174 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
bour as being the foundation of all value, he
adopts in a note the language of Adam Smith,
which designates labour as the real measure of
the exchangeable value of all commodities*.

In another chapter of his work he is still
more explicit.

“A franc,” says he, “is not a measure of
value for any thing, but for a quantity of the
same metal of which francs are made, unless
francs and the thing to be measured can be
referred to some other measure, which is com-
mon to both. This I think they can be, for
they are both the result of labour ; and, there-
fore, labour is a common measure, by which
their real as well as their relative value may be
estimated +.”
And to support this doctrine he cites a pas-
sage from M. Destutt de Tracy, the scope of
which is to show that labour is the cause of
value. Surely nothing can more decisively
prove a confusion of ideas on this point than
adducing a passage, which asserts labour to be

Ibid., p. 13.

+ Ibid., p. 333.