ually saved, and the freight, if it be eventually earned by transhipping the goods, shall contribute towards the expense of landing the cargo taken out of the vessel as she lay stranded; for if it was taken out for the threefold purpose of lightening the vessel that she might be floated, of saving the goods, and of eventually earning freight, then all three interests must contribute to this expense as far as those objects are attained—that is, to the extent of the amount and in the proportion of the ship, freight, and cargo saved. But if the cargo is taken out merely for the purpose of saving it, without any reference to getting off the vessel, the latter is not liable to contribute for that expense, even though incidentally the floating of the vessel may be thereby facilitated. But if it be matter of doubt whether the discharging the cargo was for the double purpose of saving both that and the ship, the more obvious construction seems to be, that it was for the double purpose, if that be the actual result. This doubt cannot, however, be applicable to the subsequent expense of floating the vessel, and navigating her to the port of destination. There is no room for the supposition that the cargo can be benefited by that expense.

2. Are the charges of bringing the cargo from the place of stranding to the port of destination general average, or are they to be paid by freight? These questions have been already answered. After the cargo is landed and forwarded by other conveyance to the port of destination, the shipper cannot possibly be benefited by the floating of the ship, and the navigating her to the same or any other port; and this shows conclusively that he is not liable to contribute any part of the expenses incurred for those purposes.

As to the expense of transporting the cargo being defrayed out of freight, this must depend on the fact whether it is done to earn freightthat is, on its being more or less than freight; for if it be more, it is absurd to suppose that the owner of the vessel incurs this greater expense for the purpose of entitling himself to a less amount, viz, freight. In such a state of the facts, the question is one of total or partial loss of the cargo; for in consequence of a peril insured against, the cargo has been brought into a situation whereby the voyage insured is defeated as to the cargo, or the shipper, in order to accomplish the voyage as to his goods, is subjected to an expense of transportation greater than the stipulated freight. The underwriters must either pay this extra expense, or pay a total loss on the goods, which could be avoided only by incurring such extra expense. The underwriter on the goods has stipulated that the ship shall not be prevented by the perils insured against from transporting the goods to the port of destination; the ship has been thus prevented from transporting them to that port; they must, therefore, either pay a total loss, or pay at least the extra expense incurred to avert it.

W. P,

ART. V.-A QUESTION ON AVERAGE.

It sometimes happens that a vessel at sea loses her rudder, or parts a stay, or some other of her standing rigging, by which she is in danger of losing her masts, or she springs a dangerous leak, when it becomes necessary to apply certain articles, that were put on board for other purposes, to a temporary repair of these accidental damages; and a question arises

as to the manner in which such a use of them is to be compensated for→ whether they are to be considered and treated as a partial loss, or made the subject of a general contribution.

In the opinion of writers on insurance, “no authorities are requisite to show that this is a subject of general contribution;" yet there are some who affect to doubt the correctness of these views, and contend, that as the damage was casual, its repairs should be adjusted as a partial loss.

A merely superficial view of the case might very naturally lead to such a conclusion, while a deliberate examination would doubtless tend to an opposite and more reasonable and just result.

It is not the magnitude of the sacrifice, but its quality, that determines the principle of a contribution. A voluntary sacrifice of any thing belong. ing to a vessel, whether it be of her appurtenances, or of the goods of her lading, when made for the general safety, is in law and in practice admitted to constitute an undoubted claim for general contribution; and in most, if not all cases, a voluntary sacrifice, in whatever form it occurs, is preceded by, or is intended to avert, a further accidental damage; and whether the sacrifice so made be for prevention or remedy, it is equally the subject of general average contribution.

To the practical insurer it would seem to be unnecessary to cite author. ities in support of the right of the owner of a vessel to claim indemnity for a sacrifice deliberately made with a view to the preservation of the interests at risk, whether the sacrifice be that of a jettison, the cutting away of masts, the slipping from, or cutting away of a cable, or the cutting up of spars, or any other appurtenances, for an extraordinary purpose, or their application to any use other than their original one, for means of preservation, or in mitigation of an impending peril.

We had supposed, until recently, that the principle was universally ad. mitted by practical insurers, as it is by elementary writers; and we believe that the exceptions are only to be found among those who have not given to the subject that consideration, and applied that liberal rule of construction, that is requisite to a just and proper disposal of the question; for whether they are willing to allow that the extraordinary applications of the articles constitute a claim for contribution, or otherwise, they cannot deny that the cutting up of spars, or of cables and hawsers, by which means they are rendered useless for their original purposes, is a sacrifice, to all intents and purposes, of just so much in value as it would cost to replace them, and just as much a sacrifice as would be a jettison of property of equal value.

The requisites necessary to make a valid claim for restitution are as follow. When it is demanded, the ship must be in actual distress; the thing intended to be destroyed must be expressly selected for that purpose; the sacrifice must be made premeditatedly and deliberately; and the end in view must be no other than that of the general preservation. Abstractedly considered, the mind and agency of man must be employed; the act must be preceded by foresight, and attended by volition. When recompense is claimed, it must be clearly shown that services have been performed out of the ordinary course of the voyage, and which had no partial advantage in prospect, but were absolutely intended for the general benefit. Stevens on Av., Part I. ch. i. sec. 1.

And the same authority is referred to to show, that "SAILS, ROPES, and OTHER MATERIALS, CUT and USED at sea for the purpose of stopping a leak,

or to rig jury-masts, or for any other purpose, where the general safety appears to require the sacrifice," constitute an undoubted claim for general contribution.

Now it is not contended that the mind and agency of man were employ. ed in producing the injury, for that was accidental; but it cannot be denied that they were instrumental in its reparation, and were exerted to preserve the property that had become jeoparded by the casualty, and the means devised for this purpose necessarily involved a sacrifice of something of more or less value, and that sacrifice was a voluntary act, and as such constitutes a claim for recompense by a general average contribution; and in these views we are sustained by the concurrent testimony of all elementary writers upon the subject of insurance, either directly or indirectly, as well as by the practice of insurers in the common and ordinary application of the principles of general average.

The cutting away of a mast, or the cutting or slipping of a cable, or the jettison of the cargo, are either preceded by an accidental damage, or done to prevent or ameliorate it. Thus a vessel may be thrown on her beam-ends by a sudden squall, when to enable her to resume her upright position, it may be necessary to cut away her masts; or being at anchor, she may be struck adrift, and in danger of being precipitated upon a reef or shoal, when the cable is cut, or slipped, to facilitate her getting under way to avoid the impending peril; or she springs a leak, and jettison of the cargo is resorted to, or a sail is used to fother her to stanch the leak. All these measures are superinduced by or are the consequence of a casualty; but we never yet knew it to be maintained, that because these several or individual sacrifices were thus preceded, they were to be borne by the owners or insurers of the vessel in the nature of a particular average or partial loss; but on the contrary, that it is universally admitted that they constitute an undoubted claim for general average contribution.

Wherein, then, we would inquire, consists the difference in the quality of such sacrifices, from that of cutting up spars, cables, or hawsers, for a temporary repair at sea, when but for such an application of them, the vessel and cargo, and the crew, being in great jeopardy, would probably be lost? To say nothing of a liberal, we will merely ask for a reasonable construction of the case, and whether, upon a deliberate and dispassionate view of it, or a critical examination, it can be perceived why one should be accounted a sacrifice, and the other not? Why the throwing overboard, in a season of peril, the materials, or applying them to an extraordinary purpose for the general safety, can change the principle of indemnity?

The application of the appurtenances of a vessel as has been suggested, is, as we conceive, clearly a voluntary sacrifice; they are diverted from the original and ordinary use for which they were designed; they cannot be restored to their original form; spars or cables, once severed, cannot be reunited for any practical uses afterward: why, then, if they are thus appropriated with a view to preserve the vessel and cargo, should not these interests be held to contribute for the means thus devoted to their preservation?

If such an extraordinary use or application of the materials of a vessel, as we have here referred to, is not a voluntary sacrifice, and meant to minister to the preservation of all the interests exposed to a common dan. ger; and if such an application of them does not constitute an essential ingredient in general average, of which jettison is the foundation, or as it

is termed, "the most ancient and legitimate source of average contribution," we are at a loss to perceive the distinction that is attempted to be made between such a sacrifice, and that of voluntary cutting away the masts, or cutting or slipping of a cable, when all the interests are jeoparded by extraordinary sea perils, and the act is performed with a view to their preservation.

ART. VI.-CULTURE OF SILK IN THE UNITED STATES.

To the Editor of the Merchants' Magazine:

THE following remarks* were made at the last annual fair of the American Institute. In compliance with the request of T. B. WAKEMAN, Esq., the corresponding secretary of that institution, I enclose them for publication in your Magazine. The culture of silk, although of the greatest importance to the welfare and commercial prosperity of the country, has lost much of its interest, from the fact of its having been already thoroughly agitated, and unfortunately treated by some ill-disposed persons with ridi. cule, if not contempt.

The experience of more than half a century has effectually convinced every person conversant with the culture of silk, that our soil, our climate, our pure and dry atmosphere, and our silvery waters, are evidently adapted to the production of silk. It is proved almost with a mathematical precision that we could, in a short time, not only dispense with silk of foreign origin, but even supply the European markets with this highly valued article, of our own production. The ever-increasing importation of every kind of foreign silk into the United States, and the unfavorable balance of our commerce with foreign nations, imperiously require some efficient measures to increase our agricultural products, and to diminish the ruinous drain upon our resources.

The production of silk is unquestionably destined to fill the dangerous deficits left in our domestic and public economy by our unlimited speculations, and by our extravagant luxuries.

The culture of silk is the principal source of the riches of every country where it is properly and diligently pursued. The Lombard Venetian kingdom, having a territorial extent of about one half of the state of New York, with a population a little above four millions, exported in 1833, 6,132,950 pounds unmanufactured silk. The United States, having a soil and climate eminently adapted to the culture of silk, imported in a single year twenty-three millions of dollars of manufactured silk; and this, whilst our people were laboring under the consequences of a tremendous crisis just past, and threatened with a more destructive one; whilst our finances and public treasury were in the most embarrassing difficulties.

It is, however, to be lamented that at the very moment when some enterprising and philanthropic men were trying their utmost exertions to give an impulse in this country to the culture and manufacture of silk, the

* Mr. Tinelli, the author of these remarks, is a native of Italy, where he was long engaged in this branch of industry. He is now an adopted citizen of the United States, and is devoting his time and experience to the same object.

evil spirit of monopoly and speculation, which is often in the way of all enterprises of public utility, came to throw new obstacles in the accomplishment of patriotic views. Men, who never had the slightest idea of producing silk, taking advantage of a momentary excitement which existed among the farmers and the promoters of the culture of silk, undertook to monopolize the commerce of mulberry trees. The extravagant and almost ridiculous speculations which took place in that article, became proThat business ended where it ought to end-disappointments and failures were the consequences of a feverish thirst of sordid gain; and what is more to be lamented, the delusions and disappointments of some speculators in trees have spread discouragement and dissatisfaction among many persons who positively intended to make the culture of silk one of the principal branches of husbandry, and an object of agricultural pursuit. But as the good sense of the public generally succeeds in deriving some good from evil, that very extravagant speculation in mulberry trees produced good effects respecting the culture of silk. Many persons, who had planted in large quantities the favorite Morus Multicaulis, having been disappointed in their expectations, and not finding a market for their trees, they thought to make them useful by applying their production to their proper real destination-the feeding of silk-worms. Cocoons to an immense amount have been produced this very season in many states, and especially in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut; and a great many more would have been produced if cocoons could find a ready market-if silk filatories were established at different parts of each state, where the farmers could readily sell their

cocoons.

However, some of those experiments have not been crowned with satisfactory success. The art of rearing silk-worms and reeling silk, embracing many details and much information, perfection cannot be obtained but by repeated experiments and a continued practice. Every error is a step towards the truth. And the numerous specimens of cocoons and silk now exhibiting at your fair will carry conviction to every mind, that a gigantic progress has already been made in the seropedic art, and that the production of silk is not a chimera, but an ascertained fact in the United States. The causes of those failures, and of the disappointments with which the patriotic attempts of many silk-growers have been attended, are to be found especially in the want of practical knowledge in regard to the choice of the quality of their silk-worms, their management, and the cure of their distempers. A capital point in the art of rearing silk-worms, is a good choice of the eggs and good management in their hatching. Some farmers have purchased the silk-worm's eggs at distant places; in advanced season they brought them home agglomerated in small boxes or bottles, where the privation of air, and a fermentating process, caused a complete destruction of the vital principle of the insects, or rendered imperfect and very precarious their hatching. Eggs, when taken from distant places, ought to be transported in a cold season, and before March, and kept at home in a cool and dry place, from which they must be taken and exposed gradually to a higher temperature, when the time for their hatching approaches. The bad construction of the rooms where the worms have been raised-the want of a constant ventilation-the use of wet or spoiled leaves of mulberry trees, and the fermentation produced by the agglomerated remnants of the food, have, in many instances, generated