The New York Herald Newspaper, April 7, 1859, Page 3

ae A to wich we bave yeotared to add our own esti- mate of the crop of 1859:— 858. Thrall estimate fr 1859, 20,009,000 20,009,009 1859 29,000 000 20 900,000 18,500 009 8 -900,000 42,000,000 18,080 900 14'500 0% 42,000,000, ‘Ton’, burhols.,... 180,000,000 168 In New York we adopt the di the above estimates, because we believe the wheat crop in this State of late years has bi gradually Yeasening. In Pennsylvania and Virginia it remains much the same from year to year, provided the season does not prove generally bad. fn Iilinois Our accoun{se, vesent that a fol! average crop will be gathered, while in all the other States appear- noes are fair fora large increase over the average, CORN. ‘The prospect for corn i# equally good for aa abundaat Yield with that of wheat, in tose Seales where Lo pinat {Bg bas commeDoWd. Ju Texas it is said t> be uncommonly good, aad in many places 18 already ©: inches 1p beiyps ‘The Sumter, South Carolina, Watchman esys tho plant- €7n jm that viownity Have their oor copa tp tbe ground, apy Vegetation 18 CODsiieranly in ad? soce OF Its usual tate ef progress wt this ime, fhe K gelleld Advertiser saya: Wo bave beard several farmers who havevern in the proved wishing it was yet in the coro crib. Evea in senoy lund the earth bas baked trom the beating rains Shore who commence plant og corn with the meonmiag o Apri, or even tater, will probably do better than those 0 us whe have planted. PARLEY. Winter barley is a crop wow attracting eoneiderablo at tention from our farmers in New York, and there wascon fiderable breadth of ground devoted to it last fail, Toig crop, Wo, Dow looks promieing, and if the yield shall be a Jarge av im furmer ycars, it will be proftavie, ouTTON. ‘We bave very little ag yet concerning the siate of the cotton crop. The Mobile Afercury says tho preset crop of exttion will provabiy exceed the production uf any pre” ‘Ving ) ear by several hundred thousand bales. Io South Carolina a few bave comme. ced planting, From Texas we learp that the coWon crops are vory promising. Hay. ‘The grass crop in this section of Pennsylvania, says the Manbeim (Lavcaster county ) Sentinel, aithough it suffored much irom the open wivter, iy coming up fuely, and the rospects now are that there will be a pretty good crop of ay wilde thie season, The Wasbing'o0 Star says:—The present season so far Dos been #0 fine for the growtb Of tae grasses as fully 10 make wp to tbe larmer, We apprevenc, for bis losses. Io fen yrurs wo Dave seou no such promze 00 the lat of April of a heavy yielo of grasaes, perbaps more important. to tbeet of most farmers immediately Washing'0 than the wheat crop. FRUIT. A better from Sumterviile, South Carolina, says:—So far we think the peach crop reqmaips unrnjared, materially Pretty copfident bopes are now wptertained of an abundant fron yioid an this Beetion. The protpect for a beavy yield of the orsbards in thie region, eays the Wasbingivu Stay, 12 fluer than ever before fe our remembrance. The peacd trees are everywhere leaded wiih bloom, and the apple trees are putting iorth Aeir beautiiul leaves with uvweatea vigor. Tue froit crop iv Pennsylvania is expected to be a good 4 payer Bay 8:—We fad, upon ex- amination, that the peach bods are in a sound and heaithy ule, Creating pleasant aoWe pavous of a fuil supply of that oelectabie fruit ‘Me Jovesvore (Il!.) Gazette rays that it Mods, on care- fai examin that 10 damage bas us yet pea done to the peach crop The trees m that section of the State are Bow in thei bloom. The Hunterdon county (N J.) Republican is informed Dy ap experieperd peaco grower Liab the prospect for a peaeb crop i that county the coming season Is very p.o- Mmixwg The ooid of two or tbree days in January killeda porwen of the bloom, buta greater part is in a healthy ‘oundiuon. ‘Tho Civainvati Gusetie and Louisville Courter sry ‘he Peach trees out there are ail right, and promise an abun- Gat yield this season. ri SUGAR. A letter from Baton Rouge, Louisiana, says the grospect ‘of the cane erop of 165916 decidedly gloomy. The failure Of the #tubble aud not of the prant is the cause, The sogar crop of Louwaba for the iast ten years has Deen as toliowe— Grop of 1849, unas, .247,923 Crop of 1854, hhds. .344,600 Crop ot 1850 -.2ib.20L Crop of 18 6. Grop of 1861 136, Croy of 1856. Crop of 1862 21,954 Crop of 1567... Crop of 1855....... 449,024 Crop of 1858 .. Fiom tue ubove it #ili be sven tbat the crop of 1858 the iargest oo8 made during the Wa years, except that for the year 1863. ‘The yiela of maple rugar this year has been enormous To Michigan it bas bea 0 extraordinary bois season that fay ners ace selling it from ix two eigot cents per pound. Dore eugar bus been made tn the westero counties of Pepveyivania this season than for many years past, GeocrarmcaL Exnors or THE New YORK GogRarmcaL Society.—We bave received a copy of the Journal of the American Geographical and Statistical Society, volume 1, No. 1, conducted by a committee of the Council. It is a Beatly printed small quarto of thirty-two pages, and this is about all we can say io its favor. It gives the names of the present officers of the society in two different parts of the work, and contains one article of merit—being a paper on Northwest America, from tho pen of Gov. Sie- wens, of Washington Cerritory, That on Parsguay docs neither the society nr the editors much credit. Attached fo it are two maps of (araguay aud the Parana river, the first of which 18 a pertect abortion, and incorrect in the mort important particulars, To the text we read that tie repabiic of Paraguay is situated between 21 20 south latitude, and 64.20 and 68.40 west longitude, On the mup the minutes are counted upwards, or northerly furtead of southerly, although they are below the equa- tor and are reckoved downwards. So that by this inac- euracy the northern boundary is pushed forward north of the twenty secoud parstiel a8 much a6 tweuty minutes, thus waking an error of forty minutes The eastern boun- ary of the republic is also incorrect, being represented as a straight loe running parailel with the Bfty-sixth degree of weat longitude down vearly to the twenty fourth degree ‘of south latitude, said line being iad down on the map as Deing about fifty six degrees ten minutes wost longitale, when, on the contrary, iis vorthern and eastern boundary 8 a curve along the rivers Blanco and Ybinesma, the former emptying wto the Paraguay aod the latter into the Parana. This is a strange bluncer, for whicd there is no excuse, as the recent surveys of Captain Page are within every one’s reach. Tae rivers Verde and Pilcomayo are laid down on the map as very smali and short streams, when tney are the very reverso—the latter extending for many hundreds of mies. The Rio Negro 1s also laid down incorrectly, and the reference to the carcer of Lopez = short and unsatis‘actory. ‘Tue Ovena.—Mr. Ullman will open the Academy of Mosic on next Monday evening, for a brief season of Ttatian Opera. Mme. de Gazzaniga will appear fora few nights previous to her departure for Europe. The first @pera will be “La Traviata,” ono of Mmo. Gazzani est yéles, The names of the artiste, otner than Mme. Gaxzaniga, have not yet been announced; but rumor faesigns tho tenor part to Stefani, and tue baritone to Gnone, of the late Maretzek company. ‘The Body tn a Box at Albany. Orrice ov THR NATIONAL POLICR Jomuiaston, New York, april 6, 1869, 10 THE EDITOR OF THE HERALD, AS We stated in our former note to you, Dr. Crano, the ‘brother of Mrs. Brannan, visited Albany at our request to Identify the remains of the female found at the railroad vot. In a note addressed to us he says, ‘I examined the remains found in the box; there is Bothing that cor- responds in apy way or partcular to Mrs. Braunan; and I ‘fam perfectly ratislod in my own mind that they are not her remaws, 1am convinced that they were sen) (om some medical college of individual as ‘driea prepara. tions,’ ”” Ghose W. MAtsELL 00. [From the Albany Statesman, April 6.) The bumav remains found some aays moap box whe Hudsoa River Kaiiroal depot, aud yeh it thought might be tuowe of the missing Mrs. Bronusn, have been carefully examined by Dr. Armsby, aud pronounced to be those of an old lady who bwo been ead several years, and bad been doubtiess packed and shipped for cheap transporta ton 48 & medial subject, He thinks tue indications aro (hat she must Dave been trom sixty to seventy years old, Toe lower part of the jaw coutaime but two teeth—one on each side—about two iuches apar:, Tue other teeth have dee Moved 60 log Bluce that alvioiar processes of the jaw Lave wil been absorbed, and the sockets #hich Lele the w we catirely flied, denoting that at least Afwen or twenty years buve elapsed since tue weth were moved, Tho sutures which waite the bones of ube akull ate entirely obiternted, which also denows extreme old ag@. This would seem to Avtile the matter, and leave no Chaive tor aby Dew “horror” to eMmauats froin Lag source. Let ti peopie and the Courts rejoice. Airs. Brennan, wo may #6 in this connection, Was Only about Lwency Bix years of age, and, if aay rollaace is to be placed on the ezvarienoe Of mexieas mon, the rematua, of cvurse, cannot Be The Hiectuon in Chicago. Oicavo, April 6, 1859. ‘The election yesterday in this city for Jidgen and Clorke of the Soperior Court resulted io the success of the entire republican bieket by AN Average majortiy of 2,000, The vote is 7,000 less thay tht March giectlon, | NEW YORK HERALD, Trial of Daniel FE. Sickles for Killing Philip Barton Key. Interesting Scenes in Court Yesterday. TWELVE JURORS EBMPANNELLED AT LAST. Opening of the Cross-Firing of Counsel, &e., &., SPECIAL REPORT TO THE HERALD. ‘Wasminatoy, April 6, 1869, The crewd in court to-day was greater than ever, and the public interest is in no wie diminished. The prison- ere eptrapce into the court room creates the usual sensa- tion, and the crowd climb over each other to geta sight athim, His countenance betrays kes anxety than on ‘he firet day. The avowed sympathies of the talesmen ‘were 28 numerous to-day as before, and are a clear indi- cation of public sentiment, ‘A lively discussion eusued between Mr, Stanton, for the defence, and the Prosecuting Attorney, oa the property qvaiification. Both spoke well, but Mr. Staoton gained an advantage over bis adversary, who udinitted his igao- rance of law after fifteen years practice. The lawyers are getting their blood up, apd we may expect some ais- plays of bad temper. The Judge presides with impartiality and firmness, and he will be compelled to moderate the lawyers, who seem likely to carry things to extremities. ‘Tho prosecution will show no favor, and the defence will meet them boldly, The trial promises to be long aud exciting. The whole case will be thoroughly proved, the witnesses terribly overhauled, and no doubt badgered by voth sides, We remarked an increase of strangers to-day, inelading Mr, Maclay and Mr. Dillon, of New York, and Mr. Bodisco, of the Russian Legation, and we were struck by tac num- ver of clergymen present, who seemed deeply inerested ip the case. The Judge made the remarkable statement to-day (bit prisoners were sometimes tried and condemaed in this District according to the laws of Maryland, and at otuer Limes by the laws of Virginia. THE GENERAL &. NEWSPAPER REPORT. Wasiincton, April 6, 1859, Robert J. Dillon was present amoug the recent arri- vals, The Court proceeded to eelect the four additional jurors required, The most earnest atteotion was pud w the questions arked and the avawers by the taleemen. Considering the crowd, g 10d order was preserved. By the tithe the sixteenth namo was catled, two more jurors were accepted and sworn. ‘There were occasional discuseions as to the qualifications of jurors. The forty-fifth name was called, aud the eleventh juror relected and sworn. Up to one o’clock the sixtieth taleeman had been called, without completing the jury. THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT. Wasninerox, Aprit 6, 1809, It is copfidently expected that the jury will be com pleted to day. The talesmen aro summoned from the rural portion of the District. The proceedings of yesterday are indicative of pablic sentiment in this city. Seventy one out of seveaty-foar persons bad opinions so fixed and decided shat they would not trust themselves to act impartially. Where questions were asked, it appeared that these opinions were not as to the biling, but ws to justification. The defence would not bave chailenged any of these jurors, Tho prisoner’s father, father-in law, aud many New York friends, are in the Court to day, eviocing their sym- patoy. Among them is Mr. Maclay, M,C. The body of the court room is crowded, ani deep interest is manifested in the proceedings. ‘The Court being opencd at a quarter past ten o'clock, the names of the eight jurors already sworn were called, and all anewered. ‘The prisoner was in the box, looking calm and solf-pos. sessed. The Clerk proceeded to call the talesmen. Robert M. Coomba—Had both formed and expressed an opinion in regard to the guilt or innocence of the accased To Mr. Phitlips—The opinion bas been formed from w! I have beard and read; have never conversed with the witnesses for the prosecution. District Attorney—That is, as far as you know? Juror—Certainty. District Attorney—I should think so, for no one knows who are to be witnesses, Juror—I do not think there could be any evidence pro- duced to change my opinion; my mind is fally made ap. ‘The Judge—I suppose so. You may retire. Charies W. Havens had formed and expreased an opi- nion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused. To Mr. Pbillips—My opinion is formed oa mere rumor; do not know that [ could dischargo my duties as a fair juror; my mind 18 made up on the matter. Diaqaaiided. George W. Hinton bad formed an opinion go fixed that he thinks he could not render a fair verdict. Diequali- fied. Wm. H. Arnold thinks he has formed an opinion; folt a strovg sympatby in the case, and feols that he bas +x pressed an opinion; feels himself unqualified as an impar tial juror. ‘The Judge—I should thik 20, after your declaration of aympathy. Retire, George M. Goodall has formed a desided opinion. Mr. Pbillips—On woat bas this opinion beea founded ? The District Attorney submitted that after the answer of the juror further examination was unnecessary. Mr. Phillips thougut the formation of an opinion amounted to nothing, if the opinion was founded on mere rumor. If the witness could sit as an impartial juror, the formation of an opinion would not disqualify him; if every man is to be excluded because he bas formed ap opinion on mere rumor, they would never geta jury. A man who bad formed an opinion, but who could stil ai ‘a8 an impartial juror, is a8 qualified as if he had aever beard of the cage at all. Tho prosecution, by preventiog further question, would thwart the course of justice The Judge himseif had formed an opinion more or leas decided, but the question is: “Are you an impartial Judge?” Can you sit as an impartial juror? There nO principle of Jaw, and certainly none of common sense, which excludes a juror because he had formed an opinion og mere rumor, if, notwithstanding that opiaica, he tl can give a fair and just verdict. Judge—The opinion of a juror may be weak or strong. Ifa juror answers that he can try the case with impar tiality he may be sworn, as several of the jarors have #0 answered—but where a jaror answers that be has formed a decided opinion, he is certainly disqualified. This joror has formed a decided opinion, and is, thero- fore, disqualified. Mr. Stanton—Will the Court decide that the prisoner has no right to question the juror as to the ground of bis opinion? Judgo—Oh, certainly not. Mr. Stanton—The counsel for the prisoner propose to ask the juror on what his opioion is founded, and the Proeecuting attorney objects that counsel be permiwed to make such inquiry. This was @ denial of justice wo the prisoner. Judge—I think the counsel should make no complaint tn this case, there has been no withholding of proper privi lege or right from the prisoner, Mr. Chilton disclaimed intending to insinuate that thers bad been unfair ruling against the prisover, ‘The Judge thought the argument of the point anneces- sary; where the juror says he has formed a decided opinion, he is disqualified, and farther inquiry is neediess Juror, to Mr. Pbillipp—Said he had formed a decided opinion; it was formed on the knowledge obtained from witnesses disqualified, Mr. Stanton explained that the defence meroly wanted to know what the jurors meant by saying they had formed decided opinions. The Judge repeated what he had said before as to the incompetency of the juror who says hoe had formod a decided opinion, Adam Grinder called—Had formed and expressed an opinion at different times. ‘Thomas Parker had formed and expressed an opinion, and if sworn as a jaror could not discharge his day im- partially. Thomas F. Young and James W. Coombes answored simiarly. The avove named were disqualified Hiram H. King bad not formed or expressed an opin fon; had no influence on his mind which wand prajatwo his verdict; be had no bias or prejudice, aud had couscl entious scruples in regard to capital punishment. Chal- Jenged peremptorily by Mr. Ratcliff, William G. Deale had formed and expressed an opinion op rumor apd newspaper statements, and in reply to ® question said be would try to render ap impartial verdict, but he would rather not tr st bimeelf, aad did not kaow how far bis prejudice might influesos bum. Mr. Phillips considered im competent as@ juror, but the Court thought his auswer amounted to disqualifica- tien, 4 Jesse B, Wilson did not know that he bad expressed ‘an opinion us wo the guilt or innocence of tke accused, He bad bad various opinions, but bad not made up his mind; bad no bias or prejudice, The Judge thonght the juror qnalitied. The Juror—Have no conscientious scruples as to capital punishment, and am worth over $800, but should be giad to be excused. Mr. Wilson was sworn as the ninth juror. He resides ww Washington Oity; business grocer. Jobo A Ripp had formed an opinion. ‘To Mr. Phiilipsp—The opinion was founded on rumor; it ip refereoce bots to the cause of the killing aad the act; thinks he is prejudiced, and oould not reader a fair vercict. Disqualitied, Jobo E, Leach bad formed and expreased an opinion, Diquaiitied. James Nokes bad an opinion, and had expressed a great dea) of Bympatby to both parties; bere was ap impression op bis mind w foe opduct as a juror; bad 60 Das oF prejudice 00 ih had no conscientious scruples about eupital punishisent, should Wink be was worth over eight hundred doliara, Mr. Chilton desired to know how far the case comer within the rule made by the Court, as to exprossion o eymyatby, Sympathy on both sides was very indeduite. Tuere may be a prevonderance oo either. Juege—Sy mpathy on one side amounts to a dicqualifica. tion; sympsthy on both sides, with general regret at the occurrence, does not, Mr. Chiltoo—Then the Court strikes a balance: that is what we waot W know. Challenged peremptorily, Joseph MeDertnott—Had read the principal portion of the testimpey at the Coroner's inquest, aod bad a vague, indedvite impression on bis mind, as Wo what «ffeot they would bave on bim as @ juror be could not answer. Q. I sworn as # juror, would you discharge your duty impartially Jusor—I saould endeavor to do so, but would rather not "ake the responsiniiity, To the Judge— Haga vague impression which be could not Uiguify by the Utle of opnion; capnot answer aa to what effeot bis impressions mn got huye on him, or whether or to what extent bis mind {8 biased, The Judge thougnt the answer amounted to @ non- formation of opinwn; thinks bim qualified, Swern ag the teath juror. Leonidas Coy le—Has both formed and expressed an opi- niow, Disqualified, Andrew J. Duvull, James A. Tucker and Francis Mat. ‘ingly bad formed and expressed opinions, Disquatified. Wilham H. Stanford had not formed an opinioa; bas no Dias or prejudice; has couscientious scruples against the jaw of capital punishment. Disqualified. Michael Green had formed an opinion. To Mr. Pbillips—Av opiaion founded on rumor, but if sworn asa juror would go ascording to tho evidence but had expreseed bis opinion publicly and above board tdat— Snsurict Attorney—Never mind what it was; if sworn on the jury, would you render a verdict according to law and the evidence? Juror—I would, District Attorney—Have you any bias'for or against the prisoner? Juror—Well, T am for the priaoner as far ag I have beard, (Laughter. ) The District Attorney submitted that the juror was not qualified Mr. Phillips arguod that he was; the juror had answered that be could eiecharge his duty impartially, Mr, Brady said tois was the first time be had taken any part in the discussion as to the empannelment of the jury, nd addressed bis Honor now because the Court might bave understood the answer of the Juror different from the manner in which the counsel for the defence understood it, He sait be was for the juror, 80 far as he bad beard He boped there would be no mitconstruction of the effect of bis antwer. He would suggest to the Court to ask whe ther ot @s8 mot om what be bad heard and read that be had formed an opinion, aud whetber that was not of a tempo rary or fleeting character, The juror had not said toat it woe upon any evidence be had formed bis opinion. Ao opinion to ciequalify a juror must be in reference to toe guilt or innocence of the accused, This jaror says he would render & verdict according to the law and the evi dence, aud be would pot ask a juror to render @ verdict ia any other way. He boped the Judge would ask the juror what he means by saying that be was for the prisoner. ‘Tre District Attorney tubmisted that the juror declared he had @ bias for the prisoner, It dows not follow that that bias is temporary or fleeting, 8 bas born suggested. It may be fixed. The prosecation had here two diffical- ties to overcome: first, the formation and expression of opinion; and second, the bias in favor of the priaoue The Court bad already held jorore disqualified for having declared they bud sympathy for the prisoner, Here was something stronger—a xed opinion and a bias. He there fore imegined that this person was not competent to sit #8 @ juror. Counsel for the defence submitted that every prisover ts held to be inpocent Uli proved guilty, and each juror should enter the box with an impression in favor of hi jopocence. The Judge should bave the same impression 11) the accused was proved to be guilty they should 10 dulge the presumption that be 18 iauoceat. All prosece tous aflecting life and all affecting liberty ought two be w favore lubertatiz— 10 be in favore vitie. He asked that the jurors should be allowed to entertain the legal presamp: von Wat the pritover 8 innocent, The fret effort of tu: prosecution muat be to overcome that presumption. Th ‘aw was in favor of it, and the juror who held tbe pre samption was entitled to take his seat in the jury box. Mr, Carlisie, for the prosecution, submitted that the juror was not stating this as a legal presumption, bat ba! said, ip substance, that, as the case now stands, be 18 for ‘he prizoner. It would take marvellous ingenuity to coo ound that with a theory about legal presumption of invo sence, Mr. Brady, for the defence, only wanted to koow wha onetroction the Court placed on the juror’s last answer bat ‘be was for the prisoner.” Never was a man alled to sit on @ jury in avy criminal case demanding «ympatby who did not, as he looked on the prisoner, fet «b impression as to his guilt or innocence. There was no soch thing in nature as a marble statue moving to the oierk’s desk, and taking an oath to render a verdict ac cording to evidence, Take the case of an oid man who vad committed an act which might seem to be in some points natural, but which is yet against the law, ail jarors, young or old, would feel this impulse sturring within them, that unless the law prohibited suct a re +olt, that old man should not be sent to prieoa or seut cown im sorrow to the grave, and yet these mon would owebarge their duty conscientiously, whatever conse quence might befall the case. Here is nothing of wat sind. | am perfectly willing to trust it to your Honor w satiefy yourself, by inquiry from this juror, who is cer tainly an intetligent and upright man, as to whet be means by saying be is for the prisoner} whether that relates to judgment oo the case ‘self, which would control or affect his verdict, or whetber it is pot some general impression, fleeting aod faint, on something which tho testimony would remove. I think you Honor will say thas it is not an unfair or im proper request to make, Mr. Carhsle, for the prosecution, anderstood his Honor to decide yesterday, in a caso where a juror bad formes ond Expressed an opinion, and felt some sympathy for we accused, but thought be could render an impartial ver- clet, that he was incompetent, because he bad formed, temporarily at least, certain conclusions and was iotla need by certain sympathies, If these sympathies were wgarpet the prygner he would be obliged tw overcome them before h@ could reach the mind of the juror; aud so, Af bis ay mpatbies were in favor of the prisoner, the pro. secuton would have to overcome them. He thought be. did bot misunderstand the Court? The Judge—No, sir. Mr. Carhisle—1 think that that decision of yesterday go verns this question, The Judge—The answer of the juror to the question first propounded by the coansel for the defeuco was that be could render an impartial verdict on the evideoce aad law, Dat the effoct of the answer bas been removed by the statement that be is for the priconer, if that is vot adis qualficatien, | confess | caupot eee any cause that would be, To deciding on this question, [do uot tink the nice distinctions attempted to be made should apply at all. Mr, Magruder, tor the defeuoe, uaked whether be woul! not be permiited 10 ak the juror if bis opinion was pot hypothetical ? Thy Judge the ap on what be ha Mr Magruder argued thatthe juror wag aot a fled, Tho juror bud waia he nad a juror has atroady stated that it is mad beard and read, WwW Dias im iayor of tho pri THURSDAY, sover from what be bad read, 3f that be true, might they ‘not sek him whether, from that present state of his mind, be could pot sit a8 a competen' j iror? ‘The Judge thought it unnecessary t0 ask farther ques- tions. He wee disqualted | xception taken, J. W, Avgus bad formed and expressed an opinion, To Mr. Phillipe~The opinion ts founded on the news- Paper reports, Question—I! the evidence given om trial is different from whet rumor bus indicated, could you render a fair verdict between the government and the wcused ? Jusor—1 could, ‘To Mr. Stavton—Could find a verdict on tho lew and evidence, Ie imprission was in favor of the prisoner al- together, Mr. Carlisi held the juror incompatent. Mr. Pbilips stood up to argue the polat. ‘The Jutge thought argument unnecessary. The ruling on the last case governed this, The juror was diaquail- fied. Fxoepbod taken, Hijab Eamonston bad expressed an opinion, and if Sworn as a juior would acquit the prisoner, (Laughter. ) Diequaifed, Charies H. Wiltborger bad not formed or expressed an opinion; bad no prejudice or bias; had no conseentious soruples against capital panishinent, and if the prisoner was guilty be would hang Bim ag high as Maman. Feremptorily ebalienged. A. Lammon 4 had formed and expressed an ooinioa fully and free y im favor of the prigoner. Disqaulded Theo, Mosher had formed and expressed an opinion merely from romor, but would try te render an impartial verdict Mr. Stanton aekod him whether he could find a verdict on the evidenve? Mr. Mosher rem vor of the prisoner Counsel for the prisvuer desired to know the nature of this sympathy, and wished to proponnd farther questions, but the Court eaid that a mere leaving or sympathy amounted to disqualification, Geo. F, Varnell and Wm. H, Marlow bad formed and ex pressed opinions, Disqualified John G. Robinson bad formed an opinion, but did not think it would influenos his conduct as a juror; bad no Dise or prejudice; he had nothing to do with the question of capital punishment, Peremptorily challenged, Wiltiam Hughes had no prejudice or bias; there was votbing to prevent him from rendering am impartial ver- dict; if aman was guilty ho had no objection w capital punkbment. Peremptorily challenged. Joreph Davis, James Skirving, Denjamin S, Kinsey, Alexander Forreat, John Pettibone, Alexander Bully, Toomaz F. Baden, Joho P. Dennis and Zadock Williams, were severally sworn, but having formed and expressed opmpions, and some of them having said iney could cot render nn impartial verdict, they were pronounced dis- qualified. Witham Uttermuhl! had formed and expressed opinioas. Dieqvaiified. William M, Moore had formed and expressed en opinon. To Mr. Philiipe—bis opinion was formed on what he bad read. . Question—If sworn as a juror would you render a ver- dict according to the Jaw and evideuce? Answer—I see nothing to prevent it. To the Court—Have had impressions; thinks they would bot affect bis judgment; thinks be has @ bias or prejudice. To Mr. Btantoo—Thinks his bias would not affect his judgment on the evidence. The Judge thonght the Juror qualified. To the District Attorney —Thinks he bas no conscientious scruples about capital punisbnient, but could decide ac. cording the law and evidence, Mr. Moore was eworn «8 the eleventh juror, im Washington; business, grocer. Bugh Leddey aud Thomas J, Magrader had formed opin. ions, and were diequalitied. William M. Venable bad formed ap opinion. To Mr. Pbillipe—Opinion founded on rumor; thir could not act a8 an impartial juror; thinks a0 could change bis mind, Diequaiibed, Samue) Pursphrey bad formed an opinion, To Mr. Phillips—The opiaion was founded on rawor; ‘was afraid to trust bimselfto give au impartial verdict. Disqualified. James B. Greenwell had formed and expressed an opin ion, Diequatied ‘ Robert Cohen had not formed or expressed a opinion; bas Lo impressiog, bias or prejudice, and no conscientious scruples. Challenged peremptorily. Jomes L. Barber had frequently expressed aa opinion. Disqualified. James L. Topbam had formed an opinion, Disqualified. The Judge bere remarked that the Marabal had sam. moned seventy-six, instead of seventy. He supposed there was no objection. Mr. Brady—No objection on our part. The number upgests patriotic ideas. Thos. C. Wheeder had formed an opinion; has sympa- thies im hebaif of the prisoner, and thinks no evidence could charge them. Mr. Brady—That clearly falls within your Honor’s rule. (Lavgbter.) W. H. Baum had formed and expressed an opinion. Dis- qnabified, Wm, H. Upperman and J. F. B. Purcell had formed and xpreseed an opinion, Drequalitied. Tram Ritebey bad expressed an gpinion as to what the result of the trial would be, To Mr, Pbillips—He could not form an opinion of guilt or innocence Ul be heard the evidence; if sworn as a juror, 1 have always thought that I could discharge my juty impartisily, and think [ could Go so now, To the District Atorvey—He has sympathies for the prisoner and for all men. Queetion—Have you any sympathy growing out of what you believe of the circumstances 0! the case? Anewer—tbave sympathy for any person who is simi- larly situated; both parties sland the same to me; I have oo bias for or against the prisoner, but bave freely ex- pressed my Opinion as to the result of the trial, Question— Did you say what would be or what ought to ve tho reeuit? Juror—I eaid what ought to be, The Judge thought that amounted to a disqualification. o Mr. Phillips—That opinion was predicated on whatT anderstood from rumor to be thetacts. jo Mr. Brady—If the facta are different from what I understood them to be I could render a fair verdict. District Attorvey—If the law should be different from what you suppose it to be, could you render a fair verdict naccordance with that law? Juror—Certainly. Toe Judge thought that when a juror had said a ver- dict ovght to be w a particular way, it amounted to a dis- qualification. Mr. Stanton argued that on all the answers, taken to- gether, the juror was qualified; could there be a man bet- ter qualified to act as a juror? 1 that bis sympathies wore in fa- He resides Jodge=I think 80, very casity, (Langhter.) Dis- qualified, Exception taken, Stepben Coster and John R. Mitchell bad formed opiniovs. Disqualified. Barmon Burns bad formed an opinion. To Mr Phillips—Does not think himsclf competent to sit ae a juror, Mr, Sunton—Why not? Juror—My opinion ‘# go fixed that I do not think I could, Diequanied, Jobo Miler and Reuben ——— had formed opinions Disqualified, Frapkin Tenney bad formed an opinion, To Mr. Philips—The opinion is founded on rumor. should not hike to sit as @ juror, beg opposed to capital puvisbment, Disqualified. J.P. Bartbolomew bad formed an opinion. Disqualified. Haniel B. Clarke—Had a fixed opinion on all such cases; be bad formed bis opinion in this case oa rumor, he did pot kvow whetber be could render an impartial verdict i to yusfy the act would make bim an impartial juror he eculd be one, District Attorney—1 suppose that falis within your Honor's roling. (Laughter. ) Too juror wan diequaiided, Jeromiad Hepburn—Had formed an opinion, and was disquahfied, Wm. Cooper—Had not formed an opinion; had oo bias or prejudice, and no conscientious scruples, Qualified, and challenged peremptorily. The Jodge here suggested that as the Marshal had sum- moned seventy -#X mon, he had better not call tho lass “ir. ented The Judge understood that; but in view of tho practioa «New York he thooght it the safest plan not call the vt man. Me, Poilips pot to be imitated Phillips said the counsel for the defense bad con 1 that thilpractice of New York was defence sald the case tn New York referred tain of the Jury APRIL 7, 1859.—TRIPLE SHEET. ‘The Judge directed the Clerk not to the box, Joceph 8 Wright bad formed an opini vn. To Mr. Philipe—T ¢ opinion was notes rely forme? oo Tumor cr newspaper statements; be bad never conversed with apy of the wtnessess he could digo: ,¢ hia obuga tions as a juror, if sworn op the jury. ‘To the Judge—He bad po unprestion, biss or prejudice. To tke District Attorpey—He conld give ao \enpartia verdict according to the aw and evidence; be bad ao oon eciet tious gcruples about capital puaiehument, Question— Have you pro erty t» tae am unt. f $5007 Juror—{ do. ot know a8 to being worth $500, Dr. Stanton odjected to the question as to propert qnalification put by the District attorney, He ait ov think the lack of property apy objection ip the District & @ juror, When the question was dret made in the sus the counsel for the defence were taken by surprise. Tous Were aware that the statute of Maryland, in its colonia condition, did impose a property qualitication; but w Dot Be Are that tbe United ~tatee bad ever male an objes QUop 10 jurcr on this ground, which is #0 dishoaprabie w the principles op which the goveroment resia, Tae Dis trict Ath mney bud never made that gdjection in ovaer criminal cases, and the counsel for we defeece sup posed t woud not be made bere, This onjecvon wes made under the act of the Assemoly of the colony of Maryland, passed in Ootover, 1777. Prior to that ume Uunoer the goveinment of Great Britain, tue qualideavon ofa juror bad been wade both a8 to the amount ana quality of bie estate, Freehold property, to @ particular value, was required, but a8 early as 1777 jews had pro grewsed so far that the abeurdity of requiring a treet qualification was abolished, Nevertheless, there was stilt Fequued @ ceriaw property qualification, He seed nor trace the origyp of that isea. He did not knew thut there was a single State of the Uvion which required this pro perty qualification for jurors. He asked the Tretrict at torney whether a property qualiiication was required now in the State of Mar lana? District Attorney—1 co mal ww whether there is or ‘We last man io ae Stanton—The prisoner is arraigned under the laws of th United States, and unless the j@nsiiction and ecvereignty of the United States impose property qualification oa thy jurors no such qua Iieation can bo imposed. The ovly requirement is thas they be tree and impaitial triers. The acts affeeting the question will be found under Gen, Act. G., Sept, 24, 1789, which declares that in cases punishadie with death the trial shall be bad in the ovarty, or why bot £0 |ad that twelve petit jurore shall be summoned tbenee, and ebail be drawa by lot or otherwise, in each Btate, according to the mode of forming juries w The law cimply indicates the desigustion of jurors, aad provices that they shall bave the same qvalitivatious as required for juries by the laws of thy States Tust was all the qualification which Congress imposed ov jurors. Is this a State? Are we now a portion of tue Stats of Maryland, and bave we imposed ou us the taws of LTT? By no means. Tuis territory belongs w tue United Suaws, and the jurisdicticn of the United States alone dweits bere. On the orgapization of this District tt was pro- vided that the laws of Virginia, as thea existed, eboutd be extended to that portion of the District ceded to tbe United States; and so with regard to that portion ceed by Maryland, But this applied to civil, not to criminal procedure, The“ict of the 20h Juty, 1840, amended toe act of 1800, which provided that jurors to serve io courts of the United States should, io coufurmiuy wich the practice the State or District, be desigaated by lovor otherwise, Tis operation was t» give vaiwity to the practice then prevailing. Tue act of 1840 provided that jurors to serve in courts of the United Staws, in each States, should have such qualifications as are required of jurors to serve in the bighvat State courts, He argued that Congress, baving provided the mode for designating jurors, and having imposed no property qualiticauoa, there ia no warrant at ali for a property qualitcavon within this District. The reason for making tat law conform to the State law was that there might not be two modes of procedure, 1¢ was to barmomz2 the practice, ‘There ie no warrant under the actof Congrees which makes the actof the Assembly of the Colony of Maryland ta V7 law in the District of Columbia ut this day. Counsel felt a strong belief ws to the right of toc prisoaer to be tried by twelve men without regard to property qualifcatwos. The act of the General Assembiy of Me rein. of such qualiucauon, The direction was Ww the Sherif! But the want cause of challenge. ard discreet menas jurors. The property qualill atiou re- quired was to be in the State of Maryland. Woad ais doaor fay in this case whether the property shoud be there of Ip the District of Columbia? If the Court took the law 1c must take the whole jaw. Toe law being inapplicable, no such qnalification can be imposed; aad certainly 1 ought hot to be applied in a case which appeals to tie heart oF every man; but least of all, perhaps, to that man who bas bo other possession than @ pure, Bonest heart I sub- mit that the Judge can fad no warrant to impose the pro- perty quaiification in this cage. It was a mere techaicali- ty, coutrary to the spirit of the age. If the practive is not warranted by the sovereignty of the United States it could uot be 1m; osed on this prisoner. The District Atiorney replied—He would not discuss the propriety of the Jaw. The question tw be determined was, what is the law? not whether good or bad, wise or foolish; but what says the stavute, He tmagined that bis Honor would not go bebind @ jaw to inquire jute its pro priety, no matter how repulsive to bis Honor’s feelings. As to its practice, he would admit he had not previousty insisted op the jaw, but it was because, he would frankly confess, he was uot aware of the existence of the law at that time. 2his rule was frequently practiced here, and resorted to in many cases where his culieague (Mr. Car lisle) bad been counsel. The deviations were rather ex. ceptions thaa otherwise. It was resorted to ia the cage of Edwaros, and it was the practice of the late District Attorney and bis predecessors to enforce the law. Pre- vious tothe year 1777 the law of Maryland required a free- hold qualification, but at that time the freevold qualifica- tion was dispensed witb, as faras the Provincial Court wes concerned. The law of October, 1777, extended the provision of the existing laws, and applied them to the county courts, making eight hundred dollars worth of property necessary for the qualitication of a juror, The gentleman says this is an old statute of one hundred yéars ago. It may be better or worse for tnat. It was \netituted about the time of th» Declaration of La- dependeace, when it might be supposed our fathers knew what was in accordance with the rights of man. In 1801 Congress applied to the District of Columbia the laws of Maryland then in force. Did not that constitute them laws of the United States and not of Maryiacd? It was precisely as if Copgrees had taken up these laws and ea acted them essissemis verbis. This, then, was a statute of the United States, preecribing the qualidcations of jurors, ard being 80, it was the Iaw of the land and the law of this case. It was sufficient for him that the public prose cutor should know it was the law, and stand upon it be cause it was the law. He knew of notning that would justify him in departing from that rule, But, aay the geptiemen on tbe otber side, if Maryland sees fit to change her Jaws after being adopted by the United States, a cor responding change should be effected here; that we sould look, Dot to Congress, but to the Legislature of Maryland, for the laws to govern us. [he argument carried an ab surdity on its face. The gentlem+n argued that the law ro quired property to be held in tho State of Marylind, and pot in the District of Columbia, aad that though the iaw was adopted bere, it docs pot apply to the District All the statutes of Maryland thay extended ovor the Dis trict used the jhrage, “in this State,” and yet it bad always been beld that that phrase applied equaily to thus District. How were they entitled in this District to we bens fits of common law? Solely through tueir couneetion with the State of Maryland—not through their connection with the United States, If it was not through the State o: Maryland, they bad no common law at all, and tne prison er had better bo discharged at once. The very autbority clted by the other side—the act of Congress of 1780—set tied this question. (t settied the qualification of jurors, apd declared that the provisions of the common aw, ar modified by the statutes of Maryland, should contiaue to be the rule of Jaw in regard to jurors in the District of Columbia, Mr. Stanton—We bave it then declared, by a gontioman who bas been practising law bere for dfwen years, who it the District Attorney of the District of Columbia, aud whese op, ointment has been ratified by tho Senate, that be dic not know that the property qualification was necestary. If that isso, where bas this law been buried for one hundred ye nd.dug up for the prosecution of Luniel &. Sickles? Who brought it as votiwe? He mayer his colleague had tried a case to which he bad seen the rule enforced, Thon if be had not beea #0 associates Mr, Bickles wonld have been tried by amen with a hears in hie Dreast—not with money in bis pocket. The prar tice of the court is the law of the court, and if it lay @ deeply bidden that & man practising in it for Afwon years ryiand of 1801 reduces the qualdsation of jarors, and epacts that jurors may be summoned of the most wisdom and expericuce, having $800 worth of property, and that vo challenge sha!) be allowed against any juror for waut of a freehold shouid not be in itself any The act was “imply direcwory, and indicated to the Sheriff merely that he should bhava wise 8 —_— G14 not know there was such a taw tli) he had to arreign Mr. Bickies, it ia not the practice of the court and not the law of the court, The Judge--You had better understand the prantiee about this law. It has been enforced here very often. ‘The District Attorney may waive it if he please, I know very well thatthe late Mr, Fendail, Dietrics Attorney, used to esk the qnestion, Sometimes Mr. Key did and nometimes be did pot, Mr. Stanton—Toat is precisely the point of view tm which I proposed to discore it; these objections alluded to were eporadic, exceptional cases, The question arieos whether the rule soagbt to be applied by the District AL torney for the Grst time is the Ia of the land, or who~ ther it is not merely acquiesced in, never having apy reall »odation ip the statutes of the ised. It le urged here ue the practice of the court; but to make that practice law, it must be uniform. Then, 98 to the express statate— ftanes it? The acto’ 1777 was merely a directory statute, It directed the Sherif to summon men having freehold property, but provided saat that should be no cause of challenge. He #100 not nere oo abe ground that the law of the State of Maryland bed changed, and did pot bow require the property qualification, bat on the round tbat taat law never did apply to thia Distriet. Be wos satieGed that it was vever coutemplated by act of Congress to make the laws as to the property qualification of jnrore appheable tn the District, because them they would have the Penal act of Maryland operating in one ovun+ ty, und the act of Virginia operating 1p amotner eounty, Whot was the common law in thie District? It was the common law of England, as icorporated tnto and mada part of the law ofthe Districe Im that common jaw there Wor no euch property qualification to be found. ‘Tbe Juoge said—Joreph 8. Wright baving deca called and having sbewered several preiiminary questions, the Hetriet Attoroey arked bim if he was worth $900, He had @ right to put that question, It was onjested to by the defencan\’s countel and argued, The county of Washington was part of the State of Maryland. The | of Mary lund were extended to the District by the act of Febsuary 27, 1801, avd are as much a part of the laws of the District, where not changed by act of Congress, as if Congress bad enacted the several lawa in 80 many words, If Wis particular provision of the act of Marylaod of 1777 bag bot been uniformly practised and eeforged, | koow that it bas beea practiced and epforced in mauy inetances since I bave been on the bench. The reason why unl- formity did pot prevail was, I suppose, that the District Attorney did pot choose to avail bimseif of the advantage, 1 think I beard the late District Auoraey say 90, remark- ing thata map did not possess mind accordiog to the weight of bis pocket. Whether it isa wise law or not ig bot a question before the Court at all, Phe question is whether the lawexists. With the laws of Maryland, ag enforced tince 1801, we bave nothing to do, more tban we have with the laws of Californta since 1848. With eo mucn of the laws of Maryland as are pot changed by Congress since 1801 we have every~ thing to do. The people of Alexandria bad certain raleg of action, founded on the laws of Virginta, and the people of tbis county were governed py the lawa of Maryiand as they existed in 1801, 80 thata very curious state of things did actually exist. I have myself tried men in Alexandria under the laws of Virgivia, and punished them, too, when convicted; and F aw sure every oce who has practiced at this bar knows that the laws of Maryland are enforced, £0 far a8 not chaoged, with great uniformi- ty. The trrbupale of this District bave labored under & great mistake for Ofty-cight years if the position taken by the couneel for the defence is correct. Alt the courts and all the Juoges who have beld court in this District hava with pertect upanimity enforced these laws. It could not be otberwise, for Congress said they should be the law of the District. Comgrese bad the right to change them, bo- cause it possesses legisiative power within the District, The law requiring @ freehold qualification in the State of Maryland was amended by a subsequent law of Maryland so as to make the non ownership of a freehold no cause of challenge, but yet it left the personalty of $800 as a pre- requisite for a man’s being sworn as a juror. If either the Detiiet Attorney or the counsel for the defence choose to make it a cause of challenge they can do so. Mr. Stantou—The witness, I believe, has not mB vared, District Attorney—The question was whether YOU were ‘worth eight bundred doliars in property. Juror—I expect I am. Mr. Carlisle—What was your previous answer? Juror—That I was not certain, Mr. Cariisle—You are now certain? Juror—I am not certain that Iam worth anyth Mg, bus believe I am worth double that amouot. Mr. Cariisie—lo property tn this District? Juror—No, sir, not in thie District. The District attorpey read the law, whieh requires the juror to bave tbe property in ths State, aad argued tbag ‘that phrase applied als» to thie District. Mr. Staotov—fhe personal proverty qualification was not by the law of Maryland limited to the couaty, Dut to the State. Now, caa the Court hat it to tais county? Mr. Carlisle—It the words “io this Stats” are aot coa- strued to mean ia this District, we would be left witnout a Single law in reference to testamentary dispositiva of pro- perty, or to property in slavee. Mr. Stanton boped the geatieman would not Ing in the question of slavery in this mater. (augur) He argued that the statutes of property govs with the map, To the Juror—What sort of property do you spoac uf? Juror—Persoval property. Mr. Stanton—Personality goes with the possessor. If the juror bad $10,000 deposited io a bank of New York, be bas it, according to the view of toe law, in bis pocket, ‘The residence of the party diaws there the slus of his persopality. Mr. Carlisie—I should like the witness to state what hie property consists of. Juror—Ia notes and debts due me. District. Mr. Carlisle—Then your first aoswer was based on doubts of the solvency of your debus ? Mr. Stanton submitted that the question was wrong. Mr, Carlisle did pot wish vo be a pupil of the geatieman. ‘The Judge thought that the question was right. Jaror, in reply to Mr. Cariisie’s questvioa—Taat is what I meant. Mr, Carlisle—Over and above all your debts and respon- sibilities, you consider yourself worth eight hundred dol- By Juror—I do, ‘The Judge would not hold that the personal property shoald be im the District. He saw no objection to the juror, Mr. Stantoo—Swear him. . ‘The Judge suggested that be had better not swear him till to-morrow, as if he were sworn the jary cou | not separate. It was now within half aa hour of the buur of adjournment. Mr. Stanton—There were reasons why I thought the Jury should goat once under the protection of the law, He asked that the juror be sworn. ‘A juror stated that he should oe glad to be allowed togo home this evening. He hed not expected to remain to-day, The Judge suid that course had oftea beea pursued. ‘Mr, Stanton—It has been done by consent. The Judge did not think it required consent. Mr. Stanton supposed if the juror wanted to go home he couid go under the escort of an oflicer. The Judge would not aliow the jury to separate. Mr. Stantono—Then we wiil not ins:st. We will consult the convenience of the jury. Ibe Judge—Gentlemen of the jury, what is your desire about this? A Juror—We desire to be discharged. (Laaghter.) Mr, Stanton—I am authorized by the prisoner tosay ment proposed, The Judge directed Mr. Wright, the twelfth jarbr, to ba iu court at ten o'clock to morrow, and told the jary to make arrangements for a jong absence from their families, He gave them tbe usual caution, and then the Court ad- ourned, The jury is composed as follows:— 1, Kezin Arnold, Wasningtoo coucty, farmer, 2. James D, Davis, Washington co., farmer, 3. Jobo E. Neale, Washington co., shoe manufactarer. 4, Wm. 8. Hopkins, Warhiogton co., gents’ furnishing, 5, Wen. Bond, Washington co., broker. }. James Kelley, Wasbington oo., tinner, 7. Wm. C. Harper, Washington oo, , grocer. 8. Henry M. Knight, Wasbington co., grocer. 9. Jesse B, Wilson, Washington co., grover, . John McDermowt, Washington co., coach maker. . Wm. M. Moore, Washington oo , grocer. . Joseph 8. Wright, Washington co., furniture dealer, The jury is generally regarded as a good one, it being composed of some of the most respectable men of the Dis- unet of Columbia, The only emotion exhibited by Mr. Sickles since the ommencement of the trial was when hia old friead Ro- vert J. Ditlon, of New York, stepped up to him to day ia le dock and greetéd bim, Mr. Sickles turned away to conceal the tears that suffosed bis eyes. T have notes in the Saval Intelitgence- Pureer Charles ©. Upham has beea ordered to the Toited States steamer Michwan, reveving Purser Wat rough, #bO '8 ordered to the Sacotogs, Gulf Sqaadron, sy pace of Purser Emory, seat