^" y o. \y^^/ ^0 "-. \ SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION. BT FKEDERICK BASTIAT. WITH PREFACE BT HORACE WHITE. 12mo, clcth, 400 pages, $1.00. " Contains the most telling statements of the leading principles of Free-Trade, ever published."— iV. Y. Nation. WHAT IS FREE-TRADE ? AN ADAPTATION FOR AMERICAN READERS OF BASTIAT'S " SOPHISMS OF PROTECTION." BT EMILE WALTEK, A Worker. 12mo., cloth, - 75 cts. "Perhaps unsurpassed in the happiness of its illustrations. "- N. Y. Nation. ESS AY S ON Political Economy BT FREDERICK BASTIAT English Translation Revised, with Notes BT " Moins on sait, tnoins on doute; momson a decouvert, moins on wit ce qui Teste a decouv7'ir.''''— (The less one knows, the less one doubts; the less one discovers, the less he will see what there is to discover.)— Turcot. NEW YORK G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS 182 Fifth Avenue 1880 rt3>p ^^ Br 1»aHif*r fr*Ba Pat. #««» UX). AprU ldl4. COPTEIGHT, 1877, By G. p. Putnam's Sons. PEEFACE BY THE AMEEICAE" EDITOK. Political Ecot^omt, in the opinion of most men, is but the expression or name for something that is typically dry, wearis.Qme, and nnpraotical. Owing to the sad record of the follies of legislators and governments, of which it especially takes cog- nizance, and to the nnfavorable conclusions re- specting human development to which some of its investigators and teachers have been led, it has also received the name of " The Dismal ScienceP But if political economy has become popularly invested Avitli such attributes, and has been stig- matized with a bad name, it is certainly because of the methods and manner in which its precepts and principles have been taught, rather than be- cause the science itself is either repulsive in theory or unprofitable in its practical application. Eor political economy, in truth, is but the history and discussion of the resnlts of the experience of mankind in getting a living, and in securing tliat degree of material abundance which will admit of leisure, without which there can be no attainments IV PREFACE BY THE AMEBICAN EDITOE. in knowledge. And the all-absorbing feeling of interest which in variably takes possession of those who through study have come to fully appreciate the nature of the science, centers in the hope and belief that throno^h the determination and dissemi- nation of the principles dedncible from this experi- ence of mankind, toil, hereafter, to the masses, will be made lighter, justice rendered more certain, comfort increased, and abundance be made greater. In further illustration of these propositions, at- tention is asked to the nature of the work performed by the two men, who, more than any others, may be considered as having founded, during the last century, the science of modern political economy, namely, Turgot and Adam Smith. The former be- came finance minister of France in 1Y74, under Louis XYI., shortly after the death of Louis XY. He found France, and in fact all Europe, steeped in poverty and threatened with future calamities, not because the country was deficient in natural re- sources or the people unwilling to labor, but because through lack of any appreciation or understanding of the most simple economic laws and principles, the governmental authorities had so multiplied taxes, monopolized trade, and restricted commerce, that production was everywhere carried on at the minimum of profit, accumulation prevented, and distribution so impeded that the people in one PKEFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. V province were sometimes allowed to starve, wliile in an adjoining department there was a surplus seeking a market. Turgot attempted reform by practically applying and carrying out the element- ary principles which are now embodied as axioms in every modern treatise on political economy. By royal edict issued in January, 1TT6, he made it lawful, for the first time in France, for any person, man or woman, to follow without hindrance any craft or profession ; he abolished all the privileges and monopolies of all the guilds, corporations, and trading companies of the kingdom; he removed restrictions on trade at home, and on commerce with foreign nations ; and in place of a system of diffused, inquisitorial, infinitesimal taxes, endeav- ored to concentrate taxation on a comparatively few objects. The following extract from this cele- brated edict (made in the name of the king, but written by Turgot), which it is believed has never befoi'e been translated into English, further illus- trates what political economy was understood to be by this one of the acknowledged founders of the science : — " It has come to be a popular notion that the right to labor is a matter of royal prerogative ; something that the ruler (State) is able to sell ; something which the subject ought to buy ; and therefore that the sale of grants and privileges to labor, to produce, and to exchange ought to be made a source of revenue to the State," We hasten to re- Yl PEEFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. pudiate any sucli principle. God in giving to man wants, rendered it necessary tliat he should have property. The right to labor is not only the property of all men, but it is the first, the most sacred, and the most imprescribable of all property. We therefore regard it is as the first obligation on our justice, and as an act most worthy of our benefi- cence, to free all our subjects from every restriction on this most inalienable right of humanity. We therefore abrogate every arbitrary institution that does not permit the poor to freely enjoy the fruits of their labor; which tramples down the sex whose weakness gives it more of wants and less of resources, and which in condemning woman to poverty and idleness promotes immorality and debauchery ; which ex- tinguishes emulation in industry, and renders useless the talent of those who are excluded from trade associations ; which deprives the State of the industry, the trade, and the products of foreigners ; which retards the progress of the arts ; and finally, which gives facility to members of cor- porations to so intrigue among themselves as to force those who are poor to submit to the will of the rich, and so become the instruments of monoply and the supporters of schemes, the sole effect of Avhich is to enable a few to enjoy more than their rightful proportion of these commodities which are essential to the subsistence and comfort of the masses." This edict, which was little else than the enun- ciation of the modern non-interference theory of government with production and distribution, was cliaracterized at the time by Yoltaire as the great- test single step ever taken in civilization. It did not, however, succeed, because popular ignorance and the interests of individuals, as contradistin- guished from the interests of the masses, which PEEFACE BY THE AMEEICAN EDITOR. Vll undoubtedly regarded then (as tliey regard now) the views of students of economic laws as dry and unpractical, soon effected the revocation of the edict. But had it been maintained, the French revolution of 1Y89 — certainly with its *' reign of terror" — would probably never have occurred. Consider also the influence of the work per- formed by that other great political economist, Adam Smith, as embodied in his " Inquiry into the IS'ature and Causes of the Wealth of Is^ations." One hundred years after the publication of this book, the judgment of an acknowledged financial authority,* after a thorough investigation of the whole subject was, that it has " caused more money to he mfiade^ and prevented more m.oney from heing lost, than the writings of any other author j " Avhile the opinion of another, f not less qualified to pass judgment, is, that the claim to merit of Adam Smith's teachings was not "that it made a number of rich men richer than they were before, but that it invented a beneficial and blessed secret of miti- gating the labor of those who were in hard and bit- ter circumstances, giving comfort and even reason- able abundance, not to scores, or hundreds, or thousands, but to millions to whom before life was a burden." ^London Economist, June, 1876. f Hon. W. E. Gladstone. Yin PEEFACE BY THE AMEKICAN EDITOR. But if political economy is tlius as practical and beneficent in its teaching and application as his- torical results and the concurrent testimony of those best qualified to judge 'agree that it has been and is : if it tends to throw lifirht on what all mankind are especially interested in doing? namely, improving their material welfare, it would seem that its study ought to be a matter of special interest to all, and its principles and propositions anything but dry and uninteresting. Of course, in the presentation of its truths and results there is a wide difference in the capacity of those who by study and investigation have acquired a rightful authority to teach. The possession of large knowledge and the power of readily and attract- ively communicating it, are not often happily united in one and the same person ; but in the case of the eminent Frenchman, M. Frederick Bastiat (born 1801, died in 1850), these two qualities were so conjoined that his expositions and illustrations of politico-economic topics are acknowledged to be more lucid and convincing than those of almost any other author. He foresaw that a knowledge of the fundamental principles of political economy diffused among the masses was the only " safe- guard of democracy," and the surest guarantee for the continuation and prosperity of all forms of government that are based on extended or uni- PEEFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. IX versal suffrage. He bad the most earnest convic- tions of the truth of a proposition laid down by the late Harriet Martineau, more than forty years ago, in the preface to one of her popular essays, that "if it concerns rulers that their measures should be wise ; if it concerns the wealthy that their pro- perty should be secure, the middling classes that their industry should be rewarded, the poor that their hardships should be redressed, it concerns all that political economy should be understood." And with this foresight, and with these convic- tions, M. Bastiat especially devoted himself to the presentation and elucidation of those questions in political economy which are of the utmost impor- tance — because they intimately concern the welfare of the masses — that the masses should thoroughly understand ; and the lack of which understanding has not only already occasioned serious troubles in almost every civilized community, but threat- ens still greater evil for the future. Another great merit of his writings is, that they are almost whollv free from a blemish that characterizes a large number of the works on political economy that were designed to be popular, namely, the discussion of controverted points and niceties, and references to books and authors that have pre- ceded, but which are little known, or not accessible to the majority of readers. X PREFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. This little volume is made np of a selection from the essays of M. Bastiat that have in a high degree these popular and attractive characteristics ; such as a presentation of the nature of capital and interest^ and the relation of the two ; a discussion, under the title " That which is Seen, and that which is not Seen^'' of the evils that always result from limiting consideration of the effect of an economic law, tax, or institution to its immediate visible influence and ignoring its ultimate conse- quences, introducing in so doing the illustration which has passed into many languages of the '^ Brolcen Window P Also tlie question of " What is Government f " " What is Money f-" and the nature, object, and function of wdiat is popularly and generally termed ''The Laio^"^ w^ithout refer- ence to any particular code or statute. So accepta- ble, indeed, have these short selected essays proved to the public, that repeated editions of them have been published in France, Belgium, Germany, Ital}^ England, and the United States; and all that the Editor has had to do with the present American edition has been to revise the previous English translation, which was exceedingly imper- fect, and in some instances absolutely without meaning. AVhere the text, which was originally written to meet the condition of affairs in France, at the time of the overthrow of the monarchy and PEEFACE BY THE AMEEICAN EDITOE. XI the establishment of the republic in 1848, could be changed verbally with advantage to meet the dif- ferent condition of men, laws, and things at present existing in the United States, such changes have been made ; — English names being substituted for French ones, dollars and cents in place of francs and sous, and the like. A few notes pertinent to the subject-matter of the text, and drawn mainly from the recent economic experience of the United States, have also been, added. Finally, as no pecuniary advantage whatever accrues to the Editor from any revision or repub- lication of these essays, he feels at liberty to com- mend them to all friends of economic studies and reforms in the United States, and to ask their co- operation in extending their circulation among the people. David A. Wells. Norwich, Conn., Febrvixxry, 1877. OOJ^TEIsTTS. CAPITAL AND INTEREST. Introduction ...*.. 1 Ought Capital to Produce Interest? 8 What is Capital ? 23 The Sack op Corn 24 The House 28 The Plane 30 What Regulates Interest ? 48 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN 70 The Broken Window 72 The Disbanding of Troops 77 Taxes 82 Theatres, Fine Arts 87 Public Works 96 The Middle-Men 100 Restrictions 109 Machinery 117 xiv contents. Credit 127 Algeria , *. 134 Frugality and Luxury 141 He who has a Right to Labor has a Right TO THE Profit of Labor 150 GOVERNMENT 154 WHAT IS MONEY?.... 174 THE LAW 231 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. INTRODUCTION My object in this treatise is to examine into the real nature of the Interest of Capital, for the pur- pose of proving that it is lawful, and explaining why it should be perpetual. This may appear singular, and yet, I confess, I am more afraid I may weary the reader by a series of mere truisms. But it is no easy matter to avoid this danger, when the facts with which we have to deal are known to every one by personal, familiar, and daily experience. But, then, you will say, " What is the use of this treatise ? Why explain what everybody knows ? " But, although this problem appears at first sight so very simple, there is more in it than you might suppose. I shall endeavor to prove this by an example. Thomas lends an instrument of labor to-day, which will be entirely destroyed in a week, yet the capital will not produce the less interest to Thomas or his heirs, through all eter- 1 ^A CAPITAL AND INTEREST. nity. Reader, can you lionestly say that you un- derstand the reason of this? It would be a waste of time to seek any satis- factory explanation from the writings of econo- mists. They have not thrown much light upon the reasons of the existence of interest. For this they are not to be blamed ; for at the time they wrote, its lawfulness was not called in question. IS^ow, however, times are altered 5 the case is dif- ferent. Men, wdio consider themselves to be in ads'ance of their age, have organized an active crusade against capital and interest ; it is the pro- ductiveness of capital which they are attacking ; not certain abuses in the administration of it, but the principle itself. Some years ago a journal was established in Paris by M. Proudhon, especially to promote this crusade, which for a time is reported to have had a very large circulation. The first number that was issued contained the following declaration of its principles : — " The productiveness of capital, which is condemned by Christianity under the name of usury, is the true cause of misery, the true origin of destitution, the eternal obstacle to the establishment of a true Pepublic." Another French journal, La Ihtche Popidaire^ also thus expresses its views on this subject : — *' But above all, labor ought to be free ; that is, CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 3 it onglit to be organized in such a manner that money-lenders mid owners or controllers of capitcd 'sJioidd not l)e jpaid for granting tlie opportiinitj^ to labor, and for which privilege they charge as liigh a price as possible. The only thought that I notice here, is that expressed by the words in the italics, which imply a denial of the right to take interest. A noted leader among the French Socialists, M. Thore, also thus expresses himself : — ■ "The revolution will always have to be recom- menced, so long as we occupy ourselves with con- sequences only, without having the logic or the courage to attack the principle itself. This prin- ciple is capital, false property, interest, and usury, which by old custom is made to weigh upon labor. "Ever since the aristocrats invented the in- credible fiction, that capital j)ossesses the power of reproducing itself the workers have been at the mercy of the idle. " At the end of a year, will you find an addi- tional dollar in a bag of one hundred dollars? At the end of fourteen years will your dollars have doubled in your bag? " Will a work of industry or of skill produce another, at the end of fourteen years ? " Let us begin, then, by demolishing this fatal fiction." 4: CAPITAL AND INTEREST. I have quoted the above, merely for the sake of establishing the fact that many persons con- sider the productiveness of capital a false, a fatal, and an iniquitous principle.* But quotations are * In this essay, written for liis countrymen, M. Bastiat quotes exclusively, as was natural, from French writers, for the purpose of illustrating the views of those who maintain that the loan of capital for interest or hire is iniquitous from a moral point of view, and economically considered un- profitable to the people collectively. But quotations of a similar character might equally well have been made from English and American writers, who in some instances are men who have attained to no little reputation. Thus, for example, John Raskin, the well-known English art critic, in his Pots Glavigera, thus reasons respecting " the immoral nature and injurious effects" of the taking of interest, *' Usury," he says, " is properly the taking of money for the loan or use of anything (over and above what pays for wear and tear), such use involving no care or labor on the part of the lender. It includes all investments of capital whatso- ever, i-eturning ' dividends,'" as distiugnished from labor wages or profits. Thus anybody who works on a railroad as plate-layer or stoker has a right to wages for his work ; and any inspector of wheels or rails has a right to payment for such inspection ; but idle persons who have only paid a hun- dred pounds towards the road-making, have a right to the return of the hundred pounds — and no more. If they take a farthing more, they are usurers. They may take fifty pounds for two years, twenty-five for four, five for twenty, or one for a hundred. But the first farthing they take more than their hundred, be it sooner or later, is usury. "Again, when we build a house, and let it, we have a right to as much rent as will return us the wages of our labor, and CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 5 superfluous ; it is well known that large num- bers of poor people attribute their poverty to what they call the tyranny of eajpital j meaning thereby the unwillingness of the owners of capi- tlie sum of our outlay. If, as in ordinary cases, not laboring with, our hands or liead, we liave simply paid — say one thousand pounds — to get the house built, we have a right to the one thousand pounds back again at once, if we sell it ; or, if we let it, to five hundred pounds rent dur- ing two years, or one hundred pounds rent during ten years or ten pounds rent during a hundred years. But if, sooner or later, we take a pound more than the thousand, we are usurers. " And thus in all other possible or conceivable cases, the moment our capital is * increased ' by having lent it, be it but in the estimation of a hair, that hair's breadth of increase is usury, just as much as stealing a farthing is theft, no less than stealing a million. " But usury is worse than theft, in so far as it is obtained either by deceiving people or distressing them ; generally by both ; and finally by deceiving the usurer himself, who comes to think that usury is a real increase, and that money can grow of money ; whereas all usury is increase to one per- son only by decrease to another; and every grain of calcu- lated Increment to the rich is balanced by its mathematical equivalent of Decrement to the poor." And again: " We need not fear our power of becoming good Christians yet, if we will ; so only that we understand, finally and utterly, that all gain, increase, interest, or whatever else you call it or think it, to the lender of capital, is loss, decrease, and dis- interest to the borrower of capital. Every farthing we, who lend the tool, make, the borrower of the tool loses. And all the idiotical calculations of what money comes to, in so 6 CAPITAL AND INTEKEST. tal to allow others to use it without security for its safe return and compensation for its use. I believe there is not a man in the world, who is aware of the whole importance of this question : "Is the interest of capital natural, just, and lawful, and as useful to the borrower who pays, as to the lender who receives ? *' You answer, 'No ; I answer, Yes. Then we differ entirely ; but it is of the utmost importance many years, simply ignore tlie debit side of the book, on whicli tlie Laborer's Deficit is precisely equal to tlie Capi- talist's EflBcit. I saw an estimate made by some blockhead in an American paper, the other day, of the weight of gold which a hundred years' ' interest ' on such and such funds would load the earth with ! Not even of wealth in that solid form, could the poor wretch perceive so much of the truth as that the gold he put on the earth above, he must dig out of the eartli below ! But the mischief in real life is far deeper on tlie negative side, than the good oii the positive. The debt of the borrower loads his heart, cramps his hands, and dulls his labor. The gain of the lender hardens his heart, fouls his brain, and puts every means of mischief into his otherwise clumsy and artless hands." As an illustration of similar views of American origin, a pamphlet on Labor Reform, by John T. Campbell, of Lidiana, published in 1872, and which has attained considerable popu- larity and circulation, thus commences a chapter on the causes affecting the distribution of wealth : ** What, then, are the means used by which wealth which labor produces is transferred to the possession of the non-pro- ducing few? It is simply an instrument of refined robbery. It is money and its interest." CAPITAL AND INTEEEST. 7 to' discover which of ns is in the right, otherwise we shall incur the danger of making a false solu- tion of the question, a matter of opinion. If the error is on my side, however, the evil would not be so great. It must be inferred that I know nothing about the true interests of the masses, or the march of human progress ; and that all my arguments are but as so many grains of sand, by which the car of the revolution will certainly not be arrested. But if, on the contrary, men like Proudhon and Thore in France (John Ruskin in England, and others in the United States) are deceiving them- selves, it follows that they are leading the people astray — that they are showing them evil where it does not exist; and thus giving a false direction to their ideas, to their antipathies, to their dis- likes, and to their attacks. It follows that the misguided people are rushing into a horrible and absurd struggle, in which victory would be more fatal than defeat ; since, according to this sup- position, the result would be the realization of universal evils, the destruction of every means of emancipation, the consummation of its own misery. This is just what M. Proudhon has acknowl- edged, with perfect good faith. " The foundation stone," he told me, '' of my system is the gratid' 8 CAPITAL AND INTEEEST: iousness of credit. If I am mistaken in tliis, Socialism is a vain dream." I add, it is a dream, in which the people are tearing themselves to pieces. Will it, therefore, be a cause for surprise, if, when they awake, they find themselves man- gled and bleeding? Such a danger as this is enough to justify me fully, if, in the course of the discussion, I allow myself to be led into some trivialities and some prolixity. OUGHT CAPITAL TO PRODUCE INTEREST? I address this treatise to working men, more especially to those who have enrolled themselves under the banner of Socialist democracy. I pro- ceed to consider these two questions : — 1st. Is it consistent with the nature of things, and with justice, that capital should produce in- terest ? 2d. Is it consistent with the nature of things, and with justice, that the interest of capital should be perpetual ? The working men everywhere will certainly ac- knowledge that a more important subject could not be discussed. Since the world began, it has been allowed, at least in part, that capital ought to produce in- terest. But latterly it has been affirmed that herein lies the very social error which is the CAPITAL AND INTEBEST. 9 cause of pauperism and inequality. It is, there- fore, very essential to know now on what ground we stand. For if levying interest from capital is a sin, the workers have a right to revolt against social order, as it exists. It is in vain to tell them that they onght to have recourse to legal and pacific means : it would be a hypocritical recommendation. When on the one side there is a strong man, poor, and a victim of robbery — on the other, a weak man, but rich, and a robber — it is singular enough that we should say to the former, with a hope of persuading him, " Wait till your oppres- sor voluntarily renounces oppression, or till it shall cease of itself." This cannot be ; and those who tell us that capital is by nature unproductive, ought to know that they are provoking a terrible and disastrous struct o^le. If, on the contrary, the interest of capital is natural, lawful, consistent with the general good, as favorable to the borrower as to the lender, the economists who deny it, the writers who grieve over this pretended social wound, are leading the workmen into a senseless and unjust efibrt which can have no other issue than the misfortune of all. In fact, they are arming labor against capital. So much the better, if these two powers are really antagonistic; and may the 10 CAPITAL AND INTEKEST. struggle soon be ended ! But, if they are in har- mony, the struggle is the greatest evil which can be inflicted on society. You see, then, workmen, that there is not a more important question than this : — " Is the interest of capital rightful or not ? " In the former case, yon must immediately renounce the struggle to which you are being urged ; in the second, you must carry it on brave- ly, and to the end. Productiveness of capital — perpetuity of in- terest. These are difficult questions. I must en- deavor to make myself clear. And for that pur- pose I shall have recourse to example rather than to demonstration ; or rather, I shall place the de- monstration in the example. I begin by acknowl- edging that, at lirst sight, it may appear strange that capital xshould pretend to a remuneration, and above all to a perpetual remuneration. You will say, "Here are two men. One of them works from morning till night, from one year's end to another; and if he consumes all which he has gained, even by superior energy, he remains poor. When Christmas comes he is in no better condition than he was at the beginning of the year, and has no other prospect but to begin again. The other man does nothing, eitlier with his hands or his head ; or at least, if he makes use of them at all, it is only for his own pleasure ; it is allowable for CAPITAX AND INTEREST. 11 him to do nothing, for he has an income. He does not work, yet he lives well ; he has every- thing in abundance ; delicate dishes, sumptuous furniture, elegant equipages ; nay, he even con- sumes, daily, things which the workers have been obliged to produce by the sweat of their brow, for these things do not make themselves ; and, as far as he is concerned, he has had no hand in their production. It is the workmen who have caused this corn to grow, elaborated this furniture, woven these carpets ; it is our waives and daugh- ters who have spun, cut-out, sewed, and embroid- ered these stufis. We work, then, for him and for ourselves ; for him first, and then for our- selves, if there is anything left. But here is some- thing more striking still. If the former of these two men, the worker, consumes within the year any profit which may have been left him in that year, he is always at the point from which he started, and his destiny condemns him to move incessantly in a perpetual circle, and in a monotony of exertion. Labor, then, is rewarded only once. But if the other, the 'gentleman,' consumes his yearly income in the year, he has, the year after, in those which follow, and through all eternity, an income always equal, inexhaustible, ^;>57;^6^'waZ. Capital, then, is remunerated, not only once or twice, but an indefinite number of times ! So 12 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. that, at the end of a hundred years, a family which has placed 20,000 francs,* at five per cent, will have had 100,000 francs ; and tliis will not prevent from having 100,000 francs more in the following century. In other words, for 20,000 francs, which represents its labor, it will have levied, in two centuries, a tenfold value on the labor of others. In this social arrangement is there not a monstrous evil to be reformed ? And this is not all. If it should please this family to curtail its enjoyments a little — to spend, for ex- ample, only 900 francs, instead of 1,000 — it may, without any labor, without any other trouble be- yond that of investing 100 francs a year, increase its capital and its income in such rapid progres- sion that he will soon be in a position to consume as much as a hundred families of industrious workmen. Does not all this go to prove that society itself has in its bosom a hideous cancer, which ought to be eradicated at the risk of some temporary suffering ? " These are, it appears to me, the sad and irritat- ing reflections which must be excited in your minds by the active and superficial crusade which is being carried on against capital and interest. On the other hand, there are moments in which, I am convinced, doubts are awakened in your * A franc is 19.3 cents of our money. CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 13 minds, and scruples in your conscience. You say to yourselves sometimes : " But to assert that capital ought not to produce interest, is to say that he who has created instruments of labor, or mate- rials, or provisions of any kind, ought to yield them up without compensation. Is that just ? And then, if it is so, who would lend these in- struments, these materials, these provisions ? who would take care of them ? who even would create them ? Every one would consume his proportion, and the human race would not advance a step. Capital would be no longer accumulated, since there would be no interest in accumulating it. It would become exceedingly scarce. This would be a most singular step for the obtaining of loans gratui- tously ! A singular means of improving the con- dition of borrowers, to make it impossible for them to borrow at any price ! What would be- come of labor itself ? for there will be no money advanced, and not one single kind of labor can be mentioned, not even the chase, which can be pursued without capital of some kind. And, as for ourselves, what would become of us ? What ! we are not to be allowed to borrow, in order to work in the prime of life, nor to lend, that we may enjoy repose in its decline ? The law will rob us of the prospect of laying by a little prop- erty, because it will prevent us from gaining any 14 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. advantage from it. It will deprive us of all stim- ulus to save at the present time, and of all hope of repose for the futm'e. It is useless to exhaust ourselves with fatigue; we must abandon the idea of leaving our sons and daughters a little prop- erty, since the new views render it useless, for we should become traffickers in the toil of men if we were to lend it on interest. Alas ! the world which these persons would open before us, as an imagin- ary good, is still more dreary and desolate than that which they condemn, for hope, at any rate, is not banished from the latter." Thus, in all respects, and in every point of view, the question is a serious one. Let us hasten to arrive at a solution. The French civil code has a chapter entitled, "On the manner of transmitting property." When a man by his labor has made some use- ful things — in other words, when he has cre- ated a value — it can only pass into the hands of another by one of the following modes : — as a gift, hy the right of inheritance, by exchange, loan, or theft. One word upon each of these, ex- cept the last, although it plays a greater part in the world than we may think. A gift needs no definition. It is essentially voluntary and spon- taneous. It depends exclusively upon the giver, and the receiver cannot be said to have any right to it. Without a doubt, morality and religion CAPITAL AND INTEEEST. 15 make it a duty for men, especially the rich, to de- prive themselves voluntarily of that which they possess, in favor of their less fortunate brethren. But this is an entirely moral obligation. If it were to be asserted on principle, admitted in practice, sanctioned by law, that every man has a right to the property of another, the gift would have no merit — charity and gratitude would be no longer virtues. Besides, such a doctrine would suddenly and universally arrest labor and produc- tion, as severe cold congeals water and suspends animation ; for who would work if there was no longer to be any connection between labor and the satisfying of our wants? Political economy has not treated of gifts. It has hence been con- cluded that it disowns them, and that it is there- fore a science devoid of heart. This is a ridicu- lous accusation. That science which treats of the laws resulting from the recijproGity of sei'vices had no business to inquire into the consequences of generosity with respect to him who receives, nor into its effects, perliaps still more precious, on him who gives. Such considerations belong evi- dently to the science of morals. We must allow the sciences to have limits ; above all, we must not accuse them of denying or undervaluing what they look upon as foreign to their depart- ment. 16 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. The right of inheritance, against whicli so mucli lias been objected of late, is one of the forms of gift, and assuredly the most natural of all. That which a man has produced, lie may consume, ex- chano-e, or mve. What can be mere natural than that he should give it to his children ? It is this power, more than any other, which inspires him with courage to labor and to save. Do you know why the principle of right of inheritance is thus called in question ? Because it is imagined that the property thus transmitted is plundered from the masses. This is a fatal error. Political econ- omy demonstrates, in the most peremptory man- ner, that all value produced is a creation which does no harm to any person whatever. For that reason it may be consumed, and, still more, trans- mitted, without hurting any one ; but I shall not pursue these reflections, which do not belong to the subject. Exchange is the principal department of politi- cal economy, because it is by far the most frequent method of transmitting property, according to the free and voluntary acquiescence in the laws and effects of which this science treats. Properly speaking, exchange is the reciprocity of services. The parties say between themselves, *' Give me this, and I will give you that;" or, " Do this for me, and I will do that for you." It CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 17 is well to remark (for tliis will throw a new light oil the notion of value) that the second form is always implied in the lirst. When it is said, ''Do this for me, and I will do that for you," an ex- change of service for service is proposed. Again, when it is said, " Give me this, and I will give you that," it is the same as saying, " I yield to ,you what I have done, yield to me what you have done." The labor is past, instead of present ; but the exchange is not the less governed by the com- parative valuation of the two services ; so that it is quite correct to say that the principle of value is in the services rendered and received on account of the productions exchanged, rather than in the productions themselves. In reality, services are scarcely ever exchanged directly. There is a medium, which is termed ononey. Paul has completed a coat, for which lie wishes to receive a little bread, a little wine, a little oil, a visit from a doctor, a ticket for the play, etc. The exchange cannot be effected in kind, so what does Paul do ? He first exchanges his coat for some money, which is called selling / then he exchanges this money again for the things which he wants, which is csdled purchasing ; and now, only, has the reciprocity of service com- pleted its circuit ; now, only, the labor and the compensation are balanced in the same Individ- 18 - CAPITAL AND INTEEEST. ua], — ^' I liave done this for society, it Las done that for me." In a word, it is only now that the exchange is actually accomplished. Thus, noth- ing can be more correct than this observation of J. B. Say : — " Since the introduction of money, every exchange is resolved into two elements, sale and purchase. It is the reunion of these two elements which renders the exchange com- plete." We must remark, also, that the constant appear- ance of money in every exchange has overturned and misled all our ideas : men have ended in thinking that money was true riches, and that to multiply it was to multiply services and pro- ducts. Hence the protecti-ve system ; hence paper money ; hence the celebrated aphorism, ^' What one gains the other loses ; " and of the errors which have impoverished the earth, and im- brued it with blood.* After much investigation it has been found, that in order to make the two services exchanged of equivalent value, and in order to render the exchange eqxiitahle^ the best means was to allow it to be free. However plausi- ble, at first sight, the intervention of the State might be, it was soon perceived that it is always oppressive to one or other of the contracting * This error M. Bastiat afterward specially combated aud exposed in a pamphlet, entitled Cursed Money. CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 19 parties. Wheii we look into these subjects, we are always compelled to reason upon this maxim, that equal value results from liberty. We have, in fact, no other means of knowing whether, at a given moment, two services are of the same value, but that of examining whether they can be readily and freely exchanged. Allow the State, which is the same thing as force, to interfere on one side or the other, and from that moment all the means of appreciation will be complicated and entangled, instead of becomino; clear. It ouo-ht to be the part of the State to prevent, and, above all, to repress artifice and fraud ; that is, to secure lib- erty, and not to violate it. I have enlarged a little upon exchange, although loan is my princi- pal object : my excuse is, that I conceive that there is in a loan an actual exchange, an actual service rendered by the lender, and which makes the borrower liable to an equivalent service, — two services, whose comparative value can only be appreciated, like that of all possible services, by fi-eedom. Now, if it is so, the perfect rightfulness of what is called house-rent, farm-rent, interest, will be explained and understood. Let us consider what is involved in a loan. Suppose two men exchange two services or two objects, whose equal value is beyond all dispute. Suppose, for example, Peter says to Paul, " Give 20 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. me ten ten-cent pieces, I will give you a silver dollar." We cannot imagine an equal value more unquestionable. When the bargain is made, nei- ther party has any claim upon the other. The exchanged services are equal. Then it follows, that if one of the parties wishes to introduce into the bargain an additional clause, advantageous to himself, but unfavorable to the other party, he must agree to a second clause, which shall re- establish the equilibrium, and the law of justice. It would be absurd to deny the justice of a second clause of compensation. Thisgranted, we will sup- pose that Peter, after having said to Paul, " Give me ten ten-cent pieces, I will give you a dollar," adds, ''You shall give me the ten ten-cent pieces noio^ and I will give you the silver dollar in a year I ^^ it is very evident that this new proposi- tion alters the claims and advantages of the bar- gain ; that it alters the proportion of the two ser- vices. Does it not appear plainly enough, in fact, that Peter asks of Paul a new and an additional service ; one of a different kind ? Is it not' as if he had said, " Kender me the service of allowing me to use for my profit, for a year, the dollar which belongs to you, and which you might have used for yourself ? " And what good reason have you to maintain that Paul is bound to render this espe- cial service gratuitously ; that he has no right to CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 21 demand anytliing more in consequence of this requisition ; that the State ought to interfere to force him to submit'^ Is it not incomprehensible that the economist, who preaches such a doctrine to the people, can reconcile it with his principle of the reGiprocity of service f Here I have intro- duced money ; I have been led to do so by a desire to place, side by side, two objects of exchange, of a perfect and indisputable equality of value. I was anxious to be prepared for objections ; but, on the other hand, my demonstration would have been more striking still, if I had illustrated my principle by an agreement for exchanging of ser- vices or commodities directly. Suppose, for example, a house and a vessel of a value so perfectly equal that their proprietors are disposed to exchange them even-handed, without excess or abatement. In fact let the bargain be settled by a lawyer. At the moment of each taking possession, the ship-owner says to the house- owner, " Yery well ; the transaction is completed, and nothing can prove its perfect equity better than OTir free and voluntary consent. Our con- ditions thus fixed, I will propose to you a little practical modification. You shall let me have your house to-day, but I will not put you in pos- session of my ship for a year ; and the reason I make this demand of you is, that, during this 22 CAPITAL AND INTEEEST. year of delay ^ I wish to use the vesseh" That we limy not be embarrassed by considerations rel- ative to the deterioration of the thinsj lent, I will suppose the ship-owner to add, " I will engage, at the end of the year, to hand over to you the ves- sel in the state in which it is to-day." I ask of every candid man, if the house-owner has not a right to answer, " The new clause which you pro- pose entirely alters the proportion or the equal value of the exchanged services. By it I shall be deprived, for the space of a year, both at once of my house and of your vessel. By it you will make use of both. If, in the absence of this clause, the bargain was just, for the same reason the clause is injurious to me. It stipulates for a loss to me, and a gain to you. You are requir- ing of me a new service ; I have a right to refuse, or to require of you, as a compensation, an equiva- lent service." If the parties are agreed upon this compensation, the principle of which is incon- testable, we can easily distinguish two transac- tions in one, two exchanges of service in one. First, there is the exchange of the house for the vessel ; after this, there is the delay granted by one of the parties, and tlie compensation cor- responding to this delay yielded by the other. These two new services take the generic and ab- stract names of credit and interest. But names CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 23 do not change the nature of things; and I defy any one to disprove that there exists here, when all is done, a service for a service, or a reciprocity of services. To say that one of these services does not challenge the other, to say that the first ought to be rendered gratuitously, with- out injustice, is to say that injustice consists in the reciprocity of service, — that justice consists in one of the parties giving and not receiving, which is a contradiction in terms. But, to give an idea of interest and its mechan- ism, allow me to make use of two or three anec- dotes. But, first, I must say a few words upon capital. WHAT IS CAPITAL? There are some persons who imagine that capi- tal is money, and this is precisely the reason why they deny its productiveness ; for, as John Ruskin and others say, dollars are not endowed with the power of reproducing themselves. But it is not true that capital and money are the same thing. Before the discovery of the precious metals, there were capitalists in the world ; and I venture to say that at that time, as now, everybody was a capi- talist, to a certain extent. What is capital, then ? It is composed of three things : — 24: CAPITAL AND INTEEEST. 1st. Of the materials upon which men operate, when these materials have already a value com- municated by human effort, which has bestowed upon them the property of exchangeability — wool, flax, leather, silk, wood, etc. 2d. Instruments which are used for working — tools, machines, ships, carriages, etc. 3d. Provisions which are consumed during labor — victuals, stuffs, houses, etc. "Without these things the labor of man would be unproductive and almost void ; yet these very things have required much work, especially at first. This is the reason that so much value has been attached to the possession of them, and also that it is perfectly lawful to exchange and to sell them, to make a profit off them if used, to gain remuneration from them if lent. ^NTow for my anecdotes. THE SACK OF CORN? "William, in other respects as poor as Job, and obliged to earn his bread by day-labor, became, nevertheless, by some inheritance, the owner of a fine piece of uncultivated land. He was exceed- ingly anxious to cultivate it. " Alas ! " said he, ''to make ditches, to raise fences, to break the soil, to clear away the brambles and stones, to plow it, to sow it, might bring me a living in a CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 25 year or two ; but certainly not to-dav, or to-mor- row. It is impossible to set about farming it, without previousl}^ saving some provisions for my subsistence until the harvest ; and I know, by ex- perience, that preparatory labor is indispensable in order to render present labor productive." The good William was not content with making these reflections. He resolved to work by the day, and to save something from his w^ages to buy a spade and a sack of corn, without which things he must give up his agricultural projects. He acted so well, was so active and steady, that he soon saw himself in possession of the wished-for sack of corn. " I shall have enough to live upon till my field is covered with a rich harvest.'' Just as he was starting, David came to borrow his accumulation of food of him. "If you will lend me this sack of corn," said David, " you will do me a great service ; for I have some very lucra- tive work in view, which I cannot possibly under- take, for want of provisions to live upon till it is finished." " I was in the same case," answered William ; " and if I have now secured bread for several months, it is at the expense of my arms and my stomach. Upon what principle of justice can it be devoted to the carrying out of your en- terprise instead of nnine f " You may well believe that the bargain was a 2 26 CAPITAL AND INTEKEST. long one. However, it was finished at length, and on these conditions : — First — David promised to give back, at the end of the year, a sack of corn of the same quality, and of the same weight, without missing a single grain. " This first clause is perfectly just," said he, "for without it William would give^ and not lend^ Secondly — He further engaged to deliver one- Jialf bushel of corn for every five hush els origin- ally borrowed ,, when the loan was rehirned. " This clause is no less just than the other," thought he ; " for unless William would do me a service with- out compensation, he would infiict upon himself a privation — lie would renounce his cherished en- terprise—he would enable me to accomplish mine — he would cause me to enjoy for a year the fruits of his savings, and all this gratuitously. Since he dela3^s the cultivation of his land, since he enables me to prosecute a lucrative employ- ment, it is quite natural that I should let him partake, in a certain proportion, of the profits which- 1 shall gain by the sacrifice he makes of his own profits." On his side, William, who was something of a scholar, made this calculation : — '' Since, by vir- tue of the first clause, the sack of corn will return to me at the end of a year," he said to himself, CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 27 " I shall be able to lend it again ; it will return to me at the end of the second year ; I may lend it again, and so on, to all eternity. However, I cannot deny that it will have been eaten long ago. It is singular that I should be perpetually the owner of a sack of corn, although the one I have lent has been consumed forever. But this is ex- plained thus : — It will be consumed in the service of David. It will put it into the power of David to produce a greater value ; and conse- quently, David will be able to restore me a sack of corn, or the value of it, without having suffered the slightest injury ; but, on the contrary, having gained from the use of it. And as regards myself, this value ought to be my property, as long as I do not consume it myself. If I had used it to clear my land, I should have received it again in the form of a fine harvest. Instead of that, I lend it, and shall recover it in the form of repay- ment. " From the second clanse, I gain another piece of information. At the end of the year I shall be in possession of one bushel of corn for every ten that I may lend. If, then, I were to con- tinue to work by the day, and to save part of my wages, as I have been doing, in the course of time I should be able to lend two sacks of corn ; then three ; then four ; and when I should have 28 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. gained a sufficient number to enable me to live on these additions of a half a bushel over and above and on account of every ten bushels lent, I shall be at liberty to take a little repose in my old age. But how is this ? In this case, shall I not be living at the expense of others ? No, cer- tainly, for it has been proved that in lending I perform a service ; I make more profitable the labor of my borrowers, and only deduct a trifling part of the excess of production, due to my lend- ings and savings. It is a marvelous thing that a man may thus realize a leisure which injures no one, and for which he cannot be reproached with- out injustice." THE HOUSE. Again, Thomas had a house. In building it, lie had extorted nothing from any one whatever. He obtained it by his own personal labor, or, which is the same thing, by the labor of others justly rewarded. His first care was to make a bargain with an architect, in virtue of which, on condition of the payment of a hundred dollars a year, the latter engaged to keep the house in con- stant good repair. Thomas was already congratu- lating himself on the happy days which ho hoped to spend in this pleasant home, which our laws CAPITAL AND INTEEEST. 29 declared to be his own exclusive property. But Richard wished to use it also as his residence. " How can you think of snch a thing ? " said Thomas to Richard. • " It is I who have built it ; it has cost me ten years of painful labor, and now you would come in and take it for your enjoy- ment ? " They agreed to refer the matter to judges. They chose no profound economists — there were none such in the country. But they found some just and sensible men ; it all comes to the same thing ; political economy, justice, good sense, are all the same thing. And here is the decision made by the judges : — If Richard wishes to occupy Thomas's house for a year, he is bound to submit to three conditions. The first is to quit at the end of the year, and to restore the house in good repair, saving the inevi- table decay resulting from mere duration. The second, to refund to Thomas the one hundred dol- lars which Thomas pays annually to the architect to repair the injuries of time ; for these injuries taking place whilst the house is in the service of Richard, it is perfectly just that lie should bear the expense. The third, that he should render to Thomas a service equivalent to that which he receives. And as to what shall constitute this equivalence of services, this must be left for Thomas and Richard to mutually agree upon. 30 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. THE PLANE. One fnrtlier illustration to the same effect. A very long time ago there lived, in a poor village, a joiner, who was a philosopher, as all my heroes are in their way. James worked from morning till night with his two strong arms, but his brain was not idle for all that. He was fond of reviewing his actions, their causes, and their effects. He sometimes said to himself, " With my hatchet, my saw, and my hammer, I can make only coarse furniture, and can only get the pay for such. If I only had a plane^ I should please my customers more, and they would pay me more. But this is all right ; I can only expect ser- vices proportioned to those which I render myself. Yes ! I am resolved, I will make myself s. plane. ''^ \ However, just as he w^as setting to work, James reflected further : — " I work for my customers 300 days in the year. If I give ten to making my plane, supposing it lasts me a year, only 290 days w^ill remain for me to make ray furniture. Kow, in order that I be not the loser in this matter, I must gain henceforth, with the help of the plane, as much in 290 days as I now do in 300. I must even gain more ; for unless I do so, it would not be worth my while to venture npon any innova- tions." James began to calculate. He satisfied CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 31 timself that lie should sell his finished furniture at a price which woidd amply compensate him for the ten days devoted to the plane ; and when no doubt remained in his mind on this point, he set to work. I heg the reader to remark, tliat the power which exists in the tool to increase the productiveness of labor, is the basis for the suc- cessful solution of the experiment which James the joiner proposed to make. At the end of ten days, James had in his pos- session an admirable plane, which lie valued all the more for having made it himself. He danced for joy, — for, like the girl with her basket of eggs, he reckoned in anticipation all the profits which he expected to derive from the ingenious instrument ; but, more fortunate than she, he was not reduced to the necessity of saying good-by, when the eggs were smashed, to the expected calf, cow, pig, as w^ell as the eggs, together. He was building his fine castles in the air, when he was in- terrupted by his acquaintance William, a joiner in the neighboring village. William having ad- mired the plane, was struck with the advantages which might be gained from it. He said to James : — W. You must do me a service. e/". What service ? W. Lend me the plane for a year. 32 CAPITAL AND INTEKEST. As might be expected, James at this proposal did not fail to cry out, " How can you think of such a thing, William ? But if I do 3^ou this service, what will you do for me in return ? " W. Nothing. Don't you know that John Kus- kin says a loan ought to be gratuitous ? Don't you know that Prudhon and other notable writers and friends of the laboring classes assert that capital is naturally unproductive? Don't you known that all the new school of liberal advanced writers say we ought to have perfect fraternity among men ? If you only do me a service for the sake of receiving one from me in return, what merit would you have? J. William, my friend, fraternity does not mean that all the sacrifices are to be on one side ; if so,- I do not see why they should not be on yours. WhetJier a loan should be gratuitous I don't know ; but I do know that if I were to lend you my plane for a year it would be giving it you. To tell you the truth, that was not what I made it for. W. Well, we will say nothing about the mod- ern maxims discovered by the friends of the work- ing classes. I ask you to do me a service ; vrhat service do you ask me in return ? «7i First, then, in a year the plane will be used up, it will be good for nothing. It is only just CAPITAL AND INTEKEST. 33 tliat you slionid let me have another exactly like it ; or that you should give me money enough to get it repaired ; or tliat you should supply me the ten days which I must devote to replacing it. W. This is perfectly just. I submit to these conditions. I engage to return it, or to let you have one like it, or the value of the same. I think you must be satisfied with this, and can require nothin(2: further. «/! I think otherwise. I made the plane for myself, and not for you. I expected to gain some advantage from it, by my work being better finished and better paid ; by improving my con- dition. What reason is there that I should make the plane, and you should gain the profit ? I might as well ask you to giv-e me your saw and hatchet ! What a confusion ! Is it not natural that each should keep what he has made with his own hands, as well as his hands tliemselves ? To use without recompense the hands of another, I call slavery ; to use without recompense the plane of another, can this be called fraternity? W. But, then, I have agreed to return it to jou at the end of a year, as well polished and as sharp as it is now. e/. We have nothing to do with next year ; we are sj^eaking of this year. I have made the plane for the sake of improving my work and condition ; 34: CAPITAL AND INTEEEST. if you merely return it to me in a year, it is you who will gain the profit of it during the whole of that time. I am not bound to do you such a ser- vice without receiving anything from you in re- turn ; therefore, if you wish for my plane, inde- pendently of the entire restoration already bar- gained for, you must do me a service which we will now discuss ; you must grant me remuneration. And this was what the two finally agreed upon : — William granted a remuneration calcula- ted in such a way that, at the end of the year, James received liis plane quite new, and in addi- tion a new plank, as a compensation for the ad- vantages of Avliicli he had deprived himself in lending the plane to his friend. It was impossible for any one acquainted with the transaction to discover the slightest trace in it of oppression or injustice. The singular part of it is, that, at the end of the year, the plane came into James's possession, and he lent it again; recovered it, and lent it a third and fourth time. It has passed into the hands of his son, who still lends it. Poor plane ! how many times has it changed, sometimes its blade, some- times its handle. It is no longer the same plane, but it has always the same value, at least for James's posterity. Workmen ; let us examine into these little stories. . CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 35 I maintain, first of all, that tlie sack of corn and \hQ plane are here the type, tlie model, a faithful representation, the symbol of all capital ; as the half bushel of corn and the plank are the type, the model, the representation, the symbol of all in- terest. This granted, the following are, it seems to me, a series of consequences, the justice of which it is impossible to dispute. 1st. If the yielding of a plank by the borrower to the lender is a natural, equitable, lawful remu- neration, the just price of a real service, we may conclude that, as a general rule, it is in the nature of capital when loaned or used to produce interest. When this capital, as in the foregoing examples, takes the form of an instrument of Icibor^ it is clear enou2:h that it ouo-ht to brino; an ad van- tage to its possessor, to him who has devoted to it his time, his brains, and his strength. Otherwise, why should behave made it ? I^o necessity of life can be immediatelj^ satisfied with instruments of labor ; no one eats planes or drinks saws, except, indeed, he be a conjuror. If a man determines to spend his time in the production of such things, he must have been led to it by the consideration of the increased power which these instruments give to him; of the time which they save him ; of the perfection and rapidity which they give to his labor ; in a word, of the advantages which 36 CAPITAL AND INTEKEST. tliey procure for Iiim. Xow, these advantages, whicli have been obtained by labor, by the sac- riiice of time which might have been used for other purposes, are we bound, as soon as they are ready to be enjoyed, to confer gratuitously upon another ? Would it be an advance in social order if the law decided thus, and citizens should pay officials for causing snch a law to be executed by force ? I venture to say that there is not one amongst you who would support it. It would be to legalize, to organize, to systematize injustice itself, for it would be proclaiming that there are men born to render, and others born to receive, gratuitous services. Grant, then, that interest is just, natural, and expedient. 2d. A second consequence, not less remarka- ble than the former, and, if possible, still more conclusive, to which I call your attention, is this : — Interest is not injitrious to the horroicer. I mean to say, the obligation in which the bor- rower finds himself, to pay a remuneration for use of capital, cannot do any harm to his condi- tion. Observe, in fact, that James and William are perfectly free, as regards the transaction to which the plane gave occasion. The transaction cannot be accomplished without the consent of one as well as of the other. The worst which can happen is, that James may be too exacting ; and CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 37 in this case, William, refusing the loan, remains as Le was before. By the fact of his agreeing to borrow, he proves that he considers it an advan- tage to himself; he proves, that after every cal- culation, whatever may be the remnn oration or interest required of him, he still finds it more profitable to borrow than not to borrow. He only determines to do so because he has com- pared the inconveniences with the advantages. He has calculated that the day on which he re- turns the plane, accompanied by the remunera- tion agreed upon, he w^ill have effected more work, with the same labor, thanks to this tool. A profit will remain to him, otherwise he would not have borrowed. The two services of which we are speaking are exchanged according to the law wdiich governs all exchanges, the law of sup- ply and demand. The claims of James have a natural and impassable limit. This is the point in which the remuneration demanded by him would absorb all the advantage which "William might find in making use of a plane. In this case, the borrowing would not take place. Wil- liam would be bound either to make a plane for himself, or do without one, which would leave him in his original condition. He borrows, be- cause he gains by borrowing. I know very well what will be told me. You will say, William may 38 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. be deceived, or, perhaps, he may be goyerned by necessity, and be obliged to submit to a harsh law. It may be so. As to errors in calculation, they belong to the infirmity of our nature, and to argue from this against the transaction in ques- tion, is objecting the possibility of loss in all im- aginable transactions, in every human act. Error is an accidental fact, which is incessantly reme- died by experience. In short, everybody must guard against it. As far as those hard necessi- ties are concerned, which force persons to borrow nnder onerous conditions, it is clear that these necessities existed previously to the borrowing. If William is in a situation in which he cannot possi- bly do without a plane, and must borrow one at any price, does this situation result from James hay- ing taken the trouble to make the tool ? Does it not exist independently of this circumstance ? However harsh, however severe James may be, he will never render the supposed condition of William worse than it is. Morally, it is true, the leader will be to blame if he demands more than is just; but, in an economical point of view, the loan itself can never be considered responsible for previous necessities, which it has not created, and which it relieves to a certain extent. But this proves something to which I shall re- turn. It is evidentl}^ for the interest of William, CAPITAL AND INTEKEST. 39 representing here tlie borrowers, tliat there shall be many Jameses and planes, or, in other words, lenders and capitals. It is very evident, that if William can say to James, '' Y^onr demands are exorbitant ; there is no lack of planes in the world ; " he will be in a better situation than if James's plane was the only one he could borrow. Assuredly, there is no maxim more true than this ■ — service for service. But let us not forget that no service has a fixed and absolute value, com- pared with others. The contracting parties are free. Each carries his requisitions to the farthest possible point, and the most favorable circum- stance for these requisitions is the absence of rivalship. Hence it follows that if there is a class of men more interested than any otlier in the creation, multiplication, and abundance of capitals, it is mainly that of the borrowers. Now, since capitals can only be formed and increased by the Btimulus and the prospect of remuneration, let this class understand the injury they are inflicting on themselves when they deny the lawlessness of in- terest, when they proclaim that credit should be gratuitous, when they declaim against tlie pre- tended tyranny of capital, when they discourage saving, thus forcing capital to become scarce, and consequently interest to rise. 3d. The anecdote I have just related enables 40 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. yon to explain this apparently singular pheno- menon, which is termed the duration or perpe- tuity of interest. Since, in lending his plane, James has been able, very lawfully, to make it a condition tliat it should he returned to him, at the end of a year, in the same state in which it was when he lent it, is it not evident that he may, at the expiration of the term, lend it again on the same conditions ? If he resolves upon the latter plan, the plane will return to him at the end of every year, and that without end. James will then be in a condition to lend without end; that is, he may derive from it a perpetual interest. It will be said, that the plane will be worn out. That is true ; but it will be worn out by the hand and for the profit of the borrower. The latter has taken this gradual wear into account, and taken upon himself, as he ought, the consequences. He has reckoned that he shall derive from this tool an advantage Avhich will allow him to restore it in its original condition, after having realized a profit from it. As long as James does not use this capital himself, or for his own advantage — as lono^ as he renounces the advantas^es which allow it to be restored to its orig^inal condition — he will have an incontestable right to have it restored, and that independently of interest. Observe, besides, that if, as I believe I have CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 41 shown, James, far from doing any harm to Wil- liam, has done him a service in lending him his plane for a year ; for the same reason, he will do no harm to a second, a third, a fourth borrower, in the subsequent periods. Hence you may un- derstand that the interest of a capital is as natural, as lawful, as useful, in the thousandth year, as in the first. We may go still farther. It may hap- pen that James lends more than a single plane. It is possible, that by means of working, of sav- ing, of privations, of order, of activity, he may come to be able to lend a multitude of planes and saws; that is to say, to do a multitude of services. I insist upon this point, — ^that if the first loan has been a social good, it will be the same with all the others ; for they are all similar, and based upon the same principle. It may happen, then, that the amount of all the remunerations received by our honest operative, in exchange for services rendered by him, may sufiice to maintain him. In this case, there will be a man in the world who has a right to liv^e without working. I do not say that he would be doing right to give him- self up to idleness — but I say, that he has a right to do so ; and if he does so, it will be at nobody's expense, but quite the contrary. If society at all understands the nature of things, it will acknowl- edge that this man subsists on services wdiich he 42 CAPITAL AND INTEEEST. receives certainly (as we all do), but which he receives lawfully in exchange for other services, which he himself has rendered, that he continues to render, and which are real services, inasmuch as they are freely and voluntarily accepted. And here we have a glimpse of one of the finest harmonies in the social word. I allude to leisure : not that leisure that the warlike and tyrannical classes arrange for themselves by the plunder of the workers, but that leisure which is the lawful and innocent fruit of past activity and economy. In expressing myself thus, I know that I shall shock many received ideas. But see ! Is not leisure an essential spring in the social machine ? Without it the world would never have had a Newton, a Pascal, a Fenelon ; mankind would have been ignorant of all arts, sciences, and of those wonderful inventions prepared originally by investigations of mere curiosity ; thought would have been inert — man w^ould have made no prog- ress.* On the other hand, if leisure could only be * " Of all tlie results wliicli are produced among a people \>j tlieir climate, food, and soil, tlie accumulation of wealth (capital) is tlie earliest, and in many respects the most im- portant. For although the progress of knowledge eventu- ally accelerates the increase of wealth, it is nevertheless cer- tain that, in the first formation of society, the wealth must accumulate before tlie knowledge can begin. As long as everv man is engaged in collecting the materials necessary CAPITAL AND INTEEEST. 43 explained by plunder and ojDpression — if it were a benefit wliicli conld only be enjoyed unjustly, and. at the expense of others, there would be no middle path between these two evils; either man- kind would be reduced to the necessity of stag- nating in a vegetable and stationary life, in eternal ignorance, from the absence of wheels to its ma- chine — or else it would have to acquire these wheels at the price of inevitable injustice, and would necessarily present the sad spectacle, in one form or other, of the ancient classification of hu- man beings into masters and slaves. I defy any one to show me, in this case, any other alterna- tive. We should be compelled to contemplate the. Divine plan wdiich governs society, with, the regret of thinking that it presents a deplorable chasm. The stimulus of progress would be for- gotten, or, which is worse, this stimulus would be no other than injustice itself. But no ! God has not left such a chasm in His work of love. We must take care not to disres-ard His wisdom and power ; for those whose imperfect meditations for liis own subsistence, there will be neither leisure nor taste for higher pursuits. But if the produce is greater than consumption, an overplus arises, by means of which men can use what they did not produce, and are thus enabled to devote themselves to subjects for which at an earlier period the pressure of their daily wants would have left them no time." — Buckle's History oj Civilization. 4:4: CAPITAL AND INTEREST. cannot explain the lawfulness of leisnre, are very much like the astronomer who said, at a certain point in the heavens there ouglit to exist a planet which will be at last discovered, for without it the celestial world is not harmony, but discord. Therefore, I say that, if well understood, tlie history of my humble plane, although very mod- est, is sufficient to raise us to tlie contemplation of one of the most consoling, but least understood of the social harmonies. It is not true that we must choose between the denial or the unlawfulness of leisure ; thanks to rent and its natural duration, leisure may arise from labor and saving. It is a pleasing prospect, which every one may have in view ; a noble re- compense, to which each may aspire. It makes its appearance in the w^orld ; it distributes itself proportion ably to the exercise of certain virtues ; it opens all the avenues to intelligence ; it enno- bles, it raises the morals ; it spiritualizes the soul of humanity, not only without laying any weight on those of our brethren whose lot in life makes severe labor necessary, but it relieves them grad- ually from the heaviest and most repugnant part of this labor. It is enough that capitals should be formed, accumulated, multiplied; should bo lent on conditions less and less burdensome ; that they should descend, penetrate into every social CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 45 circle, and that by an admirable progression, after having liberated the lenders from onerous toil, thev should brins; a similar liberation to the bor- rowers themselves. For that end, the laws and customs ought all to be favorable to economy, the source of capital. It is enough to say, that the first of all these conditions is, not to alarm, to attack, to deny that which is the stimulus of sav- ing and the reason of its existence — interest. As long as we see nothing passing from hand to hand, in the operations of loan, hvit provisions^ wiaterials, instruments^ things indispensable to the productiveness of labor itself, the ideas thus far exhibited will not find many opponents. Who knows, even, that I may not be reproached for having made a great effort to burst what may be said to be an open door. But as soon as money makes its appearance as the subject of the trans- action (and it is this which appears almost always), immediately a crowd of objections are raised. Money, it will be said, will not reproduce itself, like your sack of corn 'j it does not assist labor, like your plane / it does not afford an immediate satisfaction, like your house. It is incapable, by its nature, of producing interest, of multiplying itself, and the remuneration it demands is a posi- tive extortion. Who cannot see the sophistry of this \ Who 46 CAPITAL AND INTEEEST. does not see that money is only an instrumentality wliicli men use to represent other values^ or real objects of usefulness, for the sole object of facilitat- ing their exchanges of commodities or services ? In the midst of social complications, the man who is in a condition to lend scarcely ever has the exact thing which the borrower wants. James, it is true, has a plane ; but, perhaps, William wants a saw. They cannot negotiate ; the transaction favorable to both cannot take place, and then what happens ? It happens that James lirst exchanges his plane for mone}^ ; he lends the money to William, and William exchanges the money for a saw. The transaction is no longer a simple one ; it is re- solved into two transactions, as I explained above in speaking of exchange. But, for all that, it has not changed its nature ; it still contains all the elements of a direct loan. James has parted with a tool which was useful to him ; William has at the same time received an instrument which facilitates his work and increases his profits ; there is still a service rendered by the lender, which entities him to receive an equivalent service from the bor- rower ; and this just balance is not the less estab- lished by free mutual bargaining. The obvious natural oblioration to restore at the end of the term the entire value of what was borrowed still consti- tutes the principle of the rightfulness of interest. CAPITAL AND INTEEEST. 47 At tlie end of a year, says M. Thore, will you find an additional dollar in a bag of a hundred dollars ? 'No, certainly if tlie borrower puts the bag of one hundred dollars on the shelf. In such a case, neither the plane nor the sack of corn would reproduce themselves. Eut it is not for the sake of leaving the money in the bag, nor the plane on the shelf, that they are borrowed. The plane is borrowed to be used, or the money to procure a plane. And if it is clearly proved that this tool enables the borrower to obtain profits which he could not have made w^ithout it ; if it is proved that the lender has given up the opportunity of creating for himself this excess of profits, we may understand how the stipulation of a part of this excess of profits in favor of the lender, is equitable and lawful. Ignorance of the true part which money plays in human transactions, is the source of the most fatal errors. From what we may infer from the writings of M. Proudhon, that which has led him to think that gratuitous credit was a logical and definite consequence of social pro- gress, is the observation of the phenomenon that interest seems to decrease almost in direct proportion to the progress of civilization. In bar- barous times it is, in fact, cent, per cent., and 48 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. more. Then it descends to eiglitj, sixty, fifty, forty, twenty, ten, eight, five, four, and three per cent. In Holland, it has even been as L)W as two per cent. Hence it is conchided, that ''in propor- tion as society comes to perfection, the rate of in- terest will diminish and finally run down to zero, or nothing, by the time civilization is complete. In other words, that which characterizes social per- fection is the gratuitousness of credit. When, therefore, we shall liave abolished interest, we shall have reached the last step of progress." This is mere sophistry, and as such false arguing may contribute to render popular the unjnst, dan- gerous, and destructive dogma that credit should be gratuitous, by representing it as coincident with social perfection, with the reader's permission I will examine in a few words this new view of the question. WHAT EEGULATBS INTEREST? "What is interest f It is the service rendered, after a free bargain, by the borrower to the lender, in remuneration for the service he has received by or from the loan. By what law is the rate of these remunerative services established ? By the general law which regulates the equivalent of all services; that is, by the law of supply and demand. The more easily a thing is pi'ocured, the smaller CAPITAL AND INTEKEST. 49 is the service rendered by yielding it or lending it. The man who gives me a glass of water among the springs of the mountains does not render me so great a service as he who allows me one in the desert of Sahara. If there are many planes, sacks of corn, or houses, in a country, the use of them is obtained, other things being equal, on more favourable conditions than if they were few, for the simple reason that the lender renders in this case a smaller relative service. It is not surprising, therefore, that the more abundant capital is, the lower is the interest. Is this saying that it will ever reach zero ? ISTo ; because, I repeat it, the principle of a remu- neration is in the loan. To sa}^ that interest will be annihilated, is to say that there will never be any motive for saving, for denying ourselves, in order to form new capitals, nor even to preserve the old ones. In this case, the waste would im- mediately create a void, and interest would di- rectly reappear. In that, tlie nature of the services of which we are speaking does not difl'er from any other. Thanks to industrial progress, a pair of stockings, which used to be w^orth six shillings, has suc- cessively been worth only four, three, and two. ISTo one can say to what point this value will de- scQ^id ; but we can affirm that it will never reach 3 50 CAPITAL AND INTEKEST. zero, unless the stockings finish by producing themselves spontaneously. Why ? Because the principle of remuneration is in labor; because he who works for another renders a service, and ought to receive a service. If no one paid for stockings they would cease to be made ; and? with the scarcity, the 23rice would not fail to re- appear. The sophism which I am now combating has its root in the infinite divisibility which belongs to value, as it does to matter. It may appear at first paradoxical, but it is well known to all mathematicians, that, through all eternity, fractions may be taken from a weight without the w^eight ever being annihilated. It is sufficient that each successive fraction be less than the preceding one, in a determined and regular proportion. There are countries where people apply them- selves to increasing the size of horses, or diminish- ing in sheep the size of the head. It is impossible to say precisely to what point they will arrive in this. No one can say that he has seen the largest horse or the smallest sheep's head that will ever appear in the world. But he may safely say that the size of horses will never attain to infinit}^, nor the heads of sheep be reduced to nothing. In the same way, no one can say to what point CAPITAL AND INTEEEST. 51 the price of stockings nor the interest of capiti^il will come down ; but we may safely afiirm, when we know the nature of things, that neither the one nor the other will ever arrive at zero, for labor and capital can no more live without recompense than a sheep without a head. The aro^uments of Mr. Proudhon reduce them- selves, then, to this : — Since the most skillful agri- culturists are those who have reduced the heads of sheep to the smallest size, we shall have ar- rived at the highest agricultural perfection when sheep have no longer any heads. Therefore, in order to realize the perfection, let ns behead them. I have now done with this wearisome discussion. Why is it that the breath of false doctrine has made it needful to examine into the innate na- ture of interest ? I must not leave off without remarking upon a beautiful moral which may be drawn from this law : — " The reduction in the rate of interest is proportional to the abundance of capital." This law being granted, if there is a class of men to whom it is more important than to any other that stocks of capital should accumu- late, multiply, abound, and superabcnnd, it is cer- tainly the class which borrows capital directly or indirectly ; it is those men who operate npon ma- terials^ who gain assistance by instruments^ who 62 CAPITAL AND INTEEEST. live upon accumulations produced and saved by other men. Imagine, in a vast and fertile country, a popu- lation of a thousand inhabitants, destitute of all capital as thus defined. It will assuredly perish by the pangs of hunger. Let us s appose a case hardly less cruel. Let us suppose that ten of these sav- ages (for persons without capital are savages) are provided with instruments and provisions sufii- cient to work and to live themselves until harvest time, as well as to remunerate the services of eighty laborers. The inevitable result will be the death of nine hundred human beings. It is clear, then, that since 990 men, urged by want, w^ill crowd upon the supports whicli w^ould only main- tain a hundred, the ten capitalists will be masters of the market. They will obtain labor on the hardest conditions, for they will put it up to auc- tion or the highest bidder. And observe this, — if these capitalists entertain such pious sentiments as would induce them to impose personal priva- tions on themselves, in order to diminish the suf- ferings of some of their brethren, this generosity'', wdiicli attaches to morality, will be as noble in its principle as useful in its effects. But, if duped by that false philosophy which persons wish so inconsiderately to mingle with economic laws, they take to remunerating labor in excess of what it is CAPITAL AND INTEEEST. 5S worth, and in excess of wliat tliey are able to pay, far from doing good, tliey will do harm. They will give double wages, it may be. But then, forty-five men will be better provided for, whilst forty-tive others from the diminution in the supply of capital, will augment the number of those who are sinking into the grave. Upon this supposi- tion, it is not the deprivation of wages which primarily works the mischief, but the scarcity of capital. Low wages are not the cause, but the effect of the evil. I niay add, that they are to a certain extent the remedy. It acts in this way : it distributes the burden of suffering as much as it can, and saves as many lives as a limited quan- tity of available sustenance permits. Suppose now, that instead of ten capitalists, there should be a hundred, two hundred, five hundred — is it not evident that the condition of the whole population, and, above all, that of the mass of the people will be more and more im- proved? Is it not evident that, apart from every consideration of generosity, they would obtain more work and better pay for it? — that they themselves will be in a better condition to accu- mulate capital, without being able to fix the limits to this ever-increasing facility of realizing equal- ity and well-being ? Would it not be madness in them to admit and act upon the truth of such 54 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. doctrines as Proudhon and John Kiiskin teach, and to act in a way which would reduce the source of wages, and paralyze the activity and stimulus of saving? Let them learn this lesson, then. Accumulations of capital are good for those who possess them : who denies it I But they are also useful to those who have not yet been able to form them ; and it is important to those who have them not that others should have them. Yes, if the laboring classes knew their true in- terests, they would seek to know with the greatest earnestness what circumstances are, and what are not favorable to saving, in order to encourage the former and to discourao^e the latter. Thev w^ould sympathize with every measure which tends to the rapid accumulation of capital. They would be enthusiastic promoters of peace, liberty, order, security, the union of classes and peoples, economy, moderation in public expenses, simplic- ity in the machinery of government; for it is under the sway of all these circumstances that saving does its work, brings plenty within the reach of the masses, invites those persons to be- come the owners of capital who were formerly under the necessity of borrowing upon hard con- ditions. They would repel with energy the war- like spirit, which diverts from its true course so large a part of human labor; the monopolizing CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 55 spirit, which deranges the equitable distribution of riches, in the way by which liberty alone can realize it; the multitude of public services which attack our purses only to check our liberty ; and, in short, those subversive, hateful, thought- less doctrines, which alarm capital, prevent its formation, oblige it to flee, and finally to raise its price, to the especial disadvantage of the workers, who bring it into existence. Take for example the revolution which over- threw the government of France, and disturbed society in February, 1848, is it not a hard lesson ? Is it not evident that the insecurity it has thrown into the world of business on the one hand ; and, on the other, the advancement of the fatal the- ories to which I have alluded, and which, from the clubs, have almost penetrated into the re- gions of the legislature, have everywhere raised the rate of interest? Is it not evident that from that time the laboring^ classes of France have found greater difficulty in procuring those mate- rials, instruments, and provisions, without which labor is impossible ? Is it not tliat which has caused stagnation of business ; and does not par- alysis of industry in turn lower wages ? Thus there is a deficiency of labor to those who need to labor, from the same cause which loads the ob- jects they consume with an increase of price, in 56 CAPITAL AND INTEEEST. consequence of the rise of interest. Higli inter- est and low wages, signif}^ in other words that the same article preserves its price, but that the remuneration of the capitalist has invaded, without profiting himself, that of the work- man. A friend of mine, commissioned to make in- quiry into Parisian industry, has assured me that the manufecturers have revealed to him a very striking fact, which proves, better than any reasoning can, how much insecurity and uncer- tainty injure the formation of capitaL It was re- marked that during the most distressing period of this revolution the popular expenses of ex- penditures for personal gratification did not diminish. The small theatres, the public-houses, and tobacco depots, were as much frequented as in prosperous times. On inquiry, the operatives themselves explained this phenomenon as follows : — " What is the use of economizing ? Who knows what will happen to us ? Who knows that interest will not be abolished ? Who knows but that the State will become a universal and gratuitous lender, and that it will annihilate all the fruits which we might expect from our savings ? " Well ! I say, that if such ideas could prevail during two single years, it would be enough to turn our beautiful France into a Tur- ( CAPITAL AND INTEKEST. 57 key — misery would become general and endemic, and, most assuredly, tlie poor would be the first upon whom it would fall. Laborino- men ! tliev talk to you a o:reat deal upon the artificial organization of labor ; — do you know why they do so ? Because they are igno- rant of the lav/s of its natural organization ; that is, of the wonderful organization w^iicli results from liberty. You are told that liberty gives rise to what is called the radical antagonism of classes; that it creates, and makes to clash, two opposite interests — that of the capitalists and that of the laborers. But we ought to begin by prov- ing that the antagonism exists by a law of nature ; and afterwards it would remain to be shown how far the arrangements for restriction are superior to those of liberty, for between liberty and restriction I see no middle path. Again, it would remain to be proved that restriction would always operate to your advantage, and to the pre- judice of the rich. But, no ; this radical antagon- ism, this natural opposition of interests, does not exist. It is only an evil dream of perverted and intoxicated imaginations. I^o ; a plan so defec- tive has not proceeded from the Divine Mind. To affirm it, we must begin by denying the exist- ence of God. And see how, by means of social laws, and becanse men exchange amongst them- 58 CAPITAL AND INTEKEST. selves their labors and their productions, a harmo- nious tie attaches the difierent classes of society one to the other ! There are the landowners ; what is their interest? That the soil be fertile, and the sun beneficent : and what is tlie result ? That wheat abounds, that it falls in price, and the ad- vantage turns to the profit of those who have had no patrimony. There are the manufacturers — what is their constant thought ? To perfect their labor, to increase the power of their machines, to pro- cure for themselves, upon the best terms, the raw material. And to what does all this tend? To the abundance and the low price of produce ; that is, all the efforts of the manufacturers, and without their suspecting it, result in a profit to the public consumer, of wdiich each of you is one. It is the same with every profession. Now, the capitalists are not exempt from this law\ They are very busy making schemes, economizing, and turning them to their advantage. This is all very w^ell ; but the more they succeed, the more do they promote the abundance of capital, and, as a necessary consequence, the reduction of interest. J^ow, who is it that profits by the reduction of in- terest ? Is it not the borrower first, and finally, the consumers of the things which the capital .contributes to produce ? It is therefore certain tliat the final result of CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 69 the efforts of each class is the common good of all. Yoii are told that capital tyrannizes over labor. I do not deny that each one endeavors to draw the greatest possible advantage from his situation ; bnt, in this sense, he realizes only that which is possible. ]^ow, it is never more possible for capitalists to tyrannize over labor, than when capi- tal is scarce ; for then it is they who make the law — it is they who regulate the rate of sale. I^ever is this tyranny more impossible to them, than when capital and capitalists are abundant; for, in that case, it is labor which has the command. [Where there is one to sell and two to buy, the seller fixes the price ; where there are two to sell and one to buy, the buyer always has the advantage. — Editor.'] Away, then, with the jealousies of classes, ill- will, unfounded hatreds, unjust suspicions. These depraved passions injure those who nourish them in their heart. This is no declamatory morality; it is a chain of causes and effects, which is capa- ble of being rigorously, mathematically demon- strated. It is not the less sublime in that it satisfies the intellect as well as the feelings. I shall sum up this whole dissertation with these words : — Workmen, laborers, destitute and suffering classes, will you improve your condition ? You will not succeed by strife, insurrection, 60 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. hatred, and eiToi\ But there are three things which always result in benefit and blessing to every community and to every individual which help to compose it ; — and these things are — peace^ liberty, and security. The foregoing essay was written by M. Bastiat, in France, for the instruction of his countrymen, shortly after the revolution of 1848, when the opinions of Proudhon and other Socialist leaders seemed to be acquiring a strong hold among the laboring classes of his country. Proudhon, and most of his Socialist friends have passed away, but their ideas nevertheless continue to find favor with not a few people, even in the United States. It may, therefore, be of interest to the American reader, to supplement this essay of M. Bastiat, with the following results of some investigations relative to accumulation and distribution of wealth in the United States, which w^ere presented to the American Social Science Association, at their annual meeting in Detroit, Michigan, in 1875 : " It would seem clear, that all ideas about the compulsory distribution of wealth or capital, and about diminishing the incentives for the accumu- lation of capital, are wholly antagonistic in the CAPITAL AND INTEEEST. 61 first place, to the idea of personal freedom, unless we mean to restrict the meaning of freedom sim- ply to the possession and control of one's own person irrespective of property, which would involve little more than the rio^ht to free locomo- tion ; and, second, that they tend to impair the growth of, if not wholly to destroy, civilization itself. For if liberty is not afforded to all, rich and poor, high and low, to keep, and to use in whatever way they may see fit, that which the^^ lawfully acquire, subject only to the necessary social restraint of working no positive ill to one's neighbor, — then the desire to acquire and accu- mulate property will be taken away ; and capital, meaning thereby not merely monej^, which con- stitutes but a very small part of the capital of any community, but all those things which are the accumulated results of labor, foresight, and econ- omy, — the machinery by which abundance is in- creased, toil lightened, and comfort gained, — will, instead of increasing, rapidly diminish. '* And, in order to comprehend the full mean- ing of this statement, attention is asked to tlie following illustration of the extreme slowness with which tiiat which we call capital accumu- lates, even under the most favorable circumstances. " By the census of 18Y0, the aggregate wealth of the United States, making all due allowances - 62 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. for duplication in valuation, was probabl}^ not in excess of twenty-five thousand inillions. But vast as the sum is, and difficult as it certainly is for the mind to form any adequate conception of it in the aggregate, it is nevertheless most interesting to inquire what it is, that measured by human effort, it represents. And the answer is, that it represents, ^V^?^, a value, supposing the whole sum to be apportioned equally among an assumed pop- ulation of forty millions, of about six hundred and twenty dollars to each individual, — not a large amount, if one was to depend on its in- terest at six per cent, as a means of support ; and, second, it represents the surplus result of all the labor, skill, and thought exerted, and all the capi- tal earned and saved, or brought into the country, for the last two hundred and fifty years, or ever since the country became practically the abode of civilized men. " But, with capital, or the instrumentalities for creating abundance, increasing thus slowly, it cer- tainly stands to reason that w^e needs be exceed- ingly careful, lest, by doing anything to impair its security, we impair also its rate of increase ; and we accordingly find, as we should naturally expect from the comparatively high education of our people, that the idea of any direct interfer- ence with the rights of property meets with but CAPITAL AND INTEKEST. 63 little favor upon tliis side of the Atlantic. But at the same time we cannot deny that many of the most intelligent of the men and women inter- ested in the various labor-reform movements iii this country, taking as the basis of their reason- in sr the lar2:e nominal ao^o:reo:ate of the national wealth, and the large advance which has recently been made in the power of production, and con- sidering them in the abstract, irrespectiv^e of time or distribution, have nevertheless adopted the idea, — vao^ue and shadow v thouo-li it mav be, — that the amount of the present annual product of labor and capital is sufficient for all ;' and that all it is necessary to do to insure comfort and abun- dance to the masses, is for the State somehow to intervene, — either by fixing the hours of labor, or the rates of compensation for service, or the use of capital, — and compel its more equitable distribution. " Kow, that a more equitable distribution of the results of production is desirable, and that such a distribution does not at present take place to the extent that it might witliout impairing the exer- cise of individual freedom, must be admitted ; but, before undertaking to make laws on the subject, is it not of importance to first find out how much we have really got to divide ? *' Let us see. 6i . CAPITAL AND INTEEEST. " Stated in money, the maximum value of the annual product of the United States is not in excess of $5,000,000,000 (probably less) ; of which the value of the annual product of all our agricul- ture, — our cotton and our corn, our beef and our pork, our hay, our wheat, and all our other fruits, — is returned by the last census with undoubted approximative accuracy, at less than one-half that sum ; or in round numbers at $2,400,000,000. "But while this sum of estimated yearly in- come, like the figures which report the aggregate of our national wealth, is so vast as to be almost beyond the powder of mental conception, there is yet one thing about it which is certain, and can be readily comprehended ; and that is, that of this whole product, wdiether we measure it in money or in any other way, fully nine-tenths, and proba- bly a larger proportion, must be immediately con- sumed, in order that we may simply live, and make good the loss and waste of capital previously accumulated ; leaving not more than one-tenth to be applied in the form of accumulation for effect- ing a future increased production and develop- ment. " Or to state the case differently, and at the. eame time illustrate how small, even under the most favorable circumstances, can be the annual surplus of • production over consumption, it is CAPITAL AND INTEEEST, 65 only necessary to compare the largest estimate of the value of our annual product, with our laro^est estimate of the ao:o:reo:ate national wealth, to see, that practically, after two hundred and fifty years of toiling an'd saving, we have only managed as a nation to get about three and a half years ahead, in the way of subsistence ; and that now if, as a whole people, we should stop working and producing, and repairing waste and deterioration, and devote ourselves exclusively to amusement and idleness, living on the accumu- lation of our former labors or the labor of our fathers, four years would be more than sufficient to starve three-fourths of us out of existence, and reduce the other one-fourth to the condition of semi-barbarism ; a result, on the wliole, which it is well to think of in connection with the pro- mulgation of certain new theories, that tlie best way of increasing abundance, and promoting com- fort and happiness, is by decreasing the aggregate and opportunities of production. *^ In fact, there are few things more transitory and perishable than that which we call wealth ; and, a^ specifically embodied in the ordinary forms we see about us, its duration is not, on the average, in excess of the life of a generation. '" The railroad system of the country is esti- mated to have cost more than two thousand mil- 66 CAPITAL AND INTEREST. lions of dollars ; but if left to itself, without re- newals or repairs, its value as property in ten years would entirely vanish ; and so also with our ships, our machinery, our tools and imple- ments, and even our land when cultivated without renovation. For it is to be remembered, that those same forces of nature which we have mas- tered, and made subservient for the work of pro- duction, are also our greatest natural enemies, and if left to themselves will tear down and de- stroy much more rapidly than under guidance they will aggregate and build up. A single night was sufficient in Chicago to utterly destroy what was equivalent to one quarter of the whole sur- plus product which during the preceding year the nation had accumulated ; and of all the material wealth of the great and rich nations of antiquity, — of Eg3^ptian, Assyrian, Tyrian, and Koman civilization, — nothing wdiatever has come down to us, except, singularly enough, those things which, like their tombs and public monuments, never were possessed of a money valuation. " But the inferences which we are warranted in drawing from these facts and figures are by no means exhausted. Supposing the value of our annual product — five thousand millions — to be equally divided among our present population of forty millions: then the average income of each CAPITAL AND INTEKEST* 67 individual would be one hundred and twenty-five dollars per annum; out of which food, clotliiug, fuel, shelter, education, traveling expenses, and means of enjoyment, are to be provided, all taxes paid, all waste, loss, and depreciation made good, and any surplus available as new capital added to former accumulations. " Now, if at first thought this deduction of the average individual income of our people seems small, it should be remembered that it is based on an estimate of annual national product greater both in the aggregate, and in proportion to num- bers, than is enjoyed by any other nation, our compeers in wealth and civilization ; and further, that this one hundred and twenty-five dollars is not the sum which all actually receive as income, but the average sum which each would receive, were the whole annual product divided equally. But as a practical matter we know that the annual product is not divided equally ; and, furthermore, that, as long as men are born with different nat- ural capacities, it never will be so divided. Some will receive, and do receive, as their share of the annual product, the annual average we have stated, multiplied by hundreds or even thousands ; which of course necessitates that very many others shall receive proportionally less. And how much less, is indicated by recent investigations which show, GS CAPITAL AND INTEREST. that for the whole country the average earnings of laborers and unskilled workmen is not in ex- cess of four hundred dollars per annum, — the maximum amount beino- received in J^ew Eno^- land, and the minimum in the Southern, or former slaveholding States ; which sum, assuming that the families of ail these men consist of four (the census of 1SY5 says live), two adults and two children, would give one hundred dollars as the average amount which each individual of the class referred to produces, and also the amount to which each such individual must be restricted in consumption ; for it is clear, that no man can consume more than he or his capital produces, unless he can in some way obtain the product of some other man's labor without giving him an equivalent for it. " We are thus led to the conclusion, that not- withstanding the wonderful extent to which we have been enabled to use and control tlie forces of nature for the purpose of increasing the power of production, the time has not yet come, when society in the United States can command such a degree of absolute abundance as to justify and warrant any class or individual, rich or poor, and least of all those who depend upon the product of each day's labor to meet each day's needs, in do- ing anything which can in any way tend to dimin- CAPITAL AND INTEREST. 69 isli abundance ; and furthermore, that the agency of law, even if invoked to the fullest extent in compelling distribution, must be exceedingly limited in its operations. " Let the working man of the United States therefore, in every vocation, demand and strive, if he will, for the largest possible share of the joint products of labor and capital ; for it is the natural right of eYerj one to seek to obtain the largest price for that which he has to sell. But if in so doing he restricts production, and so diminishes abundance, he does it at his peril; for, by a law far above any legislative control or influence, whatever increases scarcity not only increases the necessity, but diminishes the rewards of labor. " Street processions, marching after flags and patriotic mottoes, even if held every day in the week, will never change the conditions which govern production and compensation. ' Idleness produces nothing but weeds and rust ; and such products are not marketable anywhere, though society often pays for them most dearly.' " — Editor. 70 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND THAT WHICH IS SEE:^r, AND THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEK In the department of economy, an act, a habit, an institution, a law, gives birth not only to an effect, but to a series of effects. Of these effects, the first only is immediate ; it manifests itself sim- ultaneously with its cause — it is seen. The others unfold in succession — they are not seen : it is well for us if they are foreseen. Between a good and a bad economist this constitutes the whole differ- ence — the one takes account of the visible effect; the other takes account both of the effects w^hich are see7i and also of those w^hicli it is necessary to foresee. Now this difference is enormous, for it sometimes happens that when the immediate con- sequence is favorable, the ultimate consequences are unfavorable, and the converse. Hence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good, which may be followed by a great evil to come, while the wise economist labors for a THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 71 great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil. In fact, it is the same in the science of health, arts, and in that of morals. If often happens that the sweeter the first fruit of a habit is, the more bitter the consequences. Take, for example, debauchery, idleness, prodigality. When, therefore, a man, absorbed in the effect which is seen, has not yet learned to discern those which are not seen, he gives way to in- jurious habits, not only by inclination but by de- liberation. This explains, in a great degree, the grievous condition of mankind. Ignorance surrounds its cradle : then its actions are determined by their first consequences, the only ones which, in its first stage, it can see. It is only in the long run that it learns to take account of the others. It has to learn this lesson from two very different masters — experience and foresight. Experience teaches effectually, but brutally. It makes us acquainted with all the effects of an action, by causing us to feel them ; and we cannot fail to finish by know- ing that fire burns, if we have burned ourselves. For this rough teacher, I should like, if possible, to substitute a more gentle one. I mean Fore- sight. For this purpose I propose to examine the consequences of certain economical phenomena, 72 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND by placing in opposition to each other those wJiich are seen^ and those which are not seen. I.— THE BROKEN WINDOW. Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James, when his careless son happened to break a pane of glass ? If yon have been present at such a scene, j^ou will most assuredly bear witness to the fact, that it is the custom of the spectators to offer the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation : "It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken ? " JN^ow, this form of condolence contains an en- tire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions. Suppose it cost a dollar to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings a dollar to the glazier's trade — that it encourages that trade to the amount of a dollar — I grant it ; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his dollar, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that ichich is seen. But if, on the other hand, you come to the con- THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 73 elusion, as is too often the ease, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, " Stop there ! your theory is con- fined to that which is see7i / it takes no account of that which is not seenP It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent a dollar upon one thing, he cannot spend it again upon some other thing.. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added an- other book to his library. In short, he would have employed his dollar in some way which this ac- cident has prevented. Let us take a view of industry in general, as aifected by this circumstance. The window being broken, the glazier's trade is encouraged to the amount of a dollar : this is that which is seen. If the window had not been broken, the shoe- maker's trade (or some other) would have been encouraged to the amount of a dollar; this is that which is not seen. And if that which is not seen is taken into con- sideration, because it is a negative fact, as well as that which is seen, because it is a positive fact, it will be understood that neither industrv in 4 74 ^ THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND general, nor the sum total of national labor, ia aflected, whether windows are broken or not. ^ow let ns consider James himself. In the former supposition, that of the window being broken, he spends a dollar, and lias neither more nor less than he had before — namelj',' the enjoy- ment of a window. In the second, where we suppose the window not to have been broken, he would have spent his dollar in shoes, and w^ould have had at the same time the enjoyment of a pair of shoes and of a window. ]^ow, as James forms a part of society, we must come to the conclusion, that, taking it alto- gether, and making an estimate of its enjoyments and its labors, society has lost the value of the broken w^indow. AYhence we arrive at this unexpected conclu- sion : " Society loses the value of things which are uselessly destroyed ; " and we must assent to a maxim which will make the hair of protection- ists stand on end — To break, to spoil, to waste, is not to encourage national labor ; or, more briefly, '^ destruction is not profit." What will you say to this, Mr. IT. C. Carey ? what will you say, disciples of good Mr. Horace Greeley, who moralized and considered how much Ameri- can industry would gain by the burning of THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 75 Chicago, in October, 1871, from the number of houses it would be necessary to rebuild ? ^ I am sorry to disturb these ingenious calcula- * As M. Bastiat originally wrote, he introduced at this point of his argument, for illustration, French names and persons not familiar to the American reader ; and if the trans- lation had been made literal, the majority of Americans, as they read, would doubtless have said to themselves : " These names wliicli M. Bastiat uses are purely fictitious ; for surely one really and soberly never put forth such ideas, or entered into such estimates." To give, therefore, to the argument more of force and reality ; to prove that there is no necessity of using fictitious names and characters in its presentation ; but that persons of position, intelligence, and great influence do think, talk, and believe as M. Bastiat assumes, not only in France, but also in the United States, the editor has sub- stituted in the text the names of two well-known Americans. And that he has taken no unwarranted liberty in so doing, he submits the following as evidence. Thus, on the 24th of October, 1871, the New York Tribune, then controlled by Horace Greeley, in an article in its editorial columns, evi- dently written by Mr. Greeley, thus reasoned about the great fire which had occurred a few days previous at Chi- cago : — " The money to replace what has been burned will not be sent abroad to enrich foreign manufacturers ; but thanks to the wise policy of protection, it will stimulate our own manufactures, set our mills to running faster, and give employment to thousands of idle workmen. Thus in a short time our abundant natural resources will restore what has been lost, and in converting the raw material our manufac- turing interests will take on a new activity." All of which is equivalent to saying, " that fire, war, pesti* 76 ^ THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND tions, as far as their spirit lias been introduced into our political economy ; but I beg of those who have indulged in them to consider the subject again, from a broader point of view, by taking into the account that which is not seen^ and plac- ing it alongside of that which is seen. The reader must take care to remember that there are not two persons only, but three con- cerned in the little scene which I have submitted to his attention. One of them, James, repre- lence, famine, sliip wreck, and otlier calamities, if tliey ^ive to certain class interests an opportunity to make and sell products at an advance over their current prices in the world's markets, and thereby inflict an unnecessary and large additional tax on the impoverished inhabitants of a distressed city, are not to be regarded wholly in the light of evils and disasters." The inhabitants of Chicago, following their natural instincts, could not, however, see the applica- bility of Mr, Greeley's reasoning in respect to themselves, for they forthwith petitioned Congress to allow foreign mer- chandise, useful for rebuilding their stores and houses, to be imported free of duty ; and Congress, also disagreeing with Mr. Greeley, acceded to their petition. Again, Mr. Henry C. Carey, who is one of the foremost advocates of the "Protection Theory," has within recent years said publicly, over and over again, that one of the greatest of human calamities — a prolonged war between Great Britain and the United States — would be the very best possible thing which could happen to promote the industrial independence and development of the latter country. — ■ Editor. THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 77 sents tlie consumer, reduced, by an act of destruc- tion, to one enjoyment instead of two. Another, under the title of the glazier, shows us the pro- ducer, whose trade is encouraged by the accident. The third is the shoemaker (or some other trades- man), whose labor suffers proportionably by the same cause. It is this third person who is alw^ays kept in the shade, and who, personating that which is not seen, is a necessary element of the problem. It is he who show^s us how absurd it is to think we see a profit in an act of destruction. It is he who wdll soon teach us that it is not less absurd to see a profit in a restriction, which is, after all, nothing else than a partial destruction. Therefore, if you will onl}^ go to the root of all the arguments wdiich are adduced in its favor, all you will find will be the paraphrase of this vulgar saying — What wotdd hecome of the glazier, if nobody ever broke windov:s f II.— THE DISBANDING OF TROOPS. It is the same with a people as it is with a man. If it W'islies to give itself some gratification^ it naturally considers whether it is worth what it costs. To a nation, security is the greatest of ad- vantages. If, in order to obtain it, it is necessary to have an armv of a hundred thousand men, I have nothing to say against it. It is an enjoy- 78 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND ment bought by a sacrifice of a certain amount of the results of labor, which might be used for other purposes. Let me not be misunderstood upon the extent of my position. A member of Congress proposes to disband a hundred thousand men, for the sake of relieving the tax-payers of an annual tax of fifty millions of dollars. If we confine ourselves to this answer — " The hundred millions of men, and these hundred mil- lions of money, are indispensable to the national security. It is security purchased at the sacrifice of a certain amount of property ; but w^ithout this sacrifice the country might be torn by factions or invaded by some foreign power." I have noth- ing to object to this argument, which may be true or false in fact, but which theoretically contains nothing which militates against political economy. The error begins when the sacrifice itself is said to be an advantage because it profits somebody. ITow I am very much mistaken if, the moment the author of the proposal has taken his seat, some orator will not rise and say — " Disband a hundred thousand men ! Do yon know what you are say- ing? What will become of them? Where will they get a living? Don't you know that work is scarce everywhere ? That every field is over- stocked ? Would you turn them out of doors to increase competition and to still further depress THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 79 the rate of wages ? Just now, when it is a hard matter to liv^e at all, it is a pretty business for the State to add an additional hundred thousand per- sons to the number of the community who must get bread by their own labor. Consider, also, that the army consumes arms, clothing, and a great variety of other products of labor ; that it makes business in garrison towns ; that it is, in short, an immense blessing to innumerable purveyors. Why, the very bare idea of doing away with all this immense industrial movement is enoua^h to terrify every one who has at heart the develop- ment of the business of the country. Such talk always has an effect on all patriotic generous minds, and Congress terminates the discussion by voting the continued maintenance of the hundred thousand soldiers, for reasons drawn from the necessity of the service, and from economical con- siderations. It is these latter considerations only that I have to consider. A hundred thousand men, costing the tax-pay- ers fifty millions of money, live and bring to the purveyors as much as that fifty millions can sup- ply. This is tliat which is seen. But fifty millions taken from the pockets of the tax-payers cease to maintain these same tax- payers and the pui-veyors, to the extent to which these fifty millions are invested w^ith a purchasing 80 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND power of the necessities of life. This is that which is not seen. Now make your calculations. Cast up, and tell me what profit there is for tlie masses? I will tell you where the loss lies ; and to sim- plify it, instead of speaking of a hundred thousand men and fifty millions of money, it shall be of one man and five hundred dollars of money. We will suppose that we are in the village of A. The recruiting sergeants go their round, and take oif a man. The United States tax-collectors go their round, and take ofl: five hundred dollars, the results of taxation. Tiie man and the sum of money are taken to form a camp — say at Washington — and the money is appropriated to support the soldier for a year without doing anything. If you now have regard to the interest of the city and popu- lation of Washington only, the measure is a very advantageous one; but if you look toward the village of A., you w^ill judge very differently ; for, unless you are very blind indeed, you will see that that village has lost a worker, and the five hun- dred dollars which w^ould remunerate his labor, as well as the activity which the expenditure of that money taken away in the form of taxes would locally produce. At first sight there would seem to be some compensation. What took place at the village THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 81 now takes place at Wasliington, that is all. But the loss is to be estimated in this way: — At the village, a man dug and worked; heVas a worker. At Washington, he turns to the right about and to the left about ; he is a soldier. The money and the circulation are the same in both cases ; but in the one there were three hundred days of productive labor, in the other there are three hundred days of unproductive labor, supposing, of course, that a part of the army is not indispen- sable to the public safety. Now, suppose the disbanding to take place. Yon tell me there will be a surplus of a hundred thousand workers, that competition will be stimu- lated, and it will reduce the rate of wages. This is what you see. But what you do not see is this. You do not see that to dismiss a hundred thousand soldiers is not to annihilate or use up the fifty millions of money, but to return it to the tax-payers. You do not see that to throw a hundred thousand workers on the market, is to throw into it, at the same moment, the fifty millions of money needed to pay for their labor : that, consequently, the same act which increases the supply of hands, increases also the demand ; from which it follows, that your fear of a reduction of wages is unfound- ed. You do not see that, before the disbanding 82 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND as well as after it, there are in the countrj fifty millions of money corresponding with the hundred thousand men. That the whole difference consists in this : before the disbanding, the country gave tlie fifty millions to the hundred thousand men for doing nothing ; and that after it, it pays them the same sum for working. You do not see, in short, that when a tax-payer gives his money either to a soldier in exchange for nothing ; or to a worker in exchange for something, all the ultimate conse- quences of the circulation of this money are the same in the two cases ; only, in the second case the tax-payer receives something, in the former he receives nothing. The result is — a dead loss to the nation. The sophism which I am here combating will not stand the test of progression, which is the touchstone of principles. If, when every compen- sation is made, and all interests satisfied, there is a national jprofit in increasing the army, why not enlist as soldiers the entire male population of the country? III.— TAXES. Have you never chanced to hear it said : ^' There is no better investment than taxes. Only see what a number of families it maintains, and con- sider how it reacts upon industry : it is an inex- haustible stream, it is life itself." THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 83 In order to combat this doctrine, I must refer to my preceding refutation. Political economy knew well enough that its arguments were not so amus- ing that it could be said of them, repetitions please. It has, therefore, turned the proverb to its own use, well convinced that, in its mouth, repetitions teach. The advantages which officials advocate are those which are seen. The benefit which accrues to the providers is still that which is seen. This blinds all eyes. But the disadvantages which the tax-payers have to get rid of are those which are not seen. And the injury which results from it to the pro- viders is still that which is not seen, although this ought to be self-evident. When an official spends for his own advantage an extra hundred cents, it implies that a tax-pa3^er spends for his profit a hundred cents less. But the expense of the official is seen, because the act is performed, while that of the tax-payer is not seen, because, alas ! he is prevented from performing it. You compare the nation, perhaps, to a parched tract of land, and the tax to a fertilizing rain. Be it so. But you ought also to ask yourself where are the sources of this rain, and whether it is not the tax itself which draws away the moisture from the ground and dries it up ? 84 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND Again, you oiiglit to ask yourself whether it is possible that the soil can receive as much of this precious water by rain as it loses by evaporation ? There is one thing very certain, that when James counts a hundred cents for the tax- gatherer, he receives nothing immediately in re- turn. Afterwards, when an official spends three hundred cents and returns them to James, it is for an equal value in corn or labor. The final result is a loss to James of a dollar. It is very true tliat often, perhaps very often, the official performs for James an equivalent ser- vice. In this case there is no loss on either side ; there is merely an exchange. Therefore, my arguments do not at all apply to useful function- aries. All I say is — if you wish to create an office, prove its utility. Show that its value to James, by the services which it performs for him, is equal to what it costs him. But, apart from this intrinsic utility, do not bring forward as an argument the benefit which it confers upon the official, his family, and his providers ; do not assert that it encourages labor. When James gives a hundred cents to a Govern- ment officer for a really useful service, it is ex- actly the same as when he gives a hundred cents to a shoemaker for a j^air of shoes. But when James gives a hundred cents to a THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 85 Government officer, and receives nothing for tliem unless it be annoyances, he might as well give them to a thief. It is nonsense to say that the Government officer will spend these hundred cents to the great profit of national lahor / the thief would do the same ; and so would James, if he had not been stopped on the road by the legal parasite, or by the lawful sponger. Let us accustom ourselves, then, to avoid judg- ing of things by wliat is seen only, but to judge of them by that whicJi is not seen. Last year I was on the Committee of Finance in the French National Assembly. Every time that one of my colleagues spoke of fixing at a moderate fio-ure the maintenance of the President of the Republic,^ that of the ministers, and of the ambassadors, it was answered : — '^For the good of the service, it is necessary to surround certain offices with splendor and dignity, as a means of attracting men of merit to them. A vast number of unfortunate persons apply to the President of the Republic, and it would be placing him in a very painful position to oblige him to be constantly refusing them. A certain style in the ministerial saloons is a part of the machinery of constitutional Governments." * Tlien Louis Napoleon. 86 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND Althougli such, arguments may be despised, they nevertheless deserve a serious examination. . They are based npon the public interest, whether rightly estimated or not ; and, as far as I am con- cerned, I have much more respect for them than many of our Catos have, who are actuated by a narrow spirit of parsimony or jealousy. Eut what revolts the economical part of my conscience, and makes me blush for the intellec- tual attainments of my countrymen, is the favor- able reception which is almost always accorded to the following proposition : " The luxury of great Government officers encourages the arts, industry, and labor. The head of the State and his minis- ters cannot give banquets and soirees without causing life to circulate through all the veins of the social body. To reduce their means would starve Parisian industry, and consequently that of the whole nation." I must beg 3^ou, gentlemen, to pay some little regard to arithmetic, at least; and not to say be- fore the ISTational Assembly in France (lest to its shame it should agree with you), that an addition gives a different sum, according to whether it is added up from the bottom to the top, or from the top to the bottom of the column. For instance, I want to agree with a drainer to make a trench in my field for a hundred sous. THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 81 Just as we liave concluded our arrangement tlio tax-gatherer comes, takes my hundred sous, and the national revenue being to this extent aug- mented, the salary of some great minister is aug- mented in a like degree. My bargain, however, is at an end, but the minister will have another dish added to his table. Upon what ground will you dare to affirm that this official expense helps the national industry ? Do you not see, that in this there is only a reversing of satisfaction and labor ? A minister has his table better covered, it is true ; but it is just as true that an agricul- turist has his field worse drained. A Parisian tavern-keeper has gained a hundred sons, I grant you ; but then you must grant me that a drainer lias been prevented from gaining five francs. It all comes to this — that the official and the tavern- keeper being satisfied, is that which is seen i the field undrained and the drainer deprived of his job, is that which is not seen. Dear me ! how much trouble there is in proving that two and two make four ; and if you succeed in proving it, it is said " the thing is so plain it is quite tire- some," and they keep on legislating in the same old way, as if you had proved nothing at all. IV.— THEATEES, FINE ARTS. Ought the State to encourage the arts ? 88 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND There is certainly mncli to be said on both sides of this question. It may be said, in favor of the system of voting supplies for this purpose, that the arts enlarge, elevate, and harmonize the soul of a nation ; that they divert it from too great an absorption in material occupations ; en- courage in it a love for the beautiful ; and thus act favorably on its manners, customs, morals, and even on its industry. It may be asked, what w^ould become of music in France without her Italian theatre and her Conservatoire ; of the dramatic art, without her Theatre-Fran§ais ; of j)ainting and sculpture, without our collections, galleries, and museums? It might eveube asked whether, without centralization, and consequently the support of the line arts, that exquisite taste would be developed which is the noble appendage of French labor, and which introduces its produc- tions to the whole world ? In the face of such results, would it not be the height of imprudence tO' renounce this moderate contribution from all her citizens, which, in fact, in the eyes of Europe, demonstrates their superiority and their glory ? To these and many other reasons, whose force I do not dispute, arguments no less forcible may be opposed. It might first of all be said, that there is a question of distributive justice in it. Does the right of the legislator extend to THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 89 aLriclging the wages of the artisan, for the sake of adding to the profits of the artists ? M. La- martine said, " If you cease to support tlie theatre, where will yoii stop ? Will you not necessarily be led to withdraw your support from your colleges, your museums, your institutes, and your libraries ? " It might be answered, if you desire to support everything which is good and useful, where will you stop ? Will you not necessarily be led to make regular appropriations for agriculture, industry, commerce, benevolence, education ? Then, is it certain that Government aid favors the progress of art ? This question is far from being settled, and we see very well that the theatres which prosper most are those which depend most upon their own resources. Moreover, if we come to higher con- siderations, we may observe that wants and de- sires arise the one from the other, and originate in regions which are more and more refined in proportion as the public wealth allows of their being satisfied; that Government ought not to take part in this correspondence, because in a cer- tain condition of present fortune it could not by taxation stimulate the arts of necessity without checking those of luxury, and thus interrupting the natural course of civilization. I may observe, that these artificial transpositions of wants, tastes, labor, and population, place the people in a pre- 90 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AIJD carious and dangerous position, without any solid basis. These are some of the reasons alleged by the adversaries of State intervention in w^hat concerng the order in which citizens think their wants and desires should be satisfied, and to which, conse- quently, their activity should be directed. I am, I confess, one of those who think that choice and impulse ought to come from below and not from above, from the citizen and not from the legis- lator ; and the opposite doctrine appears to me to tend to the destruction of liberty and of human dignity. Bat, by a deduction as false as it is unjust, do you know what economists are accused of ? It is, that when we disapprove of government support, we are supposed to disapprove of the thing itself whose support is discussed ; and to be the enemies of every kind of activity, because we desire to see those activities, on the one hand free, and on the other seekins: their own reward in themselves. Thus, if w^e think that the State should not inter- fere by taxation in religious affairs, we are athe- ists. If we think the State ought not to inter- fere by taxation in education, we are hostile to knowledge. If we say that the State ought not by taxation to give a fictitious value to land, or to any particular branch of industry, we are enemies THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 91 to property and labor. If we think tliat the State ought not to support artists, we are bar- barians, who look upon the arts as useless. Against such conclusions as these I protest with all mj strength. Far from entertaining the ab- surd idea of doing away with religion, education, property, labor, and the arts, when we say that the State ought to protect the free development of all these kinds of human activity, without helping some of them at the expense of others — we think, on the contrary, that all these living powers of society would develop themselves more harmoniously under the influence of liberty; and that, under such an influence, no one of them would, as is now often the case, be a source of trouble, of abuses, of tyranny, and disorder. Our adversaries consider that an activit}^ which is neither aided by supplies, nor regulated by gov- ernment, is an activity destroyed. We think just the contrary. Their faith is in the legislator, not in mankind ; ours is in niankind, not in the legis- lator. Thus M. Lamartine said : " Upon this principle we must abolish the public exhibitions, which are the honor and the wealth of this country." But I would say to M. Lamartine — According to your way of thinking, not to support is to abolish ; be- cause setting out upon the maxim that nothing 92 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND exists independently of the will of tlie State, you conclude that nothing lives but what the State causes to live. To return to the fine arts. There are, I repeat, many strong reasons to be brought, both for and against the system of government assistance. The reader must see that the especial object of this work leads me neither to explain these reasons, nor to decide in their favor, nor against them. But M. Lamar tine has advanced one argument which I cannot pass by in silence, for it is closely con- nected with this economic study. " The econom- ical question, as regards theatres, is comprised in one word — labor. It matters little what is the nature of this labor ; it is as fertile, as productive a labor as anv other kind of labor in the nation. The theatres in France, you know, feed and sal- ar}^ no less than 80,000 workmen of different kinds ; painters, masons, decorators, costumers, architects, &c., which constitute the very life and movement of several parts of the capital, and on this account they ought to have your sympathies." Your sympathies ! say rather your money. And farther on he says : " The pleasures of Paris are the labor and the consumption of the provinces, and the luxuries of the rich are the wages and bread of 200,000 workmen of every de- scription, who live by the manifold industry of THAT WHICH IS NOT SESN. 93 tlie theatres, and who receive from these noble pleasures, which render France illustrious, the sus- tenance of their lives and the necessaries of their families and children. It is to them that you will give 60,000 francs." (^^ei'J well ; very well. Great applause.) For my part I am constrained to say, " Yery bad ! very bad ! " confining this oj^inion, of course, within the bounds of the econ- omical question which we are discussing. Yes, it is to the workmen of the theatres that a part, at least, of these 60,000 francs will go ; a few bribes, perhaps, may be abstracted on the way. Perhaps, if w^ were to look a little more closely into the matter, we might find that the cake had gone another way, and that those workmen were fortunate who had come in for a few crumbs. But I will allow, for the sake of argument, that the entire sum does go to the painters, decorators, &c. This is that which is seen. But whence does it come ? This is the other side of the question, and quite as important as the former. Where do these 60,000 francs spring from ? and wdiere would they go, if a vote of the legislature did not direct them first toward the Treasury and thence toward the theatres ? This is what is not seen. Certain- ly, nobody will think of maintaining that the legislative vote has caused this sum to be hatched in a ballot-box ; that it is a pure addition made to 91 THA.T WHICH IS SEEN, AND tlie national wealth ; that but for this miraculous vote these 60,000 francs would have been for ever invisible and impalpable. It must be admitted that all that the majority can do is to decide that they shall be taken from one place to be sent to another ; and if they take one direction, it is only because they have been diverted from another. This being the case, it is clear that the tax-payer, who has contributed one franc, will no longer have this franc at his own disposal. It is clear that he will be deprived of some gratification to the amount of one franc ; and that the workman, whoever he may be, wdio would ha^e received it from him for some service, will be deprived of a benefit to that amount. Let us not, therefore, be led by a childish illusion into believing that the vote of the 60,000 francs may add anything what- ever to the well-being of the country, and to na- tional labor. It displaces enjoyments, it transposes wages — that is all. Will it be said that for one kind of gratification, and one kind of labor, it substitutes more urgent, more moral, more reasonable gratifications and labor? I might dispute this; I might say, by taking 60,000 francs from the tax-payers, you diminish the wages of laborers, drainers, carpen- ters, blacksmiths, and increase in proportion those of the singers and actors. THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 95 There is nothing to prove that this latter class calls for more sympathy than the former. M. Lamartine does not say that it is so. He himself says that the labor of the theatres is as fertile, as productive as any other (not more so); and this maybe doubted; for the best proof that the latter is not so fertile as the former lies in this, that the other is to be called upon to assist it. But this comparison between the value and the intrinsic merit of different kinds of labor forms no part of my present subject. All I have to do here is to show, that if M. Lamartine and those persons who commend his line of argument have seen on one side the salaries gained by the pro- viders of the comedians, thev ouo-ht on the other to have seen the salaries lost by the providers of the tax-payers : for want of this, they have ex- posed themselves to ridicule by mistaking a trans- ferment for a gain. If they were true to their doctrine, there would be no limits to their demands for government aid ; for that which is true of one franc and of 60,000 is true, under parallel circum- stances, of a hundred millions of francs. When taxes are the subject of discussion, you ought to prove their utility by reasons from the root of the matter, but not by this unlucky asser- tion — " The public expenses support the working classes.'' This assertion disguises the important 96 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND fact, tlmtpuhliG expenses always supersede 2-^^'^'vaU expenses, and that therefore we bring a livelihood to one workman instead of another, but add noth- ing to the share of the working class as a whole. Your arguments are fashionable enough, but they are too absurd to be justified bj anything like reason. v.— PUBLIC WORKS. J^othing is more natural than that a nation, after having assured itself that an enterprise will benefit the community, should have it executed bjMneans of a general assessment. But I lose patience, I confess, when I hear some one, assuming to occupy a high moral, patriotic, and economic standpoint, assert, " that to authorize the prosecution of pub- lic works will be a means of creating opportunity to labor for the workmen." The State opens a road, builds a palace, straight- ens a street, cuts a canal, and so gives work to certain workmen — tins is ivliat is seen: but it de- prives certain other workmen of work — and this is what is not seen. The road is begun. A thousand workmen come every morning, leave every evening, and take their wao^es — this is certain. If the road had not been decreed, if the supplies had not been voted, these good people would have had neither work nc: wages there ; this also is certain. THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 97 13ut is tills all ? Does not the operation, as a whole, contain something else ? At the moment when the presiding officer announces that the bill anthorizing the inception of new public works has become a law, does the money necessary to pay for them descend miraculously on a moonbeam into tlie national coffers? Bat in order tliat the w^hole scheme may be made complete, must not the State organize the receipts as well as the expenditure ? must it not set its tax-gatherers and tax-payers to work, the former to gather and the latter to pay. Study the question, now, in both its elements. "While you state the destination given by the State to the millions voted, do not neglect to state also the destination which the tax-payer would have given, but cannot now give, to the same. Then you will understand that a public enterprise is a coin with two sides. Upon one is engraved a la- borer at work, with this device, that which is seen / on the other is a laborer out of work, wnth the device, that which is not seen. The sophism which this work is intended to refute is the more dangerous when applied to pub- lic works, inasmuch as it serves to justify the most wanton enterprises and extravagance. When a railway or a bridge are really needed, it is sufficient to demonstrate their necessity to justify an appro- priation of the public money for their constructi*on, 5 98 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND But if this immediate necessity cannot be demon- strated, what do the philanthropic patriotic men next saj ? " ^' We tnust find worhfor the working TnenP Public works that under ordinary circumstances would not be thought of are authorized by tbe public authorities. The great ]^apoleon, it is said, thought he was doing a very philanthropic work by causing ditches to be made and then filled up. He said, therefore, "What signifies the result? All we want is to see wealth spread among tbe laboring classes." But let us go to the root of the matter. We are deceived b}^ money. To demand the co-oper- ation of all the citizens in a common work, in the form of money, is in reality to demand a co-oper- ation in kind; for every one procures, by his own labor, the sum for which he is taxed. J^ow, if all the citizens were to be called together, and made to execute, in conjunction, a work useful to all, this w^ould be easily understood ; their reward would be found in the results of the work itself. But after having called them together, if you force them to make roads which no one will pass through, palaces which no one will inhabit, and this under the pretext of finding them work, it would be absurd, and they would have a right to THA.T Yv^HICH IS NOT SEEN. 99 argue, " With this labor we have nothing to do ; we prefer working on our own account." A proceeding which consists in making the citi- zens co-operate in giving money but not labor does not, in any way, alter the general results. The only thing is, that the loss would react upon all parties. By the former those whom the State employs escape their part of the loss, by adding it to that which their fellow-citizens have already suffered. There was an article in the Constitution which the Republic of France in 18i8 adopted, which read as follows : " Society favors and encourages the development of labor — by the establishment of public works, by the State, the departments, and the parishes, as a means of employing persons who are in want of work." As a temporary measure, on any emergency, during a hard winter, this interference with the tax-pay ei'S may have its use. It acts in the same way as charity. It adds nothing either to labor or to wages, but it takes labor and wages from or- dinary times to give them, at a loss it is true, to times of difficulty. As a permanent, general, systematic measure, it is nothing else than a ruinous mystification, an impossibility, which shows a little excited labor 100 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND wliicli is seen, and hides a great deal of prevented labor which is not seen. VI.— THE MIDDLE-MEN. Society is the total of the forced or voluntary- services which men perform for each other ; that is to say, of^:>w5^^c services and private services. Tlie former, imposed and regulated by tlie law, which it is not always easy to change, even when it is desirable, may survive with it their own nse- f ulness, and still preserve the name of public ser- vices, even when they are no longer services at all, but Y^tliQY pullic annoyances. The latter belong to tlie sphere of the will, of individual responsi- bility. Every one gives and receives what he wishes, and what he can, after he has considered the matter in his own mind. The exchange of private services has always the presumption of real utility, in exact proportion to their comparative value. This is the reason why the former description of services so often become stationary, while the latter obey the law of progress. While the exaggerated development of public services, by the waste of strength which it involves, fastens upon society a fatal sycophancy, it is a sin- gular thing that several modern sects, attributing this character to free and private services, are en- THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 101 deavoring to transform professions into func- tions. These sects violently oppose what they call intermediates. They would gladly suppress the capitalist, the banker, the speculator, the projector, the merchant and the trader, accusing them of in- terposing between production and consumption, to extort from both, without giving either any- thing in return. Or ratlier, they would transfer to the State the work which they accomplish, for this work cannot be suppressed. The sophism of the Socialists on this point con- sists in showing to the public what it pays to the intermediates in exchange for their services, and concealing from the public what it would be necessary to pay to the State for doing the same thing. Here is the usual conflict between what is before our eyes and what is perceptible to the mind only ; between loJiat is seen and what is not seen. It was at the time of the scarcity in France, in 1847, that the Frencli Socialists attempted and succeeded in popularizing their erroneous theory. They knew very well that the most absurd no- tions have always a chance with people who are suifering; inalisimda fames. Therefore, by the help of the fine words, " traf- ficking in men by men, speculation on hunger, 102 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND monopoly/' thej began to deprecate commerce, and to cast a doubt over its benefits. " AVhat can be the nse," they say, "of leaving to the merchants the care of importing food from the United States and the Crimea ? Why do not the State, the departments, and the towns, organ- ize a service for provisions and a magazine for stores ? They would sell at a return jprice, and the people, poor things, would be exempted from the tribute which they pay to free, that is, to ego- tistical, individual, and lawless commerce." The tribute paid by the people to commerce is that which is seen. The tribute which the people would pay to the State, or to its agents, in the Socialist S3^stem, is what is not seen. In what does this pretended tribute, which the people pay to commerce, consist? In this: that two men render each other a mutual service, in all freedom, and under the pressure of competition and reduced prices. When the hungry stomach is at Paris, and grain which can satisfy it is at Chicago, the suffering cannot cease till the grain is brought into contact with the stomach. There are three methods by which tliis contact may be effected. 1st. The famished men may go themselves and fetch, the grain. 2d. They may leave this task to those to whose trade it belongs. 3d. They may club to- THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 103 ^ether, and give tlie office in charge to public functionaries. Which of these three methods possesses the greatest advantages ? In every time, in all countries, and the more free, enlightened, and experienced they are, men liave volinitarily chosen the second- I confess that this is sufficient, in my opinion, to justify this choice. I cannot believe that mankind, as a whole, is deceiving it- self upon a point which touches its interest so closely. But let us now consider the subject. For thirty-six millions of citizens to go and fetch the grain they want from Chicago, is a manifest impossibility. The first method, then, goes for nothing. The consumers cannot act for themselves. The}' must, of necessity, have recourse to inter- Tnediates, officials or agents. But observe, at the same time, that the first of these three methods would be the most natural. In reality, the hungry man has to fetch his grain. It is a task which concerns himself, a service due to himself. If another person, on whatever ground, performs this service for him, takes the task upon himself, this latter has a claim upon him for a compensation. I mean by this to say, that inter- mediates contain in themselves the principle of remuneration. However that may be, since we must refer to what the Socialists call a parasite, I would ask, 101 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND which of the two is the most exacting parasite, the merchant or the official ? Commerce (free of course, otherwise I could not reason upon it), commerce, I say, is led by its own interests to study the seasons, to give daily state- ments of the state of the crops, to receive informa- tion from every part of the globe, to foresee wants, to take precautions beforehand. It has vessels always ready, correspondents everywhere ; and it is its immediate interest to bu}^ at the lowest pos- sible price, to economize in all the details of its operations, and to attain the greatest results by the smallest efforts. It is not the French mer- chants only who are occupied in procuring pro- visions for France in time of need ; and if their interest leads them irresistibly to accomplish their task at the smallest possible cost, the competition which they create amongst each other leads them no less irresistibly to cause the consumers to par- take of the profits of those realized savings. The grain arrives : it is to the interest of commerce to sell it as soon as possible, so as to avoid risks, to realize its investments and take advantage of the first opportunity to buy again. Directed by the comparison of prices, commerce distributes food over the w^hole surface of the country, beginning always at the highest price, that is, wdiere the demand is the greatest. It is THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. ICo impossible to imagine an organization more coni- pletelj^ calculated to meet the interest of those who ai^e in want than the existing organization of com- merce, and the beauty of this organization, unper- ceived as it is by the Socialists, results from the very fact that it is free. It is true, the consumer is obliged to reimburse commerce for the expenses of conveyance, freight, store-rooms, commissions, etc., but can any^system be devised in which he wlio eats grain is not obliged to defray the expenses, whatever they may be, of bringing it within his reach ? The remuneration for the service performed has to be paid also; but as regards its amount, this is reduced to the smallest possible sum by com- petition ; and as regards its justice, it would be very strange if the artisans of Paris would not w^ork for the artisans of Marseilles, when the merchants of Marseilles work for the artisans of Paris. But if, according to the Socialist ideas, the State were to stand in the place of commerce, what would happen? I should like to be informed where the saving would be to the public ? Would it be in the price of purchase ? Imagine the dele- gates of 40,000 parishes arriving at Chicago on a given day, and on the day of need : imagine the effect upon prices. Would the saving be in the expenses ? Would fewer vessels be required ; fewer sailors, fewer teamsters, fewer railways ? or 106 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND would you be exempt from the payment of all these things ? "Would it be in the profits of the merchants ? Would your officials go to Chicago for nothing ? Would they travel and work on tlie principle of fraternity ? Must they not live ? Must not they be paid for their time ? And do you believe that these expenses would not exceed a thousand times the two or three per cent, which the merchant gains, at the rate at which he is ready to treat ? And then consider the difficulty of levying so many taxes, and of dividing so much food. Think of the injustice, of the abuses inseparable from such an enterprise. Think of the responsibility which would weigh upon the Government. The Socialists, who have invented these follies, and who, in the days of distress, have introduced them into the minds of the masses, take to them- selves literally the title of advanced men / and it is not without some danger that custom, that ty- rant of tongues, authorizes the term, and the senti- ment which it involves. Advanced ! This sup- poses that these gentlemen can see further than the common people ; that their only fault is that they are too much in advance of their age ; and if the time is not yet come for suppressing certain parasites on the people, the fault is to be attribu- ted to the public which is in the rear of Socialism. THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 107 I say, from my soul and my conscience, the reverse is tlie truth; and I know not to what barbarous age we should have to go back, if we would find the level of Socialist knowledge on this subject. These modern sectarians incessantly oppose asso- ciation to actual society. They overlook the fact that society, under a free regulation, is a true association, far superior to any of those which proceed from their fertile imaginations. Let me illustrate this by an ex'ample. Before a man, when he gets up in the morning, can put on a coat, ground must have been enclosed, broken up, drained, tilled, and sown with a particular kind of plant; flocks must have been fed, and have given their wool ; this wool must have been spun, woven, dyed, and converted into cloth ; this cloth must have been cut, sewed, and made into a garment. And this series of operations implies a number of others; it supposes the employment of instruments for plowing, &c., sheepfolds, sheds, coal, machines, carriages, &c. If society w^ere not a perfectly real association, a person who wanted a coat would be reduced to the necessity of working in solitude ; that is, of performing for himself the innumerable parts of this series, from the first stroke of the pickaxe to the last stitch which concludes the work. But, thanks to the power of association and co-opera* 108 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND tioTi, which is the distinguishing characteristic of our race, these operations are distributed amongst a multitude of workers ; and they are further subdivided, for the common good, to an extent that, as the consumption becomes more active, one single operation is able to support a new trade. Then comes the division of the profits, which operates according to the contingent vahie which each lias brought to the entire work. If this is not association, I should like to know wliat is. Observe, that as no one of these workers lias obtained the smallest particle of matter from nothingness, they are confined to performing for each other mutual services, and to helping each other in a common object, and that all may be considered, with respect to others, intermediates. If, for instance, in the course of the operation, the transportation becomes important enough to occupy one person, the spinning another, the weaving another, why should the first be con- sidered 2i parasite more than the other two ? The transportation must be made, must it not ? Does not he who performs it devote to it his time and trouble ? and by so doing does he not spare that of his colleagues ? Do these do more or other than this for him ? Are they not ecpally depen- dent for remuneration, that is, for the division of THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 109 the produce, upon the law of reduced price ? Is it not, in all liberty, for the common good that this separation of work takes place, and that these arrangements are entered into ? What do we want with a reformer then, who, under pretense of organizing for us, comes despotically to break up our voliintarj^ arrangements, to check the divi- sion of labor, to substitute isolated efforts for combined ones, and to send civilization back ? Is association, as I describe it here, in itself less as- sociation, because every one enters and leaves it freely, chooses his place in it, judges and bargains for himself on his own responsibility, and brings w^ith him the spring and warrant of personal in- terest ? That it may deserve this name, is it necessary that a pretended reformer should come and impose upon us his plan and his will, and, as it were, to concentrate mankind in himself? The more we examine these advanced srJiools^ the more do w^e become convinced that there is but one thing at the root of them ; ignorance pro- claiming itself infallible, and claiming despotism in the name of this infallibility. VII. —RESTRICTIONS. Mr. Prohibitionist, who w^as always talking about the necessity of fostering domestic industry, devoted his time and capital to converting the ore 110 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND fonnd on his land into iron. As natnre had been more lavish towards the Belgians, they furnished the French with iron cheaper than Mr. Prohibi- tionist ; which means, that all the French, or France, could obtain a given quantity of iron with less labor by buying it of the honest Flemings. Therefore, guided by their own interest, they did not fail to do so ; and every day there might be seen a multitude of nail-smiths, blacksmiths, cart Wrights, machinists, farriers, and laborers, going themselves, or sending intermediates, to supply themselves in Belgium. This displeased Mr. Prohibitionist and his friends exceedingly. At first, it occurred to him to put an end to this abuse by his own efforts : it was the least he could do, for he was the only sufferer. " I will take my gun," said he ; " I will pot four pistols into my belt ; I will fill my cartridge box ; I will gird on my sword, and go thus equipped to the fron- tier. There, the first blacksmith, nail-smith, far- rier, machinist, or locksmith, wdio presents him- self to do his own business and not mine, I will kill, to teach him how to live." At the moment of starting, Mr. Prohibitionist made a few reflec- tions which calmed down his warlike ardor a little. He said to himself, "In the first place, it is not absolutely impossible that the purchasers of iron, my countrymen and enemies, should take the THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. Ill tliiijg ill, and, instead of letting me kill them, Bbould kill me instead ; and then, even were I to call out all my servants, we should not be able to defend the passages. In short, this proceeding would cost me very dear, much more so than the result would be worth." Mr. Prohibitionist was on the point of resign- ing himself to his sad fate, that of being only as free as the rest of the world, when a ray of light darted across his brain. He recollected that at Paris there is a great manufactory of laws. " What is a law ? " said he to himself. " It is a measure to which, when once it is decreed, be it good or bad, everj^body is bound to conform. For the execution of the same a public force is or- ganized, and to constitute the said public force, men and money are drawn from the whole nation. If, then, I could only get the great Parisian law- manufactory to pass a little law, ' Belgian iron is hereafter prohibited^ I should obtain the follow- ing results : — The Government would replace the few valets that I was going to send to the -fron- tier by 20,000 of the sons of those refractory blacksmiths, farriers, artisans, machinists, lock- smiths, nail-smiths, and laborers. Then to keep these 20,000 custom-house officers in health and good humor, it would distribute among them . 25,000,000 of francs taken from these blacksmiths. 112 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND nail-smiths, artisans, and laborers. They wonld guard the frontier much better ; would cost me nothing; I should not be exposed to tlie brutality of the brokers ; should sell the iron at my own. price, and have the sweet satisfaction, of seeing our great people thoroughly humbugged. Then they should be encouraged to continually style themselves as promoters of domestic industry, and as alwa3^sand under all circumstances opposed to competition with the pauper labor of other countries. Oh ! it w^ould be a capital joke, and deserves to be tried." So our friend Prohibitionist went to the law manufactory. Anotlier time, perhaps, I shall re- late the story of his underhand dealings, but now I shall merely mention his visible proceedings. He brouglit the following consideration before the minds of the leo-islatino- gentlemen — " Belgian iron is sold in France at ten francs, which obliges me to sell mine at the same price. I should like to sell at fifteen, but cannot do so on account of this Belgian iron, which I wish was at the bottom of the Red Sea. I beg you will make a law that no more Belgian iron shall enter France. Immediately I will raise my price five francs, and these are the consequences : "For every hundred-weight of iron that I shall deliver to the public, I shall receive fifteen francs THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 113 instead of ten ; I shall grow rich more rapidly, extend my traffic, and employ more workmen. My workmen and I shall spend much more freel}', to the 2;reat advantas^e of our tradesmen for miles around. These latter, having more custom, will furnish more employment to trade, and activity on both sides will increase in the country. This additional sum of money which you will drop into my strong-box, will, like a stone thrown into a lake, give birth to an infinite number of concentric circles of wealth and render everybody embraced by them comfortable and happy." Charmed with his discourse, delighted to learn that it is so easy to promote, by legislating, the prosperity of a people, the law-makers voted the restriction. " Talk of labor and economy," they said, " what is the use of these painful means of increasing the national wealth, when all that is needed for this object is to pass a law imposing a tax?" And, in fact, the law produced all the conse- quences announced by Mr. Prohibitionist : but it is also to be noted, that it produced others which he had not foreseen. To do him justice, his rea- soning was not false, but only incomplete. In en- deavoring to obtain a privilege, he had taken cognizance of the effects which are seen^ leaving in the background those which cire not seen. He 114 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND had pointed out only two personages, whereas there are three concerned in the affair. It is for us to supply this involuntary or premeditated omission. It is true, the money, thus directed by law into Mr. Prohibitionist's strong-box, is advantageous to him and to those whose labor it would encour- age; and if the Act had caused the money to descend from the moon, these good effects would not have been counterbalanced by any correspond- ing evils. But unfortunately, the mj'-sterious money does not come from the moon, but from the pocket of a blacksmith, or a nail-smith, or a cartwright, or a farrier, or a laborer, or a ship- wright ; in a word, from James, who gives it now witliout receiving a grain more of iron than when he was paying ten francs. Thus, we can see at a glance that this very much alters tlie state of the case ; for it is very evident that Mr. Prohi- bitionist's jprofit is compensated by James's loss^ and all that Mr. Prohibitionist can do with the money, for the encouragement of national labor, James might have done himself. The stone has only been thrown upon one part of the lake, be- cause the law has prevented it from being thrown upon another. Therefore, that which is not seen is more impor- tant than that which is seen^ and at this point there THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 115 remains, as the residue of the operation, a piece ol injustice, and, sad to say, a piece of injustice per- petrated by the law ! This is not all. I have said that there is always a third person left in the background. I must now bring him forward, that he may reveal to us a second loss of five francs. Then we shall have the entire results of the transaction. Our former friend James is the possessor of fif- teen francs, the fruit of his labor. He is now free. "VYhat does he do with his fifteen francs? He purchases some article of fashion for ten francs, and with it he pays (or the intermediate pays for him) for the hundred-weight of Belgian iron. After this he has five francs left. He does not throw them into the river, but (and this is what is not seen) he gives them to some tradesman in exchange for some enjoyment; to a bookseller, for instance, for " a History." Thus, as far as national labor is concerned, it is encouraged to the amount of fifteen francs, viz. : — ten francs for the Paris article, five francs to the bookselling trade. As to James, he obtains for his fifteen francs two gratifications, viz. : — 1st. A hundred- weight of iron. 2d. A book. The decree is put in force. How does it affect 116 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND the condition of James ? How does it affect the national labor ? James pays every centime of his five francs to Mr. Proliibitionist, and therefore is deprived of the pleasure of a book, or of some other thing of equal value. He loses five francs. This must be ad- mitted ; it cannot fail to be admitted, that when the restriction raises the price of things, the con- sumer loses the difference. But, then, it is said, national lahor is the gainer. !N"o, it is not the gainer ; for since the Act, it is no more encouraged than it w^as before, to the amount of fifteen francs. The only thing is that, since the Act, the fif- teen francs of James go to the metal trade, while before it was put in force, they w^ere divided be- tween the milliner and the bookseller. The violence used by Mr. Prohibitionist on the frontier, or that which he causes to be used by the law, may be judged very differently in a moral point of view. Some persons consider that plun- der is perfectly justifiable, if only sanctioned by law. But, for myself, I cannot imagine anything more aggravating. However it may be, the econ- omical results are .the same in both cases. Look at the thing as you will ; but if you are impartial, you will see that no good can come of legal or illegal plunder. We do not deny that it THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 117 affords Mr. Prohibitionist, or his trade, or, if you will, national industry, a profit of five francs. But we affirm that it causes two losses, one to James, who pays fifteen francs where lie otherwise would have paid ten ; the other to national indus- try, which does not receive the difference. Take your choice of these two losses, and offset it against the profit which we allow in the first instance. The other will prove not the less a dead loss. Here then is the moral : To take by violence is not to produce, but to destroy. Truly, if taking by violence was producing, this country of ours would be a little richer than she is. VIII.— MACHINERY. " A curse on machines ! Every year their in- creasing powder devotes millions of workmen to pauperism, by depriving them of work, and there- fore of washes and bread. A curse on machines ! " This is a cry which in old times was very com- mon; and is not now wholly unknown. But to curse machines is to curse the spirit of humanity ! It puzzles me to conceive how any man can feel any satisfaction in such a doctrine. For, if true, what is its inevitable consequence ? That there is no activity, prosperity, wealth, or happiness possible for any people, except for those 118 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND who are stupid and inert, and to whom God has not granted the fatal gift of knowing how to think, to observe, to combine, to invent, and to obtain the greatest results with the smallest means. On the contrary, rags, mean huts, poverty, and inanition, are the inevitable lot of every nation which seeks and finds in iron, fire, wdnd, electricity, magnetism, the laws of chemistry and mechanics, in a word, in the powers of natm^e, an assistance to its natural powers. We might as well say with Rousseau — • *' Every man that thinks is a depraved animal." This is not all. If this doctrine is true, since all men think and invent, since all, from first to last, and at every moment of their existence, seek the co-operation of the powers of nature, and try to make the most of a little, by reducing either the work of their hands or their expenses, so as to ob- tain the greatest possible amount of gratification with the smallest possible amount of labor, it must follow, as a matter of course, that the whole of mankind is rushing towards its decline, by the same mental aspiration towards progress which torments each of its members. Hence, it ought to be made known, by statis- tics, that the inhabitants of the United States, abandoning that land of machines, seek for work in Turkey, where they are little used ; and, by history, that barbarism helps the progress of civili- THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 119 zation, and tliat civilization flourishes in times of ignorance and barbarism. There is evidently in this mass of contradic- tions something which revolts us, and which leads us to suspect that the problem contains within it an element of solution which has not been suffi- ciently disengaged. Here is the whole mystery : hehind that which is seen lies something which is not seen. I will endeavor to bring it to light. The demonstration I shall give will only be a repetition of the pre- ceding one, for the problems are one and the same. Men have a natural propensity to make the best bargain they can, when not prevented by an opposing force ; that is, they like to obtain as much as they possibly can for their labor, whether the advantage is obtained from ?i foreign producer or a skilful mechanical producer. The theoretical objection which is made to the exercise of this propensity is the same in both in- stances. In each instance it is claimed that the exercise of this propensity restricts (at least ap- parently) the opportunities for labor. But the way to make labor active and in demand, is to freely allow every one to obtain as much as pos- sible for the results of their labor ; to use such results as they may see fit ; to make the best bar- gains possible ; and the most practical way of pre- 120 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND venting men from following their natmml pro- pensities in these respects, is to invoke the aid of force and enact restrictions. Thus, the legislator at one time forbids foreign competition, and at another time the legislators or combinations of individuals forbid mechanical competition.* For what other means can exist for arresting a propensity which is natural to all men, but that of depriving them of their liberty? * When macliines for tlie spinning and weaving of cotton were first introdaced into England, tlie inventors were afraid to work tliem openly, and their lives were threatened. Sub- sequently, when the value of the inventions became recog- nized, Parliament, in order to prevent foreign competition, prohibited, under severe penalties for the violation of the law, the export of any textile machinery, and also the emi- gration of artificers. As recently as 1830 agricultural laborers banded together in England, systematically destroyed all the machinery of many farms, down even to the common drills. A news- paper report of the day, says : — " The men conducted them- selves with civility ; and such was their consideration, that they moved the machines out of the farm-yards to prevent injury arising to the cattle from the nails and splinters that flew about while the machinery was being destroyed. They could not makeup their minds as to the propriety of destroy- ing a horse churn, and therefore that machine was passed over." Again, as recently as 1873, the rules of the associated masons and bricklayers of New York, would not allow work on the construction of buildings to go on, the contractors of THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 121 l^owadajs the legislator restricts liis opposi- tion to only one of these combinations — the for- eign. In old times he was more consistent, for he opposed both. We need not be surprised at this. On a wrong road, inconsistency is inevitable ; if it were not so, mankind would be sacrificed. A false princi- ple never has been, and never will be, carried out to the end. Now for our demonstration, which shall not be a long one. James had two dollars, which he had gained by two workmen ; but it occurs to him that an ar- rangement of ropes and weights might be made w^hich would diminish the labor by half. There- fore he obtains the same advantage, saves a dollar and discharges a workman. He discharges a workman : this is that which is seen. And seeing this only, it is said, " See how misery attends civilization ; this is the way tliat liberty is fatal to equality. The human mind has made a conquest, and immediately a workman is cast into the gulf of pauperism. James may pos- sibly employ the two workmen, but then he will wliicli used macliinery for elevating bricks and mortar, in place of having the same carried up in hods, on the shoulders of laborers. 6 122 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND give tliem only half tlieir wages, for tliey will com- pete with each otlier, and offer themselves at the lowest price. Thus the rich are always growing richer, and the poor, poorer. Society wants re- modelling." A very fine conclusion, and worthy of the preamble. Happily, preamble and conclusion are both false, because behind the half of the phenomenon which is seen lies the other half, which is not seen. The dollar saved by James is not seen, no more are the necessary effects of this saving. Since, in consequence of his invention, James spends only one dollar on hand labor in affecting a result which formerly required the expenditure of two dollars, another dollar remains to him. If, then, there is in the world a workman with unemployed arms, there is also in the world a capitalist with an unemploj^ed dollar. These two elements meet and combine, and it is as clear as daylight that between the supply and demand of labor, and between the supply and demand of wages, the relation is in no way changed. The invention and the workman paid with the first dollar now perform the w^ork w^hich was formerly accomplished by two workmen. The second w^orkman, paid with the second dollar, realizes a new kind of work. THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 123 AYhat is the change, tlien, which has taken place ? An additional national advantage has been gained ; in other words, the invention is a gratuitous triumph — a gratuitous profit for man- kind. From the form which I have given to my demonstration, the following inference might be drawn : — " It is the capitalist who reaps all the advantage from machinery. The working class, if it only suffers temporarily, never profits by it, since, by your own showing, it displaces a portion of the national labor, without diminishing it, it is true, bnt also without increasing it." I do not pretend, in this slight treatise, to answer every objection ; the only end I have in view, is to combat a vulgar, widely spread, and dangerous prejudice. I want to prove that a new machine only causes the discharge of a certain number of hands, when the remuneration which pays them is abstracted by force. These hands and this remuneration would combine to produce wdiat it was impossible to produce before the in- vention ; whence it follows that the final result is an increase of advantages foi' equal labor. Who is the gainer by these additional advan- tages ? First, it is true, the capitalist, the inventor; the first who succeeds in using the machine ; and 124 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND this is the reward of his genius and skill. In tins case, as we have just seen, he effects a saving of the expense of production, which, in whatever way it may be spent (and it always is spent), em- ploys exactly as many hands as the machine caused to be dismissed. But soon competition obliges him to lower his prices in proportion to the saving itself ; and then it is no longer the inventor who reaps the benefit of the invention — it is the purchaser of what is produced, the consumer, the public, including the workman ; in a word, mankind. And that which is not seen is, tlmt the saving thus procured for all consumers creates a fund whence wages may be supplied, and which re- places that which the machine has exhausted. Thus, to recur to the forementioned example, James obtains a profit by spending two dollars in wages. Thanks to his invention, the hand labor costs him only one dollar. So long as he sells the thing produced at the same price, he employs one workman less in producing this particular thing, and that is what is seen / but there is an addi- tional workman employed by the dollar which James has saved. This is that which is not seen. When, by the natural progress of things, James is obliged to lower the price of the thing pro- duced by one dollar, then he no longer realizes a THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 125 Baving ; then he has no longer a dollar to dispose of to procure for the national labor a new produc- tion. But then another gainer takes his place, and this gainer is mankind. Whoever buys the thing he has produced, pays a dollar less, and necessarily adds this saving to the fund of wages ; and this, again, is what is not seen. Another solution, founded upon facts, has been given of this problem of machinery. It was said, machinery reduces the expense of production and lowers the price of the thing pro- duced. The reduction of the profit causes an in- crease of consumption, which necessitates an in- crease of production ; and, finally, the introduc- tion of as many workmen, or more, after the in- vention as were necessary before it. As a proof of this, printing, weaving, ^tc, are instanced. This demonstration is. not a scientific one. It would lead us to conclude, that if the consump- tion of the particular production of which we are speaking remains stationary, or nearly so, ma- chinery must injure labor. This is not the case. Suppose that in a certain country all the people wore hats. If by machinery, the price could be reduced half, it would not necessarily follow that the consumption would be doubled. Would you say that in this case a portion of the national labor had been paralyzed ? Yes, ac 12 G THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND cording to the vulgar demonstration ; but, accord- ing to mine, ISTo ; for even if not a single hat more should be bought in the country, the entire fund of wages would not be the less secure. That which failed to go to the hat-making trade would be found to have gone to the economy realized by all the consumers, and would thence serve to pay for all the labor which the machine had ren- dered useless, and to excite a new development of all the trades. And thus it is that things go on. I have known newspapers to cost ten dollars per annum ; now we pay five : here is a saving of five dollars to the subscribers. It is not certain, or at least necessary, that the five dollars should take the direction of the journalist trade ; but it is certain, and necessary too, that if they do not take this direction they will take another. One makes use of them for buying in more newspapers; another, to get better living ; another better clothes ; another, better furniture. It is thus that the trades are bound together. They form a vast whole, whose different parts communicate in secret canals : what is saved by one profits all. It is very important for us to understand that savings never take place at the expense of labor and wages.^ * Charles Knight, in one of his economic publications, also discusses this same question, from the special standpoint of the English laborers who in 1830 broke up and destroyed THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 127 IX.— CREDIT. In all times, but more especially of late years, attempts have been made to extend wealth by the extension of credit. IS'ow a few are always ready to proclaim that agricultural machinery, with the expectation that by so doing they would increase the opportunity and demand for labor. It can be fully demonstrated, he says, " that if the English laborers had been successful in their career — had broken all the more ingenious implements which have aided in rendering British agriculture the most perfect in the world — they would not have advanced one step in obtaining more employment or being better paid. " Thus, we will suppose that the farmer has yielded to this violence ; that tlie violence has had the effect which it was meant to have upon him ; and that he takes on all the hands which were out of employ to thrash and winnow, to cut chaff", to plant with the hands instead of with a drill, to do all the work in fact by the dearest mode instead of the cheap- est. But he employs just as many as are absolutely necessary, and no more, for getting his corn ready for market, and for preparing in a slovenly way for the seed-time. In a month or two the victorious destroyers discover that not a single hand the more of them is really employed. Why not ? There are no drainings going forward, the fences and ditches are neg- lected, the dung heap is not turned over, the marl is not fetched from the pit ; in fact all these labors are neglected which belong to a state of agricultural industry which is brought to perfection. The farmer has no funds to employ in such labors. He is paying a great deal more than he paid before for the same, or a less amount of work, because his laborers 128 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND in the extension and increasing credit is to be found the solution for the whole social problem. The only basis, alas ! of this solution is an op- tical delusion — if, indeed, an optical delusion can be called a basis at all. The first thing done is to confuse money with clioose to do certain labors witli rude tools instead of perfect ones. "We will imagine tliat this state of tilings continues till tlie next spring. All this while the price of grain has been rising ; many farmers have ceased to employ capital at all upon their land. The inventions which enabled them to make a living out of their business being destroyed, they have abandoned the business altogether. A day's work will no longer purchase as much bread as before. The horse, it might be found out, was as great an enemy as the drill- plow ; for as the liorse will do the field-work of six men, tliere must be six men employed, without doubt, instead of one liorse. But liow would the fact turn out ? If the farmer still went on, in spite of all tliese losses and crosses, he might employ men iu the place of horses, but not a single man more than the number that would work at the price of the keep of one horse. To do the work of eacli horse turned adrift, he would require six men ; but lie would only have about a shilling a day to divide between these six — the amount which the horse consumed. "As the year advanced, and the harvest approached, it would be discovered that not one-tenth of the land was sown; for although the plows were gone, because the horses were turned off, and there was plenty of labor for those who clioose to labor for its own sake, or at the price of horse labor, this amazing employment for human hands some- THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 129 produce, then paper money (promises to pay money) with actual ; and from these two confusions it is pretended that a reality can be drawn. It is absolutely necessary in this question to forget coin, bills, and the other instruments by means of which productions pass from hand to hand. Our business is with the productions them- selves, which are the real objects of the loan ; for when a farmer borrows twenty dollars to buy a plow, it is not, in reality, the twenty dollars which are lent to him, but the plow ; and when a mer- chant borrows $20,000 to purchase a house, it is not the $20,000 which he owes, but the house. how would not quite answer the purpose. It has been cal- culated that the power of horses, oxen, etc., employed in husbandry in Great Britain is ten times the amount of human power. If human power insisted upon doing all the work with the worst tools, the certainty is that not even one- tenth of the land could be cultivated. Where then would all this madness end? In the starvation of the laborers themselves. Even if they were allowed to eat up all they had produced by such imperfect means, they would be just in the condition of other barbarous people, that were ignorant of the inventions that constitute the power of civilization. They would eat up the little corn which they raised them- selves, and find they had nothing to give in exchange for clothes, and coal, and candles, and soap, and sugar, and tea, and all the many comforts which those who are now the •worst ofE are not wholly deprived of." — Knowledge is Power. 130 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND Money only appears for the sake of facilitating the arrangements between the parties. Peter may not be disposed to lend his plow, but James may be willing to lend his money. What does William do in this case ? He borrows money of James, and with this money he buys the plow of Peter. But, in point of fact, no one borrows money for the sake of the money itself ; money is only the medium by which to obtain possession of produc- tions. Now, it is impossible in any country to transmit from one person to another more produc- tions than that country contains. Whatever may be the amount of real money and of paper money, which is in circulation, the whole of the borrowers cannot receive more plows, houses, tools, and supplies of raw material, than the lenders altogether can f urnish ; f or we must take care not to forget that every borrower sup- poses a lender, and that what is once borrowed implies a loan. This granted, what advantage is there in insti- tutions of credit ? It is that they facilitate, between borrowers and lenders, the means of finding and treating with each other; but it is not in their power to cause an instantaneous increase of the things to be borrowed and lent. And yet they ought to be able to do so, if the aim of the reform- THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 131 ers is to be attained, since they aspire to nothing less than to place plows, houses, tools, and pro- visions in the hands of all those who desire them. And how do they intend to effect this? By making the State security for the loan. Let us try and fathom the subject, for it contains S07nething which is seen^ and also something which is not seen, We must endeavor to look at both. We will suppose that there is but one plow in the world, and that two farmers apply for it. Peter is the possessor of the only plow which is to be had in the country ; John and James wish to borrow it. John, by his honesty, his property, and good reputation, offers security. He insjnres confidence y he has credit. James inspires little or no confidence. It naturally happens that Peter lends his plow to John. But now, according to the Socialist plan, the State interferes, and says to Peter : •' Lend your plow to James, I will be security for its return, and this security will be better than that of John, for he has no one to be responsible for him but himself; and I, although it is true that I have nothing, dispose of the fortune of the tax-payers, and it is with. their money that, in case of need, I shall pay you the principal and interest." Conse- quently, Peter lends his j)low to James ; this is whoi is seen. 132 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND And the Socialists nib their hands, and say, *' See how well our plan has answered. Thanks to the intervention of the State, poor James has a plow. He will no longer be obliged to dig the ground ; he is on the road to make a fortune. It is a good thing for him, and an advantage to the nation as a whole." Indeed, it is no such a thing ; it is no advantage to the nation, for there is something behind which is not seen. It is not seen, that the plongh is in the hands of James, only because it is not in those of John. It is not seen, that if James farms instead of digging, John will be reduced to the necessity of digging instead of farming. That, consequently, what was considered an in- crease of loan, is nothing but a displacement of loan. Besides, it is not seen that this displacement implies two acts of deep injustice. It is an injustice to John, who after having de- served and obtained credit by his honesty and activity, sees himself robbed of it. It is an injustice to the tax-payers, who are made to pay a debt which is no concern of theirs. "Will any one say, that Government offers the same facilities to John as it does to James? But as there is only one plow to be had, two cannot be lent. The argument always maintains that, THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 133 thanks to the intervention of the State, more will be borrowed than there are things to be lent ; for the plow represents here the bulk of available capitals. It is true I have reduced the operation to the most simple expression of it ; but if you submit the most complicated Government institutions of. credit to the same test, you will be convinced that they can have but one result; viz., to displace credit, not to augment it. In one country, and in a given time, there is only a certain amount of capital available, and all are employed. In guaran- teeing payment on the part of the borrowers, the State may, indeed, increase the number of borrow- ers, and thus raise the rate of interest (always to the prejudice of the tax-payer), but it has no power to increase the number of lenders, and the aggre- gate amount of the loans. There is one conclusion, however, which I would not for the world be suspected of drawing. I say, that the law ought not to favor, artificially, the power of borrowing, but I do not say that it ought not to artificially interpose obstacles in the way of borrowing. If, in our system of borrowing on mortgages, or in any other way, there be obstacles to the difi'usion of the application of credit, let them be got rid of; nothing can be better or more just than this. But this is all which is consistent 134 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND with liberty, and it is all that any who are worthy of the name of reformers will ask. X.— ALGERIA.* Here are four orators clisputiDg for the platform. First, all the four speak at once ; then they speak one after the other. What have they said ? Some very fine things, certainly, about the power and the grandeur of France ; about the necessity of sowing, if we would reap; about the brilliant fu- ture of our gigantic colony ; about the advantage of diverting to a distance the surplus of our popu- lation, &c., &c. Magnificent pieces of eloquence, and always adorned with this conclusion : — " Yote fifty millions, more or less, for making ports and roads in Algeria ; for sending emigrants thither ; for building houses and breaking up laud. By so doing, you will relieve the French workman, en- courage African labor, and give a stimulus to the * In this chapter M. Bastiat discusses a form of public ex- penditure in France growing out of tlie colonial policy, adopt- ed by that country, which has no exact counterpart in the fiscal disbursements of the United States. The principles involved in the expenditures of France in behalf of her col- ony in Algeria, are, however, the same which underlie the expenditures in every country for a great variety of what are caAled publio purposes ; and therefore, although the illustra tions may be foreign and local, the argument admits of uni • versal application. THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 135 commerce of Marseilles. It would be profitable overy way." Yes, it is all very true, if you take no account of the fifty milJions until the moment when the State begins to spend them ; if you only see where they go, and not whence they come ; if you look only at the good they are to do when they come out of the tax-gatherer's bag, and not at the harm which has been done, and the good which has been prevented, by putting them into it. ^es, at this limited point of view all is profit. The house which is built in Barbary is that which is seen j the harbor made in Barbary is that which is seen j the work caused in Barbary is what is seen / a few less hands in France is what is seen j a great stir with goods at Marseilles is still that which is seen. But, besides all this, there is something which is not seen. The fifty millions expended by the State cannot be spent, as they otherwise would have been, by the tax-payers. It is necessary to deduct, from all the good attributed to the public expenditure which has been effected, all the harm caused by the prevention of private expense, un- less we say that James would have done nothing with the francs that he had gained, and of which the tax had deprived him ; an absurd assertion, for if he took the trouble to earn it, it was because he 136 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND expected the satisfaction of using it. He would have repaired the palings in his garden, which he cannot now do, and this is that which is not seen. He would have manured his field, which now he cannot do, and this i^ what is not seen. He would have added another story to his cottage, which he cannot do now, and this is what is not seen. He might have increased the number of his tools, which he cannot do now, and this is what is not seen. He would have been better fed, better clothed, have given a better education to his chil- dren, and increased his daughter's marriage por- tion ; this is what is not seen. He would have become a member of the Mutual Assistance Society, but now he cannot ; this is what is not seen. On one hand, are the enjoyments of which he has been deprived, and the means of action which have been destroyed in his hands ; on the other, are the labor of the drainer, the carj)enter, the smith, the tailor, the village schoolmaster, which he would have encouraged, and which are now pre- vented — all this is what is not seen. Much is hoped from the future prosperity of Algeria ; be it so. But the drain to which France is being subjected ought not to be kept entirely out of sight. The commerce of Marseilles is pointed out to me; but if this is to be brought about by means of taxation, I shall always show that an THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 137 equal commerce is destroyed thereby in other parts of the country. It is said, " There is an emigrant transported into Barbary ; this is a relief to the population which remains in the country." I answer, ^' How can that be, if, in transporting this emigrant to Algiers, you also transport two or three times the capital which would have served to maintain him in France ? " * The only object I have in view is to make it evident to the reader, that in every public expense, behind the apparent benefit, there is an evil which it is not so easy to discern. As far as in me lies, I would make him form a habit of seeing both, and takino^ account of both. When a public expense is proposed, it ought to be examined in itself, separately from the pretend- ed encouragement of labor which results from it, for this encouragement is a delusion. Whatever is done in this way at the public expense, private expense would have done all the same; therefore, the interest of labor is always out of the question. It is not the object of this treatise to criticise * The Minister of War has lately asserted that every indi- vidual transported to Algeria has cost the State 8,000 francs. Now it is certain that these poor creatures could have lived very well in France on a capital of 4,000 francs. I ask, how the French population is relieved, when it is deprived of a man, and of the means of subsistence of two men ? 138 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND the intrinsic merit of the puhlic expenditure as applied to Algeria, but I cannot withhold a gen- eral observation. It is, that the presumption is always unfavorable to expenditures which are paid by money raised by taxation. Why? For this reason : — First, justice always suffers from it in some degree. Since James had labored to gain his franc, in the hope of receiving a gratification from it, it is to be regretted that the national treas- ury should interpose, and take from James this gratification, to bestow it npon another. Certainl}^, it behoves the treasury, or those who regulate it, to give good reasons for this. It has been shown that the State gives a very provokiug one, when it says, '' With this franc I shall employ w^ork- men ; " for James (as soon as he sees it) will be sure to answer, " It is all very fine, but with this franc I might employ them myself." Apart from this reason, others present them- selves without disguise, by which the debate be- tween the treasury and poor James becomes much simplified. If the State says to him, '* I take your franc to pay the police officer w^ho saves you the trouble of providing for your own personal safety ; for paving the street which you are passing through every day ; for paying the magistrate who causes your property and your liberty to be respected ; to maintain the soldier who maintains our fron THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 139 tiers," — James, unless I am much, mistaken, will pay for all this without hesitation. But if the State were to say to him, ^'I take this franc that I may give you a little prize in case you cultivate your field well; or that I may teach your son something that you have no wish that he should learn ; or that the Minister may add another to his score of dishes at dinner; I take it to build a cottage in Algeria, in which case I must take another franc every year to keep an emigrant in it, and another hundred to maintain a soldier to guard this emigrant, and another franc to main- tain a general to guard this soldier," &c., &c., — ^I think I hear poor James exclaim, '' This system of law is very much like a system of cheat ! " The State foresees the objection, and what does it do? It jumbles all things together, and brings forward just that provoking reason which ought to have nothing whatever to do with the question. It talks of the effect of this expenditure upon labor ; it points to the cook and purveyor of the Minister; it shows an emigrant, a soldier, and a general, liv- ing upon the tranc ; it shows, in fact, luhat is seen^ and if James has not learned to take into the ac- count what is not seen^ James will be duped. And this is why I want to do all I can to impress it upon his mind, by repeatingit over and over again. As the public expenditures displace labor with' 140 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND out increasing it, a second serious presumption presents itself against tliein. To displace labor is to displace laborers, and to disturb the natural laws wliicli regulate the distribution of the popu- lation over the country. If 50,000,000 francs are allowed to remain in the possession of the tax-pay- ers, since the tax-payers are everywhere, they en- courage labor in the 40,000 parishes in T'rance. They act like a natural tie, which keeps every one upon his native soil ; they distribute themselves amongst all imaginable laborers and trades. If the State, by drawing off these 50,000,000 francs from the citizens, accumulates them, and expends them on some given point, it attracts to this point a pro- portional quantity of displaced labor, a correspond- ing number of laborers, belonging to other parts ; a fluctuating population, which is out of its place, and possibly dangerous when the fund is exhaust- ed, i^ow here is the consequence (and this con- firms all I have said) : this feverish activity is, as it were, forced into a narrow space; it attracts the attention of all ; it is what is seen. The people applaud ; they are astonished at the beauty and facility of the plan, and expect to have it contin- ued and extended. That which they do not see is, that an equal quantity of labor, which would pro- bably be more valuable, has been paralyzed over the rest of France. THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN, 141 XL— FRUGALITY AND LUXURY. It is not only in tlie public expenditure that what is seen eclipses what is not seen. Setting aside what relates to political economy, this phe- nomenon leads to false reasoning. It causes na- tions to consider their moral and their material interests as contradictory to each other. What can be more discouraging or more dismal ? For instance, there is not a father of a family who does not think it his duty to teach his chil- dren order, system, the habits of carefulness, of economy, and of moderation in spending money. There is no religion which does not thunder against pomp and luxury. This is as it should be ; but, on the other hand, how frequently do we hear the following remarks : — " To hoard is to drain the veins of the people.'' " The luxury of the great is the opportunity of the little." " Prodigals ruin themselves, but they enrich the State." "It is the sLiperfluity of the rich which makes bread for the poor." Here, certainly, is a striking contradiction be- tween the moral and the social idea. How many eminent spirits, after having moralized over these assertions, repose in peace. It is a thing I never 142 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND could understand, for it seems to me that nothing can be more distressing than to discover two oppo- site tendencies in mankind. Why, it comes to degradation at each of the extremes : economy brings it to misery; prodigality phmges it into moral degradation. Happily, these vulgar maxims exhibit economy and luxury in a false light, taking account, as they do, of those immediate conse- quences which are seen, and not of the remote ones, which are not seen. Let us see if we can rectif^^ this incomplete view of the case. Joseph Spendall and Jacob Saveall, after receiv- ing their parental inheritance, have each an income of $10,000. Joseph Spendall practices the fash- ionable philanthropy. He is what is called a squanderer of money. He renew^s his furniture several times a year ; changes his equipages every month. People talk of his ingenious contrivances to bring them sooner to an end : in short, he sur- passes the fast personages who figure in the modern novels. Thus everybody is singing his praises. It is, " Tell us about Joseph Spendall for ever ! He is the benefactor of the workman ; a blessing to the people. It is true, he revels in dissipation ; he splashes the passers-by ; his own dignity and that of human nature are lowered a little ; but what of that ? He does good with his fortune, if not THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 143 with 111 111 self. He causes money to circulate ; he always sends the tradespeople away satisfied. Is not money made round that it may roll ? " Jacob has adopted a very different plan of life. If he is not an egotist, he is, at any rate, an indi- viduolist, for he considers expense, seeks only moderate and reasonable enjoyments, thinks of his children's prospects, and, in fact, he econo- mizes. And what do people say of him ? *' What is the good of a rich fellow like him ? He is an old skinflint." There is something dignified in the simplicity of his life ; and. he is humane, too, and benevolent, and generous, but he calculates. He does not spend his income; his house is neither brilliant nor bustling. What good does he do to the jew- eler, the carriage-makers, the horse-dealers, and confectioners ? These opinions, which are antagonistic to the practice of prudence, frugality, and morality, are founded on what strikes the eye, namely, the in- fluence of the expenditures of the prodigal ; while little or no account is taken of that which does not ostentatiously attract attention, namelj^, the equal or larger expenditure of the economist. But things have been so admirably arranged by the Divine inventor of social order, that in this, 144 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AKD as in everything else, political economy and mor* ality, far from clashing, agree ; and the wisdom of Jacob is not only more dignified, bnt still more 'profitable, than the ^oWy of Joseph. And when I say profitable, I do not mean only profitable to Jacob, or even to society in general, but more pro- fitable to the workmen themselves — to the trade of the time. To prove it, it is only necessary to turn the mind's eye to those hidden consequences of human actions which the bodily eye does not see. Yes, the prodigality of Joseph has visible efiPects in every point of view. Everybody can see his fine house, his elegant carriage, his superb paint- ings, his fleet yacht, and his costly attire. Every one knows that his horses run upon the turf. The dinners which he gives attract the attention of the crowds on the avenues ; and it is said, " That is a generous man ; far from saving his income, he is YQvj likely breaking into his capital." That is what is seen. It is not so easy to see, with regard to the inter- est of workers, what becomes of the income of Saveall. If we were to trace it carefully, however, we should see that the whole of it, down to the last farthing, affords work to the laborers as cer- tainly as the fortune of Spendall. Only there is this difference : the wanton extravagance of Joseph THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 145 is doomed to be constantly decreasing, and to come to an end without fail ; whilst the wise expendi- ture of Jacob will go on increasing from year to year. And if this is the case, then, most assur- edly^, the public interest will be in unison with morality. Joseph spends upon himself and his household $5,000 a year. If that is not sufficient to con- tent him, he does not deserve to be called a w^ise man. He is touched by the miseries which oppress the poorer classes ; he thinks he is bound in conscience to afford them some relief, and therefore he devotes $2,000 to acts of benevolence. Amongst the merchants, the manufacturers, and the agriculturists he has friends who are suffering under temporary difficulties; he makes himself acquainted with their situation, that he may assist them with prudence and efficiency, and to this work he devotes $2,000 more. Then he does not forget that he has daughters to portion, and sons for whose prospects it is his dut}^ to provide, and therefore he considers it a duty to lay by and put out to interest $2,000 every year. The following is a list of his expenses : — 1st. Personal expenses $5,000 2d. Benevolent objects 2,000 3d. Offices of friendship 2,000 4:th. Saving 2,000 7 146 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND Let US examine each of these items, and we shall see that not a single farthing escapes the na- tional labor. 1st. Personal expenses. — These, as far as work- people and tradesmen are concerned, have pre- cisely the same effect as an eqnal sum spent by Spendall. This is self-evident, therefore we shall saj no more about it. 2d. Benevolent objects.— The $2,000 devoted to this purpose benefit trade in an equal degree ; they reach the butcher, the baker, the tailor, and the carpenter. The only thing is, that the bread, the meat, and the clothing are not used by Jacob, but by those whom he has made his substitutes. JSTow, this simple substitution of one consumer for another in no way affects trade in general. It is all one whether Jacob spends a dollar or desires some unfortunate person to spend it instead. 3d. Offices of friendship. — The friend to whom Saveall lends or gives $3,000 does not receive them to bury them ; that would be against the hypo- thesis. He uses them to pay for goods, or to discharge debts. In the first case, trade is encour- aged. Will any one pretend to say that it gains more by Joseph's purchase of a thoroughbred horse for $2,000, than by the purchase of $2,000 worth of stuffs by Jacob or his friend ? For if this sum serves to pay a debt, a third person ap- THAT WmCH IS NOT SEEN. 147 pears, viz., tlie creditor, wlio will certainly employ them upon something in his trade, his household, or his farm. He forms another medium between Saveall and the workmen. The names only are changed, the expense remains, and also the en- courasfement to trade. 4:th. Saving. — Tliere remains now the $2,000 saved ; and it is here, as regards the encourage- ment to the arts, to trade, labor, and the workmen, that Spendall appears far superior to Saveall, although, in a moral point of view, Jacob shows himself in some degree superior to Joseph. I can never look at these apparent contradictions between the great laws of nature without a feeling of physical uneasiness which amounts to suffering. Were mankind reduced to the necessity of choos- ing between two parties, one of whom injures his interest, and the other his conscience, we should have nothing to hope from the future. Happily this is not the case ; and to see Jacob attain a po- sition of economical superiority, as well as one of moral superiority, it is sufficient to fall back upon this consoling maxim, wliich is none the less true from having a paradoxical appearance, *' To save is to spend." For what is Jacob's object in saving $2,000 ? Is it to bury them in his garden ? No, certainly ; he intends to increase his capital and his income; 148 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND consequently, this money, instead of being era- ployed upon his own personal gratification, is used for buying land,,a house, &c., or it is placed in the hands of a merchant or a banker. Follow the progress of this money in any one of these cases, and you will be convinced that through the me- dium of vendors or lenders, it is encouraging labor quite as certainly as if Saveall, following the example of Spendall, had exchanged it for furniture, jewels, and horses. For v^dien Jacob buys lands or bonds for $2,000, he is determined by the consideration that he does not want to spend this money. This is whj you complain of him. But, at the same time, the man who sells the land or the bonds, is determined by the considera- tion that he does want to spend the $2,000 in some way; so that the money is spent in any case, either by Jacob or by others in his stead. With respect to the working class, to the encour- agement of labor, there is only «ne difference between the conduct of Jacob and that of Joseph. Joseph spends the money himself, and around him, and therefore the effect is seen. Jacob, spending it partly through intermediate parties, and at a distance, the effect is not seen. But, in fact, those who know how to attribute effects to their proper causes, will perceive, that what is not THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN". 149 seen is as certain as what is seen. This is proved bj the fact, that in both cases the money circulates, and does not lie in the iron chest of the wise man, any more than it does in that of the spendthrift. It is, therefore, not correct to say that economy does actual harm to trade ; as described above, it is equally beneficial with luxury. But how far superior is it, if, instead of confin- ing our thoughts to the present moment, we let them embrace a longer period ! Ten years pass away. What is become of Joseph and his fortune and his great popularity 1 Joseph is ruined. Instead of spending $10,000 every year in society, he is, perhaps, a burden to it. In any case, he is no longer the delight of shopkeepers ; he is no longer the patron of the arts and of trade ; he is no longer of any use to the workmen, nor are his successors, whom he has brought to want. At the end of the same ten years Jacob not only continues to throw his income into circula- tion, but he adds an increasing sum from year to year to his expenses. He enlarges the national capital, that is, the fund which supplies wages, and as it is upon the extent of this fund that the demand for laborers depends, he assists in pro- gressively increasing the remuneration of the working class ; and if he dies, he leaves children 150 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND wliom he has taught to succeed him in this work of progress and civilization. In a moral point of view, the superiority of frugality over luxury is indisputable. It is con- soling to think that it is so in political economy, to every one who, not confining his views to the immediate effects of phenomena, knows how to extend his investigations to their final effects. XII.— HE WHO HAS A RIGHT TO LABOR HAS A RIGHT TO THE PROFIT OF LABOR. *' Brethren, you must club together to find me work at your own price." This is the right to work; i.e.^ elementary socialism of the first de- gree. " Brethren, you must club together to find me work at my own price." This is the right to pro- fit ; i.e.^ refined socialism, or socialism of the second degree. Both of these assumptions live upon such of their effects as are seen. They will die by means of those effects which are not seen. That which is see7i is the labor and the profit excited by social combination. That which is not seen is the labor and the profit to w^hich this same combination would give rise, if it were left to the tax-payers. In France, in . 1848, the right to labor for a THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 151 moment showed two faces. This was sufficient to ruin it in public opinion. One of these faces was called national worh- shops. The other was a tax known by the name of forty-five centimes. Millions of francs went daily from the national treasury to the national workshops. This was the fair side of the medal. And this is the reverse. If millions are taken out of a cash-box, they must first have been put into it. This is why the organizers of the right to public labor apply to the tax-payers. ]^ow, the peasants said : " I must pay forty-five centimes; then I must deprive myself of some clothing. I cannot manure my field ; I cannot repair my house." And the country workmen said : " As our towns- man deprives himself of some clothing, there will be less work for the tailor ; as he does not im- prove his field, there will be less work for the drainer ; as he does not repair his house, there will be less work for the carpenter and mason." It was then proved that two kinds of meal cannot come out of one sack, and that the work furnished by the Grovernment was done at the ex- pense of labor, paid for by the tax-payer. This was the termination of the right to labor, which showed itself as much a chimera as an injustice. And yet the right to profit, which is only an ex- 152 THAT WHICH IS SEEN, AND aggeration of the right to labor, is still alive and flourishing. Ought not the protectionist to blush at the part lie would make society play ? He says to it : " Yon must give me work, and, more than that, lucrative work. I have foolishly fixed upon a trade by which I lose ten per cent. If you impose a tax of twenty per cent, npon my countrymen, and give it to me, I shall be a gainer instead of a loser, l^ow, profit is my right ; you owe it me." l^ow, any society which would listen to this sophist, burden itself with taxes to satisfy him, and not perceive that the loss to wdiich any trade is exposed is no less a loss when others are forced to make up for it, — such a society, 1 say, would deserve the burden infiicted upon it. Thus we learn by the numerous subjects which I have treated, that, to be ignorant of political economy is to allow ourselves to be misled by the immediate effect of a phenomenon ; to be ac- quainted with it is to embrace in thought and in forethought the whole compass of effects. I might subject a host of other questions to the same test ; but I shrink from the monotony of a constantly uniform demonstration, and I conclude by applying to political economy what Chateau- briand says of history : — THAT WHICH IS NOT SEEN. 153 " There are," lie says, *' two consequences in liistory ; an immediate one, which is instantly re- cognized, and one in the distance, which is not at first perceived. These consequences often contra- dict each other ; the former are the results of onr own limited wisdom ; the latter, those of that wis- dom wdiich endures. The providential event ap- pears after the human event. God rises up be- hind men. Deny, if you will, the supreme counsel ; disown its action ; dispute about words; designate by the term force of circumstances, or reason, what the vulgar call Providence ; but look to the end of an accomplished fact, and you will see that it has always produced the contrary of what was expected from it, if it was not estab- lished at first upon morality and justice." — Chateaubriand^ s Posthumous Memoirs, 154 GOYEENMENT. GOYEE:t^MEKT. I WISH some one would offer a prize for a good, simple, and intelligent definition of the word " Government." What an immense service it would confer on society ! The Government! what is it? where is it? what does it do ? what ought it to do ? All we know is, that it is a mysterious personage ; and, assuredly, it is the most solicited, the most tor- mented, the most overwhelmed, the most ad- mired, the most accused, the most invoked, and the most provoked of any personage in the world. I have not the pleasure of knowing my reader, but I would stake ten to one that for six months he has been making Utopias, and if so, that he is looking to Government for the realization of them. And should the reader happen to be a lady, I have no doubt that she is sincerely desirous of seeing all the evils of suffering humanity reme- GOYEENMENT. 155 died, and that she thinks this might easily be done, if Government would only undertake it. But, alas ! that poor unfortunate personage, like Figaro, knows not to whom to listen, nor where to turn. The hundred thousand mouths of the press and of the platform cry out all at once : — " Organize labor and workmen. " Repress insolence and the tyranny of capital. " Make experiments upon manure and eggs. " Cover the country with railways. " Irrigate the plains. " Plant the hills. '' Make model farms. " Found social workshops. " I^urture children. " Instruct the youth. " Assist the aged. "Send the inhabitants of towns into the country. " Equalize the profits of all trades. " Lend money without interest to all who wish to borrow. " Emancipate oppressed people everywhere. " Rear and perfect the saddle-horse. "Encourage the arts, and provide us with musicians, painters, and architects. " Restrict commerce, and at the same time create a merchant navy. 156 GOVERNMENT. " Discover truth, and put a grain of reason into our heads. The mission of Government is to enh'ghten to develop, to extend, to fortify, to spiritualize, and to sanctifj^ the soul of the peo- ple." "Do have a little patience, gentlemen,'' says Government, in a beseeching tone. " I will do what I can to satisfy you, but for this I must have resources. I have been preparing plans for five or six taxes, which are quite new, and not at all oppressive. You will see how willingly people will pay them." Then comes a great exclamation : — " 'No ! in- deed ! where is the merit of doing a thing with resources ? Why, it does not deserve the name of a Government ! So far from loading us with fresh taxes, we would have you withdraw the old ones. You ought to suppress " The tobacco tax. " The tax on liquors. " The tax on letters. " Custom-house duties. " Patents." In the midst of this tumult, and now that the country has again and again changed the admin- istration, for not having satisfied all its demands, I wanted to show that they were contradictory. But what could I have been thinking about ? GOVEBNMENT. 157 Could I not keep this unfortunate observation to myself? I have lost my character forever ! I am looked upon as a man without heart and without feeling — a dry philosopher, an individualist, a plebeian — ■ in a word, an economist of the practical school. But, pardon me, sublime writers, who stop at noth- ing, not even at contradictions. I am wrong, without a doubt, and I would willingly retract. I should be glad enough, yon may be sure, if you had really discovered a beneficent and inexhaus- tible being, calling itself the Government, which has bread for all mouths, work for all hands, capi- tal for all enterprises, credit for all projects, oil for all wounds, balm for all sufferings, advice for all perplexities, solutions for all doubts, truths for all intellects, diversions for all who want them, milk for infancy, and wine for old age — which can provide for all our wants, satisfy all our curiosity, correct all our errors, repair all our faults, and exempt us henceforth from the necessity for fore- sight, prudence, judgment, sagacity, experience, order, economy, temperance, and activity. What reason could I have for not desiring to see such a discovery made ? Indeed, the more I reflect upon it, the more do I see that nothing could be more convenient than that we should all of us have within our reach an inexhaustible 158 GOVERNMENT. source of wealth and enlightenment — a universal ph3^sician, an unlimited treasure, and an infallible counselor, such as you describe Government to be. Therefore it is that I want to have it pointed out and defined, and that a prize should be of- fered to the first discoverer of the phoenix. For no one would think of asserting that this precious discovery has yet been made, since up to this time everything presenting itself under the name of the Government has at some time been over- turned by the people, precisely because it does not fulfill the rather contradictory conditions of the programme. I will venture to say that I fear we are, in this respect, the duj^es of one of the strangest illusions which have ever taken possession of the human mind. Man recoils from trouble — from suffering ; and yet he is condemned by nature to the suffering of privation, if he does not take the trouble to work. He has to choose, then, between these two evils. "What means can he adopt to avoid both ? There remains now, and there will remain, only one way, which is, to enjoy the labor of others. Sucli a course of conduct prevents the trouble and the satisfaction from preserving their natural propor- tion, and causes all the trouble to become the lot of one set of persons, and all the satisfaction that GOVEKNMENT. 159 of another. This is the origin of slavery and of plunder, whatever its form may be — whether that of wars, imposition, violence, restrictions, frauds, &c. — monstrous abuses, but consistent with the thought which has given them birth. Oppression should be detested and resisted — it can hardly be called absurd. Slavery is disappearing, thank heaven ! and, on the other hand, our disposition to defend our prop- erty prevents direct and open plunder from being easy. One thing, however, remains — it is the original inclination which exists in all men to divide the lot of life into two parts, throwing the trouble upon others, and keeping the satisfaction for them- selves. It remains to be shown under what new form this sad tendency is manifesting itself. The oppressor no longer acts directly and with his own powers upon his victim. ]N"o, our con- science has become too sensitive for that. The tyrant and his victim are still present, but there is an intermediate person between them, which is the Government — that is, the Law itself. What can be better calculated to silence our scruples, and, which is perhaps better appreciated, to over- come all resistance ? We all, therefore, put in our claim, under some pretext or other, and apply to Government. We say to it, "I am dissatisfied at 160 GOYEENMENT. the proportion between my labor and my enjoy- ments. I should like, for the sake of restoring the desired equilibrium, to take a part of the pos- sessions of others. But this would be dangerous. Could not you facilitate the thing for me ? Could you not find me a good place ? or check the indus- try of my competitors? or, perhaps, lend me gratuitously some capital, which you may take from its possessor ? Could you not bring up my children at the public expense ? or grant me some prizes ? or secure me a competence when I have attained my fiftieth year ? By this means I shall gain my end with an easy conscience, for the law will have acted for me, and I shall have all the advantages of plunder, without its risk or its dis- grace ! " As it is certain, on the one hand, that w^e are all making some similar request to the Govern- ment ; and as, on the other, it is proved that Gov- ernment cannot satisfy one party without adding to the labor of the others, until I can obtain another definition of the word Government I feel author- ized to give my own. Who knows but it may obtain the prize ? Here it is : Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of every- hody else. For now, as formerly, every one is, more oi GOYERNMENT. 161 less, for profiting by the labors of others. 'No one would dare to profess sucli a sentiment; he even hides it from himself ; and then what is done ? A medium is thought of; Government isa]3plied to, and every class in its turn comes to it, and says, " You, who can take justifiably and honestly, take from the public, and we will partake." Alas ! Government is only too much disposed to follow this diabolical advice, for it is composed of minis- ters and officials — of men, in short, who, like all other men, desire in their hearts, and always seize every opportunity with eagerness, to increase their wealth and influence. Government is not slow to perceive the advantages it may derive from the part which is entrusted to it by the public. It is glad to be the judge and the master of the desti- nies of all ; it will take much, for then a large share will remain for itself; it will multiply the number of its agents ; it will enlarge the circle of its privileges ; it will end by appropriating a ruin- ous proportion. But the most remarkable part of it is the aston- ishing blindnesss of the public through it all. When successful soldiers used to reduce the van- quished to slavery, they were barbarous, but they were not absurd. Their object, like ours, was to live at other people's expense, and they did not fail to do so. What are we to think of a people 162 GOYERNMENT. who never seem to suspect that reciproGal plunder is no less plunder because it is reciprocal ; that it is no less criminal because it is executed legally and with order ; that it adds nothing to the public good; that it diminishes it, just in proportion to the cost of the expensive medium which we call the Government? And it is this great chimera which the French nation, for example, placed in 1848, for the edifi- cation of the people, as a frontispiece to its Con- stitution. The following is the beginning of the preamble to this Constitution : — " France has constituted itself a republic for the purpose of raising all the citizens to an ever- increasing degree of morality, enlightment, and well-being." Thus it is France, or an abstraction, which is to raise the French to morality, well-being, &c. Is it not by yielding to this strange delusion that we are led to expect everything from an energy not our own? Is it not giving out that there is, independently of the French, a virtuous, enlight- ened, and rich being, who can and will bestow upon them its benefits ? Is not this supposing, and certainly very gratuitously, that there are between France and the French — between the simple, abridged, and abstract denomination of all the individualities, and these individualities them- GOVERNMENT. 163 selves — ^relations as of father to son, tutor to liis pu- pil, professor to his scholar ? I know it is often said, metaphorically, " the country is a tender mother." But to show the inanity of such a constitutional proposition, it is only needed to show that it may be reversed, not only without inconvenience, but even with advantage. Would it be less exact to say : *' The French have constituted themselves a Re- public to raise France to an ever-increasing degree of morality, enlightenment, and well-being." 1^0 w, where is the value of an axiom where the subject and the attribute may change places with- out inconvenience ? Everybody understands what is meant by this : " The mother will feed the child." But it would be ridiculous to say, '' The child will feed the mother." The Americans formed another idea of the rela- tions of the citizens with the Government when they placed these simple words at the head of their Constitution : — " We, the people of the United States, for the purpose of forming a more perfect union, of estab- lishing justice, of securing interior tranquillity, of providing for our common defense, of increasing ihe general well-being, and of securing the benefits of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity, de- cree," &c. Here there is no chimerical creation, no ah- 164 GOVERNMENT. straction, from whicli the citizens ma}'^ demand everything. They expect nothing except from themselves and their own energy. If I may be permitted to criticise the first words of the French Constitution of 1848, I would re- mark, that w4iat I compLiin of is something more than a mere metaphysical subtilty, as might seem at first sight. I contend that this personification of Govern- ment has been, in past times, and will be hereafter, a fertile source of calamities and revolutions. There is the public on one side, Government on the other, considered as two distinct beings ; the latter bound to bestow upon the former, and the former having the right to claim from the latter, all imaginable human benefits. What will be the consequence ? In fact, Government is not maimed, and cannot be so. It has two hands — one to receive and the other to give ; in other words, it has a rough hand and a smooth one. The activity of the second is necessarily subordinate to the activity of the first. Strictly, Government may take and not restore. This is evident, and may be explained by the por- ous and absorbing nature of its hands, which always retain a part, and sometimes the whole, of what they touch. But the thing that never was seen, and never wiU be seen or conceived, is, that GOVERNMENT. 165 Government can restore more to the public than it has taken from it. It is therefore ridiculous for Its to appear before it in the humble attitude of beggars. It is radically impossible for it to confer a particular benefit upon any one of the individu- alities which constitute the community, without inflicting a greater injury upon the community as a whole. Our requisitions, therefore, place it in a dilemma. If it refuses to grant the requests made to it, it is accused of weakness, ill-will, and incapacity. If it endeavors to grant them, it is obliged to load the people with fresh taxes — to do more harm than good, and to bring upon itself from another quar- ter the general displeasure. Thus, the public has two hopes, and Govern- ment makes two promises — many benefits and no taxes. Hopes and promises, which, being contra- dictory, can never be realized. Now, is not this the cause of all our revolutions ? For, between the Government, which lavishes promises which it is impossible to perform, and the public, which has conceived hopes which can never be realized, two classes of men interpose^ the ambitious and the Utopians. It is circum- stances which give these their cue. It is enough if these vassals of popularity cry out to the people : ** The authorities are deceiving you ; if we were 166 GOYEENMENT. in tlieir place, we would load you with benefits and exempt you from taxes." And the people believe, and the people hope, and the people make a revolution ! ISTo sooner are their friends at the head of affairs, than they are called upon to redeem their pledge. " Give us work, bread, assistance, credit, instruc- tion, more money," say the people ; " and witlial deliver us, as you promised, from the demands of the tax-gatherers." The new Governmsnt is no less eml^arrassed tliau the former one, for it soon finds tliat it is much more easy to promise than to perform. It tries to gain time, for this is necessary for matur- ing its vast projects. At first, it makes a few timid attempts. On one hand it institutes a little elementary instruction ; on the other, it makes a little reduction in some taxes. But the contradic- tion is forever starting up before it ; if it would be philantliropic, it must attend to its exchequer; if It neglects its exchequer, it must abstain from being philanthropic. These two promises are for ever clashing with each other; it cannot be otherwise. To live upon credit, which is the same as exhausting the future, is certainly a present means of reconciling them: an attempt is made to do a little good now, at the expense of a great deal of harm in future. But GOVERNMENT. 167 such proceedings call forth the spectre of bank- ruptcy, which puts an end to credit. What is to be done then? Why, then, the new Government takes a bold step ; it unites all its forces in order to maintain itself ; it smothers opinion, has recourse to arbitrary measures, ridicules its former maxims, declares that it is impossible to conduct the ad- ministration except at the risk of being unpopular ; in short, it proclaims itself governmental. And it is here that other candidates for popularity are waiting for it. They exhibit the same illusion, pass by the same way, obtain the same success, and are soon swallowed up in the same gulf. We had arrived at this point, in France, in Feb- ruary, 1849. "^ At this time the illusion which is the subject of this article had made more way than at any former period in the ideas of the French people, in connection with Socialist doctrines. They expected, more firmly than ever, that Gov- ernment^ under a republican form, would open in grand style the source of benefits and close that of taxation. "We have often been deceived," said the people ; "but we will see to it ourselves this time, and take care not to be deceived again % " What could the Provisional Government do ? Alas ! just that which always is done in similar * Tliis was written in 1849 168 GOVEENMENT. circumstances — make promises, and gain time. It did so, of course ; and to give its promises more weight, it announced them publicly thus : — " In- crease of prosperity, diminution of labor, assistance, credit, gratuitous instruction, agricultural colonies, cultivation of waste land, and, at the same time, reduction of the tax on salt, liquor, letters, meat ; all this shall be granted when the I^ational As- sembly meets." The National Assembly meets, and, as it is im- possible to realize two contradictory things, its task, its sad task, is to withdraw, as gently as pos- sible, one after the other, all the decrees of the Provisional Government. However, in order somewhat to mitigate the cruelty of the deception, it is found necessary to negotiate a little. Certain engagements are fulfilled, others are, in a measure, begun, and therefore the new administration is compelled to contrive some new taxes. Now, I transport myself, in thought, to a period a few months hence, and ask myself, with sorrow- ful forebodings, what will come to pass when the agents of the new Government go into the coun- try to collect new taxes upon legacies, revenues, and the profits of agricultural traffic? It is to be hoped that my presentiments may not be verified, but I foresee a difiacult part for the candidates for popularity to play. GOVEKNMENT. 169 Read the last manifesto of one of tlie political parties — which they issued on the occasion of the election of the President. It is rather long, but at lencrth it concludes with these w^ords : — " Govern- ment ought to give a great deal to the people^ and talce little from themP It is always the same tac- tics, or, rather, the same mistake. " Government is bound to give gratnitons in- struction and education to all the citizens." It is bound to give "A general and appropriate professional education, as much as possible adapted to the wants, the callings, and the capacities of each citizen." It is bound " To teach every citizen his duty to God, to man, and to himself ; to develop his senti- ments, his tendencies, and his faculties ; to teach him, in short, the scientific part of his labor ; to make him understand his own interests, and to give hira a knowledge of his rights." It is bound " To place within the reach of all, literature and the arts, the patrimony of thought, the treasures of the mind, and all those intellec- tual enjoyments which elevate and strengthen the soul." It is bound " To give compensation for every accident, from fire, inundation &c., experienced by a citizen." (The et ccetera means more than it says.) ^ 170 GOYERNMENT. It is bound " To attend to the relations of capi- tal with labor, and to become the regulator of credit." It is bound '' To afford important encourage- ment and efficient protection to agriculture." It is bound ^' To purchase railroads, canals, and mines; and, doubtless, to transact affairs with that industrial capacity which characterizes it." It is bound " To encourage useful experiments, to promote and assist them by every means likely to make them successful. As a regulator of credit, it will exercise such extensive influence over in- dustrial and agricultural associations as shall in- sure them success." Government is bound to do all this, in addition to the services to which it is already pledged ; and further, it is always to maintain a menacing attitude toward foreigners ; for, according to those who sign the programme, " Bound together by this holy union, and by the precedents of the French Kepublic, we carry our wishes and hopes beyond the boundaries which despotism has placed between nations. The rights which we desire for ourselves, we desire for all those who are oppres- sed by the yoke of tyranny ; we desire that our glorious army should still, if necessary, be the army of liberty." You see that the gentle hand of Government-— GOVERMMENT. 171 that good hand which gives and distributes, will be very busy under the government of the reform- ers. You think, perhaps, that it will be the same with the rough hand — that hand which dives into our pockets. Do not deceive yourselves. The aspirants after popularity would not know their trade, if they had not the art, when they show the gentle hand, to conceal the rough one. Their reign will assuredly be the jubilee of the tax- payers. " It is superfluities, not necessaries," they say, " which ought to be taxed." Truly, it will be a good time when the ex- chequer, for the sake of loading us with benefits, will content itself with curtailing our superfluities ! This is not all. The reformers intend that " taxation shall lose its oppressive character, and be only an act of fraternity." Good heavens ! I know it is the fashion to thrust fraternity in every- where, but I did not imagine it would ever be put into the hands of the taxrgatherer. To come to the details : — Those who sign the programme say, " We desire the immediate aboli- tion of those taxes which affect the absolute neces- saries of life, as salt, liquors, &c., &c. "The reform of the tax on landed property, customs, and patents. " Gratuitous justice — that is, the simplification 172 GOYEKNMENT. of its forms, and reduction of its expenses." (This, no doubt, has reference to stamps.) Thus, tbe tax on landed property, customs, pa- tents, stamps, salt, liquors, postage, all are included. These gentlemen have found out the secret of giving an excessive activity to the gentle hand of Government, while they entirely paralyze its rough haiid. Well, I ask the impartial reader, is it not child- ishness, and more than that, dangerous childish- ness ? Is it not inevitable that we shall have revolution after revolution, if there is a determin- ation never to stop till this contradiction is real- ized : — '' To give nothing to Government and to receive much from it ? " If the reformers were to come into power, would they not become the victims of the means which they employed to take possession of it % Citizens ! In all times, two political systems have been in existence, and each may be maintained by good reasons. According to one of them, Government ought to do much, but then it ought to take much. According to the other, this two- fold activity ought to be little felt. We have to choose between these two systems. But as re- gards the third s^^stem, which partakes of both the others, and which consists in exacting everything from Government, without giving it anything, it GOVERNMENT. 173 is cliimerical, absurd, cMldish, contradictory, and dangerous. Those who parade it, for the sake of the pleasure of accusing all Governments of weak- ness, and thus exposing them to your attacks, are only flattering and deceiving you, while they are deceiving themselves. For ourselves, we consider that Government is and ought to be nothing whatever but the united power of the people, organized, not to be an instrument of oppression and mutual plunder among citizens ; but, on the the contrary, to secure to every one his own, and to cause justice and security to reign. 174: WHAT IS MONEY? WHAT IS MOI^EY? " Hateful money ! hateful money ! " cried r , the economist, despairingly, as he came from the Committee of Finance, where a project of paper money had just been discussed. " What's the matter ? " said I. " What is the meanina: of this sudden dislike to the most ex- tolled of all the divinities of tliis world ? " ^. Hateful money ! hateful money ! JB. You alarm me. I hear peace, liberty, and life cried down, and Brutus went so far even as to say, " Yirtue ! thou art but a name ! " Eut what can have happened ? I^. Hateful money ! hateful money ! JS. Come, come, exercise a little philosophy. What has happened to you ? Has Croesus been affecting you ? Has Jones been playing you false ? or has Smith been libeling you in the papers? " i^. I have nothing to do with Croesus; my character, by its insignificance, is safe from any slanders of Smith ; and as to Jones WHAT IS MONEY? 175 B. All ! now I have it. How could I be so blind ? You, too, are the inventor of- a social re- organization — of the F- system^ in fact. Your society is to be more perfect than that of Sparta, and, therefore, all money is to be rigidly banished from it. And the thing that troubles you is, how to persuade your people to throw away the con- tents of their purses. What would you have ? This is the rock on which all reorganizers split. There is not one but would do wonders, if he could contrive to overcome all resisting influences, and if all mankind would consent to become soft wax in his fingers; but men are resolved not to be soft wax ; they listen, applaud, or reject and — go on as before. F. Tliank heaven I am still free from this fashionable mania. Instead of inventing: social laws, I am studying those which it has pleased Providence to invent, and I am delighted to find them admirable in their progressive development. This is why I exclaim, "Hateful money ! hateful money ! " B. You are a disciple of Proudhon, then % Well, there is a very simple way for you to satisfy your- self. Throw your purse into the river, only re- servino: a small draft on the Bank of Exchano-e. F. If I cry out against money, is it likely I should tolerate its deceitful substitute ? 176 WHAT IS MONEY? B. Then I have only one more guess to make. You are a new Diogenes, and are going to vic- timize me with a discourse on the contempt of riches. F. Heaven preserve me from that ! For riches, don't you see, are not a little more or a little less money. They are bread for the hungry, clothes for the naked, fuel to warm you, oil to lengthen the day, a career open to your son, a certain por- tion for your daughter, a day of rest after fatigue, a cordial for the faint, a little assistance slipped into the hand of a poor man, a shelter from the storm, a diversion for a brain worn by thought, the incomparable pleasure of making those happy who are dear to us. Kiches are instruction, inde- pendence, dignity, confidence, charity; they are progress and civilization. Riches are the ad- mirable civilizing result of two admirable agents, more civilizing even than riches themselves — ■ labor and exchange. B. Well ! now you seem to be singing the praises of riches, w^ien, a moment ago, you were loading them with imprecations ! F. Why, don't you see that it was only the whim of an economist % I cry out against money, just because everybody confounds it, as you did just now, with riches, and that this confusion is the cause of errors and calamities without number. WHAT IS MONEY? 177 I cry out against it because its function in society is not understood, and very difficult to explain. I cry out against it because it jumbles all ideas, causes the means to be taken for the end, the obstacle for the cause, the alpha for the omega ; because its presence in the world, though in itself beneficial, has, nevertheless, introduced a fatal notion, a perversion of principles, a contradictory theory, which, in a multitude of forms, has im- poverished mankind and deluged the earth with blood. I cry out against it, because I feel that I am incapable of contending against the error to which it has given birth, otherwise than by a long and fastidious dissertation to which no one would listen. Oh ! if I could only find a patient and benevolent listener ! B. Well, it shall not be said that for want of a victim you remain in the state of irritation in which you now are. I am listening ; speak, lec- ture, do not restrain yourself in any way. F, You promise to take an interest ? B. I promise to have patience. F, That is not much. B. It is all that I can give. Begin, and explain to me, at first, how a mistake on the subject of money, if mistake there be, is to be found at the root of all economical errors ? F, Well, now, is it possible that you can con- 178 WHAT IS MONEY? scientiously assure me that you have never hap- pened to confound wealth with money '^ B, I don't know ; but, after all, what would be the consequence of such a confusion % F. ^Q\X\\TLg very important. An error in your brain, which would have no influence over your actions; for you see that, with respect to labor and exchange, although there are as many opin- ions as there are heads, we all act in the same way. B. Just as we walk upon the same principle, although we are not agreed upon the theory of equilibrium and gravitation. F. Precisely. A person who argued himself into the opinion that during the night our heads and feet changed places, might write very fine books upon the subject, but still he would walk about like everybody else. B. So I think. ^Nevertheless, he would soon suffer the penalty of being too much of a logi- cian. F. In the same way, a man would die of hunger, who having decided that money is rea] w^ealth, should carry out the idea to the end. That is the reason that this theory is false, for there is no true theory but such as results from facts themselves, as manifcrited at all times, and in all places. WHAT IS MONEY? 179 B. I can understand, that practically, and under the influence of personal interest, the in- jurious effects of the erroneous action would tend to correct an error. But if that of which you speak has so little influence, why does it disturb you so mucli'^ F, Because, when a man, instead of acting for himself, decides for others, personal interest, that e\^er watchful and sensible sentinel, is no longer present to cry out, " Stop ! the responsibility is misplaced." It is Peter who is deceived, and John suffers ; the false system of the legislator necessarily becomes the rule of action of whole populations. And observe the difference. When you have money, and are very hungry, whatever your theory about money may be, what do you do \ B, I go to a baker's and buy some bread. F, You do not hesitate about using your money ? B. The only use of money is to buy what one wants. F. And if the baker should happen to be thirsty, what does he do ? B. He goes to the wine merchant's, and buys wine with the money I bave given him. F, What ! is he not afraid he shall ruin himself? B. The real ruin would be to go without eat- ing or drinking. 180 WHAT IS MONEY? F. And everybody in the world, if lie is free, acts in the same manner? B. Without a doubt. Would you have them die of hunger for the sake of laying by pence ? F. So far from it, that I consider they act wisely, and I only wish that the theory was noth- ing but the faithful image of this universal prac- tice. But, suppose now, that you were the legis- lator, the absolute king of a vast empire, where there were no gold mines. B. 1^0 unpleasant fiction. F. Suppose, again, that you were perfectly convinced of this, — that wealth consists solely and exclusively of money, to what conclusion would you come ? B. I should conclude that there was no other means for me to enrich my people, or for them to enrich themselves, but to draw away the money from other nations. F. That is to say, to impoverish them. The first conclusion, then, to which you would arrive would be this, — a nation can only gain when an- other loses. B. This axiom has the authority of Bacon and Montaigne."^ * During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries this theory was almost universally accepted in Europe. WHAT IS MONEY? 181 F, It is not the less sorrowful for that, for it implies — -that progress is impossible. Two na- tions, no more than two men, cannot prosper side bj side. B, It would seem that such is the result of this principle. F, And as all men are ambitious to enrich themselves, it follows that all are desirous, accord- ing to a law of Providence, of ruining their fel- low-creatures. B. This is not Christianity, but it is political economy. F. Such a doctrine is detestable. But, to con- tinue, I have made you an absolute king. You must not be satisfied with reasoning, you must act. There is no limit to your power. How would you treat this doctrine — wealth is money ? B, It would be my endeavor to increase, in- cessantly, among my people the quantity of money. F, But there are no mines in your kingdom. How would you set about it ? What would you do? B. I should do nothing : I should merely for- bid, on pain of death, that a single dollar should leave the country. F. And if your people should happen to be hungry as well as rich ? 182 WHAT IS MONEY? B. I^ever mind. In tlie s^^stem we are dis« cussing, to allow them to export dollars, would be to allow them to impoverish themselves. F. So that, by your own confession, you would force tliem to act upon a principle equally opposite to that upon which you would yourself act under similar circumstances. Why so? B. Just because my own hunger touches me, and the hunger of a nation does not touch legis- lators. F. Well, I can tell you that your plan would fail, and that no superintendence would be sufh- ciently vigilant, when the people were hungry, to prevent the dollars from going out and the grain from coining in. B. If so, this plan, whether erroneous or not, would effect nothing ; it would do neither good nor harm, and therefore requires no further con- sideration. F, You forget that you are a legislator. A legislator must not be disheartened at trifles^ when he is making experiments on others. The iirst measure not having succeeded, you ought to take some other means of attaining your end. B. What end ? F. You must have a bad memory. Why, that of increasing, in the midst of your people, the WHAT IS MONEY? 183 quantity of money, wliich is presumed to be true wealth. B. Ah! to be sure; I beg your pardon. But tlien you see, as they say of music, a little is enough ; and this may be said, I think, with still more reason, of political economy. I must con- sider. But really I don't know how to contrive F. Ponder it well. First, I would have you observe that your first plan solved the problem only negatively. To prevent the dollars from going out of the country is the way to prevent the wealth from diminishing, but it is not the way to increase it. B. Ah ! now I am beginning to see . . . the grain which is allowed to come in ... a bright idea strikes me . . . the contrivance is ingenious, the means infallible ; I am coming to it now. F, Kow, I, in turn, must ask you — to what ? B. Why, to a means of increasing the quantity of money. F. How would you set about it, if j^ou please \ B. Is it not evident that if the heap of money is to be constantly increasing, the first condition is that none must be taken from it ? F. Certainly. B. And the second, that additions must con- stantly be made to it ? F. To be sure. 184 WHAT IS MONEY? B. Then tlie problem will be solved, either negatively or positively ; if on the one hand I pre- vent the foreigner from taking from it, and on the other I oblige him to add to it. F. Eetter and better. B, And for this there mnst be two simple laws made, in which money will not even be mentioned. Ey the one, my subjects will be forbidden to bny anything abroad ; and by the other, they will be required to sell a great deal. F. A well-advised plan. B. Is it new % I must take out a patent for the invention. F. You need do no such thing ; you have been forestalled. But you must take care of one thing. B, What is that? F. I have made you an absolute king. I un- derstand that you are going to prevent your sub- jects from buying foreign productions. It will be enough if you prevent them from entering the country. Thirty or forty thousand custom-house officers will do the business. B. It would be rather expensive. But what does that signify ? The money they receive will not go out of the country. F. True ; and in this system it is the grand point. But to insure a sale abroad, how would you proceed ? WHAT IS MONEY? 185 B. T should encourage it by prizes, obtained by means of some good taxes laid upon my people. F. In this case, the exporters, constrained by competition among themselves, would lower their prices in proportion, and it would be like making a present to the foreigner of the prizes or of the taxes. B, Still, the money would not go out of the country. F, Of course. That is understood. But if your system is beneficial, the governments of other countries will adopt it. They will make similar plans to yours ; they will have their custom-house officers, and reject your productions ; so that with them, as with you, the heap of money may not be diminished. B, I shall have an army and force their barriers. ■ F. They will have an army and force yours. B, I shall arm vessels, make conquests, acquire colonies, and create consumers for my people, who will be obliged to eat our corn and drink our wine. F. The other governments will do the same. They will dispute your conquests, your colonies, and your consumers ; then on all sides there will be war, and all will be uproar. B. I shall raise my taxes, and increase my custom-house officers, my army, and my navy. 186 WHAT IS MONEY? F. The others will do the same. B. I shall redouble my exertions. F. The others will redouble theirs. In the meantime, we have no proof that you would suc- ceed in selling to a great extent. B, It is but too true. It would be well if the commercial efforts would neutralize each other. F. And the military efforts also. And, tell me, are not these custom-house officers, soldiers, and vessels, these oppressive taxes, this perpetual struggle towards an impossible result, this perma- nent state of open or secret war with the whole w^orld, are they not the logical and inevitable con- sequence of the legislators having adopted an idea, which you admit is acted upon by no man who is his own master, that "wealth is money; and to increase the amount of money is to increase wealth ? " B. I grant it. Either the axiom is true, and then the legislator ought to act as I have described, although universal war should be the consequence ; or it is false ; and in this case men, in destroying each other, only ruin themselves. F. And, remember, that before you became a king, this same axiom had led you by a logical process to the following maxims: — That which one gains, another loses. The proiit of one is the WHAT IS MONEY? 187 loss of the other : — which maxims imply an un- avoidable antagonism amongst all men. B. It is only too certain. Whether I am a philosopher or a legislator, whether I reason or act upon the principle that money is wealth, I always arrive at one conclusion, or one result : — ■ universal war. It is well that you pointed out the consequences before beginning a discussion upon it ; otherwise, I should never have had the courage to follow you to the end of your economical dis- sertation, for, to tell you the truth, it is not much to my taste. F. What do you mean? I was just thinking of it when you heard me grumbling against money ! I was lamenting that my countrymen have not the courage to study what it is so impor- tant that they should know. B. And yet the consequences are friglitful. F. The consequences ! As yet I have only mentioned one. I might have told you of others still more fatal. B. You make my hair stand on end ! Wliat other evils can have been caused to mankind by this confusion between monev and wealth ? F. It would take me a long time to enumerate them. This doctrine is one of a very numerous family. The eldest, whose acquaintance we have just made, is called the prohihitwe system ^ the 188 WHAT IS MONEY? next, tlie colonial system ^ the third, hatred of capital j the last and i^ov^t, paper money. B. What ! does paper money proceed from the same error ? F. Yes, directly. When legislators, after hav- ing ruined men by war and taxes, persevere in their idea, they say to themselves, " If the people suffer, it is because there is not money enough. We must make some." And as it is not easy to multiply the precious metals, especially when the pretended resources of prohibition have been ex- hausted, they add, " We will make fictitious money, nothing is more easy, and then every citizen will have his pocket-book full of it, and they will all be rich." B. In fact, this proceeding is more expeditious than the other, and then it does not lead to foreign war. F, ITo, but it leads to civil disaster. B. You are a grumbler. Make haste and dive to the bottom of the question. I am quite impa- tient, for the first time, to know if money (or its sign) is wealth. F. You will grant that men do not satisfy any of their wants immediately with coined dollars, or dollar bills. If they are hungry, they want bread ; if naked, clothing ; if they are ill, they must have remedies ; if they are cold, they want shelter and WHAT IS MONEY? 189 f ueJ ; if they would learn, tliej must have books ; if they would travel, they must have conveyances — • and so on. The riches of a country consist in the abundance and proper distribution of all these things. Hence you may perceive and rejoice at the falseness of this gloomy maxim of Bacon's, " What onepeople gains, another necessarily loses : " a maxim expressed in a still more discouraging manner by Montaigne, in these words : " The pro- fit of one is the loss of another ^ When Shem, Ham, and Japhet divided amongst themselves the vast solitudes of this earth, they surely might each of them build, drain, sow, reap, and obtain im- proved lodging, food and clothing, and better in- struction, perfect and enrich themselves — in short, increase their enjoyments, without causing a nec- essary diminution in the corresponding enjoyments of their brothers. It is the same with two nations. . £. There is no doubt that two nations, the same as two men, unconnected with each other, may, by working more, and working better, pros- per at the same time, without injuring each other. It is not this which is denied by the axioms of Montaigne and Bacon. They only mean to say, that in the transactions which take place between two nations or two men, if one gains, the other must lose. And this is self-evident, as exchange adds nothing by itself to the mass of those useful 190 WHAT IS MONEY? things of which you were speaking ; for if, after the exchange, one of the parties is found to have gained something, the other will, of course, be found to have lost something. F. You have formed a very incomplete, na_y, a false idea of exchange. If Shem is located upon a plain which is fertile in corn, Japhet upon a slope adapted for growing the vine. Ham upon a rich pasturage — the distinction of their occupa- tions, far from hurting any of them, might cause all three to prosper more. It must be so, in fact, for the distribution of labor, introduced by ex- change, will have the effect of increasing the mass of corn, wine, and meat which is produced, and which is to be shared. How can it be otherwise, if you allow liberty in these transactions? From the moment that any one of the brothers should perceive that labor in company, as it were, was a permanent loss, compared to solitary labor, he would cease to exchange. Exchange brings with it its claim to our gratitude. The fact of its being ac- complished proves that it is a good thing. B. But Bacon's axiom is true in the case of gold and silver. If we admit that at a certain mo- ment there exists in the world a given quantity, it is perfectly clear that one purse cannot be filled without another being emptied. F. And if gold is considered to be riches, the WHA.T IS MONEY? 191 natural conclusion is, that displacements of fortune take place among men, but no general progress. It is just what I said when I began. If, on the contrary, you look upon an abundance of useful things, tit for satisfying our wants and our tastes, as true riches, you will see that simultaneous pros- perity is possible. Money serv^es only to facilitate the transmission of these useful things from one to another, w^hich may be done equally well with an ounce of rare metal like gold, with a pound of more abundant material as silver, or with a hun- dredweight of still more abundant metal, as copper. According to that, if a country like the United States had at its disposal as much again of all these useful things, its people would be twice as rich, although the quantity of money remained the same ; but it would not be the same if there were double the money, for in that case the amount of useful things would not increase. B, The question to be decided is, whether the presence of a greater number of dollars has not the effect, precisely, of augmenting the sum of useful thino-s ? F. What connection can there be between these two terms? Food, clothing, houses, fuel, all come from nature and from labor, from more or less skillful labor exerted upon a more or less liberal nature. 192 WHAT IS MONEY? B, You are forgetting one great force, whicli is — exchange. If you acknowledge that this is a force, as jou have admitted that dollars facilitate it, you must also allow that they have an indirect powder of production. F. But I have added, that a small quantity of rare metal facilitates transactions as much as a large quantity of abundant metal ; whence it fol- lows, that a people is not enriched by being /brc^^Z to give up useful things for the sake of having more money. B. Thus, it is your opinion that the treasures discovered in California will not increase the wealth of the world ? F. I do not believe that, on the whole, they will add much to the enjoyments, to the real satisfac- tions of mankind. If the Californian gold merely replaces in the world that which has been lost and destroyed, it may have its use. If it increases the amount of money, it will depreciate it. The gold diggers will be richer than they would have been without it. But those in whose possession the gold is at the moment of its depreciation, will ob- tain a smaller gratification for the same amount. I cannot look upon this as an increase, but as a dis- placement of true riches, as I have defined them. B, All that is very plausible. But you will not easily convince me that I am not richer (all WHAT IS MONEY? 193 olher things being equal) if I have two dollars, than if I had only one. F. I do not deny it. £. And what is true of me is true of my neighbor, and of the neighbor of my neighbor, and so on, from one to another, all over the coun- try. Therefore, if every citizen of the United States has more dollars, the United States must be more rich. F. And here you fall into the common mistake of concluding that what affects one affects all, and thus confusing the individual with the general interest. B. Why, what can be more conclusive ? What is true of one, must be so of all. What are all, but a collection of individuals ? You might as well tell me that every American could suddenly grow an inch taller, without the average height of all the Americans being increased. F. Your reasoning is apparently sound, I grant you, and that is why the allusion it conceals is so common. However, let us examine it a little. Ten persons were at play. For greater ease, they had adopted the plan of each taking ten counters, and against these they each placed a hundred dollars under a candlestick, so that each counter corresponded to ten dollars. After the game the winnings were adjusted, and the players 9 194: WHAT IS MONEY? drew from tlie candlestick as many ten dollars as would represent the nmnber of counters. Seeing this, one of tliem, a great arithmetician perhaps, but an indifferent reasoner, said : " Gentlemen, experience invariably teaches me that, at the end of the game, I find myself a gainer in proportion to the number of my counters. Have you not observed the same with regard to yourselves ? Thus, what is true of me must be true of each of vou, and lohat is true of each must he triie of all. We should, therefore, all of us gain more, at the end of the game, if we all had more counters. Now, nothing can be easier ; we have only to dis- tribute twice the number of counters." This was done ; but when the game was finished, and they came to adjust the winnings, it was found that the one thousand under the candlestick had not been miraculously multiplied, according to the general expectation. They had to be divided accordingly, and the only result obtained (chimerical enough) was this; — everyone had, it is true, his double number of counters, but every counter, instead of corresponding to ten dollars, only represented ^y^. Thus it was clearly shown that what is true of each is not always true of all. B. I see ; you are supposing a general increase of counters, without a corresponding increase of the sum placed under the candlestick. WHAT IS MONEY? 195 F, And you are supposing a general increase of dollars, without a corresponding increase of things, the exchange of which is facilitated by these dol- lars. B. Do you compare the dollars to counters ? F, In any other point of view, certainly not ; but in the case you place before me, and which I have to argue against, I do. Kemark one thing. In order that there be a general increase of dollars in a country, this country must have mines, or its commerce must be such as to give useful things in exchange for money. Apart from these two circumstances, a universal increase is impossible, the dollars only changing hands ; and in this case, although it may be very true that each one, taken individually, is richer in proportion to the number of dollars that he has, we cannot draw the infer- ence which you drew just now, because a dollar more in one purse implies necessarily a dollar less in some other. It is the same as with your com- parison of the middle height. If each of us grew only at the expense of others, it would be very true of each, taken individually, that he would be a taller man if he had the chance, but this would never be true of the whole taken collectively. £, Be it so : but, in the two suppositions that you have made, the increase is real, and you must allow that I am right. 196 WHAT IS MONEY? F. To a certain point, gold and silver have a value. To obtain this value, men consent to give other useful things which have a value also. "When, therefore, there are mines in a country, if that country obtains from them sufficient gold to purchase a useful thing from abroad — a locomo- tive, for instance — it enriches itself with all the enjoyments which a locomotive can procure, ex- actly as if the machine had been made at home. The question is, whether it spends more efforts in the former proceeding than in the latter % For if it did not export this gold, it would depreciate, and something worse would happen than what did sometimes happen in California and in Australia, for there, at least, the precious metals are used to buy useful things made elsewhere. Nevertheless, there is still a danger that they may starve on heaps of gold ; as it would be if the law prohibited the exportation of gold. As to the second supposition — that of the gold which we obtain by trade : it is an advantage, or the reverse, according as the country stands more or less in need of it, compared to its wants of the useful things which must be given up in order to obtain it. It is not for the law to judge of this, but for those who are concerned in it ; for if the law should start upon this principle, that gold is pre- ferable to useful things, whatever may be their WHAT IS MONEY? 197 value, and if it should act effectually in this sense, it would tend to put every country adopting the law in the curious position of having a great deal of cash to spend, and nothing to buy. It is the very same system which is represented by Midas, who turned everything he touched into gold, and was in consequence in danger of dying of starva- tion. B, The gold which is imported implies that a useful tiling is ^a^ported, and in this respect there is a satisfaction withdrawn from the country. But is there not a corresponding benefit ? And will not this gold be the source of a number of new satisfactions, by circulating from hand to hand, and inciting to labor and industry, nntil at length it leaves the country in its turn, and causes the importation of some useful thing ? F. I^ow you have come to the heart of the question. Is it true that a dollar is the principle which causes the production of all the objects whose exchange it facilitates? It is very clear that a piece of coined gold or silver stamped as a dollar is only worth a dollar ; but we are led to believe that this value has a particular character : that it is not consumed like other things, or that it is exhausted very gradually; that it renews itself, as it were, in each transaction ; and that, finally this particular dollar has been worth a 198 WHAT IS MONEY? dollar, as many times as it has accomplished trans- actions — that it is of itself worth all the things for which it has been snccessively exchanged ; and this is believed, because it is supposed that without this dollar these things would never have been produced. It is said the shoemaker would have sold fewer shoes, consequently he would have bought less of the butcher ; the butcher would not have gone so often to the grocer, the grocer to the doctor, the doctor to the lawyer, and so on. B. ISTo one can dispute that. F. This is the time, then, to analj^ze the true function of money, independently of mines and importations. You have a dollar. What does it imply in your hands ? It is, as it were, the wit- ness and proof that you have, at some time or other, performed some labor, which, instead of turning to your advantage, you have bestowed upon society as represented by the person of your client (employer or debtor). This coin testifies that 3^ou have performed a service for society, and, moreover, it shows the value of it. It bears witness, besides, that you have not yet ob- tained from society a real equivalent service, to which you have a right. To place you in a con- dition to exercise this right, at the time and in the manner you please, society, as represented by WHAT IS MONEY? 199 your client, lias given you an acknowledgment, a title, a privilege from the republic, a counter, a title to a dollar's wortli of property in fact, wliich only differs from executive titles by bearing its value in itself ; and if you are able to read with your mind's eye the inscriptions stamped upon it you will distinctly decipher these words : —''Pay the hearer a service equivalent to what he has rendered to society, the value received heing shown, proved, and measured hy that which is represented hy ??^e." Now, you give up your dollar to me. Either my title to it is gratuitous, or it is a claim. If you give it me as payment for a service, the following is the result : — your account with society for real satisfactions is regu- lated, balanced, and closed. You had rendered it a service for a dollar, you now restore the dollar for a service ; as far as you are concerned you are clear. As for me, I am just in the position in which you were just now. It is I who am now in advance to society for the service which I have just rendered it in your person. I am become its creditor for the value of the labor which I have performed for you, and which I might devote to myself. It is into my hands, then, that the title of this credit — the proof of this social debt — ought to pass. You cannot say that I am any richer ; if I am entitled to receive, it is because 200 WHAT IS MONEY? I have given. Still less can you say tliat society is a dollar richer, because one of its members has a dollar more, and another has one less. For if you let me have this dollar gratis, it is certain that I shall be so much the richer, but you will be so much the poorer for it ; and the social fortune, taken in a mass, will have undergone no change, because as I have already said, this fortune con- sists in real services, in effective satisfactions, in useful things. You were a creditor to society ; you made me a substitute to your rights, and it signifies little to society, which owes a service, whether it pays the debt to you or to me. This is discharged as soon as the bearer of the claim is paid. JB. But if we all had a great number of dollars we should obtain from society many services. Would not that he very desirable ? F. You forget that in the process which I have described, and which is a picture of the reality, we only obtain services from society because we have bestowed some upon it. Whoever speaks of a service^ speaks, at the same time of a service received and returned, for these two terms im- ply each other, so that the one must always be balanced by the other. It is impossible for society to render more services than it receives, and yet a belief to the contrary is the chimera WHAT IS MONEY? 201 which is being pursued by means of tbe multipli- cation of coins, of paper money, etc. B. All that appears very reasonable in theory, but in practice I cannot help thinking, when I see how things go, that if, by some fortunate cir- cumstance, the number of dollars could be multi- plied in such a way that each of us could see his little property doubled, we should all be more at our ease ; we should all make more purchases, and trade would receive a powerful stimulus. F. More purchases ! and what should we buy ? Doubtless, useful articles — things likely to pro- cure for us substantial gratification — such as pro- visions, stuffs, houses, books, pictures.' You should begin, then, by proving that all these things create themselves ; j^ou must suppose the Mint melting ingots of gold which have fallen from the moon ; or that the printing presses be put in action at the Treasury Department ; for you cannot reasonably think that if the quantity of corn, cloth, ships, hats, and shoes remains the same, the share of eacli of us can be greater, because we eacli go to market with a greater amount of real or fictitious money. Remember the players. In the social order the useful things are what the workers place under the candlestick, and the dollars which circulate from hand to hand are the counters. If you multiply the 202 WHAT IS MONEY? dollars without multiplying the useful things, the only result will be that more dollars will be required for each exchange, just as the players required more counters for each deposit. You have the j)roof of this in what passes for gold, silver, and copper. Why does the same exchange require more copper than silver, more silver tlian gold? Is it not because these metals are dis- tributed in the world in different proportions? "What reason have you to suppose that if gold were suddenly to become as abundant as silver, it would not require as much of one as of the other to buy a house ? B. You may be right, but I should prefer your being wrong. In the midst of the sufferings wdiich surround us, so distressing in themselves, and so dangerous in their consequences, 1 have found some consolation in thinking that there was an easy method of making all the members of the community happy. F. Even if gold and silver were true riches, it would be no easy matter to increase the amount of them in a country where there are no mines. B. ]N^o, but it is easy to substitute something else. I agree with you that gold and silver can do but little service, except as a mere means of exchange. It is the same with paper money, bank-notes^ etc. Then, if we had all of us plenty i WHAT IS MONEY? 203 of tlie latter, wliicli it is so easy to create, we might all buy a great deal, and should want for nothing.* Your cruel theory dissipates hopes, illusions, if you will, whose principle is assuredly very philanthropic. F. Yes, like all other barren dreams formed to promote universal felicity. The extreme facility * Stated in tlie abstract, these views, wliicli M. Bastiat causes liis imaginary advocate of the issue and use of irre- deemable paper money to express, seem so absurd, that one reading involuntarily asks himself : "Do people in actual life, holding important positions of trust and influence really ever thus talk and believe?" To this the answer, unfor- tunately, must be in the affirmative. The legislative history of all countries is full of examples of such utterances ; and that of the United States, especially, abounds with them, Pelatiah Webster, in his history of " Continental Money," tells us that when the subject of increased taxation for the support of the war was under consideration by the Continen- tal Congress, a member arose and indignantly asked, "if he was expected to help tax people, when they could go to the printing-office and get money by the cart load." During the debates in the Senate of the United States in 1875, the Hon. 0. P. Morton, a senator from Indiana, a man whom no small number of people have thought worthy of being called to the Executive chair of the nation, authorita- tively laid down this proposition : " That an abundance of money" (meaning irredeemable paper money) " does produce enterprise, prosperity, and progress; that ichen money was plentiful interest would he lower," just as when horses and hogs are abundant, horses and hogs are cheap. The trouble 204: WHAT IS MONEY? of tlie means wbicli you recommend is quite suf- jficient to expose its liollowness. Do you believe that if it were merely needful to print bank-notes in order to satisfy all our wants, our tastes, and desires, that mankind would have been contented to go on till now without having recourse to this plan ? I agree with you that the discovery is tempting. It would immediately banish from the w^orld, not only plunder, in its diversified and de- plorable forms, but even labor itself, except in the ISTational Printing Bureau. Eut we have yet to learn how greenbacks are to purchase houses, which no one would have built ; corn, which no one would have raised ; stuffs, which no one would have taken the trouble to weave. J^. One thing strikes me in your argument. You say yourself that if there is no gain, at any rate there is no loss in multiplying the instrument of exchange, as is seen by the instance of the players, who were quits by a very mild deception. Why, then, refuse the philosopher's stone, which liere was that this senator had not sufficiently comprehended the a, b, c's of finance, to appreciate the difference between capital and currency ; and in the simplicity of his heart im agined that it was all the same whether we had pictures of horses, hogs, and money, or real horses, hogs, and money, which represent, and are only produced by labor. — Robinson Crusoe's Money, p. 110. WHAT IS MONEY? 205 would teacli us the secret of changing base mate- rial into gold, or what is the same thing, converting paper into money ? Are you so blindly wedded to your logic, that you would refuse to try an experi- ment where there can be.no risk ? If you are mis- taken, you are depriving the nation, as your nu- merous adversaries believe, of an immense advan- tage. If the error is on their side, no harm can result, as you yourself say, beyond the failure of a hope. The measure, excellent in their opinion, in yoars is merely negative. Let it be tried, then, since the worst which can happen is not the realization of an evil, but the non-realization of a benefit. F. In the first place, the failure of a hope is a very great misfortune to any people. It is also very undesirable that the government should announce the abolition of several taxes on the faith of a resource which must infallibly fail. ]S^evertheless, your remark would desers^e some consideration, if, after the issue of paper money and its depreciation, the equilibrium of values should instantly and simultaneously take place in all things and in every part of the country. The measure would tend, as in my example of the players, to a universal mystification, in respect to which the best thing we could do would be to look at one another and laugh. But this is not 206 WHAT IS MONEY? in the course of events. The experiment has been made, and every time a fi^overnment — be it King or Congress — lias altered the money ... M. Who sa_ys anything about altering the moneji ¥. Why, to force people to take in payment scraps of paper which have been officially baptized dollars^ or to force them to receive, as weighing an onnce, a piece of silver which weighs only lialf an ounce, but which has been officially named a dollar^ is the same thing, if not worse ; and all the reasoning w^hich can be made in favor of pa- per money has been made in favor of legal false- coined money. Certainly, looking at it, as you did just now, and as you appear to be doing still, if it is believed that to multiply the instruments of exchange is to multiply the exchanges them- selves as well as the things exchanged, it might very reasonably be thought that the most simple means was to mechanically divide the coined dol- lar, and to cause the law to give to the half the name and value of the whole. Well, in both cases, depreciation is inevitable. I think I have told you the cause. I must also inform you, that this depreciation, which, with paper, might go on till it came to nothing, is effected by continu- ally making dupes ; and of these, poor people, simple persons, workmen and countrymen are the chief. WHAT IS MONET? 207 B, I see ; but stop a little. This dose of Eco- nomy is ]-atliei* too strong for once. F, Be it so. We are agreed, then, upon this point — that wealth is the mass of nsefnl things which we produce by labor; or, still better, the result of all the efforts which we make for the satisfaction of our wants and tastes. These useful things are exchanged for each other, accord- ing to the convenience of those to whom they be- long. There are two forms in these transactions ; one is called barter : in this case a service is rendered for the sake of receiving an equivalent service im- mediately. In this form transactions would be exceedingly limited. In order that they may be multiplied, and accomplished independently of time and space amongst persons unknown to each other, and by infinite fractions, an intermediate agent has been necessary — this is money. It gives occasion for exchange, which is nothing else but a complicated bargain. This is what has to be remarked and understood. Exchange decomposes itself into two bargains, into two departments, sale and purchase — the reunion of which is needed to complete it. You sell a service, and receive a dollar — then, with this dollar you huy a service. Then only is the bargain complete ; it is not till then that your effort has been followed by a real satisfaction. Evidently you only work to satisfy 208 WHAT IS MONEY? the wants of others, that others may work to satisfy yours. So long as you have only the dol- hir which has been given you for your work, you are only entitled to claim the work of another person. When you have done so, the economical evolution will be accomplished as far as you are concerned, since you will then only have obtained, by a real satisfaction, the true reward for your trouble. The idea of a bargain implies a service rendered, and a service received. Why should it not be the same with exchange, which is merely a bargain in two parts ? And here there are two observations to be made. First — It is a very un- important circumstance whether there be much or little money in the world. If there is much, much is required ; if there is little, little is wanted, for each transaction: that is ali. The second ob- servation is this : — Because it is seen that money always reappears in every exchange, it has come to be regarded as the sign and the measure of the things exchanged. B. Will you still deny that money is the sig7i of the useful things of which you speak? F, A half -eagle is no more the sign of a barrel of flour, than a barrel of flour is the sign of a half-eagle. B. What harm is there in looking at money as the sign of wealth ? F. The inconvenience is this — ^it leads to the WHAT IS MONEY? ' 209 idea tliat we have only to increase tlie sign, in order to increase the things signified; and we are in danger of adopting all the false measures which you took when I made you an absolute king. We should go still further. Just as in money we see the sign of w^ealth, we see also in paper money the sign of money ; and thence conclude that there is a very easy and simple method of procuring for everybody the pleasures of fortune. £. But you will not go so far as to dispute that money is the measure of values ? F. Yes, certainly, I do go as far as that, for that is precisely where the illusion lies. It has become customary to refer the value of everything to that of money. It is said, this is worth five, ten, or twenty dollars, as we say this weighs five, ten, or twenty grains; this measures five, ten, or twenty yards; this ground contains five, ten, or twenty acres ; and hence it has been concluded that money is the measure of values. B. Well, it appears as if it was so. F. Yes, it appears so, and it is this appearance 1 complain of, and not of the reality. A measure of length, size, surface, is a quantity agreed upon, and unchangeable. It is not so with the value of gold and silver. This varies as much as that of corn, wine, cloth, or labor, and from the same causes, for it has the same source and obeys the 210 WHAT IS MONEY? same laws. Gold is brought within our reach, just like iron, by tlie labor of miners, the advances of capitalists, and the combination of merchants and seamen. It costs more or less, according to the expense of its production, according to whether there is much^or little in the market, and whether it is much or little in request ; in a word, it under- goes the fluctuations of all other human produc- tions. But one circumstance is singular, and gives rise to many mistakes. When the value of money varies, the variation is attributed bj language to the other productions for which it is exchanged. Thus, let us suppose that all the circumstances re- lative to gold remain the same, and that the corn harvest has failed. The price of corn will rise. It will be said, " The barrel of flour, which was w^orth five dollars, is now worth eight ; " and this will be correct, for it is the value of the flour which has varied, and language agrees with the fact. But let us reverse the supposition: let us suppose that all the circumstances relative to flour remain the same, and that half of all tlie gold in existence is swallowed up ; tliis time it is the price of gold which will rise. It would seem that we ought to say, " This half -eagle, which was worth ten dol- lars, is now worth twenty." Now, do you know how this is expressed ? Just as if it was the other objects of comparison which had fallen in price, WHAT IS MONEY? 211 it is said — " Flour, wliich was worth ten dollars, is now only worth five." S. It all comes to the same thing in the end. F. 1^0 doubt ; but only think what distur- bances, what cheatings are produced in exchanges, when the value of the medium varies, without our becoming aware of it by a change in the name. Old pieces are issued, or notes bearing the name of five dollars, and which will bear that name through every subsequent depreciation. The value will be reduced a quarter, a half, but they will still be called pieces or notes of five dollars. Clever persons will take care not to part with their goods unless for a larger number of notes — in other words, they will ask ten dollars for what they would formerly have sold for five ; but simple persons will be taken in. Many years must pass before all the values will find their proper level. Under the influence of ignorance and custom, the da3^'s pay of a country laborer will remain for a long time at a dollar while the salable price of all the articles of consumption around him will be rising. He will sink into des- titution without being able to discover the cause. In short, since you wish me to finish, I must beg you, before we separate, to fix your whole atten- tion upon this essential point : — When once false money (under whatever form it may take) is put 212 WHAT IS MONEY? into circulation, depreciation will ensue, and manifest itself by the universal rise of every thing which is capable of being sold. But this rise in prices is not instantaneous and equal for all things. Sharp men, brokers, and men of business, will not suffer by it ; for it is their trade to watch the fluctuations of prices, to observe the cause, and even to speculate upon it. Bat little tradesmen, countrymen, and workmen will bear the whole weight of it. The rich man is not any the richer for it, but the poor man becomes poorer by it. Therefore, expedients of this kind have the effect of increasing the distance which separates wealth from poverty, of paralyzing the social tendencies which are incessantly bringing men to the same level, and it will require centuries for the suffering classes to re:2:ain the ground w^hich they have lost in their advance towards equality of condition.^ * Altliougli to all wlio have investigated the subject the evidence is conclusive that an irredeemable fluctuating paper money is always made an agency for taxing with special severity all that class of consumers who live on fixed incomes, salaries, and wages, it has, nevertheless, always been a somewhat difficult matter to find illustrations of the fact so clear and simple as to carry conviction by presenta- tion that it does thus act to the classes most interested. With a view of obtaining such an illustration, application WHAT IS MONEY? 213 B. Good morning; I shall go and meditate upon, the lecture you have been giving me. F. Have you finished your own dissertation ? As for me, I have scarcely begun mine. I have not yet spoken of the popular hatred of capital, of gratuitous credit (loans without interest) — a most unfortunate notion, a deplorable mistake, which takes its rise from the same source. JB. What ! does this frightful commotion of the populace against capitalists arise from money being confounded w^ith wealtli ? F. It is the result of different causes. Unfor- tunately, certain capitalists have arrogated to themselves monopolies and privileges which are quite sufficient to account for this feeling. But when the theorists of democracy have wished to justify it, to systematize it, to give it the appear- ance of a reasonable opinion, and to turn it against the very nature of capital, they have had was made some some montlis since to an eminent American merchant (A, T. Stewart), whose large and varied experience abundantly qualified him to discuss the subject; and the re- sult of the application may be thus stated : Q. In buying in gold and selling in currency, what addi- tion do you make to your selling price, in the way of insur- ance, that the currency received will be sufficient — plus pro- fit, interest, etc. — to replace or buy back the gold repre- sented by the original purchase ? 214 WHAT IS MONEY? recourse to that false political economy at whose root tlie same confusion is always to be found. They have said to the people : — " Take a dollar ; put it under a glass ; forget it for a year ; then go and look at it, and you will be convinced that it has not produced ten cents, nor five cents, nor any A. We do but very little of th.at now ; hardly enough to speak about. Q. But still you make insurance against currency fluctua- tions an item in your business to be regarded to some ex- tent. A. Why, yes, certainly ; it won't do to overlook it en- tirely. Q. Well, then, if you have no objections, please tell me what you do allow under existing circumstances ? A. I have certainly no objections. We buy closely for cash ; sell largely for cash, or very short credit ; and, within the comparatively narrow limits that currency has fluctuated for the last two or three years, add but little to our selling prices as insurance on that account, say one or two per cent. for cash, or three months* credit ; and for a longer credit — if we give it — something additional. During or immedi- ately after the war, when the currency fluctuations were more extensive, frequent, and capricious, the case was very different. Then selling prices had to be watched very closely, and changed very frequently, sometimes daily. My present experience, therefore, is exceptional ; and to get the information you want, you must look further. I think I can help you to do this. We buy regularly large quantities of a foreign product, let us suppose, for illustration, cloths, for the large manufacturers and dealers in ready-made clothing. We buy for gold, and we sell for gold, and do not allow the WHAT IS MONEY? 215 fraction of a cent. Therefore, money produces no interest." Then, substituting for the word monej^, its pretended sign, capital, ^^^^J have made it by their logic undergo this modification — " Then capital produces no interest." Then fol- lows this series of consequences — " Therefore he currency or its fluctuations to enter in any way into these transactions. But how is it with my customers ? I allow them some credit ; and the amount involv^ed being often very large, T, of course, must know something of the way in which they manage their business. They transform the cloth purchased with gold into clothing, and then sell the clothing, in turn, to their customers, jobbers and retailers, all over the country, for currency, on a much longer average credit than they obtain from me for their raw material. As a matter of safety and necessity these wholesale dealers and manufacturers must add to their selling prices a sufficient percentage to make sure that the currency they are to re- ceive at the end of three, six, or nine months will be suffi- cient to buy them as much gold as they have paid to me, or as much as will buy them another lot of cloth to meet the further demands of their business and their customers. How much they thus add I cannot definitely say. There is no regular rule. Every man doubtless adds all that compe- tition will permit ; and every circumstance likely to affect the prospective price of gold is carefully considered. Five per cent., in my opinion, on a credit of three months, would be the average minimum ; and for a longer time, a larger per- centage. If competition does not allow any insurance per- centage to be added there is a liability to a loss of capital, which in the long run may be most disastrous, a circum- stance that may explain the wreck of many firms, whos6 216 WHAT IS MONEY? who lends a capital ought to obtain nothing from it ; therefore he who lends you a capital, if he gains something by it, is robbing you ; there- fore all capitalists are robbers ; therefore wealth, which ought to serve gratuitously those Avho bor- row it, belongs in reality to those to whom it does not belong ; therefore there is no such thing as property, therefore everything belongs to everybody ; therefore . . . . " managers, on tlie old-fasliioned basis of doing business, would bave been successful. Tlie jobbers and tlie re- tailers, to whom the wholesale dealers and manufacturers sell, are not so likely to take currency insurance into con- sideration in fixing their selling prices ; but to whatever amount the cost price of their goods has been enhanced by the necessity of insurance against currency fluctuations, on that same amount they estimate and add for interest and profits ; the total enhancement of prices falling ultimately on the consumer, who, of necessity, can rarely know the elements of the cost of the article he purchases. Q. So Mr. Webster, then, in his remark, which has become almost a proverb, that " of all contrivances for clieating the laboring classes, none has been more effectual than that which deludes them with paper money," must have been thoroupfhly cognizant of the nature of such transactions ? A. Most undoubtedly ; for such transactions are the in- evitable consequence of using as a medium of exchange a variable, irredeemable currency. The illustration above given, therefore, in the place of being imaginary, is based on the actual condition of busi- ness at the present time, January, 1876. — Note from Robin- son Crusoe's Money, by David A. Wells. WHAT IS MONEY? 217 B, This is very serious ; the more so, from the syllogism being so admirahly formed. I should very much like to be enlightened on the subject. But, alas ! I can no longer command my atten- tion. There is such a confusion in my head of the words coin^ unoney^ services^ capital^ interest^ that really I hardly know where I am. We will, if you please, resume the conversation ano- ther day. F. In the meantime liere is a little work entitled Capital and Hent. It may perhaps re- move some of your doubts. Just look at it when you are in want of a little amusement. B. To amuse me ? F. Who knows ? One nail drives in another ; one wearisome thing drives away another. B. I have not yet made up my mind that your views upon money and political economy in gen- eral are correct. But, from your conversation, this is what I have gathered : — That these ques- tions are of the highest importance ; for peace or war, order or anarchy, the union or the antagon- ism of citizens, are at the root of the answer to them. How is it that in France and most other countries which regard themselves as highly civil- ized, a science which concerns us all so nearly, and the diffusion of which would have so decisive an influence upon the fate of mankind, is so little 10 218 WHAT IS MONEY? known? Is it that the State does not teach it sufficiently ? F. JSTot exactly. For, without knowing it, the State applies itself to loading everybody's brain with prejudices, and everybody's heart with senti- ments favorable to the spirit of anarchy, war, and hatred ; so that, when a doctrine of order, peace, and union presents itself, it is in vain that it has clearness and truth on its side, — it cannot gain ad- mittance. B, Decidedly you are a frightful grumbler. What interest can the State have in mystifying people's intellects in favor of revolutions, and civil and foreign wars ? There must certainly be a great deal of exaggeration in what you say. F, Consider. At the period wdien our intel- lectual faculties begin to develop themselves, at the age when impressions are liveliest, when habits of mind are formed w^th the greatest ease — when we might look at society and understand it — in a word, as soon as we are seven or eight years old, what does the State do ? It puts a bandage over our eyes, takes us gentl}^ from the midst of the social circle which snrrounds us, to plunge us, with our susceptible faculties, our im- pressible hearts, into the midst of Koman society. It keeps us there for ten years at least, long enough to make an ineffaceable impression on WHAT IS MONEY? 219 tl'ie brain. !N'ow observe, that Eoman society is directly opposed to what our society ongbt to be. There they lived upon war ; liere w^e ought to hate war ; there they hated labor ; here w^e ought to live upon labor. There the means of subsistence were founded upon slavery and plunder; here they should be drawn from free industry. Roman society was organized in consequence of its prin- ciple. It necessarily admired what made it prosper. There they considered as virtue what we look upon as vice. Its poets and historians had to exalt what we ought to despise. The very words liberty, order, justice, jpeoj^le, honor, in- Hiience, etc., could not have the same signification at Home, as they have, or ought to have, at Paris. How can you expect that all these youths who liave been at university or conventual schools, wdth Livy and Quintus Curtius for their cat- echism, wiil not understand liberty like the Gracchi, virtue like Cato, patriotism like Caesar? How can you expect them not to be factious and w^arlike ? How can you expect them to take the slightest interest in the mechanism of our social order? Do you think that their minds have been prepared to understand it ? Do you not see that in order to do so they must get rid of their pres- ent impressions, and receive others entirely op- posed to them ? 220 WHAT IS MONEY? B. What do you conclude from that? F. I will tell you. The most urgent necessity is, not that the State should teach, but that it should allow education. Ail monopolies are de- testable, but the worst of all is the monopoly of education. THE lAW. 221 THE LAW. The law perverted ! The law — -and, in its wake, all the collective forces of the nation — the law, I sav, not only diverted from its proper direction, but made to pursue one entirely contrary ! The law become the tool of every kind of avarice, in- stead of being its check ! The law guilty of that very iniquity which it was its mission to punish ! Truly, this is a serious fact, if it exists, and one to which I feel bound to call the attention of my fellow-citizens. We hold from God tbe gift which, as far as we are concerned, contains all others, Life — physical, intellectual, and moral life. But life cannot support itself. He who has be- stowed it, has entrusted us with the care of sup- porting it, of developing it, and of perfecting it. To that end He has provided us with a collection of wonderful faculties ; He has plunged us into the midst of a variety of elements. It is by the application of our faculties to these elements that the phenomena of assimilation and of appropria- 222 THE LAW. tion, by wliicli life pursues tlie circle wliich has been assigned to it, are realized. Existence, faculties, assimilation — in other words, personality, liberty, property — this is man. It is of these three things that it may be said, apart from all demagogue subtlety, that they are anterior and superior to all human legislation. It is not because men have made laws, that per- sonality, liberty, and property exist. On the con- trary, it is because personality, liberty, and prop- erty exist beforehand, that men make laws. What, then, is law ? As I have said elsewhere, it is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. JSTature, or rather God, has bestowed upon every one of us the right to defend his person, his liberty, and liis property, since these are the three constituent or preserving elements of life ; elements, each of which is rendered complete by the others, and cannot be understood without them. For w^hat are our faculties but the exten- sion of our personality ? and what is property but an extension of our faculties ? If every man has the right of defending, even by force, his person, his liberty, and his property, a number of men have the right to combine together, to extend, to organize a common force, to provide regularly for this defense. THE LAW. 223 Collective riglit, then, has its principle, its reason for existing, its lawfulness, in individual right ; and the common force cannot rationally have any other end, or any other mission, than tliat of the isolated forces for which it is substi- tuted. Thus, as the force of an individual cannot lawfnlly touch the person, the liberty, or the property of another individual — for the same reason, the common force cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, the liberty, or the property of individuals or of classes. For this perversion of force would be, in one case as in the other, in contradiction to our premises. For who will assume to say that force has been given to us, not to defend our rights, but to annihilate the equal rights of our brethren? And if this be not true of every individual force, acting independently, how can it be true of the collective force, which is only the organized union of isolated forces ? iJ^othing, therefore, can be more evident than this: — The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense ; it is the substitution of collective for individual forces, for the purpose of acting in the sphere in which such collective forces have a right to act, of doing what they have a right to do, to secure persons, liberties, and prop- erties, and to maintain each in its right, so as to cause justice to reign over all. 224 THE LAW. And if a people established upon tliis basis were to exist, it seems to me that order would prevail among them in their acts as well as in their ideas. It seems to me that such a people would have the most simple, the most economical, the least oppres- sive, the least to be felt, the least responsible, the most just, and, consequently, the most solid Gov- ernment which could be imagined, whatever its political form might be. For, under such an administration, every one would feel that he possessed all the fullness, as well as all the responsibility of his existence. So long as personal safety was insured, so long as labor was free, and the fruits of labor secured against all unjust attacks, no one would have any difficulties to contend with in the State. When prosperous, we should not, it is true, have to thank the State for our success; but when unfortunate, we should no more think of taxins^ it with our disasters than our peasants think of attributing to it the arrival of hail or of frost. We should know it only by the inestimable blessing of Safety. It may further be affirmed, that, thanks to the non-intervention of the State in private affaii-s, our wants and their satisfactions would develop themselves in their natural order. We should not see poor families seeking for literary instruction before they were supplied with bread. We should THE LAW. 225 jiot see towns peopled at the expense of rural dis- tricts, nor rural districts at the expense of towns. We should not see those great displacements of capital, of labor, and of population, which legisla- tive measures occasion ; displacements which ren- der so uncertain and precarious the very sources of existence, and thus aggravate to such an extent the responsibility of Governments. Unhappily law is by no means confined to its own department. Kor is it merely in some indiffe- rent and debatable views that it has left its proper sphere. It has done more than this. It has acted in direct opposition to its proper end; it has destroyed its own object; it has been employed in annihilat- ing that justice which it ought to have established, in effacino^ amonoj Rio^hts that limit which was its true mission to respect; it has placed the collective force in the service of those who wish to traffic, with- out risk and without scruple, in the persons, the liberty, and the property of others ; it has converted plunder into a right, that it may protect it, and lawful defense into a crime, that it may punish it. How has this perversion of law" been accom- plished ? And what has resulted from it ? The law has been perverted through the influ- ence of two very different causes — bare egotism and false philanthropy. Let us speak of the former. 226 THE LAW. Self-preservation and developement is the com- mon aspiration of all men, in such a way that if everyone enjoyed the free exercise of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of their labor, social progress would be incessant, uninterrupted, inevitable. But there is also another disposition which is common to them. This is, to live and to develop, when they can, at the expense of one another. This is no rash imputation, emanating from a gloomy, uncharitable spirit. History bears witness to the truth of it, by the incessant wars, the migra- tions of races, sacerdotal oppressions, the univer- sality of slavery, the frauds in trade, and the mo- nopolies with which its annals abound. This unfor- tunate disposition has its origin in the very consti- tution of man — in that primitive, and universal, and invincible sentiment which urges it towards its well-being, and makes it seek to escape pain. Man can only maintain life and obtain enjoy- ment from a perpetual search and appropriation ; that is, from a perpetual application of his faculties to objects, or from labor. This is the origin of property. But yet he may live and enjoy, by seizing, and appropriating the productions of his fellow-men. This is the origin of plunder. ]^ow, labor being in itself a pain, and man being THE lAW. 227 naturally inclined to avoid pain, it follows, and history proves it, that wherever plunder is less burdensome than labor, it prevails; and neither religion nor morality can, in this case, prevent it from prevailing. When does plunder cease, then ? When it be- comes more difficult and more dangerous than labor. It is very evident that the proper aim of law is to oppose the powerful obstacle of collective force to the tendency to do wrong; tliat all its measures should be in favor of the security of property, and against plunder. But the law is made, generally, by one man, or by one class of men. And as law cannot exist without the sanction and the support of a prepon- derating force, it must finally place this force in the hands of those who leofislate. This inevitable phenomenon, combined with the fatal tendency which, we have said, exists in the heart of man, explains the almost universal per- version of law. It is easy to conceive that, instead of being a check upon injustice, it becomes its most invincible instrument. It is easy to conceive that, according to the power of the legislator, it destroys for its own profit, and in different degrees, amongst the rest of the community, personal in- dependence by slaver}^, liberty by oppression, and property by plunder. 228 THE LAW. It is in the nature of men to rise against the injustice of which they are the victims. When, therefore, plunder is organized by law, for the profit of those who perpetrate it, all the plundered classes tend, either by peaceful or revolutionary means, to enter in some way into the business of manufacturing laws. These classes, according to the degree of enlightenment at which they have arrived, may propose to themselves two very dif- ferent ends, when they thus attempt the attainment of their political rights ; either they may wish to put an end to lawful plunder, or they may desire to take part in it. Woe to the nation where this latter thought prevails amongst the masses, at the moment when they, in their tm-n, seize upon the legislative power ! Up to that time lawful plunder has been exer- cised by the few npon the many, as is the case in countries where the rio-Iit of leo-islatino; is confined to a few hands. But now it has become universal, and the equilibrium is sought in universal plun- der. The injustice which society contains, instead of being rooted out of it, is generalized. As soon as the injured classes have recovered their political rights, their first thought is not to abolisli plunder (this would suppose them to possess enlightenment, which they cannot have), but to organize against THE LA.W. 229 the other classes, and to their detriment, a system of reprisals — as if it was necessary, before the reign of justice arrives, that all should undergo a cruel retribution — some for their iniquity and some for their is^norance. It would be impossible, therefore, to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this — the conversion of the law into an in- strument of plunder. What would be the consequences of such a per- version ? It would require volumes to describe them all. We must content ourselves with point- ing out the most striking. In the first place, it would efface from every- body's conscience the distinction between justice and injustice. Ko society can exist unless the laws are respect- ed to a certain degree, but the safest way to make them respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law — two evils of equal magnitude, between which it would be difficult to choose. It is so much in the nature of law to support justice, that in the minds of the masses they are one and the same. There is in all of us a strong 230 THE LAW. disposition to regard wliat is lawful as legitimate, so mncli so, that many falsely derive all notions of justice from law. It is sufficient, then, for the law to order and sanction plunder, that it may appear to many consciences just and sacred. Slavery, protection, and monopoly find defenders, not only in those who profit by them, but in those who suf- fer by them. If you suggest a doubt as to the morality of these institutions, it is said directly — "You are a dangerous innovator, a Utopian, a theorist, a despiser of the laws ; you would shake the basis upon which society rests." If you lecture upon morality, or political econ- omy, somebody will be found to make this request to the proper authorities : — " That henceforth economic science be taught not only w^itli sole reference to free exchange (to liberty, property, and justice), as has been the case up to the present time, but also, and especially with reference to the facts and legislation (contrary to liberty, property, and justice) which regulate domestic industry. " That in public pulpits the preachers abstain rigorously from impairing in the slightest degree the respect due to the laws now in force." ^ * Proceedings of tlie Frencli General Council of Manufac- tures, Agriculture, and Commerce, 6tli of May, 1850. • THE LAW. 231 So that if a law exists which sanctions slavery or monopoly, oppression or plunder, in any form whatever, it must not even be mentioned — for how can it be mentioned without damaging the respect which it inspires ? Still further, morality and po- litical economy must be taught in connection with this law — that is, under the supposition that it must be just, only because it is law. Another effect of this deplorable perversion of the law is, that it gives to human passions and to political struggles, and in general to politics, pro- perly so called, an exaggerated preponderance: I could prove this assertion in a thousand ways. But I shall confine myself, by way of illustration, to bringing it to bear upon a subject which has of late occupied everybody's mind — universal suf- frage. Whatever may be thought of it, I maintain that universal suffrage (taking the word in its strictest sense) is not one of those sacred dogmas with re- spect to which examination and doubt are crimes. Serious objections may be made to it. In the first place, the word imiversal conceals a gross sophism. There are, in France, for example, 36,000,000 of inhabitants. To make the right of suffrage universal, 36,000,000 of electors should be reckoned. The most extended system reckons only 9,000,000. Three persons out of four, then, 232 THE LAW. are excluded ; and more tLan this, tliey are ex- cluded by the fourth. Upon what principle is this exchision founded ? Upon the principle of inca- pacity. Universal suffrage, then, means — univer- sal suffrage of those who are capable. In point of fact, who are the capable ? Are age, sex, and judicial condemnations the only conditions to which incapacity is to be attached ? On taking a nearer view of the subject, we may soon perceive the motive which causes the right of suffrage to depend upon the presumption of in- capacity ; the most extended system differing only in this respect from the most restricted, by the appreciation of those conditions on which this in- capacity depends, and which constitute, not a difference in principle but in degree. This motive is, that the elector does not stipU' late for himself, but for everybody. If, as the republicans of the Grreek and Roman tone pretend, the right of suffrage had fallen to tlie lot of every one at his birth, it would be an injustice to adults to prevent women and children from voting. Why are they prevented ? Because they are presumed to be incapable. And why is incapacity a motive for exclusion ? Because the elector does not alone sustain the responsibility of his vote ; because every vote affects the community at large ; because the community has a right to THE LAW. 233 demand some security of each elector in respect to tlie performance of acts upon which his well- being depends. I know what might be said in answer to this, I know what might be objected. But this is not the place to enter into a controversy of this kin(]. lYhat I wish to observe is this, that this same con- troversy about suffrage (in common with most political questions) which agitates, excites, and un- settles the nations, would lose almost all its impor- tance if tlie law had always been what it ought to be. In fact, if law were confined to causing all per- sons, all liberties, and all properties to be re- spected ; if it were merely the organization of in- dividual right and individual defense ; if it were the obstacle, the check, the chastisement opposed to all oppression, to all plunder — is it likely that we should dispute much, as citizens, on the sub- ject of the greater or less universality of suffrage ? Is it likely that such disputes would compromise that greatest of advantages, the public peace ? Is it likely that the excluded classes would not quietly wait for their political recognition ? Is it likely that the enfranchised classes would be very jeal- ous of tlieir privilege ? And is it not clear, that the interest of all being one and the same, a few would manage political affairs without much incon- venience to the others ? 234: THE LAW. But if tlie fatal principle should come to be introduced, that, under pretense of organization, regulation, protection, or encouragement, the law ma J take from one party in order to give to another; help itself to wealth acquired by all classes that it may increase that of one class, whether that of the agriculturists, the manufac- turers, the shipowners, or artists and comedians ; then certainly, in this case, there is no class which may not pretend, and with reason, to place its hand upon the law ; which would not demand with fury its right of election and eligibilit}^, and which would not overturn society rather than not obtain it. Even beggars and vagabonds will prove to you that they have an incontestable title to suffrage. They will say — " We never buy wine, tobacco, or salt, without paying the tax, and a part of this tax is given by law in perqui- sites and gratuities to men who are richer than we are. Others make use of the law to create an artificial rise in the price of bread, meat, iron, or cloth. Since everybody traffics in law for his own profit, we should like to do the same. We should like to make it affirm the right to assist- ance, public and private, which is the poor man's plunder. To effect this, we ought to be electors and legislators, that we may organize, on a large scale, alms for our own class, as you have organ- THE LAW. 235 ized, on a large scale, protection for yours. Don't tell us that you will take our cause upon your- selves, and throw to us bounties and offices to keep us quiet, like giving us a bone to pick. We have other claims, and, at any rate, we wisli to stipu- late for ourselves, as other classes have stipulated for themselves ! " How is this argument to be answered? Yes, as long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true mission, that it may violate property instead of securing it, everybody will be wanting to manufacture law, either to defend himself against plunder, or to or- ganize it for his own profit. The political ques- tion will always be prejudicial, predominant, and absorbing ; in a word, there will be fighting around the door of the Leo^islative Chambers. The struggle will be no less furious within them. To be convinced of this, it is hardly necessary to look at what passes in the Chambers in France, in England, and in the United States ; it is enough to know how the question stands. Is there any need to prove that this odious per- version of law is a perpetual source of hatred and discord — that it even tends to social disorganiza- tion ? Look at the United States. There is no country in the world where the law is kept more within its proper domain — which, is, to secure to every one his liberty and his property. There- 236 THE LAW. fore, there is no country in tlie world where social order ajppears to rest upon a more solid basis. Nevertheless, even in the United States, there are two questions, and only two, which from the beginning have endangered political order. And what are these two questions ? That of slavery and that of the tariff ; * that is, precisely the only two .questions in w^hich, contrary to the general spirit of this republic, law has taken the character of a plunderer. Slavery is a violation, sanctioned by law, of the rights of the person. Protection is a violation perpetrated by the law upon the rights of property ; and certainly it is very remarkable that, in the midst of so many other debates, this double legal scourge^ a sorrowful inheritance from the Old World, should be the only one wdiich can, and perhaps w^ill, cause tlie rupture of the Union. Indeed, a more astounding fact, in the heart of society, cannot be conceived than this : — That law should have hecome an instrwnient of injustice. And if this fact occasions consequences so formid- able to tlie United States, wliere there is but one exception, wdiat must it be with us in Europe, where it is a principle — a system ? M. Montalembert, adopting the thought of a * Tlie reader will bear in mind that this essay was written by M. Bastiat before the emancipation in the United States. THE LAW. 237 famous proclamation of M. Carlier, said, ""We must make war against socialism." And by so- cialism, according to the definition of M. Charles Dnpin, he meant plunder. But what plunder did he mean ? For there are two sorts — extra-legal and legal ^hinder. As to extra-legal plunder, such as theft, or swindling, which is defined, foreseen, and pun- ished by the penal code, I do not think it can be adorned by the name of socialism. It is not this which systematically threatens the foundations of society. Besides, the war against this kind of plunder has not waited for the signal of M. Mon- talembert or M. Carlier. It has gone on since the beginning of the world ; France was carrying it on long before the revolution of February, 1848 — ^long before the appearance of socialism — with all the ceremonies of magistracy, police, prisons, dungeons, and scaffolds. It is the law itself wdiich is conducting this war, and it is to be wished, in my opinion, that the law should always maintain this attitude with respect to plunder. But this is not the case. The law sometimes takes its own part. Sometimes it accomplishes it with its own hands, in order to save the parties benefited the shame, the danger, and the scruple. Sometimes it places all this ceremony of magis- tracy, police, gendarmerie, and prisons, at the ser- 238 THE LAW. vice of the plunderer, and treats the plundered party, when he defends himself, as the criminal. In a word, there is a legal plunder, and it is, no doubt, this which is meant by M. Montalembert. This plunder may be only an exceptional blem- ish in the legislation of a people, and in this case the best thing that can be done is, without so many speeches and lamentations, to do away with it as soon as possible, notwithstanding the clamors of interested parties. But how is it to be distinguished ? Yery easily. See whether the law takes from some persons that which belongs to them, to give to others what does not belong to them. See whether the law performs, for the profit of one citizen, and to the injury of others, an act which this citizen cannot perform without committin^y a crime. Abolish this law without delay ; it is not merely an iniquity — it is a fertile source of iniquities, for it invites reprisals ; and if you do not take care, the exceptional case will extend, multiply, and become systematic. Xo doubt the party benefited will protest loudly ; he wdl1 assert his acquired rights. He will say that the State is bound to protect and encourage his industry ; he will plead that it is a good thing for the State to be enriclied, that it may spend the more, and thus shower down salaries upon the poor workmen. Take care not to listen to this THE LAW. 239 sophistry, for it is just by the generalizing of these arguments that legal-plunder becomes sys- tematized. And this is what has taken place. The delu- sion of the day is to enrich all classes at the ex- pense of each other ; it is to generalize plunder under pretense of organizing it. ISiow, legal plunder may be exercised in an infinite multitude of ways. Hence come an infinite multitude of plans for organization ; tariffs, protection, perqui- sites, gratuities, encouragements, progressive tax- ation, gratuitous instruction, right to labor, right to profit, right to wages, right to assistance, right to instruments of labor, gratuity of credit, etc., etc. And it is all these plans, taken as a whole, with what they have in common, legal plunder, which takes the name of socialism. I^ow socialism, thus defined, and forming a doctrinal body, what other war would you make against it than a war of doctrine ? You find this doctrine false, absurd, abominable. Refute it. This will be all the more easy, the more false, the ]iiore absurd and the more abominable it is. Above all, if you wish to be strong, begin by rooting out of your legislation every particle of socialism which may have crept into it, — and this will be no light work. M. Montalembert has been reproached with 240 THE LAW. wlshino^ to turn brute force asrainst socialism. He ought to be exonerated from this reproach, for he has plainly said : — " The war which we must make against socialism must be one which is com- patible with the law, honor, and justice.'' But how is it that M. Montalembert does not see that he is placing himself in a vicious circle ? You would oppose law to socialism. But it is the law which socialism invokes. It aspires to legal, not extra-legal plunder. It is the law itself, in common with monopolists of all kinds, that social- ism wants to use as an instrument ; and when once it has the law on its side, how will you be able to turn the law as^ainst it ? How will you place it under the power of your tribunals, your police, and of your prisons ? What will you do then ? You wish to prevent it from taking any part in the making of laws. You would keep it outside the Legislative Halls. In this j^ou will not succeed, I venture to prophesy, so long as legal plunder is the basis of the legislation within. It is absolutely necessary that this question of legal plunder should be clearly defined, and there are only three solutions of it : — ■ 1. Wlien the few plunder the many. 2. When everybod}^ plunders everybody else. 3. When nobody plunders anybody. THE LAW. 241 Partial plunder, universal plunder, absence of plunder, amongst these we have to make our choice. The law can only produce one of these results. Partial plunder. — This is the system w^iich prevailed so long as the elective privilege was ^partial — a system which is resorted to to avoid the invasion of socialism. Universal plunder. — We have been threatened by this system when the elective privilege has be- come universal ; the masses having conceived the idea of making law on the principle of legislators who had preceded them.. Absence of plunder. — This is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, conciliation, and of good sense, which I shall proclaim with all the force of my lungs (which is very inadequate, alas !) till the day of my death. And, in all sincerity, can anything more be re- quired at the hands of the law % Can the law, whose necessary sanction is force, be reasonably employed upon anything beyond securing to every one his right % I defy any one to remove it from this circle without perverting it, and consequently turning force against right. And as this is the most fatal, the most illogical social perversion which can possibly be imagined, it must be ad- mitted that the true solution, so much sought 11 242 THE LAW. after, of the social problem, is contained in these simple words — -Law is organized Justice. Now it is important to remark, that to organ- ize justice by law, that is to say by force, excludes the idea of organizing by law, or by force any manifestation whatever of human activity — labor, charity, agriculture, commerce, industr}^, instruc- tion, the fine arts, or religion ; for any one of these organizations would inevitably destroy the essen- tial organization. How, in fact, can we imagine force encroaching upon the liberty of citizens with- out infringing upon justice, and so acting against its proper aim ? Here I am encountering the most popular pre- judice of our time. It is not considered enough that law should be just, it must be philanthropic. It is not sufficient that it should guarantee to every citizen the free and inoffensive exercise of his faculties, applied to his physical, intellectual, and moral development ; it is required to extend well-being, instruction, and morality, directly over the nation. This is the fascinating side of social- ism. But, I repeat it, these two missions of the law contradict each other. We have to choose between them. A citizen cannot at the same time be free and not free. M. de Lamartine wrote to me one day thus : — " Your doctrine is only the half of my THE LAW. 243 programme ; you have stopped at liberty, I go on to fraternity." I answered him : — " The second part of your programme will destroy the first." A.nd in fact it is impossible for me to separate the word fraternity from the world voliontary. I cannot possibly conceive fraternity as something which has got to be legally enforced, without liberty being legally destroyed, and justice legally trampled under foot. Legal plunder has two roots : one of them, as we have already seen, is in human selfishness; the other is in false philan- thropy. Before I proceed I think I ought to explain myself upon the word plunder.* I do not take it, as it often is taken, in a vague, undefined, relative, or metaphorical sense. I use it in its scientific acceptation, and as expressing the opposite idea to property. When a portion of wealth passes out of the hands of him who has acquired it, without his consent, and without com- pensation, to him who has not created it, whether by force or by artifice, I say that property is vio- lated, that plunder is perpetrated. I say that this is exactly what the law ought to repress always and everywhere. If the law itself performs the action it ought to repress, I say that plunder is * The Frencli word is spoliation. 244 THE LAW. still perpetrated, and even, in a social point of view, under aggravated circumstances. In this case, liowever, he who profits from the plunder is not responsible for it ; it is the law, the lawgiver, society itself, and this is where the political danger lies. It is to be regretted that there is something offensive in the word. I have sought in vain for another, for I would not wish at any time to add an irritating word to our dissensions ; therefore, whether I am believed or not, I declare that I do not mean to accuse the intentions nor the moralitv of anybody. I am attacking an idea which I believe to be false — a system which appears to me, to be unjust; and this is so independent of inten- tions that each of us profits by it without wishing it, and suffers from it without being aware of the cause. Any person mast write under the influence of party spirit or of fear who would call in ques- tion the sincerity of the advocates of protectionism, of socialism, and even of communism, which are one and the same plant, in three different periods of its growth. All that can be said is, that plun- der is more visible by its partiality in protection- ism,* and by its universality in communism ; * If protection were only granted in a country — as, for example, the United States — to a single class, to the cotton- manufactures, for instance, it would be so obviously plun- THE LAW. 245 wlience it follows that, of the three systems, social- ism is still the most vague, the most undefined, and consequently the most sincere. Be it as it may, to conclude that legal plunder has one of its roots in false philanthropy, is evi- dently to put intentions out of the question. "With this understanding, let us examine the value, the origin, and the tendency of this popular aspiration, which pretends to realize the general good by general plunder. The Socialists say, since the law organizes jus- tice, why should it not organize labor, instruction, and religion ? "Why ? Because it could not organize labor, instruction, and religion, without disorganizing justice. For remember that law is force, and that con- sequently the domain of the law cannot lawfully extend beyond the domain of force. When laAv and force keep a man within the bounds of justice, they impose nothing upon him but a mere negation. They only oblige him to dering as to be unable to maintain itself. But tlie fact is, all tlie protected trades combine, make common cause, and recruit tliemselves in sucli a way as to make it appear as if they included in tbeir sphere tlie whole industry of the country. They feel instinctively that plunder is disguised by being generalized. 246 THE LAW. abstain from doing harm. They violate neither his personality, his liberty, nor his property. They only guard the personality, the liberty, the prop- erty of others. They hold themselves on the defensive ; they defend the equal right of all. They fulfill a mission whose harmlessness is evident, whose utility is palpable, and whose legitimacy is not to be disputed. This is so true that, as a friend of mine once remarked to me, to say that the aim of the law is to cause justice to reign, is to use an expression which is not rigorously exact. It ought to be said, the aim of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact, it is not justice which has an existence of its own, it is injustice. The one results from the absence of the other. But when the law, through the medium of its necessary agent — force, imposes a form of labor, a method or a subject of instruction, a creed or a worship, it is no longer negative ; it acts positively upon men. It substitutes the will of the legislator for their own will, the initiative of the legislator for their own initiative. They have no need to consult, to compare, or to foresee ; the law does all that for them. The intellect is for them a use- less lumber ; they cease to be men ; they lose their personality, their liberty their property. Endeavor to imagine a form of labor imposed by force which is not a violation of liberty; a THE LAW. 247 transmission of wealth imposed by force which is not a violation of property. If you cannot succeed in reconciling this, you are bound to conclude that the law cannot organize labor and industry without organizing injustice. When, from the seclusion of his cabinet, a poli- tician takes a view of societ}^, he is struck with the spectacle of inequality which presents itself. He mourns over the sufferino;s which are the lot of so many of our brethren, sufferings whose aspect is rendered yet more sorrowful by the contrast of luxury and wealth. He ought, perliaps, to ask himself whether such a social state has not been caused by the plunder of ancient times, exercised in the way of con- quests ; and by plunder of later times, effected through the medium of the laws? He ought to ask himself whether, granting the aspiration of all men after well-being and perfection, tlie reign of jus- tice would not suffice to realize the greatest activ- ity of progress, and the greatest amount of equality compatible with that individual responsibility which God has awarded as a just retribution of virtue and vice ? He never gives this a thought. His mind turns toward combinations, arrangements, legal or fac- titious organizations. He seeks the remedy in perpetuating and exaggerating what has produced the evil. 248 THE LAW. For, justice apart, wliicli we have seen is only a negation, is there any one of these legal arrange- ments which does not contain the principle of plunder ? You say, " There are men who have no money,'' and you apply to the law. But the law is not a self-supplied fountain, whence every stream may obtain supplies independently of society, l^othing can enter the p>ublic treasury, in favor of one citizen or one class, but what other citizens and other classes have been forced to send to it. If ever J one draws from it only the equivalent of what he has contributed to it, your law, it is true, is no plunderer, but it does nothing for men who want money — it does not promote equality. It can only be an instrument of equalization as far as it takes from one party to give to another, and then it is an instrument of plunder. Examine, in this light, the protection of tariffs, prizes for en- couragement, right to profit, right to labor, right to assistance, right to instruction, progressive taxa- tion, gratuitousness of credit, social workshojDS, and you will always lind at the bottom legal plunder, organized injustice. You say, " There are men who want knowl- edge," and you apply to the law. But the law is not a torch which sheds light abroad which is peculiar to itself. It extends over a society where THE lAW. 249 there are men who have knowledge, and others who have not; citizens who want to learn, and others who are disposed to teach. It can only do one of two things : either allow a free scope to this kind of transaction, i.e., let this kind of want satisfy itself freely ; or else force the will of the people in the matter, and take from some of them sufficient to pay professors commissioned to in- struct others gratuitously. But, in this second case, there cannot fail to be a violation of liberty and property — legal plunder. You say, " Here are men who are wanting in morality or religion," and you apply to the law ; but law is force, and need I say how far it is a violent and absurd enterprise to introduce force in these matters ? As the result of its systems and of its efforts, it would seem that socialism, notwithstanding all its self-complacency, can scarcely help perceiving the monster of legal plunder. But what does it do ? It disguises it cleverly from others, and even from itself, under the seductive names of fraternity, solidarity, organization, association. And because we do not ask so much at the hands of the law, because we only ask it for justice, it supposes that we reject fraternity, solidarity, organization, and association ; and they brand us with the name of individualists. 250 THE LAW. "We can assure them that what we repudiate is, not natural organization, but forced organization. It is not free association, but the forms of asso- ciation which they would impose upon us. It is not spontaneous fraternity, but legal frater- nity. It is not providential solidarity, but artificial solidarity, which is only an unjust displacement of responsibility. Socialism, like the old policy from which it ema- nates, confounds Government and society. And so, every time we object to a thing being done by Government, it concludes that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of education by the State — then we are against education alto- gether. We object to a State religion — then we would have no religion at all. We object to an equality which is brought about by the State — then we are against equality etc., etc. They might as well accuse us of wishing men not to eat, because we object to the cultivation of corn by the State. How is it that the strange idea of making the law produce what it does not contain — prosperity, in a positive sense, wealth, science, religion — should ever have gained ground in the political world ? The modern politicians, particularly those of the Socialist school, found their different theories upon THE LAW. 251 one common hypothesis ; and surely a more strange, a more presumptuous notion, could never have entered a human brain. They divide mankind into two parts. Men in general, except one, form the first ; the politician himself forms the second, which is by far the most important. In fact, they begin by supposing that men are devoid of any principle of action, and of any means of discernment in themselves ; that they have no moving spring in them ; that they are inert matter, passive particles, atoms without im- pulse ; at best a vegetation indifferent to its own mode of existence, susceptible of receiving, from an exterior will and hand, an infinite number of forms? more or less symmetrical, artistic, and perfected. Moreover, every one of these politicians does not scruple to imagine that he himself is, under the names of organizer, discoverer, legislator, in- stitutor or founder, this will and hand, this uni- versal spring, this creative power, whos(?sublime mission it is to gather together these scattered materials, that is, men into society. Starting from these data, as a gardener, accord- ing to his caprice, shapes his trees into j^yramids, parasols, cubes, cones, vases, distaffs, or fans ; so the Socialist, following his chimera, shapes poor humanity into groups, series, circles, subcircles, 252 THE LAW. ^ honeycombs, or social workshops, with all kinds of variations. And as the gardener, to bring his trees into shape, wants hatchets, praning-hooks, saws, and shears, so the politician, to bring society into shape, wants the forces which he can only find in the laws ; the law of customs, the law of taxation, the law of assistance, and the law of in- struction. It is so true that the Socialists look upon man- kind as a subject for social combinations, that if, by chance, they ai-e not quite certain of the success of these combinations, they will request a portion of mankind as a subject to experiment npon. It is well known how popular the idea of trying all systems is, and one of the French Socialists once seriously demanded of the French Constituent Assembly a parish, with all its inhabitants, upon which to make his experiments. It is thus that an inventor will make a small machine before he makes one of the regular size. Thus tke chemist sacrifices some substances, the agriculturist some seed and a corner of his field, to make trial of an idea. But, then, think of the immeasurable distance between the gardener and his trees, between the inventor and his machine, between the chemist and his substances, between the agriculturist and his seed ! The Socialist thinks, in all sincerity, \ THE LAW. 253 tliat there is the same distance between himself and mankind. It is not to be wondered at that the politicians of the nineteenth century look npon society as an artificial production of the legislator's genius. This idea has taken possession of many thinkers and great writers in all countries. To all these persons the relations between man- kind and the legislator appear to be the same as those which exist between the clay and the potter. Moreover, if they have consented to recognize in the heart of man a principle of action, and in his intellect a principle of discernment, they have looked upon these gifts of God as pernicious, and thought that mankind, under these two impulses, tended fatally toward ruin. They have taken it for granted that, if abandoned to their own incli- nations, men would only occupy themselves with religion to arrive at atheism, with instruction to come to ignorance, and with labor and exchange to be extinguished in misery. Happily, according to these writers, there are some men, termed governors and legislators, upon wboni Heaven has bestowed opposite tendencies, not for their own sake only, but for the sake of the rest of the world. Whilst mankind tends to evil, they incline to good ; whilst mankind is advancing toward dark- 254 THE LAW. ness, tliey are aspiring to enlightenment ; whilst mankind is drawn toward vice, they are attracted by virtue. And, this granted, thej demand the assistance of force, by means of which they are to substitute their own tendencies for those of the human race. It is only needful to open, almost at random, a book on philosophy, politics, or history, to see how strongly this idea is rooted in literature ; that mankind is merely inert matter, receiving life, organization, morality, and wealth from power ; or, rather, and still worse — that mankind itself tends toward d emaciation, and is onlv arrested in. its tendency by the mysterious hand of the legis- lator. Classical conventionalism shows us every- where, behind passive society, a hidden power, under the names of Law, or Legislator (or, by a mode of expression which refers to some person or persons of undisputed weight and authority, but not named), which moves, animates, enriches, and regenerates mankind. We will first ask attention to a quotation from Bossuet : — " One of tlie tilings wliicli was the most strongly impressed (by wlioni ?) upon the mind of the Egyptians, was the love of their country Nobody was allowed to be useless to the State; the law assigned to every one his em- ployment, which descended from father to son. No one waa permitted to have two professions, nor to adopt another. THE LAW. 255 But there was one occupation wliicli teas oMiged to be common to all — tliis was tlie study of the laws and of wisdom ; ignorance of religion and the political regulations of the country was excused in no condition of life. More- over, every profession had a district assigned to it (by whom ?). Amongst good laws, one of the best things was that everybody was taught to observe them (by whom ?). Egypt abounded with wonderful inventions, and nothing was neglected which could render life comfortable and tranquil." Thus men, according to Bossuet, derive noth- ing from themselves ; patriotism, wealth, inven- tions, husbandry, science— all come to them by the operation of the laws, or by kings. All they have to do is to be passive. It is on this ground that Bossuet takes exception, when Diodorus ac- cuses the Egyptians of rejecting wrestling and music. " How is that possible," says he, " since these arts were invented by Trismegistus ? " It is the same with the Persians : — " One of the first cares of the prince was to encourage agriculture As there Avere posts established for the regulation of the armies, so there were offices for the superintending of rural works The respect with which the Persians were inspired for royal authority was excessive." The Greeks, although full of mind, were no less strangers to their own responsibilities; so much so, that of themselves, like dogs and horses, they would not have ventured upon the most simple games. In a classical sense, it is an undisputed 256 THE LAW. thing that everything comes to the people from without. " The Greeks, Daturally fuU of spirit and courage, had deen early cultivated by kings and colonies who had come from Egypt. From them they had learned the exercises of the body, foot races, and horse and chariot races The best thing that the Egyptians had taught them was to become docile, and to allow themselves to be formed by the laws for the public good." J^enelon.— 'Reared in the study and admiration of antiquity, and a witness of the power of Louis XI Y., Fenelon naturally adopted the idea that mankind should be passive, and that its misfor- tunes and its prosperities, its virtues and its vices, are caused by the external influence which is ex- ercised upon it by the law, or by the makers of the law. Thus, in his Utopia of Salentum, he brings the men, with their interests, their facul- ties, their desires, and their possessions, under the absolute direction of the legislator. "Whatever the subject may be, they themselves have no voice in it — the prince judges for them. The nation is just a shapeless mass, of which the prince is the soul. In him resides the thought, the foresight, the principle of all organization, of all progress ; on him, therefore, rests all the re- sponsibility. In proof of this assertion, I might transcribe the whole of the tenth book of " Telemachus." THE LAW. 257 I refer the reader to it, and shall content myself with quoting some passages taken at random from this celebrated work, to which, in every other re- spect, I am most ready to render justice. With the astonishing credulity which character- izes the classics, Fenelon, against the authority of reason and of facts, admits the general felicity of the Egyptians, and attributes it, not to their own wisdom, but to that of their kings : — ** We could not turn our eyes to tlie two sliores "witliout perceiving rich towns and country seats, agreeably situated ; fields wliicli were covered every year, witliout intermission, witli golden crops ; meadows full of flocks ; laborers bending under the weight of fruits which the earth lavished on its cultivators ; and shepherds who made the echoes around repeat the soft sounds of their pipes and flutes. ' Happy,* said Mentor, ' is that people which is governed by a wise king. Mentor afterwards desired me to remark the happiness and abundance which was spread over all the country of Egypt, where twenty-two thousand cities might be counted. He admired the excellent police regulations of the cities; the justice administered in favor of the poor against the rich ; the good education of the children, who were accus- tomed to obedience, labor, and the love of arts and letters ; the exactness with which all the ceremonies of religion were performed ; the disinterestedness, the desire of honor, the fidelity to men, and the fear of the gods, with which every father inspired his children. He could not suflBciently ad- mire the prosperous state of-the country. ' Happy' said he, ' is the people wJiom a wise king rules in such a manner,' " Fenelon's idyl on Crete is still more fascinating Mentor is made to say : — 258 THE LAW. " All tliat you will see in tliis wonderful island is tlie re- sult of tlie laws of Minos. The education wliicli tlie children receive renders the body healthy and robust. They are ac- customed, from the first, to a frugal and laborious life ; it is supposed that all the pleasures of sense enervate the body and the mind ; no other pleasure is presented to them but that of being invincible by virtue, that of acquiring much glory there they punish three vices which go unpunished amongst other people— ingratitude, dissimula- tion, and avarice. As to pomp and dissipation, there is no need to punish these, for they are unknown in Crete. No costly furniture, no magnificent clothing, DO delicious feasts, no gilded palaces are allowed." It is tlins that Mentor prepares his scholar to mould and manipulate, doubtless with the most philanthropic intentions, the people of Ithaca, and, to confirm him in these ideas, he gives him the example of Salentum. It is thus that we receive our iirst political notions. We are taught to treat men very much as Oliver de Serres teaches farmers to manage and to mix the soil. Montesquieu. — "To sustain the spirit of commerce, it is necessary that all the laws should favor it ; that these same laws, by their regulations in dividing the fortunes in pro- portion as commerce enlarges them, should place every poor citizen in sufficiently easy circumstances to enable him to work like the others, and every rich citizen in such medioc- rity that he must work, in order to retain or to acquire." Thus the laws are to dispose of all fortunes. ''Although, in a democracy, real equality is the soul of THE LAW. 259 the State, yet it is so difficult to establisli, that an extreme exactness in this matter would not always be desirable. It is sufficient that a census be established to reduce or fix the differences to a certain point. After which it is for particular laws to equalize, as it were, the inequality, by burdens imposed upon the rich, and reliefs granted to the poor." Here, again, we see the equalization of fortunes hy law, that is, by force. " There were, in Greece, two kinds of republics. One was military, as Lacedaemon ; the other commercial, as Athens. In the one it "^as wished (by whom ?) that the citizens should be idle : in the other, the love of labor was encour- aged. ** It is worth our while to pay a little attention to the ex- tent of genius required by these legislators, that we may see how, by confounding all the virtues, they showed their wisdom to the world. Lycurgus, blending theft with the spirit of justice, the hardest slavery with extreme liberty, the most atrocious sentiments with the greatest moderation, gave stability to his city. He seemed to deprive 1 fc of all its resources, arts, commerce, money, and walls ; there was am- bition without the hope of rising ; there were natural senti- ments where the individual was neither child, nor husband, nor father. Chastity even was deprived of modesty. By ' this road Sparta was led on to grandeur and to glory. " The phenomenon which we observe in the institutions of Greece has been seen in the midst of the degeneracy and corruption of our modern times. An honest legislator has formed a people where probity has appeared as natural as bravery among the Spartans. William Penn was a true Lycurgus ; and although the former had peace for his ob- ject, and the latter war, they resemble each other in the singular path along which they have led their people, in 260 THE LAW. their influence over free men, in tlie prejudices whicli they have overcome, tlie passions they have subdued. " Paraguay furnishes us with anotlier example. Society has been accused of tlie crime of regarding the pleasure of commanding as the only good of life ; but it will always be a noble thing to govern men by making them happy. ' ' Those iclio desire to form similar institutions, will estab- lish community of property, as in the republic of Plato ; the same reverence which he enjoined for the gods, separation from strangers for the preservation of morality, and make the city and not the citizens create commerce : they should give our arts without our luxury, our wants without our desires." "Vulgar infatuation may exclaim, if it likes : " It is Montesquieu ! magnificent ! sublime ! " I am not afraid to express my opinion, and to say : *' What ! you have the face to call that fine ? It is frightful ! it is abominable ! and these ex- tracts, which I might multiply, show that, accord- ing to Montesquieu, the persons, the liberties, the property, mankind itself, are nothing but mate- rials to exercise the sagacity of lawgivers." Rousseaxi. — Although this politician, the para- mount authority of French Democracy, makes the social edifice rest upon the general will^ no one has so completely admitted the hypothesis of the entire passiveness of human nature in the pres- ence of the lawgiver : — "If it is true that a great prince is a rare thing, how much more so must a great lawgiver be ? The former has THE LAW. 201 only to follow tlie pattern proposed to liim by tlie latter. This latter is the mechanician who invents the machine ; the former is merely the workman who sets it in motion." And what part have men to act in all this ? That of the machine, which is set in motion ; or, rather, are they not the brute matter of which the machine is made? Thus, between the legislator and the prince, between the prince and his sub- jects, there are the same relations as those which exist between the agricultural writer and the agriculturist, the agriculturist and the clod. At what a vast height, then, is the politician placed, who rules over learislators themselves, and teaches them their trade in such imperative terms as the followino: : — 'to "Would you give consistency to the State? Bring the extremes together as much as possible. Suffer neither wealthy persons nor beggars. ' " If the soil is poor and barren, or the country too much confined for the inhabitants, turn to industry and the arts, whose productions you will exchange for the provisions which you require On a good soil, if you are short of inhabitants, give all your attention to agriculture, which multiplies men, and banish the arts, which only serve to de- populate the country Pay attention to exten- sive and convenient coasts. Cover the sea with vessels, and you will have a brilliant and short existence. If your seas wash only inaccessible rocks, let the people he barbarous, and eat fish ; they will live more quietly, perhaps better, and, most certainly, more happily. In short, besides those maxims which are common to all, every people has its own particu- 262 THE LAW. lar circumstances, wliicli demand a legislation peculiar to itself. "It was tlius that the Hebrews formerly, and the Arabs more recently, had religion for their principal object ; that of the Athenians was literature ; that of Carthage and Tyre, commerce ; of Rhodes, naval affairs ; of Sparta, war ; and of Rome, virtue. The author of the ' Spirit of Laws ' has shown the art ly which the legislator should frame his in- stitutions toward each of these objects But if the legislator, mistaking his object, should take up a prin- ciple different from that which arises from the nature of things ; if one should tend to slavery, and the other to liberty ; if one to wealth, and the other to population ; one to peace and the other to conquests ; the laws will insen- sibly become enfeebled, the Constitution will be impaired, and the State will be subject to incessant agitations until it is destroyed, or becomes changed, and invincible Nature regains her empire." But if nature is sufficiently invincible to regain its empire, why does not Rousseau admit that it had no need of the legislator to gain its empire from the beginning? 'Why does he not allow tliat, by obeying their ovvn impulse, men would, of themselves, apply agriculture to a fertile dis- trict, and commerce to extensive and commodious coasts, without the interference of a Lycurgus, a Solon, or a Rousseau, who would undertake it at the risk of deceiving themselves f Be that as it may, we see with what a terrible responsibility Rousseau invests inventors, institu- tors, conductors, and manipulators of societies. THE LAW. 263 He is, therefore, very exacting with regard to them. " He who dares to undertake the institutions of a people ouglit to feel that he can, as it were, transform every indi- vidual, who is by himself a perfect and solitary whole, re- ceiving his life and being from a larger whole of which he forms a part ; he must feel that he can change the constitu- tion of man, to fortify it, and substitute a partial and moral existence for the physical and independent one which we have all received from nature. In a word, he must deprive man of his own powers, to give him others which are foreign to him." Poor human nature ! "What would become of its dignity if it were intrusted to the disciples of Kousseau ? Baynal. — " The climate, that is, the air and the soil, is the first element for the legislator. His resources prescribe to him his duties. First, he must consult Jiis local position. A population dwelling upon maritime shores must have laws fitted for navigation If the colony is located in an inland region, a legislator must provide for the nature of the soil, and for its degree of fertility " It is more especially in the distribution of property that the wisdom of legislation will appear. As a general rule, and in every country, when a new colony is founded, land should be given to each man sufficient for the support of his family "In an uncultivated island, which you are colonizing with children, it will only be needful to let the germs of truth expand in the developments of reason ! But when you establish old people in a new country, the skill consists in only allowing it those injurious opinions and customs which it is impossible to cure and correct. If you 264 THE LAW. wisli to prevent tliem from being' perpetuated, you will act upon the rising generation by a general and public educa- tion of the children. A prince, or legislator, ought never to found a colony without previously sending wise men there to instruct the youth In a new colony, every facility is open to the precautions of the legislator who de- sires to purify the tone and the manners of the people. If he has genius and virtue, the lands and the men which are at his disposal will inspire his soul with a plan of society which a writer can only vaguely trace, and in a way which would be subject to the instability of all hypotheses, which are varied and complicated by an infinity of circumstances too diflficult to foresee and to combine." One would tliiiik it was a professor of agricul- ture who was saying to his pupils : ^' The climate is the only rule for the agriculturist. Ills resources dictate to him his duties. The first thing he has to consider is his local position. If he is on a clayey soil, he must do so and so. If he has to contend with sand, tliis is the way in which he must set about it. Every facility is open to the agriculturist who wishes to clear and improve his soil. If he only has the skill, the manure which he has at his disposal will suggest to him a plan of operation, which a professor can only vaguely trace, and in a way that would be subject to the uncertainty of all hypotheses, which vary and are complicated by an infinity of circumstances too difficult to foresee and to combine." But, oh ! sublime writers, deign to remember THE LAW. 265 sometimes that this clay, this sand, this manure, of which you are disposing in so arbitrary a man- ner, are men, your equals, intelligent and free beings like yourselves, who liave received from God, as you have, the faculty of seeing, of fore- seeing, of thinking, and of judging for them- selves ! Mcobly. — (He is supposing the laws to be worn out by time and by the neglect of security, and continues thus) : — " Under these circumstances we must be convinced that the springs of Government are relaxed. Oive them a new tension (it is the reader who is addressed), and the evil will be remedied Think less of punishing the faults than of encouraging the virtues which you want. By this method you will bestow upon your republic the vigor of youth. Through ignorance of this, a free people has lost its liberty ! But if the evil has made so much way that the ordinary magistrates are unable to remedy it effectually, liatie recourse to an extraordinary magistracy, whose time should be short, and its power considerable. The imagination of the citizens requires to be impressed." In this style he goes on through twenty vol- umes. There was a time when, under the influence of teaching like this, which is the root of classical education, every one was for placing himself be- yond and above mankind, for the sake of arrang- ing, organizing, and instituting it in his own way. Condillac. — " Take upon yourself, my lord, the charactet 12 266 THE LAW. of Lycurgus or of Solon. Before you finish reading tliis essay, amuse yourself witli giving laws to some wild people in America or in Africa. Establisli these roving mien in fixed dwellings ; teach them to keep flocks. ..... Endeavor t5 develop the social qualities which nature has implanted in them Make them begin to practice the duties of humanity Cause the pleasures of the passions to become distasteful to them by punishments, and you will see these barbarians, with every plan of your legis- lation, lose a vice and gain a virtue. " All these people have had laws. But few among them have been happy. Why is this ? Because legislators have almost always been ignorant of the object of society, which is, to unite families by a common interest. "Impartiality in law consists in two things : in establish- ing equality in the fortunes and in the dignity of the citizens. In proportion to the degree of equality estab- lished by the laws, the dearer will they become to every citizen How can avarice, ambition, dissipation idleness, sloth, envy, hatred, or jealousy, agitate mien who are equal in fortune and dignity, and to whom the laws leave no hope of disturbing their equality ? " What has been told you of the republic of Sparta ought to enlighten you on this question. No other State has had laws more in accordance with the order of nature or of equality." It is not to be wondered at that the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries should have looked upon the human race as inert matter, ready to receive everything, form, figure, impulse, movement, and life, from a great prince, or a great legislator, or a great genius. These ages were reared in the study of antiquity, and antiquity presents everywhere, in THE LAW. 267 Egypt, Persia, Greece, and Rome, the spectacle of a few men moulding mankind according to tlieir fancy, and mankind to this end enslaved by force or by impostm^e. And what does this prove? That because men and society are improvable, error, igno- rance, despotism, slavery, and superstition must be more prevalent in early times. The mistake of the writers quoted above is not that they have as- serted this fact, but that they have proposed it, as a rule, for the admiration and imitation of future generations. Their mistake has been, with an in- conceivable absence of discernment, and upon the faith of a puerile conventionalism, that they have admitted what is inadmissible, viz., the grandeur, dignity, morality, and well-being of the artificial societies of the ancient world ; they have not under- stood that time produces and spreads enlighten- ment ; and that in proportion to the increase of enlightenment, right ceases to be upheld by force, and society regains possession of herself. And, in fact, what is the political work which we are endeavoring to promote ? It is no other than the instinctive effort of every people toward liberty. And what is liberty, whose name can make every heart beat, and which can agitate the world, but the union of all liberties, the liberty of conscience, of instruction, of association, of the press, of locomotion, of labor, and of exchange ; in 268 THE LAW. other words, the free exercise, for all, of all the inoffensive faculties; and again, in other words, the destruction of all despotisms, even of legal despotism, and the reduction of law to its only rational sphere, which is to regulate the individual right of legitimate defense, or to repress injustice. This tendency of tlie human race, it must be admitted, is greatly thwarted, particularly in France, by the fatal disposition common to all politicians, of placing themselves beyond mankind, to arrange, organize, and regulate it, according to their fancy. For whilst society is struggling to realize liberty, the great men who place themselves at its head, imbued with the principles of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, think only of subjecting it to tlie philanthropic despotism of their social inven- tions, and making it bear wdth docility, according to the expression of Rousseau, the 3^oke of public felicity, as pictured in their own imaginations. This was particularly the case in France in 1789. No sooner was the old system destroyed, than society was to be submitted to other artificial arrangements, always with the same starting-point — the omnipotence of the law. Saint Just. — ' ' The legislator commands the future. It is for him to will for the good of mankind. It is for him to make men what he wishes them to be." THE LAW. 269 Robespierre. — " The function of Government is to direct the physical and moral powers of the nation toward the object of its institution." Billaud Varennes. — " A people who are to be restored to liberty must be formed anew. Ancient prejudices must be destroyed, antiquated customs changed, depraved affections corrected, inveterate vices eradicated. For this a strong force and a vehement impulse will be necessary Citi- zens, the inflexible austerity of Lycurgus created the firm basis of the Spartan republic. The feeble and trusting dispo- sition of Solon plunged Athens into slavery. This parallel contains the whole science of Government." Lepelletier. — " Considering the extent of human degrada- tion, I am convinced of the necessity of effecting an entire regeneration of the race, and, if I may so express myself, of creating a new people." Men, therefore, are nothing but raw material. It is not for them to will their own iinproveinent. They are not capable of it ; according to Saint Just, it is only the legislator who is. Men are merely to be what he wills that they should be. According to Kobespierre, who copies Rousseau literally, the legislator is to begin by assigning the aim of the institutions of the nation. After this, the Government has only to direct all ii^ physical and moral forces toward this end. All this time the nation itself is to remain perfectly passive ; and Billaud Yarennes would teach us that it ought to have no prejudices, affections, nor wants, but such as are authorized by the legislator. He even goes 270 THE LAW. SO far as to say tliat the inflexible austerity of a man is the basis of a republic. We have seen that, in cases where the evil is so great that the ordinary magistrates are unable to remedy it, Mably recommends a dictatorship, to promote virtue. " Save recourse^'^ says he, " to an extraordinary magistracy, whose time shall be short, and his power considerable. The imagina- tion of the people requires to be impressed." This doctrine has not been neglected. Listen to Robes- pierre : — " The principle of tlie Republican Government is virtue, and the means to be adopted during its establishment is ter- ror. We want to substitute, in our country, morality for egotism, probity for honor, principles for customs, duties for decorum, the empire of reason for the tyranny of fashion, contempt of vice for contempt of misfortune, pride for inso- lence, greatness of soul for vanity, love of glory for love of money, good people for good company, merit for intrigue, genius for wit, truth for glitter, the charm of happiness for the weariness of pleasure, the greatness of man for the little- ness of the great, a magnanimous, powerful, happy people for one that is easy, frivolous, degraded ; that is to say, we would substitute all the virtues and miracles of a republic for all the vices and absurdities of monarchy." At what a vast height above the rest of mankind does Kobespierre place himself here 1 And observe the arrogance with which he speaks. He is not content with expressing a desire for a great reno- vation of the human heart, he does not even expect THE LAW. 271 such a result from a regular Government. No; he intends to effect it himself, and by means of terror. The object of the discourse from which this puerile and laborious mass of antithesis is ex- tracted was, to exhibit the p?'{ncij)les of morality which ought to direct a revolutionary Government, Moreover, when Kobespierre asks for a dictator- ship, it is not merely for the purpose of repelling a foreign enemy, or of putting down factions ; it is that he may establish, by means of terror, and as a preliminary to the game of the Constitution, his own principles of morality. He pretends to nothing short of extirpating from the country, by means of terror, egotism, honor, customs ^ decorum, fashion, 'vanity, the love of money, good company, intrigue, wit, luxury, and misery. It is not until after he, Robespierre, shall have accomplished these mira- cles, as he rightly calls them, that he will allow the law to regain her empire. Truly, it would be well if these visionaries — who think so much of themselves and so little of mankind, who want to renew everything — would only be content with try- ing to reform themselves ; the task would be ardu- ous enough for them. In general, however, these gentlemen, the reformers, legislators, and politi- cians, do not desire to exercise an immediate des- potism over mankind. J^o, they are too moderate and too philanthropic for that. They only con- 272 THE lAW. tend for the despotism, the absolutism, the om- nipotence of the law. They aspire only to make the law. To show how universal this strange disposition has been in France, I had need not only to have copied the whole of the works of Mably, E-aynal, Housseau, Fenelon, and to have made long extracts from Bossuet and Montesquieu, but to have given the entire transactions of the sittings of the French Convention of 1789. I shall do no such thing, however, but merely refer the reader to them. It is not to be wondered at that this idea should have suited Buonaparte exceedingly well. He embraced it with ardor, and pat it in practice with energy. Playing the part of a chemist, Europe was to him the material for his experiments. But this material reacted against him. More than half undeceived, Buonaparte, at St. Helena, seemed to admit that there is an initiative in ev^ery people^ ' and he became less hostile to liberty. Yet this did not prevent him from giving this lesson to his son in his will : ^' To govern, is to diffuse morality, education, and w^ ell-being." After all this, I hardly need show, by fastidious quotations, the opinions of Morelly, Babeuf, Owen, Saint Simon, and Fourier. I shall confine myself to a few extracts from Louis Blanc's book on the organization of labor. THE LAW. 273 "In our project society receives the impulse of power." (Page 126.) In what does the impulse which power gives to society consist ? In imposing upon it the project of M. Louis Blanc. On the other hand, society is the human race. The human race, then, is to receive its impulse from ~M.. Louis Blanc. It is at liberty to do so or not, it will be said. Of course the human race is at liberty to take ad- vice from anybody, whoever it may be. But this is not the way in which M. Louis Blanc under- stands the thing. He means that liis project should be converted into law, and, consequently, forcibly imposed by power. ** In our project the State lias only to give a legislation to labor, by means of wliick tlie industrial movement may and ought to be accomplished in all liberty. It (the State) merely places society on an incline {that is all) that it may descend, when once it is placed there, by the mere force of things, and by the natural course of the established mechanis7n." But what is this incline ? One indicated by M. Louis Blanc. Does it not lead to an abyss ? ]^o, it leads to happiness. Why, then, does not society go there of itself ? Because it does not know what it wants, and it requires an impulse. What is to give it this impulse ? Power. And who is to give the impulse to power ? The inven- tor of the machine, M. Louis Blanc. 274 THE LAW. "We shall never get out of this circle — mankind passive, and a great man moving it by the inter- vention of the law. Once on this incline, will society enjoy some- thing like liberty ? Without a doubt. And what is liberty ? " Once for all, liberty consists, not only in tlie right granted, but in the power given to man, to exercise, to de- velop his faculties under the empire of justice, and under the protection of the law. " And this is no vain distinction ; there is a deep meaning in it, and its consequences are not to be estimated. For when once it is admitted that man, to be truly free, must have the power to exercise and develop his faculties, it follows that every member of society has a claim upon it for such instruc- tion as shall enable it to display itself, and for the instru- ments of labor, without which human activity can find no scope. Now, by whose intervention is society to give to each of its members the requisite instruction and the necessary instruments of labor, unless by that of the State 1" Thus, liberty is power. In what does this power consist ? In possessing instruction and in- struments of labor. Who is to give instruction and instruments of labor ? Society, wJio owes them. By whose intervention is society to give instruments of labor to those who do not possess them ? By the intervention of the State. From whom is the State to obtain them ? It is for the reader to answer this question, and to notice whither all this tends. THE -LAW. 275 One of the strangest pllenomena of onr time, and one which will probably be a matter of aston- ishment to our descendants, is the doctrine which is founded upon this triple hypothesis : the radical passiveness of mankind, the omnipotence of the law, the infallibility of the legislator ; this is the sacred symbol of the party which proclaims itself exclusively democratic. It is true that it professes also to be social. So far as it is democratic, it has an unlimited faith in mankind. So far as it is social, it places it beneath the mud. Are political rights under discussion ? Is a legislator to be chosen ? Oh ! then the people possess science by instinct; they are gifted with an admirable tact ; t/ieir willis always right / the general will cannot err. Suffrage cannot be too universal. Nobody is under any responsibility to society. The will and the capacity to choose well are taken for granted. Can the people be mis- taken ? Are we not livino^ in an as^e of enliHiten- ment? What! are the people to be always kept in leading-strings ? Have they not acquired their rights at the cost of effort and sacrifice ? Have they not given sufficient proof of intelligence and wisdom % Are they not arrived at maturity ? Are they not in a state to judge for themselves ? Do they not know their own interest? Is there a 276 THE LAW. man or a class wlio would dare to claim the right of putting himself in the place of the people, of deciding and of acting for them ? ITo, no ; the people would be free^ and they shall be so. They wish to conduct their own affairs, and they shall do so. But when once the legislator is duly elected, then indeed the style of his speech alters. The nation is sent back into passiveness, inertness, nothingness, and the legislator takes possession of omnipotence. It is for him to invent, for him to dii-ect, for him to impel, for him to organize. Mankind has nothing to do but to submit ; the hour of despotism has struck. And we must ob- serve that this is decisive; for the people, just before so enlightened, so moral, so perfect, have no inclinations at all, or, if they have any, they all lead them downwards toward degradation. And yet they ought to have a little liberty ! But are we not assured, by M. Considerant, that liherty leads fatally to monojpoly ? Are we not told that liberty is competition, and that competition, ac- cording to M. Louis Blanc, is a system of extermi- nation for the people^ and of ruination for trade f For that reason people are exterminated and ruined in proportion as they are free ; take, for example, Switzerland, Holland, England, and the United States 1 Does not M. Louis Blanc tell us again THE LAW. 277 that competition leads to monopoly^ and that^ for the same reason^ cheapness leads to exorbitant prices f That competition tends to drain the sources of Gonsiimption^ and urges production to a destruc- tive activity f That competition forces production to increase,, and consumption to decrease? whence it follows that free people produce for the sake of not consuming ; that there is nothing but oppres- sion and madness among them ; and that it is absolutely necessary for M. Louis Blanc to see to it ! "What sort of liberty should be allowed to men ? Liberty of conscience % But we should see them all profiting by the permission to become atheists. Liberty of education % But parents would be pay- ing professors to teach their sons immorality and error ; besides, if we are to believe M. Thiers, edu- cation, if left to the national liberty, would cease to be national, and we should be educating our children in the ideas of the Turks or .Hindoos, instead of which they have the good fortune to be educated in the noble ideas of the Romans. Lib- erty of labor ? But this is only competition, whoso effect is to leave all productions unconsumed, to exterminate the people, and to ruin the tradesmen. The liberty of exchange ? But it is well known that the protectionists have shown, over and over again, that a man must be ruined when he ex- 278 THE LAW. changes freelj^, and that to become ricli it is neces- sary to exchange without liberty. Liberty of association ? But, according to the socialist doc- trine, liberty and association exclude "each other, for the liberty of men is attacked just to force them to associate. You must see, then, that the socialist democrats cannot in conscience allow men any liberty, be- cause, by their own nature, they tend in every instance to all kinds of degradation and demoral- ization. We are therefore left to conjecture, in this case, upon what foundation universal suffrage is claimed for them with so much importunity. The pretensions of organizers suggest another question, which I have often asked them, and to which I am not aware that I ever received an answer : Since the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to allow them liberty, how comes it to pass that the tendencies of organ- izers are always good ? Do not the legislators and their agents form a part of the human race ? Do they consider that they are composed of different materials from the rest of mankind? They say that society, when left to itself, rushes to inevit- able destruction, because its instincts are perverse. They pretend to stop it in its downward course, and to give it a better direction. They have, THE LAW. 279 therefore, received from heaven intelligence and virtues which place them beyond and above man- kind. Let them show their title to this superior- ity. They would be onr shepherds, and we are to be their flock. This arrangement presupposes in them a natural superiority, the right to which we are fully justified in calling upon them to prove. You must observe that I am not contendino^ against their right to invent social combinations, to propagate them, to recommend them, and to try them upon themselves, at their own expense and risk ; but I do dispute their right to impose them upon us through the medium of the law, that is, by force and by public taxes. I would not insist upon the Cabetists, the Fou- rierists, the Proudhonians, the Universitaries, and the Protectionists renouncing their own particular ideas ; I would only have them renounce that idea which is common to them all — viz., tliat of sub- jecting us by force to their own groups and series, to their social workshops, to their bank for lending money without interest, to their Grgeco-Pomano morality, and to their commercial restrictions. I would ask them to allow us the faculty of judging of their plans, and not to oblige us to adopt them, if. we find that ihej hurt our interests or are re- pugnant to our consciences. To presume to have recourse to power and tax- 280 THE LAW. ation, besides being oppressive and unjust, implies, further, the injurious supposition that the organ- izer is infallible, and mankind incompetent. And if mankind is not competent to judge for itself, why do they talk so much about universal suffrage ? Tliis contradiction in ideas is unhappily to be found also in facts ; and whilst the French nation has claimed precedence overall others in obtaining its rights, or rather its political claims, this has by no means prevented it from being more governed, and directed, and imposed upon, and fettered, and cheated, than any other nation. It is also the one, of all others, where revolutions are constantly to be dreaded, and it is perfectly natural that it should be so. So long as this idea is retained, which is admit- ted by all our politicians, and so energetically ex- pressed by M. Louis Blanc in these words, " Society receives its impulse from power ; " so long as men consider themselves as capable of feeling, yet passive ; incapable of raising them- selves by their own discernment and by their own energy to any morality or well-being, while they expect everything from the law ; in a word, while they admit that their relations with the State are the same as those of the flock with the shep- herd, it is clear that the responsibility of power is THE LAW. 281 immense. Fortune and misfortune, wealth and destitution, equality and inequality, all proceed from it. It is charged with everything, it under- takes everything, it does everything ; therefore it has to answer for everything. If we are happy, it has a right to claim our gratitude ; but if we are mis- erable, it alone must bear the blame. Are not our persons and property, in fact, at its disposal ? Is not the law omnipotent? In regulating industry, it has engaged to make it prosper, otherwise it would have been absurd to deprive it of its liberty ; and if it suffers, whose fault is it ? In pretending to adjust the balance of commerce by the game of tariff's, it engages to make it prosper ; and if, so far from prospering, it is destroyed, whose fault is it ? In granting its protection to maritime instrumental- ities in exchange for free navigation, it has en- gaged to render them lucrative ; if these restric- tions become burdensome, whose fault is it ? Thus, there is not a grievance in the nation for which the Government does not voluntarily make itself responsible. Is it to be wondered at that every failure threatens to cause a revolution? And what is the remedy proposed ? To extend indefinitely the dominion of the law, i.e.^ the re- sponsibility of Government. But if the Govern- ment engages to raise and to regulate wages, and is not able to do it ; if it engages to assist all those 282 THE LAW. who are in want, and is not able to do it; if it engages to provide an asjlum for every laborer, and is not able to do it ; if it engages to offer to all sncli as are eager to borrow, gratuitous credit, and is not able to do it; if, in words which we regret should have escaped tbe pen of M. de La- martine, " the State considers that its mission is to enlighten, to develop, to enlarge, to strengthen, to spiritualize, and to sanctify the soul of the people," — if it fails in this, is it not evident that after every disappointment, which, alas ! is moi*e than probable, there will be a no less inevitable revo- lution ? I shall now resume the subject by remarking that immediately after the economical part "^ of the question, and at the entrance of the political part, a leading question presents itself. It is the fol- lowing : — What is law ? "What ought it to be ? What is its domain ? What are its limits ? Where, in fact, does the prerogative of the legislator stop ? I have no hesitation in answering. Law is com- T/ion force organized to prevent injustice j in short, Law is Justice. * Political economy precedes politics: the former lias to discover whether human interests are harmonious or antago- nistic, a fact which must have been decided upon before politics can determine the prerogatives of Government. THE LAW. 283 It is not true that the legislator has absolute power over our persons and property, since they pre-exist, and his work is only to secure them from injury. It is not true that the mission of the law is to regulate our consciences, our ideas, our will, our education, our sentiments, our works, our ex- changes, our gifts, our enjoyments. Its mission is to prevent the rights of one from interfering with those of another in any one of these things. Law, because it has force for its necessary sanc- tion, can only have as its lawful domain the do- main of force, which is justice. And as every individual has a right to have recourse to force only in cases of lawful defense, so collective force, which is only the union of individual forces, cannot be rationally used for any other end. The law, then, is solely the organization of indi- vidual rights, which existed before legitimate defense. Law is justice. So far from being able to oppress the persons of the people, or to plunder their property, even for a philanthropic end, its mission is to protect the former, and to secure to them the possession of the latter. It must not be said, either, that it may be phil- 284 THE LAW. anthropic, so long as it abstains from all oppres- sion; for this is a contradiction. The law cannot avoid acting upon our persons and property ; if it does not secure them, it violates them if it touches them. The law is justice. IN^o thing can be more clear and simple, more perfectly defined and bounded, or more visible to every eye ; for justice is a given quantity, im- mutable and unchangeable, and which admits of neither increase nor dhninution. Depart from this point, make the law religious, fraternal, equalizing, industrial, literary, or artis- tic, and you will be lost in vagueness and uncer- tainty ; you will be upon unknown ground, in a forced Utopia, or, wdiich is worse, in the midst of a multitude of Utopias, striving to gain possession of the lav^, and to impose it upon you ; for frater- nity and philanthropy have no fixed limits, like justice. Where will you stop ? Where is the law to stop ? One person will only extendliis philan- thropy to some of the industrial classes, and will require the law to influence the consumers in fa^or of the producers. Another, like M. Con- siderant, will take up the cause of the working classes, and claim for them by means of the law^, at a fixed rate, clothing, lodging, food, and every' thing necessary for the support of life, A third, \ THE LAW. 285 as M. Louis Blanc, will say, and with reason, that this would be an incomplete fraternity, and that the law ought to provide them with instruments of labor and the means of instruction. A fourth will observe that such an arrano^ement still leaves room for inequality, and that the law ought to introduce into the most remote hamlets luxury, literature, and the arts. This is the hio^h road to communism ; in other words, legislation will be — what it now is — the battle-field for everybody's dreams and everybody's covetousness. Law is justice. In this proposition we represent to ourselves a simple, immovable Government. And I defy any one to tell me whence the thought of a revolution, an insurrection, or a simple disturbance could arise against a public force confined to the repression of injustice. Under such a system there would be more well-being, and this well-being would be more equally distributed; and as to the sufferings inseparable from humanity, no one would think of accusing the Government of them, for it would be as innocent of them as it is of the variations of the temperature. Have the people ever been known to rise against the court of appeals, or assail the justices of the peace, for the sake of claim- ing the rate of wages, gratuitous credit, instru- ments of labor, the advantages of the tariff, or the 286 THE LAW. social workshop? They know perfectly well that these combinations are beyond the jurisdiction of the justices of the peace, and they would soon learn that they are not within the jurisdiction of the law. But if the law were to be made npon the prin- ciple of fraternity, if it were to be proclaimed that from it proceed all benefits and all evils, that it is responsible for every individual grievance and for every social inequality, then you open the door to an endless succession of complaints, irrita- tions, troubles, and revolutions. Law is justice. And it would be very strange if it could prop- erly be anything else ! Is not justice right ? Are not rights equal ? With what show of right can the law interfere to subject me to the social plans of Smith, Jones, and Robinson, rather than to subject these gentlemen to my plans ? Is it to be supposed that nature has not bestowed upon me sufficient imagination to invent a Utopia too % Is it for the law to make choice of one amongst so many fancies, and to make use of the public force in its service ? Law is justice. And let it not be said, as it continually is, that the law, in this sense, would be atheistic, individ- ual, and heartless, and that it would make mankind THE LAW. 287 wear its own image. This is an absurd conclusion, quite worth}'' of the governmental infatuation whi(jh sees mankind in the law. What then? Does it follow, that if we are free, we shall cease to act ? Does it follow, that if we do not receive an impulse from the law, we shall receive no impulse at all ? Does it follow, that if the law confines itself to securing to us the free exercise of our faculties, our faculties will be paralyzed ? Does it follow, that if the law does not impose upon us forms of religion, modes of association, methods of instruction, rules for labor, directions for exchange, and plans for charity, we shall plunge eagerly into atheism, isolation, ignorance, misery, and egotism? Does it follow, that we shall no longer recognize the power and £:oodness of God ; that we shall cease to associate together, to help each other, to love and assist our unfortunate brethren, to study the secrets of nature, and to aspire after perfection in our exist- ence ? Law is justice. And it is under the law of justice, under the reign of right, under the influence of liberty, se- curity, stability, and responsibility, that every man will attain to the measure of his worth, to all the dignity of his being, and that mankind will accom- plish, with order and with calmness — slowly, it 288 THE LAW, is true, but with certainty — the progress decreed to it. I believe that my theory is correct; for what- ever be the question upon which I am arguing, whether it be reh'gious, philosophical, political, or economical ; whether it affects well-being, morality, equality, right, justice, progress, responsibility, property, labor, exchange, capital, wages, taxes, population, credit, or Government ; at whatever point of the scientific horizon I start from, I in- variably come to the same thing — the solution of the social problem is in liberty. And have I not experience on my side ? Cast your eye over the globe. Which are the happiest, the most moral, and the most peaceable nations ? Those where the law interferes the least with pri- vate activity ; where the Government is the least felt ; where individuality has the most scope, and public opinion the most influence ; where the ma- chinery of the administration is the least important and the least complicated ; where taxation is light- est and least unequal, popular discontent the least excited and the least justifiable; where the respon- sibility of individuals and classes is the most ac- tive, and where, consequently, if morals are not in a perfect state, at any rate they tend incessantly to correct themselves; where transactions, meet- ings, and associations are the least fettered ; where THE LAW. 289 labor, capital, and production suffer the least from artificial displacements ; where mankind follows most completely its own natural course ; where the thought of God prevails the most over the in- ventions of men; those, in short, who realize the most nearly this idea : That, within the limits of right, all human transactions should flow from the free, perfectible, and voluntary action of man ; nothing be attempted by the law or by force, ex- cept the administration of universal justice. I cannot avoid coming to this conclusion — that there are too many great men in the world ; there are too many legislators, organizers, institntors of societ}^, conductors of the people, fathers of na- tions, etc., etc. Too many persons place them- selves above mankind, to rule and patronize it ; too many persons make a trade of attending to it. It will be answered : "You yourself are occupied upon it all this time." Yery true. But it must be admitted that it is in another sense entirely that I am speaking ; and if I join the reformers, it is solely for the purpose of inducing them to relax their hold. I am not doing as the inventor Yaucauson did with his automaton, but as a physiologist does with the organization of the human frame ; I would study and admire it. I am acting with regard to it in the spirit which 13 290 THE LAW. animated a celebrated traveler. He found him- self in the midst of a savage tribe. A child liad just been born, and a crowd of soothsayers, ma- gicians, and quacks were around it, armed with rings, hooks, and bandages. One said, " This child will never smell the perfume of a calumet, unless I stretch liis nostrils." Another said, " He will be without the sense of hearing, unless 1 draw his ears down to his shoulders." A third said, " He will never see the light of the sun, unless I give his eyes an oblique direction." A fourth said, "He will never be upright, unless I bend his legs." A fifth said, " He will not be able to think, unless I press his brain." " Stop ! " said the traveler. " Whatever God does is well done ; do not pretend to know more than He ; and as He has given organs to this frail creature, allow those organs to develop themselves, to strengthen them- selves by exercise, use, experience, and liberty." God has implanted in mankind, also, all that is necessary to enable it to accomplish its destinies. There is a providential social physiology, as well as a providential human physiology. The social orarans are constituted so as to enable them to de- velop harmoniously in the grand air of liberty. Away, then, with quacks and organizers ! Away with their rings, and their chains, and their hooks, and their pincers ! Away with their artificial THE LAW. 291 methods ! Away with their social workshops, their governmental whims, their centralization, their tariffs, their State nniversities, their State religions their banks to lend grataitouslj to everybody, their limitations, their restrictions, their moralizations, and their equalization by taxation ! And now, after having vainly inflicted upon the social body so many systems, let them end where they ought to have begun : reject all systems, and make trial of liberty — of liberty, which is an act of faith in God and in His work. .\} 7 j3 RD62 -g * Ho^ L^^f * ^^ ^ ♦ oy •^*. ^°-'*. ' . . » «o v a I LIBRARy BINOINQ A^* "* MAR 81^ ^ " ^■*d ST. AUGUSTINE ofjl"*^ <^ ^^il^ FLA.