code of international law, important as it is, so far as it goes, does
not approach the subject now under consideration, nor does it, in
any particular, provide for it. This is a ground, over which Free
Trade demands, that there shall be no law whatever, and claims.
for it the arbitrary sway of unbridled license, where the most selfish
passions of the human race are constantly in action, and excited to
the highest pitch by the lust of wealth and power. The tempta-
tions for depredation in this field are as much greater, as the mag-
nitude of the objects and the chances of success are more con-
siderable than in other quarters. Under the ordinary jurisdiction
of an independent state, the relations of society are defined, and the
rights of its members, in relation to each other, are protected against
offenders. But Free Trade proposes that there shall be no code
over these relations between nations, so far as commerce is con-
cerned; though it can not but be seen, that the commercial rela-
tions of these great parties, are all that are of any material impor-
tance as subjects of legislation. International commerce, be it
more or less, is composed of parts, and every separate transaction
is independent of every other-is private, and as such, is a transac-
tion of the social state. It can not be said, that it does not belong
to the domain of law, of equity, and that it does not require the
supervision of authority, and the protection of its arm. But ac-
cording to the dogmas of Free Trade, one has only to take
up the
position of "an outside barbarian," and he may with impunity
lay his hands upon the commercial rights of the people of any
nation whatever, if by any means he can bring a foreign commer-
cial agency to bear upon them to his own profit and their injury.
His license is vested in his position as a foreigner. He acquires
power, in every country, in an inverse proportion to his rights there;
and having no rights at all, his liberty is uncontrolled.
chances are a thousand, a million to one, that he will find plenty
of commercial agencies in any part of the world, any one of which,
according to this system, will be adequate to absorb and swallow
up a countless number of commercial rights in any other part of
the world. The innocent hen that is industriously scratching the
earth to feed her interesting family, is not more exposed to the
bird of prey, that is now circling through the air above her head,
and which will the next moment bear aloft in his talons one or
more of her charge, than is every man within the bounds of civili-
zation, to the Free-Trade rovers, who darken the heavens with their
baleful wings, to live on plunder wherever a nation is unwise

The Hen & the Tow
сидитись

The

enough to expose itself to their rapacity; and there is just about as much law in the one case as in the other. It is for want of law, in this particular, and only for that, that any nation, thus exposed, is perpetually robbed. Why should it not be? And who can prevent it, so long as she herself does not? By the case supposed, she has thrown away her shield; or has not taken the trouble to keep it in hand. She has taken the word of the roving bandits, on the highway of nations, that they are all honest men; that they will do no harm; that their law, which is anarchy, is the best law; that the hen and chickens are perfectly safe; that no bird of prey will ever descend upon them; and that, though they propose to come among them, it is only for fair exchange, and to leave a quid pro quo!

Our design, in this chapter, as avowed, is to illustrate a wellknown principle, viz., that of anarchy, in this particular application, and not to enter largely into the details of the general argument, which have their place in subsequent parts of this work. Our wish here is to show the absurdity of making laws for the citizens of a commonwealth, in their relations to each other, and of attempting to do without law, in the relations between citizens of different and independent commonwealths. To maintain that laws are necessary for domestic intercourse and not for foreign; that home trade should be regulated, and foreign not; that a rogue who cheats his fellow-citizen should be punished, and that a foreigner shall be free to come in, and do that indirectly with impunity, which a citizen may not do in any form; that domestic trade shall be taxed for the entire support of society, and foreign trade not taxed at all, even though it has every advantage of the commercial facilities of the country, and deprives home trade of all which itself carries on, and home labor of all which it brings in ;—this, certainly, is a very extraordinary system of hospitality! Is it not one of the most glaring absurdities that ever entered the mind of a man, who did not also, for the sake of consistency, advocate the abolition of all law, that all parties might be on an equal footing?

It will, perhaps, be said we are dealing with a shadow, with a nondescript and imaginary department of the social state. But that can hardly be called imaginery, which impoverishes or enriches a nation, an effect conceded on all sides, inasmuch as the argument between the parties in this debate, is, as to which of two systems will do the one or the other. Nor can it be said, that the ground we speak of is already covered by law, on either system.

That it is covered by law for other purposes, we do not deny ; but, quo ad hoc, as to this purpose, the very question is, whether it shall or shall not be covered by such authority. Free Trade forbids, and Protection demands it.

If it be still asked, where is the ground, what is the field, in question? We answer: It is that comprehensive and immense domain of commercial rights, which appertains to every independent state, in its peculiar position, interests, and institutions, so far as they are peculiar, and consequently its own property. But the peculiar rights of this wide and vast field, can not be fully appreciated, for the purpose now in view, till they are regarded as belonging to the individual members of the state, the sum of whose rights of this description constitutes the whole. They are, in the first place, the property of the nation; next, they are the property of the individuals of which the nation is composed. They have cost the nation much, and have cost every individual in it or his ancestors much, or somebody with whom he is connected, in proportion to his stake in the community, and he is perpetually burdened with a system of taxation on their account. The question between Free-Traders and Protectionists, is, whether these peculiar rights shall be maintained, in behalf of those to whom they belong; or whether they shall be thrown open to foreigners, to whom they do not belong; whether, being thrown open, foreigners shall be permitted to enjoy the greatest benefit; whether, indeed, foreigners, from their own peculiar and advantageous position, shall be permitted to make these rights nearly or quite valueless to citizens; whether they shall be permitted even to oppress and enslave, after having robbed, the inheritors and proprietors of these rights. That all this is possible, and that it has all been experienced, none will deny, who have made themselves acquainted with the recorded wrongs of the North American colonists, under the British crown -wrongs which, to be redressed, cost rivers of blood and mountains of wealth. That much of this has been experienced by the people of the United States, even since the achievement of their independence, is made evident enough by the pages of our commercial history, citations from which, for this purpose, are displayed in subsequent parts of this work. It is this vast field of rights, which Free Trade proposes to give back to Great Britain, back to Europe, back to the entire foreign world, by striking from our statute-book the only shield of protection which they have, or can have. It is in this manner, and so far-too far, indeed-that the

principle of anarchy applies to this great and momentous subject, and threatens unbridled license to all the world, for depredation on the rights of a great, laborious, long-suffering people.

That the principle of Free Trade is one akin to that of anarchy, it is only necessary to observe, that one of its technical definitions of itself, is, that it is based on the laissez-faire precept: that is, let things alone; let them take their own course; let men, quo ad hoc, do as they please; don't embarrass them with rules. In view of the fact already established, that there is no department of the commercial world, which has so much influence on every other, for good or for evil, as this very ground which is in contest between Free Trade and Protection, of the truth of which this strife itself is a sufficient evidence- since men do not usually contend so long and so earnestly for that which is of no consequence-in view of this, we say, one would think it could hardly be pretended, that it is a matter of indifference, whether this ground be, or be not, covered by law; much less, that it ought to have no law at all, which is the claim of Free Trade.

We shall be instructed, not a little, on this point, by a consideration of the objects of all law, and of any laws whatever, of civilization itself, in all its parts and degrees, and of the improvements which are constantly being attempted by legislation. These objects, let it be observed, are always to get away from anarchy -to be further removed from those evils, which, at any given time, are experienced, from defects of law, or the want of it. Even a bad law was never repealed, and society was never dissolved, for the sake of going back to anarchy. Anarchy is that state of things, which all lovers of order, and of the rights of the social state, dread, and fly from, on the principle of self-love and self-preservation; and every improvement of society, by legislation, is attempted, with a view to diminish and remove any remaining evils of this original state of things, of which there are always some, under the present imperfections of the social state. It can hardly be conceived, that society, in its legislation for laudable purposes, could ever have any other object, than to limit the sway of the will of individuals, and to establish the will of the great mass, so far as the former may be opposed to the latter. The first is, perhaps, as good a definition. of anarchy as one could give. Nor is it a bad definition of the principle of Free Trade; for, let it be observed, that this principle is not confined, in its applications, to foreign commerce; but it is found everywhere, invading rights of the social state, which are

imperfectly defined by law, and if possible violating, by evasion or open breach of law, even those which are not only distinctly defined, but universally recognised. It is the reign of the will of the individual, as opposed to that of society; and as good members of society are not in the habit of asserting this claim, it is uniformly found, when found at all, in the mouths and acts of bad members. It is the non-restrictive system, whether found in the ordinary forms of the social state, or in that great and wide field covered by foreign commerce, in both of which the fundamental principle is the same.

And this principle applies not only to the present, as it may have arisen out of the past, but to the future, as it may arise out of the present; not only to rights acquired, but to the chances of acquiring more. Freedom holds more precious its future chances, than its present possessions. It is an ambitious, aspiring spirit, which can not brook the darkening of its prospects. What did the American fathers contend for, against the British crown? A principle, and that on account of its prospective influence. It was not the past or present, so much as the future, which originated and sustained that contest. Every citizen of a free country, and of laudable enterprise, being secure of the present, is laying his plan and striving for something yet unacquired, regarding his future position and interests, in the prosecution of which he has a claim for protection from society; and there is not a single private interest in the land, which is not reached and affected, disastrously or otherwise, by foreign commerce; not one that of the importing merchant excepted in the case of citizens of the United States, as shown elsewhere, that would not be invaded, impaired, wronged by it, without a national system to protect it, as certainly as that a universal depredation on the rights of society, without resistance, would be followed by its dissolution. It is even more certain; for, in the latter case, there would be the conventionalities of a state of barbarism, to afford some protection; whereas, in the former, the parties acting on each other, would be too remote in their relative position for the benefit, even of such conventionalities. Just in proportion to that remoteness of position, and much more in consideration of the fact that each party is under an independent jurisdiction, should the laws of foreign commercial intercourse be more carefully devised, and more rigidly maintained on the line where the two jurisdictions come in contact. At best, there is a chasm, a great and impassable gulf, between them, so that an injured party in one can not go for redress to the courts of the other.