and she will submit to no dictation." But let Congress interpose its imperative duty and right to act on the fiscal relations of the States, and the proud Mistress Excelsior would bend suppliant at the feet of her youthful sister Miss Eureka.

Another point I wish to prove is, that it is the bounden duty of the Federal Government to protect California from this robbery of her treasure by the ruthless, insidious, and unjust operation of paper money and bank credits, as much as from the violent attacks of hostile Indians, of foreign foes, or of enemies of the country. It cannot be iterated or reiterated too often, for the knowledge of the people, that the American Constitution has conferred upon Congress the whole right to regulate the finances of the country. The States have no right at all to meddle in the premises. Let this function of Congress be no longer a dead-letter; let California be no longer compelled to part with her gold at fifty cents on the dollar. Let no banks be allowed to discount credit, but make bank loans and bank credits only equal to the actual cash means of these institutions. If the State of New York should enact any special legislation which would reduce the value of wheat, flour, and grain one-half, how would the grain-growing States chafe and bound under such enactments. If the same special legislation were enacted against cotton, how would the Southern planters spit fire at such invasion of their rights? And yet, precisely parallel to this legislation is the legislation of States legitimating banks of issue, and thus robbing California of half the value of her treasure. If the constitutional measures of value, gold and silver, were used in the old States of the Union, prices would rule there only half, perhaps less than half, what they now do. Thus, paper money creates price without corresponding value.

The imports of California from the old States in the last eight years have been, in round numbers, $400,000,000, at the paper money prices: They have been taken at these prices and paid for in gold. Thus has California lost $200,000,000 of principal, and $50,000,000 of interest. On the part of California, I pledge myself to demonstrate to the Federal Government, whenever it is ready to audit the matter in issue, that there is a just and equitable balance of $250,000,000 due to this State for damages and losses accruing to her upon the gold already remitted, by reason of the paper money system in the old States; and that this loss has accrued by and on account of a lache of the Federal Government to do her duty in the premises.

It is upon California-despised, neglected, oppressed, and injured California-the State which has enriched every other State of the Confederacy and impoverished herself in so doing-California, which has saved the country ten times over fron bankruptcy, and furnished every drop of healthful circulation which now flows through the veins of the body politic, which has raised the country from financial poverty and placed it in a position of wealth and respect before the great powers of the earth-it is upon this State that the blighting curse of paper money comes with ten-fold fury. Six hundred millions of gold have California in ten years past. She has measured her gold to the old States gone from at precisely its sterling value. She has received for it goods, wares, and merchandise manufactured and produced under a paper currency, which, if they had been manufactured under a gold currency, would have been laid down in San Francisco at less than half the amount which has

actually been paid for them. In this way California has already lost $200,000,000. She is now losing, under her reduced importations, which are estimated at $34,000,000 annually, at least one-half this sum-say $17,000,000 per annum. Was there ever a State on the globe, with a population of only 650,000, which could pay an annual tribute of $17,000,000 in gold without any consideration in return?

Gold is the staple of California, and, by the Constitution of the United States, the measure of all values. It is California's gain that the Constitution has made her staple a standard of values. It is not the loss of the old States that such a standard has been instituted. Other nations recognize it, and, beyond doubt, it was intended by a beneficent Providence to serve mankind in this precise sphere. California has just as good right to its full value as she has to one-half or one-quarter its value. She has parted with it all at half price or less; she continues to send it at half price. Such extortion is unconstitutional, unreasonable, and unjust. And the extortion is by no means mitigated from the fact that gold is plenty in California. Few citizens of the United States are aware of these facts; but when examined upon the principles of political economy and the course of trade as now existing between the old States and this State, it will be seen that such conclusions are true and logical.

JOURNAL OF MERCANTILE LAW.

LIABILITY OF EXPRESS COMPANIES.

In the United States Circuit Court, district of Connecticut-at Hartford. September 19, 1860. Before NELSON, Circuit Judge, and SHIPMAN, District Judge.

In December, 1859, F. H. WILLIAMS, of the city of New York, sent a note, at three months, for $3,000, to the Norwalk Bauk, at Norwalk, Connecticut, to be discounted. The cashier returned the note to WILLIAMS through the mail, with a letter stating that the note had too long to run, and that if he would make it a two months' note the bank would discount it. That letter was advertised by the Post-office in New York. One J. S. WILLIAMS called for the letter and obtained it. Acting upon the suggestion of the cashier, he altered the note to a two months' note, and then took it to the Adams Express Company in New York, and representing himself to be F. A. WILLIAMS, gave the note to the company to be transmitted to the Bank of Norwalk, and directed the company to bring back the proceeds to him. He also wrote a letter to the cashier, requesting him to return the proceeds by the express company, and signed the letter "F. A. WILLIAMS." That letter he gave to the express company, who forwarded it to the bank with the note. The bank discounted the note and gave to the express company its proceeds (less $1 50 express charges) amounting to $2,971, in a package addressed F. A. WILLIAMS, New York city." The bank took from the company a receipt for the money and paid the company $1 50 out of the proceeds of the note for express charges. The money was returned to New York and there delivered by the company to J. S. WILLIAMS. On the discovery of the fraud the bank brought an action against the express company, in a State Court in Connecticut, to recover the money. The action was removed by the company into the Federal Court.

The bank claimed that by the receipt of the $1 50, and by the giving of the receipt for the money, the express company had undertaken to deliver the money to F. A. WILLIAMS, to whom the package containing the money was directed. It also claimed that the officers of the bank did not observe the letter accompany.

ing the note, and that the express company was guilty of negligence in not discovering the fraud, and that it was an insurer of the genuineness of the paper which it carried for collection, and that the bank had acted upon the faith of the directions given by the express company to the bank to transmit the money for the note through it to New York. The cause came on to be tried before Judges NELSON and SHIPMAN and a jury at Hartford. After the evidence was in, the court requested the counsel for the plaintiffs to state the legal grounds upon which they relied to recover. After argument, NELSON, C. J., stated that the court were of opinion that the question involved in the case was wholly a question of law, as there was no dispute as to the facts, and he proceeded to deliver the opinion of the court substantially as follows:

It is agreed, at least the facts warrant the conclusion, that both these parties, both the bank and the carrier, are innocent parties, so far as regards this transaction-equally innocent perhaps. And the question is, which of the two innocent parties must suffer the loss. This will depend upon the application of some dry rule of law to the admitted facts of the case.

Now, the obligation that is charged upon the carrier by the bank is this, that he received the proceeds of the note and undertook to deliver them to F. A. WILLIAMS, the maker of the original note, the genuine F. A. WILLIAMS. That is the undertaking set out and charged upon the carrier, and it is the breach of that duty or undertaking upon which is founded the claim to recover the loss. The ground of the action against the carrier is the breach of duty in not delivering the proceeds of the note to the genuine F. A. WILLIAMS, according to the undertaking that the carrier violated his duty in delivering to the fictitious F. A. WILLIAMS instead of the genuine F. A. WILLIAMS.

It appears that the carrier had no knowledge of the F. A. WILLIAMS who was the maker of the original note, and had no knowledge that he was in any way connected with the transaction, and had no knowledge that there were any transactions existing between him and the bank. So far as it respects the carrier as connected with the transaction, F. A. WILLIAMS, the original maker of the note, was a perfect stranger. The note was delivered to the carrier by a person representing himself by the name of F. A. WILLIAMS. He was in possession of the note, and when he delivered it to the carrier, representing himself to be F. A. WILLIAMS, he at the same time wrote a letter directed to the cashier of the bank, subscribing his name, “ F. A. WILLIAMS,” to it. This note and this letter he delivered to the carrier for the purpose of conveyance to the bank, with the view to the note's being discounted, and with the directions to bring back the proceeds, provided the note was discounted. The note was received by the carrier in the usual way, and the only connection that the carrier had with the transaction was as a carrier of the package. The package, containing the note and the letter, was delivered to the bank. The bank received it, and upon the faith of the note discounted it and delivered the proceeds, according to the direction, to the carrier, to be remitted back to the person who employed the carrier. Now how, upon this state of facts, can a duty, or an undertaking, be predicated on the part of the carrier, to deliver these proceeds to F. A. WILLIAMS, the original maker of the note, a stranger to the company, of whom they had no knowledge, and for whom they had transacted no business. He was not their employer in the transmission of the package to the bank. We are unable to see how, upon this state of facts, a promise or a duty can be raised, either express or implied, that they would deliver these proceeds to a stranger whom they never knew, and who had no connection with the transaction.

It seems to us. that upon the facts as they appear, the note being delivered to the carrier, accompanied by a letter, by a person representing himself to be F. A. WILLIAMS, to be carried to the bank by the carrier, and delivered there, the whole employment being performed according to the undertaking, the bank receiving the paper signed by this man representing himself to be F. A. WILLIAMS, discounting it, and returning the proceeds to the company, it seems to us that upon that state of facts the only implied undertaking on the part of the carrier. would be an undertaking to deliver the proceeds to the person who employed the

carrier.

The company must have naturally supposed and believed that the bank and this person who delivered this note to them understood each other. The bank having discounted the note and sent back the proceeds according to the direc tions, the carrier must have supposed that it was a fair and ordinary transaction, and one in which the bank and this person understood each other. Therefore, the duty raised by implication, was to deliver the proceeds to the person who had sent the note to the bank, and who had procured the discount of the note.

As respects this letter, if it is of any importance at all, it seems to us that the most material fact is, that the carrier performed his whole duty in regard to it. The letter was delivered to the bank. Their omission to notice it, whether from neglect, or carelessness or misfortune, is certainly not to be charged upon a carrier who has performed his whole duty with respect to it. If, therefore, it is a material fact to influence the court in their judgement, we are to assume that the bank had full knowledge of the letter accompanying the note. And with respect to the indorsement upon the back of the package delivered to the bank, without regard to the purpose for which it was put on, it was the authority that the proceeds should be delivered to the express company. The letter directing that the proceeds should be returned by the carrier was the authority from the person who wrote the letter.

We are of opinion, therefore, that on the facts of the case, looked at simply with reference to the application of the rule of law that should determine the rights of the parties, no duty or promise can be raised or implied on the part of the carrier to deliver the proceeds to F. A. WILLIAMS, the original maker of the note-the genuine F. A. WILLIAMS; but that on the contrary, the duty or promise that can be raised upon these facts against the carrier, was to deliver the proceeds to the person who employed the carrier.

But there is another view of this case, which is independent of the view we have taken, and that is this. After the alteration of the note by the pretended F. A. WILLIAMS, it was no longer the note of the genuine F. A. WILLIAMS. It was a forged note. F. A. WILLIAMS was not under any obligation by virtue of his signature to that note. As it respected him, it was the same as a note entirely fabricated, for $3,000, payable in two months. It was therefore a forged note, delivered by the guilty party to the carrier, to be conveyed by it, as carrier, to the bank for the purpose of discount. That note was taken to and received by the bank, and on the faith of itself was discounted, and the proceeds were returned. Now, is the carrier responsible for the conveyance of forged papers? Is the carrier an insurer of the genuineness of all papers that are put into his hands for the purpose of transmission or conveyance? We think not. This would be an alarming doctrine to lay down, as it respects the common carrier. This business, carried on through the medium of the express companies, has be come a very extensive business. The common carrier is only a mode of com municating with banks, transmitting notes for discount, and carrying back their proceeds. The carrier has no earthly interest in such transaction, but as a mere vehicle of conveyance-is not connected at all with the party procuring the discount, or with the bank-does not influence the bank to discount the paper, and makes no representations in that regard, and the bank knows that the carrier has no other connection with the paper than as a vehicle of conveyance. It would be a very strange doctrine to hold that, under such circumstances, the carrier should be responsible to the bank for the genuineness of the paper-that the mere carrying of it, the mere conveyance of it from the party employing the carrier to the bank, should operate as a guaranty of the genuineness of all the paper put into the hands of the carrier for conveyance. That principle cannot be sustained. Now, that is this case. The note here was as much a forged note as if it had been fabricated throughout. There was no obligation on the part of F. A. WILLIAMS, the original and genuine maker of it, under the alteration. It must be regarded, therefore, as forged.

We are quite clear that the case has not been made out on the part of the plaintiffs, and that the defendant is entitled to a verdict. The jury found a verdict for the defendant.

COMMERCIAL CHRONICLE AND REVIEW.

FOREIGN TRADE-CROPS ABROAD-WANTS OF ENGLAND-SHIPMENT OF BREADSTUFFS-LARGE EXFORTS OF NEW YORK-POLITICAL DISQUIET-FALL IN STOCKS-AGGREGATE DEPRECIATION-UNITED STATES STOCKS-NEW LOAN-CAPITAL DEVELOPED-RAILROAD RECEIPTS-MILES IN OPERATION-COST-RECEIPTS-THE FUTURK-RATES OF MONEY-EXCHANGES AT THE SOUTH-PRICES OF BILLS SPECIE MOVEMENT ASSAY OFFICE-PAYMENTS IN BARS-INCREASED COINAGE-CIRCULA TION OF COIN-COTTON SALES-SOUTHERN BANKS-EXCHANGE AT NEW YORK-FOOD AND RAW MATERIAL-NORTHERN MANUFACTURERS-CHEAP COTTON-DEAR FOOD INCREASE OF MANUFACTURES-BALES TAKEN-EUROPEAN DEMAND-ENGLAND'S PROPORTION-NORTHERN PURCHASESENGLAND'S HARVESTS OFTEN INFLUENCE.

THE tendency of the foreign trade has been towards the development of a season of unusual prosperity. The contradictory reports that have been so long received in relation to the English harvest seem to have settled down in a certainty of large deficit. The Mark Lane Express gives the following summary of the situation of the harvest :

We hazarded an opinion a few weeks since that the actual deficiency in produce of wheat would amount to one fifth and certainly everything that has taken place has tended to confirm this. Even those who at the time were too sanguine to fall in with such a view of the case are now convinced that it was by no means an exaggerated one; and that even a much larger deficiency may be expected, on account of the smaller breadth than usual having been sown last season, in consequence of the high price of barley.

Under these serious circumstances, which are much upon a par with those of the year 1816, it is necessary to look around us to see what prospect we have of obtaining an adequate supply from abroad. The following are the imports of wheat, and flour as wheat, for the seven years from 1853 to 1859 inclusive :

This table shows that, taking one year with another, we cannot get through with less than four-and three-quarter million quarters. But the most notable fact is that the last four years-in three of which the crops were above the average in productiveness-the imports have averaged nearly five million quarters, (4,893,193,) the greater part of which, as well as of the native produce, was consumed before the present harvest was ready. How, then, do we stand in regard to the present stock of wheat on hand, and the prospect of importations in the coming season.

By the official returns, which we have recently published, it appears that in the eight months of the present year ending the 31st of August, we have imported, in wheat and flour, as follows:

If we import at the same rate the remaining four months of the year, it will stand thus: