{"character_count": 2466, "word_count": 442, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9811000227928162], "ccnet_perplexity": [1990.4000244140625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
The machine for blaming boards, of which

 we gave an account last week, by which two men can do the work in day, which requires twenty five men to perform with the common hand plane, affords fit subject for com plete Illustration of the manner in which d nation may thrive under the restrictive svs- tenn. The American System philosophers are constantly telling us of the prosperity of Great Britain and France, under their corn laws and prohibitions, and they insist upon it.

 that this prosperity results from the obstruc- tions placed by the Government in the way of foreign commerce. The free trade party ad- mits the prosperity, but denies that it results from their restrictive systems and for the ve- " simple reason, that restrictive systems can be shown to be incapable of producing any such results. They insist upon 1t that their prosperity results ID shite of their ab- surd laws, and that that prosperity would be much greater were trade left unshackled. - They say that the prosperity of England may just as well be ascribed to her enormous public debt as to her corn-laws, fer that it is impossible to conceive how compelling the na- ton to eat dear bread can possibly add to their prosperity, any more than the necessi- ty under which they labor of paying taxes to meet the intrest on the debt. As well might our farmers, who within four months, have seen flour rise one dollar a barrel, ascrhe that rise to the law which oblges them to pay double price for their sugar, iron, and sundry articles of necessary clothing

 Suppose carpenter to be employed to-day to plane boards, to groove, and to tongue them, and thathe could finish twenty in a day. Suppose tomorrow he should by accident cut off one of his hands, and that after this loss he should set his wits to work and invent machine by which he could plane, tongue, and grove, with the aid of another man, five hundred boards in day. Would any man be such an idiot as to ascribe this increased power of production to the loss of his hand? Suppose, instead of cutting off his hand, he had merely tied it behind his back, under a mistaken notion that the restrictfpe syste,1 increases the ability to produce, would that alter the case? We would trust for a sound answer to these questions, to the simplest la borer in the community. Now, as the loss of the aid oi one hand in this case cannot, by any possibility, be made capable of multiplying, the products of the industry of this carpenter,