BOOK 337.2.B296 c. 1 BASTIAT # SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION "im 3 T1S3 000^603 1 *£& - ■' H - I few.. SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. BY THE LATE M. FREDERIC BASTIAT, Member of the Institute of France. Part I. Sophisms of Protection First Series. Part II. Sophisms of Protection Second Series. Part III. Spoliation and Law Part IV. Capital and Interest. Translated from the ^aris Edition of 1863, WITH PREFACE BY HORACE WHITE. NEW-YORK : G. P, PUTNAM'S SONS 189a. •M\o Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1869, by THE WESTERN NEWS COMPANY, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States, for the Northern District of Illinois. PKEFAOE. 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 pub- lication of the book on a large scale and at a very low price. The primary object of the League is to educate public opinion ; to convince the people of the United States of the folly and wrongfulness of the Protective system. The methods adopted by the League for the purpose have been the holding of public meetings and the publication of books, pamphlets, and tracts, some of which are for sale at the cost of publication, and others given away gratuitously. In publishing this book, the League feels that it is offer- ing 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, 11 PREFACE. Free-Traders can do no better service in the cause of truth, justice, and humanity, than by circulating this little book among their friends. It is offered you at what it costs to print it. Will not every Free-Trader put a copy of the book into the hands of his Protectionist friends? It would not be proper to close this short preface without an expression on the part of the League of its obligation to the able translator of the work from the French, Mr. Horace White, of Chicago. Office of The American Free-Trade League, 38 Burling Slip, New-Yo*k. June, 1870. PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION. This compilation, from the works of the late M. Bastiat, is given to the public in the belief that the time has now come when the people, relieved from the absorbing anxi- eties of the war, and the subsequent strife on reconstruc- tion, 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 Con- gress, to reverse the policy of the government in reference to foreign trade.* lie has noticed, but has not laid so much stress as he might, on the fact that while there was * Elements of Political Economy, p. 461. IV PREFACE. 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 fol- lowing words : " Resolved, That while providing revenue for the support of the General Government by duties upon imports, sound policy requires such an adjustment of these imposts as to encourage the development of the industrial interests of the whole coun- try ; and we commend that policy of national exchanges which secures to the workingmen liberal wages, to agriculture remu- nerative prices, to mechanics and manufacturers an adequate reward for their skill, labor, and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence." — Chicago Convention Platform, 1860. 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 PREFACE. V 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 reso- lution 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 bv 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 fre- quently, the shade of Henry Clay to help re-establish what is deftly styled the " American System." The protective policy was restored, after its fifteen vears' sleep, under the auspices of Mr. Morrill, a Repre- sentative (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 em- bodied in the " Morrill tariff " of 1861. His remarks upon the copper bill, during the recent session of Congress, VI PREFACE. indicate that, in his opinion, those branches of American industry which are engaged in producing articles sent abroad in exchange for the products of foreign nations, are entitled to some consideration. This is an important admission, but not so important as another, which he made in his speech on the national finances, January 24, 1867, in which, referring to the bank-note circulation existing in the year 1860, he said: "And that was a year of as large production and as much general prosperity as any, perhaps, in our history. ' " * If the year imme- diately preceding the enactment of the Morrill tariff was a year of as large production and as much general pros- perity 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. 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 * Congressional Globe, Second Session Thirty-ninth Congress, Part I. p. 724. PREFACE. Vll the highest.* It is enough to count him among the great- est of its expounders and demonstrators. His death, which occurred at Pisa, Italy, on the 24th of December, 1850, at the age of 49, was a serious loss to France and to the world. His works, though for the most part frag- mentary, and given to the public from time to time through the columns of the Journal de* Economistes, the Journal des Debats, and the Libre E change, remain a mon- ument of a noble intellect guided by a noble soul. They have been collected and published (including the Harmo- nies Economiques, which the author left in manuscript) by Guillaumin k, Co., the proprietors of the Journal des Economises, in two editions of six volumes each, 8vo and 12 mo. "When w r e 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 ♦Mr. Macleod (Dictionary of Political Economy, vol. i. p. 246) speaks of Bastiat's definition of Value as " the greatest revolution that has been effected in any science since the days of Galileo. " See also Professor Perry's pamphlet. Becent Phases of Thought in Political Economy, read before the American Social Science Association, October, 1S68, 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. Vlll PREFACE. been more saving of his strength, he might have rendered even greater services to his country and to mankind. The Sophismes Economiques y which fill the larger portion of this volume, were not expected by their author to out- last the fallacies which they sought to overthrow. But these fallacies have lived longer and have spread over more of the earth's surface than any one a priori could have belived possible. It is sometimes useful, in oppos- ing 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 lan- guages. By what misuse of words the doctrine of Pro- tection 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 — agri- culture, manufactures, and commerce alike.* It was not * 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. PREFACE. IX wholly overthrown until 1846, the same year that wit- nessed its discomfiture in the United States, as already shown. It still exists in a subdued and declining way in " 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 tearful 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 where- with to begin the world again. The pressure had long extended beyond the interests first affected, and when the new Ministry came into power, there seemed to be no class that was not threatened with ruin. In Carlisle, the Committee of Inquiry reported that a fourth of the population was in a state bordering on starvation— actually certain to die of famine, unless re- lieved by extraordinary exertions. In the woollen districts of Wiltshire, the allowance to the independent, laborer was not two thirds of the mini- mum 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 be- fore the close of 1842 ; dwelling-houses to the number of 3000 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 idle- ness, and the Burnley guardians wrote to the. Secretary of State that the distress was far beyond their management ; so that a government commis- sioner and government funds were sent down without delay. At a meet- ing 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 haby at her breast ; or from parties often or a dozen desperate wretches who were levy- ing 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 halfpennyworths 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. The-e shopkeepers contemplated nothing but rnin from the impoverished condition of their customers. While poor-rates were increasing beyond all precedent, their trade was only one half, or one third, or even one tenth what it had been three years before. In that neighborhood, a gentleman, who had retired from business in 1833, leaving a property worth £60,000 to his sons, and who had, early in the distress, become security for them, was showing the works for the benefit of the creditors, at a salary of £1 a week. In families where the father had hitherto earned £2 per week, and laid by a portion weekly, and where all was now gone but the sacks of shavings they slept on, exertions were made to get k blue milk 1 for children to moisten their oatmeal with ; but soon they could have it only on alternate days ; and soon water must do. AtLeed-* 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, 1 PREFACE. 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 protec- tionists that it must soon succumb. 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 for- eign bottoms, and has asked our government to abolish the like discrimination which our laws have created. Com- one third of the inhabitants were paupers ; more than a fifth of the houses stood empty ; and there was not work enough in the place to employ properly one third of the weavers. In Dorsetshire a man and his wife had for wages 2s. 6d. per week, and three loaves ; and the ablest laborer had 6s. or 7s. In Wiltshire, the poor peasants held open-air meetings after work— which was necessarily after dark. There, by the light of one or two flaring tallow candles, the man or the woman who had a story to tell stood on a chair, and related how their children were fed and clothed in old times— poorly enoueh, but so as to keep body and soul together ; and now. how they could nohow manage to do it. The bare details of the ages of their children, and what the little things could do, and the prices of bacon and bread, and calico and coals, had more pathos in them than any oratory heard elsewhere." "But a'l 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 everything and everybody, 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 prin«iple of protection), and with the results so pathetically described by Miss Martineau. The prosperity of British manufactures dates from the year 1846. That they maintaine 1 any kind of existence prior to that time is a most striking proof of the vitality of human industry under the persecution of had laws. PREFACE. XI mercial freedom is making rapid progress in Prussia, Aus- tria, Italy, and even in Spain. The United States alone, among civilized nations, hold to the opposite principle. Our anomalous condition in this respect is due, as I think, to our anomalous condition during the past eight or nine years, already adverted to — a condition in which the pro- tected classes have been restrained by no public opinion — public opinion being too intensely preoccupied with the means of preserving the national existence to notice what was doing with the tariff. But evidences of a rewaken- ing are not wanting. There is scarcely an argument current among the protectionists of the United States that was not current in France at the time Bastiat wrote the Sophismes Econo- miques. 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 sys- tem." Surely they cannot do less than this. There are one or two arguments current among the protectionists of the United States that were not rife in France when Bastiat wrote his Sophismes. It is said, for instance, that protection has failed to achieve all the good results expected from it, because the policy of the govern- Xll PREFA C E . ment has been variable. If we could Lave a steady course of protection for a sufficient period of time (nobody being bold enough to say what time would be sufficient), and could be assured of having it, we should see won- derful 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 stayed there, my head would not have been broken by its fall." It would not stay there. The law of gravitation is committed against its staying there. Its only resting-place is on the earth. They begin by violating natural laws and natural rights — the right to exchange services for services — and then complain because these natural laws war against them and finally overcome them. But it is not true that protection has not had a fair trial in the United States. The protection has been greater at some times than at others, that is all. Prior to the late war, all our revenue was raised from customs ; and while the tariffs of 1846 and 1857 were designated 1 ' free-trade tariffs, ' ' to distinguish them from those exist- ing before and since, they were necessarily protective to a certain extent. Again, it is said that there is need of diversifying our industry — as though industry would not diversify itself sufficiently through the diverse tastes and predilections of individuals — as though it were necessary to supplement PREFACE. X1H the work of the Creator in this behalf, by human enact- ments 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 advanc- ing in prosperity, as our agriculturists ; and this notwith- standing they are enormously overtaxed to maintain other branches of industry, which, according to the protective theory, cannot support themselves. The natural tendency of our people to flock to the cities, where their eyes and ears are gratified at the expense of their other senses, physical and moral, is sufficiently marked not to need the influence of legislation to stimulate it. It is not the purpose of this preface to anticipate the XIV PREFACE. admirable arguments of M. Bastiat ; but there is another theory in vogue which deserves a moment's consideration. Mr. H. 0. 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 ab- stracted 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 shorter answer is, that the lands are no better manured by having the bread consumed in Lowell, or Pittsburg, 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 apprecia- ble 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 com- pared with the total crop produced, was as follows : TOTAL CBOP.f Flour and Meal, bbls. Wheat, bu. Corn, bu. 55,217,800 173,104,924 838,792,740 * Principles of Political Economy (People's Ed.), London, 1865, page 557. t These figures are taken from the census report for the year 1860. In PREFACE. X Exportation. r and Meal, bbls. Wheat, bu. Corn, bu. 2,845,305 4,155,153 1,314,155 Percentage of Exportation to Total Crop. 5.15 2.40 .39 XV This was the result for the year preceding the enact- ment 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 move- ment 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 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 ? XVI PREFACE. foreign nations will not take our 'breadstuffs. It is not true ; but if it were, that would not be a good reason for our passing laws to prevent them from doing so ; that is, to deprive them of the means to pay for them. Every country must pay for its imports with its exports. It must pay for the services which it receives with the ser- vices which it renders. If foreign nations are not al- lowed to render services to us, how shall we reuder them the service of bread ? The first series of Bastiat's Sophismes were published in 1845, and the second series in 1848. The first series were translated in 1848, by Mrs. D. J. McCord, and published the same year by G. P. Putnam, New York. Mrs. McCord' s excellent translation has been followed (by per- mission 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 duo-' decimo volume published in London a year or two ago, the name of the translator being unknown to me. The second series of the Sophismes, and the essay entitled "Spoliation and Law," are, I believe, presented in English for the first time in these pages. H. W. Chicago, August 1, 1869. PART I. SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. FIRST SERIES. INTRODUCTION. My object in this little volume has been to refute some of the arguments usually advanced against Free Trade. I am not seeking a combat with the protectionists. I merely advance a principle which I am anxious to present clearly to the minds of sincere men, who hesitate because they doubt. I am not of the number of those who maintain that protection is supported by interests. I believe that it is founded upon errors, or, if you will, upon incomplete truths. Too many fear free trade, for this apprehension to be other than sincere. My aspirations are perhaps high ; but 1 confess that it would give me pleasure to hope that this little work might become, as it were, a manual for such men as may be called upon to decide between 2 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 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 1 would, on this account, wish to pre- sent clearly drawn up to their hand. But it may be said, Are then the benefits of free trade so hidden as to be perceptible only to econo- mists by profession ? Yes, we confess it ; our adversaries in the discus- sion have a signal advantage over us. They can, in a few words, present an incomplete truth ; which, for us to show that it is incomplete, renders necessary long and uninteresting dissertations. This results from the fact that protection accumu- lates upon a single point the good which it effects, while the evil inflicted is infused throughout the mass. The one strikes the eye at a first glance, while the other becomes perceptible only to close investigation. With regard to free trade, precisely the reverse is the case. It is thus with almost all questions of political economy. If you say, for instance : There is a machine which has turned out of employment thirty work- men ; INTRODUCTION. » Or again : There is a spendthrift who encourages every kind of industry ; Or : The conquest of Algiers has doubled the commerce of Marseilles ; Or, once more : The public taxes support one hundred thousand families ; You are understood at once ; your propositions are clear, simple, and true in themselves. If you deduce from them the principle that Machines are an evil ; That sumptuous extravagance, conquest, and heavy imposts are blessings ; Your theory will have the more success, because you will be able to base it upon indisputable facts. But we, for our part, cannot stop at a cause and its immediate effect ; for we know that this effect may in its turn become itself a cause. To judge of a measure, it is necessary that we should follow it from step to step, from result to result, until through the successive links of the chain of events we arrive at the final effect. We must, in short, reason. But here we are assailed by clamorous exclama- tions : You are theorists, metaphysicians, ideolo- gists, Utopians, men of maxims ! and immediately all the prejudices of the public are against us. "What then shall we do ? We must invoke the patience and candor of the reader, giving to our deductions, if we are capable of it, sufficient clear- 4 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. ness to throw forward at once, without disguise or palliation, the true and the false, in order, once for all, to determine whether the victory should be for Restriction or Free Trade. I wish here to make a remark of some impor- tance. Some extracts from this volume have appeared in the Journal des Econornistes. In an article otherwise quite complimentary pub- lished by the Viscount de Romanet (see Moniteur Industriel of the 15th and 18th of May, 1815), he intimates that I ask for the suppression of custom- houses. Mr. De Romanet is mistaken./ 1 ask for the suppression of the protective policy : "We do not dis- pute the right of government to impose taxes, but would, if possible, dissuade producers from taxing one another. It was said by Napoleon that duties should never be a fiscal instrument, but a means of protecting industry. We plead the contrary, and say, that duties should never be made an instru- ment 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 doc- trines, and from the magnitude of our budget, to INTRODUCTION. hope more for the cause of commercial reform from the necessities of the treasury than from the force of an enlightened public opinion. SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. ABUNDANCE — SCARCITY. Which is the best for man or for society, abun- dance or scarcity ? How, it may be exclaimed, can such a question be asked ? Has it ever been pretended, is it possi- ble to maintain, that scarcity can be the basis of a man's happiness ? Yes ; this has been maintained, this is daily main- tained ; and I do not hesitate to say that the scarcity theory is by far the most popular of the day. It furnishes the subject of discussions, in conversa- tions, journals, books, courts of justice ; and extraor- dinary as it may appsar, 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 abun- dance consist man's riches. " Do we not hear it said every day, " Foreign nations are inundating us with their productions" ? Then we fear abundance. Has not Mr. de Saint Cricq said, " Production is superabundant' ' ? Then he fears abundance. Do we not see workmen destroying and breaking machinery ? They are frightened by the excess of production ; in other words, they fear abundance. ABUNDANCE — SCARCITY. 7 Has not Mr. Bugeaud said, " Let bread be dear and the agriculturist will be rich" ? Now bread can only be dear because it is scarce. Then Mr. Bugeaud lauded scarcity. Has not Mr. d'Argout produced the fruitfulness of the sugar culture as an argument against it ? Has he not said, " The beet cannot have a perma- nent and extended cultivation, because a few acres given up to it in each department would furnish sufficient for the consumption of all France' ' ? Then, in his opinion, good consists in sterility and scarcity, evil in fertility and abundance. La Presse, Le Cormnerce, and the majority of our journals, are, every day, publishing articles whose aim is to prove to the chambers and to gov- ernment that a wise policy should seek to raise prices by tariffs ; and do we not daily see these powers obeying these injunctions of the press ? Now, tariffs can only raise prices by diminishing the quantity of goods offered for sale. Then, here we see newspapers, the legislature, the ministry, all guided by the scarcity theory, and I was correct in my statement that this theory is by far the most popular. How then has it happened, that in the eyes at once of laborers, editors, and statesmen, abundance should appear alarming, and scarcity advantageous ? It is my intention to endeavor to show the origin of this delusion. B SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. A man becomes rich in proportion to the profit- ableness of his labor ; that is to say, in 'proportion as he sells his productions at a high price. The price of his productions is high in proportion to their scarcity. It is plain then, that, as far as re gards him at least, scarcity enriches him. Apply- ing successively this mode of reasoning to each class of laborers individually, the scarcity theory is de- duced from it. To put this theory into practice, and in order to favor each class of labor, an artifi- cial scarcity is forced in every kind of production, by prohibition, restriction, suppression of machin- ery, and other analogous measures. In the same manner it is observed that when an article is abundant it brings a small price. The gains of the producer are, of course, less. If this is the case with all produce, all producers are then poor. Abundance then ruins society. And as any strong conviction will always seek to force itself into practice, we see, in many countries, the laws aiming to prevent abundance. This sophism, stated in a general form, would produce but a slight impression. But when applied to any particular order of facts, to any particular article of industry, to any one class of labor, it is extremely specious, because it is a syllogism which is not false, but incomplete. And what is true in a syllogism always necessarily presents itself to the mind, while the incomplete, which is a negative ABUNDANCE — SCARCITY. 9 (jiiality, an unknown value, is easily forgotten in the calculation. Man produces in order to consume. He is at once producer and consumer. The argument given above considers him only under the first point of view. Let us look at him in the second character, and the conclusion will be different. We may say, The consumer is rich in proportion as he buys at a low price. He buys at a low price in proportion to the abundance of the article in demand ; abun- dance then enriches him. This reasoning extended to all consumers must lead to the theory of abun- dance ! It is the imperfectly understood notion of ex- change of produce which leads to these fallacies. If we consult our individual interest, we perceive im- mediately that it is double. As sellers we are inter- ested in high prices, consequently in scarcity. As buyers our advantage is in cheapness, or what is the same thing, abundance. It is impossible then to found a proper system of reasoning upon either the one or the other of these separate interests before determining which of the two coincides and identi- fies itself with the general and permanent interests of mankind. If man were a solitary animal, working exclu- sively 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 10 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. introduced itself into the world. It would be too strikingly evident, that abundance, whencesoever derived, is advantageous to him, whether this abun- dance might be the result of his own labor, of in- genious tools, or of powerful machinery ; whether due to the fertility of the soil, to the liberality of nature, or to an inundation of foreign goods, such as the sea bringing from distant regions might cast upon his shores. Never would the solitary man have dreamed, in order to encourage his own labor, of destroying his instruments for facilitating his work, of neutralizing the fertility of the soil, or of casting back into the sea the produce of its bounty. He would understand that his labor was a means, not an end, and that it would be absurd to reject the object, in order to encourage the means. He would understand that if he has required two hours per day to supply his necessities, anything which spares him an hour of this labor, leaving the result the same, gives him this hour to dispose of as he pleases in adding to his comforts. In a word, he would understand that every step in the saving oflahor 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 divi- sion 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 ABUNDANCE — SCARCITY. 11 produce creates with regard to each object two sep- arate interests, that of the producer and that of the consumer ; and these two interests are always directly opposed to each other. It is essential to analyze and study the nature of each. Let us then suppose a producer of whatever kind ; what is his immediate interest ? It consists in two things : 1st, that the smallest possible num- ber of individuals should devote themselves to the business which he follows ; and 2ndly, that the greatest possible number should seek the articles of his produce. In the more succinct terms of Politi- cal Economy, the supply should be small, the de- mand large ; or yet in other words : limited com- petition, unlimited consumption. What on the other side is the immediate interest of the consumer ? That the supply should be large, the demand small. As these two interests are immediately opposed to each other, it follows that if one coincides with the general interest of society, the other must be ad- verse to it. Which then, if either, should legislation favor as contributing most to the good of the community ? To determine this question, it suffices to inquire in which the secret desires of the majority of men would be accomplished. Inasmuch as we are producers, it must be con- fessed that we have each of us anti -social desires. 12 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. Are we vine-growers ? It would not distress m were the frost to nip all the vines in, the world ex- cept our own : this is the scarcity theory. Are we iron-workers ? We would desire (whatever might be the public need) that the market should offer no iron but our own ; and precisely for the reason that this need, painfully felt and imperfectly supplied, causes us to receive a high price for our iron : again here is the theory of scarcity. Are we agricultur- ists ? We say with Mr. Bugeaud, let bread be dear, that is to say scarce, and our business goes well : again the theory of scarcity. Are we physicians ? We cannot but see that cer- tain 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 under- stood 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 ABUNDANCE SCARCITY 13 from this profession his standing in society, his comforts, even the means of existence of his family, it is impossible but that his desires, or if you please so to word it, his interests, should be anti- social. Are we manufacturers of cotton goods ? We de- sire to sell them at the price most advantageous to ourselves. We would willingly consent to the sup- pression of all rival manufactories. And if we dare not publicly express this desire, or pursue the com- plete realization of it with some success, we do so, at least to a certain extent, by indirect means ; as, for example, the exclusion of foreign goods, in order to diminish the quantity offered, and to pro- duce thus by forcible means, and for our own profits, a scarcity of clothing. We might thus pass in review every business and every profession, and should always find that the producers, in their character of producers, have invariably anti- social interests. " The shopkeeper (says Montaigne) succeeds in his business through the extravagance of youth ; the laborer by the high price of grain ; the architect by the decay of houses ; officers of justice by lawsuits and quarrels. The standing and occupation even of ministers of religion are drawn from our death and our vices. No physician takes pleasure in the health even of his friends ; no soldier in the peace of his country ; and so on with all. ' ' If then the secret desires of each producer were 14 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. • realized, the world would rapidly retrograde tow- ard 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 everything would cause man himself to disappear from the face of the globe. If we now go on to consider the immediate inter- est of the consumer, we shall find it in perfect har- mony with the public interest, and with the well- being of humanity. When the buyer presents himself in the market, he desires to find it abun- dantly furnished. He sees with pleasure propitious seasons for harvesting ; wonderful inventions put- ting 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 moral- ity, 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 ABUNDANCE — SCARCITY. 15 which we breathe, and the sunbeams in which we bask, but never could the realization of his most ex- travagant wishes run counter to the good of society. It may be said, perhaps, that were these desires granted, the labor of the producer constantly checked would end by being entirely arrested for want of support. But why ? Because in this ex- treme 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 produc- tion be regretted ? Imagine a legislative assembly composed of pro- ducers, of whom each member should cause to pass into a law his secret desire as a producer • the code which would emanate from such an assembly could be nothing but systematized monopoly ; the scarcity theory put into practice. In the same manner, an assembly in which each member should consult only his immediate interest of consumer would aim at the systematizing of free trade; the suppression of every restrictive meas- ure ; the destruction of artificial barriers ; in a word, would realize the theory of abundance. It follows then, That to consult exclusively the immediate interest of the producer, is to consult an anti-social interest. To take exclusively for basis the interest of the consumer, is to take for basis the general interest. Jf> SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. Let me be permitted to insist once more upon tins point of view, though at the risk of repetition. A radical antagonism exists between the seller and the buyer. The former wishes the article offered to be scarce, supply small, and at a high price. The latter wishes it abundant, supply large, and at a low price. The laws, which should at least remain neutral, take part for the seller against the buyer ; for the producer against the consumer ; for high against low prices ; for scarcity against abundance. They act, if not intentionally, at least logically, upon the principle that a nation is rich in proportion as it is in want of everything. For, say they, it is necessary to favor the pro- ducer by securing him a profitable disposal of his goods. To effect this their price must be raised ; to raise the price the supply must be diminished ; and to diminish the supply is to create scarcity. Let us suppose that at this moment, with these laws in full action, a complete inventory should be made, not by value, but by weight, measure, and quantity, of all articles now in France calculated to supply the necessities and pleasures of its inhabi- tants ; as grain, meat, woollen and cotton goods, fuel, etc. Let us suppose again that to-morrow every barrier to the introduction of foreign goods should be re- moved. ABUNDANCE SCARCITY. li Then, to judge of the effect of such a reform, let a new inventory be made three months hence. Is it not certain that at the time of tne second in- ventory the quantity of grain, cattle, goods, iron, coal, sugar, etc., will be greater than at the first ? So true is this, that the sole object of our protec- tive tariffs is to prevent such articles from reaching us, to diminish the supply, to prevent low prices, or which is the same thing, the abundance of goods. Now I ask, are the people under the action of these laws better fed because there is less bread, less meat, and less sugar in the country ? Are they better dressed because there are fewer goods ? Bet- ter warmed because there is less coal ? Or do they prosper better in their labor because iron, copper, tools, and machinery are scarce ? But, it is answered, if we are inundated with foreign goods and produce, our coin will leave the country. Well, and what matters that ? Man is not fed with coin. He does not dress in gold, nor warm himself with silver. What difference does it make whether there be more or less coin in the country, provided there be more bread in the cupboard, more meat in the larder, more clothing in the press, and more wood in the cellar ? To Restrictive Laws I offer this dilemma : Either you allow that you produce scarcity, or you do not allow it. 18 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 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 dimin- ish the supply, to raise the price, and consequently you deny having favored the producer. You are either injurious or inefficient. You can never be useful. II. OBSTACLE — CAUSE. s The obstacle mistaken for the cause — scarcity p^ ft mistaken for abundance. The sophism is the same. 'flA *- It is well to study it under every aspect. v ^4Man naturally is in a state of entire destitution. Between this state and the satisfying of his wants there exists a multitude of obstacles which it is the object of labor to surmount. It is interesting to seek how and why he could have been led to look even upon these obstacles to his happiness as the cause of it. I wish to take a journey of some hundred miles. But, between the point of my departure and my destination, there are interposed mountains, rivers, swamps, forests, robbers— in a word, obstacles ; and to conquer these obstacles it is necessary that I should bestow much labor and great efforts in op- posing them ; — or, what is the same thing, if others OBSTACLE — CAUSE. 19 do it for me, I must pay them the value of their exertions. It is evident that I should have been better off had these obstacles never existed. Through the journey of life, in the long series of days from the cradle to the tomb, man has many difficulties to oppose him in his progress. Hunger, thirst, sickness, heat, cold, are so many obstacles scattered along his road. In a state of isolation he would be obliged to combat them all by hunting, fishing, agriculture, spinning, weaving, architect- ure, etc., and it is very evident that it would be better for him that these difficulties should exist to a less degree, or even not at all. In a state of society he is not obliged, personally, to struggle with each of these obstacles, but others do it for him ; and he, in return, must remove some one of them for the benefit of his fellow-men. Again it is evident, that, considering mankind as a whole, it would be better for society that these obstacles should be as weak and as few as possible. But if we examine closely and in detail the phe- nomena of society, and the private interests of men as modified by exchange of produce, we perceive, without difficulty, how it has happened that wants have been confounded with riches, and the obstacle with the cause. The separation of occupations, which results from the habits of exchange, causes each man, instead of struggling against all surrounding obstacles, to com- 20 SOPHISMS OF PBOTECTION. bat only one ; the effort being made not for himself alone, but for the benefit of his fellows, who, in their turn, render a similar service to him. Now it hence results, that this man looks upon the obstacle which he has made it his profession to combat for the benefit of others, as the immediate cause of his riches. The greater, the more serious, the more stringent may be this obstacle, the more lie is remunerated for the conquering of it, by those who are relieved by his labors. A physician, for instance, does not busy himself in baking his bread, or in manufacturing his cloth- ing 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 fre- quent these maladies are, the more others are will- ing, 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 pro- ducers is, in what concerns themselves, the same. As the doctor draws his profits from disease, so does the ship-owner from the obstacle called dis- tance ; the agriculturist from that named hunger; the cloth manufacturer from cold ; the schoolmas- ter lives upon ignorance, the jeweller upon vanity, the lawyer upon quarrels, the notary upon breach of faith. Each profession has then an immediate interest in the continuation, even in the extension, OBSTACLE — CAUSE. 21 of the particular obstacle to which its attention has been directed. Theorists hence go on to found a system upon these individual interests, and say : Wants are riches : Labor is riches : The obstacle to well-being is well-being : To multiply obstacles is to give food to industry. Then comes the statesman ; — and as the develop- ing 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 importa- tion 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, inaccessi- ble, and of difficult and distant transportation, in the same proportion will be the number of laborers maintained by the various branches of this industry. The same reasoning will lead to the suppression of machinery. Here are men who are at a loss how to dispose of their wine-harvest. This is an obstacle which other men set about removing for them by the manu- facture of casks. It is fortunate, say our states- men, that this obstacle exists, since it occupies a 122 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. portion of the labor of the nation, and enriches a certain number of our citizens. But here is pre- sented to us an ingenious machine which cuts down the oak, squares it, makes it into staves, and, gathering these together, forms them into casks. The obstacle is thus diminished, and with it the profits of the coopers. We must prevent this. Let us proscribe the machine ! To sift thoroughly this sophism, it is sufficient to remember that human labor is not an e?id, but a means. It is never without employment. If one obstacle is removed, it seizes another, and man- kind 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 an- other 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 oc- cupation, to be otherwise disposed of, a correspond- ing quantity of wages must thus also become free. To maintain that human labor can end by wanting employment, it would be necessary to prove that mankind will cease to encounter obstacles. In such a case, labor would be not only impossible, it would be superfluous. We should have nothing to do, because we should be all-powerful, and our fiat alone would satisfy at once our wants and our desires. EFFORT — RESULT. 23 III. EFFORT — RESULT. We have seen that between our wants and their gratification many obstacles are interposed. We conquer or weaken these by the employment of our faculties. It may be said, in general terms, that industry is an effort followed by a result. But by what do we measure our well-being ? v JBy the result of our effort, or by the effort itself f There exists always a proportion between the effort employed and the result obtained. Does progress consist in the relative increase of the second or of the first term of this proportion ? Both propositions have been sustained, and in political economy opinions are divided between them. According to the first system, riches are the result of labor. They increase in the same ratio as the result does to the effort. Absolute perfection, of which God is the type, consists in the infinite dis- tance between these two terms in this relation, viz., effort none, result infinite. The second system maintains that it is the effort itself which forms the measure of, and constitutes our riches. Progression is the increase of the pro- portion of the effort to the residt. Its ideal extreme 24 SolMIISMS OF PROTECTION. may be represented by the eternal and fruitless efforts of Sisyphus." The first system tends naturally to the encourage- ment of every thing which diminishes difficulties and augments production — as powerful machinery, which adds to the strength of man ; the exchange of produce, which allows us to profit by the various natural agents distributed in different degrees over the surface of our globe ; the intellect which dis- covers, experience which proves, and emulation hich excites. The second as logically inclines to every thing which can augment the difficulty and diminish the product; as privileges, monopolies, restrictions, pro- hibitions, suppression of machinery, sterility, etc. It is well to remark here that the universal prac- tice of men is always guided by the principle of the first system. Every workman, whether agricult- urist, manufacturer, merchant, soldier, writer, or philosopher, devotes the strength of his intellect to do better, to do more quickly, more economically, — in a word, to do more with less. The opposite doctrine is in use with legislators, editors, statesmen, men whose business is to make experiments upon society. And even of these we may observe, that in what personally concerns them- selves, they act, like every body else, upon the * We will therefore beg the reader to allow us in future, for the sake of conciseness, to designate this system under the term of Sisyphimt. EFFORT RESULT. 25 principle of obtaining from their labor the greatest possible quantity of useful results. It may be supposed that I exaggerate, and that there are no true Sisyphists. I grant that in practice the principle is not pushed to its extremest consequences. And this must always be the case when one starts upon a wrong principle, because the absurd and injurious results to which it leads cannot but check it in its progress. For this reason practical industry never can admit of Slsyphism. The error is too quickly followed by its punishment to remain concealed. But in the speculative industry of theorists and statesmen, a false principle may be for a long time followed up, before the complication of its consequences, only half understood, can prove its falsity ; and even when all is revealed, the opposite principle is acted upon, self is contradicted, and justification sought, in the incomparably absurd modern axiom, that in political economy there is no principle universally true. Let us see, then, if the two opposite principles 1 have laid down do not predominate, each in its turn ; — the one in practical industry, the other in indus- trial legislation. I have already quoted some words of Mr. Bu- gcaud ; but we must look on Mr. Bugeaud in two separate characters, the agriculturist and the legis- lator. 2b SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 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 substi- tutes as much as possible the action of the atmos- phere for that of the hoe or the harrow ; when he calls to his aid every improvement that science and experience have revealed, he has, and can have, but one object, viz., to diminish the proportion of the effort to the result. We have indeed no other means of judging of the success of an agriculturist, or of the merits of his system, but by observing how far he has succeeded in lessening the one, while he increases the other ; and as all the farmers in the world act upon this principle, we may say that all mankind are seeking, no doubt for their own advantage, to obtain at the lowest price, bread, or whatever other article of produce they may need, always diminishing the effort necessary for obtaining any given quantity thereof. This incontestable tendency of human nature, once proved, would, one might suppose, be sufficient to point out the true principle to the legislator, and to show him how he ought to assist industry (if indeed it is any part of his business to assist it at all), for it would be absurd to say that the laws of men should operate in an inverse ratio from those of "Providence. EFFORT — RESULT. 27 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 com- merce, precisely because by so doing we are pre- vented from procuring by exchange, and at low price, what direct production can only furnish more expensively. Now it is very evident that the system of Mr. Bugeaud the deputy, is directly opposed to that of Mr. Bugeaud the agriculturist. Were he consistent with himself, he would as legislator vote against all restriction ; or else as farmer, he would practise in his fields the same principle which he proclaims in the public councils. We should then see him sowing his grain in his most sterile fields, because he would thus succeed in laboring much to obtain little. We should see him forbidding the use of the plough, because he could, by scratching up the soil with his nails, fully gratify his double wish of " dear bread and abundant labor " Restriction has for its avowed object and acknowl- edged effect the augmentation of labor. And again, equally avowed and acknowledged, its object and effect are the increase of prices ; — a synonymous term for scarcity of produce. Pushed then to its L' s SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. greatest extreme, it is pure Sisyphism, as we have defined it : labor infinite, result nothing. Baron Charles Dupin, who is looked upon as the oracle of the peerage in the science of political economy, accuses railroads of injuring shipping, and it is certainly true that the most perfect means of attaining an object must always limit the use o£ a less perfect means. But railways can only injure shipping by drawing from it articles of transporta- tion ; this they can only do by transporting more cheaply ; and they can only transport more cheaply by diminishing the proportion of the effort employed to the result obtained ; for it is in this that cheap- ness consists. When, therefore, Baron Dupin la- ments the suppression of labor in attaining a given result, he maintains the doctrine of Sisyphism. Logically, if he prefers the vessel to the railway, he should also prefer the wagon to the vessel, the pack-saddle to the wagon, and the wallet to the pack-saddle ; for this is, of all known means of transportation, the one which requires the greatest amount of labor, in proportion to the result ob- tained. " 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 ellip- tical expression, meaning that the " results of labor constitute the riches of the people." No, — this statesman intended to say, that it is the intensity of EFFORT RESULT. 29 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 pro- curing 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. Sup- posing 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 Sisyjjhism? That there may be nothing equivocal, the minister carries his idea still farther, and on the same prin- ciple that we have heard him call the intensity of labor riches, we will mid him calling the abuudant results of labor, and the plenty of everything proper to the satisfying of our wants, poverty. " Every- where," he remarks, " machinery has pushed aside manual labor ; everywhere production is superabun- dant ; everywhere the equilibrium is destroyed be- tween the power of production and that of consump- tion.' 1 Here, then, we see that, according to Mr. de Saint Cricq, if France was in a critical situation, 30 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. it was because her productions were too abundant ; there was too much intelligence, too much efficiency in her national labor. We wore 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 pro- duce less. I also touched upon an opinion expressed by another minister of commerce, Mr. d 1 Argout, which is worthy of being a little more closely looked into. Wishing to give a death-blow to the beet, he said : " The culture of the beet is undoubtedly useful, but this usefulness is liinited. It is not capable of the pro- digious 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 con- fined within the limits of consumption. Double, treble if you will, the present consumption of France, and you will still find that a very small portion of her soil will suffice for this consumption. (Truly a most singular cause of complaint !) Do you wish the proof of this ? How many hectares were plant- ed in beets in the year 1828 ? 3130, which is l-10540th of our cultivable soil. How many are there at this time, when our domestic sugar sup- plies one third of the consumption of the country \ 16,700 hectares, or l-1978th of the cultivable soil, EFFORT — RESULT. 31 or 45 centiares for each commune. Suppose that our domestic sugar should monopolize the supply of the whole consumption, we still would have but 40,000 hectares, or 1 -689th of our cultivable soil in beets.* 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 hec- tare to its cultivation. The peculiarity of the doctrine consists in the looking upon this facility of production as an unfortunate circumstance, and the regarding the very fruitfulness of this new branch of industry as a limitation to its usefulness. It is not my purpose here to constitute myself the defender of the beet, or the judge of the singular facts stated by Mr. d'Argout, but it is worth the trouble of examining into the doctrines of a states- man, to whose judgment France, for a long time, confided the fate of her agriculture and her com- merce. I began by saying that a variable proportion exists in all industrial pursuits, between the effort and the result. Absolute imperfection consists in * In justice to Mr. d'Argout we should say that this singular language is given by him a-* the argument ot the enemies of the beet. But he made it his own, and sanctioned it by the law injustification of which he ad- duced it. 32 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. an infinite effort, without any result ; absolute per- fection in an unlimited result, without any effort ; and perfectibility, in the progressive diminution of the effort, compared with the result. But Mr. d'Argout tells us, that where we looked for life, we shall find only death. The importance of any object of industry is, according to him, in direct proportion to its feebleness. What, for instance, can we expect from the beet ? Do you not see that 48,000 hectares of land, with capital and labor in proportion, will suffice to furnish sugar to all France ? It is then an object of limited use- fulness; limited, be it understood, in the work which it calls for ; and this is the sole measure, according to our minister, of the usefulness of any pursuit. This usefulness would be much more limited still, if, thanks to the fertility of the soil or the richness of the beet, 24,000 hectares would serve instead of 48,000. If there were only needed twenty times, a hundred times more soil, more capital, more labor, to attain the same result — oh ! then some hopes might be founded upon this article of industry ; it would be worthy of the protection of the state, for it would open a vast field to national labor. But to produce much with little is a bad example, and the laws ought to set things to rights. What is true with regard to sugar, cannot be false with regard to bread. If therefore the useful- ness of an object of industry is to be calculated, not EFFORT — RESULT. 33 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 pro- duce 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 con- siderably 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, andd'Argout be satisfied ; bread would be dear, work abundant, and France would be rich — rich according to the understanding of these gentlemen. All that we could have further to hope for would be, that human intellect might sink and become extinct ; for, while intellect exists, it can but seek continually to increase the 'proportion of the end to the means ; of the product to the labor. Indeed it is in this continuous effort, and in this alone, that intellect consists. Sisyphism has then been the doctrine of all those who have been intrusted with the regulation of the industry of our country. It would not be just to reproach them with this ; for this principle becomes that of our ministry, only because it prevails in the chambers ; it prevails in the chambers, only because 34 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. it is sent there by the electoral body ; and the elec- toral body is imbued with it, only because public opinion is filled with it to repletion. Let me repeat here, that I do not accuse such men as Messrs. Bugeaud, Dnpin, Saint Cricq, and d'Ar- gout, of being absolutely and always Sisyphists. Very certainly they are not such in their personal transactions ; very certainly each one of them will procure for himself by barter, what by direct pro- duction would be attainable only at a higher price. But I maintain that they are Sisyphists when they prevent the country from acting upon the same principle. IT. EQUALIZING OF THE FACILITIES OF PRODUCTION. It is said but, for fear of being accused of manufacturing Sophisms for the mouths of the protectionists, I will allow one of their most able reasoners to speak for himself. / "It is our belief that protection should correspond to, should be the representation of, the difference which exists between the price of an article of nome production and a similar article of foreign production A protecting duty calculated upon such a basis does nothing more than secure EQUALIZING FACILITIES OF PRODUCTION. 35 free competition ; free competition can only exist where there is an equality in the facilities of production. In a liorse-race the load which each horse carries is weighed and all advantages equal- ized ; otherwise there could be no competition. In commerce, if one producer can undersell all others, he ceases to be a competitor and becomes a monop- olist Suppress the protection which repre- sents the difference of price according to each, and / foreign productions must immediately inundate and /obtain the monopoly of our market."* " Every one ought to wish, for his own sake and for that of the community, that the productions of the country should be protected against foreign com- petition, whenever the latter may be able to undersell the former." \ This argument is constantly recurring in all writ- ings of the protectionist school. It is my intention to make a careful investigation of its merits, and I must begin by soliciting the attention and the patience of the reader. I will first examine into the inequalities which depend upon natural causes, and afterwards into those which are caused by diversity of taxes. Here, as elsewhere, we find the theorists who favor protection, taking part with the producer. Let us consider the case of the unfortunate consumer, who * M. le Vicomte tie Romanet. t Mathieu du Donibasle. 3f> SolMIISMS OF PROTECTION. seems to have entirely escaped their attention. They compare the field of production to the turf. But on the turf, the race is at once a means and an end. The public has no interest in the struggle, independent of the struggle itself. When your horses are started in the course with the single object of determining which is the best runner, nothing is more natural than that their burdens should be equalized. But if your object were to send an important and critical piece of intelligence, could you without incongruity place obstacles to the speed of that one whose fleetness would secure the best means of attaining your end ? And yet this is your course in relation to industry. You forget the end aimed at, which is the well-being of the community. But we cannot lead our opponents to look at things from our point of view ; let us now take theirs ; let us examine the question as producers. I will seek to prove — 1. That equalizing the facilities of production is to attack the foundations of all trade. 2. That it is not true that the labor of one country can be crushed by the competition of more favored climates. 3. That, even were this the case, protective duties cannot equalize the facilities of production. ±. That freedom of trade equalizes these condi- tions as much as possible ; and 5. That the countries which are the least favored EQUALIZING FACILITIES OF PRODUCTION. 37 by nature are those which profit most by freedom of trade. I. The equalizing of the facilities of production is not only the shackling of certain articles of com- merce, 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 inter- national exchanges ? Again, to bring against such exchanges the very inequalities of condition which excite and explain them, is to attack them in their very cause of being. The protective system, closely followed up, would bring men to live like snails, in a state of complete isolation. In short, there is not one of its Sophisms, which if carried through by vigorous deductions, would not end in destruction and annihilation. II. It is not true that the unequal facility of pro- duction, 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 38 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. horses work to produce an} 7 useful article, each pro- duces 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 cul- tivated 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 'differ- ences, wheat would be produced in every kingdom of Europe ; and if any one were induced to abandon entirely the cultivation of it, this would only be, because it would be her interest to employ otherwise her lands, her capital, and her labor. And why does not the fertility of one department paralyze the agriculture of a neighboring and less favored one ? Because the phenomena of political economy have a suppleness, an elasticity, and, so to speak, a self-levelling potoer, which seems to escape the at- tention 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 con- sists 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 pro- EQUALIZING FACILITIES OF PRODUCTION. 39 duces three times as much as mine. Yes. But it has cost you three times as much, and therefore I can still compete with you : this is the sole mystery. And observe how the advantage on one point leads to disadvantage on the other. Precisely because your soil is more fruitful, it is more dear. It is not accidentally but necessarily that the equilibrium is established, or at least inclines to establish itself ; and can it be denied that perfect freedom in exchanges is, of all the systems, the one which favors this tendency ? I have cited an agricultural example ; I might as easily have taken one from any trade. There are tailors at Quimper, but that does not prevent tailors from being in Paris also, although the latter have to pay a much higher rent, as well as higher price for furniture, workmen, and food. But their customers are sufficiently numerous not only to re- establish the balance, but also to make it lean on their side. When therefore the question is about equalizing the advantages of labor, it would be well to consider whether the natural freedom of exchange is not the best umpire. This self-levelling faculty of political phenomena is so important, and at the same time so well calcu- lated to cause us to admire the providential wisdom which presides over the equalizing government of 40 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. society, that I must ask permission a little longer, to turn to it the attention of the reader. The protectionists say, Such a nation has the advantage over us, in being able to procure cheaply, coal, iron, machinery, capital ; it is impossible for us to compete with it. We must examine the proposition under other aspects. For the present, I stop at the question, whether, when an advantage and a disadvantage are placed in juxtaposition, they do not bear in them- selves, the former a descending, the latter an ascend- ing power, which must end by placing them in a just equilibrium. Let us suppose the countries A and B. A has every advantage over B ; you thence conclude that labor will be concentrated upon A, while B must be abandoned. A, you say, sells much more than it buys ; B buys more than it sells. I might dispute this, but I will meet you upon your own ground. In the hypothesis, labor, being in great demand in A, soon rises in value ; while labor, iron, coal, lands, food, capital, all being little sought after in B, soon fall in price. Again : A being always selling and B always buying, cash passes from B to A. It is abundant in A — very scarce in B. But where there is abundance of cash, it follows that in all purchases a large proportion of it will be needed. Then in A, real clearness, which proceeds EQUALIZING FACILITIES OF PRODUCTION. 41 from a very active demand, is added to nominal clearness, the consequence of a superabundance of the precious metals. Scarcity of money implies that little is necessary for each purchase. Then in B, a nominal cheapness is combined with real cheapness. Under these circumstances, industry will have the strongest possible motives for deserting A, to establish itself in B. Now, to return to what w T ould be the true course of things. As the progress of such events is always gradual, industry from its nature being opposed to sudden transits, let us suppose that, without waiting the extreme point, it will have gradually divided itself between A and B, according to the laws of supply and demand ; that is to say, according to the laws of justice and usefulness. I do not advance an empty hypothesis when I say, that were it possible that industry should con- centrate itself upon a single point, there must, from its nature, arise spontaneously, and in its midst, an irresistible power of decentralization. We will quote the words of a manufacturer to the Chamber of Commerce at Manchester (the figures brought into his demonstration are suppressed) : " Formerly we exported goods ; this exportation gave way to that of thread for the manufacture of goods ; later, instead of thread, we exported ma- chinery for the making of thread ; then capital for ■1*2 BOl'HISMS <»f PBOTECTTON. 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 sub- sistence being less difficult to obtain, life is main- tained at a less cost. There are at present to be seen in Prussia, Austria, Saxony, Switzerland, and Italy, immense manufacturing establishments, founded entirely by English capital, worked by English labor, and directed by English talent." We may here perceive that Nature, or rather Providence, with more wisdom and foresight than the narrow rigid system of the protectionists can suppose, does not permit the concentration of labor, the monopoly of advantages, from which they draw their arguments as from an absolute and irremedia- ble 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 toward the isola- tion of nations. By this means they render much more decided the differences existing in the condi- tions of production ; they check the self-levelling power of industry, prevent fusion of interests, and fence in each nation within its own peculiar advan- tages and disadvantages. III. To say that by a protective law the condi- EQUALIZING FACILITIES OF PRODUCTION. 43 tions of production are equalized, is to disguise an error under false terms. It is not true that an im- port duty equalizes the conditions of production. These remain after the imposition of the duty just as they were before. The most that the law can do is to equalize the conditions of sale. If it should be said that I am playing upon words, I retort the ac- cusation upon my adversaries. It is for them to prove that production and sale are synonymous terms, which if they cannot do, I have a right to accuse them, if not of playing upon words, at least of confounding them. Let me be permitted to exemplify my idea. Suppose that several Parisian speculators should determine to devote themselves to the production of oranges. They know that the oranges of Portugal can be sold in Paris at ten centimes, whilst on account of the boxes, hot-houses, etc. , which are necessary to ward against the severity of our climate, it is impossi- ble to raise them at less than a franc apiece. They accordingly demand a duty of ninety centimes upon Portugal oranges. With the help of this duty, say they, the conditions of production will be equal- ized. The legislative body, yielding as usual to this argument, imposes a duty of ninety centimes on each foreign orange. Now I say that the relative conditions of produc- tion are in no wise changed. The law can take noth- ing from the heat of the sun in Lisbon, nor from the 44 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. severity of the frosts in Paris. Oranges continuing to mature themselves naturally on the banks of the Tagus, and artificially upon those of the Seine, must continue to require for their production much more labor on the latter than the former. The law can only equalize the conditions of sale. It is evident that while the Portuguese sell their oranges at a franc a piece, 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 pro- duction. I will leave it to the protectionists to draw their conclusion. IV. I have laid some stress upon this distinction between the conditions of production and those of sale which perhaps the prohibitionists may consider as paradoxical, because it leads me on to what they will consider as a still stranger paradox. This is : If you really wish to equalize the facilities of produc- tion, leave trade free. This may surprise the protectionists ; but let mo EQUALIZING FACILITIES OF PRODUCTION. 45 entreat tliem to listen, if it be only through curiosity, to the end of my argument. It shall not be long. I will now take it up where we left off. If we suppose for the moment that the common and daily profits of each Frenchman amount to one franc, it will indisputably follow that to produce an orange by direct labor in France, one day's work, or its equivalent, will be requisite ; whilst to pro- duce 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 Portu- guese 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 equal- ize them ; for it leaves but the one inevitable difference, that of transportation. I will add that free trade equalizes also the facili- ties 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 Por- tuguese sun, as well as Portugal itself ; and the in- 46 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. habitants of Havre would have in their reach, as well as those of London, and with the same facili- ties, the advantages which nature has in a mineral- ogical point of view conferred upon Newcastle. The protectionists may suppose me in a paradoxi- cal humor, for I go farther still. I say, and I sincere- ly believe, that if any two countries are placed in un- equal circumstances as to advantages of production, that one of the two which is the least favored Inj nature will ga'ui most hy freedom of commerce. To prove this, I shall be obliged to turn somewhat aside from the form of reasoning which belongs to this work. I will do so, however ; first, because the question in discussion turns upon this point ; and again, because it will give me the opportunity of exhibiting a law of political economy of the highest importance, and which, well understood, seems to me to be destined to lead back to this science all those sects which, in our days, are seek- ing 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 re- proached with having too much neglected. Consumption is the e?id, the final cause, of all the phenomena of political economy, and, consequently, in it is found their final solution. ^No effect, whether favorable or unfavorable, can be arrested permanently upon the producer. The EQUALIZING FACILITIES OF PRODUCTION. 47 advantages and the disadvantages, which, from his relations to nature and to society, are his, both equally pass gradually from him, with an almost insensible tendency to be absorbed and fused into the community at large ; the community considered as consumers. This is an admirable law, alike in its cause and its effects, and he who shall succeed in making it well understood will have a right to say, " I have not, in my passage through the world, forgotten to pay my tribute to society." Every circumstance which favors the work of production is of course hailed with joy by the pro- ducer, for its immediate effect is to enable him to render greater services to the community, and to exact from it a greater remuneration. Every cir- cumstance which injures production must equally be the source of uneasiness to him ; for its imme- diate effect is to diminish his services, and conse- quently his remuneration. This is a fortunate and necessary law of nature. The immediate good or evil of favorable or unfavorable circumstances must fall upon the producer, in order to influence him invincibly to seek the one and to avoid the other. Again, when a workman succeeds in his labor, the immediate benefit of this success is received by him. This again is necessary, to determine him to devote his attention to it. It is also just ; because it is just that an effort crowned with success should bring its own reward. 48 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. But these effects, good and bad, although perma- nent in themselves, are not so as regards the pro- ducer. If they had been so, a principle of progres- sive and consequently infinite inequality would have been introduced among men. This good and this evil both therefore pass on, to become ab- sorbed in the general destinies of humanity.. How does this come about ? I will try to make it understood by some examples. Let us go back to the thirteenth century. Men who gave themselves up to the business of copying received for this service a remumeration regulated by the general rate of profits. Among them is found one who seeks and finds the means of multiplying rapidly copies of the same work. He invents print- ing. 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 in- jurious than useful. It seems to have introduced into the world, as I said above, an element of in- finite inequality. Guttenberg makes large profits by this invention, and perfects the invention by the profits, until all other copyists are ruined. As for the public, — the consumer, — it gains but little, for Guttenberg takes care to lower the price of books only just so much as is necessary to undersell all rivals. But the great Mind which put harmony into the EQUALIZING FACILITIES OF PRODUCTION. 49 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 in- dividual, to become forever the common patrimony of mankind. The process finally becomes known. Guttenberg is no longer alone in his art ; others imitate him. Their profits are at first considerable. They are recompensed for being the first who make the effort to imitate the processes of the newly invented art. This again was necessary, in order that they might be induced to the effort, and thus forward the great and final result to which we approach. They gain much ; but they gain less than the inventor, for com- petition has commenced its work. The price of books now continually decreases. The gains of the imitators diminish in proportion as the invention becomes older ; and in the same proportion imitation becomes less meritorious. Soon the new object of industry attains its normal condition ; in other words, the remuneration of printers is no longer an exception to the general rules of remuneration, and, like that of copyists formerly, it is only regulated by the gen- eral rate of profits. Here then the producer, as such, holds only the old position. The discovery, how- ever, 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 manifest- ed ? In the cheap price of books. For the gooa 50 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. of whom ? For the good of the consumer, — of society, — of humanity. Printers, having no longer any peculiar merit, receive no longer a peculiar remuneration. As men, — as consumers, — they no doubt participate in the advantages which the inven- tion confers upon the community ; but that is all. As printers, as producers, they are placed upon the ordinary footing of all other producers. Society pays them for their labor, and not for the usefulness of the invention. That has become a gratuitous benefit, a common heritage to mankind. What has been said of printing can be extended to every agent for the advancement of labor ; from the nail and the mallet, up to the locomotive and the electric telegraph. - Society enjoys all, by the abundance of its use, its consumption ; and it enjoys all gratuitously. For as their effect is to diminish prices, it is evident that just so much of the price as is taken off by their intervention, renders the production in so far gratuitous. There only remains the actual labor of man to be paid for ; and the re- mainder, which is the result of the invention, is sub- tracted ; 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 ; 1 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 EQUALIZING FACILITIES OF PRODUCTION. 51 the same for his day's labor. The usefulness then of the saw, is for me a gratuitous gift of nature, or rather it is a portion of the inheritance which, in common with my brother men, I have received from the genius of my ancestors. I have two work- men in my field ; the one directs the handle of a plough, the other that of a spade. The result of their day's labor is very different, but the price is the same, because the remuneration is proportioned, not to the usefulness of the result, but to the effort, the labor given to attain it. I invoke the patience of the reader, and beg him to believe, that I have not lost sight of free trade : I entreat him only to remember the conclusion at which I have arrived : Remuneration is not pro- portioned to the usefulness of the articles brought by the producer into the market, but to the labor * I have so far taken my examples from human in- ventions, but will now go on to speak of natural advantages. In every article of production, nature and man must concur. But the portion of nature is always gratuitous. Only so much of the usefulness of an article as is the result of human labor becomes the object of mutual exchange, and consequently of remuneration. The remuneration varies much, no * It is true that labor does not receive a uniform remuneration ; because labor IB more or less intense, dangerous, skilful, etc. Competition estab- lishes for each category a price current ; and it is of this variable price that 1 speak. 52 SOPHISMS <>K PROTECTION. doubt, iii proportion to the intensity of the labor, of the skill which it requires, of its being a propos to the demand of the day, of the need which exists for it, of the momentary absence of competition, etc. But it is not the less true in principle, that the assistance received from natural laws, which belongs to all, counts for nothing in the price. We do not pay for the air we breathe, although so useful to us that we could not live two minutes without it. We do not pay for it, because Nature furnishes it without the intervention of man's labor. But if we wish to separate one of the gases which compose it, for instance, to fill a balloon, we must take some trouble and labor ; or if another takes it for us, we must give him an equivalent in something which will have cost us the trouble of production. From which we see that the exchange is between troubles, efforts, labors. It is certainly not for hy- drogen gas that I pay, for this is everywhere at my disposal, but for the work that it lias been neces- sary to accomplish in order to disengage it ; work which I have been spared, and which I must refund. If 1 am told that there are other things to pay for, as expenses, materials, apparatus, I answer, that still in these things it is the work that I pay for. 'The price of the coal employed is only the representation of the labor necessary to dig and transport it. We do not pay for the light of the sun, because Nature alone gives it to us. Bnt we pay for the EQUALIZING FACILITIES OF PRODUCTION. 53 light of gas, tallow, oil, wax, because here is labor to be remunerated ; — and remark, that it is so en- tirely labor and not utility to which remuneration is proportioned, that it may well happen that one of these means of lighting, while it may be much more effective than another, may still cost less. To cause this, it is only necessary that less human labor should be required to furnish it. When the water-carrier comes to supply my house, were I to pay him in proportion to the absolute utility of the water, my whole fortune would not be suffi- cient. But I pay him only for the trouble he has taken. If he requires more, I can get others to fur- nish it, or finally go and get it myself. The water itself is not the subject of our bargain ; but the labor taken to get the water. This point of view is so important, and the consequences that I am going to draw from it so clear, as regards the freedom of international exchanges, that I will still elucidate my idea by a few more examples. The alimentary substance contained in potatoes does not cost us very dear, because a great deal of it is attainable with little work. We pay more for wheat, because to produce it Nature requires more labor from man. It is evident that if Nature did for the latter what she does for the former, their prices would tend to the same level. It is impossible that the producer of wheat should permanently gain more than the producer of potatoes. The law of comoetition cannot allow it. 54: SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. If by a happy miracle the fertility of all arable lands were to be increased, it would not be the agriculturist, but the consumer, who would profit by this phenomenon ; for the result of it would be abundance and cheapness. There would be less labor incorporated into an acre of grain, and the agriculturist would be therefore obliged to exchange it for less labor incorporated into some other article. If, on the contrary, the fertility of the soil were sud- denly to deteriorate, the share of Nature in produc- tion would be less, that of labor greater, and the result would be higher prices. I am right then in saying that it is in consumption, in mankind, that at length all political phenomena find their solution. As long as we fail to follow their effects to this point, and look only at immediate effects, which act but upon individual men or classes of men as pro- ducers, we know nothing more of political economy than the quack does of medicine, when, instead of following the effects of a prescription in its action upon the whole system, he satisfies himself with knowing how it affects the palate and the throat. The tropical regions are very favorable to the pro- duction 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 EQUALIZING FACILITIES OF PRODUCTION. 55 the gainer ; for the result of this liberality is cheap- ness, and cheapness belongs to the world. Here in the temperate zone, we find coal and iron ore, on the surface of the soil ; we have but to stoop and take them. At tirst, 1 grant, the immediate inhabitants profit by this fortunate circumstance. But soon comes competition, and the price of coal and iron falls, until this gift of Nature becomes gratuitous to all, and human labor is only paid according to the general rate of profits. Thus natural advantages, like improvements in the process of production, are, or have a constant tendency to become, under the law of competition, the common and gratuitous patrimony of consumers, of society, of mankind. Countries therefore which do not enjoy these advantages, must gain by com- merce with those which do ; because the exchanges of commerce are between labor arid labor / subtrac- tion being made of all the natural advantages which are combined with these labors ; and it is evidentlv the most favored countries which can incorporate into a given labor the largest proportion of these natural advantages. Their produce representing less labor, receives less recompense ; in other words, is cheaper. If then all the liberality of Nature results m cheapness, it is evidently not the producing, but the consuming country, which profits by her benefits. Hence we may see the enormous absurdity of the consuming country, which rejects produce precisely 56 SOPHISMS OK PROTECTION. because it is cheap. It is as though we should say *. 11 We will have nothing of that which Nature gives yon. You ask of us an effort equal to two, in order to furnish ourselves with articles only attainable at home by an effort equal to four. You can do it because with you Nature does half the work. But we will have nothing to do with it ; we will wait till your climate, becoming more inclement, forces you to ask of us a labor equal to four, and then we can treat with you upon an equal footing." A is a favored country ; B is maltreated by Nature. Mutual traffic then is advantageous to both, but principally to B, because the exchange is not between utility and utility, but between value and value. Now A furnishes a greater utility in a simi- lar value, because the utility of any article includes at once what Nature and what labor have done ; whereas the value of it only corresponds to the por- tion accomplished by labor. B then makes an entirely advantageous bargain ; for by simply paying the producer from A for his labor, it receives in return not only the results of that labor, but in addition there is thrown in whatever may have accrued from the superior bounty of Nature. We will lay down the general rule. Traffic is an exchange of values ; and as value is reduced by competition to the simple representation of labor, traffic is the exchange of equal labors. Whatever Nature has done toward the production EQUALIZING FACILITIES OF PRODUCTION. 57 of the articles exchanged, is given on both sides gratuitously ; from whence it necessarily follows, that the most advantageous commerce is transacted w T ith those countries which are the most favored by Nature. The theory of which I have attempted, in this chapter, to trace the outlines, would require great developments. But perhaps the attentive reader will have perceived in it the fruitful seed which is destined in its future growth to smother Protection, at once with Founerism, Saint Simonism, Common- ism, and the various other schools whose object is to exclude the law of Competition from the govern- ment of the w r orld. Competition, no doubt, consid- ering man as producer, must often interfere w T ith his individual and immediate interests. But if we consider the great object of all labor, the universal good, in a word, Consumption, we cannot fail to find that Competition is to the moral world what the law of equilibrium is to the material one. It is the foundation of true Commonism, of true Socialism, of the equality of comforts and condition, so much sought after in our day ; and if so many sincere reformers, so many earnest friends to the public rights, seek to reach their end by commercial legisla- tion, it is only because they do not yet understand commercial freedom. 58 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. OUR PRODUCTIONS A.RE OVERLOADED WITH TAXES. This is but a new wording of the last Sophism. The demand made is, that the foreign article should be taxed, in order to neutralize the effects of the tax, which weighs down national produce. It is still then but the question of equalizing the facili- ties 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 pro- duction of an equivalent value, let it alone. Indi- vidual 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. Yi 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 PRODUCTIONS OVERLOADED WITH TAXES. 59 duty ; not that in an economical point of view France would lose anything 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 artifi- cial. 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 something 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 tax- ing French salt. Such are the circumstances under which I would allow upon any foreign article a duty, not protecting ', but fiscal. But the supposition that a nation, because it is subjected to heavier imposts than those of another neighboring nation, should protect itself by tariffs against the competition of its rival, is a Sophism, which it is now my purpose to attack. I have said more than once, that I am opposing only the theory of the protectionists, with the hope of discovering the source of their errors. "Were I disposed to enter into controversy with them, I would say : Why direct your tariffs principally against England and Belgium, both countries more ♦ )<> SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. I 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 con- viction. The State may make either a good or a bad use of taxes ; it makes a good use of them when it ren- ders to the public services equivalent to the value received from them ; it makes a bad use of them when it expends this value, giving nothing in return. To say in the first case that they place the coun- try which pays them in more disadvantageous con- ditions 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 whicli 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, PRODUCTIONS OVERLOADED WITH TAXES. 61 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 inter- nal taxes of being a cause of industrial inferiority) we direct our tariffs precisely against those nations which are the most taxed. It is because these taxes, well used, far from injuring, have ameliorated the conditions of production to these nations. Thus we again arrive at the conclusion that the protectionist Sophisms not only wander from, but are the con- trary — the very antithesis of truth. As to unproductive imposts, suppress them if you can ; but surely it is a most singular idea to sup- pose that their evil effect is to be neutralized by the addition of individual taxes to public taxes. Many thanks for the compensation ! The State, you say, has taxed us too much ; surely this is no reason why we should tax each other ! A protective duty is a tax directed against for- eign 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 mo- nopoly" ? 62 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 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 unpro- ductive imposts (according to our present hypoth- esis) who attribute to them afterward our sup- posed inferiority, and seek to re-establish the equi- librium by further imposts and new clogs. It appears to me to be evident that protection, without any change in its nature and effects, might have taken the form of a direct tax, raised by the State, and distributed as a premium to privileged industry. Let us admit that foreign iron could be sold in our market at eight francs, but not lower ; and French iron at not lower than twelve francs. In this hypothesis there are two ways in which the State can secure the national market to the home producer. The first, is to put upon foreign iron a duty of five francs. This, it is evident, would exclude it, because it could no longer be sold at less than thir- teen 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 sup- posed to cost twelve francs. In this case the buyer, the consumer, will have paid all the expenses of the protection given. \ The second means would be to lay upon the public a tax of five francs, and to give it as a pre- < \ \) \* PRODUCTIONS OVERLOADED WITH TAXES. 63 mium 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 pre- mium, would thus bring him in twelve. While the price of sale being seven francs, foreign iron could not obtain a market at eight. In these two systems the principle is the same ; the effect is the same. There is but this single difference : in the first case the expense of protec- tion is paid by a part, in the second by the whole of the community. I frankly confess my preference for the second system, which I regard as more just, more eco- nomical, and more legal. More just, because, if society wishes to give bounties to some of its mem- bers, 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 re- quired of it. But if the protective system had taken this form, would it not have been laughable enough to hear it said, " We pay heavy taxes for the army, the navy, the judiciary, the public works, the schools, the public debt, etc. These amount to more than a thousand million. It would therefore be desirable 64 BOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. that the State should take another thousand million, to relieve the poor iron manufacturers ; or the suffer- ing stockholders of coal mines ; or those unfortunate lumber dealers, or the useful codfishery." This, it must be perceived, by an attentive inves- tigation, is the result of the Sophism in question. In vain, gentlemen, are all your efforts ; you cannot give money to one without taking it from another. If you_are absolutel y determined to exhaust the funds o f the taxable community, well ; but, at least^j do not mock the m ; do not tell them, " We take iiojn you_agai n. in order to compensate you for whatjwe have a lready talcpn-" It would be a too tedious undertaking to en- deavor to point out all the fallacies of this Soph- ism. I will therefore limit myself to the considera- tion of it in three points. You argue that France is overburdened with taxes, and deduce thence the conclusion that it is necessary to protect such and such an article of pro- duce. But protection does not relieve us from the payment of these taxes. If, then, individuals de- voting themselves to any one object of industry, should advance this demand : " We, from our par- ticipation in the payment of taxes, have our expenses of production increased, and therefore ask for a protective duty which shall raise our price of sale ;" what is this but a demand on their part to be allowed to free themselves from the burden of PRODUCTIONS OVERLOADED WITH TAXES. 65 the tax, by laying it on the rest of the community ? Their object is to balance, by the increased price of their produce, the amount which they pay in taxes. Now, as the whole amount of these taxes must enter into the treasury, and the increase of price must be paid by society, it follows that (where this protective duty is imposed) society has to bear, not only the general tax, but also that for the protec- tion of the article in question. But, it is answered, let everything be protected. Firstly, this is impos- sible ; and, again, were it possible, how could such a system give relief ? I will pay for you, you will pay for me ; but not the less, still there remains the tax to be paid. Thus you are the dupes of an illusion. You de- termine to raise taxes for the support of an army, a navy, the church, university, judges, roads, etc.' Afterward you seek to disburden from its portion of the tax, first one article of industry, then another, then a third ; always adding to the burden of the mass of society. You thus only create intermina- ble complications. If you can prove that the increase of price resulting from protection, falls upon the foreign producer, I grant something spe- cious in your argument. But if it be true that the French people paid the tax before the passing of the protective duty, and afterward that it has paid not only the tax, but the protective duty also, truly I do not perceive wherein it has profited. 66 SOPHISMS OB' PROTECTION. But I go much farther, and maintain that the more oppressive our taxes are, the more anxiously ought we to open our ports and frontiers to foreign nations, less burdened than ourselves. And why ? In order that we may share with them, as much as possible, the burden which we bear. Is it not an incontestable maxim in political economy, that taxes must, in the end, fall upon the consumer ? The greater then our commerce, the greater the portion which will be reimbursed to us, of taxes incorpo- rated in the produce, which we will have sold to foreign consumers ; while we, on our part, will have made to them only a lesser reimbursement, because (according to our hypothesis) their produce is less taxed than ours. Again, finally, has it ever occurred to you to ask yourself, whether these heavy taxes which you adduce as a reason for keeping up the prohibitive system, may not be the result of this very system itself ? To what purpose would be our great stand- ing armies, and our powerful navies, if commerce were free ? BALANCE OE TRADE. 67 VI. BALANCE OF TRADE. Our adversaries have adopted a system of tactics, which embarrasses us not a little. Do we prove our doctrine ? They admit the truth of it in the most respectful manner. Do we attack their princi- ples ? They abandon them with the best possible grace. They only ask that our doctrine, which they acknowledge to be true, should be confined to books ; and that their principles, which they allow to be false, should be established in practice. If we will give up to them the regulation of our tariffs, they will leave us triumphant in the domain of theory. " Assuredly, " said Mr. Gauthier de Roumilly, lately, " assuredly no one wishes to call up from their graves the defunct theories of the balance of trade." And yet Mr. Gauthier, after giving this passing blow to error, goes on immediately after- ward, and for two hours consecutively, to reason as though this error were a truth. Give me Mr. Lestiboudois. Here we have a con- sistent reasoner ! a logical arguer ! There is noth- ing 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 per- 68 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. chance 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, noth- ing is more natural than that he should make laws consistent with it. He says : " What it is important to remark is, that constantly the amount of importation is aug- menting, 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 impbrtation exceed the exportation by two hundred millions. This appears to me to prove, in the clearest manner, that national labor is not sufficiently protected, that we are provided by foreign labor, and that the competi- tion of our rivals oppresses our industry. The law in question appears to me to be a consecration of the fact, that our political economists have assumed a false position in declaring, that in proportion to prod- uce bought, there is always a corresponding quan- tity 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. BALANCE OF TRADE. 69 This is precisely what we are doing. We give, every year, two hundred millio?is to foreign nations." Well ! here, at least, is a man whom we can under- stand. There is no hypocrisy in this language. The balance of trade is here clearly maintained and deiended. France imports two hundred millions more than she exports. Then France loses two hundred millions yearly. And the remedy ? It is to check importation. The conclusion is perfectly consistent. It is, then, with Mr. Lestiboudois that we will argue, for how is it possible to do so with Mr. Gauthier ? If you say to the latter, the balance of trade is a mistake, he will answer, So I have de- clared it in my exordium. If you exclaim, But it is a truth, he will say, Thus I have classed it in my conclusions. Political economists may blame me for arguing with Mr. Lestiboudois. To combat the balance of trade, is, they say, neither more nor less than to fight against a windmill. But let us be on our guard. The balance of trade is neither so old, nor so sick, nor so dead, as Mr. Gauthier is pleased to imagine ; for all the legis- lature, Mr. Gauthier himself included, are associated by their votes with the theory of Mr. Lestiboudois. However, not to fatigue the reader, I will not seek to investigate too closely this theory, but will content myself with subjecting it to the experience of facts. 70 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. It is constantly alleged in opposition to our prin- ciples, that they are good only in theory. But, gen- tlemen, do you believe that merchants' books are good in practice ? It does appear to me that if there is anything which can have a practical author- ity, when the object is to prove profit and loss, that this must be commercial accounts. "We cannot suppose that all the merchants of the world, for centuries back, should have so little understood their own affairs, as to have kept their books in such a manner as to represent gains as losses, and losses as gains. Truly it would be easier to believe that Mr. Lestiboudois is a bad political economist. A merchant, one of my friends, having had two business transactions, with very different results, I have been curious to compare on this subject the accounts of the counter with those of the cus- tom-house, interpreted by Mr. Lestiboudois with the sanction of our six hundred legislators. Mr. T. . . despatched from Havre a vessel, freighted, for the United States, with French mer- chandise, 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 BALANCE OF TRADE. 71 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 en- tered at the custom-house. Finally, Mr. T. . . realized again on this return cargo twenty per cent profits, amounting to 70,400 francs. The cotton thus sold for the sum of 422,400 francs. If Mr. Lestiboudois requires it, I will send him an extract from the books of Mr. T. . . He will there see, credited to the account of profit mid loss, that is to say, set down as gained, two sums : the one of 40,000, the other of 70,000 francs, and Mr. T. . . feels perfectly certain that as regards these, there is no mistake in his accounts. Now what conclusion does Mr. Lestiboudois draw from the sums entered into the custom-house, in this operation ? He thence learns that France has exported 200,000 francs, and imported 352,000 ; from whence the honorable deputy concludes " that she has spent, dissipated the profits of her previous savings / that she is impoverishing herself and pro- gressing to her ruin y and that she has squandered on a foreign nation 152,000 francs of her capital." Some time after this transaction, Mr. T. . . des- patched another vessel, again freighted with domes- tic produce, to the amount of 200,000 francs. But the vessel foundered after leaving the port, and Mr. 72 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. T. . . had only further to inscribe on his books two little items, thus worded : "Sundries due to X, 200,000 francs, for pur- chase of divers articles despatched by vessel N. " Profit and loss due to sundries, 200,000 francs, for final and total loss of cargo." In. the mean time the custom-house inscribed 200,000 francs upon its list of exportations, and as there can of course be nothing to balance this entry on the list of importations, it hence follows that Mr. Lestiboudois and the Chamber must see in this wreck a clear profit to France of 200,000 francs. We may draw hence yet another conclusion, viz., that according to the Balance of Trade theory, France has an exceedingly simple manner of con- stantly doubling her capital. It is only necessary, to accomplish this, that she should, after entering into the custom-house her articles for exportation, cause them to be thrown into the sea. By this course, her exportations can speedily be made to equal her capital ; importations will be nothing, and our gain will be, all which the ocean will have swallowed up. You are joking, the protectionists will reply. You know that it is impossible that we should utter such absurdities. Nevertheless, I answer, you do utter them, and what is more, you give them life ; you exercise them practically upon your fellow- citizens, as much, at least, as is in your power to do. The truth is, that the theory of the Balance of PETITION. 73 Trade should be precisely reversed. The profits accruing to the nation from any foreign commerce should be calculated by the overplus of the impor- tation above the exportation. This overplus, after the deduction of expenses, is the real gain. Here we have the true theory, and it is one which leads directly to freedom in trade. I now, gentlemen, abandon you this theory, as I have done all those of the preceding chapters. Do with it as you please, exaggerate it as you will ; it has nothing to fear. Push it to the farthest extreme ; imagine, if it so please you, that foreign nations should inundate us with useful produce of every description, and ask nothing in return ; that our importations should be infinite, and our exportations nothing. Imagine all this, and still I defy you to prove that we will be the poorer in consequence. VII. PETITION FROM THE MANUFACTURERS OF CANDLES, WAX-LIGHTS, LAMPS, CHANDELIERS, REFLECTORS, SNUFFERS, EXTINGUISHERS ; AND FROM THE PRO- DUCERS OF TALLOW, OIL, RESIN, ALCOHOL, AND GENERALLY OF EVERYTHING USED FOR LIGHTS. " To the Honorable tlte Members of the Chamber of Deputies. " Gentlemen : You are in the right way : you reject abstract theories ; abundance, cheapness, con- 74 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. cerns you little. You are entirely occupied with the interest of the producer, whom you are anxious to free from foreign competition. In a word, you wish to secure the national market to national labor. " We come now to offer you an admirable oppor- tunity for the application of your — what shall we say ? your theory •? no, nothing is more deceiving than theory ; — your doctrine ? your system ? your principle ? But you do not like doctrines ; you hold systems in horror ; and, as for principles, you declare that there are no such things in political economy. We will say then, your practice ; your practice without theory, and without principle. " We are subjected to the intolerable competition of a foreign rival, who enjoys, it would seem, such superior facilities for the production of light, that he is enabled to inundate our national market at so exceedingly reduced a price, that, the moment he makes his appearance, he draws off all custom from us ; and thus an important branch of French indus- try, with all its innumerable ramifications, is sud- denly 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 PETITION. 75 with this proud island, he is much more moderate and careful than with us. " Our petition is, that it would please your hon- orable body to pass a law whereby shall be directed the shutting up of all windows, dormers, skylights, shutters, curtains, vasistas, oeil-de-bceufs, 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 manufacturers which we flatter ourselves we have been enabled to bestow upon the country ; which country cannot, therefore, without ingratitude, leave us now to struggle unprotected through so unequal a contest. " We pray your honorable body not to mistake our petition for a satire, nor to repulse us without at least hearing the reasons which we have to ad- vance in its favor. " And first, if, by shutting out as much as possible all access to natural light, you thus create the neces- sity for artificial light, is there in France an industrial pursuit which will not, through some connection with this important object, be benefited by it ? " If more tallow be consumed, there will arise a necessity for an increase of cattle and sheep. Thus artificial meadows must be in greater demand ; and meat, wool, leather, and above all, manure, this basis of agricultural riches, must become more abundant. i% It more oil be consumed, it will cause an increase 76 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. in the cultivation of the olive tree. This plant, luxuriant and exhausting to the soil, will come in good time to profit by the increased fertility which the raising of cattle will have communicated to our fields. " Our heaths will become covered with resinous trees. Numerous swarms of bees will gather upon our mountains the perfumed treasures, which are now cast upon the winds, useless as the blossoms from which they emanate. There is, in short, no branch of agriculture which would not be greatly developed by the granting of our petition. " Navigation would equally profit. Thousands of vessels would soon be employed in the whale fisheries, and thence would arise a navy capable of sustaining the honor of France, and of responding to the patriotic sentiments of the undersigned peti- tioners, candle merchants, etc. " But what words can express the magnificence which Paris will then exhibit ! Cast an eye upon the future and behold the gildings, the bronzes, the magnificent crystal chandeliers, lamps, reflectors, and candelabras, which will glitter in the spacious stores, compared with which the splendor of the present day will appear trifling and insignificant. kl There is none, not even the poor manufacturer of resin in the midst ol his pine forests, nor the miserable miner in his dark dwelling, but who would enjoy an increase ot salary and ol comforts. PETITION. 77 u Gentlemen, if you will be pleased to reflect, you cannot fail to be convinced that there is per- haps not one Frenchman, from the opulent stock- holder of Anzin down to the poorest vender of matches, who is not interested in the success of our petition. " We foresee your objections, gentlemen ; but there is not one that you can oppose to us which you will not be obliged to gather from the works of the partisans of free trade. We dare challenge you to pronounce one word against our petition, which is not equally opposed to your own practice and the principle which guides your policy. " Do you tell us, that if we gain by this protec- tion, France will not gain, because the consumer must pay the price of it ? " We answer you : " You have no longer any right to cite the inter- est of the consumer. For whenever this has been found to compete with that of the producer, you have invariably sacrificed the first. You have done this to encourage labor, to increase the demand for labor. The same reason should now induce you to act in the same manner. " You have yourselves already answered the objection. When you were told : The consumer is interested in the free introduction of iron, coal, corn, wheat, cloths, etc., your answer was : Yes, but the producer is interested in their exclusion. Thus, <0 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. also, if the consumer is interested in the admission of light, we, the producers, pray for its interdiction. " You have also said, the producer and the con- sumer are one. If the manufacturer gains by pro- tection, lie will cause the agriculturist to gain also ; if agriculture prospers, it opens a market for manu- factured 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 com- fort and competency of the workers in every branch of national labor. " Will you say that the light of the sun is a gratuitous gift, and that to repulse gratuitous gifts is to repulse riches under pretence of encouraging the means of obtaining them ? 11 Take care, — you carry the death-blow to your own policy. Remember that hitherto you have always repulsed foreign produce, because it was an approach to a gratuitous gift, and the mare in pro- portion as this approach was more close. You have, in obeying the wishes of other monopolists, acted only from a half-motive '; to grant our petition there is a much fuller inducement. To repulse us, precisely for the reason that our case is a more com < PETITION. 79 plete one than any wnicn have preceded it, would be to lay down the following equation : -f- X + = — ; in other words, it would be to accumulate absurdity upon absurdity. " Labor and Nature concur in different propor- tions, according to country and climate, in every article of production. The portion of Nature is always gratuitous ; that of labor alone regulates the price. " If a Lisbon orange can be sold at half the price of a Parisian one, it is because a natural and gra- tuitous heat does for the one, what the other only obtains from an artificial and consequently expen- sive one. " When, therefore, we purchase a Portuguese orange, we may say that we obtain it half gratui- tously and half by the right of labor ; in other words, at half price compared to those of Paris. " Now it is precisely on account of this demi- gratuity (excuse the word) that you argue in favor of exclusion. How, you say, could national labor sustain the competition of foreign labor, when the first has everything to do, and the last is rid of half the trouble, the sun taking the rest of the business upon himself ? If then the demi-gratuiiy can determine you to check competition, on what principle can the entire gratuity be alleged as a rea- son for admitting it ? You are no logicians if, refusing the demi- gratuity as hurtful to human 80 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. labor, you do not h fortiori, and with double zeal , reject the full gratuity. " Again, when any article, as coal, iron, cheese, or cloth, comes to us from foreign countries with less labor than if we produce it ourselves, the dif- ference in price is a gratuitous gift conferred upon us ; and the gift is more or less considerable, accord- ing 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 mer- chant 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 manu- facture, merely because and even in proportion as their price approaches zero, while at the same time you freely admit, and without limitation, the light of the sun, whose price is during the whole day at zero f " DISCRIMINATING DUTIES. 81 VIII. DISCRIMINATING DUTIES. A poor laborer of Girondo had raised, with the greatest possible care and attention, a nursery of vines, from which, after nincli labor, he at last suc- ceeded in producing a pipe of wine, and forgot, in the joy of his success, that each drop of this pre- cious nectar had cost a drop of sweat to his brow. I will sell it, said he to his wife, and with the pro- ceeds I will buy bread, which will serve you to make a trousseau for our daughter. The honest country- man, 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 \ 82 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. I can scarcely understand this, said the laborer. Nor can I explain it, said the custom-house officer, lmt there is no donbt 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 bar- gain with the Belgian. His daughter received but three fourths of her trousseau • and these good folks are still puzzling themselves to discover how it can happen that people are ruined by receiving four instead of three ; and why they are richer with three dozen towels instead of four. IX. WONDERFUL DISCOVERY : At this moment, when all minds are occupied in endeavoring to discover the most economical means of transportation ; when, to put these means into practice, we are levelling roads, improving rivers, perfecting steamboats, establishing railroads, and attempting various systems of traction, atmos- pheric, hydraulic, pneumatic, electric, etc., — at this moment when, I- believe, every one is seeking in sincerity and with ardor the solution of this proo- lem — WONDERFUL DISCOVERY. 83 " To bring the price of things in their place of consumption, as near as possible to their price in that of production" — I would believe myself acting a culpable part tow- ard my country, toward the age in which I live, and toward myself, if I were longer to keep secret the wonderful discovery which I have just made. I am well aware that the self-illusion of invent- ors have become proverbial, but I have, neverthe- less, the most complete certainty of having discov- ered an infallible means of bringing the' produce of the entire world into France, and reciprocally to transport ours, with a very important reduction of price. Infallible . and yet this is but a single one of the advantages of my astonishing invention, which requires neither plans nor devices, neither prepara- tory studies, nor engineers, nor machinists, nor capital, nor stockholders, nor governmental assist- ance ! There is no danger of shipwrecks, of explo- sions, of shocks, of fire, nor of displacement of rails ! It can be put into practice without prepara- tion from one day to another ! Finally, and this will, no doubt, recommend it to the public, it will not increase taxes one cent ; but the contrary. It will not augment the number of government functionaries, nor the exigencies of government officers ; but the contrary. It will put in hazard the liberty of no one ; but the contrary. 84 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 1 have been led to this discovery not from acci- dent, but observation, and I will tell yon how. I had this question to determine : " Why does any article made, for instance, at Brussels, bear an increased price on its arrival at Paris?" It was immediately evident to me that this was the result of obstacles of various kinds existing between Brussels and Paris. First, there is distance, which cannot be overcome without trouble and loss of time ; and either we must submit to these in our own person, or pay another for bearing them for us. Then come rivers, swamps, accidents, heavy and muddy roads ; these are so many difficulties to be overcome ; in order to do which, causeways are con- structed, bridges built, roads cut and paved, railroads established, etc. But all this is costly, and the article transported must bear its portion of the expense. There are robbers, too, on the roads, and this necessitates guards, a police, etc. Now, among these obstacles, there is one which we ourselves have placed, and that at no little expense, between Brussels and Paris. This consists of men planted along the frontier, armed to the teeth, whose business it is to place difficulties in the way of the transportation of goods from one country to another. These men are called custom-house officers, and their effect is precisely similar to that of steep and boggy roads. They retard and put obstacles in the way WONDERFUL DISCOVERY. 85 of transportation, thus contributing to the difference which we have remarked between the price of pro- duction and that of consumption ; to diminish which difference as much as possible, is the problem which we are seeking to resolve. Here, then, we have found its solution. Let our tariff be diminished. We will thus have constructed a Northern Railroad which will cost us nothing. Nay, more, we will be saved great expenses, and wiU begin from the first day to save capital. Really, I cannot_ but ask myself, in surprise, how _ our brains could have admitted so whimsical a piece of folly, as to indvi ce us to pay many mil lions to — destro y the natural obstad es^j^^r^osed between France and other nations , _on)y at t he same time to pay so many millions more in order to replace them bv^ar tiflcial obstacles ^j 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 r 1onb 1a evpense. -* An article of Belgian production is worth at Brussels twenty francs, and, from the expenses of transportation, thirty francs at Paris. A similar article of Parisian manufacture costs forty francs. What is our course under these circumstances ? First, we impose a duty of at least ten francs on the Belgian article, so as to raise its price to a level with that of the Parisian ; the government withal, 86 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. paying numerous officials to attend to the levying of this duty. The article thus pays ten francs for transportation, ten for the tax. This done, we say to ourselves : Transportation between Brussels and Paris is very dear ; let us spend two or three millions in railways, and we will reduce it one half. Evidently the result of such a course will be to get the Belgian article at Paris for thirty-five francs, viz. : 20 francs — price at Brussels. 10 " duty. 5 " transportation by railroad. 35 francs — total, or market price at Paris. Could we not have attained the same end by lowering the tariff to five francs ? We would then have — 20 francs — price at Brussels. 5 " duty. 10 " transportation on the common road. 35 francs — total, or market price at Paris. And this arrangement would have saved us the 200,000,000 spent upon the railroad, besides the expense saved in custom-house surveillance, which would of course diminish in proportion as the temptation to smuggling would become less. Wonderful discovery. 87 But it is answered, the duty is necessary to pro- tect Parisian industry. So be it ; but do not then destroy the effect of it by your railroad. For if you persist in your determination to keep the Belgian article on a par with the Parisian at forty francs, you must raise the duty to fifteen francs, in order to have : — 20 francs — price at Brussels. 15 " protective duty. 5 " transportation by railroad. 40 francs — total, at equalized prices. And I now ask, of what benefit, under these cir- cumstances, is the railroad ? Frankly, is it not humiliating to the nineteenth century, that it should be destined to transmit to future ages the example of such puerilities seriously and gravely practised ? To be the dupe of another, is bad enough ; but to employ all the forms and ceremonies of legislation in order to cheat one's self, — to doubly cheat one's self, and that too in a mere mathematical account, — truly this is calculated to lower a little the pride of this enlightened age. 88 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. X. RECIPROCITY. We have just seen that all which renders trans- portation difficult, acts in the same manner as pro- tection ; or, if the expression be preferred, that pro- tection tends toward the same result as obstacles to transportation. A tariff may then be truly spoken of as a swamp, a rut, a steep hill ; in a word, an obstacle, whose effect is to augment the difference between the price of consumption and that of production. It is equally incontestable that a swamp, a bog, etc., are veritable protective tariffs. N There are people (few in number, it is true, but such there are) who begin to understand that ob- stacles are not the less obstacles because they are artificially created, and that our well-being is more advanced by freedom of trade than by protection ; precisely as a canal is more desirable than a sandy, hilly, and difficult road. But they still say, this liberty ought to be recipro- cal. If we take off our taxes in favor of Spain, while Spain does not do the same toward us, it is evident that we are duped. Let us then make treaties of commerce upon the basis of a just reciproc- ity ; let us yield where we are yielded to ; let us RECIPROCITY. 89 make the sacrifice of buying that we may obtain the advantage of selling. Persons who reason thus are (I am sorry to say), whether they know it or not, governed by the pro- tectionist principle. They are only a little more inconsistent than the pure protectionists, as these are more inconsistent than the absolute prohibitionists. I will illustrate this by a fable. Stulta and Puera (Fool-town and Boy-town). There were, it matters not where, two towns, Stulta and Puera, -which at great expense had a road built which connected them with each other. Some time after this was done, the inhabitants of Stulta became uneasy, and said, Puera is overwhelming us with its productions ; this must be attended to. They established therefore a corps of Obstructors, so called because their business was to place obstacles in the way of the wagon trains which arrived from Puera. Soon after, Puera also established a corps of Obstructors. After some centuries, people having become more enlightened, the inhabitants of Puera began to dis- cover that these reciprocal obstacles might possibly be reciprocal injuries. They sent therefore an ambassador to Stulta, who (passing over the official phraseology) spoke much to this effect : " We have built a road, and now we put obstacles in the way of this road. This is absurd. It would have been 90 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 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 afterward of creating difficulties. In the name of Puera, I come to pro- pose 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, weigh- ing at the same time carefully our respective sacrifices." The ambassador having thus spoken, the town of Stulta asked time to reflect ; manu- facturers and agriculturists were consulted ; and at last, after some years 1 deliberation, it was declared that the negotiations were broken off. At this news, the inhabitants of Puera held a council. An old man (who it has always been sup- posed had been secretly bribed by Stulta) rose and said : " The obstacles raised by Stulta are injurious to our sales ; this is a misfortune. Those which we ourselves create, injure our purchases ; this is a second misfortune. We have no power over the first, but the second is entirely dependent upon ourselves. Let us then at least get rid of one, since we cannot be delivered from both. Let us suppress our corps of Obstructors, without waiting for Stulta to do the same. Some day or other she will learn to understand better her own interests." A second counsellor, a man of practice and of facts, uncontrolled by theories and wise in ancestral RECIPROCITY. 91 experience, replied : " We must not listen to this dreamer, this theorist, this innovator, this Utopian, this political economist, this friend to Slulta. We would be entirely ruined if the embarrassments of the road were not carefully weighed and exactly equalized, between Stulta and Paera. There would be more difficulty in going than in coming ; in exportation than in importation. We would be, with regard to Stulta, in the inferior condition in which Havre, Nantes, Bordeaux, Lisbon, London, Hamburg, and New Orleans, are, in relation to cities placed higher up the rivers Seine, Loire, Garonne, Tagus, Thames, the Elbe, and the Mississippi ; for the difficulties of ascending must always be greater than those of descending rivers. (A voice ex- claims : ; But the cities near the mouths of rivers have always prospered more than those higher up the stream. 1 ) This is not possible. (The same voice : ' But it is a fact.') Well, they have then prospered contrary to rule." Such conclusive rea- soning staggered the assembly. The orator went on to convince them thoroughly and conclusively by speaking of national independence, national honor, national dignity, national labor, overwhelm- ing importation, tributes, ruinous competition. In short, he succeeded in determining the assembly to continue their system of obstacles, and I can now point out a certain country where you may see road- builders and Obstructors working with the best pos- 92 sol'IIISMS OF PROTECTION. sible understanding, by the decree of tlie same legislative assembly, paid by tlie same citizens ; the first to improve the road, the last to embarrass it. XL ABSOLUTE PRICES. If we wish to judge between freedom of trade and protection, to calculate the probable effect of any political phenomenon, we should notice how far its influence tends to the production of abundance or scarcity, and not simply of cheapness o?' dear- ness of price. We must beware of trusting to abso- lute prices, it would lead to inextricable confusion. Mr. Mathieu de Dombasle, after having estab- lished the fact that protection raises prices, adds : " The augmentation of price increases the ex- penses of life, and consequently the price of labor, and every one finds in the increase of the price of his produce the same proportion as in the increase of his expenses. Thus, if everybody pays as con- sumer, everybody receives also as producer." It is evident that it would be easy to reverse the argument and say : If everybody receives as producer, everybody must pay as consumer. Now, what does this prove ? Nothing whatever^ ABSOLUTE PRICES. 93 unless it be that protection transfers riches, uselessly and unjustly. Robbery does the same. Again, to prove that the complicated arrange- ments of this system give even simple compensa- tion, it is necessary to adhere to the " consequently" of Mr. de Dombasle, and to convince one's self that the price of labor rises with that of the articles pro- tected. This is a question of fact, which I refer to Mr. Moreau de Jonnes, begging him to examine whether the rate of wages was found to increase with the stock of the mines of Anzin. For my own part I do not believe in it, because I think that the price of labor, like everything else, is governed by the proportion existing between the supply and the demand. Now 1 can perfectly well understand that restriction will diminish the supply of coal, and consequently raise its price ; but I do not as clearly see that it increases the demand for labor, thereby raising the rate of wages. This is the less conceiv- able to me, because the sum of labor required depends upon the quantity of disposable capital ; and protection, while it may change the direction of capital, and transfer it from one business to another, cannot increase it one penny. This question, which is of the highest interest, we will examine elsewhere. 1 return to the discus- sion of absolute prices, and declare that there is no absurdity which cannot be rendered specious by such reasoning as that of Mr. de Dombasle. 94: SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. Imagine an isolated nation possessing a given quantity of cash, and every year wantonly burning the half of its produce. I will undertake to prove by the theory of Mr. de Dombasle that this nation will not be the less rich in consequence of such a procedure. For, the result of the conflagration must be, that everything would double in price. An inventory made before this event would offer exactly the same nominal value, as one made after it. Who, then, would be the loser ? If John buys his cloth dearer, he also sells his corn at a higher price ; and if Peter makes a loss on the purchase of his corn, he gains it back by the sale of his cloth. Thus u every one finds in the increase of the price of his produce, the same proportion as in the increase of his expenses ; and thus if everybody pays as consumer, everybody also receives as producer." All this is nonsense. The simple truth is : that whether men destroy their corn and cloth by fire or by use, the effect is the same as regards price, but not as regards riches, for it is precisely in the enjoy- ment of the use, that riches — in other words, com- fort, well-being — exist. Protection may, in the same way, while it lessens the abundance of things, raise their prices, so as to leave each individual as rich, numerically speaking, as when unembarrassed by it. But because we put down in an inventory three hectolitres of corn at DOES PROTECTION RAISE WAGES ? 95 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 con- tributing to the necessities of the community ? To this view of consumption, it will be my con- tinual endeavor to lead the protectionists ; for in this is the end ot all my efforts, the solution of every problem. 1 must continually repeat to them that restriction, by impeding commerce, by limiting the division ot labor, by forcing it to combat difn culties of situation and temperature, must in its results diminish the quantity produced by any fixed quantum of labor. And what can it benefit us that the smaller quantity produced under the protective system bears the same nominal value as the greater quantity produced under the free-trade system ? Man does not live on nominal values, but on real articles of produce ; and the more abundant these articles are. no matter what price they may bear, the richer is he. XII. DOES PROTECTION RAISE THE RATE OF WAGES ? Workmen, your situation is singular ! you are robbed, as I will presently prove to you. . . . But no ; I retract the word ; we must avoid an expression 96 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. which is violent ; perhaps indeed incorrect ; inas- much as this spoliation, wrapped in the sophisms which disguise it, is practised, we must believe, without the intention of the spoiler, and with the consent of the spoiled. But it is nevertheless true that you are deprived of the just compensation of your labor, while no one thinks of causing justice to be rendered to you. Jf you could be consoled by noisy appeals to philanthropy, to powerless charity, to degrading alms-giving, or if high-sound- ing words would relieve you, these indeed you can have in abundance. But justice, simple justice — nobody thinks of rendering you this. For would it not ha just that after a long day's labor, when you have received your little wages, you should be per- mitted to exchange them for the largest possible sum of comforts that you can obtain voluntarily from any man whatsoever upon the face of the earth ? Let us examine if injustice is not done to you, bj the legislative limitation of the persons from whom you are allowed to buy those things which you need — as bread, meat, cotton and woollen cloths, etc. — thus fixing (so to express myself) the artificial price which these articles must bear. Is it true that protection, which avowedly raises prices, and thus injures you, raises proportionably the rate of wages ? On what does the rate of wages depend ? DOES PROTECTION RAISE WAGES ? 97 One of your own class has energetically said : " When two workmen run after a master, wages fall ; when two masters run after a workman, wages rise. ' ' Allow me, in more laconic phrase, to employ a more scientific, though perhaps a less striking ex- pression : " The rate of wages depends upon the proportion which the supply of labor bears to the demand." On what depends the demand for labor ? On the quantity of disposable national capital. And the law which says, " such or such an article shall be limited to home production and no longer imported from foreign countries," can it in any degree increase this capital ? Not in the least. This law may withdraw it from one course, and transfer it to another ; but cannot increase it one penny. Then it cannot increase the demand for labor. While we point with pride to some prosperous manufacture, can we answer, From whence conies the capital with which it is founded and maintained ? Has it fallen from the moon ? or rather is it not drawm 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 tind also fewer sailors in our ports, and fewer laborers and vine-growers in our fields and upon our hillsides. 98 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. I could speak at great length upon this subject, but prefer illustrating my thought by an example. A countryman had twenty acres of land, with a capital of 10,000 francs. He divided his land into four parts, and adopted for it the following changes of crops : 1st, maize ; 2d, wheat ; 3d, clover ; and 4th, rye. As he needed for himself and family but a small portion of the grain, meat, and dairy-produce of the farm, he sold the surplus and bought oil, flax, wine, etc. The whole of his capital was yearly distributed in wages and payments of accounts to the workmen of the neighborhood. This capital was, from his sales, again returned to him, and even increased from year to year. Our countryman, being fully convinced that idle capital produces nothing, caused to circulate among the working classes this annual increase, which he devoted to the inclosing and clearing of lands, or to improvements in his farming utensils and his buildings. He deposited some sums in reserve in the hands of a neighboring banker, who on his part did not leave these idle in his strong box, but lent them to various tradesmen, so that the whole came to be usefully employed in the payment of wages. The countryman died, and his son, become master of the inheritance, said to himself : "It must be confessed that my father has, all his life, allowed himself to be duped. He bought oil, and thus paid tribute to Provence, while our own land could, by an DOES PROTECTION RAISE WAGES ? 99 effort, be made to produce olives. He bought wine, flax, and oranges, thus paying tribute to Brittany, Medoc, and the Hiera Islands very unnecessarily, for wine, flax, and oranges may be forced to grow upon our own lands. He paid tribute to the miller and the weaver ; our own servants could very well weave our linen, and crush our wheat between two stones. He did all he could to ruin himself, and gave to strangers what ought to have been kept for the benefit of his own household." Full of this reasoning, our headstrong fellow determined to change the routine of his crops. He divided his farm into twenty parts. On one he cultivated the olive ; on another the mulberry ; on a third flax ; he devoted the fourth to vines, the fifth to wheat, etc. , etc. Thus he succeeded in ren- dering himself independent, and furnished all his family supplies from his own farm. He no longer received anything from the general circulation ; neither, it is true, did he cast anything into it. Was he the richer for this course ? No, for his land did not suit the cultivation of the vine ; nor was the climate favorable to the olive. In short, the family supply of all these articles was very inferior to what it had been during the time when the father had obtained them all by exchange of produce. With regard to the demand for labor, it certainly was no greater than formerly. There were, to be 100 Pol' II ISMS OF PROTECTION. sure, five times as many fields to cultivate, but they were live 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 increas- ing, was now constantly diminishing. A great part of it was necessarily devoted to numerous build- ings and utensils, indispensable to a person who determines to undertake everything. In short, the supply of labor continued the same, but the means of paying becoming less, there was, necessarily, a reduction of wages. The result is precisely similar, when a nation isolates itself by the prohibitive system. Its num- ber of industrial pursuits is certainly multiplied, but their importance is diminished. In proj^ortion 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 capi- tal ; 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 abun- dant because it covers a greater quantity of soil, and presents a larger surface to the sun, while we DOES PROTECTION RAISE WAGES ? 101 hardly perceive that, precisely on this account, it absorbs, evaporates, and loses itself the quicker. Capital and labor being given, the result is, a sum of production, always the less great in proportion as obstacles are numerous. There can be no doubt that protective tariffs, by forcing capital and labor to struggle against greater difficulties of soil and climate, must cause the general production to be less, or, in other words, diminish the portion of comforts which would thence result to mankind. If, then, there be a general diminution of comforts, how, workmen, can it be possible that your portion should be increased ? Under such a supposition, it would be necessary to believe that the rich, those who made the law, have so arranged matters that not only they subject themselves to their own pro- portion 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. 102 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. XIII. THEORY — PRACTICE. Partisans of free trade, we are accused of being theorists, and not relying sufficiently upon practice. What a powerful argument against Mr. Say (says Mr. Ferrier) is the long succession of distinguished ministers, the imposing league of writers who have all differed from him ; and Mr. Say is himself con- scious of this, for he says : " It has been said, in sup- port 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 everything 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 con- fess, 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 domin- ion 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 THEORY— PRACTICE. 103 well as the most uninformed, admitted only four elements. Nobody dreamed of disputing this doc- trine, which is, nevertheless, false, and to-day uni- versally decried. " Upon this passage Mr. Ferrier makes the follow- ing remarks : " Mr. Say is strangely mistaken, if he believes that he has thus answered the very strong objections which he has himself advanced. It is natural enough that, for ages, men otherwise well informed, might mistake upon a question of natural history ; this proves nothing. Water, air, earth, and fire, elements or not, were not the less useful to man. .... Such errors as this are of no importance. They do not lead to revolutions, nor do they cause mental uneasiness ; above all, they clash with no interests, and might, therefore, without inconven- ience, 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 inju- rious, 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 104 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. certainly it is ; and this impression remains ; for Mr. Say has rather increased than diminished it." Let us hear Mr. do Saint Chamans. " It has been only toward 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 fur- nishers of speculative ideas, applied to everything and applicable to nothing, have begun to write upon the subject of political economy. There ex- isted previously a system of political economy, not written, but practised by governments. Colbert w T as, 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 anathe- mas, in spite too of the discoveries of the modern school. This system, which has been called by our w r riters the mercantile system, consisted in checking by prohibition or import duties such foreign productions as were calculated to ruin our manufactures by competition This system has been declared, by all writers on political econ- omy, of every school,* to be weak, absurd, and calculated to impoverish the countries where it pre- * Might we not say : It is a powerful argument against Messrs. Ferrier and de Saint Chamans, that all writers on political economy, of every school, that is to say, all men.who have studied the question, come to this conclu- sion : After all, freedom is better than restriction, and the laws of God .wiser than thoee of Mr. Colbert. THEORY— PRACTICE. 105 vails. Banished from books, it lias taken refuge in the practice of all nations, greatly to the surprise of those who cannot conceive that in what concerns the wealth of nations, governments should, rather than be guided by the wisdom of authors, prefer the long experience of a system, etc It is above all inconceivable to them that the French government should obstinately resist the new lights of political economy, and maintain in its practice the old errors, pointed out by all our writers But I am devoting too much time to this mercantile system, which, unsustained by writers, has only facts in its favor !' ' Would it not be supposed from this language that political economists, in claiming for each indi- vidual the free disposition of his own property, have, like the Fourierists, stumbled upon some new, strange, ansl chimerical system of social govern- ment, some wild theory, without precedent in the annals of human nature ? It does appear to me, that, if in all this there is anything doubtful, and of fanciful or theoretic origin, it is not free trade, but protection ; not the operating of exchanges, but the custom-house, the duties, imposed to overturn artificially the natural order of things. The question, however, is not here to compare and judge of the merits of the two systems, but simply to know which of the two is sanctioned by experience. 106 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. You, Messrs. Monopolists, maintain \haXfacts are for you, and that we on our side have only them % y. You even natter 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 habit- ual sagacity. I, for my part, cannot consent to give up to you the domain of facts ; foi while on your side you can advance only limited and special facts, we can oppose to them universal facts, the free and volun- tary acts of all men. What do we maintain ? and what do you main- tain ? We maintain that " it is best to buy from others what we ourselves can produce only at a higher price. 1 ' You maintain that " it is best to make for our* selves, even though it should cost us more than to buy from others." Now, gentlemen, putting aside theory, demon- stration, reasoning (things which seem to nauseate you), which of these assertions is sanctioned by universal practice f 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, contrac- THEORY — PRACTICE. 107 tors, and merchants ; say what is your own per- sonal practice. Does the agriculturist make his own clothes ? Does the tailor produce the grain which he con- sumes ? 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 shoeblack ? Does not the whole economy of society depend up- on 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 in- direct acquisition offers us a saving of time and labor ? You are not then sustained by practice, since it would be impossible, were you to search the world, to show us a single man who acts according to your principle. You may answer that you never intended to make your principle the rule of individual relations. You confess that it would thus destroy all social ties, and force men to the isolated life of snails. You only contend that it governs in fact, the rela- tions which are established between the agglomera- tions of the human family. We say that this assertion too is erroneous. A family, a town, county, department, province, all 108 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. are so many agglomerations, which, without any exception, all practically reject your principle ; never, indeed, even think of it. Each of these procures by barter, what would be more expen- sively procured by production. Nations would do the same, did you not by force prevent them. We, then, are the men who are guided by practice and experience. For to combat the interdict which you have specially put upon some international exchanges, we bring forward the practice and experience of all individuals, and of all agglomera- tions of individuals, whose acts being voluntary, render them proper to be given as proof in the question. But you, on your part, begin by forcing, by hindering, and then, adducing forced or forbid- den acts, you exclaim : " Look ; we can prove our- selves justified by example !" You exclaim against our theory, and even against all theory. But are you certain, in laying down your principles, so antagonistic to ours, that you too are not building up, theories ? Truly, you too have your theory ; but between yours and ours there is this difference : Our theory is formed upon the observation of universal facts, universal sentiments, universal cal- culations and acts. We do nothing more than classify and arrange these, in order to better under- stand them. It is so little opposed to practice, that it is in fact only practice explained. We look upon THEORY PRACTICE. 109 the actions of men as prompted by the instinct of self-preservation and of progress. What they do freely, willingly — this is what we call Political Economy, or economy of society. We must repeat constantly that each man is practically an excellent political economist, producing or exchanging as his advantage dictates. Each by experience raises him- self to the science ; or rather the science is nothing more than experience, scrupulously observed and methodically expounded. But your theory is theory in the w r orst sense of the word. You imagine procedures which are sanc- tioned by the experience of no living man, and then call to your aid constraint and prohibition. You cannot avoid having recourse to force ; because, wishing to make men produce what they can more advantageously buy, you require them to give up an advantage, and to be led by a doctrine which im- plies contradiction even in its terms. I defy you, too, to take this doctrine, which by your own avowal would be absurd in individual relations, and apply it, even in speculation, to trans- actions between families, towns, departments, or provinces. You yourselves confess that it is only applicable to internal relations. Thus it is that you are daily forced to repeat : " Principles can never be universal. What is well in an individual, a family, commune, or prov- ince, is ill in a nation. What is good in detail— 110 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. for instance : purchase rather than production, where purchase is more advantageous — is bad in a society. The political economy of individuals is not that of nations ;" and other such idle stuff, ejusdem farince. And all this for what ? To prove to us that we consumers, we are your property ! tha* ve 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, how- ever great your ignorance, your rapacity, or the inferiority of your work. Truly, then, your system is one not founded upon practice ; it is one of abstraction — of extor- tion. XIV. CONFLICTING PRINCIPLES. There is one thing which embarrasses me not a little ; and it is this : Sincere men, taking upon the subject of political economy the point of view of producers, have arrived at this double formula : " A government should dispose of consumers subject to its laws in favor of home industry." u It should subject to its laws foreign consumers, CONFLICTING PRINCIPLES. Ill in order to dispose of them in favor of home industry." The first of the formulas is that of Protection • the second that of Outlets. Both rest upon this proposition, called the Bal- ance of Trade, that " A people is impoverished by importations and enriched by exportations. " For if every foreign purchase is a tribute paid, a loss, nothing can be more natural than to restrain, even to prohibit importations. And if every foreign sale is a tribute received, a gain, nothing more natural than to create outlets, even by force. Protective System • Colonial /System. — These are only two aspects of the same theory. To j/re- vent our citizens from buying from foreigners, and to force foreigners to buy from our citizens. Two consequences of one identical principle. It is impossible not to perceive that, according to this doctrine, if it be true, the welfare of a country depends upon monoply or domestic spoliation, and upon conquest or foreign spoliation. Let us take a glance into one of these huts, perched upon the side of our Pyrenean range. The father of a family has received the little wages of his labor ; but his half -naked children are shivering before a biting northern blast, beside a fireless hearth, and an empty table. There is wool, 112 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 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 shep- herd ; his children must not taste the bread of Bis- cay, nor cover their numbed limbs with the wool of Navarre. It is thus that the general good requires ! The disposing by law of consumers, forcing them to the support of home industry, is an encroachment upon their liberty, the forbidding of an action (mutual exchange) which is in no way opposed to morality ! In a word, it is an act of injustice. But this, it is said, is necessary, or else home labor will be arrested, and a severe blow will be given to public prosperity. Thus then we must come to the melancholy con- clusion, that there is a radical incompatibility between the Just and the Useful. Again, if each people is interested in selling, and not in buying, a violent action and reaction must form the natural state of their mutual relations ; for each will seek to force its productions upon all, and all will seek to repulse the productions of each. A sale in fact implies a purchase, and since, according to this doctrine, to sell is beneficial, and to buy injurious, every international transaction must imply the benefiting of one people by the injuring of another. But men are invincibly inclined to what they feel CONFLICTING PRINCIPLES. 113 to be advantageous to themselves, while they also instinctively resist that which is injurious. From hence, then, we must infer that each nation bears within itself a natural force of expansion, and a not less natural force of resistance, which are equally injurious to all others. In other words, antagonism and war are the natural state of human society. Thus then the theory in discussion resolves itself into the two following axioms. In the affairs of a nation, Utility is incompatible with the internal adminis- tration of justice. Utility is incompatible with the maintenance of external peace. Well, what embarrasses and confounds me is, to explain how any writer upon public rights, any statesman who has sincerely adopted a doctrine of which the leading principle is so antagonistic to other incontestable principles, can enjoy one mo- ment's repose or peace of mind. For myself, if such were my entrance upon the threshold of science, if I did not clearly perceive that Liberty, Utility, Justice, and Peace are not only compatible, but closely connected, even identi- cal, I would endeavor to forget all I have learned ; I would say : " Can it be possible that God can allow men to attain prosperity only through injustice and war ? Can he so direct the affairs of mortals that they can 114 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. only renounce war and injustice by, at the same time, renouncing their own welfare ? "Ami not deceived by the false lights of a science which can lead me to the horrible blasphemy implied in this alternative, and shall 1 dare to take it upon myself to propose this as a basis for the legislation of a great people ? When 1 find a long succession of illustrious and learned men, whose researches in the same science have led to more con- soling 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 harmo- ny of material creation ? Can 1 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 inconstant, anar- chical, 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." RECIPROCITY AGAIN. 115 And if, after a sincere investigation twenty times repeated, I should still arrive at the frightful con- clusion that I am driven to choose between the Desirable and the Good, 1 would reject the science, plunge into a voluntary ignorance, above all, avoid participation in the affairs of my country, and leave to others the weight and responsibility of so fearful a choice. XV. RECIPROCITY AGAIN. Mr. de Saint Cricq has asked, u Are we sure that our foreign customers will buy from us as much as they sell us ?" Mr. de Dombasle says : " What reason have we for believing that English producers will come to seek their supplies from us, rather than from any other nation, or that they will take from us a value equivalent to their exportations into France ?" I cannot but wonder to see men who boast, above all things, of being practical, thus reasoning wide of all practice ! In practice, there is perhaps no traffic which is a direct exchange of produce for produce. Since the use of money, no man says, I will seek shoes, hats, advice, lessons, only from the shoemaker, the hatter, 116 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. the lawyer, or teacher, who will buy from me the exact equivalent of these in corn. Why should nations impose upon themselves so troublesome a restraint ? Suppose a nation without any exterior relations. One of its citizens makes a crop of corn. He casts it into the national circulation, and receives in exchange — what ? Money, bank bills, securities, divisible to any extent, by means of which it will be lawful for him to withdraw when he pleases, and, unless prevented by just competition from the national circulation, such articles as he may wish. At the end of the operation, he will have withdrawn from the mass the exact equivalent of what he first cast into it, and in value, his consumption ivill exactly equal his production. If the exchanges of this nation with foreign nations are free, it is no longer into the national circulation but into the general circulation that each individual casts his produce, and from thence his consumption is drawn. He is not obliged to cal- culate 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 RECIPROCITY AGAIN. 117 balance between what he casts in and what he with- draws from the great common reservoir ; and if this be true of each individual, it is not less true of the entire nation. The only difference between these two cases is, that in the last, each individual has opened to him a larger market both for his sales and his purchases, and has, consequently, a more favorable opportunity of making both to advantage. The objection advanced against us here, is, that if all were to combine in not withdrawing from circulation the produce from any one individual, he, in his turn, could withdraw nothing from the mass. The same, too, would be the case with regard to a nation. Our answer is : If a nation can no longer with- draw anything from the mass of circulation, neither will it any longer cast anything into it. It will work for itself. It will be obliged to submit to what, in advance, you wish to force upon it, viz., Isolation. And here you have the ideal of the prohibitive system. Truly, then, is it not ridiculous enough that you should inflict upon it now, and unnecessarily, this system, merely through fear that some day or other it might chance to be subjected to it without your assistance ? 118 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. XVI. OBSTRUCTED RIVERS PLEADING FOR THE PROHIBI- TIONISTS. Some years since, being at Madrid, J 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, transporta- tion must become cheaper, and Portuguese grain will come into formidable competition with our national labor. I vote against the project, unless ministers will agree to increase our tariff so as to re- establish the equilibrium. Three months after, I was in Lisbon, and. the same question came before the Senate. A noble Hidalgo said : Mr. President, the project is absurd. You guard at great expense the banks of the Douro, to prevent the influx into Portugal of Spanish grain, and at the same time you now propose, at great expense, to facilitate such an event. There is in this a want of consistency in which I can have no part. Let the Douro descend to our sons as we have received it from our fathers. A NEGATIVE RAILROAD. 119 XVII. A NEGATIVE RAILROAD. I have already remarked that when the observer has unfortunately taken his point of view from the position of producer, he cannot fail in his conclusions to clash with the general interest, because the pro- ducer, as such, must desire the existence of efforts, wants, and obstacles. I find a singular exemplification of this remark in a journal of Bordeaux. Mr. Simiot puts this question : Ought the railroad from Paris into Spain to pre- sent a break or terminus at Bordeaux ? This question he answers affirmatively. I will only consider one among the numerous reasons which he adduces in support of his opinion. The railroad from Paris to Bayonne ought (he says) to present a break or terminus at Bordeaux, in order that goods and travellers stopping in this city should thus be forced to contribute to the profits of the boatmen, porters, commission merchants, hotel- keepers, etc. It is very evident that we have here again the interest of the agents of labor put before that of the consumer. But if Bordeaux would profit by a break in the 120 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. road, and if such profit be conformable to the public interest, then Angouleme, Poictiers, Tours, Orleans, and still more all the intermediate points, as Ruffec, Chatellerault, etc., etc., would also petition for breaks ; and this too would be for the general good and for the interest of national labor. For it is cer- tain, that in proportion to the number of these breaks or termini, will be the increase in consign- ments, commissions, lading, unlading, etc. This system furnishes us the idea of a railroad made up of successive breaks : a negative railroad. Whether or not the Protectionists will allow it, most certain it is, that the restrictive principle is identical with that which would maintain this sys- tem of breaks : it is the sacrifice of the consumer to the producer, of the end to the means. XVIII. The facility with which men resign themselves to ignorance in cases where knowledge is all -important to them, is often astonishing ; and we may be sure that a man has determined to rest in his ignorance when he once brings himself to proclaim as a maxim that there are no absolute principles. We enter into the legislative halls, and find that 121 the question is, to determine whether the law will or will not allow of international exchanges. A deputy rises and says, if we tolerate these ex* changes, foreign nations will overwhelm us with their produce. We will have cotton goods from England, coal from Belgium, woollens from Spain, silks from Italy, cattle from Switzerland, iron from Sweden, corn from Prussia, so that no industrial pursuit will any longer be possible to us. Another answers : Prohibit these exchanges, and the divers advantages with which nature has en- dowed these different countries, will be for us as though they did not exist. We will have no share in the benefits resulting from English skill, or Belgian mines, from the fertility of the Polish soil, or the Swiss pastures ; neither will we profit by the cheapness of Spanish labor, or the heat of the Italian climate. We will be obliged to seek by a forced and laborious production, what, by means of exchanges, would be much more easily obtained. Assuredly one or other of these deputies is mis- taken. But which ? It is worth the trouble of ex- amining. There lie before us two roads, one of which leads inevitably to wretchedness. We must choose. To throw off the feeling of responsibility, the answer is easy : There are no absolute principles. This maxim, at present so fashionable, not only pleases idleness, but also suits ambition. 122 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. If either the theory of prohibition, or that of free trade, should finally triumph, one little law would form our whole economical code. In the first case this would be : foreign trade is forbidden ; in the second : foreign trade is free ; and thus, many great personages would lose their importance. But if trade has no distinctive character, if it is capriciously useful or injurious, and is governed by no natural law, if it finds no spur in its usefulness, no check in its inutility, if its effects cannot be ap- preciated by those who exercise it ; in a word, if it has no absolute principles — oh ! then it is necessary to deliberate, weigh, and regulate transactions, the conditions of labor must be equalized, the level of profits sought. This is an important charge, well calculated to give to those who execute it large salaries and extensive influence. Contemplating this great city of Paris, I have thought to myself : Here are a million of human beings who would die in a few days if provisions of every kind did not flow in toward this vast me- tropolis. 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, 123 without concert, without mutual understanding, for the victualling of Paris. Ilow 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 astonish- ing regularity of such complicated movements, a regularity in which we all have so implicit, though thoughtless, a faith ; on which our comfort, our very existence depends ? This power is an absolute prin- ciple, 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 ; inter- est, since we must give its name, so vigilant, so active, having so much forecast when allowed its free action. What would be your condition, in- habitants 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 decid- ing 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, de- spair, and perhaps starvation, may call forth more tears than your warmest charity can wipe away, it is probable, it is certain, that the arbitrary inter- 124 80PHI8M8 OF PROTECTION. vention of government would infinitely multiply these sufferings, and would extend among yon the evils which now reach but a small number of your citizens. If then we have such faith in this principle as applied to our private concerns, why should we not extend it to international transactions, which are assuredly less numerous, less delicate, and less com- plicated ? And if it be not necessary for the pre- fect of Paris to regulate our industrial pursuits, to weigh our proiits 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 pre- tend to exercise a protective power over our external commerce ? XIX. NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE. Among the arguments advanced in favor of a restrictive system, we must not forget that which is drawn from the plea of national independence. " What will we do," it is asked, " in case of war, if we are at the mercy of England for our iron and coal ?" NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE. 125 The English monopolists, on their side, do not fail to exclaim: "What will become of Great Britain in case of war, if she depends upon France for provisions ?" One thing appears to be quite lost sight of, and this is, that the dependence which results from com- mercial transactions, is a reciprocal dependence. We can only be dependent upon foreign supplies, in so far as foreign nations are dependent upon us. This is the essence of society. The breaking off of natural relations places a nation, not in an inde- pendent position, but in a state of isolation. And remark that the reason given for this isola- tion, 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 conse- quently 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 suffer- ing 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 Palmer- ston, and wars would cease, from want of resources, motives, pretexts, and popular sympathy. I know that I shall be reproached (for it is the fashion of the day) for placing interest, vile and 126 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. prosaic interest, at the foundation of the fraternity of nations. It would be preferred that this should be based upon charity, upon love ; that there should be in it some self-denial, and that clashing a little with the material welfare of men, it should bear the merit of a generous sacrifice. When will we have done with such puerile declamations ? We contemn, we revile interest, that is to say, the good and the useful (for if all men are interested in an object, how can this object be other than good in itself ?) as though this interest were not the necessary, eternal, and indestructible mover, to the guidance of which Providence has confided human perfectibility ! One would suppose that the utterers of such sentiments must be models of dis- interestedness ; but does the public not begin to perceive w T ith disgust, that this affected language is the stain of those pages for which it oftenest pays the highest price ? What ! because comfort and peace are correla- tive, 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 NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE. 127 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 prin- ciple upon mankind generally ; for the self-denial of all is the sacrifice of all. This is evil systema- tized into theory. But, thanks be to Heaven ! these declamations may be written and read, and the world continues nevertheless to obey its great mover, its great cause of action, which, spite of all denials, is interest. It is singular enough, too, to hear sentiments of such sublime self-abnegation quoted in support even of Spoliation ; and yet to this tends all this pompous show of disinterestedness ! These men, so sensitively delicate, that they are determined not to enjoy even peace, if it must be propped by the vile interest of men, do not hesitate to pick the pockets of other men, and above all of poor men. For what tariff protects the poor ? Gentlemen, we pray you, dispose as you please of what belongs to yourselves, but let us entreat you to allow us to use, or to exchange, according to our own fancy, the fruit of our own labor, the sweat of our own brows. Declaim as you will about self-sacrifice ; that is all pretty enough ; but we beg of you, do not at the same time forget to be honest. 128 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. XX. HUMAN LABOR NATIONAL LABOR. Destruction of machinery — prohibition of for- eign goods. These are two acts proceeding from the same doctrine. We do meet with men who, while they rejoice over the revelation of any great invention, favor nevertheless the protective policy ; but such men are very inconsistent. What is the objection they adduce against free trade ? That it causes us to seek from foreign and more easy production, what would otherwise be the result of home production. In a word, that it injures domestic industry. On the same principle, can it not be objected to machinery, that it accomplishes through natural agents what would otherwise be the result of manual labor, and that it is thus injurious to human labor ? The foreign laborer, enjoying greater facilities of production than the French laborer, is, with regard to the latter, a veritable economical machine, which crushes him by competition. Thus, a piece of machinery capable of executing any work at a less price than could be done by any given number of hands, is, as regards these hands, in the position of HCMAN LABOR NATIONAL LABOR. 129 a foreign competitor, who paralyzes them by his rivalry. If then it be judicious to protect home labor against the competition of foreign labor, it cannot be less so to protect human labor against mechani- cal labor. Whoever adheres to the protective system ought not, if his brain be possessed of any logical powers, . to stop at the prohibition of foreign produce, but should extend this prohibition to the produce of the loom and of the plough. I approve therefore of the logic of those who, while they cry out against the inundation of for- eign merchandise, have the courage to declaim equal- ly against the excessive production resulting from the inventive power of mind. Of this number is Mr. de Saint Chamans. " One of the strongest arguments (says he) which can be adduced against free trade, and the too extensive employment of machines, is, that many workmen are deprived of work, either by foreign competition, which depresses manufactures, or by machinery, which takes the place of men in workshops." Mr. de St. Chamans saw clearly the analogy, or rather the identity which exists between importation and machinery, and was, therefore, in favor of pro- scribing both. There is some pleasure in having to do with intrepid arguers, who, even in error, thus carry through a chain of reasoning. 130 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. But let us look at the difficulty into which they are here led. If it be true, d jwiori, that the domain of inven- tion, and that of labor, can be extended only to the injury of one another, it would follow that the few- est workmen would be employed in countries (Lan- cashire, for instance) where there is the most machinery. And if it be, on the contrary, proved, that machinery and manual labor coexist to a greater extent among rich nations than among savages, it must necessarily follow, that these two powers do not interfere with one another. I cannot understand how a thinking being can rest satisfied with the following dilemma : Either the inventions of man do not injure labor ; and this, from general facts, would appear to be the case, for there exists more of both among the English and the French, than among the Sioux and the Cherokees. If such be the fact, I have gone upon a wrong track, although unconscious at what point. I have wandered from my road, and I would commit high treason against humanity were I to introduce such an error into the legislation of my country. Or else the results of the inventions of mind limit manual labor, as would appear to be proved from limited facts ; for every day we see some machine rendering unnecessary the labor of twenty, or per- haps a hundred workmen. If this be the case, I HUMAN LABOR NATIONAL LABOR. 131 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 de- stroy one another. This is an important difficulty, and how is it put aside ? By this singular apothegm : " In political economy there are no absolute principles. ' ' There are no principles ! Why, what does this mean, but that there are no facts ? Principles are only formulas, which recapitulate a whole class of well-proved facts. Machinery and Importation must certainly have effects. These effects must be either good or bad. Here there may be a difference of opinion as to which is the correct conclusion, but whichever is adopted, it must be capable of being submitted to the formula of one or other of these principles, viz. , Machinery is a good, or, Machinery is an evil. Importations are beneficial, or, Importations are injurious. But to say there are no principles is cer- tainly the last degree of debasement to which the human mind can lower itself, and I confess that I 132 SOPHISMS OK PROTECTION. blush for my country, when I hear so monstrous an absurdity uttered before, and approved by, the French Chambers, the elite of the nation, who thus justify themselves for imposing upon the country laws, of the merits or demerits of which they are perfectly ignorant. But, it may be said to me, finish, then, by de- stroying the Sophism. Prove to us that machines are not injurious to human labor, nor importations to national labor. In a work of this nature, such demonstrations cannot be very complete. My aim is rather to point out than to explain difficulties, and to excite reflec- tion rather than to satisfy it. The mind never attains to a firm conviction which is not wrought out by its own labor. I will, however, make an effort to put it upon the right track. The adversaries of importations and of machinery are misled by allowing themselves to form too hasty a judgment from immediate and transitory effects, instead of following these up to their general and final consequences. The immediate effect of an ingenious piece of machinery, is, that it renders superfluous, in the production of any given result, a certain quantity of manual labor. But its action does not stop here. This result being obtained at less labor, is given to the public at a less price. The amount thus saved to the buyers, enables them to procure other com- HUMAN LABOR — NATIONAL LABOR. 133 forts, and thus to encourage general labor, precisely in proportion to the saving they have made upon the one article which the machine has given to them at an easier price. Thus the standard of labor is not lowered, though that of comfort is raised. Let me endeavor to render this double fact more striking by an example. I suppose that ten million of hats, at fifteen francs each, are yearly consumed in France. This would give to those employed in this manufacture one hundred and fifty millions. A machine is invented which enables the manufacturer to furnish hats at ten francs. The sum given to the maintenance of this branch of industry is thus reduced (if we sup- pose the consumption not to be increased) to one hundred millions. But the other fifty millions are not, therefore, withdrawn from the maintenance of human labor. The buyers of hats are, from the surplus saved upon the price of that article,, enabled to satisfy other wants, and thus, in the same propor- tion, 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 hun- dred 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 134: SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. been the means of saving to them. These comforts are the net gain which France has received from the invention. It is a gratuitous gift, a tribute exacted from nature by the genius of man. We grant that, during this process, a certain sum of labor will have been displaced, forced to change its direction ; but we cannot allow that it has been destroyed or even diminished. The case is the same with regard to importations. I will resume my hypothesis. France, according to our supposition, manufact- ured ten millions of hats at fifteen francs each. Let us now suppose that a foreign producer brings them into our market at ten francs. I maintain that national labor is thus in no wise diminished. It will be obliged to produce the equivalent of the hundred millions which go to pay for the ten millions of hats at ten francs, and then there remains to each buyer five francs, saved on the purchase of his hat, or, in total, fifty millions, which serve for the acqui- sition of other comforts, and the encouragement of other labor. The mass of labor remains, then, what it was, and the additional comforts accruing from the fifty millions saved in the purchase of hats, are the net profit of importation or free trade. It is no argument to try and alarm us by a picture of the sufferings which, in this hypothesis, would result from the displacement or change of labor. RAW MATERIAL. 135 For, if prohibition had never existed, labor would have classed itself in accordance with the laws of trade, and no displacement would have taken place. If prohibition has led to an artificial and unpro- ductive classification of labor, then it is prohibition, and not free trade, which is responsible for the inevitable displacement which must result in the transition from evil to good. It is a rather singular argument to maintain that, because an abuse which has been permitted a tem- porary existence, cannot be corrected without wounding the interests of those who have profited by it, it ought, therefore, to claim perpetual dura- tion. XXI. RAW MATERIAL. It is said that no commerce is so advantageous as that in which manufactured articles are exchanged for raw material ; because the latter furnishes ali- ment for national labor. And it is hence concluded : That the best regulation of duties would be to give the greatest possible facilities to the importa- tion of raw material, and at the same time to check that of the finished article. 130 SOPHISMS OF PBOTKCnON". There is*, in political economy, no more generally accredited Sophism than this. It serves for argu- ment 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 de- fended. Commercial liberty must probably pass through the same ordeal as liberty in every other form. It can only dictate laws, after having first taken thor- ough 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 opin- ion. And what more calculated to mislead opinion than writings, which, while they proclaim free trade, support the doctrines of monopoly ? It is some years since three great cities of France, viz., Lyons, Bordeaux, and Havre, combined in opposition to the restrictive system. France, all Europe, looked anxiously and suspiciously at this apparent declaration in favor of free trade. Alas ! it was still the banner of monopoly which they fol- lowed ! 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 dis- guise, the petitioners only reproduced, with an addi- RAW MATERIAL. 137 tional incongruity, the old doctrine of protection to national labor. What is, in fact, the prohibitive system ? We will let Mr. de Saint Cricq answer for us. " Labor constitutes the riches of a nation, because it creates supplies for the gratification of our necessities ; and universal comfort consists in the abundance of these supplies." Here we have the principle. " But this abundance ought to be the result of national labor. If it were the result of foreign labor, national labor must receive an inevitable check." Here lies the error. (See the preceding Sophism.) " What, then, ought to be the course of an agri- cultural and manufacturing country ? It ought to reserve its market for the produce of its own soil and its own industry." Here is the object. " In order to effect this, it ought, by restrictive, and, if necessary, by prohibitive duties, to prevent the influx of produce from foreign soils and foreign industry." Here is the means. Let us now compare this system with that of the petition from Bordeaux. This divided articles of merchandise into three classes. " The first class includes articles of food and raw material untouched by human labor. A judicious system of political economy would re- quire that this class should be exempt from taxa- tion." Here we have the principle of no labor, no protection. 138 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. " The second class is composed of articles which have received some preparation for manufacture. This preparation would render reasonable the impo- sition of some duties." Here we find the commence- ment of protection, because, at the same time, like- wise commences the demand for national labor. " The third class comprehends finished articles, which can, under no circumstances, furnish material for national labor. We consider this as the most fit for taxation." Here we have at once the maxi- mum of labor, and, consequently, of production. The petitioners then, as we here see, proclaimed foreign labor as injurious to national labor. This is the error of the prohibitive system. They desired the French market to be reserved for French labor. This is the object of the prohibi- tive system. They demanded that foreign labor should be subjected to restrictions and taxes. These are the means of the prohibitive system. What difference, then, can we possibly discover to exist between the Bordalese petitioners and the Corypheus of restriction ? One, alone ; and that is simply the greater or less extension which is given to the signification of the word labor. Mr. de Saint Cricq, taking it in its widest sense, is, therefore, in favor of protecting everything. " Labor," he says, " constitutes the whole wealth of a nation. Protection should be for the agricult- RAW MATERIAL. 139 ural interest, and the whole agricultural interest ; for the manufacturing interest, and the whole manu- facturing interest ; and this principle I will contin- ually endeavor to impress upon this Chamber." The petitioners consider no labor but that of the manufacturers, and accordingly, it is that, and that alone, which they would wish to admit to the favors of protection. " Raw material being entirely untouched by human labor, our system should exempt it from taxes. Manufactured articles furnishing no mate- rial for national labor, we consider as the most fit for taxation." There is no question here as to the propriety of protecting national labor. Mr. de Saint Cricq and the Bordalese agree entirely upon this point. We have, in our preceding chapters, already shown how entirely we differ from both of them. The question to be determined is, whether it is Mr. de Saint Cricq, or the Bordalese, who give the word labor its proper acceptation. And we must confess that Mr. de Saint Cricq is here decidedly in the right. The following dialogue might be sup- posed between them : Mr. de Saint Cricq. — You agree that national labor ought to be protected. You agree that no foreign labor can be introduced into our market, without destroying an equal quantity of our national labor. But you contend that there are numerous 140 BOPHISMB OF PROTECTION. articles of merchandise possessing value , for they are sold, and which are nevertheless untouched by human labor. Among these you name corn, flour, meat, cattle, bacon, salt, iron, copper, lead, coal, wool, skins, seeds, etc. If you can prove to me that the value of these things is not dependent upon labor, I will agree that it is useless to protect them. But if I can prove to you that there is as much labor put upon a hundred francs' worth of wool, as upon a hundred francs' worth of cloth, you ought to acknowledge that protection is the right as much of the one as of the other. I ask you then why this bag of wool is worth a hundred francs ? Is it not because this is its price of production ? And what is the price of production, but the sum which has been distributed in wages for labor, payment of skill, and interest on money, among the various laborers and capitalists, who have assisted in the production of the article ? The Petitioners. — It is true that with regard to wool you may be right ; but a bag of corn, a bar of iron, a hundred weight of coal, are these the prod- uce of labor ? Is it not nature which creates them ? Mr. de St. Cricq.— Without doubt, nature creates these substances, but it is labor which gives them their value. I have myself, in saying that labor creates material objects, used a false expression, which has led me into many further errors. No RAW MATERIAL. 141 man can create. No man can bring anything from nothing ; and if production is used as a synonym for creation, then indeed our labor must all be use- less. The agriculturist does not pretend that he has created the corn ; but he has given it its value. He has by his own labor, and by that of his ser- vants, his laborers, and his reapers, transformed into corn substances which were entirely dissimilar from it. What more is effected by the miller w T ho con- verts it into flour, or by the baker who makes it into bread ? In order that a man may be dressed in cloth, numerous operations are first necessary. Before the intervention of any human labor, the real pri- mary materials of this article are air, water, heat, gas, light, and the various salts which enter into its composition. These are indeed untouched by human labor, for they have no value, and I have never dreamed of their needing protection. But a first labor converts these substances into forage ; a second into wool ; a third into thread ; a fourth into cloth ; and a fifth into garments. Who can pretend to say, that all these contributions to the work, from the first furrow of the plough, to the last stitch of the needle, are not labor f 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 142 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. as many classes of workmen, you, by an arbitrary- distinction, determine that the order in which the various branches of labor follow each other shall regulate their importance, so that while the first is not allowed to merit the name of labor, the last shall receive all the favors of protection. The Petitioners. — Yes, we begin to understand that neither wool nor corn are entirely independent of human labor ; but certainly the agriculturist has not, like the manufacturer, had everything to do by his own labor, and that of his workmen ; nature has assisted him ; and if there is some labor, at least all is not labor, in the production of corn. Mr. ds St. Cricq. — But it is the labor alone which gives it value. I grant that nature has assisted in the production of grain. I will even grant that it is exclusively her work ; but I must confess at least that I have constrained her to it by my labor. And remark, moreover, that when I sell my corn, it is not the work of nature which I make you pay for, but my own. You will perceive, also, by following up your manner of arguing, that neither will manufactured articles be the production of labor. Does not the manufacturer also call upon nature to assist him ? Does he not by the assistance of steam-machinery force into his service the weight of the atmosphere, us I, by the use of the plough, take advantage of its humidity ? Is it the cloth-manufacturer who RAW MATERIAL. 14:^ has created the laws of gravitation, transmission of forces and of affinities ? The Petitioners. — Well, well, we will give up wool, but assuredly coal is the work, the exclusive work, of nature. This, at least, is independent of all human labor. Mr. de St. Cricq. — Yes, nature certainly has made coal ; but labor has made its value. Where was the value of coal during the millions of years when it lay unknown and buried a hundred feet below the sur- face 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.* We see that, so far, all the advantage is on the side of Mr. de St. Cricq', and that the value of un- manufactured as of manufactured articles, represents always the expense, or what is the same thing, the labor of production ; that "it is impossible to con- ceive of an article bearing a value, independent of * I do not, for many reasons, make explicit mention of such portion of the remuneration as belongs to the contractor, capitalist, etc. Firstly : because, if the subject be closely looked into, it will be seen that it is always either the reimbursing in advance, or the payment of anterior labor. Secondly : because, under the general labor, I include not only the salary of the workmen, but the legitimate payment of all co-operation in the work of production. Thirdly : finally, and above all. because the produc- tion of the manufactured articles is, like that of the raw material, bur- dened with interests and remunerations, entirely independent of manual labor ; and that the objection, in itself, might be equally applied to £«ie finest manufacture and to the roughest agricultural process. 144 S0PHISM8 OF PROTECTION. human labor; that the distinction made by the petitioners is futile in theory, and, as the basis of an unequal division of favors, would be iniquitous in practice ; for it would thence result that the one third of the French occupied in manufactures, would receive all the benefits of monopoly, because they produce by labor; while the two other thirds, formed by the agricultural population, would be left to struggle against competition, under pretence that they produce without labor. It will, I know, be insisted that it is advanta- geous 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 gen- erally received opinion. " In proportion," says the petition of Bordeaux, " as raw material is abundant, manufactures will increase and flourish." " The abundance of raw material," it elsewhere says, "gives an unlimited scope to labor in those countries where it prevails." " Kaw material," says the petition from Havre, " being the element of labor, should be regulated on a different system, and ought to be admitted immediately and at the lowest rate." The same petition asks, that the protection of manufactured articles should be reduced, not imme- diately., but at some indeterminate time, not to the lowest rate of entrance, but to twenty per cent. RAW MATERIAL. 145 "Among other articles," says the petition of Lyons, " of which the low price and the abundance are necessary, the manufacturers name all raw material. ' ' All this is based upon error. All value is, we have seen, the representative of labor. Now it is undoubtedly true that manufact- uring labor increases tenfold, a hundredfold, the value of raw material, thus dispensing ten, a hun- dredfold increased profits throughout the nation ; and from this fact is deduced the following argu- ment : The production of a hundred weight ot 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 fif- teen francs' worth of labor ? In this reasoning it is forgotten, that international exchanges are, no more than individual exchanges, effected through weight and measure. The ex- change is not between a hundred weight of unman- ufactured iron, and a hundred weight of watch- springs, nor between a pound of wool just shorn, and a pound of wool just manufactured into cash- mere, 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 ex M(> SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. change equal labor with equal labor, and it is there- fore not true that the nation which sells its hundred francs' worth of cloth or of watch-springs gains more than the one which furnishes its hundred francs' worth of wool or of iron. In a country where no law can be passed, no contribution imposed without the consent of the governed, the public can be robbed, only after it has first been cheated. Our own ignorance is the primary, the raw material of every act of extortion to which we are subjected, and it may safely be predicted of every Sophism, that it is the forerunner of an act of Spoliation. Good Public, whenever therefore you detect a Sophism in a petition, let me advise you, put your hand upon your pocket, for be assured, it is that which is particularly the point of attack. Let us then examine what is the secret design which the ship-owners of Bordeaux and Havre, and the manufacturers of Lyons, w r ould smuggle in upon us by this distinction between agricultural produce and manufactured produce. " It is, " say the petitioners of Bordeaux, " prin- cipally in this first class (that which comprehends raw material, untouched by human labor) that we find the principal encouragement of our merchant vessels A wise system of political econ- omy would require that this class should not be taxed The second class (articles which RAW MATERIAL. 147 have received some preparation) may be considered as taxable. The third (articles which have received from labor all the finish ol which they are capable) we regard as mod proper for taxation." 11 Considering," say the petitioners of Havre, u that it is indispensable to reduce immediately and to the toioest rate, the raw material, in order that manufacturing industry may give employment to our merchant vessels, which furnish its first and in- dispensable means of labor." The manufacturers could not allow themselves to be behindhand m civilities toward 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 manu- facturing towns are not opposed to those of mari- time cities. " This may be true enough ; but it must be con- fessed that both, taken in the sense of the petition- ers, are terribly adverse to the interest of agricult- ure and of consumers. This, then, gentlemen, is the aim of all your subtle distinctions ! You wish the law to oppose the maritime transportation of manufactured arti- cles, in order that the much more expensive trans- portation of the raw material should, by its larger bulk, in its rough, dirty, and unimproved condi- tion, furnish a more extensive business to your merchant vessels. And this is what you call a wise system of political economy ! 148 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. Why not also petition for a law requiring that fir-trees, imported from Russia, should not be admit- ted without their branches, bark, and roots ; that Mexican gold should be imported in the state of ore, and Buenos Ayres leathers only allowed an entrance into our ports, while still hanging to the dead bones and putrefying bodies to which they belong ? The stockholders ot railroads, if they can obtain a majority in the Chambers, will no doubt soOn favor us with a law forbidding the manufacture, at Cognac, of the brandy used in Paris. For, surely, they would consider it a wise law, which would, by forcing the transportation of ten casks of wine instead of one of brandy, thus furnish to Parisian industry an indispensable encouragement to its labor, and at the same time give employment to railroad locomotives ! Until when will we persist in shutting our eyes upon the following simple truth ? Labor and industry, in their general object, have but one legitimate aim, and this is the public good. To create useless industrial pursuits, to favor super, fluous 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 jpetitio principii. For it is the result of labor, and not labor itself, which is a desirable object. All labor, without a result, is clear loss. To pay sailors for transporting rough dirt and filthy refuse across the METAPHORS. 149 ocean is about as reasonable as it would be to en- gage their services, and pay them for pelting the water with pebbles. Thus we arrive at the conclu- sion that political Sophisms, notwithstanding their infinite variety, have one point in common, which is the constant confounding of the means with the end, and the development of the former at the ex- pense of the latter. XXII. METAPHORS. A Sophism will sometimes expand and extend itself through the whole tissue of a long and tedious theory. Oftener it contrasts into a principle, and hides itself in one word. " Heaven preserve us," said Paul Louis, " from the Devil and from the spirit of metaphor !" And, truly, it might be difficult to determine which of the two sheds the most noxious influence over our planet. The Devil, you will say, because it is he who implants in our hearts the spirit of spoliation. Ay ; but he leaves the capacity for checking abuses, by the resistance of those who suffer. It ; s the genius of Sophism which paralyzes this resist ance. The sword which the spirit of evil places in the hands of the aggressor would fall powerless, 150 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION - . if the shield of him who is attacked were not shat- tered in his grasp by the spirit of Sophism. Male- branche has, with great truth, inscribed upon the frontispiece of his book this sentence : Error is the cause of human misery. Let us notice what passes in the world. Ambi- tious hypocrites may take a sinister interest in spreading, for instance, the germ of national enmi- ties. The noxious seed may, in its developments, lead to a general conflagration, check civilization, spill torrents of blood, and draw upon the country that most terrible of scourges, invasion. Such hateful sentiments cannot fail to degrade, in the opinion of other nations, the people among whom they prevail, and force those who retain some love of justice to blush for their county. These are fearful evils, and it would be enough that the pub- lic should have a clear view of them, to induce them to secure themselves' against the plotting of those who would expose them to such heavy chances. How, then, are they kept in darkness ? How, but by metaphors ? The meaning of three or four words is forced, changed, and depraved — and all is said. Such is the use made, for instance, of the word invasion. A master of French iron -works exclaims : Save us from the invasion of English iron. An English landholder cries : Let us oppose the invasion of METAPHORS. 151 French corn. And forthwith all their efforts are bent upon raising barriers between these two nations. Thence follows isolation ; isolation leads to hatred ; hatred to war ; and war to invasion. What mat ters it ? say the two Sophists ; is it not better to expose ourselves to a possible invasion, than to meet a certain one ? And the people believe ; and the barriers are kept up. And yet what analogy can exist between an exchange and an invasion ? What resemblance can possibly be discovered between a man-of-war, vomiting fire, death, and desolation over our cities — and a merchant vessel, which comes to offer in free and peaceable exchange, produce for produce ? Much in the same way has the word inundation been abused. This word is generally taken in a bad sense ; and it is certainly of frequent occur- rence for inundations to ruin fields and sweep away harvests. But if, as is the case in the inundations of the Nile, they were to leave upon the soil a superior value to that which they carried away, we ought, like the Egyptians, to bless and deify them. Would it not be well, before declaiming against the inundations of foreign produce, ^ncTcnecking thei^iA with expensive and embarrassing obstacles, to' cer- tify 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, 152 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. (lams aci oS the Nile to increase the extent of its inundations, he were to scatter his piasters in at- tempts to deepen its bed, that he might rescue Egypt from the defilement of the foreign, mud which is swept down upon it from the Mountains of the Moon ? Exactly such a degree of wisdom do we exhibit, when at the expense of millions, we strive to preserve our country .... From what ? From the blessings with which Nature has gifted other climates. Among the metaphors which sometimes conceal, each in itself, a whole theory of evil, there is none more common than that which is presented under the words tribute and tributary. These words are so frequently employed as syno- nyms of purchase and purchaser, that the terms are now used almost indifferently. And yet there is as distinct a difference between a tribute and a pur- chase, as between a robbery and an exchange. It appears to me that it would be quite as correct to say, Cartouche has broken open my strong box, and has bought a thousand crowns from me. as to state, as I have heard done to our honorable dep- uties, We have paid in tribute to Germany the value of a thousand horses which she has sold ns. The action of Cartouche was not a purchase, because he did not put, and with my consent, into my strong box an equivalent value to that which METAPHORS. 153 he took out. Neither could the purchase-money paid to Germany be tribute, because it was not on our part a forced payment, gratuitously received on hers, but a willing compensation from us for a thousand horses, which we ourselves judged to be worth 500,000 francs. Is it necessary then seriously to criticise such abuses of language ? Yes, for very seriously are they put forth in our books and journals. Nor can we natter ourselves that they are the careless ex- pressions of uneducated writers, ignorant even of the terms of their own language. They are cur- rent with a vast majority, and among the most dis- tinguished of our writers. We find them in the mouths of our d'Argouts, Dnpins, Villeles ; of peers, deputies, and ministers ; men whose words become laws, and whose influence might establish the most revolting Sophisms, as the basis of the administration of their country. A celebrated modern Philosopher has added to the categories of Aristotle the Sophism which con- sists in expressing in one word a petitio pmncipii. He cites several examples, and might have added the word tributary to his nomenclature. For instance, the question is to determine whether foreign purchases are useful or hurtful. You answer, hurtful. And why '( Because they ren- der us tributary to foreigners. Truly here is a word which begs the question at once. 154 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. How lias this delusive figure of speech intro- duced itself into the rhetoric of monopolists ? Money is withdrawn from the country to satisfy the rapacity of a victorious enemy : money is also withdrawn from the country to pay for merchan- dise. The analogy is established between the two cases, calculating only the point of resemblance and abstracting that by which they differ. And yet it is certainly true, that the non-reim- bursement 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 cate- gory. To be obliged, with a dagger at your throat, to give a hundred francs, or to give them willingly in order to obtain a desired object — truly these are cases in which we can perceive little similarity. It might just as correctly be said, that it is a matter of indifference, whether we eat our bread, or have it thrown into the water, because in both cases it is destroyed. We here draw a false conclusion, as in the case of the word tribute, by a vicious manner of reasoning, which supposes an entire similitude between two cases, their resemblance only being noticed and their difference suppressed. CONCLUSION. 155 CONCLUSION. All the Sophisms which 1 have so far com- bated, relate to the restrictive policy ; and some even on this subject, and those of the most remark- able, I have, in pity to the reader, passed over : acquired rights; unsuitableness / exhaustion of money, etc., etc. But social economy is not confined within this narrow circle. Fourierism, Saint Simonism, Com- monism, agrarianism, anti-rentism, mysticism, sen- timentalism, false philanthropy, affected aspirations for a chimerical equality and fraternity ; questions relative to luxury, wages, machinery ; to the pre- tended tyranny ot capital ; to colonies, outlets, population ; to emigration, association, imposts, and loans, have encumbered the field of Science with a crowd of parasitical arguments — Sophisms, whose rank growth calls for the spade and the weeding -hoe. i am pertectly 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 1 condemn myself to a disor- derly and capricious struggle, and am exposed to perpetual repetitions. 156 80PHI8M8 OF PROTECTION. 1 should certainly much prefer to state simply how things are, without troubling myself to contem- plate the thousand aspects under which ignorance supposes them to he . . . To lay down at once the laws under which society prospers or perishes, would be virtually to destroy at once all Sophisms. When Laplace described what, up to his tune, was known of the movements of celestial bodies, he dis- sipated, without even naming them, all the astro- logical reveries of the Egyptians, Greeks, and Hin- doos, much more certainly than he could have done by attempting to refute them directly, through in- numerable volumes. Truth is one, and the work which expounds it is an imposing and durable edi- fice. Error is multiple, and of ephemeral nature. The work which combats it, cannot bear m itself a principle of greatness or of durability. But if power and perhaps opportunity have been wanting to me, to enable me to proceed in the manner of Laplace and of Say, 1 still cannot but believe that the mode adopted by me has also its modest usefulness. It appears to me likewise to be well suited to the wants of the age, and to the broken moments which it is now the habit to snatch for study. A treatise lias without doubt an incontestable superiority. But it requires to be read, meditated, and understood. It addresses itself to the select CONCLUSION. 157 few. Its mission is first to fix attention, and then to enlarge the circle of acquired knowledge. A work which undertakes the refutation of vul- gar 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 rec- tify public opinion, and to snatch from unworthy hands dangerous weapons which they misuse. It is, above all, in social economy, that this hand- to-hand struggle, this ever-reviving combat with popular errors, has a true practical utility. Sciences might be arranged in two categories. Those of the first class, whose application belongs only to particular professions, can be understood only by the learned ; but the most ignorant may profit by their fruits. We may enjoy the comforts of a watch ; we may be transported by locomotives or steamboats, although knowing nothing of mechan- ism and astronomy. We walk according to the laws of equilibrium, while entirely ignorant of them. But there are sciences whose influence upon the public is proportioned only to the information of that public itself, and whose efficacy consists not in the accumulated knowledge of some few learned heads, but in that which has diffused itself into the reason of man in the aggregate. Such are morals, hygiene, social economy, and (in countries where 158 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. men belong to themselves) political economy. Of these sciences Bentham might above all have said : " It is better to circulate, than to advance them." What does it profit us that a great man, even a God, should promulgate moral laws, if the minds of men, steeped in error, will constantly mistake vice for virtue, and virtue for vice ? What does it benefit us that Smith, Say, and, according to Mr. de St. Chamans, political economists of every school, should have proclaimed the superiority, in all com- mercial transactions, of liberty above restraint , if those who make laws, and for whom laws are made, are convinced of the contrary ? These sciences, which have very properly been named social, are again peculiar in this, that they, being of common application, no one will confess himself ignorant of them. If the object be to determine a question in chemistry or geometry, nobody pretends to have an innate knowledge of the science, or is ashamed to consult Mr. Thenard, or to seek information from the pages of Legendre or Bezout. But in the social sciences authorities are rarely acknowledged. As each individual daily acts upon his own notions whether right or wrong, of morals, hygiene, and economy ; of politics, whether reasonable or absurd, each one thinks he has a right to prose, comment, decide, and dictate in these matters. Are you sick ? There is not a good old woman in the country who is not ready CONCLUSION. 159 to tell you the cause and the remedy for your suf- ferings. " It is from humors in the blood," says she ; ' ; you must be purged. ' ' But what are these humors, or are there any humors at all ? On this subject she troubles herself but little. This good old woman comes into my mind, whenever I hear an attempt made to account for all the maladies of the social body, by some trivial form of words. It is superabundance of produce, tyranny of capital, industrial plethora, or other such nonsense, of which, it would be fortunate if we could say : Verba et voces prcetereaque nihil, for these are errors from which fatal consequences follow. From what precedes, the two following results may be deduced : 1st. That the social sciences, more than others, necessarily abound in Sophisms, because in their application, each individual con- sults only his own judgment and his own instincts. 2d. That in these sciences Sophisms are especially injurious, because they mislead opinion on a sub- ject in which opinion is power — is law. Two kinds of books then are necessary in these sciences, those which teach, and those which circu- late ; those which expound the truth, and those which combat error. I believe that the inherent defect of this little work, repetition, is what is likely to be the cause of its principal utility. Among the Sophisms which it has discussed, each has undoiibtedly its own for- 160 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. inula and tendency, but all have a common root ; and this is, the forgetfxdness of the interests of men, considered as consuiners. By showing that a thou- sand mistaken roads all lead to this great generative Sophism, I may perhaps teach the public to recog- nize, to know, and to mistrust it, under all circum- stances. After all, I am less at forcing convictions, than at waking doubts. I have no hope that the reader as he lays down my book will exclaim, 1 know. My aspirations will be fully satisfied, if he can but sincerely say, 1 doubt. " I doubt, for I begin to fear that there may be something illusory in the supposed blessings of scarcity." (Sophism I.) " I am not so certain of the beneficial effect of obstacles." (Sophism II.) " Effort without result, no longer appears to me so desirable as remit without effort." (Sophism III.) " I understand that the more an article has been labored upon, the more is its value. But in trade, do two equal values cease to be equal, because one comes from the plough, and the other from the workshop ?" (Sophism XXI.) " 1 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 CONCLUSION. 161 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." (Soph- isms XI Y and XX.) " Without, then, giving up entirely to arguments, which I am yet in doubt whether to look upon as fairly reasoned, or as paradoxical, I will at least seek enlightenment from the masters of the science. ' ' 1 will now terminate this sketch by a last and important recapitulation. The world is not sufficiently conscious of the in- fluence exercised over it by Sophistry. When might ceases to he right, and the govern- ment of mere strength is dethroned, Sophistry transfers the empire to cunning and subtilty. It w r ould be difficult to determine which of the two tyrannies is most injurious to mankind. Men have an immoderate love for pleasure, in- fluence, consideration, power — in a word, for riches ; and they are, by an almost unconquerable inclination, pushed to procure these, at the expense of others. But these others, who form the public, have a no less strong inclination to keep what they have ac- quired ; and this they will do, if they have the strength and the knowledge to effect it. 162 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. Spoliation, which plays so important a part In the affairs of this world, has then two agents : Force and Cunning. She has also two checks : Courage and Knowledge. Force applied to spoliation, furnishes the great material for the annals of men. To retrace its his- tory would be to present almost the entire history of every nation : Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Goths, Franks, Huns, Turks, Arabs, Tartars, without counting the more recent expeditions of the English in India, the French in Africa, the Russians in Asia, etc., etc. But among civilized nations surely the producers of riches are now become sufficiently numerous and strong to defend themselves. Does this mean that they are no longer robbed ? They are as much so as ever, and moreover they rob one another. The only difference is that Spoliation has changed her agent. She acts no longer by Force, but by Cunning. To rob the public, it is necessary to deceive them. To deceive them, it is necessary to persuade them that they are robbed for their own advantage, and to induce them to accept in exchange for their property, imaginary services, and often worse. Hence spring Sophisms in all their varieties. Then, since Force is held in check, Sophistry is no longer only an evil ; it is the genius of evil, and re- CONCLUSION. 163 quires a check in its turn. This check must be the enlightenment of the public, which must be ren- dered more subtle than the subtle, as it is already stronger than the strong. Good Public ! I now dedicate to you this first essay ; though it must be confessed that the Pref- ace is strangely transposed, and the Dedication a little tardy. PART II. SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. SECOND SERIES. " The request of Industry to the government is as modest as that of Diogenes to Alexander ; ' Stand out of my sunshine.' "— Bentham. NATURAL HISTORY OF SPOLIATION. Why do I give myself up to that dry science, political economy ? The question is a proper one. All labor is so re- pugnant in its nature that one has the right to ask of what use it is. Let us examine and see. I do not address myself to those philosophers who, if not in their own names, at least in the name of humanity, profess to adore poverty. I speak to those who hold wealth in esteem — and understand by this word, not the opulence of the few, but the comfort, the well-being, the Be- 166 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. curity, the independence, the instruction, the digni- ty of all. There are only two ways by which the means essential to the preservation, the adornment, and the perfection of life may be obtained — production and spoliation. Some persons may say: " Spolia- tion is an accident, a local and transient abuse, de- nounced by morality, punished by the law, and unworthy the attention of political economy." Still, however benevolent or optimistic one may be, he is compelled to admit that spoliation is prac- tised on so vast a scale in this world, and is so gen- erally connected with all great human events, that no social science, and, least of all, political econo- my, can refuse to consider it. I go farther. That which prevents the perfec- tion 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 with- out an object. I go still farther. When spoliation becomes a means of subsistence for a body of men united by social ties, in course of time they make a law which sanctions it, a morality which glorifies it. It is enough to name some of the best defined forms of spoliation to indicate the position it occu- pies in human affairs. NATURAL HISTORY OF SPOLIATION. 167 First comes war. Among savages the conqueror kills the conquered, to obtain an uncontested, if not incontestable, right to game. Next slavery. When man learns that he can make the earth fruitful by labor, he makes this division with his brother : You work, and I eat." Then comes superstition. "According as you give or refuse me that which is yours, I will open to you the gates of heaven or of hell." Finally, monopoly appears. Its distinguishing characteristic is to allow the existence of the grand social law — service fcrr service — while it brings the element of force into the discussion, and thus alters the just proportion between service received and service rendered. Spoliation always bears within itself the germ of its own destruction. Very rarely the many despoil the few. In such a case the latter soon become so reduced that they can no longer satisfy the cupid- ity of the former, and spoliation ceases for want of sustenance. Almost always the few oppress the many, and in that case spoliation is none the less undermined, for, if it has force as an a^ent, 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 nat- ural that the many should ultimately become en- lightened. 168 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. Another law of Providence wars against spolia- tion. It is this : Spoliation not only displaces wealth, but always destroys a portion. War annihilates values. Slavery paralyzes the faculties. Monopoly transfers wealth from one pocket to another, but it always occasions the loss of a por- tion in the transfer. This is an admirable law. Without it, provided the strength of oppressors and oppressed were equal, spoliation would have no end. A moment comes when the destruction of wealth is such that the despoiler is poorer than he w r ould have been if he had remained honest. So it is with a people when a war costs more than the booty is worth ; with a master who pays more for slave labor than for free labor ; with a -priesthood w r hich has so stupefied the people and destroyed its energy that nothing more can be gotten out of it ; with a monopoly which increases its attempts at absorption as there is less to absorb, just as the difficulty of milking increases with the emptiness of the udder. Monopoly is a species of the genus spoliation. It has many varieties, among them sinecure, privilege, and restriction upon trade. Some of 1 the forms it assumes are simple and NATURAL HISTORY OF SPOLIATION. 169 naive, like feudal rights. Under this regime the masses are despoiled, and know it. Other forms are more complicated. Often the masses are plundered, and do not know it. It may even happen that they believe that they owe every- thing to spoliation, not only what is left them, but what is taken from them, and what is lost in the operation. 1 also assert that, in the course of time, thanks to the ingenious machinery of habit, many people become spoilers without knowing it or wish- ing it. Monopolies of this kind are begotten by fraud and nurtured by error. They vanish only before the light. I have said enough to indicate that political econ- omy has a manifest practical use. It is the torch which, unveiling deceit and dissipating error, de- stroys that social disorder called spoliation. Some one, a woman I believe, has correctly defined it as '* the safety-lock upon the property of the people. " COMMENTARY. If this little book were destined to live three or four thousand years, to be read and re-read, pon- dered 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, explana- tions, and paraphrases, I might leave to their fate, 170 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. in their rather obscure conciseness, the thoughts which precede. But since they need a commentary, it seems wise to me to furnish it myself. The true and equitable law of humanity is the free exchange of service for service. Spoliation con- sists in destroying by force or by trickery the free- dom of exchange, in order to receive a service with- out rendering one. Forcible spoliation is exercised thus : Wait till a man has produced something ; then take it from him by violence. It is solemnly condemned by the Decalogue : Thou shalt not steal. When practised by one individual on another, ift is called robbery, and leads to the prison ; when practised among nations, it takes the name ot con- ' \ y quest, and leads to glory. * Why this difference '( It is worth while to search for the cause. It will reveal to us an irresistible power, public opinion, which, like the atmosphere, envelopes us so completely that we do not notice it. Rousseau never said a truer thing than this: " A great deal of philosophy is needed to understand the facts which are very near to us." i The robber, for the reason that he acts alone, has public opinion against him. fle terrifies all who are about him. Yet, it he has companions, he plumes himself beiore them on his exploits, and here we may begin to notice the power of public NATURAL HISTORY OF SPOLIATION. 171 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 dan- gers needs to stimulate the courage of its children. To the most daring, to those who have enlarged the frontiers, and gathered the spoils of war, are given honors, reputation, glory. Poets sing their exploits. Fair women weave garlands for them. And such is the power of public opinion that it separates the idea of injustice from spoliation, and even rids the despoiler of the consciousness of his wrong- doing. "The public opinion which reacts against military spoliation (as it exists among the conquered and not among the conquering people) has very little in- fluence. But it is not entirely powerless. It gains in strength as nations come together and understand one another better. Thus, it can be seen that the study of languages and the free communication of peoples tend to bring about the supremacy of an opinion opposed to this sort of spoliation. Unfortunately, it often happens that the nations 172 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. adjacent to a plundering people are themselves spoilers when opportunity offers, and hence are im- bued with the same prejudices. Then there is only one remedy — time. It is ne- cessary that nations learn by harsh experience the enormous disadvantage of despoiling each other. You say there is another restraint— moral influ- ences. But moral influences have for their object the increase of virtuous actions. How can they re- strain these acts of spoliation when these very acts are raised by public opinion to the level ot the high- est virtues 'i Is there a more potent moral influence than religion ? Has there ever been a religion more favorable to peace or more universally received than Christianity ? And yet what has been witnessed during eighteen centuries ? Men have gone out to battle, not merely in spite of religion, but in the very name of religion. A conquering nation does not always wage offen- sive war. Its soldiers are obliged to protect the hearthstones, the property, the families, the in- dependence, 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 NATURAL HISTORY OF SPOLIATION. 173 that spirit of vengeance which confounds itself with patriotism, they love to bear the cherished flag from capital to capital. It seems that nature has thus prepared the punishment of the aggressor. It is the fear of this punishment, and not the progress of philosophy, which keeps arms in the arsenals, for it cannot be denied that those people who are most advanced in civilization make war, and bother themselves very little with justice when they have no reprisals to tear. Witness the Himalayas, the Atlas, and the Caucasus. If religion has been impotent, if philosophy is powerless, how is war to cease ? Political economy demonstrates that even if the victors alone are considered, war is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many. All that is needed, then, is that the masses should clearly perceive this truth. The weight of public opinion, which is yet divided, would then be cast entirely on the side of peace. Forcible spoliation also takes another form. With- out 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 ]iim to work. They do not say to him, " If you will do this for me, 1 will do that for you," but they say to him, " You take all the troubles, we all the enjoy- ments." This is slavery. Now it is important to inquire whether it is not in 174 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. the nature of uncontrolled power always to abuse itself. For my part I have no doubt of it, and should as soon expect to see the power that could arrest a stone in falling proceed from the stone itself, as to trust force within any defined limits. I should like to be shown a country where slavery has been abolished by the voluntary action of the masters. Slavery furnishes a second striking example of the impotence of philosophical and religious senti- ments in a conflict with the energetic activity of self-interest. This may seem sad to some modern schools which seek the reformation of society in self-denial. Let them begin by reforming the nature of man. In the Antilles the masters, from father to son, have, since slavery was established, professed the Christian religion. Many times a day they repeat these words: "All men are brothers. Love thy neighbor as thyself ; in this are the law and the prophets fulfilled. " Yet they hold slaves, and noth- ing seems to them more legitimate or natural. Do modern reformers hope that their moral creed will ever be as universally accepted, as popular, as authoritative, or as often on all lips as the Gospel ? If that has not passed from the lips to the heart, over or through the great barrier of self-interest, how can they hope that their system will work this miracle ? NATURAL HISTORY OF SPOLIATION. 175 Well, then, is slavery invulnerable ? No ; self- interest, which founded it, will one day destroy it, provided the special interests which have created it do not stifle those general interests which tend to overthrow it. Another truth demonstrated by political economy is, that free labor is progressive, and slave labor stationary. Hence the triumph of the first over the second is inevitable. What has become of the cul- tivation of indigo by the blacks ? Free labor, applied to the production of sugar, is constantly causing a reduction in the price. Slave property is becoming proportionately less valuable to the master. Slavery will soon die out in America unless the price of sugar is artificially raised by legis- lation. Accordingly, we see to-day the masters, their creditors and representatives, making vigorous ef- forts to maintain these laws, which are the pillars of the edifice. Unfortunately they still have the sympathy of people among whom slavery has disappeared, from which circumstance the sovereignty of public opin- ion 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 cre- dulity on the part of the despoiled, and the natural artidote cf credulity is truth. It follows that to 176 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. enlighten the mind is to deprive this species of spo- liation ot its support. 1 will briefly pass in review a lew of the different kinds of spoliation which are practised on an exceedingly large scale. The first which presents it- self is spoliation through the avenue of superstition. It what does it consist ? In the exchange of food, clothing, luxury, distinction, influence, power — sub- stantial services for fictitious services. If I tell a man : l * 1 will render you an immediate service," I am obliged to keep my word, or he would soon know what to depend upon, and my trickery would be unmasked. But if 1 should tell him, li In exchange for your services 1 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 ; 1 am a vicar between God and man, and can open to you the gates of heaven or of hell ;" if that man believes me he is at my mercy. This method of imposture has been very exten- sively practised since the beginning of the world, and it is well known to what omnipotence the Egyptian priests attained by such means. It is easy to see how impostors proceed. It is enough to ask one's self what he would do in their place. If I, entertaining views of this kind, had arrivea NATURAL HISTORY OF SPOLIATION. 177 in the midst of an ignorant population, and were to succeed by some extraordinary act or marvellous appearance in passing myself off as a supernatural being, I would claim to be a messenger from God, having an absolute control over the future destinies of men. Then I would forbid all examination of my claims. I would go still further, and, as reason would be my most dangerous enemy, I would inter- dict the use of reason — at least as applied to this dangerous subject. 1 would taboo, as the savages say, this question, and all those connected with it. To agitate them, discuss them, or even think of them, should be an unpardonable crime. Certainly it would be the acme of art thus to put the barrier of the taboo upon all intellectual avenues which might lead to the discovery of my imposture. AYhat better guarantee of its perpetuity than to make even doubt sacrilege ? However, I would add accessory guarantees to this fundamental one. For instance, in order that knowl- edge might never be disseminated among the masses, I would appropriate to myself and my accom- plices the monopoly of the sciences. I would hide them under the veil of a dead language and hiero- glyphic 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. 178 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. 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 w T ould proclaim that one could not exist without the other, so that if any audacious individual attempted to meddle with a tabooed question, society, which cannot exist without morality, would feel the very earth tremble under its feet, and would turn its wrath upon the rash innovator. When things have come to this pass, it is plain that these people are more mine than if they were my slaves. The slave curses his chain, but my people will bless theirs, and I shall succeed in stamping, not on their foreheads, but in the very centre of their consciences, the seal of slavery. Public opinion alone can overturn such a struct- ure of iniquity ; but where can it begin, if each stone is tabooed f It is the work of time and the printing-press. God forbid that I should seek to disturb those consoling beliefs which link this life of sorrows to a life of felicity. But, that the irresistible longing which attracts us toward religion has been abused, no one, not even the Head of Christianity, can deny. NATURAL HISTORY OF SPOLIATION. 170 There is, it seems to me, one sign by which you can know whether the people are or are not dupes. Examine religion and the priest, and see whether the priest is the instrument of religion, or religion the instrument of the priest. If the priest is the instrument of religion, if his only thought is to disseminate its morality and its benefits on the earth, he will be^gentle, tolerant, humble, charitable, and full of zeal ; his life will reflect that of his divine model ; he will preach liberty and equality among men, and peace and fra- ternity among nations ; he will repel the allurements of temporal power, and will not ally himself with that which, of all things in this world, has the most need of restraint ; he will be the man of the people, the man of good advice and tender consolations, the man of public opinion, the man of the Evangelist. If, on the contrary, religion is the instrument of the priest, he will treat it as one does an instru- ment which is changed, bent and twisted in all ways so as to get out of it the greatest possible advantage for one's self. He will multiply tabooed questions ; his morality will be as flexible as seasons, men, and circumstances. He will seek to impose on humanity by gesticulations and studied attitudes ; an hundred times a day he will mumble over words whose sense has evaporated and which have become empty con- ventionalities. He will traffic in holy things, but just enough not to shake faith in their sanctity, 180 80PHISM8 ok im:oti-;K PROTECTION. —It is a damnable fraud ! What ! A fool goes into a silly enterprise, lie spends his money, and if he extorts from me wine or grain enough to make good his losses, and even to make him a profit, he calls it a general gain ! — Your representative having come to that conclu- sion, all you have to do is to give me the six hogs- heads of wine, and sell the fourteen that I leave you for as much as possible. — That is my business. — For, you see, it would be very annoying if you did not get a good price for them. — I will think of it. — For there are many things which the money you receive must procure. — 1 know it, sir. 1 know it. — In the first place, if you buy iron to renew your spades and ploughshares, a law declares that you must pay the ironmaster twice what it was worth. — Ah, yes ; does not the same thing happen in the Black Forest ? — Then, if you need oil, meat, cloth, coal, wool, and sugar, each one by the law will cost you twice what it is worth. — But this is horrible, frightful, abominable. — What is the use of these hard words ? Yon yourself, through your authorized agent — — Leave me alone with my authorized agent. 1 UTOPIAN IDEAS. 261 made a very strange disposition of my vote, it is true. But they shall deceive me no more, and I will be represented by some good and honest countryman. — Bah, you will re-elect the worthy General. I ? I re-elect the General to give away my wine to Africans and manufacturers ? - — You will re-elect him, I say. — That is a little too much. I will not re-elect him, if I do not want to. — But you will want to, and you will re-elect him. Let him •come here and try. He will see who he will have to settle with. We shall see. Good-by. I take away your six hogsheads, and will proceed to divide them as the General has directed. XI. UTOPIAN IDEAS. If I were His Majesty's Minister ! — Well, what would you do ? — I should begin by — by — upon my word, by being very much embarrassed. For I should be Minister only because I had the majority, and I 2C>2 SOPHISMS OF" PROTECTION. sliould 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 under- take to carry out my ideas and to run counter to its ideas, I shall not have the majority, and if I do not, I cannot be His Majesty's Minister. —Just imagine that you are so, and that conse- quently the majority is not opposed to you, what would you do ? — I would look to see on which side justice is. —And then ? ■ — I would seek to find where utility was. —What next ? — I would see whether they agreed, or were in conflict with one another. — -And if you found they did not agree ? — I would say to the King, take back your port- folio. — But suppose you see that justice and utility are one ? — Then I will go straight ahead. — Very well, but to realize utility by justice, a third thing is necessary. —What is that ? — Possibility. — You conceded that. —When ? — Just now. —How? UTOPIAN IDEAS. 263 — By giving me the majority. — It seems to me that the concession was rather hazardous, for it implies that the majority clearly sees what is just, clearly sees what is useful, and clearly sees that these things are in perfect accord. — And if it sees this clearly, the good will, so to speak, do itself. — This is the point to which you are constantly bringing me — to see a possibility of reform only in the progress of the general intelligence. — By this progress all reform is infallible. — Certainly. But this preliminary progress takes time. Let us suppose it accomplished. What will you do ? for I am eager to see you at work, doing, practising. — I should begin by reducing letter postage to ten centimes. — I heard you speak of five, once. — Yes ; but as I have other reforms in view, I must move with prudence, to avoid a deficit in the revenues. — Prudence ? This leaves you with a deficit of thirty millions. — Then I will reduce the salt tax to ten francs. — Good ! Here is another deficit of thirty mill- ions. Doubtless you have invented some new tax. — Heaven forbid ! Besides, I do not flatter my- self that I have an inventive mind. — It is necessary, however. Oh, I have it 2P)4 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. What was 1 thinking of ? You are simply going to diminish the expense. I did not think of that. — You are not the only one. I shall come to that ; but 1 do not count on it at present. — What ! you diminish the receipts, without les- sening expenses, and you avoid a deficit ? — Yes, by diminishing other taxes at the same time. (Here the interlocutor, putting the index finger of his right.hand on his forehead, shook his head, which may be translated thus : He is rambling ter- ribly.) — Well, upon my word, this is ingenious. I pay the Treasury a hundred francs ; you relieve me of five francs on salt, five on postage ; and in order that the Treasury may nevertheless receive one hundred francs, you relieve me of ten on some other tax ? — Precisely ; you understand me. — How can it be true ? I am not even sure that 1 have heard you. — I repeat that I balance one remission of taxes by another. — 1 have a little time to give, and I should like to hear you expound this paradox. — Here is the whole mystery : I know a tax which costs you twenty francs, not a sou of which gets to the Treasury. 1 relieve you of half of it, and make the other half take its proper destination. — You are an unequalled financier. There is but UTOPIAN IDEAS. 265 jne difficulty. What tax, if you please, do I pay, wliich does not go to the Treasury ? — How much does this suit of clothes cost you ? — A hundred francs. — How much would it have cost you if you had gotten the cloth from Belgium ? — Eighty francs. — Then why did you not get it there ? — Because it is prohibited. —Why ? — So that the suit may cost me one hundred francs instead of eighty. — This denial, then, costs you twenty francs ? — Undoubtedly. — And where do these twenty francs go ? — Where do they go ? To the manufacturer of the cloth. — Well, give me ten francs foi the Treasury, and I will remove the restriction, and you will gain ten francs. — Oh, I begin to see. The treasury account shows that it loses five francs on postage and five on salt, and gains ten on cloth. That is even. — Your account is — you gain five francs on salt, five on postage, and ten on cloth. — Total, twenty francs. This is satisfactory enough. But what becomes of the poor cloth manufacturer ? — Oh, I have thought of him. I have secured SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. compensation for him by means of the tax reduc- tions which are so profitable to the Treasury. What I have done for you as regards cloth, I do for him in regard to wool, coal, machinery, etc., so that he can lower his price without loss. — But are you sure that will be an equivalent ? — The balance will be in his favor. The twenty francs that you gain on the cloth will be multiplied by those which I will save for you on grain, meat, fuel, etc. This will amount to a large sum, and each one of your 35,000,000 fellow-citizens will save the same way. There will be enough to con- sume the cloths of both Belgium and France. The nation will be better clothed ; that is all. — I will think on this, for it is somewhat con- fused in my head. — After all, as far as clothes go, the main thing is to be clothed. Your limbs are your own, and not the manufacturer's. To shield them from cold is your business, and not his. If the law takes sides for him against you, the law is unjust, and you al- lowed me to reason on the hypothesis that what is unjust is hurtful. — Perhaps I admitted too much ; but go on and explain your financial plan. — Then 1 will make a tariff. — In two folio volumes ? — No, in two sections. —Then they will no longer say that this famous UTOPIAN IDEAS. 267 axiom, " No one is supposed to be ignorant of the law," is a fiction. Let us see your tariff. — Here it is : Section First. All imports shall pay an ad valorem tax of five per cent. — Even raw materials ? — Unless they are worthless. — But they all have value, much or little. —Then they will pay much or little. — How can our manufactories compete with for- eign ones which have these raw materials free ? — The expenses of the State being certain, if we close this source of revenue we must open another ; this will not diminish the relative inferiority of our manufactories, and there will be one bureau more to organize and pay. — That is true ; I reasoned as if the tax was to be annulled, not changed. 1 will reflect on this. What is your second section ? — Section Second. All exports shall pay an ad valorem tax of five per cent. — Merciful Heavens, Mr. Utopist ! You will certainly be stoned, and, if it comes to that, I will throw the first one. — We agreed that the majority were enlightened. — Enlightened ! Can you claim that an export duty is not onerous ? — All taxes are onerous, but this is less so than others. — The carnival justifies many eccentricities. Be 268 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. so kind as to make tins new paradox appear spe- cious, if you can. — How mucli did you pay for this wine ? — A franc per quart. — How much would you have paid outside the city gates ? — Fifty centimes. — Why this difference ? — Ask the octroi * which added ten sous to it- — Who established the octroi f — The municipality of Paris, in order to pave and light the streets. — This is, then, an import duty. But if the neighboring country districts had established this octroi for their profit, what would happen ? — I should none the less pay a franc for wine worth only fifty centimes, and the other fifty cen- times would pave and light Montmartre and the Batignolles. — So that really it is the consumer who pays the tax? — There is no doubt of that. — -Then by taxing exports you make foreigners help pay your expenses, f * The entrance duty levied at the pates of French towns. t I understand M. Bastiat to mean merely that export duties are not necessarily more onerous than import duties. The statement that all taxea 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 UTOPIAN IDEAS. 209 — I find you at fault, this is not justice. — Why not ? In order to secure the production of any one thing, there must be instruction, security, roads, and other costly things in the country. Why shall not the foreigner who is to consume this prod- uct, bear the charges its production necessitates ? — This is contrary to received ideas. — Not the least in the world. The last purchaser must repay all the direct and indirect expenses of production. — No matter what you say, it is plain that such a measure would paralyze commerce, and cut off all exports. — -That is an illusion. If you were to pay this tax besides all the others, you would be right. But if the hundred millions raised in this way re- lieve you of other taxes to the same amount, you go into foreign markets with all your advantages, and even with more, if this duty has occasioned less embarrassment and expense. — I will reflect on this. So now the salt, postage, and customs are regulated. Is all ended there ? — 1 am just beginning. — Pray, initiate me in your Utopian ideas. — I have lost sixty millions on salt and postage. I shall regain them through the customs ; which also gives me something more precious. it is only when the additional cost does not lessen the demand, or induce tLe foreigner to produce the same article.— 'Translator. 270 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. — What, pray ? — International relations founded on justice, and a probability of peace which is equivalent to a cer- tainty. 1 will disband the army. — The whole army ? — Except special branches, which will be volun- tarily recruited, like all other professions. You see, conscription is abolished.. — Sir, you should say recruiting. — Ah, I forgot, I cannot help admiring the ease with which, in certain countries, the most unpopu- lar things are perpetuated by giving them other names. — Like consolidated duties, which have become indirect contributions. — And the gendarmes, who have taken the name of municipal guards. — In short, trusting to Utopia, you disarm the country. — I said that I would muster out the army, not that I would disarm the country. I intend, on the contrary, to give it invincible power. — How do you harmonize this mass of contradic- tions ? — I call all the citizens to service. — Is it worth while to relieve a portion from ser- vice in order to call out everybody ? — You did not make me Minister in order that I should leave things as they are. Thus, on my ad- UTOPIAN IDEAS. 271 vent 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 adminis- tration, is this : Every citizen must know two things — how to earn his own living, and defend his country. — It seems to me, at the first glance, that there is a spark of good sense in this. — Consequently, I base the national defence on a law consisting of two sections. Section First. Every able-bodied citizen, without exceptufa, shall be under arms for four years, from his twenty-first to his twenty- fifth year, in order to receive military instruction. — This is pretty economy ! You send home four hundred thousand soldiers and call out ten millions. — Listen to my second section : Sec. 2. Unlets he proves, at the age of twenty- one, that he knows the school of the soldier per- fectly. — I did not expect this turn. It is certain that to avoid four years' service, there will be a great emulation among our youth, to learn by the right flank and double quick, march. The idea is odd. — It is better than that. For without grieving families and offending equality, does it not assure the country, in a simple and inexpensive manner, of ten million defenders, capable of defying a coali- tion of all the standing armies of the globe ? 272 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. — Truly, if I were not on my guard, I should end in getting interested in your fancies. The Utopist, getting excited : Thank Heaven, my estimates are relieved of a hundred millions ! I suppress the octroi. I refund indirect contribu- tions. I — Getting more and more excited : I will proclaim religious freedom and free instruction. There shall be new resources. I will buy the railroads, pay off the public debt, and starve out the stock-gamblers. — My dear Utopist ! — Freed from too numerous cares, I will concen- trate all the resources of the government on the re- pression of fraud, the administration of prompt and even-handed justice. 1 — — My dear Utopist, you attempt too much. The nation will not follow you. — You gave me the majority. — T take it back. — Very well ; then I am no longer Minister ; but my plans remain what they are — Utopian ideas. THE THREE ALDERMEN. 273 XII. SALT, POSTAGE, AND CUSTOMS. [This chapter is an amusing dialogue, relating principally to English Postal Keform. Being inap- plicable to any condition of things existing in the United States, it is omitted. — Translator^ XIII. THE THREE ALDERMEN. A DEMONSTRATION IN FOUR TABLEAUX. First Tableau. [The scene is in the hotel of Alderman Pierre. The window looks out on a fine park ; three per- sons are seated near a good fire.] Pierre. Upon my word, a fire is very comfort- able when the stomach is satisfied. It must be agreed that it is a pleasant thing. But, alas ! how many worthy people like the King of Yvetot, "Blow on their fingers for want of wood." Unhappy creatures, Heaven inspires me with a charitable thought. You see these fine trees. 7 274 sophisms of protection. will cut tliem down and distribute the wood among the poor. Paid and Jean. What ! gratis ? Pierre. Not exactly. There would soon be an end of my good works if I scattered my property thus. I think that my park is worth twenty thou- sand livres ; by cutting it down I shall get much more for it. Paid. 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 burn- ing only, and will not be worth a sou more per cord. Pierre. Oh ! Mr. Theorist, you forget that I am a practical man. I supposed that my reputation as a speculator was well enough established to put me above any charge of stupidity. Do you think that I shall amuse myself by selling my wood at the price of other wood ? Paid. You must. Pierre. Simpleton ! Suppose I prevent the bringing of any wood to Paris ? Paid. That will alter the case. But how will you manage it ? Pierre. This is the whole secret. You know that wood pays an entrance duty of ten sous per cord. To-morrow I will induce the Aldermen to raise this duty to one hundred, two hundred, or THE THREE ALDERMEN. 275 three hundred livres, so high as to keep out every fagot. Well, do you see ? If the good people do not want to die of cold, they must come to my wood-yard. They will fight for my wood ; I shall sell it for its weight in gold, and this well-regulated deed of charity will enable me to do others of the same sort. Paul. This is a fine idea,, and it suggests an equally good one to me. Jean. Well, what is it ? Paul. How do you find this Normandy butter ? Jean. Excellent. Paul. Well, it seemed passable a moment ago. But do you not think it is a little strong ? I want to make a better article at Paris. I will have four or five hundred cows, and I will distribute milk, butter, and cheese to the poor people. Pierre and Jean. What ! as a charity ? Paul. Bah, let us always put charity in the fore- ground. It is such a fine thing that its counterfeit even is an excellent card. I will give my butter to the people, and they will give me their money. Is that called selling ? Jean. No, according to the Bourgeois Gentil- homme ; but call it what you please, you ruin your- self. Can Paris compete with Normandy in rais- ing cows ? Paul. I shall save the cost of transportation. Jean. Yery well ; but the Normans are able to 276 SOPHISMS OF PBOTECriTON. heat the Parisians, even if they do have to pay for transportation. Paul. Do you call it heating any one to furnish him things at a low price ? Jean. It is the time-honored word. You will always be beaten. Paul. Yes ; like Don Quixote. The blows will fall on Sancho. Jean, my friend, you forgot the octroi. Jean. The octroi ! AVhat has that to do with your butter ? Paid. To-morrow I will demand protection, and I will induce the Council to prohibit the butter of Normandy and Brittany. The people must do without butter, or buy mine, and that at my price, too. Jean. Gentlemen, your philanthropy carries me along with it. " In time one learns to howl with the wolves." It shall not be said that I am an un- worthy 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, 1 will build superb stock-yards in the middle of Paris "for the unclean animal forbidden to the Hebrews. " I will become swineherd and porkseller, and we THE THREE ALDERMEN. 277 shall see how the good people of Lutetia can help getting their food at my shop. Pierre. Gently, my friends ; if yon thus run up the price of butter and salt meat, you diminish the profit which I expected from my wood. Paid. Nor is my speculation so wonderful, if you ruin me with your fuel and your hams. Jean. What shall I gain by making you pay an extra price for my sausages, if you overcharge me for pastry and fagots ? Pierre. Do you not see that we are getting into a quarrel ? Let us rather unite. Let us make reciprocal concessions. Besides, it is not well to listen only to miserable self-interest. Humanity is concerned, and must not the warming of the people be secured ? • Paul. That is true, and people must have but- ter to spread on their bread. Jean. Certainly. And they must have a bit of pork for their soup. All Together. Forward, charity ! Long live phi- lanthropy ! To-morrow, to-morrow, we will take the octroi by assault. Pierre. Ah, 1 forgot. One word more, which is important. My friends, in this selfish age people are suspicious, and the purest intentions are often misconstrued. Paul, you plead for wood ; Jean, defend butter : and I will devote myself to domestic swine. It is best to head off invidious suspicions. 278 sophisms of protection. Paul and Jean (leaving). Upon my word, what a clever fellow ! SECOND TABLEAU. The Common Council. Paul. My dear colleagues, every day great quantities of wood come into Paris, and draw out of it large sums of money. If this goes on, we shall all be ruined in three years, and what will become of the poor people \ [Bravo.] Let us prohibit foreign wood. I am not speaking for myself, for you could not make a toothpick out of all the wood I own. I am, therefore, perfectly dis- interested. [Good, good.] But here is Pierre, who has a park, and he will keep our fellow-citizens from freezing. They will no longer be in a state of dependence on the charcoal dealers of the Yonne. Have you ever thought of the risk we run of dying of cold, if the proprietors of these foreign forests should take it into their heads not to bring any more wood to Paris ? Let us, therefore, prohibit wood. By this means we shall stop the drain of specie, we shall start the wood-chopping business, and open to our workmen a new source of labor and wages. [Applause.] Jean. I second the motion of the honorable member — a proposition so philanthropic and so disinterested, as he remarked. It is time that we THE THREE ALDERMEN. 2 79 should stop tliis intolerable freedom of entry, which has brought a ruinous competition upon our mar- ket, so that there is not a province tolerably well situated for producing some one article which does not inundate us with it, sell it to us at a low price, and depress Parisian labor. It is the business of the State to equalize the conditions of production by wisely graduated duties ; to allow the entrance from without of whatever is dearer there than at R$ris, and thus relieve us from an unequal contest. How, for instance, can they expect us to make milk and butter in Paris as against Brittany and Nor- mandy ? 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 ? 1 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 cow- herd, nor do I desire to become one. I am moved by the single desire to be useful to the laboring classes. [Expressions of approbation.] Pierre. I am happy to see in this assembly statesmen so pure, enlightened, and devoted to the interests of the people. [Cheers.] I admire their 280 sormsMS of protection. 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 w r e 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, gen- tlemen, 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 pro- duce 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 conscious- ness that we have sacrificed our interests to those THE THREE ALDERMEN. 281 of the masses, as every good Alderman ought to do. [Thunders of applause.] A Voice. I hear much said of the poor people ; but, under the pretext of giving them labor, you begin by taking away from them that which is worth more than labor itself — wood, butter, and soup. Pierre, Paul, and Jean. Yote, vote. Away with your theorists and generalizers ! Let us vote. [The three motions are carried.] THIRD TABLEAU. Twenty Years After. Son. Father, decide ; we must leave Paris. Work is slack, and everything is dear. Father. My son, you do not know how hard it is to leave the place where we were born. Son. The worst of all things is to die there of misery. Father. Go, my son, and seek a more hospitable country. For myself, I will not leave the grave where your mother, sisters, and brothers lie. I am eager to find, at last, near them, the rest which is denied me in this city of desolation. Son. Courage, dear father, we will find work elsewhere — in Poitou, Normandy, or Brittany. They say that the industry of Paris is gradually tram forring itself to those distant countries. 282 SolMIISMS OF PROTECTION. Father. It is very natural. Unable to sell us wood and food, they stopped producing more than they needed for themselves, and they devoted their spare time and capital to making those things which we formerly furnished them. Son. Just as at Paris, they quit making hand- some furniture and fine clothes, in order to plant trees, and raise hogs and cows. Though quite young, I have seen vast storehouses, sumptuous buildings, and quays thronged with life on those banks of the Seine which are now given up to meadows and forests. Father. While the provinces are filling up with cities, Paris becomes country. What a frightful revolution ! Three mistaken Aldermen, aided by public ignorance, have brought down on us this ter- rible calamity. Son. Tell me this story, my father. Father. It is very simple. Under the pretext of establishing three new trades at Paris, and of thus supplying labor to the workmen, these men secured the prohibition of wood, butter, and meats. They assumed the right of supplying their fellow-citizens with them. These articles rose immediately to an exorbitant price. Nobody made enough to buy them, and the few who could procure them by using all they made were unable to buy anything else ; consequently all branches of industry stopped at once — all the more so because the provinces no THE THREE ALDERMEN. 283 longer offered a market. Misery, death, and emi- gration began to depopulate Paris. Son. When will this stop ? Father. When Paris has become a meadow and a forest. Son. The three Aldermen must have made a great fortune. Fathei'. At first they made immense profits, but at length they were involved in the common misery. Son. How was that possible ? Father. You see this ruin ; it was a magnificent house, surrounded by a fine park. If Paris had kept on advancing, Master Pierre would have got more rent from it annually than the whole thing is now worth to him. Son. How can -that be, since he got rid of com- petition ? Father. Competition in selling has disappeared ; but competition in buying also disappears every day, and will keep on disappearing until Paris is an open field, and Master Pierre's woodland will be worth no more than an equal number of acres in the forest of Bondy. Thus, a monopoly, like every species of injustice, brings its own punishment upon itself. Son. This does not seem very plain to me, but the decay of Paris is undeniable. Is there, then, no means of repealing this unjust measure that Pierre and his colleagues adopted twenty years ago ? 28i sophisms OF PROTECT! >X. Father. I will confide my secret to yon. I will remain at Paris for this purpose ; 1 will call the people to my aid. It depends on them whether they will replace the octroi on its old basis, and dismiss from it this fatal principle, which is grafted on it, and has grown there like a parasite fungus. Son. You ought to succeed on the very first day. Father. Xo ; 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 ,usi- ness give, who know how many wood -choppers and cow-drivers it gives employment to, but who cannot obtain so clear an idea of the labor that would spring up in the free air of liberty. Son. If this is all that is needed, you will en- lighten them. Father. My child, at your age, one doubts at nothing. If I wrote, the people would not read ; for all their time is occupied in supporting a wretched existence. If I speak, the Aldermen will shut my mouth. The people will, therefore, re- main 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 THE THREE ALDERMEN. 285 tli at be — the people and the parties. I see that a storm will burst on the head of the audacious per- son who dares to rise against an iniquity which is so firmly rooted in the country. So?i. You will have justice and truth on your side. Father. And they will have force and calumny. If I were only young ! But age and suffering have exhausted my strength. Son. Well, father, devote all that you have left to the service of the country. Begin this work of emancipation, and leave to me for an inheritance the task of finishing it. FOURTH TABLEAU. The Agitation. Jacques Bonhomme. Parisians, let us demand the reform of the octroi / let it be put back to what it was. Let every citizen be free to buy wood, butter and meat where it seems good to him. The People. Hurrah for liberty ! Pierre. Parisians, do not allow yourselves to be seduced by these words. Of what avail is the free- dom 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 B86 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. tlieso rival products, what will become of the wood- cutters, j>ork-dealers, and cattle-drivers ? They cannot do without protection. The People. Hurrah for protection ! Jacques. Protection ! But do they protect you, workmen ? Do not you compete with one another ? Let the wood- dealers then suffer competition in their turn. They have no right to raise the price of their wood by law, unless they, also, by law, raise wages. Do you not still love equality ? The People. Hurrah for equality ! Pierre. Do not listen to this factious fellow. We have raised the price of wood, meat, and butter, it is true ; but it is in order that we may give good wages to the workmen. "We are moved by charity. The People. Hurrah for charity ! Jacques. Use the octroi, if you can, to raise wages, or do not use it to raise the price of com- modities. The Parisians do not ask for charity, but justice. The People. Hurrah for justice ! Pierre. It is precisely the dearness of products which will, by reflex action, raise wages. The People. Hurrah for dearness ! Jacques. If butter is dear, it is not because you pay workmen well ; it is not even that you may make great profits ; it is only because Paris is ill situated for this business, and because you desired THE THREE ALDERMEN. 287 that they should do in the city what ought to be done in the country, and in the country what was done in the city. The people have no more labor, only they labor at something else. They get no more wages, but they do not buy things as cheaply. The People. Hurrah for cheapness ! Pierre. This person seduces you with his fine words. Let us state the question plainly. Is it not true that if we admit butter, wood, and meat, we shall be inundated with them, and die of a plethora ? There is, then, no other way in which we can pre- serve ourselves from this new inundation, than to shut the door, and we can keep up the price of things only by causing scarcity artificially. A Very Few Voices. Hurrah for scarcity ! Jacques. Let us state the question as it is. Among all the Parisians we can divide only what is in Paris ; the less wood, butter, and meat there is, the smaller each one's share will be. There will be less if we exclude than if we admit. Parisians, individual abundance can exist only where there is general abundance. The People. Hurrah for abundance ! Pierre. No matter what this man says, he cannot prove to you that it is to your interest to submit to unbridled competition. The People. Down with competition ! Jacques. Despite all this man's declamation, he cannot make you enjoy the sweets of restriction. iiSS SOPHISMS OF PBOTBOnON. The People. Down with restriction ! Pierre. I declare to you that if the poor dealers in cattle and hogs are deprived of their livelihood, if they are sacrificed to theories, I will not be an- swerable for public order. Workmen, distrust this man. He is an agent of perfidious Normandy ; he is under the pay of foreigners. He is a traitor, and must be hanged. [The people keep silent.] Jacques. Parisians, all that I say now, I said to you twenty years ago, when it occurred to Pierre to use the octroi for his gain and your loss. I am not an agent of Normandy. Hang me if you will, but this will not prevent oppression from being op- pression. Friends, you must kill neither Jacques nor Pierre, but liberty if it frightens you, or re- striction if it hurts you. The People. Let us hang nobody, but let "as emancipate everybody. XIV. SOMETHING ELSE. -What is restriction ? -A partial prohibition. What is prohibition ? -An absolute restriction. SOMETHING ELSE. 289 — So that what is said of one is true of the other ? — Yes, comparatively. They bear the same rela- tion to each other that the arc of the circle does to the circle. — Then if prohibition is bad, restriction cannot be good. — No more than the arc can be straight if the circle is curved. — What is the common name for restriction and prohibition ? — Protection. — What is the definite effect of protection ? — To require from men harder labor for the same result. — Why are men so attached to the protective system ? — Because, since liberty would accomplish the same result with less labor, this apparent diminu- tion of labor frightens them. — Why do you say apparent f — Because all labor economized can be devoted to something else. —What ? — That cannot and need not be determined. -Why I — Because, if the total of the comforts of Franco could l)c gained with a diminution of one tenth on the total of its labor, no one could determine what 290 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. comforts it would procure with the labor remaining at its disposal. One person would prefer to be better clothed, another better fed, another better taught, and another more amused. — Explain the workings and effect of protection. — It is not an easy matter. Before taking hold of a complicated instance, it must be studied in the simplest one. — Take the simplest you choose. — Do you recollect how Robinson Crusoe, having no saw, set to work to make a plank ? — Yes. He cut down a tree, and then with his axe hewed the trunk on both sides until he got it down to the thickness of a board. — And that gave him an abundance of work ? — Fifteen full days. — What did he live on during this time ? — His provisions. —What happened to the axe ? — It was all blunted. — Very good ; but there is one thing which, per- haps, you do not know. At the moment that Robinson gave the first blow with his axe, he saw a plank which the waves had cast up on the shore. — Oh, the lucky accident ! He ran to pick it up ? —It was his first impulse ; but he checked him- self, reasoning thus : SOMETHING- ELSE. 291 bk If I go after this plank, it will cost me but the labor of carrying it and the time spent in going to and returning from the shore. " But if I make a plank with my axe, I shall in the first place obtain work for fifteen days, then I shall wear out my axe, which will give me an op- portunity of repairing it, and 1 shall consume my provisions, which will be a third source of labor, since they must be replaced. Now, labor is wealth. It is plain that I will ruin myself if I pick up this stranded board. It is important to protect my personal labor, and now that I think of it, I can create myself additional labor by kicking this board back into the sea. ' ' — But this reasoning was absurd ! — Certainly. Nevertheless it is that adopted by every nation which protects itself by prohibition. It rejects the plank which is offered it in exchange for a little labor, in order to give itself more labor. It sees a gain even in the labor of the custom-house officer. This answers to the trouble which Robin- son took to give back to the waves the present they wished to make him. Consider the nation a collec- tive being, and you will not find an atom of differ- ence between its reasoning and that of Robinson. — Did not Robinson see that he could use the time saved in doing something else ? — What " something else" f "2 '.»'_! So I' II ISMS OF PROTECTION. — So long as one has wants and time, one lias always something to do. 1 am not bound to specify the labor that he could undertake. — I can specify very easily that which he would have avoided. — I assert, that Robinson, with incredible blind- ness, confounded labor with its result, the end with the means, and I will prove it to you. — It is not necessary. But this is the restrictive or prohibitory system in its simplest form. If it appears absurd to you, thus stated, it is because the two qualities of producer and consumer are here united in the same person. — Let us pass, then, to a more complicated instance. — Willingly. Some time after all this, Robinson having met Friday, they united, and began to work in common. They hunted for six hours each morn- ing and brought home four hampers of game. They worked in the garden for six hours each afternoon, and obtained four baskets of vegetables. One day a canoe touched at the Island of De- spair. A good-looking stranger landed, and was allowed to dine with our two hermits. He tasted, and praised the products of the garden, and before taking leave of his hosts, said to them : " Generous Islanders, I dwell in a country much richer in game than this, but where horticulture is unknown. It would be easy for me to bring you SOMETHING ELSE. 293 every evening four hampers of game if you would give me only two baskets of vegetables. ' ' At these words Robinson and Friday stepped on one side, to have a consultation, and the debate which followed is too interesting not to be given in extenso : Friday. Friend, what do you think of it ? Robinson. If we accept, we are ruined. Friday. Is that certain ? Calculate ! Robinson. It is all calculated. Hunting, crushed out by competition, will be a lost branch of indus- try for us. Friday. What difference does that make, if we hive the game ? Robinson. Theory ! It will not be the product of our labor. Triday. Yes, it will, since we will have to give veg3tables to get it. lobinson. Then what shall we make ? Fiday. The four hampers of game cost us six houB' labor. The stranger gives them to us for two )askets of vegetables, which take us but three hour. Thus three hours remain at our disposal. Rdinson. Say rather that they are taken from our activity. There is our loss. Labor is wealth, and id we lose a fourth of our time we are one fourtl poorer. Frday. Friend, you make an enormous mistake. The sane amount of game and vegetables and three 29-4 BOPHlSMS OF PROTECTION. free hours to boot make progress, or there is none in the world. Robinson. Mere generalities. What will we do with these three hours ? Friday. We will do something else. Robinson. Ah, now I have } t ou. You can specify nothing. It is very easy to say something else — something else. Friday. We will fish. We will adorn our houses. We will read the Bible. Robinson. Utopia ! Is it certain that we will do this rather than that ? Friday. Well, if we have no wants, we will rest. Is rest nothing ? Robinson. When one rests one dies of hunger. Friday. Friend, you are in a vicious circle. I speak of a rest which diminishes neither our gains nor our vegetables. You always forget that by means of our commerce with this stranger, nine hours of labor will give us as much food as twelve now do. Robinson. It is easy to see that you were not reared in Europe. Perhaps you have never read the Moniteur Industriel f It would have taught you this : " All time saved is a dear loss. Eating is not the important matter, but working. Noth- ing which we consume counts, if it is not the prod- uct of our labor. Do you wish to know whether you are rich ? Do not look at your comforts, but SOMETHING ELS"E. 295 at your trouble. ' ' This is what the Mcmiteur Indus- triel would have taught you. I, who am not a theo- rist, see but the loss of our hunting. Friday. "What a strange perversion of ideas. But— Robinson. No huts. Besides, there are political reasons for rejecting the interested offers of this perfidious stranger. Friday. Political reasons ! Robinson. Yes. In the first place, he makes these offers only because they are for his advan- tage. Friday. So much the better, since they are for ours also. Robinson. Th'en by these exchanges we shall be- come dependent on him. Friday. And he on us. We need his game, he our vegetables, and we will live in good friend- ship. Robinson. Fancy ! Do you want I should leave you without an answer ? Friday. Let us see ; I am still waiting a good reason. Robinson. Supposing that the stranger learns to cultivate a garden, and that his island is more fer- tile than ours. Do you see the consequences ? Friday. Yes. Our relations with the stranger will stop. He will take no more vegetables from us, since he can get them at home with less trouble. 29f> SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. He will bring us no more game, since we will have nothing to give in exchange, and we will he then just where you want us to be now. Robinson. Short-sighted savage ! You do not see that after having destroyed our hunting, by in- undating us with game, he will kill our gardening by overwhelming us with vegetables. Friday. But he will do that only so long as we give him something else y that is to say, so long as we find something else to produce, which will econ- omize our labor. Robinson. Something else — something else ! You always come back to that. You are very vague, friend Friday ; there is nothing practical in your views. The contest lasted a long time, and, as often hap- pens, left each one convinced that he was right. However, Robinson having great influence over Friday, his views prevailed, and w^hen the stranger came for an answer, Robinson said to him : " Stranger, in order that your proposition may be accepted, we must be quite sure of two things : " The first is, that your island is not richer in game than ours, for we will struggle but with equal arms. " The second is, that you will lose by the bar- gain. For, as in every exchange there is necessa- rily a gainer and a loser, we would be cheated, if you were not. What have you to say ?" SOMETHING ELSE. 297 "Nothing, nothing," replied the stranger, who burst out laughing, and returned to his canoe. —The story would not be bad if Robinson w r as not so foolish. — He is no more so than the committee in Haute- ville Street. — Oh, there is a great difference. You suppose one solitary man, or, what comes to the same thing, two men living together. This is not our w T orld ; the diversity of occupations, and the intervention of merchants and money, change the question mate- rially. — All this complicates transactions, but does not change their nature. — What ! Do you propose to compare modern commerce to mere exchanges ? — Commerce is but a multitude of exchanges ; the real nature of the exchange is identical with the real nature of commerce, as small labor is of the same nature with great, and as the gravitation which impels an atom is of the same nature as that which attracts a world. — Thus, according to you, these arguments, which in Robinson's mouth are so false, are no less so in the mouths of our protectionists ? — Yes ; only error is hidden better under the complication of circumstances. — Well, now, select some instance from what has actually occurred. 298 BOPHI8M3 OF PROTECTION. — Very well ; in France, in view of custom and the exigencies of the climate, cloth is a useful arti- cle. Is it the essential thing to make it, or to have it? — A pretty question ! To have it, we must make it. — That is not necessary. It is certain that to have it some one must make it ; but it is not neces- sary 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. — Bat I purchased my cloth, and France its coffee. — Exactly, and with what ? — With specie. — But you did not make the specie, nor did France. — We bought it. —With what ? — -With our products which went to Peru. — Then it is in reality your labor that you ex< change for cloth, and French labor that is ex- changed for coffee ? — Certainly. — Then it is not absolutely necessary to make what one consumes ? — No, if one makes something else, and giv r es it in exchange. — In other words, France has two ways of pro- SOMETHING ELSE. 299 curing a given quantity of cloth. The first is to make it, and the second is to make something else, and exchange that something else abroad for cloth. Of these two ways, which is the best ? — I do not know. — Is it not that which, for a fixed amount of labor, gives the greatest quantity of cloth f — It seems so. — Which is best for a nation, to have the choice of these two ways, or to have the law forbid its using one of them at the risk of rejecting the best ? — It seems to me that it would be best for the nation to have the choice, since in these matters it always makes a good selection. — The law which prohibits the introduction of foreign cloth, decides, then, that if France wants cloth, it must make it at home, and that it is for- bidden to make that something else with which it could purchase foreign cloth ? — That is true. — And as it is obliged to make cloth, and forbid- den to make something else, just because the other thing would require less labor (without which •France would have no occasion to do anything with it), the law virtually decrees, that for a certain amount of labor, France shall have but one yard of cloth, making it itself, when, for the 'same amount of labor, it could have had two yards, by making something else. 300 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. — But what other thing ? — No matter what. Being free to choose, it will make someth ing else only so long as there is some- thing else to make. — That is possible ; but I cannot rid myself of the idea that the foreigners may send us cloth and not take something else, in which case we shall be prettily caught. Under all circumstances, this is the objection, even from your own point of view. You admit that France will make this something else, which is to be exchanged for cloth, with less labor than if it had made the cloth itself ? — Doubtless. — Then a certain quantity of its labor will be- come inert ? — Yes ; but people will be no worse clothed — a little circumstance which causes the whole misun- derstanding. Robinson lost sight of it, and our protectionists do not see it, or .pretend not to. The stranded plank thus paralyzed for fifteen days Robinson's labor, so far as it was applied to the making of a plank, but it did not deprive him of it. Distinguish, then, between these two kinds of diminution of labor, one resulting in privation, and the other in comfort. These two things are very different, and if you assimilate them, you reason like Robinson. In the most complicated, as in the most simple instances, the sophism consists in this : Judging of the utility of labor by its duration and LITTLE ARSENAL OF THE FREE TRADER. 30. 1 intensity, and not by its results, which leads to this economic policy, a reduction of the results of labor, in order to increase its duration and intensity. XV. THE LITTLE ARSENAL OF THE FREE TRADER. — If they say to you : There are no absolute principles ; prohibition may be bad, and restriction good — Reply : Restriction prohibits all that it keeps from coming in. — If they say to you : Agriculture is the nursing mother of the country — Reply : That which feeds a country is not ex- actly agriculture, but grain. —If they say to you : The basis of the suste- nance of the people is agriculture — Reply : The basis of the sustenance of the peo- ple is grain. Thus a law which causes two bushels of grain to be obtained by agricultural labor at the expense of four bushels, which the same labor would have produced but for it, far from being a [ law of sustenance, is a law of starvation. ^~^-\i they say to you : A restriction on the admis- sion of foreign grain leads to more cultivation, and, / consequently, to a greater home production — 302 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. f 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 ob- tained ? But the drop costs dear. — If they say to you : Let bread be dear 3 and the wealthy farmer will enrich the artisans — Reply : Bread is dear when there is little of it, a thing which can make but poor, or, if you please, rich people who are starving. — If they insist on it, saying : When food is dear, wages rise — Reply by showing that in April, 184:7, five sixths of the workingmen were beggars. — If they say to you : The profits of the working- men must rise with the dearness of food — Reply : This is equivalent to saying that in an unprovisioned vessel everybody has the same num- ber of biscuits whether he has any or not. — If they say to you : A good price must be secured for those who sell grain — Reply : Certainly ; but good wages must be secured to those who buy it. — If they say to you : The land -owners, who make the law, have raised the price of food without troubling themselves about wages, because they know that when food becomes dear, w-ages natural- ly rise — Reply : On this principle, when workingmen LITTLE ARSENAL OF THE FREE TRADER. 308 come to make the law, do not blame them if they fix a high rate of wages without troubling them- selves to protect grain, for they know that if wages are raised, articles of food will naturally rise in price. — If they say to you : What, then, is to be done ? Reply : Be just to everybody. — If they say to you : It is essential that a great country should manufacture iron — Reply : The most essential thing is that this great country should have iron. — If they say to you : It is necessary that a great country should manufacture cloth. Reply : It is more necessary that the citizens of this great country should have cloth. — If they say to you : Labor is wealth — Reply : It is false. And, by way of developing this, add : A bleed- ing is not health, and the proof of it is, that it is done to restore health. 1/ — If they say to you : To compel men to work over rocks and get an ounce of iron from a ton of ore, is to increase their labor, and, consequently, their wealth — Reply : To compel men to dig wells, by deny- ing them the use of river water, is to add to their labor, but not their wealth. — If they say to you : The sun gives his heat and light without requiring remuneration — 304 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. Reply : So much the better for me, since it costs me nothing to see distinctly. — x\nd if they reply to you : Industry in general loses what you would have paid for lights — Retort : No, for having paid nothing to the sun, I use that which it saves me in paying for clothes, furniture, and candles. — So, if they say to you : These English rascals have capital which pays them nothing — Reply : So much the better for us ; they will not make us pay interest. — If they say to you : These perfidious English- men find iron and coal at the same spot — Reply : So much the better for us ; they will not make us pay anything for bringing them together. — If they say to you : The Swiss have rich past- ures which cost little — Reply : The advantage is on our side, for they will ask for a lesser quantity of our labor to furnish our farmers oxen and our stomachs food. — If they say to you : The lands in the Crimea are worth nothing, and pay no taxes — Reply : The gain is on our side, since we buy grain free from those charges. — If they say to you : The serfs of Poland work without wages — Reply : The loss is theirs and the gain is ours, since their labor is deducted from the price of the grain which their masters sell us. LITTLE ARSENAL OF THE FREE IRADER. 305 — Then, if they say to you : Other nations have many advantages over us — Reply : By exchange, they are forced to let us share in them. — If they say to you : With liberty we shall be swamped with bread, beef a la mode, coal, and coats — Reply : We shall be neither cold nor hungry. — If they say to you : With what shall we pay ? Reply : Do not be troubled about that. If we are to be inundated, it will be because we are able to pay. If we cannot pay we will not be inun- dated. — If they say to you : 1 would allow free trade, if a stranger, in bringing us one thing, tocK away another ; but he will carry off our specie — Reply : Neither specie nor coffee grows in the fields of Beauce or come out of the manufactories of Elbeuf. For us to pay a foreigner with specie is like paying him with coffee. — If they say to you : Eat meat — Reply : Let it come in. — If they say to you, like the Presse: When you have not the money to buy bread with, buy beef — Reply : This advice is as wise as that of Yautour to his tenant, " If a person has not money to pay his rent with, he ought to have a house of his 306 SOPHISMS OF PBOTEOTION. — If they .say to you, like the Presse: The State ought to teach the people why and how it should eat meat — Reply : Only let the State allow the meat free entrance, and the most civilized people in the world are old enough to learn to eat it without any teacher. — If they say to you : The State ought to know everything, and foresee everything, to guide the people, and the people have only to let themselves be guided — Reply : Is there a State outside of the people, and a human foresight outside of humanity I Archi- medes 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 col- lective science and foresight, after having estab- lished individual folly and shortsightedness. If they say to you : My God ! I ask no favors, but only a duty on grain and meat, which may com- pensate for the heavy taxes to which France is sub- jected ; a mere little duty, equal to what these taxes add to the cost of my grain — Reply : A thousand pardons, but I, too, pay taxes. If, then, the protection which you vote yourself results in burdening for me, your grain LITTLE ARSENAL OE THE FREE TRADER. 307 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 neigh- bor, the grain dealer, you may have power on your side, but not reason. — If they say to you : It is, however, very hard for me, a tax- payer, to compete in my own market with foreigners who pay none — Reply : First, This is not your market, but our market. I who live on grain, and pay for it, must be counted for something. Secondly. Few foreigners at this time are free from taxes. Thirdly. If the tax which you vote repays to you, in roads, canals, and safety, more than it costs you, you are not justified in driving away, at my expense, the competition of foreigners who do - not pay the tax, but who do not have the safety, roads, and canals. It is the same as saying : I want a compensating duty, because I have fine clothes, stronger horses, and better ploughs than the Russian laborer. Fourthly. If the tax does not repay what it costs, do not vote it. Fifthly. If, after you have voted a tax, it is 308 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. your pleasure to escape its operation, invent a sys- tem which will throw it on foreigners. But the tariff only throws your proportion on me, when I already have enough of my own. — If they say to you : Freedom of commerce is necessary among the Russians that they may ex- change their products with advantage (opinion of M. Thiers, April, 1847)— Reply : This freedom is necessary everywhere, and for the same reason. — If they say to you : Each country lias its wants ; it is according to that that it must act (M. Thiers)— Reply : It is according to that that it acts of it- self when no one hinders it. — If they say to you : Since we have no sheet- iron, its admission must be allowed (M. Thiers) — Reply : Thank you, kindly. — If they say to you : Our merchant marine must have freight ; owing to the lack of return cargoes our vessels cannot compete with foreign ones — Reply : When you want to do everything at home, you can have cargoes neither going nor com- ing. It is as absurd to wish for a navy under a pro- hibitory system as to wish for carts where all trans- portation is forbidden. — If they say to you : Supposing that protection is unjust, everything is founded on it ; there are THE RIGHT AND THE LEFT HAND. 309 moneys invested, and rights acquired, and it cannot be abandoned without suffering — Reply : Every injustice profits some one (except, perhaps, restriction, which in the long run profits no one), and to use as an argument the disturbance which the cessation of the injustice causes to the person profiting by it, is to say that an injustice, only because it has existed for a moment, should be eternal. XVI. THE RIGHT AND THE LEFT HAND. [Report to the King.] Sire : When we see these men of the Libre Echange audaciously disseminating their doctrines, and maintaining that the right of buying and selling is implied by that of ownership (a piece of insolence that M. Billault has criticised like a true lawyer), we may be allowed to entertain serious fears as to the destiny of national labor / for what will Frenchmen do with their arms and intelligence when they are free ? The Ministry which you have honored with your confidence has naturally paid great attention to so 310 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. serious a subject, and has sought in its wisdom for a protection which might be substituted for that which appears compromised. It proposes to you to forbid your faithful subjects the use of the right hand. Sire, do not wrong us so far as to think that we lightly adopted a measure which, at the first glance may appear odd. Deep study of the protective system has revealed to us this syllogism, on which it entirely rests : The more one labors, the richer one is. The more difficulties one has to conquer, the more one labors. Ergo, the more difficulties one has to conquer, the richer one is. What is protection, really, but an ingenious ap- plication of this formal reasoning, which is so com- pact that it would resist the subtlety of M. Billault himself ? Let us personify the country. Let us look on it as a collective being, with thirty million mouths, and, consequently, sixty million arms. This being makes a clock, which he proposes to exchange in Belgium for ten quintals of iron. " But," we say to him, " make the iron yourself." " I cannot," says he ; " it would take me too much time, and I could not make five quintals while I can make one clock.' ' " Utopist !" we reply ; " for this very reason we forbid your making the clock, and order you to THE RIGHT AND THE LEFT HAND. 311 make the iron. Do not yon see that we create yon labor?" Sire, it will not have escaped your sagacity, that it is just as if we said to the country, Labor with the left hand and not with the right. The creation of obstacles to furnish labor an op- portunity to develop itself, is the principle of the restriction which is dying. It is also the principle of the restriction which is about to be created. Sire, to make such regulations is not to innovate, but to preserve. The efficacy of the measure is incontestable. It is difficult — much more difficult than one thinks — to do with the left hand what one was accustomed to do with the right. You will convince yourself of it, Sire, if you will condescend to try our system on something which is familiar to you — like shuf- fling cards, for instance. We can then flatter our- selves that we have opened an illimitable career to labor. When workmen of all kinds are reduced xo 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 w T ill disappear from the country as if by enchantment. 312 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. Sire, your paternal heart will rejoice at the thought that the benefits of this regulation will extend over that interesting portion of the great family whose fate excites your liveliest solicitude. What is the destiny of women in France ? That sex which is the boldest and most hardened to fatigue, is, insensibly, driving them from all fields of labor. Formerly they found a refuge in the lottery offices. These have been closed by a pitiless philanthropy; and under what pretext? " To save, ' ' said they, ' ' the money of the poor. ' ' Alas ! has a poor man ever obtained from a piece of money enjoyments as sweet and innocent as those which the mysterious urn of fortune contained for him ? Cut off from all the sweets of life, how many delicious hours did he introduce into the bosom of his family when, every two weeks, he put the value of a day's labor on a quatern. Hope had always her place at the domestic hearth. The gar- ret was peopled with illusions ; the wife promised herself that she would eclipse her neighbors with the splendor of her attire ; the son saw himself drum-major, and the daughter felt herself carried toward the altar in the arms of her betrothed. To have a beautiful dream is certainly something. The lottery was the poetry of the poor, and we have allowed it to escape them. The lottery dead, what means have we of pro- THE RIGHT AND THE LEFT HAND. 313 riding for our proteges f —tobacco, and the r)ostal service. Tobacco, certainly ; it progresses, thanks to Heaven, and the distinguished habits which august examples have been enabled to introduce among our elegant youth. But the postal service ! We will say * nothing of that, but make it the subject of a special report. Then what is left to your female subjects except tobacco ? Nothing, except embroidery, knitting, and sewing, pitiful resources, which are more and more restricted by that barbarous science, me- chanics. But as soon as your ordinance has appeared as soon as the right hands are cut off or tied up, every- thing will change face. Twenty, thirty times more embroiderers, washers and ironers, seamstresses and shirt-makers, would not meet the consumption (honi soit qui mal y pense) of the kingdom ; always assuming that it is invariable, according to our way of reasoning. It is true that this supposition might be denied by cold-blooded theorists, for dresses and shirts would be dearer. But they say the same thing of the iron which France gets from our mines, com- pared to the vintage it could get on our hillsides. This argument can, therefore, be no more enter- tained against left- handedness than against protec- tion ; for this very dearness is the result and the 314 SOPHISMS OF PBOTEGTTON. sign of the excess of efforts and of labors, which is precisely the basis on which, in one case, as in the other, we claim to found the prosperity of the working classes. Yes, we make a touching picture of the pros- perity of the sewing business. What movement ! What activity ! What life ! Each dress will busy a hundred fingers instead of ten. No longer will there be an idle young girl, and we need not, Sire, point out to your perspicacity the moral results of this great revolution. Not only will there be more women employed, but each one of them will earn more, for they cannot meet the demand, and if competition still shows itself, it will no longer be among the workingwomen who make the dresses, but the beautiful ladies who wear them. You see, Sire, that our proposition is not only conformable to the economic traditions of the government, but it is also essentially moral and democratic. To appreciate its effect, let us suppose it realized ; let us transport ourselves in thought into the future ; let us imagine the system in action for twenty years. Idleness is banished from the coun- try ; 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. THE BIGHT AND THE LEFT HAND. 315 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 through- out the country ? Is it not true that this pretended reform would overthrow all existences ? Then our system is good, since it cannot be overthrown with- out causing great distress. However, we have a sad presentiment that some day (so great is the perversity of man) an association will be organized to secure the liberty of right hands. It seems to us that we already hear these free- right-handers speak as follows in the Salle Montes- quieu : " 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." 316 SOPHISMS OF PBOTEOTION. Happily, Sire, there will be organized an associa- tion/or the defence of left-handed labor, and the Sinistrists will have no trouble in reducing to nothing all these generalities and realities, supposi- tions and abstractions, reveries and Utopias. They need only to exhume the Moniteur Industriel of 1846, and they will find, ready-made, arguments against free trade, which destroy so admirably this liberty of the right hand, that all that is required is to substitute one word for another. " The Parisian Free-Trade League never doubted but that it would have the assistance of the workingmen. But the workingmen can no longer be led by the nose. They have their eyes open, and they know political economy better than our diplomaed professors. Free trade, they replied, will take from us our labor, and labor is our real, great, sovereign property ; with labor, with much labor, the p?*ice of articles of merchandise is never beyond reach. But without labor, even if bread should cost but a penny a pound, the workingman is com- pelled 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 13th, 1846.) " It is true, that when there are too many manu- factured 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 THE RIGHT AND THE LEFT HAND. 317 them, we can buy nothing. Thus, when they are cheapest, the workingman is most unhappy." (Gauthier de Rumilly, Moniteuv Industrial of No- vember IT.) It would not be ill for the Sinistrists to mingle some threats with their beautiful theories. This is a sample : ' ' What ! to desire to substitute the labor of the right hand for that of the left, and thus to cause a forced reduction, if not an annihilation of wages, the sole resource of almost the entire nation ! "And this at the moment when poor, harvests already impose painful sacrifices on the working- man, disquiet him as to his future, and make him more accessible to bad counsels and ready to aban- don the wise course of conduct he had hitherto adhered to ! " We are confident, Sire, that thanks to such wise reasonings, if a struggle takes place, the left hand will come out of it victorious. Perhaps, also, an association will be formed in order to ascertain whether the right and the left hand are not both wrong, and if there is not a third hand between them, in order to conciliate all. After having described the Dexterists as seduced by the apparent liberality of a principle, the correct ness of which has not yet heen verified hy experience, and the Sinistrists as encamping in the positions they have gained, it will say : 318 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. " 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 the lind their advantage in it, and against those who dream of an economic revolution of which they have calculated neither the extent nor the significance." (National of October 16.) We do not desire, however, to hide from your Majesty the fact that our plan has a vulnerable side. They may say to us : In twenty years all left hands will be as skilled as right ones are now, and you can no longer count on left- handedness to increase the national labor. We reply to this, that, according to learned phy- sicians, the left side of the body has a natural weakness, which is very reassuring for the future of labor. Finally, Sire, consent to sign the law, and a great principle will have prevailed : All wealth comes from the intensity of labor. It will be easy for us to extend it, and vary its application. We will declare, for instance, that it shall be allowable to work only with the feet. This is no more impos- sible (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 SUPREMACY BY LABOR. 319 national labor. If they do begin to fail us, there remains the boundless resource of amputation. If this report, Sire, was not intended for publica- tion, 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 j^ower. But this is a subject which we reserve for consideration in private counsel. XVII. SUPREMACY BY LABOR. " As in a time of war, supremacy is attained by superiority in arms, can, in a time of peace, suprem- acy be secured by superiority in labor?" This question is of the greatest interest at a time when no one seems to doubt that in the field of industry, as on that of battle, the stronger crushes the weaker. This must result from the discovery of some sad and discouraging analogy between labor, which exercises itself on things, and violence, whrch exer- cises itself on men ; for how could these two things be identical in their effects, if they were opposed in their nature ? And if it is true that in manufacturing as in war, 320 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. supremacy is the necessary result of superiority, why need we occupy ourselves with progress or social economy, since we are in a world where all has been so arranged by Providence that one and the same result, oppression, necessarily flows from the most antagonistic principles ? Referring to the new policy toward which com- mercial 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 univer- sal supremacy ? Sure of the superiority of her cap- ital and labor, does she not call in free competition to stifle the industry of the continent, reign as a sovereign, and conquer the privilege of feeding and clothing the ruined peoples ?" It would be easy for me to demonstrate that these alarms are chimerical ; that our pretended inferiority is greatly exaggerated ; that all our great branches of industry not only resist foreign competition, but develop themselves under its influence, and that its infallible effect is to bring about an increase in general consumption capable of absorbing both foreign and domestic products. To-day I desire to attack this objection directly, leaving it all its power and the advantage of the ground it has chosen. Putting English and French on one side, I will try to find out in a general way, SUPREMACY BY LABOR. 321 if, even though by superiority in one branch of industry, one nation has crushed out similar indus- trial pursuits in another one, this nation has made a step toward supremacy, and that one toward de- pendence ; in other words, if botli do not gain by the operation, and if the conquered do not gain the most by it. If we see in any product but a cause of labor, it is certain that the alarm of the protectionists is well founded. If we consider iron, for instance, only in connection with the masters of forges, it might be feared that the competition of a country where iron was a gratuitous gift of nature, would extinguish the furnaces of another country, where ore and fuel were scarce. But is this a complete view of the subject ? Are there relations only between iron and those who make it ? Has it none with those who use it ? Is its definite and only destination to be produced ? And if it is useful, not on account of the labor which it causes, but on account of the qualities which it possesses, and the numerous services for which its hardness and malleability fit it, does it not follow that foreigners cannot reduce its price, even so far as to prevent its production among us, without doing us more good, under the last statement of the case, than it injures us, under the first? Please consider well that there are many things which foreigners, owing to the natural advantages 322 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. which surround them, hinder us from producing directly, and in regard to which we are placed, in reality, in the hypothetical position which we exam- ined relative to iron. We produce at home neither tea, coffee, gold, nor silver. Does it follow that our labor, as a whole, is thereby diminished ? ~No ; only to create the equivalent of these things, to acquire them by way of exchange, we detach from our general labor a smaller portion than we would require to produce them ourselves. More remains to us to use for other things. We are so much the richer and stronger. All that external rivalry can do, even in causes where it absolutely keeps us from any certain form of labor, is to encourage our labor, and increase our productive power. Is that the road to supremacy, for foreigners ? If a mine of gold were to be discovered in France, it does not follow that it would be for our interests to work it. It is even certain that the enterprise ought to be neglected, if each ounce of gold absorbed more of our labor than an ounce of gold bought in Mexico with cloth. In this case, it would be better to keep on seeing our mines in our manufactories. What is true of gold is true of iron. The illusion comes from the fact that one thing is not seen. That is, that foreign superiority pre- vents national labor, only under some certain form, and makes it superfluous under this form, but by SUPREMACY BY LABOR. '■'>-'■'> putting at our disposal the very result of the labor thus annihilated. If men lived in diving-bells, under the water, and had to provide themselves with air by the use of pumps, there would be an immense source of labor. To destroy this labor, leaving men in this condition , would be to do them a terrible injury. But if labor ceases, because the necessity for it has gone ; because men are placed in another position, where air reaches their lungs without an effort, then the loss of this labor is not to be regretted, except in the eyes of those who appreciate in labor, only the labor itself. It is exactly this sort of labor which machines, commercial freedom, and progress of all sorts, gradually annihilate ; not useful labor, but labor which has become superfluous, supernumerary, objectless, and without result. On the other hand, protection restores it to activity ; it replaces us under the water, so as to give us an opportunity of pumping ; it forces us to ask for gold from the inaccessible national mine, rather than from our national manufactories. All its effect is summed up in this phrase — loss of power. It must be understood that I speak here of gen- eral 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 324 SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. systematically interdicting all progress, and still less for misunderstanding it. They represent industry to us as a conflict. Tin's is not true ; or is true only when you confine yourself to considering each branch of industry in its effects on some similar branch — in isolating both, in the mind, from the rest of humanity. But there is something else ; there are its effects on consump- tion, and the general well-being. This is the reason why it is not allowable to assimilate labor to war as they do. In war, the strongest overwhelms the weakest. In labor, the strongest gives strength to the weakest. This radically destroys the analogy. Though the English are strong and skilled ; possess immense invested capital, and have at their disposal the two great powers of production, iron and fire, all this is converted into the cheapness of the product ; and who gains by the cheapness of the product ? — he who buys it. It is not in their power to absolutely annihilate any portion of our labor. All that they can do is to make it superfluous through some result acquired — to give air at the same time that they suppress the pump ; to increase thus the force at our dis- posal, and, which is a remarkable thing, to render their pretended supremacy more impossible, as their superiority becomes more undeniable. Thus, by a rigorous and consoling demonstration, SUPREMACY BY LABOR. 325 we reach this conclusion : That labor and violence, so opposed in their nature, are, whatever socialists and protectionists may say, no less so in their effects. All we required, to do that, was to distinguish between annihilated labor and economized labor. Having less iron because one works less, or hav- ing more iron although one works less, are things which are more than different — they are opposites. The protectionists confound them ; we do not. That is all. Be convinced of one thing. If the English bring into play much activity, labor, capital, intel- ligence, and natural force, it is not for the love of us. It is to give themselves many comforts in exchange for their products. They certainly desire to receive at least as much as they give, and they make at home the payment for that which they buy elsewhere. If then, they inundate us with their products, it is because they expect to be inundated with ours. In this case, the best way to have much for ourselves is to be free to choose between these two methods of production : direct production or indirect production. All the British Machiavelism cannot lead us to make a bad choice. Let us then stop assimilating industrial competi- tion with war; a false assimilation, which is specious only when two rival branches of industry are iso- lated, in order to judge of the effects of competi- 32P> SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. tion. As soon as the effect produced on the gen* eral well-being is taken into consideration, the analogy disappears. In a battle, he who is killed is thoroughly killed, and the army is weakened just that much. In manufactures, one manufactory succumbs only so far as the total of national labor replaces what it produced, icith an excess. Imagine a state of affairs where for one man, stretched on the plain, two spring up full of force and vigor. If there is a planet where such things happen, it must be admit- ted that war is carried on there under conditions so different from those which obtain here below, that it does not even deserve that name. Now t , this is the distinguishing character of what they have so in appro priately called an industrial war. Let the Belgians and English reduce the price of their iron, if they can, and keep on reducing it, until they bring it down to nothing. They may thereby put out one of our furnaces — kill one of our soldiers ; but I defy them to hinder a thousand other industries, more profitable than the disabled one, immediately, and, as a necessary consequence of this very cheapness, resuscitating and develop- ing themselves. Let us decide that supremacy by labor is impos- sible and contradictory, since all superiority which manifests itself among a people is converted into SUPREMACY BY LABOR. 327 cheapness, and results only in giving force to all others. Let us, then, banish from political econ- omy all these expressions borrowed from the vocab- ulary of battles : to druggie with equal arms, to con- quer, to crush out, to stifle, to be beaten, invasion, tribute. What do these words mean { Squeeze them, and nothing comes out of them. We are mistaken : there come from them absurd errors and fatal prejudices. These are the words which stop the blending of peoples, their peaceful, universal, indissoluble alliance, and the progress of humanity. PAET III SPOLIATION AND LAW. To the Protectionists of the General Council of Manufactures. Gentlemen : Let us for a few moments inter- change moderate and friendly opinions. You are not willing that political economy should believe and teach free trade. This is as though you were to say, ' ' We are not willing that political economy should occupy itself with society, exchange, value, law, justice, property. * On the 27th of April, 1850, after a very curious discussion, which was reproduced in the Moniteur, the General Council of Agriculture, Manufact- ures, and Commerce issued the following order : "Political economy shall be taught by the government professors, not merely from the theoretical point of view of free trade, but also with special regard to the facts and legislation which control French industry." It was in reply to this decree that Bastiat wrote the pamphlet Spoliation and Law, which first appeared in the Journal des Economises, May 15, 1850. 330 SPOLIATION AND LAW. We recognize only two principles — oppression and spoliation." ( Jan you possibly conceive of political economy without society ? Or of society without exchange ? Or of exchange without a relative value between the two articles, or the two services, exchanged ! Can you possibly conceive the idea of value, except as the result of the free consent of the exchangers ? Can you conceive of one product being worth another, if, in the barter, one of the parties is not free f It is 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 ex- change between an oppressor and one oppressed, unless the equivalence of the services is altered, or unless, as a consequence, law, justice, and the rights of property have been violated ? What do you really want ? Answer frankly. You are not willing that trade should be free ! You desire, then, that it shall not be free ? You desire, then, that trade shall be carried on under the influence of oppression ? For if it is not carried on under the influence of oppression, it will be carried on under the influence of liberty, and that is what you do not desire. Admit, then, that it is law and justice which embarrass you ; that that which troubles you is SPOLIATION AND LAW. 331 property — not your own, to be sure, but another's. You are altogether unwilling to allow others to freely dispose of their own property (the essential condi- tion of ownership) ; but you well understand how to dispose of your own — and of theirs. And, accordingly, you ask the political econo- mists to arrange this mass of absurdities and mon- strosities in a definite and well-ordered system ; to establish, in accordance with your practice, the theory of spoliation. But they will never do it ; for, in their eyes, spoliation is a principle of hatred and disorder, and the most particularly odious form which it can assume is the legal form. And here, Mr. Benoit d'Azy, 1 take you to task. You are moderate, impartial, and generous. You are willing to sacrifice your interests and your fort- une. 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 Assem- bly, 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 bless- ing. Unfortunately, it is impossible." Although it pains you that the sacrifice is so useless that it should not be made, and you exclaim, with Basile, " Money ! money ! I detest it — but I 332 SPOLIATION AND LAW. will keep it," assuredly no one will question a gen- erosity 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 pro- claim it in the ears of all France from the tribune of the Luxembourg and the Palais Legislatif. But no one desires you to abandon your fortune, and I admit that it would not solve the social problem. You wish to be generous, but cannot. I only venture to ask that you will be just. Keep your fortune, but permit me also to keep mine. Respect my property as I respect yours. Is this too bold a request on my part ? Suppose we lived in a country under a free-trade regime, where every one could dispose of his prop- erty and his labor at pleasure. Does this make your hair stand ? Reassure yourself, this is only an hypothesis. One would then be as free as the other. There would, indeed, be a law in the code, but this law, impartial and just, would not infringe our liberty, but would guarantee it, and it would take effect only when we sought to oppress each other. There would be officers of the law, magistrates and police ; but they would only execute the law. Under such a state of affairs, suppose that you owned an iron foundry, and that I was a hatter. I should need SPOLIATION AND LAW. 333 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 situa- tion, and my means of knowledge, I should dis- cover that the best thing for me to do would be to make hats, and sell them to a Belgian who would give me iron in exchange. But you, being the owner of an iron foundry, and considering my case, would say to yourself : ' ' I shall be obliged to compel that fellow to come to my shop." You, accordingly, take your sword and pistols, and, arming your numerous retinue, proceed to the frontier, and, at the moment I am engaged in making my trade, you cry out to me : " Stop that, or I will blow your brains out !" " But, my lord, I am in need of iron." " I have it to sell." " But, sir, you ask too much for it." "I have my reasons for that. " " But, my good sir, I also have my reasons for preferring cheaper iron." "Well, we shall see who shall decide between your reasons and mine ! Soldiers, advance !" In short, you forbid the entry of the Belgian iron, and prevent the export of my hats. Under the condition of things which we have supposed (that is, under a regime of liberty), you cannot deny that that would be, on your part, man- ifestly an act of oppression and spoliation. 334 SPOLIATION AND LAW. Accordingly, I should resort to the law, the magistrate, and the power of the government. They would intervene. You would be tried, con- demned, and justly punished. But this circumstance would suggest to you a bright idea. You would say to yourself : "1 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 magis- trate, 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 my- self ?" Enchanted by this pleasing prospect, you secure a nomination to the Chambers, and obtain the pas- sage of a law conceived in the following terms : Section 1. There shall be a tax levied upon everybody (but especially upon that cursed hat- maker). Sec. 2. The proceeds of this tax shall be applied to the payment of men to guard the fron- tier in the interest of iron -founders. Sec. 3. It shall be their duty to prevent the * SPOLIATION AND LAW. 335 exchange of hats or otlier articles of merchandise with the Belgians* for iron. Sec. ±. The ministers of the go -/eminent, the prosecuting attorneys, jailers, customs officers, and all officials, are intrusted with the execution of this law. I admit, sir, that in this form robbery w r ould 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 wrould then have saddled all the expenses upon me. But I affirm that you would have introduced into society a vicious principle, a principle of immoral- ity, of disorder, of hatred, and of incessant revolu- tions ; that you would have prepared the way for all the various schemes of socialism and communism. You, doubtless, find my hypothesis a very bold one. Well, then, let us reverse the case. I consent for the sake of the demonstration. Suppose that I am a laborer and you an iron- founder. It would be a great advantage to me to buy hatchets cheap, *a±d 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 every- thing that I can lay my hands upon. 33*) SPOLIATION AND LAW. But, in the exercise of your legitimate right of self-defence, you at first resist force with force ; afterward, invoking the power of the law, the magistrate, and the constables, you throw me into prison — and you do well. Oh ! ho ! the thought suggests itself to me that I have been very awkward in this business. When a person wishes to enjoy the property of other people, he will, unless he is a fool, act in accordance with the law, and not in violation of it. Conse- quently, just as you have made yourself a protec- tionist, I will make myself a socialist. Since you have laid claim to the right to profit, 1 claim the right to labor, or to the instruments of labor. For the rest, I read my Louis Blanc in prison, and 1 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 activi- ties 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 instru- ments of labor, except by the intervention of the SPOLIATION AMI LAW. 337 State V So that if it becomes necessary to revolu- tionize the country, I also wilt force my way into the halls of legislation. I also will pervert the Law, and make it perform in my behalf and at your expense the very act for which it just now punished me. My decree is modelled after yours : Section 1. There shall be taxes levied upon every citizen, and especially upon iron founders. Sec. 2. The proceeds of this tax shall be ap- plied to the creation of armed corps, to which the title of the fraternal constabulary shall be given. Sec 3. It shall be the duty of the fraternal constabulary to make their way into the warehouses of hatchets, saws, etc., to take pop; e>i on of these tools, and to distribute them to such workingmen as may desire them. Thanks to this ingenious device, you see, my lord, that I shall no longer be obliged to bear the risks, the costs, the odium, or the scruples of rob- bery. The State will rob for me as it has for you. "We shall both be playing the same game. It remains to be seen what would be the condi- tion 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 338 SPOLIATION AMI LAW. influenced by the desire to allow capital and labor to take the direction most advantageous to them. This is an error. This consideration is merely secondary. That which wounds, afflicts, and is revolting to us in the protective system, is the denial of right, of justice, of property ; it is the fact that the system turns the law against justice and against property, when it ought to protect them ; it is that it undermines and perverts the very conditions of society. And to the question in this aspect I invite your most serious consideration. What is law, or at least what ought it to be? What is its rational and moral mission ? Is it not to hold the balance even between all rights, all lib- erties, and all property ? Is it not to cause justice to rule among all ? Is it not to prevent and to repress oppression and robbery wherever they are found ? And are you not shocked at the immense, radi- cal, and deplorable innovation introduced into the world by compelling the law itself to commit the very crimes to punish which is its especial mission ■ — by turning the law in principle and in fact against liberty and property ? You deplore the condition of modern society. You groan over the disorder which prevails in insti- tutions and ideas. But is it not your system which has perverted everything, both institutions and ideas ? SPOLIATION AND LAW. 339 What ! the law is no longer the refuge of the oppressed, but the arm of the oppressor ! The law is no longer a shield, but a sword ! The law no longer holds in her august hands a scale, but false weights and measures ! And you wish to have society well regulated ! Your system has written over the entrance of the legislative halls these words : " Whoever accpiires any influence here can obtain his share of the legal- ized pillage." And what has been the result ? All classes of society have become demoralized by shouting around the gates of the palace : ' i Give me a share of the spoils. " After the revolution of February, wdien univer- sal 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 Assem- bly, each class, in accordance with your system, has endeavored to make the law an instrument of rapine. There have been demanded heavier im- posts, gratuitous credit, the right to employment, the right to assistance, the guaranty of incomes and of minimum wages, gratuitous instruction, 340 SPOLIATION AM) LAW. Loans to industry, etc., etc ; in short, every one lias endeavored to live and thrive at the expense of others. And upon what have these pretensions been based ? Upon the authority of jour prece- dents. "What sophisms have been invoked ? Those that you have propagated for two centuries. With you they have talked about equalizing the conditions of labor. With you they have declaimed against ruinous competition. With you they have ridi- culed the let alone principle, that is to say, liberty. With you they have said that the law should not confine itself to being just, but should come to the aid of suffering industries, protect the feeble against the strong, secure profits to individuals at the expense of the community, etc., etc. In short, according to the expression of Mr. Charles Dupin, socialism has come to establish the theory of rob- bery. It has done what you have done, and that which you desire the professors of political economy to do for you. Your cleverness is in vain, Messieurs Protect ion- ists, it is useless to lower your tone, to boast of your latent generosity, or to deceive your opponents by sentiment. You cannot prevent logic from being logic. You cannot prevent Mr. Billault from telling the legislators, " You have granted favors to one, you must grant them to all." You cannot prevent Mr. Cremieux from telling SPOLIATION AND LAW. 341 the legislators : " You have enriched the manufact- urers, you must enrich the common people. " You cannot prevent Mr. Nadeau from saying to the legislators : ' ' You cannot refuse to do for the suffering classes that which you have done for the privileged classes. ' ' You cannot even prevent the leader of your orchestra, Mr. Mimerel, from saying to the legisla- tors : "I demand twenty-five thousand subsidies for the workragmen's savings banks," and support- ing his motion in this manner : '•Is this the first example of the kind that our legislation offers ? Would you establish the system that the State should encourage everything, open at its expense courses of scientific lectures, subsidize the fine arts, pension the theatre, give to the classes already favored by fortune the benefits of superior education, the most varied amusements, the enjoyment of the arts, and repose for old age — give all this to those who know nothing of privations, and compel those who have no share in these benefits to bear their part of the burden, while refusing them everything, even the necessaries of life ? " Gentlemen, our French society, our customs, our laws, are so made that the intervention of the State, however much it may be regretted, is seen everywhere, and nothing seems to be stable or durable if the hand of the State is not manifest in it. It is the State that makes the Sevres porcelain and the Gobelin tapestry ; it is the State that periodically gives expositions of the works of our artists and of the products of our manufacturers ; it is the State which recompenses those who raise its cattle and breed its fish. All this costs a great deal. It is a tax to which every one is obliged to contribute. Everybody, do you understand? And what direct benefit do the people derive from it? Of what 342 SPOLIATION AND LAW. 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 re- moved. Shall it be done by closing the manufactories of tapes- try and stopping the exhibitions? Assuredly not, but by giving the poor a direct share in this distribution of benefits." In this long catalogue of favors granted to some at the expense of all, one will remark the extreme prudence with which Mr. Mimerel has left the tariff favors out of sight, although they are the most explicit manifestations of legal spoliation. All the orators who supported or opposed him have taken upon themselves the same reserve. It is very shrewd ! Possibly they hope, by giving the jioor a direct participation hi this distribution of benefits, to save this great iniquity by which they profit, but of which they do not whisper. They deceive themselves. Do they suppose that after having realized a partial spoliation by the establishment of customs duties, other classes, by the establishment of other institutions, will not attempt to realize universal spoliation ? I know very well you always have a sophism ready. You say: "The favors which the law SPOLIATION AND LAW. 343 grant us are not given to the mmvufcbeturer, but to manufacture*. 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 ex- pend more, to extend our establishments, and falls like refreshing dew upon the laboring classes." Such is your language, and what I most lament is the circumstance that your miserable sophisms have so perverted public opinion that they are appealed to in support of all forms of legalized spoliation. The suffering classes also say: "Let us by act of the Legislature help ourselves to the goods of others. We shall be in easier circum- stances as the result of it ; we shall buy more wheat, more meat, more cloth, and more iron ; and that which we receive from the public taxes will return in a beneficent shower to the capitalists and landed proprietors. " But, as I have already said, I will not to-day dis- cuss the economical effects of legal spoliation. Whenever the protectionists desire, they will find me ready to examine the sophisms of the ricochets, which, indeed, may be invoked in support of all species of robbery and fraud. We will confine ourselves to the political and moral effects of exchange legally deprived of liberty. I have said : The time has come to know what the law is, and what it ought to be. 344 8POLIATION AND LAW. If you make the law for all citizens a palladium of liberty and of property; if it is only the organiza- tion of the individual law of self-defence you will establish, upon the foundation of justice, a govern- ment rational, simple, economical, comprehended by all, loved by all, useful to all, supported by all, intrusted 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, jeal- ousies, inextinguishable hates, the public forces placed at the service of rapacity instead of repress- ing 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 every- thing and bending under the burden of its respon- sibilities, 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. SPOLIATION AND LAW. 345 Such, consequently, gentlemen, are the evils for which you have prepared the way by making use of the law to destroy freedom of exchange — that is to say, to abolish the right of property. Do not declaim against socialism ; you establish it. Do not cry out against communism ; you create it. And now you ask us Economists to make you a theory which will justify you ! Morbleu ! make it yourselves. PART IV. CAPITAL AND INTEREST. My object in this treatise is to examine into the real nature of the Interest of Capital, for the pur- pose of proving that it is lawful, and explaining why it should be perpetual. This may appear sin- gular, 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 expe- rience. But then, you will say, " What is the use of this treatise? Why explain what everybody knows ?" But, although this problem appears at first sight bo very simple, there is more in it than you might 348 CAPITAL AM) INTEREST. suppose. I shall endeavor to prove this by an ex- ample. 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 ^Ion- dor or his heirs, through all eternity. Header, can you honestly say that you understand the reason of this ? It would be a waste of time to seek any satisfac- tory 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 law- fulness was not called in question. Now, however, times are altered ; the case is different. Men who consider themselves to be in advance of their age, have organized an active crusade against capital and interest ; it is the productiveness of capital which they are attacking ; not certain abuses in the administration of it, but the principle itself. A journal has been established to serve as a vehi- cle for this crusade. It is conducted by M. Proud- hon, and has, it is said, an immense circulation. The first number of this periodical contains the electoral manifesto of the people. Here we read, " The productiveness of capital, which is condemn- ed by Christianity under the name of usury, is the true cause of misery, the true principle of destitu- tion, the eternal obstacle to the establishment of the Kepublic." CAPITAL AM) ENTEBE8T. 349 Another journal, La Iiuche Populaire, after having said some excellent things on labor, adds, " But above all, labor ought to be free — that is, it ought to be organized in such a manner that money- lenders and patrons or masters, should not be paid for this liberty of labor, this right of labor, which is raised to so high a price by the traffickers of men." The only thought that I notice here is that ex- pressed by the words in italics, which imply a denial of the right to interest. The remainder of the ar- ticle explains it. It is thus that the democratic Socialist, Thore, expresses himself : il The revolution will always have to be recom- menced, so long as we occupy ourselves with con- sequences only, without having the logic or the courage to attack the principle itself. This principle is capital, false property, interest, and usury, which by the old regime, is made to weigh upon labor. " Ever since the aristocrats invented the incredi- ble fiction, capital possesses the power of reproduc- ing itself, the workers have been at the mercy of the idle. " At the end of a year, will you find an addi- tional crown in a bag of one hundred shillings ? At the end of fourteen years, will your shillings have doubled in your bag ? " Will a work of industry or of skill produce another, at the end of fourteen years ? 350 CAPITAL AND LNTEKEST. "Let us begin, then, by demolisliing this fatal fiction." I have quoted the above, merely for the sake of establishing the fact, that many persons consider the productiveness of capital a false, a fatal, and an iniquitous principle. But quotations are superflu- ous ; it is well known that the people attribute their sufferings to what they call the trafficking in man by man. In fact, the phrase tyranny of capi- tal has become proverbial. I believe there is not a man in the world who is aware of the whole importance of this question : " Is the interest of capital natural, just, and law. ful, and as useful to the payer as to the receiver V ' 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 hu- man progress ; and that all my arguments are but as so many grains of sand, by which the car of the revolution will certainly not be arrested. But if, on the contrary, MM. Proudhon and Thore are deceiving themselves, it follows that they are leading the people astray — that they are showing them the evil where it does not exist ; and CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 351 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 vie- toiy would be more fatal than defeat, since, accord- ing to this supposition, the result would be the reali- zation of universal evils, the destruction of every means of emancipation, the consummation of its own misery. This is just what M. Proudhon has acknowledged, with perfect good faith. " The foundation stone," he told me, ' ' of my system is the gratuitousness of credit. If I am mistaken in this, Socialism is a vain dream." I add, it is a dream, in which the people are tearing themselves to pieces. "Will it, therefore, be a cause for surprise, if, when they awake, they find themselves mangled and bleeding ? Such a danger as this is enough to justify me fully, if, in the course of the discussion, I allow myself to be led into some trivialities and some prolixity. CAPITAL AND INTEREST. I address this treatise to the workmen of Paris, more especially to those who have enrolled them- selves under the banner of Socialist democracy. I proceed to consider these two questions : 1st. Is it consistent with the nature of things, and with justice, that capital should produce interest ? 2d. Is it consistent with the nature of tilings, 352 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. and with justice, that the interest of capital should he perpetual ? The workingmen of Paris will certainly acknowl- edge that a more important subject could not be discussed. Since the world began, it has been allowed, at least in part, that capital ought to produce interest. But latterly it has been affirmed, that herein lies the very social error which is the cause of pauperism and inequality. It is, therefore, very essential to know now on what ground we stand. For if levying interest from capital is a sin, the workers have a right to revolt against social order, as it exists ; it is in vain to tell them that they ought to have recourse to legal and pacific means, it would be a hypocritical recommendation. When on the one side there is a strong man, poor, and a victim of robbery — on the other, a weak man, but rich, and a robber — it is singular enough, that we should say to the former, with a hope of persuad- ing him, " Wait till your oppressor voluntarily re- nounces oppression, or till it shall cease of itself." This cannot be ; and those who tell us that capital is, by nature, unproductive, ought to know that they are provoking a terrible and immediate struggle. If, on the contrary, the interest of capital is natu- ral, 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 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 353 this pretended social wound, are leading the work- men into a senseless and unjust struggle, which can have no other issue than the misfortune of all. In fact, they are arming labor against capital. So much the better, if these two powers are really antagonistic ; and may the struggle soon be ended ! But if they are in harmony, the struggle is the greatest evil which can be inflicted on society. You see, then, workmen, that there is not a more important question than this : "Is the interest of capital lawful or not ?' ? In the former case, you must immediately renounce the struggle to which you are being urged ; in the second, you must carry it on bravely, and to the end. Productiveness of capital — perpetuity of interest. These are difficult questions. I must endeavor to make myself clear. And for that purpose I shall have to recourse to example rather than to demon- stration ; 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. 354 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. The other man does nothing, either with his hands or his head ; or, at least, if he makes nse 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 pro- duce by the sweat of their brow ; for these things do not make themselves ; and, as far as he is con- cerned, 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 in- cessantly in a perpetual circle, and a monotony of exertion. Labor, then, is rewarded only once. But if the other, the 'gentleman,' consumes his yearly income in the year, he has, the year after, in those which follow, and through all eternity, an income always equal, inexhaustible, perpetual. Capital, then, is remunerated, not only once or CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 355 twice, but an indefinite number of times ! So that, lit the end of a hundred years, a family, which has placed 20,000 francs, at live 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 tenfold value on the labor of others. In this social arrange- ment, is there not a monstrous evil to be reformed ? And this is not all. If it should please this family to curtail its enjoyments a little — to spend, for ex- ample, only 900 jtrancs, instead of 1000 — it may, without any labor, without any other trouble be- yond 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 work- men. 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 tem- porary suffering?" These are, it appears to me, the sad and irritating reflections which must be excited in your minds by the active and superficial crusade which is being carried on against capital and interest. On the other hand, there are moments in which, I am con- vinced, doubts are awakened in your minds, and scruples in your conscience. You say to yourselves sometimes, " But to assert that capital ought not to 856 « aitial am) inti-:i:i-:st. 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 compen- sation. 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 be- come 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 pur- sued 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 de- prive us of all stimulus to save at the present time, and of all hope of repose for the future. It is use- less to exhaust ourselves with fatigue ; we must abandon the idea of leaving our sons and daughters a little property, since modern science lenders it CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 357 useless, for we should become traffickers in men if we were to lend it on interest. Alas ! the world which these persons would open before us as an imaginary good, is still more dreary and desolate than that which they condemn, for hope, at any rate, is not banished from the latter." Thus in all respects, and in every point of view, the question is a serious one. Let us hasten to arrive at a solution. Our civil code has a chapter entitled, "On the manner of transmitting property." I do not think it gives a very complete nomenclature on this point. When a man by his labor has made some useful thing— in other words, when he has created a value — it can only pass into the hands of another by one of the following modes : as a gift, by the right of inheritance, by exchange, loan, or theft. One word upon each of these, except the last, although it plays a greater part in the world than we may think. A gift needs no definition. It is essentially voluntary and spontaneous. It depends exclu- sively 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 358 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. property of another, the gift would have no merit, charity and gratitude would be no longer virtues. Besides, such a doctrine would suddenly and uni- versally arrest labor and production, as severe cold congeals water and suspends animation, for who would work if there was no longer to be any connec- tion between labor and the satisfying of our wants ? Political economy has not treated of gifts. It has hence been concluded that it disowns them, and that it is therefore a science devoid of heart. This is a ridiculous accusation. That science which treats of the laws resulting from the reciprocity of services, had no business to inquire into the consequences of generosity with respect to him who receives, nor into its effects, perhaps still more precious, on him who gives ; such considerations belong evidently to the science of morals. We must allow the sciences to have limits ; above all, we must not accuse them of denying or undervaluing what they look upon as foreign to their department. The right of inheritance, against which so much has been objected of late, is one of the forms of gift, and assuredly the most natural of all. That which a man has produced, he may consume, ex- change, 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 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 359 called in question \ Because it is imagined that the property thus transmitted is plundered from the masses. This is a fatal error ; political economy demonstrates, in the most peremptory manner, that all value produced is a creation which does no harm to any person whatever. For that reason, it may be consumed, and, still more, transmitted, without hurting any one ; but I shall not pursue these reflections, which do not belong to the subject. Exchange is the principal department of political economy, because it is by far the most frequent method of transmitting property, according to the free and voluntary agreements of the laws and ef- fects of which this science treats. Properly speaking, exchange is the reciprocity of services. The parties say between themselves, " Give me this, and I will give you that ;" or, " Do this for me, and I will do that for yon." It is well to remark (for this will throw a new .light on the notion of value) that the second form is always im- plied in the first. ^Vhen 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 valua- tion of the two services ; so that it is quite correct 360 CAPITA L A XI) INTEREST. to say, that the principle of value is in the services rendered and received on account of the produc- tions exchanged, rather than in productions them- selves. In reality, services are scarcely ever exchanged directly. There is a medium, which is termed money. Paul has completed a coat, for which he wishes to receive a little bread, a little wine, a little oil, a visit from a doctor, a ticket for the play, etc. The exchange cannot be effected in kind ; so what does Paul do ? He first exchanges his coat for some money, which is called sale y then he exchanges this money again for the things which he wants, which is called purchase ; and now, only, has the reciprocity of services completed its circuit ; now, only, the labor and the compensation are balanced in the same individual — " I have done this for society, it has done that for me. " In a word, it is only now that the exchange is actually accom- plished. Thus, nothing can be more correct than this observation of J. B. Say : " Since the intro- duction of money, every exchange is resolved into two elements, sale and purchase. It is the reunion of these two elements which renders the exchange complete. We must remark, also, that the constant appear- ance of money in every exchange has overturned and misled all our ideas ; men have ended in think- ing that money was true riches, and that to multi- I CAPITA L A XI) INTEREST. 361 ply 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.* After much research it has been found, that in order to make the two services exchanged of equivalent value, and in order to render the exchange equitable, the best means was to allow it to be free. How- ever plausible, at first sight, the intervention of the State might be, it was soon perceived that it is always oppressive to one or other of the contracting parties. When we look into these subjects, we are always compelled to reason upon this maxim, that equal value results from liberty. We have, in fact, no other means of knowing whether, at a given moment, two services are of the same value, but that of examining whether they can be readily and freely exchanged. Allow the State, which is the same thing as force, to interfere on one side or the other, and from that moment all the means of appreciation will be complicated and entangled, instead of becoming clear. It ought to be the part of the State to prevent, and, above all, to repress artifice and fraud ; that is, to secure liberty, and not to violate it. I have enlarged a little upon exchange, although loan is my principal object ; * This error will be combated in a pamphlet, entitled " Cursed Money.' 1 '' 302 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. my excuse is, that I conceive that there is in a loan an actual exchange, an actual service rendered by the lender, and which makes the borrower liable to an equivalent service — two services, whose com- parative value can only be appreciated, like that of all possible services, by freedom. Now, if it is so, the perfect lawfulness of what is called house-rent, farm-rent, interest, will be explained and justified. Let us consider the case of loan. 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 him- self, but unfavorable to the other party, he must a^ree to a second clause, which shall re-establish the equilibrium, and the law of justice. It would be absurd to deny the justice of a second clause of compensation. This granted, we will suppose that Peter, after having said to Paul, " Give me ten sixpences, I will give you a crown," adds, "you shall give me the ten sixpences now, and 1 will give you the crown-piece in a yearf it is very evident that this new proposition alters the claims and ad- CAPITAL AXD INTEREST. 363 vantages of the bargain ; that it alters the propor- tion 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 shil- lings which belong to you, and which you might have used for yourself " ? And what good reason have you to maintain that Paul is bound to render this especial service gratuitously — that he has no right to demand anything more in consequence of this requisition ; that the State ought to interfere to force him to submit ? Is it not incomprehensible that the economist who preaches such a doctrine to the people can reconcile it with his principle of the reciprocity of services f 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 pro- ductions themselves. Suppose, for example, a house and a vessel of a value so perfectly equal that their proprietors are dis- posed to exchange them even-handed, without ex- cess or abatement. In fact, let the bargain be settled by a lawyer. At the moment of each taking posses- 3 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. trifling part of the excess of production, due to inv lendings and savings. It is a marvellous thing, thaf a man may thus realize a leisure which injures nc one, and for which he cannot be envied without in- justice." THE HOUSE. Mondor had a house. In building it he had ex- torted 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 him- self 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 economist — 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. CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 371 The first is, to quit at the end of the year, and to restore the house in good repair, saving the inevita- ble decay resulting from mere duration. The sec- ond, 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 ser- vice equivalent to that which he receives. As to this equivalence of services, it must be freely dis- cussed between Mondor and Valerius. THE PLANE. A very long time ago there lived, in a poor vil- lage, a joiner, who was a philosopher, as all my heroes are, in their way. James worked from morn- ing till night with his two strong arms, but his brain was not idle, for all that. He was fond of review- ing his actions, their causes, and their effects. He sometimes said to himself , u With my hatchet my saw, and my hammer, I can make only coarse furni- ture, and can only get the pay for such. If I only had & plane, I should please my customers more, and they would pay me more. It is quite just : I can only expect services proportioned to those which I render myself. Yes ! I am resolved, I will make myself a jrt ane - ' ' m Dosincf 372 CAPITAL AND INTERES I. However, just as lie was setting to work, James re- jected further : "I work for my customers 3( >< I days the year. If I give ten to making my plane, sup- 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 hence- forth, with the help of the plane, as much in 290 days, as I now do in 300. I must even gain more ; for unless I do so, it would not be worth my while to venture upon any innovations." James began to calculate. He satisfied himself that he should sell his finished furniture at a price which would amply compensate for the ten days devoted to the plane ; and when no doubt remained on this point, he set to work. I beg the reader to remark, that the power which exists in the tool to increase the productiveness of labor, is the basis of the solution which follows. At the end of ten days James had in his possession an admirable plane, which he valued all the more for having made it himself. He danced for joy — for, like the girl with her basket of eggs, he reckoned all the profits which he expected to derive from the in- genious instrument ; but, more fortunate than she, he was not reduced to the necessity of saying good- by to calf, cow, pig, and eggs, together. He was building his fine castles in the air, when he was in- terrupted by his acquaintance, William, a joiner in the neighboring village. William having admired CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 373 the plane, was struck with the advantages which might be gained from it. He said to James : IT. You must do me a service. J. What service ? W. Lend me the plane for a year. As might be expected, James at this proposal did not fail to cry out, "How can you think of such a thing, William ? Well, if I do you this service, what will you do for me in return ?" W. Nothing. Don't you know that a loan ought to be gratuitous ? Don't you know that capital is naturally unproductive ? Don't you know fraternity has been proclaimed ? If you only do me a service for the sake of receiving one from me in return, what merit would you have ? J. William, my friend, fraternity does not mean that all the sacrifices are to be on one side ; if so, I do not see why they should not be on yours. Wheth- er a loan should be gratuitous I don't know ; but I do know that if I were to lend you my plane for a year, it would be giving it to you. To tell you the truth, that is not what I made it for. W. Well, we will say nothing about the modern maxims discovered by the Socialist gentlemen. I ask you to do me a service ; what service do you ask of me in return ? J. First, then, in a year, the plane will be done for, it will be good for nothing. It is only just that you should let me have another exactly like it, or that 374 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. you should give me money enough to get it repaired, or that you should supply me the ten days which I must devote to replacing it. W, This is perfectly just. I submit to these conditions. 1 engage to return it, or to let you have one like it, or the value of the same. I think you must be satisfied with this, and can require nothing further. J. I think otherwise. I made the plane for my- self, and not for you. I expected to gain some ad- vantage from it, by my work being better finished and better paid, by an improvement in my condi- tion. What reason is there that I should make the plane, and you should gain the profit ? I might as well ask you to give me your saw and hatchet ! "What a confusion ! Is it not natural that each should keep what he has made with his own hands, as well as his hands themselves ? To use without recompense the hands of another, I call slavery ; to use without recompense the plane of another, can this be called fraternity ? W. But, then, I have agreed to return it to you at the end of a year, as well polished and as sharp as it is now. ./. 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 condi- tion ; if you merely return it to me in a year, it is you who will gain the profit of it during the whole CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 375 of that time. 1 am not bound to do you such a service without receiving anything from you in return ; therefore, if you wish for my plane, inde- pendently of the entire restoration already bar- gained for, you must do me a service which we will now discuss ; you must grant me remuneration. And this was done thus : William granted a remuneration calculated in such a way that, at the end of the year, James received his plane quite new, and in addition, a condensation, consisting of a new plank, for the advantages of which he had deprived himself, and which he had yielded to his friend. It was impossible for any one acquainted with the transaction to discover the slightest trace in it of oppression or injustice. The singular part of it is, that, at the end of the year, the plane came into James's 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, some- times its handle. It is no longer the same plane, but it has always the same value, at least for James's posterity. Workmen ! let us examine into these little stories. I maintain, first of all, that the sack of corn and the plane are here the type, the model, a faithful representation, the symbol, of all capital ; as the 376 CAPITAL AND INTEREST, five litres of corn and the plank are the type, the model, the representation, the symbol, of all inter- est. This granted, the following are, it seems to me, a series of consequences, the justice of which it is impossible to dispute. 1st. If the yielding of a plank by the borrower to the lender is a natural, equitable, lawful remu- neration, the just price of a real service, w T e may conclude that, as a general rule, it is in the nature of capital to produce interest. When this capital, as in the foregoing examples, takes the form of an instrument of labor, it is clear enough that it ought to bring an advantage to its possessor, to him who has devoted to it his time, his brains, and his strength. Otherwise, why should he have made it ? No necessity of life can be immediately satisfied with instruments of labor ; no one eats planes or drinks saws, except, indeed, he be a con- jurer. 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 advan- tages 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 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 377 tliem 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 proclaim- ing that there are men born to render, and others born to receive, gratuitous services. Granted, then, that interest is just, natural, and lawful. 2d. A second consequence, not less remarkable than the former, and, if possible, still more conclu- sive, to which I call your attention, is this : interest is not injurious to the borrower. I mean to say, the obligation in which the borrower finds himself, to pay a remuneration for the use of capital, cannot do any harm to his condition. Observe, in fact, that James and William are perfectly free, as regards the transaction to which the plane gave occasion. The transaction cannot be accomplished without the consent of the one as well as of the other. The worst which can happen is, that James may be too exacting ; and in this case, William, refusing the loan, remains as he was before. By the fact of his agreeing to borrow, he proves that he considers it an advantage to himself ; he proves that after every calculation, including the remu- neration, whatever it may be, required of him, he still finds it more profitable to borrow than not to 378 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. borrow. lie only determines to do so because lie has compared the inconveniences with the advan- tages. He has calculated that the day on which he returns the plane, accompanied by the remunera- tion 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 speak- ing are exchanged according to the law which governs all exchanges, the law of supply and de- mand. The claims of James have a natural and impassable limit. This is the point in which the remuneration demanded by him would absorb all the advantage which William might find in making use of a plane. In this case, the borrowing would not take place. William would be bound either to make a plane for himself, or to do without one, which would leave him in his original condition. He borrows because he gains by borrowing. I know very well what will be told me. You will say, William may be deceived, or, perhaps, he may be governed by necessity, and be obliged to submit to a harsh law. It may be so. As to errors in calculation, they belong to the infirmity of our nature, and to argue from this against the transaction in question, is objecting the possibility of loss in all imaginable transactions, in every human act. Error is an acci- dental fact, which is incessantly remedied by expe- CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 379 rience. 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 sup- posed condition of William worse than it is. Morally, it is true, the lender will be to blame ; but, in an economical point of view, the loan itself can never be considered responsible for previous necessities, which it has not created, and which it relieves, to a certain extent. But this proves something to which I shall return. The evident interests of William, repre- senting here the borrowers, there are many Jameses and planes. In other words, lenders and capitals. It is very evident, that if William can say to James, "Your demands are exorbitant; there is no lack of planes in the world ;" he will be in a better situation than if James's plane was the only one to be borrowed. Assuredly, there is no maxim more true than this — service for service. But let us not forget, that no service has a fixed and abso- lute value, compared with others. The contracting 3S0 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 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 capital, it is mainly that of the borrowers. ^ T ow, since capital 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 pre- tended tyranny of capital, when they discourage saving, thus forcing capital to become scarce, and consequently interest to rise. 3d. The anecdote I have just related enables yon to explain this apparently singular phenome- non, 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 expira- tion of the term, lend it again on the same condi- tions ? 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 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 381 derive from it a perpetual interest. It will be said, that the plane will be worn out. That is true ; but it will be worn out by the hand and for the profit of the borrower. The latter has taken into account this gradual wear, and taken upon himself, as he ought, the consequences. He has reckoned that he shall derive from this tool an advantage, which will allow him to restore it in its original condition, after having realized a profit from it. As long as James does not use this capital himself, or for his own advantage — as long as he renounces the advan- tages which allow it to be restored to its original condition — he will have an incontestable right to have it restored, and that independently of interest. Observe, besides, that if, as I believe I have shown, James, far from doing any harm to William, has done him a service in lending him his plane for a year ; for the same reason, he will do no harm to a second, a third, a fourth borrower, in the subse- quent 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 farther. 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 multi- tude of planes and saws ; that is to say, to do a multitude of services. I insist upon this point — that if the first loan has been a social good, it will be 3S2 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. the s;mie with all the others ; for they are all simi- lar, and based upon the same principle. It may happen, then, that the amount of all the remuner- ations received by our honest operative, in ex- change 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 work- ing. I do not say that he would be doing right to give himself up to idleness— but I say that he has a right to do so ; and if he does so, it will be at nobody's expense, but quite the contrary. If society at all understands the nature of things, it will acknowledge that this man subsists on services which he receives certainly (as we all do), but which he lawfully receives in exchange for other services which he himself has rendered, that he continues to render, and which are quite real, inas- much as they are freely and voluntarily accepted. And here we have a glimpse of one of the finest harmonies in the social world. I allude to leisure : not that leisure that the warlike and tyrannical classes arrange for themselves by the plunder of the workers, but that leisure which is the lawful and innocent fruit of past activity and economy. In expressing myself thus, I know that I shall shock many received ideas. But see ! Is not leisure an essential spring in the social machine ? Without it the world would never have had a Newton, a Pascal, a Fenelon ; mankind would CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 383 have been ignorant of all arts, sciences, and of those wonderful inventions, prepared originally by inves- tigations of mere curiosity ; thought would have been inert — man would have made no progress. On the other hand, if leisure could only be explained by plunder and oppression — if it were a benefit which could only be enjoyed unjustly, and at the expense of others, there would be no middle path between these two evils ; either mankind would be reduced to the necessity of stagnating in a vegeta- ble and stationary life, in eternal ignorance, from the absence of wheels to its machine —or else it would have to acquire these wheels at the price of inevitable injustice, and would necessarily present the sad spectacle, in one form or other, of the antique classification of human beings into Masters and Slaves. I defy any one to show me, in this case, any other alternative. We should be com- pelled to contemplate the Divine plan which gov- erns 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 imper- fect 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 384 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. exist a planet which will be at last discovered, for without it the celestial world is not harmony, but discord. Well, I say that, if well understood, the history of my humble plane, although very modest, is suffi- cient to raise us to the contemplation of one of the most consoling, but least understood, of the social harmonies. It is not true that we must choose between the denial or the unlawfulness of leisure ; thanks to rent and its natural duration, leisure may arise from labor and saving. It is a pleasing prospect, which every one may have in view ; a noble recom- pense, to which each may aspire. It makes its appearance in the world ; it distributes itself pro- portionably to the exercise of certain virtues ; it opens all the avenues to intelligence ; it ennobles, it raises the morals ; it spiritualizes the soul of human- ity, 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, accu- mulated, 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 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 385 customs ought to be favorable to economy, the source of capital. It is enough to say that the first of all these conditions is, not to alarm, to attack, to deny that which is the stimulus of saving and the reason of its existence — interest. As long as we see nothing passing from hand to hand, in the character of loan, but provisions, mate- rials, instruments, things indispensable to the pro- ductiveness of labor itself, the ideas thus far exhibited will not find many opponents. Who knows, even, that I may not be reproached for having made great effort to burst what may be said to be an open door. But as soon as cash makes its appearance as the subject of the transac- tion (and it is this which appears almost always), immediately a crowd of objections are raised. Money, it will be said, will not reproduce itself, like your sack of com • it does not assist labor, like your plane • it does not afford an immediate satis- faction, like your house. It is incapable, by its nature, of producing interest, of multiplying itself, and the remuneration it demands is a positive extortion. Who cannot see the sophistry of this ? Who does not see that cash is only a transient form, which men give at the time to other values, to real objects of usefulness, for the sole object of facilita- ting their arrangements ( In the midst of social complications, the man who is in a condition to 386 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. lend scarcely ever Las 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 ex- changes the money for a saw. The transaction is no longer a simple one ; it is decomposed into two parts, as I explained above in sj^eaking 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 s;ot rid of a tool which was useful to him ; William has still received an instru- ment which perfects his work and increases his prof- its ; there is still a service rendered by the lender which entitles him to receive an equivalent service from the borrower ; this just balance is not the less established by free mutual bargaining. The very natural obligation to restore at the end of the term the entire value, still constitutes the principle of the duration of interest. At the end of a year, says M. Thore, will you find an additional crown in a bag of a hundred pounds ? "No, certainly, if the borrower puts the bag of one hundred pounds on the shelf. In such a case, neither the plane, nor the sack of corn, would reproduce themselves. But it is not for the sake of leaving the money in the bag, nor the plane on CAPITA I, AND INTEREST. '» s i 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 stipu- lation of a part of this excess of profits in favor of the lender, is equitable and lawful. Ignorance of the true part which cash plays in human transactions, is the source of the most fatal errors. I intend devoting an entire pamphlet to this subject. From what we may infer from the writings of M. Proudhon, that which has led him to think that gratuitous credit was a logical and definite consequence of social progress, is the observation of the phenomenon which shows a decreasing interest, almost in direct proportion to the rate of civilization. In barbarous times it is, in fact, cent per cent, and more. Then it descends to eighty, sixty, fifty, forty, twenty, ten, eight, five, four, and three per cent. In Holland it has even been as low as two per cent. Hence it is concluded, that " in proportion as society comes to perfection, it will descend to zero by the time civilization is complete. In other words, that which character- izes social perfection is the gratuitousness of credit. When, therefore, we shall have abolished interest, we shall have reached the last step of progress. " 388 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. This is mere sophistry, and as such false arguing may contribute to render popular the unjust, dan- gerous, 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 ques- tion. What is interest? It is the service rendered, after a free bargain, by the borrower to the lender, in remuneration for the service he had received by the loan. By what law is the rate of these remu- nerative services established ? By the general law which regulates the equivalent of all services — that is, by the law of supply and demand. The more easily a thing is procured, the smaller is the service rendered by yielding it or lending it. The man who gives me a glass of water in the Pyrenees, does not render me so great a service as he who allows me one in the desert of Sahara. If there are many planes, sacks of corn, or houses, in a country, the use of them is obtained, other things being equal, on more favorable conditions than if they were few ; for the simple reason, that the lend- er renders in this case a smaller relative service. It is not surprising, therefore, that the more abundant capital is, the lower is the interest. Is this saying that it will ever reach zero ? No ; because, I repeat it, the principle of a remuneration is in the loan. To say that interest will be anni- CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 389 hilated, is to say that there will never be any motive for saving, for denying ourselves, in order to form new capital, nor even to preserve the old ones. In this case, the waste would immediately bring a void, and interest would directly reappear. In that, the nature of the services of which we are speaking does not differ from any other. Thanks to industrial progress, a pair of stockings, which used to be worth six francs, has successively been worth only four, three, and two. jSTo 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 spontane- ously. Why ? Because the principle of remu- neration is in labor ; because he who works for another renders a service, and ought to receive a service. If no one paid for stockings, they would cease to be made ; and, with the scarcity, the price would not fail to reappear. The sophism which I am now combating has its root in the infinite divisibility which belongs to value, as it does to matter. It appears, at first, paradoxical, but it is well known to all mathematicians, that, through all enter- nity, fractions may be taken from a weight without the weight ever being annihilated. It is sufficient that each successive fraction be less than the preced- ing one, in a determined and regular proportion. There are countries where people apply them- 390 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. selves to increasing the size of horses, or diminish- ing in sheep the size of the head. It is impossible to say precisely to what point they will arrive in this. No one can say that he has seen the largest horse or the smallest sheep's head that will ever appear in the world. But he may safely say that the size of horses will never attain to infinity, nor the heads of sheep to nothing. In the same way, no one can say to what point the price of stockings nor the interest of capital will come down ; but we may safely affirm , when we know the nature of things, that neither the one nor the other will ever arrive at zero, for labor and capital can no more live without recompense than a sheep without a head. The arguments of M. Proudhon reduce them- selves, then, to this : since the most skilful agricult- urists 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 real- ize the perfection, let us behead them. I have now done with this wearisome discussion. Why is it that the breath of false doctrine has made it needful to examine into the intimate nature of interest ? I must not leave off without remark- ing upon a beautiful moral which may be drawn from this law : ' ' The depression of interest is pro- portioned to the abundance of capital. " This law CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 391 being granted, if there is a class of men to whom it is more important than to any other that capital be formed, accumulate, multiply, abound, and su- perabound, it is certainly the class which borrows them directly or indirectly ; it is those men who operate upon materials, who gain assistance by instruments, who live upon provisions, produced and economized by other men. Imagine, in a vast and fertile country, a popula- tion 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 suffi- cient 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 mas- ters of the market. They will obtain labor on the hardest conditions, for they will put it up to auction, or the highest bidder. And observe this — if these capitalists entertain such pious sentiments as would induce them to impose personal privations on them- selves, 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 392 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 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-live 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 scarcitv of capital. Low wages are not the cause, but the effect of the evil. I may add that they are to a certain extent the remedy. It acts in this way : it distributes the burden of suffering as much as it can, and saves as many lives as a limited quantity of sustenance permits. Suppose now, that instead of ten capitalists, there should be a hundred, two hundred, five hun- dred — is it not evident that the condition of the whole population, and, above all, that of the " pro- letaires,"* will be more and more improved? Is it not evident that, apart from every consideration of generosity, they would obtain more work and better pay for it ? — that they themselves will be in a better condition to form capitals, without being able to fix the limits to this ever-increasing facility of realizing equality and well-being? Would it * Common people. CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 393 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 ; doubt- less, 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. Yes, if the " proletaires" knew their true inter- ests, 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 dis- courage 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 govern- ment ; for it is under the sway of all these circum- stances that saving does its work, brings plenty within the reach of the masses, invites those per- sons 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 39-1 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 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 forma- tion, 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 u proletaires" have found greater difficulty in procuring those materials, instruments, and provi- sions, without which labor is impossible ? Is it not that which has caused stoppages ; and do not stoppages, in their turn, lower wages ? Thus there is a deficiency of labor to the "proletaires," from the same cause which loads the objects they con- sume with an increase of price, in consequence of the rise of interest. High interest, low wages, means in other words that the same article preserves its price, but that the part of the capitalist has invaded, without profiting himself, that of the workman. A friend of mine, commissioned to make inquiry CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 395 into Parisian industry, has assured me that the manufacturers have revealed to him a very striking fact, which proves, better than any reasoning can, how much insecurity and uncertainty injure the formation of capital. It was remarked that during the most distressing period the popular expenses of mere fancy had not diminished. The small theaters, the fighting lists, the public houses, and tobacco depots, were as much frequented as in prosperous times. In the inquiry, the operatives themselves explained this phenomenon thus: "What is the use of pinching ? Who knows what will happen to us ? Who knows that interest will not be abolish- ed ? Who knows but that the State will become a universal and gratuitous lender, and that it will wish to annihilate all the fruits which we might expect from our savings ?" Well ! I say, that if such ideas could prevail during two single years, it would be enough to turn our beautiful France into a Turkey — misery would become general and endemic, and, most assuredly, the poor would be the first upon whom it would fall. Workmen ! They talk to you a great deal upon the artificial organization of labor ; — do you know why they do so ? Because they are ignorant of the laws of its natural organization ; that is, of the wonderful organization which results from liberty. You are told that liberty gives rise to what is called the radical antagonism of classes ; that it creates, 396 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. and makes to clash, two opposite interests — that of the capitalists ;uid that of the " proletaires." But we ought to begin by proving that this antagonism exists by a law of nature ; and afterward it would remain to be shown how far the arrangements of restraint are superior to those of liberty, for be- tween 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 an- tagonism, 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 af- firm it, we must begin by denying the existence of God. And see how, by means of social laws, and because men exchange among themselves their la- bors 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 manu- facturers ; what is their constant thought ? To per- fect their labor, to increase the power of their ma- chines, 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 ; CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 397 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 capi- talists 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 conse- quence, the reduction of interest ? Now, who is it that profits by the reduction of interest ? Is it not the borrower first, and finally, the consumers of the things which the capitals contribute to produce ? It is therefore certain that the final result of the efforts of each class is the common good of all. You are told that capital tyrannizes over labor. I do not deny that each one endeavors to draw the greatest possible advantage from his situation ; but, in this sense, he realizes only that which is possible. Now, it is never more possible for capitals to tyran- nize over labor, than when they are scarce ; for then it is they who make the law — it is they who regu- late the rate of sale. Never is this tyranny more impossible to them, than when they are abundant ; for, in that case, it is labor which has the command. Away, then, with the jealousies of classes, ill-will, unfounded hatreds, unjust suspicions. These de- praved passions injure those who nourish them in their hearts. This is no declamatory morality ; it 398 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 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 intel- lect as well as the feelings. I shall sum up this whole dissertation with these words: Workmen, laborers, " prolet aires," desti- tute and suffering classes, will you improve your con- dition ? You will not succeed by strife, insurrec- tion, hatred, and error. But there are three things which cannot perfect the entire community without extending these benefits to yourselves ; these things are — peace, liberty, and security. o^ /«,*