The New York Herald Newspaper, April 8, 1851, Page 2

Te PTR emRRater ONAGRM concerned, directly or I: ny obstruction to i ‘of an offence. and subjected », and, also. by ¢' aggrie' hich (he amrest is matte, ‘be the Semi Hvis proper that the Laie nb re al orofleer waking the arrest, to retaim the Pe that thove, if any there be, who have made up their | tive in his custody, and to ¢ the sume to the Sta Suinds to disobey it, may be fully apprised of the conse- | whence he or she had escaped, and there to deliver them quences. . to the claimant or his agent; and to employ as man; ‘The act, asyou are aware. was passed for the purpose | persons as he may deem necessary to overcome suc! ‘of carrying more effectually into execution a provision of | foree; and to retain them in his service so long as in the constitution of the United Statenomely, of | his judgment the circumstances may require the second geetionof the fourth article, That " wee, together with some regulations as to the mode or conunissi ner, embrace sub- And it is as follows :—"No person held to service or labor in one] of proof before the judge State, ander the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, | stantially every material provision of the act. dis- | will excite, I think, some surprise, after the Ta lation therein, arenlannie: 2 ee ee eine Opposition to its passage, and even threatened, and, in ‘charged h service or labor, but shall be detivered i age, en th , elaim ot to whom such service or labor | some instances, actual resistance exceution in cer- 28 Loree taix quarters, when it is seen that there a not a power fae tee of the adoption of the constitution by the | conferred upon those appointed to administer it judi- a convention, September 17.1757, slavery existed, I believe, to | cially, but what was conferred upon the judges and other pon agra less. in each of the States then com- | Stole magistrates under the act of 1793—a law approved the confederacy; above one- fifteenth of the popu- | by Washington and Adams, and enacted by the fa- thers and founders of the republie—not one. It is simply, in this respect, a substitution of the com- missioners in the place of the State magistrates, who were disabled, and prevented from discharging the duty by the State authorities, Full confidence was reposed in them by the federal government, so long as they were permitted to act. When thus disabled, other officers ‘Were selected. of necessity, to upp their places, Tiris in the progress of | is the only difference, as it re; the judicial authority conferred by this supplementary i ; ‘of New York were slaves. ‘The proportion of the New England States was miuch less; also.in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.about the same as New York. All the origi- nal States, therefore, were iuterested, 1 or less, in the adoption of this provision into the constitution, but mare especially the Southern States, where, speking and without strict accuracy, about half the ae consisted of this — It was, however, anticipated that time, ites, while it would increase in the South, would. e Neither is @iminish ani finally become extinguished in the North, any power conferred by it on th ‘So just was this provision regarded at the time by the | or agent, but what is tound in members of the convention, and necessary for the security | All the additional powers ar ef this species of labor and the existence of friendly re- | terial officers—the marshal and d ‘hals—who Jations between the different members of the Union, that | are required to execute the warrants processes it was adopted without opposition, and by a unanimous | istued in pursuance of its provisions, and which warrants vote. and processes are the same as those provided for in th onferred upon the minis- It was of the dcepest interest to the Southern States, | prev t. and none others. Every ground of opp as, without the provision, every non-slayeholding State | tion to tlis recent act. distinguishable from opposition in the Union would have been at liberty, according to | to the former. is exclusively referrable to the powers the genera! law of nations, to have declared free all rua- | with which the marehal and his deputies are armed, away slaves coming within its limite, and U iv with a view to its exeeution—powers essential to enforce them harbor and protection oy the claims of th obedience to the mandates of officers, and to put masters. We need not t y.t such a state | down. with a strong hand, if ne 1 disaffection, im whatever ny new or ex- com- of things would have led inevitably t bitterest ani- morities, especially between border States, and have been the source of perpetual strife, and of the fiereost passions = the Northern and Southern portions of the insubordivation. . Thy ‘The evil was felt at the time by the Southern portion, as the articles of confe ion contained no & Vision ; and it was to cua inst it, and t judge , and now by the lly exe- anbina- en poses: e the act of 17 r places, may made stronger t dation that would afford f the fricndly + and intere incorporated into the with th fundamental of the couvea- of the constitution muy be e ten, and particularly with the difficulties that s d executed in the faith and spirit with which it was rounded this subject in almost every stage of its proc adepted Another subject nut of the provisions of this law. and which has a material bearing upon its execu- tion, it is proper should be noti Ly the secend section of the third tution, it is delared, that * The that without this tion would never ance to the ‘ould not have been whole interest in ings, ean doubt. rome equivalent provision, the have teen formed. It was of t Southern portion ef the Union, an surrendered without endangerin for 4 moment this species of property. I is not surprising. therefore, | tend to ell cases, in law and equity i i Ihered to with unyielding resolution, and | constitution, the laws of the United States, a groundwork of a question upon which the | made, cr which shall be ma r their authority,” continued existence of a Union, thus formed, is made to | The powers, therefore, it will be seen, to gress belongs to the tribunals and authorities nse in the constitution is general, and simply | of the federal government; and, im respect to these, can ave cseaping inte anoghcr State, shail | be executed ouly by such courts or officers as are spe- discharged by any law or regulation of ated int for the purpose, The power, the rete it respects the tribunals of the xclusive im these courts or officers, both as de- it. Neithercan se in the attempt of either to in- ¢ authority, its acts would be coram ich he bas fled ; but shall be delivered up person to whom the service te due. The mode of delivering up to the claimant is not pre- scribed, end, until regulated by law, continued to be the source of eh ent to the masters, and of disturb- ance and disjuictude among the States, ‘Thie led to the first actzot Congress, passed 12th Febru- ary. 1793, during the sitting of the second session, held under the eoustitution. If was enacted by a body of men, several cf whom had been distinguished members ef the convention, and is framed in its leading features in the spirit of the provision of the constitution. which it was designed to carry into effect. It is signed by Jona- than Trumbull. of Connecticut. as Speaker of the House wf Representatives. John Adams, Vice President. and President of the Senate, and app! ‘i by George Wash- ingtcp, President of the United States, and wae passed on the urgent recommendations of the Governors of Penn- tytvenia and Virginia. between whose States a difficulty Bad ariren in the surrender of a fugitive slave. The first section on the subject declares. that when ony perase held to labor in any ef the United States, or in either of the territories. under the laws thereof, shall es- cape into any other State or territory. the person to whom fuch labor may be due. shail be authorized to Seize, or errest, such fugitive. and take him or her be- fore any judge of the Cireuit or District Cor Dnited States. residing or being within t! fore any magistrate of a county. « o . Wherein such arr st shall be made, end upon proof to the raticfaction of the judge. or magistrate. either by oral te timony or affidavit, that the person so arrested. owes View =a person _— him or her, it shalt be the a@uty ofthe judge. or magistrate. to give a certificate thereof to such claimant, which shall Wee suficient war- vant for his or her removal to the State.or territory from | whieh he or che f ‘The remaining section inflicts a penalty upon any per- rhn who knowingly obstructs or hinders the clain rem arresting the fugitive. or rescues the Lig, or harbors er eonceals the fugitive after n This act deral govern: execution of terfere or exer non judice and void. These propositions are elementary, and so obvious, as to require no further comment It seems to be supt however, in some quarters, that the State powers, exereised by its tribunals, under the writ of Aabeas corpus, forms an exception to this gene- rally admitted doctrine; and that through the agency of this writ the fugitive may be taken out of the hads of the federal officers, and the authority or propriety of the arrest or detainer inquired into. and the person discharg- ed or remanded. aceording to the judgment of the State magistrate. This is the exception claimed to the exelu- sive power of the federal officers designated im the act, It is apparent, if this exception can be maintained, there is an end to the complete exeeution of the law: or, indeed. of any law of the general government by which the party is subject to an arrest. It is not elaimed that the State magistrate can administer the act and enforce its provisions, under this writ. as that authority, as we have seen. is confined to the tribunals appointed by it for the purpose, The fugitive must be. therefore, if taken at all, taken out of the hands of the federal officers by force of some other law wl the question whether he or she shall be discharged or remanded, will depend upon the application of that law to the particular case. What that law is, or may be. must neeessarily depend tion; and the rights of the claimant, tution and laws of the Union, will be d by a law of the State. ‘The effectual abrogation of the act. by the interposi- tion of this writ. if admitted. will be still more apparent, hat the power exereised under it is such xislatures may choose to prescribe; and ribunals are not only invested with that they act at all, are bound te act in obedi- and in formity with it. There ix no limit. fore, to the ex of the powers that may be exer- ling. im respect to the arrest and » but the discretion of the State Legislatures, They may confer jurisdiction upon their thagietrates Lo re-examine and revise the acts and deci- sions of the federal trib: has been on the statute hook. and in Pnited States im Pregg ve. T: Penmrylvania, 16 Peters 439. (2 Pick. Rep. il; Com- ne of ls. cut Of whose hands the manwerelth ve. Griffen; 3 Serg and Reule, 62 wee fogitive.is-tskew, snd the Sele: magistente would be ve. Beacon; 9 Jebns. R. 67 Glen vs. Modges and bound to exe: he power accordingly. It is manit Wend Rep: 51) Jack ve. M. 8.€.12ib {that ik would be impossible to uphold a. has never been deied by any couxt with the qu: ‘tien that will be presently noticed. The ease of Pregg vs. The Commonwealth of Pennzyl- ‘vania in the courts of that State, ic no exception to the Femarke. as the jury found a special verdict. and the 3 99 Bt was entered pro forma by agreement of counsel, the due execution of the law with the admission of avy such authority. wwevet?. the soundness of this general view. Is to interfere with, if upon eases rising under the constitution, laws of Congress. oF trea- Lrpose of carrying ihe quettion before the su. | ‘its: still. it is argued. that they possess the power. under painoee this writ. to inquire into the legality of the authority Doubts had been expressed, and. in some instances, | URder which the prisoner is held; and which may involve decided opinions given by State judges, that it waa not | the constitutionality ef the law, and jurisdiction of the ecmpctent for Congress to confer upon State magistrates | COUTt OF Officers, the power to cary into execution law of Congress Inas | Butts obvious that the existence of either power, on udicial power of the federal government | the part of the State tribunols, would be fatal to the was verted by the constitution ins Supreme Court, ana | #uthority of the eoustitution, laws, or treaties of the ze- @n such infeicr courts us Congress might ordaie aad cx | eTal government. No government could maintain the It was also argued, with much force, that if xecution of its laws, civil or eri- Congress possessed this power. it might burden the state ae ronstitutionality. or the jurisdiction of her Jodiclary and magistrates with duties that would be in. icial tribunals, was subject to the determination of an- wempatibie with. or embarrass the faithful discharge of rg, Bred not stop, however, to discuss this ques. those which concerned the state : In the ease of the United Infueneed by these views, or some other, the Legicla- | Sites ve. Peters (5 Cranch, 115). ‘more familierly known fures of some of the States passed laws forbidding their | ** Olumstend’s ense. The Lezislature of Pennsylvania had own magistrates from acting under the law in the surren- | Paste am act dectering that the jurisdiction elaimed by der of fugitives, and euforeed the prohibition with heavy | t{'¢ District Court of the United States was unconstitu- Penalties. It is not doubted bat that it was enticely | tiensl. and empowered the Governor to resist the execu- competent for the State to probihit their own magist tie rdgment from assuming the duty of executing the law; but it w: ice Marshal. In deltvering the opinion of the held, in Preeg ts. The Commonwealth of Pounsylvanio, | COuit Observed, “that, if the Lagislatures of the several to be clear, that if not so forbidden, it was competent fur | Sites may nt will. annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights sequined under them to act. and that the exercise of the authority under ‘Ure law would be valid and binding upon all the parties concerned This interference of the State Legislatures gre 1 h judgment», the constitution itself beceaes a solemn jerkery: and the nation tx deprived of the menne of en- forcing its laws by the instrumentality of ite wn tribu- nals"? further remarked that, © If the ultimate right t ne the juridiction of the courts of the Vwi is placed Ly our constitution in the several State sures. then this act concludes the eubject; but ower necerarily resides in the supreme {the nation, t P { Penn-ytva ¥ : Fag «a. ought to be m + end the act of Pennsylvania. with whatever respect it mag be considered, cannot Ve penuaitted to prdudles the question. - 5 tae hot i thet the judgment was regularly en- i! alyzed the execution of t effect, for the tine b vision of the constitution. It left but one. ‘two officers in a State compe to ex was thereby restricted to the Distric of the United States. Our own Stat 2890, forbid their inazistrates from ac <a@lty of fine and imprisonment. (2 R anose. aid Vhber MuTe DiEegt inter “thed tere of tle ~ law of 1796. Logerjer with the open resistance with whieh its exceution was met. in seme instances, by copibinae tiene ogainst law, led. necesserily. to the Ment supple- Moentary act; wats which I wish now particularly to call your attention petwithetanting the State ot Fe have been different opinions entertained by the *Of the States.as to their power, under this act, fe eet ie desiened feet. th mtitute othe upon the validity of a commiunent, or detainer, Sederal gorertanent et ae authority of the United States But those. who trates; a inclined to entertain thi e law | Hist it cannot be uy i tthe law | turn thot the ergnizanee of the ¢g 0 ‘This necessarily results from the vesting of the judicial power of the Union in the and frem the fourth article declares, that © Th constitu United St whieh shall be m wn out referred, mainly ties to which ” “h the je in puree: whieh shall be d, it would, probably. have a execution of the ‘The « mand of the Un | of the ismd: and the couvic oe the constitutional | Pyne tharety provision has not only b ded, but, that a if the enmetent Settled purpore, a fixed d , existed In some | _ If the exele rai judiciary, sud law of the iand, to see by what rig = of the country. to set its obligations at naught ‘act meets this condition of things, real or suppo-ed. and clothes the public authorities with powers adequate th «execution to the exigency terfered with through th of this w Tt confers authority upon commissioners appointed by | Gutheritics, Amy such inte would seem to the Circuit Courts of the United States. in addition to | “rect infraction ef 1) the judges, to carry into execution it- per to ony, in rl against mi | and makes it the duty of the marshal T do net claim t mere fact of ¢ phals to execute all warrants and iy an officer of th Jetees ot commisstoners under the act. suljecting th a fine of $1,000 to the ure of the claimant in case of refueal: ond, ofter,the arrest, and while the fugitive i+ in » bears the i Tt under this writ may be guilty of Yar illegal their custedy. if Be or she is allowed to escape with or | Of the citizen, the some ax 6 without their sssent, the marshal is made liable upon his | e authorities to inquir n is not @Bicia! bond to be cuted for the benefit of the cloim t he duty of tT to obey feturn, All that ir clot that when it ie show ainer ix under the cone tates, or a treaty, the power anend. Any further proceed- am non judice, and void: and in @nt for the full value of the ave The commissioners are also empowered, within the counties in which they respectively reside. to appoint. in writing. one cr more suitable persone. from time to tin to exeeute all warrants and other process issued by them dn the performance of their duties. with authority to owinitment aw of the t the commis T, oF the persons thus appointed, t privoner I+ In fact belt e @ummon and cali to their aid the by-standers ot poser of e federal tribunal under the the county, when necestary to inewre the due execution the United Btates, or treaty, it is Of the law; nnd it is made the duty of the citizens thu« t to detiver him wp, or allow him of the Lauthority, » called to the nid of the officers, to assist in the execution @ the process whenever their services are required, ‘The act further provides, that the claimant may pur- ous ond reclaim the fonitive either by procuring a war- mm the court. Judge or commi--ioner of the proper Clreult, dirtriet. cr county. for pprebension, or by ar- —. ? her, where ft may be practica! with: Yrarrant. and hy tuking. or causing the fu Qaken forthwith. before the proper oMicer, whose Ss made to hear ond determine the jor that We certyinly ir Yor from it.” Th State and national. thority fort id it ir rights ond t hb exiveney « such exigency. f the judiciary by Soamper, Abd wpon ratiefnctory proof, / tthe porsw rity of the laws Properiy taken end certified leral government im vo ¥ay endangers the liberty @6 arrerted owes service wnd inbor to \liy citizen, The writ of habeus corps recured to Pate or territory from whence We or cle A Him. under iat government. affords the apprqeriate and had ereaped from euch corview, to prant tcetual remedy for any legality in the process. or want elaimant, setting forth whet aust ially fj a of the court. of for nay wneonst itutlonal Claw, ‘The remedy $# ns prompt and sun 0 wdinitietered by the State Judiciary. amd, in ot 9 eoneeding to cath government the free, and or territory from whenes be ted exerntion of its own Jaws. and exerci<e of its ond is declared to be euficient authority ¢ own outherity, hormony f walntained apd perpetuated of the a by any pre bh magistrate. or ye? perep act sto fine ahd demoages to the party egerii ved. ve presented wilbexplain # provi-ion ! t obser L wllade i fk # a i i FoR OF pr wap with or ene, ‘fo revene the swme from the custody of the ol thie ogent, or who eball wid oF aseiet. direet!y oF indirect. . of the fugitive, or whe -ho eOnecn! the same eo ae to prevent the dives rit why ne Congress did not poss we powers tos i Fo-pect= the Slate weit We have Poem, Kom Uke views err! ‘Thy ap) Surber provides tet M Uae clalamamt ox lie = ee = easel ay shal vit, ex he has to apprehem@ a rescue by fugitive taken limits w was competent ‘ongress the power upon the United States Commissioners to carry it into execution, As the judicial power of the Union is vested in the Buj Court, and such inferior courts as Congress may, from time to time ¢stablish, the judges of whisk shall buld thele offices guring good be- vior, it has been supposed that the power to execute the law must be conferred upon these courts, or upon judges possessing this tenure, It is a sufficient answer to this that the same power was conferred upon the State magistrates under the act of 1793; aud which the case of Pregg vs. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, was held to be constitutional by the only tribunal com- petent, under the constitution, to decide that question. . bt was entertained by any of the judges in that it that these magistrate: power to act, if not forbidden by the State authorities. ‘The judicial power mentioned in this seetion, and vested in the courts, means the power conferred upon courts land established by and under the constitution trict and appropriate sense of that term:— courts that comprise one of the three great departments of the government, prescribed by the fundamental law, the same as the other two—the leaiasive and the executive Dut, besides this mass of judieal power belonging to the d courts of a government, there is no incon- P ble portion of power, in its nature judicial—quasi judicial — invested, from time to time,’ by legislative authority in individuals, separately or collectively, for a particular purpose and limited time, This distinction, in respect to judicial power, will be found running through the administration of all govern- ments, and has been acted upon in this since its fouunda- tion, A familiar case occurs im the institution missioners for settling land claims, and other the government, (2 St. at large, 324-440.) ilustration will be found in this State under ution of 1777. By that justices of the peace were appointed by the council of their offices during the pleasure of hy most magistrates were ¢ acts of the Legislature upon the aldermen of But I need claims 1 twenty dollars, the rved.”” nd deciding upon the it by the re- y the act of im the ease already referred to, o be clearly constitutional in all its leading provi- Lt ted by the clanse of the eon- 1 suit at common law, within It settles conclusively vice of the fugitive, al to the State from nthe proceeding, in the case of a fugitive from justice. for the purpose of re- ettles his guilt. The question of right to the one case, and of guilt in the other, is ope toa final hearing and trial in the States from ¥ they have eseaped. After the arrival of the there, the certificate is no lopger of any authority, or evidence of any right. viously does the constitution contemplate a summary hearing and decision in the matter. that the counsel forthe State of Pennsylvania, in the case re- ferred to, did not make it a point or call it seriously in question on an argument. I have now gone over the several provisions of this law, and some of the more material questions arising out of it; and. if Lam not greatly mistaken, have shown that all the leading features of it—all the principles involved— have been either confirmed by the only tribunal compe- tent to pass upon them. or are so obvious. that no lawyer, I think. can entertain a well grounded doubt about them, and that Congress has but obeyed an imperative consti- tutional obligation in its enactment. It is @ law, therefore, which every citizen is bound to obey, and the public authorities to enforce with all the powers conferred apon them by the government. The legislatures of some of the States have passed laws Dearing directly upon this provision of the constit and upon its execution in the mode preseribed by Con- gress, So far as these laws are in coufliet with the pro- visions of the one in question, or tend to abstract and em- barrass its execution, they are unconstitutional, and wt- terly void: and can afford no protection against its pe- nalties. ‘The law of Congress is paramount, aud wuct be obeyed. Opiniions were expressed in the case of Pregg vs. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, that the power of Cou- gress to provide the mode of surrendering up the fugitive under the coustitution, was exclusive; and, that the Statcs were disabled from acting at all on the subject. Others, that the power was concurrent. and, although the ates could pass no law in conflict with the act of Con- «, it was competent for them to pass laws in aid of it. ‘ p ferpeanes of the execution of the constitutional sion It is not important here to express any opinion upon these different views; for, whether the one or the other shall finally prevail, the result is the same. In either , law incontlict with the act of Comgross is void, and of no effect. It is not to be disguised, that the legislation of most, if notallef the Northern States. tending to embarrass, seine instances, to annul the provision of the set “i as stzapely impressed our Southern brethren with the conviction, that these States have tesolved to throw off that constitutional obligation. They take it for granted, and it is difficult to deny the infereuce, that the acts refleet the general sentiment of the poople on the subject; and that it must have become deep and —— to be sufficiently powerful to mould the State jegislation. it is islation, ane frag Fee = ey fs. ecmbles in resistance of the law, (bat ag forte he to the question, whether the Culob. with this provictonot the fundamental law rejected and contemmed—a provi- sion vital to the rights and interests of that portion, and without which the Union would never have been formed—is to them a blessing or a curse! A question a. not by disaffected and tumultuous assemblages, except for the pi which he or she ft n very equivocal evidenee of the real sentiment of yublic mind, but by the peeple of the States. through their organized governments—u question examined and discussed in the mode and through the agencies that examined and discussed that of entering into the Union at the adopt of the constitution. stion has been raised hy fifteen States of the eracy. six of whom were original pai Tt has been examined and conside gain. by the Governors in their pul ages; by the representatives in their legislut by the people in their primary assemb! press: and they have come to the resolution—one and all —that if this “hostile legirlation is carried into effect, and the constitutional obligation no longer adhered to by their Northern brethren. but thrown off, disregarded. and contemned. the Union is ne longer a ble ‘and should he dissolved—that the abrogat vision of the fundamental law i+ m- pact. and the portion of the Union for whose benefit it Woe adopted, snd whore rights and intercsts are thereby endangered. ix absolved from fis alleyin ‘This, I believe to be the settled eom ment of fftven States of this Union. ivsue Of the greatert aspect. end ope evaded or aspprersed. It is an issue which the Northern States must deter- mine for Utmeelver. That laws exist on the statute hooks of mest, if not all, of them, in conflict with the act ttl repugnant tq ints provicion of the com matter of hist ‘That the ev ecment of ahi be @ virtual abrogation of the provi lenied, It remains for there States to jeter. mine whether apy attempt shall be made to cusoree thom ~—whether they are to remain on the statute book a dead letter, or be repealed. These are questions of trans¢endehi import; for the ae. tenofnate¢n Of them, In my bumble Judgment, ‘' olves the perpetuity of the Union, 1am oware that opinions are entert*t « honestly entertained, that the Union dl, nud. doubt. well founded deep convieti thet it depends. at this moment, w confitenre inspired by the late proceedings in Congres. and by the indications of publie sentiment in the free States, that this conetitutional obligation will be hereafter executed in the fuith and spirit with whieh it was entered into— thet the friends of the Union in the + din, and the alle L belie States, lance of that ection on the part of ihe Northern States, bat confidence, end of oll hope of the not be in their power tues add, they would not, ecerved, ntel law, wpom wind, hy on half of the interested eo enoner he whirk f do not fundamental ection of rt in which ther is exclusively in- f, the bet If it te pre t it will be by a stern adhe law. and to every part ¢ the Union can throw off it has no interest, or heeause a terested, and expect to proserve it ‘The very supposition implies degradation and ¢ : fith on the one side, and abject submy ur Neither ean the motive for breaking the compact afford any epolegy or jurtifieation. ifcne article may be set aside by one portion, beeanswe it i+ repugnant to their rense of rip al justice, another Ans y be, beenware it fe ay t their interest No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any Simposts or duties on imports or exports”) of this fundamental law, Suppose New Yor this erticle prejudicial to her i much her resources and rev the immense trace ond exe existing, and eon- wally increasing, between the great weet ond our rn brethren: or upon the vast cowl trode with our neighboring sister. Pennsylvania, fot which we afford 0 extensive a market, woul ive afford any exeuse for the infraction of the constitution ’ And yet, looking to the compact, and to the constitutional duties and ob- ligations erieing out of it, and Winding all. thix motive is just o* wvaile ble ae any other t cuse or Justify the in- fraetion. ‘The comple of breaking the compoet upon any mo- tive fe dangerous, With what fore can one State rebuke ancther for want of allegianee. when eho hax th it colt herself? Her rebuke would be © leughed to « ’ ‘This Union must and shall be preserved, if it al that stern, @d faehioncd honesty and principle « ireulcates the fulfilment of the whole of our 60 tional dv nd obligations, end every port of them. Tt wns (hie epirit that formed the compact for preserved it throwgh all ite trials and asswults; and it fe this epiirit that must and will. I trust. carry it cafe! hereatier hh whatever perils andl iniefortwacs mnoy }e destined to encounter As men possessing there stordy and mani thus far been found in the republic equal to every exigency, 60 T do not doubt, they will be here- nd they will have their reward—the hes of is honer, virtnes ofter eee ee aalte eaaiel lee. ane - by ve be i tebe 804 onder 10 ri ne hom, unde mMigmsacr ry retired the varkows bills sent before to their room Ww © oe Sic: ale, Court. DECI IN ADMIRALTY, Hon. tts. M Grinnell and ‘The li ‘was master brig Frederick, and brought from Rio Janeiro to New York part of a cargo of hides, consigned to the defendants. They resist the ent of freight because the hides were delivered here in a damaged condition from wet. ‘The libellant insists, the damage, if in at sea, was oceasioned by the blowing of the vessel, and that the loss falls on the owner of the goods. A bill of lading was signed by the libellant at Rio acknowledging the lading of ‘the hides on board, Hf aries A and well-conditionéd,” and binding him to deliver them to the defendants, at New York, on receiving freight, &e. There was no qualification of his liability on account of dangers of the seas or other causes, other than a memoran- dum at bottom, “weight unknown.” The Court held that sea-going vessels, transporting merchan- dise for freight, are common carriers, and the m: ter and owner liable to the respo! ities of com- mon carriers at common law. That ifthe parties annex no qualification by agreement, to the under- taking of the master, the marine law applies none, and the master and owner are bound a werge to deliver the goods as received, except prevented by the act of God or by public enemies; that the bill of lading in this case made the bellant an insurer for the safe delivery of the cargo; that if the blowing of a vessel is anything other than a peril of the sea, itis not an incident to navigation which caanot be prevented or avoided by human means ; that itis different to the sweating of a vessel, which is caused by atmospheric influences, change of climate, &¢., nd is not under human control ; but that, upon the proofs, ae precaution in stowage, or keeping the ship dry, will prevent the water thrown up between the sides and shin of the vessel by the rolling of the sea from being forced through (which is called blowing), to the injury of the cargo. Held, also, that the’ libellant failed roving the fact that the cargo had received its in- rae from the blowing of the shi Ifeld, that the bil of lading is prima facie evidence that the hides were dry and in good condition w hipped, but does not preclude the libellant proving they were damaged at the time, though he is not entitled to the presumption that they were, as hides are usually, shore damaged he! ped ; that no custom is proved which affects the liability of the master, under bis contract. Held, that the libellant is not hound by the method adopted by the defendants to fix the amount of dama, ‘They sold the hides at private sale, making a discount’ or allowance for those dan dL. If the damage is determined with- out the concurrence of the libellant, it should be by fe at public auction. Held, that the tender and payment, by the defendants, of $597 39 must be re- garded a general payment on the whole freight, and that the libellant cannot apply it to discharge that portion of the freight in dispute, and ground his action upon that part admitted to be earned. Held, that the defendants are entitled to compensa- tion, by way of recompense, against the freight, for the astual damage to the hides on the voyage, and ordered a reference to ascertain the amount thereof. Charles Germain vs. Janes Garvie.--This case was heard upon the pleadings and proofs before Judge Judson, and a decree rendered for the libel- lant, an order of reference made to a commissioner to state the balance due the libellant on the accounts between the parties. The libel demanded $1,463 96. ‘The commissioner reported due him $419, and the report was confirmed, and a final decree render- éd for that sum. The defendant insists the libel- lant is not entitled to costs, and should pay costs, because the dealings between the parties was a artnership transactlon, and because the defence as succeeded in reducing the demand made by the action to less than one-third the sum claimed. Held, that the question of the right of the libellant to sue in this court, and of partnersnip between the parties, was raised by the pleadings and disposed of by the dveree; and that defendant cannot, by ex- ception to the commissione:’s report, or on motion for costs, go beh nl that decision. Held that the an- swer denying t” foto the jlibellant’s right to re- cover, and thus putting him to prove his whole de- mand, no equity in respect to costs arises in favor of the defendant, because he has sueceeded in the liti- gation in lessening the recovery. ‘The issues were {n substance decided in favor of the libellant; the amount to be r ed on that determination of his right w atter of accounting before the commis- sioner. The party who succeeds on the merits is usually entitled to costs in Abeer as well as in Chancery. Order for costs to the libellant. Thomas H. Barstow vs. Samud D. Wimot.—The libellant claims freight on a lot of mill stones brought to this port from Liverpool, in the shi Mortimer Livingston, of which he was master: an additional sum of $8 for extra charge in unload- ing them, amounting in all to $171.50. ‘The defend- ant tendered and paid into court $7392, claiming damages equivalent to the rest of the freight because of the breaking and loss of one of the stones. ‘The Dill of lading admits the grindstones were received on board in good order, and undertakes to deliver them to the defendant in like good order at the port of New York, (all and every the dangers of the seas and paket Cd capa nature, bein ERCCH Ea.) ¢ jibllant proved ihe stoié were laid on 4d lates upon coal in the hold of the ship, with coul around and above them, and a proper dunnage of boards under to keep them level, and between the edges to prevent their strikin, together; and this was proved to have been ge and properstorage. The passage was very rough and the ship was thrown on her beam ends onee or more, and the cargo shifted so as to give her two streaks or feet list. Ield,that under the exceptions to the bill of lading, the libellant was only answera- isconduct on the omission of proper care | ence in stowing aud taking eare of the car- proved against Decree ac- ble fo and di ‘0, and no such delinquency bein, fin he was entitled to full freight. cordingly. Wilwarn Harold, Jr. case turned upon a que: the defendant was lial) son by the name of Mc(éuire, for the freight and transportation of various cargoes of stone, in the sloop Judson, to a dock in this city. Held, that the testimony clearly proved the libellant entith the money, and that no contract was proved by the defendant with MeGuire, for the work. If "such agreement had existed, by accepting the stone from the libeilant’s vexvel, and making a partial payment towards the freight, the defendant admitted, in law, his obligation ty yay the full freight money. De- eree for the libelant. Alraham Cadmus & Co. vs. Raw Benan.— ‘This suit is against the defendant, as owner of the | sloop William Bayard, ty seeover for supplies fur nished bor, “Che dnewer denfes the defendant was Sher of the sloop, and avers that she was owned by Alridge, and thet the supplies were furnished on the credit of the owner, defendant bony ! only master. In bar of the action, the answer further set up the diseharge of the defendant from all his debts under the insolvent law of this State, since | the debt was contracted, he and the libellant being | at the time of the «, and discharge, resi- dents of this State. A general replication to the answer was put in. ‘The libel was filed a, 1819; the gn Mareh 8, 1850; aud the repli March 22d. the Sth of January, 1851, the order of reference was made to a commissioner by consent of both parties; and on the 27th the report | of the comm ng a small balance due " the to the report of the de omn oner refused to receive or act upon proof of bis discharge under the insolvent act. Held by the court, that the commissioner had no authority to pdjudge upon the sufficiency of the pleadings; his duty was solely to investigate and ascertain the ae- counts b ech the parties, and report thereon; and no objection to the report in that behalf being made, the exceptions are over ruled. The parties placed the caue upon the calendar and moved it to a hearing, When there was no iene between them upon the point. The libellant wished to litigate the validity of the dant’s discharge. verts, on argument, various particulars, which might have an importent bearing if brought before the court #0 a8 to be adiudicated upon; but there is nothing in the pleadings or papers before the court, by which it is made to appear there is a legal de- | feet in the discharge. If there is any issue to the | court by the replication, it amounts to a demurrer to the plea, and should have been brought to argu- ment as such. The parties must take proper mea- sures to set aside the order of reference and report of the commissioner, and to place the cause in such attitude that the court may pass m the merits, Hach party must bear his own costs in the reference, and of this term. me Somud Sheath and Horatio Coffin, ve. Edward W. Michad P.O Hearn, and Thomas im bel was filed agninst the defendants as com- posing the late firm of i. W. Kimball and Co., to recover damages for breach of a charter party, made to them of the ship Alabama, for a voyage to Liverpool and hack to New York. Schander was employed as agent or broker, by O'Henrn, to nego- tinte the chaster party, and exeeute it for the defendants, in the name of the firm. It was dated May 17th, 1849. On the 23d of August, the defen- dant, Dunkin, withdrew from the partnership. It was dissolved, and a new partnership, consisting of Kimball and earn, was formed, under the same. name as the former one. The ship returned to New York after the dissolution of the partnership, and the libellants claiming damages for the non- fulfilment of the charter og M3 defendant, O'Hearn, on the 2th October, I came to & set- tlement with them of the claim, and the parties ad- jucted the damages at $280), for whieh O'Hearn ve two promissory notes in the name of KE. Rinbont and Co., one for 61,50), — in thirty | ep and one for $1,000, payabl in sixty days. he anewer alleges those notes were given and ac- cepted in satisfaction of the demand ogainst the firm upon the charter contract. Dunkin, for himself, besides denying all knowledge of a participation in the traneactions, and that "Hearn had authority to make the charter EY in the name of the part- nership, aseerte that he was a migor, wader oge, and y was month and that not havin ratified or approved of the charter contract after he became of age, he was not bound by it. Also held, that the notes given October 25, 1819, not be- ing approved or affirmed by him since he became of age were not binding upon him, even if O’Hearn had authority to give notes in the name of the firm after its dissolution. But held that if Dunkin was Of age the 25th of October, he was not bound by notes then executed by O’Hearn, in the name of the partnership, solely on his authority as amember of the former copartnership, although to settle parte nership debts. Held, that Kimball and O’Hearn being alone liable on the charter contract, their own notes given in the name of the new firm, com- ed only of themselves did not discharge the prior jebt or merge it in the notes, unless there be expre proof that the notes were accepted in satisfaction of theold debt. Held that the charter contract was of a maritime character, and as such, suable in admiralty; and if the notes given superceded the right of action for the time, onthe original agreement of the libellant by surrendering, those notes became re-intergrated to their right of action on the original contract and the surrender need not be made before suit brought, but may be ia court on trial. Ileld, that the adjustment of claims on the 25th of October must be regarded definitive as to the amount due the libellants, and they ave enti- tled to a decree against Kimball and O’Hearn for ?: 50, with interest from that date and.costs. Or- ered, that the libel as to Dunkins, be dismissed, without costs. Costs would be awarded against him had he been guilty of any deception or act mis- leading the libellants to deal with him as an adult. Decree accordingly. i Jeseph Udall vs: the steamship Ohio, George Law. and othirs, claimants.—The libel seeks to recover 32,159 28, being part of an account of $2,973 53, ‘or timber sold fy the libellant to Bishop & Simon- son, and which amount, he alleges, was employed and used in the construction of ship Ohio. The libellant proved on the trial, he had furnished Bishop & Simonson the timber charged for, of a size and quality adapted to building large vessels, and the trunnels, a portion of it only adapted to ships of extraordinary like the Ohio, and that the stanchions were obta for the Ohio alone; and that of the timber so supplied, an amount equal in yalue to $2,159 28 had been used in building the Ohio. It was also proved that Bishop & Simonson are ini nt—that the sum above-claimed is due the libellants, and that the ship was attached, on this demand, before she left this port or the waters of the State of New York. The libellants gave evidence to prove the timber was ordered by Bishop Simonson, after they? had contracted te build the Ohio, and was intended for her use. The claim- ants proved that Bishop & Simonson were ship builders, in this city, and had two jarge yards, in which Soey. built and repaired vessels of all sizes; that they bought timber and kept it on hand, for the purposes of their business, andjhiad been, in that way, customers of the libellant, and his father be- fore him, for many years, ordering from him timber generally, and then applying it to such uses as they chose. “That no timber was ordered from him specifically for the Ohio, (except as he was told they wanted [stanchions for her,) but was ordered of sizes suitable for her size, and with intent to use it upon her. That no charge of the timber was made by libellants against the ship—that money was paid him from time to time, on account, as he called for it, and the notes of Bishop & Simonson were given him, to the amount of his demand, according to the course of dealings between them for years past. It was also proved, that, during the time the Ohio was building, Bishop and Simonson had two other steamers building in their other yard—one the State of Maine, intended for the Sound or sea ser- vice, and the other the Red Jacket, to ran to Shrews- bury, and that their habit was to take timber indis- criminately from either yard, for use in building or repairing Vessels under their charge It was proved that Bishop and Simonson contraczed with the li- bellants to build the Ohio for $110,000, to be paid in monthly instalments, according to the value of the materials and labor put upon her, and that all the payments were made according to the contract. ‘The ship was to go into the exclusive possession of the claimants when she was launched, and in the contract the claimants were denominated owners of her. No notice was given the claimants of the lant’s demand, until the ship was ready for sea. he was launched in August, and this libel was filed September 20, and the attachment was served about the same time. It was held by the court that the | lien or privilege claimed by ‘the libellant, being under a State statute, this equrt will he governed in enforcing the lien, by the construction given the act by the State courts, although it conflict with a previous interpretation of the Jaw in this court or other Admiralty courts. Held that one who con- tracts to build a vessel, and to furnish the materials and labor for a fixed price, is not within the mean- ing of the State statute, owner, master, or agent of the owner, competent to give other laborers or ma- terial men a lien upon the vessel, for sur 6g op services gydered by him and applied ro the use of | the Sip. Held, that subordinates, laborers and material men employed by such builder, cannot, under the statute, claim a lein against the, vessel without notice to the owner previous to furnishing the supplies, or labor, or at least previous to payment mate there for by the owner to the builder. Held, that on a sale of materials to a ship builder, to be used in his business generally, and theafter application of those materials to different vessels and purposes, the vender eannot seck, in an admiralty court, an ap- portionment of the value thereof applied to a par- ticular vessel by proceeding ia rem against the vessel. It havii Judge Judson, on that eredit was give and that the vender had no right of resort to the ship, it is not intended in any way to repudiate the os of that decision, but the judgment of the “ourt in this case is more pee placed upon the meaning and cffect of the State statute and extent of privilege against vessels under these tacit Jeins.—Deeree cm poy ny libel. , George B. Enghsh vs. The Occan Steam Naviga- tion Company.—The libellant imported several cases of kid gloves and fine silks, from Havre to New York, inthe steamship Iermann, owned by the respondents, when delivered here, wero found very hot crisped, or baked, spotted and rotten, and damaged, according to_appraise- ment, to the amount of $1,950 03-100. To recover which, this action is brought against the dents, owners of the ship. 0 defendants answer, that the cases were well and carefully stowed, an that no notice wen gen to the master of the ship, or ayents of the defendants, that the goods required any peculiar care or stowage. It was proved that the ship enceuntered ve! eavy and tempestuous weather, and that the dash boards in the boilers gave way from the violent pitching of the ship, and ets were wrenched out, causing the eseape of an unusual amount of sterm into the body of the ship, and that she alvo shipped heavy seas during the storm. They also proved that the goods were of a delicate character, very susceptible to injury from external dampness ona voyage, and are subject to stains and spotting if packed’ when damp, giving them, externally, an appearance like that exhibit- ed inthese goods. The bill of lading, put in evi- dence, admitted the cases of merchandise were re- ceived on board in good order and condition, and engaged to deliver them at New York in like good order and condition (the acts of God, enemies, pirates, restraints of princes or rulers, fires at sea and on shore, accidents from inachinery, boilers, steam, or any other accidents of the seas, rivers ant steam navigation, of whatsoever nature or kind ¢ cepted, with a memorandum “weight and contents, and value unknown.”) And the defendants insisted, if the damage was received on the voyage, it arose from some enuse within these exceptions; and that it was incumbent on the libellants to prove the goods Were dry and in good order when packed lenge ye ‘The libellant proved by personsconversant with the goods and trade, that the injury caused by ex- cessive heat, and that the external packages and interior paper eases enclosing the goods, were in perfeet order, showing no dampness or stains, and that the forward part of the ship, be eI ser} were stowed, was, the want of sufficient ventilation on this voyage, very much heated, whilst the rear part of the ship was not affected hy heat from the machinery or steam. It was not shown in what part of the vessel the were stowed. The Court held that the bill of ing was prima facie evidence agninst the defendants that the goods were in good order when shipped; and under their ge- neral responsibility as carriers, the defendants were bound to deliver them in New York in that state, unless payvested by causes within the Mog po to the bill of lading; that it was cast upon the de- fendants to prove how the damage was occasioned. ‘That there was no satisfactory evidence showing the ordinary heat of the ship from steam, or what was occasioned by the extraordinary occurrences of the voyage was cient to reaped the injury sus- tained by the goods, or that they were affected by shipping ecas in the gale; that if the extra steam eseap Cae ‘board and rivets, had heated the cases, it is not shown to be probable they would retoin that heat for the residue of the voyage, and until the opening of the cases after de- livery in New York; that it must be presumed, in ence of proof by the defendants, the cases were ro stowed as to be exposed to constant and high heat until landed, and upon the proofs given by the li lant it must be assumed the damage was cm unneeeseary exposure to such heat. The must Linn st bellant for the amount of Bes sustain the goods. ° John Richardson vs. Capt. , of slip Gt rick.—Suit for wages of # seaman t home’ the «hip, and not articled as one of the crew. "TH. proctor of the libellant by an oath, proves that the defendant admitted there was §16 due the libellant, and agreed to pay it with the costs. Objection w en by the hefendant that the proctor is an incompetent witness to prove the case fur bis client. cen decided in this Court, by the cro a h itness, that the defendant denied he was bound to 'y libellant’s wages, as he had never shipped sasaans he acarted the ship imately on arrival in porieitits ise ge the the circumstances not liability to the libellant, and read ‘ him, to prove it was go, and, therefore, the defend- ant je the premise. got ness refused, and then defendant e1 ed to on beard the ship. The court held t t the tes mony of an attorney or preglos swearing for client must be received wi eaution an trust, when not corroborated by any other evidence; and more particularly when he swears to admissions made to him by the adversary party. It affords: opportunity for great injustice. It is a dangerous position for the’ parties to hold in a cause, and courts will always discourage that species of evie dence. Stillthe law admits the evidence as legal, and when the witness is every way eredible, reason- able weight must be given it, ld, that. thoi in so fur as the rights of his client were personally concerned, the evidence may have effect, yet, in the matter of costs, resting wholly in the discretion of admiralty courts, the proctor ought not, in princi- les of policy, to be permitted to recover costs upon bis own evidence alone. Decree for $16, without costs. Samuel C. Nelson vs. Thomas Bell and others.— This was an application to set aside, vacate, annul the proceedings upon the libel filed January 13, 1851, and the order endorsed thereon to hold the defendant to bail in $2,000. Notice of the motion is dated February 11, 1851. On the 17th of January the defendant applied to the court, on motion, to discharge the defendant Bell from arrest in this cause, and also that the process of attachment issu- ed therein be dissolved. This motion was argued before the court, by counsel for both parties, and after consideration was denied. All particu- lars brought forward in this motion were involved in the former one, éxcept, the Erselor of the de- fendant had not then discovered that the officer taking the oath of the libellant to the libel, had omitted to affix his name to the jurat. ‘The Court held that it-was not allowable for a party to bring into discussion and review the same matters by means of a succession of motions. Ie is bound, on his first application, to bring before the Court alk the particulars known to him, or which by reasona~ ble gees he could know, applicable to his case; and the decision rendered upon the motion becomes conclusive upon all matters properly involved in it. Held, that ifan oath is duly administered by a com~ petent officer, a libel is thereby — verified without his signature to the jurat. The signature does not constitute the oath; it is no more tham prima facie evidence that such oath was taken. It may be disproved on trial, or the talcing of the oath may be established, by evidence aliunda the jurat. Here the objection is strictly technical, as the clerk swears he duly administered the oath, and so in- formed the Court before this motion was made, and that his signature to it was casually omitted. If a motion is made, founded upon an affidavit not hay- ing the jurat signed, objection may be made to its formal insufficiency; but when the motion is ground~ ed on that defect, it may be defeated by showing the affidavit was in fact properly attested. Motion de- nied with costs Court of General Sessions. Before the Recorder and Aldermen Morgane and Kelly, Arnit 7.—The April term of the Court of Se+ ond commenced this morning. The following is the Carenpar or Cases.—Murder, 2; assault and battery, with intent to kill, 2; abduction, 1; aban- doning an infant in the street, 1; bigamy, 1; for- £07, 3; burglary, 16; grand larceny, 18; em- zilement, 1; petit larceny, second offence, 1; total, 46 new cases. Of old cases, there are indie’ 7; convicted, 3; bastardy, 1; abandonment, 2; total, old and new, 59. Tke Grand Jury.— Of the gentlemen snmmoned to serve as grand jurors, twenty-one appeared, and: were duly qualified. ‘The following are their namese Stephen Van Nostrand, foreman ; Thomas Brown, Washington Brockner, jamin Bateman, Mat- thias Bloodgood, John ©. Fay, Albert Gi '” Timothy Garrick, John W. Howe, John Hatton,. David &. Jackson, Leonard L. Johnson, Charlez C., Leigh, Caleb 8. Merritt, Robert MeCoy, Lorenzo: Moses, John G. Nelson, Charles Olmstead, Horatio Reed, Aaron Swarts, James B. Taylor. corder charged the members in relation to their duties, and called their attention to certain statutes of our State, which the law requires that the grand jury be reminded of every term. The tia retired to their eaaber to erenecer ti work. Petit Jury.—The list of petit jaro fie 45 ans) rw rd ag 1s belng called, Jurgrs Timet.—Seven gentlemen su a mal.—S mmoned to sefRé As grand jurors, snd trenspabien summoned to serve us petit jurors, were fined $25 cach, for non-attendance. Alixrtis Bailel.—The counsel for Allen Burtis, wellknown to the police by the name of Alburtiz, sterday morning applied to the court to have the ail of the defendant reduced from $1,500, at which it had been fixed by Judge Bebee. The cl bee Burtis is that of grand larceny, in alleged stealing of a diamond brooch, worth $125, from the store of Messrs. Tiffany, Young & of Broadway. The court reduced the bail to $1,000. John A. Briggs, of Walker street, in the Fifth ward, became bail in that amount, und Burtis was discharged from custody, Court bok and Terminer. Before Hon. Judge Mitchell, and Aldermen Griffia a ge. Arnit.7.--The grand and petit juries were called and discharged, the former Spek thelatterfor a fort ight, and the court was about to adjourn when Mr. s. IL. Carpentar said that be had a motion & fete in the case of the people against Chas. H. ‘arpenter. ‘The court remarked that the motion had bétter stand over till Monday next. Mr. Carpenter said he had reselved a. notice from. one of the counsel in the case, intimating thas he was willing that a nolle proseyut showld be entered. ‘The Distriet Attorney said that he was counsel for the people and no private counsel had any aujhorit; from him to enter a nolft prosequi. He then move’ that the case of John and Sarah Watson, chi with arson, be sent back to the sessions, so a to be tried there this week. The District Attorney also moved that the ease of Rufus Meech, and the two pnter (atthe uit sent back to indictments against Chas. IL. Ca of the Kidd Salvage Company) be Sessions. These motions were not opposed. ordered the cases to be sent to the Se Oyer and Terminer took a recess to Monday next, the Mth inst., when prisoners will be brought up and arraigned. Anrrst or 4 Merprnen ry Missount.—Yester- day afternoon, two gentlemen, named eter Huff and Chas. Cretcher, came down on the steamer Sa- ranac, having in custody a man named James Mas- sey, whom t rested on Monday last, at his re- sidence in VW t county, Missouri, for the marder of # man named John Brown, in the county of Meigs, in the State of Tennessee, some time last May. ‘The circumstances of the murder, as we have them from Mr. Huff, show the deed to have been one of the most horrible, cold blooded, and fiendish acts, whose has ever stained the als of crane in this or any other country. The circumstances, elicited, as we learn, at the coroner's wry, are briefly these:” An illicit connection exist- cd between Massey and a woman of bad character, ‘n the neighborhood where both he and the mar- dered man resided, in the before-mentioned county; and on account of an intimacy which had eprang ap between the latter and this woman, a feeling of” jealously was harbored by Massey, who, on several occasion, threatened to take the life of Browa,. which he finally accomplished in following manner : Enticing his intended victim, under some reason- able pretext, to a lonely in the neighborhood of his own dwelling, fe, in the presence of the woman spoken of, offered him a flask of liquor, and, while he was in the act of drinking, struck him a blow on the forehead with a piece of © rock, which knocked him down, when ital upon him, and, with the same wer lite mashed in his face and a ion of his seul, Ai then, ns if unsatisfied with the extent of bis bru-- talilty, vented his fiendish rage by stamping upon the breast, and actually attemy to tear in 2 the body of his victi After having accomplished. the bloody deed the murderer fled, leaving the woman with the body. The woman was inn ly arrested, and appearing before the Coroner's jury, cd to the foregoing facts. sti A trae bill for ae found by the Grand Jury, and a reward of $200 offered for the arrest of the fugitive, whe was arrested by Mr. Hoff a short time after Che mas, at Lonicburg, Ark., but cseaped from ow on the way to Tennessee, Soime time itty Mr. HL. learning that Ma: Was living in Wright see ne me fiom hie (fats) of mee, Which is in the adjoinin, "paved in purewit of him 4 company site tine etcher, and discovering the place of his eoneeale Which was in an out-honse attached to his it dwelling, arrested ands i aware atthe parvult, aod ‘hee ieee wnsel with a rifle which he attempted t eanilant closing with hin, tutaged, sheen i oe sng: gle, ¢ Weapon from hie hands before ee it. There bei boat i d start for their place of dest ation, tee prowaee wee Placed 7 the calaboose for safe keeping witil some ne of conveyance could be Nt. i (Bo) big, ard ae A Hee ef Were 167 deaths in Philadely me be oth inet iphia during the week He first insisted the witness: - should go to his lawyer for the Penge r a