shall remain, after paying the amount so duc as aforesaid to said registers and receivers, shall be paid into the Treasury of the United States as other public moneys." The Act of March 3, 1855, ch. 166 (10 Stat. 635), provides: "That each register of a land office and receiver of public moneys shall receive the same amount of pay for each and every entry of land made under the Graduation Act of 1854, as such officer is by law entitled to receive for similar entries of land at the minimum price of one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre: Provided, That the whole amount received per year shall in no case exceed the limitation fixed by existing laws." By another Act of the same date as the preceding Act, March 3, 1855, ch. 207 (10 Stat. 701), it is provided: "That the registers and receivers of the several land offices shall be severally authorized to charge and receive for their services, in locating all warrants under the provisions of this Act the same compensation or percentage to 60*] which they are entitled by law for the sales of public lands for cash, at the rate of one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre, the said compensation to be paid by the assignees or holders of such warrants." The General Appropriation Act of August 18, 1856, ch. 129 (11 Stat. 91), provides: Act of 1856 provides a mode of compensating hem "for additional clerical services and exraordinary expenses." *The Act of 1852 provides for the com- [*61 pensation, upon the basis of fees, of registers who had gone out of office, and of those who were then in office. The latter, for future as well as past services, were limited to the maximum then allowed by law, which was $3,000 per annum. It would be singular if one rate of compensation were provided for those then in office, ind their predecessors, and another and a different one in respect of their sucessors, for the same services, rendered under the same circumstances. It is insisted by the counsel for the defendants in error that this is a necessary result, because the proviso at the end of the 3d section of this Act, which imposes the limitation is confined, in its operation, to the cases mentioned in the previous part of the same section. If this were so, the result claimed would not necessarily follow. In that case, we should find no difficulty in holding it to be clearly implied that the same rule of compensation should apply to their successors as to the then incumbents and their predecessors. What is implied in a statute, pleading, contract, or will, is as much a part of it as what is expressed. Koning v. Bayard, 2 Paine, 251; Haight v. Holley, 3 Wend. 258; Rogers v. Kneeland, 10 Wend. 218; Fox v. Phelps, 20 Wend. 447; Com. Dig. tit. Devise, n. 12. "A thing within the intention of the makers of the statute is as much within the statute as if it were within the letter." Stowel v. Zouch, 1 Płowd. 366; U. S. v. Freeman, 3 How. 565. But we do not place our decision upon this "That in the settlement of the accounts of registers and receivers of the public land offices, the Secretary of the Interior be authorized to allow, subject to the approval of Congress, such reasonable compensation for additional clerical services and extraordinary expenses incident to said offices as he shall think just and proper, and report to Congress all such cases of allow-ground. We are of opinion that the proviso ance at each succeeding session, with estimates of the sum or sums required to pay the same." The Act of March 3, 1853, ch. 145 (10 Stat. 245), fixes the salaries of registers and receivers in California at $3,000 each, and prohibits them from receiving any percentage or fees, except for deciding preemption cases. The Act of July 17, 1854, ch. 84 (10 Stat. 306), limits the salaries of the registers and receivers of Oregon and Washington Territories each to $2,500 per annum, and office rent, and prohibits them from receiving fees or emoluments of any kind, except the receivers' necessary expenses for depositing moneys. The Act of July 12, 1858, ch. 154 (11 Stat. 325), gives the same compensation to registers and receivers in New Mexico which those officers receive in Washington Territory, with a proviso, that their compensation, including fees, shall not exceed $3,000 each per annum. This is the legislation by the light of which we are to make up our judgment in this .case. It is a rule in the construction of statutes, that all relating to the same subject-matter shall be considered together. The Act of 1818 fixes a specific sum as the maximum amout which registers shall be permitted to receive. Whenever Congress has spoken upon the subject since that time, the same policy has been adhered to. This remark applies to this class of officers alike in the Atlantic and Pacific States and Territories. The referred to is not limited in its effect to the section where it is found, but that it was affirmed by Congress as an independent proposition, and applies alike to all officers of this class. Whether the proviso in the Appropriation Act of 1856 is to be construed as referring to the 3d section of the Act of 1852 according to its letter, or to the 2d section, as is claimed in behalf of the government, we have not found it necessary to consider. The views we have expressed are sufficient to decide this *case. They conduct us to [*62 the conclusion, that the court below erred in sustaining the demurrer. The judgment below must, therefore, be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings, in conformity with this opinion. UNITED STATES, Plff. in Err., บ. ROBERT COLES et al. (See S. C. 1 Black, 62, note.) Mr. Justice Swayne delivered the opinion of the court: This case is, in all essential particulars, the same as the preceding case, just decided. The decision of that case decides this. The judgment below must be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings. 156*] *WM. NELSON, Edmund S. Dennis, Sherbourne Sears, Francis Burritt and Aaron Cohen, v. The district court entered a decree in favor of Nelson and others, libelants, in the first action, and dismissed the libel in the cross action. On appeal, the circuit court affirmed the decrees of the district court, and the rein the cross action, took this appeal. JOHN O. WOODRUFF and Robert M. Henning. Survivors of James E. Woodruff, De-spondents in the original action, the libelants ceased, Appts.; The signing of a bill of lading, acknowledging to have received the goods in question in good order and condition, is prima facie evidence that, as to all circumstances which were open to inspection and visible, the goods were in good order. But it does not preclude the carrier from showing, in case of loss or damage, that the loss proceeded from some cause which existed, but was not apparent, when he received the goods, and which, if shown satisfactorily, will discharge the carrier from liability. In case of such loss or damage, the presumption of law is, that it was occasioned by the act or default of the carrier, and the burden of proof is upon him to show that it arose from a cause existing before his receipt of the goods for carriage, and for which he is not responsible. A carrier is exempt from liability for the ordinary evaporation of liquids, or for leakage from casks, occurring in the course of transportation, or when a liquid is entirely lost from its intrinsic acidity and fermentation, and bursting the vessel which contains it. A carrier is not answerable for the loss occasioned by the peculiar nature of the article carried, nor for the leakage arising from secret defects in casks which existed, but were not apparent, when they were received on board. A carrier is not responsible for diminution or leakage of liquids from barrels, if the barrels had become disqualified from containing their contents by causes connected with the nature and condition of the article which the carrier could not control. An objection made on the argument, that a witness is interested, is too late; it should have been made on the hearing. Objection to a deposition, that there is no preliminary proof of inateriality, that it was sealed, that no notice was given of its being filed, not overruled. These were cross actions originally commenced by libel in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. The first libel was filed by Nelson and others, owners of the ship Maid of Orleans, against Woodruff and others, to recover freight for a quantity of lard, shipped at New Orleans and consigned to the house in New York, of which the defendants were the survivors. The cross action was commenced by Woodruff and others, simultaneously with their defense to the first action, demanding damages for deficiencies in the delivery of the lard. On the trial of the first action the respondents objected to the admission of a deposition taken de bene esse, by the libelants, on the grounds: 1. That the jurisdiction of the officer taking the deposition was not shown, because there was no preliminary proof of the materiality of the evidence. 2. It was not proved that the commission was sealed up by the commissioner after it was completed. 3. There was no evidence that notice was given or directed to the respondents or their attorney, that it had been filed in court. 4. That the witness was incompetent, being interested in the matter in suit. The district court overruled all these objections, the fourth on the ground that it was only interposed on the argument and was, therefore, too late. As to the other objections, the court said: "Rule 43 of the court required the deposition to be forwarded to the clerk immediately after it was taken, and to be filed in the clerk's office on its return there and notice to be forthwith given by the party filing it, to the opposite party. The commissioner was the clerk of the court, and the deposition was taken before him in the clerk's office, and he certifies that he retained it for the purpose of filing it in court, and the official mark of filing it the same day is indorsed upon the commission; and the usual order was at the same time engrossed on the minutes, that the deposition be filed and opened. It was also proved on the trial that the commission was seen on the clerk's table in the office the same day by one of respondent's proctors. The proctor testified that he knew it had been taken, but did not know it had been filed. I think there is no validity in this exception to the regularity of practice in placing the deposition on file; and the failure of the libelants to give formal notice of the fact, to the proctor of the respondents, only leaves to the latter to disprove the regularity of the proceedings in taking it. The Act of Congress does not require the depo, in case the commissioner delivers it personally sition to be sealed up and directed to the clerk, to that officer. The clerk, in this instance, being officially the commissioner who performed himself the service, the statute is satisfied by this method of performing both functions. 1 Stat. at L. 89, § 30." Messrs. Gilbert, Dean, Beebe and Donohue, for the appellants: The ship owner is responsible for improper storage and want of sufficient dunnage; and the onus in a case of this kind is upon him and not upon the shipper; and if the casks, at the time of their receipt or afterwards, required coopering or other attentions, he was bound by his contract to give it. Ang. Carr. secs. 210, 211, 212; Warden v. Greer, 6 Watts, Pa. 424, Abb. Shipp. 346: The shippers, on the well-settled principles of mercantile law, were and are liable to answer to the respondents for the excess of loss SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. on this lard. To hold otherwise, would not Either the lard was "in good order and well 1 Greenl. Ev. sec. 207; Dezell v. Odell, 3 Hill, 221; Welland C. Co. v. Hathaway, 8 Wend. 483; Bradstreet v. Heran, 2 Blatchf. 116; Bank of Pittsburgh v. Neal, 22 How. 96; Goodman v. Simonds, 20 How. 363. 2. The appellants, having advanced on these bills, are for all the purposes of these actions, to be treated as bond fide holders of negotiable paper. 3. The respondents, by the bill of landing, have admitted that so far as the external appearance of the packages was concerned, they were in good order; and if, therefore, they were taken on board when "leaking badly," and some of them "half out," it cannot be set up by respondents in these actions. 1 Greenl. Ev. sec. 305; Clark v. Barnwell, 12 How. 272; Ellis v. Willard, 59 N. Y. 529. A ship engaged in carrying merchandise for hire, from port to port, is a common carrier, and her owners are subject to all the strict liabilities which the law imposes upon such carriers. Ang. Carr. §§ 87 and 88, and cases there cited. Messrs. Goodman & Jessup, for appellees: The carrier is not an insurer against leakage caused by heat, nor the insufficient protection of the packages, nor the intrinsic decay of the cargo. 3 Kent, 8th ed., 289; Ang. Carr. §§ 211, 214; Clark v. Barnwell, 12 How. 272, and cases cited. The shippers at New Orleans contributed to the natural causes producing leakage, by carting the lard in uncovered drays at almost the hottest part of the day. This negligence of the respondents' agents was a proximate cause of the injury to the lard, and even if the carriers had been in fault, no recovery could be had against them for such injury. Dowell v. Steam Nav. Co. 5 El. & B. 195; Trow v. Vermont C. R. Co. 24 Vt. 487; Hawkins v. Cooper, 8 Carr. & P. 473; Button v. Hudson R. Co. 18 N. Y. 248. Mr. Justice Wayne delivered the opinion of the court: We are now about to decide two appeals in admiralty from the Circuit Court U. S. of the Southern District of New York. They are substantially cross actions, and the testimony is the same in both. They have 98 DEC. TERM, been fully argued, and shall be discussed by us with reference to the rights and liabilities of the partics growing out of their pleadings, and the bills of lading upon which they rely. the ship Maid of Orleans, and they have filed William Nelson and others are the owners of and Robt. M. Henning, survivors of the firm their libel to recover from John O. Woodruff of James E. Woodruff & Co., $1,838.11, with interest from the 14th of August, 1854, for the freight, with primage and average accustomed, in their ship, in barrels and tierces, from New of a large quantity of lard which was carried Orleans to New York, for which the master of the ship had affirmed for the shippers in two bills of lading; that they had been shipped in delivered in like good order at New York, the good order and condition, &c., and were to be dangers of the sea and fire only excepted, to James E. Woodruff & Co., or to their assigns, freight to be paid by him or them at the rate five per cent. primage and average accustomed; of $1.15 per barrel and $1.50 per tierce, with and the libelants declare that the lard, upon the arrival of the ship, had been delivered to the consignees, and was accepted by them. admitting the shipment, claiming that they To this the respondents filed a joint answer, had been made in conformity *with the [*159 bills of lading, affirming the arrival of the ship in New York, and averring that only a part of the lard had been delivered, and allege that care in receiving the casks and tierces on board the agents of the libelants had taken so little of them, and in the discharge of them at New of the ship, and in the stowing and conveyance York, that a large quantity had been lost, about sixty thousand pounds, of the value of $6,000 and upwards, and that the loss or diminution the sea, or from fire. They further answer, in its weight had not been lost by the perils of signees, James E. Woodruff & Co., had made that, relying upon the bills of lading, the conthe lard. They then declare that, for cause large advances upon them to the shippers of stated by them, they were not liable to pay the freight and primage, but that the owners of lard, and liable to pay them more than $6,000, the ship were answerable for the loss of the and claim to recoup against the freight and have sustained as will be sufficient to liquidate primage so much of the damage as they may and discharge the amount claimed for freight. When they answered the respondents, they at of the ship, propounding substantially the parthe same time filed a libel against the owners ticulars of what was in their answer to the libe!-so much so, that we will not repeat them; indeed, there is no addition to it, nor will it be necessary to set out again the articles of their answer to the libel filed against them, for they cept in one particular, upon which the controare a repetition of their own original libel, exversy was made exclusively to turn by the case before us. counsel on both sides in the argument of the That was, that the lard, as when put on board of the ship, inasmuch as it such, had not been in good order for shipping was then in a liquid state, and had in that conwith the heat of the weather then and during dition been put into barrels and tierces, which, the passage to New York, had started them, and had caused the leakage complained of before and during its transportation, and that the leakage had not been caused by any neglect or want of care of them, either in shipping the lard at New Orleans, or on the passage thence to New York, or in stowing it in the ship, or in the discharge of it in New York. There is 160*] *much testimony in the record in respect to the effect of heat and barreling of lard in a liquid state, in producing more than usual leakage; but it was urged in the argument that such proofs were inapplicable to this case, as the bills of lading affirmed that the lard, when shipped, was in good order and condition, and were conclusive against the allowance of any inquiry being made, or to any other causes of loss or damage than such as may have been caused by the dangers of the sea and fire. Such is not our view of the effect of the bills of lading we have now to consider. We proceed to state what we believe to be the law, and will then apply the evidence to it to determine if this case is not within it. We think that the law is more accurately and compendiously given by Chief Justice Shaw, than we have met with it elsewhere. In the case of Hastings v. Pepper, 11 Pick. 43, that learned judge says: "It may be taken to be perfectly well established, that the signing of a bill of lading, acknowledging to have received the goods in question in good order and well conditioned, is prima facie evidence that, as to all circumstances which were open to inspection and visible, the goods were in good order; but it does not preclude the carrier from showing, in case of loss or damage, that the loss proceeded from some cause which existed, but was not apparent, when he received the goods, and which, if shown satisfactorily, will discharge the carrier from liability. But in case of such loss or damage the presumption of law is, that it was occasioned by the act or default of the carrier, and, of course, the burden of proof is upon him to show that it arose from a cause existing before his receipt of the goods for carriage, and for which he is not responsible." The same has been decided by this court in two cases as to the burden of proof, where the goods shipped were said to have been impaired in quality by the dampness of the vessel during passage to her port of delivery. Clark v. Barnwell, 12 How. 272; Rich v. Lambert, 12 How. 347. The rule having been given, our inquiry now will be, whether or not the owners of The Maid of Orleans have brought themselves with 161*] in its operation, so as to be exempted from all liability for the loss of the lard, by having proved satisfactorily that it had been occasioned by causes existing in the lard, but not apparent when it was shipped, to the extent of the injury which those causes would produce upon the barrels and tierces which contained it; or, in other words, that the causes of the loss were incident to lard when operated upon by a heated temperature of the sun acting directly upon it, or when it shall be stored, and an excessive natural temperature has occasioned its liquefaction. It is alleged that the loss of this shipment was sixty thousand pounds less than the quantity shipped. It must be admitted to be too large for it to be brought under the rule which ex empts the carrier from liability for the ordinary evaporation of liquids, or for leakage from casks, occurring in the course of transportation. The implied obligation of the carrier does not extend to such cases, any more than it does to a case when the liquid being carried, if it shall be conveyed with care, is entirely lost from its intrinsic acidity and fermentation, and bursting the vessel which contains it; as it was adjudged that the carrier was not liable when a pipe of wine during its fermentation burst and was lost, it being proved that at the time it was being carried carefully in a wagon commonly used for such a purpose. Farrar v. Adams, Bull. N. P. 69. We do not know where an adjudged case can be found illustrating more fully the exemption of a carrier from responsibility for loss or leakage from the peculiar and intrinsic qualities of an article, and the inquiries which may be made upon the trial in respect to them, and into the causes of a loss from effervescence and leakage, and we may say for its discriminating rulings, than that of Warden v. Greer, 6 Watts, 424. Mr. Angell has made us all familiar with it in his treatise on the Law of Carriers, ch. 6, 215. The action was brought against the owners of a steamer on account of loss on a cargo of two hundred barrels of molasses, which it was affirmed in the bill of lading had been received in good order and well conditioned. Witnesses were examined as to the trade in that article on the western waters; the nature of molasses *and the trade [*162 in it; as to its fermentation in warm weather; the effect upon it by heat in its removal and carriage in a dray; also as to the means usually taken to prevent loss of it, and injury to the barrels from the expansive force of fermentation; and as to the loss of it from those means and causes on a passage from New Orleans to Pittsburgh; and as to the loss by leakage or warm weather, according to the condition of the barrels in which it might be shipped. It was determined in that case that the defendants were not answerable for loss occasioned by the peculiar nature of the article carried at that season of the year, nor. for leakage arising from secret defects in the casks, which existed, but were not apparent, when they were received on board of the steamer. Nor is a carrier responsible for diminution or leakage of liquids from barrels in the course of transportation, though they are such as are commonly used for the purpose, if it shall be satisfactorily proved that the barrels had become disqualified from containing their contents by causes connected with the nature and condition of the article, which the carrier could not control. Having stated the law as we think it to be, that a bill of lading for articles shipped, affirmed to be in good order and condition, is but prima facie evidence of the declaration, and does not preclude the carrier from showing that the loss proceeded from causes which existed, but were not apparent, we will now examine the testimony, to determine if such was not the fact in this case. The lard was taken from the warehouse, to be put on board of the ship, in a liquid state, in the month of July, during hotter weathermuch hotter, all the witnesses say-than is usually felt in New Orleans at that time. This was known to the shippers, to their agent, who made the freight by contract, and to the captain of The Maid of Orleans. They also knew that the lard was in such barrels and tierces commonly used for the shipment of lard. All the barrels and tierces were put on board of the ship, according to contract, as soon as it could be done, after they were carted to the levee where the ship was, except a few barrels, 163*] not more than 20 barrels, which *need-upon the staves and hoops of such barrels ed cooperage, and they were left on the levee from Saturday evening until Monday morning. There is no proof of more leakage or loss from them by that exposure, than there would have been if those barrels had been put on board of the ship in the bad condition in which they were sent to the levee. Dix, who made the freight engagement in behalf of the shippers, says it was expressly agreed that the lard should be taken on board of the ship as soon as the same was sent to the vessel, to avoid exposure to the sun; and he testifies that the casks containing it were in good order when they were delivered; but anticipating that some of them might not be, a cooper was sent, for the purpose of packing such of them as might not be in good shipping condition; and the witness Shinkle, the stevedore employed to load the ship, says the lard, was promptly taken on board as soon as it was taken from the drays, but that there were about fifteen or twenty barrels leaking, which he caused to be rolled aside, and he put them under tarpaulins, to be coopered, and as soon as they were coopered by the shipper's employees, it was taken. This is the lard, as we learn from another witness, which had been on the levee from Saturday night until Monday morning. Besides, from answers of Mr. Dix to the crossinterrogatories put to him, we learn that he knew nothing of the good order and condition of the casks of lard, as to its cooperage, when they were carried to the levee to be received for shipment, except from the report of those who had done the work. Under such circumstances, the casks put aside on the levee for cooperage, before they could be shipped, on account of their leaking, were not received by the stevedore, to be put on board, until they were put in a fit condition to be shipped. Until that was done, they were at the shipper's risk. We cannot, therefore, allow the fact of the exposure of these twenty barrels to charge the ship with any loss, or to lessen the weight of the testimony that, in receiving and putting the casks into the vessel, it had been done in conformity, as to time, with the engagement made with the agent of the shippers. witnesses, whose habit and business had made them familiar with such shipments. It appears that the barrels containing the lard were of the same materials, and coopered with hoop poles, as barrels for such a purpose are usually made. When the contents of such barrels are solidified, the leakage will be small; when liquefied, larger. All of the witnesses, who know how such barrels are coopered, say so, particularly as to lard in a liquid state, and as to its effect when acted upon by the heat or rays of the sun. They know it from observation and experience; science confirms it from the composition of the article. This lard was of a secondary kind, or, as the witness of Magrath says, it was a fair lard—not pure at all, but a good average lot, not a first rate article. The differences in the qualities of lard may arise from a deficiency of oxygen, or from the inferior quality of the fat of the animal from which it is tried, and not unfrequently from a carelces and insufficient melting and expression of the best of the animal fat from its membranous parts. Oils, whether animal or vegetable, are either solid or liquid, and, when in the first condition, are frequently termed fats. These fats are more abundant in the animal than in the vegetable kingdom. But whether liquid or solid, they usually consist of three substances, two of which (the stearine suet and the margarine pearl) are solid, and the other (elane or oleine) is liquid at ordinary temperatures. They are all from 6° to 9° lighter than water, and their liquid or solid condition depends upon the proportion in which their component parts are mixed. Thus, in the fats, the oleine exists in small quantities, and in the liquid oils it is the chief constituent. A certain degree of *heat [*165 is necessary to the mixture, for at low temperatures there is a tendency to separation; the stearine and margarine are precipitated or solidified, and if pressed, can be entirely freed from the oleine. The stearine from the lard of swine is easily separable from the oleine, and it is used in the manufacture of candles. The liquid stearine, known in commerce as lard oil, is used for the finer parts of machinery; but all of the animal fats-such as those from the hog, the ox, the sheep, and horsehave not a like consistency or proportion of stearine in them; when deficient in either, or comparatively small, and tried into lard, they have not that tendency at low temperatures to precipitate and solidify as the stearine and margarine of the fat of the hog has; and being extremely penetrating from liquidity, there has always been a greater loss from evaporaThe proof is ample, that it was put on board tion and leakage from the barrels in which with care, and in the manner and with all the they are ordinarily put for transportation 164* appliances for doing so most readily. than there would be from hogs' lard under the It is in proof, also, that the stowage on the same temperature; in other words, hogs' lard ship was good, both as to position and as to its will solidify at a temperature at which those support and steadiness, by dunnage and cant- animal fats will not and, from their liquidity, ling, and that there had been no disarrange- they escape from the barrels containing them ment of the casks, either by storm or rough in larger quantity; and that fact has been rescas, on the passage of the ship to New York, markably verified by the returns of English although she did encounter some heavy weath-commerce with Buenos Ayres and Monte Video, er. Nevertheless, upon the discharge of the lard in New York, the barrels and tierces were found to be in a worse condition, and leaking more, than had ever been seen by either of the in the importation from them of what is known there as horse or mare's grease, tried from the fat of the horse. From its liquidity, the ordinary barrels for |