whole province. And it appearing that the surveyors have certified, that in many cases these excesses of quantity are to the advantage and interest of the proprietors, as they include land which by itself would probably never be taken up from its barrenness. The Governor is pleased to order, that as to whatlis past, the Surveyor general receive the returns of the surveys, though they should exceed the quantities mentioned in the warrants or applications; and the ten per cent. But that for the future, he strictly charge his deputies, that they shall not, on any pretence, return more than the quantity, with the usual allowance for roads, and the ten per cent. upon pain of being obliged, at their own expense, to rectify any surveys they shall return with such excess of quantity. (Minute book I. pa. 74.) This later order appears to be explicit and peremptory; yet it does not appear to have been rigidly adhered to in the letter; and in some instances was certainly departed from. Some allowance would naturally be made for the difference of surveys, as in former times. On a re-survey it might turn out a little more or less. It was to be observed according to the latter instructions of the Surveyor General "as near as reasonably may be." The exact measure in every case might be impracticable in common: experience. An acre, or a few acres more, or less, could not possibly be'the object, or be considered as a violation of the spirit of the rule; and common understanding and experience would, in a moment, be able to decide what ought to be considered an accidental or intended departure from it. Should the mere circumstances, in running round a survey, of setting a course an half or a quarter of a degree too wide, and including an acre or more two much, be made use of to prevent the acceptance of a survey, the common feeling of the people would revolt at it; nor could the mere letter of any law justify the mischief, the inconvenience, and expense which would follow from the construction; and every law should be construed reasonably; as a good general rule, however, it has been adopted by the courts, which regard the customs of the Land Office. But even the ten percent. must be relinquished, where the interest of other purchasers would be affected by it. If an adjoining warrantee would be diminished in quantity, the elder warrant must be restricted to its quantity without any surplus, which can be retained only where it does no injury to others; and the first applier has no right to complain, if he gets what he purchased. The whole law, therefore, as far as it has been considered by the courts will appear in the following cases, The point was started in the case of the lessee of Merchant and Bright v. John Millison, before Yeates and Smith Justices, Westmoreland, November, 1800. MSS. Reports. But the case appears to have gone on other grounds, and will be stated here so far only as connected with this subject, and introductory to other Jacob Millison, the father of defendant, on the 4th of December 1784, obtained two warrants, for 300 acreseach, calling for an improvement. One in his own name, on which interest was to commence on the 1st of March, 1780-the other in the name of his son Philip, interest to commence on the 1st of March, 1782. The assistant of the deputy surveyor made a large survey on these warrants, of 900 acres, on the 26th of April 1785, but afterwards returned above 300 acres on each warrant. The plaintiffs survey included some of the improved, and some of the best land in the large survey, by a supposed line, which was not marked, about fifty perches from defendant's house, leaving to defendant, a quantity of poor, thin land, on the back part of the survey, Immediately after the plaintiff's warrant was taken out Millison built a cabin on the lands in controversy, and retained possession of them. On the 23d of October, 1786, Jacob Millison, as administrator of his father, obtained a warrant for 200 acres, in trust for the heirs, and procured a survey of 220 3-4 acres, on the 12th of September, 1786, and a patent on the 12th of October, 1786-which included the lands in question. Three surveyors were examined, who declared, that where there was no dispute, they found little or no difficulty, where they returned more than ten per cent. surplus, on surveys made by them since the Revolution. In some instances, 350 and 360 acres had been surveyed, and returned on warrants for 200 acres; and in some others, double the quantity of the lands mentioned in the warrants, and they had been all accepted. Judge Smith, who, by reason of the indisposition of the presiding judge, delivered the charge, said “I, however, for my own part, do not go so far as the witnesses, with respect to surveying, and returning surplus lands. I rather think the deputy was not obliged to make a return of so large a survey as 900 acres, under warrants for 600 acres; and that the Land Office was not bound by their usage, to accept so large a return, The first instructions to the deputy surveyors, not to survey more than a surplus of ten per cent. on each hundred acres contained in a warrant, took place in 1767, and arose from a desire to accommodate the different appliers with lands, and the fees of the different officers were regulated thereby. But when it was discovered that the proprietary institution might be evaded by taking out warrants in the names of other persons, the rule of practice still continued, though the reason of it had long before ceased. However, before the Revolution whenever the deputy survey or certified, that the surplus lands beyond the ten per cent. were only desirable for the lands in the warrant, there was little hesitation as to the accepting of the return of survey of such surplus. I know of no rule on the subject. If the present contest rested merely on the point, whether 450 acres should not be returned on each of Millison's warrants, as a matter of right, I should incline against the defendant; but I give no decided opinion thereon. The practice of surveyors, since the Revolution, would have great weight." The main question, however, was, whether taking the new warrant for the 200 acres, was not an abandonment of the first survey, and an acquiescence in the two returns excluding the land; and whether the defendant knew and consented to it; and if he did, the plaintiff's warrant must be preferred. And it was said that the surveyor had no right to garble lands at his will and pleasure, and returns what parcel he thinks proper; and that in an instance like the present he should have stated the contents of the first survey to his employer, and taken his directions therein. And it resulted to this, whether the assistant surveyor had been guilty of a legal fraud, or not? and the jury, under the circumstances, found a verdict for the defendant, with the approbation of the court. So, in Kyle's lessee v. White, decided in 1808, in the Supreme Court, the defendant held under two warrants, dated 3d February, 1755, for one hundred acres, each, on which a survey of 562 1-2 acres was made on the 28th of November, 1760, but not returned, from accidental circumstances, into the Surveyor General's office, until November, 1766. Tilghman, C. J. In considering the objection as to the quantity of land, we must advert to the time when the survey was made. If made at this day, the objection would be decisive. But in the year 1760, when it was made, it was customary to include much larger quantities than the warrants called for. It was not until 1767, that this practice was altered by instructions of the governor to the surveyors. The plaintiff had notice of defendant's survey, before he took out his warrant. 1 Binney, 249. And, in 1810, the case came before the Supreme Court, in the lessee of Steinmetz v. Young, under the following circumstances, on appeal from the circuit court, at York. The plaintiff claimed under a warrant to William Grouce for 100 acres in the year 1751, founded upon an improvement. In October, 1761, Grouce conveyed to George Stevenson and George Ross, describing the property as "a plantation and tract of land, containing by estimation 300 acres more or less." A survey of 279 3-4 acres was made on the warrant by T. Armor, an assistant deputy surveyor, on the 26th of February, 1764, which was never returned, and it was clear from the Surveyor's field notes, that the survey was not correct, because 159 acres of it were included in another survey made three days before by Armor, for Ross & Co. who were still the owners of Grouce's warrant. On the 9th of November, 1788, a survey of 287 acres and 137 ps. was made for the lesser of the plaintiff, on Grouce's warrant which he then owned, including but a small part of the first survey; and this was returned and filed in the Surveyor General's Office, on the 16th of April, 1790. marks. by which notice was given of the extent of his claim. I think it highly probable, that the proprietary officers would have accepted a survey for 287 acres, after the year 1767, provided he had stated his case to the Board of Property, and make it appear, that no other person had acquired an interest in the surplus. The acceptance of such a survey was a matter between the warrantee and the proprietaries. No third person could be injured. Nor has the present defendant the least particle of equity in his case. What is it to him whether the plaintiff had more or less land included in his survey. I have endeavored to ascertain the practice of our own Land Office, since the revolution: and it appears that many surveys have been accepted, made since the year 1767, on old warrants, containing more than ten per cent, surplus. Considering all the circumstances of this case then, without laying down any general rule, it is my opinion, that the return of the plaintiff's survey, which was filed in the Land Office, before any other person had acquired a right, and to which no objection was made by the Surveyor General, gave him sufficient title to recover in this ejectment. Judgment affirmed. The defendant, who claimed under a warrant for 60 But all the cases recognized the principle, that if a acres, including an improvement, dated June 4th, 1802, third person should be injured, or there should be an interest to commence on the 4th March, 1790, which intervening right before the survey made, though on a was offered in evidence, and overruled, but also waved, younger warrant, the first warrant will not be entitled on plaintiff's consent to read it, contended that the sur- even to the ten per cent. surplus, if it would thereby vey of 1788, could not be maintained, in consequence deprive the second warrant of any part of its quantity. of the orders of 1767; and because the act of assembly Thus, in Elliott's lessee, v. Bonnet, twice before of the 8th of April, 1785, in effect imposed the same cited, the judge concluded his charge to the jury, thus, restriction, was in many respects a general law, extend-"If the jury shall decide for the plaintiff, the only reed to every part of the State, and was a direct obstacle maining thing to be considered, is, what ought he to to the acceptance of the plaintiff's survey, which no recover? He has got under the warrant to Croyle, inpractice, or custom in the Land Office could obviate; cluding his improvement, 123 acres, and 123 perches; and cited Kyle v. White, where it is said, that if the sur- and there being another legal right in the hands of the vey in that case had been made at the present day, the surveyor (though posterior to Croyle's application) beobjection founded upon its excess, would have been fore the survey was made, he is now entitled only to decisive. 176 acres, and 37 perches; the difference between what is already surveyed to him, and the strict quantity of 300 acres, under his improvement, and not to any surplus quantity of ten per cent. and that finding for the ten per cent. might possibly endanger their verdict. The point reserved at the trial was, whether on the warrant for 100 acres, a survey of 287 acres, in 1788, could be accepted, and it was fully argued on this appeal. Tilghman, C. J. delivered the judgment of the court as follows: And in the lessee of Gripe v. Baird, Huntingdon, May. 1805, before Yeates and Smith, justices, MSS. Reports. The rule was thus recognized, "That under the order of May, 1767, the deputy surveyors were not to return more than ten per cent. beyond the usual al There is no doubt, but that prior to the year 1767, a survey of 300 acres might have been made on a warrant for 100; such was the practice of the Land Office. But in the year 1767, the Board of Property made an order,lowance for roads, on the quantity of lands contained in that no survey should be accepted, containing more than ten per cent. surplus, above the quantity called for by the warrant, with the usual allowance of six per cent, for roads, &c. An act of Assembly to the same effect was made in April, 1785; but as it has been expressly decided by this court, in the case of M'Ginnis's lessee, v. Albright, December, 1799, that this act does not extend to any part of the State, but that which lies within the last purchase of the Indians, it has no bearing on the present case. Judge Smith, who had great experience in the business of the Land Office, and was himself a deputy surveyor before the Revolution, mentions, in his charge, that he had himself surveyed 400 acres, on a 300 acre warrant, after the year 1767, which had been accepted, the party paying for the surplus; and that he knew of no instance, where a survey, containing more than ten per cent. surplus, had been rejected by the Land Of fice, if it did not interfere with the rights acquired by others, before the return of the survey. It is certain that the proprietary officers were in the habit of some. times dispensing with the general rules of office, where no injustice was done by it; and it is a striking feature in the present cause, that in the year 1761, Grouce considered himself as entitled to 300 acres on this warrant. At that time he might have had his 300 acres surveyed; and if it was understood in the neighborhood, that he meant to take 300 acres; or there were any lines, or the application or warrant; but this only held when there was no conflicting right when the survey was made; for in such case the deputy was not permitted to exceed the quantity called for with the allowance of six per cent. for roads. This was equal justice, and conformable to the settled practice of the Land Office. It has been pursued in the circuit court, at Bedford, in November, 1801, in Elliott's lessee, v. Bonnet, where the jury were strongly disposed to find the surplus of ten per cent for the plaintiff. On the fourth item of the second set of instructions, to the deputies, before noted, the following case has occurred. Lessee of Bear v. Russell, Northumberland, October, 1796, before Yeates and Smith, justices, MSS. Reports An application was entered, on the 3d of April, 1769, No. 164, in the name of John M'Grath, for 300 acres of land, on the south side of the wes branch of Susquehanna, about 25 miles from Fort Augusta, concluding a bottom called Oughcoughpockeny. A survey was made thereon, by Charles Lukens, of 330 acres and allowance, on the 26th of June, 1769, which contained a front of 902 perches on the river. Caveats were filed against the return of this survey; and on the 26th of March, 1770, the Board of Property, on the claims of John Stephens, John Montgomery, and John Morgan, against William Plunket, (who obtained a transfer of M'Grath's location on the 21st of CHESTER COUNTY CABINET. tural Science. At the stated meeting of the Cabinet, on the 15th of March, 1834, CHEYNEY HANNUM, on behalf of the Curators, offered the following Report:-which was approved, and ordered to be published. March, preceding,) decided, that the narrow bottom on the river should be divided by Charles Lukens and Seventh Report of the Chester County Cabinet of Na William Scull, into as many tracts as it would allow of, taking in as much of the back lands as were fit to be taken up, or as the parties should be willing to take into their surveys; and that it should stand over, until the matter should be decided between Stephens and Plunket, as to Plunket's location. A patent, however, issued to Plunket, on the 17th of August, 1774, and on the next day he mortgaged the lands to the trustees of the general Loan Office, to secure the payment of 2001. and interest, on the 22d of April, 1793, the lands were sold by Flavel Roan, sheriff, (the mortgage money being unpaid,) to the lessors of the plaintiff, for 8117. In presenting the Annual Report, comprising a brief outline of the present condition and an enumeration of the acquisitions and advancement of the Cabinet, during the past year, the Curators feel assured that there is abundant cause for congratulating their fellow members, on account of the increasing prosperity of the institution. The defendant held as tenant, under the heirs of John Montgomery, who entered an application on the Our collections have been greatly augmented, during third of April, 1799, No. 916, for 300 acres on the west, the space of time embraced by the present Report, and branch of Susquehanna, upon the south side of the said in some departments the additions exceed those of any branch, opposite the lower end of the proprietaries sur- preceding year. For this enlargement we are much invey, upon a small run on the river, opposite to the up-debted to the liberality of several valuable friends and per end of Muncy hill. correspondents, who, in conjunction with the active portion of our members, have contributed to effect that degree of success which we have now the pleasure to announce. It appeared in evidence, that the defendant's location described the lands in question, and that if Plunket's survey had been bounded by the run therein mentioned, it would have excluded the controverted grounds. There was a long narrow bottom of excellent land along the river: the grounds back were arable, and fit for cultivation, though being pine barrens, they were of much inferior quality to those in front of the river. Application was made in June, 1769, to Levy Stevens, who surveyed under Charles Lukens to make the survey for Montgomery. He promised to do it, and return the lands above the mouth of the run for him, and a large walnut tree there, was afterwards fixed as a corner of his survey; but the promise was not complied with. Notice was given at the Sheriff's sale, of Montgomery's claim. Yeates, J.being one of the executors of S. Chambers, who claimed part of the land, declined taking any part in the decision. Smith, J. I feel no difficulty whatever, sitting alone in this cause. It is so plain that it cannot be perplexed. The instructions formerly given to deputy surveyors, and their usage, will readily determine the dispute between the parties. He then mentioned the 4th item of the instructions, before given at large. If there were no other warrants or applications than those they were executing, they assumed greater liberties; and if, in such instances, they gave a larger front on a river, or creek, than their instructions admitted, and their surveys were accepted, no injury was done, and no one could reasonably complain. The proprietaries might, in such a case, dispense with their usual rule, and grant their lands as they pleased. But where there were other rights, though subsequent in point of time, which also called for execution, the due proportion of front on the water, and extent back, ought in justice to be adhered to. To deviate from the estab. lished rule under those circumstances, would do manifest injustice to third persons. I will not say, that in practice, the surveyor is restricted to one, or even two perches beyond his directions; where the situation of the grounds calls for a latitude in judgment; but I will assert, that to go 902 perches, by the margin of a navigable river, and where the lands back are of a quality proper for cultivation, to fill up an order for 300 acres, is altogether unprecedented, and unwarranted by any law or usage, where it would operate against the rights of others. By such improper practices, in garbling the whole of the lands in the first quality, the settlement of the country is retarded, besides doing essential injustice to individuals. There was accordingly a verdict for defendant. But on the erection of Lycoming county, in which the lands now lie, the controversy was renewed; but it has since been compromised. (To be continued.) It might, perhaps, be considered within the province of our duties to notice the several valuable mineral localities of our county. But the necessity of this requisition will appear less urgent when we recollect that, in 1832, one of our members made a catalogue, which is filed among the Cabinet papers, of all the known Mineral localities of Chester county. Since that time we are not aware that any discoveries of importance have been made, except some strata of fine white marble in the Great Valley, about five miles north of West Chester. We might remark, however, that a mine of the black oxide of manganese has recently been opened on the farm of Mr. William Osborne, near the line between the townships of West Town and East Bradford; and we have been informed that it is in contemplation to open another mine, on an adjoining farm belonging to Mr. John Osborne, of West Town. Several of the oxides of manganese are found in that vicinity. The black oxide is of a superior quality and will command the highest price given for the article in the Philadelphia market. Several tons have been obtained by the persons engaged in the enterprise, but whether there is a bed sufficiently extensive to render the undertaking a profitable business, they are yet unable to determine. In our mineralogical department we acknowledge the reception of several valuable donations: From Dr. Joseph Cloud, 4 boxes of minerals, containing nearly 400 specimens. This splendid collection may be noted as one of the most estimable presents we have ever received; and in testimony of our respect to the donor, and for the purpose of showing that we are not insensible to such exemplary generosity, a case will be prepared for preserving them separate from our other minerals, where they will be distinguished by the appropriate title of the "Cloud donation." From Mr. Jonathan Valentine, a beautiful specimen of Zoisite, from West Goshen township, near the N. E. angle of this borough. Also, from Mr. Samuel Tyson, 14 specimens of Chester county minerals. Dr. Carraway presented a valuable collection of minerals from Arkansaw Territory, among which are several hand. some specimens of Limpid, Milky, and Yellow Quartz. Mr. Carpenter Marshall presented several specimens of Feldspar and Carbonate of Lime, from the State of Delaware. From Mr. Joseph A. Davidson, 4 specimens of minerals from the vicinity of Pottsville. From L. W. Williams, 2 collections of minerals from various localities, principally within the state of New York. From Mr. Davis Brooke, several specimens of clay, mixed with the oxide of Iron, which have been placed in our Chester county case, for future inspection. From Dr. Isaac Parrish, of Philadelphia, a box of casts of North American Trilobites, which, with those forwarded during the preceding year, by the same gentleman, form an interesting collection, which may contribute to facilitate our progress in the investigation of these remarkable fossil remains. From Mr. Wm. M. Meredith, of Philadelphia, 3 specimens of Stalactite from Antiparos, and a specimen of white marble from the quarry at Paros. These were accompanied by other donations, consisting of a fragment of Mosaic pavement; and an Earthen Lamp found in the Grecian Archipelago, supposed to be about 3000 years old. From Philip P. Sharpless, some iron and lead balls, from the Brandywine battle ground; and also one musket ball from D. Carr, embedded in oak from the same locality. The additions of the Flora of the county, have not been numerous. The following plants, however, have been detected within its limits, since last report, viz.— Cenchrus echinatus, Lithospermum hirtum, Habenaria bracteata, Liparis Correana, Carex setacea, C. Torrey`ana, and Pinus inops. 18, S. Americana, 35, Tringa Semipalma. 36, Totanus Flavipes, M. Blue yellow back Warbler. M. White-throated Sparrow. F. Yellow-winged Sparrow. F. Pine Finch. M. Fox coloured Sparrow. M. Turtle Dove. M. Semipalmated Sandpiper. George F. Kennedy. In addition to the above we take Our general Herbarium has been greatly augmented by the munificence of Professor Hooker, of Glasgow, in presenting us with 433 species of plants; of which upwards of 300 were new to our collection. A considerable number of these are from the Arctic regions of this continent. To that distinguished gentleman and profound botanist, we are under many obligations for fre-pleasure in announcing the following donation from Mr. quent and liberal remittances of plants. Some valuable John K. Townsend, comprising 15 species of birds, mostly rare: acquisitions have also been obtained from the Pine forests of New Jersey, which were visited, by two of our members, once a month during the last summer. The cultivators of American Botany have recently been deprived of an eminent fellow labourer, in the late Rev. Lewis D. v. Schweinitz, of Bethlehem, Pa.; and this Cabinet, in particular, has to lament the loss of an early, constant, and generous benefactor. The recol-7, T. Wilsonii, lection of his many virtues will be unceasingly cherish- 8, Ardea Candidissima, ed by every member who enjoyed the happiness of his 9. A. Nycticorax, personal acquaintance; whilst the volumes of our Her- 10. A. Virescens, barium will for ever bear testimony to the liberality and 11. Rallus Crepitans, value of his contributions. So long as our Institution 12, R. Virginianus, shall exist, we never can be unmindful of our obligations to our late amiable and estimable friend. Considerable attention is devoted to Zoology by a portion of our members. Ornithology continues to be a favorite branch of science; and it is to this department that the most extensive, as well as the most interesting accessions have been made during the past year. Since the last report about 50 county specimens have been added to our former collection, prepared in a style of superior neatness by Mr. John K. Townsend, a young but talented ornithologist of Philadelphia. The following Catalogue exhibits a list of the specimens just referred to: 1, Falco Sparverius, Fem. American Sparrow Hawk. 2, Falco Velox, Male. Slate coloured Hawk. 3, Coccyzus Erythropthalmus, 4, Picus Pubescens, 5, Hirundo Bicolor, 6, Muscicapa Fusca, 7, M. Acadica, 8, M. Ruticilla, 9, Vireo Noveboracen- 11, V. Olivaceus, M. Black billed Cuckoo. catcher. M. American Redstart. M. White-eyed Flycatcher. 13, S. Pardalina, M. & F. Canada Flycatcher. 14, S. Blackburni, 15, S. Icterocephala, 16, S. Striata, 17, S. Pinus, M. Blackburnian Warbler. 1, Mergus Cuculatus, M. Hooded Merganser. 13, Tringa Arenaria, From Mr. A. F. Darley, of Philadelphia, a specimen of Raltus Carolinus, (female) Rail or Saura. From Mr. William Mills, a living specimen of Falco Leucocephalus (male) Bald Eagle, taken in West Caln township, Chester county. From H. T. Jefferis, a specimen of Mergus Merganser, prepared by Mr. Philip Sharpless. From J. L. Darlington, a specimen of Scalops Canadensis, prepared by himself; and two specimens of the same animal were presented by Mark Denny, Esq. From Capt. Thomas Dixey we received a specimen of the head and bill of the Albatross, from the Cape of Good Hope. Also, from the same gentleman, the jawbone of a Shark-the jaw-bone of a Porpoise-2 speciFly-mens of Zoophytes-a specimen of Paradisea Apodea from Canton-an Indian feather dress from the N. W. coast of America-specimen of cloth manufactured by the natives of the Sandwich Islands, and several other interesting donations. From Mr. Richard Thomas we received a copper calender for the year 1773; and from Mr. E. T. Weaver a medal struck during the procession on the centennial anniversary of the birth of Washington, accompanied with a badge. By the liberality of our President and Treasurer, Dr. William Darlington and D. Townsend, Esq. the value of our Library has been greatly enhanced. The following is a catalogue of their splendid donations: Introduction to the Study of Botany, by J. C. Philibert, 3 vols. Vade Mecum of the Travelling Botanist of the environs of Paris, Elementary Theory of Botany, by De Candolle, New Elements of Botany and Vegetable Physiology, by Achille Richard, Elementary lessons on Botany, by J.C. Philibert, Flora of the Environs of Paris, by J. L. Thuillier, Latin. 66 68 French. 66 66 AN ACT RESPECTING COPYRIGHTS. AN ACT to amend the several acts respecting copyrights. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the passage of this act, any person or persons, being a citizen or citizens of the United States, or resident therein, who shall be the author or authors of any book or books, map, chart, or musical composition, which may be now made or com posed, and not printed and published, or shall hereafter be made or composed, or who shall invent, design, etch, engrave, work, or cause to be engraved, etched, or worked, from his own design, any print or engraving, and the executors, administrators, or legal assigns of such person or persons, shall have the sole right and such book or books, map, chart, musical composition, liberty of printing, re-printing, publishing, and vending term of twenty-eight years from the time of recording print, cut, or engraving, in whole, or in part, for the the title thereof, in the manner hereinafter directed. The Advocate of Natural Science has been received Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That if, at the exfrom No. 1 to No. 46, presented by the editor, Mr. Wil-piration of the aforesaid term of years, such author, inliam P. Gibbons. This is a well conducted periodical— ventor, designer, engraver, or any of them, where the disseminates much useful knowledge, and is deserving a liberal patronage. Several valuable pamphlets and periodicals have also been received. From Dr. C. W. Short, a copy of instructions for gathering and preserving plants; and a catalogue of Phænogamous plants and ferns, from the same gentleman. Some Pamphlets, received from P. A. Browne, Esq. Dr. Henry Gibbons, and others, have been placed in the Library. work had been originally composed and made by more The most remarkable Phenomenon that occurred within the past year was that of a copious "meteoric shower," as it has been termed, which was observed throughout the United States, on the night of November 12, 1833. In this vicinity it commenced about mid night, and continued until sunrise on the morning of the 13th. It would swell this report beyond its proper limits to notice the various descriptions given by different observers, and the respective theories upon which Meteoric Phenomena are explained. We must, therefore, direct the attention of such as are desirous of in-prietor shall, within two months from the date of said formation upon this subject, to our best Literary periodicals subsequent to the above date, where, in connection with much valuable knowledge, they will find a detailed account of the unusual appearance to which we have just referred. Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That in all cases of renewal of copyright under this act, such author or pro lished in one or more of the newspapers printed in the renewal, cause a copy of the record thereof to be pubUnited States, for the space of four weeks. shall be entitled to the benefit of this act, unless he shall, Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That no person before publication, deposit a printed copy of the title of In concluding our report, we would remark, that the such book or books, map, chart, musical composition, spirit of mental improvement is progressing through va- print, cut, or engraving, in the Clerk's office of the disrious portions of this Commonwealth. Within the year trict court of the district wherein the author or propriean attempt has been made to form a society in Dela- tor shall reside, and the Clerk of such court is hereby ware county, for the purpose of cultivating Natural directed and required to record the name thereof forthScience, and another Cabinet has been established in with, in a book to be kept for that purpose, in the words this county, located in New Garden township, which following, (giving a copy of the title, under the seal of bids fair to become a prosperous and interesting insti- the court, to the said author or proprietor, whenever tution. We hope the day is not far distant, when, in he shall require the same:) District of every county of the state, there will be a sufficient wit: Be it remembered, That, on the number of talented and public spirited persons to form similar associations in the respective sections of country where they reside, whose co-operation will effect a discovery of all the localities of the various mineral and vegetable productions which may conduce to individual wealth, or advance the general prosperity of the community. VOL. XIII. 42 . to day of Anno Domini, A. B of the said district, hath deposited in this office the title of a book, (map, chart, or otherwise, as the case may be,) the title of which is in the words following, to wit: (bere insert the title:) the right whereof he claims as author (or proprictor, as the case may be:) in conformity with an act of Congress, entitled "An act to amend the several |