profitable to youthful pupils. If we must adopt English doctrines in every particular, better take them from the fountain head.

While upon the subject of instruction, we may allude to one expedient, by which the immediate usefulness of the study might be increased. The practice, as well as the principles, of trade deserves attention in a treatise designed to recommend the science to popular notice, and to influence directly both the actions and opinions of men. It would be impossible, of course, to explain the operations of commerce to the full extent; but much information might be given incidentally respecting the modes of business, which it concerns all to understand in some measure, though not destined for a commercial life. The practice illustrates the theory of trade, and those examples are most clear and satisfactory, which are drawn from contemporary events. The knowledge, which Adam Smith acquired as a custom-house officer, was essential to the preparation of his great work. In this country, the various transactions connected with banking and bills of exchange deserve notice in a scientific work, both for illustration and comment. Dr. Wayland has adopted this course in some measure, when treating of banks, and the chapters relating to these institutions are among the most valuable parts of his book. The peculiarites of his situation as a literary and scientific man account for the more abstract manner, in which he has written of other topics.

F. B.

ART. IV. Correspondence on the Principles of Right Reasoning applicable to Temperance, and to the Effects of fermented and distilled Liquors; between Samuel M. Hopkins and Gerrit Smith, Rev. Dr. Justin Edwards, and Rev. Dr. Samuel H. Cox; with other Papers and Notes by the Editor. Part I. Collected and published by SAMUEL M. HOPKINS. Geneva, N. Y.: John C. Merrell, Printer. 1836. 8vo. pp. 112.

THE history of this Correspondence is as follows. An article appeared in the Albany Evening Journal, in which some hard things were said respecting those who refused to adopt the peVOL. XXIV. - 3D S. VOL. VI. NO. I.

9

culiar views of the Temperance Reform which were held by the writer. Mr. Weld, the Editor of the Journal, commented upon this article, and mentioned some estimable men who had fallen under the writer's proscription; among whom was Mr. Hopkins, the writer in part, and collector of the "Correspondence." Mr. Hopkins wrote to the editor of the Journal a letter which does not appear in this collection; but from the notice taken of it by Mr. Gerrit Smith, we conclude that it contained some hard sayings about those who disagreed with Mr. Hopkins in reference to temperance measures.

We knew nothing of the collector of this Correspondence till we heard of his book. His death we have noticed since in the public prints, where he is spoken of as a man worthy of the esteem and love of his fellow citizens, both of which he is said to have enjoyed to a very high degree. He certainly writes like a man in earnest; and no one can peruse his letters without being impressed with the deep and vital importance, which he attached to his own views of the best means of promoting the cause of temperance. He excites our sympathy too for himself. He complains in his letters that he had been repeatedly assailed in the Temperance Intelligencer; that he had not had an opportunity of making his real sentiments known to the public through the same medium which had misrepresented them; that his mouth had been stopped in temperance meetings, when he wished to declare and maintain his opinions. If all, or any of this be true, the writer had just reason to complain. But men can see their rights to be infringed when others cannot; and are frequently apt to feel that their own views are worth more than the public are ready to allow them to be. At all events, we doubt whether Mr. Hopkins had not as good an opportunity for advocating his opinions as their importance merited, and whether he had not as much time allowed him in temperance meetings for advocating them as the public thought them worthy of occupying. However this may have been, one thing is certain, Mr. Hopkins has, by the Correspondence which he has published, given the public an opportunity to judge of the correctness and value of his opinions.

As stated on the title page, this Correspondence is made up of letters written by Mr. Hopkins and other gentlemen there mentioned. Mr. Smith opens the correspondence by requesting Mr. Hopkins to discuss with him the points about which Mr. Hopkins was at issue with the Temperance Society. After the

interchange of a few letters, the death of Mr. Smith's only son prevented his continuing the discussion. Mr. Hopkins then writes to Dr. Justin Edwards to engage him to enter the lists. Dr. Edwards declines, and refers Mr. Hopkins for his views to the Permanent Temperance Documents. Then comes a Review of Dr. Washington's letter on the temperance and honesty of the Mahometans. After this follows what may be called the body of the pamphlet. It is an "Essay on the difference in the Effects of fermented and distilled Liquors respectively upon Individuals." Then comes a letter from Dr. Samuel H. Cox to Mr. Hopkins in answer to this question, "Did our Savior, when on earth, really drink the usual wine of Palestine?" Mr. Hopkins replies to the Doctor in some notes. The pamphlet closes with some miscellaneous remarks upon the different kinds of intoxicating drinks used by different nations, and the contents of another pamphlet to be published by Mr. Hopkins. Whether this intended publication has seen the light or not, we do not know. At any rate, we think that Mr. Hopkins's views are pretty fully set forth in the document before us. We shall not attempt to follow the principal writer in his arguments. The facts which he presents, we doubt not, are as correct as most of the facts which are collected for such purposes and in such a manner. But of his reasoning upon those facts we cannot say quite so much.

We will notice what we conceive to be some of the errors of statement and reasoning of Mr. Hopkins, which cannot readily be embodied in what we intend to say of what we conceive to be the true argument upon the subject. "The fundamental delusion, as I suppose it to be, which has led to the perversion and ruin of the temperance cause, is the opinion that all alcoholic liquors are, according to the quantity of alcohol, alike in their effects upon the human system." Such is the statement of Mr. Hopkins. We doubt whether this statement be true. We have never heard such an opinion uttered by the leading men of the temperance reform, neither have we read it in their publications. We may misunderstand the writer; but we suppose from what he says further on, that he means to affirm that the advocates of total abstinence from all intoxicating drinks contend that all of them are hurtful just in proportion to the amount of alcohol contained in them. This we deny. It is contended, and only contended, as the main position, that men are and have been made drunkards upon them. It is

admitted that some are more, some less hurtful, according to the nature of the substances with which the alcohol is mixed.

وو

One other error at the bottom of all Mr Hopkins's reasoning upon this subject is that he reasons from a negative. He 66 never saw one case in his life" where a man was made a "ruined sot on fermented liquors; therefore there are none or very few. Because the classic writers of antiquity speak little of the intemperance of their times, there was no intemperance among them. We object to such reasoning altogether. Mr. Hopkins contends strenuously for the Baconian rule, looking to facts. So do we. We ask then, (admitting what Mr. Hopkins says to be true, which we deny,) what occasion had the ancient writers to speak of intemperance oftener than they do? What should we say of that man's reasoning, who should assert that there was no intemperance in the United States, because little or nothing was said about it in the speeches of Webster, Everett, Story, and Sargeant; or in the Commentaries of Kent; or in the poems of Bryant, Dana, Trumbull, and Dwight? Before the temperance measures, which are now in operation, were adopted, we can find but little in all our literature which would lead us to suppose that our nation was emphatically a nation of drunkards; and yet it is true that such was the fact. We shall prove, by and by, that the classic writers are not so silent on this subject as Mr. Hopkins would leave us to suppose.

Mr. Hopkins falls into the same error of reasoning from a negative in reference to foreign countries in modern times. He quotes from travellers who have rode through the countries, and because they have seen no intemperance, he contends that there is none. We will give a few specimens of this kind of evidence. Speaking of France, he says: "An excellent minister who had resided several years in the country, told me [the writer from whom Mr. H. quotes] he had scarcely seen more than three or four cases of drunkenness." He quotes from Mr. Dewey: "In seven months upon the continent of Europe, though living amidst crowds, in taverns, in hotels, and in public houses, I have not seen four intoxicated persons! But I have seen in parks, in gardens, and in public places of resort, millions of persons exhilarated by music, by spectacles, by scenery, by flowers, and fragrance, cheerful without rudeness, and gay without excess. Now for Mr. Hopkins's own testimony. "Twice I was in a collection of probably from one to two

hundred thousand Parisians; one of which was at a public reception of Bonaparte. To my best recollection, I never saw any wine or other liquor sold on those or any other public occasion, nor saw any person drunk in France. I never was drunk in my life, nor saw any person who was on wine; never saw any where any quarrel or serious dispute or offence at table, never saw any case where wine produced habitual intemperance, or ruinous sottishness, nor anything approaching such a state; nor ever heard of any such thing except from the temperance publications of the last two or three years, and from some letters which will appear in the sequel." He says again: "I never saw a drunken person in France, nor heard such mentioned; nor ever saw a tippling house of any kind there." All this proves to our mind one or both of two things, either that Mr. Hopkins had no good opportunity to learn the true condition of the people, or else was a very poor observer. If the statement be true that there are no tippling shops, where do the thirty thousand "Parisians" who died of the cholera become intemperate, as stated in the accounts received from Europe respecting that scourge? We say, then, that all this is negative testimony. We shall soon show that there are men who have seen something very different in wine countries, and what has been seen is very conclusive testimony against what has not been seen. What evidence could we adduce of this kind to show that there was no intemperance in Boston or New York? Let us see. We resided three years where we had an opportunity of being in Boston at all the public festivals and gala days. We have seen more than once thirty thousand people on the Common and around it, and we do not recollect to have seen one drunken person, or any liquor sold on these occasions. We do not know of one tippling shop in Boston. So of New York; we have never seen one drunken man in that city. In fact for the last eight years we do not recollect that we have seen half a dozen drunken men. Now we ask,

soberly, how much does such evidence prove? Is it worth reciting? We doubt not that what the gentlemen mentioned above give as their knowledge- or rather ignorance—of the intemperance of the people where they travelled is true. We object to the kind of evidence altogether. It proves but little, if it prove anything. A person may be so situated as to know but little of the intemperance which is about him.

Another point supported by the same kind of argument we