Sophisms of the Protectionists — 05 - First Series Part 5

VII.

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

_To the Honorable the Members of the Chamber of Deputies:_ "GENTLEMEN,--You are in the right way: you reject abstract theories;

abundance, cheapness, concerns you little.

You are entirely occupied with the interest of the producer, whom you are anxious to free from foreign competition.

In a word, you wish to secure the _national market_ to _national labor_.

"We come now to offer you an admirable opportunity for the application of your----what shall we say?

your theory?

no, nothing is more deceiving than theory;--your doctrine?

your system?

your principle?

But you do not like doctrines; you hold systems in horror; and, as for principles, you declare that there are no such things in political economy.

We will say then, your practice; your practice without theory, and without principle.

"We are subjected to the intolerable competition of a foreign rival, who enjoys, it would seem, such superior facilities for the production of light, that he is enabled to _inundate_ our _national market_ at so exceedingly reduced a price, that, the moment he makes his appearance, he draws off all custom from us; and thus an important branch of French industry, with all its innumerable ramifications, is suddenly reduced to a state of complete stagnation.

This rival, who is no other than the sun, carries on so bitter a war against us, that we have every reason to believe that he has been excited to this course by our perfidious neighbor England.

(Good diplomacy this, for the present time!

) In this belief we are confirmed by the fact that in all his transactions with this proud island, he is much more moderate and careful than with us.

"Our petition is, that it would please your honorable body to pass a law whereby shall be directed the shutting up of all windows, dormers, sky-lights, shutters, curtains, vasistas, oeil-de-boeufs, in a word, all openings, holes, chinks and fissures through which the light of the sun is used to penetrate into our dwellings, to the prejudice of the profitable manufactures which we flatter ourselves we have been enabled to bestow upon the country; which country cannot, therefore, without ingratitude, leave us now to struggle unprotected through so unequal a contest.

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

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

"If more tallow be consumed, there will arise a necessity for an increase of cattle and sheep.

Thus artificial meadows must be in greater demand; and meat, wool, leather, and above all, manure, this basis of agricultural riches, must become more abundant.

"If more oil be consumed, it will cause an increase in the cultivation of the olive-tree.

This plant, luxuriant and exhausting to the soil, will come in good time to profit by the increased fertility which the raising of cattle will have communicated to our fields.

"Our heaths will become covered with resinous trees.

Numerous swarms of bees will gather upon our mountains the perfumed treasures, which are now cast upon the winds, useless as the blossoms from which they emanate.

There is, in short, no branch of agriculture which would not be greatly developed by the granting of our petition.

"Navigation would equally profit.

Thousands of vessels would soon be employed in the whale fisheries, and thence would arise a navy capable of sustaining the honor of France, and of responding to the patriotic sentiments of the undersigned petitioners, candle merchants, etc. "But what words can express the magnificence which _Paris_ will then exhibit!

Cast an eye upon the future and behold the gildings, the bronzes, the magnificent crystal chandeliers, lamps, reflectors and candelabras, which will glitter in the spacious stores, compared with which the splendor of the present day will appear trifling and insignificant.

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

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

"We foresee your objections, gentlemen; but there is not one that you can oppose to us which you will not be obliged to gather from the works of the partisans of free trade.

We dare challenge you to pronounce one word against our petition, which is not equally opposed to your own practice and the principle which guides your policy.

"Do you tell us, that if we gain by this protection, France will not gain, because the consumer must pay the price of it?

"We answer you: "You have no longer any right to cite the interest of the consumer.

For whenever this has been found to compete with that of the producer, you have invariably sacrificed the first.

You have done this to _encourage labor_, to _increase the demand for labor_.

The same reason should now induce you to act in the same manner.

"You have yourselves already answered the objection.

When you were told: The consumer is interested in the free introduction of iron, coal, corn, wheat, cloths, etc. , your answer was: Yes, but the producer is interested in their exclusion.

Thus, also, if the consumer is interested in the admission of light, we, the producers, pray for its interdiction.

"You have also said, the producer and the consumer are one.

If the manufacturer gains by protection, he will cause the agriculturist to gain also; if agriculture prospers, it opens a market for manufactured goods.

Thus we, if you confer upon us the monopoly of furnishing light during the day, will as a first consequence buy large quantities of tallow, coals, oil, resin, wax, alcohol, silver, iron, bronze, crystal, for the supply of our business; and then we and our numerous contractors having become rich, our consumption will be great, and will become a means of contributing to the comfort and competency of the workers in every branch of national labor.

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

"Take care,--you carry the death-blow to your own policy.

Remember that hitherto you have always repulsed foreign produce, _because_ it was an approach to a gratuitous gift, and _the more in proportion_ as this approach was more close.

You have, in obeying the wishes of other monopolists, acted only from a _half-motive_; to grant our petition there is a much _fuller inducement_.

To repulse us, precisely for the reason that our case is a more complete one than any which have preceded it, would be to lay down the following equation: + × + =-; in other words, it would be to accumulate absurdity upon absurdity.

"Labor and Nature concur in different proportions, according to country and climate, in every article of production.

The portion of Nature is always gratuitous; that of labor alone regulates the price.

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

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

"Now it is precisely on account of this _demi-gratuity_ (excuse the word) that you argue in favor of exclusion.

How, you say, could national labor sustain the competition of foreign labor, when the first has every thing to do, and the last is rid of half the trouble, the sun taking the rest of the business upon himself?

If then the _demi-gratuity_ can determine you to check competition, on what principle can the _entire gratuity_ be alleged as a reason for admitting it?

You are no logicians if, refusing the demi-gratuity as hurtful to human labor, you do not _à fortiori_, and with double zeal, reject the full gratuity.

"Again, when any article, as coal, iron, cheese, or cloth, comes to us from foreign countries with less labor than if we produced it ourselves, the difference in price is a _gratuitous gift_ conferred upon us; and the gift is more or less considerable, according as the difference is greater or less.

It is the quarter, the half, or the three-quarters of the value of the produce, in proportion as the foreign merchant requires the three-quarters, the half, or the quarter of the price.

It is as complete as possible when the producer offers, as the sun does with light, the whole in free gift.

The question is, and we put it formally, whether you wish for France the benefit of gratuitous consumption, or the supposed advantages of laborious production.

Choose, but be consistent.

And does it not argue the greatest inconsistency to check as you do the importation of coal, iron, cheese, and goods of foreign manufacture, merely because and even in proportion as their price approaches _zero_, while at the same time you freely admit, and without limitation, the light of the sun, whose price is during the whole day at _zero_?"

VIII. DISCRIMINATING DUTIES.

A poor laborer of Gironde had raised, with the greatest possible care and attention, a nursery of vines, from which, after much labor, he at last succeeded in producing a pipe of wine, and forgot, in the joy of his success, that each drop of this precious nectar had cost a drop of sweat to his brow.

I will sell it, said he to his wife, and with the proceeds I will buy thread, which will serve you to make a _trousseau_ for our daughter.

The honest countryman, arriving in the city, there met an Englishman and a Belgian.

The Belgian said to him, Give me your wine, and I in exchange, will give you fifteen bundles of thread.

The Englishman said, Give it to me, and I will give you twenty bundles, for we English can spin cheaper than the Belgians.

But a custom-house officer standing by, said to the laborer, My good fellow, make your exchange, if you choose, with the Belgian, but it is my duty to prevent your doing so with the Englishman.

What!

exclaimed the countryman, you wish me to take fifteen bundles of Brussels thread, when I can have twenty from Manchester?

Certainly; do you not see that France would be a loser, if you were to receive twenty bundles instead of fifteen?

I can scarcely understand this, said the laborer.

Nor can I explain it, said the custom-house officer, but there is no doubt of the fact; for deputies, ministers, and editors, all agree that a people is impoverished in proportion as it receives a large compensation for any given quantity of its produce.

The countryman was obliged to conclude his bargain with the Belgian.

His daughter received but three-fourths of her _trousseau_; and these good folks are still puzzling themselves to discover how it can happen that people are ruined by receiving four instead of three; and why they are richer with three dozen towels instead of four.

IX. WONDERFUL DISCOVERY!

At this moment, when all minds are occupied in endeavoring to discover the most economical means of transportation; when, to put these means into practice, we are leveling roads, improving rivers, perfecting steamboats, establishing railroads, and attempting various systems of traction, atmospheric, hydraulic, pneumatic, electric, etc. ,--at this moment when, I believe, every one is seeking in sincerity and with ardor the solution of this problem-- "_To bring the price of things in their place of consumption, as near as possible to their price in that of production_"-- I would believe myself acting a culpable part towards my country, towards the age in which I live, and towards myself, if I were longer to keep secret the wonderful discovery which I have just made.

I am well aware that the self-illusions of inventors have become proverbial, but I have, nevertheless, the most complete certainty of having discovered an infallible means of bringing the produce of the entire world into France, and reciprocally to transport ours, with a very important reduction of price.

Infallible!

and yet this is but a single one of the advantages of my astonishing invention, which requires neither plans nor devices, neither preparatory studies, nor engineers, nor machinists, nor capital, nor stockholders, nor governmental assistance!

There is no danger of shipwrecks, of explosions, of shocks, of fire, nor of displacement of rails!

It can be put into practice without preparation from one day to another!

Finally, and this will, no doubt, recommend it to the public, it will not increase taxes one cent; but the contrary.

It will not augment the number of government functionaries, nor the exigencies of government officers; but the contrary.

It will put in hazard the liberty of no one;

but the contrary.

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

I had this question to determine: "Why does any article made, for instance, at Brussels, bear an increased price on its arrival at Paris?"

It was immediately evident to me that this was the result of _obstacles_ of various kinds existing between Brussels and Paris.

First, there is _distance_, which cannot be overcome without trouble and loss of time;

and either we must submit to these in our own person, or pay another for bearing them for us.

Then come rivers, swamps, accidents, heavy and muddy roads; these are so many _difficulties_ to be overcome; in order to do which, causeways are constructed, bridges built, roads cut and paved, railroads established, etc. But all this is costly, and the article transported must bear its portion of the expense.

There are robbers, too, on the roads, and this necessitates guards, a police, etc. Now, among these _obstacles_, there is one which we ourselves have placed, and that at no little expense, between Brussels and Paris.

This consists of men planted along the frontier, armed to the teeth, whose business it is to place _difficulties_ in the way of the transportation of goods from one country to another.

These men are called custom-house officers, and their effect is precisely similar to that of steep and boggy roads.

They retard and put obstacles in the way of transportation, thus contributing to the difference which we have remarked between the price of production and that of consumption; to diminish which difference as much as possible, is the problem which we are seeking to resolve.

Here, then, we have found its solution.

_Let our tariff be diminished.

_ We will thus have constructed a Northern Railroad which will cost us nothing.

Nay, more, we will be saved great expenses, and will begin from the first day to save capital.

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

An article of Belgian production is worth at Brussels twenty francs, and, from the expenses of transportation, thirty francs at Paris.

A

similar article of Parisian manufacture costs forty francs.

What is our course under these circumstances?

First, we impose a duty of at least ten francs on the Belgian article, so as to raise its price to a level with that of the Parisian; the government withal, paying numerous officials to attend to the levying of this duty.

The article thus pays ten francs for transportation, ten for the tax.

This done, we say to ourselves: Transportation between Brussels and Paris is very dear; let us spend two or three millions in railways, and we will reduce it one-half.

Evidently the result of such a course will be to get the Belgian article at Paris for thirty-five francs, viz: 20 francs--price at Brussels.

10 " duty.

5 " transportation by railroad.

-- 35 francs--total, or market price at Paris.

Could we not have attained the same end by lowering the tariff to five francs?

We would then have-- 20 francs--price at Brussels.

5 " duty.

10 " transportation on the common road.

-- 35 francs--total, or market price at Paris.

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

But it is answered, the duty is necessary to protect Parisian industry.

So be it; but do not then destroy the effect of it by your railroad.

For if you persist in your determination to keep the Belgian article on a par with the Parisian at forty francs, you must raise the duty to fifteen francs, in order to have:-- 20 francs--price at Brussels.

15 " protective duty.

5 " transportation by railroad.

-- 40 francs--total, at equalized prices.

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

Frankly, is it not humiliating to the nineteenth century, that it should be destined to transmit to future ages the example of such puerilities seriously and gravely practiced?

To be the dupe of another, is bad enough; but to employ all the forms and ceremonies of legislation in order to cheat one's self,--to doubly cheat one's self, and that too in a mere mathematical account,--truly this is calculated to lower a little the pride of this _enlightened age_.

X. RECIPROCITY.

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

A tariff may then be truly spoken of, as a swamp, a rut, a steep hill;

in a word, an _obstacle_, whose effect is to augment the difference between the price of consumption and that of production.

It is equally incontestable that a swamp, a bog, etc. , are veritable protective tariffs.

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

But they still say, this liberty ought to be reciprocal.

If we take off our taxes in favor of Spain, while Spain does not do the same towards us, it is evident that we are duped.

Let us then make _treaties of commerce_ upon the basis of a just reciprocity; let us yield where we are yielded to; let us make the _sacrifice_ of buying that we may obtain the advantage of selling.

Persons who reason thus, are (I am sorry to say), whether they know it or not, governed by the protectionist principle.

They are only a little more inconsistent than the pure protectionists, as these are more inconsistent than the absolute prohibitionists.

I will illustrate this by a fable.

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

There were, it matters not where, two towns, _Stulta_ and _Puera_, which at great expense had a road built which connected them with each other.

Some time after this was done, the inhabitants of _Stulta_ became uneasy, and said: _Puera_ is overwhelming us with its productions; this must be attended to.

They established therefore a corps of _Obstructors_, so called because their business was to place obstacles in the way of the wagon trains which arrived from _Puera_.

Soon after, _Puera_ also established a corps of Obstructors.

After some centuries, people having become more enlightened, the inhabitants of _Puera_ began to discover that these reciprocal obstacles might possibly be reciprocal injuries.

They sent therefore an ambassador to _Stulta_, who (passing over the official phraseology) spoke much to this effect: "We have built a road, and now we put obstacles in the way of this road.

This is absurd.

It would have been far better to have left things in their original position, for then we would not have been put to the expense of building our road, and afterwards of creating difficulties.

In the name of _Puera_, I come to propose to you, not to renounce at once our system of mutual obstacles, for this would be acting according to a theory, and we despise theories as much as you do;

but to lighten somewhat these obstacles, weighing at the same time carefully our respective _sacrifices_."

The ambassador having thus spoken, the town of _Stulta_ asked time to reflect; manufacturers, agriculturists were consulted; and at last, after some years' deliberation, it was declared that the negotiations were broken off.

At this news, the inhabitants of _Puera_ held a council.

An old man (who it has always been supposed had been secretly bribed by _Stulta_) rose and said: "The obstacles raised by _Stulta_ are injurious to our sales;

this is a misfortune.

Those which we ourselves create, injure our purchases; this is a second misfortune.

We have no power over the first, but the second is entirely dependent upon ourselves.

Let us then at least get rid of one, since we cannot be delivered from both.

Let us suppress our corps of _Obstructors_, without waiting for _Stulta_ to do the same.

Some day or other she will learn to understand better her own interests."

A second counselor, a man of practice and of facts, uncontrolled by theories and wise in ancestral experience, replied: "We must not listen to this dreamer, this theorist, this innovator, this utopian, this political economist, this friend to _Stulta_.

We would be entirely ruined if the embarrassments of the road were not carefully weighed and exactly equalized, between _Stulta_ and _Peura_.

There would be more difficulty in going than in coming; in exportation than in importation.

We would be, with regard to _Stulta_, in the inferior condition in which Havre, Nantes, Bordeaux, Lisbon, London, Hamburg, and New Orleans, are, in relation to cities placed higher up the rivers Seine, Loire, Garonne, Tagus, Thames, the Elbe, and the Mississippi; for the difficulties of ascending must always be greater than those of descending rivers.

(A

voice exclaims: 'But the cities near the mouths of rivers have always prospered more than those higher up the stream.'

) This is not possible.

(The same voice: 'But it is a fact.'

) Well, they have then prospered _contrary to rule_."

Such conclusive reasoning staggered the assembly.

The orator went on to convince them thoroughly and conclusively by speaking of national independence, national honor, national dignity, national labor, overwhelming importation, tributes, ruinous competition.

In short, he succeeded in determining the assembly to continue their system of obstacles, and I can now point out a certain country where you may see road-builders and _Obstructors_ working with the best possible understanding, by the decree of the same legislative assembly, paid by the same citizens; the first to improve the road, the last to embarrass it.