It divided merchandise into three classes:
"The first includes articles of food, and _raw material free from all
human labor. A wise economy would require that this class should not
be taxed_."
Here there is no labor; consequently no protection.
"The second is composed of articles which have undergone _some
preparation_. This preparation warrants us _in charging it with some
tax_."
Here protection commences, because, according to the petitioners,
_national labor_ commences.
"The third comprises perfected articles which can in no way serve
national labor; we consider these the most taxable."
Here, labor, and with it protection, reach their maximum.
The petitioners assert that foreign labor injures national labor; this
is _the error_ of the prohibitive school.
They demanded that the French market should be restricted to French
_labor_; this is the _end_ of the prohibitive system.
They insisted that foreign labor should be subject to restriction and
taxation; these are the _means_ of the prohibitive system.
What difference, then, is it possible to discover between the
petitioners of Bordeaux and the advocate of American restriction? One
alone: the greater or less extent given to the word _labor_.
Pages:
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168