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 common
 to both. This I think they can be, for
they are both the result of labour ; and, therefore,
 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 passage
 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.