral world, you would +blame me when I admire and adore his decrees, and for accepting with +gratitude his laws, which make justice a requisite for happiness! You +will consent to have peace only when it clashes with your welfare, and +liberty is irksome if it imposes no sacrifices! What then prevents you, +if self-denial has so many charms, from exercising it as much as you +desire in your private actions? Society will be benefited by your so +doing, for some one must profit by your sacrifices. But it is the height +of absurdity to wish to impose such a principle upon mankind generally; +for the self-denial of all, is the sacrifice of all. This is evil +systematized 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 great +cause of action, which, spite of all denials, is _interest_. + +It is singular enough, too, to hear sentiments of such sublime +self-abnegation quoted in support even of Spoliation; and yet to this +tends all this pompous show of disinterestedness! These men so +sensitively delicate, that they are determined not to enjoy even peace, +if it must be propped by the vile _interest_ of men, do not hesitate to +pick the pockets of other men, and above all of poor men. For what +tariff protects the poor? Gentlemen, we pray you, dispose as you please +of what belongs to yourselves, but let us entreat you to allow us to +use, or to exchange, according to our own fancy, the fruit of our own +labor, the sweat of our own brows. Declaim as you will about +self-sacrifice; that is all pretty enough; but we beg of you, do not at +the same time forget to be honest. + + + + +XX. + +HUMAN LABOR--NATIONAL LABOR. + + +Destruction of machinery--prohibition of foreign goods. These are two +acts proceeding from the same doctrine. + +We do meet with men who, while they rejoice over the revelation of any +great invention, favor nevertheless the protective policy; but such men +are very inconsistent. + +What is the objection they adduce against free trade? That it causes us +to seek from foreign and more easy production, what would otherwise be +the result of home production. In a word, that it injures domestic +industry. + +On the same principle, can it not be objected to machinery, that it +accomplishes through natural agents what would otherwise be the result +of manual labor, and that it is thus injurious to human labor? + +The foreign laborer, enjoying greater facilities of production than the +French laborer, is, with regard to the latter, a veritable _economical +machine_, which crushes him by competition. Thus, a piece of machinery +capable of executing any work at a less price than could be done by any +given 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 competition +of _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 be +possessed of any logical powers, to stop at the prohibition of foreign +produce, but should extend this prohibition to the produce of the loom +and of the plough. + +I approve therefore of the logic of those who, whilst they cry out +against the _inundation_ of foreign merchandise, have the courage to +declaim equally against the _excessive production_ resulting from the +inventive 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 extensive +employment of machines, is, that many workmen are deprived of work, +either by foreign competition, which depresses manufactures, or by +machinery, which takes the place of men in workshops." + +Mr. de St. Chamans saw clearly the analogy, or rather the identity which +exists between _importation_ and _machinery_, and was, therefore, in +favor of proscribing both. There is some pleasure in having to do with +intrepid arguers, who, even in error, thus carry through a chain of +reasoning. + +But let us look at the difficulty into which they are here led. + +If it be true, _a priori_, that the domain of _invention_, and that of +_labor_, can be extended only to the injury of one another, it would +follow that the fewest _workmen_ would be employed in countries +(Lancashire, for instance) where there is the most _machinery_. And if +it be, on the contrary, proved, that machinery and manual labor coexist +to a greater extent among rich nations than among savages, it must +necessarily follow, that these two powers do not interfere with one +another. + +I cannot understand how a thinking being can rest satisfied with the +following dilemma: + +Either the inventions of man do not injure labor; and this, from general +facts, would appear to be the case, for there exists more of both among +the English and the French, than among the Sioux and the Cherokees. If +such be the fact, I have gone upon a wrong track, although unconscious +at what point. I have wandered from my road, and I would commit high +treason against humanity, were I to introduce such an error into the +legislation of my country. + +Or else the results of the inventions of mind limit manual labor, as +would appear to be proved from limited facts; for every day we see some +machine rendering unnecessary the labor of twenty, or perhaps a hundred +workmen. If this be the case, I am forced to acknowledge, as a fact, +the existence of a flagrant, eternal, and incurable antagonism between +the intellectual and the physical power of man; between his improvement +and his welfare. I cannot avoid feeling that the Creator should have +bestowed upon man either reason or bodily strength; moral force, or +brutal force; and that it has been a bitter mockery to confer upon him +faculties which must inevitably counteract and destroy one another. + +This is an important difficulty, and how is it put aside? By this +singular apothegm: + +"_In political economy there are no absolute principles._" + +There are no principles! Why, what does this mean, but that there are no +facts? Principles are only formulas, which recapitulate a whole class of +well-proved facts. + +Machinery and Importation must certainly have effects. These effects +must be either good or bad. Here there may be a difference of opinion as +to which is the correct conclusion, but whichever is adopted, it must be +capable of being submitted to the formula of one or other of these +principles, 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 to +which the human mind can lower itself, and I confess that I blush for my +country, when I hear so monstrous an absurdity uttered before, and +approved by, the French Chambers, the _elite_ of the nation, who thus +justify themselves for imposing upon the country laws, of the merits or +demerits 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_, nor +importations 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 to +excite reflection rather than to satisfy it. The mind never attains to a +firm 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 allowing +themselves to form too hasty a judgment from immediate and transitory +effects, instead of following these up to their general and final +consequences. + +The immediate effect of an ingenious piece of machinery, is, that it +renders superfluous, in the production of any given result, a certain +quantity of manual labor. But its action does not stop here. This result +being obtained at less labor, is given to the public at a less price. +The amount thus saved to the buyers, enables them to procure other +comforts, and thus to encourage general labor, precisely in proportion +to the saving they have made upon the one article which the machine has +given to them at an easier price. Thus the standard of labor is not +lowered, 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 yearly +consumed in France. This would give to those employed in this +manufacture one hundred and fifty millions. A machine is invented which +enables the manufacturer to furnish hats at ten francs. The sum given to +the maintenance of this branch of industry, is thus reduced (if we +suppose the consumption not to be increased) to one hundred millions. +But the other fifty millions are not, therefore, withdrawn from the +maintenance of _human labor_. The buyers of hats are, from the surplus +saved upon the price of that article, enabled to satisfy other wants, +and thus, in the same proportion, to encourage general industry. John +buys a pair of shoes; James, a book; Jerome, an article of furniture, +etc. Human labor, as a whole, still receives the encouragement of the +whole one hundred and fifty millions, while the consumers, with the same +supply of hats as before, receive also the increased number of comforts +accruing from the fifty millions, which the use of the machine has been +the means of saving to them. These comforts are the net gain which +France has received from the invention. It is a gratuitous gift; a +tribute exacted from nature by the genius of man. We grant that, during +this process, a certain sum of labor will have been _displaced_, forced +to change its direction; but we cannot allow that it has been destroyed +or even diminished. + +The case is the same with regard to importations. I will resume my +hypothesis. + +France, according to our supposition, manufactured ten millions of hats +at fifteen francs each. Let us now suppose that a foreign producer +brings them into our market at ten francs. I maintain that _national +labor_ is thus in no wise diminished. It will be obliged to produce the +equivalent of the hundred millions which go to pay for the ten millions +of 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, which +serve for the acquisition of other comforts, and the encouragement of +other labor. + +The mass of labor remains, then, what it was, and the additional +comforts 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 sufferings +which, in this hypothesis, would result from the displacement or change +of labor. + +For, if prohibition had never existed, labor would have classed itself +in accordance with the laws of trade, and no displacement would have +taken place. + +If prohibition has led to an artificial and unproductive classification +of labor, then it is prohibition, and not free trade, which is +responsible for the inevitable displacement which must result in the +transition from evil to good. + +It is a rather singular argument to maintain that, because an abuse +which has been permitted a temporary existence, cannot be corrected +without wounding the interests of those who have profited by it, it +ought, therefore, to claim perpetual duration. + + + + +XXI. + +RAW MATERIAL. + + +It is said that no commerce is so advantageous as that in which +manufactured articles are exchanged for raw material; because the latter +furnishes aliment for _national labor_. + +And it is hence concluded: + +That the best regulation of duties, would be to give the greatest +possible facilities to the importation of raw material, and at the same +time to check that of the finished article. + +There is, in political economy, no more generally accredited Sophism +than this. It serves for argument not only to the protectionists, but +also to the pretended free trade school; and it is in the latter +capacity that its most mischievous tendencies are called into action. +For a good cause suffers much less in being attacked, than in being +badly defended. + +Commercial liberty must probably pass through the same ordeal as liberty +in every other form. It can only dictate laws, after having first taken +thorough possession of men's minds. If, then, it be true that a reform, +to be firmly established, must be generally understood, it follows that +nothing can so much retard it, as the misleading of public opinion. And +what more calculated to mislead opinion than writings, which, while they +proclaim 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 apparent +declaration in favor of free trade. Alas! it was still the banner of +monopoly which they followed! a monopoly, only a little more sordid, a +little more absurd than that of which they seemed to desire the +destruction! Thanks to the Sophism which I would now endeavor to deprive +of its disguise, the petitioners only reproduced, with an additional +incongruity, the old doctrine of _protection to national labor_. What +is, in fact, the prohibitive system? We will let Mr. de Saint Cricq +answer for us. + +"Labor constitutes the riches of a nation, because it creates supplies +for the gratification of our necessities; and universal comfort consists +in the abundance of these supplies." Here we have the principle. + +"But this abundance ought to be the result of _national labor_. If it +were the result of foreign labor, national labor must receive an +inevitable check." Here lies the error. (See the preceding Sophism). + +"What, then, ought to be the course of an agricultural and manufacturing +country? It ought to reserve its market for the produce of its own soil +and 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 foreign +soils 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 first +class includes articles of food and _raw material untouched by human +labor_. _A judicious system of political economy would require that this +class should be exempt from taxation._" Here we have the principle of no +labor, no protection. + +"The second class is composed of articles which have received _some +preparation_ for manufacture. This preparation would render reasonable +the imposition of _some duties_." Here we find the commencement of +protection, because, at the same time, likewise commences the demand for +_national labor_. + +"The third class comprehends finished articles, which can, under no +circumstances, furnish material for national labor. We consider this as +the 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 as +injurious to national labor. This is the _error_ of the prohibitive +system. + +They desired the French market to be reserved for _French labor_. This +is the _object_ of the prohibitive system. + +They demanded that foreign labor should be subjected to restrictions and +taxes. These are the _means_ of the prohibitive system. + +What difference, then, can we possibly discover to exist between the +Bordalese petitioners and the Corypheus of restriction? One, alone; and +that is simply the greater or less extension which is given to the +signification of the word _labor_. + +Mr. de Saint Cricq, taking it in its widest sense, is, therefore, in +favor 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 endeavor +to impress upon this Chamber." + +The petitioners consider no labor but that of the manufacturers, and +accordingly, it is that, and that alone, which they would wish to admit +to the favors of protection. + +"Raw material being entirely _untouched by human labor_, our system +should exempt it from taxes. Manufactured articles furnishing no +material for national labor, we consider as the most fit for taxation." + +There is no question here as to the propriety of protecting national +labor. Mr. de Saint Cricq and the Bordalese agree entirely upon this +point. We have, in our preceding chapters, already shown how entirely we +differ from both of them. + +The question to be determined, is, whether it is Mr. de Saint Cricq, or +the Bordalese, who give to the word _labor_ its proper acceptation. And +we 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 be +protected. You agree that no foreign labor can be introduced into our +market, without destroying an equal quantity of our national labor. But +you contend that there are numerous articles of merchandise possessing +_value_, for they are sold, and which are nevertheless _untouched by +human 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 not +dependent 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 hundred +francs worth of wool, as upon a hundred francs worth of cloth, you ought +to acknowledge that protection is the right as much of the one, as of +the other. + +I ask you then why this bag of wool is worth a hundred francs? Is it not +because this is its price of production? And what is the price of +production, but the sum which has been distributed in wages for labor, +payment of skill, and interest on money, among the various laborers and +capitalists, who have assisted in the production of the article? + +_The Petitioners._--It is true that with regard to wool you may be +right; but a bag of corn, a bar of iron, a hundred weight of coal, are +these 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 saying +that labor _creates_ material objects, used a false expression, which +has led me into many farther errors. No man can _create_. No man can +bring any thing from nothing; and if _production_ is used as a synonym +for _creation_, then indeed our labor must all be useless. + +The agriculturist does not pretend that he has _created_ the corn; but +he has given it its _value_. He has by his own labor, and by that of his +servants, his laborers, and his reapers, transformed into corn +substances which were entirely dissimilar from it. What more is effected +by the miller who converts it into flour, or by the baker who makes it +into bread? + +In order that a man may be dressed in cloth, numerous operations are +first 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 never +dreamed of their needing protection. But a first _labor_ converts these +substances into forage; a second into wool; a third into thread; a +fourth into cloth; and a fifth into garments. Who can pretend to say, +that all these contributions to the work, from the first furrow of the +plough, to the last stitch of the needle, are not _labor_? + +And because, for the sake of speed and greater perfection in the +accomplishment of the final object, these various branches of labor are +divided among as many classes of workmen, you, by an arbitrary +distinction, determine that the order in which the various branches of +labor follow each other shall regulate their importance, so that while +the first is not allowed to merit the name of labor, the last shall +receive all the favors of protection. + +_The Petitioners._--Yes, we begin to understand that neither wool nor +corn are entirely _independent of human labor_; but certainly the +agriculturist has not, like the manufacturer, had every thing to do by +his own labor, and that of his workmen; nature has assisted him; and if +there is some labor, at least all is not labor, in the production of +corn. + +_Mr. de St. Cricq._--But it is the labor alone which gives it _value_. I +grant that nature has assisted in the production of grain. I will even +grant that it is exclusively her work; but I must confess at least that +I have constrained her to it by my labor. And remark, moreover, that +when I sell my corn, it is not the _work of nature_ which I make you pay +for, but _my own_. + +You will perceive, also, by following up your manner of arguing, that +neither will manufactured articles be the production of labor. Does not +the manufacturer also call upon nature to assist him? Does he not by the +assistance of steam-machinery force into his service the weight of the +atmosphere, as I, by the use of the plough, take advantage of its +humidity? Is it the cloth-manufacturer who has created the laws of +gravitation, transmission of forces and of affinities? + +_The Petitioners._--Well, well, we will give up wool, but assuredly coal +is 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 has +made its value_. Where was the _value_ of coal during the millions of +years when it lay unknown and buried a hundred feet below the surface of +the earth? It was necessary to seek it. Here was labor. It was necessary +to transport it to a market. Again this was labor. The price which you +pay for coal in the market is the remuneration given to these labors of +digging and transportation.[13] + +[Footnote 13: I do not, for many reasons, make explicit mention of such +portion of the remuneration as belongs to the contractor, capitalist, +etc. Firstly: because, if the subject be closely looked into, it will be +seen that it is always either the reimbursing in advance, or the payment +of anterior _labor_. Secondly: because, under the general labor, I +include not only the salary of the workmen, but the legitimate payment +of all co-operation in the work of production. Thirdly: finally, and +above all, because the production of the manufactured articles is, like +that of the raw material, burdened with interests and remunerations, +entirely independent of _manual labor_; and that the objection, in +itself, might be equally applied to the finest manufacture and to the +roughest 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 manufactured +articles, represents always the expense, or what is the same thing, the +_labor_ of production; that it is impossible to conceive of an article +bearing a _value, independent of human labor_; that the distinction +made by the petitioners is futile in theory, and, as the basis of an +unequal division of favors, would be iniquitous in practice; for it +would thence result that the one-third of the French occupied in +manufactures, would receive all the benefits of monopoly, because they +produce _by labor_; while the two other thirds, formed by the +agricultural 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 to +import the raw material, whether or not it be the result of labor; and +to export manufactured articles. This is a very generally received +opinion. + +"In proportion," says the petition of Bordeaux, "as raw material is +abundant, manufactures will increase and flourish." + +"The abundance of raw material," it elsewhere says, "gives an unlimited +scope to labor in those countries where it prevails." + +"Raw material," says the petition from Havre, "being the element of +labor, should be _regulated on a different system_, and ought to be +admitted _immediately_ and at the _lowest rate_." + +The same petition asks, that the protection of manufactured articles +should 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 low +price and the abundance are necessary, the manufacturers name all _raw +material_." + +All this is based upon error. + +All _value_ is, we have seen, the representative of labor. Now it is +undoubtedly true that manufacturing labor increases ten-fold, a +hundred-fold, the value of raw material, thus dispensing ten, a +hundred-fold increased profits throughout the nation; and from this fact +is deduced the following argument: The production of a hundred weight of +iron, is the gain of only fifteen francs to the various workers therein +engaged. This hundred weight of iron, converted into watch-springs, is +increased in value by this process, ten thousand francs. Who can pretend +that the nation is not more interested in securing the ten thousand +francs, than the fifteen francs worth of labor? + +In this reasoning it is forgotten, that international exchanges are, no +more than individual exchanges, effected through weight and measure. The +exchange is not between a hundred weight of unmanufactured iron, and a +hundred weight of watch-springs, nor between a pound of wool just shorn, +and a pound of wool just manufactured into cashmere, but between a fixed +value in one of these articles, and a fixed equal value in another. To +exchange equal value with equal value, is to exchange equal labor with +equal labor, and it is therefore not true that the nation which sells +its hundred francs worth of cloth or of watch-springs, gains more than +the one which furnishes its hundred francs worth of wool or of iron. + +In a country where no law can be passed, no contribution imposed without +the consent of the governed, the public can be robbed, only after it has +first been cheated. Our own ignorance is the primary, the _raw material_ +of every act of extortion to which we are subjected, and it may safely +be predicted of every _Sophism_, that it is the forerunner of an act of +Spoliation. Good Public, whenever therefore you detect a Sophism in a +petition, let me advise you, put your hand upon your pocket, for be +assured, it is that which is particularly the point of attack. + +Let us then examine what is the secret design which the ship-owners of +Bordeaux and Havre, and the manufacturers of Lyons, would smuggle in +upon us by this distinction between agricultural produce and +manufactured produce. + +"It is," say the petitioners of Bordeaux, "principally in this first +class (that which comprehends raw material, _untouched by human labor_) +that we find _the principal encouragement of our merchant vessels_.... A +wise system of political economy would require that this class should +not be taxed.... The second class (articles which have received some +preparation) may be considered as taxable. The third (articles which +have received from labor all the finish of which they are capable) we +regard as _most proper for taxation_." + +"Considering," say the petitioners of Havre, "that it is indispensable +to reduce _immediately_ and to the _lowest rate_, the raw material, in +order that manufacturing industry may give employment to our merchant +vessels, which furnish its first and indispensable means of labor." + +The manufacturers could not allow themselves to be behindhand in +civilities towards the ship-owners, and accordingly the petition of +Lyons demands the free introduction of raw material, "in order to +prove," it remarks, "that the interests of manufacturing towns are not +opposed to those of maritime cities." + +This may be true enough; but it must be confessed that both, taken in +the sense of the petitioners, are terribly adverse to the interest of +agriculture and of consumers. + +This, then, gentlemen, is the aim of all your subtle distinctions! You +wish the law to oppose the maritime transportation of _manufactured_ +articles, in order that the much more expensive transportation of the +raw material should, by its larger bulk, in its rough, dirty and +unimproved condition, furnish a more extensive business to your +_merchant vessels_. And this is what you call a _wise system of +political economy_! + +Why not also petition for a law requiring that fir-trees, imported from +Russia, should not be admitted without their branches, bark, and roots; +that Mexican gold should be imported in the state of ore, and Buenos +Ayres leathers only allowed an entrance into our ports, while still +hanging to the dead bones and putrefying bodies to which they belong? + +The stockholders of railroads, if they can obtain a majority in the +Chambers, will no doubt soon favor us with a law forbidding the +manufacture, at Cognac, of the brandy used in Paris. For, surely, they +would consider it a wise law, which would, by forcing the transportation +of ten casks of wine instead of one of brandy, thus furnish to Parisian +industry an _indispensable encouragement to its labor_, and, at the same +time, give employment to railroad locomotives! + +Until when will we persist in shutting our eyes upon the following +simple truth? + +Labor and industry, in their general object, have but one legitimate +aim, 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 to +act upon a _petitio principii_. For it is the result of labor, and not +labor itself, which is a desirable object. All labor, without a result, +is clear loss. To pay sailors for transporting rough dirt and filthy +refuse across the ocean, is about as reasonable as it would be to +engage 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, which +is the constant confounding of the _means_ with the _end_, and the +development of the former at the expense of the latter. + + + + +XXII. + +METAPHORS. + + +A Sophism will sometimes expand and extend itself through the whole +tissue of a long and tedious theory. Oftener it contracts into a +principle, and hides itself in one word. + +"Heaven preserve us," said Paul Louis, "from the Devil and from the +spirit of metaphor!" And, truly, it might be difficult to determine +which of the two sheds the most noxious influence over our planet. The +Devil, you will say, because it is he who implants in our hearts the +spirit of spoliation. Aye; but he leaves the capacity for checking +abuses, by the resistance of those who suffer. It is the genius of +Sophism which paralyzes this resistance. The sword which the spirit of +evil places in the hands of the aggressor, would fall powerless, if the +shield of him who is attacked were not shattered in his grasp by the +spirit of Sophism. Malbranche has, with great truth, inscribed upon the +frontispiece of his book this sentence: _Error is the cause of human +misery_. + +Let us notice what passes in the world. Ambitious hypocrites may take a +sinister interest in spreading, for instance, the germ of national +enmities. The noxious seed may, in its developments, lead to a general +conflagration, check civilization, spill torrents of blood, and draw +upon the country that most terrible of scourges, _invasion_. Such +hateful sentiments cannot fail to degrade, in the opinion of other +nations, the people among whom they prevail, and force those who retain +some love of justice to blush for their country. These are fearful +evils, and it would be enough that the public should have a clear view +of them, to induce them to secure themselves against the plotting of +those who would expose them to such heavy chances. How, then, are they +kept in darkness? How, but by metaphors? The meaning of three or four +words 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_ of +English iron. An English landholder cries; Let us oppose the _invasion_ +of French corn. And forthwith all their efforts are bent upon raising +barriers between these two nations. Thence follows isolation; isolation +leads to hatred; hatred to war; and war to _invasion_. What matters it? +say the two _Sophists_; is it not better to expose ourselves to a +possible _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? What +resemblance can possibly be discovered between a man-of-war, vomiting +fire, death, and desolation over our cities--and a merchant vessel, +which comes to offer in free and peaceable exchange, produce for +produce? + +Much in the same way has the word _inundation_ been abused. This word is +generally taken in a bad sense; and it is certainly of frequent +occurrence for inundations to ruin fields and sweep away harvests. But +if, as is the case in the inundations of the Nile, they were to leave +upon the soil a superior value to that which they carried away, we +ought, like the Egyptians, to bless and deify them. Would it not be +well, before declaiming against the _inundations_ of foreign produce, +and checking them with expensive and embarrassing obstacles, to certify +ourselves whether these inundations are of the number which desolate, or +of those which fertilize a country? What would we think of Mehemet Ali, +if, instead of constructing, at great expense, dams across the Nile to +increase the extent of its inundations, he were to scatter his piasters +in attempts to deepen its bed, that he might rescue Egypt from the +defilement of the _foreign_ mud which is swept down upon it from the +mountains 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 other +climates. + +Among the _metaphors_ which sometimes conceal, each in itself, a whole +theory of evil, there is none more common than that which is presented +under 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 yet +there is as distinct a difference between a _tribute_, and a _purchase_, +as between a _robbery_ and an _exchange_. It appears to me that it would +be 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 have +heard done to our honorable deputies, We have paid in _tribute_ to +Germany 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 that +which he took out. Neither could the purchase-money paid to Germany be +_tribute_, because it was not on our part a forced payment, gratuitously +received on hers, but a willing compensation from us for a thousand +horses, 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 of +uneducated writers, ignorant even of the terms of their own language. +They are current with a vast majority, and among the most distinguished +of our writers. We find them in the mouths of our d'Argouts, Dupins, +Villeles; of peers, deputies and ministers; men whose words become laws, +and whose influence might establish the most revolting Sophisms, as the +basis of the administration of their country. + +A celebrated modern Philosopher has added to the categories of Aristotle +the Sophism which consists in expressing in one word a _petitio +principii_. He cites several examples, and might have added the word +_tributary_ to his nomenclature. For instance, the question is to +determine 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 the +rhetoric of monopolists? + +Money is _withdrawn from the country_ to satisfy the rapacity of a +victorious enemy: money is also _withdrawn from the country_ to pay for +merchandise. The analogy is established between the two cases, +calculating only the point of resemblance and abstracting that by which +they differ. + +And yet it is certainly true, that the non-reimbursement in the first +case, and the reimbursement freely agreed upon in the second, +establishes between them so decided a difference, as to render it +impossible to class them under the same category. To be obliged, with a +dagger at your throat, to give a hundred francs, or to give them +willingly in order to obtain a desired object,--truly these are cases in +which we can perceive little similarity. It might just as correctly be +said, that it is a matter of indifference whether we eat our bread, or +have it thrown into the water, because in both cases it is destroyed. We +here draw a false conclusion, as in the case of the word _tribute_, by a +vicious manner of reasoning, which supposes an entire similitude between +two cases, their resemblance only being noticed and their difference +suppressed. + + + + +CONCLUSION. + + +All the Sophisms which I have so far combated, relate to the restrictive +policy; 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 for +a 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 parasitical +arguments,--_Sophisms_, whose rank growth calls for the spade and the +weeding-hoe. + +I am perfectly sensible of the defect of my plan, or rather absence of +plan. By attacking as I do, one by one, so many incoherent Sophisms, +which clash, and then again often mingle with each other, I am conscious +that I condemn myself to a disorderly and capricious struggle, and am +exposed to perpetual repetitions. + +I should certainly much prefer to state simply how things _are_, without +troubling myself to contemplate the thousand aspects under which +ignorance _supposes_ them to be.... To lay down at once the laws under +which society prospers or perishes, would be _virtually_ to destroy at +once all Sophisms. When Laplace described what, up to his time, was +known of the movements of celestial bodies, he dissipated, without even +naming them, all the astrological reveries of the Egyptians, Greeks, and +Hindoos, much more certainly than he could have done by attempting to +refute them directly, through innumerable volumes. Truth is one, and the +work which expounds it is an imposing and durable edifice. Error is +multiple, and of ephemereal nature. The work which combats it, cannot +bear in itself a principle of greatness or of durability. + +But if power, and perhaps opportunity, have been wanting to me, to +enable me to proceed in the manner of Laplace and of Say, I still cannot +but 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, and +to the broken moments which it is now the habit to snatch for study. + +A treatise has without doubt an incontestable superiority. But it +requires to be read, meditated, and understood. It addresses itself to +the select few. Its mission is first to fix attention, and then to +enlarge the circle of acquired knowledge. + +A work which undertakes the refutation of vulgar prejudices, cannot have +so 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 practical +utility. + +Sciences might be arranged in two categories. Those of the first class +whose application belongs only to particular professions, can be +understood only by the learned; but the most ignorant may profit by +their fruits. We may enjoy the comforts of a watch; we may be +transported by locomotives or steamboats, although knowing nothing of +mechanism 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 proportioned +only to the information of that public itself, and whose efficacy +consists not in the accumulated knowledge of some few learned heads, but +in that which has diffused itself into the reason of man in the +aggregate. Such are morals, hygiene, social economy, and (in countries +where men belong to themselves) political economy. Of these sciences +Bentham might above all have said: "It is better to circulate, than to +advance 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 does +it benefit us that Smith, Say, and, according to Mr. de St. Chamans, +political economists of _every school_, should have proclaimed the +superiority in all commercial transactions, of _liberty_ above +_restraint_, if those who make laws, and for whom laws are made, are +convinced of the contrary? + +These sciences, which have very properly been named _social_, are again +peculiar in this, that they, being of common application, no one will +confess himself ignorant of them. If the object be to determine a +question in chemistry or geometry, nobody pretends to have an innate +knowledge of the science, or is ashamed to consult Mr. Thenard, or to +seek information from the pages of Legendre or Bezout. But in the social +sciences authorities are rarely acknowledged. As each individual daily +acts upon his own notions whether right or wrong, of morals, hygiene, +and economy; of politics, whether reasonable or absurd, each one thinks +he 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 not +ready to tell you the cause and the remedy of your sufferings. "It is +from humors in the blood," says she, "you must be purged." But what are +these humors, or are there any humors at all? On this subject she +troubles herself but little. This good old woman comes into my mind, +whenever I hear an attempt made to account for all the maladies of the +social body, by some trivial form of words. It is superabundance of +produce, tyranny of capital, industrial plethora, or other such +nonsense, of which, it would be fortunate if we could say: _Verba et +voces praetereaque nihil_, for these are errors from which fatal +consequences follow. + +From what precedes, the two following results may be deduced: 1st. That +the social sciences, more than others, necessarily abound in _Sophisms_, +because in their application, each individual consults only his own +judgment and his own instincts. 2d. That in these sciences _Sophisms_ +are especially injurious, because they mislead opinion on a subject in +which opinion is power--is law. + +Two kinds of books then are necessary in these sciences, those which +teach, and those which circulate; those which expound the truth, and +those which combat error. + +I believe that the inherent defect of this little work, _repetition_, is +what is likely to be the cause of its principal utility. Among the +Sophisms which it has discussed, each has undoubtedly its own formula +and tendency, but all have a common root; and this is, the +_forgetfulness of the interests of men, considered as consumers_. By +showing that a thousand mistaken roads all lead to this great +_generative_ Sophism, I may perhaps teach the public to recognize, to +know, 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, _I +know_. My aspirations will be fully satisfied, if he can but sincerely +say, _I doubt_. + +"I doubt, for I begin to fear that there may be something illusory in +the supposed blessings of scarcity." (Sophism I.) + +"I am not so certain of the beneficial effect of obstacles." (Sophism +II.) + +"_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 more +is 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 the +better of hindrances and obstacles, or should grow rich upon taxes; and +truly I would be relieved from some anxiety, would be really happy to +see the proof of the fact, as stated by the author of "the Sophisms," +that there is no incompatibility between prosperity and justice, between +peace and liberty, between the extension of labor and the advance of +intelligence." (Sophisms XIV and XX.) + +"Without, then, giving up entirely to arguments, which I am yet in doubt +whether to look upon as fairly reasoned, or as paradoxical, I will at +least 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 over +it by _Sophistry_. + +When _might ceases to be right_, and the government of mere _strength_ +is dethroned, _Sophistry_ transfers the empire to _cunning and +subtilty_. It would be difficult to determine which of the two tyrannies +is 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 unconquerable +inclination, pushed to procure these, at the expense of others. + +But these _others_, who form the public, have a no less strong +inclination to keep what they have acquired; and this they will do, if +they have the _strength_ and the _knowledge_ to effect it. + +Spoliation, which plays so important a part in the affairs of this +world, has then two agents; _Force_ and _Cunning_. She has also two +checks; _Courage_ and _Knowledge_. + +Force applied to spoliation, furnishes the great material for the annals +of men. To retrace its history would be to present almost the entire +history of every nation: Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes, Persians, +Greeks, Romans, Goths, Franks, Huns, Turks, Arabs, Tartars, without +counting the more recent expeditions of the English in India, the French +in Africa, the Russians in Asia, etc., etc. + +But among civilized nations surely the producers of riches are now +become sufficiently numerous and strong to defend themselves. + +Does this mean that they are no longer robbed? They are as much so as +ever, and moreover they rob one another. + +The only difference is that Spoliation has changed her agent. She acts +no longer by _Force_, but by _Cunning_. + +To rob the public, it is necessary to deceive them. To deceive them, it +is necessary to persuade them that they are robbed for their own +advantage, and to induce them to accept in exchange for their property, +imaginary services, and often worse. Hence spring _Sophisms_ in all +their varieties. Then, since Force is held in check, _Sophistry_ is no +longer only an evil; it is the genius of evil, and requires a check in +its turn. This check must be the enlightenment of the public, which +must 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 be +confessed that the Preface is strangely transposed, and the Dedication a +little tardy. + + + + +PART II. + +SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. + +SECOND SERIES. + + +"The request of Industry to the government is as modest as that of +Diogenes 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 nature +that 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 own +names, 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, the +security, the independence, the instruction, the dignity of all. + +There are only two ways by which the means essential to the +preservation, the adornment and the perfection of life may be +obtained--production and spoliation. Some persons may say: "Spoliation +is 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 to +admit that spoliation is practiced on so vast a scale in this world, and +is so generally connected with all great human events, that no social +science, and, least of all, political economy, can refuse to consider +it. + +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 constant +effort of its members to live and prosper at the expense of each other. +So that, if spoliation did not exist, society being perfect, the social +sciences would be without an object. + +I go still farther. When spoliation becomes a means of subsistence for a +body of men united by social ties, in course of time they make a law +which sanctions it, a morality which glorifies it. + +It is enough to name some of the best defined forms of spoliation to +indicate the position it occupies in human affairs. + +First comes war. Among savages the conqueror kills the conquered, to +obtain an uncontested, if not incontestable, right to game. + +Next slavery. When man learns that he can make the earth fruitful by +labor, he makes this division with his brother: "You work and I eat." + +Then comes superstition. "According as you give or refuse me that which +is yours, I will open to you the gates of heaven or of hell." + +Finally, monopoly appears. Its distinguishing characteristic is to allow +the existence of the grand social law--_service for service_--while it +brings the element of force into the discussion, and thus alters the +just 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 soon +become so reduced that they can no longer satisfy the cupidity of the +former, and spoliation ceases for want of sustenance. + +Almost always the few oppress the many, and in that case spoliation is +none the less undermined, for, if it has force as an agent, as in war +and slavery, it is natural that force in the end should be on the side +of the greater number. And if deception is the agent, as with +superstition and monopoly, it is natural that the many should +ultimately 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 always +occasions the loss of a portion in the transfer. + +This is an admirable law. Without it, provided the strength of +oppressors and oppressed were equal, spoliation would have no end. + +A moment comes when the destruction of wealth is such that the despoiler +is 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 a +priesthood which has so stupefied the people and destroyed its energy +that nothing more can be gotten out of it; with a monopoly which +increases its attempts at absorption as there is less to absorb, just as +the 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 do +not know it. It may even happen that they believe that they owe every +thing to spoliation, not only what is left them but what is taken from +them, and what is lost in the operation. I also assert that, in the +course of time, thanks to the ingenious machinery of habit, many people +become spoilers without knowing it or wishing it. Monopolies of this +kind are begotten by fraud and nurtured by error. They vanish only +before the light. + +I have said enough to indicate that political economy has a manifest +practical use. It is the torch which, unveiling deceit and dissipating +error, destroys that social disorder called spoliation. Some one, a +woman I believe, has correctly defined it as "the safety-lock upon the +property 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 by +word, and letter by letter, from generation to generation, like a new +Koran; if it were to fill the libraries of the world with avalanches of +annotations, explanations and paraphrases, I might leave to their fate, +in their rather obscure conciseness, the thoughts which precede. But +since 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 service +for service_. Spoliation consists in destroying by force or by trickery +the freedom of exchange, in order to receive a service without rendering +one. + +Forcible spoliation is exercised thus: Wait till a man has produced +something; 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, and +leads to the prison; when practiced among nations, it takes the name of +conquest, and leads to glory. + +Why this difference? It is worth while to search for the cause. It will +reveal to us an irresistible power, public opinion, which, like the +atmosphere, envelopes us so completely that we do not notice it. +Rousseau never said a truer thing than this: "A great deal of philosophy +is needed to understand the facts which are very near to us." + +The robber, for the reason that he acts alone, has public opinion +against him. He terrifies all who are about him. Yet, if he has +companions, he plumes himself before them on his exploits, and here we +may begin to notice the power of public opinion, for the approbation of +his band serves to obliterate all consciousness of his turpitude, and +even to make him proud of it. The warrior lives in a different +atmosphere. The public opinion which would rebuke him is among the +vanquished. He does not feel its influence. But the opinion of those by +whom he is surrounded approves his acts and sustains him. He and his +comrades are vividly conscious of the common interest which unites them. +The country which has created enemies and dangers, needs to stimulate +the courage of its children. To the most daring, to those who have +enlarged the frontiers, and gathered the spoils of war, are given +honors, reputation, glory. Poets sing their exploits. Fair women weave +garlands for them. And such is the power of public opinion that it +separates the idea of injustice from spoliation, and even rids the +despoiler of the consciousness of his wrong-doing. + +The public opinion which reacts against military spoliation, (as it +exists among the conquered and not among the conquering people), has +very little influence. But it is not entirely powerless. It gains in +strength as nations come together and understand one another better. +Thus, it can be seen that the study of languages and the free +communication of peoples tend to bring about the supremacy of an opinion +opposed to this sort of spoliation. + +Unfortunately, it often happens that the nations adjacent to a +plundering people are themselves spoilers when opportunity offers, and +hence are imbued with the same prejudices. + +Then there is only one remedy--time. It is necessary that nations learn +by harsh experience the enormous disadvantage of despoiling each other. + +You say there is another restraint--moral influences. But moral +influences have for their object the increase of virtuous actions. How +can they restrain these acts of spoliation when these very acts are +raised by public opinion to the level of the highest virtues? Is there a +more potent moral influence than religion? Has there ever been a +religion more favorable to peace or more universally received than +Christianity? And yet what has been witnessed during eighteen centuries? +Men have gone out to battle, not merely in spite of religion, but in the +very name of religion. + +A conquering nation does not always wage offensive war. Its soldiers are +obliged to protect the hearthstones, the property, the families, the +independence and liberty of their native land. At such a time war +assumes a character of sanctity and grandeur. The flag, blessed by the +ministers 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 their +honor; the warlike virtues are exalted above all others. When the danger +is over, the opinion remains, and by a natural reaction of that spirit +of vengeance which confounds itself with patriotism, they love to bear +the cherished flag from capital to capital. It seems that nature has +thus 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 those +people who are most advanced in civilization make war, and bother +themselves 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 to +cease? + +Political economy demonstrates that even if the victors alone are +considered, war is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the +expense of the many. All that is needed, then, is that the masses should +clearly perceive this truth. The weight of public opinion, which is yet +divided, would then be cast entirely on the side of peace. + +Forcible spoliation also takes another form. Without waiting for a man +to produce something in order to rob him, they take possession of the +man himself, deprive him of his freedom, and force him to work. They do +not 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 of +uncontrolled power always to abuse itself. + +For my part I have no doubt of it, and should as soon expect to see the +power that could arrest a stone in falling proceed from the stone +itself, as to trust force within any defined limits. + +I should like to be shown a country where slavery has been abolished by +the voluntary action of the masters. + +Slavery furnishes a second striking example of the impotence of +philosophical and religious sentiments in a conflict with the energetic +activity of self-interest. + +This may seem sad to some modern schools which seek the reformation of +society in self-denial. Let them begin by reforming the nature of man. + +In the Antilles the masters, from father to son, have, since slavery was +established, professed the Christian religion. Many times a day they +repeat 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 modern +reformers hope that their moral creed will ever be as universally +accepted, as popular, as authoritative, or as often on all lips as the +Gospel? If _that_ has not passed from the lips to the heart, over or +through the great barrier of self-interest, how can they hope that their +system will work this miracle? + +Well, then, is slavery invulnerable? No; self-interest, which founded +it, will one day destroy it, provided the special interests which have +created it do not stifle those general interests which tend to overthrow +it. + +Another truth demonstrated by political economy is, that free labor is +progressive, and slave labor stationary. Hence the triumph of the first +over the second is inevitable. What has become of the cultivation of +indigo by the blacks? + +Free labor, applied to the production of sugar, is constantly causing a +reduction in the price. Slave property is becoming proportionately less +valuable to the master. Slavery will soon die out in America unless the +price of sugar is artificially raised by legislation. Accordingly we see +to-day the masters, their creditors and representatives, making vigorous +efforts to maintain these laws, which are the pillars of the edifice. + +Unfortunately they still have the sympathy of people among whom slavery +has disappeared, from which circumstance the sovereignty of public +opinion may again be observed. If public opinion is sovereign in the +domain of force, it is much more so in the domain of fraud. Fraud is its +proper sphere. Stratagem is the abuse of intelligence. Imposture on the +part of the despoiler implies credulity on the part of the despoiled, +and the natural antidote of credulity is truth. It follows that to +enlighten the mind is to deprive this species of spoliation of its +support. + +I will briefly pass in review a few of the different kinds of spoliation +which are practiced on an exceedingly large scale. The first which +presents itself is spoliation through the avenue of superstition. In +what does it consist? In the exchange of food, clothing, luxury, +distinction, influence, power--substantial services for fictitious +services. If I tell a man: "I will render you an immediate service," I +am 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 you +immense service, not in this world but in another; after this life you +may be eternally happy or miserable, and that happiness or misery +depends upon me; I am a vicar between God and man, and can open to you +the gates of heaven or of hell;" if that man believes me he is at my +mercy. + +This method of imposture has been very extensively practiced since the +beginning of the world, and it is well known to what omnipotence the +Egyptian priests attained by such means. + +It is easy to see how impostors proceed. It is enough to ask one's self +what he would do in their place. + +If I, entertaining views of this kind, had arrived in the midst of an +ignorant population, and were to succeed by some extraordinary act or +marvelous appearance in passing myself off as a supernatural being, I +would claim to be a messenger from God, having an absolute control over +the future destinies of men. + +Then I would forbid all examination of my claims. I would go still +further, and, as reason would be my most dangerous enemy, I would +interdict the use of reason--at least as applied to this dangerous +subject. I would _taboo_, as the savages say, this question, and all +those connected with it. To agitate them, discuss them, or even think of +them, 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 discovery +of my imposture. What better guarantee of its perpetuity than to make +even doubt sacrilege? + +However, I would add accessory guarantees to this fundamental one. For +instance, in order that knowledge might never be disseminated among the +masses, I would appropriate to myself and my accomplices the monopoly of +the sciences. I would hide them under the veil of a dead language and +hieroglyphic writing; and, in order that no danger might take me +unawares, I would be careful to invent some ceremony which day by day +would give me access to the privacy of all consciences. + +It would not be amiss for me to supply some of the real wants of my +people, especially if by doing so I could add to my influence and +authority. For instance, men need education and moral teaching, and I +would be the source of both. Thus I would guide as I pleased the minds +and hearts of my people. I would join morality to my authority by an +indissoluble chain, and I would proclaim that one could not exist +without the other, so that if any audacious individual attempted to +meddle with a _tabooed_ question, society, which cannot exist without +morality, would feel the very earth tremble under its feet, and would +turn its wrath upon the rash innovator. + +When things have come to this pass, it is plain that these people are +more mine than if they were my slaves. The slave curses his chain, but +my people will bless theirs, and I shall succeed in stamping, not on +their foreheads, but in the very centre of their consciences, the seal +of slavery. + +Public opinion alone can overturn such a structure of iniquity; but +where can it begin, if each stone is _tabooed_? It is the work of time +and the printing press. + +God forbid that I should seek to disturb those consoling beliefs which +link this life of sorrows to a life of felicity. But, that the +irresistible longing which attracts us toward religion has been abused, +no one, not even the Head of Christianity, can deny. There is, it seems +to me, one sign by which you can know whether the people are or are not +dupes. Examine religion and the priest, and see whether the priest is +the instrument of religion, or religion the instrument of the priest. + +If the priest is the instrument of religion, if his only thought is to +disseminate its morality and its benefits on the earth, he will be +gentle, tolerant, humble, charitable, and full of zeal; his life will +reflect that of his divine model; he will preach liberty and equality +among men, and peace and fraternity among nations; he will repel the +allurements of temporal power, and will not ally himself with that +which, of all things in this world, has the most need of restraint; he +will be the man of the people, the man of good advice and tender +consolations, the man of public opinion, the man of the Evangelist. + +If, on the contrary, religion is the instrument of the priest, he will +treat it as one does an instrument which is changed, bent and twisted in +all ways so as to get out of it the greatest possible advantage for +one's self. He will multiply _tabooed_ questions; his morality will be +as flexible as seasons, men, and circumstances. He will seek to impose +on humanity by gesticulations and studied attitudes; an hundred times a +day he will mumble over words whose sense has evaporated and which have +become empty conventionalities. He will traffic in holy things, but just +enough not to shake faith in their sanctity, and he will take care that +the 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 always +side 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 not +desire to advance religion by the clergy, but the clergy by religion, +and as so many efforts indicate an object, and as this object, according +to the hypothesis, can be only power and wealth, the decisive proof that +the 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 false +one. The higher its authority the greater the fear that it may be +severely tested. But there is much difference in the results. Abuse +always stirs up to revolt the sound, enlightened, intelligent portion of +a people. This inevitably weakens faith, and the weakening of a true +religion is far more lamentable than of a false one. This kind of +spoliation, and popular enlightenment, are always in an inverse ratio to +one 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 the +most ignorant population, but how can the knave be prevented from +donning the cassock and nursing the ambitious hope of wearing the mitre? +Despoilers obey the Malthusian law; they multiply with the means of +existence, and the means of existence of knaves is the credulity of +their dupes. Turn whichever way you please, you always find the need of +an enlightened public opinion. There is no other cure-all. + +Another species of spoliation is _commercial fraud_, a term which seems +to me too limited because the tradesman who changes his weights and +measures is not alone culpable, but also the physician who receives a +fee for evil counsel, the lawyer who provokes litigation, etc. In the +exchange of two services one may be of less value than the other, but +when the service received is that which has been agreed upon, it is +evident that spoliation of that nature will diminish with the increase +of public intelligence. + +The next in order is the abuse in the _public service_--an immense field +of spoliation, so immense that we can give it but partial consideration. + +If God had made man a solitary animal, every one would labor for +himself. Individual wealth would be in proportion to the services each +one rendered to himself. But since _man is a social animal, one service +is exchanged for another_. A proposition which you can transpose if it +suits you. + +In society there are certain requirements so general, so universal in +their nature, that provision has been made for them in the organizing of +the public service. Among these is the necessity of security. Society +agrees to compensate in services of a different nature those who render +it the service of guarding the public safety. In this there is nothing +contrary to the principles of political economy. _Do this for me, I will +do that for you._ The principle of the transaction is the same, although +the process is different, but the circumstance has great significance. + +In private transactions each individual remains the judge both of the +service which he renders and of that which he receives. He can always +decline an exchange, or negotiate elsewhere. There is no necessity of an +interchange of services, except by previous voluntary agreement. Such is +not the case with the State, especially before the establishment of +representative government. Whether or not we require its services, +whether they are good or bad, we are obliged to accept such as are +offered and to pay the price. + +It is the tendency of all men to magnify their own services and to +disparage services rendered them, and private matters would be poorly +regulated if there was not some standard of value. This guarantee we +have not, (or we hardly have it,) in public affairs. But still society, +composed of men, however strongly the contrary may be insinuated, obeys +the universal tendency. The government wishes to serve us a great deal, +much more than we desire, and forces us to acknowledge as a real service +that which sometimes is widely different, and this is done for the +purpose of demanding contributions from us in return. + +The State is also subject to the law of Malthus. It is continually +living beyond its means, it increases in proportion to its means, and +draws its support solely, from the substance of the people. Woe to the +people 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 the +services which we ask of the State is _security_. That it may guarantee +this to us it must control a force capable of overcoming all individual +or collective domestic or foreign forces which might endanger it. +Combined with that fatal disposition among men to live at the expense of +each other, which we have before noticed, this fact suggests a danger +patent to all. + +You will accordingly observe on what an immense scale spoliation, by the +abuses and excesses of the government, has been practiced. + +If one should ask what service has been rendered the public, and what +return 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_, one +might have believed that the disorder would have ceased as if by +enchantment. + +The principle of these governments is this: + +"The people themselves, by their representatives, shall decide as to the +nature and extent of the public service and the remuneration for those +services." + +The tendency to appropriate the property of another, and the desire to +defend one's own, are thus brought in contact. One might suppose that +the latter would overcome the former. Assuredly I am convinced that the +latter will finally prevail, but we must concede that thus far it has +not. + +Why? For a very simple reason. Governments have had too much sagacity; +people too little. + +Governments are skillful. They act methodically, consecutively, on a +well concerted plan, which is constantly improved by tradition and +experience. They study men and their passions. If they perceive, for +instance, that they have warlike instincts, they incite and inflame this +fatal propensity. They surround the nation with dangers through the +conduct of diplomats, and then naturally ask for soldiers, sailors, +arsenals and fortifications. Often they have but the trouble of +accepting them. Then they have pensions, places, and promotions to +offer. All this calls for money. Hence loans and taxes. + +If the nation is generous, the government proposes to cure all the ills +of humanity. It promises to increase commerce, to make agriculture +prosperous, to develop manufactures, to encourage letters and arts, to +banish misery, etc. All that is necessary is to create offices and to +pay public functionaries. + +In other words, their tactics consist in presenting as actual services +things which are but hindrances; then the nation pays, not for being +served, but for being subservient. Governments assuming gigantic +proportions end by absorbing half of all the revenues. The people are +astonished that while marvelous labor-saving inventions, destined to +infinitely multiply productions, are ever increasing in number, they are +obliged 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 choose +their agents, those who are to determine the sphere of, and compensation +for, governmental action, whom do they choose? The agents of the +government. They entrust the executive power with the determination of +the limit of its activity and its requirements. They are like the +_Bourgeois Gentilhomme_, who referred the selection and number of his +suits of clothes to his tailor. + +However, things go from bad to worse, and at last the people open their +eyes, 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 your +sufferings, 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 and +insurrections. When the people are conquered, the expenses of the war +are added to their burdens. When they conquer, there is a change of +those who govern, and the abuses remain. + +This lasts until the people learn to know and defend their true +interests. Thus we always come back to this: there is no remedy but in +the progress of public intelligence. + +Certain nations seem remarkably inclined to become the prey of +governmental spoliation. They are those where men, not considering their +own dignity and energy, would believe themselves lost, if they were not +governed and administered upon in all things. Without having traveled +much, I have seen countries where they think agriculture can make no +progress unless the State keeps up experimental farms; that there will +presently be no horses if the State has no stables; and that fathers +will not have their children educated, or will teach them only +immoralities, if the State does not decide what it is proper to learn. +In such a country revolutions may rapidly succeed one another, and one +set of rulers after another be overturned. But the governed are none the +less governed at the caprice and mercy of their rulers, until the +people see that it is better to leave the greatest possible number of +services in the category of those which the parties interested exchange +after a fair discussion of the price. + +We have seen that society is an exchange of services, and should be but +an exchange of good and honest ones. But we have also proven that men +have a great interest in exaggerating the relative value of the services +they render one another. I cannot, indeed, see any other limit to these +claims than the free acceptance or free refusal of those to whom these +services are offered. + +Hence it comes that certain men resort to the law to curtail the natural +prerogatives of this liberty. This kind of spoliation is called +privilege or monopoly. We will carefully indicate its origin and +character. + +Every one knows that the services which he offers in the general market +are 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 all +who offer services similar to his. + +This variety of spoliation being the chief subject of this volume, I +will say little of it here, and will restrict myself to one remark: + +When the monopoly is an isolated fact, it never fails to enrich the +person to whom the law has granted it. It may then happen that each +class of workmen, instead of seeking the overthrow of this monopoly, +claim a similar one for themselves. This kind of spoliation, thus +reduced to a system, becomes then the most ridiculous of mystifications +for every one, and the definite result is that each one believes that he +gains more from a general market impoverished by all. + +It is not necessary to add that this singular _regime_ also brings about +an universal antagonism between all classes, all professions, and all +peoples; that it requires the constant but always uncertain interference +of government; that it swarms with the abuses which have been the +subject of the preceding paragraph; that it places all industrial +pursuits in hopeless insecurity; and that it accustoms men to place upon +the law, and not upon themselves, the responsibility for their very +existence. It would be difficult to imagine a more active cause of +social 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 the +sincerity of almost all the friends of Protection, and I do not claim +that I have any right to suspect the personal honesty, delicacy of +feeling, or philanthropy of any one. I also repeat that Protection is +the work, the fatal work, of a common error, of which all, or nearly +all, are at once victims and accomplices. But I cannot prevent things +being 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 you +practice on your brothers the most iniquitous spoliation?" Or a tribune +speaking in the forum, "Romans! you have laid the foundation of all your +greatness on the pillage of other nations." + +They would state only undeniable truths. But must we conclude from this +that Athens and Rome were inhabited only by dishonest persons? that +Socrates and Plato, Cato and Cincinnatus were despicable characters? + +Who could harbor such a thought? But these great men lived amidst +surroundings that relieved their consciences of the sense of this +injustice. Even Aristotle could not conceive the idea of a society +existing without slavery. In modern times slavery has continued to our +own day without causing many scruples among the planters. Armies have +served as the instruments of grand conquests--that is to say, of grand +spoliations. Is this saying that they are not composed of officers and +men as sensitive of their honor, even more so, perhaps, than men in +ordinary industrial pursuits--men who would blush at the very thought +of theft, and who would face a thousand deaths rather than stoop to a +base action? + +It is not individuals who are to blame, but the general movement of +opinion which deludes and deceives them--a movement for which society in +general 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 the +greatest philosophers have been able to deceive themselves as to the +iniquity of slavery, how much easier is it for farmers and manufacturers +to deceive themselves as to the nature and effects of the protective +system. + + + + +II. + +TWO SYSTEMS OF MORALS. + + +Arrived at the end of the preceding chapter, if he gets so far, I +imagine I hear the reader say: + +"Well, now, was I wrong in accusing political economists of being dry +and 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 the +masses, and ever growing by what it feeds on. Could a more mournful +picture of the world be imagined than this?" + +The problem is, not to find whether the picture is mournful, but whether +it is true. And for that we have the testimony of history. + +It is singular that those who decry political economy, because it +investigates men and the world as it finds them, are more gloomy than +political economy itself, at least as regards the past and the present. +Look into their books and their journals. What do you find? Bitterness +and hatred of society. The very word _civilization_ is for them a +synonym for injustice, disorder and anarchy. They have even come to +curse _liberty_, so little confidence have they in the development of +the human race, the result of its natural organization. Liberty, +according to them, is something which will bring humanity nearer and +nearer to destruction. + +It is true that they are optimists as regards the future. For, although +humanity, in itself incapable, for six thousand years has gone astray, a +revelation 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, will +lead them to the promised land, where well-being may be attained without +effort, where order, security and prosperity are the easy reward of +improvidence. + +To this end humanity, as Rousseau said, has only to allow these +reformers to change the physical and moral constitution of man. + +Political economy has not taken upon itself the mission of finding out +the probable condition of society had it pleased God to make men +different from what they are. It may be unfortunate that Providence, at +the beginning, neglected to call to his counsels a few of our modern +reformers. And, as the celestial mechanism would have been entirely +different had the Creator consulted _Alphonso the Wise_, society, also, +had He not neglected the advice of Fourier, would have been very +different from that in which we are compelled to live, and move, and +breathe. But, since we are here, our duty is to study and to understand +His laws, especially if the amelioration of our condition essentially +depends upon such knowledge. + +We cannot prevent the existence of unsatisfied desires in the hearts of +men. + +We cannot satisfy these desires except by labor. + +We cannot deny the fact that man has as much repugnance for labor as he +has satisfaction with its results. + +Since man has such characteristics, we cannot prevent the existence of a +constant tendency among men to obtain their part of the enjoyments of +life while throwing upon others, by force or by trickery, the burdens of +labor. It is not for us to belie universal history, to silence the +voice of the past, which attests that this has been the condition of +things since the beginning of the world. We cannot deny that war, +slavery, superstition, the abuses of government, privileges, frauds of +every nature, and monopolies, have been the incontestable and terrible +manifestations 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 as +much bread and as little sweat as possible. This is the conclusion of +history. + +Thank Heaven, history also teaches that the division of blessings and +burdens tends to a more exact equality among men. Unless one is prepared +to deny the light of the sun, it must be admitted that, in this respect +at least, society has made some progress. + +If this be true, there exists in society a natural and providential +force, a law which causes iniquity gradually to cease, and makes justice +more and more a reality. + +We say that this force exists in society, and that God has placed it +there. If it did not exist we should be compelled, with the socialists, +to search for it in those artificial means, in those arrangements which +require a fundamental change in the physical and moral constitution of +man, or rather we should consider that search idle and vain, for the +reason that we could not comprehend the action of a lever without a +place of support. + +Let us, then, endeavor to indicate that beneficent force which tends +progressively to overcome the maleficent force to which we have given +the name spoliation, and the existence of which is only too well +explained by reason and proved by experience. + +Every maleficent act necessarily has two terms--the point of beginning +and the point of ending; the man who performs the act and the man upon +whom it is performed; or, in the language of the schools, the active and +the passive agent. There are, then, two means by which the maleficent +act can be prevented: by the voluntary absence of the active, or by the +resistance of the passive agent. Whence two systems of morals arise, not +antagonistic but concurrent; religious or philosophical morality, and +the morality to which I permit myself to apply the name economical +(utilitarian). + +Religious morality, to abolish and extirpate the maleficent act, appeals +to 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 your +neighbor, to succor and relieve whom is your duty; be first just, then +generous." This morality will always be the most beautiful, the most +touching, that which will exhibit the human race in all its majesty; +which will the best lend itself to the offices of eloquence, and will +most excite the sympathy and admiration of mankind. + +Utilitarian morality works to the same end, but especially addresses +itself to man in his capacity of passive agent. It points out to him the +consequences of human actions, and, by this simple exhibition, +stimulates him to struggle against those which injure, and to honor +those which are useful to him. It aims to extend among the oppressed +masses enough good sense, enlightenment and just defiance, to render +oppression both difficult and dangerous. + +It may also be remarked that utilitarian morality is not without its +influence upon the oppressor. An act of spoliation causes good and +evil--evil for him who suffers it, good for him in whose favor it is +exercised--else the act would not have been performed. But the good by +no means compensates the evil. The evil always, and necessarily, +predominates over the good, because the very fact of oppression +occasions a loss of force, creates dangers, provokes reprisals, and +requires costly precautions. The simple exhibition of these effects is +not then limited to retaliation of the oppressed; it places all, whose +hearts are not perverted, on the side of justice, and alarms the +security of the oppressors themselves. + +But it is easy to understand that this morality which is simply a +scientific demonstration, and would even lose its efficiency if it +changed its character; which addresses itself not to the heart but to +the intelligence; which seeks not to persuade but to convince; which +gives proofs not counsels; whose mission is not to move but to +enlighten, and which obtains over vice no other victory than to deprive +it of its booty--it is easy to understand, I say, how this morality has +been accused of being dry and prosaic. The reproach is true without +being just. It is equivalent to saying that political economy is not +everything, does not comprehend everything, is not the universal +solvent. But who has ever made such an exorbitant pretension in its +name? The accusation would not be well founded unless political economy +presented its processes as final, and denied to philosophy and religion +the use of their direct and proper means of elevating humanity. Look at +the concurrent action of morality, properly so called, and of political +economy--the one inveighing against spoliation by an exposure of its +moral ugliness, the other bringing it into discredit in our judgment, by +showing its evil consequences. Concede that the triumph of the religious +moralist, when realized, is more beautiful, more consoling and more +radical; at the same time it is not easy to deny that the triumph of +economical science is more facile and more certain. + +In a few lines, more valuable than many volumes, J.B. Say has already +remarked that there are two ways of removing the disorder introduced by +hypocrisy into an honorable family; to reform Tartuffe, or sharpen the +wits of Orgon. Moliere, that great painter of human life, seems +constantly to have had in view the second process as the more efficient. + +Such is the case on the world's stage. Tell me what Caesar did, and I +will tell you what were the Romans of his day. + +Tell me what modern diplomacy has accomplished, and I will describe the +moral condition of the nations. + +We should not pay two milliards of taxes if we did not appoint those who +consume them to vote them. + +We should not have so much trouble, difficulty and expense with the +African question if we were as well convinced that two and two make four +in political economy as in arithmetic. + +M. Guizot would never have had occasion to say: "France is rich enough +to pay for her glory," if France had never conceived a false idea of +glory. + +The same statesman never would have said: "_Liberty is too precious for +France 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 the +Tartuffes, the Caesars, the conquerors of Algeria, the sinecurists, the +monopolists, etc. The mission of political economy is to enlighten their +dupes. Of these two processes, which is the more efficient aid to social +progress? I believe it is the second. I believe that humanity cannot +escape the necessity of first learning a _defensive morality_. I have +read, observed, and made diligent inquiry, and have been unable to find +any abuse, practiced to any considerable extent, that has perished by +voluntary renunciation on the part of those who profited by it. On the +contrary, I have seen many that have yielded to the manly resistance of +those who suffered by them. + +To describe the consequences of abuses, is the most efficient way of +destroying the abuses themselves. And this is true particularly in +regard to abuses which, like the protective system, while inflicting +real evil upon the masses, are to those who seem to profit by them only +an illusion and a deception. + +Well, then, does this species of morality realize all the social +perfection which the sympathetic nature of the human heart and its +noblest faculties cause us to hope for? This I by no means pretend. +Admit the general diffusion of this defensive morality--which, after +all, is only a knowledge that the best understood interests are in +accord with general utility and justice. A society, although very well +regulated, might not be very attractive, where there were no knaves, +only because there were no fools; where vice, always latent, and, so to +speak, overcome by famine, would only stand in need of available plunder +in order to be restored to vigor; where the prudence of the individual +would be guarded by the vigilance of the mass, and, finally, where +reforms, regulating external acts, would not have penetrated to the +consciences of men. Such a state of society we sometimes see typified in +one of those exact, rigorous and just men who is ever ready to resent +the slightest infringement of his rights, and shrewd in avoiding +impositions. You esteem him--possibly you admire him. You may make him +your deputy, but you would not necessarily choose him for a friend. + +Let, then, the two moral systems, instead of criminating each other, act +in concert, and attack vice at its opposite poles. While the economists +perform their task in uprooting prejudice, stimulating just and +necessary opposition, studying and exposing the real nature of actions +and things, let the religious moralist, on his part, perform his more +attractive, but more difficult, labor; let him attack the very body of +iniquity, follow it to its most vital parts, paint the charms of +beneficence, self-denial and devotion, open the fountains of virtue +where we can only choke the sources of vice--this is his duty. It is +noble and beautiful. But why does he dispute the utility of that which +belongs to us? + +In a society which, though not superlatively virtuous, should +nevertheless be regulated by the influences of _economical morality_ +(which is the knowledge of the economy of society), would there not be a +field for the progress of religious morality? + +Habit, it has been said, is a second nature. A country where the +individual had become unaccustomed to injustice, simply by the force of +an enlightened public opinion, might, indeed, be pitiable; but it seems +to me it would be well prepared to receive an education more elevated +and more pure. To be disaccustomed to evil is a great step towards +becoming good. Men cannot remain stationary. Turned aside from the paths +of vice which would lead only to infamy, they appreciate better the +attractions of virtue. Possibly it may be necessary for society to pass +through this prosaic state, where men practice virtue by calculation, to +be thence elevated to that more poetic region where they will no longer +have need of such an exercise. + + + + +III. + +THE TWO HATCHETS. + +_Petition of Jacques Bonhomme, Carpenter, to M. Cunin-Gridaine, Minister +of Commerce._ + + +MR. MANUFACTURER-MINISTER: I am a carpenter, as was Jesus; I handle the +hatchet and the plane to serve you. + +In chopping and splitting from morning until night in the domain of my +lord, 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 my +shop as well as your manufactory. + +For indeed, if you make cloths, I make roofs. Both by different means +protect our patrons from cold and rain. But I have to run after +customers while business seeks you. You know how to manage this by +obtaining a monopoly, while my business is open to any one who chooses +to engage in it. + +What is there astonishing in this? Mr. Cunin, the Cabinet Minister, has +not forgotten Mr. Cunin, the manufacturer, as was very natural. But +unfortunately, 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, did +not utter the smallest word by virtue of which carpenters might feel +authorized to enrich themselves as you do at the expense of others. + +Look, then, at my position. I earn thirty cents every day, excepts +Sundays and holidays. If I apply to you for work at the same time with a +Flemish 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 cents +are really worth only twenty-eight. + +What did I say? They are worth only twenty-six. For, instead of driving +the Belgian weaver away at _your own expense_ (which would be the least +you could do) you compel me to pay those who, in your interest, force +him out of the market. + +And since a large number of your fellow-legislators, with whom you seem +to have an excellent understanding, take away from me a cent or two +each, 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 only +fifteen left from the pillage. + +Possibly, you may answer that those few pennies which pass thus, without +compensation, from my pocket to yours, support a number of people about +your _chateau_, and at the same time assist you in keeping up your +establishment. To which, if you would permit me, I would reply, they +would likewise support a number of persons in my cottage. + +However this may be, Hon. Minister-Manufacturer, knowing that I should +meet with a cold reception were I to ask you to renounce the restriction +imposed upon your customers, as I have a right to, I prefer to follow +the fashion, and to demand for myself, also, a little morsel of +_protection_. + +To this, doubtless you will interpose some objections. "Friend," you +will say, "I would be glad to protect you and your colleagues; but how +can I confer such favors upon the labor of carpenters? Shall I prohibit +the importation of houses by land and by sea?" + +This would seem sufficiently ridiculous, but by giving much thought to +the subject, I have discovered a way to protect the children of St. +Joseph, and you will, I trust, the more readily grant it since it +differs in no respect from the privilege which you vote for yourself +every year. This wonderful way is to prohibit the use of sharp hatchets +in France. + +I say that this restriction would be neither more illogical nor +arbitrary than that which you subject us to in regard to your cloth. + +Why do you drive away the Belgians? Because they sell cheaper than you +do. And why do they sell cheaper than you do? Because they are in some +way or another your superiors as manufacturers. + +Between you and the Belgians, then, there is exactly the same difference +that 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, and +desiring, among other things, to purchase cloth. There are two means of +doing this. The first is to card the wool and weave the cloth himself; +the second is to manufacture clocks, or wines, or wall-paper, or +something of the sort, and exchange them in Belgium for cloth. + +The process which gives the larger result may be represented by the +sharp hatchet; the other process by the dull one. + +You will not deny that at the present day in France it is more difficult +to manufacture cloth than to cultivate the vine--the former is the dull +hatchet, the latter the sharp one--on the contrary, you make this +greater difficulty the very reason why you recommend to us the worst of +the two hatchets. + +Now, then, be consistent, if you will not be just, and treat the poor +carpenters as well as you treat yourself. Make a law which shall read: +"It is forbidden to use beams or shingles which have not been fashioned +by dull hatchets." + +And you will immediately perceive the result. + +Where we now strike an hundred blows with the ax, we shall be obliged to +give three hundred. What a powerful encouragement to industry! +Apprentices, journeymen and masters, we should suffer no more. We should +be greatly sought after, and go away well paid. Whoever wishes to enjoy +a roof must leave us to make his tariff, just as buyers of cloth are now +obliged to submit to you. + +As for those free trade theorists, should they ever venture to call the +utility of this system in question we should know where to go for an +unanswerable argument. Your investigation of 1834 is at our service. We +should fight them with that, for there you have admirably pleaded the +cause 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 to +buy, sell, trade, exchange, and to render service for service according +to his own discretion, on the sole condition that he will conduct +himself honestly, and not defraud the revenue? Would you rob the +workingman of his labor, his wages and his bread?" + +This is what is said to us. I know what the general opinion is; but I +have desired to know what the laborers themselves think. I have had an +excellent opportunity of finding out. + +It was not one of those _Superior Councils of Industry_ (Committee on +the Revision of the Tariff), where large manufacturers, who style +themselves laborers, influential ship-builders who imagine themselves +seamen, and wealthy bondholders who think themselves workmen, meet and +legislate in behalf of that philanthropy with whose nature we are so +well 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 Aid +Society_. Upon my own private authority I transformed it into an +_Inferior Council of Labor_ (People's Committee for Revising the +Tariff), and I obtained a report which is as good as any other, although +unencumbered by figures, and not distended to the proportions of a +quarto volume and printed at the expense of the State. + +The subject of my inquiry was the real or supposed influence of the +protective system upon these poor people. The President, indeed, +informed me that the institution of such an inquiry was somewhat in +contravention of the principles of the society. For, in France, the land +of liberty, those who desire to form associations must renounce +political discussions--that is to say, the discussion of their common +interests. However, after much hesitation, he made the question the +order of the day. + +The assembly was divided into as many sub-committees as there were +different 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 (official +style, for it was only a stool) and found upon the table (official +style, 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 accurately +as 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 examined +diminution of our wages. | the question in + | every light, and +2. On account of the protective tariff, our patrons | have been unable to +are also obliged to pay more for everything, and | perceive a single +have less to spend for clothes, consequently we | point in regard to +have less work and smaller profits. | which the protective + | system is +3. On account of the protective tariff, clothes | advantageous to +are 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 the +same story. Gardeners, carpenters, shoemakers, boatmen, all complained +of the same grievances. + +I am sorry there were no day laborers in our association. Their report +would certainly have been exceedingly instructive. But, unfortunately, +the poor laborers of our province, all _protected_ as they are, have not +a cent, and, after having taken care of their cattle, cannot go +themselves to the _Mutual Aid Society_. The pretended favors of +protection do not prevent them from being the pariahs of modern society. + +What I would especially remark is the good sense with which our +villagers have perceived not only the direct evil results of protection, +but also the indirect evil which, affecting their patrons, reacts upon +themselves. + +This is a fact, it seems to me, which the economists of the school of +the _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 they +noticed this side of the question. Possibly, they might say to +themselves: "It is better to support one's self surrounded by well-to-do +neighbors, than to be protected in the midst of poverty." For to seek to +encourage every branch of industry by successively creating a void +around 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 delusion +caused by the words _dear_ and _cheap_. At the first glance, I am aware, +you may be disposed to find these remarks somewhat subtile, but whether +subtile or not, the question is whether they are true. For my part I +consider them perfectly true, and particularly well adapted to cause +reflection among a large number of those who cherish a sincere faith in +the efficacy of protection. + +Whether advocates of free trade or defenders of protection, we are all +obliged to make use of the expression _dearness_ and _cheapness_. The +former take sides in behalf of _cheapness_, having in view the interests +of 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 dearness +ought to be the object of legislation. + +In this conflict of opinion it seems to me that there is only one +position for the law to take--to allow prices to regulate themselves +naturally. But the principle of "let alone" has obstinate enemies. They +insist upon legislation without even knowing the desired objects of +legislation. It would seem, however, to be the duty of those who wish to +create 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 a +triumph for their system, and it has fallen to defenders of natural +prices to prove the advantages of their system. The argument on both +sides is conducted with two words. It is very essential, then, to +understand their meaning. + +It must be granted at the outset that a series of events have happened +well calculated to disconcert both sides. + +In order to produce _high prices_ the protectionists have obtained high +tariffs, and still low prices have come to disappoint their +expectations. + +In order to produce _low prices_, free traders have sometimes carried +their point, and, to their great astonishment, the result in some +instances has been an increase instead of a reduction in prices. + +For instance, in France, to protect farmers, a law was passed imposing a +duty of twenty-two per cent. upon imported wools, and the result has +been that native wools have been sold for much lower prices than before +the passage of the law. + +In England a law in behalf of the consumers was passed, exempting +foreign wools from duty, and the consequence has been that native wools +have sold higher than ever before. + +And this is not an isolated fact, for the price of wool has no special +or peculiar nature which takes it out of the general law governing +prices. The same fact has been reproduced under analogous circumstances. +Contrary to all expectation, protection has frequently resulted in low +prices, and free trade in high prices. Hence there has been a deal of +perplexity in the discussion, the protectionists saying to their +adversaries: "These low prices that you talk about so much are the +result of our system;" and the free traders replying: "Those high prices +which you find so profitable are the consequence of free trade." + +There evidently is a misunderstanding, an illusion, which must be +dispelled. 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 as +much of everything as the other--twice as much wheat, wine, iron, fuel, +books, clothing, furniture, etc. It will be conceded that one will have +twice as much wealth as the other. + +There is, however, no reason for the statement that the _absolute +prices_ are different in the two nations. They possibly may be higher in +the wealthiest nation. It may happen that in the United States +everything is nominally dearer than in Poland, and that, nevertheless, +the people there are less generally supplied with everything; by which +it may be seen that the abundance of products, and not the absolute +price, constitutes wealth. In order, then, accurately to compare free +trade and protection the inquiry should not be which of the two causes +high prices or low prices, but which of the two produces abundance or +scarcity. + +For observe this: Products are exchanged, the one for the other, and a +relative scarcity and a relative abundance leave the absolute price +exactly 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 by +results so different from what had been expected, a fall of prices +frequently succeeding the increase of the tariff, and a rise sometimes +following a reduction of duties, it has become necessary for political +economy to attempt the explanation of a phenomenon which so overthrows +received ideas; for, whatever may be said, science is simply a faithful +exposition and a true explanation of facts. + +This phenomenon may be easily explained by one circumstance which should +never 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 principles +of political economy is that price is determined by the law of supply +and demand. + +The price is then affected by two conditions--the demand and the supply. +These conditions are necessarily subject to variation. The relations of +demand to supply may be exactly counterbalanced, or may be greatly +disproportionate, 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 of +the demand. + +Consequently there are two kinds of _dearness_ and two kinds of +_cheapness_. There is a bad dearness, which results from a diminution of +the supply; for this implies scarcity and privation. There is a good +dearness--that which results from an increase of demand; for this +indicates the augmentation of the general wealth. + +There is also a good cheapness, resulting from abundance. And there is a +baneful cheapness--such as results from the cessation of demand, the +inability of consumers to purchase. + +And observe this: Prohibition causes at the same time both the dearness +and the cheapness which are of a bad nature; a bad dearness, resulting +from a diminution of the supply (this indeed is its avowed object), and +a bad cheapness, resulting from a diminution of the demand, because it +gives a false direction to capital and labor, and overwhelms consumers +with taxes and restrictions. + +So that, _as regards the price_, these two tendencies neutralize each +other; and for this reason, the protective system, restricting the +supply and the demand at the same time, does not realize the high +prices which are its object. + +But with respect to the condition of the people, these two tendencies do +not neutralize each other; on the contrary, they unite in impoverishing +them. + +The effect of free trade is exactly the opposite. Possibly it does not +cause the cheapness which it promises; for it also has two tendencies, +the one towards that desirable form of cheapness resulting from the +increase of supply, or from abundance; the other towards that dearness +consequent upon the increased demand and the development of the general +wealth. These two tendencies neutralize themselves as regards the _mere +price_; but they concur in their tendency to ameliorate the condition of +mankind. In a word, under the protective system men recede towards a +condition of feebleness as regards both supply and demand; under the +free trade system, they advance towards a condition where development is +gradual without any necessary increase in the absolute prices of things. + +Price is not a good criterion of wealth. It might continue the same when +society had relapsed into the most abject misery, or had advanced to a +high state of prosperity. + +Let me make application of this doctrine in a few words: A farmer in the +south of France supposes himself as rich as Croesus, because he is +protected by law from foreign competition. He is as poor as Job--no +matter, he will none the less suppose that this protection will sooner +or later make him rich. Under these circumstances, if the question was +propounded to him, as it was by the committee of the Legislature, in +these terms: "Do you want to be subject to foreign competition? yes or +no," his first answer would be "No," and the committee would record his +reply with great enthusiasm. + +We should go, however, to the bottom of things. Doubtless foreign +competition, and competition of any kind, is always inopportune; and, if +any trade could be permanently rid of it, business, for a time, would be +prosperous. + +But protection is not an isolated favor. It is a system. If, in order to +protect the farmer, it occasions a scarcity of wheat and of beef, in +behalf 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 by +reason of the diminution of the supply, the scarcity of all other +products for which wheat is exchanged has likewise a tendency to +depreciate 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 under +a protective tariff than under a system of free trade. This alone is +certain, that inasmuch as there is a smaller amount of everything in the +country, each individual will be more poorly provided with everything. + +The farmer would do well to consider whether it would not be more +desirable for him to allow the importation of wheat and beef, and, as a +consequence, to be surrounded by a well-to-do community, able to consume +and to pay for every agricultural product. + +There is a certain province where the men are covered with rags, dwell +in 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 without +it as much as possible. Can any one imagine that all these objects of +consumption can be thus left untouched by the masses, without lowering +prices? + +That which we say of a farmer, we can say of a manufacturer. +Cloth-makers assert that foreign competition will lower prices owing to +the increased quantity offered. Very well, but are not these prices +raised by the increase of the demand? Is the consumption of cloth a +fixed and invariable quantity? Is each one as well provided with it as +he might and should be? And if the general wealth were developed by the +abolition of all these taxes and hindrances, would not the first use +made of it by the population be to clothe themselves better? + +Therefore the question, the eternal question, is not whether protection +favors this or that special branch of industry, but whether, all things +considered, restriction is, in its nature, more profitable than freedom? + +Now, no person can maintain that proposition. And just this explains the +admission which our opponents continually make to us: "You are right on +principle." + +If that is true, if restriction aids each special industry only through +a greater injury to the general prosperity, let us understand, then, +that the price itself, considering that alone, expresses a relation +between each special industry and the general industry, between the +supply and the demand, and that, reasoning from these premises, this +_remunerative price_ (the object of protection) is more hindered than +favored by it. + + +APPENDIX. + +We published an article entitled _Dearness-Cheapness_, which gained for +us 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 the +article which provoked your letter. We said that free trade acted +precisely like roads, canals and railways, like everything which +facilitates communications, and like everything which destroys +obstacles. Its first tendency is to increase the quantity of the article +which is relieved from duties, and consequently to lower its price. But +by increasing, at the same time, the quantity of all the things for +which this article is exchanged, it increases the _demand_, and +consequently the price rises. You ask us what the people will gain. +Suppose they have a balance with certain scales, in each one of which +they have for their use a certain quantity of the articles which you +have enumerated. If a little grain is put in one scale it will gradually +sink, but if an equal quantity of cloth, iron and coal is added in the +others, the equilibrium will be maintained. Looking at the beam above, +there will be no change. Looking at the people, we shall see them better +fed, 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 restrictive +measures is a wrongful one--_artificial dearness_. But we do not say +that they always realize the hopes of those who initiate them. It is +certain that they inflict on the consumer all the evils of dearness. It +is not certain that the producer gets the profit. Why? Because if they +diminish the supply they also diminish the _demand_. + +This proves that in the economical arrangement of this world there is a +moral force, a _vis medicatrix_, which in the long run causes inordinate +ambition to become the prey of a delusion. + +Pray, notice, sir, that one of the elements of the prosperity of each +special branch of industry is the general prosperity. The rent of a +house is not merely in proportion to what it has cost, but also to the +number and means of the tenants. Do two houses which are precisely alike +necessarily rent for the same sum? Certainly not, if one is in Paris and +the other in Lower Brittany. Let us never speak of a price without +regarding the _conditions_, and let us understand that there is nothing +more futile than to try to build the prosperity of the parts on the ruin +of the whole. This is the attempt of the restrictive system. + +Competition always has been, and always will be, disagreeable to those +who are affected by it. Thus we see that in all times and in all places +men try to get rid of it. We know, and you too, perhaps, a municipal +council where the resident merchants make a furious war on the foreign +ones. Their projectiles are import duties, fines, etc., etc. + +Now, just think what would have become of Paris, for instance, if this +war had been carried on there with success. + +Suppose that the first shoemaker who settled there had succeeded in +keeping out all others, and that the first tailor, the first mason, the +first printer, the first watchmaker, the first hair-dresser, the first +physician, the first baker, had been equally fortunate. Paris would +still be a village, with twelve or fifteen hundred inhabitants. But it +was not thus. Each one, except those whom you still keep away, came to +make 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 a +million inhabitants. The general prosperity has gained by this, +doubtless, but have the shoemakers and tailors, individually, lost +anything by it? For you, this is the question. As competitors came, you +said: 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 that +you will have more competitors, but you will also have more customers, +and richer ones. Did you never think of this when seeing nine-tenths of +your countrymen deprived during the winter of that superior cloth that +you make? + +This is not a very long lesson to learn. If you wish to prosper, let +your customers do the same. + +When this is once known, each one will seek his welfare in the general +welfare. Then, jealousies between individuals, cities, provinces and +nations, 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 he +thinks what he says. + +What is the question? To ascertain which is the more advantageous for +you, restriction or liberty. + +I believe that it is liberty; they believe it is restriction; it is for +each 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 used +the 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 turn +public attention away from the protective policy. + +Do not they favor the views of the Custom House officers, who gain more +than anybody else by this protective _regime_? + +So you see that if we did not ignore this war of epithets, we should not +be 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 free +to purchase from abroad?_ + +Workmen, they say to you, "If you are free to buy from abroad these +things which you now make yourselves, you will no longer make them. You +will be without work, without wages, and without bread. It is then for +your own good that your liberty be restricted." + +This objection recurs in all forms. They say, for instance, "If we +clothe ourselves with English cloth, if we make our plowshares with +English iron, if we cut our bread with English knives, if we wipe our +hands with English napkins, what will become of the French workmen--what +will become of the _national labor_?" + +Tell me, workmen, if a man stood on the pier at Boulogne, and said to +every Englishman who landed: If you will give me those English boots, I +will give you this French hat; or, if you will let me have this English +horse, I will let you have this French carriage; or, Are you willing to +exchange this Birmingham machine for this Paris clock? or, again, Does +it suit you to barter your Newcastle coal for this Champagne wine? I ask +you whether, supposing this man makes his proposals with average +judgment, 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 to +exchange services at Boulogne instead of one; if a million barters were +made instead of four; and if the intervention of merchants and money was +called on to facilitate them and multiply them indefinitely? + +Now, let one country buy of another at wholesale to sell again at +retail, or at retail to sell again at wholesale, it will always be +found, if the matter is followed out to the end, that _commerce consists +of mutual barter of products for products, of services for services_. +If, then, _one barter_ does not injure the _national labor_, since it +implies as much _national labor given_ as _foreign labor received_, a +hundred million of them cannot hurt the country. + +But, you will say, where is the advantage? The advantage consists in +making a better use of the resources of each country, so that the same +amount of labor gives more satisfaction and well-being everywhere. + +There are some who employ singular tactics against you. They begin by +admitting the superiority of freedom over the prohibitive system, +doubtless in order that they may not have to defend themselves on that +ground. + +Next they remark that in going from one system to another there will be +some _displacement_ of labor. + +Then they dilate upon the sufferings which, according to themselves, +this _displacement_ must cause. They exaggerate and amplify them; they +make of them the principal subject of discussion; they present them as +the exclusive and definite result of reform, and thus try to enlist you +under the standard of monopoly. + +These tactics have been employed in the service of all abuses, and I +must frankly admit one thing, that it always embarrasses even the +friends of those reforms which are most useful to the people. You will +understand why. + +When an abuse exists, everything arranges itself upon it. + +Human existences connect themselves with it, others with these, then +still others, and this forms a great edifice. + +Do you raise your hand against it? Each one protests; and notice this +particularly, those persons who protest always seem at the first glance +to be right, because it is easier to show the disorder which must +accompany the reform than the order which will follow it. + +The friends of the abuse cite particular instances; they name the +persons and their workmen who will be disturbed, while the poor devil of +a reformer can only refer to the _general good_, which must insensibly +diffuse itself among the masses. This does not have the effect which the +other has. + +Thus, supposing it is a question of abolishing slavery. "Unhappy +people," they say to the colored men, "who will feed you? The master +distributes floggings, but he also distributes rations." + +It is not seen that it is not the master who feeds the slave, but his +own 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 we +lose, 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, so +that 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 would +furnish you work? + +You answer: This is true, this is true. The labor which the monopolists +procure us is certain. The promises of liberty are uncertain. + +For you do not see that they first take money from you, and then give +you back a _part_ of it for your labor. + +Do you ask who will furnish you work? Why, you will give each other +work. With the money which will no longer be taken from you, the +shoemaker will dress better, and will make work for the tailor. The +tailor will have new shoes oftener, and keep the shoemaker employed. So +it will be with all occupations. + +They say that with freedom there will be fewer workmen in the mines and +the 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 sustained +only by the aid of taxes imposed on _everybody_ for their benefit, these +taxes once abolished, _everybody_ will be more comfortably off, and it +is 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 to +see you on the side of liberty. + +In France, capital invested in manufactures yields, I suppose, five per +cent. profit. But here is Mondor, who has one hundred thousand francs +invested in a manufactory, on which he loses five per cent. The +difference between the loss and gain is ten thousand francs. What do +they do? They assess upon you a little tax of ten thousand francs, which +is given to Mondor, and you do not notice it, for it is very skillfully +disguised. It is not the tax gatherer who comes to ask you your part of +the tax, but you pay it to Mondor, the manufacturer, every time you buy +your hatchets, your trowels, and your planes. Then they say to you: If +you 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, would +you not get work yourselves, and on your own account too? + +And, then, be easy, when Mondor has no longer this soft method of +obtaining his profit by a tax, he will use his wits to turn his loss +into a gain, and John and James will not be dismissed. Then all will be +profit _for all_. + +You will persist, perhaps, saying: "We understand that after the reform +there will be in general more work than before, but in the meanwhile +John and James will be on the street." + +To which I answer: + +First. When employment changes its place only to increase, the man who +has two arms and a heart is not long on the street. + +Second. There is nothing to hinder the State from reserving some of its +funds to avoid stoppages of labor in the transition, which I do not +myself believe will occur. + +Third. Finally, if to get out of a rut and get into a condition which is +better for all, and which is certainly more just, it is absolutely +necessary to brave a few painful moments, the workmen are ready, or I +know them ill. God grant that it may be the same with employers. + +Well, because you are workmen, are you not intelligent and moral? It +seems that your pretended friends forget it. It is surprising that they +discuss such a subject before you, speaking of wages and interests, +without once pronouncing the word _justice_. They know, however, full +well that the situation is _unjust_. Why, then, have they not the +courage to tell you so, and say, "Workmen, an iniquity prevails in the +country, 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 your +attention for a few moments and judge for yourselves. + +What do they protect in France? Articles made by great manufacturers in +great establishments, iron, cloth and silks, and they tell you that this +is done not in the interest of the employer, but in your interest, in +order to insure you wages. + +But every time that foreign labor presents itself in the market in such +a form that it may hurt _you_, but not the great manufacturers, do they +not allow it to come in? + +Are there not in Paris thirty thousand Germans who make clothes and +shoes? Why are they allowed to establish themselves at your side when +cloth is driven away? Because the cloth is made in great mills owned by +manufacturing legislators. But clothes are made by workmen in their +rooms. + +These gentlemen want no competition in the turning of wool into cloth, +because that is _their_ business; but when it comes to converting cloth +into clothes, they admit competition, because that is _your_ trade. + +When they made railroads they excluded English rails, but they imported +English workmen to make them. Why? It is very simple; because English +rails compete with the great rolling mills, and English muscles compete +only with yours. + +We do not ask them to keep out German tailors and English laborers. We +ask that cloth and rails may be allowed to come in. We ask justice for +all, 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 and +dressmakers, I challenge you to show me a single instance in which +restriction profits you, and if you wish, I will point out four where it +hurts you. + +And after all, just see how much of the appearance of truth this +self-denial, which your journals attribute to the monopolists, has. + +I believe that we can call that the _natural rate of wages_ which would +establish itself _naturally_ if there were freedom of trade. Then, when +they tell you that restriction is for your benefit, it is as if they +told you that it added a _surplus_ to your _natural_ wages. Now, an +_extra natural_ surplus of wages must be taken from somewhere; it does +not fall from the moon; it must be taken from those who pay it. + +You are then brought to this conclusion, that, according to your +pretended friends, the protective system has been created and brought +into the world in order that capitalists might be sacrificed to +laborers! + +Tell me, is that probable? + +Where is your place in the Chamber of Peers? When did you sit at the +Palais Bourbon? Who has consulted you? Whence came this idea of +establishing the protective system? + +I hear your answer: _We_ did not establish it. We are neither Peers nor +Deputies, nor Counselors of State. The capitalists have done it. + +By heavens, they were in a delectable mood that day. What! the +capitalists made this law; _they_ established the prohibitive system, so +that 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 the +goodness, generosity and self-denial of capitalists, constantly express +regret that you do not enjoy your political rights? From their point of +view, what could you do with them? The capitalists have the monopoly of +legislation, it is true. Thanks to this monopoly, they have granted +themselves the monopoly of iron, cloth, coal, wood and meat, which is +also true. But now your pretended friends say that the capitalists, in +acting thus, have stripped themselves, without being obliged to do it, +to enrich you without your being entitled to it. Surely, if you were +electors and deputies, you could not manage your affairs better; you +would 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 democrats +of a new species can never get out of this dilemma; the law, made by the +present law-makers, gives you _more_, or gives you _less_, than your +natural wages. If it gives you _less_, they deceive you in inviting you +to support it. If it gives you _more_, they deceive you again by calling +on you to claim political rights, when those who now exercise them, make +sacrifices for you which you, in your honesty, could not yourselves +vote. + +Workingmen, God forbid that the effect of this article should be to cast +in your hearts the germs of irritation against the rich. If mistaken +_interests_ still support monopoly, let us not forget that it has its +root in _errors_, which are common to capitalists and workmen. Then, far +from laboring to excite them against one another, let us strive to bring +them together. What must be done to accomplish this? If it is true that +the natural social tendencies aid in effacing inequality among men, all +we have to do to let those tendencies act is to remove the artificial +obstructions which interfere with their operation, and allow the +relations of different classes to establish themselves on the principle +of _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 not +all this the work of little saints? + +What spirit in the painting of the vices of the time! What touching +tenderness for the masses! With what liberality they invite the rich to +divide with the poor, or the poor to divide with the rich! How many +plans of social reform, social improvement, and social organization! +Does not even the weakest writer devote himself to the well-being of the +laboring classes? All that is required is to advance them a little money +to give them time to attend to their humanitarian pursuits. + +There is nothing which does not assume to aid in the well-being and +moral advancement of the people--nothing, not even the Custom House. You +believe that it is a tax machine, like a duty or a toll at the end of a +bridge? Not at all. It is an essentially civilizing, fraternizing and +equalizing institution. What would you have? It is the fashion. It is +necessary 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 a +singular way of going to work to realize these philanthropic +aspirations. + +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 the +industry of the people that negative action which is summed up in the +word _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 public +order, but transactions which are innocent, and which they have even +admitted 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 from +getting their food from abroad they produce it at home. It is more +laborious, but they must live. If they are kept from passing along the +valley, they must climb the mountains. It is longer, but the point of +destination must be reached. + +This is sad, but amusing. When the law has thus created a certain amount +of obstacles, and when, to overcome them, humanity has diverted a +corresponding amount of labor, you are no longer allowed to call for the +reform of the law; for, if you point out the _obstacle_, they show you +the labor which it brings into play; and if you say this is not labor +created but _diverted_, they answer you as does the _Esprit +Public_--"The impoverishing only is certain and immediate; as for the +enriching, 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 magnificent +canal connected them. The Emperor thought fit to have immense masses of +rock 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 are +foolish." + +You understand, of course, that I give but the substance of the +dialogue. + +At the end of three moons the Celestial Emperor had the Mandarin +brought, 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 laid +pavement, 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, said +to him: "Look." + +And Kouang looked. + +And he saw that the road was made; and he noticed that at various +points, inns were building. A medley of foot passengers, carriages and +palanquins went and came, and innumerable Chinese, oppressed by fatigue, +carried back and forth heavy burdens from Tchin to Tchan, and from Tchan +to Tchin, and Kouang said: It is the destruction of the canal which has +given labor to these poor people. But it did not occur to him that this +labor 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 being +hungry, there had sprung up, near by, the shops of butchers, bakers, +charcoal dealers, and bird's nest sellers. Since these worthy men could +not go naked, tailors, shoemakers and umbrella and fan dealers had +settled there, and as they do not sleep in the open air, even in the +Celestial Empire, carpenters, masons and thatchers congregated there. +Then came police officers, judges and fakirs; in a word, around each +stopping 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 of +a canal could create so much labor for the people." For he did not think +that it was not labor created, but _diverted_; that travelers ate when +they went by the canal just as much as they did when they were forced to +go by the road. + +However, to the great astonishment of the Chinese, the Emperor died, and +this 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 doing +wrong." + +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 and +things 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, some +numbers of the _Moniteur Industriel_, a Chinese paper. Knowing his +lesson by heart, he asked permission to answer, and, having obtained it, +after striking his forehead nine times against the floor, he said: "My +Lord, you try, by facilitating transportation, to reduce the price of +articles of consumption, in order to bring them within the reach of the +people; and to do this you begin by making them lose all the labor which +was 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 the +absolute cheapness of articles of consumption is but a secondary +question. The problem lies in the equilibrium of the price of labor and +that of the articles necessary to existence. The abundance of labor is +the wealth of nations, and the best economic system is that which +furnishes them the greatest possible amount of labor. Do not ask whether +it is better to pay four or eight cents cash for a cup of tea, or five +or ten shillings for a shirt. These are puerilities unworthy of a +serious mind. No one denies your proposition. The question is, whether +it is better to pay more for an article, and to have, through the +abundance and price of labor, more means of acquiring it, or whether it +is better to impoverish the sources of labor, to diminish the mass of +national production, and to transport articles of consumption by canals, +more cheaply it is true, but, at the same time, to deprive a portion of +our laborers of the power to buy them, even at these reduced prices." + +The Emperor not being altogether convinced, Kouang said to him: "My +Lord, be pleased to wait. I have the _Moniteur Industriel_ to quote +from." + +But the Emperor said: "I do not need your Chinese newspapers to tell me +that to create _obstacles_ is to turn labor in that direction. Yet that +is not my mission. Come, let us clear out the canal, and then we will +reform 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 on +your people; for, there has come to us an Emperor of the _English +school_, and I see very plainly that, in a little while, we shall be in +want of everything, since it will not be necessary for us to do +anything! + + + + +VIII. + +POST HOC, ERGO PROPTER HOC. + + +"After this, therefore on account of this." The most common and the most +false 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 freedom +which does all the mischief. It promised us wonders and marvels; we +welcomed it, and now the manufactories stop and the people suffer." + +Commercial freedom distributes, in the most uniform and equitable +manner, the fruits which Providence grants to the labor of man. If these +fruits are partially destroyed by any misfortune, it none the less looks +after the fair distribution of what remains. Men are not as well +provided 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 the +same time the harvests were very abundant, and we can justly believe +that these two circumstances had much to do with the wonderful +prosperity shown by that country during that period. + +In 1845 the harvest was bad, and in 1846 it was still worse. Breadstuffs +grew dear, the people spent their money for food, and used less of other +articles. There was a diminished demand for clothing; the manufactories +were not so busy, and wages showed a declining tendency. Happily, in the +same year, the restrictive barriers were again lowered, and an enormous +quantity of food was enabled to reach the English market. If it had not +been for this, it is almost certain that a terrible revolution would now +fill Great Britain with blood. + +Yet they make freedom chargeable with disasters, which it prevents and +remedies, at least in part. + +A poor leper lived in solitude. No one would touch what he had +contaminated. Compelled to do everything for himself, he dragged out a +miserable existence. A great physician cured him. Here was our hermit in +full possession of the _freedom of exchange_. What a beautiful prospect +opened before him! He took pleasure in calculating the advantages, +which, thanks to his connection with other men, he could draw from his +vigorous arms. Unluckily, he broke both of them. Alas! his fate was most +miserable. 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? Do +not they form a part of his sad destiny? His misfortune is to have lost +his arms, and not to have been cured of leprosy. He would be much more +to 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, and +metaphysical. Very well. Let us try a trivial, commonplace, and, if +necessary, coarse style. Convinced that the public is _duped_ in the +matter of protection, I have desired to prove it. But the public wishes +to be shouted at. Then let us cry out: + +"Midas, King Midas, has asses' ears!" + +An outburst of frankness often accomplishes more than the politest +circumlocution. + +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 to +many people. I say to them as Harpagon did to Elise, Is it the _word_ or +the _thing_ that alarms you? + +Whoever has fraudulently taken that which does not belong to him, is +guilty 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, obliges +me to pay him twenty francs for an article which I can get elsewhere for +fifteen, 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 this +monopolist carries off, takes, or demands, what can be more _furtive_, +since so few of us suspect it? And for those who are not deceived, what +can be more _forced_, since, at the first refusal to pay, the officer is +at our doors? + +Still, let the monopolists reassure themselves. These robberies, by +means of bounties or tariffs, even if they do violate equity as much as +robbery, do not break the law; on the contrary, they are perpetrated +through the law. They are all the worse for this, but they have nothing +to 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, others +can cry the same after him, when he sells. If he differs from many of +his countrymen, it is only in this: he knows that he loses by this game +more than he gains, and they do not; if they did know it, the game would +soon cease. + +Nor do I boast of having first given this thing its true name. More than +sixty years ago, Adam Smith said: + +"When manufacturers meet it may be expected that a conspiracy will be +planned against the pockets of the public." Can we be astonished at this +when 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 (warlike +digression). It is not surprising. I cannot build without iron. I can +get it at ten francs _in the world's market_; but, through the law, the +managers of the French forges compel me to pay them fifteen francs. Thus +they take five francs from me. I ask freedom to buy where I please. + +"An Iron Manufacturer. _In the world's market_ I can obtain +transportation for twenty francs. The ship-builder, through the law, +requires thirty. Thus he _takes_ ten francs from me. He plunders me; I +plunder him. It is all for the best. + +"A Public Official. The conclusion of the ship-builder's argument is +highly imprudent. Oh, let us cultivate the touching union which makes +our 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 that +the shipping is nearly gone. + +"A Sailor. Very well, let us raise the discriminating duties against +goods imported in foreign bottoms, and let the ship-builder, who now +takes thirty francs from the public, hereafter take forty. + +"A Minister. The government will push to its extreme limits the +admirable mechanism of these discriminating duties, but I fear that it +will not answer the purpose. + +"A Government Employe. You seem to be bothered about a very little +matter. Is there any safety but in the bounty? If the consumer is +willing, the tax-payer is no less so. Let us pile on the taxes, and let +the ship-builder be satisfied. I propose a bounty of five francs, to be +taken from the public revenues, to be paid to the ship-builder for each +quintal 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 have +originated the system of _drawbacks_, and it will be its eternal glory. +What branch of manufacturing can lose hereafter, when we have two so +simple 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 coming +appearance of the _bounty_ (who knows if I did not suggest the thought +to M. Dupin?), when some months ago I wrote the following words: + +"It seems evident to me that protection, without changing its nature or +effects, might take the form of a direct tax levied by the State, and +distributed 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 more +just, more economical, and more truthful. More just, because if society +wishes to give gratuities to some of its members, all should contribute; +more economical, because it would save much of the expense of +collection, and do away with many obstacles; and, finally, more +truthful, because the public could see the operation plainly, and would +know 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 by +tariff_, and as it is a little better disguised, the direct will enable +us to understand the indirect, cheating. Thus the mind proceeds from the +simple to the complex. + +But is there no simpler variety of robbery? Certainly, there is _highway +robbery_, and all it needs is to be legalized, or, as they say +now-a-days, _organized_. + +I once read the following in somebody's travels: + +"When we reached the Kingdom of A---- we found all industrial pursuits +suffering. Agriculture groaned, manufactures complained, commerce +murmured, the navy growled, and the government did not know whom to +listen to. At first it thought of taxing all the discontented, and of +dividing among them the proceeds of these taxes after having taken its +share; which would have been like the method of managing lotteries in +our dear Spain. There are a thousand of you; the State takes a dollar +from each one, cunningly steals two hundred and fifty, and then divides +up seven hundred and fifty, in greater or smaller sums, among the +players. The worthy Hidalgo, who has received three-quarters of a +dollar, forgetting that he has spent a whole one, is wild with joy, and +runs to spend his shillings at the tavern. Something like this once +happened in France. Barbarous as the country of A---- was, however, the +government did not trust the stupidity of the inhabitants enough to make +them accept such singular protection, and hence this was what it +devised: + +"The country was intersected with roads. The government had them +measured, exactly, and then said to the farmers, 'All that you can steal +from travelers between these boundaries is yours; let it serve you as a +_bounty_, a protection, and an encouragement.' It afterwards assigned to +each 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 so +familiarized with this regime, and so accustomed to think only of what +they steal, and not of what is stolen from them, so habituated to look +at pillage but from the pillager's point of view, that they consider the +sum of all these private robberies as _national profit_, and refuse to +give up a system of protection without which, they say, no branch of +industry 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 and +practice _reciprocal robbery_ under the name of bounties and protective +tariffs. + +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 us +say, also, that as far as principles and necessary results are +concerned, there is not an atom of difference between these two kinds +of robbery legally organized to eke out the profits of industry. + +Observe, that if _highway robbery_ presents some difficulties of +execution, it has also certain advantages which are not found in the +_tariff robbery_. + +For instance: An equitable division can be made between all the +plunderers. It is not thus with tariffs. They are by nature impotent to +protect 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 in +this respect does not yield in perfection to _highway robbery_, but on +the 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 great +reason. + +That which the plundered party loses in highway robbery is gained by the +robber. The article stolen remains, at least, in the country. But under +the dominion of _bounty robbery_, that which the duty takes from the +French is often given to the Chinese, the Hottentots, Caffirs, and +Algonquins, as follows: + +A piece of cloth is worth a _hundred francs_ at Bordeaux. It is +impossible to sell it below that without loss. It is impossible to sell +it for more than that, for the _competition_ between merchants forbids. +Under these circumstances, if a Frenchman desires to buy the cloth, he +must pay a _hundred francs_, or do without it. But if an Englishman +comes, the government interferes, and says to the merchant: "Sell your +cloth, and I will make the tax-payers give you _twenty francs_ (through +the operation of the _drawback_)." The merchant, who wants, and can get, +but one hundred francs for his cloth, delivers it to the Englishman for +eighty francs. This sum added to the twenty francs, the product of the +_bounty robbery_, makes up his price. It is then precisely as if the +tax-payers had given twenty francs to the Englishman, on condition that +he would buy French cloth at twenty francs below the cost of +manufacture,--at twenty francs below what it costs us. Then bounty +robbery has this peculiarity, that the _robbed_ are inhabitants of the +country which allows it, and the _robbers_ are spread over the face of +the globe. + +It is truly wonderful that they should persist in holding this +proposition to have been demonstrated: _All that the individual robs +from the mass is a general gain._ Perpetual motion, the philosopher's +stone, and the squaring of the circle, are sunk in oblivion; but the +theory of _progress by robbery_ is still held in honor. _A priori_, +however, one might have supposed that it would be the shortest lived of +all 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? You +do not desire the _organization of labor_? Why, gentlemen, organize +labor as much as you please, but we will watch to see that you do not +organize _robbery_. + +Others say, _bounties_, _tariffs_, all these things may have been +overdone. We must use, without abusing them. A wise liberty, combined +with moderate protection, is what _serious_ and practical men claim. Let +us beware of _absolute principles_. This is exactly what they said in +the Kingdom of A----, according to the Spanish traveler. "Highway +robbery," said the wise men, "is neither good nor bad in itself; it +depends on circumstances. Perhaps too much freedom of pillage has been +given; perhaps not enough. Let us see; let us examine; let us balance +the accounts of each robber. To those who do not make enough, we will +give a little more road to work up. As for those who make too much, we +will reduce their share." + +Those who spoke thus acquired great fame for moderation, prudence, and +wisdom. They never failed to attain the highest offices of the State. + +As for those who said, "Let us repress injustice altogether; let us +allow neither _robbery_, nor _half robbery_, nor _quarter robbery_," +they passed for theorists, dreamers, bores--always parroting the same +thing. The people also found their reasoning too easy to understand. How +can 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 you +please, what do you propose to do with them? + +--The first will be given to the creditors of the State. When one has +debts, 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 put +in cartridges, which made the finest smoke in the world; with another +part men were hired who were maimed on foreign ground, after having +ravaged it. Then, when these expenses brought the enemy upon us, he +would 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 a +perpetual rent. Still one must pay what he owes, no matter how foolish a +use may have been made of the money. That accounts for one hogshead, but +the five others? + +--One is required to pay for public services, the civil list, the judges +who decree the restitution of the bit of land your neighbor wants to +appropriate, the policemen who drive away robbers while you sleep, the +men who repair the road leading to the city, the priest who baptizes +your 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 insist +on 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 army +and navy expenses? + +--Alas, it is little compared with what they have cost me already. They +have 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 forces +were every where reduced a half or three-quarters. We should save our +children 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 the +legislative halls? + +--Whom did you support for Deputy? + +--An excellent General, who will be a Marshal presently, if God spares +his 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 and +your 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 temperance +people, the barbarians! What services will they give me in exchange for +this ambrosia, which has cost me so much labor? + +--None at all; it is not intended for Mussulmans, but for good +Christians 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 and +come home to be doctored; dig harbors, make roads, build villages and +people them with Maltese, Italians, Spaniards and Swiss, who live on +your hogshead, and many others which I shall come in the future to ask +of you. + +--Mercy! This is too much, and I flatly refuse you my hogshead. They +would 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 own +house! Dig ports in Barbary when the Garonne fills up with sand every +day! 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 and +Maltese, 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 enable +them to live here. + +--But then you lay the basis of a _great empire_, you carry +_civilization_ into Africa, and you crown your country with immortal +glory. + +--You are a poet, my dear Collector; but I am a vine-grower, and I +refuse. + +--Think that in a few thousand years you will get back your advances a +hundred-fold. All those who have charge of the enterprise say so. + +--At first they asked me for one barrel of wine to meet expenses, then +two, 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 a +hogshead. + +--That is but too true. Cursed weakness! It seems to me that I was +unwise in making him my agent; for what is there in common between the +General of an army and the poor owner of a vineyard? + +--You see well that there is something in common between you, were it +only 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, and +leave 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 in +Africa perpetuated. What more do you want? + +--The bargain is not made with me. You must tell your desires to the +General. _He_ has disposed of your vintage. + +--But what do you propose to do with this poor hogshead, the flower of +my 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 establishment +very 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 either +have to do a better business or close his manufactory. + +--But what connection is there between D----'s bad speculations and my +hogshead? + +--The Chamber thought that if it gave D---- a little wine from your +cellar, a few bushels of grain taken from your neighbors, and a few +pennies cut from the wages of the workingmen, his losses would change +into profits. + +--This recipe is as infallible as it is ingenious. But it is shockingly +unjust. 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 a +great service you render to the country? + +--You mean to say to D----? + +--To the country. D---- asserts that, thanks to this arrangement, his +business 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, he +spends his money, and if he extorts from me wine or grain enough to make +good his losses, and even to make him a profit, he calls it a general +gain! + +--Your _representative_ having come to that conclusion, all you have to +do is to give me the six hogsheads of wine, and sell the fourteen that I +leave you for as much as possible. + +--That is my business. + +--For, you see, it would be very annoying if you did not get a good +price 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 and +plowshares, a law declares that you must pay the iron-master twice what +it 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 by +the 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 strange +disposition 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 and +manufacturers? + +--You will re-elect him, I say. + +--That is a little _too much_. I will not re-elect him, if I do not want +to. + +--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 settle +with. + +--We shall see. Good bye. I take away your six hogsheads, and will +proceed 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 should +have 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 I +undertake to carry out my ideas and to run counter to its ideas, I shall +not have the majority, and if I do not, I cannot be His Majesty's +Minister. + +--Just imagine that you are so, and that consequently the majority is +not 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 is +necessary. + +--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 it +implies that the majority clearly sees what is just, clearly sees what +is 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 a +possibility 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 it +accomplished. 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 have +invented some new tax. + +--Heaven forbid! Besides, I do not flatter myself that I have an +inventive mind. + +--It is necessary, however. Oh, I have it. What was I thinking of? You +are 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 on +it at present. + +--What! you diminish the receipts, without lessening expenses, and you +avoid a deficit? + +--Yes, by diminishing other taxes at the same time. + +(Here the interlocutor, putting the index finger of his right hand on +his forehead, shook his head, which may be translated thus: He is +rambling terribly.) + +--Well, upon my word, this is ingenious. I pay the Treasury a hundred +francs; you relieve me of five francs on salt, five on postage; and in +order that the Treasury may nevertheless receive one hundred francs, you +relieve 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 expound +this 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 from +Belgium? + +--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 the +restriction, and you will gain ten francs. + +--Oh, I begin to see. The treasury account shows that it loses five +francs on postage and five on salt, and gains ten on cloth. That is +even. + +--Your account is--you gain five francs on salt, five on postage, and +ten on cloth. + +--Total, twenty francs. This is satisfactory enough. But what becomes of +the poor cloth manufacturer? + +--Oh, I have thought of him. I have secured compensation for him by +means 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 to +wool, coal, machinery, etc., so that he can lower his price without +loss. + +--But are you sure that will be an equivalent? + +--The balance will be in his favor. The twenty francs that you gain on +the cloth will be multiplied by those which I will save for you on +grain, meat, fuel, etc. This will amount to a large sum, and each one of +your 35,000,000 fellow-citizens will save the same way. There will be +enough to consume the cloths of both Belgium and France. The nation will +be 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. Your +limbs are your own, and not the manufacturer's. To shield them from cold +is your business and not his. If the law takes sides for him against +you, the law is unjust, and you allowed me to reason on the hypothesis +that what is unjust is hurtful. + +--Perhaps I admitted too much; but go on and explain your financial +plan. + +--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 is +supposed to be ignorant of the law" is a fiction. Let us see your +tariff. + +--Here it is: Section First. All imports shall pay an _ad valorem_ tax +of 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 of +revenue, we must open another; this will not diminish the relative +inferiority of our manufactories, and there will be one bureau more to +organize and pay. + +--That is true; I reasoned as if the tax was to be annulled, not +changed. I will reflect on this. What is your second section? + +--Section Second. All exports shall pay an _ad valorem_ tax of five per +cent. + +--Merciful Heavens, Mr. Utopist! You will certainly be stoned, and, if +it 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 this +new 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 country +districts had established this _octroi_ for their profit, what would +happen? + +--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 the +Batignolles. + +--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 your +expenses.[15] + +--I find you at fault, this is not _justice_. + +--Why not? In order to secure the production of any one thing, there +must be instruction, security, roads, and other costly things in the +country. 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 the +direct and indirect expenses of production. + +--No matter what you say, it is plain that such a measure would paralyze +commerce; and cut off all exports. + +--That is an illusion. If you were to pay this tax besides all the +others, you would be right. But, if the hundred millions raised in this +way, relieve you of other taxes to the same amount, you go into foreign +markets with all your advantages, and even with more, if this duty has +occasioned less embarrassment and expense. + +--I will reflect on this. So now the salt, postage and customs are +regulated. 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 them +through the customs; which also gives me something more precious. + +--What, pray? + +--International relations founded on justice, and a probability of peace +which is equivalent to a certainty. I will disband the army. + +--The whole army? + +--Except special branches, which will be voluntarily recruited, like all +other professions. You see, conscription is abolished. + +--Sir, you should say recruiting. + +--Ah, I forgot, I cannot help admiring the ease with which, in certain +countries, the most unpopular things are perpetuated by giving them +other names. + +--Like _consolidated duties_, which have become _indirect +contributions_. + +--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 the +country. 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 call +out everybody? + +--You did not make me Minister in order that I should leave things as +they are. Thus, on my advent to power, I shall say with Richelieu, "the +State maxims are changed." My first maxim, the one which will serve as a +basis for my administration, is this: Every citizen must know two +things--How to earn his own living, and defend his country. + +--It seems to me, at the first glance, that there is a spark of good +sense in this. + +--Consequently, I base the national defense on a law consisting of two +sections. + +Section First. Every able-bodied citizen, without exception, shall be +under arms for four years, from his twenty-first to his twenty-fifth +year, in order to receive military instruction.-- + +--This is pretty economy! You send home four hundred thousand soldiers +and call out ten millions. + +--Listen to my second section: + +SEC. 2. _Unless_ he proves, at the age of twenty-one, that he knows the +school 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 _by +the right flank_ and _double quick, march_. The idea is odd. + +--It is better than that. For without grieving families and offending +equality, does it not assure the country, in a simple and inexpensive +manner, of ten million defenders, capable of defying a coalition of all +the standing armies of the globe? + +--Truly, if I were not on my guard, I should end in getting interested +in your fancies. + +_The Utopist, getting excited:_ Thank Heaven, my estimates are relieved +of a hundred millions! I suppress the _octroi_. I refund indirect +contributions. I-- + +_Getting more and more excited:_ I will proclaim religious freedom and +free instruction. There shall be new resources. I will buy the +railroads, 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 of +the government on the repression of fraud, the administration of prompt +and 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 they +are--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 duties +are not necessarily more onerous than import duties. The statement that +all taxes are paid by the consumer, is liable to important +modifications. An export duty may be laid in such way, and on such +articles, that it will be paid wholly by the foreign consumer, without +loss to the producing country, but it is only when the additional cost +does not lessen the demand, or induce the foreigner to produce the same +article. _Translator._] + +XII. + +SALT, POSTAGE, AND CUSTOMS. + + +[This chapter is an amusing dialogue relating principally to English +Postal Reform. Being inapplicable to any condition of things existing in +the 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 a +fine park; three persons are seated near a good fire.] + +_Pierre._ Upon my word, a fire is very comfortable when the stomach is +satisfied. It must be agreed that it is a pleasant thing. But, alas! how +many 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 see +these fine trees. I will cut them down and distribute the wood among +the poor. + +_Paul and Jean._ What! gratis? + +_Pierre._ Not exactly. There would soon be an end of my good works if I +scattered my property thus. I think that my park is worth twenty +thousand 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 the +neighboring forests, for it renders services which that cannot give. +When cut down it will, like that, be good for burning only, and will not +be worth a sou more per cord. + +_Pierre._ Oh! Mr. Theorist, you forget that I am a practical man. I +supposed that my reputation as a speculator was well enough established +to put me above any charge of stupidity. Do you think that I shall amuse +myself by selling my wood at the price of other wood? + +_Paul._ You must. + +_Pierre._ Simpleton!--Suppose I prevent the bringing of any wood to +Paris? + +_Paul._ That will alter the case. But how will you manage it? + +_Pierre._ This is the whole secret. You know that wood pays an entrance +duty of ten sous per cord. To-morrow I will induce the Aldermen to raise +this duty to one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred livres, so high +as to keep out every fagot. Well, do you see? If the good people do not +want to die of cold, they must come to my wood-yard. They will fight for +my wood; I shall sell it for its weight in gold, and this well-regulated +deed 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 it +is a little strong? I want to make a better article at Paris. I will +have four or five hundred cows, and I will distribute milk, butter and +cheese to the poor people. + +_Pierre and Jean._ What! as a charity? + +_Paul._ Bah, let us always put charity in the foreground. It is such a +fine thing that its counterfeit even is an excellent card. I will give +my butter to the people and they will give me their money. Is that +called selling? + +_Jean._ No, according to the _Bourgeois Gentilhomme_; but call it what +you please, you ruin yourself. Can Paris compete with Normandy in +raising 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 low +price? + +_Jean._ It is the time-honored word. You will always be beaten. + +_Paul._ Yes; like Don Quixote. The blows will fall on Sancho. Jean, my +friend, 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 the +Council to prohibit the butter of Normandy and Brittany. The people must +do without butter, or buy mine, and that at my price, too. + +_Jean._ Gentlemen, your philanthropy carries me along with it. "In time +one learns to howl with the wolves." It shall not be said that I am an +unworthy Alderman. Pierre, this sparkling fire has illumined your soul; +Paul, this butter has given an impulse to your understanding, and I +perceive that this piece of salt pork stimulates my intelligence. +To-morrow I will vote myself, and make others vote, for the exclusion of +hogs, dead or alive; this done, I will build superb stock-yards in the +middle of Paris "for the unclean animal forbidden to the Hebrews." I +will become swineherd and pork-seller, and we shall see how the good +people of Lutetia can help getting their food at my shop. + +_Pierre._ Gently, my friends; if you thus run up the price of butter and +salt meat, you diminish the profit which I expected from my wood. + +_Paul._ Nor is my speculation so wonderful, if you ruin me with your +fuel and your hams. + +_Jean._ What shall I gain by making you pay an extra price for my +sausages, if you overcharge me for pastry and fagots? + +_Pierre._ Do you not see that we are getting into a quarrel? Let us +rather unite. Let us make _reciprocal concessions_. Besides, it is not +well 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 their +bread. + +_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, in +this selfish age people are suspicious, and the purest intentions are +often misconstrued. Paul, you plead for _wood_; Jean, defend _butter_; +and I will devote myself to domestic _swine_. It is best to head off +invidious suspicions. _Paul and Jean_ (leaving). Upon my word, what a +clever fellow! + + +SECOND TABLEAU. + +_The Common Council._ + +_Paul._ My dear colleagues, every day great quantities of wood come into +Paris, and draw out of it large sums of money. If this goes on, we shall +all 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, for +you 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. They +will no longer be in a state of _dependence_ on the charcoal dealers of +the Yonne. Have you ever thought of the risk we run of dying of cold, if +the proprietors of these foreign forests should take it into their heads +not 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 the +wood-chopping business, and open to our workmen a new source of labor +and wages. [Applause.] + +_Jean._ I second the motion of the Honorable member--a proposition so +philanthropic and so disinterested, as he remarked. It is time that we +should stop this intolerable _freedom of entry_, which has brought a +ruinous competition upon our market, so that there is not a province +tolerably well situated for producing some one article which does not +inundate us with it, sell it to us at a low price, and depress Parisian +labor. It is the business of the State to _equalize the conditions of +production_ by wisely graduated duties; to allow the entrance from +without of whatever is dearer there than at Paris, and thus relieve us +from an unequal _contest_. How, for instance, can they expect us to make +milk and butter in Paris as against Brittany and Normandy? Think, +gentlemen; the Bretons have land cheaper, feed more convenient, and +labor more abundant. Does not common sense say that the conditions must +be equalized by a protecting duty? I ask that the duty on milk and +butter be raised to a thousand per cent., and more, if necessary. The +breakfasts of the people will cost a little more, but wages will rise! +We shall see the building of stables and dairies, a good trade in +churns, and the foundation of new industries laid. I, myself, have not +the least interest in this plan. I am not a cowherd, nor do I desire to +become one. I am moved by the single desire to be useful to the laboring +classes. [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.] I +admire their self-denial, and cannot do better than follow such noble +examples. I support their motion, and I also make one to exclude Poitou +hogs. It is not that I want to become a swineherd or pork dealer, in +which case my conscience would forbid my making this motion; but is it +not shameful, gentlemen, that we should be paying tribute to these poor +Poitevin 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 trade +is not in their favor, and that we are not compelled to pay them a +tribute in money? Is it not plain that if this Poitevin industry were +planted in Paris, it would open new fields to Parisian labor? Moreover, +gentlemen, is it not very likely, as Mr. Lestiboudois said, that we buy +these Poitevin salted meats, not with our income, but our capital? Where +will this land us? Let us not allow greedy, avaricious and perfidious +rivals to come here and sell things cheaply, thus making it impossible +for us to produce them ourselves. Aldermen, Paris has given us its +confidence, and we must show ourselves worthy of it. The people are +without labor, and we must create it, and if salted meat costs them a +little more, we shall, at least, have the consciousness that we have +sacrificed our interests to those of the masses, as every good Alderman +ought to do. [Thunders of applause.] + +_A Voice._ I hear much said of the poor people; but, under the pretext +of giving them labor, you begin by taking away from them that which is +worth more than labor itself--wood, butter, and soup. + +_Pierre, Paul and Jean._ Vote, vote. Away with your theorists and +generalizers! Let us vote. [The three motions are carried.] + + +THIRD TABLEAU. + +_Twenty Years After._ + +_Son._ Father, decide; we must leave Paris. Work is slack, and +everything is dear. + +_Father._ My son, you do not know how hard it is to leave the place +where 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, I +will not leave the grave where your mother, sisters and brothers lie. I +am eager to find, at last, near them, the rest which is denied me in +this 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 gradually +transferring itself to those distant countries. + +_Father._ It is very natural. Unable to sell us wood and food, they +stopped producing more than they needed for themselves, and they +devoted their spare time and capital to making those things which we +formerly furnished them. + +_Son._ Just as at Paris, they quit making handsome furniture and fine +clothes, in order to plant trees, and raise hogs and cows. Though quite +young, I have seen vast storehouses, sumptuous buildings, and quays +thronged with life on those banks of the Seine which are now given up to +meadows and forests. + +_Father._ While the provinces are filling up with cities, Paris becomes +country. What a frightful revolution! Three mistaken Aldermen, aided by +public 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 new +trades at Paris, and of thus supplying labor to the workmen, these men +secured the prohibition of wood, butter, and meats. They assumed the +right of supplying their fellow-citizens with them. These articles rose +immediately to an exorbitant price. Nobody made enough to buy them, and +the few who could procure them by using up all they made were unable to +buy anything else; consequently all branches of industry stopped at +once--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 were +involved in the common misery. + +_Son._ How was that possible? + +_Father._ You see this ruin; it was a magnificent house, surrounded by a +fine park. If Paris had kept on advancing, Master Pierre would have got +more 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 in +buying also disappears every day, and will keep on disappearing until +Paris is an open field, and Master Pierre's woodland will be worth no +more than an equal number of acres in the forest of Bondy. Thus, a +monopoly, like every species of injustice, brings its own punishment +upon itself. + +_Son._ This does not seem very plain to me, but the decay of Paris is +undeniable. Is there, then, no means of repealing this unjust measure +that Pierre and his colleagues adopted twenty years ago? + +_Father._ I will confide my secret to you. I will remain at Paris for +this purpose; I will call the people to my aid. It depends on them +whether they will replace the _octroi_ on its old basis, and dismiss +from it this fatal principle, which is grafted on it, and has grown +there 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 laborious +one. Pierre, Paul and Jean understand one another perfectly. They are +ready to do anything rather than allow the entrance of wood, butter and +meat into Paris. They even have on their side the people, who clearly +see the labor which these three protected branches of business give, who +know how many wood-choppers and cow-drivers it gives employment to, but +who cannot obtain so clear an idea of the labor that would spring up in +the 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, the +people would not read; for all their time is occupied in supporting a +wretched existence. If I speak, the Aldermen will shut my mouth. The +people will, therefore, remain long in their fatal error; political +parties, which build their hopes on their passions, attempt to play upon +their prejudices, rather than to dispel them. I shall then have to deal +with the powers that be--the people and the parties. I see that a storm +will burst on the head of the audacious person who dares to rise against +an 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 the +country. Begin this work of emancipation, and leave to me for an +inheritance 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 buy +wood, butter and meat where it seems good to him. + +_The People._ Hurrah for LIBERTY! + +_Pierre._ Parisians, do not allow yourselves to be seduced by these +words. Of what avail is the freedom of purchasing, if you have not the +means? and how can you have the means, if labor is wanting? Can Paris +produce wood as cheaply as the forest of Bondy, or meat at as low price +as Poitou, or butter as easily as Normandy? If you open the doors to +these rival products, what will become of the wood cutters, pork +dealers, and cattle drivers? They cannot do without protection. + +_The People._. Hurrah for PROTECTION! + +_Jacques._ Protection! But do they protect you, workmen? Do not you +compete with one another? Let the wood dealers then suffer competition +in their turn. They have no right to raise the price of their wood by +law, unless they, also, by law, raise wages. Do you not still love +equality? + +_The People._ Hurrah for EQUALITY! + +_Pierre._ Do not listen to this factious fellow. We have raised the +price of wood, meat, and butter, it is true; but it is in order that we +may 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 use +it to raise the price of commodities. The Parisians do not ask for +charity, but justice. + +_The People._ Hurrah for JUSTICE! + +_Pierre._ It is precisely the dearness of products which will, by reflex +action, raise wages. + +_The People._ Hurrah for DEARNESS! + +_Jacques._ If butter is dear, it is not because you pay workmen well; it +is not even that you may make great profits; it is only because Paris is +ill situated for this business, and because you desired that they +should do in the city what ought to be done in the country, and in the +country what was done in the city. The people have no _more_ labor, only +they labor at something else. They get no _more_ wages, but they do not +buy things as cheaply. + +_The People._ Hurrah for CHEAPNESS! + +_Pierre._ This person seduces you with his fine words. Let us state the +question plainly. Is it not true that if we admit butter, wood, and +meat, 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 new +inundation, than to shut the door, and we can keep up the price of +things only by causing scarcity artificially. + +_A Very Few Voices._ Hurrah for SCARCITY! + +_Jacques._ Let us state the question as it is. Among all the Parisians +we can divide only what is in Paris; the less wood, butter and meat +there is, the smaller each one's share will be. There will be less if we +exclude than if we admit. Parisians, individual abundance can exist only +where there is general abundance. + +_The People._ Hurrah for ABUNDANCE! + +_Pierre._ No matter what this man says, he cannot prove to you that it +is 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 hogs +are deprived of their livelihood, if they are sacrificed to theories, I +will not be answerable for public order. Workmen, distrust this man. He +is 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 years +ago, when it occurred to Pierre to use the _octroi_ for his gain and +your loss. I am not an agent of Normandy. Hang me if you will, but this +will not prevent oppression from being oppression. Friends, you must +kill neither Jacques nor Pierre, but liberty if it frightens you, or +restriction 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 the +arc 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 less +labor_, 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 a +diminution of one-tenth on the total of its labor, no one could +determine what comforts it would procure with the labor remaining at its +disposal. One person would prefer to be better clothed, another better +fed, 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 complicated +instance, 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 to +make a plank? + +--Yes. He cut down a tree, and then with his ax hewed the trunk on both +sides 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. At +the moment that Robinson gave the first blow with his ax, he saw a plank +which 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 it +and 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 obtain +work for fifteen days, then I shall wear out my ax, which will give me +an opportunity of repairing it, and I shall consume my provisions, which +will 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 this +stranded board. It is important to protect my _personal labor_, and now +that I think of it, I can create myself additional labor by kicking this +board 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 offered +it 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. This +answers to the trouble which Robinson took to give back to the waves +the present they wished to make him. Consider the nation a collective +being, and you will not find an atom of difference between its reasoning +and 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. I +am 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 labor +with 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 system +in its simplest form. If it appears absurd to you, thus stated, it is +because the two qualities of producer and consumer are here united in +the same person. + +--Let us pass, then, to a more complicated instance. + +--Willingly. Some time after all this, Robinson having met Friday, they +united, and began to work in common. They hunted for six hours each +morning and brought home four hampers of game. They worked in the garden +for six hours each afternoon, and obtained four baskets of vegetables. + +One day a canoe touched at the Island of Despair. A good-looking +stranger landed, and was allowed to dine with our two hermits. He +tasted, and praised the products of the garden, and before taking leave +of 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 you +every evening four hampers of game if you would give me only two baskets +of vegetables." + +At these words Robinson and Friday stepped on one side, to have a +consultation, and the debate which followed is too interesting not to be +given _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. The +stranger gives them to us for two baskets of vegetables, which take us +but three hours. Thus three hours remain at our disposal. + +_Robinson._ Say rather that they are taken from our activity. There is +our loss. _Labor is wealth_, and if we lose a fourth of our time we are +one-fourth poorer. + +_Friday._ Friend, you make an enormous mistake. The same amount of game +and vegetables and three free hours to boot make progress, or there is +none 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 easy +to say _something else--something else_. + +_Friday._ We will fish. We will adorn our houses. We will read the +Bible. + +_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 which +diminishes neither our gains nor our vegetables. You always forget that +by means of our commerce with this stranger, nine hours of labor will +give 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 have +taught you this: "All time saved is a dear loss. Eating is not the +important matter, but working. Nothing which we consume counts, if it is +not 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 for +rejecting the interested offers of this perfidious stranger. + +_Friday._ Political reasons! + +_Robinson._ Yes. In the first place he makes these offers only because +they 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 will +live 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 the +consequences? + +_Friday._ Yes. Our relations with the stranger will stop. He will take +no more vegetables from us, since he can get them at home with less +trouble. He will bring us no more game, since we will have nothing to +give 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 having +destroyed our hunting, by inundating us with game, he will kill our +gardening by overwhelming us with vegetables. + +_Friday._ But he will do that only so long as we give him _something +else_; 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 to +that. You are very vague, friend Friday; there is nothing practical in +your views. + +The contest lasted a long time, and, as often happens, left each one +convinced that he was right. However, Robinson having great influence +over Friday, his views prevailed, and when the stranger came for an +answer, Robinson said to him: + +"Stranger, in order that your proposition may be accepted, we must be +quite sure of two things: + +"The first is, that your island is not richer in game than ours, for we +will struggle but with _equal arms_. + +"The second is, that you will lose by the bargain. For, as in every +exchange 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, and +returned 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 our +world; the diversity of occupations, and the intervention of merchants +and 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 the +exchange is identical with the real nature of commerce, as small labor +is of the same nature with great, and as the gravitation which impels an +atom is of the same nature as that which attracts a world. + +--Thus, according to you, these arguments, which in Robinson's mouth are +so false, are no less so in the mouths of our protectionists? + +--Yes; only error is hidden better under the complication of +circumstances. + +--Well, now, select some instance from what has actually occurred. + +--Very well; in France, in view of custom and the exigencies of the +climate, cloth is an useful article. Is it the essential thing _to make +it, 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 must +make it; but it is not necessary that the person or country using it +should make it. You did not produce that which clothes you so well, nor +France 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, and +French 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 of +cloth. The first is to make it, and the second is to make _something +else_, and exchange _that something else_ abroad for cloth. Of these two +ways, which is the best? + +--I do not know. + +--Is it not that which, _for a fixed amount of labor, gives the greatest +quantity of cloth_? + +--It seems so. + +--Which is best for a nation, to have the choice of these two ways, or +to have the law forbid its using one of them at the risk of rejecting +the best? + +--It seems to me that it would be best for the nation to have the +choice, 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 it +is forbidden to make that _something else_ with which it could purchase +foreign cloth? + +--That is true. + +--And as it is obliged to make cloth, and forbidden to make _something +else_, just because the other thing would require less labor (without +which France would have no occasion to do anything with it), the law +virtually decrees, that for a certain amount of labor, France shall +have but one yard of cloth, making it itself, when, for the same amount +of 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 the +foreigners may send us cloth and not take something else, in which case +we shall be prettily caught. Under all circumstances, this is the +objection, even from your own point of view. You admit that France will +make this _something else_, which is to be exchanged for cloth, with +less 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 which +causes the whole misunderstanding. Robinson lost sight of it, and our +protectionists do not see it, or pretend not to. The stranded plank thus +paralyzed for fifteen days Robinson's labor, so far as it was applied to +the 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 very +different, and if you assimilate them, you reason like Robinson. In the +most complicated, as in the most simple instances, the sophism consists +in this: _Judging of the utility of labor by its duration and intensity, +and not by its results_, which leads to this economic policy, _a +reduction of the results of labor, in order to increase its duration and +intensity_. + + + + +XV. + +THE LITTLE ARSENAL OF THE FREE TRADER. + + +--If they say to you: There are no absolute principles; prohibition may +be 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 is +agriculture-- + +Reply: The basis of the sustenance of the people is _grain_. Thus a law +which causes _two_ bushels of grain to be obtained by agricultural labor +at the expense of four bushels, which the same labor would have +produced but for it, far from being a law of sustenance, is a law of +starvation. + +--If they say to you: A restriction on the admission of foreign grain +leads to more cultivation, and, consequently, to a greater home +production-- + +Reply: It leads to sowing on the rocks of the mountains and the sands of +the sea. To milk and steadily milk, a cow gives more milk; for who can +tell the moment when not a drop more can be obtained? But the drop costs +dear. + +--If they say to you: Let bread be dear, and the wealthy farmer will +enrich the artisans-- + +Reply: Bread is dear when there is little of it, a thing which can make +but 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 were +beggars. + +--If they say to you: The profits of the workingmen must rise with the +dearness of food-- + +Reply: This is equivalent to saying that in an unprovisioned vessel +everybody 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 sell +grain-- + +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 the +price of food without troubling themselves about wages, because they +know that when food becomes dear, wages _naturally_ rise-- + +Reply: On this principle, when workingmen come to make the law, do not +blame them if they fix a high rate of wages without troubling themselves +to protect grain, for they know that if wages are raised, articles of +food 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 should +manufacture iron-- + +Reply: The most essential thing is that this great country _should have +iron_. + +--If they say to you: It is necessary that a great country should +manufacture 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 the +proof 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 ounce +of 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 river +water, is to add to their _useless_ labor, but not their wealth. + +--If they say to you: The sun gives his heat and light without requiring +remuneration-- + +Reply: So much the better for me, since it costs me nothing to see +distinctly. + +--And if they reply to you: Industry in general loses what you would +have paid for lights-- + +Retort: No, for having paid nothing to the sun, I use that which it +saves me in paying for clothes, furniture and candles. + +--So, if they say to you: These English rascals have capital which pays +them 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 at +the same spot-- + +Reply: So much the better for us; they will not make us pay anything for +bringing 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 lesser +quantity 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 pay +no taxes-- + +Reply: The gain is on our side, since we buy grain free from those +charges. + +--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 is +deducted 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 will +be because we are able to pay. If we cannot pay we will not be +inundated. + +--If they say to you: I would allow free trade, if a stranger, in +bringing us one thing, took away another; but he will carry off our +specie-- + +Reply: Neither specie nor coffee grow in the fields of Beauce or come +out of the manufactories of Elbeuf. For us to pay a foreigner with +specie 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 to +buy bread with, buy beef-- + +Reply: This advice is as wise as that of Vautour to his tenant, "If a +person has not money to pay his rent with, he ought to have a house of +his own." + +--If they say to you, like the _Presse_: The State ought to teach the +people why and how it should eat meat-- + +Reply: Only let the State allow the meat free entrance, and the most +civilized people in the world are old enough to learn to eat it without +any teacher. + +--If they say to you: The State ought to know everything, and foresee +everything, to guide the people, and the people have only to let +themselves be guided-- + +Reply: Is there a State outside of the people, and a human foresight +outside of humanity? Archimedes might have repeated all the days of his +life, "With a lever and a fulcrum I will move the world," but he could +not have moved it, for want of those two things. The fulcrum of the +State is the nation, and nothing is madder than to build so many hopes +on the State; that is to say, to assume a collective science and +foresight, after having established individual folly and +short-sightedness. + +--If they say to you: My God! I ask no favors, but only a duty on grain +and meat, which may compensate for the heavy taxes to which France is +subjected; a mere little duty, equal to what these taxes add to the cost +of my grain-- + +Reply: A thousand pardons, but I, too, pay taxes. If, then, the +protection which you vote yourself results in burdening for me, your +grain with your proportion of the taxes, your insinuating demand aims at +nothing less than the establishment between us of the following +arrangement, thus worded by yourself: "Since the public burdens are +heavy, 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." My +neighbor, the grain dealer, you may have power on your side, but not +reason. + +--If they say to you: It is, however, very hard for me, a tax payer, to +compete in my own market with foreigners who pay none-- + +Reply: First, This is not _your_ market, but _our_ market. I who live on +grain, 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 and +safety, 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 but +who 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 horses +and 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 escape +its operation, invent a system which will throw it on foreigners. But +the tariff only throws your proportion on me, when I already have enough +of my own. + +--If they say to you: Freedom of commerce is necessary among the +Russians _that they may exchange their products with advantage_ (opinion +of 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 to +that that _it must act_ (M. Thiers)-- + +Reply: It is according to that that _it acts of itself_ when no one +hinders it. + +--If they say to you: Since we have no sheet iron, its admission must be +allowed (M. Thiers)-- + +Reply: Thank you, kindly. + +--If they say to you: Our merchant marine must have freight; owing to +the lack of return cargoes our vessels cannot compete with foreign +ones-- + +Reply: When you want to do everything at home, you can have cargoes +neither going nor coming. It is as absurd to wish for a navy under a +prohibitory system as to wish for carts where all transportation is +forbidden. + +--If they say to you: Supposing that protection is unjust, everything is +founded on it; there are moneys invested, and rights acquired, and it +cannot 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 the +disturbance which the cessation of the injustice causes to the person +profiting by it, is to say that an injustice, only because it has +existed 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_ audaciously +disseminating their doctrines, and maintaining that the right of buying +and selling is implied by that of ownership (a piece of insolence that +M. Billault has criticised like a true lawyer), we may be allowed to +entertain serious fears as to the destiny of _national labor_; for what +will Frenchmen do with their arms and intelligences when they are free? + +The Ministry which you have honored with your confidence has naturally +paid great attention to so serious a subject, and has sought in its +wisdom for a _protection_ which might be substituted for that which +appears compromised. It proposes to you to forbid your faithful subjects +the use of the right hand. + +Sire, do not wrong us so far as to think that we lightly adopted a +measure which, at the first glance, may appear odd. Deep study of the +_protective system_ has revealed to us this syllogism, on which it +entirely 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 this +formal reasoning, which is so compact that it would resist the subtlety +of 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. This +being makes a clock, which he proposes to exchange in Belgium for ten +quintals of iron. "But," we say to him, "make the iron yourself." "I +cannot," says he; "it would take me too much time, and I could not make +five quintals while I can make one clock." "Utopist!" we reply; "for +this very reason we forbid your making the clock, and order you to make +the iron. Do not you see that we create you labor?" + +Sire, it will not have escaped your sagacity, that it is just as if we +said to the country, _Labor with the left hand, and not with the right_. + +The creation of obstacles to furnish labor an opportunity to develop +itself, is the principle of the _restriction_ which is dying. It is also +the 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 more +difficult than one thinks--to do with the left hand what one was +accustomed to do with the right. You will convince yourself of it, Sire, +if you will condescend to try our system on something which is familiar +to you,--like shuffling cards, for instance. We can then flatter +ourselves 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 present +consumption, supposing it to be invariable, which we always do when we +compare differing systems of production. So prodigious a demand for +manual labor cannot fail to bring about a considerable increase in +wages; and pauperism will disappear from the country as if by +enchantment. + +Sire, your paternal heart will rejoice at the thought that the benefits +of this regulation will extend over that interesting portion of the +great family whose fate excites your liveliest solicitude. + +What is the destiny of women in France? That sex which is the boldest +and most hardened to fatigue, is, insensibly, driving them from all +fields of labor. + +Formerly they found a refuge in the lottery offices. These have been +closed by a pitiless philanthropy; and under what pretext? "To save," +said they, "the money of the poor." Alas! has a poor man ever obtained +from a piece of money enjoyments as sweet and innocent as those which +the mysterious urn of fortune contained for him? Cut off from all the +sweets of life, how many delicious hours did he introduce into the bosom +of his family when, every two weeks, he put the value of a day's labor +on a _quatern_. Hope had always her place at the domestic hearth. The +garret was peopled with illusions; the wife promised herself that she +would eclipse her neighbors with the splendor of her attire; the son saw +himself drum-major, and the daughter felt herself carried toward the +altar in the arms of her betrothed. To have a beautiful dream is +certainly something. + +The lottery was the poetry of the poor, and we have allowed it to escape +them. + +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 the +distinguished habits which august examples have been enabled to +introduce among our elegant youth. + +But the postal service! We will say nothing of that, but make it the +subject of a special report. + +Then what is left to your female subjects except tobacco? Nothing, +except embroidery, knitting, and sewing, pitiful resources, which are +more and more restricted by that barbarous science, mechanics. + +But as soon as your ordinance has appeared, as soon as the right hands +are cut off or tied up, everything will change face. Twenty, thirty +times more embroiderers, washers and ironers, seamstresses and +shirt-makers, would not meet the consumption (_honi soit qui mal y +pense_) of the kingdom; always assuming that it is invariable, according +to our way of reasoning. + +It is true that this supposition might be denied by cold-blooded +theorists, for dresses and shirts would be dearer. But they say the +same thing of the iron which France gets from our mines, compared to the +vintage it could get on our hillsides. This argument can, therefore, be +no more entertained against _left-handedness_ than against _protection_; +for this very dearness is the result and the sign of the excess of +efforts and of labors, which is precisely the basis on which, in one +case, as in the other, we claim to found the prosperity of the working +classes. + +Yes, we make a touching picture of the prosperity of the sewing +business. What movement! What activity! What life! Each dress will busy +a hundred fingers instead of ten. No longer will there be an idle young +girl, and we need not, Sire, point out to your perspicacity the moral +results of this great revolution. Not only will there be more women +employed, but each one of them will earn more, for they cannot meet the +demand, and if competition still shows itself, it will no longer be +among the workingwomen who make the dresses, but the beautiful ladies +who wear them. + +You see, Sire, that our proposition is not only conformable to the +economic traditions of the government, but it is also essentially moral +and democratic. + +To appreciate its effect, let us suppose it realized; let us transport +ourselves in thought into the future; let us imagine the system in +action for twenty years. Idleness is banished from the country; ease +and concord, contentment and morality, have entered all families +together with labor; there is no more misery and no more prostitution. +The left hand being very clumsy at its work, there is a superabundance +of labor, and the pay is satisfactory. Everything is based on this, and, +as a consequence, the workshops are filled. Is it not true, Sire, that +if Utopians were to suddenly demand the freedom of the right hand, they +would spread alarm throughout the country? Is it not true that this +pretended reform would overthrow all existences? Then our system is +good, since it cannot be overthrown without causing great distress. + +However, we have a sad presentiment that some day (so great is the +perversity of man) an association will be organized to secure the +liberty of right hands. + +It seems to us that we already hear these free-right-handers speak as +follows in the Salle Montesquieu: + +"People, you believe yourselves richer because they have taken from you +one hand; you see but the increase of labor which results to you from +it. But look also at the dearness it causes, and the forced decrease in +the consumption of all articles. This measure has not made capital, +which is the source of wages, more abundant. The waters which flow from +this great reservoir are directed into other channels; the quantity is +not increased, and the definite result is, for the nation, as a whole, a +loss of comfort equal to the excess of the production of several +millions of right hands, over several millions of left hands. Then let +us 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 defense +of left-handed labor_, and the _Sinistrists_ will have no trouble in +reducing to nothing all these generalities and realities, suppositions +and abstractions, reveries and Utopias. They need only to exhume the +_Moniteur Industriel_ of 1846, and they will find, ready-made, arguments +against _free trade_, which destroy so admirably this _liberty of the +right hand_, that all that is required is to substitute one word for +another. + +"The Parisian _Free Trade_ League never doubted but that it would have +the assistance of the workingmen. But the workingmen can no longer be +led by the nose. They have their eyes open, and they know political +economy better than our diplomaed professors. _Free trade_, they +replied, will take from us our labor, and labor is our real, great, +sovereign property; _with labor, with much labor, the price of articles +of merchandise is never beyond reach_. But without labor, even if bread +should cost but a penny a pound, the workingman is compelled to die of +hunger. Now, your doctrines, instead of increasing the amount of labor +in 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 in +value, the result is, that, instead of being able to buy them, we can +buy nothing. Thus, when they are cheapest, the workingman is most +unhappy." (Gauthier de Rumilly, _Moniteur Industriel_ of November 17.) + +It would not be ill for the Sinistrists to mingle some threats with +their beautiful theories. This is a sample: + +"What! to desire to substitute the labor of the right hand for that of +the left, and thus to cause a forced reduction, if not an annihilation +of wages, the sole resource of almost the entire nation! + +"And this at the moment when poor harvests already impose painful +sacrifices on the workingman, disquiet him as to his future, and make +him more accessible to bad counsels and ready to abandon the wise course +of conduct he had hitherto adhered to!" + +We are confident, Sire, that thanks to such wise reasonings, if a +struggle takes place, the left hand will come out of it victorious. + +Perhaps, also, an association will be formed in order to ascertain +whether the right and the left hand are not both wrong, and if there is +not a third hand between them, in order to conciliate all. + +After having described the _Dexterists_ as seduced by the _apparent +liberality of a principle, the correctness of which has not yet been +verified by experience_, and the _Sinistrists_ as encamping in the +positions 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 our +plan has a vulnerable side. They may say to us: In twenty years all left +hands will be as skilled as right ones are now, and you can no longer +count on _left-handedness_ to increase the national labor. + +We reply to this, that, according to learned physicians, the left side +of the body has a natural weakness, which is very reassuring for the +future of labor. + +Finally, Sire, consent to sign the law, and a great principle will have +prevailed: _All wealth comes from the intensity of labor._ It will be +easy 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 to +extract iron from the mud of the Seine. There have even been men who +wrote with their backs. You see, Sire, that we do not lack means of +increasing national labor. If they do begin to fail us, there remains +the boundless resource of amputation. + +If this report, Sire, was not intended for publication, we would call +your attention to the great influence which systems analogous to the one +we submit to you, are capable of giving to men in power. But this is a +subject 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 to +doubt that in the field of industry, as on that of battle, _the stronger +crushes the weaker_. + +This must result from the discovery of some sad and discouraging analogy +between labor, which exercises itself on things, and violence, which +exercises itself on men; for how could these two things be identical in +their effects, if they were opposed in their nature? + +And if it is true that in manufacturing as in war, supremacy is the +necessary result of superiority, why need we occupy ourselves with +progress or social economy, since we are in a world where all has been +so 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 drawing +England, many persons make this objection, which, I admit, occupies the +sincerest minds. "Is England doing anything more than pursuing the same +end by different means? Does she not constantly aspire to universal +supremacy? Sure of the superiority of her capital and labor, does she +not call in free competition to stifle the industry of the continent, +reign as a sovereign, and conquer the privilege of feeding and clothing +the ruined peoples?" + +It would be easy for me to demonstrate that these alarms are chimerical; +that our pretended inferiority is greatly exaggerated; that all our +great branches of industry not only resist foreign competition, but +develop themselves under its influence, and that its infallible effect +is to bring about an increase in general consumption capable of +absorbing both foreign and domestic products. + +To-day I desire to attack this objection directly, leaving it all its +power and the advantage of the ground it has chosen. Putting English and +French on one side, I will try to find out in a general way, if, even +though by superiority in one branch of industry, one nation has crushed +out similar industrial pursuits in another one, this nation has made a +step toward supremacy, and that one toward dependence; in other words, +if both do not gain by the operation, and if the conquered do not gain +the most by it. + +If we see in any product but a cause of labor, it is certain that the +alarm of the protectionists is well founded. If we consider iron, for +instance, only in connection with the masters of forges, it might be +feared that the competition of a country where iron was a gratuitous +gift of nature, would extinguish the furnaces of another country, where +ore and fuel were scarce. + +But is this a complete view of the subject? Are there relations only +between 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 is +useful, not on account of the labor which it causes, but on account of +the qualities which it possesses, and the numerous services for which +its hardness and malleability fit it, does it not follow that +foreigners cannot reduce its price, even so far as to prevent its +production among us, without doing us more good, under the last +statement of the case, than it injures us, under the first? + +Please consider well that there are many things which foreigners, owing +to the natural advantages which surround them, hinder us from producing +directly, and in regard to which we are placed, _in reality_, in the +hypothetical position which we examined relative to iron. We produce at +home neither tea, coffee, gold nor silver. Does it follow that our +labor, as a whole, is thereby diminished? No; only to create the +equivalent of these things, to acquire them by way of exchange, we +detach from our general labor a _smaller_ portion than we would require +to produce them ourselves. More remains to us to use for other things. +We are so much the richer and stronger. All that external rivalry can +do, even in cases where it absolutely keeps us from any certain form of +labor, is to encourage our labor, and increase our productive power. Is +that the road to _supremacy_, for foreigners? + +If a mine of gold were to be discovered in France, it does not follow +that it would be for our interests to work it. It is even certain that +the enterprise ought to be neglected, if each ounce of gold absorbed +more of our labor than an ounce of gold bought in Mexico with cloth. In +this case, it would be better to keep on seeing our mines in our +manufactories. 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 some +certain form, and makes it superfluous under this form, but by putting +at our disposal the very result of the labor thus annihilated. If men +lived in diving-bells, under the water, and had to provide themselves +with 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 do +them a terrible injury. But if labor ceases, because the necessity for +it has gone; because men are placed in another position, where air +reaches their lungs without an effort, then the loss of this labor is +not to be regretted, except in the eyes of those who appreciate in +labor, only the labor itself. + +It is exactly this sort of labor which machines, commercial freedom, and +progress of all sorts, gradually annihilate; not useful labor, but labor +which has become superfluous, supernumerary, objectless, and without +result. On the other hand, protection restores it to activity; it +replaces 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, rather +than from our national manufactories. All its effect is summed up in +this phrase--_loss of power_. + +It must be understood that I speak here of general effects, and not of +the temporary disturbances occasioned by the transition from a bad to a +good system. A momentary disarrangement necessarily accompanies all +progress. This may be a reason for making the transition a gentle one, +but not for systematically interdicting all progress, and still less for +misunderstanding it. + +They represent industry to us as a conflict. This is not true; or is +true only when you confine yourself to considering each branch of +industry in its effects on some similar branch--in isolating both, in +the mind, from the rest of humanity. But there is something else; there +are its effects on consumption, and the general well-being. + +This is the reason why it is not allowable to assimilate labor to war as +they do. + +In war, _the strongest overwhelms the weakest_. + +In labor, _the strongest gives strength to the weakest_. This radically +destroys the analogy. + +Though the English are strong and skilled; possess immense invested +capital, and have at their disposal the two great powers of production, +iron and fire, all this is converted into the _cheapness_ of the +product; 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 our +labor. All that they can do is to make it superfluous through some +result acquired--to give air at the same time that they suppress the +pump; to increase thus the force at our disposal, and, which is a +remarkable thing, to render their pretended supremacy more impossible, +as their superiority becomes more undeniable. + +Thus, by a rigorous and consoling demonstration, we reach this +conclusion: That _labor_ and _violence_, so opposed in their nature, +are, whatever socialists and protectionists may say, no less so in their +effects. + +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 than +different,--they are opposites. The protectionists confound them; we do +not. 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 love +of us. It is to give themselves many comforts in exchange for their +products. They certainly desire to receive at least as much as they +give, and _they make at home the payment for that which they buy +elsewhere_. If then, they inundate us with their products, it is because +they expect to be inundated with ours. In this case, the best way to +have much for ourselves is to be free to choose between these two +methods of production: direct production or indirect production. All +the British Machiavelism cannot lead us to make a bad choice. + +Let us then stop assimilating industrial competition with war; a false +assimilation, which is specious only when two rival branches of industry +are isolated, in order to judge of the effects of competition. As soon +as the effect produced on the general well-being is taken into +consideration, the analogy disappears. + +In a battle, he who is killed is thoroughly killed, and the army is +weakened just that much. In manufactures, one manufactory succumbs only +so far as the total of national labor replaces what it produced, _with +an excess_. Imagine a state of affairs where for one man, stretched on +the plain, two spring up full of force and vigor. If there is a planet +where such things happen, it must be admitted that war is carried on +there 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 so +inappropriately called an _industrial war_. + +Let the Belgians and English reduce the price of their iron, if they +can, and keep on reducing it, until they bring it down to nothing. They +may thereby put out one of our furnaces--kill one of our soldiers; but I +defy them to hinder a thousand other industries, more profitable than +the disabled one, immediately, and, as a necessary consequence of this +very 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 converted +into cheapness, and results only in giving force to all others. Let us, +then, banish from political economy all these expressions borrowed from +the vocabulary of battles: _to struggle with equal arms, to conquer, to +crush out, to stifle, to be beaten, invasion, tribute_. What do these +words mean? Squeeze them, and nothing comes out of them. We are +mistaken; there come from them absurd errors and fatal prejudices. These +are 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 curious +discussion, which was reproduced in the _Moniteur_, the General Council +of Agriculture, Manufactures and Commerce issued the following order: + + +"Political economy shall be taught by the government professors, not +merely from the theoretical point of view of free trade, but also with +special regard to the facts and legislation which control French +industry." + +It was in reply to this decree that Bastiat wrote the pamphlet +_Spoliation and Law_, which first appeared in the _Journal des +Economistes_, May 15, 1850.] + +_To the Protectionists of the General Council of Manufactures:_ + +GENTLEMEN--Let us for a few moments interchange moderate and friendly +opinions. + +You are not willing that political economy should believe and teach free +trade. + +This is as though you were to say, "We are not willing that political +economy should occupy itself with society, exchange, value, law, +justice, property. We recognize only two principles--oppression and +spoliation." + +Can you possibly conceive of political economy without society? Or of +society without exchange? Or of exchange without a relative value +between the two articles, or the two services, exchanged? Can you +possibly 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_? Is +it possible for you to conceive of the free consent of two parties +without liberty? Can you possibly conceive that one of the contracting +parties is deprived of his liberty unless he is oppressed by the other? +Can you possibly conceive of an exchange between an oppressor and one +oppressed, unless the equivalence of the services is altered, or unless, +as a consequence, law, justice, and the rights of property have been +violated? + +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, that +trade shall be carried on under the influence of oppression? For if it +is not carried on under the influence of oppression, it will be carried +on 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 that +which troubles you is property--not your own, to be sure, but +another's. You are altogether unwilling to allow others to freely +dispose 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 mass +of absurdities and monstrosities in a definite and well-ordered system; +to establish, in accordance with your practice, the theory of +spoliation. + +But they will never do it; for, in their eyes, spoliation is a principle +of hatred and disorder, and the most particularly odious form which it +can 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 and +your fortune. This you constantly declare. Recently, in the General +Council, you said: "If the rich had only to abandon their wealth to make +the people rich we should all be ready to do it." [Hear, hear. It is +true.] And yesterday, in the National Assembly, you said: "If I believed +that it was in my power to give to the workingmen all the work they +need, 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 should +not be made, and you exclaim, with Basile, "Money! money! I detest +it--but I will keep it," assuredly no one will question a generosity so +retentive, however barren. It is a virtue which loves to envelop itself +in 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 of +all France from the tribune of the _Luxembourg_ and the _Palais +Legislatif_. + +But no one desires you to abandon your fortune, and I admit that it +would not solve the social problem. + +You wish to be generous, but cannot. I only venture to ask that you will +be just. Keep your fortune, but permit me also to keep mine. Respect my +property 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 every +one could dispose of his property and his labor at pleasure. Does this +make 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 in +the code, but this law, impartial and just, would not infringe our +liberty, but would guarantee it, and it would take effect only when we +sought to oppress each other. There would be officers of the law, +magistrates and police; but they would only execute the law. Under such +a state of affairs, suppose that you owned an iron foundry, and that I +was a hatter. I should need iron for my business. Naturally I should +seek to solve this problem: "How shall I best procure the iron necessary +for my business with the least possible amount of labor?" Considering my +situation, and my means of knowledge, I should discover that the best +thing for me to do would be to make hats, and sell them to a Belgian who +would 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 to +come to my shop." + +You, accordingly, take your sword and pistols, and, arming your numerous +retinue, proceed to the frontier, and, at the moment I am engaged in +making my trade, you cry out to me: "Stop that, or I will blow your +brains 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 the +export 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 power +of 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 say +to 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 be +killed! degrade myself! put my domestics under arms! incur heavy +expenses! give myself the character of a robber, and render myself +liable to the laws of the country! And all this in order to compel a +miserable hatter to come to my foundry to buy iron at my price! What if +I should make the interest of the law, of the magistrate, of the public +authorities, my interests? What if I could get them to perform the +odious act on the frontier which I was about to do myself?" + +Enchanted by this pleasing prospect, you secure a nomination to the +Chambers, and obtain the passage of a law conceived in the following +terms: + +SECTION 1. There shall be a tax levied upon everybody (but especially +upon that cursed hat-maker). + +SEC. 2. The proceeds of this tax shall be applied to the payment of men +to guard the frontier in the interest of iron-founders. + +SEC. 3. It shall be their duty to prevent the exchange of hats or other +articles 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 the +execution 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 you +had at first determined upon. I admit that for you it would offer a very +pleasant prospect. You could most assuredly laugh in your sleeve, for +you would then have saddled all the expenses upon me. + +But I affirm that you would have introduced into society a vicious +principle, a principle of immorality, of disorder, of hatred, and of +incessant revolutions; that you would have prepared the way for all the +various schemes of socialism and communism. + +You, doubtless, find my hypothesis a very bold one. Well, then, let us +reverse 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 to +get them for nothing. And I know that there are hatchets and saws in +your establishment. Accordingly, without any ceremony, I enter your +warehouse and seize everything that I can lay my hands upon. + +But, in the exercise of your legitimate right of self-defense, you at +first resist force with force; afterwards, invoking the power of the +law, the magistrate, and the constables, you throw me into prison--and +you do well. + +Oh! ho! the thought suggests itself to me that I have been very awkward +in this business. When a person wishes to enjoy the property of other +people, he will, unless he is a fool, act _in accordance_ with the law, +and not _in violation_ of it. Consequently, just as you have made +yourself a protectionist, I will make myself a socialist. Since you have +laid claim to the _right to profit_, I claim the _right to labor_, or to +the instruments of labor. + +For the rest, I read my Louis Blanc in prison, and I know by heart this +doctrine: "In order to disenthrall themselves, the common people have +need of tools to work with; it is the function of the government to +provide them." And again: "If one admits that, in order to be really +free, a man requires the ability to exercise and to develop his +faculties, the result is that society owes each of its members +instruction, without which the human mind is incapable of development, +and the instruments of labor, without which human activities have no +field for their exercise. But by what means can society give to each one +of its members the necessary instruction and the necessary instruments +of labor, except by the intervention of the State?" So that if it +becomes necessary to revolutionize the country, I also will force my +way into the halls of legislation. I also will pervert the law, and make +it perform in my behalf and at your expense the very act for which it +just now punished me. + +My decree is modeled after yours: + +SECTION 1. There shall be taxes levied upon every citizen, and +especially upon iron founders. + +SEC. 2. The proceeds of this tax shall be applied to the creation of +armed corps, to which the title of the _fraternal constabulary_ shall be +given. + +SEC. 3. It shall be the duty of the _fraternal constabulary_ to make +their way into the warehouses of hatchets, saws, etc., to take +possession of these tools, and to distribute them to such workingmen as +may desire them. + +Thanks to this ingenious device, you see, my lord, that I shall no +longer be obliged to bear the risks, the costs, the odium, or the +scruples of robbery. The State will rob for me as it has for you. We +shall both be playing the same game. + +It remains to be seen what would be the condition of French society on +the realization of my second hypothesis, or what, at least, is the +condition of it after the almost complete realization of the first +hypothesis. I do not desire to discuss here the economy of the question. +It is generally believed that in advocating free trade we are +exclusively influenced by the desire to allow capital and labor to take +the direction most advantageous to them. This is an error. This +consideration is merely secondary. That which wounds, afflicts, and is +revolting to us in the protective system, is the denial of right, of +justice, of property; it is the fact that the system turns the law +against justice and against property, when it ought to protect them; it +is that it undermines and perverts the very conditions of society. And +to 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 and +moral mission? Is it not to hold the balance even between all rights, +all liberties, and all property? Is it not to cause justice to rule +among all? Is it not to prevent and to repress oppression and robbery +wherever they are found? + +And are you not shocked at the immense, radical, and deplorable +innovation introduced into the world by compelling the law itself to +commit the very crimes to punish which is its especial mission--by +turning the law in principle and in fact against liberty and property? + +You deplore the condition of modern society. You groan over the disorder +which prevails in institutions and ideas. But is it not your system +which has perverted everything, both institutions and ideas? + +What! the law is no longer the refuge of the oppressed, but the arm of +the oppressor! The law is no longer a shield, but a sword! The law no +longer holds in her august hands a scale, but false weights and +measures! And you wish to have society well regulated! + +Your system has written over the entrance of the legislative halls these +words: "Whoever acquires any influence here can obtain his share of the +legalized pillage." + +And what has been the result? All classes of society have become +demoralized by shouting around the gates of the palace: "Give me a share +of the spoils." + +After the revolution of February, when universal suffrage was +proclaimed, I had for a moment hoped to have heard this sentiment: "No +more pillage for any one, justice for all." And that would have been the +real solution of the social problem. Such was not the case. The doctrine +of protection had for generations too profoundly corrupted the age, +public sentiments and ideas. No. In making inroads upon the National +Assembly, each class, in accordance with your system, has endeavored to +make the law an instrument of rapine. There have been demanded heavier +imposts, gratuitous credit, the right to employment, the right to +assistance, the guaranty of incomes and of minimum wages, gratuitous +instruction, loans to industry, etc., etc.; in short, every one has +endeavored to live and thrive at the expense of others. And upon what +have these pretensions been based? Upon the authority of your +precedents. What sophisms have been invoked? Those that you have +propagated for two centuries. With you they have talked about +_equalizing the conditions of labor_. With you they have declaimed +against ruinous competition. With you they have ridiculed the _let +alone_ principle, that is to say, _liberty_. With you they have said +that the law should not confine itself to being just, but should come to +the 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 what +you have done, and that which you desire the professors of political +economy to do for you. + +Your cleverness is in vain, _Messieurs Protectionists_, it is useless to +lower your tone, to boast of your latent generosity, or to deceive your +opponents by sentiment. You cannot prevent logic from being logic. + +You cannot prevent Mr. Billault from telling the legislators, "You have +granted favors to one, you must grant them to all." + +You cannot prevent Mr. Cremieux from telling the legislators: "You have +enriched the manufacturers, you must enrich the common people." + +You cannot prevent Mr. Nadeau from saying to the legislators: "You +cannot refuse to do for the suffering classes that which you have done +for the privileged classes." + +You cannot even prevent the leader of your orchestra, Mr. Mimerel, from +saying to the legislators: "I demand twenty-five thousand subsidies for +the workingmen's savings banks;" and supporting his motion in this +manner: + + "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 the +tariff favors out of sight, although they are the most explicit +manifestations of legal spoliation. All the orators who supported or +opposed him have taken upon themselves the same reserve. It is very +shrewd! Possibly they hope, _by giving the poor a direct participation +in this distribution of benefits_, to save this great iniquity by which +they profit, but of which they do not whisper. + +They deceive themselves. Do they suppose that after having realized a +partial spoliation by the establishment of customs duties, other +classes, by the establishment of other institutions, will not attempt to +realize universal spoliation? + +I know very well you always have a sophism ready. You say: "The favors +which the law grants us are not given to the _manufacturer_, but to +_manufactures_. The profits which it enables us to receive at the +expense of the consumers are merely a trust placed in our hands. They +enrich us, it is true, but our wealth places us in a position to expend +more, to extend our establishments, and falls like refreshing dew upon +the laboring classes." + +Such is your language, and what I most lament is the circumstance that +your miserable sophisms have so perverted public opinion that they are +appealed to in support of all forms of legalized spoliation. The +suffering classes also say. "Let us by act of the Legislature help +ourselves to the goods of others. We shall be in easier circumstances as +the result of it; we shall buy more wheat, more meat, more cloth, and +more iron; and that which we receive from the public taxes will return +in a beneficent shower to the capitalists and landed proprietors." + +But, as I have already said, I will not to-day discuss the economical +effects of legal spoliation. Whenever the protectionists desire, they +will 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 exchange +legally deprived of liberty. + +I have said: The time has come to know what the law is, and what it +ought to be. + +If you make the law for all citizens a palladium of liberty and of +property; if it is only the organization of the individual law of +self-defense, you will establish, upon the foundation of justice, a +government rational, simple, economical, comprehended by all, loved by +all, useful to all, supported by all, entrusted with a responsibility +perfectly defined and carefully restricted, and endowed with +imperishable strength. If, on the other hand, in the interests of +individuals 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, morals +will be shipwrecked; there will be violence in party organs, heated +elections, accusations, recriminations, jealousies, inextinguishable +hates, the public forces placed at the service of rapacity instead of +repressing it, the ability to distinguish the true from the false +effaced from all minds, as the notion of justice and injustice will be +obliterated from all consciences, the government responsible for +everything and bending under the burden of its responsibilities, +political convulsions, revolutions without end, ruins over which all +forms of socialism and communism attempt to establish themselves; these +are the evils which must necessarily flow from the perversion of law. + +Such, consequently, gentlemen, are the evils for which you have prepared +the way by making use of the law to destroy freedom of exchange; that is +to say, to abolish the right of property. Do not declaim against +socialism; you establish it. Do not cry out against communism; you +create it. And now you ask us Economists to make you a theory which will +justify you! _Morbleu!_ make it yourselves. + + + + +PART IV. + +CAPITAL AND INTEREST. + + +My object in this treatise is to examine into the real nature of the +Interest of Capital, for the purpose of proving that it is lawful, and +explaining why it should be perpetual. This may appear singular, and +yet, I confess, I am more afraid of being too plain than too obscure. I +am afraid I may weary the reader by a series of mere truisms. But it is +no easy matter to avoid this danger, when the facts, with which we have +to deal, are known to every one by personal, familiar, and daily +experience. + +But, then, you will say, "What is the use of this treatise? Why explain +what everybody knows?" + +But, although this problem appears at first sight so very simple, there +is more in it than you might suppose. I shall endeavor to prove this by +an example. Mondor lends an instrument of labor to-day, which will be +entirely destroyed in a week, yet the capital will not produce the less +interest to Mondor or his heirs, through all eternity. Reader, can you +honestly say that you understand the reason of this? + +It would be a waste of time to seek any satisfactory explanation from +the writings of economists. They have not thrown much light upon the +reasons of the existence of interest. For this they are not to be +blamed; for at the time they wrote, its lawfulness was not called in +question. Now, however, times are altered; the case is different. Men, +who consider themselves to be in advance of their age, have organized an +active crusade against capital and interest; it is the productiveness of +capital which they are attacking; not certain abuses in the +administration 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 immense +circulation. The first number of this periodical contains the electoral +manifesto of the _people_. Here we read, "The productiveness of capital, +which is condemned by Christianity under the name of usury, is the true +cause of misery, the true principle of destitution, the eternal obstacle +to the establishment of the Republic." + +Another journal, _La Ruche Populaire_, after having said some excellent +things 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 and +patrons, or masters, should not be paid_ for this liberty of labor, this +right of labor, which is raised to so high a price by the trafficers of +men." The only thought that I notice here, is that expressed by the +words in italics, which imply a denial of the right to interest. The +remainder of the article explains it. + +It is thus that the democratic Socialist, Thore, expresses himself: + +"The revolution will always have to be recommenced, so long as we occupy +ourselves with consequences only, without having the logic or the +courage to attack the principle itself. This principle is capital, false +property, interest, and usury, which by the old _regime_, is made to +weigh upon labor. + +"Ever since the aristocrats invented the incredible fiction, _that +capital possesses the power of reproducing itself_, the workers have +been at the mercy of the idle. + +"At the end of a year, will you find an additional crown in a bag of one +hundred shillings? At the end of fourteen years, will your shillings +have doubled in your bag? + +"Will a work of industry or of skill produce another, at the end of +fourteen 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, a +fatal, and an iniquitous principle. But quotations are superfluous; it +is well known that the people attribute their sufferings to what they +call _the trafficing in man by man_. In fact, the phrase _tyranny of +capital_ has become proverbial. + +I believe there is not a man in the world, who is aware of the whole +importance of this question: + +"Is the interest of capital natural, just, and lawful, and as useful to +the payer as to the receiver?" + +You answer, no; I answer, yes. Then we differ entirely; but it is of the +utmost importance to discover which of us is in the right; otherwise we +shall incur the danger of making a false solution of the question, a +matter of opinion. If the error is on my side, however, the evil would +not be so great. It must be inferred that I know nothing about the true +interests of the masses, or the march of human progress; and that all my +arguments are but as so many grains of sand, by which the car of the +revolution will certainly not be arrested. + +But if, on the contrary, MM. Proudhon and Thore are deceiving +themselves, it follows, that they are leading the people astray--that +they are showing them the evil where it does not exist; and thus giving +a false direction to their ideas, to their antipathies, to their +dislikes, and to their attacks. It follows, that the misguided people +are rushing into a horrible and absurd struggle, in which victory would +be more fatal than defeat, since, according to this supposition, the +result would be the realization of universal evils, the destruction of +every 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 _gratuitousness +of 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, they +find themselves mangled and bleeding? Such a danger as this is enough to +justify me fully, if, in the course of the discussion, I allow myself to +be led into some trivialities and some prolixity. + + +CAPITAL AND INTEREST. + +I address this treatise to the workmen of Paris, more especially to +those who have enrolled themselves under the banner of Socialist +democracy. I proceed to consider these two questions: + +1st. Is it consistent with the nature of things, and with justice, that +capital should produce interest? + +2nd. Is it consistent with the nature of things, and with justice, that +the interest of capital should be perpetual? + +The working men of Paris will certainly acknowledge that a more +important subject could not be discussed. + +Since the world began, it has been allowed, at least in part, that +capital ought to produce interest. But latterly it has been affirmed, +that herein lies the very social error which is the cause of pauperism +and inequality. It is, therefore, very essential to know now on what +ground we stand. + +For if levying interest from capital is a sin, the workers have a right +to revolt against social order, as it exists; it is in vain to tell them +that they ought to have recourse to legal and pacific means, it would be +a hypocritical recommendation. When on the one side there is a strong +man, 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 voluntarily +renounces oppression, or till it shall cease of itself." This cannot be; +and those who tell us that capital is, by nature, unproductive, ought to +know 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 to +the lender, the economists who deny it, the tribunes who traffic in this +pretended social wound, are leading the workmen into a senseless and +unjust struggle, which can have no other issue than the misfortune of +all. In fact, they are arming labor against capital. So much the better, +if these two powers are really antagonistic; and may the struggle soon +be ended! But if they are in harmony, the struggle is the greatest evil +which can be inflicted on society. You see, then, workmen, that there is +not a more important question than this: "Is the interest of capital +lawful or not?" In the former case, you must immediately renounce the +struggle to which you are being urged; in the second, you must carry it +on bravely, and to the end. + +Productiveness of capital--perpetuity of interest. These are difficult +questions. I must endeavor to make myself clear. And for that purpose I +shall have recourse to example rather than to demonstration; or rather, +I shall place the demonstration in the example. I begin by +acknowledging, that, at first sight, it may appear strange that capital +should pretend to a remuneration; and, above all, to a perpetual +remuneration. You will say, "Here are two men. One of them works from +morning till night, from one year's end to another; and if he consumes +all which he has gained, even by superior energy, he remains poor. When +Christmas comes, he is no forwarder than he was at the beginning of the +year, and has no other prospect but to begin again. The other man does +nothing, either with his hands or his head; or, at least, if he makes +use of them at all, it is only for his own pleasure; it is allowable for +him to do nothing, for he has an income. He does not work, yet he lives +well; he has everything in abundance, delicate dishes, sumptuous +furniture, elegant equipages; nay, he even consumes, daily, things which +the workers have been obliged to produce by the sweat of their brow; for +these things do not make themselves; and, as far as he is concerned, he +has had no hand in their production. It is the workmen who have caused +this corn to grow, polished this furniture, woven these carpets; it is +our wives and daughters who have spun, cut out, sewed, and embroidered +these stuffs. We work, then, for him and ourselves; for him first, and +then for ourselves, if there is anything left. But here is something +more striking still. If the former of these two men, the worker, +consumes within the year any profit which may have been left him in that +year, he is always at the point from which he started, and his destiny +condemns him to move incessantly in a perpetual circle, and a monotony +of exertion. Labor, then, is rewarded only once. But if the other, the +'gentleman,' consumes his yearly income in the year, he has, the year +after, in those which follow, and through all eternity, an income +always equal, inexhaustible, _perpetual_. Capital, then, is remunerated, +not only once or twice, but an indefinite number of times! So that, at +the end of a hundred years, a family, which has placed 20,000 francs, at +five per cent., will have had 100,000 francs; and this will not prevent +it from having 100,000 more, in the following century. In other words, +for 20,000 francs, which represent its labor, it will have levied, in +two centuries, a ten-fold value on the labor of others. In this social +arrangement, is there not a monstrous evil to be reformed? And this is +not all. If it should please this family to curtail its enjoyments a +little--to spend, for example, only 900 francs, instead of 1,000--it +may, without any labor, without any other trouble beyond that of +investing 100 francs a year, increase its capital and its income in such +rapid progression, that it will soon be in a position to consume as much +as a hundred families of industrious workmen. Does not all this go to +prove, that society itself has in its bosom a hideous cancer, which +ought to be eradicated at the risk of some temporary suffering?" + +These are, it appears to me, the sad and irritating reflections which +must be excited in your minds by the active and superficial crusade +which is being carried on against capital and interest. On the other +hand, there are moments in which, I am convinced, doubts are awakened +in your minds, and scruples in your conscience. You say to yourselves +sometimes, "But to assert that capital ought not to produce interest, is +to say that he who has created instruments of labor, or materials, or +provisions of any kind, ought to yield them up without compensation. Is +that just? And then, if it is so, who would lend these instruments, +these materials, these provisions? who would take care of them? who even +would create them? Every one would consume his proportion, and the human +race would never advance a step. Capital would be no longer formed, +since there would be no interest in forming it. It will become +exceedingly scarce. A singular step toward gratuitous loans! A singular +means of improving the condition of borrowers, to make it impossible for +them to borrow at any price! What would become of labor itself? for +there will be no money advanced, and not one single kind of labor can be +mentioned, not even the chase, which can be pursued without money in +hand. And, as for ourselves, what would become of us? What! we are not +to be allowed to borrow, in order to work in the prime of life, nor to +lend, that we may enjoy repose in its decline? The law will rob us of +the prospect of laying by a little property, because it will prevent us +from gaining any advantage from it. It will deprive us of all stimulus +to 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 the +idea of leaving our sons and daughters a little property, since modern +science renders it useless, for we should become trafficers in men if we +were to lend it on interest. Alas! the world which these persons would +open before us as an imaginary good, is still more dreary and desolate +than that which they condemn, for hope, at any rate, is not banished +from the latter." Thus in all respects, and in every point of view, the +question is a serious one. Let us hasten to arrive at a solution. + +Our civil code has a chapter entitled, "On the manner of transmitting +property." I do not think it gives a very complete nomenclature on this +point. When a man by his labor has made some useful things--in other +words, when he has created a _value_--it can only pass into the hands of +another by one of the following modes: as a gift, by the right of +inheritance, by exchange, loan, or theft. One word upon each of these, +except the last, although it plays a greater part in the world than we +may think. + +A gift, needs no definition. It is essentially voluntary and +spontaneous. It depends exclusively upon the giver, and the receiver +cannot be said to have any right to it. Without a doubt, morality and +religion make it a duty for men, especially the rich, to deprive +themselves voluntarily of that which they possess, in favor of their +less fortunate brethren. But this is an entirely moral obligation. If it +were to be asserted on principle, admitted in practice, or sanctioned by +law, that every man has a right to the property of another, the gift +would have no merit, charity and gratitude would be no longer virtues. +Besides, such a doctrine would suddenly and universally arrest labor and +production, as severe cold congeals water and suspends animation, for +who would work if there was no longer to be any connection between labor +and the satisfying of our wants? Political economy has not treated of +gifts. It has hence been concluded that it disowns them, and that it is +therefore a science devoid of heart. This is a ridiculous accusation. +That science which treats of the laws resulting from the _reciprocity of +services_, had no business to inquire into the consequences of +generosity with respect to him who receives, nor into its effects, +perhaps still more precious, on him who gives; such considerations +belong evidently to the science of morals. We must allow the sciences to +have limits; above all, we must not accuse them of denying or +undervaluing what they look upon as foreign to their department. + +The right of inheritance, against which so much has been objected of +late, is one of the forms of gift, and assuredly the most natural of +all. 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? It +is this power, more than any other, which inspires him with courage to +labor and to save. Do you know why the principle of right of inheritance +is thus called in question? Because it is imagined that the property +thus transmitted is plundered from the masses. This is a fatal error; +political economy demonstrates, in the most peremptory manner, that all +value 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, which +do not belong to the subject. + +Exchange is the principal department of political economy, because it is +by far the most frequent method of transmitting property, according to +the free and voluntary agreements of the laws and effects of which this +science treats. + +Properly speaking, exchange is the reciprocity of services. The parties +say 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 (for +this will throw a new light on the notion of value), that the second +form 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 is +proposed. Again, when it is said, "Give me this, and I will give you +that," 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 valuation +of the two services; so that it is quite correct to say, that the +principle of _value_ is in the services rendered and received on account +of the productions exchanged, rather than in productions themselves. + +In reality, services are scarcely ever exchanged directly. There is a +medium, which is termed _money_. Paul has completed a coat, for which he +wishes to receive a little bread, a little wine, a little oil, a visit +from a doctor, a ticket for the play, etc. The exchange cannot be +effected in kind; so what does Paul do? He first exchanges his coat for +some money, which is called _sale_; then he exchanges this money again +for 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,--"I +have done this for society, it has done that for me." In a word, it is +only now that the exchange is actually accomplished. Thus, nothing can +be more correct than this observation of J.B. Say: "Since the +introduction of money, every exchange is resolved into two elements, +_sale_ and _purchase_. It is the reunion of these two elements which +renders the exchange complete." + +We must remark, also, that the constant appearance of money in every +exchange has overturned and misled all our ideas; men have ended in +thinking that money was true riches, and that to multiply it was to +multiply services and products. Hence the prohibitory system; hence +paper money; hence the celebrated aphorism, "What one gains the other +loses;" and all the errors which have ruined the earth, and imbrued it +with blood.[17] After much research it has been found, that in order to +make the two services exchanged of equivalent value, and in order to +render the exchange _equitable_, the best means was to allow it to be +free. However plausible, at first sight, the intervention of the State +might be, it was soon perceived that it is always oppressive to one or +other of the contracting parties. When we look into these subjects, we +are always compelled to reason upon this maxim, that _equal value_ +results from liberty. We have, in fact, no other means of knowing +whether, at a given moment, two services are of the same value, but that +of examining whether they can be readily and freely exchanged. Allow the +State, which is the same thing as force, to interfere on one side or the +other, and from that moment all the means of appreciation will be +complicated and entangled, instead of becoming clear. It ought to be the +part of the State to prevent, and, above all, to repress artifice and +fraud; that is, to secure liberty, and not to violate it. I have +enlarged a little upon exchange, although loan is my principal object: +my excuse is, that I conceive that there is in a loan an actual +exchange, an actual service rendered by the lender, and which makes the +borrower liable to an equivalent service,--two services, whose +comparative value can only be appreciated, like that of all possible +services, by freedom. Now, if it is so, the perfect lawfulness of what +is called house-rent, farm-rent, interest, will be explained and +justified. 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 value +is beyond all dispute. Suppose, for example, Peter says to Paul, "Give +me ten sixpences, I will give you a five-shilling piece." We cannot +imagine an equal value more unquestionable. When the bargain is made, +neither party has any claim upon the other. The exchanged services are +equal. Thus it follows, that if one of the parties wishes to introduce +into the bargain an additional clause, advantageous to himself, but +unfavorable to the other party, he must agree to a second clause, which +shall re-establish the equilibrium, and the law of justice. It would be +absurd to deny the justice of a second clause of compensation. This +granted, we will suppose that Peter, after having said to Paul, "Give me +ten sixpences, I will give you a crown," adds, "you shall give me the +ten sixpences _now_, and I will give you the crown-piece _in a year_;" +it is very evident that this new proposition alters the claims and +advantages of the bargain; that it alters the proportion of the two +services. Does it not appear plainly enough, in fact, that Peter asks of +Paul a new and an additional service; one of a different kind? Is it not +as if he had said, "Render me the service of allowing me to use for my +profit, for a year, five shillings which belong to you, and which you +might have used for yourself"? And what good reason have you to maintain +that Paul is bound to render this especial service gratuitously; that he +has no right to demand anything more in consequence of this requisition; +that the State ought to interfere to force him to submit? Is it not +incomprehensible that the economist, who preaches such a doctrine to the +people, can reconcile it with his principle of _the reciprocity of +services_? Here I have introduced cash; I have been led to do so by a +desire to place, side by side, two objects of exchange, of a perfect and +indisputable equality of value. I was anxious to be prepared for +objections; but, on the other hand, my demonstration would have been +more striking still, if I had illustrated my principle by an agreement +for exchanging the services or the productions themselves. + +Suppose, for example, a house and a vessel of a value so perfectly +equal that their proprietors are disposed to exchange them even-handed, +without excess or abatement. In fact, let the bargain be settled by a +lawyer. At the moment of each taking possession, the ship-owner says to +the citizen, "Very well; the transaction is completed, and nothing can +prove its perfect equity better than our free and voluntary consent. Our +conditions thus fixed, I shall propose to you a little practical +modification. You shall let me have your house to-day, but I shall not +put you in possession of my ship for a year; and the reason I make this +demand of you is, that, during this year of _delay_, I wish to use the +vessel." That we may not be embarrassed by considerations relative to +the deterioration of the thing lent, I will suppose the ship-owner to +add, "I will engage, at the end of the year, to hand over to you the +vessel in the state in which it is to-day." I ask of every candid man, I +ask of M. Proudhon himself, if the citizen has not a right to answer, +"The new clause which you propose entirely alters the proportion or the +equal value of the exchanged services. By it, I shall be deprived, for +the 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, the +bargain was just, for the same reason the clause is injurious to me. It +stipulates for a loss to me, and a gain to you. You are requiring of me +a new service; I have a right to refuse, or to require of you, as a +compensation, an equivalent service." If the parties are agreed upon +this compensation, the principle of which is incontestable, we can +easily distinguish two transactions in one, two exchanges of service in +one. First, there is the exchange of the house for the vessel; after +this, there is the delay granted by one of the parties, and the +compensation correspondent to this delay yielded by the other. These two +new services take the generic and abstract names of _credit_ and +_interest_. But names do not change the nature of things; and I defy any +one to dare to maintain that there exists here, when all is done, a +service for a service, or a reciprocity of services. To say that one of +these services does not challenge the other, to say that the first ought +to be rendered gratuitously, without injustice, is to say that injustice +consists in the reciprocity of services--that justice consists in one of +the 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 of +two 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 is +precisely the reason why they deny its productiveness; for, as M. Thore +says, crowns are not endowed with the power of reproducing themselves. +But it is not true that capital and money are the same thing. Before +the discovery of the precious metals, there were capitalists in the +world; and I venture to say that at that time, as now, everybody was a +capitalist, 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 have +already a value communicated by some human effort, which has bestowed +upon 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 almost +void; yet these very things have required much work, especially at +first. This is the reason that so much value has been attached to the +possession of them, and also that it is perfectly lawful to exchange and +to sell them, to make a profit of them if used, to gain remuneration +from them if lent. + +Now for my anecdotes. + + +THE SACK OF CORN. + +Mathurin, in other respects as poor as Job, and obliged to earn his +bread by day-labor, became, nevertheless, by some inheritance, the +owner of a fine piece of uncultivated land. He was exceedingly anxious +to cultivate it. "Alas!" said he, "to make ditches, to raise fences, to +break the soil, to clear away the brambles and stones, to plough it, to +sow it, might bring me a living in a year or two; but certainly not +to-day, or to-morrow. It is impossible to set about farming it, without +previously saving some provisions for my subsistence until the harvest; +and I know, by experience, that preparatory labor is indispensable, in +order to render present labor productive." The good Mathurin was not +content 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. He +acted so well, was so active and steady, that he soon saw himself in +possession of the wished-for sack of corn. "I shall take it to the +mill," said he, "and then I shall have enough to live upon till my field +is covered with a rich harvest." Just as he was starting, Jerome came to +borrow 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 very +lucrative work in view, which I cannot possibly undertake, for want of +provisions 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 of +justice can it be devoted to the realization of _your_ enterprise +instead of _mine_?" + +You may well believe that the bargain was a long one. However, it was +finished at length, and on these conditions: + +First. Jerome promised to give back, at the end of the year, a sack of +corn of the same quality, and of the same weight, without missing a +single grain. "This first clause is perfectly just," said he, "for +without 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 without +it Mathurin would do me a service without compensation; he would inflict +upon himself a privation--he would renounce his cherished enterprise--he +would enable me to accomplish mine--he would cause me to enjoy for a +year the fruits of his savings, and all this gratuitously. Since he +delays the cultivation of his land, since he enables me to realize a +lucrative labor, it is quite natural that I should let him partake, in a +certain proportion, of the profits which I shall gain by the sacrifice +he makes of his own." + +On his side, Mathurin, who was something of a scholar, made this +calculation: "Since, by virtue of the first clause, the sack of corn +will return to me at the end of a year," he said to himself, "I shall +be able to lend it again; it will return to me at the end of the second +year; I may lend it again, and so on, to all eternity. However, I cannot +deny that it will have been eaten long ago. It is singular that I should +be perpetually the owner of a sack of corn, although the one I have lent +has been consumed for ever. But this is explained thus: It will be +consumed in the service of Jerome. It will put it into the power of +Jerome to produce a superior value; and, consequently, Jerome will be +able to restore me a sack of corn, or the value of it, without having +suffered the slightest injury; but quite the contrary. And as regards +myself, this value ought to be my property, as long as I do not consume +it myself; if I had used it to clear my land, I should have received it +again in the form of a fine harvest. Instead of that, I lend it, and +shall recover it in the form of repayment. + +"From the second clause, I gain another piece of information. At the end +of the year, I shall be in possession of five litres of corn, over the +100 that I have just lent. If, then, I were to continue to work by the +day, and to save a part of my wages, as I have been doing, in the course +of time I should be able to lend two sacks of corn; then three; then +four; and when I should have gained a sufficient number to enable me to +live on these additions of five litres over and above each, I shall be +at liberty to take a little repose in my old age. But how is this? In +this 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; I +complete the labor of my borrowers; and only deduct a trifling part of +the excess of production, due to my lendings and savings. It is a +marvellous thing, that a man may thus realize a leisure which injures no +one, and for which he cannot be envied without injustice." + + +THE HOUSE. + +Mondor had a house. In building it, he had extorted nothing from any one +whatever. He owed it to his own personal labor, or, which is the same +thing, to labor justly rewarded. His first care was to make a bargain +with an architect, in virtue of which, by means of a hundred crowns a +year, the latter engaged to keep the house in constant good repair. +Mondor was already congratulating himself on the happy days which he +hoped to spend in this retreat, declared sacred by our Constitution. But +Valerius wished to make it his residence. "How can you think of such a +thing?" said Mondor; "it is I who have built it; it has cost me ten +years of painful labor, and now you would enjoy it!" They agreed to +refer the matter to judges. They chose no profound economists--there +were none such in the country. But they found some just and sensible +men; it all comes to the same thing: political economy, justice, good +sense, are all the same thing. Now here is the decision made by the +judges: If Valerius wishes to occupy Mondor's house for a year, he is +bound to submit to three conditions. The first is, to quit at the end of +the year, and to restore the house in good repair, saving the inevitable +decay resulting from mere duration. The second, to refund to Mondor the +300 francs, which the latter pays annually to the architect to repair +the injuries of time; for these injuries taking place whilst the house +is in the service of Valerius, it is perfectly just that he should bear +the consequences. The third, that he should render to Mondor a service +equivalent to that which he receives. As to this equivalence of +services, 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 a +philosopher, as all my heroes are, in their way. James worked from +morning 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, and +their effects. He sometimes said to himself, "With my hatchet, my saw, +and my hammer, I can make only coarse furniture, and can only get the +pay for such. If I only had a _plane_, I should please my customers +more, and they would pay me more. It is quite just; I can only expect +services proportioned to those which I render myself. Yes! I am +resolved, I will make myself a _plane_." + +However, just as he was setting to work, James reflected further: "I +work for my customers 300 days in the year. If I give ten to making my +plane, supposing it lasts me a year, only 290 days will remain for me to +make 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 would +not be worth my while to venture upon any innovations." James began to +calculate. He satisfied himself that he should sell his finished +furniture at a price which would amply compensate for the ten days +devoted to the plane; and when no doubt remained on this point, he set +to work. I beg the reader to remark, that the power which exists in the +tool to increase the productiveness of labor, is the basis of the +solution 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 for +joy--for, like the girl with her basket of eggs, he reckoned all the +profits which he expected to derive from the ingenious instrument; but +more fortunate than she, he was not reduced to the necessity of saying +good-bye to calf, cow, pig, and eggs, together. He was building his fine +castles 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 to +James: + +_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 this +service, what will you do for me in return?" + +_W._ Nothing. Don't you know that a loan ought to be gratuitous? Don't +you know that capital is naturally unproductive? Don't you know +fraternity has been proclaimed? If you only do me a service for the sake +of receiving one from me in return, what merit would you have? + +_J._ William, my friend, fraternity does not mean that all the +sacrifices are to be on one side; if so, I do not see why they should +not be on yours. Whether a loan should be gratuitous I don't know; but I +do know that if I were to lend you my plane for a year, it would be +giving 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 by +the Socialist gentlemen. I ask you to do me a service; what service do +you ask of me in return? + +_J._ First, then, in a year, the plane will be done for, it will be good +for nothing. It is only just, that you should let me have another +exactly like it; or that you should give me money enough to get it +repaired; or that you should supply me the ten days which I must devote +to replacing it. + +_W._ This is perfectly just. I submit to these conditions. I engage to +return it, or to let you have one like it, or the value of the same. I +think 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. I +expected to gain some advantage from it, by my work being better +finished and better paid, by an improvement in my condition. What reason +is there that I should make the plane, and you should gain the profit? I +might 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 own +hands, as well as his hands themselves? To use without recompense the +hands of another, I call slavery; to use without recompense the plane of +another, 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 my +condition; if you merely return it to me in a year, it is you who will +gain the profit of it during the whole of that time. I am not bound to +do you such a service without receiving anything from you in return; +therefore, if you wish for my plane, independently of the entire +restoration already bargained for, you must do me a service which we +will now discuss; you must grant me remuneration. + +And this was done thus: William granted a remuneration calculated in +such a way that, at the end of the year, James received his plane quite +new, and in addition, a compensation, consisting of a new plank, for the +advantages of which he had deprived himself, and which he had yielded to +his friend. + +It was impossible for any one acquainted with the transaction to +discover the slightest trace in it of oppression or injustice. + +The singular part of it is, that, at the end of the year, the plane came +into James' possession, and he lent it again; recovered it, and lent it +a third and fourth time. It has passed into the hands of his son, who +still lends it. Poor plane! how many times has it changed, sometimes its +blade, sometimes its handle. It is no longer the same plane, but it has +always the same value, at least for James' posterity. Workmen! let us +examine into these little stories. + +I maintain, first of all, that the _sack of corn_ and the _plane_ are +here the type, the model, a faithful representation, the symbol, of all +capital; as the five litres of corn and the plank are the type, the +model, the representation, the symbol, of all interest. This granted, +the following are, it seems to me, a series of consequences, the justice +of which it is impossible to dispute. + +1st. If the yielding of a plank by the borrower to the lender is a +natural, equitable, lawful remuneration, the just price of a real +service, we may conclude that, as a general rule, it is in the nature of +capital to produce interest. When this capital, as in the foregoing +examples, takes the form of an _instrument of labor_, it is clear enough +that it ought to bring an advantage to its possessor, to him who has +devoted to it his time, his brains, and his strength. Otherwise, why +should he have made it? No necessity of life can be immediately +satisfied with instruments of labor; no one eats planes or drinks saws, +except, indeed, he be a conjurer. If a man determines to spend his time +in the production of such things, he must have been led to it by the +consideration of the power which these instruments add to his power; of +the time which they save him; of the perfection and rapidity which they +give to his labor; in a word, of the advantages which they procure for +him. Now, these advantages, which have been prepared by labor, by the +sacrifice 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 them +gratuitously upon another? Would it be an advance in social order, if +the law decided thus, and citizens should pay officials for causing such +a law to be executed by force? I venture to say, that there is not one +amongst you who would support it. It would be to legalize, to organize, +to systematize injustice itself, for it would be proclaiming that there +are 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, if +possible, still more conclusive, to which I call your attention, is +this: _interest is not injurious to the borrower_. I mean to say, the +obligation in which the borrower finds himself, to pay a remuneration +for the use of capital, cannot do any harm to his condition. Observe, in +fact, that James and William are perfectly free, as regards the +transaction to which the plane gave occasion. The transaction cannot be +accomplished without the consent of the one as well as of the other. The +worst which can happen is, that James may be too exacting; and in this +case, William, refusing the loan, remains as he was before. By the fact +of his agreeing to borrow, he proves that he considers it an advantage +to himself; he proves, that after every calculation, including the +remuneration, whatever it may be, required of him, he still finds it +more profitable to borrow than not to borrow. He only determines to do +so because he has compared the inconveniences with the advantages. He +has calculated that the day on which he returns the plane, accompanied +by the remuneration agreed upon, he will have effected more work, with +the same labor, thanks to this tool. A profit will remain to him, +otherwise he would not have borrowed. The two services of which we are +speaking are exchanged according to the law which governs all exchanges, +the law of supply and demand. The claims of James have a natural and +impassable limit. This is the point in which the remuneration demanded +by him would absorb all the advantage which William might find in making +use 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 do +without one, which would leave him in his original condition. He +borrows, because he gains by borrowing. I know very well what will be +told me. You will say, William may be deceived, or, perhaps, he may be +governed by necessity, and be obliged to submit to a harsh law. + +It may be so. As to errors in calculation, they belong to the infirmity +of our nature, and to argue from this against the transaction in +question, is objecting the possibility of loss in all imaginable +transactions, in every human act. Error is an accidental fact, which is +incessantly remedied by experience. In short, everybody must guard +against it. As far as those hard necessities are concerned, which force +persons to burdensome borrowings, it is clear that these necessities +exist previously to the borrowing. If William is in a situation in which +he cannot possibly do without a plane, and must borrow one at any price, +does this situation result from James having taken the trouble to make +the tool? Does it not exist independently of this circumstance? However +harsh, however severe James may be, he will never render the supposed +condition of William worse than it is. Morally, it is true, the lender +will be to blame; but, in an economical point of view, the loan itself +can never be considered responsible for previous necessities, which it +has not created, and which it relieves, to a certain extent. + +But this proves something to which I shall return. The evident interests +of William, representing here the borrowers, there are many Jameses and +planes. In other words, lenders and capitals. It is very evident, that +if William can say to James--"Your demands are exorbitant; there is no +lack of planes in the world;" he will be in a better situation than if +James' plane was the only one to be borrowed. Assuredly, there is no +maxim 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 the +farthest possible point; and the most favorable circumstance for these +requisitions is the absence of rivalship. Hence it follows, that if +there is a class of men more interested than any other, in the +formation, multiplication, and abundance of capitals, it is mainly that +of the borrowers. Now, since capitals can only be formed and increased +by the stimulus and the prospect of remuneration, let this class +understand the injury they are inflicting on themselves, when they deny +the lawfulness of interest, when they proclaim that credit should be +gratuitous, when they declaim against the pretended tyranny of capital, +when they discourage saving, thus forcing capitals to become scarce, and +consequently interests to rise. + +3rd. The anecdote I have just related enables you to explain this +apparently singular phenomenon, which is termed the duration or +perpetuity of interest. Since, in lending his plane, James has been +able, very lawfully, to make it a condition, that it should be returned +to him, at the end of a year, in the same state in which it was when he +lent 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 latter +plan, the plane will return to him at the end of every year, and that +without 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 out +by the hand and for the profit of the borrower. The latter has taken +into account this gradual wear, and taken upon himself, as he ought, the +consequences. He has reckoned that he shall derive from this tool an +advantage, which will allow him to restore it in its original condition, +after having realized a profit from it. As long as James does not use +this capital himself, or for his own advantage--as long as he renounces +the advantages which allow it to be restored to its original +condition--he will have an incontestable right to have it restored, and +that independently of interest. + +Observe, besides, that if, as I believe I have shown, James, far from +doing any harm to William, has done him a _service_ in lending him his +plane for a year; for the same reason, he will do no harm to a second, a +third, a fourth borrower, in the subsequent periods. Hence you may +understand, that the interest of a capital is as natural, as lawful, as +useful, in the thousandth year, as in the first. We may go still +further. It may happen, that James lends more than a single plane. It is +possible, 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 is +to say, to do a multitude of services. I insist upon this point--that if +the first loan has been a social good, it will be the same with all the +others; for they are all similar, and based upon the same principle. It +may happen, then, that the amount of all the remunerations received by +our honest operative, in exchange for services rendered by him, may +suffice to maintain him. In this case, there will be a man in the world +who has a right to live without working. I do not say that he would be +doing right to give himself up to idleness--but I say, that he has a +right to do so; and if he does so, it will be at nobody's expense, but +quite the contrary. If society at all understands the nature of things, +it will acknowledge that this man subsists on services which he receives +certainly (as we all do), but which he lawfully receives in exchange for +other services, which he himself has rendered, that he continues to +render, and which are quite real, inasmuch as they are freely and +voluntarily accepted. + +And here we have a glimpse of one of the finest harmonies in the social +world. I allude to _leisure_: not that leisure that the warlike and +tyrannical classes arrange for themselves by the plunder of the workers, +but that leisure which is the lawful and innocent fruit of past activity +and economy. In expressing myself thus, I know that I shall shock many +received ideas. But see! Is not leisure an essential spring in the +social machine? Without it, the world would never have had a Newton, a +Pascal, a Fenelon; mankind would have been ignorant of all arts, +sciences, and of those wonderful inventions, prepared originally by +investigations of mere curiosity; thought would have been inert--man +would have made no progress. On the other hand, if leisure could only be +explained by plunder and oppression--if it were a benefit which could +only be enjoyed unjustly, and at the expense of others, there would be +no middle path between these two evils; either mankind would be reduced +to the necessity of stagnating in a vegetable and stationary life, in +eternal ignorance, from the absence of wheels to its machine--or else it +would 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. I +defy any one to show me, in this case, any other alternative. We should +be compelled to contemplate the Divine plan which governs society, with +the regret of thinking that it presents a deplorable chasm. The stimulus +of progress would be forgotten, or, which is worse, this stimulus would +be no other than injustice itself. But, no! God has not left such a +chasm in his work of love. We must take care not to disregard his +wisdom and power; for those whose imperfect meditations cannot explain +the lawfulness of leisure, are very much like the astronomer who said, +at a certain point in the heavens there ought to exist a planet which +will be at last discovered, for without it the celestial world is not +harmony, 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 of +one of the most consoling, but least understood, of the social +harmonies. + +It is not true that we must choose between the denial or the +unlawfulness 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 may +aspire. It makes its appearance in the world; it distributes itself +proportionably to the exercise of certain virtues; it opens all the +avenues to intelligence; it ennobles, it raises the morals; it +spiritualizes the soul of humanity, not only without laying any weight +on those of our brethren whose lot in life devotes them to severe labor, +but relieving them gradually from the heaviest and most repugnant part +of this labor. It is enough that capitals should be formed, accumulated, +multiplied; should be lent on conditions less and less burdensome; that +they should descend, penetrate into every social circle, and that, by an +admirable progression, after having liberated the lenders, they should +hasten the liberation of the borrowers themselves. For that end, the +laws and customs ought to be favorable to economy, the source of +capital. 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 saving +and the reason of its existence--interest. + +As long as we see nothing passing from hand to hand, in the character of +loan, but _provisions_, _materials_, _instruments_, things indispensable +to the productiveness of labor itself, the ideas thus far exhibited will +not find many opponents. Who knows, even, that I may not be reproached +for having made great effort to burst what may be said to be an open +door. But as soon as _cash_ makes its appearance as the subject of the +transaction (and it is this which appears almost always), immediately a +crowd of objections are raised. Money, it will be said, will not +reproduce itself, like your _sack of corn_; it does not assist labor, +like your _plane_; it does not afford an immediate satisfaction, like +your _house_. It is incapable, by its nature, of producing interest, of +multiplying itself, and the remuneration it demands is a positive +extortion. + +Who cannot see the sophistry of this? Who does not see that cash is +only a transient form, which men give at the time to other _values_, to +real objects of usefulness, for the sole object of facilitating their +arrangements? In the midst of social complications, the man who is in a +condition to lend, scarcely ever has the exact thing which the borrower +wants. James, it is true, has a plane; but, perhaps, William wants a +saw. They cannot negotiate; the transaction favorable to both cannot +take place, and then what happens? It happens that James first exchanges +his plane for money; he lends the money to William, and William +exchanges the money for a saw. The transaction is no longer a simple +one; it is decomposed into two parts, as I explained above in speaking +of exchange. But, for all that, it has not changed its nature; it still +contains all the elements of a direct loan. James has still got rid of a +tool which was useful to him; William has still received an instrument +which perfects his work and increases his profits; there is still a +service rendered by the lender, which entitles him to receive an +equivalent service from the borrower; this just balance is not the less +established by free mutual bargaining. The very natural obligation to +restore at the end of the term the entire _value_, still constitutes the +principle of the duration of interest. + +At the end of a year, says M. Thore, will you find an additional crown +in a bag of a hundred pounds? + +No, certainly, if the borrower puts the bag of one hundred pounds on the +shelf. In such a case, neither the plane, nor the sack of corn, would +reproduce themselves. But it is not for the sake of leaving the money in +the bag, nor the plane on the hook, that they are borrowed. The plane is +borrowed to be used, or the money to procure a plane. And if it is +clearly proved that this tool enables the borrower to obtain profits +which he would not have made without it, if it is proved that the lender +has renounced creating for himself this excess of profits, we may +understand how the stipulation of a part of this excess of profits in +favor of the lender, is equitable and lawful. + +Ignorance of the true part which cash plays in human transactions, is +the source of the most fatal errors. I intend devoting an entire +pamphlet 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 a +logical and definite consequence of social progress, is the observation +of the phenomenon which shows a decreasing interest, almost in direct +proportion to the rate of civilization. In barbarous times it is, in +fact, cent. per cent., and more. Then it descends to eighty, sixty, +fifty, forty, twenty, ten, eight, five, four, and three per cent. In +Holland, 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 to +zero by the time civilization is complete. In other words, that which +characterizes social perfection is the gratuitousness of credit. When, +therefore, we shall have abolished interest, we shall have reached the +last step of progress." This is mere sophistry, and as such false +arguing may contribute to render popular the unjust, dangerous, and +destructive dogma, that credit should be gratuitous, by representing it +as coincident with social perfection, with the reader's permission I +will examine in a few words this new view of the question. + +What is _interest_? It is the service rendered, after a free bargain, by +the borrower to the lender, in remuneration for the service he has +received by the loan. By what law is the rate of these remunerative +services established? By the general law which regulates the equivalent +of all services; that is, by the law of supply and demand. + +The more easily a thing is procured, the smaller is the service rendered +by yielding it or lending it. The man who gives me a glass of water in +the Pyrenees, does not render me so great a service as he who allows me +one in the desert of Sahara. If there are many planes, sacks of corn, or +houses, in a country, the use of them is obtained, other things being +equal, on more favorable conditions than if they were few; for the +simple reason, that the lender renders in this case a smaller _relative +service_. + +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 interest +will be annihilated, is to say that there will never be any motive for +saving, for denying ourselves, in order to form new capitals, nor even +to preserve the old ones. In this case, the waste would immediately +bring a void, and interest would directly reappear. + +In that, the nature of the services of which we are speaking does not +differ from any other. Thanks to industrial progress, a pair of +stockings, which used to be worth six francs, has successively been +worth only four, three, and two. No one can say to what point this value +will descend; but we can affirm, that it will never reach zero, unless +the stockings finish by producing themselves spontaneously. Why? Because +the principle of remuneration is in labor; because he who works for +another renders a service, and ought to receive a service. If no one +paid 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 infinite +divisibility which belongs to _value_, as it does to matter. + +It appears, at first, paradoxical, but it is well known to all +mathematicians, that, through all eternity, fractions may be taken from +a weight without the weight ever being annihilated. It is sufficient +that each successive fraction be less than the preceding one, in a +determined and regular proportion. + +There are countries where people apply themselves to increasing the size +of horses, or diminishing in sheep the size of the head. It is +impossible to say precisely to what point they will arrive in this. No +one can say that he has seen the largest horse or the smallest sheep's +head that will ever appear in the world. But he may safely say that the +size of horses will never attain to infinity, nor the heads of sheep to +nothing. + +In the same way, no one can say to what point the price of stockings nor +the interest of capitals will come down; but we may safely affirm, when +we know the nature of things, that neither the one nor the other will +ever arrive at zero, for labor and capital can no more live without +recompense than a sheep without a head. + +The arguments of M. Proudhon reduce themselves, then, to this: since the +most skillful agriculturists are those who have reduced the heads of +sheep to the smallest size, we shall have arrived at the highest +agricultural 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 the +breath of false doctrine has made it needful to examine into the +intimate nature of interest? I must not leave off without remarking upon +a beautiful moral which may be drawn from this law: "The depression of +interest is proportioned to the abundance of capitals." This law being +granted, if there is a class of men to whom it is more important than to +any other that capitals be formed, accumulate, multiply, abound, and +superabound, it is certainly the class which borrows them directly or +indirectly; it is those men who operate upon _materials_, who gain +assistance by _instruments_, who live upon _provisions_, produced and +economized by other men. + +Imagine, in a vast and fertile country, a population of a thousand +inhabitants, destitute of all capital thus defined. It will assuredly +perish by the pangs of hunger. Let us suppose a case hardly less cruel. +Let us suppose that ten of these savages are provided with instruments +and provisions sufficient to work and to live themselves until harvest +time, as well as to remunerate the services of eighty laborers. The +inevitable result will be the death of nine hundred human beings. It is +clear, then, that since nine hundred and ninety men, urged by want, will +crowd upon the supports which would only maintain a hundred, the ten +capitalists will be masters of the market. They will obtain labor on +the hardest conditions, for they will put it up to auction, or the +highest bidder. And observe this--if these capitalists entertain such +pious sentiments as would induce them to impose personal privations on +themselves, in order to diminish the sufferings of some of their +brethren, this generosity, which attaches to morality, will be as noble +in its principle as useful in its effects. But if, duped by that false +philosophy which persons wish so inconsiderately to mingle with economic +laws, they take to remunerating labor largely, far from doing good, they +will do harm. They will give double wages, it may be. But then, +forty-five men will be better provided for, whilst forty-five others +will 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 the +mischief, 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 extent +the remedy. It acts in this way; it distributes the burden of suffering +as much as it can, and saves as many lives as a limited quantity of +sustenance 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 the +whole population, and, above all, that of the "proletaires,"[18] will be +more and more improved? Is it not evident that, apart from every +consideration of generosity, they would obtain more work and better pay +for it?--that they themselves will be in a better condition to form +capitals, without being able to fix the limits to this ever-increasing +facility of realizing equality and well-being? Would it not be madness +in them to admit such doctrines, and to act in a way which would drain +the source of wages, and paralyze the activity and stimulus of saving? +Let them learn this lesson, then; doubtless, capitals are good for those +who possess them: who denies it? But they are also useful to those who +have not yet been able to form them; and it is important to those who +have them not, that others should have them. + +[Footnote 18: Common people.] + +Yes, if the "proletaires" knew their true interests, they would seek, +with the greatest care, what circumstances are, and what are not +favorable to saving, in order to favor the former and to discourage the +latter. They would sympathize with every measure which tends to the +rapid formation of capitals. They would be enthusiastic promoters of +peace, liberty, order, security, the union of classes and peoples, +economy, moderation in public expenses, simplicity in the machinery of +Government; for it is under the sway of all these circumstances that +saving does its work, brings plenty within the reach of the masses, +invites those persons to become the formers of capital who were +formerly under the necessity of borrowing upon hard conditions. They +would repel with energy the warlike spirit, which diverts from its true +course so large a part of human labor; the monopolizing spirit, which +deranges the equitable distribution of riches, in the way by which +liberty alone can realize it; the multitude of public services, which +attack our purses only to check our liberty; and, in short, those +subversive, hateful, thoughtless doctrines, which alarm capital, prevent +its formation, oblige it to flee, and finally to raise its price, to the +special disadvantage of the workers, who bring it into operation. Well, +and in this respect is not the revolution of February a hard lesson? Is +it not evident, that the insecurity it has thrown into the world of +business, on the one hand; and, on the other, the advancement of the +fatal theories to which I have alluded, and which, from the clubs, have +almost penetrated into the regions of the Legislature, have everywhere +raised the rate of interest? Is it not evident, that from that time the +"proletaires" have found greater difficulty in procuring those +materials, instruments, and provisions, without which labor is +impossible? Is it not that which has caused stoppages; and do not +stoppages, in their turn, lower wages? Thus there is a deficiency of +labor to the "proletaires," from the same cause which loads the objects +they consume with an increase of price, in consequence of the rise of +interest. High interest, low wages, means in other words that the same +article preserves its price, but that the part of the capitalist has +invaded, 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 very +striking fact, which proves, better than any reasoning can, how much +insecurity and uncertainty injure the formation of capital. It was +remarked, that during the most distressing period, the popular expenses +of mere fancy had not diminished. The small theaters, the fighting +lists, the public houses, and tobacco depots, were as much frequented as +in prosperous times. In the inquiry, the operatives themselves explained +this phenomenon thus: "What is the use of pinching? Who knows what will +happen to us? Who knows that interest will not be abolished? Who knows +but that the State will become a universal and gratuitous lender, and +that it will wish to annihilate all the fruits which we might expect +from our savings?" Well! I say, that if such ideas could prevail during +two single years, it would be enough to turn our beautiful France into a +Turkey--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 are +ignorant of the laws of its _natural_ organization; that is, of the +wonderful organization which results from liberty. You are told, that +liberty gives rise to what is called the radical antagonism of classes; +that it creates, and makes to clash, two opposite interests--that of the +capitalists and that of the "proletaires." But we ought to begin by +proving that this antagonism exists by a law of nature; and afterwards +it would remain to be shown how far the arrangements of restraint are +superior to those of liberty, for between liberty and restraint I see no +middle path. Again, it would remain to be proved, that restraint would +always operate to your advantage, and to the prejudice of the rich. But, +no; this radical antagonism, this natural opposition of interests, does +not exist. It is only an evil dream of perverted and intoxicated +imaginations. No; a plan so defective has not proceeded from the Divine +Mind. To affirm it, we must begin by denying the existence of God. And +see how, by means of social laws, and because men exchange amongst +themselves their labors, and their productions, see what a harmonious +tie attaches the classes, one to the other! There are the landowners; +what is their interest? That the soil be fertile, and the sun +beneficent: and what is the result? That corn abounds, that it falls in +price, and the advantage turns to the profit of those who have had no +patrimony. There are the manufacturers; what is their constant thought? +To perfect their labor, to increase the power of their machines, to +procure for themselves, upon the best terms, the raw material. And to +what does all this tend? To the abundance and low price of produce; that +is, that all the efforts of the manufacturers, and without their +suspecting it, result in a profit to the public consumer, of which each +of you is one. It is the same with every profession. Well, the +capitalists are not exempt from this law. They are very busy making +schemes, economizing, and turning them to their advantage. This is all +very well; but the more they succeed, the more do they promote the +abundance of capital, and, as a necessary consequence, the reduction of +interest? Now, who is it that profits by the reduction of interest? Is +it not the borrower first, and finally, the consumers of the things +which the capitals contribute to produce? + +It is, therefore, certain that the final result of the efforts of each +class, is the common good of all. + +You are told that capital tyrannizes over labor. I do not deny that each +one endeavors to draw the greatest possible advantage from his +situation; 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 is +they who regulate the rate of sale. Never is this tyranny more +impossible to them, than when they are abundant; for, in that case, it +is 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 them +in their hearts. This is no declamatory morality; it is a chain of +causes and effects, which is capable of being rigorously, mathematically +demonstrated. It is not the less sublime, in that it satisfies the +intellect as well as the feelings. + +I shall sum up this whole dissertation with these words: Workmen, +laborers, "proletaires," destitute and suffering classes, will you +improve your condition? You will not succeed by strife, insurrection, +hatred, and error. But there are three things which cannot perfect the +entire community without extending these benefits to yourselves; these +things are--peace, liberty, and security. + + + + + +End of Project Gutenberg's Sophisms of the Protectionists, by Frederic Bastiat + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SOPHISMS OF THE PROTECTIONISTS *** + +***** This file should be named 20161.txt or 20161.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/2/0/1/6/20161/ + +Produced by Graeme Mackreth, Curtis Weyant and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. diff --git a/20161.zip b/20161.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..1736004 --- /dev/null +++ b/20161.zip diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c434b7c --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #20161 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/20161) |