West Virginia Democrat. [volume] (Charles Town, W. Va.) 1885-1890, 1888-10-26
THE WEALTH OF NATIONS.
Smiths wealth of Nations.


nv as a separate branch of knowl-
edge and was the first to start a
movement to convince England of
the folly of q tariff for the sake OF
protection. We print some eX-
tracts from his book published in
London one hundred and one years
ago:
"By restraining, by high duties,
the importation from foreign coun-
tries of such goods as can be pro
duced at home, monopoly of the
home market is more or less secured
to the persons who produce such
goods. IL cannot lie doubted that
this monopoly of the home market
frequently gives great encourage
ment to that particular species OF
industry which enjoys it. But it is
doubted whether it tends to increase
the industry of the country. The
general industry of society can never
exceed what the capital of such So
ciety can employ. The number OF
workmen that can be employed by a
particular person must bear Ger
tain proportion to his capital, and
on the same principle the number
that can be continually employed by
community must bear certain
proportion to the whole capital OF
that community and can never eX-
ceed that proportion. No possible
legislation can permanently main
tain policy which violates the
principles of political economy
Ed Dem. No regulation of com
merce can increase the quantity of
industry in any community beyond
what its capital can maintain. 1t
can only divert part of such CAPT
tai into directions into which it
would not otherwise have gone; but
probably this artificial direction is
less advantageous to the general
body of society than that into which
it would have gone of its own ac-
cord.
Farmers, dispersed in different
parts of the country, cannot so east
ly combine rs merchants and manu-
facturers, who heing collected into
cities and accustomed TO that exclu.
sive corporation spirit which pre-
walls in them, naturally endeavor to
obtain against all their countrymen
the same exclusive privileges which
they generally possess against the
inhabitants of their respective cities
not in the same pursuits. Accord
ingly, they have been the original
inventors of these restraints on the
importation of foreign goods which
secure them the monopoly of n home
market. In order to put themselves
on a level with merchants and man
ufacturers, who, they found, were dis
posed to oppress them, the farmers
of Great Britain demanded the eX-
elusive privilege of supplying meat
to their countrymen. They did not
take time to consider how much less
their interest could be affected by
the freedom of trade than that of
the people whose examples they fol
lowed. So with VS., the wool growers
are induced to clamOr for protec-
ton, not rejecting how much less
they are benefited than the manu-
facturers whose example they imi-
tate.-Ed. DEN.
France has been particularly for
ward to restrain the importation of
such foreign goods as could come in
competition with their home produc-
tions. This was the policy of Col
bert, who, Notwithstanding his great
abilities, was in this instance i'm
posed upon by the sophistry of man
ufacturers, who are always demand
ing monopoly against their coun-
trymen.
TO exclude certain foreign foods
may encourage some particular class
of English workmen, and by eXclud-
ing their rivals enable them to raise
the price of their wares in the home
market. The other classes of work
men, however, will be obliged to pay
dearer than before for such goods.
Every such law, therefore, imposes
a real tax upon the whole country,
except the particular class for whose
benefit the foreign goods are ex-
cluded 4 4 K
When particular manufacturing
by means of prohibitions upon rival
foreign goods, has been so extended
as to employ a multitude of hands,
the prohibitions should be removed
gradually, with reserve and Uircum
spection.
To expect, indeed, that freedom
of trade should ever be restored in
Great Britain is as absurd as to eX-
pect that an Oceana or Utopia
should ever be established in it. Not
only the prejudice of the public, but
what is more unconquerable. the pri-
vate interests of many individuals
irresistibly oppose it. Were the Off
GERS of the army to oppose reduc
ton of the forces with the same
zeal in which the master manufac-
turers set themselves against every
law likely to increase their rivals in
the home market; were the officers