The other reports, with which I will not trouble the reader, told the same story. Gardeners, carpenters, shoemakers, boatmen, all complained of the same grievances. I am sorry there were no day laborers in our association. Their report would certainly have been exceedingly instructive. But, unfortunately, the poor laborers of our province, all _protected_ as they are, have not a cent, and, after having taken care of their cattle, cannot go themselves to the _Mutual Aid Society_. The pretended favors of protection do not prevent them from being the pariahs of modern society. What I would especially remark is the good sense with which our villagers have perceived not only the direct evil results of protection, but also the indirect evil which, affecting their patrons, reacts upon themselves. This is a fact, it seems to me, which the economists of the school of the _Moniteur Industriel_ do not understand. And possibly some men, who are fascinated by a very little protection, the agriculturists, for instance, would voluntarily renounce it if they noticed this side of the question. Possibly, they might say to themselves: "It is better to support one's self surrounded by well-to-do neighbors, than to be protected in the midst of poverty." For to seek to encourage every branch of industry by successively creating a void around them, is as vain as to attempt to jump away from one's shadow. V. DEARNESS--CHEAPNESS. I consider it my duty to say a few words in regard to the delusion caused by the words _dear_ and _cheap_. At the first glance, I am aware, you may be disposed to find these remarks somewhat subtile, but whether subtile or not, the question is whether they are true. For my part I consider them perfectly true, and particularly well adapted to cause reflection among a large number of those who cherish a sincere faith in the efficacy of protection. Whether advocates of free trade or defenders of protection, we are all obliged to make use of the expression _dearness_ and _cheapness_. The former take sides in behalf of _cheapness_, having in view the interests of consumers. The latter pronounce themselves in favor of _dearness_, preoccupying themselves solely with the interests of the producer. Others intervene, saying, _producer and consumer are one and the same_, which leaves wholly undecided the question whether cheapness or dearness ought to be the object of legislation.