"The second is composed of articles which have undergone some preparation. This preparation warrants us in charging it with some tax."
Here protection commences, because, according to the petitioners, national labor commences.
"The third comprises perfected articles which can in no way serve national labor; we consider these the most taxable."
Here, labor, and with it protection, reach their maximum.
The petitioners assert that foreign labor injures national labor; this is the error of the prohibitive school.
They demanded that the French market should be restricted to French labor; this is the end of the prohibitive system.
They insisted that foreign labor should be subject to restriction and taxation; these are the means of the prohibitive system.
What difference, then, is it possible to discover between the petitioners of Bordeaux and the advocate of American restriction? One alone: the greater or less extent given to the word labor.
The protectionist extends it to everything—so he wishes to protect everything.
"Labor constitutes all the wealth of a people," says he; "to protect national industry, all national industry, manufacturing industry, all manufacturing industry, is the idea which should always be kept before the people." The petitioners saw no labor excepting that of manufacturers; so they would admit that alone to the favors of protection. They said: