Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

given in Latin and English, as well as those of the species; a selection of synonymes follows them, next a complete English description is given of all the species which the author has seen, and they are by far the greatest number. Many valuable observations are added, including their native situations and soils; times of blossoming; vulgar names; medical and economical properties, &c. Among these properties several are entitled to notice, some are new, and many have been communicated by Dr. Macbride, &c. We deem worthy of attention those belonging to the following spe

cies.

Salvia lyrata,
Tris versicolor,
Spigelia marilandica,

Convolvulus macrorhizon,
Lobelia inflata,

Gonolobus macrophyllus,
Chenopodium anthelminthicum,
Acorus calamus, &c.

The classification of this work is also Linnæan, without scarcely any variation. We regret exceedingly this general infatuation for the absurd sexual system, which is as yet prevalent in our country; however, it may be considered as an imperfect alphabet, competent for those who are acquainted with its principles and anomalies. No reference to natural affinities is made in this work; but as it is rather a species than a genera plantarum, the deficiency is less remarkable in this instance.

While a servile adherence is shown to the erroneous Linnæan systematical classification, notwithstanding its defects were well known to its author, and probably to Mr. Elliott himself, and ought to claim the serious consideration of all botanical writers, many of whom have been led thereby 10 reject it altogether, and supersede it by the real natural principles of classification and botanical affinities;-while we must blame such a blind compliance with errors long ago detected, our astonishment increases when we observe, that a deviation from the wise and correct Linnæan rules of nomenclature, is in some instances adopted. Certainly, if our writers will follow the steps of Linnæus, whether right or wrong, as some philosphers of yore used to follow the principles of Aristotle or Zeno, to the exclusion of any other, and sometimes even against the dictates of common sense, let them at least be consistent in their principles, and tread steadily in the footsteps of their adopted school. But to deviate from its correct principles, while they adhere to

those that are evidently erroneous, is certainly absurd. They do not consider that those errors in nomenclature, are generally adopted upon the authority of some eminent botanists, who, convinced of the blunders of the Linnæan sexual system, were often led thereby, and somewhat hastily, to condemn even his admirable principles of nomenclature. We hope, that, in future, our botanists will attend to this dilemma, and for the sake of consistency at least, will either adopt or reject altogether the Linnæan principles; although we advise them by all means, if they would improve the science, to adopt more correct principles, and exercising a careful discrimination, endeavour to reject errors and adopt truths, whether they originate with Linnæus or any body else.

We notice the following deviations from the Linnæan rules, in the numbers before

us.

[blocks in formation]

Spartina, which is derived from Spartium, is adopted instead of Limnetis or Trachynotia; this last appears the best.

Centaurella, derived from Centaurea, is adopted instead of Bartonia, a former and better name.

Polygonatum, derived from Polygonum, instead of Axillaria.

Smilacina, derived from Smilar, instead of Sigillaria or Majanthus.

Onosmodium, derived from Onosma, is adopted instead of Osmodium.

Catalpium, &c. besides
Catalpa, including Talpa, instead of

posed to be superseded by the name of
Monotropsis, which, however, is pro-
Schweinitzea.

The absurd name of Ammyrsine Pursh, is however rejected for the previous and better name of Leiophyllum Persoon: while the posterior name of Syena Schreber, is adopted instead of the first name Mayaca Aub¦et; both being equally good, it would appear that the first ought to have claimed the preference.

portant synonymes are scattered through A variety of specific observations and imthe whole; some changes in the nomenclature of species, appear to have been requisite, which are often proper; yet objections might be made to some: we shall notice here a few instances, and add some miscellaneous remarks.

The Statice caroliniana of Walter, is quite a peculiar species, which we have seen growing as far north as Long-Island,

it is here blended again with the St. limonium of Europe, which is totally different. The Salvia verbenaca of Muhlenberg, &c. is properly introduced as a new species, under the name of S. claytoni.

Houstonia cerulea var. minor. is made a N. Sp. H. patens.

The genus Pyxidanthera is united with Diapensia in imitation of Pursh, &c. but it appears to differ essentially by the insertion of the stamina in the sinus of the corolla, &c.

Hottonia palustris of Pursh, is properly made a Ñ. Sp. under the name of H. inflata.

The Convolvulus tenellus of Lin. and Elliott, is evidently a peculiar genus, having a 4 celled capsul, 2 cleft style, 2 globose stigmas, and a 10 toothed corolla: we propose to call it Stylisma, meaning cleft style. The essential distinction between the genera Ipomea and Convolvulus, far from residing in the shape of the stigma, which affords quite a secondary character, does consist in the capsul, the Ipomea having a three celled one, and the Convolvulus, a two celled one.

Atropa physaloides does not belong to that genus, but to the genus Nicandra. Rhamnus minutiflorus of Mich. Pursh and Elliott, belongs probably to the genus Cassine.

Ceanothus perennis of Pursh, adopted by Elliott, is the C. herbaceous of Rafinesque, a previous name.

Viola clandestina of Pursh, is totally different from the V. rotundifolia of Michaux: we have seen both.

Collinsonia anisata belongs to the genus Hypogon of the Florula ludoviciana, having 4 fertile stamina.

Gratiola acuminata Walt. and Ell. must form a new genus, intermediate between Gratiola and Herpestis, having the corolla of the former and the stamina of the latter: it may be called Endopogon, meaning bearded within.

The author of the Asclepias quadrifolia is Jacquin, unnoticed by Elliott.

The American Hydrocotyle vulgaris of Mich. and Pursh, which we had long ago observed to be different from the European plant bearing the same name, is here named H. interrupta with Muhlenberg.

The genus Sarothra is correctly introduced again; but all the species of the G. Hypericum, with a monolocular capsul must be united to it; the character of the genus laying in the capsul, not in the stamina.

The genus Baptisia of Ventenat is adopted for all the North American species of the genus Podalyria.

The genus Elliotia of Muhlenberg, is adopted and described, being next to Clethra, &c. &c.

We have gone through this work with the utmost gratification. We feel proud that our country may now boast of such an enlightened and accurate botanist as Mr. Elliott. His labours entitle him to be ranked with some of the best European writers, and having been directed towards one of the least explored quarters of the U. S. they have greatly benefitted the science which he cultivates. This we venture to assert notwithstanding the systematical school which he follows, and the occasional errors and oversights in which he may be detected, but which are scarcely separable from extensive labours. We shall be happy to see the conclusion of this valuable and classical work, which certainly deserves better the name of Flora, than Walter's. It shall be our duty to notice the further discoveries which it may convey; and we feel inclined to believe that the remainder will equal if not exceed the former parts, as it is very likely that the author will improve as he proceeds, and the corrections of errors and omissions may probably be thrown together in the shape of a suppleC. S. R.

ment.

ART. 4. The Resources of the United States of America. By JOHN BRISTED, Coun sellor at Law, Author of the Resources of the British Empire. New-York. James Eastburn & Co. 8vo. pp. 500.

NHE author has entered upon a most

other topics, all the great branches of industry in the United States; agriculture, commerce, manufactures, together with the diversified subjects of political economy. In what manner he has performed the task assumed will be shortly seen.

On the subject of manufactures, there

is found a coarseness of remark, a seve

prehensible carelessness of observation, in some respects, which entitle that division of the book to particular notice.

The multiplication of manufactures in the United States, during the late war, to meet the necessary demands of the country and the public service, will be recol

102

Bristed's Resources of the United States of America.

lected by all. The effect of the peace, the influx of British goods at prices unprecedentedly low, followed by the astonishing rise of the raw material of cotton, produced a state of things as distressing to the American manufacturer, as it was flattering to his foreign rival. High raised hopes were dashed to the ground; ruin came upon many, embarrassment upon all. The prospect of ruin to American manufactures was hailed, in the British parliament, as auspicious to English interests, and as yielding a sufficient compensation for the sacrifice and loss on the sales of goods sent out to America.

In this fallen condition, our manufacturers petitioned congress for relief. In 1816 it was granted; not by a prohibition of foreign goods, nor by bounties, nor premiums, but in the form of protecting duties; that is to say, by increasing the import duty on such articles as come in competition with the manufactures of the country.

In what manner Mr. Bristed has treated the distresses of our manufacturers, and what terms he has applied to their pe titions to congress, will appear from the following extracts from his book. "This society (the American Society for encouraging manufactures) is continually beseeching and besieging congress to exclude all foreign goods from the United States, and give them a monopoly of the American market." p. 55.

"Their standing committees and eternal clamour about the dignity of patriotism, and the necessity of not depending on foreign nations for articles of use and convenience, are always an overmatch for the yeoman," &c. p. 56.

"Whether or not the general government is to be borne down by this incessant lamour, and sacrifice the interests of all the rest of the community to those of a very small portion of that community, remains yet to be seen." p. 57.

Whether this be good or bad writing, all will agree that it is writing very much like an Englishman; something like those agents of English houses, scattered through all our seaports, always true to the interests of British manufacturers, and, occasionally, condescending to enlighten unlettered Americans on the interests of the country and the duty of the government.

But to the point;-are the facts assumed by this writer, and charged upon our manufacturers and the government, true? It will, by and by, be shown, that both the government of the union, and almost all the distinguished statesmen of the United States, have concurred, and

JUNE,

by an unparalleled unanimity of opinion, in the encouragement which has been given to manufactures. by protecting duties. Our manufacturers stand charged by Mr. Bristed with "besieging congress to exclude all foreign goods from the United States." The subject, a great branch of national industry; the occasion, writing a book for the information of the public; the serious charge upon a great class of respectable individuals, all conspired to impose on the writer the utmost care and regard to the facts, on which he has bestowed such undistinguishing, such hightoned censure.

It is confidently believed, that Mr. Bristed will not be able to discover in the files, or journals of congress, a solitary petition of manufacturers to warrant the above charge. On no occasion is an exemption from the common obligation of speaking the truth, even of an enemy, to be conceded. But some indulgence is due to a zeal, a crusading zeal, in which the writer, losing himself, is insensibly transported beyond knowledge and the ordinary restraint of discretion.

It is true, that manufacturers did ask of congress a prohibition of the importation of India cottons, (which are, mostly, of an unsubstantial fabric, and comparatively, of little value,) but here they stopt as to prohibition. Had congress followed the example of Great Britain, Holland, and France, the prohibition would have been adopted; but a different course prevailed, and the manufacturers submitted.

When the East India Company poured into Great Britain their cotton goods, about the year 1786, in the manner they have recently done into the United States, the manufacturers of England took the alarm, and resorted to parliament, representing that they could not stand the competition; that the manufactories of the country would be crushed in the contest. A prohibition to sales of India cottons in the country was readily adopted. Congress have not gone so far, but have left the American manufacturer to struggle in the competition with India goods, subject however to an increased duty on the importation; and yet our author finds pretexts to censure the encouragement afforded American manufactures.

It is feared Mr. Bristed will be found, in his zeal, equally unfortunate in his imputation to manufacturers of “incessant clamours," to induce congress to sacrifice the interest of all the rest of the community to that of a very small portion of that community.

In the leading memorial of manufactur

ers to Congress, recently published in the Evening Post, and several other papers, the following language is holden.

"Before we proceed further, and at the very threshhold, we disclaim all legislative patronage, or favor to any particular class or branch of industry, at the expense of the other classes in community. We ask of congress the adoption of no measure for the relief of manufacturers, which is not deemed consistent with sound national policy, and the best interests of the United States at large!"

Had Mr. Bristed's book been written in a distant English factory, and by one who had never seen the United States, it could not have shown greater ignorance of the sentiments and conduct of American manufacturers, or a greater disposition to misrepresent them.

The reader will not fail to witness, in going over Mr. Bristed's tirade, the liberal use of the terms, “monopoly," "bounties,” “prohibiting duties," &c. applied to the protection afforded manufactures. If the object be to alarm community, by a bug-bear exhibition, and excite popular prejudice against manufactures, it is believed the good sense and sober judgment of the American yeomanry, will be an overmatch for such an artifice. There is nothing to be found in the acts of congress, for the protection of manufactures, to warrant the application of the above terms, and the same is, in Mr. Bristed, an affronting abuse of language. To make an outcry of mad-dog, in order to point hostility and run down the victim of pursuit, is a vulgar artifice, as unbecoming the office assumed by Mr. Bristed, as it is inconsistent with a professed" brief outline," to descend to a slanderous attack upon the whole body of manufacturers.

A radical error pervades all the essays against manufacturers, in supposing them a distinct class, and this for the purpose of charging them with conspiring against the rest of community. Let it be never lost sight of, that in the United States are to be found no great manufacturing towns, no separate class of manufacturers; on the contrary, as it respects the particular subjects of the recent protection, farmers, merchants, professional men vest their surplus income in manufactories, and the workmen are the servants or hired labourers of the company. Such, with few exceptions, will be found to be the actual condition and proprietorship of the recently established manufactories of the United States.

Hence the "incessant clamour,” (to use the language of our author.) against the

manufacturers of the country, as a distinct class, is seen in a just light, as the offspring of palpable error, or masked bostility, tending to subvert American and subserve foreign interests.

This writer pays a sorry compliment to the enlightened farmers and planters of the United States, composing nine-tenths of the whole population of the country, and their more enlightened representatives in congress, in supposing them in need of the counsels of a meddling foreigner, to detect, and guard them against the conspiracy of their own manufacturers. But who, and where, are the monsters against whom this modern Hercules raises so high his club? Who are these enemies of the public good, who solicit, and who are they who bestow protection on manufactures? It is answered, the society for the protection of American manufactures, whose president and vicepresident are among our most distinguished citizens; a society which numbers among its members three, if not four, successive presidents of the United States; two different congresses, who in 1816 and 1818, passed these denounced protecting statutes, by majorities, rarely to be found in their annals, on great national subjects of so much feeling,—by a majority, in the first instance, of between 30 and 40, in the House of Representatives, and in the last, of 106 to 34; and in the Senate, by an almost unanimous vote>

Manufacturers saw, with pride, among other great men, Rufus King, distinguished as the statesman without reproach, the advocate of those bills. Here is enough to teach this writer a lesson of moderation in bestowing censure on the much and long abused manufacturers of the country. The fallen condition of that class, struggling against foreign rivalship, might have been expected to disarm hostility, how strongly soever excited by foreign partialities. A decent respect to the memorable report of secretary Hamil ton, so highly eulogised by Mr. Bristed, containing the most conclusive answers to every objection, which ever has been, or probably can be, raised to the protec tion of manufactures, might also have been expected to restrain the licentiousness of our author's pen. Mr. Bristed is invited to bestow a few hours on that report, and, in the next edition of his book, favour the public with a refutation of the arguments in that report, hitherto deemed unanswerable, or retract his charges against manufactures. For, let it be remembered, that the protection of manufactures has not been carried so far as

104

Bristed's Resources of the United States of America.

that report would warrant. The author, to justify his opinion against yielding protection to manufactures, misapplies a principle in political economy, which would leave the various branches of industry to their own course, to find their level in the competion for public patronage. To the well established branches of business, the rule has a qualified application, but to new establishments, requiring improved skill and capital, and having to contend against the rivalship and hostility of old establishments, it has no application. On this point, and the indispensible necessity of encouragement from government in such ease, reference is made to the above report, and to sir James Stewart.

British manufactories were reared, at first, against the rivalship of the previous establishments on the continent, by the liberal aid of the government, and they have attained their present exalted ascendancy, under the continued fostering care of government, watching with Argus-eyes, and repressing with the whole weight of its influence, the first efforts at manufacturing elsewhere. The great Chatham, the friend of America, was alive with jealousy to the first attempt of the colonies to manufacture for themselves. (See his Speech on the Address to the Throne, in 1770.) So far did that government, at an early day, carry their protection of domestic industry, as to enact the penalty of burning cloth found not to be wholly of British material and fabric.

The nation, instead of relaxing in this policy, exults in its success. To manufacture for all, and receive manufactures from none, is a maxim as sacred as Magna Charta. Mr. B. consoles the country with the prospect of foreign markets for agricultural produce, to pay for imported goods. This hope is delusive. With the exception of the cotton districts, the balance of trade, since the peace, is believed to be greatly against the United States. Our wheat and flour, exported during the last year, which swells to so flattering an amount at the custom-house, were sold at such a loss in England as to involve very many of the shippers in ruin. The custom-house valuation, when the article goes to a bad market, is very fallacious.

The effect of manufactories on the health and morals of those concerned in them, is known to be greatly exaggerated, at least as to those manufactories of cotton and wool, which were the particular objects of protection in the late tariff of duties. The sites of our manufactories are mostly in the country; the buildings are spaciens, and whoever visits

JUNE,

them, it is believed, will find the children, (who are nine-tenths of the number employed,) in health and appearance greatly superior to the ordinary poor of the country. In Scotland, and on the continent of Europe, manufactures are carried greatly beyond any thing in the United States, and we are not conscious of any evidence to warrant the opinion, that the health or morals of those concerned have been essentially injured. It is not improbable that the peculiar nature of some manufactures, carried on in the crowded population of great manufacturing towns in England, may prove injurious to health; but the effects, even there, are believed to be exaggerated; and Espriella's book is said to answer to Cotton's definition of an ambassador, one sent abroad to fib for the good of his country. The steady object of British politicians, the world over, is to deter others from manufacturing.

As

Mr. B. sees every thing with a jaundiced eye, American goods are of a very bad quality. That, in the infancy of our establishments, some badly manufactured goods should be found, was to be expected, but in many of the woollen, and in all of the cotton establishments, goods are manufactured of superior quality and durability to imported goods of the same kind. American shirtings are known to find a ready market in the Canadas, being preferred to British shirtings. to price, they are sold in New-York at something less than 20 cents per yard. Can Mr. B. believe that the British artisans, pouring in upon us in a steady current of emigration, cannot spin, dress, and finish cloths as well here, as they did on the other side of the Atlantic? But the author objects that "the wages of labour in the United States are at least one hundred per cent. higher than in England, and quadruple those of France." The misfortune of this argument is, that it proves too much, if it proves any thing. If the United States cannot compete with England, because wages are double here, how can England, possibly, stand in the competition with France, when her wages treble the wages of France. What escape will Mr. B. find? Though wages are higher in the United States, yet this consideration is counterbalanced, in some degree, by the superior cheapness of sites for establishments, water privileges to move machinery, instead of expensive steam engines, and other advantages, which, when the multiplied charges on foreign importations are brought into the scale, leave to the American manufacturer nothing to fear in the ordinary

« AnteriorContinuar »