thus keeping laborers "sufficiently at the command of capital and skill"? Does not such competition make the laborer, who must sell or starve, a mere slave to employers who may, or may not, choose to purchase the only commodity he has to sell? That it does so, cannot be doubted; and to talk, under such circumstances, of "preference" for any particular employment, is to make almost as sad a mistake as would be made, in speaking of the preference of the negro slave for one species of punishment over another.

How is it, that such a state of things has been brought about? By the long pursuit of a policy that has enabled the British manufacturer "to triumph over the cheap labor, contiguous material, and traditional art of the Hindoo"-gradually "supplanting the native fabrics" of Asia, "from Smyrna to Canton, and from Madras to Samarcand," and thus compelling the poor native to limit himself to the miserable task of scratching out, and selling, a soil of daily diminishing power. † Has he any "preference" for such employment? Is his so employing himself, any evidence that he prefers it, or that it is the "most advantageous" manner in which he might be employed? Is it not, on the contrary, quite certain, that he would prefer some other pursuit, and that the poor child, whose competition has driven him from his home, would manifest a similar preference, did it dare to do so? Why can it not? Because, under the system of laisser faire, the two competitors are compelled to try to underwork each other-thus perpetuating slavery where it exists, and extending it to regions where before it had been unknown, precisely as has been the case with laws providing for the maintenance of the poor. Adam Smith did not believe in the abdication, by the governments, of their power of so co-ordinating the movements of the individual members of a society, as to enable all to become more productive. His successors do the result exhibiting itself in the fact, that "markets have become fields of battle," strewed with the corpses of slaves and paupers, while governments, whose theory is that of laisser faire, are compelled to the passage of laws limiting the hours of labor, and to the exercise of a constant supervision of the places in which laborers are employed. Look where we may, we shall find that governments become oppressive in the ratio of their abandonment of their proper province, that of so co-ordi† 1bid, p. 362.

* Ibid, p. 239.

nating the societary movements as to diminish friction, and thus augment the powers of the whole.

Further, Mr. McCulloch is of opinion, that if Britain could, by means of improved machinery, "manufacture a sufficient supply of cotton to serve every country, and thus sink their prices below the cost of production"- becoming thereby enabled to extend throughout the world, the system which has so well been carried out in India, not only could it "have no permanently bad consequence, but the reverse."-He is also, as the reader has already seen, decidedly in favor of taxes on property in motion, and as decidedly opposed to taxes on that which has become fixed.* That understood, we may now inquire how the system thus proposed would operate. All the cotton of the world coming into Britain, all the cotton cloth for the world would go out therefrom, paying, at every step, a tax in some one or other form, and thereby augmenting the incomes of all engaged in collecting the taxes of trade, transportation, and conversion-and enabling the British Government and people to dictate, even more than now, the prices at which they would receive the raw products of the cotton producer, and sell the finished commodities to the consumers. The two becoming more widely separated, each and every step must be in the direction of declining civilization and approaching anarchy — that being the point towards which tends the doctrine of laisser faire, and at which all communities must inevitably arrive, that allow themselves to adopt it for their guide.

Mons. Bastiat tells his readers, that protective tariffs are but another form of communism-governments profiting of the aid of custom-houses for purposes of "levelling and spoliation."t This, however, is but another of the phrases to which we have. above referred, but slight examination of which is required for showing that it has no real meaning.-Why is protection required? To enable people of all ages and sexes to combine their efforts for increasing the productiveness of labor. Against what is it required? Against a system that, says Adam Smith, seeks the extension of the market for manufactures, "not by their own improvements, but by the depression of those of all our neighbors, and by putting an end, as much as possible, to the troublesome * See ante, p. 202. † Protection et Communisme, p. 37.

competition of such odious and disagreeable rivals." We are told, however, that a new and more liberal system has been inaugurated one more in harmony with the improved modes of thought of the present day. Is it so? For an answer to this question, we may turn to a recent official document before referred to, in which we are told that English capitalists voluntarily incur "immense losses" for the purpose of "destroying foreign competition," and thus "gaining and keeping possession of foreign markets" large capitals being "the great instruments of warfare," by means of which the prices of raw materials may be reduced, while those of manufactured articles are sustained. † What is this but a gigantic communism— placing the fortunes and the happiness of the whole people of the world at the mercy of a distant nation, the basis of whose system is found in the cheapening of all the raw materials of manufacture, labor included? Had M. Bastiat studied the subject more carefully, he would, we think, have seen that the question to be settled by measures of protection is, whether a people shall support foreign governments or their own. France, and all the countries that follow in her lead, support their own-Ireland, India, Jamaica, Turkey, Portugal, and the United States, supporting those of foreign countries, while deprived of revenue themselves.

Protection having in view the production of diversity in the modes of employment, and that alone, protective duties are temporary in their character- the necessity for them tending gradually to pass away, leaving commerce free. Revenue duties having in view only the maintenance of government, they have a character of permanence not existing in the other. Nevertheless, M. Bastiat sees little to object to in these latter interferences with commerce, while protesting against the former. In this, there is the usual inconsistency of the modern school.‡

The real import of the laisser faire doctrine is so well described

*Wealth of Nations, Book IV., ch. viii.

† See ante, vol. i., p. 420.

Here M. Bastiat errs in common with the free trade school generally— revenue duties at the gates of cities, and the ports of countries, being preferred by them to direct taxes, because they are "little felt.”—(See Dictionnaire de l'Economie Politique, article "Octrois.")

M. Chevalier tells his readers, that, notwithstanding the collection of 500,000,000 francs of duties of customs, freedom of trade is an axiom of the British Government!-Examen, p. 163.

by a recent English writer, that we give it here in his own words. It is, says he, "nothing less than this—that government, divesting itself of every relic of moral character, of every claim upon those sentiments of reverence which the constitution of man in all ages has led him to feel for legal authority, should exercise no function but that of protecting the lives and properties of individuals. It means," as he continues, "that, the strong being prevented from enslaving the weak, and the poor from plundering the rich, in all other respects, every man, woman, and child, should be left to rely upon self. If infancy is abandoned, let it perish. If old age is neglected, let it perish too. If strong men habitually wither and die in the foul atmosphere of towns, which only a collective and authoritative force can purify, still let them perish. If the young, who in a few years will be the people of the land, are growing up with intellect and conscience torpid for want of culture, and passions stimulated by the sight of wealth, with mind and body depraved and debilitated by the premature and exhausting toil to which parental recklessness subjects them, even yet the sacred principle will not yield, but, with the coolness of an ancient inquisitor, while the tongues of flame were playing on the limbs of his victims, lays its hand upon the legislator, and tells him to be still-to let those victims go headlong down to the ruin which awaits them, because the partial evil will be the universal good, and all things will come right in the end. There is no doubt that the laisser faire dogmatism, though sometimes a cloak of selfishness, is often well meant. Indeed, it is never dangerous except when it is so. Its aspect is so hideous and revolting, that, except for the gleams of benevolence in its eyes, the world would have long ago chased it away as a monster. It is no doubt benevolent after its fashion. Torquemada did not love evil for its own sake; Pope Gregory XIII. was solicitous for the glory of God, when he ordered a thanksgiving for the massacre of St. Bartholomew; and Cromwell surely had noble ends in view, when he thought to shorten the way to them at Drogheda, by the slaughter of helpless women and their little ones. Neither the economical nor the religious fanaticism, therefore, when it is found to sanction acts of cruelty, should cause the actors to be viewed personally in the same light with those who violate moral laws from selfish impulses. But still, whenever benevolence

or policy, or a so-called social science, seeks to compass its object by tampering with those primary affections and sympathies which have been implanted in the heart of man, and with those moral laws which they disclose, the narrow and audacious presumption ought to be branded as rebellion against the supreme government of the universe."'*

Look where we may, we shall find evidence, that the necessity for the application of intelligence to the co-ordination of the movements of the various members of the societary body, grows with the growth of wealth and numbers, and that the more wisely it is exercised, the greater is the growth of production-the more rapid is the progress of accumulation—the more equitable is the distribution the longer is the duration of life-the more perfect is the development of local centres of action-and the greater is the tendency towards the creation of a sound morality, and towards the development of the real MAN, master of nature and of himself.†

We read in the Arabian Nights of a ship that had been carried by the current so near to a rock of adamant, that—her bolts being all drawn out—she fell to pieces. Such precisely must become

*LALOR: Money and Morals, p. 135.

To all appearance, the railroad question is destined soon to furnish facts of high importance in reference to the necessity for the steady exercise of the societary powers. The construction of such roads tends towards the annihilation of competition for the performance of the work of transportation -thereby creating monopolies that may be rendered most oppressive. Throughout Continental Europe generally, the several communities have, therefore, deemed it necessary to exercise a sound discretion in reference to the roads that might be constructed-while retaining a controlling power in regard to the terms upon which they should be required to do their work. The consequences of this are seen in the facts, that, while their charges are moderate, they have, with few exceptions, been profitable to all-giving fair dividends to their owners, while facilitating intercourse, and thereby giving value to both land and labor.-In Great Britain, on the contrary, it has been held, that the interests of the community were to be promoted by the largest competition for the construction of roads-the result now exhibiting itself in ruinous competition for business at one moment, and high charges at another in the general ruin of those who have made the roads — in expulsion of the population, and consolidation of the land. As a remedy for these evils under which they suffer, the railroad companies are now engaged in the creation of a sort of Congres—an imperium in imperio — that will, probably, and at no distant day, control the legislation of the country.

So is it, even now, in these United States-railroad companies already controlling the legislation of many of the States. The day for general combination having not yet arrived, but there are many evidences of its near approach. When it shall arrive, it will furnish new proof of the fact, that of all governments the most exhausting and oppressive is that of the transporters.