The creation of banks was pretty rapid up to 1835. The next return in the above table for 1840, shows a diminution, in consequence of the great revulsion. Since then the course has been progressive, but it would appear that the increase of loans in Boston has not been greater than the progress of business demands, if we take the extent of business as a measure. Thus, in 1825 the imports and exports were together $21,000,000, and the bank loans were 75 per cent of that amount. In 1835, when speculation ran high, the imports and exports were $27,000,000, and the bauk loans $28,647,000, or 105 per cent of the sum of external commerce. In the last year the imports and exports were $73,100,000, and the bank loans were $53,400,000, or 72 per cent of the amount; or, in tabular form, thus:

The bank table above is the annual statements; and in 1857 it is given at the moment of panic; in comparing with imports and exports, we have taken the average; we find, therefore, that the amount of bank facilities for the business done was actually less than usual. If we deduct from the exports the $13,000,000 of specie that went through from New York, and may not have added much to bank business, and do the same for 1854, the result will be the same in both years, viz., that the bank loans were 85 per cent of the imports and exports. If, now, we bear in mind the great development in railroads, in internal trade, in manufactures, in California business, and in local valuation of property, as well as the increased business in securities of all kinds in Boston, we cannot but be struck with the fact that, as compared with the previous periods of 1845 and 1835, the business was conducted far more on capital and far less on credits. The revulsion of the last fall certainly shook some of the dead boughs from the "big tree," but the giant trunk is still unshaken.

The Boston Board of Trade has made its fourth annual report, and is certainly a model report. The Board is composed of 900 of the leading merchants of Boston; George B. Upton, President, and Lorenzo Sabine, Secretary. The present report contains 230 pages, replete with information of general interest. The report takes the ground that the banking capital in the city is insufficient, and states that they had applied for an increase of the banking capital to the Legislature without success. The Board are also opposed to the restraints upon usury. If restraints were also, through a general law, removed from the free creation of bank capital, the prosperity of the place would doubtless be promoted. A large amount is now employed upon private capital. The annual report of the United States Secretary of the Treasury shows the amount of private banking capital in Boston to have been $20,000,000, and perhaps, in its operation, may be found one cause of the diminished action of corporate institutions.

Art. IV. THE ADMEASUREMENT OF SHIPPING.

NUMBER III.

THE basis of a just system of ship admeasurement has rarely been discussed in this country. In England it has been settled that the most eligible is founded on the internal capacity, or the cubature of space within the hull and under permanent decks. The grounds of this preference are, mainly, that the predominant cargoes of British commerce consist of stowage goods, and which fill the hold before vessels are fully laden, or brought down in the water to the sea going line of safety; and, moreover, that the profits of the vessel, being dependent on the cargoes carried under decks, all taxes or dues paid the government should be assessed and collected upon the capacity for such carriage. It follows, if this be the best basis for the appreciation of shipping by the fiscal officers of government, that it is also the most suitable for the mercantile community, since there can be no good reason why a proper one would not admit of general adoption.

We have examined thoroughly the views of the advocates of internal admeasurement in Great Britain, and find that we cannot limit our survey of ship tonnage to so narrow bounds. The stand-point in that country is one peculiar to its commercial system, viz., the payment of dues on tonnage. This consideration is paramount in importance, and completely over-shadows all others. The case is different in the United States. Here the subject may be viewed in every aspect, without prejudice from any single influence; there the discussion turned upon the superior eligibility of an external or internal system that should equalize (upon shipping generally) the onerous exactions of the customs. Broad and discriminating views of the uses of ship admeasurement and registry were scarcely entertained. With regard to external tonnage, it has been conceded by its enlightened opponents that it might be fairly and equitably applied to ships-of-war, yachts, ships carrying dead-weight cargoes, iron, lead, copper-ore, &c., and to all vessels of such construction as can contain more than they can carry or float with safety on a voyage. To this list they would doubtless allow us to add all vessels carrying deck-loads, which are not permitted, however, to British shipping. In the United States, this schedule of freighting is very extensive-far greater than in England, but we have not the means at hand of showing the relative proportions of tonnage engaged in carrying the different descriptions of cargoes stowed under and upon deck in the two countries.

It seems to us that a fundamental error is committed in assuming that the "predominant cargoes of commerce" should, of right, decide the eligibility of a system of admeasurement for shipping. Ship tonnage appears to be one of those questions which may be settled by a solution consistent with the rights of all interests, and requiring sacrifices from none. A just system is wanted, but justice is due to all; it can recognize no claims of partiality, either in behalf of majorities or minorities. The best system for the greater number of vessels, might be the worst for the smaller number. Why should the requirements of these be over-shadowed by the numerical preponderance of those? Upon no principle of justice can the interests of the greater number prevail in antagonism to the lesser, but

only upon the ground of superior power. It should be shown first, that it is necessary and proper for one class of shipping to give precedence to another before deciding that internal or external measurement, exclusively, should predominate.

The main characteristics of freighted commodities are described by the terms of bulk and weight. According to the fitness of things, the lighter wares of commerce are best appreciated by bulk, and on ship-board they demand STOWAGE; the heavier articles are properly estimated by weight, and for transportation they require BUOYANCY. Out of this natural relation of cargoes to gravity and space, arises the distinction which is made by shippers between goods to be freighted by the "ton," "barrei bulk," or "cubic foot," the latter being the most convenient unit of mensuration for bulk. The law of utility has thus settled popular modes of appraising the transit service of vessels by the adoption of two principles rather than one. Why should either be ignored in framing standard rules for computing before-hand the freighting capabilities of shipping, and in order to register the same? Why not construct a tonnage system to meet the public wants, as well as the government requirements? What admeasurement is useful for is to furnish the knowledge of how many barrels, bales, or cubic feet (which will answer all such purposes) a given vessel will stow, or what number of passengers her space may accommodate, and, also, how many tons of goods, &c., she can carry. Information on the first point is only to be obtained by surveying the internal capacity; and for knowledge on the second, it is necessary to measure the external magnitude of the ship, as upon it depends her powers of buoyancy. It is plain, that if we do not learn how much a vessel can hold, and how much displace for cargo, we must be entirely ignorant of its capabilities. for usefulness; and if we know but one of these things, then we can be only half informed. The conclusion cannot be otherwise, since the character of a cargo proposed for transportation determines the kind of knowledge required from admeasurement-whether of containing bulk or bearing burden.

To our mind it is plain that shipping should be admeasured both internally and externally, and the results shown on the register. If vessels never carried dead-weight cargoes, or never freighted stowage goods solely, and if all vessels transported the same description of cargoes, then a simple system of tonnage, founded on internal or external bases, as the case required, might answer all commercial purposes. But even in such case, it could be maintained that naval architecture itself demanded full and complete knowledge of the capabilities of vessels, in order to mark the advancement or retrogression of ship-building. It is highly advantageous to possess the means of analyzing the construction of vessels, and of comparing their performances with their cost, repairs, and sailing expenses. Ship builders and owners want the means of pointing out and perceiving why a ship is profitable or the reverse; and so far as this knowledge may be involved in the complete admensuration of the hull, there can be no valid objections to supplying it. Indeed, an intelligent purchaser requires to know all that can be learned of a vessel in market; and the skillful ship-builder equally demands that the excellence of his efforts be properly appreciated, through a complete exposition of fundamental principles applied to his handy work, so far as this may be done by admea

surement.

Therefore, not only do the general requirements of commerce indicate

the utility of a comprehensive system of admensuration, but the diverse methods of marine construction also justify its adoption. When we consider that the shells or hulls of vessels are not proportionate in thickness nor in weight, being either constructed with disproportionate scantling of timbers, or unequaled density of materials, it must appear manifest that just results cannot be obtained by using only one mode, or half-mode, of measurement. It is important that the capacity for stowage, depending on the interior size of a ship, should be set forth in the register along with the capability for burden. Two vessels may be built from the same model and moulds, and, nevertheless, differ widely in their exterior and interior magnitudes, by reason of the difference in materials employed and modes of construction adopted; and we want a law for appreciating them when built, that will take them precisely as they shall be found, and yield a true expression of the peculiar points of each.

In connection with this view of the subject, it is material to consider that the possibility of fraud, by constructing vessels for evasive measurement, will always exist under a partial system of admeasurement. With fraud comes folly in ship-building, hazarding the safety of life and security of property. One great object of men in every pursuit is to get the most in the market for their money. All want large measure. Hence, if a ship-owner be called upon to pay taxes or dues on his vessels, the desire is to discharge the claim with the smallest sum possible; if the amount be dependent on tonnage, then he would have it the minimum under the law. This is natural and proper. But the law is bound to be just, and must levy its exactions by an uniform rule. It should take care that its prinicple is correct, and that no evasion can be accomplished by ingenious builders or saving owners. Sometimes one of these parties is at fault, and sometimes the other, and often both, but the law or its application must always be defective to render evasion of measurement practicable.

The builder, fabricating by the ton, is interested in having his ship fully measured, and in primarily choosing such form and proportions for her as will be most profitable for him to construct-his reputation, taste, and honor being the only limit to his skill and fitness in these matters. On the other hand, the owner views the burden or capacity as of prime importance; he does not wish her to be over-measured, and he usually assents to the builder's suggestions, or dictates the dimensions and design himself, as he may understand his interests and the bearing of tonnage upon marine constructions. If large measurement can be obtained, it may be, and often is, sought without regard to the inquiry-whether it will pay to spoil the ship in order to improve the register? Between these parties, the government surveyor should intervene to do exact justice, giving twelve inches to the foot, and no more, to builder, owner, and fiscal officers.

But, were it impracticable to build shipping so as to avoid just measurement, still there might be particular instances in which, what would be tantamount, evasion might be practiced under a partial method of tonnage like the British. For example-vessels always carrying cargoes of stowage goods of a perishable nature, cannot expose any portion of them to weather with impunity; this is not the case with those always carrying other descriptions of light freights which will bear exposure; they may stow a portion of cargo on deck. Now the bulk of two such different cargoes may be equal, but who does not see that the vessels to transport them may require to be from one-third to two-fifths larger in the former case than the latter? In other words, vessels carrying deck-loads evade

internal measurement to the extent of the contents of the cargoes so carried. In like manner, ships always carrying metal cargoes would be over-measured under such a system, since they have space which their cargoes cannot occupy. Hence, it might be expected that shrewd men would undertake the construction of such vessels to avoid any undue excess of roomage under decks, adjusting the tonnage capacity of the hold to the bulk of the freight.

Internal admeasurement then, is only legitimately adapted to vessels carrying a certain description of freights, which fill the hold no more and no less. On the other hand, external admeasurement would best measure all vessels carrying cargoes which do not fill the hold, and likewise those that carry deck-loads, but it would over-measure shipping engaged in the transportation of stowage goods only, unless deduction should be made for the contents of the shell.

One of the most material considerations in framing a system of admeasurement should be, how its operation will effect the strength, velocity, and sea-worthiness of vessels, since these essential qualities should receive no prejudice thereby, but be encouraged rather. It must be a bad system that will influence in any way faulty practices in ship-building. Under a correct system of internal tonnage, the builder's object will be to furnish the required space of hold with the least amount of materials and labor; such economy tends to produce thin shells and weak hulls, unless a scientific distribution of wood and iron shall also be studied. On the other hand, the owner will probably strive for a superabundance of materials and labor, and this the builder may feel inclined to off-set in their quality, unless the price should be satisfactory. Under a correct system of external measurement, both builder and owner would unite in enlarging the interior capacity at the expense of the shell thickness in some cases, but in others, only the former party could be so interested. Under both systems united, the proportion of shell to interior and exterior tonnage would always be shown, and any excess or deficiency would be immediately seen to detract from the value of a vessel.

But there are good reasons why the thickness of vessels' shells should differ in certain cases. The strength of ships should bear proportion to the weight of their cargoes, as well as to other important circumstances; hence, a vessel to carry dead-weight cargoes, should herself weigh more than one to freight cotton or stowage goods; and another to carry only passengers, mails, &c., might properly weigh even less, on this ground, since their strength depends greatly upon the quantity of materials used. The foregoing is only true, however, of vessels that are to maintain equal rates of speed, for it is another axiom of naval architecture, that the strength of vessels should bear a relation to the velocity at which they are to be propelled. As the velocities and purposes of shipping are various, there can be no uniform rules of scantling for the thickness of their shells, and it is manifest that great differences must always prevail. But there are causes inherent in the very materials from which vessels are constructed, which combine to increase this legitimate disparity in the thickness of their hulls. These are the kind and quality of those materials-whether wood or metal, and of a strong or weak description.

Under a system of strictly internal measurement, a vessel of one hundred tons register, and paying taxes and dues as such, may, if it suits the interests of owners, be so constructed as to carry five hundred tons weight of cargo, by adopting a double, false, or unusually thick shell for the sides