Chicago Daily Tribune Newspaper, February 27, 1873, Page 2

THE CHICAGO DAIL " TRIBUNE: THURSDAY. FEBRUARY 27, 1873. e e — — — ———— e e e e e e e . = isitthatis claimed? It is not pretended thatthe | Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne & Chicago Railrcad 28 he may wish to do#0? To hold that the failure to | ing like the present ono, which might result in o THE POLICE. The So-falled ¢ Suspension® of Washkburn Annulled. - s Capts. M. C. Hickey and F. Gund Reinstated.. Wherein the Mayor Failed to Per- form the “ Last Act.” ola B_om"d Proceedings in the Criminal Court. Elokks Swears He is Still of the Opinion that He is a Commissioner. “THE BOARD. The newly-constituted Board of Police, ignor- ing the evil resulis that had followed the #gecret eession” farce insugurated by the celebrated Commissioner of pre-historic times, known to fame and policemen as ** 01d Talcott,” yesterday amused themsolves with s meeting, from which reporters were excluded. The basi-- ness before them was the consideration of the so-called charges drawn up under the directions of their predecessors sgainst Superintendent. Washburn. They had before them a communi- cetion from the Mayor, whose opinion had been Teport at the next regular meeting did not render in- operative the removal, would bo to give such construction to the statute, as thére is vision in the law, by which such a report. {rom the Mayor can 'be compelled. While'no ofiicer b8 suy vested fnterests in am offce, et anco sppoiat- . he has Tights o the exercise of {he fanctions of the - office which the Iaw will protect. - Buch & construction of this law would not only enable the Mayor to vidlate | with impunity. those rights, but also give him the power to seriously jeopardizo the public intercsts. The public have an interest in having a public ofiico constantantly filled, and the duties thereof continu. ously performed, and a power like this, the excrcise of —~wehich{s 5o Alstinctly connected willi; snd whick must s0 serionsly affect, the public interests, must be Ftrictly construed, and a Tequirement to do an act at, or within, o certain time must bo held to b~ mamdstory 1o - complies or . fo copnection with, or 88 a part of, tome other act, the construction should provail that a failure to_comply Slth suck & requirement. at tho time spacified invali- dstes and renders Dugatory that which haa theretofors ‘beenr done, ) hfl;lhh m;t:hs ‘being nFOMUu,énLiQ;nmhr,~nol iving the pawer of removal, bu! coupling with the exercise of the power the requirements o};lil:z“ Te- port 7 to the Council,—it is possible that a different construction than that I have indicated,—a to the ef- fect .of » fallure. to report to the -Council— may be given it by the courts, but the construction herein stated I have arrivod at after a careful cons eideration of.” the - principles involved, and of all - decigons " of the courts which shed any light upon.the questions presented. In conclusion, I am eatizfiod that, not having mads the *report™ of your action to the Council, you can recal] the notification of removal, end'am strongly inclined to the opinion that the true construction of the law &a regards the effect of your failure to notify the Council st its next regalar meeting is, that the non-fulfiliment of this require- ‘ment rendered nugatory and of no effect the notifica- tion of removal. FES ° .M F, Turey, Corporation Counsel, Upon the receipt of this opinion, the Mayor sent word to’ §upt. Washburn, notifying him of the status of the two Captains, and instructing bim to order them to raémrc at once for duty. Thus Capts. Gund and Hickey are once Imore Capts. Gund and Hickey do&nfls and de facto. They wil probably resume their commands to- . *" COURT PROCEEDINGS. ssked by tho Board upon the subject, and this guve the jolly gentleman from the Bridgeport Jistrict many qualms of stomach and conscience. The opinion from the Mayor reads as follows : The Mayor's bill gave me tho sole power of removal. The cluuse in that bill which gave me. the power {0 ro- move zunulled the clause in tho city charter which had previously conferred on the Commissioners the power to suspend,” It 15 folly to suppase tho Commiseioners can suspend Mr. Washburn when they no longer have au~ thority to remove him.. He' was sppointed by. the Mayor and coufirmed by the Council; ho is amenable for delinquencies or other offenses to'moalono, That is the ground I have taken from the start, Inotified the old Commissioners when they undert6ok to sus- pend Washburn thot such action wes unlawful. The Commissioners are my appointees ; 80 was Waahburn, 1 know no precedent for ono appointee being arraign~ & by other appointees, or his_being lod or To- moved without the sanction of the officer who appoint~ ed ail these officers, The Police Board can do nothing to suspend Washburn ; the attempt they mado to doso wes in defisnce pf my suthority, and s new Board cennot recognize an unlawful act of their predecessors, Tho Board discussed the metter for some time. When the following resolutions were presented, then thero was a general squirming and flopping on the part of the Nestor of Commissioners, wha hed survived nine colleaguos and had threemore vears of office before him. This was the cause of his contortions : 5 ‘WHEREAS, It appears from the records of this Board that, on the day previous to the removal of E, F. C.- EKlokke and Charles A. Reno from the office of Come missioners of this Board, the Board did make an order directing the Secretary to prefer certain alleged charges against the Superintendent ; and ‘WoEReas, The Secretary did prescat, on that day, be charges what purports to against the Superin. tendent; and 5 WaEREAS, In.tho opinion of this Board the said action of the Board was unauthofized by Iaw, and the elleged charges wersTot prepared in the mauner re- uired by lsw cnd aro insufiicient. to suthorize this os7d to et thereon ; therefore, be it - 7 Resolvcd, That said alleged chiarges be, and the same o e , 2D o ing the Superintendent be, and they she hereby, re- scin . . Though he tried to smile, and though the exact tenor of his remarks was unknown, .yt there ia reason to belieye that the emile left hia rosy countenance, and he looked wofully un- happy. Whena vote was.taken,.it is said he voted with an em'ghui! m the nssnfive that would have driven the “German Sage™ wild with envy, hotred, malico, and_ all uncharitableness. Sut the preamble and resolution were pasued to bis inunite disgust. And there was no protest. HICKEY AND_GUND, + There has been much eaid about the removal of Capts. Hickey and Gund. They were ro- moved for disobedience, and the question of their reinstatoment has been argued prosnd con. The Mayor failed to report his removal of these officers to the Council, and therefore doubted his right to reinstate them or have others zp- pointed in their places. He accordingly appealed to the Law Department for enlightenment. - Ths following opinion from. Mr. - Tuley explain it- xelf: . 0 the Hon. Joseph Medil, Mayor: D s omsteaiion, midng fay opinion upon certain questions, I snswer: The act ¥nown as the * Muyor's Act” providca * that any euch officer may be removed by the Mayar, whenever in bis opiuion the interests of the clty may Tequiro such re- smoval ; but ho shall report in writing his ressons for auch ‘removal to the legislstive suthority at meeting. - Under °this act, on _the of _ January 17, Capts. Hickey snd Gund wero notified by you in « writlog that they Wwere removed from office, Through inaavertance you failed o notify the Comrmon Council of your action at its next regular meeting, which waa held on the 3d day of the present month, hor has any communication upon the subject crar made to. the Council. What was the effect aa to the removal by reason of ihe failure {0 notify the Oouncil, and what is {he present status of Messru, Hickey and Gund 58 to office fn the polica force of the city, are the questions which arise, and upon which you 'have solicited my opinion, T 'have considered {hie subject, and, in the eence of all direct authority or decisions, found it Qificull to arrivo at an entircly satisfactory conclusion upon sl the questions presented. 1 can find no other law giving the power of removal ‘syhich couples with the power of ke requirement fhat ¢he Executive ehall report fo the legislafive body st ita next meeting Lis reasons for an excreise of the power, and the questions submitted must be decided without feférence to direct procedents of any kind. _Statutes ‘cnferring & power of this kind, in 8o {ar an they affect the course to be pursued by the Executive in making xny removal, must bo strictly construed. In my opin- foz, while thio law does not permit. the question as to {he necessity of the removal to be an@gmd, or the suSiciency of the ressons therefor -reported to the' Counctl to be called in question, st tho course marked o' by the lsw for the Executive, in the removal, oust be strictly pursued ; he must do il that the law 10 do in regard to the removal, Thero aro theso things necesawry: 1. That theExecutive \should be of the opinion that the interesta of the city "~equire tho removal, 2. He must notify the officer of $is zemoval ; and, S, He must repart his reasons for the remoral 1o this Council. - This lsst has not been done, end until it has been done the Executive has not dono’ alf that the law requived in regard to th re- moval. The Preaident of the United States has power 10 norinate, 2nd, with the sdvice and consent of tho Benste, to appoint officars, and aa et of Congress re- quiros that he shall aign the commission beforoit is Ssrued out of the office of the Secretary of State, 1n tho famous case of Marbury vs. Madison, 1 Cranch Taited Blates Reports, the doctrine is 11id down that the appolntment by the President is not complote until the last act required of the Executivo has been exer- ciced 7 that, until this lnst act has been done, the ap- intment {a an incoate snd incomplete acf, It has Blen hoid, also, that after tho Prealdent had no s person £o an office, and after the Senate had - o4 tho appointment, the President could reconsider the sppointment, and fominate anotlicr person, he mot having performed the last act that the Iaw required of 6 in order to complsta the appointment of the per- rined by tas Sczate; i.e., he bad not zigned the commission, Also in the cisg where he had the power %0 remove nt pleasuro, it has boen held that -he could reconsider o rovokohis sppointment, cven after he bod signed the commission, if the commission had ot actually been delivered, 'Some point of time must 2 taken when the power of the Executiveover an offi- o lisa been exerciced, and this power Las boen exer- Tine s trhen the last act 'equired from the person possce. Sing thx power has boen exercised, This ia tho lan- Funkoin o case cited, which wia 8 caso wkero tho e ot fhe Canrt (23 Cal, 19) used In regard to the appointing been od, 'tho . whole . matter ?xum figflr‘:}x‘&c the’ control of the flere, t on by whom the power 18 to b exercised. In the, f;x?;mbém the report to the Council is. s necessary Ktep in the exercise of the power of removal; it is the 1set sct required to be dono by the Masor, and, from anslogy to the principles lafd down {n the docisiong in segsrd to the appointing power, Jt sppeara to mo tha this law must bo construsd as giving the Mayor the power to recall or revoke a removal at. sny time prior £0 the exerciso of this last act required of him, to Wit : the report 0 the Council. A more eerious question is £3 to the effect on the removal by reason of . ihe failure 1c report st the next meeting of the Council. The law £253 e dasor may remore, but ho elll report to the Council at its next regular mee ‘reas e e i within whoh o s to Tepart £o the Council, and, fniling to report at the next regu- ler mecting, can he report at any subsequent mseting &f the Conncil 2 1s tho requirement thst ho shall re- Tt 8 the nest regular meeting merely directory 88 to duty, or is 1t to be considered s mandatory, and 15 tho nature of ' condition subsequent, the fatiura to rform which, ot the time specified, renders nugatory s prior acts in regard to the removal? The policy of Xhe I requires that some record of a removai having been mado ehell exist, Tais isw does not require the dayar i flo s copy or to of the remord Tb ote G, Jerky or even to keep that appear in the records of the-City Government, under the law, 4a {rom the Teport of the Mayar mads o the City Council, snd preserved npon the Council records snd among its flles. Js this 1ite t0 b 20 Liberall be £0 desires, ecrelly remove an officer ay ;9f8ce vacant 10 tho injury of the public servi The Board of Police contest. came up again yesterday morning, before Judge Gary, in the Criminal Court. Mr. Goudy, counsel for Messrs. Reno and submitied the following affidait, and therenpon asked leave to file an information : Ernest F. C. Klokke, being duly sworn, saya: On the 24th of Febraary, 1873, Carlilo Mason and Levi P. Wright, of the ounty of Cook and State of Illinois, ap) in the office of the Commissioners of the Boexd of Police of the City of Chicago, in eald connty and State, and undertook to, and did, act as Commis- sioners of said Board, and professed '{o choose and sald Mnson a5 President of said Board. They and Mark Sheriden, Commissioner of sald acted upon the usual business, and they still continue to 80 act as Commissioners. ' And deponent further ssys tbat ho and Charles A. Beno were voted for and alect- ed 28 such Commissioners, at the last general clection Teld in the Gounty of ook, on tho 5th day of Iast No- ponent have not expired, mor have they, or efther of them, resignod or voluntarily vacated said offices,or either -0f them, Your deponent further.says ‘that thiey are -advised by counsel, and they believe, that the, the said Reno and Klokke, are zow, with said Bheridan, tho only legal Commissioners of the Board of ce, and that the 6xid Mason and Wright are not lawfully entitled to hold or exercise sald oftice, and tho deponent further says that the said Reno and Klokke are such Commisaloners, ‘and said Mason and Wright are not such Commissioners, if tho Mayor of Chicago has not lawfully, and by due suthori- ty “af- law, removed them, the sald Reno and - Klokke, from - office, a8 he chims to.. have donme, on or asbont the 20th day of January, 1673 ; and tho question of the legel right of the Mayor aforesaid to remove the C joners of the Board of Police from oflice without any resson- ablo grounds is the only one, a3 thoy aro advised, in- volved in the proceedings sbont 1o be commenced sgainst the said Mason znd Wright, in the Criminal Court of Cook Connty. Mr. Goudy went on to say that the statute provided that if any person ‘should usurp any office, the State’s Attorney could apply for leave to filo an information in the nature of & quo warranto, upon the relation of any individual Application was now made to the Criminal Conrt, ‘under that sectionof the new constitution giving it* criminal and quasi-criminal® jurisdiction. The language of 'Sec. 10 of the new Practice Act; referring to ‘a ‘potition for which provision +as not elsewhere made, was perplexing, and it waa his opinion that it related to some other chapter prepared by the rcvisers, and upon which the Legislature had not yet acted. Still, be could not eee that it essentirlly altered the roceedings under the old statute, the first sec- ion of which provided that, when the informa- tion was filed, the defondant should sppear and plead as of that tarm. The Court stated that, where application was ‘made for & rule to show cause why an informa- tion should not be filed, it was an ex parte pro- cending, and would be granted as a matier of course. Did Mr. Goudy ask for such a rule, or would both sides make the argnments upon the affidavit he had filed ? z 1r. Goudy was wiu.infi to elect either course. 1f-the counsel on the other side saw fit tho afi- davit conld be considered 85 & rule to show cause. - Gen. Stiles said he and Mr. Tuley were pres- | ent to Tesist the granting the information. . The Conrt woul 6 to hear any :reasons sgeinat filing the_information. Did " they pro- pose to make any issno of fact on the affidavit presented ? - Gen. Stiles said this was an attémpt to file an information to decide whether Wright and Me~ son were Commissioners. Under the case pro- sented the Court might make judgment of ouster sgainst one side, but it could not put the other in.. . While it might logically follow from’ & do- cision that the ayarilnd no sight to appoint Wrjght and_ Mason, that he had no power to- ‘remove Reno and Klokke, et il did not legally follow. It might be & part of the reasoning of the Court, but could be no part of the judgment itself. the concludin, portion of the affidavit, the afiant said : “‘ and the question of the lu%&i Tight of the Mayor aforesaid to remove the Commissioners of the “Board of Police from offico without any reasonsa- ble ground, ia the only one, s thoy are advised, involved in'the proceedings sbout to be com- menced against said Mason and Wright.” But ho esbmitted that that was not involved at all, vaxce%t by way of argument. It might, or might not, become necessary to consider whether the Mayor had power to removo Messrs. Reno snd Klokke; it did not follow neceesaril: that that question would bo considored s all. Supposing it should sppear that Mosers. Wright and on had not been confirmod by tho Com- mon Council. That. would end the question, and no one would claim there was any lawfal ap- pointment. If the object, as AMr. Klokke said it ‘was, was only to test the question of the right of the Mayor to removo_himsolf snd his asso- ciate, it could never be done under the present eeding. There wore others, however, m proc which it could be tested, as if onme of the re- Iators should bring an action in assumpsit against - the city to' obtain the salary due mince the alleged romoval. That would test the question directly, for he did not 8ee how the city conld defend upon_ any other und but that the plaintiff was no a_Polico. E?mmmaiangr, and, therefore, not entitlod to tha salary. A bill for an injunction against Mason and Wright might raise the same question. If they resorted to cither of those remadies, they d not join, and it was questionable whether they conld be joined in the present proceeding. The Illinois statute was closely modeled after the English one, of 9 Queen Anre, but omitted & few words which would seom to allow a join- ingunder the English law. It was questionable whether the Court could ‘determine the right of each to the offica of Commissioner in the same proceeding. If the Court gave judgment of ouster, it would removo Mason and Wright, | 7o but would not put Reno and Klokke back, for ‘the only question involved was whether the present Commisgioners were legally acting. I thfid\rere to accept such & judgment of ouster, it would work s diesolution of the Board, and loave it without & quotum. That result it was deariable to avoid, if there was auother course apen to tho relators which was equally effective, ough probably not es prompt. In an action of assumpeit Mosare. Reno aud Klokko conld get a direct decision as to whether they were entltled to the office, He referred to an English case whera tho Court had refused leave to file b information, eince a judgment of custer -wonld ‘work the effect “which he claimed it would * in the pending case. Tho affidavit was a statement of fact, on which leave to file information was ssked for. But the one under consideration wos not specific enough, 'since it did not state that they had not been * lawfally removed.” They stated that they had been ““voted for snd elected,” but it ‘might have to be decided whether it wasan elective or . sppointive office. Stull, the aver- ments probably reised & presumption that they had been Commiesioners, But they made’ no roference to the varions ways in which they ‘might have been put out of office. The afidsyit \'l.ifl8 pot show thet thers had been any violent exercise of power -by Wright ~and Mason. They had not put out Benoand Klokke. Tho Iatter were a majonty of the Board, and ‘could have acted, had they seen -proper; éven without Mr. Bheridsn, They had no: been interfered long | with. . Wh, then, ehonld they begin a progeed- | [ ‘appeal? T i o g R ‘ sult, sinca it would intorlero with the payment /P Pernivione § gstem of UTow . upon if diesolution of the Board, providing the decision wad sgainst Wright and Mason, and they did not |, cal? It was desirable to avoid any auch re- All that trouble could be avoided d Klokke would sue out their ~sction - of assumpsit. ! In that way, - or by mandamusy they could ‘test the question which they wanted to, and which could not be tested in ‘the . present pro- cnndmg, for the Court could give no judgment . It could turn ont Mason and-Wright, but not put in the othors. 5 Mr. Tuley objected to filing the information. |’ ‘upon two grounds. In the first place, the statuto -roquired that the proceodings sh in cages of information of that kind, The first step being for & rule to show cause why an in- formation should not be filed. If the Court de- cided that that was not , necessary, then he ob- ccted ' because the partics Lo represented ad "had no opportunity to show - why leave thonld notbe given, and to enable the Court to exercise its discretion. Tho affidavit said that thoy were voted for, elected, and com- missioned, and scted under that election. If, upon counter-aflidavits, it conld be shown tha no new and doubtful point of law arose, the Court might prefer, rather than to throw a doubt npon the validity of the acting Board, to refuse to grant the leave asked for. He was prepared to assert that the affidavit was untrue in fact. The Court said the regular course undoubtedly was for a rulo to show cause. If they objectod to treating that aflidavit as thoughit were a rule, they were entitled o file counter-afiidavits. He understood them to consider the hearing as upon & rule to show canse, but if they wanted to ?la p:mntu\-'nflidnflte, they must have an oppor- unity. Mr, Taley eaid that if Mr. Goudy made a mo- tion for a rule, they had nothing to eay, it being ex-parte, but if he applied for leave to file, they objected. - Goudy remarked that, as he had said be- foré, it was & mattor of indifference to him. He' had understood that tho other side had agreed to take the aftidavit as a rule. Gen. Stiles said they had not intended to so accopt it. 2 The Court directed the Clerk to issue a rule to show causo, on Friday morning, at 10 o'elock. HOW MUCH IS A LOAD 7 of the police. if Mesers. Reno au Experts in the Teaming Business Tell How Many Pounds Two Horses Can Draw. The Evidence Elicited at the Suit of the Humane Secioty vs. Jaseph Stock- veber ; that they were duly commissioned by the Gor- . ernor and qualified, and by virtue thereaf they.have ton’s Foreman. yesterday, and ibat question 1 will proceed to Dbeen acting and petforming ol the duties of the said mever o Wi time Afler the best conalder, Stasen ‘ond Welght Imbvaded etiin, se atoressid: sabject, T am not satisfied that the Conrt baa jurisdic- Ana yonr depoment - Turthor e that the | ~Thecaseof The Peoplo v. Thomas Murphy | tion in that case. Tsm not clear about it, and I think of office of the said Remo and de- | Was tried before Justice Haines yesterday after- {?.,;“nfi?. nw’up »‘5:5‘:’1“3:"“ ‘fi'zflr‘n ‘!‘:dh:;o Jnur_}:&i&; noon. ' The complainants were the Illinois Hu- mane Society, the defendant, who is foreman at Col. Stockton’s stable, being charged with cruelty to animals. - Althongh he was discharged, the testimony given below is of- interest to all per- 8ons owning teams, as it shows what is consid- ered to be a fair load for two ordinary horses, and answers a question often asked. “TESTIMONY OF JAMES L. BRANSON. Jemes L. Brausom, sworn: On the 20th of the present month I and Mr. Chspman were standing on-the cor- e of Madison ond Desplaines sirects ; saw foveral of Btockton’s teams passing, the wagons contalning ouldbows wusl | e Jurisdiction of State and A New Issue in the Jury Ques- the interfered with the chartered rights of the Company ‘under this act of the Legislature, One was whether the bill filed hers by the corporation called the North- western Fertilizing Company. The views of the Court the: first- section act 20th of April, 1871, the Court had original jurisdiction of the claimed by Tpo; the Constitution of the United States) and there was s of attempt on the terfere with a right thus claimed and protected. Tho it is claimed that the case can be transferred from the Btate to the Federal Court is certainly a plausible one, Itinthis: That the firat section of. the act of April20, 1871, declares “that such proceedings wers. to be Tho Dnitea States, with and subject fo tho ssmo righta of appeal, reviow tpon error, and ofttier remedios provided o tho act of the 9th of April, 1866, protect all persons in the Ui Tights, and to furnish the means for their vindication, 2nd tho other “remedial which are in thelr nature applicable n such cases.” Now, the position on the part of the counsel, wha clsim thf the Court hss jurisdiction certiorari, 15, 08 X understand THE LAW_COURTS. Without Publicity.” Application to {he Cireuit Judaes to Dis- =, allow Suppression of Scits. Federal Courts, tion---The Unpaid Fees. Fxtraordinary Sale of a Bankrupt Fire Insurance Ct_)mpun)"s Asgets, Yesterday Judge Drummond disposed of the Ainsworth stink war, £0 far as the United States Courts aro concerned, by deciding that the Btate Court wonld have to take cognizance of the case. His opinion is subjoined : g The facts in the cases that were argued before me yesterdsy sud on the previous day aro substantially theso: In 1867, the Leglslatire of Tilinois gran| ‘partios the right to minufacturo a fertilizer out of the offal of animals ted to alaughterod in the City of Chicago, The act created a corporation, and authorized tho loca- tion of the place of manufacture. incorpo ‘works, and commenced the manufacture of the fertili- zer. of the Town of Hyde Park; afterwards it was included within its corporate limifs, menced in the State Court by s party who felt himeelf sggrioved by the erection and works, on the ground that they were a nuissnce and an ianr{nln his property. . Before that, sn action was ‘brought Under this act of ration, the parties went on and_constructed The place at the timo was not within the limite and an action was com- carrying on of these this Court against the Town of Hyde Par] legation belng that the town, by ordinances, ha ‘There were two questiona presented {n the argument. “Court pad heright to maintaln Prosented . upon that question tho other and I ‘wea inclined to hold that, un- of the of the wero day, der case, onthe ground that Was aright by the corporation and secured to it un of the Town of Hyde Park to in- other question, whether the Company bad the right to transfer the case pending in the: State Court fo this court under tha certiorari that was {ssued, was argued secated in the several District or Circuit Courts of like cases in such court;” and the provisions of entitled “ An act to ted Btates in their civil laws of the United States, to remévo this case by it (and it comes to that), rels of sugar; and " we the animals were wherever & quantity of lather; it was all the horses could do to pull up the raise on Desplaines streot ; we followed one team up, and took the name and nuniber of tha driv- ors ; tho Liorses wero very old,—16 to 25 years,—and on the Ehoulders of one of them’ blood iesued from tho abrasion ; tho lo enlarged considerably, but the anim: particalarly ; the load \reighed 3,600 pounds, and wo thought it a8 a case which should be prosecuted. Cross-ezamined: The horaes were in good flesh, and would weigh from 1,400 to 1,600 pounds each, and the truck from 2,500 to B wis the wheels wero a little above tho truck ; the roxdway that dsy waa bad,—covered with snow, nud made pulling hard ; did not notice that the horsen alipped, or whether they were shod; the collara seemed to At close o thia collars was fresh, ehowing_that the horses had not been worked for some time ; bavo mever bandled any teams in the city : have had experience on a farm, Murphy toid me that the Liorses ehould not have bad such a load 2 they were drawing,—that they were old ‘horses, and had not been worke i L. B. Chspman testified substantally as the previons witness. * orsea’ seemed to be overioaded, the drivers ™ about it} sweating v roely, anc tohched _them | was spoke. to the harness the wkin was galled and of one were did not limp unds ; my impression e phyuamf of the shonlders ; the bair beneath ‘much this winter. that, wherever the Court has original jurisdiction, it can 'trapsier & caso from the State tothio Federal Court under this Ianguage: *Other remedics provided in 1ike cases n puch courts, and the other remedial lawp of the United States which are in their nature applica- Dlo in such cases,” If that is the true construction of this statute, then, of course, the Court would have Jurisdiction fo issue s certiorari and to tuke cogni- sance of tho caso, But I am not satisfied that that s the true construction, and it seems to me it would be golng further than axly court has yet gons to construe such- general language as this is g0 as fo include within its scope every caso whero a question would arise under the ‘Constitution of the Unitod Giates, As wasstated the other day, numerous ques- tions Liave arisen affecting rights under the Constitu- ton of the United States, whero parties sceking their remedy havo been abliged to seck it through the forum of the Btate courta, and 80 on up to the Supreme Court of the United Statos, under the twenty-fifth section of the act 0f 1789, and other legialation since. * 1t is neces- sary, of course, to consider what these previous statutes are,—* other remedies provided in like cases.” Itrefers particularly to tho act of 1866, That sct refern to the act of 1863. 1t is under the acts of 1833, 1833, 1806, TESTIMONY OF PATRICE M'MAHON. Patrick McAahon, sworn : The horses are good feed- ers, and a4 abloto work as any others; the ‘was good; the “ gull " referred o by Bronson was not of one of tho horses were swollen, and had for two years ; it wns cansed by s tumblo on the manur ile, while drawing 8. dead horse into the 3 this orto is & largo one, and is between 16 and 18 yeara of 2g0; the other ia In _goo if there was no halter on him; he eats two ©ats 5 day, and half were in good condition when they left tho barn of on_the 20th inat, ; have driven for three years, and have been | by Isw.” Sweeping in ita six years in the business; in my opinion the horses | the third section ‘doclares under what could have drswn 5,000 a8 well 3 6,000 pounds ; the lather that gathered on them wos caused by the sweat ‘gotting under the harnes g0 ont first, and are very lable to lather. ‘horses ; they had been out before this winter, but not for two months, Redirect examination: 1n fair weather, for an ordi- nary team, weighing 1,400 or 1,600 pounds, 7,500 isa_| fairload ; teamsters do notofien puton mors than ,600; horses are not trotted with alosd on; the load on the wagon on the 20th inst. was not too heavy for ihem, in my opinion ; the horses kept in the barn wers .| Xept there 60 & they Would ba avaliable whenever thoy would be required. - TESTIMONY OF CAPT. PHILLIPS. Capt. A. Phillips, sworn: Am foreman of Farwell's stable; havo heard the testimony; ehould think from 6, t0 7,000 pounds was & fair load; have bauled to the Burlington depot, on our trucks, & tons ; the horses will weigh 2,800 pounds; they were never injured by .the load ie governed by the capacity of the 3 ahormo thatis kept in the barn will sweat easier than ono which s worked every day; I donot think, from tho statement of McAfahon, that the gall amoulted to susthing; myloads in busy seasons aver- argument viction entirely to i Tarness | reasons why I cannot doso. 1f wo 100k to the legisla- tion of Congress in ol ; it had been one, but {6 was dried up; thelegs | bo removed from tho State to the Federal Courts, wo been | peo thaty tnallcises wheres somoval hag ‘beco su- d condition, and would run | which i8: “Tho- jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts of pecks the United Statea ahall extend to all s bushol of cut feed at night ; they | equity arising under the Revenue laws of tha United States, for which other provisions are not alresdy made to the Federal court: “In any case whero suit or ; horses are soft when they | prosecation shall be commenced in & courtof any State against any officer or-other Cross-ezamined : The horses had not een out much | on account of any act dono under the Revenue laws of {his winter, for the resson that we had too many | the United States, or under color thereof, for ‘or on sccount of nny right, suthority, or title' set upor claimed b —saetting up in precise stances the case was to bo removed. And the third section is eubstantially copled into the sixteenth soc- tion of the act of 1671, w! ‘mutandis—simply chinging the words in some partic- section of 3 -4 Tn any case whers suit or prosccution, civil or crimi- comm, =z officer of the United Btates, o other person, for or onaccount of any act done under the. proy .tbis nct, o, under color thereof, for or on account of ‘sny right, suthority, or title set ip or ofticer or other person under any of said provisions, it shall bo lawful to transfer, "—sciting up just as the act of 1833 set up, specifically, {ha circumstances under which the {ransfer coi section 20d 1671, 88 T understand, that the claim s sét up, that a fair construction of this act of -the 20th of April, 1871, ia to include within its scopo all the cases, 0 a8 to authorize n transfer where it gives origins ‘jurisdic-, tion to the District or the Crrcuit Court. While tho ent. is not without force, I cannot yield my con- t. Iwill state very bricfly.somo rolation to the cases which might thoy e circumstances under which it is to take lace: are specifically set forth, It is so under e act of 1833, the languago of tha second section of cased in law and terms, ““All cases.” But jcular cire cumstances 8 case was to be removed {rom the Stste person for or by such ofticer, it shall bo lawful for the” &c, e under what circum- ch was referred to—mutatis nguage of the gixteenth The -lat sct of Feb, 2, 1871, is: ces. the enced in a court of any State: visions of clatmed by such bo made. Tho Afth e act of 1862 ' is nls0 .itors will not for $3,404.17 went dog cheap ‘ment * againat Malcolm " of 81,599.10 produced tho Tni = good loaded. Dr. G. 8. Otls, sworn': Am a veterinary amined span weighed between 1,500 and 1,600 seemed to bo in good working condition ; they aro well along in years; thelog of ono wae swollen, but that would not prevent him from working; saw o gall- on either; there might huve bean one, as*I did not look at tho houlder particularly. . trucks; er theso p ‘better than the sverage, conld draw moro; he best horses money can buy. 1o, for a 2,800 pounds t ‘poun upon the grades—8,000 if there were no grades ; the toxs alluded to iz larger than the ordinary run in this artin Vaughan, sworn:: Am & teamster; do mot think the team would have been overlosdod if they had bad 7,500 pounds; had a smaller that Nias dravwn 4,500; we have fo drow & car-load in thres loads, and must put on all we can without injur- ing the horses; have ears, g0 7,000 pounda, Crots-exe camined: In 3 spring-truck, the larger por- Hon of the welght is g gy wheels ; if s horss was galled, it would be cruel to hitch him 10 s heavy load ; donot know that the swollen legs would in- capaditato a harso. TESTIMONY OF H. H. ENIGHTS. . £, Knights, sworn.: Am foroman of the stock of ted States Express Company; our londs sre not governed by any rules ; we take three or five tons, s the case may bo ; from what I.bave heard, I do not think Btockion's tesm was overloaded ; am’ workin horsen 16 or 17 years old, and if I had's big load, 1 would rather put them on than any others ; it would e wrong to 10ad o team 25 hesvily on a bad ‘day ss on one; a 3,600-pound team could not be over- in good weather, TESTIMONY OF DR. G. B. OTIS. surgeon ex- of horsca nt Stockton's stable; they unds cach? both TESTDMONY OF LEVI P. WRIGHT. _ Col. L. P. Wright, sworn: Am a contractor; 1isé no. ; under the éircam nces mentioned, T should 000 pounds s good load for two horsea; eular horaos, aud oll of Sloéktony, being the TESTIMONY OF JOHN SHAW. - _ John 8haw, sworn : Am a teamster ; hava bsen for fwanty-five years ; know {ho team i _question ; from what Ihave heard I do not think they were overload- ed;-ehould think they could handle 7,000 or 8,000 potnds s the roads were last Thoredsy; in my Opin- eam, in good weather, 6,500 to would be a fair loed; it would depend NY OF MARTIN VAUGHAN, horsg than cither in the business twenty-one STATEMENT OF M. STOCKTON. . Stockton_stated that loids wers hauled accord- ing to the capacity of the horses; 3t would not be pal- iestooverioad a feam to-day, and Togothem fo-morrow 3 tho toam {n question walked on the sidewalk mi Dard, could very slowly, and a person bt think fliey were pulling very when they really were not; he thought the team have easily handied ton more. Ar. Bronson the horses was sncl wero being cruelly treated. A gallwas to requize the horaes to be kept in the barn "Nt Brockton denicd th . Stockton denied that there 5.0 was bealed up. Ho was very carofdl. g oy not permit his men to abuse ‘Humane Bociety witnessed any cruelty on the pazt of his employes, ho wonld like to have them reported, and he ‘would”deal with them in a prompt manner. Ho had sssisted the Society all he could. i ARGUMENTS. al ed that the sppearance of as to convince him that they careful, and did horses. If the CONCLUSION. THE The Court did not think the team was over- loaded, or_that_there was s gail, and therefore discharged Mr, Murphy. 2 E sufficient cvil or criminal, any State court against suy officer, civil or military, or against any arzest or imprisonment made, or other trespasa or wrongs done or committed, Or any act | omittedto bedcne at any timeduring the present rebel- Tion by virtue cf, or under color or suthority,or direc~ tion'from nnd exercised by orunder the President of the United States, o of any act of Congrese, ho shall, ot tha time of entering his appesrance n_such court,” and 50 on, * have the right to transfer tho caso™— showing cularity in describing the clrcum- slances’ under which it can be transferred. The first section of the act of 1855 declures that a1l persous born in the United Stafes an not subjectd. 1o any forelgn power, excluding Indians not taxéd, are berohy declired o Bo. citizens of the United Statos, and such citizans, of every race and color, without re- gard to any gmvxnu condition of slavery or involun- tary scrvitude, except s & ent for .crime, whteof tho partics anall have been duly convicted,. sball havo the samo right in evory State and Territory. in the United Btates fo make and enforco contracté, fo sus-and bo.suod, to gite ovidence” o This frst - mection decleres that if certain cir- cumstances occur whero righta ara affected by a procceding in State court, that then the party shail have tho right to transfer the czso to the Federal Court. Tho langusge of thothird section is_quite po- culinr: “That the District Courts of ' tho United States, within thelr respoctive districts, shall hive, ex- clusivo of the courta of thesoveral States, cognizance of all crimes nnd offenses committed against the pro- visions of this act; and if any suit or prosccation, civil or criminal, his been or shall be commenced in any Btate- court against any such person for any cause whistsoover.” _ Here is langusgo more gemeral than i’ oy other ' slatute, cither beforo ‘or' after, “sgainst sny “such person for. any cous whetsoever,” Now it couldnot be maintained that by this act of Congress_overy person whoscxighta wero sffected could transfer a caco from the Stato to iho Fodersl Court bocsuss the langusgo of tho Srt scc. tion tncludes all persona born in tho United States.” 1t could not have been the intention of this section to give the Federal Courts jurisdiction of rights affecting any ond all persobs who were born'in the United States, Certainly ; but it means, I apprehend, the pereons ro- {n the provions part of tho soction—affecting ferred to persons who are denfed, or cannot enforce in the courts or judiclal tribunals of the State_or locality where they ‘may be, any rights socured to them by the first section of this act, * If any such suit or prosecution, civil o7 | s been, or commenced sgainst any such person, for any causo Wwhatsoever,"—it must mean the persons who cannot have -their rights en- forced in the judicial tribunals of the tate ; and the section procesds in tha ‘usual woy in which all these 4 Or sgainst any officer, civil or milltary, or . any person for any arrest, or imprisonment, or tres- pass, or wrongs done,” etc., * he shall have the right to Temove tho case.” Now. thia being the @ of the = varioms statufes upon tho subject, thus precise, thus setting out in & particular manrer every contingency, which must con- curin order to_suthorize the tranafer of a case from the State to the Federal Conrt, is it to bo supposed that Ty buth gunenal Ingusst o thi (cacping acs. ' B gen 0 88 this (v: there- in, 1 would be tho rale wiichbad alwash besn Sdopted in'previous legisiation) to authorize the transfer? All theso statutes give gencraily the rights, just as this law gives, and dacleres that the courts of the United Btates shall have jurisdiction: but theydonot, on that account, declsre (hat, in all such cases, they may be removed from tho Btzte to the Federal Court, The; specify the circumstances which must exist in order 10 anthorize the removal, and it seems to me the argu. ment {8 very strong—so atrong that T do not feel inclined 1o take Jurisdiction of the. case, as where they bave Deen specific in every other case’ they aid mot latend Dy this general 1o authorize the Federal Conrts 0 remove s case from the Btate Court, Wt ° An examination was hold, right sot up here is within the language of any ono of the statutes suthorizing the- transfer, s I have sald, youmust tako the ground that, in every case whera this statnte gives original jurisdietion, it was the in- tention ™ that the case “might bo transferred, This s n Hght set up under the suthoric ty of the Btale—a charter crested by the Stato. True, when tho chartex is -made and the cor- poration ¥a clathed witn certain rights, then the Con- Btitation of the Ubited States throws its protecting arm around those rights and declares that they sball notbe joopardized within certain lirite—they shall ot bo sffected by subsequent legislation of the Statea: iliat this charter, for certain purposes, is in the nature of a-contracty that the Coustitution’ protects it as a contract, and that it cannot Le impaired by subsequent legislation, _That is the right which is et up; and it s claimed "that if this right thus set up, Wheros Jarty ia sued o tho Stato Courl, tho caso can bo trans- erred. 1 havo thought, and for tho purposes of the motion o held, that the language of-the firat section of the nct of April 20, 1S7i, was express in giving the Court original jurisdict{on,and that the only question was whether tho fact that it wasa corpora- tion deprived it of the power fo_come into the Federal Court, Iheld fhat it did not ; that if it was the case of an individual whoso rights were affected it corld com into tho Federal Court, and that did not loao that right becauss it was & corporation; But I am ssked to g0 further and hold that, in all these cases, wherover there s jurisdiction, the case can bo _ transferred,~that upon s particuly showing it must be transferred, becsuso the languago of the various acts of Congreus'is whenover the con- tingencies bavo occuwrred provided therein it hall be the duty of tho Stato Court tofproceed no furtlier in the caune, and it hasbeen held that all acts subsequently done by tho State Court are slmply void, and that tho parties may disregard and pay 10 stfention to any- thing done by the State Court. Thisls thoview I take of tho question. I admit it Is one of great mags nitcde. The other question is not free from diculty, but I have felt inclined o sustain the jurisdiction that caso, The inclination of my mind is against it in this case, and I am willing to make an order remand. ing the case to the State Court, and give the parties, if they 80 desire, an opportunity'of testing the question befors tho Suprame Court of the United States, which they will have the right todo at once. = Mr. Swett announced that he would consult with Judge Beckwith, his associate, and_inform the Coart, this morning, what course they in- tended to pursue. JOVEMENT AGAINST LAW WITHOUT PUBLICITY. Yesterdsy morning, an application of consid- erable interest was made to Judfiyn’.l‘rae, in the shape of a .motion by . Mr. W. King that_the Judges of the Circuit Court direct tha Clerk of the Court to discontinue the practice of supy preseing suite, The Court asked Mr. King 10 state the grounds mpon which he mado’ the ‘motion, and to particularize any cases that bad transpired in the Circuit Court. Mr. King was unable to do 80 on the spur of the moment, but he related soveral instancesof cases, particularly in divorce, that had been 8up- pressed in tho Superior Court, not for service, 28 stated, but simply to secure socresy. “Hia Honor said that, no information of such practices provailing in the Circmt Court - being made, he conld take no cognizance of the mat- ter; sad Mr. King left, to Lunt up cases. The * suppresaion” business has recently ob- tained formidable dimensions. Formerly of raro occurrence, unless for.the legitimate ob- ject of obtaining service, it has lately been ‘merely necet for & lawyer to indicate his degire to have the matter suppressed, and the thing has_been done. Under these cir- cumstances, it is auite practicable to pass suifs of tho greatest public intorest through the _ Courts. without the reporters knowing anything sbout them, al- though principles and circumstances might be involved of the utmost importance that the in- terest of public morality demsanded should be printed ; and only a week orso-agos certain prominent couple were divorced and not a single reporter hadthe slightest ideaof theigu'hsu being in court. It is not necessary that the re- rter should relate'all he knows of these prac- ices. The intelligent roader will see at a glance how pernicious a secret syatem of law and jus- tice may become, and how necessary it is that a stop should be put to the eviL. It is only fair to the clerlks to say that thoyare poworless in the matter. . This movement 18 not ended. LIABILITY OF THE COUNTY FOR UNPAID JURY FEES. ‘An intoresting question, involving in the ag- gregate 8 large sum of money, has come up in the Circnit Court. During the past two months 2 number of jurymen, consident of receiving the unreasonable and uxtrav:gmt ‘payment for their gorvices which has made the employment of countrymen on city juries so profitable, have left their fees uncollected, to be called for when conveniont. Now that the Judges have ‘decided sgainst_the monstrous practico that Bas pro- vailed, these gentlemen are beginning to inquire snxiously after their fees. A citizen, entitled to 825 under the late system, and 5 under the new, called on the Clerk for his certifi- cate. His indignation at being offered 85 was excessive, and ‘he daclared he would sue tho county for the full amount, resting his claim on the fact that his services had been ren- dered beforo the Judges had arrived at their de- cision -to reduce the allowance, that the other jurymen serving with him Lad been paid the full amount,’ and that he was entitled to the same amount as them. One of the County Com- missioners being presont at the timo, the Clork asked instructions from him; and was.directed to pay Do one whatever more than the Judges had auchorized, whether the service had been performed before or after the decision. Large numbers of jurymen, who have refused to accopt the reduced remuneration, and others who postponed Bottlement until’ the Judges fihnulga bave . defined their rights, will hear of this determination with concern. &l £18,602.08 Or BANKRUPT'S ASSKTS BOLD FOR £192.10. The ecreaming faves of a public eale of the ac- counts of the Chicago Firemen's Insurance Com- pany, in bankruptoy, has been performed on the steps of the Republic Building with mournful " success. The accounts amounted to the sum of 18,602.08, and the sum reslizod was $192.10, cash down. Sixty or ninety daye’ credit was not asked by any of.the bloated_capitalists who in- yeetod in this stock. The dividends of the crod- bo incressed more than this financial _opera- sguinet J; K. Pollard at S1.25; & judg- 150 per cemt by tion. " A judgment the munificent sum of 33; & claim against F. 8. Woodward of £109.80 was purchased by F. 8. “Woodward himsalf for 25 cents oo of $1,437.50 was bonght by the D. M. Ford Manufscturing Compauy for $3; a policy of the Btats Insurance Company for ‘£601.98. was sold for €5 to L. M. Nelson ; and one miserable item of $18 was not gold at all, because the debtor is also a creditor, and tho amount will bo deducted from his over- whelming dividends. THE FBANCIS MUSNSON ESTATE. - " The Assignee in the matter of Francis Munson Jesterday Teported to the Court that tho estate of the bankrupt consists of a stock of station- ery, store situste at Nos. 285 and 287 Madison streat ;. s lithographing establishmont, and & bindery; that he has negotiated a sale of said stationery. to Cyrus Skeon. for the sum of 29,987.70, on time, with secunty, and that he has an t}ppom:‘nity to sell the. bindery to J. W. Mur- ray for 81,407 cash ; which sales the. Court ‘ap- roved. He further reported that.the bankrupt’s ebts ng‘gm;i’&ta 265,000, of which 38,000 is am- ply secured by mortgage upon real estate, tho tifle .to- which 18 ~in : the ' bankrupt’s wife, . and - 81,000 otherwise sufficient- Iy secured; that the remaining indobtedness amour*s to about $25,000, of which illard & Decker claim 37"500, alleged to be socured in tho ting establiehment ; and that J. W. But~ ler & Co. hold and own claims amounting to $10,000. 91, = UPTCY NOTES. yesterday, of James Baxter, in the matter of Lewis W. Cass. It 18 not too much to say that Mr. Daxter, as s wit- ‘ness, merita all the eulogiems that conld be be- stowed upon Mr. Baxtor a8 a_maipulator of & bankrapt's stock., The examination may be pro- nounced & failure. : - Gpon representations_that Francis Munsen, bmg'npt, ‘possesses property that has not been, disclosed, an examination of that person:was . yesterday ordered by tho Court under Section 26. In the matter of John McKinnon, adjudication by default was entered; warrant roturnable be- fore Register Hibbard on the 28th March.: - - In:the matter of Leander Rockwell, an order was yeaterdsy given for » re-oxamination, before Isnac Dayton, Register in New York City, of the claim of Peake, Opdyke & Co., and of any mem-~ ‘bers of that firm, or their clerka. In VanVelzert & Blackman, debtors confessed acts ‘fl bankruptcy, and an adjudication was en- tere MISCELLANEOTS NOTES. . County Attorney Root, it is said, will eom- . mence suita aginst the -jurors who haze re- ceived the outrageous sums of money etated in proviouniesues, for the recovery of all amounts over and abova the legal fees. An' attachment was yesterday issued against the Bulbach Printing Prass Company, of Bhila- delphia, at the gnit of the 8. P. Rounds, for $5,2718.04 | 8 "Csrus 8. Bixby and wite yesterday brought gnit ageinst the city, in assumpsit, €3,000. Thomas Glennon &nd others, the persons who obtained an award, recently, at the hands of the Chicago, Milwaukée & St. Psul Railway Com-" Commissioners mutually agreed on, now seek to obtain the money, by & trespass on the case suit in the Circuit Court. The Com-~ pany has entered upon_the Iand, but not paid tho pash, $8,2007 The land is situated on the northwest corner of Carroll and Holsted streets. Tho Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Rail- road Company yesterday brought suit in eject- ment from part of its track in the west half of the northwest quarter of Sec. 22,83, 14, upon which the defendant has_entared. against the paoy; b§ _from his hands and . which "projected ‘from the box was™ dfiven Compnng, laying the damages at $1,000. The - Gaugha Fertilizing case, in the United Btates Courts, being remanded to the State Courts. it is supposed that thosuit will be dis- missed in the Iatter court, and s new bill filed, in tho United Btatss Circuit Court. & Certain ‘r‘(flooda and chattels” of Jacob Hyork Wera yeste; ]! replevined from E. Greenebaum and others, charged with wrongfally detaining them. They consist of one abstract of titla of 5;0: 9, of Block. 7, in Ogdon's Addition- to Chi- 0. _ E.S. Edger & Co. yesterday commonced suit in assumpsit against the Michizan Central Ral- | 03d Company; damages, €5,000. 3 nictim'rles C. P. thoédzan m%aalerdxy c%mnnc;g , in_sssumpeit, 20,000, against Milton Bushnell, Bykes Watking, and Patrick . Lawler. The Cicero dangerous roadway suit resnlted in £3,000 damages being voted to Weidenbaum, yes- torday, by deeply symgnthetic Jury. The famous Ames snit was yesterday ended by the jury finding for the Union National Bank, of Chicago, $5,922.45 dumages. NEW SUITS, ToE USTTED Srates DisTaior Count.—The United States District Attoruey v. Thiriy-thico barsels of whiskey and other lquors, seized for being illegal cenvoyod from the place of distilation, % TaE Cmourr CounT.—5,982—8, P. Rounds v.'The Balbach Printing Press Company ; assumpait, $5,375.04, and attachment for §5,273.04—the _parties liviog 1o Philadelphis, 5,983—Cornelius F. Ketchem v, Gabriel Gunderaon; efectment, $300. 5,981—Cyrua$, Bixby and ary, his wife, v. The City of Chicago; sssumpeit, $3,000. 5,985—P. ¥, Randolph v. C. B. Heartt snd A. D. Hyde: assumpsif, $3,000, 5,986—Thomas- Glennon et al. v. Chicago, Mifwaukes & St. Paul Railroad Com- pany; {respass on tho case, $3,00 (tho value of land condemned and entered npon, ¥iz.: Tho south 60 feet of Lots 10, 11, 1%, and 13, af Block 1, in Carpen- tor’s _sddition, ng the mortiwest _corner of " Carroll and Halsted _streots). 5,987—Con- rad Motzger v, Hens Schaeffer; assumpait, $600. 5,033—Lake Bbore & e uthern o Railroad Company v. Pittsburgh, Fort Woyne & Chi- o Taroan Bt 1 elocheht from ba plain- ti’s track for 1,690 feet southesst-aud northwest across the north 53 ncres of the west half of the north- weat quarter of Section 22,38, 14; damages, £1,000, 5,989—Charles A, Street an yoe B, Chatfield Wiliiam Lange$ assumpsit, $500." 5,990—Bonfield & Swezey v. Mary A, Do Loyndea ; autt 'for §500, profes— slonal services for the recoveryof property in the town of Jefferson valued at $5,500. 5,991—John L. Bengls v. Tllinola Central Railroad Company ; case, TuE SurEnior COUBT—A2,500—Jacob Hyart v. ‘Elias Greenebaum, Gerbiardt Foreman, and John Hal- yerson atidavit for roplovin of sbalract of itle of Lot 9, Block 7, in Ogden’s addition to Chicago. 42,501 —August Leckell v, Isasc 8, Robinson, Abraham Robin- s0n, and Charles Robineon ; sasumpsit, $1,200, 42,602— E. 8. Edger & Fcfl, % Slchigan Gentral moid ‘Com- pany ; assum] ,000. 42,503—~—Joge; .yons v, George H. Locey and Danlel Evans ; petition, for res- toration of record, 42,504—Charles C. P. Holdon v. Milton B. Bushnoli, Sykes Watkins, and Patrick H. Lawler; sssumpsit, $20,000, 42,05—Tbe Chicago Welar aid Ga Pipe Gompany v. Joba Burts, Gremills” cs, . V. Higginbothan, and §. Watson; petition for mechanice’ lien, . —_— WENDELL PHILLIPS. DMesara. Carpenter Ia’nflkgh:ldnn Take It All ack. To the Editor of The Chicago Tribune: Sm: Since the publication of our card in last night's dailies, we have heard from Mr. Phillips in explanation of his sudden departure. AtS o'clock, yesterdsy morning, he received & very urgent’ talegram from Detroit, saying it was im- possible to postpone his lectura there that night, 2nd that money would_be no inducement for 80 doing. He immediately,. under theimpulse of the moment, answered that he would come, and he accordingly went without our .knowledge. Our previous card explains our claim to Mr. Phillips’ timo, which we deem at least B&rnmuunt to that of Detroit, whose date Mr. hillips gave to fill in on his return home from Chicago. Mr. Phillips offers ns_next Tuesday night, which wa have accopted as better than no night, and Deo tolentt he will then lecture in the Michigan Averue Baptist Church. All tickets purchased for hislecture, *“ Street. Life in Eu- Tope,” will be good on that evening, or redeema- ble at our store, at the holder’s option. Robert Collyer’s lecture, announced for next Tuesds: night, is necessarily postponed. . Due notice wi bo given of its occurrence. ki CanpexNTER & SHELDON, Manegers Star Course. - A CHAPTER OF ACCIDENTS. Richard Holmes, the old gentleman who was knocked down and run over on Canal- street: on Monday last, died at the County Hospital -yes- terdsy morning. The “Coroner héld an inguest, 8¢ which Dr. Flemming, the attending phyaician, made’ . post-mortom bzamination. - InAamma: tion had beguo in the parts injured, and = blood vessel was found broken in ‘the left side. Dr. Flemming testified that death was produced by these injuries. The jury exonerated the driver of the vebicle which ran over Holmes, from blame, the evidence brought_before them being that the horses were ranning away at the time 1 of the accident. Holmes was s, respectablo old Englishman, about 65 years ‘of ago. He had lived in this conntry three years, and had o fam- ily in England with whom he ospected soon to bo reunited. Yesterday morning, about 10 o'clock, aman named Frank Shandley, in the employ of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad- 28 engi~- neer of locomotive No. 177, was run ovar at the crovsing of Sixteenth streel at Union. . His right leg was almost severad, and it was afterwards amputated by Drs. Lee and Cooley, who attended him a¢ hig residence, No. 544 South Union street. At Iast accounts Shandley was doing well. - A second accidont occurred on the same road,. yesterday. afternoon,” at half-past 2 o'clock, tho corner of Morgan street and Central avenue, b&yrbich & boy named James Sireen, :zged sbot. 11 Joare, was instantly killed: - It appears that the t0 pass over a freight train while it was in. mo- tion, and int doing 8o slipped, fell between two cars, and was instantly run over. Seven cars passed over him. The remeins were_takea .to the. residence of the boy's. parents, No, 305 Catherine street. The Coroner was notified. An exprossman named Barrett, met with a dis- tressing accident last ovening... He was en- gaged in placing & heavy box in his wagon, in front of Culver, Page, Hoyne & Co.’s store, on Monroe street, near Dearborn, when it . slipped” fell upon his feet. :A- nail throngh one of the man’s toes, and broken) off. | Barrett was carried ‘to Dr. Farwell's office, and: that surgeon succeoded in_extracting the' nail, which was an-inch:long.: The injured man re- sides at No. 285 Centre avenne. el P e NOTES FROM THE SUBURBS. - EVANSTON. . . The exhibition of Block’s Boston Stereopticon drew together the largest audience-that has as sembled in Lyon's Hall this winter. The pro- ceeds of this-exhibition are for the bonefit of tho art class of tho Ladies’ College. L. L. Greenleaf, Fsq., very generoualy.defrsys tho expenses, thus allowing the Ladies’ Collego to reap a fine benefit. l!i\s Vescellius Sisters will give a concert this evening in Lyon's Hall, under tbe- auspices-of tho Star Lecture Course. This concert is tho same one that was postponed on account of the inclemency of the weather soms time ago. Tho Lake Shore Drive is being worked at dif- {ferent points on the line, and enthnsissta: claim that it will be done the coming summer; in .any event,d‘ it is a consummation devontly to be wishe The Rosehill ‘Cemetery Associstion have late- Iy enlarged their grounds’ by annexingalarge tract on the north and another on the west side. S -~ ROGEES PARE. This townbids fair to grow rapidly in the spring. Large piles of lumber are accumnulating near the depot, and there are several houses m Process of erection. - - RAVENSWOOD. The new achool-house st the above suburb has been Toofed in, and the inside is being rapidly finished, The edifice is of brick, and is very tasty, end will cost £15,000 when completed. inco its organtzation 3 & vilags; émbfaces Cot sinco its o ation as & 0, émbraces Cal- vary. Cemotery. - There are few towns of the 8izo of South Lvanston that have 8o large a pro- portion ¢f its inhabitants real-estate owners. HIGHWAYMEN ABOUT. Mr. B, C. Jordan was assaulted by.two men at alate hour on Tuesdsy night, when mear the corner of Aberdeen and Jackson bireets, and, with esth eye gazing into the muzzle of are- volver, was compelled to baud over a watch and chain valued at 225, and $12 in money. As soon as they acquired possession of the valuables the gighwnyman departed, and have not sinco beex eard of. s z x A Mr. Spread was attacked about half-past 9 on Tuesday, night at fhe cornorof Adems.and Wood strests, by twomen, who compelled him to hand over what valusbles he apon his person, consisting of $2in money, and a silver watch valued at £25. The method -taken to compell Mr. Spread to give up his valuables waa precisely the same as thst mentioned in the caso of Mr. Jordan, and- it 18 not-unlikely that- the samo fellows committnd both robberies, - Theatre, boy waa _attempting.| - . DEFERRED TELEGRAMS Spealker Cullom’s Recention. Special Dispatch to The Chicogn Tribure. * SremvorrELp, I, Feb. 25.—The reception to- night, given by tho Hon. Shelby M. Callom, Speaker of the House of Representatives, and " hig amiable lady, was one of the most brillisng that has oceurred .this geason, and.by far-the largest. No less than 600 persons were in ate tendauce, and the large parlons of Mr. Cullom'a spacions and elegaot-mansion were literslly Jammed.. The Speaker and his lady did -the honors of the occasion with rare address, and reccived their many friends with such cordiality a5 made them glad. they. csme. 2t 10}4 oclock the dining-ball doors wero thrown opem, and the . huge, throng were invited to aropast calcalated"tq satisfy the most fastidious, as woll as those who proferred more substantial food, the latter of ‘whom seemed to hold the balance of power, None went awsy hungry. The occasion was en- livened by a fall Land, .which discoursed most excellent music. Nothing was wanting to make the occasion, s it was, one of. tho most enjoy-' able of the many entertainments shich have ocs curred in the city. It would be impoasible to givo the names of auy of the distinguished ladies &nd gentlemen who lent their presence to the occasion, withont doing injustice to othors who ‘might be omitted. Mr. lom and his lady may wall dc:ngntlflnte themselves on their host of friends. An Xnteresting Case--Tho Scanmnell Trial. Special Dispalch to The Chicago Tribune, NEw YoRg, Feb. 25,—An interesting case was decided in the Brooklyn courts to-day. In 1865, a wealthy resident of - Brooklyn; Mr. Frederic Griffing, in accordance with the wish of hix wife, adopted a besutiful little. octoroon girl, aged 8- years, whom he found at Marion, Ala. The- child lived thero with s mulatto woman and her reputed husband, the latter being father of the little girl. Mr. Griffing drew up a written docu- ment, in which he agreed to adopt the child, make her ono of his family, ‘educate her, and .permit” her, on reaching the age of 18, to choose whether she would remain with him longer or not. The agroement was signed by Mr. Griffing and the child’s father. - Tho octoroon was delighted with-* hor new home and parents. She showed nota tinge of African blsod.~ For a year or twoshs received instruction- from . & governess. Her education was carefully looked- to, and, as she grew up, sha developed moze beauty, and more than ordinary intelligence. Two years' sgo, sha 'was sent to Glen Cove, to an educational institu- tion, where she Las remained until reccntly, when she was called” Eome by unusual circum- stances, - Her father died several-years ago, and ' his widow married again. She was_ induced, n fow weeks ago, hoping to be.-bonght-oft, to sue for tho rostoration of the child to her old home in Alabsma. Mr. Grifioz opposed the suit, on the ground that the mother had consented to:. tho adoption, and that she isa disreputable wom- an. The young girl said she would sooner drown herself than return to ber mother. The referee gavo his decision _to-day, which is,. that the agreement holds F0od, snd the- young girl must remain with her adopfed parents until she be- : comes of age. 370 . The Scannell trial develops, s novelty every day. Yesterday it was testified, as tending. to provo insanity, that Scannell's face perspired whenaver the weather was hot.. To-day the ° flood-gates of the prisoner’s sympathetic organ- ization broke down whon his. sister took the stand.- Bofore & question had been asked her - Seannoll bogan to sob hyaterically. Hisweeping became 8o violent that a rocess of ten minntes - was allowed, during which ha recoversd: bis composure by pacing up and down in an 21join. ing room. Mardi-Gras. AT . NEW ORLEANS,- New Onreaxs, Feb:25.—The Mar®-Gras fes- tivities were commonced by the procession of thié King- of the Carnivals, comprising amon; the members three full bltbufi'an!.—ona of Egygltimu, one of Arabs (the King's Own), and snother of Mamelukes—and the Royal Navy, consisting of the yachts of the Crescent City Yacht Club, mounted on trucks. A tremendous crowd of miacellangous maskers, with all kinds of devices and tricks of the guilds,” concluded the procession. ' It was two hours passing. The streots were literally jammed with people from. -+ all parts of the country,—some on Yodk and some in vohicles. The Carnival procession was - & great success, and will, no doubt, be repeated on a still larger scale -next year. The “ Mistick Erewe of .Comus” paraded in the evening.~ It was the finest display they hava ever yet given, . cousisting of mors than 200 ' figures, all in most elaborate and artistio cos~ tumes. The subject was Darwin's origin of species, and the missing links in- the chain of notural selection. The pageant began with tho zoophytes-and spongas, aad ended with tha:- arilla. . The . repressntations’ Wwere sdmirable, fimng been prepared in Europe, atalarge ex-.,. ponse. - All'along:the line of march the balconies” and fronts wers brilliantly lighted and decorated. The 8t. Charles Hotel'and City Hall wera splen~ - didly illuminated, aa also were many cther prin cigsl buldings, tacluding the nowspuper ofices. th tho Carnival and “Mistick Krowo” poo~ plo gare largs Talls tonight, tho fommarat xposition Hall, ‘the latter at the Varictios The invitatians, woro distributed mys-:. * teriously, 48 usual. There was a full attendance, and a brillient display at both places. Therears " thousands of strangera in the city, and thehotels aro overflowing.. The proprietors of -the St. Charles -Hotol chartered - several large river steamers to furnish aleeping apartments for their guests. .:There are over fifty river steamers af tho levee betveen 8t. Louis and Girrod streeta; thiity are advertised to leave to-morrow. © . AT METmIS. DL . . Meyems, Tenp., Feb, 25.—Notwithstanding . the sleet and snow of last night,and-the un- propitious state of tie weather to-day, the Carni= val has proven a grand _success, and surprised . the most sanguino expectations of the leading Bpirits in the movement. -Buainess.was oatirely suspended, every department obeying the man-, dates of-thie King of Misrule to do'so. Through- out-the morniug, ::hu uhcutmerefinnflad mgl‘x “maskers, personating eve above ground, -~ i many boneath, Tn the afrernoor Hing - Momus, aitended by thousands of his trusty . subjects, paraded the stretts, in magnificcnt costumes, mounted in various . vehicles, and on_foot. The- strects were lined with spectators. To-night, His Snblime- Highness and Commander of Memphis held & grand pro~~ cession, the streets being lighted with calcium ‘and colored lights to show off the pageant, which” was an illustration of ornithology, from in- culstion to full-flcdged, aristocratic birds, with their beaks dipped -in bins -labelled- *¢ Credit Mobilier.” To-night .the Cernival closes with tablesux, masquerades, aud balls at various halla and tho new Memphis Theatre. -Throughout the day, not o single disturbance occurred to mar - the festivities. { L. . ...AT GALVESTON, TEX. :- - GALvEsTON, Tex., Feb. 25.—)ardi-Graswaa , celebrated here to-dayon a grand scale. Tho city is fall 'of strangera. Tho State officers aro hore us guesta of the city. Thefestivities closed fo-night with » grand ball st the Tromont Oporar,; - ouse, - SHIE stration, was_grotesque: and , amusing in the highest degree.-. Xt concludes with & grand ball to-night. : Rt ® The Inferiority of Man—A Mathematle cal Demonstration. - The: extrems idiocy of man -was painfally ex- &t the town hall, Manchester, on Fridsy, Miss Mfl Beedy M. A, of Antioch Ccfll.‘fi:! Ohio, United States, in a lecture on tho high _education of woman. It seems’ that the Pro- fessor of Civil Engincering at_Antioch College had been in the habit of giving to bis clsases every year a particular mathematical problem— a sort of *‘pons asinorum "— as a test'of their - ability. Not once daring fifteen yeara had an: ‘member of class solved it, though the Professor had doring that time propounded it to no fower than 1,500 young men. - Many professors wox under these .. cir Z up as__ &, bud job, and: eul some_ less ~ brain-crushing - test: of . the ability of his pupila. Not o the Professor.of Antioch College, who manfully stuck to i3 prob- lem, and hal,{m, 88 usnal, E;unud the ald stumbling-block to his class. Hii fessor caught a fish. A certain Miss s alone of-all’ the classes, brought -the solution. - The Professor waa thunderstruck, and gave Te$ , . tohis amazement in the following obsarvation - to the gifted young lady: *“Yon have done,” hs exclaimed, * what 1,500 young men hsaye tri but failed to do,” Thisw dnum&'mg}x ment must have beén most gratifying to White, and it would be difficult toconeemhg-" more ridiculous. position than that ' the 1,500 foolish young men, Who justly deserva -omiversal contempt for having by their stupidity brought such discradit an » once-honored 8e%; e i perseverance .. waa not without its reward, for thistime the Pro-- *