The New York Herald Newspaper, March 21, 1853, Page 2

THE ELEAZER WILLIAMS HUMBUG. ‘The Halt-reea Bourbon and the Senof Louis XVI. —Caastic Exposition of the Deseption by a Distinguishee Western Statesman—In- teresting Historical Details. TO THE EDITOR OF TUE NEW YORK HERALD. Sim—I should be surprised at the excitement which has prevailed on the subject of the attempt to establish the identity of the Rev. Eleazer Williams, a Ralf-breed of the Iroquois tribe of Indians, with the Mast Dauphin of France, son of Louis XVI., were not history filled with similar efforts, and with accounts @f the succeas which attended them. It is ‘8 ourious chapter in human nature, this pre-disposi- ‘tion to string together a few facts; with or without any necessary connection, and thence to draw the boldest conclusions, converting unknown individuals émto important historical personages. ‘There is a pruriency in the public appetite which gives a powerful relish to these investigations, and which is prove to sacrifice the established principles of evidence to the wonder of the hour. T have known Mr. Williams for almost thirty years, and undemvarious circumstances of official and per sonal intercourse. I have known him as an Indian half-breed of the St. Regis band, tolerably educated, speaking and writing English well—a worthy man, a I have heretofore considered him, and a clergyman ef the Episcopal Church. And it is not among the least extraordinary of the circumstances attending this extraordinary pretension, that he is now said to Dear a decided resemblance to the Bourbons, and has mo appearance of being an Indian. Now, sir, it appears to me, that no man acquainted with our aboriginal race, and who has seen Mr. Wil- Kame, can for a moment doubt his descent from that wtock, unless, indeed, he haa strangely changed since | Teaw him, which is some few years since. While | denying his Indian connection, the writer of the ar- ticle devoted to his claims in Putnam's Magazine gays: ‘‘Some persons, who saw him several years ago, Gell me that their impression is that he looked par- fially like one,’ (an Indian.) Well may this be @aid, for his color, his features, and the conformation of his face, testify to his origin. They present the very appearance which everywhere marks the half- Dreed Indian. I have seen persons partaking of the | Bourbon blood, and I endeavor in vain to recall | any decisive traits of resemblance between them and I do not design entering into a minute analysis of ‘the recent article which asserts his claims to be the | representative of that ancient family; but as circum- | stances have given me some knowledge of the sub- | ject, I propose, through your columns, to present a few considerations, showing that this attempt, where | it is not a sheer mistake, is a sheer imposition; but! | exonerate from the latter charge the very respecta- | Ble gentlemen who have unadvisedly given impor- tance to an idle tale. The life of the Dauphin, after the execution of his | father, is perfeetly well known, and his death is a | fact as well established as any incident of that kind | ean be. All the received French historians who treat | pon that period of the Revolution speak of his death | as an incontestable fact. If I am not in er | wor, there was a proces verbal—a kind of French legal narrative—which recorded the circum- | stances of his illness and of his decease. He was | attended, towards the close of his life, by Dessault,a | physician of the highest personal and professional | ebaracter,and who could neither be guilty of imposi- éon, nor suffer it in relation to the true condition of his interesting patient. Now, what evidence is brought forward to establish the falsehood of the co- | temporary account, and the disappearance of the | Dauphin from Paris, and his reappearance among | the St. Regis Indians? Is one single important inci- @ent reasonably proved which would satisfy a jury im any court in Christendom? Are the circumstances @f the escape and of the journey, the names and posi- tion of the persons engaged in the enterprise, and the motives that led tosuch a distant and useless seclusion, instead of conveying the heir of a long line | of kings across the French frontier to join his rela- | tives, who would have received him with open hearts | and arms? Are any of before the reader to y of eee. rejection of the bist | tical evidence of the death of that unfortunate boy, | and his belief in this improbable, not to say impos | sible, story? Nothing like it, as I shall attempt to | show by and by. At present I will examine briefly Mr. Williams’ account of his interview with the Prince de Joinville, which is put prominently forward as the romantic incident of this great cisutlantic historical | romance. The writer of the narrative first refers to his conversation with Mr. Williams, daring which, for aught that appears, nothing was said of a diary. ‘That seems to have been an afterthought, for, at the first interview, Mr. Williams “ positively declined stating all that passed between the Prince de Joi: ville and himeelf.” Then he did not ‘want a crown.” But his reserve decreased, and his story increased, till his fortunes assumed their present magni- ficent proportions. We have now extracts from a diurnal record which Mr. Williams after- wards eaid he had kept for many years. It may gavor of unreasonable incredulity to some, but T have no belief that sucha diary as that which purports to recountthe interview een the French — and the French pretender was ever kept by ‘illiams. I see no reason for it. His usually une- ventful life furnished neither motive nor material for | gach a daily recurring labor. The even tenor of his ceably and quietly in remote seclu- sion, and er were his habits of thought nor his powers of intellect of a nature to stimulate him to such exertion, or to render it of the least value by supplying by internal reflection the paucity of exter- saal civontsstances. Ifhe did record his daily thoughts ‘and words, the work must have been a queer speci- men of autobiography. But I recommend to the ourious searcher after interesting manuscripts to be- ‘ware that he does not add another to the long list of victims of their own credulity. Strange, indeed, that gach a contemporaneous record, which contained not ‘an account of his life and conversation, but, as is , an abstract ot his letters, should be kept by a man who is said, in this very narrative, to have been go unaccountably careless that he has lost all the ‘mportant documents from a king, a president, a eardinal and bishops, which found their way to mote individual at Green Bay—but how, or why, or when, as we are not told, it were idle to conjecture. What is the purport of this account of the interview between these persons? That the Prince de Join- ville had sought Mr. Williams at Mackinaw, and ac companied him to Green Bay. That in the conver- sation which took place the Prince revealed to him ‘the secret of his ,and told him he was autho- rized by his father to procure from him ‘‘a solemn abdication of,the crown of France in favor of Louis Philippe” by the Dauphin, (Mr. Williams) “ with ail ‘accompanying names and ti of honor, according to the customs of the old monarchy, (of which Mr. Williams is an excellent judge,) and offering to | him as a consideration a “princely establishment, | either in this country or in France,” together | with a restoration or an equavalent for it of all | the Bourbon estates. The Prince certainly in- tended to cheat his relative in this offer, for he well knew that, by a fundamental law of the old dy- | nasty, the person having right to the throne can no property ; and, of course, there was none | belonging to Louis XVII. to forfeit or restore. This fundamental law was the groundwork of the proceed- ing of Louis Napoleon against the estates of Louis | Philippe. And we are gravely told that this act of | abdication was enrolled on hinent, to be “ affixed | with the stamp and seal of Louis XVI.," and there | were also lying on the table the “ governmental | seals of France’-the one, if [ mistake not, used | under the old monarchy. How this relic of bygone royalty had been preserved in the vicissitudes of a revolution, when every vestage of regal authority had been carefully destroyed, and had fallen into the posession of Louis lippe, Pete ney it would seem, to give authenticity to solemm trans- fer of a kingdom, we must leave to the future his- torian to investigate and make known ; and we | mast leave to him, also, to commend, with suitable | ag the mock heroic declaration of Mr. Williams | , like De Provence, as he calls his uncle with a | kind of faaslly familiarity, he would not sacrifice his | honor. That little word has done a vast deal of mi- | chief ia the world, but seldom more, on a very small | scale, than it did to Mr. Williams, when he rejected the parchment sealed with a biy sea, and which he knows ‘‘ was of precious metal, but whether of gold | or silver, or & com id of both, I (le) cannot tell.” His knowledge of metallurgy, or of colors rather, must be small, indeed, not to be able to tell gold from silver. And ao he has kept his honor, and lost | a princely estab! it. What the latter would have | been worth we do not know ; but we do know that | the value of the former will never be the subject of | iry. } OP prince de Joinville indulged in a good oany | historical lucubrations, the conneviion of which | with the object of his mission it is dificult to dis- | f cover. Among other things, he is made to say | that his “ father and grandfather were present when the Inst strogcle took place between the king er fsiather) and the ministry upon the ar: | | the ticles of alliance with the United States of America.” See hate meee been’ a precocious youth to have cabinet councils, and to remember these proceedings, for he waa then short of tive ae And it must have been one of the lucky io his _grand- father, subsequently the noted P| PRE Egalite, when he was admitted to the councils of Louis XVI., to whom he was more personally and politically ob- noxious than any other man in Kingdom. And what was the object of this solemn embassy of a king’s son to a reputed half-breed Indian, living spon the great American lakes ? To reveal to him th he was the heir of the French monarchy, of which neither he nor any other ving Doing, 80 far a8 ap- |, except Louis Philippe , had the most Histant conception. And with what view? To pro- cure his formal abdication, and the assignment of his rights to the citizen king. And ree oe would such an assignment have done to Lig e? Mr. Williams, in hissimplicity, which we are told is one of his characteristics, seems to suppose that a kingdom may be assigned as easily as a tract of land, and that the title of the one passes as readily as the other. It is not necessary to tell the veriest in the political history of the world that kingdoms are not now transferred by assignment. Our Amer- ican Dauphin might have abdicated, and there his power over the matter would have ended. The right of succession, by the laws of the old monarchy, would | have passed to the Count of Chambord, the gon of Charles X., the youngest brother of Louis XVI., the last reigning monarch of the Bourbon line. Louis Philippe, im such an_ event, would have been just as much of a_usurper, as he was before, in the opinion of the believers in the right divine of kings. The advantage would Leper by yg w of Louis XVI., and not to his it relative Philip) He who sup- pores that that sagacious ch did not under- stand all this, or that he sent his son upon such a Tom Foo!l’s errand, knows as little of human nature as he does of one who possessed some of ite most powerful intellectual attributes. It is further stated that Mr. Williams received letters from Lovis Philippe, and from the private secretai of Louis Hepolpst, and letters from several Frenc! bishops and a cardinal, all, except the first, making inquiries respecting the events of his life. These were all burned, says this memoir—they never ex- isted, says common sense. The narrative contains a résume of the various cir- cumstances upon which this pretension is founded, and which the author seems to consider as a conse- cutive series of proofs of the eonclusion at which he | arrives. However it may fail in that respect, no one can deny that it is a most serene OT. specimen of historical logic and critical accumen. The conclusion is drawn with as much confidence as though tHe ne- cessary facts were established by the most incontesti- ble evidence. This résume, dr abstract, embraces twenty-seven different points, most of which depend upon the bare assertion of Mr. Williams, and several of those which do not are insignificant or immaterial. Here they are :— 1. The Prince de Joinville inquired atter Mr. Wil- liams. So says Mr. Williams. 2. Louis Philippe wrote him a letter. Mr. Williams. 3. The confession of Belanger that he brought the Dauphin to this country. So says Mr. Wil- liams. 4. That Genet, the French ambassador, in the presence of Dr. Francis and others, acknowledged that the Dauphin was alive, and in this country, and in the State of New York, in the year 1817. Mr. Genet is here called the French ambassador, and pieaseolor: is such that the careless reader would suppose he occupied that position at the time the conversation took place. Not so. His diplo- matic functions had ceased, by his recall, before the | death of the real Dauphin. He spent his subsequent | life in this country, and had no peeuliar or official means of information on this subject. The conver- sation referred to took place in a mixed assemblage, almost forty yearsago. To judge of the value of this declaration the circumstances should be known, that we might be able to determine whether it was asserted as afact that he knew or deduced as an in- ference; and, also, whether the residence of the fu- itive was known to Mr. Genet, and the means of is escape, together with the name; of the persons engaged in the enterprise. The bare, naked asser- tion, is worthy of little credit. If Dr. Francis states | that such a conversation occurred, his high charao- ter leaves no question of the fact. But, in that event, I have little doubt that Mr. Genet was in- dulging in some badinage, or making an experiment upon the credulity of his auditory. He who knows anything of the history of that somewhat remarka- ble personage, can hardly believe that if he was in the possession of such an important secret he would have locked it in his own breast for twenty years, instead of turning it, as he could have done, to his ee advantage—a secret which more than once luring that interval might have wholly changed the litical affairs of France, and with them tl of Purope, putting up and pulling down men, who would have paid millions—some of them—to prevent their depression, and others to secure their ele- vation. 5. The “dealings” of Mr. Le Ray de Chaumont with the Indians. So says Mr. Wuteme. s AE ORES oubifuet wand ro: rs a Le Ray de Chaumont well’ and at the fittempt a) rove that he was stationed asa spy upon Mr. Wil- jiame is a very chimera. His father occupied a | semewhat important ition in France—I believe | he was secretary of the cabinet council during our | Revolutionary contest—and he was an active friend So says of our cause. He became interested in a large tract of land in the northeastern part of New York, and | his son, who is now dead, and is the gentleman re- | ferred to by William, came over to take charge | of aud to setffe upon it. He remained there some | years, and then returned to France, where his son is | yet living. He was a most respectable, intelligent | ere, Whose position placed him in the neighbor- ood of the St. Regis Indians, and that circumstance alone led to all the intercourse he ever had with | them. After he left this country, the late Major- General Brown was, for some time, his agent. And | this is the spy, sent by paces God knows who, San to watch one of the Bt. Regis tribe of | indians! 6. The mo about another spy—I suppose he must | be so considered—Col. de Fevrier. So says Mr. Williams. | 1. The tale about the Abbe de Colonne and Bishop | Chevreuse. So says Mr. Willams. 8. That efforts were made to indace Mr. Williams to return to the bosom of the Catholic Church of a nature only explicable on the supposition ef his being more than an ordinary person. So says Mr. Williams. Generally, religious zeal furnishes motives suffi- | ciently powerful for such efforts among all persua- | sions, and the narrative contains nothing explana- | tory in addition to this well known Jaw ofour nature, except some equivocal intimations, of which Mr. Wil- | liams is the only witness. 9. That the name of Mr. Williams is not on the ace register at Coughnawaga. : his is a very trifling circumstance, easily Sle cable, and, indeed, satisfactorily explained by the priest, from the state of the infant’s health, which revented him from being baptized in the church. Meret re, there’ no necessity for resort ing to any physiological speculations as to the “regolar intervals” of two years between | the children borne by his mother, and the impossi- bility of finding a proper moment, or rather possible | one, forthe entrance of this important personage into our mundane sphere. , 10. That he has none of the characteristics of an ndian. Doctors will differ, they say, and so will men who not doctors. My opinion of his personal ey ity ance, when I knew him, and of his evident with the Indian race, I have already stated. 11. That he closely resembles Louis XVIII. I | do not know that he does not, though I have no | proof that he does. But it would be much more to the purpose to show that he resembles Louis XVI., unless, indeed, he was the son of his uncle. It is | said, however, that family likenesses sometimes de- scend in the collateral, and not in the direct line. It | may be so in this instance, thongh censorions people, if the fact were established, might seek the solation, | not in the laws of affinity, but in the scandalous , chronicles of the court of Louis XVI. 12, That various marks on his body correapond exactly with those known to bave been on the Dauphin. Toning to the narrative to ascertain what these exact marks are, it will be found that they dwindle into utter insignificence as proofs in a chain of evi- | dence. The Dauphin had the scrofula, and “the divease was in his knees.” That is all, so far as the Dauphin is concerned. Mr. Will ‘a knees are eaten up with serofula, and there are other scrofa- lous marks on my (his) body,” and that is all, so far as Mr. Williams is concerned; and these marks on tke body ‘exactly correspond,” though not a word is said about any marks on the body of the Dauphin. 15, That the name of the Dauphin was omitted from the solemnities for the departed Bourbons in the reign of Lonis XVIII. I know nothing of this, though I dowbt it. But satisfied am I that, if true, the omission did not arise from any doubts respecting the death of the Dauphin. It was said that James Il. of England sacrificed three kingdoms for a mass. Louis XVIII. was not the man to sacrifice one, nor was there the least ne- cessity that he should. He never dreamed of cast- ing doubts upon his own title to the throne by q | leaving out of the usual ceremonies the name ot predecersor. If the omission did take place, it ro- sulted from far different considerations. 14. That the Indian woman, his reputed mother, does not acknowledge iim to be her child. ‘The reader would naturally infer from this lan- age that he disclaimed the imputed maternity. e narrative justifies no such inference, but, in | fact, contradicts the assertion It containe an unsatisfactory account of Mr. Wil- liams's neglect to apprize her of the great discovery, and the assertion that that circumstance gave time to the Catholic priests to tamper with her, “and that ber month was hermetically sealed.’ And this, he- cause of the injury be would do to the Church, | OO EE | ing as he was. | there was any foundation for the story. | facts he now states, which would have rendered | | That the calendar of causes for trial at the eneuing April “should be to be the helt te ¢ thrge os i sian obelnacy” ‘es heen proof ainst all his efforts, and she will only say, ‘Do think stand.” 1 wet exes | casts ignan' ral one, as it is evident that the old squaw, mother, supposed they meant to make pobprip crepes her to confess that his father wasa king, who visited the tribe, and that his mother, therefore, was an adulteress and himeelf a bastard. The answer is otherwise destitute of all meaning. Butthere isaspice of disingenuousness here as well as elsewhere, in this account, for the narrative expressly asserta that the mother, when enumerating her children, and the dates of their birth, “brings in his name at a particular place.” It reeive how it can be asserted in the face of these facts that ‘his reputed mother does not acknowledge him to be her child.” 15. That boxes of clothing and medals of Louis XVI. and Marie Antoinette were left with the child, one of which is in Mr. Williams’s possession. So says Mr. Williams. ; Why he recollects this incident of the boxes being ep le him, when in pay iaycestd aioe porn forgotten everything else, neither ero of the story nor his pivare phen has told us. In the meantime, we are asked to believe that a murderer, escaping for his life, and an idiotic boy, carried off with them boxes of ck ing and medals, in the midst of the most vigilant police in the world, who probaly. never lost sight of the acpi, except for a very brief interval, and who would have raised a hue and cry after him, which would have resounded throughout France. For myself, I am to be obliged to consider as apocryphal the account of the Spy ay brocade dress, ‘ against whose silken folds Mr. Williams had fondly rested when the living loveliness of Marie An- toinette was within it,” because I fear the casket never contained the treasure; and it taxesmy i- nation beyond its capacit; when I ain asked to pic- ture to myself my old In acquaintance fondled in the arms of that beautiful queen, whose splendid anegyric, dictated by a poetic fancy rather by ith, is one of the most magnificent efforts of the genius of Edmund Burke. J 16. That an unknewn Frenchman wept over him ! So eays Mr. Williams, Z 17. That his tuition must have been paid for by some other person, because he does not believe his reputed father had the means or the incliuation to de- fray the expense. So says Mr. Williams, 18. Is the account of a conversation he heard be- tween Thomas Williams and his wife about a French hoy. So says Mr. Williams. 19. That he recognized the and of his aunt, the sister of Mr. Williams. eit ag ed of his jailor ouis XVI. So says 20. That Mr. Williams was idiotic at the age of thirteen or fourteen. So he says. It may have been g0, and it would be charitable to hope that his pre- sent attempt is the result of a mental delusion, to be traced to that misfortune instead of a worse motive. 21. That the Dauphin at his age was reduced to the condition of mental alienation by ill treatment. It may be that two children of the same age, even in different hemispheres, may have had similar dis- orders. But whatdoes that prove, and more es cially as there is not the slightest evidence that Mr. oye ‘was in a state of idiocy at that time of his fe. 22. That since the instantaneous recovery of his reason in Lake George—(wonderful waters those! far exceeding the waters of the Pool of Siloam which cured only the body)—since then he has had some dreaming remembrances, ‘‘ corresponding to known scenes in the es history.” The in- quiring community has nothing to do with Mr. Wil- liams’s dreams, even if they are as mi cent as those of his predecessor in the Arabian Nights Enter- tainment. It wants facts, not assertions. 23. That a decree for the banishment of the son of Louis XVI. passed the French Convention of 1794. I have no ie to turn back to the legislative or historical records of France to ascertain if this be so. Such a decree, if passed, would not bear in the slightest manner upon this sul No man, not even the most eredulous believer in Mr. Willams’s descent from Hugh Capet and St. Louis, pretends that the Dauphin was banished by virtue of such a eee ne is Cras Cay he was eee s: is keeper, secretly, of course, an ngely roe expe th yee to flee,in consequence of his having commit mar- der. And we are called upon to believe that in such | an emergency, life or death depending upon the is- | sue, and surrounded by the French pore he took with him an idiotic boy in the very last stages of a | terrible disorder, with ‘trunks of medals and rich | clothing. A strange arrangement, and one well cal- culated both to impede his journey and draw upon | him the public attention wherever he might pass. This is not the way in which criminals seek to es- cape the penalty of death. And how happened it that the monte of the Dauphin was never discovered by the French government and the police of Paris? Nobody doubts their activity or, vigilance, or their disposition to secure this State prisoner. Were they imposed upon by @ supposititious child ? Did he es- cape before his report ed death or after i it? The brat ia fran. ith aber . Tees Ing this branch of the” subject, there is one roof of identity worth adverting to for its novelty | if not for its importance. We are seriously told that | “ Not only the physical but the mental characteris- tics of Mr. Williams, curiously correspond with what the Dauphin would probably be if alive,” &c. - ment upon such a process of reasoning cannot be | That the President and ecclesiastical digni- | taries” of France have written to Mr. Williams, | making inquiries concerning his history. So says | Mr. Williams. and his biographer put this down a3 one of the links in his chain of evidence. Louis Na- pe and the French dignitaries have somethii etter to do than to make inquiries about Mr. Wil- liams, unless, indeed, they were as powerfully dream- | 25. That there have been various attempts to per- sonate the Dauphin. There is no answer to such an argument; but it suggests that our country has now added to the number. 26. Nothing to the purpose. Some loose state- | ments about the Duke de Liancourt and the travels of Louis Siete th this country. 27. That Mr. Williams is a respectable clergyman. Though a good character weighs, and should weigh, mich in doubtful cases, yet we should contradict all human experience if we assumed*that men bearing good characters cannot do wrong, and egregrious wrong, too. Mr. Williams bes voluntarily placed himeelf in no enviable position. He must stand or | fall, not by his character, but by his proofs. The | Remans said of the departed, ‘He has lived.” I am afraid we shall have to say of Mr. Williams he has been a respectable clergyman. | There is in existence a letter, written by Mr. Wil- | ° liams to a person of hia acquaintance, some three | years ago, in which he alluded to a prevailing ramor of his being connected with the Bourbons, and ask- ing the person to whom it was addressed, whethor He made | not the most distant allusion to his interview with the Prince de Joinville, to his letters, or to the other his inquiry wholly unnecessary. He was informed that there was not, in the opin- ion of his correspondent, the least foundation for euch an idle & And there the communication dropped. His letter was utterly inconsistent with | any knowledge of the facts he now asserts to be | true. There is a report that the Prince de Joinville has written a letter to the editor of Putnam’s Magazine | upon the subject of this story. It requires but little sagacity to pronounce, that if such a letter has been diction of Mr. Williams’ statement of his interviews | and conversations with the Prince, so far a3 they re- gard this ridiculous pretension. It surprises me, however, that the Prince should think it worth the trouble to contradict such an absurb and ill-digested experiment upor the public eredulity. Sr. Cram. Superior Court—General Term. Chief Justice Oakley and Hon. Judges Duer, Campbell, Bosworth, Paine, and Emmet, prosiding. GENERAL ORDER. Manca 19.—At a general term of the Superior Court of the city of New York, held at the City Hall, in the city of New York, on the i9th day of March, 1853: Ordered, term of this court be continued as the calendar of the next May and June terms, respectively, end be taken up at the commencement of those terms, respectively, at the place where the court leaves off at the close of the term immediately preeeding. Cavaes Lot noticed for trial at the April term, and such aa are, during that term, put off fer the term, or ealled, or passed, tay be noticed for the May and June ter and causes thus put off, called, or pened, during the term, may be noticed for the first Monday of June. The clerk will place the causes as noticed for May and June terms, respectively, at the foot of the April calendar, ac- cording to their respective priority. Noten of issve are to be filed in the causes last men- tioned; in other causes on the April calendar no notes of | issue need be filed for the two subsequent terms, No fresh notice of trial will be required to move any cause | noticed for April term, in the two subsequent terms, un- | less it ehall have been ealled, or passed, or put off to the | ensuing term, at the instance of the party moving it. And it is further ordered, that all notes of issue here- | after, for the general, cial, and trial terms of this | court, must be filed with the clerk, eight days before the | commencement of the first day of the succeeding term. | ROBERT G. CAMPBELL, Clerk. N. B.—The members of the bar are particularly re- quested to have their notes of issue filed, for the ensuing April term, on or before Saturday, 26th instant, to allow | time to bave the trial and general torm caleudars printed, A Western S terly meeting in Ch At a Methodist quar- | bersburg,Mo., on the 13th ult., a gang of men, one of them pretending to be the State Marshal, arrested the Rey. Mr. Kelley, charging him with being a fugitive from the Iowa State prison, put him on a horse, tied vis legs, drew a Colt revolver to keep off the people, and thus car- ried him off to Madison, where he fonnd that the Rey. Mr. Kelley waa somebody else thana convict. | it ine tbi | Hazen hed | mnust show that the def | tiff sued on a contract. | tiff and defendants, the opposing counsel had made | at Mr. Monk; but all thelr efforts to impeach him THE ART UNION CASE. Judge Lynch, presiding. HAZEN V8.'AMERICAN ART UNION—VERDICT FOR THE PLAINTIFF. ‘OxTH DAY. ‘This case was again brought on at 10 A.M. Wm. H. Monk again examined—I have seen Mr, Hazen. at workin the basement in the evening, but am not posi- tive. (Objected to.) Cross-examined—I am 17 years old; I have spokea with my father about this case two or three times; I spoke to him about it this morning; I asked him in what way I should express myself, and be said he woald rather not say anything in the matter except that I whould tell the truth; I cannot remember the exact conversation pre- viously; I cannot remember the exact day when the con. versation between Messrs. Cossens and Hazen took ; I think it was before the distribution in 1860; I mean the anticipated time of distribution; it was, I think, about three o'clock in the day; I think my father was there, and in the committee room I think was Colonel Warner; the occurrence took place in the old committee room, at the table in the centre of the room; I saw the book, and I think it was the subscription book; the door was open to the other committee room; my impression is I saw Col. Warner there; Hazen was writing, I cannot tell what; Hazen did not say anything himself; Mr. Cozens took the book from Hazen's hand, and said, ‘ Let me look at that;”” I don’t know what made him say ‘All right;”’ I suppose apy one in one room could have heard what was said in the other; I was generally there on Sundays during 1851 and 1862; this transaction took I think in the lat- ter part of 1860, er the beginning of 1851; the usual time of distribution was in December; I don’t remember whether or not the distribution was postponed that pared Tam dis) to think the occurrence was in the latter part of 1850; I believe there has not been a distribution since that time. Mr. Jacob Bracelet was called, and deposed—I have known Mr. Monk for the last twenty-five years; he was once in my employment, la 1843, 1844, of 1845, as steward and head storekeeper; I never heard a word against him, except what I have heard in this court. Cross-examined—I was connected with a suit against Mr. Henry Johnson; I did not act for or against him; I ¢on’t know who the United Stsutes Hotel; I am not in business now; I last kept the Union Hotel; I never knew hed Mr. Monk left the Seventh Ward Bank; never knew before that his testimony had been impeached in a court of justice. Mr. Harlam Wood examined—I have known Mr. Monk fs oe or five years; his character is good as faras I wow. Cross-examined—I have been very intimate with him for the last two or three years. Mr. Joseph Delvechio deposed—I have known Mr. Monk for the last fifteen years; to the best of my knowledge his character is Viaey Cr mine T have never had a difficulty with the to my knowledge; I am as frame maker; I have been intimate with Mr. Monk; don’t know why he left the Seventh Ward Bank; Idon’t know why he left the employment of the defendants. Arhort conversation here ensued between the counsel and the Judge, as to the propriety of ealling more wit- nesses as to character, which the Judge thought was un- necessary. Jos. Monk was recalled by Mr. Darlington, to show for what cause the receipts were given, and a discussion ensued between counsel on the point, but the Judge admitted the evidence. Mr. Monk deposed that the services to which the bills alluded were given from eight in the morning to six in the evening. Mr. James H. Mills examined —I know Mr. Hazen; knew him in 1851; I was clerk to Mr. Whitner, where the Art Union rooms are; I was in the habit of going into these rooms frequently, in the morning and evening, and saw Mr. Hazen there almost every evening: I saw him engaged in work in the latter part of 1850 and the begin- ning of 1851. Cross examined—I saw him mostly every evening; Iam sure I have seen him five evenings out of the six; I doa’t know whether he had been absent part of those days and was working up at nights; I don’t know what hour he came in the merning; he was working for the Art Union; I have seen him writing in their books; I cannot tell from what time to what time this continued. This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr. Coe then applied tor an ad joure inet ashe was not quite prepared to sum up, andafier a short conversation, it was arrang- ed to again take up the case to-morrow, at one o’cloek. SEVENTH DAY, Maxcu 19.—This case was again called up. Mr. Fullerton, one of the counsel for the defendants, addressed the bench at considerable length in behalf of his clients, and observed at the outset that the case had assumed a greater importance than really belonged to it ; but be suspected that something more than the present actual case lay behind. With regard te the contract, the only witness called to prove it was Mr. Monk, who, it ought to be remembered, was the uncle of the plaintitf. He swore that he had authority given him by Col. War- ner, and when the case rested on that testimony, it was proved that Col. Warner had not that authority. Ac- cording to Ms. Monk's own showing, he was enly to get such assistants as he required, and it was im) that he was to have them in the usual way, according to the rules of the institution. He had not the slightest au- thority to make a contract to limit the number of work- ing bovrs. He did not go so faras to say that Warner bad the authority. It has been proved that it was the custom to employ the clerks at all hours when the work required it, and there was no nears limit put to the hours of Jabor. Mr. Monk was the first to depart from tbat rule, Hazen went into the institution to render the same sescioes aa hie ecsUF had done, and the clutint for extra work was entirely an afterthought. His pre decessor had performed service at lute hours when re- guested and he received $10'a week. and there is no proof t he received more pay. The $75 was voted to him by the Art Union, and he was disposed to find fault with them for this illiberality. If, however, he had a right to it, he would have demanded it. Why did Haven out a bill for $8 a week only? Why were not the extra services included? He receipted the bills, delivered them, and yet now presents another claim against the association for other services. He presents his bill for his services, and yet does not give any one to understand that he has other elaims. Why did he not make the reservation? In fact, ee pares Py Mr. Monk. If wor! extra, and expect extra , he rendants knew that such was’ the fact. They are not bound to pay under such ciroum. stances. ey understood him to working at regular work, and bad no consideration about extra work. Mr. | Corzens, who was President, and Col. Warner and Mr. | Jarvis, testified that it was the custom for the clerks to | work as long as there was work to be done. | not be disputed that clerks are expected to execute the Now it can- work of their employers. In the case of the Art Union a pratuity was given tothe clerks when they had been eavily worked, but there was no claim for extra work. | It was given, as it were, by way of encouragement, and not because the clerks were entitled to it os a matter of law; and it is not because one gratuity was given that another sbould be given. After making some remarks on the testimony of Mr. Monk, Jr., as to the knowledge which Mr. Cozzens had of the Sunday work, Mr. Fullerton observed that Hazen should have left the Art Union without claiming compensation for extra work, and that the first thing they heard of the elaim was in the sum- mer of 1862, a period of more than eighteen months. The language used by Mr. Monk, when first speaking of the claim, was Robie | and rendered matters very suspicious. An the piainti! himself had not been present ring this trial, it struck Mr. Fullerton that he was mei¢ly a cat’s paw for other parties who are desirous of dragging th of the Art Union before the public, and to share in the plunder thatis left. Throughout the trial Mr. Monk has been a very prominent party, and it was evident that the present suit was only the ude to an- other. He has held out threats that he will make an ex- to of the affairs of the Art Union; but the managers ave defied him, and thus proved their willingness to have their affairs examined. After passing some severe strictures on the character of Mr. Clark, counsel hoped that his Honor, the Judge, would take the character of the whole testimony into consideration. Mr. Darlingion, on behalf of the plaintiff, then rose, | and after expressing hia surprise at the addresa of the opposing counsel, raid that the testimony of all the wit- nesses concurred about the rendering of services on the part of Hazen. As to those services being extra was a point to be decided by his Honor, the Judge. The plain- A contract is founded on the mn- tual agreement between the parties, and may, by a legal inference, drawn from the ciecumstances of the case ex- r t | plaining the relations of the parties, be settled as an im. | received, it will be fonnd to contain a direct contra- | plied contract. The law always presumes such agree- ments tobe made as reason and justice would dictate. Chief Justice Marshall laid down the law clearly on this oint, and shows that a contract is fmplied when a party nowingly and tacitly allows of @ transaction. The au- thority of the agent may be {mplied from the acts of the parties. Now, if services are not in the regular contract, they are extra services. Judge—There cannot be a doubt that there is enough in this cae to show that Mr, Monk employed this young man, and the company were liable, but the rate at which they should be paid wae a inatter of eoutract. r. Darlington—If the company permitted the emp'oy ment ef first ove clerk and then another by Monk, they are bourd by his employment. Judge—You have shown enough to prove that the oom- pany are liable for Hazen’s services, but at what rate he ix to be paid is a question for the Court. Mr. Darlington—A right to employ implies a right to stipulate. judge—Not at all; for a person may set another to work for him, vot the law must fix the remuneration. Mr. Monk did not pretend he had a right to fix the rate of compensation. Mr. arlington—Mr. Monk did fix and stipulate the compensation, and that binds the company. for his au- thority is to be presumed from his position, for he was de facto superintendent, employing clerks, and the law presumes the fact of bis fixing compensation. Where an agent employs hands for his principal, and stipulates the hours of labor, he is fixed by that agreement made by his agent for him. From his previous acts Mr. Monk had authority to employ, The agreement with Hazon stated that his labors were to cease at 6 P.M. ‘he testimony goes to show that he did perform services after that our, Judge—There ix no dispute as to the two months just before the distribution, but there is something weak in the textimeny as to the other periods. Mr. Darlington run over the testimony of the different witnesses, and in remarking on ths deporitions of Mr. Cozrens and lis condjutors, made some severe strictures on the new practice of allowing interested parties to ap- pear as witnesses; and another practice equally, if not more objectionable, was that of counvel giving evidence in their own care, as Mr. Coe had done. He then went on to say that, instead of trying the issue between the plain. ee proved abortive, for his evidence had been satisfactorily corroborated. Monk is hated by the defendants Decauce he was what is termed ‘impracticable.’ He had remonstrated against the malpractices that were going on in the Art Union, and had threatened oxposure, a: it is the fear of that exposure that determines the mana- gers to oppose the present claim. The idea of Mr. Hazen being expeeted to work extra waa most ridiculous, Mr Monk had received eompencation for extra work, and Colowel Warner bad got $1,200 for extrs services. Mr. | Darlington id dy expressing @ “PP that his Hon r, Me Judge, would give judgment in favor of his client. The Judge said—This iss case which, in the exercise of Ay fey Minit, ought to have bern setiled in few hours ‘eonference, but by the influence of the spirit of mischief, has been aggravated into a case in which the par- ties have been angered, and witnesses have tes- tified to. matters beyond their actual knowled under the conviction that they were stat the truth. No doubt there are misconceptions on Doth sides. There is no doubt, from the evidence, that the defendants, the managers of of the institute, thought they were not bound to pay for the plaintiff's extra ser- vices, but could make an optianal gratuity. The plaintiff, no doubt, was led to believe that as things were going he might have a chance, and his claim was therefore not beyond that which he flattered himself he was entitled to. But if each party had made some con- cession the case would have been settled. To me, it presents # case in which I am entitled to exercise all the powers of equity given to me in strict rule of law. I shall not dilate hereat all upon the testimony of the witnesses should, of cours, have wished that the case had closed, but 1 shall not myself contribute many degree to increase the existing enmity. As to the claim of the plaintiff, it must be conceded that there is a liabili- ty on the part of the defendants. As to the work render- ed there is a discrepancy in the testimony of the witnesses. Mr. Cogzens said there were particular circumstances by which he was enabled to fix and I shall there- fore give credit to the plaintiff for $2 a week for four weeks. which I think would be fair compensation for what he rendered. But it appears incontrovertible that during the months from October to ber there was a pases for the plaintiff being at the institution, and he was fully employed. I cannot acknowledge the right of institutions or individuals to claim or exempt the ob- ligation to perform services by night or day, and equity forbids such an exemption. re there ins party un- der expegtation of receiving a gratuitous allowance for rervices, and does actually (aging such, and where li on the part of the employer, he is entitled to 6 much as equity allows. Therefore, I shall give judgment for $2 a week for the twe months. Now, with regard to the Sunday work, we are told that a resolu- tion was passed by the association that there should be no work on Sunday;and yet a certain amount of work had to be accomplished by s certain day, and therefore it was necessary the clerks should be employed on Sundays. The orders of the association must be either neglected on one oceasion or disobeyed on the other. Hazen failed to effect the object which the; uired of him, in having the work ready by the Friday, he would have neglected orders, and if he worked on Sundays he would have disobeyed them. But where is the roof that the plaintiff had knowledge of that ? kk is certainly shown that the committee knew of ‘is Sunday work, and if they had disapproved of it, they could have closed the doors; but as the work was perinitted, and the company derived the benefit of that work, they are bound to pay for work so rendered. When it is raid that parties should not recover for Sunday work, my ides is that the parties who permit the work to be done are as much to blame, in areligious point of view, as the workmen... Hazen is fully entitled to remu- neration for what hedid. Under those circumstances, and under the impression that the work was necessary, I *shall allow him for ten Sundays, at two dollars a ay) i preducing # sum in the whole of forty-four dollars, for which I give judgment. Mr. Coe—Costs for defendants, in that case ? Judge—Costs for defendants. ‘Theatrical and Musical. Bowery Turarre.—The beautiful and very successful spectacle called the ‘Arab and his Steed,” which has been produced in exeellent style by that able stage manager Mr. Stevens, will commence the entertaia- ments this evening. Mr. Stevens sustains the character of Arrac, and Wallet that of Barney Brallagan. The famous drama of the ‘ Ragpicker of Paris’ conclude the emusements. BroaDWay THEATRE.—Mr. Edwin Forrest, the tragedian, who is, as usual, drawing full houses, will appear this evening in the tragedy of the “ Broker of Bogota,” in which he will BD emend his great character of Baptista Febro. He will be supported by Mesars. Conway, terry, | Mathews, Whiting, and Madame Ponisi. The amusements | will close with a new farce ealled ‘To Paris and back for Five Pounds.”’ Nrw10’s Garpen.—The farewell performance of Madame Henriette Sontag is announced for this evening, when she will appear, general desire, in the beautiful opera of ‘La Sonnambuls.”? There ,can be little doubt but that the theatre will be crowded to overflowing, asa testimony of esteem for her splendid abilities. Burton’s THEATRE.—Shakspeare’s fine old comedy, called the ‘‘Merry Wives of Windsor,’’ will commence the entertainments. The various characters will be sus- tained by Messrs. Burton, Placide, Dyott, Johnston, Fisher, Mra. Skerrett, Mrs. Dyott, and Mrs. Bernard, Mrs. in will sing favorite ballad, and the enter- lad, tainments will conclude with the “Smiths.” National THEATRE —A new and original drama is an- nounced to be performed this evening. It is called “Woman’s Wrongs.” Nearly all the feaiag artists will appear in the eharacters of ears epic i will dance, and Mies Deforest will sing a favorite . The entertainments will terminate with the nautical drama of the “Pilot.” WaAttack’s THEaTRE —This theatre is drawing very re- spectable audiences every night, and the performances ways give unmixed pleasure to the audience. The beau- tiful comedy of the ‘Poor Gentleman’’ will commence the entertainments, with Blake, Lester, Mason, Reynolds, and Mrs. Blake, in the principal parts. The amusements will conclude with the splendid drama called “Pauline.” American Musrum.—The new and successful specta- cle entitled ‘“ Blue Beard,” is announced again for this evening, in conjunction with the farce of the ‘‘ Dead Shot.” Two excellent pieces are also promised for the afternoon. St. Cuaries ToEatRE —The benofit cf Mise Albertine is to come off this evening at the St. Charles. Three very attactive pieces are advertised, im which Mr. J. R. Scott, Mr. Robinson, Mr. Leffingwell, Miss Mitchell, Miss Alber- tine, and Mrs. Mason will appear. Circvs.—Madame Tournisire and the French equestrian troupe have been drawing brilltant houses at the Amphi-+ theatre, and are engaged for another week. Madame Tournisire takes her benefit on Friday. Mr. Charles Riv- ers also tabes & benefit on Thursday. Cnristy’s Orena Hover.—Christy’s famed band of min- strels offer another rich programme for this evening. J. W. Rainer’s annual benefit is announced for Saturday evening next. Woon's Mixsrreis.—This highly popular band of Ethi- | opian delineators announce another excellent me for this evening. The inimitable Frank Brower is to appear. Rorert Heiuer continues to attract crowded audiences to his beautiful saloon, 539 Broadway. Ristey’s TaaMms AND BaNyARD’s Hoty Lanp are witness- ed nightly by large assem blages. Dr. Vatsxtixe.—This popular eceentricWlecturer an- nounces a rich entertainment for this evening. Mug, Varentis1.—This talented artist is to commence a series of permanent concerts, at Society Library, this evening. Madame Anna Bishop gave a concert in Savannah, Ga., on the 14th instant. Mr. J. E. Murdoch is playing to good houses at the Na- tional theatre, Boston. Madame Anna Thillon and Mr. Hudson, the Irish come- their last appearance in Mobile on the 7th 1 Family arrived at Mobile on the 6th instant, , and at last accounts were performing in the former place. : The Chinese Jugglers commenced a new reries of enter- tainments at the Musical Fund Hall, Philadelphia, on the 17th instant. The Bateman Children were to have a benefit and make their last appearance in New Orleans on the 14th inst. The Rousset Sisters made their first appearance in Richmond, Va., on the 1dth instant. Kk Csaba troupe of trained animals are in Charleston, Two young gentlemen are preparing themselves for the stage {n Cincinnati, and will shortly make their début. Their names are EM. Powers, nephew of Hiram Powers, the sculptor, and H. W. Gossin, son of one of the township trustees of Cincinnati. john Sefton is performing at the Richmond, Va., eatre. ATuxarne Nor 4 CauRcH.—A very unsafe and ridiculous decision has recently been made in one of the courts of New Orleans, A young man in one of the theatres show- ed his impatience’ at rome delay in the performance b stamping and hissing. An officer present remon: tad, when the rowdy struck him. A charge of resisting the law van preferred. On the trial, Judge Larus made the remark that ‘‘a theatre was not a church—that he thought stamping the fect a manner of expressing im. patience which custom had long sanctioned—and he thought the dollar you paid at the door authorized you te hiss as you pleased.” Police Intelligence, Avrat of Burglars.—Ofticers Thorn and Stout, of the Heventh ward, on Sunday morning arrested two well- known characters to the police, named James Dono. hoe and William Moran, otherwise called “Sling,” cn a charge of breaking into a grocery store, corner of avenue D and Thirteenth street, and stalin, therefrom $6. It seems that on Saturday night at a late hour, two policemen of the Seventeenth ward raw the jprisoner called ‘ Sling” with another man, and, knowing them to be suspicious characters, they watched their movements until they turned the corner of avenue D and Thirteenth street. On the officers arriving at the corner, they missed sight of Sling and his compaa- ion, and, supposing they had hurried down the street, the policemen passed onward, but bad not got more than half a block off when the alarm of ‘Wateh!”’ and “Stop thief!’ was heard. The policemen turned back to the corner quickly, and just as they arrived, out ran from an alley- way “Sling’’ and his companion ; the policemen gave chase, but were unable to secure them. It was then avcertained that the rear of the grocery had been broken open, and from the money drawer about six dollars had been stolen. After the escape of the rogues from the | Seventeenth ward police, the abovenamed policemen of the Eleventh ward saw the same fellows, and knowing | them to be desperate characters, took them into custody | on suspicion, and it was subsequently axcertained that they were the two persons who ran from the alleyway, corner of avenue D and Thirteenth street. It was only a few days ago that the same fellows had been committed to privon by Justice Welsh on a charge of robbery, but, by some means not yet explained, were discharged from the Tombs. In this last arrest, Justice Wood committed them to prison to await an examination, as he intends to take a charge of burglary against them. BA Violent Assault with a Glass Tundler.—Admut two o'clock on Saturday night an altercation took place in» porter house, on the corner of AMen and Grand streets, between the owner, Trainor, and James 0'Callahwn. They first commenced by throwing liquor in each other's faces, when at last Trainor threw one of the glass tumblers, | which struck O'Callaban a violent blow on the temple, knocking him down and inflicting a very severe lacera- tion of the cealp, causing the ‘blood to tlow copiously. Offcers Bogart and Smith, of the Tenth ward, arrested | Trainor and conveyed him to the station house, ‘The in- jured man was also taken to the police station, and medi- + calaid procured, who dressed the wound; but the patient | becoming faint, through the great loss of blood, it was | deemed necessary to convey at onee to the City | i faa Justice Wood com Trainor W pion $0 ! ri Interesting from Northern Mexico, OUR BIO GRANDE CORRESPONDENCE. Eacux Pass, on Fort CAN, } On the Rio Grande, Feb. 14, 1853. On last Friday, the 12th of this month, about ‘two buns dred Rio Grandians from Fresidio, Rio Grande, eame up- to attack the town of Peidras Negras, just opposite to usy in Mexico. The town surrendered without firing a shots although Colonel Mandanao, who was in command of the troops offthe town, had two eighteen pounders and other” small cannon. The Rio Grandians gave Mandanao twenty four hours to leave for Monterey; had he been populat ith the citizens and ‘the troope he gould have defended wn suce: inst the Rio G: ey an pe cause ef the Rio Grandians coming up to this wat to remove the custom houre, that was Peidras Negras. a few days a ed at Presidio, Rio Gr: The American Boundary Commission, TO THE EDITOR OF THE HERALD, Your paper of Saturday the 12th inst., contains am article, extolling the late United States Boundary Commissioner, John R. Bartlett, Esq. Whoever may have given you the information upon which your arti- cle is based, has so misused the facts and misrepresent- ed the true state of the case, that I claim, in justice to others, for the cause of trath, and for the love of that country to be “ congratulated,” that a few re- marks should appear in your paper, not in an- swer to arguments you used, but merely to show the public how far the conclusion arrived at is borne out by the facta, Those who have not followed this matter, or watch ed the proceedings of Congress, would little suspect: from the article I have alluded to, that this whole question has, during two sessions of Congress, beer the subject of discussion and investigation in both: houses; that the able arguments of the Hon. V. E. Howard, in the House, and of Senator Mason and others, in the Senate, in condemnation of the Com- miasioner’s course, have remained unanswered—and that a committee of the Senate, appointed to inves- tigate charges of mismanagement and mal-practice against the Commissioner, after continuing during nearly the whole of last sesson, and a portion of the: resent extra session, only concluded their labors om the day before this article appeared in your paper, and have not yet made a report to the Senate. any inference be drawn from this that your inform- ant endeavored to give publicity to his statement ta forestall the public mind; and with what degree of delicacy the public can judge. It is claimed that Mr. Bartlett's office was of a “diplomatic character as well as scientific.” The law of Congress, making the appointment, no where bears out such an assertion, an discussions of Congress, to which I have just alluded, expressly de- nied any diplomatic character to the Commissioner. As for the “scientific character” of the office which is arrogated, the law is that the commission shall consist of a commissioner, a surveyor, and ar astronomer, or head of the scientific co: Col. J. D. Graham, U. 8. A., well known for able and scientific report and labors on the Northeasterm boundary, as well as several other public works, and whose reputation as a man of science is not of this country only, but European, was for a considera- ble time the chief of the scientific corps, and was: succeeded by Major Emory, also of the Topographi- cal Engineers. To this special officer was the scientific portion committed, whilst the Commia- sioner was made the disbursing officer. The rey of Col. Graham on this Mexican boun- dary has been before the country for over six months, published by the Senate. It com -five: pages of a volume of great interest. To this I would refer those who desire an intimate knowledge of the affairs of the commission and the country over which ita labors extended. I would here only allude to it in relation to the efficiency of the corps of surveyora and engineers selected by Mr. Bartlett, ‘numbering in all about one hundred persons, and divided inte four parties.” Col. Graham's opinion of their acien- tific attainments is curious. Your informant expeuises upon “the right kind of men selected for great Gael aoe and al- ludes to the ‘one open fight’ with the Indians. Now this fight was thus:—On the road to Chihuahua, the few mules belonging to the commission, not im harness, were driven id_ the fallen back to the distance of half a mile, or more, with only one man them. The Indians (or Mexicans), who had, as usual, been watching the pl of the train, perceiving this, made s rush at these mules, and drove them off, or stam) them, killing the man in charge, who had |, and also killed his man; but there was no other fight, for Mr. Indian is not apt to incur any risks, orexpose himself to an “open fight.” They fied precipi- tately, without a chance of doing which they would not have attacked. All the other depredations of Indians, in which it is stated, in praise of Mr. Bart- lett, that three hundred mules’ were lost, were mace by stealth, when the mules were badly guarded. Again, it is stated that “ but about twenty (of the commission) perished by violent means.” Lest this should create a wrong impression in the mind of a grateful public, I would state the end of about one-half of this number, that came to my knowledge; the other half I never heard of. Five were hung at Socorro for lawlessness, under sentence of Lynch law, administered by other members of the com- | mission; one was murdered at San Antonio by a fel- | low member; one was shot by another member, be~ tween San Antonio and El Paso; one committed | suicide, and two or three were murdered in broils at or near El Paso. But I will not further follow the perversions of fact, of the characters that have been imposed on you, and come at once to the principal question, the elt of the initial ae I Wvould | not te would your space allow, my going over the whole argument of a subject like this, with has been so Pn handled, and the point fixed by Mr. Bartlett and General Condé so signally condemned, by both Houses of Congress. To the reader of such matter it would be like ——A twice told tale, Wearying the dull ear of a drowsy man. The question now made, is that the map of Distur- nell, whish is annexedto the treaty of Guadulupe Hi- dalgo, contained two gross errors—one of latitude, the other of longitude—and, therefore, it is deduced that Mr. Bartlett home for the country 6,000 square miles (which, if he had gained, would be a fraud, and by no means creditable in his high position) instead of having lost 6,000 square miles, as the Se- nate were foolish enough to suppose. Now, it sa iarpe that in the treaty no mention whatever is made of latitude or longitude; and the authority of Colonel R. E. Lee, Chiet Engineer du the war, and at present superintendent at West Point, whe was consulted by Mr. Trist, in framing the treaty, bears me out in saying that the omission was inten- tional. With a perfect knowledge of the incorrect- nees of all Mexican re in that respect, the framers of the treaty designated natural objecta, such as the town of El Paso, and the line forming the southerm boundary of New Mexico commences oh Disturnell’s map at a “Salinera,” situated eight miles north of Et Paso, and which is easily found. Previous to the fixing of this initial point, the scientific officer of the commission, and acting surveyor, wrote to Mr. Bartlett :—‘The lines of latitude and longitude not being referred to in the het f shot net iy as from the be followed upon the map, particu! inaccuracy with which the io Grande is laid down in longitude, the designs of the framers of the would thereby be frustrated. But El Paso, being a pee of reference in the treaty, should not be over- looked, and the distance of the line north of it, was intended to be represented onthe map.” This opin- ion was fully sustained by A. B. Gray, ap the reg- ularly appointed surveyor on the part of the United States, who entered his protest against the line fixed He by Mr. Bartlett, and refused to sign the map; also by Col. Graham, who refused to put his instra- ments on the line, and J believe I may say by Majoc Emory, who succeeded Col. Graham. The point marked an the map “Salinera,” in lati- tude 31 52, they all contend was the right point; but Mr. Bartlett fixed upon 32 22, because there were “two gross errors’ inthe map. If the town of Hl Paso is “wrongly placed,” so is the Rio Grande “wrongly placed’ by about two degrees of longitude, If these imaginary lines are to be taken, we, unable to move the Rio Grande, should make our boundary two degrees east of it, which would be an absurdity. It is much more simple to say that these objects are rightly placed,and that the latitude and longitude are wrongly placed on the te As for the pias in Chihuahua of the map of 1834, itseems to me the question was too plain aone to need any such elucidations; but the decree of the Mexican Congress, of July, 1824, is quite as good au- thority, and very conflicting with the newly discov- ered map as represented. Neither the one nor the er can alter the terms of the treaty of Guadalupe idalgo. Whether or not the decision of the Commissioner shall be “final,” as maintained, is a matter that Con- [io have yet to decide. Heretofore they have re- sed to accord him the right to negotiate a line. The work was swspended on account of a restriction placed by Congress ie the appropriation, that it should not be expended whilst the line fixed upon was further north than eight miles from El Paso, a4 contemplated by the treaty. This “hampered restric- tion” was taken off at the next session, on represen- tations being made that the employees of the com- mission, and individuals to whom they were indebt- ed, were the sufferers by this restriction; but in al- lowing the -expenditure, Congress did not recede from its disapproval of the line. dn conclusion, we “congratulate” the country, that over $400,000 of the public money have been ex- pended, and the work probably all to be done over again, as one of the first acts of President Pieree, confirmed by the Senate, has been to dismiss Com- missioner Bartlettand appoint Judge Caz pbell cony watesioner in his stead. INDEX,