« AnteriorContinuar »
to the establishment of a department for the treatment of lunatic patients. He visited Albany in 1815, and in conjunction with one or two influential members of the legislature, procured the passage of an act appropriating ten thousand dollars a year for the support of the insane, and for erecting new buildings. To this cause we owe that noble institution, the Asylum for the insane, at Bloomingdale. These successes in the cause of philan. ihropy, afforded Mr. Eddy the liveliest pleasure.
In 1793, Mr. Eddy and John Murray, brother to Lindley Murray, were appointed a committee of the Friends' yearly meeting, for the improvement of the Indians, whose reduced and wretched condition attracted the notice of the benevolent. They accordingly made a visit to the miserable rem. nants of the Six Nations—the Brothertown, Stockbridge, Oneida, and Onon. daga Indians, for the purpose of inquiring into the best method of alleviating their condition. Their report was so favorable that large sums of money were raised and expended for the amelioration of these tribes. While Mr. Eddy was among them, he was excessively beloved: his hospitable mansion was a wigwam to the travelling Indian, where he ate when famished and drank when thirsty. He and the famous Red Jacket were strong friends ; for they were both philosophers and philanthropists, although the latter was of a somewhat sterner mould. Mr. Eddy labored hard to suppress those habits of intemperance which are working their destruction.
Among his other efforts to promote the public prosperity, Mr. Eddy possesses a just claim to a share in investing this state with the benefits of inland navigation by means of the great Erie Canal, the interests of which were so greatly forwarded by the immortal Clinton. Doctor Hosack, in his memoir of that great man, assigns Mr. Eddy a place next to him, as being “chiefly instrumental in effecting a direct internal communication be. tween Lake Erie and the Atlantic." He was at an early period one of the directors of the Western Inland Navigation Company, which had for its object the improvement of the communication between the eastern and western portions of the state. The company expended large sums on the navigation of the Mohawk, which impoverished it; and Mr. Eddy, in his capacity of director, made frequent exploring visits to the interior of New York, to ascertain the practicability of constructing a canal, and unsuccesfully importuned the company to undertake the project of canal navigation. Being at Albany in 1810, he conceived the project of applying to the legis. lature for the appointment of commissioners to examine and explore the western part of the state, with a view to the construction of a canal from the Mohawk to Seneca Lake. Mentioning his plan to his friend, Judge Platt, then a senator, and since a justice of the Supreme Court, it was highly approved of, and that eminent man suggested the plan of a canal from the Hudson to Lake Erie. A bill was immediately drafted to appoint a commission for this purpose, and it was resolved to present it ihe next day. Names were selected equally from the two political parties, to be appointed as commissioners. They comprised those of GOUVERNEUR Morris, DE WITT Clinton, STEPHEN VAN RENSSELAER, Simeon De Witt, WILLIAM NORTH, THOMAS Eddy, and Peter B. PORTER. These arrangements were fully perfected by both houses passing the bill immediately, and without a dissenting voice. In the following summer, the commissioners made their exploration from one end of the state to the other, and reported to the next legislature, and several laws were enacted favorable to the prosecution of the project. The last war, however, interrupted the proceedings; and, be
sides, the plan was violently opposed on party considerations, while there were many who doubted the pecuniary ability of the state to carry on so stupendous a work. Notwithstanding the furious opposition the project met with, Mr. Eddy was not willing to resign a favorite scheme, and he determined to make one more effort. Judge Platt being in New York in 1815, holding a court, Mr. Eddy proposed to him to call a public meeting, in or. der to urge the propriety and policy of offering a memorial to the legislature, pressing them to prosecute the canal from Erie to the Hudson. Judge Platt readily agreed to this proposition, and consented to open the business to the meeting, if one could be obtained. He then called on De Witt Clinton, who united with him in adopting measures to procure a public meeting Accordingly, a large and respectable meeting was held at the City Hotel. William Bayard was chairman. Judge Platt made an introductory speech, and was followed by De Witt Clinton, John Swartwout, and others. Cad. wallader D. Colden, De Witt Clinton, John Swartwout, and Mr. Eddy, were appointed a committee to draft a memorial to the legislature. This memorial was drawn up by De Witt Clinton, and from the masterly manner in which it was written, it was evident he had a complete knowledge of the subject, and evinced the uncommon talents of the author. It was signed by many thousands in the city, and throughout the state. With the legis lature it had the desired effect, and was the means of establishing the canal policy on a firm basis, and producing the law of 15th of April, 1817, directing the work to be commenced, which was accordingly done on the 4th of July following:
In the interim, Mr. Eddy evinced the unusual forecast of his mind, and his clear judgment, by his exertions, in connection with De Witt Clinton and Robert Fulton, to the opposition caused by men not capable of forming a correct judgment as to the practicability of the great work. This was done by the publication of pamphlets, essays in newspapers, &c.
The first savings bank in this country was established in the city of Philadelphia, and almost at the same time another at Boston. Mr. Eddy, impressed with the utility of these institutions to industrious persons with small means, saw only another plan of giving scope to that active spirit of philanthropy which fired his soul. His exertions to establish such an insti. tution in this city, failed for a long time to receive the competent support. In 1803, however, in company with John Murray, jr., and Jeremiah Thomp. son, he met with full success, after triumphantly removing every objection. The New York Savings Bank was thus established, and has remained in full and active operation ever since ; and the thousands who have been benefited by its good offices, can attest the value of such an institution. Mr. Eddy was a director, and its vice-president, to the time of his death.
The New York Bible Society is also another monument of Mr. Eddy's ardent desire to improve the condition of mankind. This branch of the great society which has directly and indirectly effected so much good to the human race, even to the uttermost parts of the earth, was formed in 1806, only two years after the birth of its parent in London. Who can estimate the vast amount of intellectual and moral happiness conferred on a large proportion of mankind, who would otherwise have remained in hopeless darkness, by the introduction of the benign principles of Christianity and its necessary companions, civilization and refinement ? The latest moment of Mr. Eddy's life found him an efficient and active supporter of the society he had aided in establishing.
In his connection with the prison system of this state, Mr. Eddy had oc. casion to observe the full force of the axiom that “ignorance is the mother of crime.” He therefore directed his efforts to the establishment of a free school, for those children not otherwise provided with the means of educa. tion. An act of incorporation was obtained for a society for establishing a seminary of this description. Funds were raised by subscription for carrying out this benevolent project, and in a short time great benefits flowed from its operations. From this small beginning has grown the great and splendid system of public instruction which is as honorable to New York as it has been advantageous to her citizens in every walk of life.
We might go on enumerating severally, and descanting on the various public acts of the life of the subject of this memoir, for there was scarcely a plan started within the scope of this truly good man that had in view the public benefit, which may not boast of his active exertions in its favor; but we have displayed sufficient of his actions to show that the predominant impulse which inspired him, was philanthropy. His intellectual acquirements, though by no means brilliant, were sufficient to enable him to shine in the great moral works to which he devoted himself, and the literary compositions he has left behind, show him to have been possessed of a strong and discriminating mind. Mild, courteous, and dignified in his personal de. meanor, he insured the love and respect of all around him.
Mr. Eddy's death occurred on the 16th of September, 1827, in the sixty ninth year of his age. He had been failing for months, but at last his exit from the busy scenes of life was as sudden as that life had been tranquil. His memory will long be revered and cherished by those who are capable of appreciating true worth and excellence.
“MONEY makes money," is a vulgar, but true adage. Argument would be supererogatory in proving the advantage which capital affords to its pos
But there are two ways of using it—a right and a wrong. The only legitimate use of capital is to be out of debt. To be out of debt under any circumstances, is an inestimable blessing, but more particularly so in mercantile business, where pecuniary obligations are, of necessity, much larger than in private or personal affairs.
I do not envy that man who having one thousand dollars in capital, endeavors to trade upon twenty; and yet this is done every day. Assuming his speculations to be fortunate, the means are so ill adapted to the end, that a constant oscillation of feeling and anxiety are invariably created in consequence. Keep within bounds, is the best advice that can be given to any one with a moderate capital. Overtrading is the great bane of most young tradesmen. Naturally anxious “ to do business," they forget that buying and selling do not necessarily imply profitable transactions; and they are too often disappointed to find, at the end of the year, that they have gained their trouble for their remuneration. It is much better to do a little business safely, than a great deal which is tinged with any matter of doubt.
ART. VII.-THE JETTISON OF GOODS CARRIED ON DECK.
We have great pleasure in presenting to our readers, through the kindness of ZEBEDEE Cook, Esq., the president of the “ New York Mutual Safety Insurance Company," the subjoined opinion of the Hon. WILLARD PHILLIPS. The high authority of Mr. Phillips, as the author of a standard treatise on the Law of Insurance, and the importance of the principles involved, now first laid before the public in the Merchants' Magazine, render it of especial value.
Boston, August 11, 1840. ZEBEDEE Cook, ESQUIRE.
President of the Mutual Safety Insurance Company, New York : DEAR SIR, I give you below, at some length, my opinion on the complicated and difficult question you propose in relation to a contribution for a jettison of goods carried on deck.
I am very respectfully yours, &c.
Whether a jettison of goods carried on deck can be made the subject of contribution.
This question was elaborately discussed about one hundred years agn, in :: tribunal to which we owe much of that part of our commercial law which was first embodied in the commentaries of Valin, on the French ordinance of 1681, and the statement of the result of that discussion will serve to pre. sent the subject in a clear light. The provision of that ordinance (Tit. du Jet. a. 13,) was adopted in the French code of commerce, (a. 421,) by which it is provided that goods on deck shall contribute, if saved, but that, if they are jettisoned, the shipper cannot claim contribution, his only claim being against the master. By another article (12, tit. du Capitaine,) of the same ordinance, the captain is forbidden to stow goods on deck without the consent of the shipper. The regulation of the Consolato, ch. 183, is the
Valin says, in commenting on this subject, that goods on deck must be so, either because there is not room elsewhere, or through the negligence of the master, and that either way it is his fault, it being no more permitted to him to overload his ship, than to expose merchandise to be lost overboard by reason of its improper stowage. "It is for this reason that this article (12, tit. du Capitaine,) makes the master responsible to the shipper, and so also to the freighter, a twofold responsibility that falls also upon his owners.
On the subject of contribution, he says, the reason why this article (13, du Jet.) refuses payment for jettison of goods carried on deck, is, that as they cannot but embarrass the management of the ship, the presumption is that they should have been thrown overboard before there was any neces. sity for a jettison, and still more ought they, to be thrown overboard when there is such necessity.
Here then was an express regulation, equivalent to a provision by statute with us, that goods jettisoned from the deck, should not be contributed for, and cogent reasons are given in favor of such a regulation. But these very reasons are made the ground of an exception, for Valin goes on to say that his article is not applicable to small coasting vessels, where the usage is to
stow goods on deck as well as under deck, even in respect to goods extremely subject to sea-damage: one every day sees sacks of four loaded at Marans for this port, (Rochelle,) or for Rochefort, either in batteaux without decks, or on the decks of decked vessels; and, although the flour is very often damaged, yet the usage to transport in this way is tolerated in consideration that otherwise freights would be much higher. And he states the case of a claim made in the tribunal at Rochelle (1747,) about twenty years before, by the shipper of some flour carried on deck and jettisoned on a passage from Marans to Rochelle, on the shippers of goods stowed under deck for contribution, in which the decision was in favor of the claim, from which no appeal was made. This decision, he says, had subsequently been the rule for the adjustment of similar claims.
The commercial law of neither England nor the United States, has any statute regulation on this subject; but the general rule adopted in both coun. tries is, without question, the same that is expressed in the French ordinance and code. It is, however, with us less rigidly binding, and more open to modifications and exceptions, than if, as in France and some other countries, it were a part of the written or statute law. In the numerous cases in which this rule as to contribution has been mentioned in English and American jurisprudence, the reasons most usually given for it, are the same as in Valin's commentaries, viz: that goods ought not to be stowed on deck, because they embarrass the management of the vessel ; and that the proper remedy of the shipper whose goods are jettisoned, is against the master and owners. In some of the cases, contribution has been denied on the ground that the goods on deck paid a less freight, and that it would be inequitable that they should be contributed for on the same footing as those under deck, since this would make the ship-owner insure the former without a premium. This reason applies only to cases where the goods on deck in fact pay less freight, which is not always the case. It is said also that goods are taken on deck under an implied agreement that they shall not be entitled to contribution; but this is only another expression of one of the foregoing reasons, since it is merely saying that one or another of those reasons imports such an agreement; or, in other words, since the shipper of the goods stowed on deck, ought not to have contribution, the courts suppose him impliedly to agree not to claim it. Another ground alleged is, that there is a usage or custom not to allow contribution, even though the goods are rightfully stowed on deck according to the usage of the particular trade. That is, the general doctrine or usage is, that goods on deck are not to be contributed for; and no exception is recognised. This is merely saying that contribution for goods on deck has been denied not only generally, but also in a case of the description in question. It is only giving the doctrine the name of usage.
These are all the grounds of the rule denying contribution that I have found in the treatises and jurisprudence on the subject; a concise recapitula. tion of the cases will show that the subject is involved in some perplexity and inconsistencies.
In Lenox vs. Marine Insurance Company, (1 Caines' Rep. 44, n. 1802,) the decision was against contribution, on the ground, as stated by Mr. Caines, that the goods on deck embarrass the navigation of the ship; and that there was accordingly an implied agreement not to demand contribution.
In Smith and another vs. Wright, (2 Caines' Rep. 43, 1803,) twelve VOL. III.-NO. V.