but the selfish ambition of the most of these phantoms of States did not allow them to lay aside their little hostilities and rivalries in order to unite themselves sincerely and firmly against the preponderance of the greater power. "Of the minor States, Bavaria, a kingdom of four-and-a-half millions of subjects, is the most important. Bavaria more than once endeavored to put herself at the head of the other confederates, and to form with them a more united body, that would be able to lay its weight in the balance of European politics; but it was in vain. Those governments that bore with impatience the domination of the great powers would still less submit to a neighbor whom they looked upon as their equal. "The constitution of the German confederation seems to have been made for the purpose of destroying their strength, so far as regards the questions of leading order in European affairs. Germany never can act as one power, and on every occasion of any importance she has proved unable to play the part which her geographical position and her population ought to have assigned her. The treaties which were intended to unite her governments never preserved them against divisions and hostilities among themselves, whenever there was a necessity for general and intimate union. "The authority of the German emperors having become a mere nothing some centuries ago, and the increase of the power of Prussia rendering it quite impossible to revive it, there were no means of constituting a new empire until the fall of Napoleon seemed to afford an opportunity for restoring the independence of Germany. Then, if there should be a future Germany, the only way to be followed was to make her a confederation, whose members should have equal rights, however different their powers and importance might be. There are States having five or six thousand inhabitants-as, for instance, the principality of Lichtenstein-and yet there are questions in which, the unanimity of votes being prescribed, the vote of that title prince may destroy the resolutions of Austria and Prussia. In the questions of war and peace, the votes of Austria, Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony, Hanover, Wurtemberg, Hesse Cassel, Hesse Darmstadt, Baden, Brunswick, Hassan, Mecklenberg Schwerin, Luxemburg, (King of Holland,) Holstein, (King of Denmark,) though united in the same resolution, may be rendered nugatory by the votes of the other governments, because these States put together have only forty-five votes in the full Diet, and the fundamental law requires two-thirds of the sixty-eight votes of the full Diet in decisons of questions of this character. Thus, by right of law, the rulers of twoand-a-half millions of subjects have the power to control or to render null the decisions of governments that have more than a million of soldiers at their disposal. It is clear that such a state of things in Europe can by no means mainiain itself, only so long as great interests are not involved in the contest. Neither in questions of secondary importance is Germany more able to move and act as one body. It is now more than thirty years since Prussia first endeavored to unite Germany in a commercial confederation, and it is only recently she succeeded in overcoming the opposition of some of the weaker governments. "Whatever may be considered necessary by the state of public affairs in Europe-whatever may be useful for the interior-the questions of war and peace -the questions of Commerce and social economy-require in this country long and tiresome diplomatic negotiations, and, notwithstanding the incessant watchwords of German welfare and German glory, none of the rulers think of Germany, but only of their important little selves, and they even forget at every moment that most of them would be reduced to dust at the same time when the remains of German unity, however weak and precarious it is, should be broken down. On every possible occasion the jealousies of these governments appear, and the weaker they are the more they are anxious for opportunities to make a show of importance. The great object of the ministers to the Diet is to find out the business of others, and to prevent the accomplishment of anything beneficial except to his own particular chief." Art. V. THE SEVEN CENSUSES OF THE UNITED STATES. "PROGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES IN POPULATION AND WEALTH." A NEW edition of the work of Hon. GEO. TUCKER, of Philadelphia, formerly of the University of Virginia, and a member of the lower hall of Congress from the latter State, first issued in 1843, has just appeared from the press of the Merchants' Magazine, with an addendum by the author, embracing the results of the census of 1850. Here we have a summary view of all the statistics furnished by the seven decennial enumerations, consecutively made under the injunction of the constitution, and a concise exhibit of the more remarkable facts developed from a careful collation of these interesting tables. It is exceeding well adapted to the use for which the author intended it, as "a sort of hand-book to the legislator, the statesman, and to all who are conversant with political arithmetic." The author's inquiries have conducted him "to important inferences on the subjects of the probabilities of life, the proportion between the sexes, emigration, the diversities between the two races which compose our population, the progress of slavery, the progress of productive industry," &c. As the matter, both of the original volume and the appendix, was published in the Merchants' Magazine, it will be unnecessary to particularize the results of Mr. Tucker's investigations, but a few randon instances of the facts elicited, may be given. The largest decennial increase of population in any New England State was in Vermont in the period 1790-1800, being 80.8 per cent; the least decennial increase of any State of the same section was in Rhode Island during the same period, that State being then almost entirely stationary. The largest decennial increase of a Middle State was in New York 17901800, being 72.5; the least in Delaware 1810-20, being 0.01. The largest and least decennial increase in any State of the Southeastern section were in Georgia 1790-1800, and North Carolina 1830-40, being 96.4 and 2.09 respectively. In the Southwest Arkansas gave the largest per centage 221.09 in 1830-40, although Mississippi, while a territory, increased 1800-10, 335.95 per cent; and Tennessee 1840-50, the least, 20.92, In the Northwest, the largest per centage, 886.88, was in favor of Wisconsin in 1840-50; and the least, 13.36, against Kentucky in 1830-40. The annual mortality in the United States is estimated at 1 in 43.4, and by other data at 1 in 39.3 for the whole population; but from imperfections of the census, neither of these rates is to be considered reliable. One curious result is the fact exhibited by the census in each of the years 1830, 1840, and 1850, of an excess of males over females in all classes below 70 years of age, except in the single class of fifteen to twenty years, where the females outnumber the males by an excess of five per cent in the two earlier and two-and-a-half per cent in the latter year. Unknown natural causes may produce this astonishing result, but we are sorry that no reasonable explanation of it appears to us, other than in the reluctance of unmarried females to pass into the region of gloomy hope that lies beyond the teens. We had hoped the prevalent idea of this proclivity of females at a certain period of life to depreciate their experience, was a mere calumny, emanating from the malicious of the other sex; but as a sober, fact-dealing people, we must say, the census figures, that could not well lie, in this case, too strongly confirm the charge. Let the ladies beware when the census-agents pay them the next decennial visit. The census of 1850 justifies the suspicion entertained, we may say, rather, the absolute certainty of the errors of that of 1840, in regard to the number of insane among the free colored. There must necessarily be inaccuracy on this point, as regards both whites and blacks. The question of insanity is often one that puzzles the judgment of the shrewdest medical gentlemen, and is sometimes matter of great perplexity in the courts. Hundreds and even thousands of perfectly sane people are accounted insane by their neighbors, merely on account of some eccentricity which they are unable to comprehend. Who decides for the census-takers the character of a man's mind? Certainly no man admits his own derangement of intellect, and if the opinion of his neighbors is taken, it may be rendered according to either the malice, the whim, or the stupidity of the neighbor himself. We want the truth in the census, and the result of the effort of 1850 has conclusively shown that more questions may be asked than can be well answered, and that by trying to get at too much, discredit may be thrown upon the truthfulness of the whole result. Mr. Tucker endeavors, while admitting the palpable errors of the census of 1840 in regard to the insanity of the free colored, to partially sustain the exploded inference against the health of that class; but a sufficient reply to even this compromise between the two censuses, is found in the fact which Mr. Tucker himself freely sets forth, of the superior longevity of the free blacks to either the slaves or the whites. We allude to this matter in no relation to the subject of slavery, but simply as a question of fact. We might mention some other points in regard to which Mr. Tucker's inferences are questionable, but as there is so much sterling merit and sound truth in the book, we will pass these by. As a whole, perhaps, no other writer would have used his material more judiciously than Mr. Tucker has done. JOURNAL OF MERCANTILE LAW. BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND BILLS OF LADING-DECISION OF THE TRIBUNALS OF HAVRE. A case of much interest to commercial men has recently been decided in the French courts in Havre, directly the reverse of the English practice in regard to the use of shipping documents for the security of bills of exchange drawn against cotton and other produce from this country. It is also at variance with the hitherto received custom adopted by our bankers in regard to French bills. The ship's bill of lading has been held to control the property not only until the exchange is presented and accepted in Liverpool or Havre, but until the acceptance itself is made satisf ctory to the holder, or cashed at bank rate by the acceptor himself. Such, however, is not the law of France. The consignee in Havre is no party to any contract here outside the bill of exchange itself. The property passes to his control when the bill is accepted. The case was as follows: A merchant in Mobile bought for a merchant in Havre 353 bales of cotton, and drew for the amout at sixty days' sight. The draft was sold to L. W. & Co., accompanied with the bill of lading, with the understanding that if the draft was accepted, and the acceptance was satisfactory to the holder, the bills of lading be remitted to the person on whom the draft was drawn; but if it was refused acceptance, or if the acceptance was not satisfactory, then the holder was authorized to put said bills of lading in the hands of another to operate the sale on account of the proprietor, and apply the proceeds to the payment of the draft. The bill was accepted by the drawee, who claimed in exchange for his acceptance the bills of lading, which the holder refused except on receiving good security for the ultimate payment of the acceptance. An action was brought by the acceptor before the tribunals of Havre to obtain the bills of lading. The following points were decided by the court:- 1. The holder of a bill of exchange, not yet accepted, but who intends presenting the same for acceptance, cannot exact from the drawee who is charged with the fulfillment of the provisions of said bill any guaranty not stipulated in the contract of exchange itself. Especially the holder of a bill of exchange cannot exact from the drawee, in addition to his acceptance, a security for payment at the expiration of the term, or any other guaranty not stipulated in the original contract. 2. The holder of a bill cannot produce, in justification of his position, agreements between him and the drawer which are irrelevant to the bill, and to which the drawer is an entire stranger. 3. An acceptance is sufficient when given in conformity to the rules laid down in Articles 122 and 123 of the Code of Commerce, and the drawer has the right, when he offers an acceptance conformably thereto, to insist on a delivery of the bills of lading of the goods for the payment of which the bills of exchange has been drawn. EXPRESS BUSINESS AS DISTINGUISHED FROM COMMON CARRIERS. In Supreme Court, (New York,) before Judge R. H. Morris, Herman Herifield, et al., vs. Alvin Adams, et al. This case, which is of great importance to persons engaged in the express business, as distinguished from common carriers, came before the judge without a jury, as the following statement of facts is admitted by the parties :— That the plaintiffs are in partnership in New York and have a resident partner in San Francisco, and that the defendants are co-partners in the express business, carrying packages for hire between the city of New York and San Francisco. It also appeared the defendants do not own any of the means (vessels and boats) of transportation between New York and San Francisco, neither are they in any manner interested in them, nor have they the least management or control of them either in person or by agents. The packages which the defendants expressed to San Francisco, they have conveyed in their own name from place to place, in the vessels and conveyances owned by others, plying upon the route between the two cities, used in common by the community. The plaintiffs on the 28th day of August, 1850, delivered to the defendants two trunks containing clothing, worth $2,025 09, to be forwarded and transported by the defendants to San Francisco to Mr. Burnett, the house of the plaintiffs, to be sold for plaintiffs, and on their account. The trunks were properly protected with canvas. The plaintiff's paid to the defendants $219 75 compensation for forwarding and transporting the trunks. The defendants, upon the receipt of the trunks and the money, gave the plaintiffs the following receipt:— ADAMS & Co.'s NEW YORK AND CALIFORNIA PACKAGE EXPRESS, Received from Hersfield, Burnett & Back, in apparent good order, to be transported by our Express, the following articles, marked as below, which we promise to forward in like order, subject to the agreement now made, to Mr. Burnett, at San Francisco. It is agreed, and is part of the consideration of this contract, that we are not to be responsible for any loss or damage arising from the dan . gers of ocean or river navigation, leakage, fire, or from any cause whatever, unless the same be proved to have occurred from the fraud or gross negligence of ourselves, our agents or servants, and we are in no event to be made liable beyond our route as herein receipted, value under $100, unless otherwise herein stated. Freight paid here, $219 75-marked [N3,] *50.51. Packages--two trunks. San Francisco. For Adams & Co., COBB. The defendants shipped the trunks on board one of the steamers plying between New York and Chagres in their own name, and paid the freight on them. The trunks arrived safely at Chagres. On the 9th of September, 1850, the defendants shipped these trunks in their own name, paying freight for them, on board a flat-boat, Capt. Thomas Angels, for Cruses, on the route to San Francisco, which was the usual conveyance. The boat arrived safely at a point upon the Chagres River below the town of Varmos, on the evening of the 12th of September, 1850. The night was dark, and the river was rising rapidly. Capt. Angels deemed it imprudent to proceed, and made the boat fast at the bank of the river. At 1 o'clock on the morning of the 13th of September, it was discovered that the boat was leaking, owing to the springing of a plank, produced by the pressure of the current and drift wood passing down the river, and not by any insufficiency of the boat or neglect of master or crew. Captain and crew made every effort to prevent the boat sinking, but the pressure of the current caused the boat to careen, and she sank. Captain and crew exerted themselves to save the cargo; they got much of it on the bank, and among it the trunks in question, and then the crew deserted. The master of the boat reshipped to Chagres the trunks in question, and other packages saved from the flat-boat. On the 26th of September, 1850, Capt. Angels called upon three respectable merchants of Chagres to survey the packages saved from the flat-boat, and among them the trunks in question. The surveyors considered the trunks in question and their contents as being damaged and unmerchantable. They signed a certificate to that effect, advising that they should be sold. The conduct of the captain and the surveyors was honest. On the 21st of September, 1850, the trunks and goods in question were sold by Capt. Angels at public auction, and were purchased by W. Porter, the highest bidder, for $350. The sum $350 was afterwards remitted to the defendants at New York, and was received by them. The goods from the two trunks were sent by Mr. Porter to San Francisco, and sold by him for $2,000. There was a semi-monthly means of transportation from Chagres to San Francisco. The goods were never forwarded to Mr. Burnett. There was a semi-monthly means of communication between Chagres and New York. The plaintiffs were not notified of the accident or of the sale. The defendants have offered judgment for $569 75, being the amount for which the trunks and goods sold at Chagres, and the amount of freight paid in advance, and interest on both sums. There is no pretence that fraud has been committed by the defendants or their agents, or that defendants or their agents knew of the accident or of the sale, until informed of both at New York by the receipt of the amount of sale transmitted to them. The judge delivered the following opinion in writing, which the plaintiff entered to contest before the court above : The defendants in this case, not being owners of or interested in the vessels and boats in which these trunks were to be conveyed between New York and San Francisco, were not common carriers, and are not liable as such. The defendants are bailees for hire to receive these trunks at, and to forward them from and to, place to place, to destination, by the ordinary and approved means of conveyance, and had a legal right to define the extent of their liability. By the contract in this case, defendants obligated themselves to deliver the trunks and contents specified to Mr. Burnett, at San Francisco. They were not to be liable "for any loss or damages arising from dangers of the ocean or river navigation, leakage, fire, or from any cause whatever, unless the same be proved to have occurred from the fraud or gross negligence of the defendants, their agents or servants." In this case it is established that up to the time when Captain An |