(1142) 1868 Juni 23 
63 
Vesinier stänkert hier in der French branch gegen Dupont und 
Jung, die er beide „als Bonapartisten‘“ verschreit. Während mei- 
ner Abwesenheit wohnte er einer Sitzung des Central Council bei 
(wozu er kein Recht hat) und hat einen fabelhaften Bericht in die 
; „Cigale‘“ (Brüssler Blatt) geschrieben. Es war grade Diskussion 
über den Sitz des Kongresses. 
Lafargue kann unmöglich zeichnen, da er Frenchman, außer- 
dem mein son in law. Zeichne A. Williams oder something of the 
sort. Am besten wär’s, wenn Sam Moore zeichnete. 
Salut. Dein K. M. 
N 
Gestern by aceident fiel mir eine schöne Stelle bei A. Smith in 
die Hand. Nachdem er erklärt, daß labour die prime cost etc., und 
annähernd, wenn auch mit beständigen Widersprüchen, das 
Richtige gesagt; nachdem er ditto erklärt: „The profits of stock, it 
5 may perhaps be thought, are only a different name for the wages 
of a particular sort of labour, the labour of inspection and direc- 
tion. They are, however, altogether different, are regulated by 
quite different principles, and bear no proportion to the quantity, 
the hardship, or the ingenuity of this supposed labour of inspec- 
” tion and direction“; schlägt er plötzlich um und will wages, pro- 
fit, rent als die „component parts of natural price“ (bei ihm 
= value) entwickeln. Da findet sich u. a. folgendes Schöne: 
„When the price of any commodity is neither more nor less 
{han what is sufficient to pay the rent of the land, the wages of the 
% labour, and the profits of the stock employed in raising, preparing 
and bringing it to market, according to their natural rates, the 
commodity is then sold for what be called its natural price. The 
commodity is then sold precisely for what it is worth, 
or for what it really costs the person who brings it to 
omarket; for though in common language the prime cost of 
any commodity does not comprehend the profit of 
the person who is to sell it again, yet, if he sells it at a price which 
does not allow.him the ordinary rate of profit in his 
neighbourhood,he is evidently a loser by the trade; since, 
# by employing his stock in some other way, he might have made that 
profit. (Die Existenz des Profits in der „Nachbarschaft“ als Er- 
klärungsgrund desselben!) His profit, besides, ishis reve- 
nue, the proper fund of his subsistence. As, while he is prepa- 
ring and bringing the goods to market, he advances to his workmen 
vo their wages, or their subsistence; SO he advances to him- 
self, in the same manner, his own suhsistence; which is gene- 
rally suitable to the pr o f it which he may reasonably expect from 
the sale of his goods. Unless they yield him this profit, therefore, 
they do not repay him what they may very pro-