in 1857 was double what the whole State raised in 1850. The value of these crops per annum has increased by a sum equal to half the whole expenditure upon the railroads, and these roads are now ready to pour into Southport, Racine, and Milwaukee the swelling crops of that fertile region, no longer consumed upon the spot by railroad builders. The exports of domestic produce from the country from the port of Milwaukee was, in 1857, $522,044. The construction of these railroads has been without State aid, except in so far as the grants of land by the Federal Government to the State were made over to the railroads. The following is a table of the roads in operation-the aggregate length opened is 830 miles, and about 1,162 miles are still to be completed on these roads:

Milwaukee is the great point of convergence for these roads, which have contributed to its growth, and which reciprocally has shown much enterprise in prosecuting them. The law of Congress, aiding in the construction of the roads, was passed in 1856, and the following is a synopsis :

SYNOPSIS OF THE ACT OF CONGRESS, GRANTING PUBLIC LANDS TO THE STATE OF WISCONSIN TO AID IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF RAILROADS, PASSED JUNE 3, 1856. SECTION 1 grants in aid of a railroad from Madison or Columbus, by way of Portage City, to the St. Croix River or Lake, between townships 25 and 31, thence to west end of Lake Superior and to Bayfield; also, from Fond du Lac, on Lake Winnebago, northerly to the State line, every alternate section of land, six sections in width, on each side of the railroads; no land to be more than fifteen miles from the roads, to be exclusively applied to construction, and disposed of only as the work progresses.

SEC. 2. Lands within six miles of the road not to be sold for less than double the government minimum price, and must be first offered at public sale.

SEC. 3. The land so granted may be disposed of by the Legislature for the purpose of the roads, and no other.

SEC. 4. The State may dispose of the lands only in the following manner:-A quantity not exceeding 120 sections on a continuous length of 20 miles of road may be sold, and when the Governor shall have certified that any 20 miles of the roads are completed, another like quantity of

land may be sold. If the roads are not completed in ten years, the remaining lands shall revert to the United States.

The distribution of these lands among the companies depended on the Legislature. Accordingly, that body in October, 1856, passed an act directing their appropriation to several companies. Among these was the La Crosse and Milwaukee Railroad Company. This transaction was charged with being corrupt, in consequence of bonds and stocks being given to members of the Legislature. A joint committee of investigation has reported these facts:

1. Eighteen members of the Senate voted for the bill. Of these, twelve received in stock and bonds $165,000, in sums of $10,000 and $20,000 each.

2. Sixty-five members of the House voted for the bill; and of these, fifty-two received $360,000 in bonds and stock, in sums of from $5,000 to $20,000 each.

3. The members who voted against the bill, of course received nothing. 4. The following State officers received as follows, viz. :

The report then shows that $257,000 in bonds were also received by other persons, not members of the Legislature or public officers. The summary of these payments is as follows:

These discoveries have come out partly in consequence of the difficulties of the times, but they will not prevent the prosecution of the work. The direction has been changed, and a strong effort made to push the road through to the river, thus effecting a communication direct between Milwaukee and the "Father of Waters." To effect this, a new trust deed was executed, by which the land-grant bonds were limited to $4,000,000, secured by a mortgage upon the road from Portage City to La Crosse, and 307,000 acres of land which the company would be entitled to for building the road sixty-one miles to Tomah.

The constitution of the State of Wisconsin forbids the creation of a State debt to an amount greater than $100,000, which amount is outstanding, one-half bearing 6 per cent and one-half bearing 7 per cent interest. Notwithstanding this constitutional incapacity of the State to contract debts, however, the Legislature, by a series of acts, has conferred upon counties, towns, cities, and villages, the power of contracting debts, and this has been availed of to a considerable extent during the passion of subscribing to and building railroads, and twenty four counties have issued bonds to the extent of $11,489,000 as follows:

There is authorized an additional amount of three-and-a-half millions, which, if availed of, will carry the figure to fifteen millions. The Governor strongly reprobates this evidently evasive system, and advises the immediate repeal of the laws authorizing towns, counties, and villages to loan their credit, and that the cities be restrained from any further loans of a similar character. The large debt is not less onerous because it is weighing upon the people locally. It must be paid sooner or later, and the indisposition to bear burdens which have been inflicted for speculation purposes may be inferred from the following law which was passed March 6, 1858:

AN ACT RELATING TO FORECLOSURE OF MORTGAGES, AND THE SALE OF LAND UNDER SUCH FORECLOSURE.

The People of the State of Wisconsin, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows :—

SECTION 1. That in all actions and proceedings at law hereafter commenced under that portion of chapter 84 of the Revised Statutes entitled "Of the powers and proceedings of Courts in Chancery on bills for the foreclosure or satisfaction of mortgages," the defendant or defendants in such action or proceedings shall have six months' time to answer the bill or complaint filed therein, after the service of summons or publication of notice as now required by law, and no default shall be entered in any such action until after the expiration of such time, any law to the contrary notwithstanding.

SEC. 2. Whenever in such action or proceeding judgment shall be entered, or an order made by the court for the sale of mortgaged premises, it shall be before the sale of said premises, upon six months' notice of such sale, as hereinafter provided, and in all cases where, before the passage of this act, judgment has been rendered in any of the courts of this State, or in the District Court of the United States for the district of Wisconsin, in actions to foreclose a mortgage or mortgages, or where an order or decree has been made by any such court for the sale of mortgaged premises, the mortgaged premises shall be sold only upon six months' notice given of the time and place of such sale, which notice shall be given in the manner provided in this act for giving notices of the sale of mortgaged premises.

SEC. 3. It shall be the duty of the sheriff, deputy sheriff, or other officers appointed by the court to make sale of the premises. immediately after receiving a copy of the order for the sale of the mortgaged premises upon which such proceedings have been instituted, to publish, or cause to be published, notice of the sale of such premises, (unless otherwise ordered by the court,) describing the same therein, as now required by law, in some newspaper of general circulation in the county in which such premises are situated, at least once in each month for the period of six months before sale of the same; and if no newspaper be printed or published in said county, then the same shall be published in some newspaper in an adjoining county, for the time aforesaid, and no sale of mortgaged premises, under foreclosure by action, shall be valid, unless made in accordance with the provisions of this act.

SEC. 4. So much of any law, and such parts or all acts, as contravene the provisions of this act, are, for the purposes of this act, hereby repealed.

SEC. 5. This act shall be immediately published, and shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage and publication.

There is a general banking law in Wisconsin, passed April 19, 1852, which requires the deposit of State stocks as security, to cover the issues. The facilities which this law affords to roll up an apparent capital, by buying stock, and with the bills obtained from the Controller on the pledge of them, repeating the operation until the holder has a large amount of stock drawing interest, has been one cause of a rapid increase of circulation in the State, as follows:

The nature of the securities lodged for the circulation of the banks is

as follows:

The operation of this banking law has not been entirely satisfactory. The effort to get out circulation seems to involve a mixture of the State accounts with the banks that is by no means desirable, the more so that an existing law prohibits the receiving anything but gold and silver coin in payment for public dues. The great expansion of the banks, and the difficulties of the past year, have led to the utter disregard of that law, and Governor Randall advises a more strict enforcement of the sub-treasury principle.

The Western States seem doomed in their outset to suffer from the evils of too expanded credits, and Wisconsin has not been an exception. She is, however, possessed of a country, people, and railroads, with ports and business connections, which will carry her through difficulties that were found more formidable in the case of other States eighteen years since.

JOURNAL OF MERCANTILE LAW.

ADMIRALTY-DAMAGES TO CARGO-DEPOSITION-STOWAGE.

In the United States District Court, April 26. Before Judge Betts. Decisions in admiralty. Charles II. Jones, et al., vs. the proceeds of the cargo of the ship Richmond.

The ship Richmond being wrecked in Behring's Straits while on a whaling voyage, her cargo of oil and bone was purchased by the masters of the ships Elizabeth Frith, Panama, and Junior, and brought to a port of safety. The owners of the Richmond libeled that portion of the cargo brought by the first two vessels, claiming that the sale was not a valid one. The suit was decided by the Supreme Court at Washington, (19 How. R., 150,) in favor of the libelants, decreeing that they recover the proceeds after deducting salvage.

The present action is against that portion of the cargo brought by the ship Junior.

POINTS RULED IN THE DECISION OF THe court.

1. The case made by the multifarious facts and witnesses produced on the hearing of this cause differs in no essential particulars from the one tried in the Supreme Court of the United States upon the same subject matter. (Owners of the ship Richmond vs. the owners of the ship Elizabeth Frith, 19 How. R., 150.)

2. The additional proofs given in this case are mostly cumulative, (2 Curtis, C. C. R., 20; 15 John, R., 413,) and also speculative and hypothetical in their character, not capable of determining positively the fact they were used to establish, i. e., that the ship Junior would be able to catch and secure whales sufficient to produce the quantity of oil and bone produced from the ship Richmond in less time than was occupied by the Junior in removing the same quantity of each from the wreck of the Richmond. Besides, the Supreme Court had considered and determined, in its judgment, the value of that species of evidence. 3. The Court will hold the decision of the Supreme Court upon the effect of the proofs in that cause to be conclusive upon the weight and value of the like testimony in this.

4. Accordingly, the transaction between the two ships in Behring's Straits on board the wreck of the Richmond must, for the purposes of this trial, be regarded as salvage service by the ship and crew of the Junior, and not a purchase of the oil and bone by the master of the latter from the master of the Richmond, which vested the right of property in the owners of the Junior.

5. The owners of the wrecked ship are entitled to call the owners of the Junior to account in this Court for the value of such salved property, over and above satisfying out of the salvage services performed.

6. The Court of Admiralty has jurisdiction of the cause to that end, and the jurisdiction is not dependent upon the fact that the salved property was arrested or brought within the territorial authority of this Court.

7. An action in rem may be instituted and prosecuted to judgment in this Court, without the arrest of the property proceeded against, or its presence within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. This necessarily is so when the process issues against rights and credits, and may be the case also in respect to proceeds of ships and other property. (Munroe vs. the Almedia, 10 Whit., 473.) A citation or monition to the party holding the property is adequate service to authorize the Court, by decree against the party personally, to compel him to fulfill the decree, (1 Blatch. and How. Rep., 34; ibid, 525, 535; Paine Ro., 625; 4 Cranch, 22, 24; 1 Gel., 75; 10 White., 473; 9 Peters, 300.)

The practice of the English Admiralty is to the same effect (1 Hagg., 335; 1 Abbott Ad. R., 4, 5,) and the personal appearance of the defendants, by stipulation and answer, is equivalent to an attachment of the property itself.

8. The process prayed for in the libel was one in due form of law, according to the course of Courts of Admiralty and of this Court, against the proceeds of the cargo, materials, and furniture of the ship Richmond, and that the defendants (by name) and each of them, and all persons having any right thereto, &c., " may be cited to appear and answer the matters alleged and proposed," &c. 9. The usual process in rem against the effects named, was insued in connection with a citation or monition to the defendants, personally to appear and answer the libel.

10. This process was returned to the marshal, personally served on one of the defendants, and all of them appeard in open court by their proctors, and made their appearance, "apud acta to the cause," and subsequently filed their answer, contesting the merits of the case, without taking exception by pleading to the form or sufficiency of the process, or its mode of service.

11. This is a recognition of the jurisdiction of the Court over the case, and of the regularity of the proceedings in instituting the suit. A protest, demurrer, or plea to the jurisdiction, or exception to the process, must be taken previous to a full answer to the merits, (2 Brown, Civ. and Ad., 414; Dunlap's Pr., 180, 185; Conklin's Pr., ch. 8; Betts' Pr., 48; cases as cited,) unless the want of jurisdiction is patent on the libel.