E-text prepared by Sankar Viswanathan and the Project Gutenberg Online
Distributed Proofreading Team (https://www.pgdp.net) from page images
generously made available by the Making of America Collection of the
University of Michigan Library (http://www.hti.umich.edu/m/moagrp/)
Note: Images of the original pages are available through the Making of
America Collection of the University of Michigan Library. See
http://www.hti.umich.edu/m/moagrp/
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
An Adaptation of Frederick Bastiat's "Sophismes Économiques"
Designed for the American Reader
by
EMILE WALTER
A Worker
New York:
G. P. Putnam & Son, 661 Broadway
The New York Printing Company,
81, 83, And 85 Centre Street,
New York
1867
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
Plenty and Scarcity
CHAPTER II.
Obstacles to Wealth and Causes of Wealth
CHAPTER III.
Effort--Result
CHAPTER IV.
Equalizing of the Facilities of Production
CHAPTER V.
Our Productions are Overloaded with Internal Taxes
CHAPTER VI.
Balance of Trade
CHAPTER VII.
A Petition
CHAPTER VIII.
Discriminating Duties
CHAPTER IX.
A Wonderful Discovery
CHAPTER X.
Reciprocity
CHAPTER XI.
Absolute Prices
CHAPTER XII.
Does Protection raise the Rate of Wages?
CHAPTER XIII.
Theory and Practice
CHAPTER XIV.
Conflict of Principles
CHAPTER XV.
Reciprocity Again
CHAPTER XVI.
Obstructed Rivers plead for the Prohibitionists
CHAPTER XVII.
A Negative Railroad
CHAPTER XVIII.
There are no Absolute Principles
CHAPTER XIX.
National Independence
CHAPTER XX.
Human Labor--National Labor
CHAPTER XXI.
Raw Material
CHAPTER XXII.
Metaphors
CHAPTER XXIII.
Conclusion
INTRODUCTION.
Years ago I could not rid my mind of the notion that Free Trade meant
some cunning policy of British statesmen designed to subject the world
to British interests. Coming across Bastiat's inimitable _Sophismes
Economiques_ I learnt to my surprise that there were Frenchmen also
who advocated Free Trade, and deplored the mischiefs of the Protective
Policy. This made me examine the subject, and think a good deal upon
it; and the result of this thought was the unalterable conviction I
now hold--a conviction that harmonizes with every noble belief that
our race entertains; with Civil and Religious Freedom for All,
regardless of race or color; with the Harmony of God's works; with
Peace and Goodwill to all Mankind. That conviction is this: that to
make taxation the incident of protection to special interests, and
those engaged in them, is robbery to the rest of the community, and
subversive of National Morality and National Prosperity. I believe
that taxes are necessary for the support of government, I believe they
must be raised by levy, I even believe that some customs taxes may be
more practicable and economical than some internal taxes; but I am
entirely opposed to making anything the object of taxation but the
revenue required by government for its economical maintenance.
I do not espouse Free Trade because it is British, as some suppose it
to be. Independent of other things, that would rather set me against
it than otherwise, because generally those things which best fit
European society ill befit our society--the structure of each being so
different. Free Trade is no more British than any other kind of
freedom: indeed, Great Britain has only followed quite older examples
in adopting it, as for instance the republics of Venice and Holland,
both of which countries owed their extraordinary prosperity to the
fact of their having set the example of relaxing certain absurd
though time-honored restrictions on commerce. I espouse Free Trade
because it is just, it is unselfish, and it is profitable.
For these reasons have I, a Worker, deeply interested in the welfare
of the fellow-workers who are my countrymen, lent to Truth and Justice
what little aid I could, by adapting Bastiat's keen and cogent Essay
to the wants of readers on this side of the Atlantic.
EMILE WALTER, _the Worker_.
NEW YORK, 1866.
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
CHAPTER I.
PLENTY AND SCARCITY.
Which is better for man and for society--abundance or scarcity?
What! Can such a question be asked? Has it ever been pretended, is it
possible to maintain, that scarcity is better than plenty?
Yes: not only has it been maintained, but it is still maintained.
Congress says so; many of the newspapers (now happily diminishing in
number) say so; a large portion of the public say so; indeed, the
_city theory_ is by far the more popular one of the two.
Has not Congress passed laws which prohibit the importation of foreign
productions by the maintenance of excessive duties? Does not the
_Tribune_ maintain that it is advantageous to limit the supply of iron
manufactures and cotton fabrics, by restraining any one from bringing
them to market, but the manufacturers in New England and Pennsylvania?
Do we not hear it complained every day: Our importations are too
large; We are buying too much from abroad? Is there not an
Association of Ladies, who, though they have not kept their promise,
still, promised each other not to wear any clothing which was
manufactured in other countries?
Now tariffs can only raise prices by diminishing the quantity of goods
offered for sale. Therefore, statesmen, editors, and the public
generally, believe that scarcity is better than abundance.
But why is this; why should men be so blind as to maintain that
scarcity is better than plenty?
Because they look at _price_, but forget _quantity_.
But let us see.
A man becomes rich in proportion to the remunerative nature of his
labor; that is to say, _in proportion as he sells his produce at a
high price_. The price of his produce is high in proportion to its
scarcity. It is plain, then, that, so far as regards him at least,
scarcity enriches him. Applying, in turn, this manner of reasoning to
each class of laborers individually, the _scarcity theory_ is deduced
from it. To put this theory into practice, and in order to favor each
class of labor, an artificial scarcity is produced in every kind of
produce by prohibitory tariffs, by restrictive laws, by monopolies,
and by other analogous measures.
In the same manner it is observed that when an article is abundant, it
brings a small price. The gains of the producer are, of course, less.
If this is the case with all produce, all producers are then poor.
Abundance, then, ruins society; and as any strong conviction will
always seek to force itself into practice, we see the laws of the
country struggling to prevent abundance.
Now, what is the defect in this argument? Something tells us that it
must be wrong; but _where_ is it wrong? Is it false? No. And yet it is
wrong? Yes. But how? _It is incomplete._
Man produces in order to consume. He is at once producer and consumer.
The argument given above, considers him only under the first point of
view. Let us look at him in the second character, and the conclusion
will be different. We may say:
The consumer is rich in proportion as he _buys_ at a low price. He
buys at a low price in proportion to the abundance of the articles in
demand; _abundance_, then, enriches him. This reasoning, extended to
all consumers, must lead to the _theory of abundance_.
Which theory is right?
Can we hesitate to say? Suppose that by following out the _scarcity
theory_, suppose that through prohibitions and restrictions we were
compelled not only to make our own iron, but to grow our own coffee;
in short, to obtain everything with difficulty and great outlay of
labor. We then take an account of stock and see what our savings are.
Afterward, to test the other theory, suppose we remove the duties on
iron, the duties on coffee, and the duties on everything else, so that
we shall obtain everything with as little difficulty and outlay of
labor as possible. If we then take an account of stock, is it not
certain that we shall find more iron in the country, more coffee, more
everything else?
Choose then, fellow-countrymen, between scarcity and abundance,
between much and little, between Protection and Free Trade. You now
know which theory is the right one, for you know the fruits they each
bear.
But, it will be answered, if we are inundated with foreign goods and
produce, our specie, our precious product of California, our dollars,
will leave the country.
Well, what of that? Man is not fed with coin. He does not dress in
gold, nor warm himself with silver. What does it matter, then, whether
there be more or less specie in the country, provided there be more
bread in the cupboard, more meat in the larder, more clothes in the
wardrobe, and more fuel in the cellar?
Again, it will be objected, if we accustom ourselves to depend upon
England for iron, what shall we do in case of a war with that country?
To this I reply, we shall then be compelled to produce iron ourselves.
But, again I am told, we will not be prepared; we will have no
furnaces in blast, no forges ready. True; neither will there be any
time when war shall occur that the country will not be already filled
with all the iron we shall want until we can make it here. Did the
Confederates in the late war lack for iron? Why, then, shall we
manufacture our own staples and bolts because we may some day or other
have a quarrel with our ironmonger!
To sum up:
A radical antagonism exists between the vender and the buyer.
The former wishes the article offered to be _scarce_, and the supply
to be small, so that the price may be high.
The latter wishes it _abundant_ and the supply to be large, so that
the price may be low.
The laws, which should at least remain neutral, take part for the
vender against the buyer; for the producer against the consumer; for
high against low prices; for scarcity against abundance; for
protection against free trade. They act, if not intentionally, at
least logically, upon the principle that _a nation is rich in
proportion as it is in want of everything_.