what in 1840 would have purchased but one hundred and thirty-one, showing an enormous decrease in the rate of profit, from the loss of the price of the raw material consumed in the extra forty-four yards, besides the interest on the capital invested in the extra machinery, the Professor enters into a calculation to show what might, could, would, or should have been, if such an amount of capital, and such an amount of labor had been employed, and such a price paid for the cloth, that it would have produced "more than 6 per cent (accurately $61 84 on $1,000) on the increase of capital, over and above the old rate of profit on the original capital. If formerly the rate of profit was 6 per cent, under the new state of things it would have been more than doubled." Now, I presume these calculations were made and inserted to show the Professor's efficiency in figures, as I do not know any other useful purpose which they could possibly promote. People, however, do not want to know what might have been done, but what has been done. The Professor wisely remarks, after he has brought this superfluous calculation to an end, that "no man requires to be told that no such thing has happened," as this increase of profit. Besides, as he says:-The tendency of things, as Ricardo and his school tell us, is to a constant fall in the rate of profit." (?) Do not Adam Smith and his school tell us the same thing? because if they do not, they do not speak the truth. We have next a few pages to show "what would naturally come to pass," under the circumstances of increased production, but it will not be necessary to say much upon this point. The Professor assumes that the increased quantity of cloth manufactured at Lowell within the last ten years, calculated at 27,000,000* yards per week, has been so much "clear gain to the human race," but he afterward admits that 25 per cent ought to be deducted on account of extra capital employed; yet it still appears to me that there is another small item to be deducted-say 30 or 40 per cent for raw material, which makes considerable difference in "the clear gain to the human race." In his zeal to show the wonderful benefits of this increased production of cotton cloth, the Professor appears apt to forget small items. I would be the last person to undervalue improvements in machinery and increased production, when they happen in the natural course of events, but when they are forced on by doubling the amount of machinery to each hand, and working it thirteen-and-a-half hours a day for less than the former I cannot consider it beneficial to the human race. amount of wages, Professor states, upon the authority of an article in the Merchants' Magazine, (January, 1850,) that "in 1814 a woman's labor for one week would enable her to buy but one yard of ticking. Now it will buy twenty-three yards. Then she earned two yards of sheeting with a week's work-now thirty-five, &c. Women's wages have risen nearly or quite three-fold, and men's have doubled." We must still remind the Professor of the trite old aphorism, "It is not all gold that glitters." If manufactures are much cheaper in money price than they were a quarter of a century ago, we need not forget that they are also much less durable. The calicoes, tickings, and sheetings of that day would wear two or three times as long as those of the present; consequently, an extra amount of labor would be required to furnish any one of those articles for a given time, which must be added to the price, so that the saving is not quite so great as it is assumed to be. But we are

The

Why did not Professor Smith take the increase of cloth at fifty millions as stated in the tables, instead of taking the trouble to calculate the amount. I presume he saw the discrepancy in the wages I mentioned.

told that women's wages have trebled and men's doubled; of course paid in factory. But as it happens that neither working women nor working men are likely to require upon the average more than a third of a week's production per hand, I do not see that even theoretically they would be very much benefited, taking quality into consideration. It is easy to say: "What has happened at Lowell has been happening over the world from the beginning of time, and what is true of the effect of improvements in the spinning of cotton is true in every other department of industry."

That improvements have been going on in other departments of manufacture I am willing to admit; but I could not allow that these improvements are of the same general importance. If silks, satins, and velvets are cheaper, what does that benefit the working class? The cloths of working people form but a small part of their consumption, and if a little dearer in price and more durable, they are cheaper in the end. But the greater part of their consumption increases in price continually-food, fuel, house-rent, &c.; which more than balance the improvements in machinery. But my opponent tells me that improved machinery is also applied to the cultivation of the land; and the products of the soil are thereby increased; but that increase will be found to be extremely limited; besides there are other circumstances which more than absorb that increase. If my memory serves me correctly, not having the document at hand, Mr. Ewing says, in his report, "that the land in the State of New York has been impoverished to that extent, that it would require one hundred millions of dollars to replace its fertility; and that some counties round the capital of the State do not produce upon the average, more than seven bushels, or seven and half, per per acre," which no doubt a few years ago produced five times as much. Neither is it possible for us to annihilate space, nor to crowd two crops into one season; and when the population of cities increases, it becomes necessary to draw supplies of food and other necessaries from a greater distance, and the extra capital and labor employed must be paid for in the increase of price, by the consumer. And though improved machinery and improved methods are used in cultivation, it is not an easy matter, with all the extra labor required, to reach the original fertility, all animal bodies being abstracted from the soil. Thus we have the phenomena of the prices of manufactures and the prices of food operating in an inverse ratio to each other.

But our opponent tells us, that "everywhere, as population has grown, capital has grown with it, but faster, and that capital has consisted of more and better tools." It must be admitted that circulating capital, as it is called, has been wonderfully increased, and may be increased almost to any extent, but its powers are limited by the principles of nature, and its profits laid under contribution for the benefit of the landowner. If any reasonable person, besides my opponent and Mr. Henry C. Carey, had any doubt upon the matter, we might treat the subject at length, but a few words will suffice.

It has been observed by all political economists, that the rate of profit continually decreases, and the fact is admitted by Professor Smith, but the dispute between us is, as to who loses the difference. We have seen that the hands at Lowell have been required to produce forty-four yards of cloth more in each week, for less than the former amount of wages, and when this operation could be carried no further, the mills either ceased work or worked without profit. But Professor Smith most ingeniously endeavors to torture this into an increase of wages, and says: "What has happened at Lowell has been happening over the world from the beginning of time."

If his view were correct, the working class ought by this time to have been in the most enviable condition, instead of being, as in most countries, most miserable. Admitting that this kind of increase of wages has been going on all over the world, to what will it amount? The weavers of calicoes, silks, velvets, muslins, and ribbons, &c., have all and each been producing more for the same or less money, so that each can command a larger amount of these products from the other in exchange; but we have other difficulties, which Professor Smith has not deigned to notice. The prices of fuel, food, and house-rent increase. On the other hand, the capitalist's rate of profit diminishes, and yet his capital increases in absolute amount. We should naturally suppose that when a man doubled his products, he would double his profits, but in this case he doubles his products and reduces his profits; and the capitalist, being in the strongest position, naturally throws the loss upon the operative, and when he can no longer do that, he loses his capital. Now, if the rate of profit on circulating capital constantly decreases, there must be some recipient or absorbent which swallows up, not only the increased production, but a little more. It is singular that persons who admit that the fund out of which the laborers' wages are paid, constantly dimin ishes, should assume that the natural law of progress should increase his share of it, without any effort of his own. But we have not quite done with the principle of rent.

JOURNAL OF MERCANTILE LAW.

COMMON CARRIERS-IMPORTANT CASE.

In the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana. The Court met Monday, December 15th, 1851. Present their Honors: P. A. Rost, Thomas Slidell, and Isaac T. Preston, Associate Justices; His Honor George Eustis, Chief Justice, being absent.

Horatio Eagle, et als. app'ees, vs. J. and J. Tardos, app'ts; and J. and J. Tardos, app'ts vs. bark Tennessee, Captain and owners. Appeal from the First District Court of New Orleans. No. 2329.

In this cause, the Court this day delivered their opinion in writing in the words and figures following, to wit:

The defendants were the consignees of certain casks of wine brought in the Tennessee, the plaintiff's vessel, from Marseilles to New Orleans. There were cross suits by the vessel for her freight, and by the consignees for damage to the goods, which suits were consolidated.

Upon the arrival of the casks they were examined by the port-wardens, who reported a portion of them "to be badly stained, discolored, and soiled by grease and sea-water, so much so, in their opinion, as to render them unmerchantable." This condition of the casks is also shown by other testimony. A witness, offered by the plaintiffs, on his cross-examination states "that the casks were very greasy-the grease was running on them." It also appears that such a condition of casks, though it does not injure the wine, affects the sale.

The vessel on previous voyages had carried lard. This article leaks; the flooring and timbers became saturated with it, and it is very difficult to clear the vessel of it entirely. Before the Tennessee took in her cargo her hold was scraped and limed; but it is obvious from the result, she could not have been entirely cleaned.

Immediately after leaving the port of Marseilles, the vessel encountered very stormy weather, which caused her to leak; and being obliged to carry sail to keep off the land, she laid over a good deal, so that the pumps could not reach

the water she made. The water and grease washed upon the casks, and they became damaged in the manner above stated.,

It is said that this was an injury by perils of the sea, for which the vessel should not be charged. So far as the sea-water stained the casks we think the ship should not answer for it. But there was another co-operating cause of damage. The lard in the ship's hold, being washed up with the water, attached itself to the casks, and put them in the greasy condition described by the witnesses. The injury of the casks was directly promoted by the greasy condition of the ship. If the ship had been clean, the injury would have been different in its character, and as we may fairly infer from the evidence, less in its pecuniary amount. We are forbidden therefore to attribute the whole damage to perils of the sea; on the contrary, we must set a portion of it down to the defective condition of the vessel, and the vessel must answer for such damage as was occasioned by that defect.

Let us take a parallel case by way of illustration. The vessel is undoubtedly answerable for the damage attributable to bad stowage. Suppose a vessel so stored, that the goods would be safe in ordinary weather, but for want of proper dunnage would suffer in a gale of wind. A gale occurs causing the vessel, which before was tight and strong, to spring a leak, and the goods are injured by contact with salt water. But in addition thereto, they get knocked about in the vessel's hold, and broken, and this damage under the evidence is clearly attributable to bad storage, and would not have occurred if the storage had been good. The ship would not be liable for the damage by salt-water; but it would be clearly unjust to exempt her from the damage arising from bad stowage. We consider an allowance of two dollars per cask as sufficient to cover the proportion of damage occasioned by grease, which, deducted from the freight, will leave a balance of $22,07 cents in favor of the ship.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed, that the judgment of the Court below be reversed; and that the said Horatio Eagle, Wm. N. Hazard, and Albert Cook, receive from the defendants, J. and J. Tardos, the sum of twentytwo dollars and seven cents, ($22,07,) the plaintiff to pay the costs of the appeal, the costs of the proceedings in the Court below, hitherto incurred, to be borne equally by the parties, and the costs of executing this decree to be paid by the defendants.

Clerk's office, New Orleans, January 23d, 1852. A true copy.

(Signed)

J. MCCULLOCH.

Messrs. Miles Taylor and Nephew, for Tardos. Wheelock S. Upton, for Eagle & Hazard.

We give above the decree in a case which is of no little moment to our ship owners. If "stains and discolorations" upon the outside of a cask of claret, are to be held as making such property unmerchantable, and the carrier is to lose his freightage, and answer in damage, it is time that our ship owners should change the terms of their bills of lading at once.

It is well known that a new ship, the timbers of which are green, will in "sweating" or "blowing" make stains or discolorations to the outside of packages. So will a ship that has carried sugar--molasses which has leaked, or coal, or tar, or many like cargoes, for it is next to impossible, with all care, to make a ship's hold at once, and for the return voyage, so clean from the leakage and impurities attending such freight, that the "dangers of the sea" may not cause them to make "stains."

The owners of the "Tennessee" reside in this city, and the ship is said to be of a high class; and the captain, we are told, is skillful in his vocation.

We see by the record of the cause, that the Chief Justice was absent at the time the case was tried, and that the Judge of the District Court gave a contrary judgment. Perhaps the case will not be regarded as a precedent; but it is well that ship owners should know the risks they run in taking a cargo of lard from New Orleans.

We are told that the insurance companies in France, where the cargo of claret was insured, paid the damage to the plaintiffs, as soon as they were aware of the

judgment in the lower Court, and before the judgment above had been rendered. If this be so, of course the plaintiffs will return it, greatly to the astonishment of the French insurers at the decree of a Louisiana Court.

BANKRUPTCY-DECISION IN THE LAW OF PARTNERSHIP.

In the Liverpool (England) Court of Bankruptcy, Jan., 1852. Re Battersby and Telford.

A petition was presented by the assignees, praying the Court to declare whether certain assets inserted by the bankrupts in their respective separate balance-sheets belonged to the joint estate, or to the respective separate estates. It was heard on a former day before Mr. Commissioner Stevenson. Mr. Bell, solicitor, appeared for the assignees, and, after stating the facts, submitted to the judgment of the Court. Mr. Hull, solicitor, appeared and argued the case on behalf of the creditors on the joint estate.

His Honor having taken time to consider the case, now delivered the following judgment:-The questions raised by the petition presented by the assignees under this bankruptcy apply to the following assets, viz., two sets of goods referred to, in the separate balance-sheet of Battersby as part of his separate estate, and valued at the respective sums of £90 12s. and £36 2s. 9d.; also a sum of £109 158. 6d. referred to in the separate balance-sheet of Telford as part of his separate estate, and stated to be the produce of goods consigned to Messrs. Booker, of Demerara, and a sum of £104 14s. 8d., also referred to in Telford's separate balance-sheet as other part of his separate estate, and stated to be the proceeds of stock sold by Messrs. Tonge, Curry, & Co.

To all these assets the joint creditors claim to be entitled, as being goods and proceeds of goods belonging to the joint estate of the two bankrupts, but to which a counter claim is set up on the part of the respective separate creditors of the bankrupts in whose respective separate balance-sheets these assets are referred to, upon grounds hereafter adverted to; and the petitioners seek the direction of the Court as to the class of creditors amongst which these assets ought to be distributed.

As to the goods referred to in Battersby's separate balance-sheet, and valued at the sums of £90 12s. and £36 2s. 9d., it is admitted they were clearly part of the partnership property at the time of the dissolution of the partnership; and as to the goods consigned to Messrs. Booker, the produce whereof was £109 15s. 6d., and the stock sold by Messrs. Tonge, Curry, & Co., of which the sum of £104 14s. 8d. was part of the net proceeds, it is doubtful what portions of these goods and stock belonged to the partnership at the time of the bankruptcy, though I understand it to be clear that some portions did so belong to the partnership; and, in order to ascertain what these portions are, some further inquiry is yet necessary to be made. But, for the present, I propose to consider the questions raised as applicable to some portions of these goods and stock, as well as the other assets before referred to, leaving the assignees to apply the principle of my decision to these portions when ascertained.

The claims of the respective separate creditors to these assets are founded upon two grounds: 1st. That, although they were orginally partnership property, yet, under the arrangement made in respect of them by the terms of the dissolution of the partnership, these properties, which were in the possession of the respective bankrupts at the time of, and subsequent to, the dissolution, became converted into the separate estate of each such bankrupt. 2d. That supposing such conversion did not take place, yet that such of these properties as were in the possession of such bankrupt at the time of their bankruptcy, were subject to be disposed of for the benefit of their respective separate creditors, as having been at that time in their respective orders and dispositions, within the meaning of the 125th section of the Bankrupt Law Consolidation Act. As to the first ground upon which the claims of the separate creditors are founded, it ap pears, by the agreement made on the dissolution of partnership, that the terms in reference to this subject were as follows:-That the stock and fixtures of the partnership were to be valued by two disinterested parties mutually chosen; the