I should add, that they had not all been made or published when learned Judge's book was written.

The cases cited in support of the proposition alluded to, and emanating from Judge MARVIN, do not, I think, fully sustain the position that he has taken.

BENSON VS. CHAPMAN (1st Exch.) does support the proposition. that the master is liable for the amount raised by the captain to repair the ship by hypothecation of the cargo, even where that amount exceeds the value of the ship and freight.

The case of BENSON US. DUNCAN substantially reiterates that view of the law. Neither of them, however, touches the case of a sale of cargo. The only American case cited, that of POPE vs. NickERSON, does not, as I read it, establish either proposition. A few extracts from the voluminous opinion of Judge STORY will, I think, demonstrate this. In fact, it appears to me that he takes quite a contrary view.

"It seems to me," says the learned Justice, "upon principle, with "reference to our law, that the opinion of VALIN and POTHIER are "entitled to very great weight; as has already been suggested, the "limitations of the responsibility of the owners of the ship are mere "qualifications of the antecedent rule of our law, and do not change "the nature of the rule. The owners are and ought to be held personally bound to pay all the lawful contracts of the master, to "the full amount thereof, not exceeding their interest in the ship " and freight."

The learned judge then proceeds to comment on the Massachusetts act, (which is similar to the Act of Congress of 1851;) this refers only to the wrongful acts of the captain. He then proceeds as follows:

"There is good reason for the distinction; the owners might "otherwise be ruined by the wrongful act of the master or mariners. "But the lawful contracts of the master within the scope of his duty are such as the owners have authorized, and are and can be "deemed in no just sense wrongful, but are such as fairly are by "implication, with the privity and knowledge of the owners.

He then goes on to decide the case before him, which arose out of the sale of a portion of the cargo by the master, and adds:

"So that in this limited view of the matter, the owners would be "personally liable for the money advanced, since at the time when "it was advanced, it did not exceed the value of the ship and "freight."

This decision, it will be seen, so far from holding that the maritime law creates an unlimited responsibility on the part of the owner, without reference to the value of his ship and freight, for the lawful contracts of the master, holds, on the contrary, that the

maritime law does place a limitation upon that responsibility, and restricts it to the actual value of the ship and freight. This is the view taken of the same point by the Court of Exchequer of England, which comments upon Judge STORY's decisions in the following language of well-deserved praise:

"The very learned judgment of Mr. Justice STORY affords a "complete answer to a plausible argument, in which it was set "forth that the general law maritime clothed the master of a ship "with power to bind his owners absolutely, and that the municipal "law of the owners' country was analogous to such restrictions, "on the ostensible authority of a partner, or other agent clothed "with a general power. The authorities cited by Mr. Justice "STORY Show, that the power given by the common law to the "master to bind his owners personally, without limit, depending "upon the value of the ship and freight, is rather the exception "than the rule in maritime law. Certainly they show, that there is "no such immemorial rule of maritime law as contended for."

LLOYD US. GUIBERT, COCKBURN, C. J., wherein it is held, "that "the power of the master to bind his owners personally is but a "branch of the general law of agency," according to the common

law.

In conclusion, therefore, the law appears to be as follows:

1st. By the general maritime law of modern Europe, the power of the master to bind his owner is in all cases-whether arising out of contract or tort-limited only to ship and freight.

2d. At common law, the question is considered as one of principal and agent, and is governed by the general laws of agency.

3d. In Continental Europe the maritime law governs, and the owner cannot be held beyond the value of the ship and freight.

4th. In England and in the United States there is no statutory restriction upon the liability of the owner, except in case of torts and quasi torts.

5th. In England and in the United States the courts have sought, in all questions as to the liability of the owner for the contracts of the master, to pay regard both to the general maritime law and to the common law of agency. The leaning on the part of English courts appears to be rather in favor of the common law liability, and that of the United States rather in favor of the limited liability created by maritime law.

On the whole, then, it appears that the tendency of modern jurisprudence is to limit the liability of the ship-owner, and thereby to follow the general maritime law. There are considerations of a sound public policy in favor of this view.

The law of 1851 was based upon a recognition of its equity, and was especially intended to "encourage ship-building, and to

"induce capitalists to invest money in this branch of industry; "unless they can be induced to do so, the commerce of this country must flag and decline. Those who are willing to manage and "work ships are generally unable to build and fit them. They "have plenty of hardiness and personal daring and enterprise, but they have little capital. On the other hand, those who have capital and invest it in ships incur a very large risk in exposing their property to the hazard of the sea and to the management of seafaring men, without making them liable for additional loss "and damage to an indefinite amount."

แ

This language of the Supreme Court of the United States, (NORWICH CO. vs. WRIGHT, quoted above,) commends itself to all who are interested in this subject. The policy of the law has been constantly developing itself in the direction of encouraging capitalists to invest limited sums of money in useful enterprises without imperiding their whole estate. The formation of mining and manufacturing companies, and of a variety of others, are evidences of this. Our statute authorizing special partnership, (which statute was based upon the French laws of Commandite,) the recent English statutes authorizing the formation of limited liability companies, all these testify to the growing sense of Legislatures that capital should be encouraged to enter into useful channels of commerce and business without any greater risk than the loss of the sum invested; and it is to be hoped that if any steps are to be taken by the next Congress of the Association towards settling the liability of the owner for the acts of the master, these considerations of public policy will not be overlooked, while at the same time due regard is had to those principles of agency which must, to some extent, control the subject.

Before closing this Report, which is unreasonably extended, let me express the hope that the labors of the Association will prove to be of great practical value It is possible, nay probable, that the rules already passed, and those hereafter to be agreed upon, may encounter difficulty and delay in the attempt of their framers to obtain for them legislative endorsement. But even without this, it cannot be denied, that a general system of wise rules, carefully framed by experienced and practical men, peculiarly interested in a judicious settlement of the questions involved, is likely to secure general acceptance, and thereby, in time, to engraft itself permanently upon commercial usages and commercial contracts. Once impressed upon the general sense of the mercantile world, these rules will make the law, and legislators will endorse them.

NEW-YORK, November 1st, 1877.

(Signed,)

F. R. COUDert.

THE YORK And Antwerp RULES, AS THEY WERE FINALLY ADOPTED.

Jettison of Deck Cargo,

RULE I.-No jettison of deck cargo shall be made good as General Average.

Every structure not built in with the frame of the vessel shall be considered to be a part of the deck of the vessel.

Damage by Jettison.

RULE II-Damage done to goods or merchandise by water, which unavoidably goes down a ship's hatches opened, or other opening made, for the purpose of making a jettison, shall be made good as General Average, in case the loss by jettison is so made good.

Damage done by breakage and chafing, or otherwise from derangement of stowage consequent upon a jettison, shall be made good as General Average, in case the loss by jettison is so made good.

Extinguishing Fire on Shipboard.

RULE III.-Damage done to a ship or cargo, and either of them, by water or otherwise, in extinguishing a fire on board the ship, shall be General Average; except that no compensation be made for damage done by water to packages which have been on fire.

Cutting away Wreck.

RULE IV. Loss or damage caused by cutting away the wreck or remains of spars, or of other things which have previously been carried away by sea-peril, shall not be made good as General Average.

Voluntary Stranding.

RULE V. When a ship is intentionally run on shore, because she is sinking or driving on shore or rocks, no damage caused to the ship, the cargo and the freight, or any or either of them, by such intentional running on shore, shall be made good as General Average.

Carrying press of Sail.

RULE VI.-Damage occasioned to a ship or cargo by carrying a press of sail, shall not be made good as General Average.

Port of Refuge Expenses.

RULE VII.-When a ship shall have entered a port of refuge under such circumstances, that the expenses of entering the port are admissible as General Average, and when she shall have sailed thence with her original cargo, or a part of it, the corresponding expenses of leaving such port shall likewise be so admitted as General Average; and whenever the cost of discharging cargo at such port is admissible as General Average, the cost of reloading and stowing such cargo on board the said ship, together with all storage charges on such cargo, shall likewise be so admitted.

Wages and Maintenance of Crew in Port of Refuge.

RULE VIII.-When a ship shall have entered a port of refuge under the circumstances defined in Rule VII., the wages and cost of maintenance of the master and mariners, from the time of entering such port, until the ship shall have been made ready to proceed upon her voyage, shall be made good as General Average.

Damage to Cargo in Discharging.

RULE IX.-Damage done to cargo by discharging it at a port of

refuge, shall not be admissible as General Average, in case such cargo shall have been discharged at the place, and in the manner customary at that port with ships not in distress.

Contributory Values.

RULE X.-The contribution to a General Average shall be made upon the actual values of the property at the termination of the adventure, to which shall be added the amount made good as General Average for property sacrificed; deduction being made from the ship-owner's freight and passage-money at risk, of such port-charges and crew's wages as would not have been incurred, had the ship and cargo been totally lost at the date of the General Average act or sacrifice; deduction being also made, from the value of the property, of all charges incurred in respect thereof, subsequently to the aris-. ing of the claim to General Average.

Loss of Freight.

RULE XI.-In every case in which a sacrifice of cargo is made good as General Average, the loss of freight, (if any,) which is caused by such loss of cargo, shall likewise be so made good.

Amount to be made good for Cargo.

RULE XII.-The value to be allowed for goods sacrificed, shall be that value which the owner would have received, if such goods had not been sacrificed.

Mr. COWDIN further reported the receipt of a communication from the Board of Trade and Transportation, dated New-York, November 21, 1877, and accompanied by a series of resolutions adopted by that Board, relative to the formation of a Conference of Commercial Bodies of this city, for the purpose of considering questions affecting the Canals of the State of New-York. The communication was, on motion, referred to the Committee on Internal Trade and Improvements.

REPORTS OF SPECIAL COMMITTEES.

Mr. A. A. Low, Chairman of the Special Committee, appointed at the last regular meeting of the Chamber to prepare suitable resolutions in regard to the death of Mr. JAMES BROWN, reported the following, which were unanimously adopted:

Resolved, That the demise of Mr. JAMES BROWN bids us pause amid the activities of business, to add another name to the roll of our honored dead; the name of one whose life, gathering brightness with length of years, has shed lustre upon the commercial character, not of our city only and of sister cities, but of the United States, the name of him who, as partner of the house of BROWN BROTHERS & Co., has extended American credit to the remotest