Great as was the prosperity with which we closed the period which had commenced in this latter year, three short years of the tariff of 1846 sufficed for reproducing that competition for the sale of labor, relief from which had been the object of the men who made the tariff of 1842. From the decline with which we then were menaced, we were relieved by the discovery of the Californian mines, and by that alone. Since then, we have thence received more than five hundred millions of gold, and yet at no period has there existed a greater tendency to increase of competition for the sale of labor than at present the two cities of New York and Philadelphia, alone, presenting to our view hundreds of thousands of persons who are totally unable to exchange their services for the money with which to purchase food and clothing. Is it not clear, from all these facts, that

First, the nearer the place of consumption to the place of production, the smaller must be the power of transporters and other middlemen to tax consumers and producers, and the greater must be the power of the men who labor to profit by the things produced?

Second, that the more close the approximation of consumers and producers, the smaller must be the power of middlemen to create fictitious credits, to be used in furtherance of their speculations?

Third, that the greater the power of the men who labor, and the larger their reward, the greater must be the tendency towards that steadiness in the societary action, in the perfection of which you yourself would find the proof of "infallible wisdom in those who conduct its operations"?

Fourth, that all the experiences of continental Europe, and all our own, tend to prove that steadiness is most found in those countries, and at those periods, in which the policy pursued is that protective one advocated in France by the great Colbert, and among ourselves by Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson, and their successors, down to Jackson; and least in all of those in which the policy pursued is that advocated by the British school, which sees in cheap labor and cheap raw materials the surest road to wealth and power for the British trader? Renewing my proposition to cause your answers to these questions to be republished to the extent of not less than 300,000 copies, I remain, my dear sir, with great respect,

W. C. BRYANT, Esq.

Your obedient servant,

HENRY C. CAREY.

Philadelphia, January 3, 1860,

DEAR SIR.In one of his Mount Vernon Papers, Mr. Everett informs his readers, that

"The distress of the year 1857 was produced by an enemy more formidable than hostile armies; by a pestilence more deadly than fever or plague; by a visitation more destructive than the frosts of Spring or the blights of Summer. I believe that it was caused by a mountain load of DEBT. The whole country, individuals and communities, trading-houses, corporations, towns, cities, States, were laboring under a weight of debt, beneath which the ordinary business relations of the country were at length arrested, and the great instrument usually employed for carrying them on, CREDIT, broken down."

This is all true very a crisis consisting in the existence of heavy debts requiring to be paid by individuals, banks, and governments, at a time when all desire to be paid, and few or none are able to make the payments. That admitted, however, we are not, so far as I can see, much nearer than we were before to such explanation of the causes of crises, as is required for enabling us to determine upon the mode of preventing the recurrence of evils so frightful as are those you have so well described. Why is it, that our people are so much more burthened with debt than are their competitors in Europe? Why is it, that it so frequently occurs among ourselves that all need to be paid, and so few are able to pay? Why is it, that crises always occur in free-trade times? Why is it, that they never occur in protective times? Why is it, that it so frequently occurs that those who are rich are enabled to demand from the poor settlers of the West, as much per month, in the form of interest, as is paid per year, by the farmers of England, France, and Germany? These are great questions, to which Mr. Everett has furnished no reply. Let us have them answered, and we shall have made at least one step toward the removal of the evils under which our people so greatly suffer.

Let us try, my dear sir, if you and I cannot do that which Mr. Everett has failed to do-ascertaining the cause of the existence of so much debt, the constant preliminary to that absence of confidence which impels all to seek payment, while depriving so nearly all of the power to pay.

The commodity that you and I, and all of us, have to sell, is laborhuman effort, physical or mental. It is the only one that perishes at the moment of production, and that, if not then put to use, is lost forever. The man who does put it to use, need not go in debt for the food and clothing required by his family; but he who does not, must either contract debt, or his family must suffer from want of nourishment. Such being the case, the necessity for the creation of debt should diminish with every increase in that competition for the purchase of labor, which tends to produce an instant demand for the forces, physical or mental, of each and every man in the community-such competition resulting from the existence of a power on the part of each and every other man to offer something valuable in exchange for it. On the contrary, it

should increase with every increase in the competition for the sale of labor, resulting from the absence of demand for the human forces that are produced. In the one case, men are tending towards freedom, whereas, in the other, they are tending in the direction of slavery-the existence of almost universal debt being to be regarded as evidence of growing power, on the part of those who are already rich, to control the movements of those who need to live by the sale of labor.

Where, now, is debt most universal and most oppressive? For an answer to this question, let me beg that you will look to India, where, since the annihilation of her manufactures, the little proprietor has almost disappeared, to be replaced by the wretched tenant, who borrows at fifty, sixty, or a hundred per cent, per annum, the little seed he can afford to use, and finds himself at last driven to rebellion by the continued exactions of the money-lenders and the government. Turn, next, to those parts of Russia where there are no manufactures, and find in the freetrade book of M. Tegoborski his statement of the fact, that where there is no diversification of pursuits the condition of the slave is preferable to that of the free laborer. Pass thence to Turkey-finding there an universality of debt that is nowhere else exceeded. Look, next, to Mexico, and find the poor laborer, overwhelmed with debt, passing into servitude. Pass on to Ireland, and study the circumstances which preceded the expulsion, or starvation, in ten short years, of a million and a half of free white people-that expulsion having been followed by the passage of an Act of Parliament for expelling, in their turn, the owners of the land from which those laborers had gone. Look where you may, you will see that it is in those communities of the world which are most limited to the labors of the field, that debt is most universal, and that the condition of the people is most akin to slavery-and for the reason that there it is, that there is least competition for the purchase of labor. There, consequently, there is the greatest waste of the great commodity which all of us must sell, if we would have the means of purchase.

Turn, now, if you please, to Central and Northern Europe, and there you will find a wholly different picture-competition for the purchase of labor being there steadily on the increase, with constant augmentation of the rapidity of commerce constant increase in the power to economize the great commodity of which I have spoken—and, as a necessary consequence, constant diminution in the necessity for the contraction of debt. Why should such remarkable differences exist? Because, in all of these latter countries, the whole policy of the country tends towards emancipation from the British free-trade system, whereas India, Ireland, Turkey, and Mexico, are becoming from day to day more subject to it.

Looking homeward, we may now, my dear sir, inquire when it has been, that the complaint of debt has been most severe. Has it not been in those awful years which followed the free-trade speculations of 1816-17? Has it not been in that terrific period which followed the free-trade speculations of '37 to '40—that period in which a bankrupt law was forced from Congress, as the only means of enabling tens of thousands of industrious men to enter anew upon the business of life? Has it not been in the years of the present free-trade crisis, which present to view private failures of almost five hundred millions in amount?

When, on the other hand, has there been least complaint? Has it not been in those tranquil years which followed the passage of the protective tariffs of '28 and '42? That it has been so, is certain. Why should it so have been? Because in protective times every man has found a purchaser for his labor, and has been thereby relieved from all necessity for contracting debt; whereas, in free-trade times, a large portion of the labor power produced has remained unemployed, and its owners, unable to sell their one commodity, have been forced to choose between the contraction of debt on the one hand, or famine and death on the other.

Look next, my dear sir, to our public debt, and mark its extinction under the tariff of '28-its revival under the compromise tariff-its reduction under that of '42—and then study the present situation of a national treasury that, in time of perfect peace, is running in debt at the rate of little less than $20,000,000 a-year!

Turn then, if you please, to our debt to foreigners, which was annihilated under the tariff of '28-swelled to hundreds of millions under the tariff of '33- and since so much enlarged, under the tariffs of '46 and '57, that the enormous sum of $30,000,000 is now required for the payment of its annual interest.

France, with a population little larger than our own, and one far less instructed, maintains an army of 600,000 men - carries on distant wars -builds magnificent roads enlarges her marine and fortifies her ports - and does all these things with so much ease, that when the government has suddenly occasion for $100,000,000, the whole is supplied at home, and without an effort. Belgium and Germany follow in the same direction - not only making all their own roads, but contributing largely to the construction of those which are used for carrying out the rude products of our land, and bringing back the cloth, the paper, and the iron, that our own people, now unemployed, would gladly make at home. They are rapidly becoming the bankers of the world, for they live under systems even more protective than were those of our tariffs of '28 and '42. We, on the contrary, are rapidly becoming the great paupers of the world creating seven, eight, and ten per cent bonds, and then selling them at enormous discounts, to pay for iron so poor in quality that our rails depreciate at the rate of five, six, and even ten per cent a-year.

Looking at all these facts, is it not clear, my dear sir

That the necessity for the contraction of debt exists, throughout the world, in the ratio of the adoption of the free-trade system of which you are the earnest advocate?

That the greater the necessity for the contraction of debt, the greater is the liability to the recurrence of commercial crises such as you have so well described?

That the more frequent the crises, the greater is the tendency towards the subjection of the laborer to the will of his employer, and towards the creation of slavery even where it has at present no existence? And, therefore

That it is the bounden duty of every real lover of freedom to labor for the re-establishment of the protective system among ourselves?

At foot is given, as you see, your notice of refusal to enter upon the discussion to which you have been invited. For a reply thereto, permit me, my dear sir, to refer you to the following exposition of your own views in relation to free discussion, given by yourself, a few days since, in the Evening Post:

"THOSE POLITICAL LECTURES.-As our readers know, a project has been under consideration to give a course of political lectures in this city during the present winter, and in which our prominent politicians of all parties were to be invited to take a part. We now understand that the scheme has fallen through, mainly because no single Democrat could be found who was willing to ventilate his party opinions, and maintain them, in connection with a series of similar addresses by Republican, Radical, and American speakers. We are assured that of twenty Northern and Southern Democratic statesmen, who have been invited, not one has accepted the invitation. It is proper to say that the signatures to the letter inviting speakers represented a number of our very foremost citizens, of all shades of politics. If a letter, so respectably signed as to guarantee every courtesy to all who took part in the course, failed to secure at least one speaker to uphold Democratic principles, we may safely suggest that the old soubriquet of the "unterrified Democracy" is a misnomer. We regret the failure of the proposed course of lectures, but are glad to know that many Republicans were willing to participate. Why cannot we have a few Republican speakers in an independent course?"

Obviously, these Democrats fear discussion. For years, they have been advocating doctrines that will not bear examination before the people. What, however, shall we say to the free-trade advocates? Is there any one of them that would accept a proposition like to the one to which you have here referred? Would they even accept an offer that was so much better than this, that it would give them, of cool and reflecting readers, five hundred times as many as you could give to any Democrat, of mere auditors? Would Mr. Hallock, of the Journal of Commerce, accept the magnificent offer I have made to you, which, thus far, you have not accepted? Would it be accepted by Mr. Greene, of the Boston Morning Post? Will you accept it? If you will not, can you object to the course of the Democratic leaders to whom you have here referred? Scarcely so, as I think.

Hoping to hear that you have reconsidered the question, and have decided to accede to a proposition which will enable you to address to a million and a half of readers, all the arguments that can be adduced in support of free-trade doctrines, I remain, my dear sir,

Very truly and respectfully yours,

HENRY C. Carey.

W. C. BRYANT, ESQ.

PHILADELPHIA, January 17, 1860.

*MR. CAREY'S CHALLenge. Mr. Henry C. Carey, of Philadelphia, known by various works on political economy, has challenged Mr. Bryant, one of the editors of this paper, to a discussion, in the newspapers, of the question of custom-house taxation. In behalf of Mr. Bryant, we would state that challenges of this kind he neither gives nor accepts. It would almost seem like affectation on his part to say that he has not read the letters two in number, he is told in which this defiance is given on the part of Mr. Carey, having, unfortunately, too little curiosity to see in what terms it is expressed; but as such is the fact, it is well perhaps to mention it. His duties as a journalist, and a commentator on the events of the day and the various interesting questions which they suggest, leave