by such an infinite variety of expedients to bring upon the country. The vigilance, patriotism, and courage of those noble spirits by whose counsels and exertions our independence was achieved, prevented this result when the nation was before brought to the verge of anarchy by the abuse of paper currency. A specimen of the policy which will doubtless be adopted by the friends of the paper money system, was recently displayed in Pennsylvania, in an attempt, which was concerted under the influence of the Bank of the United States, for seizing upon the government of that State by fraud, sustained by military force. Happily this force was not composed of mercenaries, and the citizen soldiers of that State could not be made subservient to this suicidal project. And yet the contrivers and upholders of an experiment in legislation similar in principle with those performed by Cromwell and Bonaparte, are hypocritically declaiming against the evils of a strong government!

The concentration of the experience of all ages, that legalized fraud leads to violence, is furnished by the origin and result of the French Revolution. Dr. Bowring, in his reports upon the public finances of France, made to the British Parliament under a special commission, officially states, upon the highest authorities, that it was the disordered condition of the finances which overthrew the monar chy. This condition was undoubtedly brought about by the use and consequent abuse of paper currency, first introduced by John Law. The Republic, in its turn, was destroyed, mainly by the issue of Assignats in the name of the people, and the anarchy which this currency of the people produced subsequently enabled Bonaparte to establish his stupendous despotism.

Have speculators like Mr. Carey, and those who adopt their opinions without reflection, ever asked themselves, what is the office for the performance of which government is established and maintained? The habit of denouncing Government for enforcing those laws which have interposed obstacles to the success of their schemes, seems to have wholly blinded them on this question. So far as writings and speeches are evidence of feelings, they appear to be ready to involve society into its original elements. The public interests are made the subject of jest and amusement. Not only is the enforcement of laws essential to the existence of organized society resisted; but where violations of public duties of the most flagrant character have been exposed, impunity is attempted to be given to such offences in future, by preventing the adoption of effi

cient remedies.

These individuals seem to have wholly forgotten that government is mainly established for the protection of the just rights of property against the invasions of fraud or force. Among a peaceable and commercial people, this protection is most essentially and practi

cally exercised by a rigid adherence to an equal and impartial measure of value-which in our country was so wisely established by the Constitution of the United States. Excepting such unfortunate persons, either with or without souls, as may have incurred a greater amount of debt than they possess means of payment, measured by the existing standard of value, every class of society is vitally interested in its sacred preservation. Perhaps we ought to add another exception-those who have purchased property for the purpose of sale at an advanced price, who may hope to increase their nominal gains by the depreciation of the measure of value. But should the security and permanent prosperity of the whole community be sacrificed for the exclusive benefit of these two classes? If an individual, in whatever condition of distress, knowingly offers false coin for the purchase of the necessaries of lifeor a dealer lessens his weights or measures of capacity, for the purpose of increasing his profits-such individuals are denounced as guilty of frauds upon society, and are justly punished by its penal laws. But those who depreciate the measure ordinarily employed in the transactions of property, between man and man, by making it more plentiful, and consequently less valuable, than the constitutional standard, were that exclusively in use, are not merely tolerated, but held out as benefactors of society. Instead of being punished by law, as happens to those who commit trifling invasions upon the security of the community, laws are passed for the purpose of enabling them to perpetrate fraud, not merely with impunity, but with secrecy, and upon a scale so magnificent as to invade all the pursuits of life. Mr. Carey insists, that "the people will not use bank notes unless they are satisfied that the gain on the one hand is equal to the loss on the other." Where has he lived for the last two years? Does he suppose that within that period every person who received bank notes in payment instead of gold and silver, has been induced to do it from absolute preference for the former? Has not specie been expelled from circulation as currency, and become the subject of purchase and sale, at a large premium, by the combined action of those whose interest it was to keep paper currency at a depreciation? Besides, on this principle, why punish an individual for uttering counterfeit money--its acceptance being wholly voluntary? No one is compelled to receive it in payment, unless the gain on the one hand is equal to the loss of the other! Nor is any body compelled to purchase by short weights and measures. A grocer who buys a hogshead of sugar as a thousand pounds, might sell it for fifteen hundred pounds, by simply diminishing his weights. Why should he not be permitted to do so as well as the speculator, who purchases a thousand lots of land at two hundred dollars a lot, who combines with others for the purpose of increasing the issue of paper currency, by which he is

There is no

enabled to sell them at three hundred dollars a lot? moral difference between the two operations, excepting that the latter, by affecting the transactions of the whole of society, is incalculably more injurious to its highest interests. Yet the individual who reduces the intrinsic weight of the measure by which he retails his sugar, is brought to condign punishment as a cheat, while the person who reduces the actual value of the dollar, by increasing the paper currency in circulation 30 or 40 millions in six months, is complimented and eulogized as a "great financier!" Into such strange confusion have notions of right and wrong become involved in the minds of many intelligent persons, that while they denounce an act as fraudulent in an individual, if the same act is perpetrated by a powerful corporation it becomes praiseworthy in the highest degree!

Mr. Carey says, "the many desire to see the powers of the government diminished, and trade released from the shackles which have heretofore been imposed." We will not inquire as to the fact alleged, since it wholly turns upon the signification of the word many. The shackles to which he refers are those imposed by a settled measure of value. As he professes to speak in the name of the Whig party, which comprises many honest and well-meaning individuals, we would take the liberty of suggesting for the consideration of that portion of the party, whether, before adopting the measures advocated by Mr. Carey, for the total overthrow of the standard of value, upon the prospect of which he so warmly congratulates them, whether it might not be advisable to begin by releasing trade from the shackles imposed by a uniformity of weights and measures. The consequences of this release would be trifling, compared with the effect upon all property, by allowing every individual to fix the measure and value for himself. By way of trial it might be best to ascertain the effect of abolishing the small protection afforded to the industrious and unprotected classes by the standard measures for commodities of subsistence, before undertaking to subvert the main foundations of property among civilized communities.

We have thus far regarded Mr. Carey's expressions, repeated throughout his performance, as to the steadiness, security, and advantages to be derived from paper currency, issued by "the whole people," to have been intended, in good faith, to convey the meaning indicated by the ordinary acceptation of the terms. But from his constantly referring to the currency of New England, and of the Bank of the United States, as instances of such paper currency. it seems most likely that the phrase "the whole people," is used but as a mere figure of speech. He probably intended only the currency of banks, and possibly the currency alone of the Bank of the United States, agreeably to the suggestion contained in Mr.

Biddle's Princeton Address, quoted in our former Article. We are not aware that this restriction upon the signification of the term people will affect the inferences which prove the disastrous consequences of issues of paper not converted, nor truly convertible, into specie. All experience shows that some more efficient means of enforcing this redemption, which shall prevent undue expansions of paper currency, which injures the usefulness of sound banks, by encouraging profligate speculations, is essential to the general protection. "The advantage of combined action," set forth by Mr. Carev, as the most powerful and salutary element in all operations of paper currency, happens, according to the recent experience of this country, not to be the advantage of the industrious and unprotected classes, but the emolument of those who combine to involve the productive interests in embarassment, for the purpose of preying upon the fruits of industry. Such combined action, which, if resorted to by the laboring classes, would be called by the harsher name of conspiracy, must inevitably make such a system of free banking, as is plausibly pretended would produce universal steadiness and security, a tremendous engine of swind ling. Those banks, upon which such repeated eulogiums are bestowed, throughout both the original publication and the reply, were mostly established, not for the purpose of loaning actual capital, but for the purpose of borrowing it by the issue of paper currency. Those who have associated for this purpose were rarely men of accumulated capital, with the use of which they were willing, for a moderate remuneration, in the shape of interest, to accommodate commercial enterprize and manufacturing industry. On the other hand, they were generally such as wished to draw a revenue from the capital and industry of others, by the skilful management of credit. During periods of general confidence and prosperity, the temptation of exchanging inordinate amounts of their paper currency, bearing no interest-which is subsequently received at the same cost, and in lieu of substantial value, by the producers and holders of capital-tor the obligations of their customers, on which interest is paid, and by this means producing fictitious capital, has always proved almost irresistible. Combined action is extensively resorted to for the purpose of fostering and sustaining this hollow and fraudulent system, by the operation of which interest is extorted from the industry and enterprise of the community, without the employment of capital. The abundance of this kind of currency, in time, causes it to return for redemption. The customers of these banks are either ruined by suddenly enforcing the payment of obligations, in order to furnish the means to redeem their issues, or they prove unable to pay the holders of their currency, and the loss falls upon the productive classes, among whom it circulates It is this system of building credit upon

credit, that has produced so many destructive revulsions within a few years past, which have been invariably attributed to the measures of the Government, by those who have enjoyed its profits, as well as by their thoughtless victims. The supporters of this profligate system of gambling, have endeavoured to sustain its. reputation among those who have been the sufferers by its operations, both by systematic attacks and indirect sneers upon the government of the people. So many barefaced attempts to embarass its operations have been brought into play by the combined action, which Mr. Carey applauds with so much zeal, as to have, apparently extinguished, in many quarters, every such antiquated sentiments as patriotism and love of country.

Having now laid before our readers at considerable length our ideas of the consequences of the doctrines advocated by Mr. Carey, those who took the trouble to examine our former Article may expect us to furnish his view of it. This we do in his own words, for we scorn to imitate the unfairness of which his reply is a continued instance from beginning to end-of perverting the language of a performance which we undertake to criticise. He says:

"We were at first disposed to attribute all the erroneous views offered by this "writer to the consideration of his readers to a want of honesty, but are now more "disposed to attribute it to the absence of any acquaintance with the principles of "trade or Banking. He has collected a large quantity of true and false facts, and "has put them together, apparently without much regard to the effect they were cal "culated to produce, whether for or against his friends, and the consequence is that "his article is much more likely to establish a conviction of the danger of increas"ing the power of the government over the currency, than of the propriety of yield"ing to it what has been so pertinaciously insisted upon."

Now we frankly concede to Mr. Carey superior information in "the principles of trade and banking." Our instruction not having been received in the Philadelphia paper-money school, we must acknowledge our ignorance of its higher mysteries, excepting those which have been disclosed in the productions of Messrs. Biddle and Carey. Whether we have not endeavoured to atone for our deficiencies by the study of their writings, with a desire to understand their bearings and consequences, we leave to be determined by others.

As to our collection of true and false facts-our want of knowledge of this deep and important distinction must be attributed to want of instruction as to the mode by which the Philadelphia school distinguish a true fact from a false fact. It may be trivial or important, but a fact is neither more nor less than a fact with us. A great favor would be conferred on the uninitiated, if the professors of that brilliant school would explain, when they assert facts, when false facts are intended. This would doubtless have saved much of the time employed upon this Article.

Whenever doctrines however wild, extravagant, or destructive to the best interests of society, are to be supported, no difficulty seem