The New York Herald Newspaper, October 6, 1855, Page 2

NEW YORK HERALD, SATURDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1855. STATE TEMPERANCE CONVENTION. Adeption of the Whig Abolition Fusion Ticket. The Opinions and Habits of the Candi- dates Canvassed. WAS ABUAH MANN, JR., EVER IN THE GUTTER? BExeking Discusion—Free Soil Harangues— Resolutions, &e., &e., &o AFTERNOON SESSION. Unwa, Wednesday, Oct. 3, 1855. ‘Vac Gonvention assembled at 2 o’clock, The afternoon ears from the West had brought large accessions to the amber of delegates. There could not have been sess than two hundred present. Mr. C. P. Wiuiams, of Albany, from the Committee on ‘Organization, reported the following nominations for per manent officers of the convention, which were unani- mourly ratified amidst great applause:— President—Hon. John Savage. Vieo Presidents—C. (. Leigh, New York; Samuel Beyon, Orange; Jos. $. Smith, Ulster; Ellis Chisbie, Montgomery; Daniel H. Marsh, Oswego; Geo. D. Beery, Tompkins; L. Hoskins, Caynga; A. Scovell, Niagara. Seeretaries—Goo. W. Bungay, Herkimer; John B. Weils, Kings; N. Seymour, Jr., Livingston. ‘She Parswent, on taking the chair, read a lengthy, elaborate and carefully prepared argument in favor of the eonstitutionality of the Prohibitory Liquor law, and of all its provisions, which was listened to with great at- tention and elicited frequent applause. Mr. C. C. Liscu, of New York, then presented a com- saunieation from his Excellency Governor Clark, trans- mitting to the convention an address, adopted lasiapring, from the United Kingdom Alliance of Great Britain to the ‘itizens of New York, congratulating them on the passage of the Maine Liquor law. ‘The address was read and referred lo & committee of three, who wore instructed to prepare a suitable answer. The committee consists of Mr. C. C, Leigh, and Revs. C. L. Warren and Jno. Marah. Rev. Mr. CRAMPTON, from the Committee on Credentials, reported that the commitiee bad examimed and found to be correct the credentials of 256 delegates to the Conven- tion. (Cheers.) Mr, Rictinnson stated that there appeared to have been a misapprehension in some portions of the State relative ‘two the mode of appointing delegates to the convention, as vome of the Agsembly districts had appointed only two Aelogates instead of three. The roll of delegates was t led over. Mr. Amasa McCoy, of Albany, said that if Neal Dow were present the Conver tion, 10 doubt, would call upon him for a speech. He (Mr. McC.) had ten words in wseseion irom Neal ow which he would read, if th: vention wished to hearthem, (Loud cries of ‘Read, read.”’) Mr, McC, then read a telogeaphic despatch from Dew declaring the report that he had ceased ‘o enfo: ‘the Liquor law in Portland to be false—an sono neement which was received with loud and Jong continued ap- ase. The Rev. Joun Marsu, from the Committee on Business, pret @ preamble and resolutions, which were read as IWS Whereas, A poliiical convention held at Syracuse, in this ‘Bitate, on the 23d of August last, passed the following resolu- tion “Resolved, That we regard the Probibitory Liquor Act, passed by the Legislature ot this State at its Last session, ag not ‘only a violation of the constitution, but alsa ay sub eat person: and that its al liberty and the rights of private pro mals, in our opinion, imperalivaly demanded’ ‘And whereas, auother convention, consisting of a portion of the same party, ata convention held at Syracuse on the 2h of Angust last, passed a vesointion as follows :— “Resolved, That the efforts and growing inclinations of the party (0 extend logisiation beyond the limits authorized by [he constitutlon bus proved detrimental to the best intorasts the State, It is the duty of the I ‘ure, not less than the Judiciary, io protect the rights of the citizen, A reckless d'sre- of thone Fights has tod the whig party of this State, under guise of suppressing intemperance and crime, to trench ‘upon private property and personal liberty against the plainest tees of the constitution. ‘This law should be repealed; einiation should not supersede moral dieeipline”— ‘And whereas, a convention calling itself American, held at Auburn on the 25th of September Inst, did not, ao far ns is wn, Pass uny resolution whatever upon the subject of Pro- Iibition, thereby clearly ignoring that issues and whereas, a eonvention known as republican, held at Syracuse on the 2th ‘and Zith days of September last,’ adopted a resolution as fol- Jows:—"That firmly believing the great principle of prohibt- ‘Adon to be right, we will resist the attempts now being made to prevent J of the practical working thereof in this Btate;” and whereas, «aid Republican Convention nominated & ticket composed in'good part of avowed and decided friends of Prohibition; and whereas, it ia of the highest importance ‘Ahatall the officers whose duties are connected with the Fro: Bibltory law, either in a logislative or excentive capacity, should receive the united support of the irlends of Protibition the coming election—theretare, Ived, That in view of the Lavorable action of the Repub- Bean Convention—a course not pursued other political onvention of the present year—It isthe opinion of this Gonven- tina thatthe Interests of temperanee will be bert subserved by a uy ¢ republican nominees, so far as they found to be Probibitiontsis. ‘Enthusiastic and protracted applause.) eG ed, That we adopt as our own the nominees of the Republican Convention—for Judges of the Court of Appeals, Bradford R. Wood for the long term, and Joseph Mullen for the ES short term for Attorney General, in, Jr. make no further nominations—because first, ‘Convention was called for the purpose of nominating can’ didates for these offices only ; and, second hecanse theso of ees are the only ones directly connected with the enforcement Of the proibitory principle. Resolved, Thai_the paramount State issue now before the electors of ‘New York is the question of entire probibition of the sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage—a question which, though recently decided by legislative act, is, thro the maifeasance of ceriain executive officers, and the extraordi- decisions of some of our judges, again in issue at the Resolved, That we hold the total extinction of the trafic {n imtoxicating liquors as a beverage to be the most important social and political reform of the age; that. we affirm the right ‘Of the people to prohibit this ov any othe: evil which like a toul Spd all pervading pestilence ts destroying the character, pre Perty, health, happiness and ves of thousands of our fellow eltizens, filling our Jails, enlarging our State prisons, crowd- fag our lunatic asylums, packing our almshouses, ‘and fur. anlshing nine out of ten ofall the victims of the seatfold. Ressiveds That the prohibitory law enacted by our late Mure show d have a full and fair trial, which we are con: fident would result in the affirination of its constitutionality, and ‘the entire legality of its main provisions. We upbold it as it is, wubject only to such amendments and alterations as shall tend to strengthen the act, and increase tts efficiency in putting an end to the trafic in intoxicating liquor as « beverage. The report was accepted, 2 Mr. Wx. H. Buriecu moved the adoption of the firat and second of the above resolutions, (Loud cries of Question,” and ‘N ‘and great exeitement.) Mr. Estawnoox, of New York, desired to be posted up im regard to the opinions of the individuals nominated. ‘Are thove three gentlemen named in favor of the Pr» hibitory law? Cries of ‘ Yes, Yes.’” ‘The Presipent said that they were understood to be se. Rev. Mr. Marsi—t{ will answer for Bradford R. Wood. ebeers and laughter.) I have known him for torial Thave ate at his table, and cau safely answer for Mr. Srxungxs, of Monroe hoped that some gentleman who had conversed with the three geatlemen named in the resolution, would state to the convention what is their position in reference to prohibition, so that it ma, go out to the people of the State with due authority, He upon Mr. Ingalls, the editor of rance per at Watertown, to state what he knew of Mr. Mul Mr. Mansi—i_haye not quite done yet, but if you are satisfied as to Brad RK. Wood, I will say no more. Ghouts ot “Yes, Yes,’? and loud cheers. ) Mr. Fatcoxrn, of New York—This is a kind of wholsale Dusiness, and | do not quite like it. 1 want to be assured that these men are temperance men. I have come here to support none but temperance men. {| want no whole- eale business done here, and no party principles what- ever introduced. If any such thing is going to be done, I am out of it. Jama temperance man, and I vote for temperance men ani none others, if | am assured that these men are temperance men, I shall be satisfied, but not otherwise. (Slight applause.) Mr. InGaxts, of Watertown, mounted the platform and gnid:—I reside in the same town as Mr. Mullen, and si his nomination by the Kepublican Convention at Syr ‘use, } have called upon him to learn his opinions ‘and feelings on the subject of temperance and the present Prohibitory law. He stated that his antecedents were well known to the citizens of Jefferson county ax a friend of the temperance canse, In the Washingtonian times he used frequently to deliver lectures on temperance in that county. 1 haye not known of his drink cating liquors for six or seven years, if hhis life. He is a very abstemious tem Upon the subject of prohibition he stated thu question the constitutional power of the Legisia sanact prohibiting entirely the sale of is Beinks ann beverage. (Cheers.) In regard to the sent law, he «nid that he had never examined it, or the opinion of jurists in reference to its provisions, W rence to the se reb, seizure and destruction of intoxi eating Hquor, he bas ‘ho donbt about the po if the Maquor be adultersted. (sym of consterna ‘Was not #0 clear upon that point,,because he amined the authorities, nor even the pill itself, with Teference to the right of the \egisiature to authorize the dentruction of pare liquor. if there were any such in the eountry. (Cheers.) {hat is, substantially, the informa- tion I have derived from him. and it was what those who knew him personally wore well aware « Mr. Pourgurs, a very young gentleman, from New ‘York, said that if he was Called upon to endorse Abijal Mann, Jr., he wanted to know something of his antece dents. | He was once found in the stroots of Ni York, dead drunk, (Great sensation.) If we are eailed upon to endorse @ man of that kind, it ls « poor show for prohibition. (Increased sensation.) Mr. Stemprss—1 was going to call on the Rev Crampton to speak on that very point. He knows Abijal Mann, Loud calls for “Crampton.” A DrucaTs wished to know if Mr, Mullen had himself unequivocally in regard to the anthority 0 ener to pass not the, but a Prohibitory law! ir. Iwalss—Entirely x0, The Drncaty—Then fam satistied. (Cheers.) Rev. Mr. Cuamr7ox—I have long felt an interest in the prohibitory law, aud have made it my business to ascer: the views of nominees on that question. Being in the city of New York yosteriay and having some leisure T called uj Abijah Yi Jr. 1 told him that I had called to have seme oo ation With him to ascertain his views with reference to the Prohibitory law. He re marked that he was ready to anawer any questions f might ark, or would give us his views fn a few words. In the first place he read me * copy of « letter whieh be had written the day previous, and sent to a distinguished politician in this State, (a which le said be believed it not only the duty, but that it was expedient for every candidate to «peak out plainly upon every subject, and er every question which was respectfully put to jim, Ho read me the letter, aad aerwards explained a Limoself more fully. He stated in the letter that he had of the present Probibite oak ene ol or re- gard to the of the Lagisiat 2 tory law. Cienewed cheering) ae of an ee many cr three distinguish tlemen e kegal fession, who have etn g us with their phd 1 n, not opinions; they are not opinions, but arguments against the law; but he one Particularly the conversation he had with one of One ntlemen, and the virtual confession of that one ¢ opinion he bad given was not sound. (Ap- plauce. le said that he had no doubt whatever in re- gard to the constitutionality of the law, and that if elect- ed he would endeavor to do his duty in enforcing it. He remarked that he was not a pledged total abstinence t considered himself a very temperate man, and ided in sustaining a Probibitory law as any man you can find in the State. (Loud cheers.) Mr, C. B, Wuekcer testified that be too had recently seen bir. Mann, and had heard from him the same state- ment. Mr, Joun T. Ticprama, of Brocklyn, was the next wit- ness, He said: J have been acquainted with Abijah Mann Jor years, and have often ed with him on the subject of the Probibitory law. 1 always foand him in favor of the right to pass a Prohibitory law, and Iam ratistied that we can nominate no man who would do us greater honor, or be more faithiu) and true to the cause than Abijah Mann, Jr. (Cboors.) I ar for endorsing hhim heart and hand. 1 never heard of that man drinking the first glass of liqnor, I have known him in Washing- ton, in New York city, and elsewhere, and I never saw the man when J thought he was the worse for liquor, (Applause. ) 3 Mr. C, B, Wurxtsr, of New York—If the candidate is a teetotalier I say all the betier; but, in the language of a }Tominent public journal, it is not our business to in- nize what mena private habits are. (Laud cheers, cries (£“ Good,” and ehght marks of disappronation, Mr. N. H. Lancsrex—We ave not to set ourselves up to vay that no man who partekes of intoxicating liquors shall be a prohibitionist. The policy is to nominate men who will urge forward the principle we come here to-day to advance. If Avijab Mana, even though he lies in the gutier, is in favor of prohibition, we are bound to support him; but he is mo euch man, (Applause) ir, Scorn, of Orange county, asked i? the adoption of these resolutions would bind the convention to support the other gentlemen on the republican ticket, Loud ovies of “No, no? Mr. C. Romtxson, ‘of Orleans, (an elderly gentleman with a very quaint style of oratory,) then addressed th convention. He said:—] never was in a State convention before. (may not have done much — ta the tempe- renee cause in public, but 1 have worked steadily and faithfully in thet canse at home all my life. have worked ‘in my own house and with the aid of my better half. “I have reared up seventeen children. (Roars of laughter.) I mention this to show yon that if I have not done much anywhere else I have done it in my own house, (Renewod and excessive laughter.) We are all teetotallers to the backbone, and my children are seattered through six States, (Applause and laughter.) J have cleven girls and nearly ail their husbanda are tee- totail (Laughter.) There are but two or three in the whole tribe who are not teetotaliers. But, my friends, we have other work to do besides fighting alcohol. There » other filthy habits besides drinking. Let tobacco go this time; but Linust say cue word about segars, oflaughisr.) Now, you xo into the barroom of an: any where, and as you open the door the smoke will gash € was @ nest of —ol— ed DELcar: (prompting)—Young volcanoes. rs tir. Roninsox.—No, si cats, (Renewed laughter.) ‘A sogar, as Dr. Johnson raid, i¥.w roll of tobacco, with a fire at one ond and a fool at the other, (Great laughter.) Young men, you have work todo. You must rouse this community from its sensuality and devilishness, The true foundation of a Trohibitoery Liquor law is total abstinence and cleanliness from all filthiness, both iv the flesh and in the spirit. (Cries of ‘question, question.””) Then J will come to the question. J go for men who are tectotallera. You want men who not only profess to be prohibitionists, but who are practi- cal abstainers. (Renewed cries of ‘ question.”) We want men who are not only with us for prohibition, but with us in the great work of moral reform. (Here there were yenewed and persistent calls for the question, during which the speaker retired from the platform amidst great cheering.) Mr. Manu milily suggested that although time was precious, he hoped gentlemen would be allowed to ex- press their opiniuns. A GRaY Hxapen DetsGaTe waxed very indignant at the impatience manifested by the convention, He declared that he was a secondhand revolutionary soldier, (Laughter) His father was in the Revolutionary war. (Cheers, laughter, and loud shouts of ‘question.’) He was in favor of temperance, but did not believe in gag- ging anybody. (Cheers and confusion.) Crm of “Goon,” “No gag law,” and great commotion. SeveRat Detpoatms, much excited, took the floor and demanded to be heard, Mr. HANcock, of Orange, begged a heating, and at last obtained it. I'wish, said he, to make one remark in rela- tion to Abijah Mann. It has been said that at some former period of Mr. Mann’s lite he was a drunkard—in the gutter. (A voicee—‘He never was’—and cheers.) It is very possible he was. Other respectable gentlemen here have been in the same position, aud are now as temperance men as any of us. (Loud applause.) It is no just objection to Abijah Mann. The great question is whether he is @ prohibitionist now. J am a teetotailer myself, and i contend that ifhe has been in the gutter he is better qualified to represent our cause than if he bad never been there, —— and sensation.) That simple fact is nothingat all against him. If these gentle- en are now temperance men on whom we can rely, Tam satisfied that we ought all to agree upon them as candi- dates, and then we shall be able to present a bold front to our opponents that will secure success. (Cheers.) Hon. Bess. Joy, of Tompkins, followed in a lengthy . He said:—I feel that itis of the first importance that we should separate well satisfied with the candidates whom we nominate, and, therefore, that at this point there should be a free, fall’and unconstrained expression of opinion. An attempt is now making, and will continue to be made, to divide the temperance hosts. This is the maneuvre of the enemy, and if we separate with a half- heartednese in reference to our candidates, and are una- bie to say at home who and what they are, we shall com- mit a great and grievous biunder. (Applause.) Tam glad that ample testimony is brought forward in regard to the candidates whom we are to aupport, I need not say that Iam not a political partisan, but Iam “hard,” very had, on the temperance question. (Laughter.) Let us leave this place prepared to givea hearty and cor cial support to all our candidates. With Bradford R. Wood we are all satisfied. (Cheers.) Next comes Mr. Mullen. Well, about those “pure spirits.”’ 1 think it will be long before the Judge will be called upon to test the constitutionality of destroying pure spirits in this State. (Laughter.) So I am satisfied with his declara- tion in regard to the constitutionality of prohibition, though Ido not know what political party he belongs to. (Cheers.) With regard to Abijab Mann, I should be glad to know that any candidate we support is a prac- tical teetotaller; but at the same time I do not think we shouid insist upon that, Prohibition is the point we aim at, and if we can carry that point, even through the ageney of lukewarm ani doubtful friends, it makes no difference. (Applause.) We have every reason to hope for success in the ap- roaching contest. We have a bright prospect before us. 4t our adversaries say what they will, if we are true to ourselves, we shall sneceed. Hitherto, we bave always expressed ourselves ready to co-operate with those who would give us temperance candidates. If we find and sound men nominated by others, let us take them and elect them, without asking whether they are whigs or democrats. (Loud cheers.) Mr, Wu11ams was not satisfied that Abijah Mann was a temperance man. One said one thing, and another another. One said he never drank; another that he was a moderate drinker. He could not vote for a man who was a drunkard or a drinker. He was in favor of having a teetotaller. A Vore—Do you personally know anything against Abijah Mann? Mr, Wrutiams replied that he did not; but nothing had been said here that satisfied him that Mr, Mann was a temperance man at all, Mr. Wo. H. BuRteIGH said that the temperance party had always, in former canvasses, adopted the plan of taking up men who had been nominated on other tick eis, who were sound upon the great question of prohibi- tion—but now a new plan of action was proposed by some of their friends, They must remember that this was not a convention of teetotallers. He hoped they were all te totallers; but, nevertheless, (4 man came there as a dele- gate, who was in principle a prohibitionist, but who was not a teetotaller, they must admit him. He referred to the fact that temperance men who were not prohibitionists had some times been supported by the tem- perance party, in preference to men who were in favor of prohibition, althongh not practical teetotallers, Ia rete- rence to Bradford RK. Wood and Joseph Mullen, there was no controversy, Both of these men we know as plede tectotallers. 1 do not, continued Mr. B., claim Abijal (Laugh- Mann, Jr., as a pledged teetotailer. On’ the contr with that manliness and honesty of character whieh tinguishes him, and which has ‘marked his whole ¢ he says boldly that he is not a teetotaller; but he | in the principle of prohibition; and he as | said this morning, the people ar € to he law is o tional, ex necessitate, (Laud cheers.) Who would accuse Abijah Mann of concealing his opinions or ing under colors’ Ido not speak as a politician. | entirely ignore politics in this connection, [am first, last and at all times, a probibitionist, and with all who stand upon that ground Lam ready to co-operate, (Cheers.) Tut terly repudiate the idea that we must not support, as prohibitionists. any men who are not, in addition to that wetotallers. Other things be C teetotalter: but I would rat occasionally takes his gla man who It is true that we have been sent here as proluibition!sts, but our c ymstituents expect that we lave some practical common sense, and we must adopt a practical course. and go in for victory, We have but two courses to pur- sue. We may either adopt candidates (rom the tickets already in the field, or nominate candidates of our own. Which of these is the most practical course? to the so-called American party for a candidat torney-General? They give us Mr. Cashing, wh direst enemy of prohibition, and | believe his habits are not any more correct than those of Abijah Mann, Shall we go and ask the herds’ for a candi date’ They will give us Mr. Sutherland, the great orator atthe rum seller's meeting in the Park, at New York, the other day—a man whom I myself heard denounce the friends of prohibition ax fanatics, and the law as a fanati cal one. Of Samuel J. Tilden, the “‘seft’’ nominee, I know nothing; but the convention which nominated him passed anti-prohibition resolutions. The ouly candilate now before the people, who believes in the conatitution. ality of a Prohibitory law, is bij: T think we exaggerate the inn torney-General. What has Attorney He is the Governor's legal advicer. Now Abijah Mann would of course in that eapacity, advise the Governor that a Prohibitory law was constitational, What else has he to do? Why, in a certain contingency, he may have to argue the question betmre the Court of Appeals, Well, then, all we have a right to demand is that our candidate believes in the constitutionality of prohibition. We may then nominate Abijah Mann, and elect him, and thus be sure of an Attorney-General who believes’ pro- hibition to be constitutional; or we may nominate am in- dependent candidate, and elect nobody—(Cheers)—agq by so di permit the candidate of the bards or of th» softs to go into office, and then we shall be sure of a man who is against us. ‘This is not 3 . Principle requires us to win the sap bog can, and God helping us we will win it. (Loud 5) ‘We will take the in: rane Caer .). There is another question conquer. ; re a that of prob on vened with reference to it, yet man who has a heart feels ih palen within him “at the Thought of that ques- tien. ¢ gravest isaues are at stake in this contest, and the lives of our friends in Kansas may perhaps bearer’ on the action of New York in the coming election. It is for us bed edna age soil of Kansas Lege . nad with of freedom’s martyrs, poured out by the assassins of Missouri, who are invading that Terri- tory with rifles, revolvers and bowie knives, or whether the insclence of that usurpation of slavery shall be checked vy the mighty voice of New York, sounding above all the din and tumult of the political contest, tike the voice of her own Ni in utter amd stern repro bation of that iniiige (Oremendous applause con- tinued for some moments.) God’s name let us beware how, by doing or refusing to do, we add any etrength to the iniquitous slave power, or increase the peril of our friends and brethren in Kana»; for if their b) should flow in martyrdom for freedom, verily the Lord will re- quire ae our hands. (Enthusiastic and protracted ap- Use, Rev, J. C. WARREN, of N. ¥., said a few words, amidst Jamorous calla for the questi¢n, Mr. C, Barrugrt, of Poughkeepsie, deprecated the im- patience manifested for the question. Thia, he said, is the turning point with us, and it is important that.every man shoul satisfied as to the nominees, On this de- pends our victory. Our enemies have no hope except in cividing us, Their organization ix such that they can- not be divided. When the election comes, you will find the democrate—“ softs” and “ hards’’—unitiog to carry anti-prohibition candidates for the Legislature. Of the Know Nothings I say nothing, for of thera I know nothing. (Iavghter.) “I do not speak in derision, brethren. (More laughter.) Tem not a Know Ne ‘and I roally mean that I kuow nothing about it. There may be another convention held in State before the election. There ia a party of straight out and out ‘and it will de- pend much on the action of this body whether they bold convention or not. If they see that there is no pros- pect of dividing our ranks, they will fall in where they properly belong—among the old hunkers, {cheers and Jaughte:,) and’ we sha}l be a clean republican party. (Loud cheers.) There is no use in concealing the fact that we are such. Though we only nominate the candi- dates for Judges and Attorney General, yet most, if not all of us, will support the whole ticket of the republicans, for the; nearly all good temperance men. Preston King isa pledged temperance man, (Cheers.) I have no more doubt of that man’s temperance principles than T have that I am here, and if there was any cause for it, 1 would move to adopt Preston ray toate ) Iknow that he ehall have my yote. (Loud cries of ‘and mine.) It is now near tea time, and I move that we take ; e vote on these resolutions. (Cries of “No,” no. Wu. C. Bross, of Rochester—I have been acquainted with Abijah Mann since 1838, and have known him daring that time as a political opponent, I know that he drank some in 1839, and trom that time up to 1845; but 1 have never known him to drink since thea, Drunk as hi may sometimes have been in the deyil’s gutter, he never got so drunk yet as to make himself a pro-slavery man. (Lond cheers.) So, you see, the devil never had him much in his power, snd now he stands as erect as any of us, and you may depend upon him. (Cheers.) Mr. w York, (the youth who made the cherge of drunkenness against Mr. Mann,) here appeared upon the platform amidst a storm of shouts of “qnes- tion” and marks of disapprobation, He said—In the city where I reside Abijah Mann has the reputation of being a “moderate drinker,” and he goes so tar in his modera- tion that once ina while it is necessary that his friends should take care of him, (Great sensation.) A Vorn—Are you a member of the Know Nothing order ? Mr. Poumenvs—No, sir. Samm Voicr—Are you a member of the United Order of the Star Spangled Banner ? Mr. Pouicate—i wish it to be understood that 1 donot Belong. to the American party atall. I belong to the or- der of the Sons of Temperance. Mr. Haperr, (very much excited)—I will hold you responsible for what you said just now about Abjjab Mann, young man. (Cheers.) My name is John 7. Hildreth. Mr. Poewvs—I oaly stato What is the reputation of Mr. Mann in the city of New York. Mr. Hnprern—tdeny it. (Cheers and confusion. A Voicr—Vo you know anything against him of your own knowledge ? Mr. PoLnEnus, (not noticing the quastion)—As a tem- erancemin J cannot return 10 the order _to which I be- long in New York, and say to them with that imputation against Mr. Mann’s character I have allowed his name to be brought before the temperance public, for it will be hissed ai us thatwe have set up drunkatds as our lead- ers. Ifany one wil! prove to mo that Mr. Mann is a tem Trance man I will go for him, but not otherwise. (Con- fusion, and shouts of “question.””) Hon. Jas, J. Rip, of Queens county, was introduced by Mr. Stebbins, and raid—I have been a total abstainer for twenty-seven years. Abijah Mann is my townsman and my neighbor. His business place is in Chauncey court, Wall street. 1 have been inti- mately acquainted with him for the last four yours, and Thave never seen him when I even suspected that he was in any way disguised with liquor. I have been in com- peny with him frequently, and have never seen him drink a drop. Ihave heard it said again and again, b his own family, that he ix an entirely sober man, al- though he has never adopted total abstinence principles. MANY Voicrs—‘That’s so,” and cheers. Mr. River—I came here feeling proud that I might have an opportunity to support Abijah Mann for Attorne General in this convention. (Loud cheers.) 1 know his sentiments on the subject of the Prohibitory law. He believes the Court of Appeals will declare the present law to be constitutional, and that itis in the power of the Legislature to pass a Prohibitory law. I know him to be an honest man, What he tella us we may confidently rely on. He will never deceive us. (Great cheering, ) Dr. Perxins, of Herkimer, mounted a bench and called out, “A motion has been made to adjourn; T demand a vote on it. (Loud shouts of “no, no.” I do not happen to agree with the gentiemen who have spoken, and I want time to express my views. (Shouts of ‘go on now,” and * hear him,’? & Dr. Perkiss—I cannot go on now. 1 am too darned hungr . (Laughter, and cries of “Adjourn” and “Ques- jon.’” Mr. Estannoox, of New York (shouting at the top of his voice)—This motion to adjourn is designed to injure us. If1 were a rumseller that is the yery game I would play, or if Thad an axe to grind that is just what I would do. Come up, gentlemen, and face ‘the music at once. (Cheers,) I'tell you there are some two or three here— and I do not think there are more—who would not vote for Abijah Mann if we were to stay here till the crack of eee (Great cheering and vociferous eries of “Qu. \- ion, ‘The question was then taken on adopting the prea and the two first resolutions, being those relating nominations, and on a division there were found but four votes mth» negative. This result was rec: ved with tremendous applouse, and cheer after cheer wa called for und given. At the suggestion of one of the mi- nority of tour. the vote was made unanimous, In order still further to clinch the matter, Mr. Bur LaGH moved a reconsideration, which was nogatived. Joun Hawkins, of Baltimore, the temperance lecturer, was then introduced, and after a brief speech from him the convention adjourned until 7 o'clock this evening. EVENING SESSION. ‘The Convention was again called to order at 7 o’clock. Rev. Mr. Manew announced that the services of John B, Gough had been secured to address the people of the ceniral portion of the State during the canvass, and that he would commence immediately, (Cheers. ) The revolutions reported this afternoon by the Com- tee on Business was then taken up for action. A DerpcaTs moved to amend the first of the resolutions hy inserting the words—“And not secondary in impor. tance to the probibition of slavery in the Territories.” Loud cries of ‘No’ induced him, however, te withdraw the amendment, and the resolutions were thereupon all adopted, nem con. rr. MARSH, from the Business Committee, then report- ed three additional resolutions, which are as follows: — Resolved, That the opposition which this great and imporiant act has encountered, is manifestly not from the people; nowhere is it found prevailing in the raral districts of the Statemit aries chiefly, and almost wholly, in the great e tvade, and among those who rol! tip wealth in the “By the eraft,” they ery, “we have our wealth,” wealth they sustain a hostility to the law and hinilrances tw tt execution Which may wel: exotte the fears of all who desire the permanence of our free institutions, Resolved, That it be recommended to our friends throughout the State to‘adopt for legislative, judicial, and execnulve ofi-ors stich candidates in their respective districts, in the other par ties, as are Worthy and reliable on the question of prohibition; but where none such are found, that independent caadidates be put forward for the support ot temperance voters. Resolved, That we honor the honorable Senate and Assem- bly for the gift of a Prohibitory law at the last session; who nor his Excellency, the Governor of the State, for recommend ing and promptly giving (t his signaiare, end adding, on @ autt able occasion, his firm and decided approbation: we honor and dank thove dliinguished jurists, our Savage, Rdmonds, Conek ling, Rockwell, Bacon, ‘Shankland, Wells! Humphrey, and others who have so nobly given their testimony to its correct ness; and we look to the Reople fo the firm confidence that ther, in this enlightened State, ‘and in this age of the world, will Live it their pious and heariy support. Alter speeches, in favor of the several resolutions from Messrs, Marsh, Leigh, Stebbins, Bloss, Crampton, Joy and other gentlemen, these resolutions were adopted soriatim, without dissent, The Rey. Jom Mansi then presented the following re- solution, which was unanimously adopted:— Resolved, That in separating we plant ours broad platform of the tocal prohibition of the trate i tatoxt cating liquors as a beverage; We bind hands and hearts to gether for the sustenance and thorough enforcement of the Pro hibitory law in all our borders, and we pledge total abstinence from all use as one great security tor personal tempe: a, right Jegislation, judicial action, obedience to law and \is hal lowed influence throughout the community, On motion of Mr. RicHandeox, the chair was authorized to appoint the State Temperance Committee, to consist of two from each judicial district, to serve for the ensuing ear. 7 The Parpayt thereupon appointed the following gen tlemen. said committee: — Hon.'C. C. Leigh, N.Y. Hon. Horace Greeley mes J. Rider, Queens; Hon. ¢ B, Day, Greene, James Hartnes: Oliver Te niel Wardwell, Jefferson: 1 kine; Hon. . Hathaway, Delaware; Laban t ‘ Cayuga: Hon, John W. Stebbins, Monroe; Hon. Themas ‘Taggart, Genesee: A. Scovell, Niagara, On motion of Mr. Flivprerm, it was voted that the pro- ceedings of the Convention, together with the address of the President, be printed in pamphiet form, and that the secretaries bea committee to superintend’ the publica- tion. Mr. Amasa McCoy, of Albany, editor of the Prohibi- timixt, offered a resolution calling upon the friends of the temperance c: throughout the State to revive and reinvigorate temperance societies, orders, alliances and lodges, and to employ anew the whole machinery of moral suasion, including meetings, lectures, sermons, tracts, pledges, banners, processions, music, ‘eloquence and song, and last but not least, the generous and ays. tematic support of temperance periodicals, The resolution was carried. Mr. McCoy also submitted another resolution in refer- ence to the propriety of returning members to Congress with a view to the of a law prohibiting the im- portation of all wines spirit, but a this was a step jurther Marsh, Burleigh, and other leading ‘asten were peaeaacd: to uo. wlinnat Gloueadion and dee tctallers at ae West, inviting attendanve eae psa i sont be held in vince, and after some discussion as to the pro- priets ge ayes any such ‘ outside barbarians,” a Tall deloge: ‘was appointed to make a pilgrimage into Province at the time specified in the neighboring ‘the in- vitation. Thanks were then yoted to the President, and with three cheers for the ticket and sundry cheers more, the convention adjourned sine die, THE BLACK MAIL QUESTION. An Old Bald Headed Libel Before a Court of Justice. AND A STRING OF OTHER LIBELS. THE PLAINTIFF IN TRE MALAKOFF, Superior Court—Special Term. JAMES GORDON BENNETT AGT. EDWARD P. FRY. ‘Serremum 27, 1855. Bogswortn J.—The plaintiff moves to strike out twenty- five distinct portions of the answer, as irrelevent and re- undent, and for such other relief as may be proper. ‘The action is libel. The complaint alleges that the de- fendant maliciously wrote and published, and caused and procured to be written and published, of and concern- ing, &c., ‘a certain false, scandalous, malicious and de- fematory statement,” which ix set forth at length. ‘Fhe complaint states the publication of this article as a single cause of action. The article contains several distinct matters, either of which would make it libellous. It affirms, among other things:— 1, That the plaintiff's course as editor drove one weak- minded man to commit suicide; and 2. Caused nine other able-bodied ones to horrewhip him through the streets of New York. le formed a deliberate plan to attack defendant through the columns he controlled, because defendant re- fused him black-mail, and denied to any of his editorial or reporting crew the privilege of the free list. F 4. He sought to ruin defenfant’s business and blast his character, lest other operatic or theatrical managers might follow his example and withdraw from plaintii's job office the theatrical printing, the black-mail profits ‘on which—or profits over and above what any printer should chargo—to the extent of $12,000 to $20,000 a year, have built up and sustained, and still are a chief support of bis paper. 5. With this view he published almost daily of defen dant, columns of personal abuse amd defamation, in the guise of criticism upon defendant’s operatic management and the operatic performances. ‘Then follows a specification of statements said to have been published by Bennett, concerning the character of tho persozia affirmed to commonly resort to the Astor Place Opera House; the conduct of defendant ss to the money of the subseribere; his mansgement of the opera in Philadelphia ; his being patronized by garablers ; and his conduct towards the artists he employed; and that When defendant appeared before the audience to ad- dross them, it was in his favorite character of an ape; and that he was a halfstarved musical adventurer, who could not pay his landlady for hia board. 6, The London Times, ever eager to copy anything de- rogatory to America from the American press, always found in the journal of the Scotch vagabond an ample supply of such material. 1 Heflecting that the repeated horsewhippings others had administered bad failed to change bis course ; that hia avaricious and hellish instincts inclined him to con- tinue always the business of extorting money by lies, slanders and threats, the defondant resolved to make an example of him, and punish him legally. The article then proceeds to state that defendant sued plaintiff for some of the libels; that the latter delayed a trial, the death of some of defendant’s witnesses in the meantime, a trial in December, 1853, and the recovery by defendant of a verdict of $10,000 damages; that from one to two years of the delay was to enable Bennett, to obtain from Evrope the testimony of a former employé of his, (whore name was mentioned,) which was one mass of 1% jury. it then alleges a course of proceedings, taken by Ben- netv’s lawyers, to gain time and avoid paying the penal- ty; and that on the Saturday before the article in ques ton was writton, a new trial was granted. It then proceeds to comment on articles published by the plaintiff respecting that trial and the graut of a new trial, and also to comment upon that suit, the discourag- ing advice he received before bringing it, the difficulties he encountered in prosecuting it, and his purpose as to further prosecuting it. It will be observed that the misconduct charge’ ‘against the plaintiff by the article in question, so far as it is here particularized, except such as relates to the li- dels said to have been published by him of the defendant and his conduct in defending the action brought against him, and in moving for a new trial, is confined to a few charges. ‘The intter include the statements as to the conse quences of the plaintiff's course as editor, to himself, and to the man who committed suicide, and as to his’ con- tinuing the business of extorting money by lies, Manders and threats, or levying black mail, The answer begins by stating that “it sheweth to the Court,” and then proceeds to allege various matters, oc cupying ninety-six folios, when this clause oscurs, vi “and in case said occasion and the foregoing facts ani circumstances do not amount to a full justification, then defendant will give them in evidence as mitigating « c- cumstances, pursuant to the code of procedure.” Tais extract is one of those moved to be stricken out, and ts the twenty-fifth, numbered in the order in which they stand in the answer. ‘The only inference which can be drawn from the form or terms of the answer is, that the facts contained in it are set up a8. full justification, if they would amount to that on being proved, and if they would not, then they are pleaded in mitigation. A party may set up as many separate and distinct de- fences as he has, Dut they must be separately stated. If facts are stated, as justifying the trugh of the charge, an anawer, or the part ofan arswer, which attempts to justify the whole article must contain allegations of facts which, if proved, would entitle the defendant to a verdict in his favor upon the whole record. ifthe answer, or any part ofit, attempts to justify any distinct statement which is libellous in itself, it chould refer to the part which it is intended to answer, go that it may be readily distin- guished. (Code, Sec. 160. Sub, 2.) 4 iastifeation, or a plea proof, of the truth of the libellous charges, "is « full defente to a civil action for a jibel. An answer, or part of answer, which attempts to jus tify the whole of the libellous article, or distinct and in- dependent portions of it, which in themselves are libel- lous, may be demurred to, if the allegations contained in it, assuming them to be true, would not amount toa fall justification of the part it is intended to answer. (Laws ‘of 1856, p. 54.) In an action for slander or libel, a defendant may al- lege the truth of the matter charged as defamatory, and ‘ny mitigating circumstances to reduce the amount of camages, and he may prove the mitigating circum stances, whether he prove the justification or not. (Code, wee. 165. Ifa defendant prove the truth of the matter charged to dedefamatory, the plaintiff as a matter of course cannot recover; and in such a case proof of the mitigating cir- cumstances could be ofno beuefit to the defendant. But an attempt to justify does not now deprivea defend- ant of the right to give evidence in mitigation, and the evidence in support of the two defences may be submitted together to the jury, and if they think the defence of justification is not established they may give such con- sideration to the matter in mitigation as it deserves. Matter in mitigation, under the Code, may be such as tends to prove the truth of the charge. But whatever it may be, it must be such as tends to disprove any actual maticious intent, or in other words, such as tends to prove that the defendant believed, und ‘was justified in believing, what he published to be true. Bush vs. Prosser, 1 Kern, 347. ‘Asan action of libel is one to recover damages for in- jury to character, a defendant may mitigate damages by proof that the plaintiffs general character is bad; but not by preving that he bas been guilty of some other specific offence or vice than the one imputed to him by the libel. Ifan answer alleges the truth of the matter charged as pe ssemg there would not seem to be any object in stating in the answer that the samo facts will be given in evidence in mitigation. If the charge is proved to be true in the sense in which, and as broad as it was made, afull defence would be established. If the detendant fails to justify, becanse he is unable to prove the matters stated in his answer, he will, as to such matters be equally destitute of evidence to mitigate damages, But he may prove part, and only a part, of the allega tions of hisanswer, and for that reason fail to justify and yet portions of it may be proved which would properly mitigate damages. ‘An answer in bar of a plaintiff’s action must be di: et and positive in the frcts set forth, and must state them with all necessary certainty. the article which is the subject of tho action comprehends a multiplicity of matter, an answer at- tempting to justify it is not allowed for that reason to be any less precise or direct in its statement of the facts on which a justification is founded. Bearing there rules in mind, the portions of the on- awer moved to be stricken out will be adverted to, wth view to ascertain whether, taken together, they are pertinent or relevant in a ples of justification. ‘The matter first moved to be stricken out, which, for the sake of brevity I will call the first exception, and which affirms what the article complained of does not assert, viz: that the plaintif, “by his course and con- duct, while editor and proprietor of said newspaper, was well known to be a common notorious libeller and liar’ ait? residue of the exception being)—‘and had estab- lished and built up said newspaper, in a very great de gree, by libels, and by articles written for the purpose of extorting black mail or hush money, and also by the pub- lication of licentious, obscene and blasphemous articloa, which were intended to create and did create excitement at the time, under which said newspaper would and did fell and become notorious;”’ specifies no instance of his obtaining black mail, does not directiy affirm that he ever received any, and does not tend to establish the truth of any of the specific items af misconduct which tho article complained of impates to him. A If the defendant intedas to allege the truth of the st ments in that article, in relation to thelevying of black mail by the plaintiff, he must «pecify instanoes with rea- wonable certain'y as to time cad chivumeinem, wo that the plaintiff may be apprised by the answer on what he intendsto rely, and have an oj unity to prepare to dieprove at the trial any case which the defendant's evi- Genge may jead to establish, I think this should be stricken out, unless made more definitive and certain. Second exeeption.—The matter of this exception al- leges that Bennett, on the “3d of July. 18267 fas was openly and notoriously known, publsabed in his own wspaper, of and coner: himself, his character a: the Peineiplen on which nafa paper was conducted b himself, and as the general opinion of the public of his own character and course as editor, the following true account of himself, purporting to be from a correspon- dent.” ‘Then follows what purports to be a communica- tion from a correspondent, denouncing his character as editor, the articles that appeared in his Paper, and his motives for publishing su ha paper. ‘The most that can be of it, if published by the plaintiffas being a true account of hituself, and of the conr- *e and character of his paper iv, that it may be evidence which might be given in fupport of an answer properly set- ting up the truth of some ot the chargesmade by the rticle complained of. Evidence, however, it not to be stated ina pleading, but the facts on which a relies to establish a cause of action or defence, proof of which the evidence ia to be given. When an answer, (as the defendant’s docs), admits the publication of the ar- ticle complained of, and it ix not privileged, the only answer that can be made is, that the statements con- tained in it are true, or that they ‘were made from good motives, and not maliciously. ‘An answer of the former kind, if proved, is a bar to a recovery. Proof of the facts slated in the latter does not affect the plaintiil’s right to recover, but only bears upon the amount of the recovery. This should be stricken out. ‘he matter of the third exception thus:—“And also on the 20th of July, 1888, the said Bonnets paniisbed in said newspaper the following true account of himself, purporting to be from a correspondent.” ‘Then follows an article puryerting to be from & correspondent, de- nouncing the plaintiff, his pager, und ita tendency. "This ol is open to the same clays 01 jectiona as the second ex- tion, Fourth exception.—\“That ania Bennett in the month of June, 1827, in his suid newspaper, wrote and published hia opinions ot the Christian clergy of this country, which were often repeated by him afterwareds in his said newspaper, as follows.” Then follows an extract from the HznaLd, commenting on the “Christian clergy of the present day.” ‘The fifth relates io an extract from # number of his pa- r issued in 1839, commenting on politicians, brokers, wyers, and all public men, including the clergy. he sixth is a “libidinous effusion,” alleged to have been published in April, 1836, and also alleged to be “a specimen of articles of the same charaeter, published by dim in his said newspaper.’ . ‘The seventh 16 in these words: ‘And the said defendant further saith, that the columns of said newspaper, at and betore and many years after the time when said publica- tions were made, abound in Hcentfous and blasphemous articles, and pubiications fully bearing out the character ofsaid James Gordon Kennett, and the principles on which said paper was conducted, as depicted by James Gordon Bennett hiswelf in his said newspaper, and show- ing him to be a liar and libeller, and to which, if neces- tary, deferdant will refer, and some of them are too dis graceful to soil the records of the court.”” It cannot be pretended, ax I think, that either of these seven portions of the complaint, or all of them put to- gether, allege in substance the truth of any of the vices Gr disparaging conduct imputed to the plain aft by the ar- ticle complained of. It is not alleged in any part of them that the articles from which extracts are copied, were published to extort black mail, or hush money, or re- sulted in his obtaining any, or ‘that they caused a man to commit suicide, or any one to personally chastise him. Neither of these last six, on any recognized rules in re- lation to pleading, can properly form part of an answer setting up the truth of the libel, nor do I perceive any ground on which they are admissible in mitigation. The matter of the eighth exception is to the effect that in May, 1887, the plaintiff, to create alarm an 4 distrust, and to induce merchants fo pay tribute to him, under rear that their names would otherwise appear as insol- vent, published what he called a list of those who failed in New York in 1837, and included therein, as appears from raid newspaper, thirteen persons or titms who had nol failed; thatthe plaintiff was indicted, found guilty, and fined $500 for a libel upon one of those who was pub: Uished as having failed, but who had not failed. ‘The matter of the ninth exception is, that afew days af- terwarés the plaintiff «‘published in said newspaper of and concerning himself, his character und his course as eii- tor, on or about tho 20th of May, 1837, the following trae account of himself.” ‘Then follows an’ article purporting to be written by the New York correspondent of the Bos- ton Alas, in relation to the plaintaf, his course and con- duet as an editor, and his arrest ona complaint of haviny Nelled one of tho geutlemen whom he published as insol- vent. The matter of the tenth exception relates “to his pub- Ushing an article, on the 27th of June, 1837, purporting to have been written by a correspondent of the Mlinois Register, of the sumo general tenor as that taken from the Boston Atlas, ‘The matter of the eleventh exception relates to, andex- tracts an article he published on the 18th of Sept., 1837, on having been sentenced to pay a fine of $500 for the libel alluded to in the eighth exception, which the an- swer avers he published “to bring the administration of Justice into contempt, and to throw ridicule on said court, to make his paper sell, and to make money out of hisown shame.’? The matter of the twelfth exception is to the effect that on the 9th of October, 1887, he published what he called ‘a solvent list of merchants in New York,” from the same motives (among others) which induced him to publish list of those whom he represented to have failed. In no one of these parte of the answer is it alleged that he obtained money, black mail, or hush money, from any person at any time. The matter of these twelve excep- tions embraces all of the answer from the end of the first to the end of the twenty-eighth folio. It cannot be pretended, as I think, that either of them, except parts of the eighth and twelfth, would be eves evidence for any purpose, except thore which affirm that he published certain matters ax being a true account of himself. To make them aduissible as evidence of any- thing, there must be averments in the answer properly affirming the truth of such imputed instances of miscoa- duct contained in the article complained of, as it may be claimed that he, by auch articles, confesses that he was guilty of. But even if the pleadings shall be so framed as to render any of those extracts admissible as evidence to prove the truth of any issue that may be formed, they have no place in a pleading. Evidence is not to be stated, but issuable facts, The cighth and twelfth allege that the articies therein referred to were published to extort hush money, but specify no instances of payment of it, and are too indefinite and uncertain. irteenth exception.—This contains s atatement of the arrival ct the dancer (Ellsler), and in relation to her per- forming as such, and an extract from an article alleged to have been published by Henry Wikoif in certain news- papers, concerning the plaintiff's course towarda her, and the motives imputed to the plaintiff for the conduct charged against him, which extract, as this part of the answer states, “‘the Wefendant is informed and believes was true, and fairly represented public opinion on the subject. jeither the fact that Mr. Wikoff published this article, nor the extract copied into the answer, should be insert: ed in it. If the defendant chooses to answer, by alleging that the plaintiff published unfavorable articles to extort money or realize gains in the form of presents, and that he by such course coerced or induced her to pay money, or make presents, and to specify instances, he is at liberty 10 do #0— But it is anew mode of answering » complaint for libel, imputing specttic mi t ton plaintiff, to allege that'a third person published @ certain article of him which the defendant, elieves was true, although sach article may impute the same misconduct as that charged hy the one which is the basis of the action. Such a fact is not one which can be alleged in a plea of justification, nor can it be given in evidence to support the issue made by such a plea. Fourteenth exception.—The matter of this exception relates to what the plaintiff is alleged to have published in April, June and October, 1836, concerning a murder said to have been committed in the house of one Kosina Townsend, and avers, among other things, that the ‘in- sinnations, threats and letters thus published by Bennett in his newspaper” * ® ‘caused the public to believe, and left the impression almost, if not entirely universal, that said publications were made for no other purpose than to obtain hush money or black mail, and that large sums of money were paid to Bennett for that purpose—’ Although this part of the answer alleges that hush money, or black mail, was paid to the plaintiff, it does not allege that any of these matters were published with a view to extort it, No one is named who paid it. The matter of this part of the answer, if properly pleaded to that part of the article complained of, which charges the plointif with ‘‘extorting money by lies, slanders and threats,” for aught that has been sted or now oc- curs to me, would be a good answer. But it would be ne- ceseary to state by whom and when any was paid. But no part of the matter of this exception alleges, that what it charges him with having published, or as threatening to publish, was untrue; or that this conduct war purened to extort money. Tt not having been alleged that such was his purpose, but only that the public believed that such was his pur- pose, it neither makes of itself, nor in connection with the other parts of the answer, any issue of fact with re- spect to any of the acts of misconduct imputed by the article complained of. In an answer constructed like the present, it is irrelevant, It may be made relevant by adding other allegations, if they can be truly averred, and by being stated in such form as to be more definite and certain. Fifteenth exception. —This covers some 26 folios of the answer, and asserts it to be true, as the article com- plained of affirms, that Judge Noah’ since deceased, told the defendant that he would swear to certain things, as matters within his own knowledge, in. relation to the Jaintif's haying extorted suma, ‘amounting to some 143,000, from a man who happened to be at Rosina Town. send’s on the night of the mui er, under threats of publishing his name, and that the pinintiff by his con- stant demands of bush money droge this unfortunate man to commit suicide; and that Noah published aub- stantially the same thing of Bennett, in July, 1841, in the Heening Times and Star, which article is ‘set forth at length, and as the answer states, “is, as defendant is tn- formed and believes, true.”” The article published by Judge Noah should be stricken t. ‘The libellous article complained of does not state that he made such a publication, Such ® publica- tion is not admissible to prove that the plaintiff” was guilty of the misconduct imputed to him. It does not present. nor contribute to present an issuable fact. The plaintiff's counsel contends that sueb a fact cannot be proved in mitigation of nd as I understood him, he also insists that i of the fact that Judge Noni told defendant he would swear, aa the article com- plained of asserts, and the answer affirms he did, cannot he proved, even in mitigation of damages. In support of these positions, he cited Bush va. Prosser, 1, Kern. 361, the latter question In order to dispose of the present mo- tion, With reference to that post it is suiticient to «ay that when the answer shall be so framed, ifat all, as to not only state that such information was given, but also that it was believed, and in consequence of such infor- mation end belief, the defendant published that portion of the libellous article, without malice, and that such facts will he proved to reduce the damages, or, in other words, to disprove malice, it will be time enough to de- termine, if the question shall thea be presented, whether such matter shall be allowed to remain in the answer. In reconstructing the answer, so mach of it as states that Judge Noah published » certain article, and the article itself, should be omitted. Sisteepth exception. This alleges that im 1644 there i gy in the city of New York a par en- “The Life and Writings of James Gordon Bennett,’? und generally what it contained, and gives an extract from it. The seventeenth exception covers a farther extract from the same pamphlet, and the matter of the igh wentlr exception states that there was set forth in said pamph- let an artiele mentioned in a previous part of the answe:, Jvis very obvious that all of this matter is irrelevant for any purpose. Nineteenth exception.—So much of the matter of tis, as states that “defendant further saith, that it is Grae the newspaper called the Lon lon T¥mes’ was ever eager to copy anything derogatory to Amerfea from the Ameri- can press, and always found m the journal of said Ben- nett, a Scotch vagabond, av ample supply of such ma- terial,” ix not irrelevant or redundant. | 1t charges the truth’ of certain statements contained in the article com- plained of, in terms as broad if not substantially identi- cal with those there used. But it does not profess to be an answer to such statements only. If this matter pur- ported to answer only # corresponding part of the cor- plaint, if not good and sufficient, it certainly could not be deemed irrelevant or redundant, The only defect, if any, would be that it was not sufficiently definite and certain in that it did noi specify or refer to any matter of that character, - But it is parcel of an entire anawer to the whole libel- lous article complained of. If it can be urged that it ie +0 specific as to indicate with reasonable certainty what part of the complaint it was intended to answer, that argument would assume that such part of the complaint contains sul tially a distinct cause of action, If there be anything in such a view, it is obvious that every distinct portion of the answer which ia intended to vet up & defence to only a particular part of the libellous article, should so refer to it as clearly to distinguish and iden- ‘ity the precise part it was meant to cover. jt might be a perfect answer to such part, but as part of an answer to the whole complaint it might be held bad on demurrer, A libelous article may chirge # plaintiff with being a thief, a forger anda public vagrant. An answer, pur- porting to be an answer to the whole complaint, whieh only sets up that he was a thief, and the fact of his hav- ing stolen, stating properly, time, place and the xabject imatter of the larceny, might be held bad, on & demurrer for insufiiciency. If it purported, and, by its terms, at- tempted to answer only so much of the a imputed larceny, it might be deemed a good answer, and the other: parts of the complaint, alleging that the defendant falsely and maliciously wrote and published, of and concerning: the plaintiff, that he had been guilty of forgery, and wat & public vagrant, would be deemed to be true, and the defendant would’ not aly be precluded from giving any evidence to show that either ot those charges was tri but, perhaps, he would be precluded from giving evidence to mitigate the damages, on account of having made such charges. That would depend upon the question whether matter in mitigation must, be stated In the anrwer, in order to admit proof of it, The jury that tried the issue as to larceny would assess such damages, however they might dispose of the issue of fact. ‘This part of the answer should be made more definite and certain, by refering to the part of the libel it is in- tended to answer. The residue of the matter of this ex. ception is clearly irrelevant, a4 it merely gives an ex- tract from the Hmarp of July, 1837, to the effect that the London Times copied largly from its columns, ‘Twentieth exception.—ihis gives an extract trom tha HeKatp of October, 1807, commenting on the favorable effect, that would be produced in England and France by the publication of what it culled the solvent list. This ix clearly irrelevant. ‘wen! y-first exception.—This, in effect, affirms that de- fendant obtained certain authenticated documents from the Yaris courts of justice, proving that a witness, when depesition was taken and used in the cave of Fry ys. Bennett, and named in the article complained of, had beon guilty of certain inisconduct. ‘This is irrelevan: ; whether proved or not, it cannot affect the right of the plaintiff to recover, or the amouut of the recovery. ‘Twenty-second exception.—Tthis begins thus: ‘And the defendant further alleges that as to the words ‘Tombs pettifogger who had run the risk of being domiciled at Sing Sing on a charge of perjury,’ in said complaint mentioned, that”’—and then proceeds to state that a person whom it names, but who was not named in the article complained of, was arrested on a charge o! perjury, what proceedings were had thereon, &¢. _ This is irrelevant and scandalous, Irrelevant as neither Justifying or mitigating the libel upon the plaintiff for which this ection is brought, and scandalous as imput- ing to a third person a crime, net necessary to be proved to make a full defence to this action, and proof of which cannnot effect the damages which’ ehould be awarded to the plaintiff in case he recovers. Twenty-third exception.—The matter of this covers va- rious extracts from the HxRap, commenting upon the trial of Fry vs. Bennett, the subject matter of that suit, the feel of & new trial, and matters relating thereto. The fact of publishing such comments neither tends to justify or mitigate a libel upon the author of them. They are irrelevant. ‘Twenty-fourth exception, —This, in substance, states ae reasons, among others, for publishing the article com- lained of, that knowing Bennett’s course as editor, as fore set forth—that neither indictments, public flog- gins, nor civil actions induced him to change his course, ut, om the contrary, furnished him fresh topica of ridi- cule and abuse, and ‘made his paper sell; believing, under the circumstances, that defendant had no other means of defence against’ renewed falsehoods and abuse, and that a second suit for the new libels upon him would Jast some six or seven years, he did, a8 ® matter of self defence, to prevent the public mind’ from being poisoned against'him by allowing said libels to go unanswered, and an matter of history, and asa reply to said additional libels, publish the article complained of asa ‘ card” to the public, believing the statements therein to be true, and ‘the comments thereon to be just, and warranted by the occasion, and published malice, and without intent to injure Bennett, and fully believing that said Bennett never any character that, could be injured thereby. forms no part of a good plea of justification, and contains no allegations “of facts or circumstances,” which ean tend to mitigate. There are ‘no faste or cir- cumstances” stated which the law recognizes as euffi- eient to warrant a belief of the truth of libels ay the plaintiff, or as tending to show an absence of malice. Certainly the facts, that a second suit for fresh li- bels would last some six or seven years, and it he be- lieved Bennett never had any character that could be injured by the article he published concerning him, ony for libelling him. ‘Twenty-tifth exception.—This has been slready copied herein, andis to the effect, that if the occasion, facts and circumstances do not amount to a justification, they will be given in evidence in mitigation. This is not a proper mode of pleading. The rules applicable to this branch of the case have been stated. The matter of all the exceptions, except that of the Ist, 8th, 12th, 14th, 16th and 16th, must be stricken out: ‘These six must also be stricken out unless the answer be amended, so aa to. make it with respect to the matter of them more definite and certain. The defendant will be allowed to amend his answer ax he may be advised. The amended answer should be ro drawn that it may be manifest what part of it is intend- ed ana full answer or plea in bar to the whole complaint, and what part is intended as an answer to only # part of the complaint, cleaily distinguishing what part of the complaint it is designed to anrwer. On being so amended, Ly J rt of the answer which at- tempts toset up a distinct defence, if deemed insufficient, can be tested by s demurrer. If it contains irrelevant or redundant matter which ought to be stricken out, it may be corrected by a motion to expunge. The facta and circumstances which the answer may state will be proved to reduce the should be stated separate and distinct from the tions de- signed to present a full defence. So far as they may consist of portions of the facts relied upon as a full de- fence, they may probably be so di by refer- ence to previous parts of the auswer as to make a repe- tition unnecessary. If the complaint had been more in the form of a de- claration prior to the code than it is, it would lea apology for such an answer as the present. Such @ de- claration, in addition to other matters, unally alleged, after stating the libellous publication, that the defend- ant thereby and then and there meant that the plaintiff had committed the offence of forgery or larceny, as the case might be. In the complaint in this action, the article alleged to be libellous is set out at length, without any epecitication of the offences which, as the plaintiff construes it, the defendant thereby intended to impute to the plaintiff. In most cases, it is easy to state, on reading an article, what offence or miscon¢ uct it imputes, In the present case, it is an easy matter to perceive that misconduct of a certain character 1s charged: but it is not so easy to determine accurately how distinct imputations are made, either of which—if all the others should be justified—would render the article libellous. A defendant, in answering such a complaint, must be advised by great professional skill and experience, to be morally certain, that his answer sets up a defence to every distinct libellous imputation, whieh the plaintiff, at the trial, may successtully insist is charged by the article complained of. If the defendant was distinetly apprised by the com- Plainant what offences or misconduct the plaintiff con- strnes the libellous article to impute, and intends to insist at the trial that the defendant bad thereby accused him of, the latter might safely rely upon an answer which it would be unsafe to risk to such a complaint as the present Although an inuendo cannot enlarge or vary the sense of the previous words, and in some cases would be surplus~ age, yet it will sometimes limit the plaintiff in his proof, to show that it bas the meaning thereby imputed to it. Iam not prepared to say that the plaintiff can be com- pelled to make his complaint more specific in this respect than it now is. If it was more specific in this respect it is obvious that it would be less difficult to frame proper answer which should be designed to justify the libel. ‘An order will be entered giving the t liberty to amend bis answer as he may be advised, in twenty days, on payment of $10 costs, and directing that unless o amended the parts excepted to be stricken out. Court of Oyer and Terminer, Before Hon. Judge Roosevelt, Oct. 3.—Charge of Murder.—-Mary Ann Lambert, arnu- atatto, was placed at the bar, charged with killing Oscar nowden, a colored man, with whom she lived as hi« wife. The cecurrence took place in July Inst, in Mott street, and the circumstances were fully published at the Coroner's inquest. The prisoner is © native of Phila ladelpbia, and was a seamstress. The District Attorney appeared for the prosecution, and elicited the fact of the thi » Both were in the babit of drinking to exces and th parties were jealous of each other, C. Spen: cer, counsel for the prisoner, on cross examination of the witnesses for the prosecution, and by testimony for the defence, proved that the deceased had been in the habit of ill treating the prisoner, and at the time of the trans- action he had « hatchet in his hand and threatened tc take her life. The District Attorney abandoned the Ee cbs of murder, but for « conviction for " slaughter in the third degree. The jury being out sevo. ral hours were not able to agree, and were discharged about 10 o'clock at night. We understand they stood ten for acquittal and two for manslaughter, er. 4.—Charge of Murder.—Robert Palins, indict for the murder of Henry Bloom, by shooting him. His counsel was not ready, and the jury were discharged t Monday next. Court sdjourned to Friday mocning, at 10 o'clock. A young ian from Cincinnati, named Adolphus Dulhit gan, was murdered in New Orleans on the oun ult., by two liisbmen named James Brodesich and Jawes Gury,