tor, both of the propeller, screw, and side paddle-wheel. It appears that Fulton and Livingston were on board the boat with Hutchins, then quite a young man, who acted as steersman.

Mr. Hutchins, over his signature, on the map alluded to, has given a description of the boat and its engine, with both the screw and the side paddle-wheel, used by Fitch in the presence of Fulton and Livingston. They are represented as on board the long-boat, Fitch at their side, with an iron pot for a boiler, holding from ten to twelve gallons of water, cov. ered by plank, secured by an iron bar, the walking beam playing into two wooden iron-bound barrels, connecting rod, force-pump, &c. With all the simplicity and efficiency of this engine, it would appear that only such master spirits as Livingston and Fulton could appreciate its power, and its eventual success. Fulton, to save himself from ridicule at home, made his first attempt in France, on the Seine, 1801. It was after the death of Fitch, in Kentucky, on the banks of the Ohio, that Fulton, aided by the liberal purse of Livingston, ventured on the Hudson, 1807, with the Clermont, propelled, in the first instance, at less speed than the clumsy boats of Fitch on the Collect and on the Delaware. It is a fact not generally known, that Fulton and Livingston attempted to stop the use of steam on the Delaware, claiming to be the original inventors. The cause was tried before the Legislature of New Jersey. Colonel Aaron Ogden exposed their pretensions. The case was decided against Fulton-he took cold, returning home, from wet and exposure, and soon after died.

Mr. Hutchins gives a short sketch of Fitch's biography. The date of his birth, at Windsor, Connecticut, is not given. It appears he was first a farmer's boy, then an apprentice to a watchmaker. After the death of his father, he emigrated to Trenton, N. J., where he kept store. The store, with its contents, valued at $3,000, was destroyed by the British, when they took that place. He then entered the United States army, a lieutenant, and was taken prisoner by the northwestern Indians, from whom he was redeemed by a British officer. He made a map of the country, which he struck off on a cider-press. We find him afterwards a surveyor in Kentucky, then an engineer in Pennsylvania.

It is stated that it was in 1785 Fitch conceived the project of making a vessel to be propelled by the force of condensed vapor. When the idea first occurred to him, he states he did not know there was such a thing as a steam-engine in existence. It appears he applied to Congress for aid; a committee was appointed; he was foiled, and there the matter dropped. In 1786, he communicated his plans to Voight, an ingenious mechanic in Philadelphia, afterwards in the mint, who approved his plan, and promised assistance. Between June and August, 1786, Fitch constructed a model, which worked to his satisfaction. He at length, by unwearied exertions, and probably to get rid of "the crazy man," got twenty persons to take shares of fifty dollars each, and then applied to the Legislature of Pennsylvania for further aid. A letter which he wrote on this subject to Governor Mifflin, 1787, shows how sanguine were his anticipations. He reckons, "confidently, on a speed of seven to eight miles an hour, and on being able to navigate the sea, as well as rivers." In 1787, he tried his boat on the Delaware, but the engine was inadequate. In May. 1788, with a smaller boat and the same engine, he made a trip to Burling on, N. J. Success seemed to have crowned his exertions, when the boiler sprung a leak. In October of the same year, he

made a passage from Philadelphia to Burlington, twenty miles, in three hours and ten minutes, and others at nearly the same rate. In June, 1789, a larger cylinder was tried, but without much improvement in speed. In 1790, the boat was again altered. She performed well, and it is stated the business of the summer was profitable. In the meantime, Fitch was principally engrossed in legal proceedings for the security of a patent. His claims were contested by Rumsey. What were the real merits of Rumsey, we shall not undertake to determine. A boat on his plan was tried in London, and failed. Fitch gained his patent, but it was never attended with any pecuniary advantage. The last struggle of the Perseverance, (aptly named,) was in 1791, and she was consigned to a neglected old age in Kensington docks. He filled several manuscript books with a personal and general narrative, which he bequeathed to the Philadelphia Library, with the proviso that they were to remain closed for thirty years. He appeared determined that one generation should pass, ere he submitted his reputation to the trial of human opinion. A writer in the Herald justly observes," Of the boldness of his conception, and the perseverance with which he followed it up, there can be but one opinion; and had fortune seconded his efforts, and his means been equal to the accomplishment of his designs, there can be no doubt that he would now hold, undisputed, the honor of having given to the country this most noble and useful invention."

The public are indebted to Mr. John Hutchins for the drawing of the boat used in New York in 1796-7, with the machinery that was used during those years. It settles an important and disputed question, as to the application by Fitch, at that early period, of the side paddle-wheel, with six arms and paddles, claimed by the friends of Fulton as his invention, and, of course, the practical application of steam. But the most singular part of all, is the use, fifty years ago, of the late patented screw propeller, which, it appears, Fitch had the good sense to abandon, and, as I suppose, took the paddle-oar, to please the wise men of Philadelphia. Another reason, however, is given. The water was thrown into the boat by the buckets, and put out his fire. He then invented the propeller. He did not think of a wheel-house, to keep the water out of the boat; nor did Fulton, in the first instance. On the Delaware, his contrivance of six oars to enter the water as six came out, was ingenious, and did away with Doctor Franklin's objections to the side paddle-wheel, arms and buckets.

The power of attorney of Fitch to Colonel Aaron Ogden, of New Jersey, to use his patent and bill of sale, with many of his papers, I learn, are with his son, M. Ogden, at Jersey City. If they will shed any light on the subject of Fitch's invention, I trust their possessor will give them to the public. It appears by the New York Municipal Gazette, Vol. II., No. 2, 1841, and 2d series, 1845, Vol. I., No. 145, that Mr. E. Merriam has discovered, in our Secretary of State's office, the original petition of John Fitch to the Legislature of New York, dated 27th February, 1787, to protect his invention on the waters of New York. A committee, consisting of Thomas Sickles of Albany, Samuel Jones of Queens, and Alexander Hamilton of New York, reported in his favor, when a law was passed, 19th March, 1787, to be found in the 2d Vol. Laws of State of New York, published 1789, page 116.

On a future occasion, I may pursue this interesting subject, to aid in giving "honor to whom honor is due."

J. E. B.

NOTE. Since writing the foregoing, an examination of Colden's Life of Fulton leads to the conclusion, that there is an error in the dates of Mr. Hutchins, and that Mr. Fulton was not the person who accompanied Chancellor Livingston with Fitch, when he steered the boat on the Collect Pond, 1796-7.

In the year 1793, Fulton was in England, in correspondence with Lord Stanhope.

In the spring of 1796, we find Fulton published, in London, his Treatise on Canal Navigation.

In 1797, he was in Paris, and tried his experiments, on the Seine, in December of that year.

In 1798, we find him in England. In 1801 and 1802, we find him again in France, trying his steamboat and torpedoes, at Brest, in company with Livingston. In 1804 he was invited to England by the ministry, to try his experiments on submarine navigation, which he satisfactorily performed, in 1805, in presence of Pitt, but was not adopted by the Board of Admiralty, as too barbarous for civilized warfare.

In the fall of 1806 he left England, and arrived in New York in December of that year. In 1807 he commenced the construction of the Clermont.

From the foregoing, it is clear that Mr. Hutchins may lead others, like myself, into error, in supposing Mr. Fulton was the person on board the boat with Fitch and Chancellor Livingston. The Life of Fitch, by Sparks, shows that he used wheels, although the spiral screw, as stated to be used by Fitch, in 1797, is certainly a novelty. I should have suspended all remarks on this subject, had not Mr. Hutchins, subsequent to the writing of this article, and prior to this note, called on me with the letter of Alderman Anthony Lamb, stating he had seen the boat of Fitch on the Collect, as stated, but there is evidently some error in "the lad Hutchins' " statement, "that Fulton was on board the boat, 1796-7." The Chancellor may have been, as he was addressed by Fitch as "your honor,"-s -so says Hutchins. Fitch died in Kentucky, in 1798. Full justice is done to his memory in Sparks' American Biography, Vol. XVI., new series, VI., p. 83. There can be no doubt but that Messrs. Fulton and Livingston had free intercourse with Fitch, and were acquainted with his plans to apply steam to propel boats, by the crank motion, prior to their going to Europe. The Jersey trial shows this.

J. E. B.

Art. VIII. THE LAW OF DEBTOR AND CREDITOR IN LOUISIANA. THE mercantile connection has become so intimate and so vast, and is still so rapidly increasing, between the great commercial cities of the North and those of the South, that some knowledge of the rights and duties, and liabilities, of the merchant, as they are established by the peculiar system of jurisprudence of the state of Louisiana, has at length become a matter of real necessity, to the safe and prosperous conduct of business affairs.

In every other state in our Union, the general law of the land-apart from the local statutes of the several legislatures-is that which has been handed down to us from British forefathers; the laws of Alfred and Edward, the immemorial customs and parliamentary sanctions of Great Brit

ain-the common law, softened of those asperities which suited it to the severe despotisms of the ancient, or the limited monarchy of modern times, and adapted, as far as human ingenuity can adapt it, to our own institutions. In Louisiana, the fundamental law is that which has been transmitted to its people from ancient Rome; the laws of Theodosius and Justinian, the codes, the pandects, the novels, the prætorian edicts and imperial rescripts the civil law-stripped of those peculiarities which fitted it for the despotic monarchies of Rome and Byzantium, and moulded into conformity to the spirit and genius of a free republic. The protection of right, which is but another name for the administration of justice, is differently attained under these different systems of jurisprudence, and rights and duties, and liabilities, are differently defined, and imposed and enforced. Much critical and learned discussion has been expended upon the relative merits of these two systems of jurisprudence, in elevating the policy, sub. serving the interests, protecting the rights, and promoting the common convenience of a community. In their opinions, civilians and common law jurists are as wide asunder as are the systems themselves. A consideration of this subject, even superficially, would be apart from the humble purpose of this article; and even though the writer possessed that skill and learning requisite to its more extended discussion, this is not the forum in which to treat the great issue with that dignity which its importance demands. It is the simple design here to point out some of those peculiarities in the laws of Louisiana, which may be supposed most materially to affect the interests of business men whose rights and obligations are, from time to time, subjected to their construction and control. But it may be permitted to express here a regret that there should be such a conflict between the jurisprudence of different portions of our common country as to complicate the private relations of its different citizens, so that he who knows his rights and the manner in which they are protected under the laws of New York, has yet but little appreciation of their extent or limitation, or mode of enforcement, under the laws of Louisiana. In a country like ours, composed of a federal government and some twentynine distinct and independent sovereignties, it is scarcely to be expected that there should not be material local variations in the forms of proceeding in the administration of justice; but surely it is a source of no little regret that there should be discordance in the fundamental laws of the several states, by which the rights and obligations of the citizens of a common country, are defined, established and imposed. With the increase of commerce, and the consequent increase of all those relations which render the interests of a people identical, this evil is becoming the more felt. May we not hope that the day is not far distant when it shall cease! and as we are one in interest and in feeling, bound together in the bonds of a common constitution, and inseparable in destiny, that the private rights of the American citizen, of whatever state in the Union, may be defined and construed by the same general laws; that the time may come when the noble boast of the Roman orator may be more truly than now, that of the citizen of our Republic: "Non erit alia lex Romæ, alia Athenis, alia nunc, alia post hac; sed et omnes gentes et omni tempore una lex, et sempiterna, et immortalis, continebit."

The judiciary of Louisiana is composed of a supreme court, of appellate jurisdiction, only, consisting of five judges, (unless the number has been changed by the new constitution,) and of district courts of original juris

diction, five of which are in the city of New Orleans, three of general, one exclusively of probate, and one of criminal jurisdiction.

The appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court of Louisiana is some. what anomalous in its nature. It is the duty of the clerk of the inferior court, at the trial of a cause where the right of appeal exists, (which is in all cases where the matter in dispute exceeds the sum of $300,) at the request of either party, to reduce to writing the testimony of the witnesses as it is delivered. In case of appeal, a transcript of the entire testimony, with the documentary evidence and all the proceedings had in the case, is transmitted to the supreme court, and that tribunal is clothed with the power of review of the whole case, as well the questions of fact as of law which are involved in it, and, without sending the case back, or ordering a new trial, to render such final judgment, as, in its opinion, should have been rendered in the court below. There is no separate chancery tribunal in Louisiana, but all the courts, under the provisions of the articles of the civil code, are clothed with many of the powers peculiar to a court of equity, and the forms of proceeding are, in some respects, analogous to those in chancery.

The process by which all suits are commenced, is a simple petition, which states the claim of the plaintiff as concisely as possible, and without any of the technical phraseology of the common law declaration, and closes by praying for the citation of the defendant to appear and answer, and after due proceedings, a judgment for the amount or thing claimed. To this petition, the defendant has ten days to answer, after its service upon him with a citation. Within the ten days, he may file what is called a “dilatory exception," to the petition, an exception which does not go to the merits of the claim, but sets up some defect in matter of form. This is heard, and decided upon, summarily, by the court; and if not filed within the ten days, the right to interpose the objection is lost. A "peremptory exception" may be filed at any stage of the proceedings, and may even be taken advantage of in the supreme court after appeal. It is an objection which goes to the whole merits of the claim, such as prescription, or what, at common law, is called the statute of limitations. This, too, is tried and determined summarily, by the court, without the intervention of a jury.

But if neither dilatory nor peremptory exception be filed, an answer to the petition must be put in before the expiration of ten days, or judgment by default is rendered against the defendant. Notice of this judgment is served upon the defendant, and three days from service of that notice are allowed him to set aside the default and file his answer. If he fail to do this, the plaintiff may have his judgment by default confirmed, which he can only do by proof of his claim.

The issue is made between the parties by the petition and answer simply; and special pleading being entirely unknown to the practice under the civil law, it may well be supposed that, oftentimes, the issue is anything but single, certain, or material. Almost any matter of defence may be given in evidence under an answer, which is merely a general denial of the allegations of the petition. Upon a judgment in a case not appealable, the plaintiff is entitled to his execution forthwith; upon others, only after the expiration of ten days from the service of notice of judgment. In all cases, whether subject to appeal or not, and even though the judg ment be appealed from, the plaintiff is entitled to a certificate of the judg.