« ZurückWeiter »
'Midst wastes and snows, and silent, lifeless trees,
More Thou said'st,
Preacher to man's spirit ! Emblem of Hope ! Companion ! Comforter! Thou faithful one! is this thine end ? 'Twas Thou, When summer birds were gone, and no form seen In the void air, who cam'st, living and strong, On thy broad, balanced pennons,through the winds. And of thy long enduring, this the close! Thy kingly strength brought down, of storms Thou Conqueror !
The year's mild, cheering dawn Upon thee shone a momentary light. The gales of spring upbore thee for a day, And then forsook thee. Thou art fallen now; And liest amongst thy hopes and promises ; Beautiful flowers, and freshly springing blades, Gasping thy life out.—Here for Thee the grass Tenderly makes a bed; and the young buds In silence open their fair, painted foldsTo ease thy pain, the one-to cheer thee, these. But thou art restless; and thy once keen eye Is dull and sightless now. New blooming boughs, Needlessly kind, have spread a tent for thee. Thy mate is calling to the white, piled clouds, And asks for thee. No answer give they back. As I look up to their bright angel faces, Intelligent and capable of voice They seem to me. Their silence to my soul Comes ominous. The same to thee, doom'd bird, Silence or sound. For thee there is no sound, No silence :-pear thee stands the shadow, Death,And now he slowly draws his sable veil Over thine eyes. Thy senses soft he lulls Into unconscious slumbers. The airy call Thou'lt hear no longer. Neath sun-lighted clouds, With beating wing, or steady poise aslant, Thou'lt sail no more. Around thy trenibling claws Droop thy wings' parting feathers. Spasms of death Are on Thee.
Laid thus low by age? Or is't
I needs must mourn for thee. For I, who have
And, now, farewell! The falling leaves ere long
Who scoffs these sympathies,
And surely it is so.
A SONG OF PITCAIRN'S ISLAND.
Come, take our boy, and we will go
Before our cabin door ;
The murmurs of the shore;
Songs that were inade of yore:
And thou, while stammering I repeat,
Thy country's tongue shalt teach ;
Than my own native speech.
Upon Tahete's beach,
Thou cam'st to woo me to be thine,
I knew thy meaning—thou didst praise
My eyes, my locks of jet ;
But thine were fairer yet!
And when my sight is met
Whose necks and cheeks, they tell,
White foam and crimson shell.
A sight to please thee well;
We lose the pleasant hours ;
That seat among the flowers.
A lot so blest as ours-
TO THE EDITORS OF THE NEW-YORK REVIEW.
I regret to be obliged to resume the subject of your review of the late“ spurious” edition, as you term it, of Alexander Hamilton's Report on Manufactures. The task is unpleasant, but justice to myself requires it—and I have too much reliance on your honor to doubt your willingness to let the public hear the accused, as well as the accusers. Any other supposition would be an impeachment of your candor and impartiality.
I did hope that I had placed the matter in such a point of view, as would have induced you to retract your accusations. But I have been mistaken. They are repeated, and urged in stronger form. As editor of the edition in question, I am expressly charged with an attempt at imposition, by
“ Leaving the reader falsely to suppose, that the order (for printing this edition) issued from the Congress of 1823—4."
This, gentlemen, is a heavy charge, and ought not to have been lightly made. The proofs ought to be clear and unequivocal, so that" he that runs may read.” It implies a conduct of which I should scorn to be guilty, and I hope to prove that it is wholly unfounded.
I quote your last number, page 387, wherein, as I have stated, the charge is repeated. “In the original, the title-page, after setting forth the name, &c. adds,
“ Printed by order of the House of Representatives.
1792. 6 The present edition reads
“ (Printed by order of the House of Representatives.)"
This, and“ no more, is the very head and front of my offend. ing;” and on this foundation rests the strong charge of "falsely" leading the public astray.
It is to be regretted that these quotations are both materially wrong. Neither of them gives the printer's name; and both have the dates so placed as to refer to the order for printing, whereas the reference clearly is to the time of publication. This is a most vital error.
I now present you with the title-pages of two editions of this work, one printed at Washington, sixteen years ago, by order of the then House of Representatives, and the other that which has called forth the severity of your animadversions.
Report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the subject of Manufactūres, made the 5th of Decr. 1791.
“ Dec. 7, 1809.
“ Washington City:
“ 1809.” The other runs thus, and is very materially different from your statement of it:
“Report of the Secretary of the Treasury [Alexander Hamilton) on the subject of Manufactures, inade the 5th of Decr. 1791.
“ Printed by order of the House of Representatives.
Jan. 1, 1824." Now, gentlemen, I appeal to you as men of honor, whether this title-page warrants the aspersion you have cast on me? Is there the slightest possible connexion between “ the order for printing," and the date, Jan. 1, 1824 ?
But what temptation could there have been to the alleged literary fraud ? Was a system matured by the full exercise of the splendid talents of Alexander Hamilton, one of the greatest statesmen that ever flourished in this country, in want of the imprimatur of the late House of Representatives? Could the alleged simulation of the order for printing add an iota to the force of the arguments? Surely not.
On this point I have said enough. Two of the other charges, which make a conspicuous figure in the indictment, those respecting capitals and notes of exclamation, you have abandoned, as wholly unwarranted.
On the subject of italic and indexes, I appeal to an enlightened public, whether an edition of a work can, with any appearance of propriety, be termed“ spurious,” when the text is preserved immaculate, without alteration, suppression, or interpolation, merely because various powerful passages, shedding strong light on a vital topic, in which the country is deeply interested, are italicized, and six of peculiar importance are marked by indexes? I throw myself on their good sense and candor for a favorable verdict.
Two other charges remain—“the INTERPOLATION of a silly dialogue,” (which, by the way, is not an“ interpolation,"—it is given in the form of an “appendix,”) and the conversion of a few words printed in italics, into the Roman character. Wi respect to the first, I have only to observe, that it does not affect the text-does not, of course, impart the character of spuriousness to the edition, and stands or falls on its own merits. When the original work was set up, it was found that there were twelve pages vacant, and, as the dialogue bore strongly on the subject, it was introduced to fill the void. And with respect to the other, there is not one change that affects the grand question at issue in the United States, as to the protection of manufactures. The one you have selected goes to a question of comparatively little importance, whether manufacturing industry is or is not more profitable than agriculture. Had we adequate markets for all our agricultural productions, we might then discuss this Vol. I.