Benjamin Franklin was born in Boston, Massachusetts, the fifteenth
of seventeen children of a candle and soap maker.
Remember that CREDIT is Money. If a Man lets his Money lie in my
Hands after it is due, he gave me the Interest, or so much as I can make
of it during that Time. This amounts to a considerable Sum where a Man
has good and large Credit, and makes good Use of it.
He that kills a
breeding Sow, destroys all her Offspring to the thousandth Generation.
He that murders a Crown, destroys all it might have produc’d, even
Scores of Pounds.
Remember that Six Pounds a Year is but a Groat a Day. For this little
Sum (which may be daily wasted either in Time or Expence unperceiv’d)
a Man of Credit may on his own Security have the constant Possession
and Use of an Hundred Pounds. So much in Stock briskly turn’d by an
industrious Man, produces great advantage.
Remember this Saying, That the good Paymaster is Lord of another
Man’s Purse. He that is known to pay punctually and exactly to the Time
he promises, may at any Time, and on any Occasion, raise all the Money
his Friends can spare. This is sometimes of great Use: Therefore never
keep borrow’d Money an Hour beyond the Time you promis’d, lest a Dis-
appointment shuts up your Friends Purse forever.
The most trifling Actions that affect a Man’s Credit, are to be regarded.
The Sound of your Hammer at Five in the Morning or Nine at Night,
heard by a Creditor, makes him easy Six Months longer. But if he sees
you at a Billiard Table, or hears your Voice in a Tavern, when you should
be at Work, he sends for his Money the next Day. Finer Cloaths than he
or his Wife wears, or greater Expence in any particular than he affords
himself, shocks his Pride, and he duns you to humble you. Creditors are
FRANKLIN / Advice to a Young Tradesman
2744
5
a kind of People, that have the sharpest Eyes and Ears, as well as the
best Memories of any in the World.
Good-natur’d Creditors (and such one would always chuse to deal
with if one could) feel Pain when they are oblig’d to ask for Money. Spare
’em that Pain, and they will love you. When you receive a Sum of Money,
divide it among ’em in Proportion to your Debts. Don’t be asham’d of
paying a small Sum because you owe a greater. Money, more or less, is
always welcome; and your Creditor had rather be at the Trouble of
receiving Ten Pounds voluntarily brought him, tho’ at ten different
Times or Payments, than be oblig’d to go ten Times to demand it before
he can receive it in a Lump. It shews, besides, that you are mindful of
what you owe; it makes you appear a careful as well as an honest Man;
and that still encreases your Credit.
Beware of thinking all your own that you possess, and of living accord-
ingly. ’Tis a Mistake that many People who have Credit fall into. To pre-
vent this, keep an exact Account for some Time of both your Expences
and your Incomes. If you take the Pains at first to mention Particulars, it
will have this good Effect; you will discover how wonderfully small tri-
fling Expences mount up to large Sums, and will discern what might have
been, and may for the future be saved, without occasioning any great
Inconvenience.
In short, the Way to Wealth, if you desire it, is as plain as the Way to
Market. It depends chiefly on two Words, INDUSTRY and FRUGALITY; i.e.
Waste neither Time nor Money, but make the best Use of both. He that
gets all he can honestly, and saves all he gets (necessary Expences
excepted) will certainly become RICH; If that Being who governs the World,
to whom all should look for a Blessing on their honest Endeavours, doth
not in his wise Providence otherwise determine.
A Good Conscience.
[1] What physicians call perspirable matter is that vapour which passes off from our bodies, from the lungs, and through the pores of the skin. The quantity of this is said to be five eighths of what we eat.—Author.
Privateering is a practice where a government commissions privately-owned ships and sailors to attack enemy ships. It was a common practice from the 17th century until the 19th century. Privateering was a way for governments to raise money for war, and for privateers to earn more than they could as merchants or fishermen
“the militia of the sea.” In general, the term privateer refers to a privately-owned ship or sailor commissioned by a government to raid an enemy’s military and merchant shipping. Although controversial, there is a long history of privateering that dates back to the seventeenth century. The main difference between pirates and privateers is that privateers are commissioned by a specific government and can only attack ships that fly under an enemy flag, while pirates are not sanctioned by any government and can attack whomever they choose. While pirates keep the prizes themselves, privateers only receive a portion of the money generated from the sale of prizes, which is heavily taxed. Prizes refer to goods seized from a merchant or military ship. While both economically lucrative, privateers serve as a vehicle of war, pirates do not. Despite the controversy, the United States used privateering to supplement their small naval force during the American Revolution and the War of 1812.
The words underlined are grafted upon the proposition of my memorial, dated May 19, 1778. You will see the principle which I have in my thoughts to extend for the purpose of restoring our ancient copartnership generally.
I cannot tell you what event things may take; but my thoughts are always employed in endeavoring to arrange that system upon which the China Vase, lately shattered, may be cemented together upon principles of compact and connection instead of dependence.
I have met with a sentiment in this country which gives some alarm, viz., lest the unity of government in America should be uncertain, and the States reject the authority of Congress. Some passages in General Washington’s letter have given weight to these doubts. I do not hear of any tendency to this opinion—that the American States will break to pieces, and then we may still conquer them. I believe all that folly is extinguished. But many serious and well disposed persons are alarmed lest this should be the ill-fated moment for relaxing the powers of the Union and annihilating the cement of confederation (vide Washington’s letter), and that Great Britain should thereby lose her best and wisest hope of being reconnected with the American States unitedly. I should, for one, think it the greatest misfortune. Pray give me some opinion upon this.
——- Dye ——
FROM DAVID HARTLEY
Bath,
4 October, 1782
.————–
TO ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON
Paris,
14 October, 1782
have been honored with the receipt of your letters, Nos. 14 and 15. I have also received two letters from Mr. Lewis R. Morris, both dated the 6th of July, and one dated the 10th of August, enclosing bills for
| 68,290 | livres, | |
| 71,380 | ||
| 9,756 | ||
| In all | 149,426 | livres, |
———————–| Internet in re of Livingston and total Population of earth |—————————–
CHange of title
And J
60 years
Original Parliament and Common Law Courts
=========
Well, I began to investigate. I found that 1938 was the year of the Erie Railroad v. Tompkins case of the Supreme Court. It was also the year the courts claim they blended Law with Equity. I read the Erie Railroad case. A man had sued the Erie Railroad for damages when he was struck by a board sticking out of a boxcar as he walked along beside the tracks. The district court had decided on the basis of Commercial (Negotiable Instruments) Law: that this man was not under any contract with the Erie Railroad, and therefore he had no standing to sue the company. Under the Common Law, he was damaged and he would have had the right to sue.
This overturned a standing decision of over one hundred years. Swift v. Tyson in 1840 was a similar case, and the decision of the Supreme Court was that in any case of this type, the court would judge the case on the Common Law of the state where the incident occurred – in this case Pennsylvania. But in the Erie Railroad case, the Supreme Court ruled that all federal cases will be judged under the Negotiable Instruments Law. There would be no more decisions based on the Common Law at the federal level. So here we find the blending of Law with Equity.
This was a puzzle to me. As I put these new pieces together, I determined that all our courts since 1938 were Merchant Law courts and not Common Law courts. There were still some pieces of the puzzle missing.
The reason they cannot call it Admiralty Jurisdiction is that your defense would be quite different in Admiralty Jurisdiction from your defense under the Common Law. In Admiralty, there is no court which has jurisdiction unless there is a valid international contract in dispute. If you know it is Admiralty Juris- diction, and they have admitted on the record that you are in Admiralty Court, you can demand that the international maritime contract, to which you are supposedly a party, and which you supposedly have breached, be placed into evidence.
No court has Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction unless there is a valid international maritime contract that has been breached.
So you say, just innocently like a lamb,
“Well, I didn’t know that I got involved with an international maritime contract, so, in good faith, I deny that such a contract exists. If this court is taking jurisdiction in Admiralty, then, pursuant to section 3-501 of your UCC, (Presentment), the prosecutor will have no difficulty placing the [alleged] contract into evidence, so that I may examine and [possibly] challenge the validity of the contract.”
What they would have to do is place the national debt into evidence. They would have to admit the international bankers own the whole nation, and that we are their slaves.