but, for fear of being accused of manufacturing Sophisms for the mouths of the protectionists, I will allow one of their most able reasoners to speak for himself.
"It is our belief that protection should correspond to, should be the representation of, the difference which exists between the price of an article of home production and a similar article of foreign production....

A protecting duty calculated upon such a basis does nothing more than secure free competition; ...

free competition can only exist where there is an equality in the facilities of production.
In a horse-race the load which each horse carries is weighed and all advantages equalized; otherwise there could be no competition.

In commerce, if one producer can undersell all others, he ceases to be a competitor and becomes a monopolist....

Suppress the protection which represents the difference of price according to each, and foreign productions must immediately inundate and obtain the monopoly of our market."[9] [Footnote 9: M.le Vicomte de Romanet.] "Every one ought to wish, for his own sake and for that of the community, that the productions of the country should be protected against foreign competition, _whenever the latter may be able to undersell the former_."[10] [Footnote 10: Mathieu de Dombasle.] This argument is constantly recurring in all writings of the protectionist school.