Richmond Enquirer

MORE EMPIRICISM.

We had supposed we had done with the Aurora.—We had fastened upon him the charge of a gross and deliberate misrepresentation about tobacco and cotton, a charge which he has not dared to meet, and to which he has quietly submitted in "sullen silence." We had supposed that this convicted libeller would not have had effrontery enough so soon to have made an absurd and unfounded attack upon the Enquirer. Mr. Duane, however, is an exception to all ordinary rules. Most discomfited combatants would have retired in shame and silence. Not so this bold empiric. Detected in one trick, he has recourse to another. He has had the meanness to submit to one charge of misrepresentation, and to "the creature's at his dirty work again." We beg the reader's pardon for again wasting a moment's attention upon a man, who has talents of a certain order, but without principles or decency to preserve them from the grossest prostitution.

He ridicules the article which we published respecting the importation of specie dollars from England. "He neither admits nor directly denies the fact—but seems to insinuate that such is not the fact. i.e. The fact is so—a house in this city has made two importations of specie dollars to the amount of near 50,000. The Thames and the Cincinnati both brought dollars into New York. A vessel, (perhaps the Rockingham) has imported $75,000 into Savannah. We have not watched the marine lists for such articles: but we are assured by intelligent merchants that there have been several such shipments, and that they are probably not over. Since our article, which intimated "we may expect to see more of them brought in." a house in this city has imported 35,000.

The Aurora seems also to insinuate that " in London the oz. of silver dollars" [did not] "cost 4s 7½d. sterling." Now, this gentleman who knows every thing, knows better than those who actually bought it in London on these terms. The statement in the Enquirer was bona fide taken from an "Invoice of Dollars" shipped to a merchant of this city. And we have at this moment another "Invoice" before us, dated "London, 15th April," which quotes the price of the dollars (actually shipped) per the oz at 4s.1d.—that is to say, 5d.—a halfpenny lower still than our former quotation. Whom will you believe, the Aurora that has such a marvelous facility in coining or discrediting facts, or the very merchant who bought the article ? We call it an article of trade, in spite of this Empiric, who will have a silver dollar to be invariable in value—the whole host of Economists and Merchants to the contrary notwithstanding.

Taking the first cost of these dollars in London, and all the various expenses of transport, &c. it appears—

The difference of prices is......5 per cent.
Charge: 14 do
Gain 33 do

The interest on the whole sum, say 2 per cent. was offset by the discount on the bill of Exchange to pay for them—being at that time 2 per cent.

Does this impudent empiric need other proof, we could afford it. We could refer him to intelligent merchants at his own door, who could tell him that there are no expeditions on foot direct for the East Indies—that a few proceed to England for their dollars, which had been at about 6 per cent. under par—and that Mexican dollars are only ¼ advance in Philadelphia. Such is the information from one of the first houses there, on the 30th May.

We vouch for each of these facts—we have documentary proof. The invoice is before us. That does not lie; the Aurora may. We vouch that according to this invoice, specie dollars were bought in London, on the 5th, 6th, and 12th April (and shipped on the 15th) at 4s 1d. per ounce. The Aurora says, however, that on the 25th the price of silver in bars was 5s 1d the oz —that is 1d more. Suppose it to be so— does this prove that it was not bought a few days before? In spite of the pretended wisdom of this man, bullion is an article of variable value—it rises or falls. according to the supply and demand—Ask A. Smith ; ask Ricardo: ask the Edinburgh Reviewers , ask any man who knows any thing of what he is talking about ; ask the practical merchant to say if it be not so.

But it is worth while, to glance at the reasons assigned by the Aurora.—" In the first place, if the intrinsic par value of the dollar, or what is the same thing, the mint price, be 4s.6d. why those who possess dollars should be willing to sell the for 4s.3½d. or for 5 per cent below par, when they could obtain the full intrinsic value for them at the mint of England, is that sort of paradox which none but a genius like the Enquirer can solve." But what says the greater genius of the Aurora?—1st. that the merchant may obtain 4s. 6d. for them at the mint; which is not the fact, the mint not being bound to buy them at that price—2d. He expects to be believed when he says they cannot sell for less than 4s. 6d, when we know that they did sell about the middle of April among merchants. for less—3d. He proceeds to quote from an English print of 28th April, " the price of silver in bars at 5s. 1d. per oz." This may be so—but a letter to a house in this city, of the 20th April, quotes the price of dollars per oz. at 4s.6d. and states an expectation of its falling still lower.

He says "on the other hand, if dollars lose in England 5 per cent of their intrinsic value, how remittances could be favorably effected in an article so much depreciated is another paradox too profound for such humble and plain sense as we possess."

—Really, we compassionate an understanding, which cannot conceive the rate of exchange to be still more unfavorable than the rate of this depreciation; or what is the proper criterion, that the rate of exchange with the continent exceeds the expense of transporting silver.....The exchange between London and Hamburg or Amsterdam has. we are told, at no distant period, been as high as 9 or 10 per cent— generally from 6 to 8—say 7.* The expense of transport between these places inconsiderable. All the expenses between London and New York may be quoted at 1—From these places to London, of course less.... The Aurora will find in these facts the solution of the paradox which he has himself created.

As we predicted, more dollars" have been " brought in"—If they should rise in England, and Exchange has fallen nearly, if not to par. their importation from London may be reduced and may entirely cease.

We shall make but one further remark on the Aurora article—less as "it is an ingenious conceit of the Enquirer. that people are inclined to borrow money to pay their debts. that is, robbing Peter to pay Paul." But it is a not less true and galling indication of these times, that many do want money to discharge debts which they cannot evade, as sheriff's executions and bank &c. calls ; who have more than property enough to pay their debts, if they could wait for a more favorable opportunity to sell it; that many others have money idle. which they would be willing to lend out (witness the amount of deposits in the banks, the prices of 5 per cent. stock, &c but such is the want of confidence. produced by these times, so much does suspicion affect the credit of men who are really solvent, that the superfluity of one man cannot always be called in to relieve the deficiency of another. Such we remarked to be one of the hard peculiarities of these anomalous times. If Mr. D. has escaped the pressure of these things, we will vouch for it, he is more fortunate than some of his brethren of the press.

In conclusion, we advise him to beware of Political Economy, His present ideas of it are as absurd as they are conceited. Rome was once saved by the cackling of a goose ; the neighing of a horse won Darius an empire. But empiricism and abuse can never gain him the character of a Political Economist. He may try to write up DeWitt Clinton: to put down every man of honor in the nation; to recover the ground " from which he has fallen never to rise again"—let him attempt any thing else, except understand this (to him) asses bridge of Political Economy. We again