d with it protection, reach their maximum.
The petitioners assert that foreign labor injures national labor; this
is _the error_ of the prohibitive school.
They demanded that the French market should be restricted to French
_labor_; this is the _end_ of the prohibitive system.
They insisted that foreign labor should be subject to restriction and
taxation; these are the _means_ of the prohibitive system.
What difference, then, is it possible to discover between the
petitioners of Bordeaux and the advocate of American restriction? One
alone: the greater or less extent given to the word _labor_.
The protectionist extends it to everything--so he wishes to _protect_
everything.
"Labor constitutes _all_ the wealth of a people," says he; "to
protect national industry, _all_ national industry, manufacturing
industry, _all_ manufacturing industry, is the idea which should
always be kept before the people." The petitioners saw no labor
excepting that of manufacturers; so they would admit that alone to the
favors of protection. They said:
"Raw material is _devoid of all human labor_. For that reason we
should not tax it. Fabricated articles can no longer occupy national
labor. We consider them the most taxable."
We are not inquiring whether protection to national labor is
reasonable. The protectionist and the Bordelais agree upon this point,
and we, as has been seen in the preceding chapters, differ from both.
The question is to ascertain which of the two--the protectionists or
the raw-materialists of Bordeaux--give its just acceptation to the
word "labor."
Now, upon this ground, it must be said, the protectionist is, by all
odds, right; for observe the dialogue which might take place between
them:
The PROTECTIONIST: "You agree that national labor ought to be
protected. You agree that no foreign labor can be introduced into our
market without destroying therein an equal amount of our national
labor. Yet you assert that there is a host of merchandise possessed of
_value_ (since it sells), which is, however, free from _human labor_.
And, among other things, you name wheat, corn, meats, cattle, lard,
salt, iron, brass, lead, coal, wool, furs, seeds, etc. If you can
prove to me that the value of these things is not due to labor, I will
agree that it is useless to protect them. But, again, if I demonstrate
to you that there is as much labor in a hundred dollars' worth of
wool as in a hundred dollars' worth of c
|