Part 10 (1/2)

[Footnote i-216: Although both Franklin and Smith held to the labor theory of value (Franklin was indebted to Petty for his use of the term), Smith was confirmed in his belief before he knew of Franklin or his works.]

[Footnote i-217: According to Jacob Viner (”Adam Smith and Laissez Faire,” in _Adam Smith, 1776-1926. Lectures to Commemorate the Sesqui-Centennial of the Publication of 'The Wealth of Nations_,'

116-55), ”Smith's major claim to fame ... seems to rest on his elaborate and detailed application to the economic world of the concept of a unified natural order, operating according to natural law, and if left to its own course producing results beneficial to mankind” (p. 118), which suggests, especially in _Theory of Moral Sentiments_, that self-love and social are the same. When Smith came to write the _Wealth of Nations_, he tended, Viner a.s.serts, to distrust the operations of the harmonious natural order--yet Viner admits that many pa.s.sages tend to corroborate his earlier view expressed in _Theory of Moral Sentiments_ and that ”There is no possible room for doubt that Smith in general believed that there was, to say the least, a stronger presumption against government activity beyond its fundamental duties of protection against its foreign foes and maintenance of justice” (p. 140). We shall see elsewhere that Franklin seems to have urged a less frugal governmental restraint in activities other than economic.]

[Footnote i-218: _The Colonial Mind_, 173. It is generally thought that _Principles of Trade_ is ”partly” Franklin's ”own composition” (Carey, _op. cit._, 161).]

[Footnote i-219: Philadelphia, Sept. 13, 1775: MS letter (unpublished) in W. S. Mason Collection.]

[Footnote i-220: London, Sept. 29, 1769: MS letter (unpublished) in W.

S. Mason Collection.]

[Footnote i-221: London, Feb. 20, 1768 (_Writings_, V, 102).]

[Footnote i-222: Dated April 4, 1769 (_ibid._, V, 200-2).]

[Footnote i-223: _Writings_, V, 202.]

[Footnote i-224: Cited by F. W. Garrison in ”Franklin and the Physiocrats,” _Freeman_, VIII, 154-6 (Oct. 24, 1923).]

[Footnote i-225: Dupont de Nemours's opinion of Franklin (_Writings_, V, 153-4).]

[Footnote i-226: _Writings_, V, 156. See W. Steell's entertaining ”The First Visit to Paris,” in _Benjamin Franklin of Paris_, 3-21; also E. E.

Hale and E. E. Hale, Jr., _Franklin in France_, I, 7-13.]

[Footnote i-227: C. Gide and C. Rist, _A History of Economic Doctrines_, 4 note.]

[Footnote i-228: _Writings_, V, 155.]

[Footnote i-229: As an _experimental_ agriculturist Franklin has been given too little honor. He performed many valuable services in introducing Old-World plants, trees, and fruits to the New, and in encouraging others to carry on practical botanical experiments.

Particularly from 1747 to 1757 he experimented in agriculture and was in constant communication with that pioneer scientific husbandman, Jared Eliot. See E. D. Ross's ”Benjamin Franklin as an Eighteenth-Century Agriculture Leader,” _Journal of Political Economy_, x.x.xVII, 52-72 (Feb., 1929).]

[Footnote i-230: Although no scholarly subst.i.tute for the works of Quesnay, Mirabeau, Mercier de la Riviere, Dupont de Nemours, Le Trosne, Abbe Bandeau, Abbe Roubaud, and some pieces of the occasional physiocrat Turgot, the following will enable the student to derive adequately for general purposes the thought of the economistes: H. Higgs, _The Physiocrats_ (1897); Gide and Rist, op. cit.; L. H. Haney, _History of Economic Thought_ (1911), 133-57; G. Weulersse, _Le mouvement physiocratique en France (de 1756 a 1770)_; A. Smith, _Wealth of Nations_, Bk. IV, chap. IX; J. Bonar, _Philosophy and Political Science_ (1893); in addition see critical and interpretative writings of Oncken, Stem, Kines, Hasbach, Sch.e.l.le, Bauer, Feilbogen, De Lavergne.]

[Footnote i-231: An integral idea of the French school was its advocacy of the _impot unique_--a single tax on land. It is difficult to find evidence to controvert Mr. Carey's a.s.sertion that Franklin seems never to have advocated this tax (_op. cit._, 154). However, in marginalia on a pamphlet by Allan Ramsay, Franklin held: ”Taxes must be paid out of the Produce of the Land. There is no other possible Fund” (cited by Carey, 155). Another reference is found in a letter of 1787 to Alexander Small: ”Our Legislators are all Land-holders; and they are not yet persuaded, that all taxes are finally paid by the Land” (_Writings_, IX, 615). It is probable that he felt that a land tax would be dubiously effective in view of the difficulties of collection in spa.r.s.e settlements.]

[Footnote i-232: _Writings_, II, 313 (July 16, 1747). See also _Note Respecting Trade and Manufactures_, London, July 7, 1767 (Sparks, II, 366):

”Suppose a country, X, with three manufactures, as _cloth_, _silk_, _iron_, supplying three other countries. A, B, C, but is desirous of increasing the vent, and raising the price of cloth in favor of her own clothiers.

In order to do this, she forbids the importation of foreign cloth from A.

A, in return, forbids silks from X.

Then the silk-workers complain of a decay of trade.

And X, to content them, forbids silks from B.

B, in return, forbids iron ware from X.

Then the iron-workers complain of decay.