interposed. We conquer or weaken these by the employment of our faculties. It

lf? There exists always a proportion between the effort employed and the result obtained. Does progress con

ained, and in political economy

as the result does to the effort. Absolute perfection, of which God is the type, consists in th

stitutes, our riches. Progression is the increase of the proportion of the effect to the res

der the term of Sisyphism, from Sisyphus, who, in punishment of his crimes, was compelled to roll a stone up hill, w

inery, which adds to the strength of man; the exchange of produce, which allows us to profit by the various natural agents distributed in d

e difficulty and diminish the product; as, privileges, monopolies,

em. Every workman, whether agriculturist, manufacturer, merchant, soldier, writer or philosopher, devotes the

riments upon society. And even of these we may observe, that in what personally concerns themselves, they act, like

exaggerate, and that the

ctical industry never can admit of Sisyphism. The error is too quickly followed by its punishment to remain concealed. But in the speculative industry of theorists and statesmen, a false principle may be for a long time followed up, before the complication of its conseque

t of the hoe or the harrow; when he calls to his aid every improvement that science and experience have revealed, he has, and can have, but one object, viz., to diminish the proportion of the effort to the result. We have indeed no other means of judging of the success of an agriculturist or of the merits of his system, but by observing how far he has succeed

ciple to the legislator, and to show him how he ought to assist industry (if indeed it is any part of his business to assist

abundant." And consequently these gentlemen vote in favor of legislative measures whose effect is to shackle and impede commerce, precisely

triction; or else as farmer, he would practise in his fields the same principle which he proclaims in the public councils. We would then see him sowing his grain in his most sterile fields, because he would thus suc

ed and acknowledged, its object and effect are, the increase of prices-a synonymous term for scarcity of produce.

rting more cheaply; and they can only transport more cheaply, by diminishing the proportion of the effort employed to the result obtained-for it is in this that cheapness consists. When, therefore, these men lament the suppression of labor in attaining a given result, they maintain the doctrine of Sisyphis

United States (and in so doing believed that they were doing well) to give to the procuring of, for instance, a certain quantity of iron, double the necessary labor. In England, iron was then at $20; in the United States it cost $40. Supposing the day's work to be worth $2.50, it is evident that the United States could, by barter, procure a ton of iron by eight day

has pushed aside manual labor; everywhere production is superabundant; everywhere the equilibrium is destroyed between the power of production and that of consumption." Here then we see that, according to these gentlemen, if the United States was in a critical situation it was because her productions were too abundant; there was too much

while intellect exists, it cannot but seek continually to increase the proportion of the end to the means; of

to reproach them with this; for this principle becomes that of our administration only because it prevails in Congress; it prevails in Congr

ot such in their personal transactions; very certainly each of them will procure for himself by barter, what by direct production would be a