Sophisms of the Protectionists — 07 - First Series Part 7

XIV. CONFLICTING PRINCIPLES.

There is one thing which embarrasses me not a little; and it is this: Sincere men, taking upon the subject of political economy the point of view of producers, have arrived at this double formula: "A government should dispose of consumers subject to its laws in favor of home industry."

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

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

Both rest upon this proposition, called the _Balance of Trade_, that "A people is impoverished by importations and enriched by exportations."

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

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

_Protective System; Colonial System.

_--These are only two aspects of the same theory.

To _prevent_ our citizens from buying from foreigners, and to _force_ foreigners to buy from our citizens.

Two consequences of one identical principle.

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

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

The father of a family has received the little wages of his labor; but his half-naked children are shivering before a biting northern blast, beside a fireless hearth, and an empty table.

There is wool, and wood, and corn, on the other side of the mountain, but these are forbidden to them; for the other side of the mountain is not France.

Foreign wood must not warm the hearth of the poor shepherd; his children must not taste the bread of Biscay, nor cover their numbed limbs with the wool of Navarre.

It is thus that the general good requires!

The disposing by law of consumers, forcing them to the support of home industry, is an encroachment upon their liberty, the forbidding of an action (mutual exchange) which is in no way opposed to morality!

In a word, it is an act of _injustice_.

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

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

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

A sale in fact implies a purchase, and since, according to this doctrine, to sell is beneficial, and to buy injurious, every international transaction must imply the benefiting of one people by the injuring of another.

But men are invincibly inclined to what they feel to be advantageous to themselves, while they also, instinctively resist that which is injurious.

From hence then we must infer that each nation bears within itself a natural force of expansion, and a not less natural force of resistance, which are equally injurious to all others.

In other words, antagonism and war are the _natural_ state of human society.

Thus then the theory in discussion resolves itself into the two following axioms.

In the affairs of a nation, Utility is incompatible with the internal administration of justice.

Utility is incompatible with the maintenance of external peace.

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

For myself, if such were my entrance upon the threshold of science, if I did not clearly perceive that Liberty, Utility, Justice, and Peace, are not only compatible, but closely connected, even identical, I would endeavor to forget all I have learned; I would say: "Can it be possible that God can allow men to attain prosperity only through injustice and war?

Can he so direct the affairs of mortals, that they can only renounce war and injustice by, at the same time, renouncing their own welfare?

"Am I not deceived by the false lights of a science which can lead me to the horrible blasphemy implied in this alternative, and shall I dare to take it upon myself to propose this as a basis for the legislation of a great people?

When I find a long succession of illustrious and learned men, whose researches in the same science have led to more consoling results; who, after having devoted their lives to its study, affirm that through it they see Liberty and Utility indissolubly linked with Justice and Peace, and find these great principles destined to continue on through eternity in infinite parallels, have they not in their favor the presumption which results from all that we know of the goodness and wisdom of God as manifested in the sublime harmony of material creation?

Can I lightly believe, in opposition to such a presumption and such imposing authorities, that this same God has been pleased to put disagreement and antagonism in the laws of the moral world?

No; before I can believe that all social principles oppose, shock and neutralize each other; before I can think them in constant, anarchical and eternal conflict; above all, before I can seek to impose upon my fellow-citizens the impious system to which my reasonings have led me, I must retrace my steps, hoping, perchance, to find some point where I have wandered from my road."

And if, after a sincere investigation twenty times repeated, I should still arrive at the frightful conclusion that I am driven to choose between the Desirable and the Good, I would reject the science, plunge into a voluntary ignorance, above all, avoid participation in the affairs of my country, and leave to others the weight and responsibility of so fearful a choice.

XV. RECIPROCITY AGAIN.

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

Mr. de Dombasle says: "What reason have we for believing that English producers will come to seek their supplies from us, rather than from any other nation, or that they will take from us a value equivalent to their exportations into France?"

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

In practice, there is perhaps no traffic which is a direct exchange of produce for produce.

Since the use of money, no man says, I will seek shoes, hats, advice, lessons, only from the shoemaker, the hatter, the lawyer, or teacher, who will buy from me the exact equivalent of these in corn.

Why should nations impose upon themselves so troublesome a restraint?

Suppose a nation without any exterior relations.

One of its citizens makes a crop of corn.

He casts it into the _national_ circulation, and receives in exchange--what?

Money, bank bills, securities, divisible to any extent, by means of which it will be lawful for him to withdraw when he pleases, and, unless prevented by just competition from the national circulation, such articles as he may wish.

At the end of the operation, he will have withdrawn from the mass the exact equivalent of what he first cast into it, and in value, _his consumption will exactly equal his production_.

If the exchanges of this nation with foreign nations are free, it is no longer into the _national_ circulation but into the _general_ circulation that each individual casts his produce, and from thence his consumption is drawn.

He is not obliged to calculate whether what he casts into this general circulation is purchased by a countryman or by a foreigner; whether the notes he receives are given to him by a Frenchman or an Englishman, or whether the articles which he procures through means of this money are manufactured on this or the other side of the Rhine or the Pyrenees.

One thing is certain; that each individual finds an exact balance between what he casts in and what he withdraws from the great common reservoir; and if this be true of each individual, it is not less true of the entire nation.

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

The objection advanced against us here, is, that if all were to combine in not withdrawing from circulation the produce from any one individual, he, in his turn, could withdraw nothing from the mass.

The same, too, would be the case with regard to a nation.

Our answer is: If a nation can no longer withdraw any thing from the mass of circulation, neither will it any longer cast any thing into it.

It will work for itself.

It will be obliged to submit to what, in advance, you wish to force upon it, viz.

, _Isolation_.

And here you have the ideal of the prohibitive system.

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

XVI. OBSTRUCTED RIVERS PLEADING FOR THE PROHIBITIONISTS.

Some years since, being at Madrid, I went to the meeting of the Cortes.

The subject in discussion was a proposed treaty with Portugal, for improving the channel of the Douro.

A member rose and said: If the Douro is made navigable, transportation must become cheaper, and Portuguese grain will come into formidable competition with our _national labor_.

I

vote against the project, unless ministers will agree to increase our tariff so as to re-establish the equilibrium.

Three months after, I was in Lisbon, and the same question came before the Senate.

A noble Hidalgo said: Mr. President, the project is absurd.

You guard at great expense the banks of the Douro, to prevent the influx into Portugal of Spanish grain, and at the same time you now propose, at great expense, _to facilitate such an event_.

There is in this a want of consistency in which I can have no part.

Let the Douro descend to our Sons as we have received it from our Fathers.

XVII. A NEGATIVE RAILROAD.

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

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

Mr. Simiot puts this question: Ought the railroad from Paris into Spain to present a break or terminus at Bordeaux?

This question he answers affirmatively.

I will only consider one among the numerous reasons which he adduces in support of his opinion.

The railroad from Paris to Bayonne ought (he says) to present a break or terminus at Bordeaux, in order that goods and travelers stopping in this city should thus be forced to contribute to the profits of the boatmen, porters, commission merchants, hotel-keepers, etc. It is very evident that we have here again the interest of the agents of labor put before that of the consumer.

But if Bordeaux would profit by a break in the road, and if such profit be conformable to the public interest, then Angoulème, Poictiers, Tours, Orleans, and still more all the intermediate points, as Ruffec, Châtellerault, etc. , etc. , would also petition for breaks; and this too would be for the general good and for the interest of national labor.

For it is certain, that in proportion to the number of these breaks or termini, will be the increase in consignments, commissions, lading, unlading, etc. This system furnishes us the idea of a railroad made up of successive breaks; _a negative railroad_.

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

XVIII.

"THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTE PRINCIPLES."

The facility with which men resign themselves to ignorance in cases where knowledge is all-important to them, is often astonishing; and we may be sure that a man has determined to rest in his ignorance, when he once brings himself to proclaim as a maxim that there are no absolute principles.

We enter into the legislative halls, and find that the question is, to determine whether the law will or will not allow of international exchanges.

A deputy rises and says, If we tolerate these exchanges, foreign nations will overwhelm us with their produce.

We will have cotton goods from England, coal from Belgium, woolens from Spain, silks from Italy, cattle from Switzerland, iron from Sweden, corn from Prussia, so that no industrial pursuit will any longer be possible to us.

Another answers: Prohibit these exchanges, and the divers advantages with which nature has endowed these different countries, will be for us as though they did not exist.

We will have no share in the benefits resulting from English skill, or Belgian mines, from the fertility of the Polish soil, or the Swiss pastures; neither will we profit by the cheapness of Spanish labor, or the heat of the Italian climate.

We will be obliged to seek by a forced and laborious production, what, by means of exchanges, would be much more easily obtained.

Assuredly one or other of these deputies is mistaken.

But which?

It is worth the trouble of examining.

There lie before us two roads, one of which leads inevitably to _wretchedness_.

We must choose.

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

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

If either the theory of prohibition, or that of free trade, should finally triumph, one little law would form our whole economical code.

In the first case this would be: _foreign trade is forbidden_; in the second: _foreign trade is free_; and thus, many great personages would lose their importance.

But if trade has no distinctive character, if it is capriciously useful or injurious, and is governed by no natural law, if it finds no spur in its usefulness, no check in its inutility, if its effects cannot be appreciated by those who exercise it; in a word, if it has no absolute principles,--oh!

then it is necessary to deliberate, weigh, and regulate transactions, the conditions of labor must be equalized, the level of profits sought.

This is an important charge, well calculated to give to those who execute it, large salaries, and extensive influence.

Contemplating this great city of Paris, I have thought to myself: Here are a million of human beings who would die in a few days, if provisions of every kind did not flow in towards this vast metropolis.

The imagination is unable to calculate the multiplicity of objects which to-morrow must enter its gates, to prevent the life of its inhabitants from terminating in famine, riot, or pillage.

And yet at this moment all are asleep, without feeling one moment's uneasiness, from the contemplation of this frightful possibility.

On the other side, we see eighty departments who have this day labored, without concert, without mutual understanding, for the victualing of Paris.

How can each day bring just what is necessary, nothing less, nothing more, to this gigantic market?

What is the ingenious and secret power which presides over the astonishing regularity of such complicated movements, a regularity in which we all have so implicit, though thoughtless, a faith; on which our comfort, our very existence depends?

This power is an _absolute principle_, the principle of freedom in exchanges.

We have faith in that inner light which Providence has placed in the heart of all men; confiding to it the preservation and amelioration of our species; _interest_, since we must give its name, so vigilant, so active, having so much forecast when allowed its free action.

What would be your condition, inhabitants of Paris, if a minister, however superior his abilities, should undertake to substitute, in the place of this power, the combinations of his own genius?

If he should think of subjecting to his own supreme direction this prodigious mechanism, taking all its springs into his own hand, and deciding by whom, how, and on what conditions each article should be produced, transported, exchanged and consumed?

Ah!

although there is much suffering within your walls; although misery, despair, and perhaps starvation, may call forth more tears than your warmest charity can wipe away, it is probable, it is certain, that the arbitrary intervention of government would infinitely multiply these sufferings, and would extend among you the evils which now reach but a small number of your citizens.

If then we have such faith in this principle as applied to our private concerns, why should we not extend it to international transactions, which are assuredly less numerous, less delicate, and less complicated?

And if it be not necessary for the prefect of Paris to regulate our industrial pursuits, to weigh our profits and our losses, to occupy himself with the quantity of our cash, and to equalize the conditions of our labor in internal commerce, on what principle can it be necessary that the custom-house, going beyond its fiscal mission, should pretend to exercise a protective power over our external commerce?

XIX. NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE.

Among the arguments advanced in favor of a restrictive system, we must not forget that which is drawn from the plea of _national independence_.

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

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

One thing appears to be quite lost sight of, and this is, that the dependence which results from commercial transactions, is a _reciprocal_ dependence.

We can only be dependent upon foreign supplies, in so far as foreign nations are dependent upon us.

This is the essence of _society_.

The breaking off of natural relations places a nation, not in an independent position, but in a state of isolation.

And remark that the reason given for this isolation, is that it is a necessary provision for war, while the act is itself a commencement of war.

It renders war easier, less burdensome, and consequently less unpopular.

If nations were to one another permanent outlets for mutual produce; if their respective relations were such that they could not be broken without inflicting the double suffering of privation and of over-supply, there could then no longer be any need of these powerful fleets which ruin, and these great armies which crush them; the peace of the world could no more be compromised by the whim of a Thiers or a Palmerston, and wars would cease, from want of resources, motives, pretexts, and popular sympathy.

I know that I shall be reproached (for it is the fashion of the day) for placing interest, vile and prosaic interest, at the foundation of the fraternity of nations.

It would be preferred that this should be based upon charity, upon love; that there should be in it some self-denial, and that clashing a little with the material welfare of men, it should bear the merit of a generous sacrifice.

When will we have done with such puerile declamations?

We contemn, we revile _interest_, that is to say, the good and the useful, (for if all men are interested in an object, how can this object be other than good in itself?

) as though this interest were not the necessary, eternal, and indestructible mover, to the guidance of which Providence has confided human perfectibility!

One would suppose that the utterers of such sentiments must be models of disinterestedness; but does the public not begin to perceive with disgust, that this affected language is the stain of those pages for which it oftenest pays the highest price?

What!

because comfort and peace are correlative, because it has pleased God to establish so beautiful a harmony in the moral world, you would blame me when I admire and adore his decrees, and for accepting with gratitude his laws, which make justice a requisite for happiness!

You will consent to have peace only when it clashes with your welfare, and liberty is irksome if it imposes no sacrifices!

What then prevents you, if self-denial has so many charms, from exercising it as much as you desire in your private actions?

Society will be benefited by your so doing, for some one must profit by your sacrifices.

But it is the height of absurdity to wish to impose such a principle upon mankind generally;

for the self-denial of all, is the sacrifice of all.

This is evil systematized into theory.

But, thanks be to Heaven!

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

It is singular enough, too, to hear sentiments of such sublime self-abnegation quoted in support even of Spoliation; and yet to this tends all this pompous show of disinterestedness!

These men so sensitively delicate, that they are determined not to enjoy even peace, if it must be propped by the vile _interest_ of men, do not hesitate to pick the pockets of other men, and above all of poor men.

For what tariff protects the poor?

Gentlemen, we pray you, dispose as you please of what belongs to yourselves, but let us entreat you to allow us to use, or to exchange, according to our own fancy, the fruit of our own labor, the sweat of our own brows.

Declaim as you will about self-sacrifice; that is all pretty enough; but we beg of you, do not at the same time forget to be honest.

XX.