FALSE

But,

with that of the northern! At the South, there is one interest-the slaveholding-superior to all others: it, accordingly, dominates all others, and it allows of no legislation, scarcely the expression of an opinion, which it may deem in the remotest degree unfriendly to its sway. There is, consequently, but one political party at the Souththe pro-slavery party-and all others are crushed into utter nullity. diversify the interests of the South, as they are diversified at the North-let a large manufacturing population step in-let the mechanic arts flourish, if that were possible-let an indigenous commerce invite thither its traders, sailors, and stevedores-let the corn and wheat farmer take his place by the side of the cotton planter and sugar grower-and this terrible and leaden despotism of a single interest,would be broken; society would begin to exhibit that lively variety of pursuits and opinions which is the safeguard, as it is the stimulant, of civil progress.

We are very far, then, from participating in Mr. Calhoun's fears as to the fatal domination of certain interests in any developed society. Parties will be there, no doubt-parties arrayed against each other in bitter hostility-combining and combating on many grounds-according to education, to prejudices of birth, to affinities of race, to mere names, to abstract convictions, to religious tenets, and what not; but the fewest and feeblest of these parties will be those which act upon mere interest. For it is a libel on our human nature to assert that men, in their political conduct, are solely or mainly controlled by their "interests." They are not; they are controlled by convictions, into which the question of interest enters only as a part, and generally a most inconsiderable part, amid a large and powerful influx of motives-from passion, honor, association, principle, reason, and conscience. And, the more deeply they are concerned in public movements, the higher the general excitement, the more entirely exempt are they from the influences of personal consideration. Indeed, Coleridge remarks somewhere, that abstract metaphysical notions have often more effect upon the feelings of the great body of the people, than the most immediate and extensive prospects of personal advantage. A few brief sentences, proclaiming the right of all

to read the Scripture, brought on the Reformation; the vague general maxims of the physiocrats aroused the French insurrection; the power of Cromwell was in the religious earnestness of his nation; and our own Revolution lived upon the vitality of the short preamble to the Declaration. More than that: this very preamble, expressing in formal phrase what seems to be abstruse deductions of political science, has had more influence, in forming the character of this mighty nation, than all the checks, and balances, and vetoes of the constitution. Not that such checks and negatives are useless; but that, in legislating for men, it should not be forgotten that they are men, with generous sensibilities, and impulses of honor, and the love of fair-dealing, and a consciousness of relations to God. In the last resort, it is on these that every hope of good government and every good cause must rely, and not upon cunningly-devised checks of law.

As a consequence of this appreciation, again, we do not share in Mr. Calhoun's dread of the ravages and mischiefs of the numerical majority. We readily concede that there are cases in which the voice of the majority ought not to prevail. In all questions which transcend the proper objects of government, not only should a majority of voices, or two-thirds, or the concurrence of a dozen majorities, but unanimity, be required to their passage. Or, what amounts to the same thing, the very entertainment of them should be forbidden by the organic law. We would write on the front of every constitution, in characters of living flame, such as Dante saw on the portals of hell:-"Thus far, and no farther." But, within the strict limits of government, it seems to us that the expedient of determining questions by the greatest number, is the most just, safe, and effective. It is the most just; because, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, the majority, when they have a right to judge at all, are more likely to be correct than the minority; while to require more than a majority of voices for their determination, is really to put the control in the hands of the minority. Why should a fraction over one-third of the members of a community be empowered to defeat the wishes of the other twothirds? Or, why should one-fourth of a nation-say five millions out of twenty

millions-be allowed to arrest for ever the lawful purposes of the larger number? In the Senate of the United States, for instance, which represents the states equally, and is a specimen of Mr. Calhoun's concurrent majority, it takes a vote of two-thirds to confirm any treaty. Now, suppose a commercial treaty is before it, of the highest importance to the people of a large number of the states-a treaty perfectly within the just power of the government-yet, by this contrivance of requiring two-thirds, it may be rejected by eleven states, whose united population will not amount to two millions--against twenty states-nearly double the number-whose united population will be over seventeen millions! Is that just? Again, according to the provisions of the federal constitution, under its concurrent majority system, three-fourths of the states, i. e. twentyfour of the smaller ones, containing about eight millions of white people, may bring about any amendment of the constitution that they please, even the most monstrous, against the other fourth, representing a population of eleven millions! Nay, a bare majority in those states-say five millions-may carry their amendments against the unanimous opinions of the remaining fourteen millions? Under similar machinery, the President of the United States, with all the fearful and tremendous power concentrated in his hands, may be elected by several millions less than one-half the qualified voters of the states. If, therefore, the numerical force may sometimes act to the oppression of the minority, we see also, that the concurrent force may act to the oppression of the majority; and surely if either has to suffer, we ought to prefer that it should be the lesser number.

As evidence of the enormous strides of the "numerical majority" to power, Mr. Calhoun refers, in bitter terms, to the action of our federal government. He instances, particularly, the assumption of an appellate jurisdiction by the supreme court over the state courts; the creation of a national bank to regulate the currency; the passage of a protective tariff, to the detriment of the planting states; the distribution of public money in furtherance of schemes of internal improvement; and the restriction of slavery in the territories. But Mr. Calhoun does not stop to remark

that all these measures, with the exception of the first, have been repealed by the same influences under which they were established. The bank is dead; the tariff is dead; internal improvements are dead, and squatter sovereignty reigns rampant in the territories. Nor does he dwell upon the fact, while mentioning it incidentally, that these measures, whether good or bad, were all carried and repealed under concurrent and not numerical majorities. The federal Congress, consisting of the House, which represents the people numerically, and the Senate, which represents the states equally, requires a concurrent vote to the passage of any bill. As far as that is concerned, then, the concurrent system is, by Mr. Calhoun's own complaints, ineffective. Meanwhile, it is worthy of remark, in the midst of the overshadowing encroachments of the central government, where the concurrent system is so largely applied, that under the state governments, where the numerical plan exclusively prevails, there has been a steady diminution in their powers. In nearly all of them the constitutions have, from time to time, been reformed, and always with a large curtailment of their patronage, their jurisdiction, and their means of corruption. Take the state of New York, with one-sixth the population of the Union, for example: it has twice, since the beginning of the century, revised its organic laws; it has stripped its executive of a once extended power of appointment; it has abolished innumerable useless offices; it has retrenched the expenditures of every department; it has re-organized its judiciary; and it has restricted the legislature within comparatively the narrowest limits.

We do not deny that the federal government has become swollen and bloated until it is now a fearful congestion; but the cause we ascribe to original defects in the constitution, and particularly to its abnormal growth, aided by usurpations of the executive. In the constitutional surrender to the President of his vast power of appointment, and in the assumption by him, without authority, of the power of removal, we discover the source of nine-tenths of the corruption and degeneracy which has fallen upon our politics. Yet the evil, alarming as it is, by no means fills us with dismay. We believe there is virtue enough in the people to chastise and correct every

abuse. Let their minds once escape the agitations of the slavery-question, forced upon them by the infamous schemes of filibusters and propagandists, and they will be directed to their other great fountain of pernicious influence. We should soon after expect to see the Congress assert its proper control over removals; we should expect to see the diplomatic service, which is a sort of honored asylum for the decayed or rejected politicians of the states, retrenched; we should expect to see the cumbrous post-office establishment, with its bands of pretorians, now operating as a check upon the speedy diffusion of knowledge, abolished; we should expect to see two-thirds at least of the remaining appointments resumed by the people, and the overgrown functions of the executive, generally, remodeled. Our confidence would rest in the recuperative energies of the people; in their general intelligence; in their common sense; in their love of justice, and in the fact, despite Mr. Calhoun's theories, that the persons interested in bad government must always be few compared with the many who are interested in good govern

ment.

With the end at which Mr. Calhoun aims-the arrest of centralization-we cordially sympathize; but we hold that that end is to be most effectively and harmoniously reached-not by a system of independent governments with a negative upon the action of each other, which would infallibly lead to anarchy -but by an original distribution of the functions of government among coördinate local governments, with impartial

tribunals for the decision of cases of disputed jurisdiction. The organized parts of every large community should be treated as individuals are treated by society. They are all placed on an equal footing; their rights are protected by the fundamental law, and their disputes are settled, not by themselves, but by the courts. Were each one allowed a negative, in his own case, there would soon be, inevitably, an end to the social union. Adjudication, and not nullification, is the true remedy for wrongs. Nullification is but disguised revolution; but adjudication is contentment, peace, and security.

We hold as strongly as Mr. Calhoun ever did, to the necessity and importance of the doctrine of local self-government; but, we hold it on broader grounds: not simply that the separate parts of a nation may be a check upon the other parts, but because it is the most efficient means of distributing power, and of educating the people. All consolidated governments must sooner or later die of plethora; and the people under them must sooner or later lose the habit, and with that the desire of government; and a despot must step in, if for no other reason, to save them from themselves. But a true system of local governments, where the parts cannot be anarchical, nor the centre oppressive, exercises its people in the practice of every political virtue, and trains them to self-respect and felicity and honour; and is capable of being extended, as we believe that under Providence it yet will be, to all the nations of the globe.

-Everybody has his private and particular quarrel with the post-office. We all lose our letters; we all waste precious time, and more precious temper, over the perpetual breaks and defects of our postal system; but few of us are fully convinced of the fact, that the existence of such a system is a disgrace to the country. We imagine the evils to be less in extent and less remediable than they really are. Mr. PLINY MILES's capital pamphlet on Postal Reform ought to change all this. Mr. Miles has resided several years in London, and he has been connected with our own Post-office Department. He, therefore, speaks of that which he doth know; and the results of his investigations ought to scandalize us into energy.

According to Mr. Miles, we are now enduring a postal system which worries government, vexes and injures the public, demoralizes the officials, and pleases nobody.

At the same time, various European nations, and especially Great Britain, are quietly enjoying a postal system which enriches the government, serves and benefits the public, controls the officials, and satisfies everybody. We commend these facts to the consideration of all our readers, excepting those engaged to deliver orations on the coming Fourth of July.

In 1854, the expenses of the United States Post-office, for carrying 120,000,000 letters, amounted to two millions of dollars over and above the receipts of the Department. Of these letters, about four millions, or one in thirty, died, and were damned to the flames at Washington city.

In the same year, the expenses of the British Post-office, for conveying 450,000,000 letters, amounted to six millions of dollars LESS than the receipts of the Department; and of these letters rather less than five thousand finally died, and were laid aside to await the chances of revival.

In 1854, New York, with a population of three quarters of a million, had to content itself with one post-office-and that a dirty, shabby, inadequate den, far from the centre of population.

In the same year, London, with a popu

AND

REPRINTS.

lation only thrice as large, was served by five hundred post-offices.

The simple truth is, that some two hundred thousand inhabitants of New York live so far from the post-office as to be not much better off, in that respect, than the people of some small country district which the mail reaches once a week!

In 1854, the "drop letters," or those for "local circulation," amounted to 715,000; which, at one cent each, brought in a revenue of 7,150 dollars!

In the same year, the "drop letters" of only six cities in England numbered 74,000,000; which, at a penny each, brought in a revenue of $2,225,000, of which sum $1,500,000 was clear net profit!

Mr. Miles states, that in London he has often sent a letter by post to a distant part of the city, and received a reply within three hours. Should we not think the millennium at hand in New York if such a thing could be said of our post?

Mr. Miles does not content himself with attacking this or that abuse, the senseless regulation of compulsory prepayment, or our equally senseless registration system; he shows conclusively that the only conditions on which we can hope for a decent, orderly, and economical Postoffice, are the following:-1. The abolition of franking. 2. A uniform rate of letterpostage of two cents on all single letters; and a uniform method of rating and weighing all letters. 3. Letter-carriers and receiving-offices in all large towns. 4. A method of remitting money by post-office money-orders. 5. A prompt return to the owners of all dead letters. 6. The abolition of compulsory prepayment, and a double charge on all letters not prepaid. He calls upon our merchants, and our leading men generally, to stir at once in this matter, with decision. We echo his call with all our heart; and, with him, we will not despair of the triumph of facts and common sense.

-Who Mr. R. A. WILSON may be, we do not know; but he writes a book on Mexico and her Religion, which he dedicates to the "American Party of the United States." He, himself, is a most unquestionable American nothing seems to have daunted

him in his journeys; nothing seems to fetter his freedom of speculation. He abhors the Papists, and disbelieves the chroniclers. His book is, decidedly, interesting; and, though we cannot approve of the sarcastic levity which he sometimes uses in speaking of things sacred, we have been impressed by his apparent candor and his unquestionable good feeling. Mr. Wilson gives us a great deal of valuable information respecting the manners and morals of the Mexican world, and a sort of running commentary upon Bernal Diaz and the History of the Mexican conquest. If Mr. Wilson is right (and he makes no assertions, it is fair to say, which he does not support, or try to support, by good practical evidence), Cortez was an unmitigated liar, and Bernal Diaz a priestly fabrication; the Aztec Empire a humbug, and the conquest an enterprise not comparable to the exploits of the English Buccaneers along the Spanish main. Mr. Wilson quietly ignores Mr. Prescott throughout; but, if Mr. Wilson is right, Mr. Prescott's "History" must take its place with the romances of the Grand Cyrus. Mr. Wilson also suggests a theory -which he maintains plausibly enough-that the yellow fever in America is one of the consequences of the African slave trade. His book is altogether curious, as a capital transcript of a busy Yankee brain.

-The Moral and Intellectual Diversity of Races is a book of which the body has been supplied by COUNT GOBINEAU; the head by MR. H. HOTZ, translator, and the tail by DR. NOTT, of Mobile. As it happens, in such cases generally, the body is the best part of the work, and has not been greatly improved by the additions of the editors. Mr. Hotz's introductory analysis is scarcely more than a repetition of his author's conclusions, except in one case where he deviates from him to go wrong; and Professor Nott's appendix, though it furnishes some useful facts, is not remarkably important. The work itself, however, is one of high value. The translation is executed with a good deal of care and accuracy, without sacrificing freedom. But, in one place, Mr. Hotz has made a sad perversion in making a seemingly simple change. Count Gobineau divides all the races of mankind into the masculine and feminine, or active and passive races; or those again in which the emotional or

moral nature prevails, and those in which the intellectual and practical prevails. Mr. Hotz, however, renders this division into the speculative and utilitarian races, which, besides destroying the beautiful relation suggested by his author's terms, really conceals his main principle, namely, that the best races are those fecundated by the conjunction of the two characteristics, the moral and the practical, while the lowest are those, as the Chinese and Hindoo, in which one predominates to the exclusion of the other. Under the term of M. Gobineau, all the inferior races, as they are considered, immediately address themselves to our sympathies; but, under Mr. Hotz's terms, they become repulsive. Mr. Hotz has also omitted, in several places, most interesting inquiries in which the author indulges, but which do not seem to have fallen in with his translator's prejudices. When will these official translators and editors learn, that what the reading public wants is the whole of the author's thought, and not the emasculated form of it, which may be agreeable to his accoucheurs? The notes are, mainly, of some value.

The problem of the author is, to investigate the actual diversities of the human races, with reference particularly to their influence upon the civil and political history of mankind. He manages it with learning, discretion, and candor; he means to be a Christian and philanthropist; but some of his conclusions, it seems to us, are unwarranted by philosophy and even pernicious. What is the cause, he asks, of that overthrow or ruin of nations, which has occurred with such uniformity as to lead us to suppose that it is a law of nature? He shows that the causes usually assigned, such as fanaticism, the corruption of morals, irreligion, luxury, bad governments, are not the true causes, because nations have suffered all these and retained their vitality. But, he answers, the real cause is degeneracy, in the etymological sense of the term, or the alternation of the original blood of the nation. Or, in his own words, a nation is degenerate, when the blood of its founders no longer flows in its veins, but has been gradually deteriorated by successive foreign admixtures; so that the nation, while retaining its original name, is no longer composed of. the same elements. The corruption of the