the execution of which he made the acquaintance of such men as Jackson, Henry Clay, Aaron Burr, Wilkinson, Claiborne, Livingston, Robert Fulton, and others; he witnessed the first experiment of Fulton's steamboat, and personally took part in the battle of New Orleans, under Jackson. He became an American citizen, and established himself in New Orleans, where he did a very heavy and prosperous business, chiefly in cotton, until the crisis of 1825-26, when he failed in consequence of the failure of a house in Liverpool, with which he was connected. From this calamity he never recovered, though he attempted to retrieve his fortunes, first in Havre, then in Boston, then as contractor to furnish the new French National Guard in 1830, and afterwards in various other enterprises, some of which took him to Rome, to Constantinople, and to America again, until at last, at an advanced age, he abandoned the struggle, and contented himself with a modest existence at Hamburg, as a writer for commercial periodicals. Here he has written the eventful narrative of his life, in a clear and worthy style, and without any of the sour and bitter sentimentality of disappointment. No doubt the book will soon be put into the English language, and made accessible to our readers. -Two books that are not without instruction for students of the English language are ABEL'S Deutsche PersonenNamen (German proper names), and WIEGAND'S Oberhessische Ortsnamen, (Names of Places in Upper Hesse). The origin of these names is, as may well be imagined, not only worthy of study as derived from the earliest times, and most primitive life and circumstances of the Teutonic race, and as thus adding something to our knowledge of its earliest history, but is calculated to shed light upon the pure meaning of many words of daily use in English as well as German. -The second part of WACKERNAGEL'S Geschichte der deutschen Literatur (History of German Literature), embracing what is called the Middle High German Period, has appeared at Basle, and is loudly recommended by the most trustworthy critics, not only for the richness of its matter, and the surprising erudition it betrays, but for the correctness and justice of its critical judgments. -The Yucatan of our lamented countryman, Mr. JOHN L. STEPHENS, has been published in a German version at Leipsic with a map and all the plates of the original. The German critics regard it as the best and most substantial of all his works. -RIESS, the eminent savan of Berlin, has published, in two octavo volumes Die Lehre der Reibungs electricität, (The Doctrine of Frictional Electricity), an excellent manual, which cannot too warmly be recommended to such as are engaged in the study of that science. Even those who already understand it perfectly will not read this work without profit. -Die Moriscos in Spanien (The Moors in Spain), by A. L. RoCHAU, adds nothing to previous knowledge of the subject, but is a vivid and agreeable book, with occasional singular eccentricities which to a reader at this distance are rather amusing than otherwise. For instance, there are passages which would seem to indicate that the author is an enthusiastic Moslem, and that the only fault he has to find with the Moors is the institution of polygamy. But for this, he tells us that they, with their religion, would have subjugated the whole of Europe, and that the event would have been a happy one for the world. -Charles Guérin, roman de maurs canadiennes, by HON. PIERRE J. (. CHAUVEAU, is a work which we are at a loss how to classify, nationally, whether among French, English or American productions; it is the first work of fiction conceived, written, and published in Canada, that we remember having seen. The author, the present Solicitor-General for Lower Canada, is a French Canadian, whose most distant travels have been bounded by Boston: the hero and all the personages are Canadians in Charles Guérin; the scene is laid at Quebec, and in the vicinity. It was assuredly impossible to adhere more strictly to Béranger's injunction, to "stick to one's country." Like many of the early epopées and ballads of other nations, this first-born Canadian novel is a sort of politicopastoral tale, with just enough incident to prevent monotony, and just enough passion to sustain the interest to the end of the volume. The bulk of readers will peruse with pleasure the naif history of the fates and fortunes of the two brothers Guérin. There is, in truth, nothing very strikingly original in their case. Theirs is the story of all young men, who, after completing their education, are thrown upon the world to seek their fortune, with no other aid than their own energy, and a very limited field for its development. Assailed by the usual misfortunes of heroes of romance, each in his way overcomes them, and is happy at last. This slender plot is happily set off with fresh pictures of Canadian scenery, and Teniers-like sketches of village life on the borders of the St. Lawrence. Dialogues, too, on subjects of political and social in terest, are interspersed throughout the narration, and show that the author had a higher aim in view than the mere gratification of curiosity. Their tone is intensely and exclusively Canadian. One might almost infer from them that the world was bounded by the Canadian frontier. A Parisian dandy, speaking of the Nubian deserts or the slopes of the Amazon, would not use language very different from that in which the interlocutors allude to the United States. Patriotism is all very well; but a poet and philosopher-who was never suspected of any lack of the virtue—has said, and Canadians would perhaps do well to remember it: "Chacun est du pays de son intelligence; NOTE FROM HENRY C. CAREY. [We could not afford all the authors who may take exceptions to our notices of their works, space in our columns to refute the opinions we publish, but we give Mr. Carey the benefit of his remarks upon our brief notice of Mr. Smith's Manual, in our last, for reasons that will be obvious enough to our readers. We will make no other remark on Mr. Carey's complaint than that we consider his argument against international copy-right is one of the strongest that could be made in favor of that measure. If Mr. Carey has not received that consideration from his countrymen to which his merits entitle him, it is because the non-existence of an international copy-right has rendered them intellectual vassals of Europe, and destroyed the feeling of independence in literature which they are so proud of in their politics.] To the Editor of Putnam's Monthly. It is now sixteen years since I undertook to show that the English economists had been engaged in treating a leg or an arm under the mistaken belief that they were treating a body, and that the reason of this was that they had adopted principles that had no foundation in truth, and could not, therefore, be made to explain the phenomena of the lungs, heart, or brain, the consequence of which had been that they had been compelled to eliminate all the nobler parts of the system, and confine their investigations to the meaner ones. I then showed that there existed simple and beautiful laws, by whose aid all the phenomena could readily be explained, and that they constituted a great system of "social science," perfectly harmonious in all its parts. This was a great work to undertake, and it might have been supposed that I would receive some countenance, if not even aid, from the public press. Far from it, however. In the twelve years that followed its publication, I never saw a single American notice of it that might not have been written by a student fresh from college and inflated with the idea that he had qualified himself for the office of critic by puzzling himself during the last term, in trying to understand the confused and worthless systems of Wayland or Say, which will account for no facts, and of which the several parties are in perpetual conflict with each other. At the end of that time, it began to be seen that my books were studied in Europe-that they had been, or were being, translated and republished-and finally it came to be known that my whole system, from commencement to close, had been reproduced by one of the ablest of European economists, and among the most brilliant of French writers-and then, and not till then, it began to be thought by our own reviewers that I might, perhaps, have "some method in my madness."" Of this they are not even yet quite certain, for I have not yet been indorsed in England, the country that dictates all our modes of thought, and is as little competent for the task as almost any one in Europe. Nevertheless, of all the reviewers who have for so many years thus treated "social science," nine-tenths are advocates of international copyright, as tending to give us American literature, and to promote originality of thought. It may be that fact would be its effects, but if so it is a measure against which our authors should to a man protest, for originality is death to their hopes of success. To furnish original ideas, a man must have placed himself in advance of his neighbors, and in advance of his reviewer-and as the latter finds himself unable to determine their value, he slurs them over as best he may, and then, if benevolently disposed towards his victim, he praises him for something that is common to himself and a dozen others, and thus "damns him with faint praise." If otherwise disposed, he waits until he can find some depreciating article by some stupid Englishman, and reprints that as evidence that his countryman is an ass. All this is precisely what has happened to me. Ill-natured articles by such Englishmen, ignorant of the first elements of social science, have been reprinted here, but in no single instance that I now recollect has any thing commendatory been republished. Such being the facts, would one err much in saying to an author, that if he would have his books to sell he must avoid all pretension to originality of thought? Some fifteen years since, I published a little book on credit and banking, which contains in 100 or 120 pages more information than can be found in all the English books on the subject put together; and the reason for this is, that I laid down some simple principles - those abstract ideas that your reviewer does not like; and then showed that all the facts of the world were in accordance with them. Those ideas were adopted in France, and I have had for several years a book in which it is shown how readily by their aid all the revulsions of England and France could be accounted for. Within a month, I have received an elaborate work by an able writer, just from the press in France, in which my little volume is freely used, and is pronounced to be un des plus beaux ouvrages" on this subject that has ever appeared. Nevertheless, having been so unfortunate as to contain original ideas, it never received the smallest notice here beyond some trumpery newspaper paragraph, while long articles were given to enormous English volumes, written down to the level of reviewers, and the authors of which proved nothing by their multiplicity of words, except that they had got to learn the A B C of the science they had undertaken to teach. And yet our people talk of the necessity of international copyright as tending to promote originality of thought! Mr. Smith has, for the first time, given the world a manual of social science. Science must be based on laws. Laws are abstract ideas, and yet your reviewer, while talking of science, reproves him for his abstractions. His book is an excellent one, but it requires that its readers should take some little trouble to think, for there is no royal road to science. The stretch of thought that it requires is, however, not greater than might be looked for in any clever college student. In accordance with the fashion of the day he has called it political economy, and your reviewer has failed to see in it that social science he desiderates! Heaven help the authors should originality ever become the order of the day among them! The ultimate object of "social science" is the determination of the conditions under which man advances most rapidly towards that perfect freedom of thought, speech, and action, necessary to his perfect responsibility for his actions before God and man. The slave is an irresponsible being. To reach that highest point in science is the object of my last book, and to do so it was needed that I should pass over the whole ground occupied by Mr. Mill in his two ponderous octavos, and this is done in far less than a hun dred pages; and yet your reviewer advises me to be more concise! The age of pocket encyclopædias has, unfortunately, not yet arrived. The difference between Mr. Mill and myself is this: He has attempted to prove the truth of propositions that are not true, and to do this he has been compelled to bring together thousands of small facts that seemed as if they might do so, and the result is, that his various facts are in constant antagonism with each other, and his reader is bewildered. He has no idea of any enlarged view of man and his actions, nor of the laws by which he and they are governed, and hence the multiplicity of words. I have given a few very simple principles, covering the whole ground, and have called in the chief nations of the earth to prove their truth, and thus establish the highest point to which social science can be carried, and yet, because I chose to call my book "The Slave-trade," your reviewer would have your readers believe that its object had been little more than the determination of a question relative to the trade in cotton, woollens, and iron! I could not but ask myself if he had read the book. It seemed to me not, for if he had he certainly would have spared himself the trouble of recommending me to study social science. Read it yourself, and then tell me if you know any other that throws so much light on that science. Among the contributors to the science, and among the most eminent writers of our day, are Guizot and De Tocqueville. Why are they so eminent? Because, having no idea of principles, or laws, they do not offer them to the consideration of their readers. Both of them prove that they do not know enough to define even the words about which they write-Civilization and Democracy. Their readers are beguiled with the idea that they are being taught, but they end as they began-not in the least wiser-and hence it is that the books have had so much success. Had they written over the heads of their reviewers, they would have been irretrievably lost. Their books are, disgracefully to us, text-books in our colleges, because they are written down to the level of our professor, an indispensable requisite for success in a text-book. In one of my books is a review of De Tocqueville, and I have just had a letter from an eminent French economist, expressing a strong desire that it should be translated and republished, that the people of France might see and appreciate the real character of a book so popular among superficial men. Last autumn, when your publishers wrote me about contributions to the Magazine original American thought, &c., I replied, if you recollect, that my system being original, I could not write otherwise; but that, for that reason, my contributions would not suit them. To be acceptable, it would be needed, as I said, that I should regrind Malthus, Ricardo, McCulloch, &c., as your reviewer of Seward has just now done. Was I right or wrong? Would you have accepted a review of Mr. Seward, the author of which should have taken original American ground, and demonstrated that there was a real social science, by the laws of which he was to be tried? Would it have been as acceptable as one in which the existence of science is denied, and in which we are told that expediency is the test, while contradictions stare the writer in the face at every step of his progress? I fear not. Why then talk of original thought? We are bound up in the chains of intellectual slavery to a people far inferior to ourselves. A few days since, I had a conversation with the most accurate observer, and most original thinker, I have ever known, and the man, who, of all others, has done most in the country for the advancement of his science—and in the course of it, he said that he was "tired of life." There is, said he, nobody to talk to-no one to whom to communicate a new idea with any hope that it will be appreciated, even when it involves. perhaps, a total revolution in the science in which they are themselves engaged. Here, said he, I teach for years important ideas that are scarcely listened to, but in time they travel to a distance, whence they return backed by the name of some learned Theban of Europe, who reaps all the credit of them. Is not this a true picture of the whole country? Is it not just what has happened between Bastiat and myself? Are we not in a state of vassalage of the most debasing kind? Should it continue to be so? Is it not time that we had at least one journal in which an original idea might be produced without the certainty of its ruining the producer in the estimation of his countrymen? Your journal should be that one. We need a vehicle for American ideas, and not for the rehash of English ones. I am as anxious to see the educated white man free in the exercise and expression of thought, as to see the ignorant negro free in the application of his muscular powers; and hence it is that I trouble you with this long letter. As regards my own doctrines, I have no fear for them since Europe has adopted them. They have made their way in despite of the sneers and frowns of our editors in the past, and are safe for the future. Sixteen years' exDerience has qualified me for attaching the proper value to either praise or censure bestowed without knowledge, and though may feel the kindness of the first, it inspires me with no higher feeling of respect than the last. I desire the criticism of enlightened men-men who feel the truth and pursue the search in a fair and honest spirit; but such criticism is hard to find. Twenty years since I read that a man who had a theory to republish, had the labor of a life before him, and that such has always been the case, history furnishes evidence. So I have found it; but I can say with Galileo, "Ancora, si nuove." I have the satisfaction of knowing that while the "old fogies" of Europe are against me, I have the young men who are to direct the modes of thought of future generations. Of the former, not a man has the courage to take up the gauntlet that I have repeatedly thrown down among them in the pages of their own journal-the Journal des Economistes, of Paris. With this they are, as I see, reproached in the last number by an able disciple of the new school, whose article the editor found himself compelled, most unwillingly, to publish; such is his policy to shut out discussion. I will have the young men of this country, as well as those of Europe. The existence of a great social science will be admitted, and it will be acknowledged that I had been the first to proclaim its laws, and all of those laws may be found by any careful student of that little book of mine of which your reviewer has so poor an opinion. Yours very truly, HENRY C. CAREY. Burlington, N. J., July 2, 1853. NOTE FROM DR. BREWER, EDITOR OF WILSON'S ORNITHOLOGY.- -"An observant and well-informed writer upon FishHawks and Falcons, in the July number of Putnam's Monthly, refers to an edition of Wilson's Ornithology, published, several years since, with a synopsis prepared by me, and attributes to me several extracts from its notes. Although this reference is made in quite a friendly spirit, and would be quite complimentary were it not based upon a misapprehension of the authorship of the passages in question, a due regard for the truth and the rightful claims of the real writer, requires me to disclaim the credit for that which belongs not to me, but is from the pen of quite another person. Not only are the passages quoted not mine, though attributed to me, but they are also adduced in confirmation of certain views in regard to a controverted point in Ornithology that are in dissonance from my own convictions. I am equally unwilling to seem to consent, by my silence, to appropriate honors that really belong to another, as well as to be made at the same time to indorse and confirm views which I believe to be founded in error. I ask but a brief space in your valuable pages, that the correction may follow the original statement through the same channel to the public. The passages quoted by this writer and attributed to me are from the pen of a more accomplished Ornithologist, Sir William Jardine, of whose excellent edition of Wilson's Ornithology, the one I edited was, to a great extent, but a reprint. The opinions of this writer, which I am thus made to seem to indorse, that the Fish-Hawk of this country is identical with the Osprey of Europe, or that either of them are the same species with the Pandion Leucocephalus of Australia, are not in accordance with my own belief. I am well aware that the pages of Putnam are not intended for the dry details of scientific researches. I ask not, therefore, to occupy any space with the anatomical and other investigations that demonstrate, very evidently to my own mind, that the Fish-Hawk and the Osprey, though possessing many points of resemblance in external appearance and markings, as well as in many of their habits, are yet quite distinct and different species. Indeed this very observant writer in Putnam, himself, refers to a very striking and important difference between the habits of the European and the American birds. While the former are found only in solitary pairs, seldom frequent the sea-shore, but are almost exclusively found on inland ponds and lakes, the American bird is rarely seen about our fresh-water rivers and lakes, but collects in large communities along our sea-coast. Besides this remarkable and constant difference of habits, essential variations in their anatomical structure have been found that warrant their separation into distinct species. I have also recently ascertained that well-defined and constant variations between the markings of the eggs of the American Fish-Hawk and the European Osprey confirm these specific differences. No opportunities, that I am aware of, have been afforded for any comparisons of the anatomical structure of the Australian representative of this group with the European or American species. I have no doubt, however, that, whenever this comparison is carefully instituted, it will be found to be a distinct and separate species from either American or European. This belief amounts almost to conviction, from the possession in my cabinet of the egg of the Australian species, which exhibits positive and well-marked variations from my specimens of the egg of both European and American species. Thanking this writer, in common with many others of your readers, for his very excellent and attractive paper upon so interesting a family in Ornithology, I must at the same time disclaim all credit for the passages he so kindly assigned to my pen, and even dissent from at least one of their conclusions. Yours truly, THOMAS M. BREWER. |