summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/20161-h/20161-h.htm
blob: 396b80f547e428d0472aef7554ac61fdfc490fd3 (plain) 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
1708
1709
1710
1711
1712
1713
1714
1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731
1732
1733
1734
1735
1736
1737
1738
1739
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749
1750
1751
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761
1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
1785
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
2075
2076
2077
2078
2079
2080
2081
2082
2083
2084
2085
2086
2087
2088
2089
2090
2091
2092
2093
2094
2095
2096
2097
2098
2099
2100
2101
2102
2103
2104
2105
2106
2107
2108
2109
2110
2111
2112
2113
2114
2115
2116
2117
2118
2119
2120
2121
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
2131
2132
2133
2134
2135
2136
2137
2138
2139
2140
2141
2142
2143
2144
2145
2146
2147
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
2164
2165
2166
2167
2168
2169
2170
2171
2172
2173
2174
2175
2176
2177
2178
2179
2180
2181
2182
2183
2184
2185
2186
2187
2188
2189
2190
2191
2192
2193
2194
2195
2196
2197
2198
2199
2200
2201
2202
2203
2204
2205
2206
2207
2208
2209
2210
2211
2212
2213
2214
2215
2216
2217
2218
2219
2220
2221
2222
2223
2224
2225
2226
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234
2235
2236
2237
2238
2239
2240
2241
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
2251
2252
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2260
2261
2262
2263
2264
2265
2266
2267
2268
2269
2270
2271
2272
2273
2274
2275
2276
2277
2278
2279
2280
2281
2282
2283
2284
2285
2286
2287
2288
2289
2290
2291
2292
2293
2294
2295
2296
2297
2298
2299
2300
2301
2302
2303
2304
2305
2306
2307
2308
2309
2310
2311
2312
2313
2314
2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
2320
2321
2322
2323
2324
2325
2326
2327
2328
2329
2330
2331
2332
2333
2334
2335
2336
2337
2338
2339
2340
2341
2342
2343
2344
2345
2346
2347
2348
2349
2350
2351
2352
2353
2354
2355
2356
2357
2358
2359
2360
2361
2362
2363
2364
2365
2366
2367
2368
2369
2370
2371
2372
2373
2374
2375
2376
2377
2378
2379
2380
2381
2382
2383
2384
2385
2386
2387
2388
2389
2390
2391
2392
2393
2394
2395
2396
2397
2398
2399
2400
2401
2402
2403
2404
2405
2406
2407
2408
2409
2410
2411
2412
2413
2414
2415
2416
2417
2418
2419
2420
2421
2422
2423
2424
2425
2426
2427
2428
2429
2430
2431
2432
2433
2434
2435
2436
2437
2438
2439
2440
2441
2442
2443
2444
2445
2446
2447
2448
2449
2450
2451
2452
2453
2454
2455
2456
2457
2458
2459
2460
2461
2462
2463
2464
2465
2466
2467
2468
2469
2470
2471
2472
2473
2474
2475
2476
2477
2478
2479
2480
2481
2482
2483
2484
2485
2486
2487
2488
2489
2490
2491
2492
2493
2494
2495
2496
2497
2498
2499
2500
2501
2502
2503
2504
2505
2506
2507
2508
2509
2510
2511
2512
2513
2514
2515
2516
2517
2518
2519
2520
2521
2522
2523
2524
2525
2526
2527
2528
2529
2530
2531
2532
2533
2534
2535
2536
2537
2538
2539
2540
2541
2542
2543
2544
2545
2546
2547
2548
2549
2550
2551
2552
2553
2554
2555
2556
2557
2558
2559
2560
2561
2562
2563
2564
2565
2566
2567
2568
2569
2570
2571
2572
2573
2574
2575
2576
2577
2578
2579
2580
2581
2582
2583
2584
2585
2586
2587
2588
2589
2590
2591
2592
2593
2594
2595
2596
2597
2598
2599
2600
2601
2602
2603
2604
2605
2606
2607
2608
2609
2610
2611
2612
2613
2614
2615
2616
2617
2618
2619
2620
2621
2622
2623
2624
2625
2626
2627
2628
2629
2630
2631
2632
2633
2634
2635
2636
2637
2638
2639
2640
2641
2642
2643
2644
2645
2646
2647
2648
2649
2650
2651
2652
2653
2654
2655
2656
2657
2658
2659
2660
2661
2662
2663
2664
2665
2666
2667
2668
2669
2670
2671
2672
2673
2674
2675
2676
2677
2678
2679
2680
2681
2682
2683
2684
2685
2686
2687
2688
2689
2690
2691
2692
2693
2694
2695
2696
2697
2698
2699
2700
2701
2702
2703
2704
2705
2706
2707
2708
2709
2710
2711
2712
2713
2714
2715
2716
2717
2718
2719
2720
2721
2722
2723
2724
2725
2726
2727
2728
2729
2730
2731
2732
2733
2734
2735
2736
2737
2738
2739
2740
2741
2742
2743
2744
2745
2746
2747
2748
2749
2750
2751
2752
2753
2754
2755
2756
2757
2758
2759
2760
2761
2762
2763
2764
2765
2766
2767
2768
2769
2770
2771
2772
2773
2774
2775
2776
2777
2778
2779
2780
2781
2782
2783
2784
2785
2786
2787
2788
2789
2790
2791
2792
2793
2794
2795
2796
2797
2798
2799
2800
2801
2802
2803
2804
2805
2806
2807
2808
2809
2810
2811
2812
2813
2814
2815
2816
2817
2818
2819
2820
2821
2822
2823
2824
2825
2826
2827
2828
2829
2830
2831
2832
2833
2834
2835
2836
2837
2838
2839
2840
2841
2842
2843
2844
2845
2846
2847
2848
2849
2850
2851
2852
2853
2854
2855
2856
2857
2858
2859
2860
2861
2862
2863
2864
2865
2866
2867
2868
2869
2870
2871
2872
2873
2874
2875
2876
2877
2878
2879
2880
2881
2882
2883
2884
2885
2886
2887
2888
2889
2890
2891
2892
2893
2894
2895
2896
2897
2898
2899
2900
2901
2902
2903
2904
2905
2906
2907
2908
2909
2910
2911
2912
2913
2914
2915
2916
2917
2918
2919
2920
2921
2922
2923
2924
2925
2926
2927
2928
2929
2930
2931
2932
2933
2934
2935
2936
2937
2938
2939
2940
2941
2942
2943
2944
2945
2946
2947
2948
2949
2950
2951
2952
2953
2954
2955
2956
2957
2958
2959
2960
2961
2962
2963
2964
2965
2966
2967
2968
2969
2970
2971
2972
2973
2974
2975
2976
2977
2978
2979
2980
2981
2982
2983
2984
2985
2986
2987
2988
2989
2990
2991
2992
2993
2994
2995
2996
2997
2998
2999
3000
3001
3002
3003
3004
3005
3006
3007
3008
3009
3010
3011
3012
3013
3014
3015
3016
3017
3018
3019
3020
3021
3022
3023
3024
3025
3026
3027
3028
3029
3030
3031
3032
3033
3034
3035
3036
3037
3038
3039
3040
3041
3042
3043
3044
3045
3046
3047
3048
3049
3050
3051
3052
3053
3054
3055
3056
3057
3058
3059
3060
3061
3062
3063
3064
3065
3066
3067
3068
3069
3070
3071
3072
3073
3074
3075
3076
3077
3078
3079
3080
3081
3082
3083
3084
3085
3086
3087
3088
3089
3090
3091
3092
3093
3094
3095
3096
3097
3098
3099
3100
3101
3102
3103
3104
3105
3106
3107
3108
3109
3110
3111
3112
3113
3114
3115
3116
3117
3118
3119
3120
3121
3122
3123
3124
3125
3126
3127
3128
3129
3130
3131
3132
3133
3134
3135
3136
3137
3138
3139
3140
3141
3142
3143
3144
3145
3146
3147
3148
3149
3150
3151
3152
3153
3154
3155
3156
3157
3158
3159
3160
3161
3162
3163
3164
3165
3166
3167
3168
3169
3170
3171
3172
3173
3174
3175
3176
3177
3178
3179
3180
3181
3182
3183
3184
3185
3186
3187
3188
3189
3190
3191
3192
3193
3194
3195
3196
3197
3198
3199
3200
3201
3202
3203
3204
3205
3206
3207
3208
3209
3210
3211
3212
3213
3214
3215
3216
3217
3218
3219
3220
3221
3222
3223
3224
3225
3226
3227
3228
3229
3230
3231
3232
3233
3234
3235
3236
3237
3238
3239
3240
3241
3242
3243
3244
3245
3246
3247
3248
3249
3250
3251
3252
3253
3254
3255
3256
3257
3258
3259
3260
3261
3262
3263
3264
3265
3266
3267
3268
3269
3270
3271
3272
3273
3274
3275
3276
3277
3278
3279
3280
3281
3282
3283
3284
3285
3286
3287
3288
3289
3290
3291
3292
3293
3294
3295
3296
3297
3298
3299
3300
3301
3302
3303
3304
3305
3306
3307
3308
3309
3310
3311
3312
3313
3314
3315
3316
3317
3318
3319
3320
3321
3322
3323
3324
3325
3326
3327
3328
3329
3330
3331
3332
3333
3334
3335
3336
3337
3338
3339
3340
3341
3342
3343
3344
3345
3346
3347
3348
3349
3350
3351
3352
3353
3354
3355
3356
3357
3358
3359
3360
3361
3362
3363
3364
3365
3366
3367
3368
3369
3370
3371
3372
3373
3374
3375
3376
3377
3378
3379
3380
3381
3382
3383
3384
3385
3386
3387
3388
3389
3390
3391
3392
3393
3394
3395
3396
3397
3398
3399
3400
3401
3402
3403
3404
3405
3406
3407
3408
3409
3410
3411
3412
3413
3414
3415
3416
3417
3418
3419
3420
3421
3422
3423
3424
3425
3426
3427
3428
3429
3430
3431
3432
3433
3434
3435
3436
3437
3438
3439
3440
3441
3442
3443
3444
3445
3446
3447
3448
3449
3450
3451
3452
3453
3454
3455
3456
3457
3458
3459
3460
3461
3462
3463
3464
3465
3466
3467
3468
3469
3470
3471
3472
3473
3474
3475
3476
3477
3478
3479
3480
3481
3482
3483
3484
3485
3486
3487
3488
3489
3490
3491
3492
3493
3494
3495
3496
3497
3498
3499
3500
3501
3502
3503
3504
3505
3506
3507
3508
3509
3510
3511
3512
3513
3514
3515
3516
3517
3518
3519
3520
3521
3522
3523
3524
3525
3526
3527
3528
3529
3530
3531
3532
3533
3534
3535
3536
3537
3538
3539
3540
3541
3542
3543
3544
3545
3546
3547
3548
3549
3550
3551
3552
3553
3554
3555
3556
3557
3558
3559
3560
3561
3562
3563
3564
3565
3566
3567
3568
3569
3570
3571
3572
3573
3574
3575
3576
3577
3578
3579
3580
3581
3582
3583
3584
3585
3586
3587
3588
3589
3590
3591
3592
3593
3594
3595
3596
3597
3598
3599
3600
3601
3602
3603
3604
3605
3606
3607
3608
3609
3610
3611
3612
3613
3614
3615
3616
3617
3618
3619
3620
3621
3622
3623
3624
3625
3626
3627
3628
3629
3630
3631
3632
3633
3634
3635
3636
3637
3638
3639
3640
3641
3642
3643
3644
3645
3646
3647
3648
3649
3650
3651
3652
3653
3654
3655
3656
3657
3658
3659
3660
3661
3662
3663
3664
3665
3666
3667
3668
3669
3670
3671
3672
3673
3674
3675
3676
3677
3678
3679
3680
3681
3682
3683
3684
3685
3686
3687
3688
3689
3690
3691
3692
3693
3694
3695
3696
3697
3698
3699
3700
3701
3702
3703
3704
3705
3706
3707
3708
3709
3710
3711
3712
3713
3714
3715
3716
3717
3718
3719
3720
3721
3722
3723
3724
3725
3726
3727
3728
3729
3730
3731
3732
3733
3734
3735
3736
3737
3738
3739
3740
3741
3742
3743
3744
3745
3746
3747
3748
3749
3750
3751
3752
3753
3754
3755
3756
3757
3758
3759
3760
3761
3762
3763
3764
3765
3766
3767
3768
3769
3770
3771
3772
3773
3774
3775
3776
3777
3778
3779
3780
3781
3782
3783
3784
3785
3786
3787
3788
3789
3790
3791
3792
3793
3794
3795
3796
3797
3798
3799
3800
3801
3802
3803
3804
3805
3806
3807
3808
3809
3810
3811
3812
3813
3814
3815
3816
3817
3818
3819
3820
3821
3822
3823
3824
3825
3826
3827
3828
3829
3830
3831
3832
3833
3834
3835
3836
3837
3838
3839
3840
3841
3842
3843
3844
3845
3846
3847
3848
3849
3850
3851
3852
3853
3854
3855
3856
3857
3858
3859
3860
3861
3862
3863
3864
3865
3866
3867
3868
3869
3870
3871
3872
3873
3874
3875
3876
3877
3878
3879
3880
3881
3882
3883
3884
3885
3886
3887
3888
3889
3890
3891
3892
3893
3894
3895
3896
3897
3898
3899
3900
3901
3902
3903
3904
3905
3906
3907
3908
3909
3910
3911
3912
3913
3914
3915
3916
3917
3918
3919
3920
3921
3922
3923
3924
3925
3926
3927
3928
3929
3930
3931
3932
3933
3934
3935
3936
3937
3938
3939
3940
3941
3942
3943
3944
3945
3946
3947
3948
3949
3950
3951
3952
3953
3954
3955
3956
3957
3958
3959
3960
3961
3962
3963
3964
3965
3966
3967
3968
3969
3970
3971
3972
3973
3974
3975
3976
3977
3978
3979
3980
3981
3982
3983
3984
3985
3986
3987
3988
3989
3990
3991
3992
3993
3994
3995
3996
3997
3998
3999
4000
4001
4002
4003
4004
4005
4006
4007
4008
4009
4010
4011
4012
4013
4014
4015
4016
4017
4018
4019
4020
4021
4022
4023
4024
4025
4026
4027
4028
4029
4030
4031
4032
4033
4034
4035
4036
4037
4038
4039
4040
4041
4042
4043
4044
4045
4046
4047
4048
4049
4050
4051
4052
4053
4054
4055
4056
4057
4058
4059
4060
4061
4062
4063
4064
4065
4066
4067
4068
4069
4070
4071
4072
4073
4074
4075
4076
4077
4078
4079
4080
4081
4082
4083
4084
4085
4086
4087
4088
4089
4090
4091
4092
4093
4094
4095
4096
4097
4098
4099
4100
4101
4102
4103
4104
4105
4106
4107
4108
4109
4110
4111
4112
4113
4114
4115
4116
4117
4118
4119
4120
4121
4122
4123
4124
4125
4126
4127
4128
4129
4130
4131
4132
4133
4134
4135
4136
4137
4138
4139
4140
4141
4142
4143
4144
4145
4146
4147
4148
4149
4150
4151
4152
4153
4154
4155
4156
4157
4158
4159
4160
4161
4162
4163
4164
4165
4166
4167
4168
4169
4170
4171
4172
4173
4174
4175
4176
4177
4178
4179
4180
4181
4182
4183
4184
4185
4186
4187
4188
4189
4190
4191
4192
4193
4194
4195
4196
4197
4198
4199
4200
4201
4202
4203
4204
4205
4206
4207
4208
4209
4210
4211
4212
4213
4214
4215
4216
4217
4218
4219
4220
4221
4222
4223
4224
4225
4226
4227
4228
4229
4230
4231
4232
4233
4234
4235
4236
4237
4238
4239
4240
4241
4242
4243
4244
4245
4246
4247
4248
4249
4250
4251
4252
4253
4254
4255
4256
4257
4258
4259
4260
4261
4262
4263
4264
4265
4266
4267
4268
4269
4270
4271
4272
4273
4274
4275
4276
4277
4278
4279
4280
4281
4282
4283
4284
4285
4286
4287
4288
4289
4290
4291
4292
4293
4294
4295
4296
4297
4298
4299
4300
4301
4302
4303
4304
4305
4306
4307
4308
4309
4310
4311
4312
4313
4314
4315
4316
4317
4318
4319
4320
4321
4322
4323
4324
4325
4326
4327
4328
4329
4330
4331
4332
4333
4334
4335
4336
4337
4338
4339
4340
4341
4342
4343
4344
4345
4346
4347
4348
4349
4350
4351
4352
4353
4354
4355
4356
4357
4358
4359
4360
4361
4362
4363
4364
4365
4366
4367
4368
4369
4370
4371
4372
4373
4374
4375
4376
4377
4378
4379
4380
4381
4382
4383
4384
4385
4386
4387
4388
4389
4390
4391
4392
4393
4394
4395
4396
4397
4398
4399
4400
4401
4402
4403
4404
4405
4406
4407
4408
4409
4410
4411
4412
4413
4414
4415
4416
4417
4418
4419
4420
4421
4422
4423
4424
4425
4426
4427
4428
4429
4430
4431
4432
4433
4434
4435
4436
4437
4438
4439
4440
4441
4442
4443
4444
4445
4446
4447
4448
4449
4450
4451
4452
4453
4454
4455
4456
4457
4458
4459
4460
4461
4462
4463
4464
4465
4466
4467
4468
4469
4470
4471
4472
4473
4474
4475
4476
4477
4478
4479
4480
4481
4482
4483
4484
4485
4486
4487
4488
4489
4490
4491
4492
4493
4494
4495
4496
4497
4498
4499
4500
4501
4502
4503
4504
4505
4506
4507
4508
4509
4510
4511
4512
4513
4514
4515
4516
4517
4518
4519
4520
4521
4522
4523
4524
4525
4526
4527
4528
4529
4530
4531
4532
4533
4534
4535
4536
4537
4538
4539
4540
4541
4542
4543
4544
4545
4546
4547
4548
4549
4550
4551
4552
4553
4554
4555
4556
4557
4558
4559
4560
4561
4562
4563
4564
4565
4566
4567
4568
4569
4570
4571
4572
4573
4574
4575
4576
4577
4578
4579
4580
4581
4582
4583
4584
4585
4586
4587
4588
4589
4590
4591
4592
4593
4594
4595
4596
4597
4598
4599
4600
4601
4602
4603
4604
4605
4606
4607
4608
4609
4610
4611
4612
4613
4614
4615
4616
4617
4618
4619
4620
4621
4622
4623
4624
4625
4626
4627
4628
4629
4630
4631
4632
4633
4634
4635
4636
4637
4638
4639
4640
4641
4642
4643
4644
4645
4646
4647
4648
4649
4650
4651
4652
4653
4654
4655
4656
4657
4658
4659
4660
4661
4662
4663
4664
4665
4666
4667
4668
4669
4670
4671
4672
4673
4674
4675
4676
4677
4678
4679
4680
4681
4682
4683
4684
4685
4686
4687
4688
4689
4690
4691
4692
4693
4694
4695
4696
4697
4698
4699
4700
4701
4702
4703
4704
4705
4706
4707
4708
4709
4710
4711
4712
4713
4714
4715
4716
4717
4718
4719
4720
4721
4722
4723
4724
4725
4726
4727
4728
4729
4730
4731
4732
4733
4734
4735
4736
4737
4738
4739
4740
4741
4742
4743
4744
4745
4746
4747
4748
4749
4750
4751
4752
4753
4754
4755
4756
4757
4758
4759
4760
4761
4762
4763
4764
4765
4766
4767
4768
4769
4770
4771
4772
4773
4774
4775
4776
4777
4778
4779
4780
4781
4782
4783
4784
4785
4786
4787
4788
4789
4790
4791
4792
4793
4794
4795
4796
4797
4798
4799
4800
4801
4802
4803
4804
4805
4806
4807
4808
4809
4810
4811
4812
4813
4814
4815
4816
4817
4818
4819
4820
4821
4822
4823
4824
4825
4826
4827
4828
4829
4830
4831
4832
4833
4834
4835
4836
4837
4838
4839
4840
4841
4842
4843
4844
4845
4846
4847
4848
4849
4850
4851
4852
4853
4854
4855
4856
4857
4858
4859
4860
4861
4862
4863
4864
4865
4866
4867
4868
4869
4870
4871
4872
4873
4874
4875
4876
4877
4878
4879
4880
4881
4882
4883
4884
4885
4886
4887
4888
4889
4890
4891
4892
4893
4894
4895
4896
4897
4898
4899
4900
4901
4902
4903
4904
4905
4906
4907
4908
4909
4910
4911
4912
4913
4914
4915
4916
4917
4918
4919
4920
4921
4922
4923
4924
4925
4926
4927
4928
4929
4930
4931
4932
4933
4934
4935
4936
4937
4938
4939
4940
4941
4942
4943
4944
4945
4946
4947
4948
4949
4950
4951
4952
4953
4954
4955
4956
4957
4958
4959
4960
4961
4962
4963
4964
4965
4966
4967
4968
4969
4970
4971
4972
4973
4974
4975
4976
4977
4978
4979
4980
4981
4982
4983
4984
4985
4986
4987
4988
4989
4990
4991
4992
4993
4994
4995
4996
4997
4998
4999
5000
5001
5002
5003
5004
5005
5006
5007
5008
5009
5010
5011
5012
5013
5014
5015
5016
5017
5018
5019
5020
5021
5022
5023
5024
5025
5026
5027
5028
5029
5030
5031
5032
5033
5034
5035
5036
5037
5038
5039
5040
5041
5042
5043
5044
5045
5046
5047
5048
5049
5050
5051
5052
5053
5054
5055
5056
5057
5058
5059
5060
5061
5062
5063
5064
5065
5066
5067
5068
5069
5070
5071
5072
5073
5074
5075
5076
5077
5078
5079
5080
5081
5082
5083
5084
5085
5086
5087
5088
5089
5090
5091
5092
5093
5094
5095
5096
5097
5098
5099
5100
5101
5102
5103
5104
5105
5106
5107
5108
5109
5110
5111
5112
5113
5114
5115
5116
5117
5118
5119
5120
5121
5122
5123
5124
5125
5126
5127
5128
5129
5130
5131
5132
5133
5134
5135
5136
5137
5138
5139
5140
5141
5142
5143
5144
5145
5146
5147
5148
5149
5150
5151
5152
5153
5154
5155
5156
5157
5158
5159
5160
5161
5162
5163
5164
5165
5166
5167
5168
5169
5170
5171
5172
5173
5174
5175
5176
5177
5178
5179
5180
5181
5182
5183
5184
5185
5186
5187
5188
5189
5190
5191
5192
5193
5194
5195
5196
5197
5198
5199
5200
5201
5202
5203
5204
5205
5206
5207
5208
5209
5210
5211
5212
5213
5214
5215
5216
5217
5218
5219
5220
5221
5222
5223
5224
5225
5226
5227
5228
5229
5230
5231
5232
5233
5234
5235
5236
5237
5238
5239
5240
5241
5242
5243
5244
5245
5246
5247
5248
5249
5250
5251
5252
5253
5254
5255
5256
5257
5258
5259
5260
5261
5262
5263
5264
5265
5266
5267
5268
5269
5270
5271
5272
5273
5274
5275
5276
5277
5278
5279
5280
5281
5282
5283
5284
5285
5286
5287
5288
5289
5290
5291
5292
5293
5294
5295
5296
5297
5298
5299
5300
5301
5302
5303
5304
5305
5306
5307
5308
5309
5310
5311
5312
5313
5314
5315
5316
5317
5318
5319
5320
5321
5322
5323
5324
5325
5326
5327
5328
5329
5330
5331
5332
5333
5334
5335
5336
5337
5338
5339
5340
5341
5342
5343
5344
5345
5346
5347
5348
5349
5350
5351
5352
5353
5354
5355
5356
5357
5358
5359
5360
5361
5362
5363
5364
5365
5366
5367
5368
5369
5370
5371
5372
5373
5374
5375
5376
5377
5378
5379
5380
5381
5382
5383
5384
5385
5386
5387
5388
5389
5390
5391
5392
5393
5394
5395
5396
5397
5398
5399
5400
5401
5402
5403
5404
5405
5406
5407
5408
5409
5410
5411
5412
5413
5414
5415
5416
5417
5418
5419
5420
5421
5422
5423
5424
5425
5426
5427
5428
5429
5430
5431
5432
5433
5434
5435
5436
5437
5438
5439
5440
5441
5442
5443
5444
5445
5446
5447
5448
5449
5450
5451
5452
5453
5454
5455
5456
5457
5458
5459
5460
5461
5462
5463
5464
5465
5466
5467
5468
5469
5470
5471
5472
5473
5474
5475
5476
5477
5478
5479
5480
5481
5482
5483
5484
5485
5486
5487
5488
5489
5490
5491
5492
5493
5494
5495
5496
5497
5498
5499
5500
5501
5502
5503
5504
5505
5506
5507
5508
5509
5510
5511
5512
5513
5514
5515
5516
5517
5518
5519
5520
5521
5522
5523
5524
5525
5526
5527
5528
5529
5530
5531
5532
5533
5534
5535
5536
5537
5538
5539
5540
5541
5542
5543
5544
5545
5546
5547
5548
5549
5550
5551
5552
5553
5554
5555
5556
5557
5558
5559
5560
5561
5562
5563
5564
5565
5566
5567
5568
5569
5570
5571
5572
5573
5574
5575
5576
5577
5578
5579
5580
5581
5582
5583
5584
5585
5586
5587
5588
5589
5590
5591
5592
5593
5594
5595
5596
5597
5598
5599
5600
5601
5602
5603
5604
5605
5606
5607
5608
5609
5610
5611
5612
5613
5614
5615
5616
5617
5618
5619
5620
5621
5622
5623
5624
5625
5626
5627
5628
5629
5630
5631
5632
5633
5634
5635
5636
5637
5638
5639
5640
5641
5642
5643
5644
5645
5646
5647
5648
5649
5650
5651
5652
5653
5654
5655
5656
5657
5658
5659
5660
5661
5662
5663
5664
5665
5666
5667
5668
5669
5670
5671
5672
5673
5674
5675
5676
5677
5678
5679
5680
5681
5682
5683
5684
5685
5686
5687
5688
5689
5690
5691
5692
5693
5694
5695
5696
5697
5698
5699
5700
5701
5702
5703
5704
5705
5706
5707
5708
5709
5710
5711
5712
5713
5714
5715
5716
5717
5718
5719
5720
5721
5722
5723
5724
5725
5726
5727
5728
5729
5730
5731
5732
5733
5734
5735
5736
5737
5738
5739
5740
5741
5742
5743
5744
5745
5746
5747
5748
5749
5750
5751
5752
5753
5754
5755
5756
5757
5758
5759
5760
5761
5762
5763
5764
5765
5766
5767
5768
5769
5770
5771
5772
5773
5774
5775
5776
5777
5778
5779
5780
5781
5782
5783
5784
5785
5786
5787
5788
5789
5790
5791
5792
5793
5794
5795
5796
5797
5798
5799
5800
5801
5802
5803
5804
5805
5806
5807
5808
5809
5810
5811
5812
5813
5814
5815
5816
5817
5818
5819
5820
5821
5822
5823
5824
5825
5826
5827
5828
5829
5830
5831
5832
5833
5834
5835
5836
5837
5838
5839
5840
5841
5842
5843
5844
5845
5846
5847
5848
5849
5850
5851
5852
5853
5854
5855
5856
5857
5858
5859
5860
5861
5862
5863
5864
5865
5866
5867
5868
5869
5870
5871
5872
5873
5874
5875
5876
5877
5878
5879
5880
5881
5882
5883
5884
5885
5886
5887
5888
5889
5890
5891
5892
5893
5894
5895
5896
5897
5898
5899
5900
5901
5902
5903
5904
5905
5906
5907
5908
5909
5910
5911
5912
5913
5914
5915
5916
5917
5918
5919
5920
5921
5922
5923
5924
5925
5926
5927
5928
5929
5930
5931
5932
5933
5934
5935
5936
5937
5938
5939
5940
5941
5942
5943
5944
5945
5946
5947
5948
5949
5950
5951
5952
5953
5954
5955
5956
5957
5958
5959
5960
5961
5962
5963
5964
5965
5966
5967
5968
5969
5970
5971
5972
5973
5974
5975
5976
5977
5978
5979
5980
5981
5982
5983
5984
5985
5986
5987
5988
5989
5990
5991
5992
5993
5994
5995
5996
5997
5998
5999
6000
6001
6002
6003
6004
6005
6006
6007
6008
6009
6010
6011
6012
6013
6014
6015
6016
6017
6018
6019
6020
6021
6022
6023
6024
6025
6026
6027
6028
6029
6030
6031
6032
6033
6034
6035
6036
6037
6038
6039
6040
6041
6042
6043
6044
6045
6046
6047
6048
6049
6050
6051
6052
6053
6054
6055
6056
6057
6058
6059
6060
6061
6062
6063
6064
6065
6066
6067
6068
6069
6070
6071
6072
6073
6074
6075
6076
6077
6078
6079
6080
6081
6082
6083
6084
6085
6086
6087
6088
6089
6090
6091
6092
6093
6094
6095
6096
6097
6098
6099
6100
6101
6102
6103
6104
6105
6106
6107
6108
6109
6110
6111
6112
6113
6114
6115
6116
6117
6118
6119
6120
6121
6122
6123
6124
6125
6126
6127
6128
6129
6130
6131
6132
6133
6134
6135
6136
6137
6138
6139
6140
6141
6142
6143
6144
6145
6146
6147
6148
6149
6150
6151
6152
6153
6154
6155
6156
6157
6158
6159
6160
6161
6162
6163
6164
6165
6166
6167
6168
6169
6170
6171
6172
6173
6174
6175
6176
6177
6178
6179
6180
6181
6182
6183
6184
6185
6186
6187
6188
6189
6190
6191
6192
6193
6194
6195
6196
6197
6198
6199
6200
6201
6202
6203
6204
6205
6206
6207
6208
6209
6210
6211
6212
6213
6214
6215
6216
6217
6218
6219
6220
6221
6222
6223
6224
6225
6226
6227
6228
6229
6230
6231
6232
6233
6234
6235
6236
6237
6238
6239
6240
6241
6242
6243
6244
6245
6246
6247
6248
6249
6250
6251
6252
6253
6254
6255
6256
6257
6258
6259
6260
6261
6262
6263
6264
6265
6266
6267
6268
6269
6270
6271
6272
6273
6274
6275
6276
6277
6278
6279
6280
6281
6282
6283
6284
6285
6286
6287
6288
6289
6290
6291
6292
6293
6294
6295
6296
6297
6298
6299
6300
6301
6302
6303
6304
6305
6306
6307
6308
6309
6310
6311
6312
6313
6314
6315
6316
6317
6318
6319
6320
6321
6322
6323
6324
6325
6326
6327
6328
6329
6330
6331
6332
6333
6334
6335
6336
6337
6338
6339
6340
6341
6342
6343
6344
6345
6346
6347
6348
6349
6350
6351
6352
6353
6354
6355
6356
6357
6358
6359
6360
6361
6362
6363
6364
6365
6366
6367
6368
6369
6370
6371
6372
6373
6374
6375
6376
6377
6378
6379
6380
6381
6382
6383
6384
6385
6386
6387
6388
6389
6390
6391
6392
6393
6394
6395
6396
6397
6398
6399
6400
6401
6402
6403
6404
6405
6406
6407
6408
6409
6410
6411
6412
6413
6414
6415
6416
6417
6418
6419
6420
6421
6422
6423
6424
6425
6426
6427
6428
6429
6430
6431
6432
6433
6434
6435
6436
6437
6438
6439
6440
6441
6442
6443
6444
6445
6446
6447
6448
6449
6450
6451
6452
6453
6454
6455
6456
6457
6458
6459
6460
6461
6462
6463
6464
6465
6466
6467
6468
6469
6470
6471
6472
6473
6474
6475
6476
6477
6478
6479
6480
6481
6482
6483
6484
6485
6486
6487
6488
6489
6490
6491
6492
6493
6494
6495
6496
6497
6498
6499
6500
6501
6502
6503
6504
6505
6506
6507
6508
6509
6510
6511
6512
6513
6514
6515
6516
6517
6518
6519
6520
6521
6522
6523
6524
6525
6526
6527
6528
6529
6530
6531
6532
6533
6534
6535
6536
6537
6538
6539
6540
6541
6542
6543
6544
6545
6546
6547
6548
6549
6550
6551
6552
6553
6554
6555
6556
6557
6558
6559
6560
6561
6562
6563
6564
6565
6566
6567
6568
6569
6570
6571
6572
6573
6574
6575
6576
6577
6578
6579
6580
6581
6582
6583
6584
6585
6586
6587
6588
6589
6590
6591
6592
6593
6594
6595
6596
6597
6598
6599
6600
6601
6602
6603
6604
6605
6606
6607
6608
6609
6610
6611
6612
6613
6614
6615
6616
6617
6618
6619
6620
6621
6622
6623
6624
6625
6626
6627
6628
6629
6630
6631
6632
6633
6634
6635
6636
6637
6638
6639
6640
6641
6642
6643
6644
6645
6646
6647
6648
6649
6650
6651
6652
6653
6654
6655
6656
6657
6658
6659
6660
6661
6662
6663
6664
6665
6666
6667
6668
6669
6670
6671
6672
6673
6674
6675
6676
6677
6678
6679
6680
6681
6682
6683
6684
6685
6686
6687
6688
6689
6690
6691
6692
6693
6694
6695
6696
6697
6698
6699
6700
6701
6702
6703
6704
6705
6706
6707
6708
6709
6710
6711
6712
6713
6714
6715
6716
6717
6718
6719
6720
6721
6722
6723
6724
6725
6726
6727
6728
6729
6730
6731
6732
6733
6734
6735
6736
6737
6738
6739
6740
6741
6742
6743
6744
6745
6746
6747
6748
6749
6750
6751
6752
6753
6754
6755
6756
6757
6758
6759
6760
6761
6762
6763
6764
6765
6766
6767
6768
6769
6770
6771
6772
6773
6774
6775
6776
6777
6778
6779
6780
6781
6782
6783
6784
6785
6786
6787
6788
6789
6790
6791
6792
6793
6794
6795
6796
6797
6798
6799
6800
6801
6802
6803
6804
6805
6806
6807
6808
6809
6810
6811
6812
6813
6814
6815
6816
6817
6818
6819
6820
6821
6822
6823
6824
6825
6826
6827
6828
6829
6830
6831
6832
6833
6834
6835
6836
6837
6838
6839
6840
6841
6842
6843
6844
6845
6846
6847
6848
6849
6850
6851
6852
6853
6854
6855
6856
6857
6858
6859
6860
6861
6862
6863
6864
6865
6866
6867
6868
6869
6870
6871
6872
6873
6874
6875
6876
6877
6878
6879
6880
6881
6882
6883
6884
6885
6886
6887
6888
6889
6890
6891
6892
6893
6894
6895
6896
6897
6898
6899
6900
6901
6902
6903
6904
6905
6906
6907
6908
6909
6910
6911
6912
6913
6914
6915
6916
6917
6918
6919
6920
6921
6922
6923
6924
6925
6926
6927
6928
6929
6930
6931
6932
6933
6934
6935
6936
6937
6938
6939
6940
6941
6942
6943
6944
6945
6946
6947
6948
6949
6950
6951
6952
6953
6954
6955
6956
6957
6958
6959
6960
6961
6962
6963
6964
6965
6966
6967
6968
6969
6970
6971
6972
6973
6974
6975
6976
6977
6978
6979
6980
6981
6982
6983
6984
6985
6986
6987
6988
6989
6990
6991
6992
6993
6994
6995
6996
6997
6998
6999
7000
7001
7002
7003
7004
7005
7006
7007
7008
7009
7010
7011
7012
7013
7014
7015
7016
7017
7018
7019
7020
7021
7022
7023
7024
7025
7026
7027
7028
7029
7030
7031
7032
7033
7034
7035
7036
7037
7038
7039
7040
7041
7042
7043
7044
7045
7046
7047
7048
7049
7050
7051
7052
7053
7054
7055
7056
7057
7058
7059
7060
7061
7062
7063
7064
7065
7066
7067
7068
7069
7070
7071
7072
7073
7074
7075
7076
7077
7078
7079
7080
7081
7082
7083
7084
7085
7086
7087
7088
7089
7090
7091
7092
7093
7094
7095
7096
7097
7098
7099
7100
7101
7102
7103
7104
7105
7106
7107
7108
7109
7110
7111
7112
7113
7114
7115
7116
7117
7118
7119
7120
7121
7122
7123
7124
7125
7126
7127
7128
7129
7130
7131
7132
7133
7134
7135
7136
7137
7138
7139
7140
7141
7142
7143
7144
7145
7146
7147
7148
7149
7150
7151
7152
7153
7154
7155
7156
7157
7158
7159
7160
7161
7162
7163
7164
7165
7166
7167
7168
7169
7170
7171
7172
7173
7174
7175
7176
7177
7178
7179
7180
7181
7182
7183
7184
7185
7186
7187
7188
7189
7190
7191
7192
7193
7194
7195
7196
7197
7198
7199
7200
7201
7202
7203
7204
7205
7206
7207
7208
7209
7210
7211
7212
7213
7214
7215
7216
7217
7218
7219
7220
7221
7222
7223
7224
7225
7226
7227
7228
7229
7230
7231
7232
7233
7234
7235
7236
7237
7238
7239
7240
7241
7242
7243
7244
7245
7246
7247
7248
7249
7250
7251
7252
7253
7254
7255
7256
7257
7258
7259
7260
7261
7262
7263
7264
7265
7266
7267
7268
7269
7270
7271
7272
7273
7274
7275
7276
7277
7278
7279
7280
7281
7282
7283
7284
7285
7286
7287
7288
7289
7290
7291
7292
7293
7294
7295
7296
7297
7298
7299
7300
7301
7302
7303
7304
7305
7306
7307
7308
7309
7310
7311
7312
7313
7314
7315
7316
7317
7318
7319
7320
7321
7322
7323
7324
7325
7326
7327
7328
7329
7330
7331
7332
7333
7334
7335
7336
7337
7338
7339
7340
7341
7342
7343
7344
7345
7346
7347
7348
7349
7350
7351
7352
7353
7354
7355
7356
7357
7358
7359
7360
7361
7362
7363
7364
7365
7366
7367
7368
7369
7370
7371
7372
7373
7374
7375
7376
7377
7378
7379
7380
7381
7382
7383
7384
7385
7386
7387
7388
7389
7390
7391
7392
7393
7394
7395
7396
7397
7398
7399
7400
7401
7402
7403
7404
7405
7406
7407
7408
7409
7410
7411
7412
7413
7414
7415
7416
7417
7418
7419
7420
7421
7422
7423
7424
7425
7426
7427
7428
7429
7430
7431
7432
7433
7434
7435
7436
7437
7438
7439
7440
7441
7442
7443
7444
7445
7446
7447
7448
7449
7450
7451
7452
7453
7454
7455
7456
7457
7458
7459
7460
7461
7462
7463
7464
7465
7466
7467
7468
7469
7470
7471
7472
7473
7474
7475
7476
7477
7478
7479
7480
7481
7482
7483
7484
7485
7486
7487
7488
7489
7490
7491
7492
7493
7494
7495
7496
7497
7498
7499
7500
7501
7502
7503
7504
7505
7506
7507
7508
7509
7510
7511
7512
7513
7514
7515
7516
7517
7518
7519
7520
7521
7522
7523
7524
7525
7526
7527
7528
7529
7530
7531
7532
7533
7534
7535
7536
7537
7538
7539
7540
7541
7542
7543
7544
7545
7546
7547
7548
7549
7550
7551
7552
7553
7554
7555
7556
7557
7558
7559
7560
7561
7562
7563
7564
7565
7566
7567
7568
7569
7570
7571
7572
7573
7574
7575
7576
7577
7578
7579
7580
7581
7582
7583
7584
7585
7586
7587
7588
7589
7590
7591
7592
7593
7594
7595
7596
7597
7598
7599
7600
7601
7602
7603
7604
7605
7606
7607
7608
7609
7610
7611
7612
7613
7614
7615
7616
7617
7618
7619
7620
7621
7622
7623
7624
7625
7626
7627
7628
7629
7630
7631
7632
7633
7634
7635
7636
7637
7638
7639
7640
7641
7642
7643
7644
7645
7646
7647
7648
7649
7650
7651
7652
7653
7654
7655
7656
7657
7658
7659
7660
7661
7662
7663
7664
7665
7666
7667
7668
7669
7670
7671
7672
7673
7674
7675
7676
7677
7678
7679
7680
7681
7682
7683
7684
7685
7686
7687
7688
7689
7690
7691
7692
7693
7694
7695
7696
7697
7698
7699
7700
7701
7702
7703
7704
7705
7706
7707
7708
7709
7710
7711
7712
7713
7714
7715
7716
7717
7718
7719
7720
7721
7722
7723
7724
7725
7726
7727
7728
7729
7730
7731
7732
7733
7734
7735
7736
7737
7738
7739
7740
7741
7742
7743
7744
7745
7746
7747
7748
7749
7750
7751
7752
7753
7754
7755
7756
7757
7758
7759
7760
7761
7762
7763
7764
7765
7766
7767
7768
7769
7770
7771
7772
7773
7774
7775
7776
7777
7778
7779
7780
7781
7782
7783
7784
7785
7786
7787
7788
7789
7790
7791
7792
7793
7794
7795
7796
7797
7798
7799
7800
7801
7802
7803
7804
7805
7806
7807
7808
7809
7810
7811
7812
7813
7814
7815
7816
7817
7818
7819
7820
7821
7822
7823
7824
7825
7826
7827
7828
7829
7830
7831
7832
7833
7834
7835
7836
7837
7838
7839
7840
7841
7842
7843
7844
7845
7846
7847
7848
7849
7850
7851
7852
7853
7854
7855
7856
7857
7858
7859
7860
7861
7862
7863
7864
7865
7866
7867
7868
7869
7870
7871
7872
7873
7874
7875
7876
7877
7878
7879
7880
7881
7882
7883
7884
7885
7886
7887
7888
7889
7890
7891
7892
7893
7894
7895
7896
7897
7898
7899
7900
7901
7902
7903
7904
7905
7906
7907
7908
7909
7910
7911
7912
7913
7914
7915
7916
7917
7918
7919
7920
7921
7922
7923
7924
7925
7926
7927
7928
7929
7930
7931
7932
7933
7934
7935
7936
7937
7938
7939
7940
7941
7942
7943
7944
7945
7946
7947
7948
7949
7950
7951
7952
7953
7954
7955
7956
7957
7958
7959
7960
7961
7962
7963
7964
7965
7966
7967
7968
7969
7970
7971
7972
7973
7974
7975
7976
7977
7978
7979
7980
7981
7982
7983
7984
7985
7986
7987
7988
7989
7990
7991
7992
7993
7994
7995
7996
7997
7998
7999
8000
8001
8002
8003
8004
8005
8006
8007
8008
8009
8010
8011
8012
8013
8014
8015
8016
8017
8018
8019
8020
8021
8022
8023
8024
8025
8026
8027
8028
8029
8030
8031
8032
8033
8034
8035
8036
8037
8038
8039
8040
8041
8042
8043
8044
8045
8046
8047
8048
8049
8050
8051
8052
8053
8054
8055
8056
8057
8058
8059
8060
8061
8062
8063
8064
8065
8066
8067
8068
8069
8070
8071
8072
8073
8074
8075
8076
8077
8078
8079
8080
8081
8082
8083
8084
8085
8086
8087
8088
8089
8090
8091
8092
8093
8094
8095
8096
8097
8098
8099
8100
8101
8102
8103
8104
8105
8106
8107
8108
8109
8110
8111
8112
8113
8114
8115
8116
8117
8118
8119
8120
8121
8122
8123
8124
8125
8126
8127
8128
8129
8130
8131
8132
8133
8134
8135
8136
8137
8138
8139
8140
8141
8142
8143
8144
8145
8146
8147
8148
8149
8150
8151
8152
8153
8154
8155
8156
8157
8158
8159
8160
8161
8162
8163
8164
8165
8166
8167
8168
8169
8170
8171
8172
8173
8174
8175
8176
8177
8178
8179
8180
8181
8182
8183
8184
8185
8186
8187
8188
8189
8190
8191
8192
8193
8194
8195
8196
8197
8198
8199
8200
8201
8202
8203
8204
8205
8206
8207
8208
8209
8210
8211
8212
8213
8214
8215
8216
8217
8218
8219
8220
8221
8222
8223
8224
8225
8226
8227
8228
8229
8230
8231
8232
8233
8234
8235
8236
8237
8238
8239
8240
8241
8242
8243
8244
8245
8246
8247
8248
8249
8250
8251
8252
8253
8254
8255
8256
8257
8258
8259
8260
8261
8262
8263
8264
8265
8266
8267
8268
8269
8270
8271
8272
8273
8274
8275
8276
8277
8278
8279
8280
8281
8282
8283
8284
8285
8286
8287
8288
8289
8290
8291
8292
8293
8294
8295
8296
8297
8298
8299
8300
8301
8302
8303
8304
8305
8306
8307
8308
8309
8310
8311
8312
8313
8314
8315
8316
8317
8318
8319
8320
8321
8322
8323
8324
8325
8326
8327
8328
8329
8330
8331
8332
8333
8334
8335
8336
8337
8338
8339
8340
8341
8342
8343
8344
8345
8346
8347
8348
8349
8350
8351
8352
8353
8354
8355
8356
8357
8358
8359
8360
8361
8362
8363
8364
8365
8366
8367
8368
8369
8370
8371
8372
8373
8374
8375
8376
8377
8378
8379
8380
8381
8382
8383
8384
8385
8386
8387
8388
8389
8390
8391
8392
8393
8394
8395
8396
8397
8398
8399
8400
8401
8402
8403
8404
8405
8406
8407
8408
8409
8410
8411
8412
8413
8414
8415
8416
8417
8418
8419
8420
8421
8422
8423
8424
8425
8426
8427
8428
8429
8430
8431
8432
8433
8434
8435
8436
8437
8438
8439
8440
8441
8442
8443
8444
8445
8446
8447
8448
8449
8450
8451
8452
8453
8454
8455
8456
8457
8458
8459
8460
8461
8462
8463
8464
8465
8466
8467
8468
8469
8470
8471
8472
8473
8474
8475
8476
8477
8478
8479
8480
8481
8482
8483
8484
8485
8486
8487
8488
8489
8490
8491
8492
8493
8494
8495
8496
8497
8498
8499
8500
8501
8502
8503
8504
8505
8506
8507
8508
8509
8510
8511
8512
8513
8514
8515
8516
8517
8518
8519
8520
8521
8522
8523
8524
8525
8526
8527
8528
8529
8530
8531
8532
8533
8534
8535
8536
8537
8538
8539
8540
8541
8542
8543
8544
8545
8546
8547
8548
8549
8550
8551
8552
8553
8554
8555
8556
8557
8558
8559
8560
8561
8562
8563
8564
8565
8566
8567
8568
8569
8570
8571
8572
8573
8574
8575
8576
8577
8578
8579
8580
8581
8582
8583
8584
8585
8586
8587
8588
8589
8590
8591
8592
8593
8594
8595
8596
8597
8598
8599
8600
8601
8602
8603
8604
8605
8606
8607
8608
8609
8610
8611
8612
8613
8614
8615
8616
8617
8618
8619
8620
8621
8622
8623
8624
8625
8626
8627
8628
8629
8630
8631
8632
8633
8634
8635
8636
8637
8638
8639
8640
8641
8642
8643
8644
8645
8646
8647
8648
8649
8650
8651
8652
8653
8654
8655
8656
8657
8658
8659
8660
8661
8662
8663
8664
8665
8666
8667
8668
8669
8670
8671
8672
8673
8674
8675
8676
8677
8678
8679
8680
8681
8682
8683
8684
8685
8686
8687
8688
8689
8690
8691
8692
8693
8694
8695
8696
8697
8698
8699
8700
8701
8702
8703
8704
8705
8706
8707
8708
8709
8710
8711
8712
8713
8714
8715
8716
8717
8718
8719
8720
8721
8722
8723
8724
8725
8726
8727
8728
8729
8730
8731
8732
8733
8734
8735
8736
8737
8738
8739
8740
8741
8742
8743
8744
8745
8746
8747
8748
8749
8750
8751
8752
8753
8754
8755
8756
8757
8758
8759
8760
8761
8762
8763
8764
8765
8766
8767
8768
8769
8770
8771
8772
8773
8774
8775
8776
8777
8778
8779
8780
8781
8782
8783
8784
8785
8786
8787
8788
8789
8790
8791
8792
8793
8794
8795
8796
8797
8798
8799
8800
8801
8802
8803
8804
8805
8806
8807
8808
8809
8810
8811
8812
8813
8814
8815
8816
8817
8818
8819
8820
8821
8822
8823
8824
8825
8826
8827
8828
8829
8830
8831
8832
8833
8834
8835
8836
8837
8838
8839
8840
8841
8842
8843
8844
8845
8846
8847
8848
8849
8850
8851
8852
8853
8854
8855
8856
8857
8858
8859
8860
8861
8862
8863
8864
8865
8866
8867
8868
8869
8870
8871
8872
8873
8874
8875
8876
8877
8878
8879
8880
8881
8882
8883
8884
8885
8886
8887
8888
8889
8890
8891
8892
8893
8894
8895
8896
8897
8898
8899
8900
8901
8902
8903
8904
8905
8906
8907
8908
8909
8910
8911
8912
8913
8914
8915
8916
8917
8918
8919
8920
8921
8922
8923
8924
8925
8926
8927
8928
8929
8930
8931
8932
8933
8934
8935
8936
8937
8938
8939
8940
8941
8942
8943
8944
8945
8946
8947
8948
8949
8950
8951
8952
8953
8954
8955
8956
8957
8958
8959
8960
8961
8962
8963
8964
8965
8966
8967
8968
8969
8970
8971
8972
8973
8974
8975
8976
8977
8978
8979
8980
8981
8982
8983
8984
8985
8986
8987
8988
8989
8990
8991
8992
8993
8994
8995
8996
8997
8998
8999
9000
9001
9002
9003
9004
9005
9006
9007
9008
9009
9010
9011
9012
9013
9014
9015
9016
9017
9018
9019
9020
9021
9022
9023
9024
9025
9026
9027
9028
9029
9030
9031
9032
9033
9034
9035
9036
9037
9038
9039
9040
9041
9042
9043
9044
9045
9046
9047
9048
9049
9050
9051
9052
9053
9054
9055
9056
9057
9058
9059
9060
9061
9062
9063
9064
9065
9066
9067
9068
9069
9070
9071
9072
9073
9074
9075
9076
9077
9078
9079
9080
9081
9082
9083
9084
9085
9086
9087
9088
9089
9090
9091
9092
9093
9094
9095
9096
9097
9098
9099
9100
9101
9102
9103
9104
9105
9106
9107
9108
9109
9110
9111
9112
9113
9114
9115
9116
9117
9118
9119
9120
9121
9122
9123
9124
9125
9126
9127
9128
9129
9130
9131
9132
9133
9134
9135
9136
9137
9138
9139
9140
9141
9142
9143
9144
9145
9146
9147
9148
9149
9150
9151
9152
9153
9154
9155
9156
9157
9158
9159
9160
9161
9162
9163
9164
9165
9166
9167
9168
9169
9170
9171
9172
9173
9174
9175
9176
9177
9178
9179
9180
9181
9182
9183
9184
9185
9186
9187
9188
9189
9190
9191
9192
9193
9194
9195
9196
9197
9198
9199
9200
9201
9202
9203
9204
9205
9206
9207
9208
9209
9210
9211
9212
9213
9214
9215
9216
9217
9218
9219
9220
9221
9222
9223
9224
9225
9226
9227
9228
9229
9230
9231
9232
9233
9234
9235
9236
9237
9238
9239
9240
9241
9242
9243
9244
9245
9246
9247
9248
9249
9250
9251
9252
9253
9254
9255
9256
9257
9258
9259
9260
9261
9262
9263
9264
9265
9266
9267
9268
9269
9270
9271
9272
9273
9274
9275
9276
9277
9278
9279
9280
9281
9282
9283
9284
9285
9286
9287
9288
9289
9290
9291
9292
9293
9294
9295
9296
9297
9298
9299
9300
9301
9302
9303
9304
9305
9306
9307
9308
9309
9310
9311
9312
9313
9314
9315
9316
9317
9318
9319
9320
9321
9322
9323
9324
9325
9326
9327
9328
9329
9330
9331
9332
9333
9334
9335
9336
9337
9338
9339
9340
9341
9342
9343
9344
9345
9346
9347
9348
9349
9350
9351
9352
9353
9354
9355
9356
9357
9358
9359
9360
9361
9362
9363
9364
9365
9366
9367
9368
9369
9370
9371
9372
9373
9374
9375
9376
9377
9378
9379
9380
9381
9382
9383
9384
9385
9386
9387
9388
9389
9390
9391
9392
9393
9394
9395
9396
9397
9398
9399
9400
9401
9402
9403
9404
9405
9406
9407
9408
9409
9410
9411
9412
9413
9414
9415
9416
9417
9418
9419
9420
9421
9422
9423
9424
9425
9426
9427
9428
9429
9430
9431
9432
9433
9434
9435
9436
9437
9438
9439
9440
9441
9442
9443
9444
9445
9446
9447
9448
9449
9450
9451
9452
9453
9454
9455
9456
9457
9458
9459
9460
9461
9462
9463
9464
9465
9466
9467
9468
9469
9470
9471
9472
9473
9474
9475
9476
9477
9478
9479
9480
9481
9482
9483
9484
9485
9486
9487
9488
9489
9490
9491
9492
9493
9494
9495
9496
9497
9498
9499
9500
9501
9502
9503
9504
9505
9506
9507
9508
9509
9510
9511
9512
9513
9514
9515
9516
9517
9518
9519
9520
9521
9522
9523
9524
9525
9526
9527
9528
9529
9530
9531
9532
9533
9534
9535
9536
9537
9538
9539
9540
9541
9542
9543
9544
9545
9546
9547
9548
9549
9550
9551
9552
9553
9554
9555
9556
9557
9558
9559
9560
9561
9562
9563
9564
9565
9566
9567
9568
9569
9570
9571
9572
9573
9574
9575
9576
9577
9578
9579
9580
9581
9582
9583
9584
9585
9586
9587
9588
9589
9590
9591
9592
9593
9594
9595
9596
9597
9598
9599
9600
9601
9602
9603
9604
9605
9606
9607
9608
9609
9610
9611
9612
9613
9614
9615
9616
9617
9618
9619
9620
9621
9622
9623
9624
9625
9626
9627
9628
9629
9630
9631
9632
9633
9634
9635
9636
9637
9638
9639
9640
9641
9642
9643
9644
9645
9646
9647
9648
9649
9650
9651
9652
9653
9654
9655
9656
9657
9658
9659
9660
9661
9662
9663
9664
9665
9666
9667
9668
9669
9670
9671
9672
9673
9674
9675
9676
9677
9678
9679
9680
9681
9682
9683
9684
9685
9686
9687
9688
9689
9690
9691
9692
9693
9694
9695
9696
9697
9698
9699
9700
9701
9702
9703
9704
9705
9706
9707
9708
9709
9710
9711
9712
9713
9714
9715
9716
9717
9718
9719
9720
9721
9722
9723
9724
9725
9726
9727
9728
9729
9730
9731
9732
9733
9734
9735
9736
9737
9738
9739
9740
9741
9742
9743
9744
9745
9746
9747
9748
9749
9750
9751
9752
9753
9754
9755
9756
9757
9758
9759
9760
9761
9762
9763
9764
9765
9766
9767
9768
9769
9770
9771
9772
9773
9774
9775
9776
9777
9778
9779
9780
9781
9782
9783
9784
9785
9786
9787
9788
9789
9790
9791
9792
9793
9794
9795
9796
9797
9798
9799
9800
9801
9802
9803
9804
9805
9806
9807
9808
9809
9810
9811
9812
9813
9814
9815
9816
9817
9818
9819
9820
9821
9822
9823
9824
9825
9826
9827
9828
9829
9830
9831
9832
9833
9834
9835
9836
9837
9838
9839
9840
9841
9842
9843
9844
9845
9846
9847
9848
9849
9850
9851
9852
9853
9854
9855
9856
9857
9858
9859
9860
9861
9862
9863
9864
9865
9866
9867
9868
9869
9870
9871
9872
9873
9874
9875
9876
9877
9878
9879
9880
9881
9882
9883
9884
9885
9886
9887
9888
9889
9890
9891
9892
9893
9894
9895
9896
9897
9898
9899
9900
9901
9902
9903
9904
9905
9906
9907
9908
9909
9910
9911
9912
9913
9914
9915
9916
9917
9918
9919
9920
9921
9922
9923
9924
9925
9926
9927
9928
9929
9930
9931
9932
9933
9934
9935
9936
9937
9938
9939
9940
9941
9942
9943
9944
9945
9946
9947
9948
9949
9950
9951
9952
9953
9954
9955
9956
9957
9958
9959
9960
9961
9962
9963
9964
9965
9966
9967
9968
9969
9970
9971
9972
9973
9974
9975
9976
9977
9978
9979
9980
9981
9982
9983
9984
9985
9986
9987
9988
9989
9990
9991
9992
9993
9994
9995
9996
9997
9998
9999
10000
10001
10002
10003
10004
10005
10006
10007
10008
10009
10010
10011
10012
10013
10014
10015
10016
10017
10018
10019
10020
10021
10022
10023
10024
10025
10026
10027
10028
10029
10030
10031
10032
10033
10034
10035
10036
10037
10038
10039
10040
10041
10042
10043
10044
10045
10046
10047
10048
10049
10050
10051
10052
10053
10054
10055
10056
10057
10058
10059
10060
10061
10062
10063
10064
10065
10066
10067
10068
10069
10070
10071
10072
10073
10074
10075
10076
10077
10078
10079
10080
10081
10082
10083
10084
10085
10086
10087
10088
10089
10090
10091
10092
10093
10094
10095
10096
10097
10098
10099
10100
10101
10102
10103
10104
10105
10106
10107
10108
10109
10110
10111
10112
10113
10114
10115
10116
10117
10118
10119
10120
10121
10122
10123
10124
10125
10126
10127
10128
10129
10130
10131
10132
10133
10134
10135
10136
10137
10138
10139
10140
10141
10142
10143
10144
10145
10146
10147
10148
10149
10150
10151
10152
10153
10154
10155
10156
10157
10158
10159
10160
10161
10162
10163
10164
10165
10166
10167
10168
10169
10170
10171
10172
10173
10174
10175
10176
10177
10178
10179
10180
10181
10182
10183
10184
10185
10186
10187
10188
10189
10190
10191
10192
10193
10194
10195
10196
10197
10198
10199
10200
10201
10202
10203
10204
10205
10206
10207
10208
10209
10210
10211
10212
10213
10214
10215
10216
10217
10218
10219
10220
10221
10222
10223
10224
10225
10226
10227
10228
10229
10230
10231
10232
10233
10234
10235
10236
10237
10238
10239
10240
10241
10242
10243
10244
10245
10246
10247
10248
10249
10250
10251
10252
10253
10254
10255
10256
10257
10258
10259
10260
10261
10262
10263
10264
10265
10266
10267
10268
10269
10270
10271
10272
10273
10274
10275
10276
10277
10278
10279
10280
10281
10282
10283
10284
10285
10286
10287
10288
10289
10290
10291
10292
10293
10294
10295
10296
10297
10298
10299
10300
10301
10302
10303
10304
10305
10306
10307
10308
10309
10310
10311
10312
10313
10314
10315
10316
10317
10318
10319
10320
10321
10322
10323
10324
10325
10326
10327
10328
10329
10330
10331
10332
10333
10334
10335
10336
10337
10338
10339
10340
10341
10342
10343
10344
10345
10346
10347
10348
10349
10350
10351
10352
10353
10354
10355
10356
10357
10358
10359
10360
10361
10362
10363
10364
10365
10366
10367
10368
10369
10370
10371
10372
10373
10374
10375
10376
10377
10378
10379
10380
10381
10382
10383
10384
10385
10386
10387
10388
10389
10390
10391
10392
10393
10394
10395
10396
10397
10398
10399
10400
10401
10402
10403
10404
10405
10406
10407
10408
10409
10410
10411
10412
10413
10414
10415
10416
10417
10418
10419
10420
10421
10422
10423
10424
10425
10426
10427
10428
10429
10430
10431
10432
10433
10434
10435
10436
10437
10438
10439
10440
10441
10442
10443
10444
10445
10446
10447
10448
10449
10450
10451
10452
10453
10454
10455
10456
10457
10458
10459
10460
10461
10462
10463
10464
10465
10466
10467
10468
10469
10470
10471
10472
10473
10474
10475
10476
10477
10478
10479
10480
10481
10482
10483
10484
10485
10486
10487
10488
10489
10490
10491
10492
10493
10494
10495
10496
10497
10498
10499
10500
10501
10502
10503
10504
10505
10506
10507
10508
10509
10510
10511
10512
10513
10514
10515
10516
10517
10518
10519
10520
10521
10522
10523
10524
10525
10526
10527
10528
10529
10530
10531
10532
10533
10534
10535
10536
10537
10538
10539
10540
10541
10542
10543
10544
10545
10546
10547
10548
10549
10550
10551
10552
10553
10554
10555
10556
10557
10558
10559
10560
10561
10562
10563
10564
10565
10566
10567
10568
10569
10570
10571
10572
10573
10574
10575
10576
10577
10578
10579
10580
10581
10582
10583
10584
10585
10586
10587
10588
10589
10590
10591
10592
10593
10594
10595
10596
10597
10598
10599
10600
10601
10602
10603
10604
10605
10606
10607
10608
10609
10610
10611
10612
10613
10614
10615
10616
10617
10618
10619
10620
10621
10622
10623
10624
10625
10626
10627
10628
10629
10630
10631
10632
10633
10634
10635
10636
10637
10638
10639
10640
10641
10642
10643
10644
10645
10646
10647
10648
10649
10650
10651
10652
10653
10654
10655
10656
10657
10658
10659
10660
10661
10662
10663
10664
10665
10666
10667
10668
10669
10670
10671
10672
10673
10674
10675
10676
10677
10678
10679
10680
10681
10682
10683
10684
10685
10686
10687
10688
10689
10690
10691
10692
10693
10694
10695
10696
10697
10698
10699
10700
10701
10702
10703
10704
10705
10706
10707
10708
10709
10710
10711
10712
10713
10714
10715
10716
10717
10718
10719
10720
10721
10722
10723
10724
10725
10726
10727
10728
10729
10730
10731
10732
10733
10734
10735
10736
10737
10738
10739
10740
10741
10742
10743
10744
10745
10746
10747
10748
10749
10750
10751
10752
10753
10754
10755
10756
10757
10758
10759
10760
10761
10762
10763
10764
10765
10766
10767
10768
10769
10770
10771
10772
10773
10774
10775
10776
10777
10778
10779
10780
10781
10782
10783
10784
10785
10786
10787
10788
10789
10790
10791
10792
10793
10794
10795
10796
10797
10798
10799
10800
10801
10802
10803
10804
10805
10806
10807
10808
10809
10810
10811
10812
10813
10814
10815
10816
10817
10818
10819
10820
10821
10822
10823
10824
10825
10826
10827
10828
10829
10830
10831
10832
10833
10834
10835
10836
10837
10838
10839
10840
10841
10842
10843
10844
10845
10846
10847
10848
10849
10850
10851
10852
10853
10854
10855
10856
10857
10858
10859
10860
10861
10862
10863
10864
10865
10866
10867
10868
10869
10870
10871
10872
10873
10874
10875
10876
10877
10878
10879
10880
10881
10882
10883
10884
10885
10886
10887
10888
10889
10890
10891
10892
10893
10894
10895
10896
10897
10898
10899
10900
10901
10902
10903
10904
10905
10906
10907
10908
10909
10910
10911
10912
10913
10914
10915
10916
10917
10918
10919
10920
10921
10922
10923
10924
10925
10926
10927
10928
10929
10930
10931
10932
10933
10934
10935
10936
10937
10938
10939
10940
10941
10942
10943
10944
10945
10946
10947
10948
10949
10950
10951
10952
10953
10954
10955
10956
10957
10958
10959
10960
10961
10962
10963
10964
10965
10966
10967
10968
10969
10970
10971
10972
10973
10974
10975
10976
10977
10978
10979
10980
10981
10982
10983
10984
10985
10986
10987
10988
10989
10990
10991
10992
10993
10994
10995
10996
10997
10998
10999
11000
11001
11002
11003
11004
11005
11006
11007
11008
11009
11010
11011
11012
11013
11014
11015
11016
11017
11018
11019
11020
11021
11022
11023
11024
11025
11026
11027
11028
11029
11030
11031
11032
11033
11034
11035
11036
11037
11038
11039
11040
11041
11042
11043
11044
11045
11046
11047
11048
11049
11050
11051
11052
11053
11054
11055
11056
11057
11058
11059
11060
11061
11062
11063
11064
11065
11066
11067
11068
11069
11070
11071
11072
11073
11074
11075
11076
11077
11078
11079
11080
11081
11082
11083
11084
11085
11086
11087
11088
11089
11090
11091
11092
11093
11094
11095
11096
11097
11098
11099
11100
11101
11102
11103
11104
11105
11106
11107
11108
11109
11110
11111
11112
11113
11114
11115
11116
11117
11118
11119
11120
11121
11122
11123
11124
11125
11126
11127
11128
11129
11130
11131
11132
11133
11134
11135
11136
11137
11138
11139
11140
11141
11142
11143
11144
11145
11146
11147
11148
11149
11150
11151
11152
11153
11154
11155
11156
11157
11158
11159
11160
11161
11162
11163
11164
11165
11166
11167
11168
11169
11170
11171
11172
11173
11174
11175
11176
11177
11178
11179
11180
11181
11182
11183
11184
11185
11186
11187
11188
11189
11190
11191
11192
11193
11194
11195
11196
11197
11198
11199
11200
11201
11202
11203
11204
11205
11206
11207
11208
11209
11210
11211
11212
11213
11214
11215
11216
11217
11218
11219
11220
11221
11222
11223
11224
11225
11226
11227
11228
11229
11230
11231
11232
11233
11234
11235
11236
11237
11238
11239
11240
11241
11242
11243
11244
11245
11246
11247
11248
11249
11250
11251
11252
11253
11254
11255
11256
11257
11258
11259
11260
11261
11262
11263
11264
11265
11266
11267
11268
11269
11270
11271
11272
11273
11274
11275
11276
11277
11278
11279
11280
11281
11282
11283
11284
11285
11286
11287
11288
11289
11290
11291
11292
11293
11294
11295
11296
11297
11298
11299
11300
11301
11302
11303
11304
11305
11306
11307
11308
11309
11310
11311
11312
11313
11314
11315
11316
11317
11318
11319
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&mdash;First Series.</a><br />
<a href="#PART_II">Part II. Sophisms of Protection&mdash;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."&mdash;<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 &amp; 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&mdash;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&mdash;a condition in which the protected classes have
been restrained by no public opinion&mdash;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&mdash;the right to exchange services for
services&mdash;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&mdash;- as
though industry would not diversify itself sufficiently through the
diverse tastes and predilections of individuals&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;CAUSE.</h3>


<p>The obstacle mistaken for the cause&mdash;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&mdash;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;&mdash;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;&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;as powerful
machinery, which adds to the strength of man; the exchange of produce,
which allows us to profit by the various natural agents distributed in
different degrees over the surface of our globe; the intellect which
discovers, 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,&mdash;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;&mdash;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;&mdash;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,&mdash;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>&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;the consumer,&mdash;it gains but little, for Guttenberg takes
care to lower the price of books only just so much as is necessary to
undersell all rivals.</p>

<p>But the great Mind which put harmony into the movements of celestial
bodies, could also give it to the internal mechanism of society. We will
see the advantages of this invention escaping from the individual, to
become 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,&mdash;of
society,&mdash;of humanity. Printers, having no longer any peculiar merit,
receive no longer a peculiar remuneration. As men,&mdash;as consumers,&mdash;they
no doubt participate in the advantages which the invention confers upon
the community; but that is all. As printers, as producers, they are
placed upon the ordinary footing of all other producers. Society pays
them for their labor, and not for the usefulness of the invention.
<i>That</i> has become a gratuitous benefit, a common heritage to mankind.</p>

<p>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>&agrave; 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;&mdash;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&mdash;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>,&mdash;You are in the right way: you reject abstract
theories; abundance, cheapness, concerns you little. You are entirely
occupied with the interest of the producer, whom you are anxious to
free from foreign competition. In a word, you wish to secure the
<i>national market</i> to <i>national labor</i>.</p>

<p>"We come now to offer you an admirable opportunity for the application
of your&mdash;&mdash;what shall we say? your theory? no, nothing is more
deceiving than theory;&mdash;your doctrine? your system? your principle? But
you do not like doctrines; you hold systems in horror; and, as for
principles, you declare that there are no such things in political
economy. We will say then, your practice; your practice without theory,
and without principle.</p>

<p>"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, &oelig;il-de-b&oelig;ufs, 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,&mdash;you carry the death-blow to your own policy. Remember that
hitherto you have always repulsed foreign produce, <i>because</i> it was an
approach to a gratuitous gift, and <i>the more in proportion</i> as this
approach was more close. You have, in obeying the wishes of other
monopolists, acted only from a <i>half-motive</i>; to grant our petition
there is a much <i>fuller inducement</i>. To repulse us, precisely for the
reason that our case is a more complete one than any which have preceded
it, would be to lay down the following equation: + &times; + =-; in other
words, it would be to accumulate absurdity upon absurdity.</p>

<p>"Labor and Nature concur in different proportions, 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>&agrave;
fortiori</i>, and with double zeal, reject the full gratuity.</p>

<p>"Again, when any article, as coal, iron, cheese, or cloth, comes to us
from foreign countries with less labor than if we produced it ourselves,
the difference in price is a <i>gratuitous gift</i> conferred upon us; and
the gift is more or less considerable, according as the difference is
greater or less. It is the quarter, the half, or the three-quarters of
the value of the produce, in proportion as the foreign merchant requires
the 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.,&mdash;at this
moment when, I believe, every one is seeking in sincerity and with
ardor the solution of this problem&mdash;</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>"&mdash;</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&mdash;price at Brussels.</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">10&nbsp;  "&nbsp; &nbsp;  &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; duty.</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 2em;">5&nbsp;  "&nbsp; &nbsp;  &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; transportation by railroad.</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">&mdash;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">35 francs&mdash;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&mdash;</p>

<p>
<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">20 francs&mdash;price at Brussels.</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 2em;">5&nbsp;  "&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;  duty.</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">10&nbsp;  "&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;  transportation on the common road.</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">&mdash;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">35 francs&mdash;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:&mdash;</p>

<p>
<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">20 francs&mdash;price at Brussels.</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">15&nbsp;  "&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;  protective duty.</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 2em;">5&nbsp;  "&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;  transportation by railroad.</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">&mdash;</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">40 francs&mdash;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,&mdash;to doubly cheat one's self, and that too in
a mere mathematical account,&mdash;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 Jonn&egrave;s, 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&mdash;in other words, comfort,
well-being&mdash;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>&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;for instance: purchase rather than production, where purchase is
more advantageous&mdash;is <i>bad</i> in a society. The political economy of
individuals is not that of nations;" and other such stuff, <i>ejusdem
farin&aelig;</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&mdash;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>&mdash;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&mdash;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 Angoul&egrave;me, Poictiers, Tours,
Orleans, and still more all the intermediate points, as Ruffec,
Ch&acirc;tellerault, 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,&mdash;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&mdash;NATIONAL LABOR.</h3>


<p>Destruction of machinery&mdash;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>&agrave; 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>&eacute;lite</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>&mdash;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>&mdash;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>&mdash;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>&mdash;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>&mdash;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>&mdash;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>&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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,
Vill&egrave;les; 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,&mdash;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,&mdash;<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. Th&eacute;nard, 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 pr&aelig;tereaque 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&mdash;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&mdash;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.'"&mdash;<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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;<i>service for service</i>&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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>&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;evil for him who suffers it, good for him in whose favor it is
exercised&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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 C&aelig;sar 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 C&aelig;sars, 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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;the former is the dull
hatchet, the latter the sharp one&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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' >&nbsp;1. We have examined the &nbsp;question in every light, and
&nbsp;have been unable to perceive a &nbsp;single point in regard to which &nbsp;the protective
system is &nbsp;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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 Cr&oelig;sus, because he is
protected by law from foreign competition. He is as poor as Job&mdash;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.&mdash;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>&mdash;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>&mdash;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>&mdash;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>&mdash;We say that the end and aim of your
restrictive measures is a wrongful one&mdash;<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&mdash;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&mdash;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>&mdash;"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"&mdash;</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&mdash;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&mdash;&mdash; 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&mdash;&mdash; 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&mdash;&mdash; 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&mdash;&mdash; 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&mdash;&mdash; 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,&mdash;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&mdash;&mdash;, 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&mdash;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>&mdash;Be so kind as to give me six of the best.</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;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>&mdash;Where did the principal go?</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;What good do I get from it now?</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;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>&mdash;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>&mdash;Do you believe that two would be too much for your share of the army
and navy expenses?</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;The balance of power in Europe must be maintained.</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;Yes, but they do not understand it.</p>

<p>&mdash;That is what amazes me. For every one suffers from it.</p>

<p>&mdash;You wished it so, Jacques Bonhomme.</p>

<p>&mdash;You are jesting, my dear Mr. Collector; have I a vote in the
legislative halls?</p>

<p>&mdash;Whom did you support for Deputy?</p>

<p>&mdash;An excellent General, who will be a Marshal presently, if God spares
his life.</p>

<p>&mdash;On what does this excellent General live?</p>

<p>&mdash;My hogsheads, I presume.</p>

<p>&mdash;And what would happen were he to vote for a reduction of the army and
your military establishment?</p>

<p>&mdash;Instead of being made a Marshal, he would be retired.</p>

<p>&mdash;Do you now understand that yourself?</p>

<p>&mdash;Let us pass to the fifth hogshead, I beg of you.</p>

<p>&mdash;That goes to Algeria.</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;None at all; it is not intended for Mussulmans, but for good
Christians who spend their days in Barbary.</p>

<p>&mdash;What can they do there which will be of service to me?</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;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>&mdash;The poor! Exactly; they free the country of this <i>superfluity</i>.</p>

<p>&mdash;Oh, yes, by sending after them to Algeria the money which would enable
them to live here.</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;You are a poet, my dear Collector; but I am a vine-grower, and I
refuse.</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;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>&mdash;It is too late. Your <i>representative</i> has agreed that you shall give a
hogshead.</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;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>&mdash;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>&mdash;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>&mdash;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>&mdash;Excellent, delicious! It will suit D&mdash;&mdash;, the cloth manufacturer,
admirably.</p>

<p>&mdash;D&mdash;&mdash;, the manufacturer! What do you mean?</p>

<p>&mdash;That he will make a good bargain out of it.</p>

<p>&mdash;How? What is that? I do not understand you.</p>

<p>&mdash;Do you not know that D&mdash;&mdash; has started a magnificent establishment
very useful to the country, but which loses much money every year?</p>

<p>&mdash;I am very sorry. But what can I do to help him?</p>

<p>&mdash;The Legislature saw that if things went on thus, D&mdash;&mdash; would either
have to do a better business or close his manufactory.</p>

<p>&mdash;But what connection is there between D&mdash;&mdash;'s bad speculations and my
hogshead?</p>

<p>&mdash;The Chamber thought that if it gave D&mdash;&mdash; 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>&mdash;This recipe is as infallible as it is ingenious. But it is shockingly
unjust. What! is D&mdash;&mdash; to cover his losses by taking my wine?</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;You mean to say to D&mdash;&mdash;?</p>

<p>&mdash;To the country. D&mdash;&mdash; 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>&mdash;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>&mdash;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>&mdash;That is my business.</p>

<p>&mdash;For, you see, it would be very annoying if you did not get a good
price for them.</p>

<p>&mdash;I will think of it.</p>

<p>&mdash;For there are many things which the money you receive must procure.</p>

<p>&mdash;I know it, sir. I know it.</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;Ah, yes; does not the same thing happen in the Black Forest?</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;But this is horrible, frightful, abominable.</p>

<p>&mdash;What is the use of these hard words? You yourself, through your
<i>authorized</i> agent&mdash;&mdash;</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;Bah, you will re-elect the worthy General.</p>

<p>&mdash;I? I re-elect the General to give away my wine to Africans and
manufacturers?</p>

<p>&mdash;You will re-elect him, I say.</p>

<p>&mdash;That is a little <i>too much</i>. I will not re-elect him, if I do not want
to.</p>

<p>&mdash;But you will want to, and you will re-elect him.</p>

<p>&mdash;Let him come here and try. He will see who he will have to settle
with.</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;Well, what would you do?</p>

<p>&mdash;I should begin by&mdash;by&mdash;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>&mdash;Just imagine that you are so, and that consequently the majority is
not opposed to you, what would you do?</p>

<p>&mdash;I would look to see on which side <i>justice</i> is.</p>

<p>&mdash;And then?</p>

<p>&mdash;I would seek to find where <i>utility</i> was.</p>

<p>&mdash;What next?</p>

<p>&mdash;I would see whether they agreed, or were in conflict with one another.</p>

<p>&mdash;And if you found they did not agree?</p>

<p>&mdash;I would say to the King, take back your portfolio.</p>

<p>&mdash;But suppose you see that <i>justice</i> and <i>utility</i> are one?</p>

<p>&mdash;Then I will go straight ahead.</p>

<p>&mdash;Very well, but to realize utility by justice, a third thing is
necessary.</p>

<p>&mdash;What is that?</p>

<p>&mdash;Possibility.</p>

<p>&mdash;You conceded that.</p>

<p>&mdash;When?</p>

<p>&mdash;Just now.</p>

<p>&mdash;How?</p>

<p>&mdash;By giving me the majority.</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;And if it sees this clearly, the good will, so to speak, do itself.</p>

<p>&mdash;This is the point to which you are constantly bringing me&mdash;to see a
possibility of reform only in the progress of the general intelligence.</p>

<p>&mdash;By this progress all reform is infallible.</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;I should begin by reducing letter postage to ten centimes.</p>

<p>&mdash;I heard you speak of five, once.</p>

<p>&mdash;Yes; but as I have other reforms in view, I must move with prudence,
to avoid a deficit in the revenues.</p>

<p>&mdash;Prudence? This leaves you with a deficit of thirty millions.</p>

<p>&mdash;Then I will reduce the salt tax to ten francs.</p>

<p>&mdash;Good! Here is another deficit of thirty millions. Doubtless you have
invented some new tax.</p>

<p>&mdash;Heaven forbid! Besides, I do not flatter myself that I have an
inventive mind.</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;You are not the only one. I shall come to that; but I do not count on
it at present.</p>

<p>&mdash;What! you diminish the receipts, without lessening expenses, and you
avoid a deficit?</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;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>&mdash;Precisely; you understand me.</p>

<p>&mdash;How can it be true? I am not even sure that I have heard you.</p>

<p>&mdash;I repeat that I balance one remission of taxes by another.</p>

<p>&mdash;I have a little time to give, and I should like to hear you expound
this paradox.</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;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>&mdash;How much does this suit of clothes cost you?</p>

<p>&mdash;A hundred francs.</p>

<p>&mdash;How much would it have cost you if you had gotten the cloth from
Belgium?</p>

<p>&mdash;Eighty francs.</p>

<p>&mdash;Then why did you not get it there?</p>

<p>&mdash;Because it is prohibited.</p>

<p>&mdash;Why?</p>

<p>&mdash;So that the suit may cost me one hundred francs instead of eighty.</p>

<p>&mdash;This denial, then, costs you twenty francs?</p>

<p>&mdash;Undoubtedly.</p>

<p>&mdash;And where do these twenty francs go?</p>

<p>&mdash;Where do they go? To the manufacturer of the cloth.</p>

<p>&mdash;Well, give me ten francs for the Treasury, and I will remove the
restriction, and you will gain ten francs.</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;Your account is&mdash;you gain five francs on salt, five on postage, and
ten on cloth.</p>

<p>&mdash;Total, twenty francs. This is satisfactory enough. But what becomes of
the poor cloth manufacturer?</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;But are you sure that will be an equivalent?</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;I will think on this, for it is somewhat confused in my head.</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;Perhaps I admitted too much; but go on and explain your financial
plan.</p>

<p>&mdash;Then I will make a tariff.</p>

<p>&mdash;In two folio volumes?</p>

<p>&mdash;No, in two sections.</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;Here it is: Section First. All imports shall pay an <i>ad valorem</i> tax
of five per cent.</p>

<p>&mdash;Even <i>raw materials</i>?</p>

<p>&mdash;Unless they are <i>worthless</i>.</p>

<p>&mdash;But they all have value, much or little.</p>

<p>&mdash;Then they will pay much or little.</p>

<p>&mdash;How can our manufactories compete with foreign ones which have these
<i>raw materials</i> free?</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;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>&mdash;Section Second. All exports shall pay an <i>ad valorem</i> tax of five per
cent.</p>

<p>&mdash;Merciful Heavens, Mr. Utopist! You will certainly be stoned, and, if
it comes to that, I will throw the first one.</p>

<p>&mdash;We agreed that the majority were enlightened.</p>

<p>&mdash;Enlightened! Can you claim that an export duty is not onerous?</p>

<p>&mdash;All taxes are onerous, but this is less so than others.</p>

<p>&mdash;The carnival justifies many eccentricities. Be so kind as to make this
new paradox appear specious, if you can.</p>

<p>&mdash;How much did you pay for this wine?</p>

<p>&mdash;A franc per quart.</p>

<p>&mdash;How much would you have paid outside the city gates?</p>

<p>&mdash;Fifty centimes.</p>

<p>&mdash;Why this difference?</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;Who established the <i>octroi</i>?</p>

<p>&mdash;The municipality of Paris, in order to pave and light the streets.</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;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>&mdash;So that really it is the consumer who pays the tax?</p>

<p>&mdash;There is no doubt of that.</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;I find you at fault, this is not <i>justice</i>.</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;This is contrary to received ideas.</p>

<p>&mdash;Not the least in the world. The last purchaser must repay all the
direct and indirect expenses of production.</p>

<p>&mdash;No matter what you say, it is plain that such a measure would paralyze
commerce; and cut off all exports.</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;I will reflect on this. So now the salt, postage and customs are
regulated. Is all ended there?</p>

<p>&mdash;I am just beginning.</p>

<p>&mdash;Pray, initiate me in your Utopian ideas.</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;What, pray?</p>

<p>&mdash;International relations founded on justice, and a probability of peace
which is equivalent to a certainty. I will disband the army.</p>

<p>&mdash;The whole army?</p>

<p>&mdash;Except special branches, which will be voluntarily recruited, like all
other professions. You see, conscription is abolished.</p>

<p>&mdash;Sir, you should say recruiting.</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;Like <i>consolidated duties</i>, which have become <i>indirect
contributions</i>.</p>

<p>&mdash;And the <i>gendarmes</i>, who have taken the name of <i>municipal guards</i>.</p>

<p>&mdash;In short, trusting to Utopia, you disarm the country.</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;How do you harmonize this mass of contradictions?</p>

<p>&mdash;I call all the citizens to service.</p>

<p>&mdash;Is it worth while to relieve a portion from service in order to call
out everybody?</p>

<p>&mdash;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&mdash;How to earn his own living, and defend his country.</p>

<p>&mdash;It seems to me, at the first glance, that there is a spark of good
sense in this.</p>

<p>&mdash;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.&mdash;</p>

<p>&mdash;This is pretty economy! You send home four hundred thousand soldiers
and call out ten millions.</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;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>&mdash;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>&mdash;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&mdash;</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>&mdash;My dear Utopist!</p>

<p>&mdash;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&mdash;</p>

<p>&mdash;My dear Utopist, you attempt too much. The nation will not follow you.</p>

<p>&mdash;You gave me the majority.</p>

<p>&mdash;I take it back.</p>

<p>&mdash;Very well; then I am no longer Minister; but my plans remain what they
are&mdash;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.&mdash;<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!&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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>&mdash;What is restriction?</p>

<p>&mdash;A partial prohibition.</p>

<p>&mdash;What is prohibition?</p>

<p>&mdash;An absolute restriction.</p>

<p>&mdash;So that what is said of one is true of the other?</p>

<p>&mdash;Yes, comparatively. They bear the same relation to each other that the
arc of the circle does to the circle.</p>

<p>&mdash;Then if prohibition is bad, restriction cannot be good.</p>

<p>&mdash;No more than the arc can be straight if the circle is curved.</p>

<p>&mdash;What is the common name for restriction and prohibition?</p>

<p>&mdash;Protection.</p>

<p>&mdash;What is the definite effect of protection?</p>

<p>&mdash;To require from men <i>harder labor for the same result</i>.</p>

<p>&mdash;Why are men so attached to the protective system?</p>

<p>&mdash;Because, since liberty would accomplish the same result <i>with less
labor</i>, this apparent diminution of labor frightens them.</p>

<p>&mdash;Why do you say <i>apparent</i>?</p>

<p>&mdash;Because all labor economized can be devoted to <i>something else</i>.</p>

<p>&mdash;What?</p>

<p>&mdash;That cannot and need not be determined.</p>

<p>&mdash;Why?</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;Explain the workings and effect of protection.</p>

<p>&mdash;It is not an easy matter. Before taking hold of a complicated
instance, it must be studied in the simplest one.</p>

<p>&mdash;Take the simplest you choose.</p>

<p>&mdash;Do you recollect how Robinson Crusoe, having no saw, set to work to
make a plank?</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;And that gave him an abundance of work?</p>

<p>&mdash;Fifteen full days.</p>

<p>&mdash;What did he live on during this time?</p>

<p>&mdash;His provisions.</p>

<p>&mdash;What happened to the ax?</p>

<p>&mdash;It was all blunted.</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;Oh, the lucky accident! He ran to pick it up?</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;But this reasoning was absurd!</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;Did not Robinson see that he could use the time saved in doing
<i>something else</i>?</p>

<p>&mdash;What '<i>something else</i>'?</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;I can specify very easily that which he would have avoided.</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;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>&mdash;Let us pass, then, to a more complicated instance.</p>

<p>&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;</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&mdash;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>&mdash;The story would not be bad if Robinson was not so foolish.</p>

<p>&mdash;He is no more so than the committee in Hauteville street.</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;All this complicates transactions, but does not change their nature.</p>

<p>&mdash;What! Do you propose to compare modern commerce to mere exchanges?</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;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>&mdash;Yes; only error is hidden better under the complication of
circumstances.</p>

<p>&mdash;Well, now, select some instance from what has actually occurred.</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;A pretty question! To have it, we must make it.</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;But I purchased my cloth, and France its coffee.</p>

<p>&mdash;Exactly, and with what?</p>

<p>&mdash;With specie.</p>

<p>&mdash;But you did not make the specie, nor did France.</p>

<p>&mdash;We bought it.</p>

<p>&mdash;With what?</p>

<p>&mdash;With our products which went to Peru.</p>

<p>&mdash;Then it is in reality your labor that you exchange for cloth, and
French labor that is exchanged for coffee?</p>

<p>&mdash;Certainly.</p>

<p>&mdash;Then it is not absolutely necessary to make what one consumes?</p>

<p>&mdash;No, if one makes <i>something else</i>, and gives it in exchange.</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;I do not know.</p>

<p>&mdash;Is it not that which, <i>for a fixed amount of labor, gives the greatest
quantity of cloth</i>?</p>

<p>&mdash;It seems so.</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;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>&mdash;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>&mdash;That is true.</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;But what other thing?</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;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>&mdash;Doubtless.</p>

<p>&mdash;Then a certain quantity of its labor will become inert?</p>

<p>&mdash;Yes; but people will be no worse clothed&mdash;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>&mdash;If they say to you: There are no absolute principles; prohibition may
be bad, and restriction good&mdash;</p>

<p>Reply: Restriction <i>prohibits</i> all that it keeps from coming in.</p>

<p>&mdash;If they say to you: Agriculture is the nursing mother of the country&mdash;</p>

<p>Reply: That which feeds a country is not exactly agriculture, but
<i>grain</i>.</p>

<p>&mdash;If they say to you: The basis of the sustenance of the people is
agriculture&mdash;</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>&mdash;If they say to you: A restriction on the admission of foreign grain
leads to more cultivation, and, consequently, to a greater home
production&mdash;</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>&mdash;If they say to you: Let bread be dear, and the wealthy farmer will
enrich the artisans&mdash;</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>&mdash;If they insist on it, saying: When food is dear, wages rise&mdash;</p>

<p>Reply by showing that in April, 1847, five-sixths of the workingmen were
beggars.</p>

<p>&mdash;If they say to you: The profits of the workingmen must rise with the
dearness of food&mdash;</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>&mdash;If they say to you: A good price must be secured for those who sell
grain&mdash;</p>

<p>Reply: Certainly; but good wages must be secured to those who buy it.</p>

<p>&mdash;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&mdash;</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>&mdash;If they say to you: What, then, is to be done?</p>

<p>Reply: Be just to everybody.</p>

<p>&mdash;If they say to you: It is essential that a great country should
manufacture iron&mdash;</p>

<p>Reply: The most essential thing is that this great country <i>should have
iron</i>.</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;If they say to you: Labor is wealth&mdash;</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>&mdash;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&mdash;</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>&mdash;If they say to you: The sun gives his heat and light without requiring
remuneration&mdash;</p>

<p>Reply: So much the better for me, since it costs me nothing to see
distinctly.</p>

<p>&mdash;And if they reply to you: Industry in general loses what you would
have paid for lights&mdash;</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>&mdash;So, if they say to you: These English rascals have capital which pays
them nothing&mdash;</p>

<p>Reply: So much the better for us; they will not make us pay interest.</p>

<p>&mdash;If they say to you: These perfidious Englishmen find iron and coal at
the same spot&mdash;</p>

<p>Reply: So much the better for us; they will not make us pay anything for
bringing them together.</p>

<p>&mdash;If they say to you: The Swiss have rich pastures which cost little&mdash;</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>&mdash;If they say to you: The lands in the Crimea are worth nothing, and pay
no taxes&mdash;</p>

<p>Reply: The gain is on our side, since we buy grain free from those
charges.</p>

<p>&mdash;If they say to you: The serfs of Poland work without wages&mdash;</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>&mdash;Then, if they say to you: Other nations have many advantages over us&mdash;</p>

<p>Reply: By exchange, they are forced to let us share in them.</p>

<p>&mdash;If they say to you: With liberty we shall be swamped with bread, beef
<i>a la mode</i>, coal, and coats&mdash;</p>

<p>Reply: We shall be neither cold nor hungry.</p>

<p>&mdash;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>&mdash;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&mdash;</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>&mdash;If they say to you: Eat meat&mdash;</p>

<p>Reply: Let it come in.</p>

<p>&mdash;If they say to you, like the <i>Presse</i>: When you have not the money to
buy bread with, buy beef&mdash;</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>&mdash;If they say to you, like the <i>Presse</i>: The State ought to teach the
people why and how it should eat meat&mdash;</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>&mdash;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&mdash;</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>&mdash;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&mdash;</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>&mdash;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&mdash;</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>&mdash;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)&mdash;</p>

<p>Reply: This freedom is necessary everywhere, and for the same reason.</p>

<p>&mdash;If they say to you: Each country has its wants; it is according to
that that <i>it must act</i> (M. Thiers)&mdash;</p>

<p>Reply: It is according to that that <i>it acts of itself</i> when no one
hinders it.</p>

<p>&mdash;If they say to you: Since we have no sheet iron, its admission must be
allowed (M. Thiers)&mdash;</p>

<p>Reply: Thank you, kindly.</p>

<p>&mdash;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&mdash;</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>&mdash;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&mdash;</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>&mdash;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&mdash;much more
difficult than one thinks&mdash;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,&mdash;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>?&mdash;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&mdash;<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&mdash;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?&mdash;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&mdash;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,&mdash;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&mdash;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>&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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, Thor&eacute;, 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 Thor&eacute; are deceiving
themselves, it follows, that they are leading the people astray&mdash;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&mdash;on the other, a weak man, but rich,
and a robber&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;to spend, for example, only 900 francs, instead of 1,000&mdash;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&mdash;in other
words, when he has created a <i>value</i>&mdash;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,&mdash;"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,&mdash;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&mdash;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. Thor&eacute;
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&mdash;wool, flax, leather, silk,
wood, etc.</p>

<p>2nd. Instruments which are used for working&mdash;tools, machines, ships,
carriages, etc.</p>

<p>3rd. Provisions which are consumed during labor&mdash;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&mdash;he would renounce his cherished enterprise&mdash;he
would enable me to accomplish mine&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;"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&mdash;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&mdash;as long as he renounces
the advantages which allow it to be restored to its original
condition&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;man
would have made no progress. On the other hand, if leisure could only be
explained by plunder and oppression&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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. Thor&eacute;, 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&mdash;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&mdash;is it not evident that the condition of the
whole population, and, above all, that of the "prol&eacute;taires,"<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?&mdash;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 "prol&eacute;taires" 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
"prol&eacute;taires" 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 "prol&eacute;taires," 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 dep&ocirc;ts, 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&mdash;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;&mdash;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&mdash;that of the
capitalists and that of the "prol&eacute;taires." 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&mdash;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, "prol&eacute;taires," 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&mdash;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&mdash;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 &pound;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 &pound;1 a week.
In families where the father had hitherto earned &pound;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&mdash;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&mdash;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>
generated by cgit v1.2.3 (git 2.25.1) at 2026-01-05 22:23:52 +0000