Part 13 (1/2)

”Labor,” he says, ”constitutes _the whole_ wealth of a nation

Protection should be for the agricultural interest, and _the whole_ agricultural interest; for theinterest; and this principle I will continually endeavor to impress upon this Chamber”

The petitioners consider no labor but that of the ly, it is that, and that alone, which they would wish to ad entirely _untouched by human labor_, our system should exe no material for national labor, we consider as the most fit for taxation”

There is no question here as to the propriety of protecting national labor Mr de Saint Cricq and the Bordalese agree entirely upon this point We have, in our preceding chapters, already sho entirely we differ from both of them

The question to be determined, is, whether it is Mr de Saint Cricq, or the Bordalese, who give to the word _labor_ its proper acceptation And we must confess that Mr de Saint Cricq is here decidedly in the right

The following dialogue ht be supposed between theree that national labor ought to be protected You agree that no foreign labor can be introduced into ouran equal quantity of our national labor But you contend that there are nu _value_, for they are sold, and which are nevertheless _untouched by hu these you name corn, flour, meat, cattle, bacon, salt, iron, copper, lead, coal, wool, skins, seeds, etc

If you can prove to s is not dependent upon labor, I will agree that it is useless to protect them

But if I can prove to you that there is as much labor put upon a hundred francs worth of wool, as upon a hundred francs worth of cloth, you ought to acknowledge that protection is the right as much of the one, as of the other

I ask you then why this bag of wool is worth a hundred francs? Is it not because this is its price of production? And what is the price of production, but the sues for labor, pay the various laborers and capitalists, who have assisted in the production of the article?

_The Petitioners_--It is true that with regard to wool you ht of coal, are these the produce of labor? Is it not nature which _creates_ them?

_Mr de St Cricq_--Without doubt, nature _creates_ these substances, but it is labor which gives the that labor _creates_ material objects, used a false expression, which has led me intoany thing fro; and if _production_ is used as a synonym for _creation_, then indeed our labor riculturist does not pretend that he has _created_ the corn; but he has given it its _value_ He has by his own labor, and by that of his servants, his laborers, and his reapers, transformed into corn substances which were entirely dissimilar from it What more is effected by the miller who converts it into flour, or by the baker who makes it into bread?

In order that a man may be dressed in cloth, numerous operations are first necessary Before the intervention of any human labor, the real _priht, and the various salts which enter into its composition These are indeed _untouched by human labor_, for they have no _value_, and I have never drea protection But a first _labor_ converts these substances into forage; a second into wool; a third into thread; a fourth into cloth; and a fifth into garments Who can pretend to say, that all these contributions to the work, froh, to the last stitch of the needle, are not _labor_?

And because, for the sake of speed and greater perfection in the accomplishment of the final object, these various branches of labor are divided a as many classes of workmen, you, by an arbitrary distinction, determine that the order in which the various branches of labor follow each other shall regulate their importance, so that while the first is not allowed to merit the name of labor, the last shall receive all the favors of protection

_The Petitioners_--Yes, we begin to understand that neither wool nor corn are entirely _independent of huriculturist has not, like theto do by his own labor, and that of his workmen; nature has assisted him; and if there is some labor, at least all is not labor, in the production of corn

_Mr de St Cricq_--But it is the labor alone which gives it _value_ I grant that nature has assisted in the production of grain I will even grant that it is exclusively her work; but I must confess at least that I have constrained her to it by my labor And remark, moreover, that when I sell my corn, it is not the _work of nature_ which I make you pay for, but _ up your , that neither will manufactured articles be the production of labor Does not the manufacturer also call upon nature to assist him? Does he not by the assistance of steaht of the ate of its humidity? Is it the cloth-ravitation, transmission of forces and of affinities?

_The Petitioners_--Well, well, ill give up wool, but assuredly coal is the work, the exclusive work, of nature This, at least, is _independent of all human labor_

_Mr de St Cricq_--Yes, nature certainly has made coal; but _labor hasthe millions of years when it lay unknown and buried a hundred feet below the surface of the earth? It was necessary to seek it Here was labor It was necessary to transport it to a ain this was labor The price which you pay for coal in theand transportation[13]

[Footnote 13: I do not, for many reasons, make explicit s to the contractor, capitalist, etc Firstly: because, if the subject be closely looked into, it will be seen that it is always either the rei in advance, or the payeneral labor, I include not only the salary of the workitimate payment of all co-operation in the work of production Thirdly: finally, and above all, because the production of the manufactured articles is, like that of the raw material, burdened with interests and remunerations, entirely independent of _ht be equally applied to the finest ricultural process]

We see that, so far, all the advantage is on the side of Mr de St

Cricq, and that the _value_ of unmanufactured as of manufactured articles, represents always the expense, or what is the sa, the _labor_ of production; that it is i a _value, independent of human labor_; that the distinction made by the petitioners is futile in theory, and, as the basis of an unequal division of favors, would be iniquitous in practice; for it would thence result that the one-third of the French occupied in manufactures, would receive all the benefits of monopoly, because they produce _by labor_; while the two other thirds, forle against competition, under pretense that they produce _without labor_