The Kansas herald of freedom., 1858-04-03

the purchase OF articles beyond our wants
8ees Hos provide the means of remuners-
sion. II s9nle Of the foregoing statements
We are weii aware that ne are in conflict
wisEa 70 selall PARTON of the world. It Is
almoss universally held that the greater
the demand for a given article the bet-
Eeffor vaoeyer ptodnees it. On The con:
.rar5,, the tighter tie demand the better FOR
@hoevesshe labor falls upon of supplying
1T L Is only when one is enabled by
lneaus of a given amount Of the article
IN detnasld, to change the rates of ex-
siange. ia his favor that the increased
lsmafd vii be looked upon favorally.-
/ A Il that are in want of the article in de-
/ lsi.1l, desire that Is should be abundant,
! and 50 does the holder, provided he cat
! rnosoFs ize the trade. And so he would,
however HuIaerous the holders, were the
eates Of sxchange fixed. Il is only when
hecah 5alze advantage of the necessitous,
that he ssires the increased demand
From tbs If will be seen that no feeling
but thai Of selfishness is enlisted in favor
Of an Unusual. demand for any article
needed . supply the wants of any poi
! tion Of The community. And from this
feeliue na good ever legitimateIy comes.
Bus fes US see whether the statement
that no compensation is or can be received
] for an article which is not made to satisfy
asy real want. It is very manifest that
should the agrieulturalist raise any amount
! of grain and destroy II himself, he would
not be benefited by the transaction. We
ask how the case viii be bettered by some
one destroying il who did not produce it?
We cannot see that it is material who IS
the destroyer; whether it be the producer
OF the purchaser. But it may be answer
ed by the grain raiser that when the pur-
chaser is the destroyer. the destroyer is
alone the sufferer. That he must first
have paid for the article before he can
dispose of it in any manner; and it will
not be material to the raiser whether a
good or bad use is made of it. But the
amount lost is not altered whether the
producer or the purchaser be the destroy
er. This is plain to any one at glance.
The only question to be settled then is
whether the sufferer is the same in each
instance. We assert that, as the aggregate
floss is the same in either case, so also is
1.-The sufferer the same. But to this it
| will be replied that the farmer having
received the money for his produce can
| not be the loser. The difficulty here
arises We apIrehend from the use of mon
ey. Let us suppose for the present
/ that money is not in use-that all braL-
ehes Of business are carried on by means
of simple exchange of article for arti-
, | Gle. In ehis state of things. If the grain
raiser be a temperance man he viii not
part with his grain for distilled liquors
This viii render it impossible for the dis
| tiIler to obtain the grain; and SO he can
not become the destroyer. But suppose
the disliiler pays the money for his grain,
| and what then viii be the result? In
case the other classes are temperance men
| he canno sell his liquor. Butletus come
| to the last and true state of the case, and
suppose that some will, and some viii not
| exchange for, or buy the article the dis
ttiller offers in the market. The aggregate
Iioss 70 The community remains the same,
whether the people viii or will not pay
heir money for the worthless article
IN any eTent, the money might as well be
paid 70 TIC distiller if he remained idle,
as when he industriously follows his busi-
ness. For he can never add anything to
the commercial value of a community by
| maintaining a WORTHLESS articles wheth-
er idle or st work, he is inevitably tax
upon the community in which he lives.
But the question most of all Others
which we wish to settlesis whether the
grain raiser actually receives any compen-
sa.ion for whatever grain he may furnish
the distiller, for the purpose of being
sold out as a beverage. He never car
receive any compensation for any grain
he may part with, unless the use made oi
the grain parted with has. in some way
increased the ability of the purchaser to
produce values which he could not other
wise have produced. Ifthis be not self
evident proposition. let us examine it and
see if it does not become demonstrable.-
Suppose the grain purchased by the me-
chanic, the manufacturer, or the.commer-
cial man does not contain any nutriment
in other words viii not sustain life. It is
manifest that each and all these classes
!, viii be unable to render any equivalent
for such an. article; the obvious reason
being that no value was received, and
consequently noue can be given in turn.
But we win pursue this question a little
further and see if the evidence does not
become irresistable, that the grain raiser
receives no pay for whatever grain is
made rse. of for distiiiation. Let US sup
pose the farmer never parts with more
! grain than enough to satisfy the real
wants of the community he undertakes to
supply. Il is manifest in this case that
he can IN no way be benefited by the sur
plus amount Of grain raised. It remains
on his hands q worthless article. But
the mechanical, manufacturing and COM
meroial cases will be able to pay larger
SUM % the agrieultnFalist when they
s have received grain enough to satisfy all