bour" for "productive industry," mistaking in fact the Dr. for the Cr. side of the account. Our country surely does not grow rich through the amount of labour which is consumed in the product, but evidently through the value which such labour brings back. But these sticklers for "American industry," as they falsely term themselves, have so eulogised American labour as to come at length to think that it is the labour we live by instead of the fruits of that labour, and therefore conclude that they improve their cause by swelling to the utmost the amount of labour consumed in all our manufactures. Now the reverse of all this is true—the less the labour the more the profit-what countries as well as individuals are ever seeking after, and consequently what an economist is bound to show in that which he advocates, is the minimum of labour with the maximum of return. In the following passage who would not think, from Mr. P.'s language, that England was doing us some great national injury? P. 475. "One of the countervailing measures," says he, "of that government, was a reduction of the duty on imported wool. Prior to the American act of 1824, the duty on wool imported into England was sixpence sterling a pound, but soon after the passage of this act, this duty was reduced to one penny a pound, and for the purpose, as the debates in Parliament show, of enabling the British manufacturer to send his woollens to the United States at a cheaper rate; and not long after, with the same views, the duty on all wool, the price of which was less than one shilling sterling, was reduced to a halfpenny." Now if this be justifiable ground of complaint against England, what, we ask, would it have been had she chosen to send us her manufactures for nothing? Would it not, according to such reasoning, have been good cause of war, or at least a non-intercourse?

It is strange into what inconsistencies economical reasoners are led, when they abandon the ground of nature and freedom. Take the following specimen. After showing the encouragement bestowed upon the fine arts of our country, by allowing the importation of many articles connected with them duty free, Mr. P. triumphantly adds, " and we may here ask if Congress has the power to encourage the fine arts, why it has not also an equal power to encourage other arts, which, though of a different kind and character, are certainly not less useful and necessary?" Now how, we ask, does this argument hold together? Congress patronizes the fine arts, by taking off duties; THEREFORE, she is bound to patronize manufactures or the useful arts, by laying on duties. Freedom of trade, according to our author, does not consist in leaving all to find their own market, but in forcing the parties to exchange whether they will or no. "Let us suppose," says he, "that the shoemaker should tell the farmer that he could no longer take his corn and his cattle for shoes, or could only take them

occasionally, when he was unable to produce sufficient for himself. To this the farmer must necessarily reply, "then, sir, I can no longer take your shoes," &c., p. 520. Thus argues Mr. P. Now we on the contrary think he would be puzzled to find any such farmer in the country who buys or sells on this principle, i. e., to insist upon the shoemaker taking his grain and cattle, whether he wants them or not, and at the same time to refuse the shoes of such a neighbour upon that ground, simply without once bethinking himself whether they are not cheaper or better than he could get elsewhere; there may be such clod-pated farmers, but we guess they are not to be found in Connecticut. As matters of policy, these are questions not wise now to stir; and as matters either of policy or science, this is not the work in which they should be found.

Chapter XII. treats of the internal improvement of our country, its canals and rail-roads. On this subject we have no time now to enter, for it is a mighty theme, full of interest in its present extent. and teeming with golden visions for the future; it demands therefore more ample room and a less tired pen than ours. We commend the subject in all its bearings to one whom, before closing, we would name as the fittest man in the United States to carry out the scheme which we have already hinted at, of a great national work on the statistics of our country. To the clear head and comprehensive mind of Mr. Gallatin we are already deeply indebted, in almost every question connected with the commerce, currency, and financial resources of the country; and few if any can be named in it who unite to enlarged views such an accurate knowledge of detail, combining practice with science, and a wide experience with an intimate knowledge of principles; and when we add to all this, that he has been our negotiator in almost every controverted question with foreign nations, touching either boundaries or trade-we venture thus publicly to ask, whether his peculiar fitness for the task does not give us a right to call upon him to undertake it. We trust that he will so regard it—at any rate, that it may be received as our apology for the suggestion.

MISCELLANEOUS NOTICES.

A History of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. By MANN BUTLER, A. M. Louisville, Kentucky: 1834.

THIS is an interesting work-one which should be extensively read, and might be extensively useful. It does not indeed lay claim to the title of history, in the highest and philosophical sense of the term. It illustrates, however, some of the most important points in the science of human nature. Among others, that insecurity of property, especially landed property, produces immorality and paralyzes enterprise; that reason and truth possess a healing efficacy, and in times of greatest disorder and darkness we may put our trust in them as a remedy and a safeguard; and some passages show most forcibly how small is the proportion in a legislative assembly of those who think. Such reflections constitute the value and soul of history; while the events recorded are but the experiments by which they are illustrated. The work before us, however, is meant to be merely a simple record of the adventures, perils, and hardships of the settlers of Kentucky, and of its progress from a collection of log-cabins to populous cities-from an untaught community, to a people of schools and colleges-and from a handful of men, in danger of destruction from their exasperated neighbours, to a powerful state, with turnpikes, rail-roads, commerce, and manufactures. In such a work, next to accuracy, a simple and intelligible style is requisite. The first of these qualities we are on the whole dis posed to concede to the author; though we have heard certain veterans make ob. jections to a few points of less importance. He has exhibited a praiseworthy perseverance and activity in getting access to sources of information previously untried; and he has availed himself of his means with industry and talent. The archives of the state have been opened to him by the liberality of the legislature; and personal application to the actors in the scenes he describes, and to the surviving relatives of those that are dead, has given him much interesting and credit-worthy matter. With respect to the author's style, there is fault to be found-it is lax, a quality which is probably owing to the necessity of finishing his volume before the patience or memory of his subscribers was exhausted. Another great fault is its incompleteThe promise to subscribers was, that the work should be embraced in one volume, and the title-page implies the same thing; but the reader who should search the volume for an account of banking in Kentucky, in its latest form, would be disappointed. In various parts of the book we are referred to the Appendix for documents of interest and importance. But we have looked for them in the Appendix in vain.* The author's style certainly leaves room for improvement. It is the fortune of many of his phrases to be eminently unhappy. We doubt not that a pretty smart heap of such expressions as "the balance of Kentucky," (i. e. the remainder,) p. 13, "some men happened at the same place," p. 41, &c., may be found in the Kentucky dialect,

ness.

* Documents not found in the Appendix, are promised on pages 178, 179, 195, and 232.

which is not however pure Attic. "The path of sub-independence," mentioned on page 180, as having been first travelled by the statesmen of Kentucky, must have been doubly difficult, from being, as we are told it was, a wilderness!—a sentence both sub-obscure and sub-absurd. It may be a matter of doubt how many of the plain citizens, for whose benefit this history was indicted, will know what is meant by calling the first and long-repealed constitution one of "their political muniments." "A golden commentary on a diamond text" is much too oriental for the west. "Overpowering indignation should have flashed Sebastian's own abandonment of his duty home to his conscience," p. 249, is amazingly splendid. Our author's favourite hero is General George R. Clarke, in a portrait of whom the title-page rejoices. No terms are sufficiently magnificent to express Mr. Butler's admiration of this warrior. On page 80 it is said—"With the promptitude inspired by his eminent genius for war, our daring commander determined, like his most appropriate original, the great Hannibal," to march against St. Vincents-which had eighty men in garrison and some swivels mounted! Throughout the book are numerous passages, that would receive the unmingled plaudits of a patriotic audience on the Fouth of July, but are somewhat incongruous in their present situation. The greatest fault, however, with which the book is to be charged, is the obscurity of many parts. Who can understand the involutions of the paragraph on page 264, beginning "The expediency, "&c.? Such is the manner in which too large a portion of the book is written, unfitting it especially for the class of readers whom it is most likely to attract. Fortunately, however, the narrative portions are the most free from this defect.

After so much fault-finding it is pleasant to commend, and we can do so most emphatically with respect to Mr. Butler's remarks on many points, regarding which error is too prevalent and very mischievous. In a work intended for popular use, and likely to be read by those who do not read much, it is gratifying to find a stand made against popular prejudices. The spirit of the following remarks is worthy of all praise.

"It has been remarked, that about this time the changes in the wealth and property of society in Kentucky began to be more strikingly obvious. The distance between the extremes of property became more marked. Such are the inevitable operations of unequal exertions, talents, and opportunities in any community where industry and enterprise are, as they ought to be, free to exert themselves, and where they are secured in their acquisitions, when they have made them. Nor can there be a doctrine more fatal to the prosperity of a well ordered society than any outcry of aristocracy, which, under a false and pretended denunciation of wealth, whether directly or indirectly the reward of merit, undermines the security and the reputableness of property, which are the very roots of the greatest social blessings." "The hue and cry of aristocracy against the rewards of industrious enterprise or its descendants, ought to be suspected and frowned upon by an orderly and intelligent people, who wish to preserve the foundations of the social fabric uninjured; and to maintain that decent and temperate love of property, without which liberty would have little to struggle for and less to enjoy. Yet the badge of aristocrat, which so easily fastens to a prosperous man, not too courteous in his manners or remarkable for his conciliatory demeanour, soon consigns him to perpetual obscurity; it is the ostracism of Kentucky, perhaps of the United States, without any removal from the soil." P. 294.

It is a remarkable fact, that as far back as the earliest records go, which we have of Kentucky, it has not been in the possession of any tribe of Indians.

"Within the personal knowledge of our countrymen, since the war of 1755 Kentucky has not been in the occupancy of any tribe. There are indeed through it, as all over the western country, indications of a race of people having existed, much

more advanced in the arts than the tribes known to us, but whose history is but a tissue of faint and disjointed conjectures, like that of innumerable tribes all over the globe, who have been destitute of letters and the use of the metals. The villages of Indians known to have been nearest to Kentucky, were on the Scioto and the Miamis of the Ohio in the north, and on the waters of the Tennessee river in the south. From these points the various war and hunting parties issued, to engage in the one or the other pursuits, as the passions or the opportunities of their expedi tions might lead. Here the Chickasaws and Cherokees of the south used to engage with various tribes of the Miami confederacy-here they indulged their passions for hunting, in the profusion of game afforded by Kentucky. So much was this ground exempted from settlement, that on neither the Ohio nor the lower Tennessee are any Indian towns known to have been settled. Yet no situations have generally delighted savage tribes so much as the margins of water courses; the opportunities of navigation and of fishing unite to attract them to such spots. Accordingly, the banks of most of our western rivers, excepting those of Kentucky, (although they abounded in game and in salt licks,) were found occupied by the native tribes of the forests." P. 9.

The fertility of the central portions of Kentucky is well known. At the first arrival of the whites, these regions were covered with the densest cane-brake, ten or sixteen feet high. Game was so abundant, as to excite the astonishment, almost the rapture of the pioneers, who, hunters as they were, thought a country that abounded in buffalos, the richest and happiest on which the sun shines. At present, however, not a buffalo remains in the state; and the cane-brake is extirpated, except in some obscure corner, to which there is access for neither plough nor cattle. In the leaves of the cane, the horses and live stock of the first settlers found an abundant supply of the richest food, that failed them neither winter nor summer.

The first log-cabin in Kentucky was built by James Harrod in 1774, on the present site of Harrodsburg. This, however, was not the beginning of a permanent residence, for both Harrod and the other early explorers of Kentucky, were compelled to withdraw from the state in consequence of the hostilities of the Indians. After the peace, the first fort was built in 1775, at Boonesborough, on the Kentucky river. Fortified settlements were called stations, and soon became numerous.

"A fort, in these rude military times, consisted of pieces of timber sharpened at the end and firmly lodged in the ground; rows of these pickets enclosed the desired space, which embraced the cabins of the inhabitants. A block-house or more, of superior care and strength, commanding the sides of the fort, with or without a ditch, completed the fortifications. Generally the sides of the interior cabins formed the sides of the forts." P. 28.

We have received from one of the first settlers an account of the hut inhabited by himself, and several others of his party, for the first year or two after his arrival. It was formed of long logs, which, instead of being piled on each other, were placed one end on the ground, and the other ends supporting each other; the hut was, consequently, of a conical form. Furniture they had none, except what they had themselves roughly formed of logs and skins. The cabin had no floor. They raised a crop of corn, a part working while the others were procuring food for the community by the chase.

Notwithstanding these difficulties, the population of the state continued to increase. A memorable event in its history, is the first visit of George Rogers Clarke of Virginia. He was well adapted to take a leading part in the scenes of gallant adventure, in which the times abounded. Through his instrumentality, in defiance of a powerful resistance, the county of Kentucky was established by the legislature of Virginia, embracing the present limits of the state. To him the commonwealth owes its first political organization. In Indian warfare, Clarke's talents were promi