ture, with only a few local mechanics, the merchants, whether of the city or country, occupied the position of leading men in all that related to the absorbing interest, the acquisition of wealth. For a century previous to the war of 1812, this condition of things pervaded the Northern and Middle States, the great hives of our present indigenous population, whose habits of thought, to a large extent, govern society in all but the planting States.

The entire freedom to pursue the avocation which is deemed preferable, has led the enterprising and ambitious to choose that pursuit which to their established prejudices gave promise of the most wealth and influence; that path was sure to be selected in which those had traveled who had reached the station most desirable. Without the judgment or experience to see results in their entire development, observing only those who occupy the desired position, ignorant of the great majority who, having entered the path, have been overthrown and sunk into obscurity, in the struggle to reach the eminence, the occupation of trade becomes crowded to excess, while the more safe and less ambitious pursuits of agriculture and mechanics are left to the less ambitious or less talented portions of the young society. The strife of enterprise on the small arena which mercantile pursuits furnish, diminishes profits, and only the athletic or the sustained can succeed; bankruptcy overwhelms the remainder, and the fact is accounted for in a way natural and obvious to every observer of society. The habit of society reoperates in each successive generation; as the young advance to manhood, having imbibed the modes of thought which pervade the general mind, they are unable to evade its force; unconscious of its influence they are drawn within the circle, and sink in the vortex, to be succeeded by the next who enter on the stage of life.

Gradually a change is coming over the public mind: manufacturers give a wider scope than formerly to enterprise, and the application of science to agriculture may yet render that noble occupation what it ought to be in the estimation of society; when the farmer who cultivates his own acres, and holds his own plough, may be, as he should be, a gentleman, well educated in all that appertains to his profession, cultivated in his manners, and qualified to embellish and enjoy refined society. There are now many such farmers, but that is not the characteristic of the great majority engaged in that pursuit; the fault is their own; they ought to control society, since they constitute so large a majority. While law, medicine, divinity, military and naval war have their institutions of learning, sustained by pubiic and private patronage, agriculture, a pursuit equally scientific, embracing seventy-five per cent of the people, is left to grope in ignorance, obscurity, and vulgarity; from it all the young, blest with talent and ambition, escape if possible, notwithstanding the pressure which accumulating numbers occasions in the more honored pursuits, especially the mercantile.

The next reason we have assigned is equally obvious and competent to the result under consideration.

Credit, or the use of the capital of others, is a characteristic of mercantile pursuits. Commerce, in all its ramifications, from the merchant proper down to the petty dealer, is a non-productive pursuit; it originates nothing and is the mere broker of society. Originating nothing, its gains must arise from the share it is able to abstract from the products of the producing classes, while passing through its hands from the producer to the consumer. Competition in this pursuit, therefore, acts in the direction of diminishing the amount thus to be abstracted, and as a diminished amount can only

meet the wants of the merchant by his enlarging the general bulk transferred, it is a natural tendency which increases the amount by every practicable means. The real wealth of the mercantile class is always overrated; their number, though too great, is still small, when compared with the other great departments of society, yet the amount of capital, in all forms, which, originated by the agricultural and manufacturing classes, passes through their hands, is a large share of the products of industry, which the sub-division of labor in modern society renders a movement essential to its consumption. So large an amount of capital it is impossible to move without credit; no individual wealth could be found competent to purchase and hold it with its own means, while in transitu. The vast accumulation of surplus products which move by the aid of commerce over the civilized world-through all the channels of trade in each nation-through all the ramifications which extend from the producer to the ultimate consumer, render credit the life and power of that department of society; but like all other engines of power, its tendency is to destruction, unless controlled by strong and wise restraints, and bankruptcy is a natural result either of too much stimulus, or of the occurrence of any adverse circumstances which disturb the regular flow of commodities, or the confidence upon which, as its basis, credit must rest in.

The disparity between the amount of credit and capital, and by the various departments of society, does not receive the attention it deserves. Among the agricultural class, the use of credit is limited, and should be restricted to permanent investment, which will repay interest; the farmer who borrows the means of subsistence will starve. With the mechanical class it is less so; but here it is trifling, when compared with the mercantile. We have in our eye cases which illustrate the difference. A. B. is an enterprising merchant, with a capital of his own of $25,000; his annual operations extend to $400,000, and are spread broad-cast over the nation, exposed to the adverse influences of every section of the country; his indebtedness is of course constantly many fold the amount of his capital, which is barely sufficient to meet his current expenses; he buys and sells on long credits, depending upon discounts to keep the links of his operations entire. While all is fair weather, his affairs proceed smoothly-his gains are large, corresponding to his operations the occupation of so large an amount of capital breeds the idea of ownership, and he esteems himself a much richer man than he is. His position in society, and his expenditure, correspond to his supposed wealth, while, in reality, his whole capital is little more than a mercantile guarantee to the obligations his operations involve. Any sudden revulsion in commercial affairs will, in all probability, plunge him into bankruptcy, from which a compromise only can relieve him; and it is creditable to the mercantile class that generally they appreciate the inevitable law of their profession, and are ready and free to compound with their honest associates.

C. D. is a manufacturer: his capital is $30,000, invested in real estate, in stock in progress of manufacture, and among his customers. His business compels him to deal more for cash-his raw material consumes the credit upon which it is purchased in its preparation for sale, and his disbursements are extensively for labor, which can give no credit. His operations reach $75,000 per annum; his liabilities are never more than three-fourths of his capital, and his receivables are compact, small in amount, and in good hands. C. D. is not only the richer, but emphatically the safer, man. He may suffer losses, but no condition of things can reduce him to bankruptcy: he is

prudent, but respectable in his style of life-but neither his station in society, nor his note in bank, corresponding to those of his friend A. B. In bank his notes will discount, if money is plenty; if not, the cashier will make many inquiries, and the president will conclude that he had better offer them at the next discount day, while those of A. B., for thousands to the hundreds of C. D., is all A No. 1, and all offered is taken. True, the deposit account of C. D. is not large-the weekly demands for labor extract less cash-and banks, like others, have a right to choose their customers. All this is perfectly natural; the habits of society, which place the merchant in the position he enjoys, govern in bank parlors as well as in those of gentlemen; we are all unable to free ourselves from the prejudices of our age or country; these prejudices govern the individual and general movements of society, and solve the problem under consideration.

It will not be "the payment of interest" which will involve A. B. in bankruptcy, should the event occur, but the too free use of credit; not that credit for which interest is paid, but that which, having its basis in the capital of the agricultural and manufacturing classes, passes into the hands of the merchant, as the broker of society, in order to its distribution from the producer to the consumer who alone pays not only the interest of the capital required to provide for his wants, but the profits of the long line of mercantile changes through which the commodities must pass, before they reach their destination, and are absorbed by his necessities.

We must omit the consideration of the remaining topic to another day. Yours truly,

MERCANTILE LAW CASES.

G. B.

THE LAW OF BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PROMISSORY NOTES, WITH THE LATEST DECISIONS THEREON.

The London Bankers' Magazine, for January, 1850, contains the first of a series of papers on this subject. The editor of that Magazine proposes to furnish during the present year, a series of papers on the law of bills of exchange, promissory notes, letters of credit, and other similar documents, containing all those points, which it is material should be known by persons engaged in banking and commercial pursuits, and including every case of importance decided in England during the last few years, so as to exhibit the exact state of the law at the present time, clearly before the mercantile reader.

As the English law on this subject is very generally adopted in the United States, and the decisions under that law daily cited in all our courts, the transfer of the present paper to our Magazine, will doubtless be acceptable to many of its readers. In the article which follows, the points connected with form and requisites of bills, notes, and letters of credit are discussed, and the cases referring to the rights and liabilities of the different parties to these instruments are investigated, as follows:

1. FORM AND REQUISITES OF BILLS AND NOTES.-The ordinary forms in which bills of exchange and promissory notes are drawn are well known; but we think it better to quote them here, as we shall have occasion to refer to the exact words of the forms on several occasions hereafter.

The usual form of an inland bill of exchange is as follows:

£500. London, 1st January, 1850. Three months after date pay to my order Five Hundred Pounds, for value received.

Three months after date I promise to pay Mr. John Smith, or order, at the London and Westminster Bank, Lothbury, the sum of Five hundred Pounds, for value received.

THOMAS WILSON.

Any bill or note which departs from the ordinary form in which it ought to be drawn, should be regarded with a degree of distrust, in all cases, and should generally be refused altogether. But there are some bills of exchange, and other similar documents, which depart from the common form, and yet cannot be declined in the ordinary course of business; and we have endeavored to collect the leading cases relating to them, which we propose to consider in the following order

1st. Bills of exchange or notes of hand which are not negotiable.

2nd. Notes of hand made payable to the drawer's own order.

3rd. Bills of exchange and notes of hand payable by instalments.

4th. Bills of exchange and notes of hand containing a memorandum of the deposit of collateral security.

5th. Joint and several bills of exchange and promissory notes.

6th. Foreign bills and notes.

7th. Miscellaneous points as to the form of bills.

1. OF BILLS OF EXCHANGE OR NOTES OF HAND WHICH ARE NOT NEGOTIABLE.-A bill or note which is not payable to order or bearer is perfectly valid between the original parties to it, but it cannot be negotiated. În Smith vs. Kendall (6 Term Reports, 123,) it was objected that such a note was not valid, but the Court said:" If this were res integra, and there were no decision on the subject, there would be a great deal of weight in the defendant's objection; but it was decided in a case in Lord Raymond (Burchell vs. Slowcock, 2 Lord Raymond, 1545,) on demurrer, that a note made payable to B without adding to his order, or to bearer, was a legal note within the Act of Parliament. It is also said in Marius, that a note may be made payable either to A or bearer, A or order, or to A only. In addition to these authorities, I have made inquiries among different merchants respecting the practice in allowing three days' grace, the result of which is, that the Bank of England and the merchants in London allow the three days' grace on notes like the present. The opinion of merchants, indeed, would not govern this court in a question of law, but I am glad to find that the practice of the commercial world coincides with the decision of a court of law. Therefore I think that it would be dangerous now to shake that practice, which is warranted by a solemn decision of this court, by any speculative reasoning upon the subject; and, consequently, this rule must be made absolute to enter a verdict for the plaintiff."

2. NOTES OF HAND MADE PAYABLE TO THE DRAWER'S OWN ORDER.-Notes of hand made payable to the drawer's own order have been the subject of much discussion lately. In the Court of Exchequer, in the case of Flight vs. Maclean (16 Law J. Ex. 23,) Baron Alderson said:-The instrument in question is not a promissory note, within the statute of Anne, which requires that it shall be made payable by the party making it to some other person, or order, or unto bearer." The Court of Common Pleas has held, that a note payable to the maker's own order is not a promissory note negotiable under 3 and 4 Anne, c. 9, sec. 1; but the maker may, by endorsing it, give the holder a right of action on it against him. Brown vs. De Winton (17 Law J., C. P., 281.)

3.-BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND NOTES OF HAND PAYABLE BY INSTALMENTS.— Bills of Exchange and notes of hand payable by instalments are valid. The peculiarity relating to them is, that an action of debt cannot be maintained until the last instalment is due; but an action of assumpsit may be maintained on each default. Siddall vs. Rawcliffe (1 Crompton and Meeson, 487.)

4. BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND NOTES OF HAND CONTAINING A MEMORANDUM OF THE DEPOSIT OF COLLATERAL SECURITY.—Bills of exchange and notes of hand containing a memorandum of the deposit of deeds as a security, were discussed in the following case, and held to be valid.

It was an action on a promissory note by the indorsee against the maker. At the trial before Lord Abinger, at the last Derby assizes, it appeared that the action was brought on an instrument in the following form:"On demand, I promise to pay to Mr. John G. Johnson, or order, the sum of £120 with lawful interest for the same, for value received; and I have deposited in his hands titledeeds to lands purchased from the devisees of William Toplis, as a collateral security for the same." The note was endorsed by Johnson to the plaintiff. It was properly stamped with a promissory note stamp, and had also on it a mort gage stamp, which had been affixed on payment of the penalty. It was objected by the defendant, that the instrument not being an absolute and unconditional promise to pay money, was not a promissory note assignable under the statute; and that it was not properly stamped, because the mortgage stamp was requisite to make it producible in evidence, and that had been affixed after the instrument was complete, which, as it was a promissory note, the Commissioners of Stamps had no power to authorize. The learned Judge overruled the objection, but reserved the points; and a verdict was found for the plaintiff.

Mr. Whitehurst, counsel for the defendant, moved for a non-suit, or for a new trial. He referred to the statutes giving power to the Commissioners of Stamps to impose stamps on documents 23 Geo. 3, c. 49, s. 14; 31 Geo. 3, c. 25, s. 19; 37 Geo. 3, c. 136, s. 1; and 55 Geo. 3, c. 184, s. 8; and to the cases of Green vs. Davis, 4 Barnwall and Creswell, 235; and Butts vs. Swann, 2 Broderip and Bingham, 78.

Lord Denman, Chief Justice, said "There is no doubt that this is a promissory note, and that it has a right stamp upon it. There is not anything which qualifies it so as to take away its character as a promissory note. It is a distinct promise to pay a certain sum on demand."

Mr. Justice Littledale said "I am of the same opinion. There is a distinct promise by itself, absolute in the first instance, and being so, it is properly stamped as such. Then as to the statutes authorizing the Commissioners of Stamps, those acts only prevent a note from being stamped after it is made, no stamp having been put upon it at the time it was made; but they do not prevent the Commissioners from impressing a legal stamp upon an instrument which has already got a stamp, though a wrong one, upon it. The case of Butts vs. Swann is quite different from the present. There it was not found that the instrument had been stamped. There was no incorporation here of any qualification upon the promise, and no difficulty arises upon that point. It is not necessary to enter upon the consideration of the question whether it was requisite to have a stamp as upon the assignment of a mortgage."

Mr. Justice Patterson said "This instrument is not the less a promissory note because there is something else written on the same paper. The cases referred to are those where the instrument had no stamp at all, here it had one."

Mr. Justice Coleridge said-"If it is a good promissory note, that is sufficient for this action. It is so, although there is at the end, incorporated into it, a memorandum, which, however, is no qualification of the promise. That is merely for further security. You could not say, if a man added to a clear promissory note the words, 'I have given you this in payment,' that that would not be a promissory note."

The rule was therefore refused, and the verdict for the plaintiff confirmed. See Wise vs. Charleton (2 Harrison and Wollaston's Reports, p. 49.)