Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 9.djvu/797

FREE defended on the ground that the acceptance of such a note puts a risk on the holder to which ho should not be sub ject, and that the refusal to accept such notes suggests a suspicion that the issuing parties are of doubtful solvency. Again, there are certain callings over which a police is exercised in the interests of the revenue, as on those persons who are engaged in the manufacture of excisable articles. There can be no doubt that such a supervision is a hind rance to trade, and some persons who advocate direct tax ation have alleged, as one of the strongest arguments in favour of their theory, that the abandonment of all excise and customs regulations would make England a free port for the whole world, would greatly extend its commerce and its manufacturing energy, and widen its markets. And lastly, there are certain callings which are permitted, but watched and controlled in the interests of morality. Of these the most notable is the occupancy of houses where intoxicating liquors are sold, and of other places of public entertainment. Few persons doubt that an efficient and incessant supervision should be exercised over these places, though they differ widely as to the extent and character of the control, and the agencies by which the control should be put into operation. The regulation of public houses is the oldest form of domestic police over occupations in England, for it can be traced back to the manorial inspection which was general after the Conquest, even if it did not exist in the Anglo-Saxon village. Eng lish law, therefore, exercises a control or restraint of trade over industries which are laudable, or innocent, or legal, because it is found, or is thought to be found, that they may be abused to serious public inconvenience or mischief. Some amusing illustrations of the extent to which the privilege of unlimited issue of bankers paper may be abused are afforded in the history of what was called " wild-cat banking " in the Western States of the American Union. It is remarkable that the United States, which have adopted, and to a great extent with evident sincerity, extreme views in favour of the policy of protection against foreign rivals, have also permitted from time to time, and with scarcely any check, extreme licence in the conduct of business within the limits of the Union itself. With the exception of these and analogous instances, when the safety and morals of the public justify, to a larger or smaller extent, the supervision of the state over the free choice of industry, the concession of that free trade in labour which puts the minimum of hindrance on the field of employment and the character of employment which the producer selects is quite as important to the wellbeing of a state as the concession of a free agency to its capital and a free market for its products. For as all wealtli is the pro duce of labour, and as the efficiency of labour is the first and last condition of national progress, as the efficiency of labour is primarily brought about by the division of employ ments, and as the division of employments knows no limit as long as the market of products is extended, so it is of the highest interest to the efficiency of labour that the field of its operations should be as open and free as possible. But here it is to the purpose to observe that the natural distri bution of labour, very often masks the effect of a mischiev ous economical system. There is no country in which this fact has been so systematically ignored as in the American Union. In the United States, economists who have steadily maintained, with the best arguments at their dis posal, that the growth and progress of their country has been assisted by the adoption of a protective system, have omitted, in all their estimates of what constitutes the material progress of the Union, the fact that, in whatever other directions they have regulated industry and com merce on a protectionist basis, they have always, and to an extent that no other country has done, accepted and 7G1 insisted on free trade in labour, They have not only welcomed all comers, some little irritation at Irish labour, and a more serious objection to Chinese immigration exceptcd, but they have imposed no tariff on the impor tation of labour, nor even contemplated such an exten sion of protection to American industry. It would not, however, be difficult to show that, on the grounds ordi narily taken by American statesmen and publicists, they would be consistent in denouncing the immigration of aliens. They have, however, with a happy inconsistency, not only; not taken this step, but they have wisely and advantageously insisted that the Old World notion of indefeasible allegiance shall be relaxed, at least on behalf of those who have made the United States their home. Here they have been free traders without stint. And it has been fortunate for America that they have not extended such prohibitions to alien humanity as they have to the products of that labour which alien humanity has offered them for sale. For several years the United States received about 200,000 emigrants annually from the Old World. It is a moderate estimate that each of these per sons represented an outlay of at least 150 in his bringing up, or in other words that, had he been born in the United States, he would have cost at least as much as this sum to bring him into that state of efficiency which he carries to his new home. The Old World has therefore been bestow ing a voluntary tribute of .30,000,000 annually on the United States, a contribution which is quite sufficient to balance the mischievous effects of economical fallacies, though it is possible that these fallacies may be so disas trous as to neutralize the value of this branch of American imports, or even to check the importation altogether. Not, indeed, that the effects of unwise economical action are easily or rapidly discovered. The present advantage of re straint for the benefit of the producer is obvious ; the con sumer is left out of sight, and is commonly unconscious of the process which is narrowing his powers. At last, when the consequences do come, sophistry and self-interest are both active in assigning the facts to other causes than those which are really dominant, and in resenting and resisting all change. When it is said that the principles of free trade should be applied to land, it is meant that a natural object, the products of which are of supreme necessity to mankind, is not rendered accessible to purchasers, or not rendered so profitable to occupiers as the interest of the public requires. Land in populous countries is, relative to the community, very limited in amount, and as it is the locvs standi of all industries, its distribution, as is alleged, should not be so restrained as to induce a restraint on the efficiency of industry. No economist worthy of the name has ever disputed the sacredness of private property. To do so would be to undermine the very foundations of his science. No economist, even though he may be betrayed into heresies as to the nature and extent of free exchange, has ever doubted that within certain geographical .limits the fullest freedom of innocent production and trade should be accorded. No American protectionist has yet argued that it is expedient, in order to develop at the earliest period the possible manufactures of the Western States, that these States should be allowed to restrain by prohibitive duties the cotton and hardware of New England. All discussions therefore about free trade in any com modity, and among others in land, must presuppose that property should be respected, and exchange should be free. If the so-called economist denies the name of property to that which must be secured to its owner, in order that industry may be exercised in the best possible way, he has abandoned the principles of his science. And if, on the other hand, it be insinuated that, while he is seeking to IX. 06