We will suppose that we are in the village of A. The recruiting sergeants go their round, and take off a man.  The tax-gatherers go their round, and take off a thousand francs.  The man and the sum of money are taken to Metz, and the latter is destined to support the former for a year without doing anything.  If you consider Metz only, you are quite right; the measure is a very advantageous one:  but if you look towards the village of A., you will judge very differently; for, unless you are very blind indeed, you will see that that village has lost a worker, and the thousand francs which would remunerate his labour, as well as the activity which, by the expenditure of those thousand francs, it would spread around it.

At first sight, there would seem to be some compensation.  What took place at the village, now takes place at Metz, that is all.  But the loss is to be estimated in this way:—­At the village, a man dug and worked; he was a worker.  At Metz, he turns to the right about and to the left about; he is a soldier.  The money and the circulation are the same in both cases; but in the one there were three hundred days of productive labour, in the other there are three hundred days of unproductive labour, supposing, of course, that a part of the army is not indispensable to the public safety.

Now, suppose the disbanding to take place.  You tell me there will be a surplus of a hundred thousand workers, that competition will be stimulated, and it will reduce the rate of wages.  This is what you see.

But what you do not see is this.  You do not see that to dismiss a hundred thousand soldiers is not to do away with a million of money, but to return it to the tax-payers.  You do not see that to throw a hundred thousand workers on the market, is to throw into it, at the same moment, the hundred millions of money needed to pay for their labour:  that, consequently, the same act which increases the supply of hands, increases also the demand; from which it follows, that your fear of a reduction of wages is unfounded.  You do not see that, before the disbanding as well as after it, there are in the country a hundred millions of money corresponding with the hundred thousand men.  That the whole difference consists in this:  before the disbanding, the country gave the hundred millions to the hundred thousand men for doing nothing; and that after it, it pays them the same sum for working.  You do not see, in short, that when a tax-payer gives his money either to a soldier in exchange for nothing, or to a worker in exchange for something, all the ultimate consequences of the circulation of this money are the same in the two cases; only, in the second case the tax-payer receives something, in the former he receives nothing.  The result is—­a dead loss to the nation.

The sophism which I am here combating will not stand the test of progression, which is the touchstone of principles.  If, when every compensation is made, and all interests satisfied, there is a national profit in increasing the army, why not enrol under its banners the entire male population of the country?