utility, and to excel all other substances for the number of uses in which they were held in high esteem, no matter whether for utility or fancy, as both these ends impart value or command price; and the longer and better that they have been known, tried, and compared, so much more stern and abiding has been the proof of their excellence, and so much greater the number of uses to which they have been appropriated and for which they have been in request. These are facts which run back through all history, and are without contradiction; and the growth of history on this point, as to both materials and time, only tends to verify them. Gradually in the course of time and by the exigencies of society, they came to be appropriated by general consent to the uses of money, till at last that consent became universal in the civilized world. This appropriation, therefore, was ulterior and consequent to the ascertainment of the many useful and admirable qualities of these metals for other purposes, without which there is no probability that they would have been employed

as money.

*

*

*

"The inconveniences of gold and silver, as a currency, are increased by time, as civilization advances, as commerce is extended and increased, and as, by this means, the necessity of effecting commercial exchanges with the greatest possible expedition, and in great amounts, is augmented. For this and other reasons, many eminent economists and statesmen have exhausted their wits to find a substitute. Even Ricardo appears seriously to have believed that the British government might found a currency on its credit! He advocated it, if we are rightly informed, in the very face of the depreciation of the Bank of England paper, during its suspension of cash payments from 1797 to 1823. He appears to have based his theory on the fact that the depreciation was no more, whereas we think he should have come to the opposite conclusion, from the fact that it depreciated so much. That credit is itself a currency in one sense and to a great extent, is undoubtedly true, but it must have a foundation. It is this very foundation which we are now inquiring for, to wit, the foundation of the value or credit of gold and silver as money, as the medium of trade. All seem to admit that it is not in its character as money; for who of the economists, it may be asked, has ever yet got farther than Turgot in this investigation, who laid this foundation in the nature and force of things?' Clearly that cannot be satisfactory.

"And yet a knowledge of the foundation of the value of money is not less important for an intelligent view of the whole subject, than is a knowledge of the foundation of anything else that can be named, to a right view of it. Branches of truth on such a practical matter may doubtless be seen and correctly stated without this knowledge, but no philosopher should be satisfied till he has got to the bottom

"M. Say observes truly: To enable it (money) to execute its functions, it must of necessity be possessed of inherent and positive value.' But surely its value must lie somewhere else than in its character as money; or in other words, something else must have made this gold eagle and this silver dollar valuable. Time was when they were not money; now they are.

There must have been some other reason for their adoption than that money was wanted. Say these metals are scarce; there are many things more so. Say they are con venient for this use on account of their quali ties; there are other substances not ill, and some much better adapted in these attributes for such an appropriation; and allowing that these useful qualities, added to their scarcity, impart a substantial value to gold and silver as money, which is not denied; still the value for which they are credited, relative to that of other commodities most necessary to man, is J great, prodigious disproportion, independent of! other considerations. Say that this dispropor tion is convenient to all parties-to all the world. That may be, doubtless is true. It then an arbitrary value-a fraud! The wor has cheated itself, and reckons it a good bu gain!

"It is evident, self-evident, that gold and silver, as money, must have had a value to stat) with, and as a reason for being able to star This is the point, and all that is claimed. T suppose that the world has been swindled swindled itself into the belief that money has value which after all is factitious, and that should be satisfied with this persuasion on t principle that it is a convenient delusion, is aã; more absurd than contrary to M. Say's doctrine, when he says, 'a system of swind can never be long-lived, and must infalliby the end produce much more loss than pr It is not easy to believe that the world has be is thus cheated, and that the credit of its c ting medium does not rest on a basis entirelyi pendent of itself. It is the very nature of c to have a basis. To say that intrinsic va the basis is precisely what we maintain trinsic value for what? It is not the function of money that constitutes int value, but it is that which qualifies for the tion; and the qualifying power lies money itself, is underneath it, is its foun But why adopt an absurdity without cause Why hold debate here when the numera important values of gold and silver für uses are so palpable, quite enough to w. mend them for the offices of money, ant; sufficient to sustain them in the dischar these functions? In this light, society is and the good sense of mankind is vita in adopting the precious metals as a compa

!

Without doubt, gold and silver employed as ney constitute one of the values of these tals, and that not unimportant; but the founion on which they started as money, the ises which summoned them to this position, hese important functions of society and of commercial world, will be found only in ues of an older date; and the causes which I sustain their credit as money will also be nd in the same old values, and in a multitude >thers since added and continually augmentas the uses to which these metals are aped, other than that of money, are multiplied the progress of time and in the advances of ilization. It was never an accident, nor a a or concatenation of accidents; it was never arbitrary fit nor an arbitrary law of society t lifted gold and silver into the position, and talled them into the functions of money; it s not custom; it was not even the necessity a common medium of trade that selected m for this duty, though that necessity was rent; but it was a substantial value imparted them by time and events, destined never to diminished, but always to increase. It was e nature and force,' not of things' in gene, as Turgot taught, but of these very things particular; it was their own position, their n force and nature, their own value, indepenit of and prior to that of money, that made m money. As a law of society which grew with society, it could no more be resisted in a law of nature. It was not a choice ich men made, but a necessity into which y were forced; and not a necessity to have s or an alternative at their own will, but to ve this and nothing else. There was no more certainty hanging over the predestined use of ld and silver as money, than over the course the heavenly bodies. The law in one case is forcible as that in the other, and both are astainable and definite. One is the attraction gravitation, the other the intrinsic value of Id and silver for other uses. "We define money as the common medium trade, and find in it two simple but important actions, one to express values, and the other consummate commercial exchanges, by being ven on one side and accepted on the other, as > consideration thus agreed upon. It is a meum as the instrument, it is common because e world has so ordained."

*

*

*

The second chapter on money is devoted efly to the difference between money as subject and as the instrument of trade, ad to price as an attribute of money and things purchased by it. The following re extracts on these two points :

"The Free Trade economists, Adam Smith and his school, say that money is a commodity, and that it occupies the same position in trade as other commodities. We grant that it is a commodity, and that as a subject of trade it occupies, as they say, the same position as other commodities. But we deny that it discharges the functions of money, and hold that it is merely passive, when it is the subject of trade. Gold and silver, in passing from the mines to market, bullion in the market, and all manufactured articles which are composed in whole or in part of the precious metals, are subjects of trade. The same may be said of coin, bank notes, and negotiable paper of every kind, when bought and sold. Bankers and money-brokers trade exclusively in money, and money in their hands and in whatever form, coming or going, is always a subject of trade. The precious metals, in bullion or in coin, passing through the hands of brokers from one country to another, are subjects of trade while in the hands of those dealers, though they may be at the same time discharging the functions of money between debtor and creditor, who employ bankers and brokers as agents of remittance. All notes discounted at bank are subjects of trade in the transaction, both to the lender and to the borrower. Bills of exchange, bonds and mortgages transferred, and many other descriptions of credit for which a consideration is paid, are subjects of trade. All who borrow credit for a consideration, buy it. It is a subject of trade in the transaction. Gold and silver, in all other forms than that of money, are subjects of trade. So far as these and many other forms and conditions of money and of credit go, and so far as the precious metals are devoted to other objects than money as subjects of trade, we agree with the Free Trade economists that they occupy the same position as other and all other commodities exchanged in trade.

"But it must be observed that money, in its own proper functions as such, has had nothing to do with all this except so far as the considerations rendered in these transactions are concerned, as, for example, the discount and interest of a note. They are merely the preparatory stages through which money passes, the platform on which it is tossed about in a merely passive state as the subject of trade, till it reaches the great field of the commercial world where it is destined and designed actively to discharge the appropriate functions of money. This is a field before which the Free Trade economists have held up a screen. Let us go behind it and see how money operates there in distinction from the manner in which it is operated upon as a subject of trade before it gets there.

"A consideration of the difference of destina

tion of money, and of the things for which it is exchanged, as the medium of trade in this field, will cast light on this point. The destination of money here is for an endless round of duty

in the discharge of the same functions, whereas the destination of the subjects of its agency in trade is either for consumption or for a fixture in the disposition of permanent capital so called, but yet often perishable. Money is employed as the instrument to carry them on to their respective destinations, where they must soon arrive, perhaps by the first transaction; but whether by one or more, money is the agent, and they are the passive subjects. But the functions of money in this field never cease; it will never have done its work; its destination is perpetual employment in the same offices; and while the things on which it operates are constantly passing away by consumption, or arriving at their final destination as fixtures, by the agency of money, money itself is constantly returning to its duty in moving on other commodities, in endless succession, to their destinations. Money in this field is the moving power, without which nothing else would move, so far as trade is concerned, except in the way of barter, which properly does not belong to civilization. And yet Adam Smith, Say, Ricardo, M'Culloch, and others of that ilk tell us that money and a piece of calico are, commercially considered, the same thing, and occupy the same position, in a commercial transaction, when one is exchanged for the other; and they tell us that it is no matter whether a nation parts with one or the other, so that trade goes on. Unfortunately for a nation and fortunately for the truth, the absurdity comes to light when the money is all gone and trade will no longer go. *

*

*

*

"When and wherever there is a want of money, trade comes to a halt. The interest of every party, therefore, a man or a nation, concerned in trade, is to take care not be out of money, for it is his 'tools of trade.' And how does such a party get out of money if it had any? It can only be by buying more than is sold of other commodities, which are prized and moved by money, and by being obliged to settle balances with cash. When the trade of a party comes to this, and the store of cash is exhausted, trade must stop, barter only excepted, which is the same as stopping, because it is a mode of trade which cannot be revived, and which, if it could, cannot now be employed to any profitable

On price, Mr. Colton remarks:

"There is an habitual mode of reasoning with Adam Smith, Ricardo, and others of their faith, in ascribing to gold and silver, when discharging the appropriate functions of money, the attribute of price, which, we conceive, leads to obscurity, even to error.

"The world has agreed upon gold and silver, not only as the common medium of trade, but as the common instrument to express the values of all other things that are worth money, and to purchase them; but it has not agreed on any thing to express the value of gold and silver, when discharging the functions of money; and there is no such thing. How, then, can gold and silver, in this office, be valued? How can they be worth more or less than themselves, weighed in the scales? We know, indeed, that gold and silver vessels, or any works d art composed of these substances, are prized by gold and silver coin. And why? Because there are two principles in their value: one their weight, and the other their workmansh Leave out their workmanship, and gold is g and silver is silver, of equal value, if equal pure, according to their weight, whether coin, or bullion, or works of art. It would be absurd to suppose that gold and silver, the is struments of expressing values, should expres their own value, each for each. There the are, no matter how much in the word: a matter how little; the world has agreed they shall express all other exchangeste ues, but never, that anything else shall expe their value. How, then, can they be cheap dear, cheaper or dearer, while acting in t capacity of money?

*

"No one, of course, will imagine that mean to call in question the propriety of spe ing of money as dear or cheap, as of bar low price, as a subject of trade. It is when employed as the instrument of trade, we maintain it can have no price in relat 21 the commodities for which it is exchange this transaction, price cannot belong to t the agent and the subject, but only to Le ** It is the very function of the agent to prz subject.

*

"We never find the price of money subject of trade, to be the principal s any case whatever; but it is either a c ation for its use on time, or a consicgrowing out of some one or other of the v ing accidents of its existence; and all its are based on the standard of the scales, em or indirectly, mediately or immediately. money, as the instrument of trade, never

price, its functions being to declare the of the things on which it acts, and to them forward to their destinations-this ration and this moving power being its pr

and only functions. The only fundamental measure of money is the scales; though, in the superstructure of a monetary system, many other accidental measures are employed, for convenience, all having reference to this, and being based upon it.

"To show that money, as a subject of trade, has no price, other than as above defined, observe, that a man, with one bar of gold or silver bullion, does not propose to exchange it for another bar of the same weight and purity. There is no motive. Nor does a person propose to exchange coins for others of the same denomination and weight; nor bank-notes for others of the same denominations and of the same bank; nor any kind of money for another, where there is no foundation or reason for difference in value, and of consequent advantage to one of the parties, which advantage would be a foundation of price, or a motive for exchange. There is no motive to exchange an equal for an equal. It must be a difference of some kind to constitute the foundation of price in money. In purchasing the use of money on time, the principle of price is doubtless too obvious to require farther illustration; and enough has already been said to show the different positions and proper functions of money, as the instrument of trade, and that price does not belong to it in that case.

"Convenience requires a uniform rule, either hat cheapness or dearness should be applied to noney alone, or to the things of which it is he medium of exchange. Custom has applied hem to the latter, and ordained money to exress all their values. This office of money is law made and obeyed by all the world, and here is no antagonist law. There is nothing Ise by consent or practice, that expresses the alue of money as such. Ricardo, Smith, and thers, by violating custom and the ordinances universal consent in this matter, have, we ink, introduced confusion and darkness here order and light are needed, and plunged to an inextricable labyrinth."

Mr. Colton devotes his third chapter on oney entirely to a consideration of this ent as "tools of trade," exhibiting views true and practical as they are new in m. For it is in form, chiefly, that Mr. ›lton's views are new. Every person ll find himself perfectly familiar with e whole doctrine of this chapter, and ɔbably no one will dissent from it. And E he never saw those thoughts in such a ape before. Judge by the following

cimens :

Can a farmer till his grounds without a gh? Can a tailor make up his garments out his shears and needle? Can a water

man put forward his boat without a paddle? or a ship navigate the seas without sails or steam? Can any work, of any sort, be done without the appropriate instruments? Money is as much the instrument of trade, as the plough is of agriculture, the tailor's needle of making garments, the oar of speeding the boat, or the sails or steam of navigation. But Smith, Say, Ricardo, M'Culloch, Twiss and their co-laborers tell us, in effect, that the plough is only a commodity, and the farmer may as well sell that as his corn; that the needle is only a commodity, and the tailor may give his whole stock of tools for his dinner, without inconvenience; that the waterman may barter his paddle for a fish, or the fisherman give his hook and line for bait, and both do as well without their tools as with; that the weaver will suffer nothing in selling his loom and shuttle; that the woodman may exchange his axe for a shirt, without harm to his occupation; that the smith inay part with his hammer for a saw, in an exchange with the carpenter, and both go on with their work; that the shoemaker may exchange his kit of tools for a coat, and still work on with profit; in short, that all these things are mere commodities, and provided the parties have made a good speculation, as a trade, they have done well; or if they have merely got an equivalent in market values, they cannot be losers. Such is the doctrine of Free Trade!

"But money is a nation's 'kit of tools;' nothing more; nothing less. And yet these gentlemen say, it is no matter; it is just as well; the nation will not suffer the least inconvenience, if it part with its 'kit of tools,' and obtains, by the exchange, equivalent values. They say, in effect, that the shoemaker can still go on making shoes, and do as well as ever, if, by exchanging his kit, he gets other commodities of equivalent value. It is impossible to escape from this issue on the premises of these gentlemen. No one can deny that this is precisely the case which they have made.

"If it be said that a man ought to part with his tools of trade,' rather than not pay his debts, it is raising a new question, which is one pate this question, in the position, that a man of morality. We go further back, and anticishould be more prudent than to allow his tools of trade' to become liable for his debts. This is precisely the position we occupy on public economy. We hold that money, enough for the demands of trade, is the tools of trade' to a nation, and that its system of economy should be so adjusted and managed, as not to put its tools' in the condition of liability for its debts. A nation cannot hold on to its 'tools' after they have become thus liable; but they must go, till there is no more to go; and then the efflux is barred by exhaustion. The doctrine of our opponents is, that a nation is none the worse off, is put to no inconvenience,

by the loss of its "tools of trade!" Is not this the CASE which they have made? If it be not, we know not what is."

This chapter should be carefully studied by every American. It is suggestive of considerations deserving the profoundest reflection. It is written with such philosophical clearness, that a child can under

stand it.

We have referred to the chapter upon labor. We do so again to ask attention to the very elaborate and powerful pamphlet under the title of "The Rights of Labor," which Mr. Colton published a year or two ago. Perspicuity is a quality of all his writings; but this argument is preeminently lucid, shapely, and satisfactory. The subject is one of the gravest that can arrest attention in a democracy. Its importance is justly apprehended by the author, and he discloses and sustains his hypotheses in relation to it, with the ability and confidence of a thorough mastery and an unhesitating conviction. This pamphlet is not so much for the men of the closet and the senate as for the masses; and it is issued in a form and at a price to insure the largest circulation.

In sketching thus rapidly some of the new points in Mr. Colton's Public Economy for the United States, we have occupied all the space that can conveniently be appropriated to a reviewal of the work. We are compelled to leave unconsidered many chapters of scarcely less interest or importance; as the balance of trade; banking; the mutual dependencies of agriculture, manufactures and commerce; gains of protection, and losses by free trade; the effects of protection, and of the want of it,

on the prices of American labor; effects of the same on the interests of agriculture, of commerce and navigation, of the home trade, of the cotton-growing interests, and of all other interests of the country; the principles, objects, and modes of a tariff: the tariff of 1842, and 1846, &c. &c.: all these and their cognate subjects, are considered at large in this work, with an overwhelming array of statistics and facts, bearing on the various points, as they a arise.

-We have thus endeavored to attract attention to a work which is most timely, and which for its great ability and truly notional character, is destined undoubtedly to be widely read, and to exert a powerful influence in our country, if not upon all those thinkers throughout the world, who are now attracted to the subject of which it treats. There has never been a time when the questions of public economy a were more necessary to be understood by our people-and there has never been a time when their importance was in such danger of being forgotten, in the insure schemes of ambition, which, when mo successful, invest a nation with but a gl tering show of glory for substantial hap piness, with but the fiery redness of flammation, for the complexion of gen health. We commend the work heartil not only to MEN, of the closet or of actio but to the students of the school of er rience, who are to conduct the ship State through the storms that are signa in the horizon, or to be engulphed in t common ruin of which the most sagas see threatenings in the present distract of the mind from the means and ends a true national grandeur.