However, to the great astonishment of the Chinese, the Emperor died, and this Son of Heaven was committed to earth.

His successor sent for Kouang, and said to him: "Clean out the ca.n.a.l."

And Kouang said to the new Emperor: "Son of Heaven, you are doing wrong."

And the Emperor replied: "Kouang, you are foolish."

But Kouang persisted and said: "My Lord, what is your object?"

"My object," said the Emperor, "is to facilitate the movement of men and things between Tchin and Tchan; to make transportation less expensive, so that the people may have tea and clothes more cheaply."

But Kouang was in readiness. He had received, the evening before, some numbers of the _Moniteur Industriel_, a Chinese paper. Knowing his lesson by heart, he asked permission to answer, and, having obtained it, after striking his forehead nine times against the floor, he said: "My Lord, you try, by facilitating transportation, to reduce the price of articles of consumption, in order to bring them within the reach of the people; and to do this you begin by making them lose all the labor which was created by the destruction of the ca.n.a.l. Sire, in political economy, absolute cheapness"--

The Emperor. "I believe that you are reciting something."

Kouang. "That is true, and it would be more convenient for me to read."

Having unfolded the _Esprit Public_, he read: "In political economy the absolute cheapness of articles of consumption is but a secondary question. The problem lies in the equilibrium of the price of labor and that of the articles necessary to existence. The abundance of labor is the wealth of nations, and the best economic system is that which furnishes them the greatest possible amount of labor. Do not ask whether it is better to pay four or eight cents cash for a cup of tea, or five or ten shillings for a shirt. These are puerilities unworthy of a serious mind. No one denies your proposition. The question is, whether it is better to pay more for an article, and to have, through the abundance and price of labor, more means of acquiring it, or whether it is better to impoverish the sources of labor, to diminish the ma.s.s of national production, and to transport articles of consumption by ca.n.a.ls, more cheaply it is true, but, at the same time, to deprive a portion of our laborers of the power to buy them, even at these reduced prices."

The Emperor not being altogether convinced, Kouang said to him: "My Lord, be pleased to wait. I have the _Moniteur Industriel_ to quote from."

But the Emperor said: "I do not need your Chinese newspapers to tell me that to create _obstacles_ is to turn labor in that direction. Yet that is not my mission. Come, let us clear out the ca.n.a.l, and then we will reform the tariff."

Kouang went away plucking out his beard, and crying: Oh, Fo! Oh, Pe! Oh, Le! and all the monosyllabic and circ.u.mflex G.o.ds of Cathay, take pity on your people; for, there has come to us an Emperor of the _English school_, and I see very plainly that, in a little while, we shall be in want of everything, since it will not be necessary for us to do anything!

VIII.

POST HOC, ERGO PROPTER HOC.

"After this, therefore on account of this." The most common and the most false of arguments.

Real suffering exists in England.

This occurrence follows two others:

First. The reduction of the tariff.

Second. The loss of two consecutive harvests.

To which of these last two circ.u.mstances is the first to be attributed?

The protectionists do not fail to exclaim: "It is this cursed freedom which does all the mischief. It promised us wonders and marvels; we welcomed it, and now the manufactories stop and the people suffer."

Commercial freedom distributes, in the most uniform and equitable manner, the fruits which Providence grants to the labor of man. If these fruits are partially destroyed by any misfortune, it none the less looks after the fair distribution of what remains. Men are not as well provided for, of course, but shall we blame freedom or the bad harvest?

Freedom rests on the same principle as insurance. When a loss happens, it divides, among a great many people, and a great number of years, evils which without it would acc.u.mulate on one nation and one season.

But have they ever thought of saying that fire was no longer a scourge, since there were insurance companies?

In 1842, '43 and '44, the reduction of taxes began in England. At the same time the harvests were very abundant, and we can justly believe that these two circ.u.mstances had much to do with the wonderful prosperity shown by that country during that period.

In 1845 the harvest was bad, and in 1846 it was still worse. Breadstuffs grew dear, the people spent their money for food, and used less of other articles. There was a diminished demand for clothing; the manufactories were not so busy, and wages showed a declining tendency. Happily, in the same year, the restrictive barriers were again lowered, and an enormous quant.i.ty of food was enabled to reach the English market. If it had not been for this, it is almost certain that a terrible revolution would now fill Great Britain with blood.

Yet they make freedom chargeable with disasters, which it prevents and remedies, at least in part.

A poor leper lived in solitude. No one would touch what he had contaminated. Compelled to do everything for himself, he dragged out a miserable existence. A great physician cured him. Here was our hermit in full possession of the _freedom of exchange_. What a beautiful prospect opened before him! He took pleasure in calculating the advantages, which, thanks to his connection with other men, he could draw from his vigorous arms. Unluckily, he broke both of them. Alas! his fate was most miserable. The journalists of that country, witnessing his misfortune, said: "See to what misery this ability to exchange has reduced him!

Really, he was less to be pitied when he lived alone."

"What!" said the physician; "do not you consider his two broken arms? Do not they form a part of his sad destiny? His misfortune is to have lost his arms, and not to have been cured of leprosy. He would be much more to be pitied if he was both maimed and a leper."

_Post hoc, ergo propter hoc_; do not trust this sophism.

IX.

ROBBERY BY BOUNTIES.

They find my little book of _Sophisms_ too theoretical, scientific, and metaphysical. Very well. Let us try a trivial, commonplace, and, if necessary, coa.r.s.e style. Convinced that the public is _duped_ in the matter of protection, I have desired to prove it. But the public wishes to be shouted at. Then let us cry out:

"Midas, King Midas, has a.s.ses' ears!"

An outburst of frankness often accomplishes more than the politest circ.u.mlocution.

To tell the truth, my good people, _they are robbing you_. It is harsh, but it is true.

The words _robbery_, _to rob_, _robber_, will seem in very bad taste to many people. I say to them as Harpagon did to Elise, Is it the _word_ or the _thing_ that alarms you?

Whoever has fraudulently taken that which does not belong to him, is guilty of robbery. (_Penal Code, Art. 379._)

_To rob_: To take furtively, or by force. (_Dictionary of the Academy._)

_Robber_: He who takes more than his due. (_The same._)

Now, does not the monopolist, who, by a law of his own making, obliges me to pay him twenty francs for an article which I can get elsewhere for fifteen, take from me fraudulently five francs, which belong to me?

Does he not take it furtively, or by force?

Does he not require of me more than his due?

He carries off, he takes, he demands, they will say, but not _furtively_ or _by force_, which are the characteristics of robbery.

When our tax levy is burdened with five francs for the bounty which this monopolist carries off, takes, or demands, what can be more _furtive_, since so few of us suspect it? And for those who are not deceived, what can be more _forced_, since, at the first refusal to pay, the officer is at our doors?