Again this was labor.

The price which you pay for coal in the market is the remuneration given to these labors of digging and transportation.[13] [Footnote 13: I do not, for many reasons, make explicit mention of such portion of the remuneration as belongs to the contractor, capitalist, etc.

Firstly: because, if the subject be closely looked into, it will be seen that it is always either the reimbursing in advance, or the payment of anterior _labor_.

Secondly: because, under the general labor, I include not only the salary of the workmen, but the legitimate payment of all co-operation in the work of production.

Thirdly: finally, and above all, because the production of the manufactured articles is, like that of the raw material, burdened with interests and remunerations, entirely independent of _manual labor_; and that the objection, in itself, might be equally applied to the finest manufacture and to the roughest agricultural process.] We see that, so far, all the advantage is on the side of Mr.de St.
Cricq, and that the _value_ of unmanufactured as of manufactured articles, represents always the expense, or what is the same thing, the _labor_ of production; that it is impossible to conceive of an article bearing a _value, independent of human labor_; that the distinction made by the petitioners is futile in theory, and, as the basis of an unequal division of favors, would be iniquitous in practice; for it would thence result that the one-third of the French occupied in manufactures, would receive all the benefits of monopoly, because they produce _by labor_; while the two other thirds, formed by the agricultural population, would be left to struggle against competition, under pretense that they produce _without labor_.
It will, I know, be insisted that it is advantageous to a nation to import the raw material, whether or not it be the result of labor; and to export manufactured articles.