selves from the rude gaze of strangers, they threw over their faces the only covering they possessed, and stood blindfolded, like the ostrich, who thrusts her head into the sand, and fancies her whole body hidden." A Defence of Capital Punishment. By GEORGE B. CHEEVER; with an Essay, by Professor TAYLER LEWIS. New York: Wiley & Putnam. This is a work demanding a place among our regular reviews; and we hope to be able shortly, by giving it such a place, to contribute something towards a just appreciation of its subject. In the meantime, we cannot too strongly recommend the perusal of these essays to every youthful mind. There has, probably, been too much virulence and party spirit exhibited, in the discussion of this important question, by both sides. This has been owing, as is usual in such cases, to the importance of settling first principles, before proceeding to consequences and results. Mr. Lewis' essay is a most valuable contribution towards a just appreciation of the fundamental truths involved in the discussion. For depth of thought, force of logic, and clearness of style, we consider it unsurpassed by anything that has recently appeared. If it would not be insinuating some distrust in the preliminary education of some of those whom we select to make, mend, and modify our laws, we would most cordially recommend that means be taken to place a copy in the hands of every legislator in the land. For we do not know where the ground and basis of all true government and law are more forcibly set forth. We are disposed to give more credit generally, for candor and sincerity, to the opponents of capital punishment, than the authors of this book seem to have given. Opposition to the death penalty has not been confined to those out of the pale of orthodox theology. In the leaders of the movement-we mean those acting from some peculiar temperament of mind-the giving undue prominence to certain secondary truths involved in the question has warped their judgments, and prevented their seeing, that the avoiding of what appears an evil to them, would be at the sacrifice of the great principle that lies at the foundation of all government, Divine and human. The inferior minds, still more influenced by their feelings than their reason, are carried along with these by the mere force of the declamation into which that side of the question necessarily hur ries a speaker or writer, tempting him constantly from argument to sentiment, from logic to eloquence, from prose to poetry. We venture to say, in conclusion, that if they will only read the essay of Mr. Lewis, nine-tenths of those who are tacitly or otherwise yielding their assent to this somewhat extended opposition to the punishment of death, for the crime of wilful murder, will be astonished at themselves, that they have dreamed of deciding such a question on so superficial an investigation into the principles involved, as they have given it. History of the English Revolution of 1640, from the accession of Charles I. to his death, by F. Guizot. Translated by William Hazlitt. Appleton & Co. M. Guizot is unquestionably one of the first of philosophical historians. As a peculiar phase of mental development or progress, the philosophical historian is, in a great measure, the production of the present age, and one that we rank as of little less than the highest value. Notwithstanding the high point we have attained in civilization, and the science of government, there seems little less contention about many grand truths connected with their advancement, than there was centuries back. Now, towards the settlement of some of the most important of these truths, nothing, we venture to say, will contribute so much as a philosophic comprehension of the great movements, instinctive, wilful or providential, of our race. There are many blind, violent opponents of certain institutions, men and organizations, that would learn from such a comprehension, that these too have done, and are doing, their part in advancing the great end of Providence-progress in virtue, knowledge, liberty. The book before us, is one on the commencement of a great epoch in human progress. We have above indicated our opinion of the qualifications of the author for his task. We cannot, in the space we have, introduce the necessary modifications of that opinion. This, however, is the less important. as we shall soon have occasion to make more extended reference to it. We will therefore only add that M. Guizot, as a Frenchman, a philosophic thinker, a statesman, and one standing so immediately among and upon the effects of a great epoch, so nearly resembling in some respects the one he treats of, is well situated to give a view of the matter at once candid, striking, and deeply interesting. MR. WALKER'S REPORT AND BILL.† THE Annual Report of our Secretary of the Treasury, with the documents appended, forming a ponderous octavo of nine hundred and fifty-seven pages, has achieved the rare honor of being printed for the instruction of the British House of Lords. Although a prophet is proverbially without honor in his own country, it is yet obvious, here at home, that this compliment to Mr. Walker is not an empty formality. His Report develops principles and commends action so very different from those which have hitherto issued from the financial head of our Government, so antagonistic in essence to those propounded by most of his predecessors, and so far outstripping in practical application the dicta of those who have inclined to the same general views, that they may well command attention, as marking an era in our national career. Not that Mr. Walker is, by any means, a man of original genius-a creator, so to speak, in finance-like Hamilton or A. J. Dallas. His instincts are not creative, but destructive. His peculiarity consists in the readiness and thoroughness with which he adopts the theories of the most one-sided political economists of our day, and (in his Re port, not his Bill) follows them unflinchingly, indiscriminately, to their extreme conclusions. Foreign legislators may well desire to see the evidence by which he is impelled to such deductions; but if they will but examine that evidence, loose, partial and imperfect as it is, they can hardly fail to perceive that his deductions were drawn first, and his evidence collected afterward, for the purpose of sustaining them. This purpose has been very imperfectly accomplished. Mr. Walker's sole object is to commend to our Congress and people the most unqualified free trade. He urges this, as demanded alike by considerations of revenue and of national prosperity. Let us briefly consider first the question of revenue: That we had recently what is termed a revenue Tariff-that is, a Tariff adjusted without reference to protection, but with a view to revenue only-is a fact of ample notoriety. Under the Compromise Act of 1833, the duties previously levied were reduced by one-tenth annually of the excess over twenty per cent., down to 1842, when no duty higher than Report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the state of the Finances, &c., &c.December 3, 1845. Tariff Bill, submitted by the Secretary of the Treasury to the Committee of Ways and Means.-February, 1846. twenty per cent. remained. For the Actual balance in the Trea- party here being ready to take it on reasonable terms, an agent was dispatched to Europe to negotiate it. He found our Government utterly without credit, and was compelled to return without a bid. The Government had thus, in time of peace and under a revenue Tariff, touched the bottom of its resources, and was compelled to change its policy, or sink into confessed and hopeless bankruptcy. Under such circumstances, the Tariff of 1842 -the present Whig Tariff-was enacted. Great care having been given to the adjustment of its details, and a serious delay having been occasioned by the veto by Mr. Tyler of the bill as first presented to him, the present act did not become a law until the close of August, 1842-too late to be felt in the importa9,000,000 tions and revenue of that year. In fact, a radical change in our commercial policy requires a year to make itself felt through8,000,000 out all the ramifications of business, and thence upon the revenue of the country. $7,000,000 6,000,000 Mr. Van Buren's four years* $30,000,000 beside heavy claims and dues left unpaid, especially in Florida, growing out of the Seminole War. The revenue had fallen off from over thirty millions per annum, during General Jackson's last term, to less than twenty millions under Mr. Van Buren, and the actual receipts of 1841 and 1842 -the two years of most strictly revenue duties were less than fifteen millions per annum. So notoriously inadequate was the income afforded by this revenue Tariff, that one of the last acts of the retiring Van Buren Congress of 1837, was an act authorizing the issue of an additional five millions of treasury notes, to enable the new administration to struggle on until the regular meeting of the next Congress, in December of that same year. But even this was regarded as utterly inadequate, and General Harrison promptly summoned an extra session of the new Congress, to convene in September, mainly to take into consideration the state of the national finances. It assembled accordingly, and was obliged to make farther and still farther temporary provision, by loans, etc., for the pressing wants of the Treasury, before provision could be made for its permanent replenishment. A second loan having been authorized in 1842, and no This Tariff, as well after as before its enactment, was assailed with every variety of opprobrious epithet, dolorous prophecy, and gross imputation. It was stigmatized as "The Black Tariff," 66 Prohibitory, "Anti-Commercial," "The Manufacturer's Tariff," &c., &c. Predictions that our merchant ships would now be doomed to rot at their wharves, that no new ones would be built, &c., &c., were confidently made by the Free Traders. A strike of the sailors in our port for higher wages occurred in October, 1842; they turned out in procession, and paraded our streets; in Wall street they were harangued by Colonel Hepburn and Major Davezac, two prominent Free Trade orators of that day, who assured them that the black Whig Tariff was the sole cause of their depression, and that seamen's wages would not be better until this Tariff was repealed. The Tariff still stands, and the average employment and recompense of seamen under it, have been quite as good as during a like period preceding-we think better. Ships have been in good demand; shipbuilding has rarely been more active than during the past year. In the summer of 1843, Mr. James K. Polk canvassed the State of Tennessee, as a candidate for Governor, and made opposition to the new Whig Tariff one of his chief themes of oral and written declamation. In the addresses or speech * These sums are set down from memory, but are substantially correct. es prepared for the press by himself, we find frequent and most confident predictions that the new Whig Tariff would not only prove most baneful to the ag riculture and commerce of the country, but that it would also prove destructive to the revenue-that Congress would be compelled to go back to a twenty per cent. ad valorem, in order to obtain an income adequate to the wants of the Government. But the Treasury Report of the following December exhibited an increase of revenue under that Tariff, from some fifteen millions in 1842, to near twenty millions in 1843, and this again was swelled to over THIRTY millions in 1844, dissipating forever all fears that the present Tariff would not afford an income adequate to the wants of the Government. And Mr. Walker, in this Report, officially informs us that the net revenue for the year ending June 30th, 1845, lacked but a fraction of thirty millions of dollars, while he estimates that for the year ending July 1st, 1846, at a fraction short of twenty-seven millions. The expenditures of the current year, without making any payments on account of principal of the public debt, he states at twenty-nine and a half millions, and those of the year ending with June, 1847, at twenty-five and a half millions, exclusive of the sums which may be required to meet unforeseen contingencies, and provide for unexpected appropriations by Congress. Could a revenue be more happily adjusted to expenditure than this? Considering that we have still a considerable debt to pay off, who can say that this Tariff affords too much revenue? Yet, says Mr. Walker, "In suggesting improvements of the revenue laws, the following principles have been adopted: 1st. That no more money should be collected than is necessary for the wants of the Government, economically administered." In 1843, the Free Traders were appalled by the prospect of too little revenue from this Tariff; now they are alarmed at the prospect of too much. If the facts already submitted do not sufficiently dissipate this apprehension, we will call attention to the following paragraphs from the Report: "The receipts for the first quarter of this year are less, by $2,011,885 90, than the receipts of the same quarter last year. Among the causes of decrease is the progressive diminution of the importation of many highly-protected articles, and the substitution of rival domestic products. For the nine months ending June 30, 1843, duties upon dutiable imports was equal to since the present Tariff, the average of 37.84 1-10th per cent. ; for the year ending June 30, 1844, 33.85 9-10th per cent. ; and for the year ending June 30, 1845, 29.90 per cent.-showing a great diminution in the average per centage, owing, in part, to increased importation of some articles bearing the lighter duties, and decreased importation of others bearing the higher duty." The condition of our foreign relations, it is said, should suspend the reduction of the Tariff. No American patriot can desire to arrest our onward career in peace and prosperity; but if, unhappily, such should be the result, it would create an increased necessity for reducing our present high duties in order to obtain sufficient revenue to meet increased expenditures. The duties for the quarter ending the 30th September, 1844, yielded $2,011,885 90 more of revenue than the quarter ending 30th September, 1845; showing a very Considerable decline of the revenue, growhighly-protected articles and the progresing out of a diminished importation of the sive substitution of the domestic rivals. Indeed, many of the duties are becoming dead letters, except for the purpose of prohibition; and, if not reduced, will ultimately compel their advocates to resort to direct taxation to support the government. In the event of war, nearly all the high duties would become prohibitory, from the increased risk and cost of importations; and if there be, indeed, in the opinion of any, a serious danger of such an their patriotism to impose the lowest revoccurrence, it appeals most strongly to enue duties on all articles, as the only means of securing, at such a period, any considerable income from the Tariff." Thus we find on pages 3 and 6 of the Report, an ample antidote to the terrors vaguely insinuated on page 4. We pass, then, to the next of Mr. Walker's " principles," viz. article above the lowest rate which will "2d. That no duty be imposed on any yield the largest amount of revenue." The principle here enunciated strikes directly and palpably at the root of all Protection, unless it be the faintest shadow of incidentalism. And we wish those who have for years been asserting that a Revenue Tariff would afford all necessary protection, would but consider the matter in the light here cast upon it by Mr. Walker. Ourmakers of hats, coats, boots and shoes, &c., come before Con gress and say in effect, "We ask protection for our labor. The articles we severally produce are equal in quality to any rivals, and we afford them as cheap as they can usually be imported, even without duty. Yet the caprices of fashion, the foolish preference given by many to articles of foreign production, with the frequent reverses of trade, making glutted markets and bankrupt traders abroad, often deluge us with the rival fabrics of European industry, which are crowded into use through the machinery of auction sales, &c., forestalling our markets, deranging our business, and often arresting our industry for months together. We ask you to shut out this foreign competition with our toil, which is useless and profitless to the American consumer, while embarrassing and often ruinous to us. Discourage the importation of the rival articles, and we, having steady employment and a sure market, will supply the wants of our countrymen cheaper than they are now supplied or under existing circumstances can be." What is Mr. Walker's answer to this demand? "No duty above the lowest rate which will yield the largest amount of revenue." This rule is fatal to the object sought for. The moment a duty begins to answer our artisans' purpose, it ceases to answer Mr. Walker's. If twenty per cent. has the effect desired by our mechanics, it is too high to be tolerated by the Secretary, and must be cut down to fifteen, ten, or still lower, until it shall cease to impede that importation which will yield the largest aggregate of revenue, not on the whole scale of duties, but on this particular item. Surely this is not statesmanship. But having thus stated our own objection to Mr. Walker's second principle, we cannot omit to note the fact that he himself in practice utterly disregards and subverts it. His bill utterly defies the doctrines of his report. Thus Iron, Coal, Sugar, Ready-made Clothing, and many other articles are subjected by him to his highest rate (except on Distilled Spirits,) when it is notorious that a lower rate would produce far more revenue on these articles. Railroad Iron, for instance, has for many months been worth just about $60 per ton in Liverpool, sometimes a little over, and again falling slightly below that standard. Thirty per cent. on this price gives $18 duty; add freight and charges $10, and the cost in New York is $88 per ton. But American rails of admirable quality are contracted for at $77 50, or $10 per ton under the cost of importing British rails. Even twenty per cent. on railroad iron would, as prices rule, be a duty clearly prohibitory. Yet Mr. Walker recommends thirty-a duty as absolutely destructive of importation and revenue as if it were one thousand per cent. We certainly do not object to the duty; we believe the farther importation of rails undesirable on any terms, and that thorough protection to our own iron interest will secure us a supply of iron cheaper than we could obtain it by absolute free trade. But this cannot shut our eyes to the glaring contradiction between Mr. Walker's proclaimed principles and his practice. "3d. That below such rate discrimination may be made, descending in the scale of duties; or, for imperative reasons, the article may be placed in the list of those free from all duty." If this is to be regarded as a general principle," then we need only remark that Mr. Walker's bill incessantly defies it. This "principle" demands a higher than is imposed on a necessary like iron, duty on "luxuries" like tea and coffee sugar, molasses or clothing; yet Mr. Walker imposes thirty per cent. on these and lets those go free. Silks, spices, diamonds, &c., should be placed in the highest instead of the lower schedules, if this We believe, "principle" were regarded. indeed, that a wisely framed Tariff must regard rather the capacities of our country to produce the several articles contemplated than their relative necessity or inutility; but Mr. Walker propounds a different rule, and propounds it only to disregard it. "5th. That all minimums, and all specific duties, should be abolished, and ad valorem duties substituted in their placecare being taken to guard against fraudulent invoices, and undervaluation, and to assess the duty on the actual market value." This is the most important "principle" evolved by the Secretary, and in our |