the 18th of August, 86,000; and on the 25th, 89,000 bales. About this time the favorable influence of the fine harvests began to be felt, and the deficiency has lessened every week since. On the 9th of September it was 58,000 bales; on the 23d, 37,000; and on the 30th, only 20,000 bales. On the 13th of October the consumption for 1854 was 1,456,600 bales, against 1,460,000 for 1853, exhibiting a decrease of only 4,000 bales. For the whole year we may expect no decline, and as the consumption of 1853 was 1,904,000, against 1,861,000 bales of 1852, the amount for 1854 will be above rather than below 1,900,000.

For 1855, even supposing the war to continue, we may anticipate an increase. The favorable harvests in England and on every part of the continent, and the moderate prices which are likely to prevail, will increase the demand for cotton goods. The prosperity of the agricultural interest, as well as every department of manufactures, will exert a favorable influence. In every part of the world, excepting only the United States and China, the demand for the English exports will be large, and in these two countries only a slight check will be experienced. The scarcity of money, the uncertainties connected with the war, the hesitating and undecided position of the German States, will be drawbacks on the other side; but, taking both into consideration, we may reckon the wants of Great Britain as not less than two millions of bales for 1855.

For France the consumption for the coming year will be as large as in any former year. The slight check it has received during the past season has been owing to the high prices of food. And though these will not be low in the coming year, because the supplies of the last crop have been entirely exhausted, and because the war will interfere with the usual receipts from the Baltic and the Black Sea, for 1854, the exports of American cotton to France have been 374,000 bales against 427,000 for 1853; and though both these are larger that for 1852 and 1851, the universal prosperity of France since the accession of Louis Napoleon to the Imperial throne, authorizes us to have our expectations for the coming year on the past two, rather than on the preceding results. For 1855 the demand for American cotton in France must therefore exceed 400,000 bales.

On the continent there has been a decline, in consequence of the wa and the deficient harvest. Part of this will be recovered, but a deficiency in our exports to the north of Europe will still exist. Russia is, indeed, of small importance, still she wants some of our cotton. The decline in the English outgoings has been greater than ours, because nearly all the Russian imports were received from England, and not from the United States. To the whole continent, omitting France, our exports have fallen off 23,000 bales, while from Liverpool alone they have gone down from 223,000 to 156,000 bales. As the amounts for the whole year were 350,000 bales from the whole of Great Britain, the deficiency for 1854 will be fully 100,000 bales. The continental supplies exported from America and England during the year 1852 were 636,000 bales; for 1853 they were 715,000 bales, and for 1854 about 590,000 bales. For 1855 the moderate prices and abundant harvests will probably make half this loss, and thus raise the demand to 650,000 bales.

up

These several estimates for the coming year make a total demand for 1855 of 3,700,000 bales against 3,475,000 for 1854, and 3,717,000 for 1853, as in the following table :

The supplies for 1854 from the East Indies have fallen off largely from 1853. They were indeed excessively large in that year, compared with former years, having reached 485,000 bales, on account of the good price of cotton and the civil war in China. In Liverpool, on the 14th of October, the decline had reached 68,000 bales, and for the whole year the deficiency at London and Liverpool may reach 130,000 bales. But even with this falling off, the imports from the East Indies will exceed the amount of any former year. The average receipts from 1848 and 1849 were 205,000 bales; for 1850 and 1851 they were 318,000, and for 1852 and 1853 they were 354,000 bales. The probable troubles at Canton, on account of the Chinese rebellion, by lessening the demand in that part of the world, will tend to divert the Indian cotton to Europe; but this effect will be counteracted by the moderate prices, and the English receipts will not probably vary much from 350,000 bales.

The English imports from Brazil and the West Indies are small and stationary. They have been between 100,000 and 200,000 bales for every year of the past seven. The receipts at Liverpool, up to October 14, were 65,000 bales against 63,000 of the preceding year; and as the total for 1853 was 141,500, the amount for 1854 will not exceed 150,000 bales. The average for the last five years has been 152,000 bales, and for 1855 this average may be anticipated.

In Egyptian cotton the average for the last three years has been 121,000 bales. For 1853 it was 105,000. For the present year there has been an increase of 24,000 bales, making the probable amount for 1854 as high as 130,000 bales. This limit will not probably be reached for the coming year, on account of the war. This has interfered with the planting and gathering of the present crop, and, therefore, with the expected receipts for 1855. From Egypt, and Brazil, and the West Indies, the supplies for the coming year will not probably reach 250,000 bales, against 245,000 for 1853, and 347,000 for 1852.

The crop of the United States exhibits a decrease for 1854 of 333,000, compared with the preceding year. Part, but not all, of this decline will be recovered in 1855. From South Carolina a considerable increase is expected. The excessive drought of 1853 did more injury than the one we have this year experienced. The late frosts in April interfered with the early growth of the plant, but the beautiful weather in May and June fully made up for the backward spring. The drought of July and August was relieved by the partial showers, which have given to many planters most excellent crops. The lowlands and bottoms have produced very well. The storm on the 8th of September destroyed not a little by blowing it off the stalk, as a large amount was open in the fields, under the influence of the hot unclouded sun of August. The deficiency on the poor uplands, though not so great as last year, will be considerable. Yet, as the killing frost has come very late, every boll that could come to maturity has opened,

The

and the weather for the whole of October did not interrupt the picking a single day. From South Carolina an increase of 10 or 15 per cent may be expected. From Georgia the prospects are not so favorable. drought was more severe and protracted. The excessive heat of July and August made the atmosphere drier than it would otherwise have been, and the forms fell from the stalks very largely. On the rich wet lands production has increased, and on some favored spots in the uplands fine fields may be seen. But generally the crop is short, though not so much so as it was last year. The shipments from Columbus and South-western Georgia to Savannah will be increased by the extension of the railroads in that direction. The receipts at Savannah will thus probably be higher than last year, though the increase will be small. From Florida the promise of good crops is very general, and an increase may be expected, notwithstanding the extension of the South-western Railroad to Americus. In eastern Alabama the drought has been very severe, but on the prairie lands, and on the Tombigbee and the Tuscaloosa, the gain will more than balance the loss on the Alabama River. At New Orleans, and throughout the Mississippi Valley, the storm on the 22d of September was long continued, and very disastrous. The drought and heat which injured the Atlantic States did much damage on the uplands. But so numerous are the rivers, so wide the bottoms, so late the frost, that the favorable influences much exceed the adverse. From Texas the reports of a fair crop are uniform and invariable, the drought having done no damage on the Gulf. From the whole United States the crop may be estimated at 3,200,000 bales, as follows:

These receipts with the English imports from Brazil, Egypt, and the East and West Indies, will make the whole supply 3,800,000 bales, against a probable demand of 3,700,000.

As the stocks on hand are lower than last year, this slight excess of supply will not produce any great influence in depressing prices. The amount held in Liverpool, October 13th, was 791,000 bales against 819,000 of the year before, and the stocks in our northern and southern ports on the 1st of September, showed precisely the same figures in 1853 and

1854.

Nor is the stock on hand in all parts of the world excessive. It was 941,000 bales at the end of 1853, against 837,000 in 1852, and 757,000 in 1851, and 798,000 in 1850. For the 31st of December, 1854, it will not probably reach 900,000 bales.

The price now (November 2d, in New Orleans,) is 83 cents for middling, and as this is above the average of the last fifteen years, it can scarcely be maintained. The low rates of freight which are certain to prevail for the coming winter, on account of the total cessation in our exports of grain

and flour, and the depression of the shipping interest at Liverpool, will tend to keep up prices at our sea-ports.

For the ten years from 1840 to 1849 we exported 7,116,000,000 pounds of cotton, which was valued at the custom-house at $545,000,000, or at an average price of 72 cents per pound. For the last five years, the advanced price of our exports has raised the average to 84 cents. With a supply above the probable demand, and with a fair stock on hand, this price cannot well be exceeded. But no decline below this average can take place without encouraging consumption, so as to restore these rates for middling cotton.

The prosperity of the South still continues. Our planters have fair crops and fair prices. Neither is large, but both are calculated to cheer and encourage. From 1850 up to the present year, the rates for our great staple have been good, and our crops large. In the five years ending 30th of June last, our exports have sold for about $471,000,000, against $276,000,000 from 1845 to 1850, and $269,000,000 from 1840 to 1845. The present season is not so promising as the last five, but still its rates promise to be remunerative, and its returns abundant. The excessive high prices of land and negroes, which have been prevailing, cannot be maintained, but no disastrous decline or depreciation is upon us. If we are wise, and diversify our planting, by raising those other agricultural products which now bring such fine returns to the farmer, and avoid the excessive production of cotton, this decline may be easily stayed, and our prosperity not only preserved but advanced.

JOURNAL OF MERCANTILE LAW.

MARITIME LAW-COLLISION.

In the United States District Court, (Massachusetts District,) 1854, Judge Sprague on the Bench. Matthew Hunt et al., vs. the Brig Clement.

This was a cause of collision promoted by the owners of the pilot-boat Hornet, of Boston, against the brig Clement, for running down and sinking the Hornet in Boston harbor, near the “Graves,” in June, 1854.

The libel alleged that the two vessels were coming into the harbor by the wind, which was W. N. W., the Hornet about half a mile to leeward of the brig, and both vessels on the starboard tack, bound for Broad Sound; that when nearly up to the N. E. ledge of the "Graves," the brig suddenly kept off three or four points toward Light-house Channel, and ran afoul of the Hornet, and sunk her.

The answer of the respondent denied this statement, and alleged that the brig was sailing towards Light-house Channel by the "Graves," two points free, while the Hornet was close hauled; that the Hornet persisted in trying to run across the bows of the brig, although hailed and told to keep off, and thereby eaused the collision.

The answer further alleged that the brig was so near the "Graves," that she had no room to luff or tack; but the Hornet had plenty of both room and time to have avoided the other vessel by keeping off.

SPRAGUE, J. The collision between these two vessels took place in Boston harbor, at about noon, on a fine summer day, when there was a good breeze, and the sea smooth. It is a necessary inference, therefore, that it must have been caused by the fault of one or both of them. The sudden change in the course of the brig, stated by the libel, I think is not made out by the evidence, but the

libel, taken in connection with the answer, presents a case of two vessels sailing on converging courses, both on the same tack, the one close hauled and the other two points free. Then the question is, which is to give way?

There is some discrepancy of testimony as to where the collision took place; but from the respondent's witnesses, taken in connection to those of the libellant, I infer that it must have been outside of the buoy which is on the northeast ledge of the "Graves." The captain of the brig says he was then eastward of "the buoy;" and it is shown that there is but one buoy near the "Graves," and that half a mile from the "Graves" proper.

The respondent says that the Hornet was trying to run across the brig's bows. That is true; but it is equally true that the brig was trying to run across the schooner's bows; and it is to prevent collision in similar cases that a rule of the sea has been established. The present case appears to be one to which the rule applies, viz: that when two vessels are approaching on convergent or conflicting courses, one close hauled and the other free, and there is danger of collision, that vessel having the wind free must invariably give way. If the brig had been close hauled, and the Hornet close hauled also, and the convergence of their courses had been owing to the schooner's ability to lie nearer to the wind than the other, then the brig would not have been bound to give way, for the reason that the schooner would have been in a condition in which she would have had an advantage over the square-rigged vessel, and she might have altered her course, and still been on equal terms with the other. But in this case the brig was not close hauled; she was two points free, and it was therefore incumbent on her to have given way. It is in evidence that the captain of the brig saw the Hornet half an hour before the collision.

He then had it in his power to have kept off at once in front of the schooner, or he might subsequently have gone under her stern, or he might have hauled his wind and either backed his topsail or gone about, and I am of opinion that there was room enough between her and the "Graves" to have done so. In fact, the brig luffed and wore round after the accident, and it is therefore justly inferable that there was room enough for her to have done so before. As she was heading towards Light-house Channel, and was up to windward, she might have adopted either of the above measures without any more detention than would be caused by a short deviation; while the schooner being as close to the wind as she could go, heading for a narrow passage near the "Graves," any deviation she made would have been a detention and a loss of ground to leeward. It was therefore incumbent upon the brig to have adopted some one of these measures, I need not state which, and so have avoided the schooner.

Another fact tends to show negligence on the part of the brig. It appears that the captain saw the schooner half an hour before the collison, and that although he saw that the two vessels were upon conflicting courses, he says he paid no attention to her from that time till the collision was imminent. This was negligence on the part of the brig. Every vessel is bound to keep watch of all vessels in her vicinity, and to observe their motions and courses.

But in addition to this, the man at the wheel testified that he heard the hail from the schooner before the collision, but took no measures to alter the course he was steering, and he gave as his reason for not doing so that he had no order from the captain to that effect, and would not do so until he had. This cannot be justified. It was his duty in the present case, having it in his power to avoid the collision when it was imminent, to have done so immediately, without waiting for orders from the captain, when life and property were hazarded by his delay. For these reasons I think the brig was to blame.

The question then arises:-Was the Hornet in fault also because she didn't keep away when hailed from the brig? I don't think she was. If she were to be adjudged in fault because she persevered in holding her course, then the rule requiring a vessel with the wind free to give way to one close hauled, would be practically abrogated. The effect of this rule should and must be enforced to enable the vessel by the wind to hold her course under the confident belief that the other will give way. It is not for the brig to complain that the Hornet held