Page images
PDF
EPUB

to be pointed out. Bankers are proverbial for their anxiety to maintain their credit unimpaired and unsuspected. With them distrust is synonymous with the ruin of their business. Under this system every man, assuming the character of a banker, becomes equally solicitous about the maintenance of his credit. Upon the goodness of his reputation for punctuality of redemption depends the fact of his always having change in his pocket. Honesty comes than to a good market, and finds at once a pecuniary reward. If his credit is suffered to fall into disrepute among his neighbors, he is left positively without money or the means of obtaining it, and reduced to the necessity of making all his exchanges on the spot. He is put pecuniarily into Coventry. Both the superior advantages of possessing credit, and the greater inconvenience of losing it conspire, therefore, to instal the reign of commercial honor, and common honesty in the most minute and ordinary transactions of life among the whole people. This result is already satisfactorily proven in practice at one point where this system of exchanges has been introduced in the fact that every person is anxious to obtain the labor notes of others for use and to abstain, so far as he can, from issuing his own, as well as in the general solicitude for the preservation of credit, and the general promptitude in redeeming the notes that are issued. Notwithstanding the fact that in so small a circle it is only a part of the pecuniary transactions of the community which can be carried on upon the cost principle, ordinary money having to be used in all transactions with the world outside, and even within the community, for those things which were purchased outside and which cost money, still these results have been strikingly exhibited in practice.

3. It combines the properties of a circulating medium, and a means of credit. These qualities have been substantially stated above as separate attributes of the labor note system; but the advantage of their combination in one and the same instrumentality of Commerce is worthy of a distinct observation. At the end of the third year from the commencement of the settlement above referred to, there were eighteen families having two lots of ground each with houses-nine brick and nine wooden ones--and gardens of their own, nearly the whole of which capital was created by them during that period. The families, without exception, came there quite destitute of worldly accumulations. Thirty dollars in money was probably the largest sum possessed by any of them. Others landed there with five dollars and ten as the whole of their fortune. They were nearly all families who had been exhaused in means as well as broken down and discouraged in spirit by successive failures of community, or association attempts at reform. success they have thus achieved, in so short a time, has resulted entirely from their own labor, exchanged so far as requisite and practicable upon the cost or equitable principle facilitated by the instrumentality of the labor

note.

The

A family arriving without means at the location of a village operating on the equitable principle, if their appearance or known character inspires sufficient confidence in the minds of the previous settlers, can immediately commence operations, not upon charity, but upon their own credit, issuing their labor notes, men, women, and youths, so far as their several kinds of labor are in demand, procuring thereby the labor of the whole village in all the various trades necessary to construct them an edifice, and supply them with the necessaries of life, so far as the size of the circle renders it possible to produce them on the spot. Labor, even prospective labor, thus becomes

[blocks in formation]

immediate capital. Interest and profits being discarded the amount of capital thus existing in labor is greatly augmented. The fact that the labor of the women and children is equally remunerated with that of the men, again adds to the amount of combined capital in the family. By the operation of these several causes, a family, which has been struggling for years, in the midst of the competion of ordinary Commerce and the oppressions of capital, with no success beyond barely holding on to life, may become in a short time independent and well provided. Such are the legitimate workings of the true system of Commerce, and so far as it has been tested by practical operations the results have corroborated the theory.

[The settlers at Trialville, however, would not wish anything said upon this subject to be construed into any pledge on their part to supply any advantages to individuals coming among them. There is no community or society there in the corporate sense of the term. Every Individual judges solely for himself upon what terms he will treat with others, how far he will receive their labor notes, or whether he will receive them at all. Persons going there must make up their own opinion whether there is a sufficient demand for the kinds of labor which they can perform, whether their own uprightness of character, and punctuality in the discharge of obligations are such as to inspire and maintain confidence, and, indeed, upon every point relating to the subject. No guarantees whatever are given, except such as the individual finds in the principles themselves; while it is left entirely to the decision of the individual himself on every occasion, whether even he will act on the principles or not. There is no compact or constitution—no laws, by-laws, rules, or regulations of any sort. The individual is kept above all institutions out of deference to the principle of individuality, and the sovereignty of the individual which are just as much the fundamental basis of true society as the cost principle itself. There must, therefore, be no reliance on express or implied pledges, nor upon any species of co-operation which is contracted for, and binding by agreement. Besides, the extent to which the advantages of the labor note can be rendered available is limited by the smallness of the circle, by the prevalence of pursuits unfavorable to the mutual exchange of labor or products, and by numerous other considerations all of which must be judged of by the individual upon his own responsibility, and at his own risk.]

When credit is raised upon the issue of labor notes it has the advantage of being based upon that which the party has it in his power to give. He has in his own vaults the means of redemption. If a laboring man promises money, his ability to pay the money depends upon the precarious chance of his finding a demand for his labor. If he gives a labor note, which is redeemed in labor, he secures the means of paying by the act of entering into the obligation. Even if the payment is demanded in the lternative, and is discharged in the standard commodity itself, (corn), or what is more likely, in the labor notes of the others, still both these are procured by the exchange of his own labor, and it would appear, upon a full exposition of the system, that under the operation of these principles labor will always be in demand, so that no laborer need ever be out of employment. As a result of this fact every man can know positively beforehand, to precisely what extent he can, with safety, issue his labor-notes, the contingencies of sickness and death alone excepted. Hence, dishonesty finds no subterfuges. In the case of death the heirs possess the property, if there be property, for which the notes were given. To refuse to redeem them is a palpable ascertained fraud,

and the same powerful motives, which have been shown as operating on the original debtor to ensure honesty and punctuality, operate also upon them. If they evade the obligation, they are placed in Coventry, and cut off from all the advantages and privlleges which such an association affords. The influence thus brought to bear upon them is tenfold more potent than laws, and the sanctions of laws, in existing society. In the event of sickness, if the invalid has accumulated property, it serves to maintain him, and redeem his outstanding obligations, precisely as now. Such is the main purpose of accumulation. If a person has no property at the time his labor notes are given, then his credit is based solely on his future labor, and the liability to sickness and death enter into the transaction and limit the issue. The risk is incurred by the party who receives them. As the amount of these notes in the hands of any single individual is generally small, the risk is a mere trifle, and has never been found, practically, to be enough to make it worth while to take it into account at all. For the contingency of the loss of property by fire or other accidents, between the time when obligations are incurred and their redemption, as well as at all other times, insurance can be resorted to, as is done in existing society. Thus the labor note, while it is a circulating medium, is at the same time the instrument of a system of credit, having all the advantages, with none of the frightful results of insecurity and bankruptcy, which grow out of, or accompany the credit system actually prevailing in the commercial world.

4. The labor note represents an ascertained and definite amount of labor or property which ordinary money does not. We have examples of this feature of currency in the railroad and opera ticket, and other similar representations of a positive thing. A railroad ticket represents a ride of a definite length to-day, to-morrow, and next day, but a dollar does not represent anything definite. It will buy one amount of sugar or flour to-day, another amount to-morrow, and still a different amount the next day. The importance of this feature of the two different systems is immense. It can, however, only be exhibited in its consequence by an extended treatise on the subject. What has been shown in this article is a mere glimpse at the system of "Equitable Commerce." A thousand objections will occur which it is impossible to remove in the space of a Magazine article. It will be perceived by the acute intellect that a principle is here broached which is absolutely revolutionary of all existing commerce. Perhaps a few minds may follow it out into its consequences far enough to perceive that it promises the most magnificent results in the equal distribution of wealth proportioned to industry-the abolition of pauperism-general security of condition instead of continual bankruptcy or poverty-universal co-operation, the general prevalence of commercial honor and honesty, and in ten thousand harmonizing and beneficent effects, morally and religiously. The system, or science of equitable Commerce embraces several fundamental principles. The one which I have endeavored to give some idea of in these few words is stated thus-CoST IS THE SCIENTIFIC LIMIT OF PRICE.

[graphic]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

JOURNAL OF MERCNTILE LAW.

CLAIM OF TWO RAILROAD COMPANIES TO THE SAME TRACK.

The decision of Alleghany County Court, in Maryland, in a recent case of the Maryland Mining Company vs. the Mount Savage Iron and Coal Company, is one of no small importance, in view of the large number of roads now in course of construction in mountainous districts of the country. It is somewhat as if the New York and Erie Railroad Company should, by virtue of its prior charter, claim a right to condemn such portion of the Hudson River Railroad ground, from Piermont to New York, as might not be occupied with rails. "The Maryland Mining Company," and "the Maryland and New York Iron and Coal Company," were, by their respective charters from the Legislature of Maryland, the one passed in March, 1836, and the other in March, 1838, authorized to construct railroads, the one from its mines near Frostburg, and the other from its works at Mount Savage, to the canal basin, at or near the town of Cumberland, and, for that purpose, each was vested with power to condemn lands for the use of the road, by a jury summoned by the Sheriff. The last-named company commenced its road in the latter part of the year 1843; and upon the 16th of January, 1844, in pursuance of its charter, condemned a right of way through the " Narrows," so-called from the fact that it is a narrow pass between two precipitous mountains, and the only place through which the two roads could be carried, both companies having been prohibited by their charters from occupying any canal that might be wanted for the main route of the Baltimore and Ohio road, or for the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal. The land thus condemned embraced an average width of ninety feet, and the Maryland Mining Company made, at the time, no assertion of a right to a priority of choice in the location of the sites for its road, or any remonstrance whatever against the condemnation of the land or the construction of the road by the Maryland and New York Iron and Coal Company. But, on the 8th of October, 1850, the Maryland Mining Company, held a condemnation on a part of this same land, condemned as aforesaid, for the purpose of constructing a railroad parallel to the existing road of the Maryland and New York Iron and Coal Company, and so close that the ends of the cross ties of the two roads would have been in contact. Under the charter, the condemnation, to be available, must be confirmed by the County Court.

In 1847 the railroad of the Maryland and New York Iron and Coal Company was sold to John M. Forbes, of Boston, and by him conveyed to the Mount Savage Iron Company, which company now hold it, and filed objections to the confirmation.

The chief objection was, that the land now sought to be condemned by the Maryland Mining Company, has been previously condemned by the Maryland and New York Iron and Coal Company, and that the same land could not be a second time condemned. That although the charter of the Maryland Mining Company was the elder, yet that that company having stood by and not remonstrated or objected when the original condemnation was made and the road constructed, had waived its priority of choice to a route for the site of its road which it could not be allowed to reassume or assert to the detriment of the prior location and construction of the road then existing. The grounds taken by the Maryland Mining Company to sustain its condemnation were, first, that the condemnation made upon the 16th of January, 1844, embracing as it did an extent of ground averaging ninety feet in width, through the Narrows, took in more land than was wanted or was necessary to construct the railroad required. Secondly, that its charter being older than that of the Maryland and New York Iron and Coal Company, it had a priority of choice in the location of its road, of which it cannot be deprived.

In the opinion of the Court, delivered by Chief Justice Martin, these two positions were thus disposed of:

[ocr errors]

The charter of the Maryland and New York Iron and Coal Company, like all other charters of the kind in the State of Maryland, provides that when a condemnation is regularly made by a jury, the same shall be confirmed at the next County Court, unless cause to the contrary is shown. The original condemnation of the 16th of January, 1844, was returned to the Court at its April term, 1844, for confirmation, and no objection having been filed, it was duly confirmed by the Court. By this act of confirmation, the condemnation became judgment of the Court. Until that confirmation took place objections could have been filed by any one interested, but after confirmation, the question of title was settled forever. It then became a judgment of this Court, which it would not have the power even if it had the disposition, now to revoke or set aside. The matter has passed into judgment. The objection, therefore, that too much land was embraced in the original condemnation now comes too late. The remaining point to be considered then is, whether the fact that the Maryland and New York Iron and Coal Company was made, and the road constructed, under that condemnation, without any remonstrance or objection on the part of the Maryland Mining Company, and with a knowledge on its part that such condemnation had taken place, and that the road was being constructed thereunder, and after having itself used the road for several years, and paid tolls for the same, is sufficient to perclude the company from now asserting its right of prior choice of route in conflict with the location made by the Maryland and New York Iron and Coal Company.

There can be no doubt that such acquiescence, on the part of the Maryland Mining Company, precludes it from asserting the right claimed. It would be inequitable to permit that company after thus acquiescing in the construction of the road, and after standing by and seeing another company expend vast sums of money, in grading the bed of the road, and laying down the track, now to set up any priority of choice in the location of a road, which it might have had under its charter. It may be said to bear an analogy to a common case put in the books--that if A stands by and sees B building a house, upon A's land, under the supposition that it belongs to him, and fails to give B notice of his claim or right to the land upon which the building is being erected, he is, therefore stopped from asserting his title to the same.

But, fortunately, the Court is not, in a question of so much interest, without authority to sustain the principle announced. The Court of Appeals of our own State, in the celebrated case of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company vs. the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, have, in the very able opinion of the late Chief Justice of this Court, most clearly and distintely announced the legal principle now decided by the Court. On page 151 of the opinion, in 4 Gill & Johnson, the Court of Appeals says-" And if after being formed it (the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company) had lain by and suffered the railroad to be made without interposing any claim to the route on which the road was constructed, such acquiescence would have amounted to a waiver of its rights, which it would not afterwards be permitted to resume to the destruction of the road."

The counsel for the Maryland Mining Company, have, in argument, contened that notwithstanding the prior condemnation of the land by the Maryland and New York Iron and Coal Company, yet that the same land is subject to be condemned a second time, and is not exempt from the present condemnation, because of the prior condemnation. To sustain this principle the case of the Bellona Company has been read from 3 Bland's Reports. In that case the Bellona Company was authorized by its charter to purchase and hold land for the purpose of making erections and improvements for the manufacture of gun powder. The Baltimore and Susquehanna Railroad Company condemned a route for their railroad through its lands, which were held by purchase. The Bellona Company contended that as it was authorised by its charter to purchase and hold lands, to take any part of them, by condemnation, for the use of a railroad, would be in violation of its chartered rights. The case cited decided that the lands of the company, though held under its charter, were still liable, like the lands of a pri

« PreviousContinue »