unless urged by the additional motive of fear lest some rival should supplant him by getting possession of it before him.

The condemnation of monopolies ought not to extend to patents, by which the originator of an improved process is allowed to enjoy, for a limited period, the exclusive privilege of using his own improvement. This is not making the commodity dear for his benefit, but merely postponing a part of the increased cheapness which the public owe to the inventor, in order to compensate and reward him for the service. That he ought to be both compensated and rewarded for it, will not be denied, and also that if all were at once allowed to avail themselves of his ingenuity, without having shared the labors or the expenses which he had to incur in bringing his idea into a practical shape, either such expenses and labors would be undergone by nobody, except very opulent and very public-spirited persons, or the state must put a value on the service rendered by an inventor, and make him a pecuniary grant. This has been done in some instances, and may be done without inconvenience in cases of very conspicuous public benefit; but in general an exclu sive privilege, of temporary duration, is preferable; because it leaves nothing to any one's discretion; because the reward conferred by it depends upon the invention's being found useful, and the greater the usefulness the greater the reward; and because it is paid by the very persons to whom the service is rendered, the consumers of the commodity. So decisive, indeed, are those considerations, that if the system of patents were abandoned for that of rewards by the state, the best shape which these could assume would be that of a small temporary tax, imposed for the inventor's benefit, on all persons making use of the invention. To this, however, or to any other system which would vest in the state the power of deciding whether an inventor should derive any pecuniary advantage from the public benefit which he confers, the objections are evidently stronger and more

fundamental than the strongest which can possibly be urged against patents. It is generally admitted that the present patent laws need much improvement; but in this case, as well as in the closely analogous one of copyright, it would be a gross immorality in the law to set everybody free to use a person's work without his consent and without giving him an equivalent. I have seen with real alarm several recent attempts, in quarters carrying some authority, to impugn the principle of patents altogether; attempts which, if practically successful, would enthrone free stealing under the prostituted name of free trade, and make the men of brains, still more than at present, the needy retainers and dependents of the men of money-bags.

CHAPTER VI.

SPEECH OF HORACE GREELEY ON THE GROUNDS OF PROTECTION.*

Mr. President and Respected Auditors:-It has devolved on me, as junior advocate for the cause of protection, to open the discussion of this question. I do this with less diffidence than I should feel in meeting able opponents and practiced. disputants on almost any other topic, because I am strongly confident that you, my hearers, will regard this as a subject demanding logic rather than rhetoric; the exhibition and proper treatment of homely truths, rather than the indulgence. of flights of fancy. As sensible as you can be of my deficiencies as a debater, I have chosen to put my views on paper, in order that I may present them in as concise a manner as possible, and not consume my hour before commencing my argument. You have nothing of oratory to lose by this course; I will hope that something may be gained to my cause in clearness and force. And here let me say that, while the hours I have been enabled to give to preparation for this debate have been few indeed, I feel the less regret in that my life has been in some measure a preparation. If there be any subject to which I have devoted time, and thought, and patient study, in a spirit of

*Speech at the Tabernacle, New York, February 10, 1843, in public debate on this resolution:

Resolved. That a Protective Tariff is conducive to our National Prosperity.
Affirmative: JOSEPH BLUNT,
SAMUEL J. TILDEN,
PARKE GODWIN.

Negative

HORACE GREELEY.

From Greeley's "Recollections of a Busy Life."

anxious desire to learn and follow the truth, it is this very question of protection; if I have totally misapprehended its character and bearings, then am I ignorant, hopelessly ignorant indeed. And, while I may not hope to set before you, in the brief space allotted me, all that is essential to a full understanding of a question which spans the whole arch of political economy,-on which able men have written volumes without at all exhausting it,-I do entertain a sanguine hope that I shall be able to set before you considerations conclusive to the candid and unbiased mind of the policy and necessity of protection. Let us not waste our time on non-essentials. That unwise and unjust measures have been adopted under the pretence of protection, I stand not here to deny; that laws intended to be protective have sometimes been injurious in their tendency, I need not dispute. The logic which would thence infer the futility or the danger of protective legislation would just as easily prove all laws and all policy mischievous and destructive. Political Economy is one of the latest born of the sciences; the very fact that we meet here this evening to discuss a question so fundamental as this, proves it to be yet in its comparative infancy. The sole favor I shall ask of my opponents, therefore, is that they will not waste their efforts and your time in attacking positions that we do not maintain, and hewing down straw giants of their own manufacture, but meet directly the arguments which I shall advance, and which, for the sake of simplicity and clearness, I will proceed to put before you in the form of propositions and their illustrations, as follows:

PROPOSITION I. A Nation which would be prosperous, must prosecute various branches of industry, and supply its vital wants mainly by the labor of its own hands.

Cast your eyes where you will over the face of the earth, trace back the history of man and of nations to the earliest recorded periods, and I think you will find this rule uniformly

prevailing, that the nation which is eminently agricultural and grain-exporting,-which depends mainly or principally on other nations for its regular supplies of manufactured fabrics, has been comparatively a poor nation, and ultimately a dependent nation. I do not say that this is the instant result of exchanging the rude staples of agriculture for the more delicate fabrics of art; but I maintain that it is the inevitable tendency. The agricultural nation falls in debt, becomes impoverished, and ultimately subject. The palaces of "merchant princes" may emblazon its harbors and overshadow its navigable waters; there may be a mighty Alexandria, but a miserable Egypt behind it; a flourishing Odessa or Dantzic, but a rude, thinly-peopled southern Russia or Poland; the exchangers may flourish and roll in luxury, but the producers famish and die. Indeed, few old and civilized countries become largely exporters of grain until they have lost, or by corruption are prepared to surrender, their independence; and these often present the spectacle of the laborer starving on the fields he has tilled, in the midst of their fertility and promise. These appearances rest upon and indicate a law, which I shall endeavor hereafter to explain. I pass now to my

PROPOSITION II. There is a natural tendency in a comparatively new country to become and continue an exporter of grain ̈ and other rude staples and an importer of manufactures.

I think I hardly need waste time in demonstrating this proposition, since it is illustrated and confirmed by universal experience, and rests on obvious laws. The new country has abundant and fertile soil, and produces grain with remarkable facility; also, meats, timber, ashes, and most rude and bulky articles. Labor is there in demand, being required to clear, to build, to open roads, etc., and the laborers are comparatively few; while, in older countries, labor is abundant and cheap, as also are capital, machinery,