thirty-five millions. Since the abolition of slavery in the British West Indies the production of Coffee is gradually declining, and will probably soon become extinct. The production of Java steadily increased-being stimulated by the Dutch company and by the encouragement given to private planters,-till the export in 1848 was about 150 millions of pounds, one-third of which, or 50 millions, was private coffee. The low prices that had ruled for some time previous to 1848, and since, have so discouraged the private planters, that many have abandoned the cultivation altogether, and their annual production at present is only from twelve to fifteen millions of pounds. The Company's production has also rather fallen of, so that the average annual export of Java cannot now be estimated over 800,000 piculs, or about 110 millions of pounds. Brazil from 1830 to 1850 increased the production of Coffee in a greater degree than ever before known. The climate was found to be most congenial to the trees, the yield per tree being double of the West Indies, and the prices of slaves extremely low-selling on long credits at from $200 to $300 each. During this period, the export increased from sixty-four millions per annum to three hundred millions. The low prices of Coffee subsequent to 1842, and the diminished import of blacks, checked the planting of new estates, and the entire stoppage of the slave trade in 1850, together with the subsequent rise of slaves to $550 and $600 each, render it nearly certain, that the production of Coffee in Brazil has about reached its maximum. The fear now is, that without some supply of labor, to make up for the annual mortality of slaves on the estates, estimated on the average at from five per cent to six per cent, the production can hardly be maintained at the present rate. Some may think that slaves will be again imported clandestinely, but the government and people are now so decidedly opposed to the further increase of the slave population, there is not the slightest probability of this. A bill was introduced into the national legislature last year for the gradual emancipation of the slaves; it was not passed, but its numerous friends will not cease their exertions, and many years cannot elapse before its final passage and adoption. Foreign immigration has been attempted, but with little chance of success. Cooley labor has been talked of, but, as yet, none has been introduced. Ceylon, by the encouragement of protective duties in England, increased her production of Coffee rapidly, from 1835 to 1845, and it was predicted that by 1855, the export would be fifty millions of pounds per annum. The decrease of protection and low prices have operated so unfavorably, that a great many estates have been entirely abandoned, and the production, which had reached forty millions, is now reduced to about thirty millions of pounds per annum. Large capitals have been lost, and estates abandoned for a few years cannot be reclaimed; it is therefore not likely that any increase will take place in Ceylon. The same remarks will also apply to the private planting in Java. The export of Coffee from Laguira, &c., shows rather a falling off the past few years. Certainly no increase of importance can be expected from thence, but rather the reverse. From the foregoing it will be seen, that there has been, in the aggregate, a falling off in the production of Coffee since 1848, when it was the greatest; and as will appear by the following tables, formed from the average of the best authorities, that the production of 1853, which supplies the consumption of 1853-4, will be thirty-four millions of pounds less than in 1848. It is to be observed, that many estimates of the Brazil export for 1853-4 are considerably less than 1,750,000 bags, also less froin Java and Ceylon, equal in all to fifty millions pounds less than the estimate below, which would make the total falling off in production, compared with 1848, about eighty-four millions of pounds. This great increase has been mainly brought about by its having ceased to be a profitable crop in most places of production, and short crops in Brazil, Java, and Ceylon. Should prices advance, some may expect a corresponding increase of production, as of sugar or cotton, but when it is considered that it requires ten years at least to get a new coffee estate into full bearing, and that labor, the chief capital employed, is from 150 to 200 per cent higher in Brazil than it has been, it cannot be looked for to any extent, certainly not equal to the average increase of consumption the past twenty-five years. The consumption of Coffee has rapidly increased the past twenty-five years, from its low price, facilities of transportation, and ability of the masses to purchase what was formerly considered a luxury, so that it has now become a necessary of life. The greatest increase has been in the United States, averaging seven-and-a-half per cent per annum; in Europe it has been two-and-a-half per cent, or for the world four per cent per annum. The following estimate of consumption is the average of various sources, and is believed to be as near the truth as can be ascertained, for 1852: .millions pounds. United States and British America German Zolverein Austria, and other German States.. Holland and Belgium...... France, Switzerland, and South of Europe Great Britain ... Denmark, Sweden, and Norway Russian Dominions Cape of Good Hope and Australia. 200 100 65 80 110 35 25 15 10 640 Total consumption in 1852..... The difference between production and consumption has been gradually * Rio Janerio, Santos, and Bahia. coming round, as the stocks in Europe show a diminution of about twentyfive millions of pounds compared with the past year, which has caused an advance in prices of about fifteen per cent. In this country the stock of Rio in first hands is rather large, but of other sorts very trifling. The stocks in the interior are believed to be smaller than usual, with all the elements of a large and increasing consumption. for the future. Stock of Coffee in Europe, July 1, estimated ...millions pounds. at.. Stock in United States July 1 Total stock of the world..... 125 or 3 months consumption. 40 21 163 It may be well to remark that the great increase in the consumption of Coffee has taken place at the same time that tea, from its low price, has increased in a still greater degree. Should the supplies of tea be cut short by the revolution now in progress in China, the consumption of Coffee must be increased, which will render still more apparent the deficiency of production, and by the end of the year show a large decrease of the old stocks. July 1st, 1853. J. G. JOURNAL OF MERCANTILE LAW. INSURANCE.-LOSSES, OF WHICH THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE MASTER OR MARINERS IS THE EFFICIENT CAUSE, NOT WITHIN THE POLICY. Our attention has been called, by a highly respectable merchant of Boston, to the subjoined decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, (Dec. term, 1852,) in the case of the General Mutual Insurance Company, plaintiffs in error, vs. Ebenezer B. Sherwood. Our correspondent has furnished us a copy of the Monthly Law Reporter containing this decision, and suggests that it is of sufficient importance to warrant its publication in the pages of the Merchants' Magazine. Our merchant correspondent, in a private note, says: "In consequence of this decision, the underwriters of Boston have agreed to take the risk of collision, and cover ship-owners from damages which they may be liable to pay for injuries to another ship, caused by fault or neglect of the master or mariners of the ship insured. For assuming this risk, they charge 5 per cent on the amount of the premium, whether said premium be for the voyage or term of time. Thus, when writing risks at 6 per cent per annum, they charge 3-10ths per cent for inserting the collision clause. It amounts to obtaining a bonus for recognizing a risk which, by several decisions of our State Courts, they have been held liable for." In the Supreme Court of the United States, December Term, 1852, The General Mutual Insurance Company, plaintiff's in error, vs. Ebenezer B. Sherwood. Under a marine policy insuring against the usual perils, including barratry, the underwriters are not liable to repay to the insured damages paid by him to the owners of another vessel and cargo, suffered in a collision occasioned by the negligence of the master or mariners of the vessel insured. In error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Mr. Justice Curtis delivered the opinion of the court. The action was assumpsit on a time policy of insurance, subscribed by the plaintiffs in error, upon the brig Emily, during one year from the 17th day of October, 1843, for the sum of eight thousand dollars, the vessel being valued at the sum of sixteen thousand dollars. The policy, described in the declaration, assumed to insure against the usual sea perils, among which is barratry of the master and mariners. The declaration avers, that during the prosecution of a voyage within the policy, while on the high seas, and near the entrance of the harbor of the city of New York, by and through the want of a proper lookout by the mate of the said brig, and by and through the erroneous order of the chief mate, who was stationed on the topgallant forecastle of the said brig, who saw the schooner hereinafter named, and cried out to the man at the wheel, "Helm hard down--luff," whereas he ought not to have given the said order; and by and through the negligence and fault of the said brig Emily, the said brig ran into a schooner called the Virginia, and so injured her that she sank, whereby the said brig Emily became liable to the owners of the said schooner and her cargo to make good their damages, which liability was a charge and incumbrance on the said brig. The declaration then proceeds to aver that the brig was libelled by the owners of the schooner and her cargo, in the District Court of the United States; that a decree was there made, whereby it was adjudged, "That the collision in the pleadings mentioned, and the damages and loss incurred by the libellants in consequence thereof, occurred by the negli gence or fault of the said brig; and that the libellants were entitled to recover their damages by them sustained thereby." That the same having been assessed, a decree therefor was made by the District Court, which, on appeal, was affirmed by the Circuit Court, which found, "That the hands on board the Emily failed to keep a proper lookout, and that the said brig might have avoided the collision by the use of proper caution, skill, and vigilance." The declaration further avers, that the plaintiff has paid divers sums of money to satisfy this decree and the expenses of making the defense, amounting to the sum of eight thousand dollars. This statement of the substance of the declaration presents the question which has been here argued, and sufficiently shows how it arose; for although there was a demurrer to the first two counts in the declaration, and a trial upon the general issue pleaded to the other counts, and a bill of exception taken to the ruling at the trial, yet the same question is presented by each mode of trial, and that question is, whether, under a policy insuring against the usual perils, including barratry, the underwriters are liable to pay to the insured, damages paid by him to the owners of another vessel and cargo suffered in a collision occasioned by the negligence of the master or mariners of the vessel insured. The great and increasing internal ravigation of the United States, carried on over long distances through the channels of rivers and other comparatively narrow waters, where the danger of collisions and the frequency of their occurrence are much greater than on maritime voyages, renders the respective rights of underwriters and insured, growing out of such occurrences, of more moment in this than in any other civilized country; and the court has considered the inquiry presented by this case with the care which its difficulty and its importance demand. In examining for the first time any question under a policy of insurance, it is necessary to ascertain whether the contract has received a practical construction by merchants and underwriters, not through any partial or local usages, but by the general consent of the mercantile world. Such a practical construction, when clearly apparent, is of great weight, not only because the parties to the policy may be presumed to have contracted in reference to it, but because such a practise is very high evidence of the general convenience and substantial equity of its rule. This is true of most commercial contracts; but it is especially true of a policy of insurance, which has been often declared to be an "obscure, incoherent, and very strange instrument," and "generally more informal than any other brought into a court of justice;" (per Buller, J., 4 T. R. 2, 10, Mansfield, C. J., 4 Taunt. 380; Marshal, C. J., 6 Cr. 45; Lord Mansfield, 1 Bur. 347;) but which, notwithstanding the number and variety of the interests which it embraces, and of the events by which it is affected, has been reduced to much certainty by the long practice of acute and well-informed men in commercial countries, by the decisions of courts in America and in England, and by able writers on the subject in this and other countries. And it should not be forgotten, that not only in the introduction of this branch of law into England by Lord Mansfield, but in its progress since, both there and here, a constant reference has been had to the usage of merchants, and the science of insurance law has been made and kept a practical and convenient system by avoiding subtle and refined reasoning, however logical it may seem to be, and looking for safe practical rules. Now, although cases like the present must have very frequently occurred, we are not aware of any evidence that underwriters have paid such claims, or that down to the time when one somewhat resembling it was rejected by the Court of King's Bench in De Vaux vs. Salvador, (5 Ad. & El.,) decided in 1836, such a claim was ever made. And we believe that if skillful merchants, or underwriters, or lawyers accustomed to the practice of the commercial law, had been asked whether the insurers on one vessel were liable for damage done to another vessel not insured by the policy, by a collision occasioned by the negligence of those on board the vessel insured, they would, down to a very recent period, have answered unhesitatingly in the negative. As we shall presently show, such, for a long time, was the opinion of the writers on insurance on the continent of Europe, and in England and America. And this alone would be strong proof of the general understanding and practice of those connected with this subject. But although this practical interpretation of the contract is entitled to much weight, we do not consider it perfectly decisive. It may be, that by applying to the case the settled principles of the law of insurance, the loss is within the policy; and that it has not heretofore been found to be so, because an exact attention has not been given to the precise question. Or it may be that the weight of recent authority, and the propriety of rendering the commercial law as uniform as its necessities, should constrain us to adopt the rule contended for by the defendant in error. And therefore we proceed to examine the principles and authorities bearing on this question. Upon principle, the true inquiries are-What was the loss, and what was its cause? The loss was the existence of a lien on the vessel insured, securing a valid claim for damages, and the consequent diminution of the value of that vessel. In other words, by operation of law the owners of the Virginia obtained a lien on the vessel insured, as security for the payment of damages due to them for a marine tort, whereby their property was damaged. What was the cause of this loss? We think it is correctly stated by this court in the case of the Paragon, (14 Peters, 109.) In that case it was said:"In the common case of an action for damages for a tort done by the defendant, no one is accustomed to call the verdict of the jury, and the judgment of the court thereon, the cause of the loss to the defendant. It is properly attributable to the original tort which gave the right to damages consequent thereon." The cases there spoken of were claims in personam. But the language was used to illus trate the inquiry, What should be deemed the cause of a loss by a claim in rem? and is strictly applicable to such a claim. Whether the owners of the Virginia would proceed in rem or in personam, was at their election. It affected only their remedy. Their right, and the grounds on which it rested, and the extent of the defendant's liability, and its causes, were the same in both modes of proceeding. And in both, the cause of the loss of the defendant would be the negligence of his servants, amounting to a tort. The loss consisting in a valid claim on the vessel insured, we must look for the cause of the loss in the cause of the claim, and this is expressly averred by the declaration to have been the negligence of the servants of the assured. From the nature of the case it was absolutely necessary to make such an averment. If the declaration had stated simply a collis. ion, and that the plaintiff had paid the damages suffered by the Virginia and her cargo, it would clearly have been bad on demurrer; because although it would show a loss, it would state no cause of that loss. It is only by adding the fact |