THEORY OF INTERNATIONAL VALUES
619
mercial view of the subject ’—altogether wide of the mark, but
even the corrections of the economist require themselves to be
corrected. The writer of these criticisms does not flatter himself
that they form any exception to this rule.
(4) Professor Sidgwiclt.—The new theory of international
values which Professor Sidgwick has propounded in his Princdples
of Political Economy, Book II. chap. 3, appears to be tenable
upon an assumption which, with respect to modern trade, is
plausible, namely that the difference in ‘ the aggregate of utilities,
obtainable by similar sacrifices in different localities ’ (Ibid. § 3,
par. 1, 2nd ed.) is not much greater than might be accounted for by
the cost of transport. If we assume that any greater difference
in the level of advantage would be annihilated by a flow of
population (loc. cit.), Professor Sidgwick rightly considers that
‘ an essential part of the reason why a special theoretic treat-
ment has to be applied to the products of international trade is
that a double cost of carriage has here to be taken into account ”
(Ibid. § 3, par. 2).
The problem which Professor Sidgwick solves might thus be
reached, as I understand. First, abstract cost of transport, and
let it ‘ not ’ be ‘ assumed that labour and capital do not move
freely between the trading countries.’ This is the case of ordinary
domestic trade. Now introduce a barrier which it requires a
certain cost of transport to surmount ; Professor Sidgwick applies
the general theory of international trade to determine how values
would be affected in this particular case.
Putting this or some similar construction on Professor
Sidgwick’s theory, I accept the positive part of it as true, and
perhaps pertinent to a great part of modern trade. But I am
unable to accept the negative part of the doctrine, namely that.
Mill’s theory is erroneous, ‘ unless we further suppose that after
the trade is established, there is no product common to the trading
countries, a supposition manifestly extravagant ’ in the case con-
sidered (Ibid. § 2, par. 2).
In directing hostile criticism against Professor Sidgwick I feel
like a certain attacking party described by Thucydides who, though
they had the Lacedemonians at a disadvantage in the island of
Sphacteria, yet were oppressed and cowed—literally enslaved—
by the prestige of their adversaries.1 But, like the Athenians on
that occasion, I have numbers on my side—not only Mill and all
his followers with respect to the general issue, but also at the
1 ‘ aveβaιvov τp yv<⅛μy δeδovλωμevoι ωs eτrl ∆aκeδaιμovloυs i (Thucyd. Book IV.
ch. 3, 4). ‘ *