other gifts of nature existing in unlimited quantity solely to the labor employed in its appropriation and improvement." (pp. 129, 130.)

That there is fallacy involved in this course of reasoning is unquestionable; for it is inconsistent with open and obvious facts. If all value of land arise from the labor bestowed upon it, then the more labor (judiciously bestowed) the more value; and lands cultivated by careful husbandry from the time of the Romans should be a thousand times more valuable than fresh land newly taken up; or again, if the labor be the measure, all uncultivated land in the same vicinity should be equally valueless and the years of cultivation would give the scale of their relative increase. How inconsistent this is with fact every one may judge. Old lands we know, are worn out by repetition of crops, and become comparatively valueless. Now, what does this imply but some internal value originally possessed from nature? Wild lands, too, are willingly purchased by the farmer at different prices—but why if all be equally valueless? The settler in Michigan builds himself a shantee amid its oak openings, and supports his stock the very first year on the pasture and hay of his prairie land. Did labor, we ask, give him that crop? or will our author deny that it has value? In the old states a farmer is content with "interest" on his investment,-in the west he counts himself doing ill unless in four or five years the "principal" is also paid back. What we ask pays it back but the land, and how, unless it be itself a source of value? But to look at a specific case. On the extinction, a few years since, of the Indian title to some lands in western New York, they were sold at public auction, bringing the current price of wild land, about $5 per acre. A portion of them lay in what has been since termed the "Wheat District," and the first crop put in paid for the land twice over. We ask did labor alone give that value? In five years these same lands sold readily for $30 the acre; did the purchaser in that price pay for nothing but the labor laid out upon it? The answer is evident, it was not labor, for contiguous lands on which four times as much labor had been bestowed, might be purchased for less money; nor was it location, for then all lands in that vicinity would have equally risen; it therefore was not these, but it was what our author so strenuously denies, the natural and inherent fertility of the soil. But wherein, it may be asked, lies the error of our author's reasoning. He shows (and we will admit it for argument's sake conclusively,) that without labor land is valueless, and thence deduces the

obvious and apparently necessary inference, that therefore all subsequent value of land is due to labor. Now, the error involved in this reasoning is the very common logical fallacy of a "post hoc, igitur propter hoc"-mistaking a mere sequence for cause and effect; it is the same sophism by which the bellows blower proved his skill as a musician, and demonstrated it too, we may add, for when his skill was doubted by the player he ceased to blow, and the music ceased likewise. But to apply it with stricter analogy, look at other natural agents of unequal power until labor can be applied to make them productive; water falls and mill seats of whatever power are equally valueless, but does their subsequent value then result only from labor? is there no inherent difference between them? Vacant lots in a city however situated are equally, so long as they remain vacant, unproductive. But does the labor that fits them for use measure their subsequent productiveness? are they valued by the measure of labor laid out upon them? Or, to take a case still more close, machines we will suppose of different productive powers in a great factory are standing idle, like our native soil, for want of labor to set them in motion. Until labor come, they are all equally unproductive; when labor does come, do they produce all alike? is the labor applied the measure of their respective values; or will the yield be according to the labor? and if obviously not, in the machinery of art, why, we ask, should it be held in the machinery of nature? In both labor is the necessary prerequisite of value, but in neither is it the sole cause. Now, this we consider to be the fallacy that has misled the otherwise sound-thinking mind of our author into the maintenance of an untenable proposition; and we urge seriously upon him as a candid and right-thinking man, its reconsideration, before he proceed to build further upon it. Were authority needed with such a mind as his for recantation of hasty conclusions, we would point him to the candid fame of Ricardo. But in this point, Mr. Carey, we are convinced, needs neither motive nor authority beyond his own convictions, and to them with the benefit of second thoughts we refer him, in the sincere hope, that agreeing with him in his practical conclusions, we may not continue to differ in theoretic analysis. We accord too fully, we say, with him in the practical results of the science-results be it remembered that stand independent of these metaphysical subtleties — to be willing to remain at difference with him even in "the splitting of a hair." In proof of this accordance we quote from his summary two of his fundamental "laws" which-by whatever name

known-contain truths that deserve to be recorded in letters of gold in every hall of legislation:

"XXVIII. That the interests of all nations are therefore in harmony with each other, as every measure that tends to lessen production in one nation, tends to lessen the reward of both laborer and capitalist in every other nation; and every measure that tends to increase it tends to increase the reward of the laborer and capitalist in every other nation.

"XXIX. That it is, therefore, the interest of all, that universal peace should prevail, whereby the waste of population and of capital should be arrested, and that the only strife among nations should be, to determine which should make the most rapid advances in those peaceful arts which tend to increase the comforts and enjoyments of the human race."-pp. 339, 340.

Now, so long as the Political Economist teaches such practical truths as these, it may be thought a matter of little moment on what theoretic reasoning he bases them. And so, perhaps, it would be, provided his readers would take his conclusions without looking into his premises. But however this may be in other countries, it is certainly far from the case in ours. With us there is very little room for dogmatic teaching either in Political Economy or anything else; our people have queasy stomachs for authority; though they swallow an author's reasonings greedily, they are very apt to spit out his conclusions. This idiosyncrasy of the American mind (for in fact it amounts to such) is no where more strikingly evident than in the form now generally given to such advertisements as are addressed to the gullibility of the public. The medical quack, for instance, who in Europe arms himself with testimonials, in our country comes forth with a syllogism. An illustration just occurs to us. Of the great "Brandreth Pills," there is said to go forth weekly from his central depot, a ton weight. Such undoubting confidence in their efficacy was a mystery to us, till we met incidentally with the logical demonstration with which they go wrapped up, and in which they are doubtless swallowed. It is as follows, and may be taken as a fair sample of the metaphysical gullibility of the American mind:

"What is it that we call the constitution? Is not the constitution that which constitutes, and that which constitutes is the blood. There is then but one disease-impurity of blood. Now does not Nature, when she wishes to become purified, put her elements into commotion? It is the principle of commotion, then, that purifies.

Ought not man then to copy Nature? And do not the Brandreth pills take away the bad humors from the blood, and leave the good? certainly they do.-Pills, price 25 cents the box."

Such is the precious logic by which the uneducated reasoning mind of the multitude is governed by state quacks as well as medical ones. The nostrums of both are of the same stampfalse logic. But to apply this to the subject before us.

Not only are we a people formed by thinking, beyond any other people upon earth, but in no other country are the links so short and few that connect the thoughts of the people with the acts of the government. Thinking and acting go together. Nor is this all the peculiarity; whether it be from physical constitution or domestic training, certain it is that an American child is a logician at a much earlier age than a European one. He stands on his intellectual rights as it were by instinct, and long before he has read the "Declaration of Independence," shows himself fully master of its contents. The training of such a race, it is evident, must be mainly through an appeal to reason. If nature make them logicians from their cradle, education from their cradle must go on to make them sound ones. Let them then, we say, have their "why" and their "wherefore" early; and let it be placed on foundations that cannot be subsequently shaken. For these reasons it is, that we are, and long have been, warm advocates for early and universal teaching in Political Economy. We would have it a science frequently and plainly elucidated from the ablest pens of our country-popluarized to the ignorant mind, and simplified to the comprehension even of the child. We would have its fundamental truths embodied in Primers, reduced into Catechisms, interwoven into Narratives, mixed up with the mother's milk, as it were, of the nutriment of the rising generation, and nourishing them into the manly strength and stature of the knowledge and duties and true interests of a good citizen. It is needless to add, that such national teaching should be sound-sound we mean in its theory and logic, as well as in its conclusions. Resting upon the first truths that open to the infant mind; its logic should be simple as that of the child himself, and follow step by step the awakening intellect, until the demonstration of its great practical truths should shine upon the mind like the light of the meridian sun, exhibiting the interests of the individual as bound up with those of the public-exhibiting virtue as a deeper foundation of social wealth, than even industry and savingand showing how, on these foundations, an enlightened self-in

terest is sufficient of itself to build up the superstructure of national prosperity, demanding from government no boon but freedom, and no protecting arm beyond security: freedom of labor, capital, and enterprize;-security of life, liberty, and perty.

pro

To those who think we overrate in such statements the value of this study, we answer, that it is impossible, in our opinion, to over-estimate the value of a science, that not only enters, as Political Economy does, into the daily wants and duties of our everyday life, but which is destined to teach, as Political Economy rightly taught, ever does, the identity that subsists in those everyday acts, between a man's interests and his obligations: nor need we fear that this degrades a sense of duty into a calculation of interest; the perception of the result has nothing to do with the motive, and no man is likely to be a worse Christian, because he perceives the hand of God in the dispensations of naturegiving to virtue the "world that now is, as well as that which is to come." To keep the affections above wealth may be a hard task, but not made harder by its being sought in the path of duty; but wherever a man's heart may be, his head should be where his hands are, and that is in the daily business of life; and Political Economy only teaches him how that business is to be best performed for public, as well as private good.

We, therefore, as before said, advocate such national teaching, and it is only we believe in proportion as the community can be thus taught and thus enlightened, that we can ever hope to see our country permanently prosperous and happy-thus only can the streams of selfishness be made to flow in the channels of public good-thus only can our popular legislation be rendered wise, or the policy of our rulers consistent, or the finances of the government safe, or the property of the citizens secure; and thus only can the pursuit of wealth be interwoven in our national character with those higher virtues which are the glory of a people. Under such a system, we might look forward with confidence to the future, for our progress would be onward, and onward without let or impediment, and without bound other than our own boundless resources.

With such views we shall hail with double pleasure our author's second volume, provided our friendly criticism shall lead him in the meantime to re-survey his theoretic opinions.

t