names Ammi and Myrsine. 3d. The good name of Leiophyllum had been given to it previously by Persoon, as a subgenus to be sure, but it is a Linnean rule that when a subgenus must become a genus its name must be retained if good; it may be changed only when it is itself erroneous; but to change a good name into a bad one is the most absurd temerity. Yet such absurdity has claimed the preference of Mr. Pursh; we would advise him therefore, as well as those who may be inclined to follow his authority, to go to school, and begin to spell botany, as school boys do their letters.

As this Flora may unfortunately become the manual of our botanists, it will be needful to point out some of the most glaring errors adopted or introduced therein; we shall therefore attempt to survey them regularly throughout the work, following its own arrangement, and adding occasional observations.

1. Zostera marina, Pursh, is a different species Z. Stenophylla, Raf.

2. Caulinia ought to be spelt Cavotinia, from Cavolini, to whom that genus was dedicated, as Befaria ought to be Bejaria.

3. Only 3 species of Callitriche are enumerated; 10 at least exist in the Atlantick States only, 8 of which were described in a Monography of the genus, sent by C. S. Rafinesque, and read before the Linnean Society of London 2 or 3 years before 1814.

4. Ornus, adopted on the authority of Persoon, contrary to linnean rules, similar to Cornus, &c. ought to be Mannaphorus.

5. Catalpa, Jussieu, is in a similar predicament, respecting the genus Talpa; it ought to be altered to Catalpium, as Talinum containing Linum, should be Talinium.

6. Veronica Scutellata, Pursh, is different from the species of Linneus and Europe: V. Uliginosa, Raf.

7. His Gratiola aurea had been called G. lutea by Raf. in Med. Rep.

8. The Heteranthera was named by Ruiz and Pavon, in the Flora Peruviana; Beauvais's name, Heterandra, is a better one. The H. graminea and H. limosa belong to a different genus, the Schollera of Schreber, anterior to Leptanthus, Mx.

9. His Serpicula occidentalis is a distinct genus, the name of Mx. Elodea being consimilar to Elodea of Adanson, must be changed to Philotria.

10. He has adopted the generic im

provements of Vahl in the tribe of Calamaria, and he has adopted the genus Miegea of Persoon in preference to Arundinaria, Mx. which is right; but he has kept the genus Orizopsis of Mx. equally bad, instead of the name of Dilepyrum into which Raf. had changed it, in Med. Repos. Obs. on Amer. Botany, since the Dilepyrum of Michaux is the Muhlenbergia of Schreber, Pursh, &c.

11. His Milium amphicarpon must probably form a new genus Amphicarpon, Raf.

12. He has followed Wildenow, in uniting the genus Cinna, L. with Agrostis, but those genera are totally distinct.

13. The Alopecurus carolinianus, of Walter, appears to be different from the A. subaristatus of Mich. to which P. unites it.

14. Holcus fragrans belongs to a peculiar genus Dimesia, Raf. together with H. monticola of Bigelow.

15. The species of Uniola, with 3 Stamina, such as U. paniculata, must form a peculiar genus Trisiola.

16. And the Festuca diandra, the genus Diarina, Raf. Obs. in Med. Rep.

17. Likewise the Veonica virginica, together with the species of that genus having tubular corollas, must form the genus Callistachya Raf. Obs. in Med. Rep.

18. He has named a new species of Veronica, discovered by Lewis and Clarke. V. Reniformis, while Rafinesque had given the same name to another new species, therefore this second species must be called V. missurica, Fl. Miss.

19. He follows the wrong example of Persoon in uniting the genus Stipulicida, Mx. with Polycarpon.

20. He adopts the erroneous generic name of Centaurella, Mx. instead of Bartonia, Wild. while Bartonia is an anterior name, and Centaurella is contrary to the linnean rational rules of momenclature, being derived from Centaurea an anterior genus. We find the greatest confusion introduced respecting those two names; Persoon has adopted both names as distinct genera! only changing Centaurella into Centaurium, which is equally bad; while Messrs. Pursh, Nuttall and Sims have given the name of Bartonia to another new genus. The best means of correcting those blunders, is to leave the name of Bartonia to the genus to which it was first applied, annulling altogether the erroneous name so Centaurella and Centaurium, and giving to the new Bartonia the name of Nut

tallæ, from one of its discoverers: this has been done by Rafinesque in his Florula missurica yet in manuscript, and we invite all the American botanists to accede thereto, instead of adopting and propagating blunders.

21. He unites the genus Isnardia with Ludwigia, while he ought rather to have united all the species of Ludwigia without petals, to the genus Isnardia.

22. His Viscum flavesceus is not such a species, but probably the V. leucarpum of Raf. in Flora Ludoviciana.

23. Eleagnus is changed in Eleagrus, which is right.

24. Hippophae argentea does not belong to that genus, having the flowers as in Eleagrus, and the fruit as in Hippophae; it has been made a new genus, and called Lepargyrea by Rafinesque in Florula Missurica.

25. The Ilex canadensis of Michaux and Pursh, is certainly not an Tier, it does not even belong to the same natural family; but has more affinity with Rhammus. It must form a new genus, which Rafinesque has called Nemopanthus, in his Report to the Lyceum, and in his Decades of New American genera of

Plants.

26. The Ilex myrsinites of Pursh is likewise a peculiar genus, but of the family Ilexidia; Rafinesque has called it Pachistima.

27. Potamogeton natans of Pursh is not the Linnean nor European species; the same is the case with many other species of that genus; see an account of the American species by Rafinesque in Med. Repos. 1811.

28. He has adopted the incorrect name of Onesmodium, Mx. which is derived from Onosma, a previous genus, and was altered into Osmodium by Raf. in Obs. Med. Rep.

29. He has followed Salisbury in uniting the G. Pyridanthera, Mx. to Diapensia; but they are evidently two distinct genera of the same natural family.

30. The Solanum heterandrum of Nuttall and Pursh must form a conspicuous and peculiar genus, to which Rafinesque gives the name of Ceranthera, Decades of N. G.

31. Samolus valerandi of Pursh, or the American species, is different from the European, Raf. calls it S. parviflorus.

34. Ceanothus perennis is C. herbaceus Raf. Med. Rep.

33. He has very wrongly united the genus Ampelopsis of Michaux, to Cissus, L.

34. He has united the Viola rotundifolia of Michaux, to his Viola Clandestina, while they are totally different.

35. His Viola bicolor is the V. tenella of Raf. Obs. in Med. Rep. where it is only mentioned, but not described, owing to Dr. Muhlenberg's insisting at the time on considering it as a variety of V. arvensis, but in 1814, he has adopted the species and name of Mr. Rafinesque in his general Catalogue!

36. In adopting the good name Hamiltonia, Wild. instead of Pyrularia, Mx. he might have quoted as a synonyme Calinux, Raf. Obs. in M. R.

37. Asclepias viridiflora was discovered, named, and described by Rafinesque, and Muhlenberg, before Pursh.

38. Asclepias pedicellata and A. viriclis, belong to a peculiar genus named Anthanotis, by Raf. and Acerates, by Elliot; the first name is rather more expressive and less objectionable.

39. Mr. Pursh writes Gelsemium of Jussieu, Gelseminum, probably from Catesby; but Jussieu's alteration is very proper to distinguish it in sound from Jasminum why has he not quoted as synonymous, Jeffersonia, of Brickell? in Med. Rep.

40. He has united the Gentiana catesbei, of Walter, to the G. saponaria, while they are very different species, as was proved by Dr. Macbride, in a communication to the Lyceum of Nat. History of New-York: they both belong to the genus Cutlera, Raf. as well as G. oclerolenca.

41. Hydrocotyle reniformis, of Walter, is also wrongly united with H. repanda.

42. He unites the genus Myrrhis, Mx. with Cherophyllum; the Ch. claytoni of Persoon is however made a Scandir by Muhlenberg! which proves that it belongs to neither genera, but Myrrhis happens to be erroneous also, by being similar to Amyris, a previous genus, whence several names have been proposed for it, Washingtonia, Osmorhiza, Gonatherus; but these are not yet published; the second is perhaps the best.

43. His Atriplex halimus, A. laciniata, A. hastata, are different from the European species, and have been called A. halimoides, A. mucronata, and A. dioica by Rafinesque.

C. S. R.

596.

W E are happy to announce the con

tinuation of this useful collection of reports, containing the decisions of the Hon. JOSEPH STORY, in the circuit court for the first circuit, including the States of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Rhode-Island, for the years 1814 and 1815. This learned judge is distinguished for his genius, industry, and attainments, and for the ardent zeal and enthusiasm with which he cultivates the field of jurisprudence; and a faithful record of his labours on the circuit, where a great variety of important causes are finally disposed of, must be proportionably interesting to the profession. Mr. Gallison, the reporter, has confined himself to the task of giving the arguments of council, and the judgments of the court; it would have been a work of supererogation to have added notes to decisions, where all the resources that could be drawn from authorities are already exhausted, and every illustration that could be derived from elementary learning has been bestowed on the cases determined. Indeed we are quite sure that there is not in any English book of reports, before or since Lord Mansfield's time, so rich a collection of decisions in every branch of law, and one from which the student or the practitioner may gather so much useful information. The multiplication of reports would cease to be lamented as an evil to the science of the law, if they were all of the character of the work before us.

In the law of prize it settles the most important principles and rules of prize practice; a subject of very great interest, and which, had it not been for the experience acquired in the late war, would have remained in that darkness and obscurity in which it seems to have been the sedulous study of the practitioners at Doctors Commons to involve it.

Among the principles settled in the present volume are the whole doctrine respecting joint captures, and the proportions in which the capturing crew are to share; the responsibility and duties of prize agents; the presumptions and testimony applicable to cases of collusive capture; the custody and care of the prize papers, and the mode of conducting the preliminary examinations; the general rules of evidence, and in what cases further proof is admissable; the delivery VOL. II.-No. 111.

of the property on bail or stipulation to abide the event of the cause; questions of proprietary interest and for iture of neutrality on account of malâ de conduct; liability of prize goods to duties, and mode of collecting them; the mode of compelling captors to proceed to adjudication, and their responsibility in case the property is lost or spoliated; the nature of contraband, and the penalty for carrying it; the doctrine of domicil; of ransoms; and the extent and nature of the jurisdiction of the prize court. The decisions in these cases have either been so satisfactory to the bar that no appeal has been entered, or they have been confirmed upon appeal, by the supreme court, with the exception of a single case involving a question of fact arising out of conflicting testimony. Among the judgments appealed from, and confirmed by the appelate tribunal are, that of the Invincible, (p. 29.) in which it was determined that the trial of prizes belongs exclusively to the courts of the captor's country, and that no neutral nation can at all interfere therein, either by a proceeding against the captured property, or the commissioned cruizer, on the complaint of its own citizens, or of foreigners: a case of great importance in principle, and of daily application, (affirmed in the Sup. Co. Feb. T. 1816, 1 Wheat. R.) that of the George, (p. 249,) a question of collusive capture, where it was difficult to unravel the closely woven web of fraud by which a trade with the enemy was to be covered under the guise of hostile capture; (affirmed in the Sup. Co. Feb. T. 1817.2 Wheat. R.282.) that of the Commercen, (p. 261.) in which the long contested question between belligerants and neutrals, whether in any, and in what cases, provisions, become contraband, by the law of nations (independent of treaties) was settled; and the penalty of confiscation was applied to provisions destined to the allied army in Spain dur ing the late war, although Spain was neutral as between the United States and Great Britain; (affirmed in the Sup. Co. Feb. T. 1816, 1 Wheat. 382.) The principle of this last case does not, as seems to be intimated in the review of the first volume of Wheaton's Reports, (North American Review, vol. 5, No. 1, p. 114.) involve a recognition of the British doctrine which interdicts in war all neutral trade not open in time of peace. In the

Commercen, the provisions were exported by the special permission of the British government for the supply of their army in Spain, and the principle on which freight was refused, is very distinguishable from that of the rule of 1756, and is rather to be referred to that by which a licensed trade is rendered illegal, or to that by which the confiscation of the vehicle of enemy's despatches, &c. is justified. The voyage was illegal both on account of the contraband, and the adoption of the enemy's character, and identification, with his interests by transporting supplies to his army under his special permission. It was perfectly immaterial to the decision of the cause whether the exportation of grain from Ireland to Spain was or was not permitted in time of peace. In the case of the San Jose Indiano (p. 268.) it is determined that if a house of trade, established in the enemy's country, ship goods, on their own account, to one of the partners who is domiciled in a neutral country, the whole is condemnable as prize; but if the shipment be made by order of a partner, for his separate account and risk, it is not liable to condemnation. (This rule affirmed in the Sup. Co. Feb. T. 1816, in the case of the Antonia Johanna, 1 Wheat. R.) In the Arabella and the Madeira, (p. 368.) the doctrine that the prize court may condemn property lying in a neutral port, which had been before laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States, in Hudson vs. Guestier, 4 Cranch, 293, 6 Cranch, 281, (though previously denied by the Supreme Court of this State, in Depuyster vs. Wheelright, 1 Johns. R. 471,) was reviewed, and sanctioned upon the footing of authority, upon the legislative will as expressed in the prize act, and upon the principles of public law. A case was argued at the last term of the Supreme Court of New-York, in which the validity of such a condemnation came again in question; and that learned tribunal will doubtless see the propriety and wisdom of conforming its decision to the prize law as laid down by the highest court of the country, for the very same reason that this court regard as authoritative the decisions of the State courts on questions of local law; because they form a rule of property, which ought not to be disturbed, and which cannot be shaken without great inconvenience and mischief. A different course might be attended with this awkward result, that a condemnation in the District, Circuit, and Supreme Courts of the United States, might be reversed in a State

court in an action of trover! For if the prize court has no jurisdiction the exceptio rei judicate would not apply. Besides the prize practice of all Europe authorizes such a condemnation.

The principles of prize law are by no means, as some suppose, applicable only in time of war, and to the concerns of nations actually engaged in the conflict. They are directly useful for a long time after peace is restored in settling various questions of maritime and commercial law which arise during the war, and they at all times reflect light on the investigations of those who delight in tracing the analogies of law. But the value of the present volume does by no means depend solely on the prize cases it contains. It embraces a variety of interesting decisions in commercial, chancery, and common law, illustrated by elementary learning and sound juridicial logic.

Among these is a most elaborate opinion upon the prize, instance, and criminal jurisdiction of the admiralty; an opinion, which is a monument of the learn ing, industry, and talents of the judge, which may fairly challenge comparison with any thing that the annals of European jurisprudence can boast. In this able and admirable opinion, it is maintained by a most conclusive train of reasoning that the original, rightful jurisdiction of the instance court of admiralty extends over all torts committed on the high seas, and to every species of maritime contract, including policies of insurance; and that all the exceptions to this ample jurisdiction, which the courts of common law in England have enforced with the terrors of prohibition, have been mere usurpations of power over weakness. This doctrine has been incidentally confirmed by the Supreme Court of the U. S. in Martin vs. Hunter, 1 Wheat. and is followed in practice by all the District Courts from Maine to New-York, inclusive; in which courts, suits by material men for supplies for vessels in the port where they belong, and hypothecations at home, and suits by the master for wages, are daily entertained by proceeding in rem or in personam to the great convenience of commerce.

The position that such is the rightful extent of the jurisdiction of the admiralty is supported; 1st. by historical analogies, showing that such has been its jurisdiction in every maritime country in Europe, from time immemorial, and still remains, except in England only. Even in Scotland the admiralty takes cognizance of all maritime contracts and torts whatsoever;

and in the late volumes of Dow's Reports in Parliament, there are several insurance causes appealed to the house of lords, from the court of session in Scotland, originally brought in the admiralty court of that country; 2d. by the antiquities of the admiralty, all proving that such was its original and rightful jurisdiction; 3d. the authorities cited by Lord Coke in the 4th inst. 134, to narrow down the admiralty jurisdiction, are reviewed and analyzed in a masterly manner; and it is most satisfactorily shown that they do not support the ground taken by that disingenous and illiberal enemy of every jurisdiction but his own; 4th. it is considered what effect the statutes of Richard II. and Henry IV. were intended to have in restraining the ancient jurisdiction of the admiralty, and it is proved that the construction of these statutes, by the courts of common law, is erroneous, absurd, and inconsistent with the fragments of jurisdiction which they still permit the admiralty to exercise, (e. g. suits for mariners wages,) and that it is wholly irreconcileable with their exposition of the statutes; 5th. the extent of the admiralty jurisdiction is inferred from the concession of the common law judges themselves, in the solemn agreements of 1575 and 1632, most amply admitting and confirming the jurisdiction claimed by the admiralty; 6th. the grant in our constitution to the judiciary of the United States, of jurisdiction over "all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction," is expounded to refer, not to the admiralty jurisdiction, as acknowledged by the courts of common law in England at the commencement of the American revolution, or at the time of the emigration of our ancestors; but either as acknowledged and exercised in the United States, at the declaration of independence, or, to the ancient and primitive jurisdiction of the admiralty of England, by virtue of its original organization. It is shown in the opinion that the admiralty courts, in these then colonies, exercised jurisdiction over all maritime torts and contracts; and the supposition that the terms "admiralty and maritime jurisdiction," intended by the framers of the constitution to refer to the rightful jurisdiction of the English admiralty, receives strong countenance from the historical analogy between the original organization of that court in England and in France, and indeed in all the maritime countries of Europe.

In France the courts of admiralty have jurisdiction of all maritime contracts and torts, as they formerly had in

England. In both countries these courts are branches which have sprung from that ancient and venerable stock, the office of Admiral, which occupies so great a portion of the military and political history of the two countries. The etymology of the word serves to indicate the origin of the office, and the epoch when it was introduced into the maritime countries of Europe. The word Admiral, or Ammiral, is unquestionably derived from the Arabic word emir or amira, signifying a general officer or commander in chief, dominum vel præfectum*. In the time of the crusades, by means of which so many oriental institutions and usages were brought into the west of Europe, it was introduced into France as the title of a commander in chief of land or sea forces; for it was indifferently applied to either. Accordingly, we find that the office, with that title, was unknown until the third dynasty of French kings, under Charles IV. about the end of the thirteenth century, and made its appearance in England about the same period, in the reign of Edward I† After the term thus came to be exclusively applied to the commander in chief of marine forces, the station was filled in France with several illustrious characters, and in the scale of civil and military dignities, ranked immediately after the office of constable. Among these, history distinguishes Gaspard de Coligny, the virtuous chief of the Protestant party, in the civil wars which desolated France under the successors of Francis I.; and Henri de Montmorency, a leader of the Catholic faction, who resigned this office into the hands of Louis XIII. in 1626, by whom it was suppressed, and that of Grand Master, Chief, and Superintendent General of the navigation and commerce of France, created in favour of his minister, Cardinal Richelieu. The civil and military functions of this office were thus separated until 1669, when Louis XIV. revived it under the ancient title of Admiral, though with a considerable diminution of its former power and splendour. But whatever might have been its political and military authority, at various periods of French history, from the time of its first establishment, it is certain, that, both before its suppression by the artful policy of Richelieu, in order to strengthen the power of the crown, and

Milton writes the word thas

"As when the mast of some tall Admiral." Paradise Lost. Al signifies, in Arabic, the; thus Al Emir, by a slight change, became Ammiral.

Valin, sur l'Ord. Liv. 1. tit. 1, de l'Amiral-2 Bro. Civ. and Adm. Law. 22.