You have ceased to have any right to invoke the interest of the
consumer; for whenever his interest is found opposed to that of the
producer, you sacrifice the former. You have done so for the purpose of
_encouraging labor and increasing employment_. For the same reason you
should do so again.
You have yourself refuted this objection. When you are told that the
consumer is interested in the free importation of iron, coal, corn,
textile fabrics--yes, you reply, but the producer is interested in their
exclusion. Well, be it so;--if consumers are interested in the free
admission of natural light, the producers of artificial light are
equally interested in its prohibition.
But again, you may say that the producer and consumer are identical. If
the manufacturer gain by protection, he will make the agriculturist also
a gainer; and if agriculture prosper, it will open a vent to
manufactures. Very well: if you confer upon us the monopoly of
furnishing light during the day,--first of all, we shall purchase
quantities of tallow, coals, oils, resinous substances, wax,
alcohol--besides silver, iron, bronze, crystal--to carry on our
manufactures; and then we, and those who furnish us with such
commodities, having become rich, will consume a great deal, and impart
prosperity to all the other branches of our national industry.
If you urge that the light of the sun is a gratuitous gift of nature,
and that to reject such gifts is to reject wealth itself under pretense
of encouraging the means of acquiring it, we would caution you against
giving a death-blow to your own policy. Remember that hitherto you have
always repelled foreign products, _because_ they approximate more nearly
than home products to the character of gratuitous gifts. To comply with
the exactions of other monopolists, you have only _half a motive_; and
to repulse us simply because we stand on a stronger vantage-ground than
others would be to adopt the equation, +X+=--; in other words, it would
be to heap _absurdity_ upon _absurdity_.
Nature and human labor co-operate in various proportions (depending on
countries and climates) in the production of commodities. The part
which nature executes is always gratuitous; it is the part executed by
human labor which constitutes value, and is paid for.
If a Lisbon orange sells for half the price of a Paris orange, it is
because natural and consequently gratuitous heat does for the one what
artificial and therefore expensive heat must do for the other.
When an orange comes to us from Portugal, we may conclude that it is
furnished in part gratuitously, in part for an onerous consideration; in
other words, it comes to us at _half-price_ as compared with those
of Paris.
Now, it is precisely the _gratuitous half_ (pardon the word) which we
contend should be excluded. You say, How can natural labor sustain
competition with foreign labor, when the former has all the work to do,
and the latter only does one-half, the sun supplying the remainder? But
if this _half_, being _gratuitous_, determines you to exclude
competition, how should the _whole_, being _gratuitous_, induce you to
admit competition? If you were consistent, you would, while excluding as
hurtful to native industry what is half gratuitous, exclude _a fortiori_
and with double zeal that which is altogether gratuitous.
Once more, when products such as coal, iron, corn, or textile fabrics
are sent us from abroad, and we can acquire them with less labor than if
we made them ourselves, the difference is a free gift conferred upon us.
The gift is more or less considerable in proportion as the difference is
more or less great. It amounts to a quarter, a half, or three-quarters
of the value of the product, when the foreigner only asks us for
three-fourths, a half, or a quarter of the price we should otherwise
pay. It is as perfect and complete as it can be, when the donor (like
the sun in furnishing us with light) asks us for nothing. The question,
and we ask it formally, is this, Do you desire for our country the
benefit of gratuitous consumption, or the pretended advantages of
onerous production? Make your choice, but be logical; for as long as you
exclude, as you do, coal, iron, corn, foreign fabrics, _in proportion_
as their price approximates to _zero_, what inconsistency would it be to
admit the light of the sun, the price of which is already at _zero_
during the entire day!