And why?
"Because they make us _tributary_ to the foreigner." Here is certainly a word which presents as a fact that which is a question.
How is this abusive trope introduced into the rhetoric of monopolists?
Some specie _goes out of a country_ to satisfy the rapacity of a victorious enemy--other specie, also, goes out of a country to settle an account for merchandise.

The analogy between the two cases is established, by taking account of the one point in which they resemble one another, and leaving out of view that in which they differ.
This circumstance, however,--that is to say, non-reimbursement in the one case, and reimbursement freely agreed upon in the other--establishes such a difference between them, that it is not possible to class them under the same title.

To deliver a hundred dollars _by compulsion_ to him who says "Stand and deliver," or _voluntarily_ to pay the same sum to him who sells you the object of your wishes--truly, these are things which cannot be made to assimilate.

As well might you say, it is a matter of indifference whether you throw bread into the river or eat it, because in either case it is bread _destroyed_.

The fault of this reasoning, as in that which the word _tribute_ is made to imply, consists in founding an exact similitude between two cases on their points of resemblance, and omitting those of difference..