does not believe it to have been so, but in order to comply with the wishes of a majority of the people at Washington, he introduced this sponson, which counteracts the influence of the overhang in a great measure and makes the vessel more compact. The machinery for working the guns in the turret will be preserved, although the thirteen-ipch guns do not require half the care the fifteen-inch did. It is worth remarking that the English employ something like fifteen or sixteen men to work the Armstrong gun, throwing a much lighter ball than our fifteen-inch gun, while we can work the fifteen-inch gun with four men, owing to the splendid mechanical facilities in the turret. The accident that happened to one of the Monitors during DUPONT's attack on Charleston, which resulted in the temporary crippling of the turret, cannot happen to the Manhattan, because an immense band of iron, several inches thick, perfectly solid and massive, covers the whole external base of the turret, rendering it absolutely impossible for any shot or shell to pierce it. This will insure the freedom of the turret, so far as its revolving power consists, from being prevented by an enemy's shot. The ventilation of the Monitors has been a subject of great interest, and the Navy Department, as well as its officers, have given it a great amount of attention. In the original Monitor, when the hatch was closed down and the ship in battle trim, the air was very foul, and it was even difficult to exist. In the Passaic batch of vessels the air was much better, and indeed many thought that it was as good as it need be. Recently, however, improvements have been made, and the ventilation of the entire ship is now as good as that of a 150 line-of-battle ship with all her ports open. The invention which gives this advantageous result is due to Mr. STIMERS. The wind pipes run underneath the deck and branch off to the officers' ward-room, forcing a continuous current of air through the vessel, so that it is rendered cool and comfortable in the warmest climate. The propeller is driven by two powerful engines, with cylinders of forty inches in diameter and twenty-eight inches stroke of piston. It will be observed that the speed of the Manhattan will, in the natural course of things, be much greater than that of the original Monitors, as the dimensions of her cylinders are nearly ten inches greater than those of the other ships. This is one of the most important requirements of an iron-clad vessel, particularly of one presenting such an unusual bow to the water. The Passaic and Montauk class have not been able to make as many knots as was expected; but it is hoped the new batch will do better. The service speed of the Manhattan is ten knots an hour at sea-nearly double that of her sister Monitors. In still less important matters there are some points of difference. In keeping the anchor, for instance, an arrangement by which two holes are placed on each side of the bow, while in the other Monitors it was directly in the centre. The head room between decks is also greater than in the other Monitors. The officers and crew are on the same floor, the former in the forward and the latter in the aft of the vessel. They number seventyfive men. The berth deck contains sixteen state-rooms. In fastening the armor, rivets are substituted for bolts, as the latter give way and fly about when struck by heavy projectiles in a severe engagement. In the arrangement of the machinery, the air and circulating pumps and the surface condensers are independent of the main engines, and can thus be operated when the main engines are standing still, maintaining constantly a vacuum, and being able to keep up the condensation of steam, instead of blowing it off into the atmosphere, which every naval officer will appreciate, because it has been one of the most intolerable annoyances of the introduction of steam in the navy that when orders were given on the deck the blowing of the steam rendered them inaudible, and it could not be silenced without danger of being blown up. Thus, we see what are some of the defects of our own iron-clads, the changes that have been made to cure them, and the improvements that have been from time to time added. We believe they have now reached a point of excellence that will enable them to defy the attack of any European fleet that can be sent against us. In fact, neither England or France has, at present, an iron-clad vessel capable of safely crossing the ocean. The following is the class of vessels to which the Manhattan belongs: The following is a list of all the iron-clad vessels now in course of construction from the plans of Captain Ericcson; Local inspectors. L. T. Spencer. 1st Asst.-Eng. E. Hoyt, Jr. J. G. E. Larned. 1st Asst. Eng. E. Hoyt, Jr. D. G. Wells. D. G. Wells. JOURNAL OF MERCANTILE LAW. IMPORTANT INSURANCE DECISION. A NOVEL litigated case, and one of much importance in the law of marine insurance, has recently been decided in the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, the details of which occupy a large space in the Boston Daily Advertiser. The suit was brought by T. W. HOXIE against the Pacific Insurance Company-BIGELOW, C. J. The facts of the case may be thus briefly stated:-The vessel which was the subject of insurance in the policy declared on, having sailed from Perth Amboy in New Jersey, in May, 1860, bound on a voyage to Aspinwall, was compelled by reason of sea damage to put back into the port of Bermuda, which she had previously passed in the prosecution of her voyage, for the purpose of making necessary repairs. There were in that port ample means and opportunities of putting the vessel in a state of complete repair, and of fitting her in all respects for sea. On the first day of September, 1860, she was still undergoing repairs, which were not finished until the fifteenth day of that month, soon after which she proceeded to sea in the further prosecution of the adventure on which she sailed from Perth Amboy. The policy declared on was effected on the twelfth day of September. As nothing is shown to the contrary, it must be assumed that, at the date of the policy and on the day when the risk began, the vessel was in such condition, undergoing repairs, that she was seaworthy for port, so that the policy attached. In this state of facts, the question to be determined was, whether in a policy on time upon a vessel so situated there was an implied warranty for seaworthiness, similar to that which the law implies in case of a voyage policy—that is, that the vessel is not only seaworthy for port, but also in a suitable condition for sea, by a breach of which the insurers are discharged from liability for loss happening from any cause. This interesting and important question of commercial law was argued at great length-the code was pretty thoroughly overhauled, and all cases of apparent analogy cited -but, from the authorities produced, there would seem to be no foundation, in the opinion of the Judge, for the positions assumed by defendants that there is no warranty of seaworthiness in any policies on time-a warranty which is said to lie at the basis of the contract of marine insurance. It is easy to see a good reason for holding that a policy on time effected on a vessel when at sea does not include any warranty of her seaworthiness at the commencement of the risk. In such case, the insurance is on a "vessel in an unknown sea in an unknown state." The insured has no means of knowing her actual condition, or, if she is injured and out of repair, of restoring her to a condition of seaworthiness. Both parties enter into the contract with a full knowledge of these facts. It would not only be pushing a rule of law to an unreasonable extent to say that under such circumstances the assured undertakes to warrant his ship, of the conditions and circumstances of which he could know nothing, to be then seaworthy for any purpose, but it would be contrary to the manifest intent and understanding of the parties. In such cases, the circumstances attending the making of the contract of insurance tend directly to rebut any implication of But when it is a warranty of seaworthiness at the inception of the risk. attempted to go farther, and to say that, because in certain cases of insurance on time it cannot be reasonably held that there is an implied warranty of seaworthiness at the inception of the risk, there is no such implied warranty at all in any such policy, whatever may be the circumstances under which the contract was entered into, the reasoning seems to be fallacious and unsound. Certainly it would be contrary to all the received canons of legal exposition to construe policies of this nature as if they were isolated contracts, having no connection with or affinity to other similar contracts under the law-merchant, and to which only the general rules regulating the interpretation of ordinary written contracts are to be applied. These ought not to be taken out by the mere force of judicial construction from the class of contracts to which they belong, or from the rules and principles by which such contracts are interpreted, any further than is rendered absolutely necessary by the peculiar stipulation, which distinguishes them from other contracts of marine insurance. Indeed, it is with reference to these rules and principles, long established and well known by all persons engaged in commercial transactions and the business of insurance, that these policies must be presumed to be made; and to disregard and reject them in giving an interpretation to the provisions which they contain, would be clearly contrary to the plain intent and understanding of the parties. Every implied warranty, therefore, which according to the usages of insurance and the decisions of courts of law is presumed from the fact of making an insurance on a ship or vessel under the well known forms adopted for policies, is to be annexed to and form part of a policy on time, as well as of one for a specified voyage, unless inconsistent with the nature of the risk or the circumstances under which the policy was entered into. It was suggested by the counsel for plaintiff that if any warranty of seaworthiness was implied in the policy declared on, it was fully complied with by proof of the fact that the vessel was seaworthy at Perth Amboy on her departure in the prosecution of the adventure during the continuance of which the policy was effected and the vessel was lost. "But we are unable," says the Judge, " to appreciate the soundness of this suggestion. It confounds the voyage insured with the actual voyage on which the vessel happens to be bound at the date of the policy; these two have no necessary connection." The conclusion arrived at by the Judge was, that there was an implied warranty of seaworthiness in the policy declared on, in analogy to that which would arise under similar circumstances in a policy for a voyage; and, that the insurance having been effected on a vessel while in port, to take effect from a certain day, which was before she sailed thence, the warranty includes seaworthiness for ports as well as seaworthiness in setting out therefrom, as in a policy at and from a particular place. INTERESTING QUESTION TO IMPORTERS IN U. S. COURT, BEFORE JUDGE NELSON. MANUEL ECHEVERRIA ET AL. VS. HIRAM BARNEY. THIS suit is brought to recover back an excess of duties paid under protest on an importation of wool, lead in bars, goat-skins and cotton, in the Spanish bark Teresita, by the plaintiffs from Matamoras, September 4th, 1862. The duty paid and protested against was a discriminating duty of ten per cent, claimed under the third section of the act of 5th of August, 1861. The first and second sections of that act imposed certain duties on articles specially enumerated in each section. The third section provides that "all goods, &c., imported from beyond the Cape of Good Hope in foreign vessels not entitled by treaties to be exempt from discriminating duties, &c., and all other articles, goods, &c., not imported direct from the place of their growth or production, or in foreign vessels, entitled by reciprocal treaties to be exempt from discriminating duties, &c., shall be subject to pay, in addition to the duties imposed by this act, ten per cent ad valorem." It is admitted that Spain has no such treaty as is mentioned in the section, and hence there is no difficulty in imposing the discrimination against her in all cases where the section applies. But none of the articles in this importation, except "lead in bars," is charged with a duty in the two preceding sections, or in any other section of the act, and therefore the third section imposing the ten per cent does not apply according to its very terms. The words are- -"in addition to the duties imposed by this act, ten per cent ad valorem." The first section had imposed "on lead in pigs or bars," a duty of one dollar and fifty cents per one hundred pounds-the third section, therefore, applied to this article, the Spanish vessel not being exempt by treaty from the discrimination, which, in addition to the above rate, charged it with the ten per cent ad vaiorem. Wool is charged with a duty under the twelfth section of the act of March 2, 1861, and goatskins, and cotton, under the eighth section of the act of July, 1862. That section provided, that from and after the day and year aforesaid (1st of August, 1862), in lieu of the duties heretofore imposed by law on the articles hereinafter mentioned, and on such as may now be exempt from duty, there shall be levied, &c., the following duties:- "On cotton, one half cent per pound; on hides, raw, and skins of all kinds, ten per cent ad valorem." Before this, the duty on 66 raw hides and skins of all kinds was five per cent, under the tenth section of the act of March 2d, 1861, and under the twenty-third section of the same act, cotton was free of duty. Whether, therefore, we look to the third section of the act of August 5, 1861, itself, which subjects the articles, under the circumstances stated in the section, to a duty of ten per cent in addition to that imposed by the act in the previous sections, or to the eighth section of the act of 1862, which imposes the duty in lieu of the duties heretofore imposed by law, it is quite clear that the discriminating duty in the third section does not apply to the articles of wool, goat-skins, or cotton. The difficulty appears to me insuperable to undertake to apply the third section of the act August 5, 1861, to the article of wool, which is subjected to duty under the act of March 2, previous, or to the articles of goat-skins and cotton, charged with a duty under the act of July, 1862, when, by the very terms of the third section, the additional duty there imposed is in addition to the duty fixed by that act of which the section is a part. If the language had been as used in some of the sections of the act of July, 1862, “in addition to the duties heretofore imposed by law"-or had used language which has never yet been used, I think, in any tariff act-" in addition to the duties that may hereinafter be imposed by law," the construction claimed by the Government might very well have been sustained. But no such language is used; on the contrary, the language is, as we have seen, "in addition to the duties imposed by this act." Judgment for the plaintiff. |