Weekly miners' express. (DuBuque, Iowa) 184?-1849, 1848-11-14
ADMINISTRATIONS
For the Express.
THOUGHTSFOR THE PEOPLE No. 8


THOUGHTSFOR THE PEOPLE No. 3
Labor, in free country, wants no pro.
lection, neither should it be subject to any
restriction. A law which protects one
kind oflabor, or prohibits the free and un-
restrained operation Of another, is alike
an infringement upon the rights Of the
community. Protective laws, while in
creasing the wealth Of one portion Of the
community, must necessarily diminish, in
corresponding ratio, the resources Of
the other portion. For, if protective
law increases the price Of any given ar
ticle thirty per cent, the non-producing
portion Of the community, and the con-
Stunning portion, must pay this excess of
thirty per cent. Thus one portion ofthe
community gains thirty per cent by pro-
tection, while, by the operation Of the
same law, the other portion of the COM
munity loses in a reciprocal ratio.
Something analogous 10 this occurs,
when branch Of business is restricted
by prohibitory laws. What would be
thought Of the man, who would propose
and advocate the adortion Of a law which
would fix the price Of building a house or
making shirt, or which would fix the
price Of doing any other act, by which
man earns his livelihood? He would be
looked upon as visionary Of the Ulopi-
an School, and, though his theory could
not but attract the attention, and even ex-
cite the admiration Of his sympathisers,
fe, indeed, would there be to say, 'let US
put it in practice
And yet, such laws have been propos
ed such laws have found advocates, and
have been adopted, and are no,o the law
Of the land in many, if not all the States
Of the Union, and are, Of course, to be
found among the statutes Of the State Of
Iowa. From these restrictive and price,
fixing laws, | will take one, which hap
pens to stare me, at present, with its ar
bitrary gaze. aI|ude to the statute 'sde-
fining the position" Of Mills and Millers.
With that portion Of the statute, relating
to thu location Of mills, and the rights Of
other parties affected, or to be affected,
by such location, | have nothing 10 say at
present; but with the obligation which
the Statute imposes upon the miller, or
mill-owner, | have to say, that such an
obligation is unjust, unnecessary, and does
not answer the purpose Cor which it was
intended. These asse rlions believe 10
be true, and will endeavor to prove them
so The law to which | have referred,
is to be found in the Revised Statutes.
chap. 2O2, sections Ia, Is, 16, II g. Is.
The Statute, need not quote the words,
as by so doing, would occupy too much
space makes an arbitrary distinction, by
defining, or enacting, that certain kind
Of mills therein named, shall be deemed
public mills; and then goes on defining
the obligation Of these mills to grind
wheat, corn, and other kinds Of grain, TO
take certain portion Of the same for so
doing so, &c.
All this looks like fair play, like conss.
tency, to the unthinking farmer. lie
thinks that all is right, that mill which
grinds for loll, or in other words, for pay,
should be called public mill, that the
price Of the miler's labor should not be
regulated by circumstances Of supply and
demand, but by law. But suppose we
turn the tables little, and sayby statute,
An act, regulating farm and farmers, Be
it enacted, &C., Sec IA. A farm which
is kept for raising produce for sale, shall
be deemed a public farm, and the produce
thereon raised shall be sold for the pri-
ces, and at the rates following, to wit:
For wheat raised by the application Of
labor.saving machinery, 40 cents per
bushel; for wheat raised by OK or horse
blowing, 80 cents. And be it further en-
acted, that the farmer shall be, at all times,
ready to thrash said wheat, and deliver
the same TO the person who shall Fl rst de-
sire to purchase the same; and this under
penalty Of FORGETTING so many dollars for
each time he may not feel inclined to
comply. Would there be one farmer 10
say that such law would be just or ne
cessary? How, then, can it be just or ne
cessary in the miller's case? What makes
it unjust in one case, makes it unjust in
another; and if there be no necessity for
the law in the farmers case, (and there
is noD neither is there any in the miller's.
And suppose that all laws are (as they
should beg made for just and necessary
purpose, and this law failing in being Just
or necessary, it follows that the law does
not answer the purpose for which it was
originally enacted.
But, it may be contended, that the CO.
ses are not analogous. Neither are they.
A farmer is not necessarily miller, nor
need miller be a farmer. In this re-
spe ct, they are not analogous; in all things
else they are. They are MEN and c1T1-
lens, and as such, their civil rights are
the same. The profession of. both is
equally useful to society, norris one more
so than the other. mill is as much the
private property Of a miller, as is the
farm OF farmer, and the labor Of the
former bestowed upon his mill ought to
be as far above the reach of legislation
as is the crops produced by the labor and
from the land Of the latter. Let US, then,
unite in being just to all-showing Meth
er favor nor prejudice to any: s....
MAHoNy.
SOMETHING FOR ALL-God's Goodness.
SO various are the appetites of animals