or in some one line, to its own restricted purpose, it will be obvi-
ous that the canons above cited are intended chiefly to verify the
results of the reasoning on the main question between Free Trade
and Protection. Though common judgment is for the most part
appealed to, and it is hoped may be relied on, to produce convic-
tion, in view of the facts presented, and of the reasoning built upon
them, there is always a class of minds whose habits are addicted to
scientific investigation, and which may be gratified in finding that
an effort of this kind has not been made without regard to what are
deemed scientific principles. It is fair to conclude, that they who
are capable of appreciating these principles, will also be sensible
that, as the science applies to a great field and vast amount of facts,
and to a protracted period of history, the great question presented
is not a simple problem, nor extremely easy of solution. It is in
fact a system in the highest and most comprehensive sense of the
term. No one ever became master of geometry, chemistry, as-
tronomy, or of any of the established sciences, without some pains,
without application, hardly without vigorous and protracted effort.
But the absolute sciences, if such a distinction may be made, are
incomparably more easy than a contingent one, such as that of public
economy. Every stage of reasoning in the former is under the gui-
dance of immutable laws, and it is not easy to get out of the way;
whereas, the propositions of public economy which may be most
important and vital to any and whatever nation, are undoubtedly
contingent on a variety of facts, the bearings and relations of which
may require the profoundest attention and the severest scrutiny, to
be well understood for practical purposes.

4. Another of the new points made in this work, or of the new
positions taken—we are not particular to mention them in the
order in which they may be found—is, that labor is capital, and
the parent of all other capital. We do not mean that this is a new
idea, or that it is a proposition that requires proof. But it has
never before been introduced into a system of public economy as
an essential element. We put it first of all; we make it funda-
mental. As such, it pervades the entire system, without which,
established in its own proper position, any system of public econ-
omy, as will be found, would be radically, fundamentally defective.
We profess, that we could not begin to write on this subject, in
any hope of doing justice to it, and of coming out right, without
first determining the true position of labor in public economy, not
only as capital, but as the parent of all other capital. It may, in-

burn

th!

азай

I reason that I will warn it again I put it again in the fire.

How is it, ants labour for thousands of years, yeh have no capital: Labout means. Increase labour, and donot on THE NEW POINTS OF THIS WORK. Crease on that count in thin

is a

you value. the

deed, be said that the technicalities of science are in some respects and in some degree arbitrary; but a misnomer in science, which for ever represents one of its chief and fundamental elements, not means only in a false position, but in a position which puts every other all the element out of place, will for ever be fatal to the proper adjustment and right view of its parts. Such, we think, has been the necessary consequence of the exclusion by economists from the

Lime pro-list of capitals that which is the parent of all, and which more dul- properly deserves the name alone, than that its mere products fine should have superseded it in the nomenclature of art. There is a Labou reason to be deplored in this malpractice, a moral cause, we fear, anel which aimed for ever to exclude labor from its rights. It reversed there the order of nature, and transferred the cause to the place of the ries effect. It is not capital, in the common, or in what the economists have made the technical sense of the term, that was designed to the rubs employ labor, and in this condescension to enslave it; but it is чивов

Labor

labor which in nature occupies the first place, and which was designed to be the employer of its own creations. It is virtually so always. That which is commonly called capital, can do nothing, is worth nothing, without labor. Labor is not only its parent, but its efficient and vivifying power. But, in the nomenclature of the economists, labor has been thrust from its true position, and as a consequence robbed of its rights.

5. That protective duties, in the United States, are not taxes, and that a protective system rescues the country from an enormous system of foreign taxation, are both new points, in a system of public economy, though not new ideas-and points of great, of vital importance, considered at large, in their place. The rule or principle of graduating Protection, also presents a showing that has never before been made, in works of this kind, as arising out of the difference in the joint cost of money and labor in this country and in those with which we trade.

6. A very important point is made in this work, materially affecting the general argument, in a consideration of the different states of society in the United States and in Europe, which, so far as we know, has never been duly weighed as an element of public economy. Conjoined with this, is the subject of education, as a point which, in the peculiar aspects of American society, is deemed of great importance, and an element that has never had its proper position in the consideration of this subject.

7. Another of the new points made in this work, is the founda

It is impossible to go on annotatiz this jumble of fiddle faddles y

al vorts:

THE NEW POINTS OF THIS WORK.

47

tion of the value of money. Every theory of a monetary system is
almost necessarily a castle in the air, independent of this discovery,
and of the knowledge that flows from it, as a guide, as a principle.
It is true, indeed, that practical men, who take experience and ob-
servation as their guide, may be right on this subject, for legislation
or for financial and commercial purposes, as is often the case on
other subjects, without knowing why they are so. But, in the
construction of the theory of a monetary system, and in the eluci-
dation of its parts, it is scarcely possible to avoid errors, which may
be very serious in their consequences, so long as the true and only
secure foundation of such a system, is not understood, nor even
discovered. In all the isolated and empirical propositions, as to
which the Free-Trade economists are right on this subject, they
are so by the accidental sway of their good sense, in spite of the
difficulties in which they are involved for want of a foundation to
stand upon, and in spite of the defects and baseless condition of
their theory, on which they are perpetually falling back, to float at
random in the clouds, a prey to every wind. Practical men are
generally right, though they do not know why. When a founda-
tion is laid in nature for man to stand upon, they often go to work
there without understanding the reasons of its firmness. That is a
good bridge that carries people safely over. Accordingly, it has
long been seen, by practical men, that no currency can be secure
and permanent, which is not based on the precious metals; but it
was not necessary, for practical purposes, since they were right so
far, on this stage of causes, really but an effect of antecedent causes,
that they should know what those antecedents were; that they
should understand the real foundation of the value of gold and
silver, in the form of money. To them, practically, it was no
matter. But for a theorist, essaying to construct a monetary sys-
tem, to be incorporated in a system of public economy, as one of
its fundamental and most important branches, on which the most
momentous results in the legislation of a state, of a nation, depend;
for such a pretender to sit down to this task, without knowing any-
thing of the real foundation of the value of money, is not simply
presumptuous, audacious; but alas for the nation that is doomed
to follow in the path of his precepts! Such, precisely, and no
better, on this point, have been the qualifications of the Free-Trade
economists. Not one of them has ever understood the foundation
of the value of money. If they did, they would certainly have
stated it; and if they had seen and stated it, they must have fol-

lowed its leadings, and would have spared the world, not only the errors they have promulgated, but their consequences.

8. Akin to this new point, or new position, as to the foundation of the value of money, is another we have made and urged, in regard to the distinction between money as a subject and as the instrument of trade. This naturally grows out of the foundation of its value, and would scarcely be discerned, except in that connexion; though it is not impossible that it should be. This, too, for all practical purposes of the commercial world, has been acted upon, ever since a common currency was established. Nobody can find a time when it was not acted upon. It is, therefore, remarkable, even marvellous, that a truth so simple, so plain, so practical, and therefore so important, should never have been recognised by the economists, as a distinct and vital element in a monetary system, and consequently in a system of public economy. It was the more important, that it should be recognised, because, for lack of it, a most momentous error has been introduced into all the systems of the Free-Trade economists, beginning with Adam Smith, and running down through the entire school. It is apparently the principal hinge, certainly one of the chief, on which their doctrine of Free Trade is made to turn. Not making this distinction, they assume that money is only a commodity in trade, and that it occupies the same position with all other commodities. for which it is exchanged; and consequently, that, for the greatest wealth of parties and nations, engaged in trade, the more they trade the better, whatever commodity they part with, be it money or anything else. This doctrine is even pushed, or naturally runs, to the extreme, that the more a party buys the better, as buying is only one side of trading, and necessarily implies that of selling. They aver, that selling money is precisely the same, in public economy, as selling corn, calico, or any other commodity, that is not money-money, according to them, being only a commodity, ranking in the same class theoretically and commercially, and occupying the same position. According to this doctrine, when a party, being a nation or other, has parted in trade with all its cash, it is so much richer, and all the better for it; as it retains an equivalent. It will be seen, that this distinction is vital to a system of public economy; and that the doctrine above indicated, which fails to recognise it, and which confounds the two things put asunder by it, forcing them, or one of them, into a false position,

must necessarily be fatal to any party, a nation or other, that undertakes to reduce it to practice.

9. Another of the new points of this work, next to the abovenoticed distinction between money as a subject and as the instrument of tråde, and growing out of it, is the doctrine, that money, as the instrument of trade, occupies, in every commercial community, and with every party engaged in commerce, on a larger or smaller scale, comprehending merchants and every private citizen, precisely the same position as do what are commonly and technically called "tools of trade," in any specific vocation, such as a shoemaker's kit; such as a tailor's, or carpenter's, or mason's instruments; or those of any other of the mechanic arts; such as the implements of agriculture, and of the fisheries; such as all the craft engaged in the various modes of navigation; such as a lawyer's or physician's library, and a surgeon's instruments; or any others that might be named as necessary to any vocation whatever, under the name of "tools of trade." It is never pretended, that any business of life can be carried on, without its appropriate "tools;" or that it can be as well done with an imperfect as with a complete, an ample set. The gold and silver, separated from the great mass of these metals, to be used as money, are placed in this position solely to act as "tools;" this is the beginning and end of their functions as money. When not so employed, they are of no manner of use, and of no value whatever, in the forms of money, except that for their intrinsic qualities, they are convertible to some of the other uses, in which their value chiefly consists. But while occupying the position and discharging the functions of money, they are mere "tools." Tools of what? Of trade, of commerce. And there are no other tools for this purpose, since they have been adopted as the common medium. What, then, can a man or a nation do, in the way of trade, without them, except to fall back on barter? If it be said, that the trade of the world, and between nations, is mere barter after all, still it is no less true, that no gold and silver are the "tools" for negotiating these exchanges, and they can not now be accomplished in any other mode. Every merchant's books are kept solely in the denominations of money; and there is not at any time a commercial exchange negotiated, in the civilized world, large or small in amount, in which the values This is are not expressed, and the balances adjusted, by the established the denominations of this common medium. Gold and silver, or their m

mon great error, that because ve express values in money therefore we speak of monly -val which has no meaning at a