the economic well-being of the farmer who raises grain requires that the miller who grinds it shall live in his vicinity, in the same way the welfare of the agriculturist in general demands that the manufacturer shall be readily accessible, that of a rural district requires the presence of a prosperous industrial city in its midst, and that of the entire body of the agriculture of a country demands that the domestic manufacturing resources should be developed to the maximum of their capacity."

Let us compare the status of agriculture in the vicinity of a populous city with its condition in remote provinces. In the latter case the farmer can raise, for sale, only those crops which can stand the strain of transportation to distant points, and which cannot be supplied by regions less remote, at lower prices, and in better qualities. A large part of his profit is absorbed by the costs of transportation. It is difficult for him to secure the capital which could be so profitably devoted to the development of his farm. Owing to the lack of stimulating examples and of means of instruction, new methods of procedure, better implements, and new methods of cultivation will be introduced only with difficulty. The laborers themselves, owing to bad example and to the absence of the stimuli necessary for the proper exertion and emulation, will not develop their productive powers to any extent and will become slaves to routine and slothfulness.

The agriculturist who lives in the vicinity of a city, on the other hand, is in a position to devote every bit of land to the type of cultivation for which the soil is best adapted. He can produce the greatest variety of things to good advantage. Garden truck, poultry, eggs, milk and butter, fruit, and commodities which the more remotely situated farmer regards as insignificant accessories will yield him a handsome profit. While the former must confine himself merely to cattle-raising, the latter will derive much greater profit from the fattening of animals, and will be hence impelled to perfect the cultivation of forage. A multitude of things which to the more remote agriculturist appear to be of little or no value-for example, stone, sand, water-power, etc.-he will be able to turn to excellent account. The greatest number of machines and implements, of the best quality, and the best methods of instruction are at his disposal. He finds it easy to obtain the capital necessary for the improvement

of his farm. Farm-owners and laborers, owing to the pleasures which the city affords, the spirit of emulation which it inculcates, and the ease with which they can earn a living, will be induced to summon up all their mental and physical powers for the improvement of their condition. Precisely the same difference obtains between a nation which combines agriculture and manufactures in the same territory and a nation which exchanges its own agricultural produce for commodities of foreign manufacture.

The whole social status of a nation in general may be judged in accordance with the principle of the division of labor and the association of productive forces. The relation of the pin to the pin factory is paralleled by that of national well-being to the great association called the nation. The most important division of occupations in the nation is that of the intellectual from the material ones. Each of these groups limits the other. The greater the contribution of the intellectual and spiritual producers to the advancement of morality, the religious spirit, enlightenment, dissemination of knowledge and freedom, political progress, the domestic security of person and property, and the external independence and power of the nation, the greater will be the volume of material production; while the greater the volume of production of material goods, the greater will be the capacity for the production of intellectual and spiritual values.

The highest manifestation of the division of labor and of the association of the productive forces in connection with material production is represented in the case of agriculture and manufactures. Both, as we have shown, are conditioned reciprocally.

As in the case of the pin factory, so in the case of the nation, the productivity of each individual, each separate branch of production, and, finally, of the whole social structure requires that the activity of every individual stand in the right relation to the activity of every other individual. This relation is designated as the balance or harmony of the productive forces. A nation may possess too many philosophers, philologists, and men of letters, and a deficient number of technicians, merchants, and mariners. This results from highly developed literary or academic culture, not supported by a corresponding development of manufacturing resources nor by extensive domestic and foreign trade: the situation is parallel

to that of a pin factory in which the number of pinheads manufactured should far exceed that of the points. The superfluous pinheads in such a nation are represented by a mass of useless books, subtle systems, and learned bickerings, which serve more to becloud than to cultivate the mind of the nation, diverting the latter from useful occupations and hampering the development of the productive powers of the nation in almost the same way as if it possessed too many priests and too few teachers for the instruction of its youth, too many soldiers and too few statesmen, an excessive number of administrators and a dearth of judges and legal counselors.

A nation which pursues merely agriculture is akin to an individual who is hampered in the work of material production by the loss of an arm. Trade is merely an intermediary in the service of agricultural and manufacturing resources and their separate branches. A nation which exchanges agricultural products for commodities of foreign manufacture may be compared to an individual with one arm who depends upon the assistance lent by the arm of a stranger. This support is of service to the nation but is not so advantageous as would be the possession of two arms of its own—if for no other reason because its activity is dependent upon the caprice of another. If it possesses its own manufacturing resources it can produce an amount of necessaries of life and raw materials equivalent to what is consumed by its own manufactures and industrial population; but if it is dependent upon foreign manufactures, it can produce only such surplus quantities as foreign countries are unable to produce themselves and as they are obliged to purchase abroad.

/ The relation of division of labor and association of productive

forces among the different nations of the earth is precisely the same as that which obtains among the different regions of one and the same country. In the former case this adjustment is effected by means of international trade; in the latter case, by means of domestic or national trade. The international association of productive forces is, however, very imperfect, inasmuch as it is subjected to frequent interruption in consequence of war, political measures, commercial crises, etc. Although this relation represents the highest manifestation of the phenomenon in question, inasmuch as it serves to bring together the different nations of the earth, it is, however, from the standpoint of the well-being of individual nations

on a high plane of civilization, the least important factor—a fact which is academically recognized by the proposition that the domestic market of a nation is incomparably more important than the foreign market. From this fact may be deduced the proposition that it is to the interest of every great nation to concentrate its efforts upon the national union of its productive powers, subordinating to this endeavor the quest for international association.

International as well as national division of labor is largely determined by the climate and by nature in general. It is not possible in every country to produce tea, as in China, spices, as in Java, cotton, as in Louisiana, or grain, wool, fruit, and articles of manufacture, as in the countries of the temperate zone. It would be folly for a nation to attempt to obtain by means of national division of labor, i. e., by means of domestic production, commodities to the production of which it is not adapted by nature and which it can obtain more cheaply and to better advantage by means of international division of labor, i.e., through foreign trade; just as it would be indicative of deficient national civilization or enterprise for a nation to fail to utilize all its available natural resources for the purpose of satisfying its domestic needs and, by means of a surplus of products, of obtaining those essential commodities to the production of which its own territory is not adapted by nature.

Those countries which are most favored by nature with respect to national and international division of labor are evidently those whose soil produces the best quality and the largest quantity of the commonest necessaries of life and whose climate is most conducive to physical and mental exertion-namely, the countries of the temperate zone. For it is these countries which are best adapted to the development of manufacturing resources, by means of which a nation is able not only to attain the highest degree of intellectual and social development and political power but also to compel the countries of the torrid zone and the nations which are on a lower plane of civilization in a certain sense to pay it tribute. It is, accordingly, the countries of the temperate zone which, above all others, are summoned to the task of bringing the national division of labor to its highest point of perfection and of utilizing the international division of labor for the purpose of enriching themselves.

IV. EQUALIZING THE CONDITIONS OF PRODUCTION

T IS said-but in order not to be accused of putting sophisms into the mouths of the protectionists, I cite the words of one of their most vigorous champions.

"It has been thought that protection in our case should simply represent the difference existing between the cost price of a commodity produced by us and the cost price of a similar commodity produced by our neighbors. . . . A protective duty reckoned upon such foundations would secure only free competition . . .; free competition obtains only where there is equality of conditions and expenses. When a horse-race is in question, the load that each racer is to carry is weighed, and conditions are equalized; otherwise they would not be competitors. When commerce is in question, if one of the vendors can furnish his wares at a lower price he ceases to be a competitor and becomes a monopolist. . . . Cut off that protection which represents the difference in the cost price and the foreigner invades your market and acquires a monopoly."2

"Everyone ought to wish for himself, as well as for others, that the production of his country should be protected against foreign competition, whenever the latter is able to furnish the products at a lower price."3

This argument recurs incessantly in the writing of the protectionist school. I propose to examine it with care—that is to say that I entreat the attention and even the patience of the reader. I shall consider first the inequalities inherent by nature, then those consequent upon the diversity of the imposts.

1 Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850), Sophismes Économiques, 1st series (1847) (pp. 23-53, of Brussels edition, 1851).

2 Viscount de Romanet.

3 Mathieu de Dombasle.