ness; for he can neither control the conduct nor expenditure of his beneficiaries. He is too good, and too proud, to spend his income in pomp and luxury. Too good thus to waste the proceeds of labor, (as all public or private luxury does,) and thus increase the burdens of the working class. Too proud to derive reflected importance and standing from extraneous glitter and costly show and equipage. He has (no doubt, in vain,) attempted to ameliorate the condition of a great many slaves, by purchasing them and emancipating them. Could he retain them as slaves, he might see that his charity was not misapplied, by educating them and controlling their conduct. To us, it occurs that a large capital can only be safely invested in slaves and lands, if the owner wishes to be sure that it shall not be used as an engine of oppression, or as a persuasive to idleness and dissipation.

We should do injustice to Mr. Smith were we not to add, that he is quite as busy in abducting negroes as in buying them. The underground railroad is one of his favorite pets and beneficiaries. His restless energy is not satisfied with the slow proceedings of this road, and hence he buys negroes, as well as aids the abducting of them. He has been severely censured for buying them, by those whom he supplies with the means to steal them, or whom he rescues from the fangs of the

law, when caught in abortive efforts to abduct them.

He had the education and has the feelings and bearing of the Southerner. His father owned slaves, and a territory full of Indians, and he was reared. as playmate and prince in their midst; hence, he has the proud humility of the Southerner, not the exacting and supercilious arrogance of the Northerner. He does not demand deference and respect, because it has, from boyhood, been yielded to him, as his due, by admitted inferiors.

The value of his testimony, establishing, if true, the utter and entire failure of free society, cannot be over estimated. He is learned, candid, honest, well-informed, and has always lived in free society. Its subversion, which he proposes, and actively attempts, would strip him of millions of wealth. He is the leading champion of slave abolition, and, by admitting the failure of free society, blunts and neutralizes all his arguments against slavery. In every way, then, pride of opinion, seeming consistency, and pecuniary interest, tempt him to extol, not to condemn free society. It is true, he thinks slavery also a failure, and a greater failure; but he knows little practically about slave society, and cannot admit for us, although he may for himself and his section.-En passant, we would say to him, that air and water are the subjects of more exclusive appropriation in free society than land. He is

a lawyer, and knows that the ownership of the soil carries with it the ownership of every thing, ad inferos, et usque ad cœlum. In fact, in cities where the poor most do congregate, their food and raiment differ not half so much from that of the rich, as their enjoyment of pure air and water. Men must get a place to breathe and drink from; and all places are appropriated.

Yes, Mr. Smith, you are vainly trying to grasp The Right! The Right is connected with, affected by, and affects all the Past, all the Present, and all the Future. God knows the Right-man only the Expedient.

Our next witness is Horace Greely, Editor of the Tribune, and Napoleon of the Press. His first distinction was won by his espousing and elaborately propagating the Social Philosophy of Charles Casimir Fourier. This he did, some twenty years since, in a long controversy with the Courier & Enquirer the latter paper sustaining the conservative side. The correspondence was afterwards published in book form, and we regret that we have not been able to possess ourselves of a copy. whole edition, we learn, was burnt at the Harpers. Consigned by Providence, not by a human Censor, to the flames. Should we misrepresent our witness, it will be because we have tried in vain to get this book. We think he was the first, in America, to assert, and maintain by arguments and proofs, the

The

inadequacy and injustice of the whole social and governmental organization at the North. He, not ourselves, is the American author of the theory of the Failure of Free Society. His remedies, though not as radical and scientific as those of Proudhon and Mr. Andrews, did very well for a beginning. He, we think, proposed at once to coop mankind up in Phalansteries, where, in a few generations, all the distinctions of separate property, and of separate wives and children, would be obliterated and lost, and society would gradually and gently be fused and crystalized into a system of pure and perfect Communism. The Tribune has to minister to a variety of tastes, all agreeing in their destructive tendencies, but differing widely as to the manner in which they shall attain their conclusions; hence, it is hard to deduce any well defined system of philosophy from its columns. Mr. Andrews intimates, that our witness is no philosopher at all. Be it so. Yet all must admit that no man of the age has the organ or faculty of Destructiveness so fully developed. The Tribune has been, from the time of the controversy of which we have spoken, to the present day, the great Organ of Socialism, of Free Love, and of all the other isms which propose to overthrow and rebuild society and government, or to dispense with them altogether. Steadily pursuing this destructive course, the Tribune has for years become the most popular paper in the North,

and, 'tis said, has more readers in Europe and America than any paper in the world; and yet its only peculiar thought, its whole intellectual, moral, social and political stock in trade, consists of the one idea, variously expressed, illustrated and enforced, "The Failure of Free Society;" or, as Carlyle phrases it, "We must have a new world, if we are to have any world at all."

66

What a striking illustration of our theory, that a mere verbal formula often distinguishes a truism from a paradox." We assert a theory bluntly and plainly, and attempt to prove it by facts and arguments, and the world is ready to exclaim, "Oh, what shocking heresy." Mr. Greely, for twenty years, maintains the same theory, in different language, and elicits the admiration and gratitude of the world. Oh, Le Pauvre Peuple! how long will it permit its flatterers to deceive and betray it? Mr. Greely and ourselves agree in our destructive philosophy, but are wide asunder as the poles in what is constructive. Each proposes to protect the weak. He promises "protection without control or abridgment of liberty." We tell those who ask for or require protection and support, that "they must submit to be controlled, for that the price of security has ever been, and ever will be, the loss of liberty."

The popularity of the Tribune shews that the world is prepared to upset existing social systems.