mineral and agricultural wealth, are spread out before them; but, like a scanty garrison in a capacious castle, the numbers are too few, as yet, to man the whole effectively. They are, therefore, distributed at the most favorable points, the most distant and least settled of which, has equal claims and equal relations to the inheritance transmitted from our sires, as the oldest settlements on the borders of the Atlantic. The general policy of the democracy is to favor the settlement of the land, spread the bounds of the future empire, and to favor, by freedom of intercourse and external commerce, the welfare of the settlers, who are, for the most part, men of simple habits and strong hands, looking to mother-earth for their only capital, and to their own labor as the sole means of making it productive. These people, as firstcomers, have a perfect right to a first choice of the lands, and their claim on the common government is to throw the protection of the laws over them, and to see that they are not molested in their peaceful pursuits, their energies cramped, their industry restrained, nor the value of their labor diminished by any special privileges, in the shape of monopolies to associated-capital, either in absorbing produce in exchange for their credits, or in supplying necessary goods to the consumers. To effect this object has been the policy of the democratic party, in opposition to a contrary policy of the whig party. The latter have sought to prevent the occupation of territory; to cast without the pale of the Union him whose exigencies or enterprise carried him beyond an imaginary line as a boundary. They have sought to give the moniedclass, through the credit-system, and the manufacturing-class, through the protective-system, an undue proportion of the proceeds of the common industry; to confine the swelling population in a limited territory, and to force the industry of the whole into such channels as will throw the greatest profits into the hands of a few. The important acts of the present session of Congress, are peculiarly calculated to crush this latter policy, and give effect and permanency to the democratic view, which is that of the natural tendency of affairs on this continent. The progress of events added the great state of Texas to the Union; and the open

ing of the present session found her represented in Congress. A few months more perfected our connection with Oregon, over an extent of country 90,000 miles greater than Britain would ever before yield. That is to say, in June, 1846, the English Government accepted the same quantity of land on this continent, as a compromise, which in former negotiations she had declared utterly inadmissible, and the offer of which, on the part of the United States, in August, 1845, her minister declared inconsistent "with fairness and equity." The unhappily distracted state of Mexico, and the want of capacity for the conduct of affairs evinced on the part of those who alternately get possession of the government, as well as the want of principle, which induces one government to disregard the national acts of its predecessors, have been productive of a war, which, in itself, must hasten the occupation of the whole continent by the people of the United States. While vast tracts of new and fertile land are thus being continually added to the jurisdiction of the Union, a change in the land-policy of the government has been imperatively called for. The practicability of retaining the title and control of such extensive domains in the general government, and at the same time admitting the territories embracing them into the federal union, as co-equal with the original states, was seriously doubted by many of our wisest statesmen. All feared that they would be a source of discord; and not a few thought they saw, in that discord, the germ of a future dissolution of the Union. The notions at one time entertained, that the admission of new states into the Union operated as a surrender of the right of soil on the part of the United States, have been abandoned. All now agree, whether in the new or old states, that the lands are the common property of all the states, to be disposed of for their common benefit. The recognition of this principle by the new states, naturally induced a general disposition to sell the lands on the most liberal terms to actual settlers. The leading object has been the early settlement and cultivation of the land sold, and to effect this, price has been less an object than the manner of the sale. The lands have been uniformly held at $1 25 per acre, and preemption rights

-

have been granted to pioneer settlers. Under this system the choicest lands are culled out and settled, and the population swarms westward, spreading over the surface of the ground, and turning the best lots into gardens ;vast tracts of land become encircled and erected into states; the best lands purchased by the hardy immigrants from Europe and the older states, are prompt ly brought into cultivation. There remain great quantities of land which are not worth $1 25 per acre-that is, they will not bring that price as long as better land can be obtained for the same money farther on. This land, therefore, remains unproductive in the possession of the federal government, within the limits of a state the settled portions of which only are taxed for its support. The graduation bill which has passed the House, and which will be found at the close of this number, provides that those lands shall be graduated in prices to a level proportioned to their value, in order that all the lands in all the states may become available and taxable for state purposes. Clayism pursued a counter-policy. It contended for the sale of the lands in large quantities to speculators, regardless of the preemption-rights of actual settlers; that large tracts of land might accumulate in a few hands, retarding the growth of new states, or entailing upon them a dependent tenantry, with its incalculable evils. The vast tracts that passed into the hands of land-companies a few years since in exchange for bankcredits, and which are yet unsettled, are instances. The graduation of the price of the lands was opposed, because it was alleged it would draw off the population of the older states, and diminish the revenue; or, in other words, because it would aid the poor laborer of the Atlantic cities, dependent upon corporate-factories, in becoming a free landholder, independent on his own piece of land. It would diminish the number of factory-slaves, and, as a consequence, the profits of the owners. Next in importance to the great measure of extending the jurisdiction of the Union, and providing for the occupation and settlement of the land by the people, is the modification of the customs'-taxes upon the goods consumed by those people; the removal of those baneful restrictions which destroy their markets, paralyze their industry,

and retard the growth of the country. The avowed object of the protec tionists is to "build up a home-market," which, if the phrase has any meaning, is to prevent the citizen from becoming the free occupant of his own soil; to degrade him from the rank of a landed-proprietor, in the independent exercise of his own rights, and chain him to the steam-engine and the loom; to labor on at the bidding of an overseer for the weekly pittance doled out by lordly proprietors, who put up or put down the price they pay, according to the state of the labor-market, as the usurer regulates the rate of interest, by the condition of the money-market. They would have the American citizen, instead of being the employer of factories and the patron of their goods, the slave of their bidding and a mendicant on their favors. They would bind him hand and foot, drag him into their shops, and rifle him at their pleasure, in exchange for such wares as they may choose to force upon him. This system was long practised by the oligarchy of England, until the progress of public opinion enabled the Premier to destroy it for ever. Sir Robert Peel, after achieving that great work, the repeal of the corn-laws, retired from office, June 30, closing a brilliant speech with the following beautiful peroration :

"I shall leave a name execrated by every monopolist, who, from less honorable motives, maintains protection for his own individual benefit; but it may be that I shall leave a name sometimes remembered with expressions of good-will in those places which are the abodes of men whose lot it is te labor, and to earn their daily bread by the sweat of their of good-will, when they shall recreate their brow-a name remembered with expressions exhausted strength with abundant and untaxed food, the sweeter because it is no longer leavened with a sense of injustice."

A similar triumph has now been effected here. The laborious cultivators of the soil have the road to market opened before them; the manufactures of the world spread out at their command, that in making their purchases they may avail themselves of the skill of all nations, the advantages of all climates and national resources, including the habits of different people. The purchases they make with the proceeds of their toil, will be the better enjoyed, when they are "no longer leavened by a sense of injustice." This object will be effected

THE authors of this joint production have acquired no little reputation, by writings which display a richness of words and images, rather than of solid and substantial thought. In the work now before us, they have discussed a subject which demands the nicest discrimination and the most profound analysis. If we may judge from this specimen, we may safely predict, that neither law, nor theology, nor philosophy, is the province in which they are destined to shine. They are evidently better writers than thinkers; and if they would preserve the laurels they have won, it would be well for them, perhaps, not to venture too far into the deep things of philosophy. We say this from no unfriendly feeling to the cause they have undertaken to advocate; for we are believers in both the right and the duty of society to inflict capital punishment in cases of murder. But we most strenuously object to the tone and spirit in which they have advocated this cause, as well as to some of the grounds on which they have placed it; we feel that they have, in some respects, rendered an essential dis-service to the cause they have so zealously espoused.

The subject of penal jurisprudence, in all its branches, is so intimately interwoven with the great moral interests of society, that it is well worthy of the most profound attention of the statesman and philosopher. But of all the questions it presents for our consideration, that of capital punishment is by far the most important. This is a question, then, which demands the most searching analysis of principles, the most cautious and unwearied circumspection, that nothing may be overlooked and nothing misapplied; in short, it demands the most reverential consideration, the entire devotion of all our powers. It is to be approached in no light or frivolous mood, in no angry or

denunciatory spirit. It should be treated in a spirit of the utmost calmness and moderation. Most deeply do we regret the aspect which the whole controversy, in relation to capital punishment, has been made to assume. Harsh epithets, and dark insinuations, by which motives have been impugned and characters called in question, are the weapons which have been too freely used. The advocates, on the one side, have spoken, and declaimed and denounced, as if they felt themselves specially called to plead the cause of divine mercy against a barbarous and bloody generation; while those on the other, have assumed the threatening port and mien of prosecuting attorneys of divine vengeance.

In the latter class, and high in the class, we must place our authors. The tone and spirit of their book is decidedly bad. It is unworthy of the subject and of the men. Indeed, the book which shall take up this great theme, and discuss it as it deserves to be dis-* cussed, is yet to be written. We shall not stop here, however, to justify this judgment of the work of our authors; its justice will sufficiently appear as we proceed with the argument. In the prosecution of this argument, we do not intend to notice the various points they have raised; on the contrary, we shall confine our attention, exclusively, to one great radical error into which they have fallen, or rather into which they have violently rushed, and which they have most intemperately defended."

The error to which we allude is this: That human government should punish "a man simply because he deserves to be punished."—p. 183. The idea that human justice is retributive, everywhere pervades the Essay of Dr. Lewis, as well as the more elaborate Defence of Dr. Cheever. Now, this is the position which we deny; and we