It was said by Napoleon that duties should never be a fiscal instrument, but a means of protecting industry.

We plead the contrary, and say, that duties should never be made an instrument of reciprocal rapine; but that they may be employed as a useful fiscal machine.

I am so far from asking for the suppression of duties, that I look upon them as the anchor on which the future salvation of our finances will depend.

I believe that they may bring immense receipts into the treasury, and, to give my entire and undisguised opinion, I am inclined, from the slow progress of healthy, economical doctrines, and from the magnitude of our budget, to hope more for the cause of commercial reform from the necessities of the Treasury than from the force of an enlightened public opinion.
I.
ABUNDANCE--SCARCITY.
Which is the best for man or for society, abundance or scarcity?
How, it may be exclaimed, can such a question be asked?
Has it ever been pretended, is it possible to maintain, that scarcity can be the basis of a man's happiness?
Yes; this has been maintained, this is daily maintained; and I do not hesitate to say that the _scarcity theory_ is by far the most popular of the day.

It furnishes the subject of discussions, in conversations, journals, books, courts of justice; and extraordinary as it may appear, it is certain that political economy will have fulfilled its task and its practical mission, when it shall have rendered common and irrefutable the simple proposition that "in abundance consist man's riches." Do we not hear it said every day, "Foreign nations are inundating us with their productions"?
Then we fear abundance.
Has not Mr.de Saint Cricq said, "Production is superabundant"?
Then he fears abundance.
Do we not see workmen destroying and breaking machinery?
They are frightened by the excess of production; in other words, they fear abundance.
Has not Mr.Bugeaud said, "Let bread be dear and the agriculturist will be rich"?
Now bread can only be dear because it is scarce.