HOT A PERIODICAL 
 
 OF THE 
 
 U N I V ER_S ITY 
 OF ILLINOIS 
 
 cop . 2 
 
 MOT A PERIODICAL 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF 
 ILLINOIS LIBRARY 
 AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 
 
 BOOKSTACKS 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2017 with funding from 
 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates 
 
 https://archive.org/details/danielraymondearOOneil 
 
VI 
 
 DANIEL RAYMOND 
 
 An Early Chapter in the History of Economic Theory 
 in the United States. 
 

 
 
 
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES 
 
 IN 
 
 Historical and Political Science 
 
 HERBERT B. ADAMS, Editor 
 
 History is past Politics and Politics are present History.— Freeman. 
 
 FIFTEENTH SERIES 
 VI 
 
 DANIEL RAYMOND 
 
 An Early Chapter in the History of Economic Theory 
 in the United States 
 
 By Charles Patrick Neill, A. M. 
 
 Instructor in Economics in the Catholic University of America. 
 
 BALTIMORE 
 
 The Johns Hopkins Press 
 
 PUBLISHED MONTHLY 
 
 June, 1897 
 
Copyright, 1897 , by the Johns Hopkins Press. 
 
 GUGGENHEIMER, WEIL & CO., PRINTERS, 
 BALTIMORE. 
 
3 JO. 7 
 
 A i3irj 
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 Chap. Page. 
 
 Introduction 7 
 
 I. Early Economic Thought in the United States . . 9 
 
 II. Daniel Raymond and His Work— 
 
 I. Life and Work 14 
 
 II. Outline of his system 28 
 
 III. Genesis of Raymond’s System— 
 
 I. Influence of environment. 39 
 
 II. Lauderdale and Raymond 42 
 
 IV. Daniel Raymond and Friederich List 46 
 
DANIEL RAYMOND 
 
 AN EARLY CHAPTER IN THE HISTORY OF 
 ECONOMIC THEORY IN THE 
 UNITED STATES. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The net result of a study of the history of economic science 
 in the United States during the first century of our national 
 existence has been summed up thus: 
 
 “Not only has no American school of writers on political 
 economy been established, if we except that which we are 
 about to notice (Henry C. Carey and his several disciples), 
 but no recognized contribution to the development of the 
 science can be pointed out in any way comparable to those 
 made by the French writers, or to those which the Germans 
 are now making .” 1 
 
 “The general result then to which, as we believe, a sober 
 examination of the case must lead any candid inquirer, is 
 that the United States have, thus far, done nothing towards 
 developing the theory of political economy, notwithstanding 
 their vast and immediate interest in its practical applica- 
 tions .” 2 
 
 Despite this foreshadowing of negative results, the pres- 
 ent study was begun in the belief that a further investigation 
 into the history of economic science in the United States 
 would not be without scientific interest. Had this country 
 produced no economic writers at all, the causes of such 
 barrenness would have invited inquiry ; and if we have pro- 
 duced writers, and these have been without influence on the 
 development of the science, the why of this is also worthy 
 of study. 
 
 The results of the present study would seem to indicate that 
 perhaps American writers have exerted an influence upon 
 
 1 North American Review, January 1876, p. 137. Dunbar, Eco- 
 nomic Science in the United States, 1776-1876. 
 
 2 Ibid . , p. 140. 
 
8 Introduction . [218 
 
 the development of the science to an extent that has not here- 
 tofore been conceded. 
 
 The general history of economic science has been 
 divided into the fragmentary period, in which isolated 
 discussions of economic topics are found scattered 
 about in the writings of thinkers in other fields; the period 
 of monographs and empirical systems; the constructive 
 period, in which systematic treatises appear, essaying the 
 presentation of a complete science; and the critical or ana- 
 lytical period. 1 Although the appearance of the United 
 States in the family of nations was subsequent to the begin- 
 ning of this third period — or, perhaps, coincident with it — 
 the history of the development of the science here, or rather 
 of its development at the hands of American writers, repro- 
 duces the phases marked in its general history. 
 
 The year 1820 may be said to have ushered in the third 
 period in the United States, 2 with the publication of a treatise 
 on political economy from the pen of Daniel Raymond, of 
 the Baltimore bar; and it is of this writer and his work that 
 the present monograph purposes to treat. 
 
 The importance of Raymond’s work is not alone in that it 
 is the first systematic treatise on economics from the pen of 
 an American, but also in that it shows the influence of Amer- 
 ican conditions, and in consequence presents a theory of 
 political economy opposed at all points to the prevailing 
 system as developed by the dominant school of Adam Smith. 
 
 Before dealing with the work of Raymond, it may not be 
 amiss to sketch in brief the condition of economic thought 
 in this country during the period preceding his appearance 
 as an economist. 
 
 iCossa, Introduction to Study of Political Economy. 
 
 2 “Down to the year 1820 no American produced any treatise on 
 political economy which the world has cared to remember.” N. 
 A. Rev., January, 1876, p. 134. 
 
 “There is no American treatise on the subject, . The only 
 
 American book that has the semblance of a treatise on political 
 economy is Hamilton’s reports as Secretary of the Treasury.” Ray- 
 mond, 1st ed. (1820), p. 5. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 Early Economic Thought in the United States. 
 
 In a new country, as was the United States of a century 
 ago, with meager facilities for education — and that educa- 
 tion dominated largely by the classics — with crude social 
 conditions, and, in consequence, little leisure or inclination 
 on the part of the people for abstract study or speculative 
 thought, one does not expect to find any extensive knowl- 
 edge of the principles of the new science of economics, or 
 any very profound interest taken in its study. If this knowl- 
 edge or interest were to be looked for anywhere, it would be 
 amongst the statesmen of the day; for politics had very 
 largely absorbed the best intelligence of the time, the up- 
 building on permanent lines of the new political structure 
 demanded attention to basic principles and not shifting ex- 
 pedients, and the most important and most fiercely contested 
 political issues of the day were distinctively economic. But 
 even the architects of our political and industrial system do 
 not seem to have depended much on the light that a study 
 of the rising science might have afforded them, nor do they 
 seem to have been much influenced by arguments drawn 
 from it. 
 
 Franklin had indeed in his speculations discussed numer- 
 ous economic topics, and by some of his reviewers he has 
 been reconstructed into an economist worthy of his time ; 1 
 
 1 Wetzel, Benjamin Franklin as an Economist, J. H. U. Studies. 
 
10 
 
 Early Economic Thought in the XJ. S. [220 
 
 but a less admiring critic has given the weight of his author- 
 ity to the proposition that Franklin “not only did not ad- 
 vance the growth of economic science, but he seems not 
 even to have mastered it as it was already developed.” 1 
 From Franklin to Alexander Hamilton no public man seems 
 to have displayed any grasp of economic principles suffi- 
 cient to have made him worthy of note on that account. 2 
 Hamilton in this respect stands out in bold relief amongst 
 his fellows, and yet his mastery of the best economic thought 
 of his day, and his skill in expounding and applying its prin- 
 ciples, does not seem to have enabled him to win over ready 
 assent to his measures. His plan for a national bank as a 
 fiscal aid to the government and a regulator of the currency 
 was made possible rather through a “deal” of the sort termed 
 “practical politics,” than as a result of economic thinking; 
 and his protective measures only became a national policy 
 long years after his report on manufactures, and then only 
 as the result of new developments, and not in direct conse- 
 quence of his writings. The political rather than the eco- 
 nomic bearing of measures was the influence that deter- 
 mined legislation. Were they centralizing or decentraliz- 
 ing? — this was the aspect that appealed to the men who were 
 fashioning the new republic. With their minds haunted by 
 this all important question, they were little likely to be in- 
 fluenced by the principles of Adam Smith’s new science. 
 It might be useful as lending added support to theories al- 
 ready accepted on other grounds ; but it would scarcely win 
 assent to its principles from those to whose minds political 
 considerations had already given an opposite trend. 
 
 The study of economic science made headway slowly at 
 first. An American edition of Adam Smith had made its 
 appearance at Philadelphia as early as 1789. 3 Two decades 
 seem to have elapsed before there was a growth of interest in 
 
 1 Prof. Dunbar in N. A. Rev., January, 1876, p. 130. 
 
 2 Ibid., p. 13 1. 
 
 3 Catalogue of Baltimore Athenaeum Library, 1827. 
 
11 
 
 221 ] Early Economic Thought in the U. S. 
 
 the science sufficient to warrant another edition. A second 
 reprint appeared from Hartford in 1811, and a third from the 
 same place in 1818. Interest seems to have been awakening 
 about this time, for in 1819, only two years after its appear- 
 ance in England, Ricardo’s “Principles” was reprinted at 
 Georgetown, and a translation of Say appeared from the 
 same place in 1821, and was quickly followed by a second 
 edition. 1 Cossa implies 2 that these reprints were partly, if 
 not largely, for use in the schools, but at this time political 
 economy had found place in college curricula only in a few 
 instances, and not by any means to an extent to have called 
 for such a multiplication of text books. It is more likely 
 that the rising sentiment for a protective system was attract- 
 ing interest to economic principles, and that the advocates 
 of free trade were becoming zealous not only in the study 
 of their master, but also in placing within easy reach of their 
 dissenting brethren authentic copies of the creed of true 
 believers. 3 
 
 Jefferson, who had been exposed to the infection in 
 France, was very much interested in the science of political 
 economy, and very earnestly bent on stimulating the study 
 of it among his fellow-citizens. Through his efforts “A 
 Treatise on Political Economy,” by “Count Destutt Tracy, 
 member of the Senate and Institute of France, and of the 
 American Philosophical Society,” was translated from the 
 original French manuscript, and published at Georgetown 
 in 1817. Jefferson regarded this author as “the ablest writer 
 living on intellectual subjects;” and when the book issued 
 from the press, it was prefaced by a letter from Jefferson, in 
 which he indulges the hope that its merits will win for it a 
 “place in the hands of every reader in our country,” and 
 
 1 Carey, Biographical Sketches, p. 9. 
 
 introduction to the Study of Political Economy, p. 466. 
 
 3 In marked contrast to the inactivity of their opponents, the free 
 traders were at this time active propagandists. Cf. Mathew Carey, 
 Biographical Sketches. 
 
12 
 
 Early Economic Thought in the U. S . [222 
 
 says that it is his “hearty prayer” that it may be made the 
 elementary book of instruction in the science. 1 
 
 After its publication, John Adams wrote of this book: 
 “Upon the subject of political economy at large, I know of 
 nothing better.” 2 Yet notwithstanding that the work could 
 elicit such high praise, Jefferson had been for five years 
 trying to secure a publisher for it before his efforts bore 
 fruit. 3 The book dealt with abstract principles, and was 
 metaphysical ; it was consequently of little avail as a weapon 
 for political strife; and it was this latter aspect of a work on 
 political economy that determined its popularity. 
 
 Jefferson’s efforts to spread a knowledge of economic prin- 
 ciples among his compeers were not, on the whole, encour- 
 aging; and from some of his letters we may glean his opinion 
 of the condition of the science in this country in his day. 4 
 
 1 It was originally intended that this work should be first pub- 
 lished in this country, on account of the author’s fear of incurring 
 the displeasure of Napoleon should it come to his notice. Though 
 Jefferson arranged for its publication here, his name was not to be 
 publicly connected with the work, as the author was prepared to 
 deny its authenticity, in case it should come to the notice of Na- 
 poleon. But before a publisher could be secured here, Napoleon 
 had been deposed, and the work appeared in France before it is- 
 sued from the press here. Jefferson’s Works, edited by H. A. Wash- 
 ington, Vol. VI., p. 568; Vol. VII., p. 39. 
 
 2 A’s works, Vol. X., p. 385. 
 
 3 J’s works, Vols. VI.-VII. 
 
 4 To Dupont de Nemours, Feb. 28, 1815: 
 
 “With sufficient means in the hands of our citizens, and sufficient 
 will to bestow them on the government, we are floundering in ex- 
 pedients equally unproductive and ruinous; and proving how little 
 are understood here those sound principles of political economy 
 first developed by the economists, since commented and dilated by 
 Smith, Say, yourself, and the luminous reviewer of Montesquieu. 
 I have been endeavoring to get the able paper on the subject, which 
 you addressed to me July, 1810, and enlarged in a copy received the 
 last year, translated and printed here in order to draw the attention 
 of our citizens to the subject; but have not as yet succeeded. Our 
 printers are enterprising only in novels and light rea.ding. The 
 readers of works of science, although in considerable numbers, are 
 so sparse in their situations, that such works are of slow circulation. 
 But I shall persevere.” Ibid., Vol. VI., p. 429. 
 
13 
 
 223] Early Economic Thought in the U. S. 
 
 During the first thirty years, then, of our national exist- 
 ence little attention seems to have been bestowed upon the 
 study of economic science. An interest in it begins to show 
 itself in the closing years of the first quarter of the present 
 century. The philosophy of that day had everywhere taken 
 for its shibboleth “Liberty, Freedom;” and in a country such 
 as ours, which had so recently freed itself — after much sacri- 
 fice — from being too much and too capriciously governed, 
 which had, within the memory of citizens not yet old, been 
 regarded merely as territory to be exploited as best suited 
 the interests of the classes controlling the “home govern- 
 ment,” it was only natural that the philosophy of individual- 
 ism should find a congenial soil, and that the colonists, be- 
 come citizens, should look askance at government, watch 
 with jealous eye its every expansion of function, plan to 
 hedge it about with restraints, and take kindly to the doc- 
 trine of laissez faire. Accordingly, then, when an interest 
 in economic science begins to awaken here, there is a pre- 
 disposition to accept the system of Adam Smith, to cling to 
 it as the teaching of wisdom, and to erect it into the creed 
 of orthodoxy. Such was the status of economic science in 
 the United States when the first American treatise on the 
 subject appeared. 
 
 To Dupont, May 15, 1815: 
 
 “The newspapers tell us that you are arrived in the United States. 
 You will now be a witness to our deplorable igno- 
 rance in finance and political economy generally. I mentioned in my 
 letter of February that I was endeavoring to get your memoir on 
 that subject printed. I have not yet succeeded.” Vol VI., p. 458. 
 To M. Carrea de Serra, Dec. 27, 1814: 
 
 “I have received a letter from Mr. Say, in which he expresses a 
 
 thought of removing to this country Mr. Say will be 
 
 surprised to find, that forty years after the development of sound 
 financial principles by Adam Smith and the economists, and a dozen 
 years after he has given them to us in a corrected, dense, and lucid 
 form, there should be so much ignorance of them in our country; 
 that ... we are trusting to tricks of jugglers on the cards, to 
 the illusions of banking schemes for the resources of the war, and 
 for the cure of colic to the inflation of more wind.” Vol. VI., p. 406. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 Daniel Raymond and His Work. 
 
 Daniel Raymond (1786-1849) was a native of Connecticut 
 He prepared himself for the bar in the law school of Tapping 
 Reeve, at Litchfield, Conn., 1 and in 1814 appears as a mem- 
 ber of the bar of Baltimore. 2 He had brought with him to 
 the land of his adoption the New England hatred of its pe- 
 culiar institution, and in 1819 he came before the public in a 
 pamphlet on the “Missouri Question.” 
 
 In 1820 he essayed a more ambitious role, and gave to the 
 public his “Thoughts on Political Economy” (Vol. I., pp. 
 470). This was the first systematic treatise on the subject 
 to be written by an American, 3 and it may not be without 
 interest to know what led to his taking up the subject. Ray- 
 mond’s own explanation is frank, and sufficiently modest. 
 The public permitted him many moments of leisure in his 
 profession; poring over “musty law books” had grown a 
 weariness of the flesh; idleness too was irksome; and for 
 mere diversion he set about putting on paper his thoughts 
 on political economy. 4 As he wrote his subject developed 
 
 1 Federal Gazette and Balto. Daily Advertiser, Dec. 26, 1823. 
 
 2 Records of the Superior Court, Baltimore. 
 
 3 Supra, p. 2. 
 
 4 “The following sheets were written to please myself — my princi- 
 pal object in writing them, was employment. The public has not 
 seen fit to give me constant employment in my profession, other- 
 wise this book had never been written. I had read musty law books 
 till I was tired. Idleness was irksome, and I sought relief in put- 
 ting on paper some of my thoughts on political economy. If the 
 public shall think this a sufficient justification for writing a book, 
 it is well; if not, I cannot help it. I have no other to offer. 
 
 “As to my inducement for publishing it, I know not what to say. 
 
 The best excuse I can allege for publishing is, that it 
 
 pleased me so to do, and one feels a sort of satisfaction in doing as 
 he pleases, without consulting any one.” Preface to 1st ed. p. 1. 
 
225] 
 
 Daniel Raymond and His Work. 
 
 15 
 
 in his mind beyond anticipated proportions ; 1 and then, to 
 please his whim, he put his notes into the hands of the 
 printer. He styles his book “Thoughts on Political Econ- 
 omy;” he does not send it out as a “general treatise on polit- 
 ical economy;” he modestly professes his inability to write 
 such a treatise; and the only merit to which he lays claim 
 is that of a pioneer in the attempt to shake off the domina- 
 tion of “foreign theories and systems of political economy,” 
 and develop in their stead a system suited to America .” 2 
 
 Raymond’s system was strongly antagonistic to the pre- 
 vailing individualistic philosophy; it leaned to govern- 
 mental interference in opposition to laissez faire , stood for 
 protective tariffs, decried banks and paper money, and 
 hurled anathemas at slavery as an economic evil, an abom- 
 ination before the Lord, and a curse alike upon enslavers and 
 enslaved. It thus touched upon sorely vexed questions of 
 the day over which the fiercest political contests were being 
 waged; and in consequence it was only to be expected that 
 it would win enthusiastic admirers on the one hand, and 
 harsh critics on the other — each equally biased and one- 
 sided in their respective estimates of the work. Discrim- 
 inating judgment was hardly to be looked for. 
 
 1<c At the time this book was commenced, I had no expectation of 
 writing more than a small pamphlet, and of this I scarcely anticipated 
 a publication. As I have said before, I wrote rather for my own 
 amusement and instruction, than for the public; but as I progressed 
 the subject became more interesting — new views and ideas suggested 
 themselves — and I pressed onward until it has grown to a volume.” 
 P. 469. 
 
 2 “I am far from supposing that this book can properly be demoni- 
 nated a general treatise on political economy. I do not profess to 
 be able to write such a book. All I say is that it is a more gen- 
 eral treatise than any that has to my knowledge been writ- 
 ten in our country, and all the merit I claim for it, on this account, is, 
 that of having made an humble effort to break loose from the fetters 
 of foreign authority; from foreign theories and systems of political 
 economy, which from the dissimilarity in the nature of the govern- 
 ments, renders them altogether unsuited to our country.” Preface to 
 1 st ed., pp. V.-VI. 
 
16 
 
 Daniel Raymond and His Work. 
 
 [226 
 
 The North American Review 1 devoted twenty-three pages 
 of its space to Raymond’s work. The reviewer 2 is a free 
 trader and worships at the shrine of Adam Smith. As a 
 heretic Raymond calls out his severest condemnation. The 
 criticism is caustic , 3 and the reviewer has on his “learned 
 sock.” He essays to write profoundly, but gets no farther 
 than irrelevant quibbles and pedantic dialectic; he misses 
 the real importance of Raymond’s work, its significant 
 characteristic escapes him entirely. 
 
 The National Recorder, of Philadelphia, a journal profess- 
 ing to speak authoritatively on the subject of political econ- 
 omy, adds the weight of its disapproval. It deprecates the 
 intrusion into the economic field of a man bred to the pro- 
 fession of the law, and seems to think the shoemaker would 
 best stick to his last . 4 
 
 The National Gazette , 5 of Philadelphia, concedes to Ray- 
 mond “a nice discernment and a marked capacity for the 
 investigations in which he has engaged;” but it cannot for- 
 give him for “an extravagant disparagement of the great 
 lights of the science which he treats, and an overweening 
 confidence in the superior justness of his own perceptions, 
 and the superior acuteness and solidity of his own reason- 
 ings,” — a criticism to which Raymond had undeniably laid 
 himself open. 
 
 1 April, 1821, Vol. XII. 
 
 2 F. C. Gray, LL. D., an attorney of Salem, Mass. 
 
 3 “It would have been no derogation from the merit of this work 
 had it appeared before the public with humbler pretensions. It 
 
 . . . . lays claim to complete originality The 
 
 science of political economy is so little an object of popular atten- 
 tion, and has really made so much progress unobserved by the com- 
 munity, that the student on first engaging in it, is apt to be aston- 
 ished at the result of his inquiries, and to fancy that what is so new 
 to him must be new to others. But in this as in other pursuits, the 
 boast of superior wisdom does not arise from an excess of knowledge 
 so often as from a want of it.” 
 
 4 C 7 . Fed. Gaz. and Balto. Daily Ad., January 31, 1821. 
 
 5 January 12, 1821. 
 
227] Daniel Raymond and His Work. 17 
 
 The prophet, however, was not without honor in his own 
 country, which, in this instance, is interpreted to mean Balti- 
 more. 
 
 Niles’ Register, 1 of Baltimore, strongly protectionist, pro- 
 nounces favorable judgment upon the work, and “can recom- 
 mend it to the consideration of those who are desirous of in- 
 formation upon this important subject, as well worthy of 
 attentive perusal.” 
 
 The Federal Gazette and Baltimore Daily Advertiser 2 thinks 
 the work “evinces considerable talent, deep research, and at- 
 tentive and judicious consideration of the subject,” and that 
 it is “highly honorable to the author, and worthy of the at- 
 tention of our fellow-citizens.” The Gazette, with com- 
 mendable local pride, also takes up the cudgel in defense 
 of its fellow-townsman against the attacks of its Philadel- 
 phia contemporaries, which, it alleges, are inspired by hatred 
 of everything that comes out of Baltimore. 
 
 Farther from home Raymond’s work found even more 
 enthusiastic admirers, — in the protectionist camp. The 
 Patron of Industry, a journal published in New York, wear- 
 ied, probably, by “the servile homage to the theories put forth 
 in the name of political economy in Europe,” waxed enthu- 
 siastic and hailed the work as an honor to the author, his 
 subject, and his country. 3 
 
 1 Dec. 1 6, 1820. 
 
 2 Dec. 13, 1820. 
 
 3 “We took up this work in the anxious hope that the author, 
 whether right or wrong in his system, was in point of talents worthy 
 to be the author of the first formal treatise upon the subject of Po- 
 litical Economy on this side of the Atlantic, and that he had suffi- 
 cient courage to take the field against the spirit of servile homage to 
 the theories put forth in the name of political economy in Europe 
 from the period of the economists down to the present day. 
 
 “The perusal of the work did not disappoint us in these particulars. 
 The writer has given evidence, not only of talents adequate to his 
 undertaking, but of a disposition to employ the powers of his mind 
 in simplifying and rendering clear and perspicuous what others have 
 treated obscurely, and rendered inconsistent and incomprehensible. 
 The book cannot only be read without fatigue, but it can be under- 
 
18 Daniel Raymond and His Work. [228 
 
 Frederick Beasley, provost of the University of Pennsyl- 
 vania, wrote encouragingly to the author, to express the 
 gratification that he as an American felt in a countryman 
 who displayed “such just and profound comprehension of 
 his subject.” * 1 
 
 John Adams, from his retreat at Montizello, writes that 
 he regards it as the best work that has appeared on political 
 economy, and “a proud monument of American literature 
 and he purposes constituting himself its propagandist 2 
 
 Mathew Carey, then bearing the heat and burden of the 
 battle for protection, and delighted to find a brother pro- 
 
 stood. The writer has treated his subject far more scientifically than 
 his predecessors, not merely in his divisions and definitions, but also 
 in his precision in the use of words, and in the employment of tech- 
 nical terms and phrases. 
 
 “As to the doctrines taught in this book they are to a considerable 
 extent new; and in most part they differ from the old ones to which 
 they stand opposed, we think very much as nature differs from art, 
 truth from fiction and light from darkness. There are several funda- 
 mental points, concerning which the various writers in political 
 economy have been most bewildered and inconsistent, which by 
 starting right and reasoning right, he appears to us to have extricated 
 from the confusion by which they have so long been embar- 
 rassed. Such are the nature of national wealth — labor, productive 
 and unproductive, standard of value, source and cause of national 
 wealth, mercantile system, &c., &c. We have no hesitation in say- 
 ing, that we think he has thrown more light on several of these 
 questions than all the other writers who have meddled with them. 
 
 “We should have liked his preface well enough if it had not been 
 in the front of his book. It does not fairly introduce the reader to 
 the acute, logical, and philosophic mind which is spread over the 
 succeeding pages. We know nothing of the author; but we hail 
 his work as an honor to himself, his country and his subject.” 
 
 1 “I have read it with close attention, and I cannot refrain from 
 expressing to you the pleasure it has given me. Amidst the false 
 tastes and crude productions of the times, it is a real gratification 
 to an American, who has at heart the literary reputation of his 
 country, to find a writer who displays such clear views, just and pro- 
 found comprehension of his subject, and such neatness and perspicu- 
 ity of style.” Cf. preface to Raymond’s 4th ed. 
 
 2 “Although reading is almost an intolerable imposition upon my 
 eyes, yet I have read this volume through, and have been richly re- 
 
229] 
 
 Daniel Raymond and His Work. 
 
 19 
 
 tectionist, pronounces “Raymond’s political economy a work 
 far superior” to either Smith’s Wealth of Nations or Say’s 
 Political Economy. 1 So impressed was Carey with Ray- 
 mond’s work, that, “in a moment of enthusiasm,” he made 
 an offer of $500 a year to the University of Maryland, 2 for 
 
 warded for my pains, by the pleasure and instruction I have received. 
 . . . . I have never read any work upon political economy with 
 
 more satisfaction. It is a rich addition to my library, or what is of 
 infinitely more importance, a proud monument of American litera- 
 ture You have indeed cracked the shell of political econ- 
 
 omy and extracted the purest oil from the nut. I shall warmly rec- 
 ommend it to the perusal of every man of letters that I see.” Ibid. 
 
 biographical Sketches, p. 9. 
 
 2 It is to be regretted that the whole history of this episode can not 
 be given. The records of the University have been destroyed by 
 fire, but the following extracts from Carey’s Biographical Sketches 
 give the external history: 
 
 ‘Tn this year I displayed a degree of quixotism, that might have 
 cost me dear, but I -fortunately escaped. Daniel Raymond, Esq., 
 of Baltimore, had just published his “Political Economy,” a valuable 
 work, containing more sound practical truths than I had ever seen 
 in any book on the subject. I was delighted with the work and, in 
 a moment of enthusiasm, it struck me that a course of lectures on 
 the subject, to be delivered by Mr. Raymond, would have a most 
 salutary effect. Accordingly, I gave a pledge to the University of 
 Maryland, to pay five hundred dollars a year towards the expense .of 
 a professorship of political economy in that institution. To the 
 discredit of the faculty be it said that they did not condescend to 
 reply to me. They, however, declined to make any additional pro- 
 vision on the subject, and the sum I proposed not being sufficient 
 to induce Mr. Raymond to abandon his practice the project fell to 
 the ground. My reason for applying to the University of Maryland, 
 was that Mr. Raymond lived in Baltimore, and I was determined that 
 he alone should be the lecturer, as I would then be sure not to throw 
 away my money to promulgate pernicious doctrines.” 
 
 “Philadelphia, January 12, 1822. 
 
 “Know all men by these presents, that I do hereby bind myself to 
 pay to the University of Maryland, the sum of 500 dollars, as one 
 year’s salary for a professor of political economy, and also to con- 
 tinue the subscription, unless I shall give six month’s previous no- 
 tice of my determination to discontinue the same. 
 
 (Signed) Mathew Carey.” 
 
20 
 
 Daniel Raymond and His Work. 
 
 [230 
 
 the purpose of endowing a professorship of political econ- 
 omy to be filled by Raymond. But this offer, opening up a 
 
 Letter from Carey to Raymond: 
 
 “Philadelphia, January 12, 1822. 
 
 “I have fully made up my mind to establish the professorship as 
 stated in my last letter, provided it can be done for 500 dollars per 
 annum. I shall pay one-half of the first year’s salary, on the deliv- 
 ery of the first lecture, and the other half on the completion of the 
 course. 
 
 “Should I at any time determine to withdraw from the undertak- 
 ing, I shall regard myself at liberty to do so, on giving six months’ 
 previous notice. But it is highly probable that I shall continue it as long 
 as I live; and indeed make provision for it at my death. You are at 
 liberty to make the necessary inquiries of the president of the uni- 
 versity. As for your fitness for the situation, it cannot be ques- 
 tioned. I regard you as peculiarly qualified for it.” 
 
 From Raymond to Carey: 
 
 “Baltimore, January 18, 1822. 
 
 “Your letter, stating the liberal endowment you propose to make 
 towards the establishment of a professorship of political economy 
 for the University of Maryland, has been received and laid before 
 the board of regents, who will, no doubt, duly appreciate your muni- 
 ficence and communicate with you further on the subject. 
 
 As regards myself, although it may not be in my power to co- 
 operate with you in carrying your patriotic design into effect, yet 
 I shall ever feel a grateful sense of your kindness and liberality.” 
 
 From Carey to Raymond: 
 
 “Philadelphia, January 19, 1822. 
 
 “I feel much uneasiness at the receipt of your letter, lest you 
 should not undertake the professorship in question. My views 
 were directed to Maryland, entirely in consequence of the confi- 
 dence I felt that the choice would fall on you, and of my approbation 
 of the principles of political economy you have so ably advocated. 
 
 “In the event of your declining, or not being elected, the choice 
 may fall on some person who may preach unsound doctrines, per- 
 nicious to the happiness of our citizens, and to the prosperity of 
 the nation. In this case, I should devote my money to a purpose 
 diametrically opposite to my intentions. Against this I here enter 
 my protest. The foreign world furnishes us with apostles sufficient 
 to preach those pestiferous doctrines whose operation has blasted 
 the energies of the nation, and effectively rendered her a colony to 
 the manufacturing nations of the old world. We have no need to 
 hire them here to accomplish this baleful purpose.” Biographical 
 Sketches, pp. 93-96. 
 
231 ] 
 
 Daniel Raymond and His Work. 
 
 21 
 
 vista of possibilities, came to naught. It is possible that 
 Raymond’s chapter on slavery was a factor in determining 
 the outcome. 
 
 Despite the warm commendation the work excited in some 
 quarters, it was not able to “command the attention of the 
 generality of readers.” It was offered to the public in an 
 edition of hardly more than seven hundred and fifty copies, 
 and of this number “probably one-third were sacrificed at 
 auction.” 1 Nothing daunted by this, but encouraged by 
 the favorable opinion expressed by “some of the most ex- 
 perienced and intelligent men in our country,” Raymond in 
 1823 gave to the unappreciative public a second, and revised 
 edition of his work. 2 
 
 The principles laid down in the first edition were not de- 
 parted from, nor modified. The asperity that marked its 
 tone was somewhat softened, and much harsh criticism of 
 Adam Smith was omitted — though sufficient of this latter 
 crops out in the second edition to satisfy a moderate op- 
 ponent of “foreign systems.” The arrangement of the work 
 
 1 Ibid., p. 9. 
 
 2 In the second edition Raymond omits the unique preface that in- 
 troduced the first, and in its place writes: “On presenting the public 
 with a second edition of this work, the author feels himself con- 
 strained to express his gratitude for the kind reception, which the 
 first hasty and imperfect edition met with, from a portion of his fel- 
 low-citizens. It was not to be expected, that a work, whatever 
 might be its merits, upon so abstruse and forbidding a subject as 
 political economy, would command the attention of the generality 
 of readers in any country; and it would indeed be a wonder, if a 
 book on any subject, written on the wrong side of the Atlantic, 
 with the author’s name to it, should be favorably received by the 
 public generally. Our independence is not sufficiently established 
 for that. 
 
 “But as some of the most experienced and intelligent men in our 
 country have expressed a favorable opinion of the model, (for the 
 first edition was but a model), and intimated that it was susceptible 
 of being executed in such a manner as to be worthy of public patron- 
 age, the author felt himself not only justified, but required to make 
 another effort to improve the work.” 
 
22 
 
 Daniel Raymond and His Work. 
 
 [232 
 
 was altered, several chapters were recast, and a few new 
 ones added, developing special topics that were of secondary- 
 importance in Raymond’s system. 
 
 A copy of this second edition found its way to England, 
 and was pronounced by “Blackwood’s” “a work of extra- 
 ordinary value;” but this criticism was that of an American 
 temporarily resident in London, — a personal acquaintance, 
 likely, and possibly even a friend of Raymond — and does not 
 represent an English estimate of the value of the work. It 
 was unable to secure a review at the hands of an English 
 reviewer . 1 
 
 The second edition appears to have met with as little pop- 
 ular favor as the first. Its sale was “very slow and limited,” 
 and Raymond seems to have been “a considerable loser” as 
 the result of trying to furnish his fellow-citizens with a sys- 
 tem of political economy of domestic manufacture. The 
 
 1 In 1820 a series of articles appeared in “Blackwood’s” on “Amer- 
 ican Writers.” They purported to be from the pen of an English- 
 man, but the real author was John Neal, “a Yankee, from Maine,” 
 and, like Raymond, at one time a member of the Baltimore bar. 
 Neal gave up the practice of law for literature, and spent the years 
 1823-27 in England, where he was a frequent contributor to the Brit- 
 ish periodicals. His reference to Raymond is in his series on 
 “American Writers,” in Blackwood’s for February, 1825, Vol. XVII., 
 p. 200, and is as follows: “Daniel Raymond; a Yankee; from Con- 
 necticut, New England; a counsellor at law; author of a work on 
 political economy, (2 vols. 8vo.), where a multitude of problems, 
 phenomena, etc., etc., are explained with a simplicity quite start- 
 ling — nay, quite provoking — to those who have been wasting years 
 upon the science. We look upon it as a work of extraordinary 
 value. It should have been republished here; or, at least, re- 
 viewed. A friend of ours (Neal) brought a copy “out,” and ex- 
 erted himself not a little, in trying to get some notice taken of it, 
 by somebody equal to the job. Twice he was promised, without 
 qualification, that it should be done. Twice he was disappointed. 
 He then gave up the point.” While in London Neal lived for con- 
 siderable time with Jeremy Bentham, and was intimate with the 
 little group of utilitarians, and economists, who used to meet peri- 
 odically in Bentham’s study. Was it possibly to one of these that 
 he gave Raymond’s treatise for review? 
 
233 ] Daniel Raymond and His Work. 23 
 
 two editions together numbered only twelve hundred and 
 fifty copies, and whilst each had failed of complete sale, 
 Say’s treatise had, during the same time, been translated and 
 republished here in two editions, — the first of seven hundred 
 and fifty, and the second of two thousand copies — and both 
 had been sold out. Some two thousand copies of reprints of 
 Adam Smith had also been taken up by the American pub- 
 lic. 1 These facts scarcely bear out Raymond’s complaint 
 that “a very small portion of the intelligent reading part of 
 the community ever think of reading a book upon the sub- 
 ject” of political economy, and indicate that the indifference 
 which Jefferson lamented in 1815 was passing away. 
 
 The failure of Raymond’s work to win popular favor is not 
 in itself sufficient to convict the public of his day of an in- 
 difference to his science; the cause of this failure may more 
 properly be sought in the character of the work itself. It 
 was not without merit; in many respects it was worthy of the 
 attention of the time, and merited a more careful and con- 
 siderate perusal than it received. But looseness of method 
 marked it, and frequently confusion of ideas; and in addition 
 it touched upon too many questions that were then the cen- 
 ters of political storms. On one side or another it found 
 itself in opposition to some popular prejudice. It ran coun- 
 ter to the philosophy of individualism, which was the ac- 
 cepted gospel of the elect of those days. Its advocacy of 
 protection was too liberal to please the more rabid advocates 
 of an “American System,” and too pronounced, on the other 
 hand, to win readers from amongst the strict disciples of 
 laissez faire. Its intolerant opposition to banks and to all 
 forms of corporations destroyed the value of his work in the 
 eyes of the advocates of these institutions. His fierce hatred 
 of slavery was a fatal obstacle to popularity in the South. 
 It is more than probable that the unstinted praise and ad- 
 miration the work elicited from John Adams was not due 
 so much to any real merit it possessed as a scientific treatise 
 as from the fact that Adams was a Federalist and believed 
 in strong central government, stood for protection, abhorred 
 
 1 Carey, Biographical Sketches, p. 9. 
 
24 
 
 Daniel Raymond and His Work. 
 
 [234 
 
 banks and paper money, 1 and loathed slavery; 2 and that in 
 all these things he found in Raymond a kindred spirit. But 
 Adams’ type was not numerous. The men who agreed with 
 Raymond in the matter of the province of government and 
 of protection, would not have subscribed to his views on 
 the banks; and those who would have been in agreement 
 with his views on banks, were repelled by his position on 
 slavery. 
 
 Raymond’s second edition scarcely attracted the atten- 
 tion of even the reviewers, and little notice of it appears until 
 1825. A report then started the rounds of the press, — orig- 
 inating apparently with his friend and defender, the Federal 
 Gazette, of Baltimore — to the effect that the work had been 
 adopted in the University of Virginia as the standard text- 
 book on political economy; 3 but this was promptly, and em- 
 phatically, denied by the Richmond Enquirer . 4 
 
 1<< I have never had but one opinion concerning banking, from 
 the institution of the first in Philadelphia, by Mr. Robert Morris, 
 and Mr. Gouverneur Morris, and that opinion has uniformly been 
 that the banks have done more injury to the religion, morality, 
 tranquility, prosperity, and even wealth of the nation, than they can 
 have done or ever will do good. They are like party spirit, the de- 
 lusion of the many for the benefit of the few.” “Works,” Vol. X., 
 P- 375- 
 
 “Our whole banking system I ever abhorred, I continue to abhor, 
 
 and I shall die abhorring Every bank of discount, every 
 
 bank by which interest is to be paid, or profit of any kind made by 
 
 the deponent, is downright corruption Every bank in 
 
 the Union ought to be annihilated, and every bank of discount pro- 
 hibited to all eternity.” Ibid., Vol. IX., p. 638. 
 
 2 Ibid., Vol. X., p. 381. 
 
 3 “We feel gratified to learn that the work of our fellow-citizen, 
 Mr. Raymond, on political economy, has been adopted in the Uni- 
 versity of Virginia, as the standard work on that subject in that in- 
 stitution. When we consider the high political as well as literary 
 reputation of the gentlemen who are at the head of that institution, 
 among whom are the two ex-Presidents, Jefferson and Madison, we 
 cannot but think this a most flattering compliment to the work, and 
 one which can not fail to establish its reputation with the American 
 people.” Federal Gazette, June, 1825. 
 
 4 “A paragraph from a Baltimore paper is now going the rounds, 
 
235 ] Daniel Raymond and His Work. 25 
 
 In 1836 Raymond seems to have believed the time ripe for 
 the acceptance of his principles, and he accordingly issued a 
 third edition of his work. It was identical with the edition 
 of thirteen years before, except for the addition of a chapter 
 on “Tariffs,” discussing the incidence of an impost tax. 
 Other than this, not a word nor a comma was changed from 
 the second edition. The two editions appear to have been 
 struck from the same plates. 
 
 Of the fate of this edition I can find no traces. It must 
 have met with more success than the preceding ones, for in 
 1840 Raymond was encouraged to put out a fourth edition. 
 The second and third editions had been issued in two vol- 
 umes, in large type, thus forming a bulky and unhandy treat- 
 ise. Believing, probably, that a more compact and handy 
 volume would be more acceptable to the public, he com- 
 pressed the work in the fourth edition into one small volume. 
 In essentials — with one exception to be noted — it was prac- 
 tically the same work that had appeared twenty years be- 
 fore, and twice at subsequent periods. The last edition 
 could not so much be called revised, as condensed. The 
 process of condensation consisted in omitting entirely sev- 
 eral of the chapters added in the second edition, and others 
 that had appeared in the original edition, and in shortening 
 the remaining chapters by the wholesale cutting out of para- 
 graph after paragraph, and even of page after page. It must 
 be admitted that the constant repetitions that characterized 
 the book made it peculiarly suited to this sort of revision. 
 
 We are left to surmise to account for the appearance, in 
 comparatively rapid succession, of these last two editions, 
 
 viz., that ‘the work of Mr. Raymond on Political Economy, has been 
 adopted in the University of Virginia as the standard work on that 
 subject.’ Having some reasons to doubt the correctness of such 
 an assertion, while such works as Say, Ricardo, Adam Smith, &c., 
 are in existence, we requested a friend to ascertain the facts; and 
 we are now enabled to state positively that Mr. Raymond’s work is 
 not used as the text-book at the university, and that it is not known 
 there except to Mr. Tucker, and possibly to Mr. Emmett.” Rich. 
 Enq., July 1, 1825. 
 
26 
 
 Daniel Raymond and His Work. 
 
 [236 
 
 after the little success that had attended the earlier ones. 
 During the thirteen years elapsing between the second and 
 third editions Raymond had apparently given little thought 
 to economics. Had he done so, and kept abreast of the de- 
 velopment of the science, he would hardly have made his 
 third edition a mere reprint of his second. The public seem 
 to have grown to value him more as a lawyer than as an 
 economist, and to have given him sufficient employment in 
 his chief profession to prevent the necessity of his again 
 having to seek diversion in formulating new economic the- 
 ories. In his fourth edition he devotes some thirty pages to 
 a commentary on the constitution. Such a discussion was 
 perfectly germane to his subject, as he conceived it. The 
 idea of writing it, was suggested to him by Provost 
 Beasley in his letter of 1824, but in the preface to his fourth 
 edition, Raymond explains that he had “had no leisure until 
 lately, to write such a treatise.” The intervening sixteen 
 years, we may infer, had been a trnsy period for him in his 
 regular profession, and had left no time for authorship. 
 
 In 1836 economic issues were more than ever the bone 
 of political contention; and it is likely that the triumph of 
 Jackson and the hard money party over the bank, the in- 
 crease of the abolition sentiment, and the struggle that was 
 going on to bring about a return to protective principles, led 
 Raymond to think the time opportune for the acceptance of 
 his doctrines. This assumption is supported by the fact that 
 the only change in the edition of 1836 is the addition of a 
 chapter on tariffs; and that in the edition of 1840, whilst 
 many chapters are omitted, and most of the remaining ones 
 pruned severely, the chapter on slavery is left untouched; 
 the one on banking is modified only by the addition of a par- 
 agraph arguing against the constitutionality of the bank; 
 the one on money is likewise left untouched save for the addi- 
 tion of a paragraph ; the chapter on tariffs, added in the third 
 edition, is retained; and the chapter on corporations is en- 
 tirely rewritten, — and from rabid opposition changes to mild 
 
237] Daniel Raymond and His Work. 27 
 
 tolerance of these organizations. The preface also adduces 
 the political history of the preceding twenty years as an ex- 
 emplification of the truth of Raymond’s principles. 
 
 This fourth edition seems to have impressed John Quincy 
 Adams as much as the first one had impressed his distin- 
 guished father. The son was at that time waging the battle 
 of abolition in the national house of representatives with all 
 his strength, and it is quite possible that it wa/S Raymond’s 
 vehement chapter on slavery that won the admiration of this 
 valiant champion, rather than the general soundness of his 
 economic principles. At all events, he deemed the work 
 worthy of the perusal of his fellow-statesman, and he found 
 time, between presentations of abolition petitions, to make a 
 formal presentation of a copy of Raymond’s book to the 
 library of the house of representatives. But there were 
 those among his colleagues who could not find it in their 
 hearts to share the admiration of Mr. Adams for the book, 
 and the question of its acceptance created a scene in the 
 national house that is worthy of note as indicating the 
 standards by which a scientific treatise on economics was 
 judged a half century ago, and the storm of prejudice it had 
 to weather. 1 
 
 1 House of Representatives; June 23, 1840: 
 
 “Mr. Adams presented a work on political economy, by Daniel 
 Raymond, of Maryland; which, on motion of Mr. A. was ordered 
 to be placed in the library of the House of Representatives.” 
 
 June 24, 1840. 
 
 “Mr. Jones moved to go into committee of the whole on the 
 state of the union, but temporarily withdrew his motion at the re- 
 quest of Mr. Crabb, of Alabama, who moved a reconsideration of 
 the decision made yesterday to receive and place in the library of 
 the House of Representatives, a copy of Raymond’s Political 
 Economy. Having examined that book, Mr. Crabb had discovered 
 that it contained doctrine and language highly exceptionable to him 
 as a Southern man; in case of reconsideration, he wished to move 
 ' the reference of the book to the committee on the library, in order 
 that it might be examined and reported on. 
 
28 
 
 Daniel Raymond and His Work. 
 
 [238 
 
 II. 
 
 In all its principles Raymond’s system stands opposed to 
 the orthodox political economy of his time. He alleges 
 against the prevailing school, that it has failed to grasp the 
 true concept of national wealth, and has therefore missed 
 the real aim of true political economy; that it has studied how 
 individuals may increase their wealth, assuming that national 
 wealth was nothing other than the sum total of individual 
 wealth, and that consequently the study of how individual 
 
 Mr. Turney demanded the previous question on the motion to re- 
 consider. The previous question was seconded, put and carried; 
 and the main question being on reconsidering, Mr. Jones de- 
 manded the yeas and nays, which were ordered. Mr. Adams rose 
 amidst cries of order, and was going on to express his surprise at the 
 motion of the gentleman from Alabama, and to give some account 
 of the book, when he was arrested by the chair. Mr. A. remon- 
 strated. The chair insisted that he could not proceed, but by gen- 
 eral consent. Objections were loudly uttered. 
 
 Mr. Lincoln said that unless his colleague were permitted to pro- 
 ceed and give the House some account of the book, Mr. L. should 
 demand that the book itself be read. Objections being made, Mr. 
 Lincoln demanded that the book be read. The chair decided that as 
 the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lincoln) was called to 
 vote respecting this book, he had a right, under the rules of the 
 House, to have it read, if he so demanded. Great confusion arose. 
 Messrs. Habersham, Turney, Andrews, Hopkins, and others were 
 on their feet, all simultaneously addressing the chair. Mr. Hopkins 
 called for the reading of the rule of the house, and also of Mr. 
 Jefferson’s manual on the question of order. Mr. Lincoln wished 
 to explain, but the chair refused, the previous question having been 
 ordered. The chair then stated his decision, and explained the 
 ground on which it rested. 
 
 Mr. Hopkins took an appeal; before any vote was taken on the 
 appeal, Mr. Ramsay moved to lay the whole subject on the table. 
 Mr. Crabb wished to explain, but was arrested. The question being 
 stated from the chair, Mr. Adams addressed the House. (Loud 
 
239] 
 
 Daniel Raymond and His Work. 
 
 29 
 
 wealth is augmented is at the same time the study of how 
 national wealth is augmented; that it has, therefore, busied 
 itself with the study of value, a phenomenon with which 
 political economy has little concern . 1 In opposition to this, 
 he contends that national wealth is something far other than 
 the sum total of individual wealth ; that the two are not even 
 composed of the same ingredients; and that an increase in 
 the wealth of one class of citizens does not of necessity imply 
 an equal increase in national wealth. 
 
 Distinguishing national from individual wealth, Raymond 
 defines the former as “a capacity for acquiring the neces- 
 saries and comforts of life,” by labor . 2 Capacity, not com- 
 
 cries of order.) The gentleman from Alaba — the chair called to 
 order. The gentleman from Alabama has undertaken (order! or- 
 der!) to be grand inquisitor for this House; to speak (order!) its 
 opinion on a certain book. (Here the cries of order were very 
 loud, and the chair ordered 'Mr. Adams to resume his seat.) The 
 question being again stated Mr. Crabb demanded the yeas and nays, 
 but the house refused to order them. The vote being taken, the 
 chair, declared it to be decided in the affirmative. 
 
 The question was again put, and the House dividing, the yeas 
 were 123 and the noes 30. So the House determined that the whole 
 subject should be laid on the table. 
 
 ^‘According to the theory suggested in the preceding chapter, it 
 will follow that value has very little application to public wealth; a 
 very small ingredient or portion only of national wealth being the 
 subject of value.” p. 84, (4th ed.) 
 
 Unless otherwise specified, succeeding references are to Ray- 
 mond’s 4th ed. 
 
 2 “This capacity never can exist independent of labor. Its ex- 
 tent, however, will depend upon a great variety of other circum- 
 stances. It will be materially influenced by the nature of the gov- 
 ernment. The energies of a nation, can be more fully developed 
 under a free, than under an arbitrary or tyranical government. 
 
 “This capacity will also depend materially upon the climate and 
 soil of a country; on the extent of territory in proportion to the 
 number of inhabitants; on the denseness of the population; upon 
 the equal or unequal division of property; upon the state of culti- 
 vation and improvements; on the degree of perfection to which the 
 arts and sciences have been carried; on the nation’s advantageous 
 situation for commerce, and especially on the industrious econom- 
 ical habits of the people.” p. 81. 
 
30 
 
 Daniel Raymond and His Work. 
 
 [240 
 
 modities, constitutes national wealth. 
 
 This concept of national wealth is the first characteristic 
 principle of Raymond’s system. The second is his insistence 
 upon the recognition of the idea of a nation as an organic 
 unit. The existing systems of political economy do not, he 
 maintains, so conceive the nation. They have, in turn, mis- 
 taken the interests of one or another class for the interests of 
 the nation as a whole; whereas the interest of an individual 
 or a class may be opposed to the larger interest of the nation 
 as one and indivisible. 
 
 From these two principles, Raymond argues that it is not 
 the province of political economy to study how values are 
 created and augmented, and how individuals or classes may 
 acquire wealth; but rather to study how government may 
 best legislate to secure the greatest well-being to all citizens 
 alike . 1 Such questions, therefore, as value, rent, wages, 
 profit, and interest, Raymond discusses only in passing ; 2 
 they belong properly to individual economy, and not to na- 
 tional economy. The topics that concern him as a political 
 economist, are the larger questions that operate directly and 
 strongly on national wealth, and with which legislative pol- 
 icy must therefore concern itself. 
 
 Labor is the sole cause of wealth ; 3 labor power is wealth, — 
 and accordingly Raymond devotes a chapter to labor. He 
 objects to Adam Smith’s classification of labor as productive 
 and unproductive. All labor is productive, except such as 
 fails of its intended effect . 4 Instead therefore of this classi- 
 fication, he distinguishes labor as productive and as perma- 
 nent. The end of productive labor is to produce things for 
 direct consumption; of permanent labor, “to enlarge the 
 boundaries of knowledge, and to augment the capacity for 
 acquiring the necessaries and comforts of life .” 5 
 
 iP. 116. 
 
 2 Rent, wages, profit, and interest, were not discussed in the first 
 edition of the work. Short chapters were devoted to them in the 
 second edition, but were omitted again from the fourth. 
 
 3 “Labour is the cause, and the only cause of wealth.” p. 97. 
 
 4 P. 90. 5 P. 95. 
 
Daniel Raymond and His Work. 
 
 31 
 
 241] 
 
 A chapter is devoted to “Production and Consumption” 
 In it Raymond attacks the “absurd doctrine of augmenting 
 national wealth by accumulation;” maintaining that any 
 excess of production above consumption produces stagna- 
 tion and distress rather than wealth and prosperity. Na- 
 tional prosperity is promoted only when all the fruits of pro- 
 ductive labor are annually consumed; and national wealth 
 is augmented when wise political institutions so operate as to 
 direct a due proportion of the energies of the nation towards 
 permanent labor. 
 
 Raymond next discusses Agriculture, Manufacture, and 
 Commerce, in their influence upon national wealth. “Each 
 of these three great departments of labor, has had its parti- 
 sans, who have claimed for it the superiority over the others, 
 as most conducive to national wealth. It is, however, mani- 
 fest that in a national point of view they are but parts of one 
 great system, each of them essential to the other.” 1 The 
 proportion that ought to exist between them will depend on 
 circumstances and vary in different nations, and the wise 
 legislator will encourage or restrain them in such way as 
 will, in the circumstances of that nation, best advance na- 
 tional wealth and prosperity. 
 
 On the subject of money Raymond stands with the “hard 
 money” school. He insists on “the necessity of intrinsic 
 value in whatever is used as money; and the utter impossi- 
 bility of giving a nominal value to money, above its intrinsic 
 value as a commodity or as bullion.” 2 He holds unques- 
 tioningly to the quantity theory, and to the currency prin- 
 ciple. He insists that to the government alone belongs the 
 function of furnishing money, whether coin or “represent- 
 ative paper,” and that this function should never be entrusted 
 to individuals or corporate bodies. The “manufacture” of 
 credit money is merely “an ingenuous contrivance upon the 
 public” for the benefit of the banks, and is at variance with 
 
 !P. ii 7 . 
 
 2 P. 165. 
 
32 Daniel Raymond and His Work. [242 
 
 sound monetary principles. If a paper currency be needed, 
 it should be issued by the government, and “whenever a 
 paper dollar is put in circulation, a silver dollar should be 
 withdrawn from circulation.” 1 
 
 To “the credit system, which has ruined so many people,” 2 
 Raymond is in general opposed; and towards the banks, 
 promoters of this destructive system, he is thoroughly hos- 
 tile. As “depositories of money and other valuable articles,” 
 and as offices for buying and selling bills of exchange and 
 discounting real notes, banks are solely beneficial to the pub- 
 lic; but by uniting in themselves the double function of 
 loan office and of “manufacturers of paper money” they are 
 a constant menace to prosperity, and invariably cause many 
 and grave public evils. “By being loan offices, they are 
 enabled to loan all the money they can make, or at least, as 
 much as they please; and by being the manufacturers of a 
 paper currency, they are enabled to make as much money as 
 they can loan. So long as these two functions are united in 
 the same body, they must and will be exercised to the preju- 
 dice of the public.” 3 Nothing but the “good sense of the 
 community has prevented the principle upon which the 
 banks are established, from being carried to such an extreme 
 as to ruin the country;” — had it been otherwise, and nothing 
 interfered to prevent them from following out the dictates of 
 their interests, the banks would “have become possessed of 
 every foot of property in the country, which would have been 
 paid to them in the shape of interest for their money.” 4 
 Against banks Raymond lays specific indictments: 
 
 “They increase the quantity of circulating medium, and 
 thereby depreciate its value.” 5 
 
 “Banks enable money lenders to obtain usurious interest 
 for their actual money.” 6 
 
 “Banks promote extravagant speculation.” 7 
 
 P. 175. 2 P. 153. 3 P. 178. 4 Ibid. 5 P. 180. 6 P. 186. 7 P. 1 88. 
 
243] 
 
 Daniel Raymond and His Work. 
 
 33 
 
 “Banks cause sudden fluctuations in the value of property, 
 and consequently produce extensive failures.” 1 
 
 “Banks have a tendency to banish the precious metals 
 from the country.” 2 
 
 To remedy “the evils of the banking or credit system,” 
 Raymond proposes three alternative plans. 3 These evils, 
 as has been pointed out, result from uniting in one body the 
 two functions of loan office and manufacturer of paper cur- 
 rency. Therefore, let the power of issue be taken from the 
 banks entirely, and reserved to the government; or, let their 
 issues be regulated in amount by the government; or, if they 
 must be allowed “to retain the power of manufacturing their 
 own notes to as great an extent as they please,” let there be 
 taken from them “the motive to loan more than a certain 
 amount of their paper in proportion to the amount of their 
 capital.” 
 
 The first plan proposes the issue by government of paper 
 money, on the strict currency principle, as outlined in his 
 discussion of money. 4 If this method be adopted, all evils 
 in any way connected with the banking system can be cured, 
 by the simple, but drastic process of abolishing the whole 
 banking system, — “which may be done without any incon- 
 venience to the public.” 5 
 
 The second plan proposes that the banks be limited in the 
 issue of their notes to a certain ratio of their paid-up capital, 
 — all notes to be engraved by the government and delivered 
 to the banks for signature and issuance only upon proof of 
 the actual amount of paid-up capital. This plan is, in effect, 
 almost identical with the one adopted by Congress in 1863 
 as the basis of the national bank issues. 6 The third plan 
 proposes that, in case this second one should be thought im- 
 practicable, a maximum rate be fixed by law for bank divi- 
 
 1 Ibid. 2 P. 189. 3 Pp. 192-3. 4 Supra; pp. 31-2. 5 P. 193. 
 
 6 Raymond’s plan, in view of its close resemblance to the plan 
 adopted for controlling the national bank issues, is worth quoting in 
 
34 Daniel Raymond and His Work. [244 
 
 dends, and all surplus profits over and above this rate be 
 appropriated by the government for the public benefit. 
 
 Raymond also argues against the constitutionality of a 
 national bank, on the ground that it is virtually turning over 
 to a corporation the prerogative of acting as a regulator of 
 the circulating medium; and that as this function partakes 
 of the nature of a legislative rather than a ministerial act, it 
 cannot be delegated by congress. 1 
 
 To the subject of “Finance,” Raymond devotes little 
 space. That branch of the science of political economy is 
 important indeed, but has been exalted into undue pre-emi- 
 nence. A stateman’s abilities are usually estimated by his 
 adroitness and skill in “diverting a portion of the stream of 
 public wealth into the public treasury,” whereas “true po- 
 litical skill consists in an ability to augment the stream itself 
 of public wealth.” 2 As to the general injurious effect of tax- 
 ation upon production, Raymond takes issue with Smith, 
 Say, and Ricardo, and maintains that taxes judiciously ex- 
 pended may so act as to augment national wealth, rather than 
 
 detail. “If we must have a bank paper currency, it seems proper 
 that it should be under the control of the government. If the gov- 
 ernment will not adopt the plan suggested in the chapter on money, 
 let it take into its own hands the engraving and manufacturing of 
 bank notes, all except the signatures, and establish a mint, and 
 appoint officers under proper responsibility, for that purpose. The 
 banks are to be permitted to issue no paper except what they obtain 
 at this office of the government. The government is then to de- 
 termine the amount of paper the banks are to be permitted to loan 
 in proportion to the amount of their capital — and upon the incorpor- 
 ation of a bank, and proof being furnished of the amount of specie or 
 capital paid in, so much paper is to be furnished the bank as the 
 government has fixed upon, as the quantity the bank may issue in 
 proportion to the amount of its capital. In some such way as this, 
 it would seem that the banks might be restrained from excessive is- 
 sues of a paper currency.” p. 193. 
 
 This chapter was written in 1820. 
 
 1 P. 194 . 2 P- 237. 
 
245] 
 
 Daniel Raymond and His Work . 
 
 35 
 
 affect it injuriously — however they may affect individuals or 
 classes. 1 Equality of taxation is to be sought with refer- 
 ence to persons, not to property. Indirect are to be pre- 
 ferred to direct taxes. Taxes are classified, land tax, excise 
 tax, and imposts. Of these imposts have an undoubted 
 preference over either of the other forms. As between a 
 land tax and an excise tax advantages are divided. 2 
 
 Rabid hostility towards all “money corporations” charac- 
 terizes Raymond at the beginning of his career as an econo- 
 mist. So far as is possible in civil society, the “natural 
 equality” of men should be preserved. To this end govern- 
 ment should bend its efforts. Money corporations are “arti- 
 ficial engines of power, contrived by the rich, for the purpose 
 of increasing their already too great ascendency, and calcu- 
 lated to destroy that natural equality among men, which no 
 government ought to lend its power in destroying.” “Cor- 
 porations are, therefore, prima facie , injurious to national 
 wealth.” 3 But in his last edition (1840) Raymond grows 
 more discriminating in his condemnations. He suggests 
 merely legislative supervision over the most objectionable 
 forms of public corporations, for, “then they become the mere 
 agents of the legislature to accomplish a public good.” As 
 
 1 Pp. 247-8. 
 
 2 “Imposts have an undoubted preference over all other taxes, 
 are indirect, and are, therefore, paid voluntarily. They are levied 
 and collected when the goods are in the hands of the fewest persons, 
 and are, therefore, collected with the least expense and they have 
 the very important advantage of securing to domestic industry a 
 preference in the home market. In other words, they are equal as 
 affects citizens, and unequal as between citizens and foreigners, to 
 the amount of the difference between the imposts and an excise tax 
 upon the same kind of produce. If the tax was equal upon domestic 
 and foreign products, then foreigners would stand upon an equality 
 with citizens in the home market, while citizens probably would not 
 stand upon an equality with foreigners in their own market.” p. 255. 
 
 3 P. 121, Vol. I., 2nd ed. 
 
« 
 
 36 Daniel Raymond and His Work. [246 
 
 for private corporations, “they may be multiplied indefi- 
 nitely, without detriment to the public, provided they are 
 secured against the depredations of stock jobbers.” 1 In 
 1836, he writes, “the very object then of the act of incorpora- 
 tion is to produce inequality, either in rights or in the division 
 of property.” 2 In 1840, “the only effect of the charter of 
 incorporation is to make unity out of a multitude, so as to 
 enable them to act as an individual in one name, and to trans- 
 fer and transmit their property, without the legal impedi- 
 ments and hindrances which attend partnership transac- 
 tions.” 3 The point of view that marks the editions of 1820, 
 1823, and 1836, is very far from the one that characterizes 
 the edition of 1840; the philosophy of a lifetime suffers vio- 
 lent metamorphosis within four years. 
 
 As would be expected from the basis of his system, Ray- 
 mond favors a protective system. He does not, as would 
 have been most logical, and as List did later, develop his 
 protective doctrine directly from his two fundamental con- 
 cepts. He was too much haunted by the spectre of Adam 
 Smith, and too much possessed by the idea of refuting his 
 system point by point. Instead, therefore, of attempting to 
 build up a logical and consistent system, which in its con- 
 clusions should stand opposed to those of the school of 
 Smith, he is constantly shifting his position and adapting 
 his arguments to the purpose of refuting Smith specifically 
 point by point. He denies the assumption that each individ- 
 ual in seeking his own interest will employ his capital in the 
 way most beneficial to the nation, and he therefore justifies 
 governmental restriction on the ground of its tending to 
 promote the welfare of the nation as a whole. 
 
 He admits as a general rule that if a nation can buy an 
 article cheaper than it can make it, it is better to buy than to 
 make; but the numerous exceptions to this rule “will em- 
 
 A P. 275. 2 P. 119, 2nd ed. 3 P. 275. 
 
247] 
 
 Daniel Raymond and His JVork. 
 
 37 
 
 brace the policy of protecting duties to as great an extent, 
 as has ever been contended for by the partisans of a restricted 
 trade .” 1 A protective system is required in the interest of 
 the nation as a whole in order to give constant employment 
 to its whole labor force . 2 Further, though the initial cost of 
 producing certain articles should be more than would be 
 required to purchase them abroad, their average cost of pro- 
 duction in the long run ought to be taken into account rather 
 than initial cost . 3 
 
 A monopoly of the home market produces certainty and 
 stability of demand ; 4 it increases a nation’s skill in the arts 
 and sciences, and thus increases its capacity for acquiring 
 the necessaries and comforts of life, — increases national 
 wealth . 5 Unless the people of this country are to be “re- 
 duced to the necessity of working as hard and living as poor, 
 as the English laborers,” a tariff must be maintained to en- 
 able our manufacturers to compete with those of England in 
 a great variety of articles . 6 But even could we produce as 
 cheaply as England, a tariff would still be required to prevent 
 the surplus product of British manufacture from being irreg- 
 ularly dumped on our market and demoralizing prices, to 
 the destruction of our home manufactories . 7 
 
 A tariff requires constant revision. The general rule is 
 stated that “a tariff ought not to be reduced, although it may 
 frequently require to be raised;” “and it should be lowest 
 upon those articles which are not, or cannot be produced in 
 this country, and highest upon those which employ the 
 greatest number of people, or the greatest portion of the in- 
 dustry of - the country .” 8 Under the head of tariffs, Ray- 
 mond discusses the question of who pays the duty. By a 
 strictly “a priori” process of reasoning he reaches the con- 
 
 1 P. 216. 2 P. 218. 3 P. 223. 4 P. 224. 5 P. 224. 6 P. 225. 7 P. 226. 
 
 8 P. 226. 
 
38 Daniel Raymond and His Work. [248 
 
 elusion that the producer and consumer share between them 
 the burden of the tax . 1 
 
 In conclusion he hurls maledictions at slavery, as a moral 
 blight and an economic curse. It acts as a check on popu- 
 lation, and thus exerts a pernicious influence on national 
 wealth and prosperity. Legislation must devise the most 
 effective means to root out this obstacle to national pros- 
 perity. 
 
 1 P. 231 . 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 Genesis of Raymond’s System. 
 
 I. 
 
 A brief outline of Raymond’s system has been given. How 
 are we to trace its genesis? The tendency of much of the 
 economic thought in this country in Raymond’s time was 
 plainly begotten of hostility towards England and all that 
 was English; but in Raymond’s case there is no justification 
 whatever for the statement that we can trace his inspiration 
 to this source . 1 On the contrary, there is every reason to be- 
 lieve that his economic views were the natural consequence 
 of a study of the phenomena that confronted him on every 
 side. He did not adopt his principles to be in opposition 
 to Adam Smith; he was in opposition to Adam Smith be- 
 cause his principles landed him there. He was confronted — 
 and deeply impressed — by a slave power grown to threaten- 
 ing proportions, and bidding fair to turn backward the cur- 
 rent of national prosperity; he had seen trade wrecked and 
 industry paralyzed by reckless banking, and the business 
 community powerless to protect itself; he had seen great 
 manufacturing interests grow up around him — a source of 
 
 iRurber — p. 58, of his Geschichte und kritische Studien zur Ent- 
 wickelung der Oekonomischen Theorien in Amerika — says that 
 Raymond was not free from the hatred of England so prevalent at 
 that time in this country; and Cossa, p. 465, says, ‘‘Daniel Raymond, 
 the first of all the spokesmen for American national and protective 
 theories, was partly inspired to his utterance of them by animosity 
 against England.” A careful reading of Raymond’s work scarce- 
 ly bears out Furber’s statement; and as for Cossa, he could hardly 
 have read Raymond at all, as there is, in fact, not a line in any of his 
 four editions that would even suggest animosity against England as 
 the motive impelling him to write his work. On the contrary, con- 
 sidering the time, the subject, and our relations towards England, 
 there is a most marked absence in Raymond of anything savoring 
 of animosity towards England. 
 
40 
 
 Genesis of Raymond' s System . 
 
 [250 
 
 power and wealth to the nation — only to be threatened with 
 annihilation by the pent-up flood of British wares that del- 
 uged the country after the return of peace in 1815; and he, 
 in consequence, began to entertain doubts as to the wisdom 
 and practicability of a system of political economy that ig- 
 nored the existence of national boundaries, assumed for its 
 philosophy “the harmony of interests,” and preached for its 
 gospel laissez faire. He thought that he saw a necessity 
 for governmental restriction to check the selfish and short- 
 sighted policy of individuals, and to keep the nation as a 
 whole in the path of prosperity. He is accordingly led to 
 the belief that the prevailing systems of political economy 
 are not adapted to the circumstances of this country; 1 and 
 he sets out to study our peculiar conditions, and to develop 
 a system of political economy that will harmonize with the 
 observed facts of our economic life, and serve to light the 
 way for legislation beneficial to American interests. 
 
 Around him he saw a young country with undeveloped 
 resources that dazzled the imagination, and in which it was 
 emphatically true that power was wealth. Its wealth and 
 prosperity could not be gauged by the same standards as 
 would individual wealth and prosperity. An individual 
 who steadily buys more than he sells is supposed to be on the 
 road to poverty; but here was a nation, here were common- 
 wealths, that for decades had bought more than they sold, 
 and which were yet recognized as increasing in real wealth 
 out of all proportion to their accumulating debts. 2 Even in 
 popular parlance, not the stock of the country, but its pro- 
 ductive capacity was regarded as the evidence of its wealth 
 and progress. Raymond came thus naturally to his char- 
 acteristic concept of national wealth. 
 
 His sympathy rests with what we term the masses. These 
 he believes to have been ignored in former treatises profess- 
 ing to be concerned with the nation's wealth ; 3 and in his sys- 
 tem he desires to take account of them and their interests. 
 
 X P. 5, 1st ed. 2 P. 129. 3 P. 43, 2nd ed. 
 
251] 
 
 Genesis of Raymond* s System. 
 
 41 
 
 He was a lawyer, and his legal habit of mind leads him to 
 conceive the state as a corporation , 1 and gives him a formula 
 that fits his need. Thus he comes to his second basic con- 
 cept of a nation as an organic unity, composed of all its citi- 
 zens alike, “a unity of rights, interests and possessions.” 
 
 A study of Raymond’s work, then, suggests environment 
 and training as the sources of his fundamental concepts, 
 rather than hostility towards England. 
 
 As for the rest, he is lacking in method. He is partly de- 
 ductive, partly inductive; but neither consistent nor dis- 
 criminating in the use of either method. He studies condi- 
 tions as they confront him, but his inferences are often col- 
 ored to a degree by his prepossessions. He rejects Adam 
 Smith’s principle that the individual in seeking out his own 
 best interests necessarily advances the interests of society, 
 because it will not square with the facts standing out in bold 
 relief in American economic life. But despite the benefits 
 that a community may derive from “money corporations,” 
 he condemns them indiscriminately because they are op- 
 posed in principle to his social philosophy that the natural 
 equality of man is to be preserved as far as possible in civil 
 society. He argues against the doctrine of augmenting na- 
 tional wealth by accumulation, because he conceives the law 
 of nature to be that production should only keep pace with 
 consumption ; nature antagonizes the storing up of her fruits ; 
 and the story of the Hebrews and the manna in the desert is 
 for him a conclusive exemplification of the operation of this 
 law . 2 “In the sweat of thy face shaft thou eat bread ,” 3 he 
 erects into a scientific formula, and makes it serve as a basis 
 for deductions. He even inclines to allow his strong human 
 feeling and his sense of Providence to supply the place of 
 analysis and logic . 4 
 
 The strong sense of personality, the warm human sympa- 
 thy, the realization that man, not matter, is the subject of his 
 
 *P. 272. 2 P. 103. 3 P. 70. 
 
 4 “Mr. Malthus’ theory of population is certainly ingenuous and 
 plausible, and for the most part sound, although it is calculated to 
 
42 
 
 Influence of Lauderdale. 
 
 [252 
 
 study, that wealth is a means, not an end, that his science is 
 human, not mechanical, — these things stand out in Ray- 
 mond in contradistinction to the cold formalism, the chilling 
 abstractness of the classic economics of that day, — and al- 
 most make one forgiving toward serious lapses from scien- 
 tific method. 
 
 II. 
 
 Raymond seems to have been familiar with Adam Smith, 
 Malthus, Ricardo, Lauderdale, Ganilh and J. B. Say . * 1 The 
 system, of the Physiocrats he knew only partially, and at 
 second hand . 2 
 
 He is in opposition to the system of Adam Smith at nearly 
 every point, and his criticism of Smith — especially in his 
 first edition — is narrow and harsh. Say he rates as inferior 
 
 leave very erroneous impressions on the mind of the reader, in con- 
 sequence of his not having treated the subject in conjunction with 
 others with which it is necessarily connected. Although his theory 
 is founded upon the principles of nature, and although it is impos- 
 sible to discover any flaw in his reasoning, yet the mind instinctively 
 revolts at the conclusions to which he conducts it, and we are dis- 
 posed to reject the theory, even though we could give no good rea- 
 son for rejecting it.” p. 273, 1st ed. 
 
 1 Raymond had not read Say when he published his first edition in 
 1820, for Say had not then been translated in this country, and Ray- 
 mond in his second edition — (V. I., p. 174), — says he has read Say 
 only in the translation. But reading Say does not appear to have 
 modified any of Raymond’s views. 
 
 2 Raymond, in several places, refers directly to the Physiocrats in 
 a way that would suggest an acquaintance with them, and this im- 
 pression is confirmed by the reference in his second edition — (V. I., 
 p. 97) — of a quotation direct to “Physiocratie, p. 107.” The quota- 
 tion, however, is taken at second hand, from Lauderdale, p. 125, and 
 not directly from “Physiocratie,” as would seem. In his first edi- 
 
253] 
 
 Influence of Lauderdale. 
 
 43 
 
 to both Adam Smith and Malthus . 1 Of Malthus he appears 
 to have a favorable estimate, and several times quotes him 
 approvingly . 2 Of Ricardo he expresses no opinion ; he re- 
 fers to him in the chapter on taxation, only to refute him. 
 
 Lauderdale is undoubtedly the author who exerted the 
 most influence upon Raymond. The general plan of Ray- 
 mond’s treatise is somewhat similar to that of Lauderdale, — 
 first, an inquiry into the concept of wealth, its cause, and its 
 source, and then a discussion of the means by which na- 
 tional wealth may be promoted . 3 
 
 Raymond follows Lauderdale in distinguishing individual 
 from national wealth, and, like him, makes this the basic 
 principle upon which he erects his system. He says that 
 Lauderdale is the only writer known to him who makes this 
 distinction ; 4 and it is most probable that it was this distinc- 
 tion of Lauderdale that first led Raymond to seek in a new 
 concept of national wealth the basis for what seemed to him 
 the true system of political economy . 5 But Raymond does 
 not appropriate Lauderdale’s idea bodily; he gets from it no 
 more than a suggestion as to the lines along which study 
 may profitably be made . 6 
 
 tion, p. 92, he says in a foot note that he has never read any of the 
 writings of the Physiocrats, his only knowledge of their theories be- 
 ing “derived from Smith, Ganilh, and others, who have combatted 
 their theories.” 
 
 . . . in comprehensiveness of views, and in the powers of 
 
 reasoning, M. Say is vastly inferior, both to Adam Smith and Mal- 
 thus.” P. 173, 2nd ed. 
 
 2 Pp. 129, 169; V. I., p. 354; V. II., 2nd ed. 
 
 3 Comp. Raymond, pp. 3-4, Vol. II., 2nd ed., and Lauderdale, in- 
 troduction. 
 
 4 “Lord Lauderdale is, I believe, the only writer on political econ- 
 omy, who has attempted to distinguish national from individual 
 wealth.” P. 174, 2nd ed. 
 
 5 “His lordship, however, deserves great credit for having sug- 
 gested the fundamental principles of the science, although he failed 
 in stating it with precision.” 
 
 6 “But although the noble earl was impressed with an idea of the 
 existence of such a distinction in the nature of things, and the neces- 
 
44 
 
 Influence of Lauderdale. 
 
 [254 
 
 The distinction which Raymond makes between national 
 and individual wealth is his own, not Lauderdale’s. The 
 basis on which the distinction rests is very different in the 
 two writers. Lauderdale makes no specific difference be- 
 tween the things that go to constitute individual riches and 
 those that go to constitute public wealth. He makes pub- 
 lic wealth “to consist of all that man desires as useful or de- 
 lightful to him;” and private riches “to consist of all that 
 man desires as useful or delightful to him; which exists in a 
 degree of scarcity .” 1 Thus, the objects that enter into the 
 two categories are only differentiated by the accidental at- 
 tribute, scarcity; there is no essential difference in the things 
 themselves. Any object that is embraced under either cat- 
 egory, is capable of being embraced under the other. Pub- 
 lic wealth is in reality only a slightly more generic concept 
 than individual riches, and anything included under it can 
 be included also under the less extensive concept, individual 
 riches, by simply coming to exist in a degree of scarcity. 
 
 Raymond, on the contrary, founds the main difference be- 
 tween the concepts of individual wealth and national wealth 
 upon a radical and essential difference in the nature of the 
 things that are embraced under the two concepts. To him 
 individual wealth means “the possession of property, for the 
 use of which, the owner can obtain a quantity of the neces- 
 saries and comforts of life .” 2 The term property “includes 
 lands, goods, money, and stock,” and “the value of these 
 that an individual possesses, ascertains the amount of his 
 
 sity of pointing it out, and establishing it as the basis of the science, 
 yet he has utterly failed in his attempts to ascertain in what this 
 distinction consists. ' P. 175, 2nd ed. 
 
 “Although Lord Lauderdale had conceived some indistinct notion 
 of the difference between national and individual wealth, yet as he 
 did not preserve the unity of the nation, and a consequent unity of 
 its interests, he did not succeed in establishing the distinction he had 
 imperfectly conceived.” 
 
 x “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of Public Wealth.” Pp. 
 56 - 7 . 
 
 2 P. 77 - 
 
255] 
 
 Influence of Lauderdale. 
 
 45 
 
 wealth.” Individual wealth is thus made to consist of com- 
 modities; value is its measure ; and exchange-ability its dis- 
 tinguishing characteristic. 
 
 National wealth is something quite different from this. 
 It is defined, a capacity for acquiring, by labor, the neces- 
 saries and comforts of life. It is thus made to consist, not 
 of objective goods, but of forces, of labor power. The two 
 concepts are generically different. The things embraced 
 under the concept of national wealth could not possibly be 
 made to come under the category of individual wealth. 
 
 With Lauderdale, water, for example, is public wealth, 
 and it may also be made to come under the term private 
 wealth, if it become so diminished in quantity as to exist in 
 a degree of scarcity. But with Raymond, the labor power, 
 the energy, and the habits of the community constitute ele- 
 ments in its national wealth; and these can not be brought 
 under his concept of private wealth. 
 
 While Raymond and Lauderdale are thus similar in that 
 they both distinguish public from private wealth, there is no 
 similarity in the distinctions themselves which they make. 
 Raymond’s concept of national wealth bears no trace of sim- 
 ilarity to that of Lauderdale. There is nothing in Lauder- 
 dale to furnish even a suggestion of such a definition of 
 national wealth as Raymond gives ; and his system thus ap- 
 pears to be based upon an original, and not upon a borrowed 
 idea. 
 
 So too in attacking the thesis of Adam Smith, that “par- 
 simony and not industry is the immediate cause of the in- 
 crease of capital,” Raymond is found sustaining the same 
 theory as Lauderdale; but again his arguments are other 
 than Lauderdale’s, and seem to have been in no way derived 
 from him. 
 
 It may be again repeated, that in these cases the influence 
 of American conditions and of the phenomena here con- 
 fronting Raymond appear as more potent factors in deter- 
 mining his conclusions than do the theories or arguments 
 of Lauderdale. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Daniel Raymond and Friederich List. 
 
 There is a striking similarity at bottom between Ray- 
 mond’s theories and “The National System of Political 
 Economy” developed by Friederich List. 
 
 It is not too much to say that not only is the germ of 
 List’s system to be found in Raymond, but that a very con- 
 siderable development is to be found scattered through his 
 eight hundred and odd pages . 1 The theory is not developed 
 by Raymond with anything like the elaboration and con- 
 tinuity that characterize List’s treatment of it. But it will 
 be recalled that Raymond was only a political economist 
 incidentally; a lawyer to whom the public permitted too 
 many moments of leisure to be whiled away in the conning 
 of musty tomes; who sought diversion in putting on paper 
 some of his thoughts on economics ; and who wrote, accord- 
 ingly, rather for his own amusement than for the public. 
 It will be remembered also that during the twenty years in- 
 tervening between the first edition of his work and the last 
 one, his system received at his hands no modification or de- 
 velopment worthy of note. It remained what it was at first, 
 the initial product of a comparatively young man, who, by 
 way of change, devoted himself for a short period to eco- 
 nomic study. List’s system, on the contrary, represents the 
 labors of a professed economist, who for twenty years de- 
 voted himself earnestly to the study of economic phenom- 
 ena, and to the construction of his economic system. 
 
 It is not, therefore, to be expected that Raymond’s system 
 should have received the same degree of development as did 
 List’s. But it is contended here that in Raymond’s “Thoughts 
 
 1 This refers to his second edition. 
 
257 ] Daniel Raymond and Friederich List. 
 
 47 
 
 on Political Economy/’ published in 1820, and in his slightly 
 elaborated “Elements of Political Economy,” published in 
 1823, are to be found enunciated the fundamental principles 
 that List takes as the basis for his “Outlines of American 
 Political Economy,” 1827, and of his elaborated and more 
 complete work, “The National System of Political Econ- 
 omy,” 1841. 
 
 A comparison of the works 1 of Raymond and of List will 
 show that the following fundamental theses are common to 
 both. 2 
 
 The dominant school of economists, Adam Smith and his 
 disciples, has not distinguished between private and public 
 economy , and has , therefore , treated of the economy of in- 
 dividuals rather than of political , or national economy . 
 
 List. 
 
 “The component parts of po- 
 litical economy are, individual 
 economy, national economy, 
 and the economy of mankind.” 
 
 “Adam Smith treats of the 
 economy of mankind and for- 
 gets to treat of the wealth of 
 
 Raymond. 
 
 “As national wealth is a dis- 
 tinct thing from individual 
 wealth, so political economy is a 
 distinct thing from private econ- 
 omy.” P. 406. 
 
 “The fundamental error, as I 
 apprehend, into which Adam 
 Smith and most other writers 
 
 x Unless otherwise stated, the references by pages in the parallel 
 quotations are to Raymond’s Elements of Political Economy, 1823, 
 and to Lloyd’s translation of “The National System of Political 
 Economy,” London, 1885. The references to “letters” of List 
 are to the letters that make up his “Outlines of American Political 
 Economy,” Phila., 1827. 
 
 2 Despite a specious appearance of method and logical arrangement 
 List’s work is rambling and diffuse; and Raymond is prolix to a 
 degree, and hopelessly wanting in a methodical development of his 
 system. A brief comparison of their two systems is, consequently, 
 difficult, and bound to be more or less unsatisfactory. An attempt is 
 made in what follows to present in concise theses the fundamental 
 principles that underlie List’s system, and in something like the 
 order of his development of them, and to show the similarity of 
 Raymond’s theories by selected extracts bearing upon the same 
 points. 
 
48 
 
 Daniel Raymond and Friederich List. 
 
 nations “his book is a 
 
 mere treatise on the question of 
 how the economy of individuals 
 and of mankind would stand, if 
 the human race were not sepa- 
 rated into nations, but united by 
 a general law and by an equal 
 culture of mind.” Letter i. 
 
 [258 
 
 have fallen, . . . is their 
 
 not having distinguished be- 
 tween public and private 
 wealth.” P. 155. 
 
 “Instead of treating of public 
 economy they in fact treat of 
 private economy; instead of 
 talking about nations they talk 
 about individuals.” P. 139. 
 
 “We must be careful to keep 
 in mind the distinct notion of 
 a nation itself, and not confound 
 it with the individuals or any 
 portioa of the individuals of 
 which that nation is composed; 
 a thing that is often done by the 
 best writers on political econo- 
 my. It is, indeed, the prevail- 
 ing error of every writer on the 
 subject I have read. Whilst 
 they profess to treat of national 
 interests, they depart from the 
 subject and treat of individual 
 interests.” P. 34. 
 
 “M. Say’s work is liable to the 
 objection of being a partial in- 
 stead of a general treatise on 
 political economy. It treats 
 rather of private than of public 
 wealth.” P. 173. 
 
 The school of Adam Smith further fails to distinguish the 
 interests of a nation from the general interests of the race , 
 and its doctrines are therefore too cosmopolitical to admit of 
 application in present actual conditio?is. 
 
 List. 
 
 “If the whole globe were unit- 
 ed by a union like the twenty- 
 four States of North America, 
 free trade would be quite as 
 natural and as beneficial as it is 
 now in the Union.” 
 
 “There would be no reason 
 for separating, the interest of a 
 
 Raymond. 
 
 “If governments could be ad- 
 ministered upon the perfect 
 principles of universal philan- 
 thropy, perhaps a nation might 
 be required to forego an advan- 
 tage to itself, upon the ground 
 that the interests of other na- 
 tions required it, although even 
 
49 
 
 259] 
 
 Daniel Raymond and Friederich List. 
 
 then it would be doubtful; for 
 those principles, by such expan- 
 sion, become so dissipated, as to 
 have no efficacy or power, and 
 the old adage, ‘charity begins at 
 home,’ is, no doubt, the best 
 commentary that ever was writ- 
 ten upon the doctrines of uni- 
 versal philanthropy. 
 
 “But at any rate, in the pres- 
 ent state of the world, it would 
 be chimerical to the last degree 
 for a political economist to dis- 
 cuss the question, how far a na- 
 tion should be governed in its 
 policy towards other nations, by 
 the principles of universal phi- 
 lanthropy. At present the du- 
 ties of government extend no 
 further than the protection of 
 its own citizens, and the promo- 
 tion of its own national wealth; 
 and any chimerical notions of 
 universal philanthropy, which 
 carry the duty of a government 
 to the superintendence, or con- 
 sideration even, of the interests 
 to the citizens of a foreign coun- 
 try are as unwise as they are 
 impracticable.” P. 166, V. II. 
 
 The school of Adam Smith assumes that the interests of 
 the individual and of society are identical; that the individ- 
 ual best knows his own interests, and, if allowed to pursue 
 his own interests in his own way, will necessarily further the 
 interests of society. But this assumption is without war- 
 rant ; the immediate interests of the individual and of society 
 are often at variance; aud the temporary interests of the 
 individual seldom ever harmonize with the permanent inter- 
 ests of society . 
 
 List. Raymond. 
 
 “ ‘What is prudence in the “It seems to be an admitted 
 
 conduct of every private family/ dogma with Doctor Smith that 
 
 says Adam Smith, ‘can scarcely national and individual interests 
 
 certain space of land and of a 
 certain number of human be- 
 ings from the interests of the 
 whole globe and the whole race 
 
 “There would be no national 
 interest. . . . 
 
 “This state of things may be 
 very desirable, — it may do honor 
 to the heart of a philosopher to 
 wish for it, — it may even lie in 
 the great plan of Providence to 
 accomplish it in after ages. But 
 it is not the state of the actual 
 world. 
 
 “Adam Smith’s system, in the 
 world’s present condition, goes 
 therefore along with the good 
 Abbe St. Pierre’s dreams of 
 eternal peace, with the systems 
 of those who fancy the laws of 
 nations.” Let. i. 
 
 “Cosmopolitan institutions . 
 . . . are not yet ripe for be- 
 ing introduced into practice.” 
 Let. II. 
 
50 
 
 Daniel Raymond and Friederich List. 
 
 be folly in that of a great king- 
 dom/ Every individual in pur- 
 suing his own interests neces- 
 sarily promotes thereby also the 
 interests of the community. It 
 is evident that every individual 
 inasmuch as he knows his own 
 local circumstances best and 
 pays most attention to his occu- 
 pation, is far better able to judged 
 than the statesman or legislator 
 how his capital can most profit- 
 ably be employed.” P. 162. 
 
 “Is the wisdom of private 
 economy also wisdom in na- 
 tional economy? Is it in the 
 nature of individuals to take into 
 consideration the wants of fu- 
 ture centuries, as those concern 
 the nature of the nation and the 
 State? Let us consider only the 
 beginning of an American town; 
 every individual left to himself 
 would care merely for his own 
 wants, or at most for those of 
 his nearest successors, whereas 
 all individuals united in one 
 community provide for the con-*, 
 venience and the wants of the 
 most distant generations; they 
 subject the present generation 
 for this object to privations and 
 sacrifices which no reasonable 
 person could expect from indi- 
 viduals.” P. 165. 
 
 “Nor does the individual 
 merely by understanding his 
 own interests best, and by striv- 
 ing to further them, if left to his 
 own devices, always further the 
 interests of the community. We 
 ask those who occupy the 
 benches of justice, whether they 
 do not have to send individuals 
 to the tread-mill on account of 
 
 [260 
 
 are never opposed, but a more 
 unsound doctrine in principle, 
 or a more abominable one in its 
 consequences can not well be 
 imagined.” P. 215, V. II. 
 
 “Public and private interests 
 are often directly at variance.” 
 P. 220. 
 
 “Private citizens can only be 
 expected to be wise for them- 
 selves — it is not their duty to 
 look after the public interests — 
 they are not the conservators of 
 national wealth. This belongs 
 to the department of legislation. 
 If, from particular circumstan- 
 ces, . . . one species of in- 
 
 dustry is more profitable than 
 another, it must be expected 
 that individuals will embark in 
 it, without any regard to the evil 
 consequences it may produce to 
 succeeding generations; but it 
 does not become a legislator, 
 either to be blind to their con- 
 sequences, or not to guard 
 against them. ... No man 
 can be expected to forego a 
 present advantage to himself, 
 provided there is no immoral- 
 ity in the enjoyment of it, upon 
 the ground that it may be preju- 
 dicial to posterity. He may 
 have no posterity, or if he has, 
 their interests at the distance of 
 two or three generations, are 
 too remote to influence his con- 
 duct. The influence of self-' 
 interest on human conduct, like 
 the laws of gravitation, is in the 
 inverse compound ratio of dis- 
 tance and quantity. 
 
 “Legislators, however, are not 
 permitted to take such limited 
 short-sighted views of things, . 
 
261 ] Daniel Raymond and Friederich List. 
 
 51 
 
 their excess of inventive power 
 and of their all too great indus- 
 try. Robbers, thieves, smug- 
 glers and cheats know their own 
 local and personal circumstan- 
 ces and conditions extremely 
 well, and pay the most active at- 
 tention to their business; but it 
 by no means follows therefrom 
 that society is in the best condi- 
 tion where such individuals are 
 least restrained in the exercise 
 of their private industry. In a 
 thousand cases the power of the 
 State is compelled to impose re- 
 strictions on private industry. It 
 prevents the shipowner from 
 taking on board slaves on the 
 west coast of Africa, and taking 
 them over to America.” P. 166. 
 
 they are traitors to 
 
 their high trust, if they do not 
 look to the future as well as to 
 the present. Even according to 
 the laws of self-interest, the re- 
 moteness of the interests of fu- 
 ture generations, should be 
 counterbalanced by the magni- 
 tude of those interests.” P. 
 222 . 
 
 “As a general rule individuals 
 understand the management of 
 their own affairs and the art of 
 getting rich better than any phi- 
 losopher can teach them.” P. 
 156. 
 
 “An individual may study his 
 own advantage by smuggling 
 goods, but it will hardly be pre- 
 tended that that is ‘an employ- 
 ment most advantageous to the 
 society,’ or nation. An indi- 
 vidual may study his own pri- 
 vate advantage by employing his 
 capital in the slave trade, but he 
 would not thereby study the ad- 
 vantage of the nation.” P. 214, 
 V. II. 
 
 A true system of political economy cannot ignore the ex- 
 istence of separate nations. 
 
 Each nation is to be regarded as an organic unity ; im- 
 perishable ; having national interests separate and distinct 
 from; often opposed to; and always paramount to, the pri- 
 vate interests of individual citizens on the one hand, and 
 to the interests of other nations , or of the race in general, 
 on the other. 
 
 List. 
 
 “We have proved historically 
 that the unity of the nation 
 forms the fundamental condition 
 
 Raymond. 
 
 “A nation is as much a unity 
 as an individual, and must al- 
 ways be so considered, when 
 
 WIV£R$I 
 
 Library 
 
52 
 
 Daniel Baymond and Friederich List. 
 
 of lasting national prosperity; 
 
 and we have shown that only 
 where the interest of individuals 
 has been subordinated to those 
 of the nation, and where suc- 
 cessive generations have striv- 
 en for one and the same object, 
 the nations have been brought 
 to harmonious development of 
 their productive powers, and 
 how little private industry can 
 prosper without the united ef- 
 forts both of the individuals who 
 are living at the time, and of 
 successive generations directed 
 to one common object . P. 
 163. 
 
 “A nation is ... a sep- 
 arate society of individuals, who, 
 
 possessing common govern- 
 ment, common laws, rights, in- 
 stitutions, interests, common 
 history and glory, common de- 
 fense and security of their rights, 
 riches and lives, constitute one 
 body, free and independent, 
 
 following only the dictates of its 
 interests, as regards other inde- 
 pendent bodies, and 
 
 possessing power to regulate the 
 interests of the individuals con- 
 stituting that body, in order to' 
 create the greatest quantity of 
 
 [262 
 
 treating of national interests.” 
 P. 44- 
 
 “ A nation is one, and indi- 
 visible; and every true system 
 of political economy must be 
 built upon this idea, as its fun- 
 damental principle.” P. 44. 
 
 “When (public and private in- 
 terests are) at variance, it is 
 not to be made a question which 
 ought to prevail.” P. 220. 
 
 “What is true as it respects 
 the duty of government, in re- 
 gard to the slave trade so far as 
 national interests alone are con- 
 cerned, is true of every other 
 measure relating to national in- 
 dustry, which has a remote ten- 
 dency to affect national wealth 
 and prosperity. The true pol- 
 icy for every wise legislator is, to 
 consider the nation immortal, 
 and to legislate for it, as though 
 it was to exist forever.” P. 224. 
 
 “A nation is an artificial being 
 or a legal entity, composed of 
 millions of natural beings.” P. 
 35 - 
 
 “A nation is a unity, and pos- 
 sesses all the properties of unity. 
 It possesses a unity of rights, a 
 unity of interests and a unity of 
 possessions.” P. 35. 
 
 “Every nation is to consult its 
 own interests exclusively, with- 
 out any regard to the interests 
 of other nations. P. 166, V. II. 
 
 “The internal policy of a na- 
 tion, .... should be mod- 
 eled with a view to the general 
 good. The welfare of the many 
 
53 
 
 263 ] Daniel Raymond and Friederich List. 
 
 common welfare in the interior, 
 and the greatest quantity of se- 
 curity as regards other nations.” 
 Let. II. 
 
 “As individual liberty is in 
 general a good thing so long 
 only as it does not run counter 
 to the interests of society, so is 
 it reasonable to hold that private 
 interests can only lay claim to 
 unrestrained action so long as 
 the latter consists with the well- 
 being of the nation. But when- 
 ever the enterprise and activity 
 of individuals does not suffice 
 for this purpose, or in any case 
 where these might become in- 
 jurious to the nation, there does 
 private industry rightly require 
 support from the whole power 
 of the nation, then ought it for* 
 the sake of its own interests to 
 submit to legal restrictions.” P. 
 172. 
 
 “The State is not merely jus- 
 tified in imposing, but bound to 
 impose certain regulations and 
 restrictions upon commerce, 
 (which is in itself harmless) for 
 the best interests of the nation.”, 
 P. 167. j 
 
 should never be sacrificed to that 
 of the few.” P. 166, V. II. 
 
 “The citizens should have as 
 much liberty as is consistent 
 with the good of the nation. To 
 deprive him of this would be a 
 tyranny. More than this he 
 ought not to claim.” P. 202, 
 V. II. 
 
 “No citizen should have a 
 right or an interest opposed to 
 the general good of the nation.” 
 P. 201, V. II. 
 
 “The question whether indi- 
 viduals should be permitted to 
 sell, where they can sell dearest, 
 and buy where they can buy 
 cheapest, ought not to be decided 
 upon the narrow, contemptible 
 principles of private interests, 
 but upon the more expanded 
 and noble precepts of public in- 
 terests.” P. 22u. 
 
 “It is ever to be remembered 
 trat the public interests are para- 
 mount to individual interests — 
 that a private mischief or incon- 
 venience must be endured for 
 the public good; and that when 
 a political economist has shown 
 that public and private interests 
 are opposed, he has made out a 
 case in which the interposition 
 of the government is necessary 
 — he cannot be required to prove 
 that private interests ought to 
 give way — that is to be taken for 
 granted.” P. 201, V. II. 
 
 In contradistinction , therefore , to private or individual 
 economy , and to cosmopolitical economy , or the economy of 
 mankind there is a national economy , arising out of the 
 fact of the existence of separate nations. 
 
 Each nation, according to its circumstances , has its own 
 particular system of national economy; and it is the province 
 
54 
 
 Daniel Raymond and Friederich List. [264 
 
 of a national economy to point out the means by which a 
 nation may raise itself to the highest point of national pros- 
 perity and power . 
 
 List. 
 
 “To complete the science, we 
 must add the principles of na- 
 tional economy. The idea of 
 national economy arises with 
 the idea of nations.” Let. II. 
 
 “National economy teaches 
 how a certain nation in her par- 
 ticular situation may direct and 
 regulate the economy of indi- 
 viduals, and restrict the econo- 
 my of mankind; i. e., how, in 
 the absence of a lawful state in- 
 cluding the whole earth, to cre- 
 ate a world in itself, in order to 
 grow in power and wealth, to 
 be one of the most powerful, 
 wealthy, and perfect nations of 
 the earth.” Let. II. 
 
 “In political economy there 
 must be as much politics as 
 economy.” Let. II. 
 
 Raymond. 
 
 “Foreign theories and sys- 
 tems of political economy, from 
 the dissimilarity in the nature of 
 the governments, are altogether 
 unsuited to our country.” P. 
 5, ist ed. 
 
 “Political economy is a sci- 
 ence which teaches the nature 
 of public or national wealth. . 
 . . It professes to teach the 
 
 most effectual means of promo- 
 ting a nation’s wealth and hap- 
 piness, and it embraces every 
 subject which has a tendency to 
 promote them.” P. 9. 
 
 “It belongs to the department 
 of the political economist to as- 
 certain the operation of politi- 
 cal institutions, and when they 
 are found defective, or prejudi- 
 cial, to point out the proper 
 remedy. His immediate object 
 should be to instruct govern- 
 ments how to legislate, and not 
 individuals how to get rich.” 
 
 P. 150. 
 
 The system of Adam Smith and his school is a theory 
 of exchange values , and these are the proper subject matter 
 of individual economy . 
 
 National wealth consists , not in exchangeable commod- 
 ities, but in productive powers ; and therefore a national 
 economy has little concern with values; it is concerned with 
 the study of the development of productive power . 
 
 List. 
 
 “That Smith’s school teaches 
 nothing else than the theory of 
 values, is seen not only from 
 
 Raymond. 
 
 “Another of the evil conse- 
 quences of not distinguishing 
 between public and private 
 
265 ] Daniel Raymond and Friederich List . 
 
 55 
 
 the fact that it bases its doctrine 
 everywhere on the conception 
 of ‘value in exchange,’ but also.,, 
 from the definition it gives of 
 its doctrine. It is (says J. B. 
 Say) that science which teaches 
 how riches, or exchangeable 
 values, are produced, distributed 
 and consumed. This is un- 
 doubtedly not the science which 
 teaches how the productive pow- 
 ers are awakened and developed, 
 and how they become depressed 
 and destroyed.” P. 138. 
 
 “Adam Smith’s system is 
 nothing more than a theory of 
 values; a mere shopkeeper’s or 
 individual merchant’s theory — 
 not a scientific doctrine showing 
 how the productive powers of 
 an entire nation can be called in- 
 to existence, increased, main- 
 tained and preserved, — for the 
 special benefit of its civilization, 
 welfare, might, continuance and 
 independence. 
 
 “This system regards every- 
 thing from the shopkeepers’ 
 point of view. The value of 
 anything is wealth, according to 
 it, so its sole object is to gain 
 values.” P. 350. 
 
 “In individual and cosmopol- 
 itical economy the object is to 
 gain matter in exchanging mat- 
 ter for matter, as in the trade 
 of a merchant.” Let. II. 
 
 “We must say to M. Jean Bap- 
 tiste Say at the outset that po- 
 litical economy is not, in our 
 opinion, that science which 
 teaches only how values in ex- 
 change are produced by indi- 
 viduals, distributed among them 
 and consumed by them; we say 
 
 wealth, is a constant liability to 
 mistake the proper subjects 
 which belong to the science. 
 Hence the tedious length to 
 which most writers have inves- 
 tigated the subject of value, and 
 the causes of its fluctuations, 
 supposing it to be the measure 
 of public as well as of private 
 wealth.” P. 181. 
 
 “It is very natural for mer- 
 chants, when they turn politi- 
 cians, to use their own terms 
 and tools of art, . . . , but it 
 
 is the business of a political phi- 
 losopher not to be misled by 
 these misapplications of terms, 
 nor to misapply them himself, 
 
 . . . and when treating of na- 
 
 tional wealth in gross, let him 
 not use terms applicable to only 
 a part of the nation, and wholly 
 irrelevant and unmeaning when 
 applied to the whole nation.” P. 
 296. 
 
 “ value has very little applica- 
 tion to public wealjth, . . . 
 
 Property is the only subject of 
 value, and as property alone, 
 constitutes individual wealth, 
 those writers who confound na- 
 tional and individual wealth have 
 attached very great importance 
 to the word value, and have dis- 
 played a great deal of ingenuity 
 and talents in investigating its 
 nature and cause, and in endeav- 
 oring to fix upon its true stand- 
 ard.” P. 56. 
 
 “If there be no distinction be- 
 tween national and individual 
 
 wealth, a treatise 
 
 on national wealth will be a trea- 
 tise on individual wealth, et e 
 converso. This is degrading the 
 
56 
 
 Daniel Raymond and Friederich List. [266 
 
 to him that a statesman will 
 know and must know, over and 
 above that, how the productive 
 power of a whole nation can be 
 awakened, increased and pro- 
 tected, and how on the other 
 hand they are weakened, laid to 
 sleep, or utterly destroyed; 
 • • • •” P.356. 
 
 “The prosperity of a nation is 
 not, as Say believes, greater in 
 the proportion in which it has 
 amassed more wealth (i. e., val- 
 ues of exchange), but in the 
 proportion in which it has more 
 developed its powers of produc- 
 tion.” P. 144. 
 
 dignity of the science of polit- 
 ical economy into a paltry sci- 
 ence of dollars and cents! Upon 
 this supposition, it becomes the 
 business of the political econo- 
 mist to teach individuals how to 
 get rich, instead of teaching leg- 
 islators how to legislate.” P. 
 
 156. 
 
 “the comparative wealth of 
 difTerent nations will always de- 
 pend upon the extent of this ca- 
 pacity. If one nation in pro- 
 portion to its population, pos- 
 sesses a greater capacity for ac- 
 quiring the necessaries and 
 comforts of life than another, it 
 possesses a greater share of na- 
 tional wealth.” P. 48. 
 
 “So, if one nation has made 
 greater improvements in the 
 arts of sciences and in agricul- 
 ture; if its lands are in a higher 
 state of cultivation, if its roads, 
 bridges, canals, mills, buildings 
 and improvements are in a 
 greater state of perfection than 
 those of another nation, it has 
 for all these reasons a greater 
 capacity for acquiring the neces- 
 sities and comforts of life, and 
 therefore possesses a greater 
 stock of national wealth.” P. 
 50 . 
 
 Raymond and List, alike, reject the economic system of 
 the school of Adam Smith, on the ground that it is individual 
 economy, not public, or political, economy; they both spe- 
 cifically deny the assumed harmony of interests between the 
 individual and society; they both insist on the recognition 
 of nations as organic unities ; they both make political econ- 
 omy the science which regards the interest of the nation, as 
 such, rather than the interest of the individual or the race; 
 
267 ] Daniel Raymond and Friederich List. 57 
 
 they both reject value, denying it any place in a true theory 
 of political economy ; they both make national wealth to con- 
 sist, not in commodities, as does private wealth, but in “ca- 
 pacity,” or “productive power;” they both accordingly re- 
 ject Smith’s classification of productive and unproductive 
 labor; they both reject his arguments for the international 
 division of labor and free trade; they both advocate, in op- 
 position to this, the harmonious development in each nation 
 of agricultural and manufacturing interests; and they both 
 repudiate laissez faire, and look to the government to con- 
 serve and develop national wealth. 
 
 This seems a rather unusual number of coincidences of 
 thought, yet in themselves they are not sufficient to war- 
 rant the conclusion that List took his ideas bodily from Ray- 
 mond. List himself says he was largely influenced in his 
 conclusions by his study of American conditions; 1 and it is, 
 of course, entirely possible that from a study of the same 
 phenomena they were both led to the same ideas. The coin- 
 cidences here noted are, however, sufficient to sustain the 
 contention that Raymond at least anticipated List in the es- 
 sential features of his system; and there are other circum- 
 stances which so strongly suggest the possibility that List 
 was an unacknowledged debtor to Raymond, that to harbor 
 the suspicion hardly exposes one to the charge of rash judg- 
 ment. 
 
 In his American letters List hints at the genesis of his 
 ideas, and in the preface to the first edition of his “National 
 System,” he goes into more detail of the history of his mental 
 development in the matter of political economy. In this 
 preface he states that as early as 1818 he “was not satisfied 
 with teaching young men that science (political economy) in 
 its present form;” 2 he had begun to entertain “doubts as to 
 the truths of the prevailing theory of political economy.” 3 
 Though at that time free trade seemed to him “accordant 
 
 lU The National System,” p. 29. 
 
 2 Ibid., p. 25. 
 
 3 Ibid. 
 
58 Daniel Raymond and Friederich List. [268 
 
 with common sense, and also to be proved by experience,” 
 as seen in France and Great Britain, yet he saw in “the won- 
 derfully favorable effects of Napoleon’s continental system, 
 and the destructive results of its abolition,” things that 
 seemed to him to be directly contrary to what he had pre- 
 viously observed. Then it was that the idea of “the nature 
 of nationality ” came to him and “he perceived the distinc- 
 tion between cosmopolitical and political economy.” In 1819 
 he was adviser of the German commercial league, and was 
 waging a newspaper war with “an innumerable army of 
 correspondents and leader writers, from Hamburg and Bre- 
 men, from Leipzig and Frankfort, and of this experience he 
 writes: “In the course of the daily controversy which I had 
 to conduct, I was led to perceive the distinction between the 
 theory of values and the theory of the powers of production” 
 Such is the genesis of List’s system, according to his own 
 testimony. 
 
 In List’s collected works, edited by Professor Hausser, 1 
 there are only five articles from his pen dated prior to his de- 
 parture for America, and these all belong to the years 1819- 
 20. In these there are no symptoms of that loss of faith in 
 the doctrines of Adam Smith, which List avers had taken 
 place as early as this date; much less is there any shadowing 
 forth of the principles and the system he so distinctly enun- 
 ciated soon after his arrival in the United States. Even his 
 “Outlines,” published in this country in 1827, hardly show 
 such an advanced stage of development as he claims to have 
 reached before he had left Germany; and so far as appears 
 from Professor Hausser’s collection, the “Outlines” are less 
 a development than a complete contradiction of all that List 
 had held and taught before. In view of this, one would 
 hardly expect to find in the articles List wrote for the press 
 during his newspaper controversy with the “innumerable 
 army of correspondents and leader writers” much trace of 
 
 ^‘Friederich List’s gesammelte Schriften, herausgegeben von 
 Ludwig Hausser.” Stuttgart and Tiibungen, 1850. 
 
269 ] Daniel Raymond and Friederich List. 59 
 
 what is so conspicuously absent in his more carefully pre- 
 pared writings of that time. But without consulting these 
 one would perhaps not be warranted in stating authorita- 
 tively that no trace of List’s new system can be found in his 
 writings before his arrival in the United States. These 
 writings are not available to me, and in the absence of them 
 I have to rest my conclusion on the authority of those who 
 have made a study of the development of List’s system, and 
 who have been in a position to consult all of his writings. 
 
 Their testimony does not bear out List’s statements as to 
 when he first separated from the school of Adam Smith. His 
 recollection in 1841 of his mental development of twenty 
 years earlier does not harmonize with Professor Leser’s no- 
 tion of that development as evidenced in List’s writings. In 
 1819 he was, according to Leser, 1 still dominated by the free 
 trade principle of Adam Smith, and the only exception to it 
 which he justified was by way of retaliation; and he regarded 
 i it as heresy to believe that internal industry could be awak- 
 ened by customs duties. In 1820 he is still insisting on the 
 stock argument that a protective tariff only operates to di- 
 vert industrial energy into lines for which a country was not 
 fitted by nature, and thus to retard the development of the 
 industries for which nature had particularly adapted the 
 country; free trade was still the true system through which 
 alone the highest degree of welfare was to be attained. He 
 showed himself still a true disciple of Adam Smith, and urged 
 
 1<( Die Aufgabe, die ihm gestellt war, erfiillte er in einem Geiste 
 der sich vollstandig von der freihandelerischen Theorie der Eng- 
 lander beherrscht zeigte. Nic'ht auf die Begriindung eines 
 Deutschen Grenzzollsystems, sondern auf die Beseitigung der be- 
 stehenden Binnenzolle ist der Nachdruck gelegt; ja, nur von dem 
 auch durch Adam Smith fiir berechtigt erklarten standpunkt der 
 Retorsion wird iiberhaupt ein Zollsystem vertheidigt. Dagegen 
 bezeichnet es L. als eine notorische Irrlehre, dass die inlandische 
 Industrie durch Zolle geweckt werden konne.” Allgemeine 
 Deutsche Biographie, p. 762. 
 
60 Daniel Raymond and Friederich List. [270 
 
 that the welfare of the nation was impeded and destroyed in 
 the same way as was that of individuals. 1 
 
 At the very time when List claims already to have “per- 
 ceived the distinction between cosmopolitical and political 
 economy,” and to have conceived his “theory of the pro- 
 ductive powers,” as opposed to the “theory of values,” Prof. 
 Leser stoutly maintains that he was still a loyal disciple of 
 the school of Adam Smith, and engaged in defending its 
 cosmopolitical principle of free trade. 
 
 Not only do List’s “collected writings” bear out Leser in 
 the contention that in 1820 List was still of the school of 
 Smith, but this claim is further sustained by the fact that 
 as late as 1822, when in exile in Strasburg, List proposed 
 translating J. B. Say into German, 2 — a piece of work we 
 should hardly look for in one so thoroughly out of sympathy 
 with that author as List represents himself to have been. 
 
 Leser first finds List in opposition to the school of Smith 
 in his “Outlines,” published two years after his arrival in 
 America; and he attributes this change of heart to the exi- 
 gencies of List’s new surroundings, and suggests that he 
 found the materials for his new system ready to hand in the 
 
 1 Von den Schutzzollen wird geurtheilt, dass sie zu ‘Productionen 
 zwingen, welche der Natur des Landes, zu dessen Vortheil der 
 Zwang Statt findet, nicht angemessen sind, und diejenigen be- 
 schranken, welche seine Natur entsprechen.’ Die Wirkungen des 
 Mercantilsystems werden als traurige bezeichnet; dagegen heisst 
 die Welthandelsfreiheit ein Ideal, “wodurch einzig nur die hochste 
 Stufe menschlichen Wohlstandes erreichbar scheint.’ Auch in an- 
 dern Punkten zeigt sich der Verfasser der Denkschrift als treuer 
 Schuler des Smith’schen Systems. Er legt auf die Bilanz zwischen 
 Production und Konsum grosses Gewicht; es legt die Vermehrung 
 der Ausfuhr mehr Bedeutung bei als der Verhinderung der Einfuhr 
 und erklart, dass der Wohlstand der Nationen auf demselben Wege 
 behindert und geschadigt werde wie derjenige der Einzelnen.” 
 Ibid., p. 763. 
 
 2 “Da wurden Plane gemacht zu grosseren literarischen Arbeiten; 
 Say’s Nationalokonomie sollte iibersetzt und erlautert herausge- 
 geben werden.” Hausser, gesammelte Schriften, p. 178. 
 
271] Daniel Raymond and Friederich List. 61 
 
 arguments then common in the United States. 1 It was in 
 the air, so to say, and List only caught and gave a local hab- 
 itation and a scientific name to what up to that time had 
 been floating about in a vague way in popular discussion. 
 
 The testimony of Eheberg — whose acquaintance with the 
 writings of List is thorough — is also to the effect that List is 
 found in opposition to the school of Adam Smith for the 
 first time after his arrival in America; 2 and that he found his 
 
 1 “L. blieb seiner Vergangenheit darin treu, dass er sich wieder- 
 um auf die Seite der strembsamsten und erwerbthatigsten Klassen 
 stellte. Freilich handelte es sich nun nicht darum, wie in Deutsch- 
 land Beschrankungen des inneren Verkehrs entgegenzutreten, son- 
 dern die industrielle Bevolkerung verlangte im Gegentheil Ab- 
 schliessung vom Ausland durch hohe Satze des Zolltarifs. Diese 
 Bestrebungen waren naturlich mit der Smith’schen Theorie, in 
 deren Geist seine friiheren Argumentationen im Wesentlichen ge- 
 halten waren, nicht zu vertheidigen. Allein ihm blieb stets die Wis- 
 senschaft den Practischen Interessen untergeordnet, und er besass 
 Belesenheit genug in neuern Staatswissenschaftlichen Schriften, um 
 auch mit dem Gedankenreis der Schutzzollner, wie sie namentlich 
 in Frankreich und in Amerika selbst aufgetreten waren, bekannt zu 
 sein. So vermochte er zur Unterstiitzung der Pennsylvanischen 
 Industriellen theoretische Erorterungen zu veroffentlichen, deren 
 hauptgegenstand die Bekampfung der beriihmtesten volkswirth- 
 schaftlichen Schriftstellers bildete.” Allg. Deut. Biog., p. 765. 
 
 “Aber auch diese Ausfiihrungen, die der nur mit Englischen Lit- 
 teratur Bekannte fur ganz originell halten mag, mochten den 
 Amerikanern nur als eine blosse systematische Formulirung von 
 Satzen und Anschauungen erschienen denen sie in den Verhand- 
 lungen ihrer politischen Korpersehaften und in den Ausspriichen 
 hervorragender Staatsmanner schon begegnet waren.” Ibid., p. 
 766. 
 
 2 Wahrend List vor seiner Reise nach America sich im allgemei- 
 nen als Anhanger der Englischen Nationalokonomie giebt, stellt 
 er sich in Amerika, ankniipfend an thatsachliche Verhaltnisse, 
 zum erstenmal der Adam Smith’schen Richtung entgegen, indem 
 er der Freihandelstheorie die berechtigung des Schutzzollers entge- 
 genhallt. Schon in den Amerikanischen Broschiiren finden sich 
 einige der seitdem oft gebrauchten Argumente zu gunsten der 
 Schutzzolle, findet sich ferner die Betoning der wirthschaftlichen 
 Bedeutung der nationen gegeniiber dem Individualismus und Kos- 
 mopolitismus von Adam Smith, finden sich die ersten Anfange sei- 
 
62 Daniel Raymond and Friederich List. [272 
 
 theory ready to hand in the current arguments of the Amer- 
 ican protectionists. 
 
 It would seem then that List’s system and Raymond’s are, 
 at bottom, practically identical; and that List conceived the 
 idea of his system while a resident of the United States, and 
 some years after Raymond’s work had been given to the 
 public. 
 
 Is there any reason to believe that List was acquainted 
 with Raymond’s work? This is at least possible, — if not 
 highly probable. In the absence of direct evidence on this 
 point, we are left to conjecture from circumstances; and it 
 
 is, in truth, harder to believe that List had no knowledge of 
 Raymond’s work than to believe that he was acquainted with 
 
 it. Raymond’s second edition had been given to the public 
 less than two years before List’s arrival in this country. It 
 had not, it is true, had a wide circulation, nor commended 
 itself to the popular reader; but it had received high praise, — 
 even extravagant praise, — in many quarters, and had very 
 much impressed some of the writers and thinkers of the day. 
 It was highly thought of by men in Philadelphia, and was 
 known to the press there. It had especially impressed Mat- 
 thew Carey, who was prominent in the very organization for 
 which List had prepared his “Outlines of American Political 
 Economy,” and who likely knew List. In his first letter in 
 his “Outlines,” List speaks as one who had been industriously 
 delving into the literature of protection, 1 and mentions 
 Niles’ Register as one of the sources from which he had been 
 
 ner Lehre von den Productivkraften. Auch die Beniitzung ge- 
 schichlicher Thatsachen als Beweismittel zeigt sich schon hier. 
 Die Besonderheit seiner Nationalokonomischen Auffassung er- 
 schient noch deutlicher in den in dem Jahren 1838 und 1840 ver- 
 offentlichen Artikeln; sie findet ihren beredlesten Ausdruk in dem 
 Nationalen System der politischem Okonomie. Eheberg. Hand- 
 worterbuch der Staatswissenschaften. (1892). P. 1056. 
 
 ia After having perused the different addresses of the Philadelphia 
 Society for the Promotion of National Industry the different 
 speeches delivered in Congress on that subject, Niles’ Register, &c., 
 &c., it would be but arrogance for me, &c.” Letter, July 10, 1827. 
 
273] Daniel Raymond and Friederich List. 63 
 
 seeking to acquaint himself with protectionist doctrines. 
 Had he gone back over a few numbers of the Register he 
 would have found the announcement of the adoption of Ray- 
 mond’s work as the standard text book in the University of 
 Virginia, for this item had appeared there just subsequent to 
 the arrival of List in this country. List knew of Cooper’s 
 work, published in South Carolina, in 1826; and it seems, to 
 say the least, “passing strange” that Raymond’s work 
 should so completely have escaped one who was attempt- 
 ing to acquaint himself with the literature of economics in 
 America, who was doing this at the very time of the circula- 
 tion of Raymond’s book, and that too in the midst of men 
 who not only knew, but admired the system enunciated in 
 that book. 
 
 The sum of the whole matter, then, is this : that Raymond 
 and List hit upon the same principles as the basis of their 
 system of political economy; that Raymond had given his 
 principles to the public some years before List had shown 
 evidence of his having conceived similar ideas ; and that List 
 only gave his system to the world after he had had such op- 
 portunities for becoming acquainted with Raymond’s work, 
 that it is difficult to believe that he did not actually have a 
 knowledge of it. 
 
THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS 
 
 OF BALTIMORE. 
 
 I. American Journal of Mathematics. T. Craig, Editor, with the co- 
 
 operation of S. Newcomb. Quarterly. 4to. Volume XIX in 
 progress. $5 per volume. 
 
 II. American Chemical Journal. I. Remsen, Editor. Ten nos. yearly. 
 
 8vo. Volume XIX in progress, $4 per volume. 
 
 III. American Journal of Philology. B. L. Gildersleeve, Editor. 
 Quarterly. 8vo. Volume XVIII in progress. $3 per volume. 
 
 IV. Studies from the Biological Laboratory. 8vo. Volume V com- 
 plete. 
 
 V. Studies in History and Politics. H. B. Adams, Editor. Monthly. 
 
 8vo. Vol. XV in progress; $3 per volume. Fourteen extra vol- 
 umes of this series are also ready. 
 
 VI. Johns Hopkins University Circulars. 4to. Monthly. Volume XVI 
 
 in progress. $1 per year. 
 
 VII. Johns Hopkins Hospital Bulletin. 4to. Monthly. Volume VIII 
 in progress. $1 per year. 
 
 VIII. Johns Hopkins Hospital Reports. 4to. Volume VI in progress. 
 $5 per volume. 
 
 IX. Contributions to Assyriology, etc. Volume III in progress. 
 
 X. Selected Morphological Monographs. W. K. Brooks, Editor. Vol- 
 
 ume III complete. 
 
 XI. Annual Report of the Johns Hopkins University. Presented by the 
 President to the Board of Trustees. 
 
 XII. Annual Register of the Johns Hopkins University. Giving the 
 list of officers and Students, and stating the regulations, etc. 
 
 A New Critical Edition of the Hebrew Text of the Old Tes- 
 tament. Edited by Prof. Paul Haupt. Prospectus on application. 
 
 Rowland's Photograph of the Normal Solar Spectrum. Ten 
 plates. $20. 
 
 Description of the Johns Hopkins Hospital. J. S. Billings, Edi- 
 tor. 116 pp., 56 plates. 4to. Cloth, $ 7 . 50 . 
 
 The Teaching of the Apostles ( complete facsimile edition ). J. 
 Rendel Harris, Editor. no pp. and 10 plates. 4to. Cloth, $5.00. 
 
 Reproduction in Phototype of a Syriac MS. with the Antile- 
 gomena Epistles. I. H. Hall. Editor. Cloth, $4.00. 
 
 The Constitution of Japan. 48 pp. i6mo. 50 cts. 
 
 The Oyster. By Wm K. Brooks. 240 pp., 12 plates. i2mo. Cloth, $1. 
 
 Essays and Studies. By B. L. Gildersleeve. 520 pp., 4to. Cloth, $3.50. 
 
 Studies in Logic. By members of the Johns Hopkins University. C. 
 S. Peirce, Editor. 123 pp., i2mo. Cloth, $ 2 . 00 . 
 
 Geological and Topographical Maps of Baltimore and Vicin- 
 ity. $1.00 each. 
 
 Essays in the Constitutional History of the United States. 
 J. Franklin Jameson, Editor. Cloth, $2.25. 
 
 The Genus Salpa. By W. K. Brooks. 396 pp., 4to. 57 plates. $7.50. 
 
 Geology and Physical Features of Maryland. By G. H. Wil- 
 liams and W. B. Clark. $1.00 
 
 Selections from the Early Scottish Poets. By Wm. Hand 
 Browne, 240 pp. 16 mo. $1.25. 
 
 A full list of publications will be sent on application. 
 
 Business communications should be addressed to The Johns Hopkins Press. 
 
Gugqenheimer, 
 
 nwm mi ■ ■■ ■ mm ■ ■■ ■ i 
 
 Weil & Co.^ 
 
 KftDWMMOBBKMaUftMMBIRIBiaMnniifliiiiii 
 
 Arc pleased to announce to the readers of this 
 volume their readiness to serve them in any 
 way, from the production of a visiting card to 
 a printed volume, of which this is a specimen. 
 
 Printing, Otbograpbic and Stationery 
 ... Supplies ... 
 
 FOR THE LIBRARY AND BUSINESS OFFICE. 
 
 BOOK PRINTING, 
 BOOK BINDING, 
 BLANK BOOKS, 
 
 Miscellaneous Binding. 
 
 CARD ENGRAVING: _ 
 
 Wedding, Reception, * 
 
 Visiting. 
 
 Retail Department, 
 
 109 E. Baltimore St. 
 
 Mechanical Department, 
 
 Liberty and Lombard Sts, 
 
Modern Language Notes 
 
 A MONTHLY PUBLICATION. 
 
 With intermission from July to October , inclusive, 
 
 DEVOTED TO THE INTERESTS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 ACADEMIC STUDY OF E N.G LIS H, GERMAN 
 
 AND THE 
 
 ROMANCE LANGUAGES. 
 
 A. Marshall Elliott, Managing Editor. 
 
 James W. Bright, H. C. G. von Jagemann, Henry Alfred Todd, 
 Associate Editors. 
 
 This is a successful and widely-known periodical, managed by a corps of professors and in- 
 structors in the Johns Hopkins University, with the co-operation of many of the leading college 
 professors, in the department of modern languages, throughout the country. While undertak- 
 ing to maintain a high critical and scientific standard, the new journal will endeavor to engage 
 the interest and meet the wants of the entire class of serious and progressive modern-lan- 
 guage teachers, of whatever grade. Since its establishment in January, 1886, the journal has 
 been repeatedly enlarged, and has met with constantly increasing encouragement and success. 
 The wide range of its articles, original, critical, literary and pedagogical, by a number of the 
 foremost American (and European) scholars, has well represented and recorded the recent pro- 
 gress of modern language studies, both at home and abroad. 
 
 The list of contributors to Modern Language Notes, in addition to the Editors, includes 
 the following names: 
 
 Anderson, Melville B., State University of Iowa; Bancroft, T. Whitinq, Brown Univer- 
 sity, R. I.; Baskerviele, W. M., Vanderbilt University, Tenn.; Bocher, Ferdinand, Harvard 
 University, Mass.; Bradley, C. B., University of California, Cal.; Brandt, H. C. G., Hamilton 
 College, N. Y.; Browne, Wm. Hand, Johns Hopkins University, Md.; Burnham, Wm. H., Johns 
 Hopkins University, Md.; Carpenter, Wm. H., Columbia College, N. Y.; Cledat, L., Faculty 
 des Lettres, Lyons, France; Cohn, Adolphe, Harvard University, Mass.; Cook, A. S., Yale Uni- 
 versity; Cosijn, P. J., University of Leyden, Holland; Crane, T. F., Cornell University, N. Y.; 
 Davidson, Thomas, Orange, N. J.; Egge, Albert E.; St. Olaf’s College, Minn.; Fay, E. A., Na- 
 tional Deaf-Mute College, Washington, D. C.; Fortier, Alcee, Tulane University, La.; Garner, 
 Samuel, U. S. Naval Academy; Gerber, A., Earlham College, Ind.; Grandgent, Charles, 
 Harvard University, Mass.; Gummere, F. B., The Swain Free School, Mass.; Hart, J. M., Uni- 
 versity of Cincinnati, Ohio; Hempl, Geo., University of Michigan; Huss, H. C. O., Princeton 
 College, N. J.; von Jagemann, H. C. G., Harvard University; Karsten, Gustaf, University of 
 Indiana, Ind.; Lang, Henry R., The Swain Free School, Mass.; Learned, M. D., Johns Hop- 
 kins University, Md.; Leyh, Edw. F., Baltimore, Md.; Lodeman, A., Kate Normal School, 
 Mich.; Morfill,W. R., Oxford, England; McCabe, T., Johns Hopkins University, Md.; McElroy, 
 John G. R., University of Pennsylvania, Pa.; O’Connor, B. F., Columbia College, N.Y.; Primer, 
 Sylvester, Providence, R. I.; Schele De Yere, M., University of Virginia, Va.; Schilling, 
 Hugo, Wittenberg College, Ohio; Sheldon, Edw. S.. Harvard University. Mass.; Shepherd, H. 
 E., College of Charleston, S. C.; Schmidt, H., University of Deseret, Salt Lake City. Utah; 
 Sievers. Eduard, University of Tubingen, Germany; smythe, A. H., High School of Phila- 
 delphia. Pa.; Stoddard, Francis H., University of City of New York; Sturzingeb, J. J., Bryn 
 Mawr College, Pa.; Thomas, Calvin, University of Michigan, Mich.; Walter, E. L., University 
 of Michigan. Mich,; Warren, F. M., Johns Hopkins University, Md.; White, H. S., Cornell 
 University, N. Y. 
 
 Subscription Price $1.50 per Annum, Payable in Advance. 
 Foreign Countries $1.75 per Annum. 
 
 Single Copies Twenty Cents. Specimen Pages sent on Application. 
 
 Subscriptions, advertisements and all business communications should be addressed to the 
 MANAGING EDITOR OF MODERN LANGUAGE NOTES, 
 
 Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. 
 
The American Journal of Archeology 
 
 AND OF THE 
 
 HISTORY OF THE FINE ARTS. 
 
 The American Journal of Archaeology is the organ of the Archaeological Insti- 
 tute of America. It contains original articles by archaeologists of established reputa- 
 tion both in Europe and in America, also the Papers of the American School of Classical 
 Studies at Athens, Correspondence, Book Reviews, and News of excavations and dis- 
 coveries in all countries. 
 
 CONTENTS OF VOL. XI., No. i, JAN.-MARCH, 1896. 
 
 R. Norton. — Andokides, the Greek Vase-painter. 
 
 R. B. Richardson. — Inscriptions from the Argive Heraeum. 
 Archaeological News from Africa and Asia. 
 
 CONTENTS OF VOL. XI.', No. 2, APRIL-JUNE, 1896. 
 
 Paul Wolters. — Pinax aus Athen. 
 
 Paul Wolters.— HATII0TI2. 
 
 Henry W. Haynes. — Grotesque Figurine. 
 
 Papers of the American School of Classical Studies at 
 
 Athens. 
 
 I. The Gymnasium at Eretria, by R. B. Richardson. 
 
 II. Sculptures from the Gymnasium at Eretria, by R. B. Richardson. 
 
 III. Inscriptions from the Gymnasium at Eretria, by R. B. Richard- 
 son and T. W. Heermance. 
 
 Notes from Corinth and Italy. 
 
 Archaeological News from Greece and Italy. 
 
 CONTENTS OF VOL. XI., No. 3, JULY-SEPT., 1896. 
 
 Papers of the American School of Classical Studies at 
 
 Athens. 
 
 I. Excavation of the Theatre at Eretria, by T. W. Heermance. 
 
 II. Fragment of a dated Panathenaic Amphora, by T. W. Heer- 
 mance. 
 
 Dimensions of the Athena Parthenos, by A. L. Perry and Alfred 
 Emerson. 
 
 Bronze-Reliefs from the Acropolis of Athens, by Paul Wolters. 
 Necrology. Johannes Overbeck, by Walter Miller. 
 
 Notes from Corinth. 
 
 Archaeological News from Africa, Asia, Europe. 
 
 Published Quarterly. Annual Subscription, $5.00. 
 
 Address, 
 
 A. Lv. FROTHINGHAMJr. 
 
 PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY. 
 
RECENT PUBLICATIONS OF THE 
 
 American Economic Association. 
 
 Race Traits and Tendencies of the American Negro. 
 
 By Frederick L. Hoffman, F. S. S. 
 
 Statistician to the Prudential Insurance Company of America. 
 
 329 pages. Price, paper, $1.25; cloth, $2.00. 
 
 “The eleventh volume of the publications of the American Economic 
 Association begins with the admirable study of the course of develop- 
 ment of the negro race in the United States of America. It is the out- 
 come of ten years of patient collection of facts, and the facts are allowed 
 to speak for themselves, though the writer comments freely upon them 
 as the record proceeds. * * * The volume should prove a mine of 
 useful information to students having other interests than the progress of 
 the negro race, though it is to this race that it is particularly devoted. 
 * * * The problems discussed in this volume and the material 
 gathered to aid in their discussion are of intense interest and of undoubted 
 value to the student of social life in its various modern manifestations.” 
 — Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. 
 
 ECONOMIC STUDIES. 
 
 VOLUME I. 
 
 No. 3. THE POPULIST MOVEMENT. By F. L. McVey, Ph. D. 
 Price 50 cents. 
 
 No. 4. THE PRESENT MONETARY SITUATION: an address by 
 Professor W. Lexis, University of Gottingen; translated by John 
 Cummings, Ph.D. Price 50 cents. 
 
 Nos. 5-6. THE STREET RAILWAY PROBLEM IN CLEVELAND. 
 
 By William Rowland Hopkins. Price 50 cents. 
 
 VOLUME II. 
 
 No. 1. ECONOMICS AND JURISPRUDENCE. Address of Henry 
 C. Adams, Ph.D., President, before the Ninth Annual Meeting of 
 the American Economic Association. Price 50 cents. 
 
 HAND-BOOK AND REPORT OF THE NINTH ANNUAL MEET- 
 ING. Price 50 cents. 
 
 Price of the several volumes of monographs, unbound, $4.00 each. 
 Bound in cloth, $5.00 each for single volumes, $4.00 for each additional 
 volume. The set of ten volumes, $41.00, sent prepaid. Any bound volume 
 will be sent post-paid to members for 75 cents in exchange for the un- 
 bound numbers, if returned prepaid in good condition. Copies can also 
 be furnished in half morocco, at 50 cents per volume additional to the 
 price in cloth. 
 
 Separate subscriptions by non-members, libraries, etc., for the Studies, 
 $2.50 per year; or $4.00 for all the publications. Any single monograph 
 may be obtained at the price given in the list. 
 
 One-sixth Discount to members on all Orders. 
 
 Address applications for mem- 
 bership and inquiries to 
 
 The Secretary of the Ameri- 
 can Economic Association. 
 
 Cornell University, 
 
 Ithaca, N. Y. 
 
 Address Subscriptions and or- 
 ders for Studies and Mono- 
 graphs, to the publishers, 
 
 THE MACMILLAN CO., 
 
 66 Fifth Avenue. 
 
 New York. 
 
STUDIES ID HISTORY, ECONOMICS UNO PUBLIC LAW, 
 
 EDITED BY 
 
 THE FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE OF 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. 
 
 VOLUME I. 396 pp. 
 
 1. The Divorce Problem: a Study in Statistics. 
 
 By Walter F. Willcox, Ph. D. Price, 50c. 
 
 2. The History of Tariff Administration in the United States, from 
 
 Colonial Times to the McKinley Administrative Bill. 
 
 By John Dean Goss, Ph. D. Price, 50c. 
 
 3. History of Municipal Land Ownership on Manhattan Island. 
 
 By George Ashton Black, Ph. D. Price, 50c. 
 
 4. Financial History of Massachusetts. 
 
 By Charles H. J. Douglas, Ph. D. Price, $1.00. 
 
 VOLUME II. 503 pp. 
 
 1. The Economics of the Russian Village. 
 
 By Isaac A. Hourwich, Ph. D. Price, $1.00. 
 
 2. Bankruptcy : A Study in Comparative Legislation. 
 
 By Samuel W. Dunscomb, Jr., Ph. D. Price, 75c. 
 
 3. Special Assessments : A Study in Municipal Finance. 
 
 By Victor Rosewater, Ph. D. Price, 75c. 
 
 VOLUME III. 465 pp. 
 
 1. History of Elections in the American Colonies. 
 
 By Cortlandt F. Bishop, Ph. D. Price, $1.50. 
 Yol. III. No. 1 , may also be obtained bound. Price, $ 2 . 00 . 
 
 2. The Commercial Policy of England toward the American Colonies. 
 
 By George L. Beer, A. M. Price, $1.00. 
 
 VOLUME IV. 438 pp. 
 
 1. Financial History of Virginia. By W. Z. Ripley, Ph. D. 
 
 2. The Inheritance Tax. By Max West, Ph. D. 
 
 3. History of Taxation in Vermont. 
 
 By Frederick A. Wood, Ph. D. 
 
 VOLUME V. 498 pp. 
 
 1. Double Taxation in the United States. 
 
 By Francis Walker, Ph. D. Price, 75c. 
 
 2. The Separation of Governmental Powers. 
 
 By William Bondy, LL. B., Ph. D. Price, $1.00. 
 
 3. Municipal Government in Michigan and Ohio. 
 
 By Delos F. Wilcox, Ph. D. Price, $1.00. 
 
 VOLUME VI. 601 pp. 
 
 History of Proprietary Government in Pennsylvania. 
 
 By William Robert Shepherd, Ph. D. Price, $4.00; bound, $4.50. 
 
 VOLUME VII. 512 pp. 
 
 1. History of the Transition from Provincial Government in Massachu- 
 
 setts. By Harry A. Cushing, Ph. D. Price, $2.00; bound, $2.50. 
 
 2. Speculation on the Stock and Produce Exchanges of the United 
 
 States. By Henry Crosby Emery, Ph. D. Price, $1.50 ; bound, $2. 
 
 Price of each volume (except Volume VI.), $3.00; bound, $3.50. 
 
 For further information, apply to 
 
 Prof. EDWIN R A. SELICMAN, Columbia College, 
 
 orto THE MACMILLAN COMPANY, New York. 
 
 Price, 75c. 
 Price, 75c. 
 
 Price, 75c. 
 
NOTES SUPPLEMENTARY TO THE STUDIES 
 
 MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT IN ENGLAND. By Dr. Albert Shaw. 
 
 SOCIAL WORK IN AUSTRALIA AND LONDON. By WILLIAM GREY. 
 ENCOURAGEMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION. By Professor HERBERT B. Adams. 
 THE PROBLEM OF CITY GOVERNMENT. By Hon. SETH LOW. 
 
 THE LIBRARIES OF BALTIMORE. By Dr. P. K. UHLKR. 
 
 WORK AMONG THE WORKINGWOMEN IN BALTIMORE. By Professor H. B. 
 Adams. 
 
 CHARITIES: THE RELATION OF THE STATE, THE CITY, AND THE INDI- 
 VIDUAL TO MODERN PHILANTHROPIC WORK. By Dr. A. G. WARNER. 
 law AND HISTORY. By Dr. Walter B. Scaife. 
 
 THE NEEDS OF SELF-SUPPORTING WOMEN. By Miss CLARE DE GRAFFENREID. 
 THE ENOCH PRATT FREE LIBRARY. By Dr. LEWIS H. STEINER. 
 
 EARLY PRESBYTERIANISM IN MARYLAND. By Rev. J. W. Mcilvain. 
 
 THE EDUCATIONAL ASPECT OF THE U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM. By Professor 
 0. T. Mason. 
 
 UNIVERSITY EXTENSION AND THE UNIVERSITY OF THE FUTURE. By RICH- 
 ARD G. Moulton. 
 
 the PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION. By Dr. William T. Harris. 
 
 POPULAR ELECTION OF U. S. SENATORS. By JOHN HAYNES. 
 
 A MEMORIAL OF LUCIUS S. MERRIAM. By J. H. Hollander and others. 
 
 IS HISTORY PAST POLITICS? By Professor Herbert B. Adams. 
 
 ANNUAL SERIES, 1883-1895. 
 
 SERIES I.— LOCAL INSTITUTIONS. 479 pp. $4 .00. 
 
 SERIES II.— INSTITUTIONS AND ECONOMICS, 629 pp. $4.00. 
 
 SERIES III MARYLAND, VIRGINIA AND WASHINGTON. 595 pp. $4.00. 
 
 SERIES IV.— MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT AND LAND TENURE. 600 pp. $3.50. 
 SERIES V.— MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT, HISTORY AND POLITICS. 559 pp. 
 $3-50. 
 
 SERIES VI.— THE HISTORY OF CO-OPERATION IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 540 pp. $3.50. 
 
 SERIES VII.— SOCIAL SCIENCE, MUNICIPAL AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 
 628 pp. $3.50. 
 
 SERIES VIII.— HISTORY, POLITICS, AND EDUCATION. 625 pp. $3.50. 
 
 SERIES IX.— EDUCATION, POLITICS, AND SOCIAL SCIENCE. 640pp. $3-50. 
 SERIES X.— CHURCH AND STATE, COLUMBUS AND AMERICA. 630 pp. $3.50. 
 SERIES XI,— LABOR, SLAVERY, AND SELF-GOVERNMENT. 574pp. $3.50. 
 SERIES XII. — INSTITUTIONAL AND ECONOMIC HISTORY". 626 pp. $3.50. 
 SERIES XIII.— SOUTH CAROLINA, MARYLAND, AND VIRGINIA. 606 pp. $3.50. 
 SERIES XIV.— BALTIMORE, SLAVERY AND CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY. 
 588 pp. $3.50. 
 
 The set of fourteen series is now offered, uniformly bound in cloth, for library use, for $42.00. 
 The fourteen series, with fourteen extra volumes, twenty-eight volumes in cloth, for $60.00. 
 
 AIK business communications should be addressed to The Johns Hopkins 
 Press, Baltimore, Maryland. Subscriptions will also be received, or single 
 
 copies furnished by any of the followin; 
 
 American 
 
 New York.— G. P. Putnam’s Sons. 
 
 Boston.— Damrell & Upham ; W. B. Clarke 
 & Co . 
 
 Providence.— Preston & Rounds. 
 Philadelphia.— Henry T. Coates & Co. 
 
 * European 
 
 Paris.— A. Hermann; Em. Terquem. 
 Berlin.— Puttkammer & Muhlbrecht; 
 
 Mayer & Muller. 
 
 Leipzig.— E. A. Byockhaus. 
 
 Agents : 
 
 Washington.— W. H. Lowdermilk & Co.; 
 Brentano’s. 
 
 Chicago.— A. C. McClurg & Co. 
 Cincinnati.— Robert Clarke & Co. 
 Indianapolis.— Bowen- Merrill Co. 
 
 Agents : 
 
 London.— Kegan Paul, Trench, Triibner & 
 Co.; G. P. Putnam’s Sons. 
 
 Turin, Florence, and Rome.— E. Loescher, 
 
Extra Volumes of Studies 
 
 HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCE. 
 
 The Republic Of New Haven. By Charles H. Levermore, 
 Ph. D. 342 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $2.00. 
 
 Philadelphia, 1681-1887. By Edward P. Allison, A. M., and 
 
 Boies Penrose, A. B. 444 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $3.00. 
 
 Baltimore and the Nineteenth of April, 1861. By George 
 William Brown, Chief Judge of the Supreme Bench of Baltimore, 
 and Mayor of the City in 1861. 176 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $1.00. 
 
 I/Ocal Constitutional History of the United States. By 
 
 George E. Howard, Ph. D. Volume 1. — Development of the 
 Township, Hundred and Shire. 542 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $3.00. 
 Volume II. — In preparation. 
 
 The Negro in Maryland. By Jeffrey R. Brackett, Ph. D, 
 270 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $2.00. 
 
 The Supreme Court of the United States. By w. w. 
 
 Willoughby, Ph. D. 124 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $1.25. 
 
 The Intercourse between the U. S. and Japan. By inazo 
 (Ota) Nitobe, Ph. D. 198 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $1.25. 
 
 State and Federal Government in Switzerland. By John 
 Martin Vincent, Ph. D. 225 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $1.50. 
 Spanish Institutions of the Southwest. By Frank w. 
 
 Blackmar, Ph. D. 380 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $2.00. 
 
 An Introduction to the Study of the Constitution. By 
 Morris M. Cohn. 250 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $1.50. 
 
 The Old English Manor. By C. M. Andrews, Ph. D. 280 
 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $1.50. 
 
 America: Its Geographical History, 1492-1892. By 
 
 Walter B. Scaife, Ph. D. 176 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $1.50. 
 
 Florentine Fife during the Renaissance. By Walter b. 
 
 Scaife, Ph. D. 256 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $1.50. 
 
 The Southern Quakers and Slavery. By Stephen b. Weeks, 
 8vo. Cloth. $2.00. 
 
 The French Revolution as seen by the Americans of 
 the Eighteenth Century. By c. D. Hazen. in press. 
 
 The extra volumes are sold at reduced rates to regular subscribers 
 to the “Studies.”