As the supply of slave labour does not rise and fall with the wants of the capitalist, like that of free labour, he employs his occasional surplus on works which could be better done by brute labour or machinery. By rejecting brute labour, he refuses facilities for convertible husbandry, and for improving the labour of his slaves by giving them animal food. By rejecting machinery, he declines the most direct and complete method of saving labour. Thus, again, capital is sunk which ought to be reproduced. In order to make up for this loss of capital to slave-owners, bounties and prohibitions are granted in their behalf by government; the waste committed by certain capitalists abroad being thus paid for out of the earnings of those at home. Sugar being the production especially protected, every thing is sacrificed by planters to the growth of sugar. The land is exhausted by perpetual cropping, the least possible portion of it is tilled for food, the slaves are worn out by overwork, and their numbers decrease in proportion to the scantiness of their food and the oppressiveness of their toil. When the soil is so far exhausted as to place the owner out of reach of the sugar-bounties, more food is raised, less toil is inflicted, and the slave population increases. Legislative protection, therefore, not only taxes the people at home, but promotes ruin, misery, and death, in the protected colonies. A free trade in sugar would banish slavery altogether, since competition must induce an economy of labour and capital; i. e., a substitution of free for slave labour. Let us see then what is the responsibility of the legislature in this matter. The slave system inflicts an incalculable amount of human suffering, for the sake of making a wholesale waste of labour and capital. Since the slave system is only supported by legislative protection, the legislature is responsible for the misery caused by direct infliction, and for the injury indirectly occasioned by the waste of labour and capital. -----