cious of new plans and discoveries, and locomotive speed in matters of education. The man that professes to teach reading in twenty lessons, geography in six, and writing in four, is a charlatan. What Archimedes said to Dionysius, there is no royal road to mathematics, is true of every branch of literature and science. The steps of learning can only be mastered by time, diligence, and toil, and we may rest assured, that whatever system states the contrary, is all deception. The greatest scholars, and the profoundest philosophers, were formed in schools where the good old way of assiduous application, and strict mental discipline, were established and prized. Feeble sciolists and empty praters may be formed without study, but the scholar and the philosopher, never. The most eminent are generally the most laborious; and it is not to be doubted, that all whom we are now accustomed to admire, attained excellence by the gradual process of persevering industry. Away, then, with the idea of acquiring science and languages and geography in a few lessons. The fact is, ease and simplicity are too much in vogue now. Science comes in the changing form of Proteus: it must be stripped of its difficulties; it must be popular. Mathematics must be brought down from its lofty pedestal and made to prattle in the language of childhood. Abridgments, and explanations, and conversations without end, rise upon the labors of Euclid, Playfair and La Place. In this benevolent age, it is to be feared, the helps to learning are multiplying so fast, that the young will abandon all effort to help themselves. Another popular error, in conducting the education of youth, is, lengthened confinement at school. Nothing is better calculated to make a dolt-nothing better fitted to stupefy and injure the intellectual powers-than long, continuous plodding over books in childhood, without a change of position. In the "statutes and regulations" of a school in our city, there is the following-" Day scholars must remain in the institution from seven o'clock till half past six, with the exception of the hour set apart for dinner and recreation." We are inclined to think, that five or six hours' mental employment per day is quite sufficient, because the improvement of the mind, and success in the acquisition of knowledge docs, by no means, depend on the length of time professedly engaged, but in the intensity of mind put forth. We know that some parents fancy long hours at school are essential to improvement; and ill-trained children are so troublesome at home, that mothers feel a preference for the school that keeps them longest out of their sight, if they have, at the same time, the assurance that they are out of harm's way. Hence, a sort of competition among teachers, who shall give the longest hours, which, in many instances that have come under our own observation, are extended, particularly during the summer, from eight in the morning till six in the evening, with only one regular hour of intermission. Thus are the interests of the youth, both as to health of body and soundness of mind, too often sacrificed in a contest between the folly and selfishness of parents on the one hand, and the cupidity and imbecility of teachers on the other. It might be a good regulation to have the hour of meeting at school fixed, when that of leaving it should be a movable point, to be determined by the degree of POPULAR DELUSIONS IN EDUCATION. 532 successful exertion put forth. Tell a boy that he has a certain series of tasks to perform, with the assurance that when they are thoroughly well done, his time shall be at his own disposal, and it is astonishing with what alacrity he will address himself to the work put before him. Indeed, such will be the rapidity of his execution as, at first, to confound and embarrass his incredulous teacher, and make him half repent of the experiment. Nothing, then, we believe, has a more prejudicial influence on the juvenile intellect, than long hours, the half of which are generally spent in indolence, rather than in mental activity. On the subject of corporeal punishment, there have been, and still are, conflicting opinions; and when writing on popular errors connected with education, it may not be improper to offer a few observations on discipline. We believe it to be a fundamental principle, on which all good teaching may be said to rest, that corporeal punishment, if not banished altogether from school, should not be resorted to till every other method of correction has failed. Those who maintain that corporeal punishment should be abolished from schools, argue on the ground, that the lash is an unworthy mode of influencing the youthful mind; and that fear has a tendency to corrupt the young heart. We sincerely believe that suffering is not of itself a good thing for the young; that unhappiness at school is of no use for mental discipline or the formation of character, and that many teachers have erred in the way they have inflicted punishments on the young delinquents. We are opposed to the indulgence of all pique, prejudice, partiality, and, above all, of anger, and violence, and cruelty, in administering correction to youth; but till the commencement of that blessed era, "when He that made the earth and created man upon it, shall raise him up in righteousness and direct all his ways," we fear the rod of correction will, as it has been from the earliest of ages, be a necessary instrument in the hand of the teacher of youth. 66 Dr. Goldsmith, who at one time of his life was a teacher, says, that "whatever pains a master may take to make learning agreeable to his pupil, he may depend it will be at first extremely unpleasant. The rudiments of every language, therefore, must be given as a task, not as an amusement. Attempting to deceive children into instruction of this kind, is only deceiving ourselves; and I know," says he, 'of no passion capable of conquering a child's natural laziness, but fear. It is very probable that parents are told of some masters that never use the rod, and, consequently, are thought the most proper instructors of their children; but though tenderness is a requisite quality in an instructor, yet there is often the truest tenderness in well-timed correction." Let us hear the opinion of that colossus of literature, Dr. Johnson. A gentleman having expressed to him his wonder that he should be possessed of such an immense stock of scholastic lore, particularly as he acknowledged his constitutional indolence: "My school-master beat me most unmercifully," said the doctor, "else I had done nothing;" and it is well known that Johnson dictated a speech to Boswell, in palliation of the conduct of a school-teacher who was prosecuted for criminal severity, in which he justifies corporeal punishment in cases of moral delinquency, and even with respect to the use of the rod, as an excitement to duty, though he seems rather to condemn the practice, yet in some partieular cases, he admitted it might be necessary. Strict discipline in childhood and early youth, is essential to the formation of virtuous character; but all cruelty, and punishment unnecessarily severe, we condemn. No one can doubt, however, that fear is implanted in the human breast for the wisest and best of purposes; and it is not the least influential of the passions. We are rather inclined to believe, how little soever it may redound to the honor of our nature, that fear, in its various modifications, exerts a more powerful influence over the mind of man, in restraining him from vices and inducing rectitude of conduct, than the love of virtue, and the desire of acting in conformity with the external fitness of things, have the power to produce; and that upon the generality of youth at school, it has a more salutary effect in preserving order and enforcing attention than the "appetite for knowledge," though stimulated by the most effectual training." We have touched on a few of the popular errors in education, and, if what has been advanced are the words of "truth and soberness,' they can be offensive only to charlatans. The antagonist of every system of error is truth. The love and cultivation of truth will go far to secure us from imposition of every description. Let us cherish it. Art. IX. THE BILL OF EXCHANGE AND BILL OF LADING. A. Lanfear & Co. vs. Blossman.-Appeal. THIS is an action brought by the holder against the indorser, who was also the drawer of a bill of exchange for £3,324 4s. 3d., drawn in New Orleans on Fermin de Tastet & Co., of London, at sixty days after sight, and dated the 23d of February, 1844. The bill of exchange was purchased by the plaintiff from Blossman, the drawer and indorser in New Orleans, and with it the bill of lading upon which the bill of exchange was drawn, was delivered by the broker who made the bargain between them. The bill of lading was for three hundred and fifty-four bales of cotton, shipped by the Provincialist, and was indorsed in blank. The bill of exchange was also indorsed in blank. The bill of exchange, accompanied with the bill of lading, was remitted to Prime, Ward & King, of New York, and by them negotiated to Baring, Brothers & Co., of London. De Tastet & Co. * We do not understand our contributor to advocate corporeal punishment at school, except as an extreme measure, justified only by the grossest delinquencies. Even in this case we ourselves doubt, and the question can by no means be considered settled. The present age is decidedly against all violent coercion at schools, and if it goes too far, the error is on the side we would far rather have it. Theorizing and speculating upon Education will never be at end until mental philosophy is perfect, and man's intellectual nature comprehended in all its delicate manifestations; a thing we regard as impossible.-EDITOR. THE BILL OF EXCHANGE AND BILL OF LADING. 535 offered to accept the bill on presentation, but insisted on having the bill of lading delivered to them. This was declined, and the bill was protested for non-acceptance, and subsequently for nonpayment. The cotton was taken possession of by Baring, Brothers & Co. under the bill of lading, and disposed of. It did not produce a sufficient sum to satisfy the bill; this suit was instituted for the recovery of the amount thereof, damages, interest and costs. We shall not decide the question raised on the sufficiency of the notice, as it was not argued at bar. It was admitted on the trial, that the defendant was entitled to a credit on the bill for £2,120 2s. 3d., to date, on the 16th September, 1844. There was judgment in the court below for the defendant, and the plaintiff has appealed. The question which has been argued before us, and on which the case is held to turn, is, whether De Tastet & Co. had a right to insist on the delivery of the bill of lading on accepting the bill of exchange; or, in other words, whether Baring, Brothers & Co. had a right to retain the bill of lading until the payment of the bill of exchange. The facts are so few and simple, that there is no necessity to refer to them particularly; the subject can be examined in the abstract, under the different views which have been presented to us by counsel. It is proved, that had the bill been accepted at the time of its presentation, it would have been paid, and that the only obstruction to its acceptance and payment arose from the course adopted by Baring, Brothers & Co., in relation to the acceptance. We do not consider the evidence as seriously affecting the credit of De Tastet & Co., so far as their rights in this suit are to be considered. I. But we must first disembarrass the case of some questions that are not immediately connected with the subject under the point of view in which we shall determine it. Both parties rely upon a usage which each insists is established by conclusive evidence in his favor. On this subject of a usage or custom of trade, which is to control and regulate the rights of parties, we concur with the learned Judge of the Commercial Court in adopting the language of Judge Story in the case of the schooner Reedside.-2 Summer Rep. p. 569: "I am, myself, no friend to the almost indiscriminate habit of late years, of setting up particular usages or customs, in almost all kinds of business and trade, to control, vary, or annul the general liabilities of parties, under the common law, as well as under the commercial law. It has always appeared to me that there is no small danger in admitting such loose and inconclusive usages and customs, often unknown to particular parties, and always liable to great misunderstanding, and misinterpretations, and abuses, to outweigh the well-known and well-settled principles of law. And I rejoice to find, that of late years, the courts of law, both in England and America, have been disposed to narrow the limits of the operation of such usages and customs, and to discountenance any farther extension of them. The true and appropriate office of usage, or custom, is to interpret the otherwise indeterminate intentions of parties, and to ascertain the nature and extent of their contracts, arising, not from express stipulations, but from mere implications, and presumptions, or acts of a doubtful or equivocal character, etc., etc." And again. in Donnell, et al. vs. Columbia Insurance Company-2 Summer Rep. p. 377: "Usages among merchants should be very sparingly adopted, as rules of law, by courts of justice, as they are often founded on mere mistakes, and still more often, in the want of enlarged and comprehensive views of the full bearing of principles." We have examined the testimony of the witnesses with attention, and have come to the conclusion, that so far from establishing the existence of a usage or custom, on this subject, the evidence proves that it is involved in great doubt and uncertainty, even in the minds of experienced and judicious merchants. The fact of private agreements being executed, in authorizing the retention of the bills of lading accompanying bills of exchange, and of instructions being required by the bankers in London in relation thereto, tends to show an unsettled state of opinion touching the rights and liabilities of the parties to the bills. In relation to bills of exchange, drawn in the East Indies and accompanied by bills of lading, the usage to retain the bills of lading until payment of the bill, is proved to exist. But this case appears to us to present an exception, and not the rule itself, as to all bills accompanied by bills of lading. Nothing could more strongly indicate this state of things than the errors of opinion into which intelligent persons have fallen in respect to the unlimited power with which the holder of the bill of exchange is supposed to be invested under all circumstances, and which several respectable witnesses maintained with unquestionable sincerity. II. Those witnesses who testified most strongly for the plaintiffs, on the point of custom or usage, went no farther than to say, that the matter lay wholly in the discretion of the bill-holder in England; but they all admitted that it would be considered unusual to refuse to give up the bill of lading if the house accepting had a first rate standing. The position assumed by the plaintiffs is, that on acceptance of the bill of exchange, it is in the absolute and entire discretion of the bill-holder, or his agent in London, to give up the bill of lading, or retain it until final payment. This position is suicidal; for if the bill-holder, or his agent, has the absolute right to retain the bill of lading, to give it up in any instance would be to discharge every previous name upon the bill. What merchant, whatever might be his standing, whether a friend or indifferent to the agent in London, could expect him to do an act which would involve such consequences? It is also to be observed, that in customs and usages of trade, there is no such thing as discretion; they are absolute, imperative and universal, in favor of and against all the parties to the contract, when no special agreement to the contrary is made. It is clear, that if there existed any such custom or usage of trade, to retain the bill of lading until the payment of the bill of exchange, if the bill of lading was given up in any case |