I give a very brief summary of the proceedings of one meeting:
"A Ship-builder. Our mercantile marine is at the last gasp (warlike digression). It is not surprising. I cannot build without iron. I can get it at ten francs in the world's market; but, through the law, the managers of the French forges compel me to pay them fifteen francs. Thus they take five francs from me. I ask freedom to buy where I please.
"An Iron Manufacturer. In the world's market I can obtain transportation for twenty francs. The ship-builder, through the law, requires thirty. Thus he takes ten francs from me. He plunders me; I plunder him. It is all for the best.
"A Public Official. The conclusion of the ship-builder's argument is highly imprudent. Oh, let us cultivate the touching union which makes our strength; if we relax an iota from the theory of protection, good-bye to the whole of it.
"The Ship-builder. But, for us, protection is a failure. I repeat that the shipping is nearly gone.
"A Sailor. Very well, let us raise the discriminating duties against goods imported in foreign bottoms, and let the ship-builder, who now takes thirty francs from the public, hereafter take forty.
"A Minister. The government will push to its extreme limits the admirable mechanism of these discriminating duties, but I fear that it will not answer the purpose.
"A Government Employe. You seem to be bothered about a very little matter. Is there any safety but in the bounty? If the consumer is willing, the tax-payer is no less so. Let us pile on the taxes, and let the ship-builder be satisfied. I propose a bounty of five francs, to be taken from the public revenues, to be paid to the ship-builder for each quintal of iron that he uses.
"Several Voices. Seconded, seconded.
"A Farmer. I want a bounty of three francs for each bushel of wheat.