The New York Herald Newspaper, April 2, 1854, Page 1

WHOLE NO. 6430. WGHLY INTERESTING FROM ALBANY, | Veto Message of Governor Seymour. | ae The Measure Finally Killed in the Senate, UNUSUALLY SPIRITED DEBATE, &., &, &, The Veto Message of the Governor. EXxkoutivs Cuamuss, Axpany, March 31, 1854. Hon. Savrorp E. Caunrcu, President of the Senate :— Asldo not approve of the bill entitled “‘An Act for the Suppression of Intemperance,”” I return it to the Senate, in pursuance of the directions of the constitution of this State, with my objections to its becoming a law. Ihave given to the bill the respectful consideration due to the importance of the subject and the deliberate action of the two branches of the Legislature. I cannot sign the bill, for I beliove its provisions are calculated to injure the cause of temperance and impair the welfare of the State. Anticipating action on the subject of the bill by this Legislature, I took occasion, in my annual message, to suggest, that ‘‘it was surrounded by difficulties and em- barrassments, and unless legislation in regard toit was judicious, it would increase the evils it was so important to prevent; that any measures adopted should be framed so as not to conflict with well setiled principles of legis- lation, or with the rights of our citizens. Tho bill is unconstitutional, unjust, and oppressive in its character, and subversive of welt settled principles of legislation. The people, irrespective of their different views of the use of intoxicating liquors, when advised of ite provisions, will regard them with surprise and alarm. ‘The sale of strong or spirituoxs liquors or wines, in quantities less than five gallons, is now prohibited, and Offenders are liable to be fined or imprisoned. To this general rule there are two exceptions: The supervisors and justices of the peace in each town, acting as commissioners of excise, are authorized to license per- sons of good moral character to keep taverns where in- toxicating liquors can be sold, provided they have accom- modations to pase als Srarellarsy pad Mey is abso- Intely necessary at the where the applicant proposes to Keep the same. The Commissioners nee piss, autho- rized to grant licences to grocers to sell strong and spiri- tuous liquors and wines, but not to be drank in their shops, houses, outhouses, yards or gardens. The statute | further im restraints upon the sale of intoxicating liquors by Hensel tavern-keepers or grocers, to appren- | tices or minors. Violations of the terms of these licences are punishable by fine or imprisonent. The evils which spring from the use of liquors in shops and drinking houses, are mainly owing the fact that the present laws are not enforced. In addition to this, the excise officers are elected by the people of their respective cities or towns, and the citizens of each locality can prevent the issuing of all licenses, by electing those who are op- to tl posed to granting them. ‘The people of this State are divided in opinion with re- gard to the propriety of using intoxicating drinks, ‘One portion desire Fhe passage of a law which will prohibit their sale, while another, embracing those engaged in various pursuits and Slee ry regard their use as proper, although they doplore the evils of intemperance. ese differences of opinion have given rise to earnest discussions, and have led to the formation of societies and associations to check intemperance and to persuade all to abstain from the use of intoxicating liquors. ‘The bill which I return proposes legislative interfes enc. It is designed to compel abstinence, by severe fines and penalties, and by directing seizures and destruction ‘of liquors kept contrary to ite provisions. ion of thi directs— or affirmation shall yf whore thi have reason to believe, and ieating liquors are kept and deposit: intended for sale by any person not authorized to sell ti fame in any place whataoever within said city opfown, oF water adjacent thereto. or within hereof, which complaint shall a circumstances on which such belief is found. od, it al be the bee: of such magistrate, if he be satis- tied that there is probable cause tor such belief, to issue a warrant commanding the officer to whom forthwith shall be directed, site proper ope ee, forthwith it yarrent sball touerch a i dosignate and desvribe the placi ‘ttn eleventh section of the Bil of teh the ‘ight of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers eflects, against unreasonable searches ‘and seizures, ought not to be violated : and no warrant can issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or afirmation, particularly describing the place to be search- ed, and the persons and things to be seized.’’ ‘The same declaration is contained in the Constitution of the United States. This provision of the Constitution of the United States, and declaration in the Bill of Rights, were designed to prevent the issuing of ‘general warrants.” They were suggested by the Wegiaedey 4 in Great Britain growing out of the resistance of the friends of civil and constitu- tional liberty to the exercise of pretended prerogatives of the crown. This controversy called forth able exposi- tions of the rights of citizens, and excited profound in- terest in Great Britain and its dependencies. ‘The principles advocated by those who were the bold and eloquent defenders of the colonists were impressed =) the minds of the men who framed our political in- siitutions. ‘The decision against “general warrants’? by Lord Camden, whose memory will ever be held in,reverence by the American people, for his defence of these rights, and for his great abilities as a judge and statesman, was received with the utmost enthusiasm by the friends of constitutional liberty. He declared ‘that to enter a man’s house under cover of a ‘general warrant,’ in or- der to produre evidence, was worse than the Spanish In- quisition—a law under which no Englishman would wish tolivean hour. It was a most daring attack upon the Liberty of the subject.’” The warrant to be issued under the ninth section of this bill is obnoxious to all the objections urged against “general warrants,”’ and conflicts directly with the de- claration in the Bill of Rights. It is not directed against any person, and, therefore, is a nameless war- rant. It authorizes officers, in thewfbsence of the owner of the premises, or of the property to be seized, to search wherever malice or their suspicions may lead them. It does not describe the thing to be seized by quantity, quality or marks. The complaint may only charge that certain de- ecribed liquors are kept contrary to law; rant must command th but the war- officer forthwith diligently to earch the place designated, ‘ and to seize all the intoxi- cating liquors found therein.”” These liquors may be en- tirely different in their character, and may be owned by a great number of persons under Varieus circumstances. In case complaint is made because one cask of liquor in a warehouse, canal boat, or other vessel, Was, in the belief of thécomplainant, designed for sale, by @ person not authorized, the officers would be compelled to seize all other liquors it contained, although they should be the proper of different owners, and there should be no pre- text nor complaint that they were designed for sale, It in made the duty of the officer to seize them, even if it be perfectly apparent to him that they are designed for shipment to another State, or foreign’ market, or are im- ported and remaining in the original packages. Many of these objections apply with equal force to the eighth section of this act. 't is no anawer to these objections to say that the ar- ticles cannot in the nature of things be more particularly dexeribed, or that artifice will be resorted to to conceal the real owners of the liquors and their intended uses. inadequacy of all human laws to reach and punish fences of every grade, can never be obviated, and furn- ishes no reason for overthrowing the great principles of justice, or the safeguards of the constitution. To resort to this would be to create a far greater evil than that for which a remedy is sought. New York was for some time unwilling to accede to the union of the States without amendments to the which, among other things, should shield the persons and property of our citizens against unreasonab hes and seizures. When it finally adopted that constitution, ite assent was accom- panied by @ resolution that it was in full confidence that the proposed amendnents woull be engrafted upon it. This was done, and our State shoubl be the last to vio- Nate principles adopted in accordance with its demands, The directions for seizing intoxicating liquors, con- tained in the laws of Massach re similar to’ those of this bill, and in most instano samo terms are used. The distinguished Chiet Justice of that State, in a recent andelaborate opinion, hell such proceedings to ho in violation of the Bill of Rig ssachusetta, which contains declarations on the of searches similar to that of New York. It is true that the Bill of Rights in this State has not the | authority of the constitution; but with the law-making power itis entitled to equal regard. It consists of de- clarations of great and universally conceded truths— , political axioms, which constitutions and laws are de- signed to maintain and defend. This act {x more open to the objections urged against ‘“‘yeneral warrants’? than ed the provisions decided in Massachusetts to be void It is 4 Acclared, in both acts, that ‘no warrant shall be issued under this or the preceding section to search any dwel- ling house except upoi Proof that intoxicating liquor has been sold therein by the occupant, or by his consent, ithin one month before the time of making such com: The ‘protection this clause apparently gives to the homer of our citizens is practically deatroyod by the fol- | lowing extraordinary rule of eyideyoe Ini dowa ig the subje a mn | upon due proof of such service a SUNDAY MORNING, APRIL 2, 1854, section of this bill, and which is not contained in law of Massachusetts: — . 32. Upon the trial of any com; dander any shall be su the aint or civil action provision O€ this act, proot of the 14 lent to austain ‘aa avorsant of Sp unin 4 a oie slloged, da deliver: vod, shall not be necessary to nt, but auch delivery sball be suficiont svidsace ot In other words, when an unlawful sale of liquors is alleged, it is sufficient to convict the accused of a misde- meanor to subject him to fine andimprisonment, and to forfeiture of his property, merely to show a delivery of liquor an act legal, and, under some circ com- mendable. Ri ‘ever iple of evidence aud justice, proof that.a c’ given and delivered to ‘another any intoxicating liquors, although it may be for mechanical or medici: purposes, & monstrous inference convicts him of a crime. jus, without proof of guilt, he is condemned, unless he can prove his inno- cence. What security have our citizens the vasion of their homes, by officers (who are directed, without régard to the presence or absence of their occu- pants, diligently to search their dwellings,) when the proof of an innocent act is sufficient to convict of an offence, and to place his home upon the level ofthe shop or warehouse? This act is highly penal, and the searches which it directa are seize pro- perty, and to procure evidence of a violation or intended violation of the law. The domicil of the citizen has heretofore been consi- dered so sacred, and haa been so fortified and defended by the principles of the common law, that it is familiar! en of as his castle; it cannot be search al pong the occupant is charged with murder or trea- son. Under the most tyrannical sovereigns of England this principle has been preserved by the Courts. The only deviatfon is in cases of searches for stolen property, which are allowed upon the ground that they are de. signed to restore it to its rightful owners. Even this ex- ception has been regretted by eminent jurista, and its Propriety doubted. ly be done to detect the darkest and hat cannot 1 most dangerous crimes, is directed by this bill, to pro- it, and to forfeit property for acts cure evidence of guil which are now ing and the criminality of which is ad- journed over until the close of the present year. The 18tn, 14th, and 17th sections of the bill, directing the forfeiture and destruction of liquors, are unconstitu- tionel, It is declared in section 6, article 1, of the con- stitution, that ‘no person shall ‘be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.’’ Section 9 of the bill directs the officer, when a warrant is issued to search. any place, ‘‘to seize all intoxicating liquors found therein.” If complaint is made that a sin- gle cask, in a vessel, custom or warehouse is unlawfully jesigned for sale, all other intoxicating liquors in such vessel, custom or warehouse, must be scized, although there is no complaint or pretext that they are to be used for any unlawful purpose. These are usually stored in large quantities in commercial towns. Any person plac- ing.a single cask of. intoxicating liquor, which in uniaw. fully owned, in a place where such articles arg stored, subjects them all to seizure. This may be done by malicious persons with a view to canse their seizure, or to take advantage of this unguard- ed law to get possession of property with fraudulent de- ai 8. Sitter this sweeping seizure, if the owners are unknown, or cannot be found, and their places of residence are not known to the officer, he is directed to deliver a notice to any person of mature age, residing in the place where the seizure is made, of if none such can be found, by posting the notice upon tlie outside of the premises, and in two conspicuous places in the city or town. Section 13 directs that the liquors shall be stored for two weeks after service and posting notices; after which, posting, such liquors shall be adjudged forfeited by the magistrate, unless they shall have been claimed. Section 17 of the bill directs that the magistrate, when the property is forfeited, shall issue a warrant command- ing that the liquor so seized and forfeited be destroyed. the productions of the citizens of this and other States are sent from all parts of this great country, to be stored in ourcommercialtowns. The summary measures against intoxicating liquors, authorized by this act, would open a door to gross frauds end malicious proceed- ings. Two weeks’ notice by Posting would be entirely insufficient to non-resident owners. In the case of liquors seized because they are in the same vessel or warehouse with others, and forfeited and destroyed because the owners did not know of their seizure, it cannot be said that such owners have been deprived of their property “by due process of law.”? No complaint lias ever been made with regard to it, nor is it within the contemplation of the complaint on which the warrant issues, and which ‘sweeps it into the net of the law;” there may be no chatge, pretext or belief that it is designed for any unlawful object; no inquiry or investi- gation is to be made by any officer to ascertain the facts of the case. The property is seized, and because it is found on the same premises with other liquors intended for unlawful sale, it is forfeited and destroyed for this imputed offence. jut if the owner fortunately receives notice, his con- stitutional rights are not protected. The Supreme Court of this State bas decided that the terms ‘due process of law,” ured in the constitution, ‘cannot mean less than & prosecution or suit instituted and conducted according tu the prescribed forms and solemmities for ascertaining wilt or determining the title to property. It will be seen feat the sesso sheasure of protection against legislative encrorchments is extended to life, liberty and property; and if the latter can be taken without forensic trial and judgment, there is no secur'ty for the others.” ‘Lhe, vents ot property cannot be destroyed by mere legisiation — Section 14 provides that “‘ any person may, at any time be- fore fortviture, present claim to the property seiied,’” and he “imacistrate shall hold for the, trial of auels tthe roofs and tl claim. and sha’ a isfaction 0 JURY. n production and has been imported under the Jaws of the United States, and in accordance therewith, and is contained in the original pack- ages in which the same was imported, and in quantities not loss than the laws of the United States prescribe, and that lawfal purposes, or that the te cy "ye adjuded Torfitad, me W: me came law’ for lawful purposes, the and judement shall be ri inst the claimant for the #; and in default of pay thereof, execution shall he issued therefor, against bis property and person Although the seizure and forfeiture is highly penal in its character, and no charge is made that the property is Megally held, yet against all principles of evidence, justice or propriety, it assumes that the law has been violated, that the owner is guilty, and his property lia- ble to confiscation, unless he can ‘‘shew by positive proof that the same was kept for lawfal purposes.” This makes it a question of intent, of which it is impossible to give “positive proof.” ere isnothing’ in the act requiring the complainant to appear against the owner so that he may be informed of the true nature and cause of the accusation; in truth, no complaint may have been made against him or his property. It is not required that he shall be confronted with the witnesses eiat him; his guilt is assumed. True, it is provided that the magistrate or jury shall hear the proofs and allegations offered in support of and against the claimant, and that witnesses may be com- elled to attend; but until the claimant has first: shown positive proof his ownership ef the property, its le- gality, and that he kept it for lawful purposes, the law requires no allegations, and no proofs against ‘him; the case is made complete by the original ez parte oaths, upon which his property was seized by warrant. Reversing the order of every other known proceeding. he stands convicted until /his innocence is proved upon charges made against other parties. This is not due process of law. This point was recent- ly decided in the Supreme Court of Massachusetis where the same question was involved. The language of the Bill of Rights of that State is not as decided against such forfeitures as the constitution of New York. ‘The other objections I shall urge against the bill apply to provisions which are not contained in the laws of ‘as. sachusetts, nor should they be found among the statutes of any State. ey are opposed to all well settled _principjes of com- mon law, dangerous to the liberties of our citizens, and repugnant to the religions and, moral sentimenes of the community. . Whatever differences of opinion there may ve with xegard to laws prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors there will be none with respect to some features o il. Section 19 provides that Whenever complaint o which complaint shall whiel trate, b ups magi: hi and does suspect and believe, that any offence ot Seainst any provision of this m committed, and that some other person or persons, named by him, bas or have know- ledge of the commission of euch offence, such macistrate, if he think there be probable enuse to believe that such per- son or persons has or bave knowledge of the commission of eneb ofience, shall forthwith issne x summons to the per- s0n oF persons 80 Hamed, commanding him or them to ap- ear belere him at a place and time noc more than two days Inereattcr, to be derignated, im auch tammons, to testify ia relation tench complaint. Section 21 directs that Whenever any person shell appear or be tironght before Any magistrate a# provided in the two preceding sections, it shall be the duty of such magistrate to administer to such person 4n oath or affirmation, and to examine him for the Purpoce of ascertaining whether any offence had Leen com- mitted against any provision of this act. If such person shall refuge to be sworn or affirmed, or to answer any quar tion pertinent to auch examination, be shall he committed to the common jnil, there to remain until he shall consent to he aworn x stirmed or to ans nation it pear that any offence has been com. mitted with jurisdietion of such magistrate, it shall be his duty to iseue a warrant for tho arrest of the offender and the search of his premires ae horeinaftor provided. In order to subject any citizen to this inquisitorial pro ceeding. it ie only necessary that ® complaint should be made, which need not state nor prove that an offence has been committed, but only suspicions and the facts upon which they are founded, to authorize the magistrate to bring before him, by summons or attachment, the per- ton suspected of having some knowledge of a suspected offence. This he may do, although no proceedings have heen commenced against persons or property, no trial | ending, no right to the services of counsel, or open hear Ing secured, The person bronght up for examination may be, and fs most likely to be the offender himself; yet the magistrate may put to him such questions as he deem necessary, in this earch after an offence. If refnse to reply to such que ted to jail, there to remain unt! he consen Section 6 of the Istarticle of the constitution dectares that “no person shall be compelled in any criminal ease to he a witness against himself." Ry the proposed act, if he fects shoul be of a character to criminate tho party er examination, he would still be compelled to prisoned: if he answer untruly, it is jury by the act : i mitted an otfence. it is made the. duty of tho magistrate to arrest him and search his premises. If this bill should become a law, this unprecedont procceding would be ; erverted to the worst purposes, would be ws9d to obtain testimony in civil qnd oriminn: ions, ho is | | duced by the law-makers, but by the influence of educa if ho admits that he has com. | THE NEW YORK HERALD. PRICE TWO CENTS suits, not growing out of this law, but arising out of the ordinary transactions of life. Proceedings #0 tyrannical and unusual would tend to strife, bitterness and resist- ance of the laws, ‘There are nearly four thousand local magistrates be- fore whom these inquisitorial proceedings may be had; there are to be no limitations of their powers; they are not to be subject to the rules of evidence, nor restrained by the rights of witnesses; they may ask such questions as their disorotion shall dictate, and compel answers by imprisonment; the character of the investigation and the imprisonment are determined by the discretion of the Justice, The eloquent denunciations of a distinguished jurist apply with peculiar force to this proceeding:— The dis- cretion of a Judge is the law of tyrants. It fs always un- known; it is different in different men; it is casual, and depends upon constitution, temper and passion. In the best, ét is oftentimes caprice; in the worst, it is orery vice, folly and passion to which human nature is liable.” Section 26 of this bill provides that ‘‘any person may tain an actiov to recover any mousy paid, or the value of any services, oF labor rendered oe oe the ue or possession of any property, assigned and con- veyed, in Rayment for liquor sold, contrary to the pro- visions of this act, by the busband, wife, parent, child, ward, apprentice or servant of the plaintilf, and in ¢ such action the person by whom such money was paid. services or labor rendered or done, or property sasigned or conveyed, if not a party to the action, or the husband or wife of the party, shall bea witness to any matter pertinent to such action. Any married woman may commence and maintain any such action in her own name, with or without the consent of her husband.’” Under section 20, another action may be brought by the same parties, “against any other person who sell any liquor contrary to any provision of this act, to the husband, wife, parent, child, guardian, ward, apprentice or servant of the plaintiff, or who shall intoxicate or cause such person or persons to be intoxicated, and it shall not be necessary in any such action to aver or prove an} special damage, but the court or jury before which auc action is tried’ shall asscas the damages of the plaintiff therein; but any special damage may be shown. Any married woman may maintain any such action in her own name, with or without the consent of her husband.”’ These two sections create righta of action heretofore unknown; under one, the persons designated can recover money they have never paid, and under the other main- tain an action for ‘s which they have never suffer- ed. The sympathy which is naturally and justly extend- ed to suffering wives and children, and the indignation excited by the belief that the seller of liquor has often turned a deaf ear to their entreaties, must not lead us to create évils on the other extreme, nor to be blind to the unlimited effects of these sections. They do not make proper discriminations. They would permit the wife, parents, and each of the children of a temperate, intelli: gent aud virtuous man, without regard to their number, age or condition, to recover money which never belonged to them, end which may have been paid to an unlicensed seller for liquor purchased for mechani- ical, medicinal, or even sacramental purposes. After his children, parents, or his wife have recovered the amount paid to the vendor, the latter may again be sued by each Of the degeribed persons under the 40th section. Tn this action it is not necessary to show any violation of laws, except by the intendments.consequent upon proof of t! delivery of intoxicating liquor. In the multiplied suits which may be brought under this section before a justice of the peace or other magis- trage, it is not necessary to prove or aver any special dathage, but upon mere proof of the delivery of intoxi- cating liquors, the jury are authorized to assess damages at their discretion. ‘The defendant is liable to be deprived of his property by a prejudiced or excited jury, without having any of the usual protections which our iaws afford to the most dangerous and hardened criminals. He is de- nied the benefit of the intendment that he is innocent until he is proved guilty. Under our laws, in certain cases, juries are authorized to give vindictive damages where the violation of the law is shown by actual proof, and the character of the transaction is brought to their knowledge; the evidence given in such cases affords some guide to their ju iement, andan unjust verdict may ¥e ected; but under this section they may have before them only presumptions and intendments of guilt, and nothing to restrain their passions or prejudices.” This section creates new rights of action, and abolishes salu- tary modes of proceeding, and the best principles of evidence. It ig not the due process of law required by the con- stitution of the State. The suits under this section, and all other suits, civil and criminal, authorized by this bill to be tried subject to the provisions of the thirty-second section, are not trialsin any sense in whieh that term is understood by our constitution and laws. There are other objections to the twenty-sixth and twenty-ninth sections. The domestic relations are deemed sacred, not only by the laws of the land, but by the religious and moral sentiment of our people, and there are but few who, under the influence of novel ideas and theories, seek to impair these relations. The public sentiment would approve dfa law which should give a right of action to the wife and children of intem- perate husbands and fathers, against those who should sell them intoxicating liquors, and which should subject the defendant to exemplary damages, if found guilty after s fair trial. But the lawful head of the family should not be deprived of the respect and author- ity due to his position until he has forfeited them by his misconduet. Suits brought under these sections, where the father is the buyer anda temperate man, necessarily imply that he is the tor Of a dishonest tion on ‘the part of his wile and children, or that he is to be made an clyect of contempt by them.” IVfinkes bis home a soone of strife or a place where fraud is plotted. In order to maintain suite it is not neecasary to show thet the father is an intemperate man, incapable of managing his af- fairs, or that the liquor was purchased for the purpose of drinking: he is not even guilty of an offence when he bvys. It may be said the seller should not violate the law under any ciroumstances. But the worst of crimi- nals must not te deprived of the protection of the prin- ciples of justice. This act multiplies penalties, fines forfeitures and actions against the alleged offender, and atthe same time deprives him of the constitutional right of presumptive innocence. ‘The thirty-third section of the vill directs that “ no person or corporation shall knowingly carry or transport any Hquor from place to place within this State, or from apy place without this Stete,'to any place within this State. and no person shall knowingly deliver any liquor to any other person ov to any corporation, for the pur- pose Of being so carrie? or transported, unless the name and place of business or residence of the person to whom the same is to be conveyed, together with the words ‘intoxicating liquor,’ are distinetly marked on the out- side package in which the anme is containet.”” ‘ This regulation cannot be of great importance in car- rying out the object of the law; but it woald, in connec- tion with the provisions for the seizure of liquor, inflict | a serious blow upon the great carrying and commercial interests of the State of New York. As there would always be a liability on the citizens of other States to overlook or neglect t regulations, they would create constant embarrassment to our domestic commerce. The law recognizes the legality and propriety of manufacturing, transporting and using intoxicating liquors. But if it subjects them to penalties and forfeiture upon light proof, or for im- puted offences, which are proved by the mere fact that they are found in vessel or store houses, with liquors illegally held, it will divert from our canals, our railroads Ns of the and our cities, not only this particular commeree, but all | that is connected with it” The citizens of other States will not separate their | diversified productions when they send them to or obtain them from the markets of the east. If we drive | off « portion of their commerce, their convenience ant interest will be promoted by withdrawing the whole, and seeking other channels which are free from embarrass | ments. The idea prevades the law that unusual, numerous, and severe penalties will lead to ite enforcement; but all experience shows that the undue severity of laws defeats their exeention. After the excitement which enacted them has passed away, no one feels disposed to enforce them; for no law can be sustained which goes beyond public feeling and sentiment. Ihave omitted any notice of many defective provi- sions in the bill, as they might be corrected by future legislation. Ihave confined my objections to those which axe radically wreng, which are inconsistent with the | sons and of | property, and which so pervade the bill thet they cannot | principles of justice, with the rights of be stricken out without destroying its entire fabric. The bill is wrong, because it directs unreasonable searches of the premises and dwellings of our citizens under circumstances calculated to provoke resistance. | It deprives persons of their property in a manner pro- hibited by the constitution; it sniijects them on mere suspicion ot knowledge of & suspected crime to an | quisitorial examination. For one act of alleged violation of law a citizen may be proceeded againet ax a criminal, may be fined or im i ized and forte coperty « ited in civil suits with whom he hes had no dealings, to the payment of damages when none have been averred or proved. To all these prosecutions he may be subjected, without the benefit of trial in the usval and judicial meaning of that term. The constitution makes it my duty to point out the ob- jectionable features of this bill; but I owe it to the sub- ject, and to the friends of the measure, to add the ex- pression of my Uelief that habits of intemperance cannot be extirpated by probibitory laws. They are not consis- tent with sound principles of legislation. Like decrees to regulate religious creeds or forms of worship, they proveke resistance where they are designed to enforce obedience. The effort to suppress intemperance by un- usual and arbitrary measures, proves that the Logisla is attempting to do that which ta ts not within its enact, or its power to enforce, fi the error which lies at the foundation of this bill, which distorts its details, and makes it a cause of angry controversy. Should it hecome a law, it would ren- der its advocates odious, as the supporters of unjust and arbitrary enactments. Its evils would only cease upon ite repeal or when it becomes adead letter upon the statute book, Judicions legislation may correct abuses in the manufacture, sale, or use of intoxicating liquors it con do no more, ‘The experience of all nations in all periods, demon- strates that temperance, like other virtues, is not pro- om, moralit igion 7 ous discharge of duty anda belief that explicit language is due to the friends of this bill, require me to state my objections to the measure in de cided terms, it must not be understood that f am indiffer- ent to the evils of intemperance, or wanting in respect and sympathy for those who are engaged in their sup- I regard intemperancp as a fruitful source of ‘on and misery. | look with no favor upon the and practices which have produced the crime and ing which are constantly foreed upon my atte © painful discharge of official duties, After long and -uget cedgetion, Tang satisfied reliance cannot be placed OO OO ese police | prohibitory laws to cradicato these evils. Men may wunded—they eannot be compelled-—to adopt habits T concur with mer of the earnest and devoted friends of temperance, in the opinion that it will hereafter be cause for regret, if the interest which is now excited in the public mind upon the aubject should be diverted from ita cbannela and exhausted in attempting to procure lation which must be fruitless. HORATIO SEYMOUR. TELEGRAPHIC. The Final Defeat of the Bili. ‘SPECIAL CORRMAPONDRNOR OF TUR NEW YORK HERALD. ALBANY, April 1, 1864. ‘The Senate this morning proceeded with the considera- tion of the bill for the suppression of intemperance. ‘the question being, ‘Shall the bill pass, notwithstand- ing the objections of the Governor.’’ The vote was ayos 14, noes 18, So the billis lost, two-thirds of the Senators present not voting in favor of it. INTENSE EXCITEMENT IN THE SENATE—THE GOV- BRNOR'S MESSAGE—SPIRITED DEBATK—THE AS- SEMBLY DESERTED—FINANCES OF TRINITY OBURCH, ETC. Avpany, March 31, 1854. There were exciting times in the Senate in 1851, when the dozen Senators resigned to prevent the passage of the Canal bill. There were highly interesting scenes about the time Senator Beekman put his foot upon the aspira- tions of ex-Governor Fish. There were animating and interosting periods whon the scenes of thé secret season of 1842, even openly discussed, but neither on those oc- casions produced any excitement within a hundred per cent approximating to that experienced in the Senat chamber this morning. Before the hourarrived for com- mencing business, large numbers of spectators ha! gathered in the chamber. Lieut. Goy. Church called to order, the prayer was made, the journal read, and numerous petitions presented. While standing and select committees were reporting bills, the confusion became #0 great and the loud talk 80 intolerable, that Senator Barr was compelled to rise and call the attention of the Chair to the fact that it was impossible to hear anything read at the Clerk’s desk; and, rather than continue in this manner to do business, he moved to take a recess until four o’clock. Mr. Bishop also stated that it was impossible for him to hear a word, in consequence of the continual buzzing about the chamber. The Chair ordored the officers to preserve order; when, after afew mo- ments, Mr. Barr withdrew his motion. About this time Lieutenant Governor Church called Mr. Dickinson to the chair, who ina few moments vacated it, and installed Mr. Monroe. When the Senate arrived at the order of business, (for announcing messages from the Governor,) Mr. Monroe nounced one from the Executive Chamber. ‘The Clerk commenced reading, and it was immediately discovered that it was his Excellency’s message vetoing the Maine Liquor bill. By this time the news had spread in every direction, and the Senate chamber soon became crowded to its utmost limit with anxious spoctators, listening to the Governor’s reasons for withholding his signature. The document was quite lengthy, and occu- Pled the Clerk three-quarters of an hour in reading it. e crowded audience, though jammed closer than in a mass meeting, listened throughout with silent attention, and every one caught eagerly every word as uttered from the lips of the Clerk, : The moment the message was received, Mr. Bishop and Mr. Z. Clark both rose simultaneously, the former to offer a resolution that the Senate’ do now proceai to re- consider the Temperance bill, notwithstanding the voto from the Governor—the latter, that the subject be laid on the table, and the message be printed. Mr. Bishop's motion being entertained by the chair, (Mr. Monroe,) Mr. Z. Clark moved to lay it on the table. Here a spirited and somewhat excited discussion engued, Mr. B. contend- ing that it became necessary, in conforming with the provisions of the constitution, that the Senate should roceed to reconsider its action upon the Temperanee il. Mr. Spencer supported the motion made by Mr. Clark. - Mir. Brooks inquired-—are we not now requiced £9 roceed to reconsider the vote last given on the bill? low can the matter be disposed of, if the Senate can sa that on some future day we shail proceed to reconsi- der? This body must proceed now as the constitution provides. Mr. Dickisson moved to lay the whole subject on the table. Mr. Crosny thought if the Senate only paused for five minutes to reconsider, without concluding, the subject could be postponed to any other time the Senate may deem proper. Mr. Z. Crark thought it premature to enter into a dis- cussion mm reconsidering, before the message was printed and on our tables. Accoriling to all parliamenta- ry proceedings, itwas competent to postpone the enbject until we have had an opportunity to examine the docu- "Sir, BUMOe Belloved that iC'the Senate dashed ir. 0] that te the bill notwithstanding the yeta of verano, we must préceed to reconsider at once; but he was not ansious to yao npoa it at present: it is however unne- cessary to offer the resolution upon the coming in of the message, but ® majority may say whena vote shall be taken. Mr. Horxixs—The Senate has already conformed to the constitution, so far as it has gone. A resolution hus been offered that we proceed to reconsider, and that is a sufficient compliance. Mr. BRADFORD inquired what was meant by “reconsider- ation?” | Mr. Puram also wanted to know what was meant by ity Mr. Barr replied, that by it was intended to get the bill again properly before the Senate. Mr. Crosby rose to a point of order, in that Mr. Bish- oy’s resolution was out of order. The Cnr (Mr. Monroe,) decided it to be in order. Mr. Crospy appealed from the decision. | ‘The Cua repeated his decision, and fortified his posi- tion by referring to precedents. Here the constitutional points were elaborately dis- cussed by Messrs. Crosby, Horkrys, Brsuop, Puram, and others; and thereappeared much difficulty in ascertain- ing whether “ reconsider,” as placed in the constitution, meant voting or discussion. | Mr. Dickinson here moved to lay the question on the appeal on the table. r. Horxixs—What will be the effect’ ; ¢ CHAR, answering, said it would have the effect of laying the whole subject on the table. | Mr. Wa, Crark—And the subject com never be called up | again. | “*the question was then taken, and Mr. Dickinson's mo tion was carried: — Aves—Meersre. Barr, Bradford, Brooks, Butts, M. H, C . Dickinson, Dorrance, Field, Hitchcock, Hop! Sherrill, Spencer, Storing, Nay+—Barnard, Biskop, W. Clark, Crosby, Danforth, Hutchins, Richards, Whitney— Mr. BaRR moved a reconsideration of this vote Mr. Brooks moved to lay that motion on the table, and called for the ayes and noes. Mr. ROBERTSON moved to adjourn—lost 10 to 18. ‘The (Hair then stated that Mr Barr's motion was in orer but not debatable, and Mr. Brook’s motion not in order. | Mr. Brooks appealed from this decision—subsequently withdrawn. Several Senators desired to speak, but the Chalr again info med them that debate was out of order. Mr. Dickinsox—I want to say one word; and he con- tinued for five minntes, during which time he stated that the person who had been all Winter more an. 6 than any one else for the paswge of the temperance ill, was the chief constitutional adviser of his Excellency in vetoing it. : Though no name was mentioned the audience well knew the allusion was made to Edward C. Delavan, who war the first person who carried the news out of the ex- ecutive chamber yesterday, t Mr, Ropenrson’again Mr. Crosny seid the as» motion of that kind had The CHAR decided the motion | Senate, at one o'clock, agreed to ad, upon be of , Putnam, Rober: ‘ost—20. ', when the py the follow: z. Dick Hutohine, Len Walker, Whit Brooks, M. H. Clark, W Monroe, Richards, Spencer, aye—Me rr. Barnard, Bare, lm by, Danforth, Storing, Watkine—12. The members deserted the House (luring the excite: ment in the Senate to such an extent. that Mr. Peters thought proper to move a call of the House, which was seconded, and the doors were closed, spectators turned out, and the Sergeant-at-Arms despatched to the Senate Chamber, Congrese Hall, and other places, in search of absentees. An hour’s time thus consumed when busi- ness was resumed. A communication was received from the vestry, church wardens and vestrymen of Trinity Church, in answer to # resolution of the Assembly. asking for a’detailed state ment of the number of ots of land, where situated, it under lease, when the leases expire, annual rents, md income of all their property, and also the amount of debt owing by such vestry, cud when ouch G0vt le payable. Thedoctiment is quite lengthy, occupying twenty-eight manuscript pages. I gather from it:— Debts or 1. ities Assessed by Trinity Church Ponda or obligatior: “ne by Trinity Chure.h $39" Temporary Loanr ieettre Liabilities opened... Total,.....s..s000, teeeecersesereeeese 2. ‘The item of $141,675 isthe amount presented towards ihe ereetion of churches in various parts of the State. ‘The gross annual income of the parish is $80,907 70; annual interest on debts, $05,562—leaving a net income of $45,405 ‘ $64,507 95 177 56 820 32,993 Ground rents Do. Lispenard tea Pewrent Interes Total...... $80,067 70 Annual inferest on debi. ‘$35,562 08 $45,405 02 | | Net annualincome..............sssese sees | Signed by WM. DUNSCOMB, Comptroller, | Certified by Wa. Brrrran, Rector. * Rienarp Hagavorn, Veatry Clerk. SEW YORK LEGISLATURE, Renate. Acaany, Apeil 1, 1854. RBPORTS, BTC. Relative to the mode of keeping tax accounts in New York. ‘The Pure Milk bill, compete. The New York Juriea bill, complete. Mr. Lawsixa, (nat. dem.) of Jefferson, reportrd adverse- ly to the petition of Mossrs. Bryant, Greeley and others, for counsct in the Lemmon slave case. Mr. Horxrs, (dem.) of Washington, reported adverse. ly to the petitions of colored citizens for the extension of the right of suffrage. Agreed to, 13 to 12. Mr. Z. Cran, (free soi!) of St. Lawrence, reported a bill authorizing Albany to aid the Albany and Suaque- hanna Railroad. ‘THR TRMPERANCE BILL VETO MESRAGR Was taken up. Mr. M. H. Ctanx, (whig) of Ontario, moved},to make the subject the special order for Tuesday. Loat—10 to 16. The Cuai put the question : “Shall the bill pass, not- withstanding the objections of the Governor?” Loat— ayes 9, nays 18. ‘The Senate then, by a vote of ayes 14, na: to pass the bill. Here is the vote :— 13, refuse Axxs—Mossrs. Bishop, Bradford, Butts, M. Mf. Clark Dickinson, Dorrance, Field, Hopkins, Mouros, Putnam, Richards, Robertson. Whitney, Williams—14. Navs—Messrs. Barnard, Barr, Brooks, Crosby, Danfor*h, Hitchcock, Hutchins, Lansing, Pratt, Storing, Sponvor, Watkins, Yoot—13. Mr. M. H. Crark moved to reconsider that vote, and to lay that motion on the table. The Chair decided the mo- tion out of order. Mr. Cuark appealed; but the Senate sustained the Chair, 17 to 7, and refused to reconsider. Mr. M. H. Crank now moved the reconsideration of the vote on the final passage of the bill. Lost—ayes 10, noes 15, lows :— Ayxs—Mensrs. Rarr, Bishop, Bradfor!. Butts. MoH. asks Hutchins, Munroe, Richards, Robertson, Williams— Nows—Messrs, Barnard, Brooks, Crosby, Danforth, Dickd inson, Field, Hitcheook, ing, Pratt, Putnam, Spenver, Storing, Watkins, Whitney, Yi NOTICE OF A NEw Bi Mr. Witt1ams gave notice of a bill toam ond the statutes in relaiion to licensing the sale of inte liquors. LICENSES. Mr. Wussams, (whig) of Tompkins, gave notice of a bill to amend the Revised Statutes relative to licenses. FIXED SALARIES FOR THE UEUT. GOVERNOR AND CANAL AP- PRAISER. Mr. Danrortm (nat. dem. bills te fix the salaries of the Appraiser. LONG ISLAND RAILROAD. Mr. Hercmins, (nat. dem.) of Kings, prea snted a re- monstrance from Brooklyn against the Long Island Rail- road. f Schoharie, introduced jeut. Governor and Canal DESIROUS OF RECORDING HIS VOTR. Mr. Z, CLARK asked consent to have his vote on the question, shall the Temperance bill pass, not withstand ing the objections of the Governor. He desirad to vote “no.” Several objected, on the ground that the constitution provided that onlg those should vote who were present. NEW YORK COMMON PLEAS. The bill in relation to the Court of Common Pleas in the city of New York was read a third time, and then Inid on the table. BILLS PASSED. To amend the Revised Statutes in relation to proceod- ings for tne perpetnation of testimony. Toamand the charter of the Crystal Palace Associa- tion. had not been stated. Whether it wse Mr. Delavan, was not tossy. What had been the peculiar friends of the bill in both Houses? to force down provisions ionable, without sasee- ment, and it had received its He aaid to the friends of temperance that they must listen to moderate wea— must give some heed to their counsels. The bill bid | been carried through by illiberality. When sho’ bay passed this body first, the moderate men were berated im the lobbies, and in the public press by fanatics. The ex- treme friends of the measure might charge upon @heas- selves, in a great measure, the defeat of this bill. ‘Tho bill under discussion was laid on the table. ‘THE GOVERNOR AND UIs APPOnYTMRNTS. The bill to amend the Revised Statutes in relation to the power of the Governor to make appointments during the recess, came up from the House ame and wes concurred in. This bill is to provent the Governor froms filling certain officea that will become vacant after the adjournment of the Legislature THE PRINTING OF THR MEGAGE. Mr. Srancza moved that 10,000 copies of Lue Governee’s veto be printed. Mr. a , CLARK moved to lay the motion on the tasile. ‘Adjourned to 11 A. M. on Monday. Assombi; Kisany, April 1, 1666. ‘BILLA PASSED. The bill to incorporate the Tract Society of New York, (Methodist Episcopal.) was passed. To allow Brooklyn to raise money for a1 pvriee’ Te tncorpora to the Tract Society of the ¢ Reis co} jurch. to. ‘amend the Revised Statutes in relation to the ap- pointments to office by the Governor. For the better regulation of the firemen of the eity of jew York. Relative to the salary of the Polics Justices of the @ity of Albany. The bill creating 9 ee. toed 10 0 Oe creating & State paper was commit lect committee. i S FUTURE HOUR OF MEETING. Mr. MoGRAw moved that on and after Tuesday next, the House will meet at 9 A. M,, and hold, also, afternoon and evening sessions. Agreed. STATE PAPER. When the bill to designate a State paper com) up for a third reading, Mr. ANGLE moved to recommit the bill so as to atrike out the clause providing fees, insisting that the printing should be done as cheaply as it is now done. Mr. D. P. Woop thought the bill, as amended, just right. He believed that all who worked for the State should be paid. Mr. Crinton believed the bill should ba recommitted. Lost, and the bill was then passed, 66 to 30. DEFICIENCY APPROPRIATION BILL. Making appropriations to provide for deficiencies exist- ing in appropriations for the present fiscal year, to meet claims and demands against the Treasury, on account of the canals. Passed. Adjourned to Monday morning. NEWS BY TELEGRAPH. The Latest from Washington. THY BLACK WARRIOR AFFAIR—THE GADSDEN TREA- TY—THE CUTTING AND BRECKENRIDGE DIFPr- CULTY, ETC. Wasmoron, April 1, 1654 We understand that government has received des- patches from Havana which are calculated to embarraas and ccmplicate the settlement of our Cuba troubles. British emissaries are suspected of having instigated the Black Warrior affair, undey cover of the British aad French protectorate. ‘The Gadsden treaty is getting very weak in the baok. There is a prospect, indeed, that it will be rejected, net- ‘Yo authorize other persons than overseers of the poor to prosecute for violations of the Excise law. ‘THE TEMPRRANCE DILL AGAIN —INTRRESTING DENATE. Mr. Bisttoy moved to recommit the bill, and alluded to the inconsistencies of the veto message. It was a mis- statement of tholaw, where the law was pretended to be quoted, It was a contradiction throughout. He withdrew his motion. Mr. Crossy had no doubt if the bill ed it would increase litigation in the community—Aill the pockets of the lawyers alone. It would be a rich harvest for that clase. He was opposed to the bill. Mr. Inckrsson hoped the bill would pass. Mr. Ricwaxps? objection to the present laws was that they wereunequa}. The argument of the opponents of a prohibitory law had been that we had laws enough—it was only necessary that they be enforced. He was not surprised at the inconsistency of the opponents of the prohibitory law manifesting itself on the bill. Mr. Wiisams had paid but little attention to this bill, in consequence of tlie general desire to pass a prohibitory law intended to do away with this entire system. Fe hoped, instead of passing this bill regulating the traflic, we should yet strike at the very root of the evil. He ro rded it ‘as granting special charters (o engage in the liquor traffic, and then pass little petty genoral laws to ulate this matter. His object in giving notice of a was to repeal this special charter system. He ill to-da: sgterred that the bill be laid aside: . DaNPORTH stated that the vote was taken on the uestion the veto of the Governor without discussion, because a number of members desired to Jeave at noon. He regretted that the Governor had placed himself against prohibitory laws her. He regretted, asa friend of temperance, that this question must go down to the next canvass. He regretted that the men who stood at the head of the temperance troops | in this State had—not in so many words, but in effect— | sustained the veto: had prepared a feather bed for the veto to sleep in. The hand upon the dial of temperance | bad gone back at least twenty years. Although late in the session, he hoped some act would be passed to put this traffic out of existence. He doubted the efficacy of this bill. Mr. Dickinson remarked that the Senator from the Se- venteenth, asa partizan, ought to have known that the would be vetoed. ‘Mr. Dayrort had no doubt of it was the first Mr. Dickrxsox had seen the men who brought about | this veto. Prince John Van Buren was here as he was when the twelve Senators resigned The scheme was | concocted at Washingtou by the Lecretary of State. Ho- ratio Seymour was to be the candidate for Governor, and if defeated would have a call across the Atlantic. But he world be #0 badly beaten that it would require affidavits from all parts of the State to prove that he was a candi- date. The power of the adamantines would be sufficient | to call in the men who stood by the rights of the country —who had some respect for the morals of the communi ty and the rising generation. The Governor wag so efect- ally killed that no galvanic battery could re n ir. Pratt, as he understood this debate to a post mortem examination of the r y which had been kilied this morning. He thought the bill would have an nnequal and unfavorable effect, and he would prefer trying to enforce our present laws a lit. | tle farther. | Mr. Sprvcan believed it an honest vote. He could not | understand why the Senator from the Twenty-sixth de- sired to mix this matter up with polities—nor could he | understand why party tactics had been brought to bear to postpone the law going into effect until December. Mr. Dickinson—It was but just to those who were en- gaged in the business that time shouid be given to close up this business | Mr. Hopxiys said allusion had been made to one of hi+ ccnstituente—Mr. Delavan. Mr. Diexrwson—Does he live in Sandy Hili, where they | heve stated preaching’ ; Mr. Horxivs—No, but if the Senator will intro duce a bill to change his place of residence, 1 will for it. | But, sit, efter this bill has gone to the Governor, who | was consulted in regard to ity Edward C. Delevan. Who first saw the messager Edward C. Delevan? Who first geve public notice that the bill would be vetoed? Edward C. Delevan. He thought that in thiecourse Mr. Delevan hod forfeited his claims as the leader of the temperance wen in this State. Thie apostle of temperance deserved the reprobation of every man in this community for coming out and paving the way for the Governor's vet after working for the bill all winter.§With what propri 4a this man appear before the people of this State’ To | have temperance men desert us before even the Governor had sent in hie veto. wae an insult to the temperance men ol the State. He thought the Maice law had suf- fered more at the hands of ite friends than ite enemies ovght to be offered to return te diploma he bad presented the Senate. 1 be offered about offering one thanking him for Faward © He aMson thought the friends of tem should not be disheartened by these reverses. We had acted wisely, discreetly, in his judgment in fixing upon the day the’ prohibitory law was to take effect. That having been lost, we should take conrage. He did not Lelleve the gentieman who had been alluded to affirmed of the course of the Governor, or that he counseled such | acourse. Still, take courage from adversity, and pass a bill to strike at the root of the evil, although the Gover- nor might stand in the way Mr. Croshy was surprised to eee these dissensions in the ranks of those who hari co long stood shoulder to shoulder, or that they enould attack one of their prime movers, istency in this matter, He believed the Governor would be sustained by the com- munity in his action, not politically, for he had not the shadow of a party hanging at his heelv. He awarded him consistency in this matter. Who bnt Mr. Delavan Jesirod to know what the action of the Governor would e’ and who would be the first man to publish that de- cision to the world? | Mr. Daxvori# bad not noticed any disagreement on | the part of tho temperance men here, The friends of | temperance desired to strike out entire sections of this bill, but the pressure from the outside was too strong for it, and hence the veto. Mr. Z. CLARK favored the passage of the bill before us. Re knew the excise law in its present shape could not be carried out. He insisted that the Senator from the Twenty-sixth, (Mr. Dickinson.) had not nerve enough to pass the prohibitory law to take sffect before the election. Mr. Dicximsox had never expected that any Senator would say that he had rot ner mough to act upon a uestion. He believed the Senator from tho Fifteenth Mr. Z. Clark) had not nerve enouzh to be present to vote on the veto message. Mr. 2. Crark—I asked consent to record my vote, bat it was refused. Mr. Droxrson continued—By adopting December wo designed to keep the question out of polities—out of the next election. é Mr. Porwam: The bill had been dente! He liked to see consi the eanse | lake shore, eight miles west of Michigan Cit; withstanding the pufling and blowing of the lobby. 1) is understood that the late pending duel hung fire on the challenge. Mr. Cutting’s first note to Mr. Breck- enridge, demanding a retraction, involyed alio a chal- lenge. Breckenridge declined to retract, but, overlook- ing.the challenge, did not signify his acceptance. In the controversy which followed, Cutting claimed the right of the challenged party, and named pistois as his wea- pons. Breckenridge, insisting that his right waa not superseded, selected the rifle. This was the great difl- culty; but at length mutual retractions were secured and peace restored. The friends of Breckenridge have placed the corvespondence at the discretion of the other side, and we presume it will be published. Rumor says Breckenridge has the advantage in the settlement; but this cannot be, for it woul) reflect dishonor upon the other party in thus overreaching his adversary by diple- macy. Let the correspondence be published. Since writing the above we learn that Mr. Breckenridge has authorized the publication of the terms on which the difficulty was settled, and they will appear soon. ‘The amount of public debt redeemed during the past week was $312,800. The amount in the Treasury on the fret of April, subject to draft, was $28,746,702 78. The jury in the Schaumbargh case are still out, with no prospect of agreeing. From the South. THE REVENUE CUTTER CAMPBELL—PORTSMOUTH, Ace MAYORALTY- Barrimors, April 1, 1864. We have no mail south of Washington. The revenue cutter Campbell has arrived at Norfolt from her winter cruise, having sailed over three thousand miles, spoke three hundred and fifty vessels, relieved tea in distress, and saved four lives. Herekiah Stokes was to-day elected Mayor of Porta- mouth, Va. Disaster to the Steamer City of Richmond. Parapevrura, April 1, 1854. The steamer City of Richmond, which left here this morning, was compelled to return this afternoon in con- sequence of sowe damage to her machinery. She was taken for the City of Glasgow, aad so announced from Newcastle Three Lives Lost from Exposure. CmeaGo, April 1, 1854. A boat containing three dead men was found on the They are supposed to have been fishermen from Milwaukie, and died from eg posure. Conviction of a Murderer. PortiaNp, April 1, 1854. ‘The jury in the case of Conolly Brothers, on trial for the murder of Guiner at the late Irish riot, have brought in a verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree. The Weather In the West. Crvcinnati, April 1, 1854. ‘The weather here is very cold, and it is now suowing briskly. Asornex Propasie Homicipg tv New On 1eaNt—LovE AND VENGRANCE.—St. Charles street was yea- terday thrown into a high state of excitement by an at- tempt on the part of @ woman to kill a man in the bil- liard reoms of the St. Charles Hotel. And, indeed, the attempt was but too near successful. John Hitselburger, im, wae the geme keeper of the billiard rooms, and had chi of the apartments by night and by day. Cecasiovally # cir! named Bridget Quinn had been em- ployed after the reome were closed at night, to serub and | Tuidh ‘diem, and gerersily the game keeper remained. im the roo to look after his quenes and balls. During these midnight serubbings it i# anid that John made very Improper advancre to Pridget. and, indeed, went so far as to encompass ber ruin by triumphing over her virtue, When Mre. Bridget Morphy, the mother of Bridget ned how matters stood, her ire became uncon- Je, and summening her daughter to ber side, she repaired, armed with a huge and keen-edged knife, tothe bilfard room, Tn search of Jobn. It was shortly after midday when the two arrived, and every table was sur- mnded by anxiour players Even John had a queue im his hands, and was glorying over the fact that he had just made a run of thirty, which he coneluded by pocket- ing both jof the dark balls, and thereby terminating the game in his favor. The younger Bridget sent for the gay knight of the quewe. and ston? apart with him for a t { What that conversation waa we fi nest conversation poh A not Tearn: yet, certain it is, that before it ended t ler Bridget approxched, whispered something hine- ingly into the ear of Hitselburger, and then plunged the (which she had hitherto concealed beneath her into his bedy, The daughter, when she other bad done, seized her with frantic to prevent her from again using her knife. ntime Hiteelburger staggered and fell, and was eventually conveyed to the Charity Hospital, where but small bopes of his recovery are entertained, Both the mother and the daughter were arrested, and are held to await the result of Hitselburger’s Woun/ls,—Vew Orieang Frye Delta, March 16. First District Court. Refore Hon. Justice Green LANDEORD AND TENANT> . Ari 1.—Jacob L. Baldavin against Samuel Spencer and —This was a summary proceeding to obtain posses. sion of premiecs 119 Chambers street, let to the defendant Spencer at a rent of 67,000 a year, and on which it was alieged that there was due to bim 8777 78. Spencer did not appear, but the under tenants, who are also included ‘as defendants, came forward and set up in their affida- vite that they only owed their immediate landlord, (Spencer,) $150. They did not, however, deny the alle- cations contained in the plaintiffs affidavit. ‘The Court Feld that the under tenants; in order to reta won, were hound to pay the head landlord, Judgment for plaintift. ——— Some three or four of the Gloucoster halibut fishermen, who have now heen absent several weeks, it ig Coared foundered im the late dover gales, ry mantle, ) thrict