no argument to illustrate it. In relation to the agricultural states, however, an opinion has, at some times and in some sections of the country, been prevalent, that the agricultural interests would be equally safe without any general government. The following, among other considerations, may serve to show the fallacy of all such suggestions. A large and uniform market at home for native productions has a tendency to prevent those sudden rises and falls in prices, which are so deeply injurious to the farmer and the planter. The exclusive possession of the home market against all foreign competition gives a permanent security to investments, which slowly yield their returns, and encourages the laying out of capital in agricultural improvements. Suppose cotton, tobacco, and wheat were at all times admissible from foreign states without duty, would not the effect be permanently to check any cultivation beyond what at the moment seems sure of a safe sale? Would not foreign nations be perpetually tempted to send their surplus here, and thus, from time to time, depress or glut the home market?
§ 480. Again, the neighbouring states would often engage in the same species of cultivation; and yet with very different natural, or artificial means of making the products equally cheap. This inequality would immediately give rise to legislative measures to correct the evil, and to secure, if possible, superior advantages over the rival state. This would introduce endless crimination and retaliation, laws for defence, and laws for offence. Smuggling would be every where openly encouraged, or secretly connived at. The vital interests of a state would lie in many instances at the mercy of its neighbours, who might, at the same time,
