Besides these volumes, Mr. Gilbart has written articles on monetary affairs for the Morning Herald, over the signature of Nehemiah. He is also a contributor to the Bankers' Magazine. An article in the Westminster Review for January, 1841, upon Currency and Banking, and one upon the Laws of the Currency, published in the Foreign and Colonial Quarterly Review for April, 1844, are written by him. Early in 1840, he published a pamphlet called " An Inquiry into the Causes of the Pressure on the Money Market during the year 1839."

66

Our limits will not permit us to quote from these works at such length as the nature of their subjects would require. We take pleasure, however, in extracting a few passages from a book called "The Moral and Religious Duties of Public Companies," which was printed for private distribution in 1846, and is understood to have been written by Mr. Gil. bart. The rules of action here recommended would, if adopted, be found an excellent practical substitute, for the souls of which corporations are supposed to be destitute.

Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal, knowing that ye also have a master in heaven.

Be just in your appointments, and select those who are the most worthy, and the best qualified for the duties they will have to discharge. Be just in the amount of your remuneration; recollect that many of the servants of public companies have greater trusts, and heavier responsibilities, than the servants of individuals; and in this case it is just and equal that they be rewarded accordingly. Be just in your promotions, and let not merit be supplanted by patronage or favoritism. Be just in the quantity of labor you exact. Appoint a sufficient number of servants to do the work easily. Do not compel them to keep late hours; nor refuse reasonable holidays, for the purposes of health and recreation. Be just in your pensions, and let your aged and worn out servants be treated with respect and liberality. Be just in your reproofs. "Forbearing threatening." Let not your censures, or your punishments, be more than proportionate to the offence; and be as ready at all times to acknowledge the merits of your servants, as to notice their defects. All complaints, and all applications for increased remuneration, or privileges, from the servants of public companies, should receive mature consideration; and all refusals should be given with kindness and courtesy.

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Establish a fund for the relief of the widows and children of the servants of the company. Such a fund is established by the East India Company and by the Bank of England; and why not by all large companies? Mining and railway companies should relieve the widows and children of those who meet with accidents in their respective works.

Great is the debt of gratitude due by all our public companies, to the cause of mental cultivation-and when these companies are computing the annual gains which from this source they have acquired, let them not forget that the genius of mental cultivation, supported by benevolence, patriotism, and religion, and attended by crowds of the uninstructed children of the indigent, stands at their door, and humbly asks payment of a portion of this debt.

Let them, in part, discharge this debt, by seeing that the children of their laborers, and the people of the district, are all supplied with the means of instruction. And afterwards, let them patronize those societies which have for their object, the education of the children of the poor in other districts, and throughout the land.They should also, as far as it can be done with justice to others, give promotion to such of their servants, as devote their leisure to the cultivation of their minds. The time is gone by when it was a reproach for a young man to be bookish, as he was supposed to abstract so much more time and attention from his official du

ties. It is now well known, that the general cultivation of the intellectual powers, renders them more effective in every operation in which they may be exercised. It is a great advantage to a public company to have educated servants. Their superior knowledge is always useful-the mental discipline they have acquired improves their business habits-and possessing within themselves a constant source of enjoyment, they are the less likely to indulge in those expensive pleasures which are the usual temptation to neglect and dishonesty.

It is a proof of Mr. Gilbart's high sense of duty, that it should have occurred to him to write a work of this kind. From the first views which it inculcates, no less than from the fine expression of his features, as presented in the engraving we issue with this number of the Magazine, we are assured of the correctness of the following description of his character, which is given by a writer in the Bankers' Magazine :

"In personal character, Mr. Gilbart is a kind-hearted and benevolent man; modest and unassuming in his manners, and quite free from any assumption of authority on account of his official standing or mental talent. He is- -an excellent test of personal character-most highly esteemed and respected by those who serve under him; and his personal friends are warm in their expressions of respect for his character."

MERCANTILE LAW CASES.

RIGHTS OF CHILDREN AND GRAND-CHILDREN OF BRITISH-BORN SUBJECTS WHO HAVE RECENTLY BECOME SUBJECTS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, WITH REFERENCE TO THE INHERITANCE OF LAND IN GREAT BRITAIN.

In the British Court of Chancery, by Vice-Chancellor Wigham. Fitch vs. Weber.

His Honor delivered judgment in this case. The suit was for the administration of the real and personal estate of a testatrix named Ann Taylor, who died in 1839 without issue. A reference had been directed to the master to inquire and state, amongst other things, who was the heir of the testatrix at the time of her death.

The master reported in effect, that William Willock was the heir. It appeared that his ancestor, Thomas Willock, whose descent from the testatrix was clear, was a subject of the King of Great Britain. This Thomas Willock emigrated to Virginia, in the United States of America, in the year 1784, and some time afterwards took the oath of allegiance to the United States, of which he became a citizen, renouncing and abjuring at the same time his allegiance to any other state or government whatsoever; that in 1787 he married the daughter of an American citizen, and died in 1833, leaving William Willock, his eldest son, born in 1789, and a second son, J. T. Willock, and a daughter Catharine, who were also claimants on the record. The other claimants were the children of the two sisters of the testatrix. It appeared that William Willock, the son of Thomas, had continued to reside in Virginia, as a citizen of the United States, and that upon his death, in 1836, he left a son, William Willock, in whose favor the master had reported. The report stated that William Willock, the successful claimant, in pursuance of the provisions of the statute 13 Geo. III., c. 21, left New York, where he was previously residing, for the purpose of removing to Great Britain; that he arrived in England in June, 1846, and had ever since continued to reside there; and that, on the 8th of November, 1846, he received the sacrament of the Lord's Supper according to the usage of the Church of England, and on the 21st of November, 1846, took and subscribed the oaths, and made, repeated, and subscribed the declaration required by the provisions of the statute 1 Geo. IV., c. 13.

The report was objected to on the ground that, under the circumstances above mentioned, Thomas Willock had ceased to be a subject of the crown of Great Britain, and was not a subject of that crown at the time of the birth of any or either of his children; that such children were not, therefore, children of a nativeborn subject of Great Britain, within the intent and meaning of the acts of Parliament 7 Anne, c. 5, and 4 Geo. II., c. 21, in that case made and provided, and that such children were therefore aliens, and incapable of inheriting property in Great Britain.

HIS HONOR, THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, in delivering judgment upon the case, said that upon the question of pedigree there was no dispute; but that the question was whether, under the circumstances of the case, the status of Thomas Willock and his son William was not such as to incapacitate William the grandson from taking lands by descent from the testatrix. An argument to that effect had been founded upon the treaties of 1783, and November, 1794, between this country and the United States; but it appeared clear, in his opinion, that there was nothing in those treaties to affect the right of the grandson. The treaty of 1783 empowered British born subjects then residing in America to become American citizens, but did not extend that power to British subjects who should afterwards go to reside there. “Doe dem. Auchmuty v. Mulcaster," 5 Barnwell and Cresswell's reports, p. 771. That treaty could not, therefore, apply to the case of Thomas Willock, who was never in America till 1784. Nor did the treaty of 1794, which was a local act, apply; for Thomas Willock did not reside in the locality. The correctness of the master's decision would depend, then, upon the statutes 7 Anne, c. 5, and Geo. II., c. 21, the provisions of which are extended to grand-children on the father's side by 13 Geo. III., c. 21. Thomas Willock went to America in 1784, and his son and grandson were born there. The capacity of the son to inherit, as he was not born within the king's allegiance, must depend on the statutes of 7 Anne a., 4 Geo. II. By the third section of the former of these acts it is declared that the children of all natural born subjects born out of the allegiance of her Majesty, her heirs, and successors, shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be natural born subjects to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever. The statute 4 Geo. II., c. 21, explaining that of Anne, requires that the fathers of such children shall be natural born subjects at the times of the birth of such children respectively. Up to that point of the case, therefore, the only question would be whether, in 1778, at the time of the birth of William, the son, Thomas had ceased to be a natural born subject of Great Britain. As to William the grandson, the 13 Geo. III., c. 21, provides," that all persons born out of the allegiance of the King, &c., whose fathers were or should by virtue of the statutes 7 Anne and 4 Geo. II. be entitled to the rights and privileges of natural born subjects, should be deemed natural born subjects." From the words of that statute it was clear that the question as to the capacity of William, the grandson, would depend upon the inquiry, whether, at the time of his birth, his father, William, was entitled to the rights and privileges of natural born subjects by virtue of the statutes 7 Anne and 4 Geo. II.; and that the capacity of the grandson would depend upon that of the son under those statutes. With a view to that inquiry, the first question which arose was, as to the disqualifications extended-first, to children whose fathers at the time of their birth were or should be attainted of high treason by judgment, outlawry, or otherwise; secondly, to children whose fathers at the time of their birth were or should be liable to the penalties of high treason or felony, in case of their returning to this kingdom without the license of the crown; and thirdly, to children whose fathers at the time of their birth were or should be in the actual service of any foreign prince or state in enmity with the crown. No question arose upon the first and third disqualifications, for no such attainder or foreign service had been shown in the case. With regard to the second disqualification, it had been well argued in behalf of William, the grandson, that the words of the section as to returning into the kingdom without license pointed clearly to a well known class of offences; and the existence of such a class of offences subjecting the offenders to treason or felony was certainly a sufficient inducement for any court of justice to restrain the words of the statute within those limits. The con

struction of a statute which should require a court of justice to determine that a person was actually guilty of treason or felony, in the absence of that party, was one than which there could be none more improbable. Another argument had been that Thomas, in the circumstances appearing upon the report, had, before the birth of his son William, abjured his allegiance and become by his own act an American citizen, and that by so doing he had ceased altogether to be a British subject. Upon the fullest consideration, that argument, his Honor said, appeared to him fallacious. The privileges conferred by the statutes in question upon the children of persons born out of the king's allegiance, were the privileges of the children, and not of the fathers, and were conferred upon the children for the benefit of the state itself. Without saying that in cases where the parents were disqualified by their own acts, the children might not lose the privileges conferred upon them by the statutes, it was clear that the parent might do acts short of that, subjecting himself to penalties or forfeiture. Where, however, the question was whether by the act of the parent the privilege of the child should be lost, it was not sufficient to show that the act of the father might possibly have a given effect, but it would be necessary to show that the acts of the father had actually the effects ascribed to them by the argument. Unless that were done, the rights of the children would be unaffected by the acts of the father. The acts found to have been done by Thomas Willock by the master, though they might have made him liable to pains and penalties, were clearly not sufficient to absolve him from his allegiance; and while that obligation remained, the rights and privileges of the children could not be affected by the acts relied upon. The statute 3 Jac. I., c. 4, ss. 22 and 23, no doubt created an offence; but where there had been no attainder, judgment, or outlawry, the case would fall under the foregoing observations. That, his Honor said, was sufficient to dispose of the question as between the descendants of the testatrix's sisters, and William, the grandson. It had been, however, contended on the part of J. T. Willock that he was to be preferred to the grandson, on the ground that the latter had not qualified himself by receiving the sacrament, taking the oaths, and subscribing the declarations within the five years, as prescribed by the statute 1 Geo. I., c. 13. True, those acts were not done within the five years; but on reading the statute it was quite possible to see that some reasonable time must be allowed before the party is required to do those acts. The party could certainly not be required to do them before the death of the ancestor; and the case appeared to be within the reasoning of Lord Coke, that where upon doing certain acts a party is to acquire certain rights, time will be allowed him to do the necessary acts to perfect his title.

His Honor then overruled the exceptions, with costs.

LIBELLANT CHARTER PARTY-RIGHT ASSUMED BY CONSIGNEES OF DEDUCTING A COMMISSION UPON FREIGHT-MONEY DUE FROM THEMSELVES.

Zachariah Jellison vs. James Lee et al. This was an appeal by Lee et al. from a judgment of the U. S. District Court, upon a proceeding in Admiralty, brought to recover a balance claimed to be due the libellant, as owner of the bark Canton, upon a charter party, under the following circumstances:

The respondent chartered the bark of the libellant, for a round sum, to carry a cargo of bones to Hull, in England, for one William Ward, who was the owner of the cargo. The charter was to be paid in Hull, upon the discharge of the cargo. The bark was addressed, in the charter party, to Mr. Ward.

Ward paid to the captain, in cash and by disbursements for the vessel, a certain sum in pounds sterling, claiming the right to estimate the sum due at the then current rate of exchange between Boston and Hull, and to deduct from the charter a commission of 24 per cent. He also alleged a deficiency in the cargo, by short stowage, to the extent of 11 tons, and deducted from the sum payable a rateable proportion therefor.

The libellant claimed that the charter was payable in dollars, or, in as much sterling money as could have been bought in Hull at the time when it was paya

ble, by the number of dollars agreed upon in the charter party, without reference to rates of exchange. He denied that any deficiency existed in the cargo, and insisted upon payment of the full sum stipulated for in the charter party, without deduction of commissions, save the customary commission upon disbursements for the ship.

The cause was mainly contested upon the question of the commissions, and many mercantile witnesses were examined-of whom three were New York merchants, and one was a member of a London and Liverpool house-for the purpose of settling the mercantile usage upon the subject; the right to deduct commissions being claimed upon an alleged custom or usage of merchants, to allow such commissions to the " consignee or "addressee" of a ship, in all cases. It was admitted by the libellant and the witnesses introduced by him, that a usage is established to allow the commission, in cases where the consignee of the ship has to collect the freight from some other consignee or consignees of the cargo and pay it over to the captain, as a compensation for his trouble and risk in the transaction of the business. And some of the libellant's witnesses testified that an effort had been made to establish such a custom in cases where the consignee of the ship is the owner and consignee of the cargo, as in the present case. The cause was elaborately argued on both sides.

J. Woodbury held that the testimony did not establish the alleged usage; that a usage, in order to be binding, must be proved to be general, uniform, notorious, and reasonable. But this was not shown to be such. It was at best unsettled, and was unreasonable in itself, and not to be favored. Commissions are based upon the idea of services and risks, for which they are the compensation. But, in the case of a party who only pays over money due from himself, there is neither service nor risk.

Nor was the cargo proved to be short. The balance of testimony was, that what appeared to be short stowage was only the making of room below for wood and water for the safety of the ship, and that the space so occupied was made up by diminishing the forecastle and adding a part of it to the hold. Any reasonable arrangement made to secure the safety of the vessel and crew, not influenced by selfishness or improper timidity, is rather to be encouraged.

The amount of sterling money in Hull which would have brought $3,000, is the sum which was payable by the charter. An assessor appointed by the Court has ascertained that the pound sterling was worth, at the time, in Hull, $4 80. That is to be assumed as its proper value, and the whole sum computed on that basis. Judgment of the Court below, in favor of the libellant, affirmed, with interest and

costs.

COTTON PLANTERS AND FACTORS-A SUIT TO HOLD DEFENDANTS LIABLE FOR LOSS UPON A SHIPMENT OF COTTON TO LIVERPOOL.

Ward, Jones & Co. vs. Warfield & Co.-Slidell, J.-Plaintiffs are commission merchants in New Orleans; defendants are owners of a cotton plantation in the State of Mississippi. The object of this suit is to hold defendants liable for a loss upon a shipment of cotton to Liverpool. The cotton was shipped by defendants to plaintiffs, with whom they were in account, for sale. Instead of selling at New Orleans, they shipped it to Caslittain & Co. of Liverpool, obtaining an advance from the New Orleans agents of that house for the full market value at New Orleans, the nett proceeds of which advance, after deducting shipping charges, commissions for advance, &c., were passed to the credit of defendants. The shipment to Liverpool was made on the 7th March, 1844, and on the 27th March the plaintiffs addressed to Warfield & Co., at their plantation, a letter informing them of the shipment to Liverpool, stating that the market in New Orleans had been continually going down, that the shipment would reach England at a favorable moment, that they hoped for a good return, and that they acted for them (defendants) in the matter as they (plaintiffs) would have done for themselves. One passage of the letter is important. It reads thus: "We had the cotton valued by one of our best brokers, and, if you prefer not risking the shipment, we will pay you the