certain that the revenue laws of this country have, for many years past, been framed by a minority. The mill-owners have dictated the whole system of indirect taxation, ever since the last war with Great Britain, and the utmost we have been able to obtain in the struggle against their supremacy has been some mitigation, some relaxation of the protective system -never a complete release from it. The oligarchy of slaveholders, scarcely more numerous than that of the millowners, and equally bound together by a common interest and concerted plans of action, have held the principal public offices, interpreted the laws, and swayed the domestic policy of the country with a more and more rigorous control for many years past. We are engaged in a struggle with that oligarchy now; but we have no idea of allowing the other oligarchy of mill-owners, while we are thus engaged, to step in and raise the tribute-money we pay them to the old rates. What we have wrested from their tenacious grasp we shall keep, if possible.

It

"Other governments are breaking the fetters which have restrained their peaceful intercourse with each other, and adopting a more enlightened systema system which is the best and surest pledge of enduring amity and peace between nations. England and France are engaged in putting an end to the illiberal and mutually mischievous prohibitive system in their commerce with each other. will dishonor us in the eyes of the civilized world if we, who boast of the freedom of our institutions and the wisdom of our legislation, should in the meantime be seen picking up the broken fetters of that system, and putting them into the hands of artisans at Washington to forge them again into handcuffs for our wrists. If any such bill as is threatened should be introduced into Congress by the Committee of Ways and Means, we trust that the Republicans of the Western States will be ready to assist in giving it its death-blow. If it do not meet its quietus from them, it will probably be rejected, as it will richly deserve, in the Senate, and Mr. Buchanan will never have the satisfaction of giving it his signature."

-

DEAR SIR-You have been invited to lay before your readers the arguments in favor of such a change in our commercial policy as should tend to produce diversification in the demand for human service, thereby increasing the power of association and the productiveness of labor, while relieving our farmers from a tax of transportation ten times more oppressive than all the taxes required for the support of European fleets and armies that invitation having been given in the hope that by its acceptance you would make manifest your willingness to permit your readers to see both sides your entire confidence in the accuracy of the economical doctrines of which you have been so long the earnest advocate and your disposition to espouse the cause of truth, on whatsoever side she might be found. That you should have failed to do this has been to me a cause of much regret, having hoped better things of a lover of freedom like yourself. Resolved, however, that my readers shall have full opportunity to judge for themselves, I now, as you see, place within the reach of the great mass of the protectionists of the Union, the reply that you have just now published, sincerely hoping that they may give to it the most careful study, and thus enable themselves to form a correct estimate of the sort of arguments usually adduced in support of that British free trade policy which has for its object the limitation of our farmers to a single and distant market for their products

the maintenance of the existing terrific tax of transportation — and the ultimate reduction of our whole people to that state of colonial dependence from which we were rescued by the men who made the revolution.

As presented by me, the question we are discussing is not of the prices of cotton goods, but of human freedom, and in that light it

is that I have begged you should consider it. In support of that view, I have urged upon your consideration the facts, that every British free trade period has closed with one of those fearful crises whose sad effects you have so well depicted; that crises have been followed by paralyses of the domestic commerce, destroying the demand for labor; and that, as a necessary consequence, each such period has been marked, on one side, by a great increase in the number of millionaires, and on the other, by such a growth of pauperism that that terrible disease appears now, to use your own words, "like the Canadian thistle, to have settled on our soil, and to have germinated with such vigor, as to defy all half measures to eradicate it." Further, you have been asked to look to the facts, that the reverse of all this has been experienced in every period of the protective system- domestic commerce having then grown rapidly, with constant increase in the demand for labor, and as constant augmentation in the regularity of the societary action, in the freedom and happiness of our people, in the strength of the government, and in the confidence of the world, both at home and abroad, in the stability of our institutions. Such is the view that has been presented to you, in the hope and belief that to a lover of freedom like yourself it would be one of the highest interest, and that it would be met and considered in a manner worthy of a statesman and a Christian. Has it been so considered? To an examination of that question I shall now ask your attention, reserving for a future letter the consideration of the effects of the advalorem system in producing those financial crises whose terrible effects you have so well depicted, and that pauperism and crime whose growth you have so much deplored.

The experience of the outer world is in full accordance with our own, the whole proving that the tendency toward harmony, peace, and freedom, exists in the direct ratio of the diversity in the demand for human force, and consequent power of combination among the men of whom society is composed. Therefore is it, that the most distinguished economists are found uniting in the idea expressed by M. Chevalier, the free trader whom you so much admire, that it is only "the accomplishment of a positive duty" on the part of governments, so to direct their measures as to facilitate the taking possession of all the various branches of industry for which the country has been by nature suited. Such must be the view of every real statesman recognizing, as such men must, the existence of a perfect harmony in the great and permanent interests of all the various portions of society, laborers and capitalists, producers and consumers, farmers and manufacturers. Of such harmony, however, you give your readers none-consumers of cloth and iron here being told that capitalists "not satisfied with their profits" are anxious to "increase the burdens of the people;" that "the fraternity of mill-owners," and they alone, are anxious for a change of system, with increase of taxes; that "the lords of the mills" are dictating to the Committee of Ways and Means; that "mill-owners have dictated the whole system of indirect taxation;" and that it is high time for them now to protest against the further maintenance or extension of the system. Here, as everywhere, you are found in alliance with that British free trade system which seeks the production of discord, and discord and slavery march always hand in hand together through the world.

Allow me now, my dear sir, to ask you if you really believe that the facts are such as they here are said to be? Do you not, as well as myself, know, that for years past, the wealthy mill owners of New England have been opposed to any change of system that could, by giving increased protection, tend to augment domestic competition for the sale of cloth, knowing, as they did, that such competition must decrease the cost of cloth to the consumer. So is it now, with the wealthy iron master. He can live, though all around him may be crushed by British competition; and then, in common with his wealthy British rivals, he must profit by the destruction they have made. Such being the facts, and that they are so I can positively assert, are you not, by opposing protective measures, aiding in the creation among ourselves of a little "oligarchy of mill owners," whose power to increase the "tribute money" of which you so much complain, results directly from the failure of Congress so to act as to increase domestic competition for the sale of cloth and iron? The less that competition, the less must be the reward of labor, and the larger the profits of the capitalist, but the greater must be the tendency towards pauperism and crime, and the less the power to consume either cloth or iron.

the

"Hitherto," as you here tell your readers, our people "have been oppressed by powerful and compact minorities." In this you are right -a small minority of voters in the Southern States having dictated the repeal of the protective tariffs of 1828 and 1842, and having now, with a single and brief exception, dictated for thirty years both the foreign and domestic policy of this country. In 1840, however, the free people of our Northern States, farmers, mechanics, laborers, and miners men who had labor to sell and knew that it commanded better prices in protective than in free trade times. rose in their might and hurled from power this little "oligarchy" of slave owners, then taking for themselves the protection which they felt they so greatly needed. That it is, which they now seek again to do-desiring once again to free themselves from the control of that "powerful and compact minority" of slaveholders, under whose iron rule they so long have suffered.

Permit me now, my dear sir, to ask on what side it was you stood, in the great contest of 1842? Was it with the poor farmer of the North who sought emancipation from the tax of transportation, by the creation of a domestic market for his products? Was it with the mechanic who sought the re-opening of the shop in which he so long had wrought? Was it with the laborer whose wife and children were perishing for want of food? Was it with the little shopkeeper who found his little capital disappearing under demands for the payment of usurious interest? Was it not, on the contrary, with that "little oligarchy" of men who owned the laborers they employed, and opposed the protective policy, because it looked to giving the laborer increased control over the products of his labor? Was it not with the rich capitalist who desired that labor might be cheap, and money dear? Was it not with those foreign capitalists who desired that raw materials might be low in price, and cloth and linen high? Was it not with those British statesmen who find in the enormous capitals of English iron masters "the most potent instruments of warfare against the competing industry of other countries"? To all these questions the answers must be in the affirmative, your

journal having then stood conspicuous among the advocates of proslavery domination over the free laborers of the Northern States.

We have now another free trade period, when crisis has been followed by paralysis, and it may, my dear sir, be not improper to inquire on what side it is that you now are placed. Is it by the side of the free laborer who is perishing because of inability to sell his labor? Is it by that of the poor farmer of the West, who finds himself compelled to pay five per cent, per month, to the rich capitalist? Is it by that of the unemployed mechanic of the Middle and Northern States? Is it by that of the farmer whose land diminishes in value because of the enormous tax of transportation to which he is subjected? Is it not, on the contrary, by the side of that "little oligarchy" which holds to the belief that the laborer is "the mud-sill" of society, that slavery for the white man and the black is the natural order of things, and that "free society has proved a failure"? For an answer to these questions, allow me now to point you to the fact that you have here invoked the aid of a Senate, the control of which is entirely in the hands of that same "oligarchy," for resisting any and every change in our commercial policy asked for by the farmers and laborers of the Northern States. Now, as for thirty years past, your opponents are found among the men who sell their own labor, while your chief allies are found in the ranks of those by whom such men are classed as serfs. Need we wonder, then, that your journal should be always advocating the cause of the millionaires, and thus helping to augment the pauperism and crime whose rapid growth you so much lament?

The facts being thus so entirely the reverse of what you have stated them to be, is it not, my dear sir, most remarkable

That, after aiding, during so long a period, in the establishment of pro-slavery domination over our domestic and foreign commerce, you should now venture to assert, that "the mill owners have dictated the whole system of indirect taxation, ever since the late war with Great Britain"?

That, the necessity for resorting to such mis-statements does not furnish you with proof conclusive of the exceeding weakness of the cause in support of which you are engaged?

That, regard for truth does not prompt you to a re-examination of the question, with a view to satisfying yourself that of all the pro-slavery advocates, the Journal of Commerce not excepted, there is not even a single one that has proved more efficient than yourself?

Hoping that you may follow my example by giving this letter a place in your columns, and ready to place within the reach of millions of protectionist readers, whatever answer you may see fit to make, I remain, Yours, very respectfully,

HENRY C. CAREY.

W. C. BRYANT, ESQ.

PHILADELPHIA, February 28, 1860.

LETTER TENTH.

DEAR SIR. Allow me to beg that you now review with me some of the facts that thus far have been presented for your consideration, having done which, I will ask you to say if in the annals of the world there can anywhere be found a more admirable contrivance for the annihilation of domestic commerce than that which exists among ourselves, consequent upon the adoption of British free trade doctrines. Closing our mills and furnaces, the government compels our people to seek the West. There arrived, they find themselves taxed for transportation to such extent that not only have they no power to develop the mineral wealth that so much abounds, but are wholly unable even to construct roads by means of which to go to the distant market. Few in number and poor, they are driven to seek relief at the hands of their British friends, or masters, pledging their lands and houses as security for the payment of railroad bonds. In due season, the foreign creditor becomes owner of the road, anxious to increase his revenue, but, above all, anxious to promote the dispersion of our people, and to secure the maintenance of our existing colonial dependence. Seeking to accomplish that object, he taxes your farmers for the transportation of the produce of distant lands-compelling them to make good all the losses resulting from cheaply carrying the products of Wisconsin and Minnesota. Thus destroying the value of the land and labor of Atlantic States, he compels a further emigration, and thus on and on he goes-fully carrying out the British plan of recolonization, while always lauding the advantages to be derived from the British free trade system. It is a remarkably ingenious arrangement, and the more you study it, the more, my dear sir, you must be led to wonder at the folly of our people in having so long submitted to it. The British people are somewhat heavily taxed, but for every dollar they pay for the support of their own system, do not our people pay ten for the support of foreign people and foreign governments?

That the strength of a community grows as its internal commerce increases, and declines as that commerce decays, is proved by the history of every nation of the world. Such being the case, allow me to ask you now to look with me into that commerce among ourselves, with a view to determining its extent. How much does Kentucky exchange with Missouri? What is the annual value of the commerce of Ohio with Indiana, or of Virginia with Kentucky? Scarcely more, as I imagine, than that of a single day's labor of their respective populations; and, perhaps, not even half so much.-Why is this the case? Is it not a necessary consequence of the absence of that diversity of employments within the States, everywhere seen to be so indispensable to the maintenance of commerce? Assuredly it is. Ohio and Indiana have little more than one pursuit that of tearing out the soil, and exporting it in the form of food. Virginia and Kentucky sell their soil