Daniel Raymond, an early chapter in the history of economic theory in the United States;

o

■

w

w

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

COPYBIGHT, 1897, BY THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS.

GUGGENHEIMER, WEIt & CO., PRINTERS,
BALTIMORE.

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

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2007 with funding from

Microsoft Corporation

http://www.archive.org/details/danielraymondearOOneilrich

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

iNorth American Review, January 1876, p. 137. Dunbar, Eco-
nomic Science in the United States, 1776-1876.
2 1 bid., 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.

1Cossa, 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

1Wetzel, Benjamin Franklin as an Economist, J. H. U. Studies.

10 Early Economic Thought in the U. 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

aProf. Dunbar in N. A. Rev., January, 1876, p. 130.
2Ibid., p. 131.
3Catalogue of Baltimore Athenaeum Library, 1827.

221] Early Economic Thought in the U. S. 11

the science sufficient to warrant another edition. A second
reprint appeared from Hartford in 181 1, 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 implies2 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 1 81 7. 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

^Carey, Biographical Sketches, p. 9.

introduction to the Study of Political Economy, p. 466.

3In 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

*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-

2A's works, Vol. X., p. 385.

sj's works, Vols. VI.-VII.

4To 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, yours'elf, 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 reading. 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.

223] Early Economic Thought in the U. S. 13

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

1Federal Gazette and Balto. Daily Advertiser, Dec. 26, 1823.

2Records 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"At the time this book was commenced, I had no expectation of
waiting 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
1st ed., pp. V.-VI.

16 Daniel Raymond and His Work. [226

The North American Review1 devoted twenty-three pages
of its space to Raymond's work. The reviewer2 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 ' ^r 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.

iApril, 1821, Vol. XII.

2F. 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."

4Cf. Fed. Gaz. and Balto. Daily Ad., January 31, 1821.

5January 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.

Niks9 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 Advertiser2 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

p

iDec. 16, 1820.

2Dec. 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 Eaymond 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 propagandist2

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."

X"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.

2It 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:

"In 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

t-Ibid., p. 9.

2In 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

1In 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

3 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"

V'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.

mid., 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.

*"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 busy 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 was 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

1House 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 corn-
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

2Rent, 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.

4P. 90. spf 95

241] Daniel Raymond and His Work, 31

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. 117. 2P. 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

!R 175- 2P. 153- 3P- 178. *lbid. 5P. 180. 6P. 186. 7P. 188.

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-

xIbid. 2P. 189. 3Pp. 192-3. 4Supra; pp. 31-2. 5P. 193.

6Raymond'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.

iP. 194. 2P- 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

*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.

3P. 131, 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-

*P. 275. 2p. 1I9) 2n(J e(J 3p. 275>

247] Daniel Raymond and His Work. 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-

!P. 216. 2P. 218. 3P. 223. 4P. 224. *P. 224. *P. 225< Tp. 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.

*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

iFurber — 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.

lP. 5, 1st ed. 2P. 129. 3P. 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 shalt 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. 3P. 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."

v' . . . 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.

2Pp. 129, 169; V. I., p. 354; V. II., 2nd ed.

3Comp. 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.

2P. 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

1This 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," 1 841.

A comparison of the works1 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. Raymond.

"The component parts of po- "As national wealth is a dis-

litical economy are, individual tinct thing from individual

economy, national economy, wealth, so political economy is a

and the economy of mankind." distinct thing from private econ-
omy." P. 406.

"Adam Smith treats of the "The fundamental error, as I

economy of mankind and for- apprehend, into which Adam

gets to treat of the wealth of Smith and most other writers

1Unless 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.

2Despite 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, [258

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.

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
portion 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 conditions.

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

259] Daniel Raymond and Friederich List.

49

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. [260

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 judge.*
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

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

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.

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 f -> America " P. 166.

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

52

Daniel Raymond and Friederich List. [262

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

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

263] Daniel Raymond and Friederich List.

53

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. ;

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. 220.

"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,

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. o.

"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.

"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.

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
i 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 wealth, . . .
Property is the only subject of
value, and aa 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;

.'v;." p. 356.

"The prosperity of a nation is
not, as Say believes, greater in
the proportion in which it has
amassed more wealth (t. 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
different 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

i'The National System," p. 29.
2Ibid., p. 25.

mid.

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
1 819 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
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

luD'ie Aufgabe, die ihm gestellt war, erfiillte er in einem Geiste
der sich vollstan'dig von der freihandelerischen Theorie der Eng-
ender beherrscht zeigte. Nicht 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 fur 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 Baymond 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

1Von 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
Schiiler 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

iaL. 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 natiirlich 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 Korperschaften und in den Ausspriichen
hervorragender Staatsmanner schon begegnet waren." Ibid., p.
766.

2Wahrend 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 Broschuren 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.

x"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.

RETURN CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT

TO— + 202 Main Library

LOAN PERIOD 1
— HOME USE

2 3

4

5 6

ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS

1 -month loans may be renewed by calling 642-3405

6-month loans may be recharged by bringing books to Circulation Desk

Renewals and recharges may be made 4 days prior to due date

DUE AS STAMPED BELOW

RKTD JftN 8

1982

l

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
FORM NO. DD6, 60m, 12/80 BERKELEY CA 94720

1 " ' ®s

GENERAL LIBRARY - U.C. BERKELEY

I

BDQD2flM?B2

v- /~

304512

/

. <**j^*4^l

* - .UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY

fc*C

(fen*

^Jftf v**^

f