And it is hence concluded:
That the best regulation of duties, would be to give the greatest possible facilities to the importation of raw material, and at the same time to check that of the finished article.
There is, in political economy, no more generally accredited3 Sophism4 than this. It serves for argument not only to the protectionists, but also to the pretended free trade school; and it is in the latter capacity that its most mischievous5 tendencies are called into action. For a good cause suffers much less in being attacked, than in being badly defended.
Commercial liberty must probably pass through the same ordeal6 as liberty in every other form. It can only dictate7 laws, after having first taken thorough possession of men's minds. If, then, it be true that a reform, to be firmly established, must be generally understood, it follows that nothing can so much retard8 it, as the misleading of public opinion. And what more calculated to mislead opinion than writings, which, while they proclaim free trade, support the doctrines10 of monopoly?
It is some years since three great cities of France, viz., Lyons, Bordeaux, and Havre, combined in opposition11 to the restrictive system. France, all Europe, looked anxiously and suspiciously at this apparent declaration in favor of free trade. Alas12! it was still the banner of monopoly which they followed! a monopoly, only a little more sordid13, a little more absurd than that of which they seemed to desire the destruction! Thanks to the Sophism which I would now endeavor to deprive of its disguise, the petitioners14 only reproduced, with an additional incongruity15, the old doctrine9 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 inevitable16 check." Here lies the error. (See the preceding Sophism).
"What, then, ought to be the course of an agricultural and manufacturing country? It ought to reserve its market for the produce of its own soil and its own industry." Here is the object.
"In order to effect this, it ought, by restrictive, and, if necessary, by prohibitive duties, to prevent the influx17 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 judicious18 system of political economy would require that this class should be exempt19 from taxation20." Here we have the principle of no labor, no protection.
"The second class is composed of articles which have received some preparation for manufacture. This preparation would render reasonable the imposition of some duties." Here we find the commencement of protection, because, at the same time, likewise commences the demand for national labor.
"The third class comprehends finished articles, which can, under no circumstances, furnish material for national labor. We consider this as the most fit for taxation." Here we have at once the maximum of labor, and, consequently, of production.
The petitioners then, as we here see, proclaimed foreign labor as injurious to national labor. This is the error of the prohibitive system.
They desired the French market to be reserved for French labor. This is the object of the prohibitive system.
They demanded that foreign labor should be subjected to restrictions21 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 restriction22? One, alone; and that is simply the greater or less extension which is given to the signification of the word labor.
Mr. de Saint Cricq, taking it in its widest sense, is, therefore, in favor of protecting every thing.
"Labor," he says, "constitutes the whole wealth of a nation. Protection should be for the agricultural interest, and the whole agricultural interest; for the manufacturing interest, and the whole manufacturing interest; and this principle I will continually endeavor to impress upon this Chamber23."
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 entirely24 untouched by human labor, our system should exempt it from taxes. Manufactured articles furnishing no material for national labor, we consider as the most fit for taxation."
There is no question here as to the propriety25 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 determined26, is, whether it is Mr. de Saint Cricq, or the Bordalese, who give to the word labor its proper acceptation. And we must confess that Mr. de Saint Cricq is here decidedly in the right. The following dialogue might be supposed between them:
Mr. de Saint Cricq.—You agree that national labor ought to be protected. You agree that no foreign labor can be introduced into our market, without destroying an equal quantity of our national labor. But you contend that there are numerous articles of merchandise possessing value, for they are sold, and which are nevertheless untouched by human labor. Among these you name corn, flour, meat, cattle, bacon, salt, iron, copper27, 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 laborers28 and capitalists, who have assisted in the production of the article?
The Petitioners.—It is true that with regard to wool you may be right; but a bag of corn, a bar of iron, a hundred weight of coal, are these the produce of labor? Is it not nature which creates them?
Mr. de St. Cricq.—Without doubt, nature creates these substances, but it is labor which gives them their value. I have myself, in saying that labor creates material objects, used a false expression, which has led me into many farther errors. No man can create. No man can bring any thing from nothing; and if production is used as a synonym29 for creation, then indeed our labor must all be useless.
The agriculturist does not pretend that he has created the corn; but he has given it its value. He has by his own labor, and by that of his servants, his laborers, and his reapers30, transformed into corn substances which were entirely dissimilar from it. What more is effected by the miller31 who converts it into flour, or by the baker32 who makes it into bread?
In order that a man may be dressed in cloth, numerous operations are first necessary. Before the intervention33 of any human labor, the real primary materials of this article are air, water, heat, gas, light, and the various salts which enter into its composition. These are indeed untouched by human labor, for they have no value, and I have never dreamed of their needing protection. But a first labor converts these substances into forage34; 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 furrow35 of the plough, to the last stitch of the needle, are not labor?
And because, for the sake of speed and greater perfection in the accomplishment36 of the final object, these various branches of labor are divided among as many classes of workmen, you, by an arbitrary distinction, determine that the order in which the various branches of labor follow each other shall regulate their importance, so that while the first is not allowed to merit the name of labor, the last shall receive all the favors of protection.
The Petitioners.—Yes, we begin to understand that neither wool nor corn are entirely independent of human labor; but certainly the agriculturist has not, like the manufacturer, had every thing to do by his own labor, and that of his workmen; nature has assisted him; and if there is some labor, at least all is not labor, in the production of corn.
Mr. de St. Cricq.—But it is the labor alone which gives it value. I grant that nature has assisted in the production of grain. I will even grant that it is exclusively her work; but I must confess at least that I have constrained37 her to it by my labor. And remark, moreover, that when I sell my corn, it is not the work of nature which I make you pay for, but my own.
You will perceive, also, by following up your manner of arguing, that neither will manufactured articles be the production of labor. Does not the manufacturer also call upon nature to assist him? Does he not by the assistance of steam-machinery force into his service the weight of the atmosphere, as I, by the use of the plough, take advantage of its humidity? Is it the cloth-manufacturer who has created the laws of gravitation, transmission of forces and of affinities38?
The Petitioners.—Well, well, we will give up wool, but assuredly coal is the work, the exclusive work, of nature. This, at least, is independent of all human labor.
Mr. de St. Cricq.—Yes, nature certainly has made coal; but labor has made its value. Where was the value of coal during the millions of years when it lay unknown and buried a hundred feet below the surface of the earth? It was necessary to seek it. Here was labor. It was necessary to transport it to a market. Again this was labor. The price which you pay for coal in the market is the remuneration given to these labors39 of digging and transportation.[13]
We see that, so far, all the advantage is on the side of Mr. de St. Cricq, and that the value of unmanufactured as of manufactured articles, represents always the expense, or what is the same thing, the labor of production; that it is impossible to conceive of an article bearing a value, independent of human labor; that the distinction made by the petitioners is futile40 in theory, and, as the basis of an unequal division of favors, would be iniquitous41 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 pretense42 that they produce without labor.
It will, I know, be insisted that it is advantageous to a nation to import the raw material, whether or not it be the result of labor; and to export manufactured articles. This is a very generally received opinion.
"In proportion," says the petition of Bordeaux, "as raw material is abundant, manufactures will increase and flourish."
"The abundance of raw material," it elsewhere says, "gives an unlimited43 scope to labor in those countries where it prevails."
"Raw material," says the petition from Havre, "being the element of labor, should be regulated on a different system, and ought to be admitted immediately and at the lowest rate."
The same petition asks, that the protection of manufactured articles should be reduced, not immediately, but at some indeterminate time, not to the lowest rate of entrance, but to twenty per cent.
"Among other articles," says the petition of Lyons, "of which the low price and the abundance are necessary, the manufacturers name all raw material."
All this is based upon error.
All value is, we have seen, the representative of labor. Now it is undoubtedly44 true that manufacturing labor increases ten-fold, a hundred-fold, the value of raw material, thus dispensing45 ten, a hundred-fold increased profits throughout the nation; and from this fact is deduced the following argument: The production of a hundred weight of iron, is the gain of only fifteen francs to the various workers therein engaged. This hundred weight of iron, converted into watch-springs, is increased in value by this process, ten thousand francs. Who can pretend that the nation is not more interested in securing the ten thousand francs, than the fifteen francs worth of labor?
In this reasoning it is forgotten, that international exchanges are, no more than individual exchanges, effected through weight and measure. The exchange is not between a hundred weight of unmanufactured iron, and a hundred weight of watch-springs, nor between a pound of wool just shorn, and a pound of wool just manufactured into cashmere, but between a fixed46 value in one of these articles, and a fixed equal value in another. To exchange equal value with equal value, is to exchange equal labor with equal labor, and it is therefore not true that the nation which sells its hundred francs worth of cloth or of watch-springs, gains more than the one which furnishes its hundred francs worth of wool or of iron.
In a country where no law can be passed, no contribution imposed without the consent of the governed, the public can be robbed, only after it has first been cheated. Our own ignorance is the primary, the raw material of every act of extortion to which we are subjected, and it may safely be predicted of every Sophism, that it is the forerunner47 of an act of Spoliation. Good Public, whenever therefore you detect a Sophism in a petition, let me advise you, put your hand upon your pocket, for be assured, it is that which is particularly the point of attack.
Let us then examine what is the secret design which the ship-owners of Bordeaux and Havre, and the manufacturers of Lyons, would smuggle48 in upon us by this distinction between agricultural produce and manufactured produce.
"It is," say the petitioners of Bordeaux, "principally in this first class (that which comprehends raw material, untouched by human labor) that we find the principal encouragement of our merchant vessels49.... A wise system of political economy would require that this class should not be taxed.... The second class (articles which have received some preparation) may be considered as taxable. The third (articles which have received from labor all the finish of which they are capable) we regard as most proper for taxation."
"Considering," say the petitioners of Havre, "that it is indispensable to reduce immediately and to the lowest rate, the raw material, in order that manufacturing industry may give employment to our merchant vessels, which furnish its first and indispensable means of labor."
The manufacturers could not allow themselves to be behindhand in civilities towards the ship-owners, and accordingly the petition of Lyons demands the free introduction of raw material, "in order to prove," it remarks, "that the interests of manufacturing towns are not opposed to those of maritime50 cities."
This may be true enough; but it must be confessed that both, taken in the sense of the petitioners, are terribly adverse51 to the interest of agriculture and of consumers.
This, then, gentlemen, is the aim of all your subtle distinctions! You wish the law to oppose the maritime transportation of manufactured articles, in order that the much more expensive transportation of the raw material should, by its larger bulk, in its rough, dirty and unimproved condition, furnish a more extensive business to your merchant vessels. And this is what you call a wise system of political economy!
Why not also petition for a law requiring that fir-trees, imported from Russia, should not be admitted without their branches, bark, and roots; that Mexican gold should be imported in the state of ore, and Buenos Ayres leathers only allowed an entrance into our ports, while still hanging to the dead bones and putrefying bodies to which they belong?
The stockholders of railroads, if they can obtain a majority in the Chambers52, 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 legitimate53 aim, and this is the public good. To create useless industrial pursuits, to favor superfluous54 transportation, to maintain a superfluous labor, not for the good of the public, but at the expense of the public, is to act upon a petitio principii. For it is the result of labor, and not labor itself, which is a desirable object. All labor, without a result, is clear loss. To pay sailors for transporting rough dirt and filthy55 refuse across the ocean, is about as reasonable as it would be to engage their services, and pay them for pelting56 the water with pebbles57. Thus we arrive at the conclusion that political Sophisms, notwithstanding their infinite variety, have one point in common, which is the constant confounding of the means with the end, and the development of the former at the expense of the latter.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
advantageous
|
|
| adj.有利的；有帮助的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
labor
|
|
| n.劳动，努力，工作，劳工；分娩；vi.劳动，努力，苦干；vt.详细分析；麻烦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
accredited
|
|
| adj.可接受的；可信任的；公认的；质量合格的v.相信( accredit的过去式和过去分词 )；委托；委任；把…归结于 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
sophism
|
|
| n.诡辩 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
mischievous
|
|
| adj.调皮的，恶作剧的，有害的，伤人的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
ordeal
|
|
| n.苦难经历，（尤指对品格、耐力的）严峻考验 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
dictate
|
|
| v.口授；(使)听写；指令，指示，命令 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
retard
|
|
| n.阻止，延迟；vt.妨碍，延迟，使减速 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
doctrines
|
|
| n.教条( doctrine的名词复数 )；教义；学说；（政府政策的）正式声明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
opposition
|
|
| n.反对，敌对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
alas
|
|
| int.唉(表示悲伤、忧愁、恐惧等) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
sordid
|
|
| adj.肮脏的，不干净的，卑鄙的，暗淡的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
petitioners
|
|
| n.请求人，请愿人( petitioner的名词复数 )；离婚案原告 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
incongruity
|
|
| n.不协调，不一致 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
inevitable
|
|
| adj.不可避免的，必然发生的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
influx
|
|
| n.流入，注入 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
judicious
|
|
| adj.明智的，明断的，能作出明智决定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
exempt
|
|
| adj.免除的；v.使免除；n.免税者，被免除义务者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
taxation
|
|
| n.征税，税收，税金 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
restrictions
|
|
| 约束( restriction的名词复数 )； 管制； 制约因素； 带限制性的条件（或规则） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
restriction
|
|
| n.限制，约束 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
chamber
|
|
| n.房间，寝室；会议厅；议院；会所 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
propriety
|
|
| n.正当行为；正当；适当 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
determined
|
|
| adj.坚定的；有决心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
copper
|
|
| n.铜；铜币；铜器；adj.铜(制)的；(紫)铜色的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
laborers
|
|
| n.体力劳动者，工人( laborer的名词复数 )；（熟练工人的）辅助工 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
synonym
|
|
| n.同义词，换喻词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
reapers
|
|
| n.收割者，收获者( reaper的名词复数 )；收割机 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
miller
|
|
| n.磨坊主 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
baker
|
|
| n.面包师 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
intervention
|
|
| n.介入，干涉，干预 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
forage
|
|
| n.(牛马的)饲料，粮草；v.搜寻，翻寻 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
furrow
|
|
| n.沟；垄沟；轨迹；车辙；皱纹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
accomplishment
|
|
| n.完成，成就，（pl.）造诣，技能 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
constrained
|
|
| adj.束缚的,节制的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
affinities
|
|
| n.密切关系( affinity的名词复数 )；亲近；（生性）喜爱；类同 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
labors
|
|
| v.努力争取(for)( labor的第三人称单数 )；苦干；详细分析；（指引擎）缓慢而困难地运转 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
futile
|
|
| adj.无效的，无用的，无希望的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
iniquitous
|
|
| adj.不公正的；邪恶的；高得出奇的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
pretense
|
|
| n.矫饰，做作，借口 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
unlimited
|
|
| adj.无限的，不受控制的，无条件的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
undoubtedly
|
|
| adv.确实地，无疑地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
dispensing
|
|
| v.分配( dispense的现在分词 )；施与；配（药） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
fixed
|
|
| adj.固定的，不变的，准备好的；(计算机)固定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
forerunner
|
|
| n.前身，先驱（者），预兆，祖先 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
smuggle
|
|
| vt.私运；vi.走私 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
vessels
|
|
| n.血管( vessel的名词复数 )；船；容器；（具有特殊品质或接受特殊品质的）人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
maritime
|
|
| adj.海的，海事的，航海的，近海的，沿海的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
adverse
|
|
| adj.不利的；有害的；敌对的，不友好的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
chambers
|
|
| n.房间( chamber的名词复数 )；（议会的）议院；卧室；会议厅 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
legitimate
|
|
| adj.合法的，合理的，合乎逻辑的；v.使合法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
superfluous
|
|
| adj.过多的，过剩的，多余的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
filthy
|
|
| adj.卑劣的；恶劣的，肮脏的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
pelting
|
|
| 微不足道的，无价值的，盛怒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
pebbles
|
|
| [复数]鹅卵石； 沙砾； 卵石，小圆石( pebble的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |