Were he consistent with himself, he would as legislator vote against all restriction; 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 succeed in _laboring much_, to _obtain little_.

We would see him forbidding the use of the plough, because he could, by scratching up the soil with his nails, fully gratify his double wish of "_dear bread_ and _abundant labor_." Restriction has for its avowed object and acknowledged effect, the augmentation of labor.

And again, equally avowed and acknowledged, its object and effect are, the increase of prices--a synonymous term for scarcity of produce.

Pushed then to its greatest extreme, it is pure Sisyphism as we have defined it; _labor infinite; result nothing_.
There have been men who accused railways of _injuring shipping_; and it is certainly true that the most perfect means of attaining an object must always limit the use of a less perfect means.