experience the degradation of this competition, but become eventually its victims.

If we look back to the political history of this country, it will be found that the true democracy of the north has always supported the southern policy. They sustained every republican candidate for the Presidency from that section of the Union (for such we considered General Jackson) and their uniform co-operation distinctly indicates a near affinity of interests and principles between the republicans of the south and the democracy of the north. The latter will probably, at the ensuing Presidential election, put forward a candidate identified with these interests and principles, and will the former desert their old friends, who never deserted them? Will they aid in dividing and distracting the republican party by multiplying candidates, and thus by throwing the decision upon Congress, pave the way for a successful intrigue that may again cheat the people of their choice, and restore the ascendancy of an aristocratic faction which has always been arrayed in opposition to their interests.

Again we assure Governor McDuffie, and all those who imagine they see in the democracy of the north, the enemies to their rights of property, and the advocates of principles dangerous to the safety and prosperity of the planters of the south, that they may make themselves perfectly easy on these heads. The danger is not in the democratic, but the aristocratic ascendancy. The whole is a scheme of a few ill-advised men, which certain whig politicians have used to set the republicans of the south against the democracy of the north, and thus, by dividing, conquer them both.

18*

THE FERRY MONOPOLY

[From the Evening Post, February 18, 1835.] We have received from Albany a copy of the Report of the Select Committee of the Assembly on the several petitions addressed to that body, relative to the establishment of additional ferries between this city and Brooklyn. The petitioners ask that an intelligent and impartial board of commissioners may be appointed, with full powers to establish ferries between New-York and Long Island, and that the present rates of ferriage be reduced. The fact that additional means of communication between the cities of New-York and Brooklyn are very much needed, that the present rates of ferriage are exorbitantly high, and the accommodations none of the best, is too notorious for any one to deny. It is also a well-known fact, that numerous responsible persons have frequently and vainly petitioned the corporate authorities of this city for permission to establish another ferry, offering to bind themselves to furnish suitable accommodations, and to pay too a large sum for the desired "privilege." In consequence of the rejection of all these applications, resort has at last been had to the State Legislature.

The power of establishing ferries over the East River is claimed by the corporate authorities of this city as a franchise conferred upon them by the ancient charters, and confirmed by various subsequent acts of state legislation.

The Report before us contends that "the authority to establish ferries, granted to the city of New-York by charter, is to be considered, not as a monopoly for the purpose of revenue to the city, but as a delegated legisla, tive power, to be exercised with the same regard to the convenience of the public, as the legislature themselves would exercise it." They further argue that "although

the charter declares that the Common Council shall have the sole power of establishing ferries, yet that this only means that this power, as a delegated authority, should be possesed by them, to the exclusion of any other office, tribunal, or public body," and that the power may be altered modified, repealed, or resumed, at the discretion of the legislature, always taking care, of course, it is to be presumed, not to violate the public faith, as pledged by the acts of the Common Council in the exercise of the authority delegated to them.

In the difficulties which citizens now experience to obtain reasonable facilities of communication between NewYork and Brooklyn, a forcible illustration is afforded of the absurd and oppressive nature of monopolies. The question how far the power to regulate this matter has been granted to the Common Council of New-York, and how far it yet resides in the legislature of the State is one which we have not qualified ourselves to answr. It seems to us, however, from an attentive perusal of the Report, and a reference to some of the authorities there mentioned, that the positions assumed in that document are sound, and that the Legislature have a primary, unalienated and supreme control over the whole matter in dispute.

Be this as it may, the common sense view of the subject plainly teaches that there ought to be no further legislative or municipal interference with the business of ferriage, than is demanded by a simple regard for public safety and convenience. We have not time to go into any argument to-day; but on this subject, as on all others, we are the advocates of the principles of free trade. We would put no hinderance in the way of any man, or set of men, who should choose to undertake the business of fer. rying people across the river. The public interests would be best served by leaving the matter to regulate itself-or

rather leaving it to be regulated by the laws of demand and supply. Free competition would do more to insure good accommodations, low prices, swift and safe boats, and civil attendants, than all the laws and charters which could ever be framed. The sheet of water which separates New-York from Brooklyn ought to be considered as a great highway, free to whomsoever should choose to travel on it, under no other restriction than complying with certain regulations for the mutual safety and con. venience of all: such regulations as are now enforced with regard to private vehicles in the streets and public roads. Yet since the corporate authorities choose to turn every business that they possibly can into a source of revenue to the city, they might make a license necessary for ferry-boats, as is now done with regard to the Broadway and Bowery omnibusses. Even this tax is an infringement of those sound principles of political economy which ought to govern in the matter; but it could not be objected to in the case of ferries, while it is recognized in that of stage coaches.

In making these remarks, we are by no means forgetful of the "chartered rights" of those who now have the "exclusive privilege" of carrying people to and fro between New-York and Brooklyn. Much as we detest the principle of such monopolies, we would by no means justify any invasion of the rights duly granted to them. The public faith is pledged, and, at the expense of any temporary inconvenience, let it be preserved inviolate. But though the Corporation ought not to invade the rights which have been foolishly granted, yet as far as they still retain any control over the subject, they might restore to the community their natural rights, and leave those who wish to establish other ferries to make the best terms they can with the existing monopolies. Such a course is in reality dictated as well by selfish and local

interests as by an enlarged and liberal view of the whole question. Every additional facility of access to this metropolis increases its general prosperity. We are aware that pains have been taken to create a belief that the establishment of more ferries would injuriously affect the prices of property in the upper part of the city, and that narrow and selfish opposition has been thus engendered. But we think it could be demonstrated that every addi. tional means of communicating with Long Island will add to the prosperity of New-York. Be this as it may as respects owners of real estate, there can be no question that it is true with regard to the great body of the people.

THE OPPOSITION IN THE SENATE.

[From the Evening Post of Feb. 24, 1835.]

THE Senate of the United States occasionally presents. a spectacle calculated to excite wonder, if not ridicule, at the inconsistencies of many of its distinguished leaders. On the one hand we see Mr. Calhoun, who has carried the doctrine of State Rights to the very verge of the greatest possible extreme, proposing a scheme of reform, which, if adopted, will place the states on the pension list of the United States for eight years to come at least. Of all the plans we have yet seen propounded by great statesmen to increase the influence of the federal government, and to impoverish the people at the same time, that of raising a revenue only to distribute it again, minus the deduction the expenses of collecting and distributing, ap. pears to us the most preposterous. Besides this inevitable loss to the people, they will of necessity lose the use and the interest of this surplus revenue, which Mr. Cal