The New York Herald Newspaper, January 27, 1860, Page 2

2 ADDITION AL ARRIVAL OF THE TEUTONIA. FROM EUROPE. Tho screw steamship Teutonia, Capt. Taube, from South- ampton carly on the 7th of Jaouary, arrived at this port ‘at balf-past five o'clock yesterday evening, Her advices have been anticipated by the Africa, but the Teutonia brings us London papers of the 7h inst., which were wanting by the former vessel, Cardinal Wiseman is said to have promised an Irish brigade for the Pope. Report says that Victor Emmanuel, on New Years day, in reply to the hope of the Neapolitan Ambassador that all would be arranged peacefully, said, ‘How arranged in peace? Notat all, The cannon will settle that,’ and to the Spanish Ambassador, ‘‘Tell your Queen she ought to unite with me, and not beliove all those pastici of the priests. ‘The Circassians are rapidly emigrating to Tarkey. Some sixteen thousand have arrived at Constantinople, and eight thousand more have assembled at Kurtch. } The funds were firmer in London on the 7th, but busi- | ness was quiet. Exchange on Austria had risen in conse- quence of the renewed disquietude which prevails at ‘Vienna, The applications for the new Canadian loan had | reached twelve millions sterling. The Bank of England | bad raised its price for fine gold from £3 17-163; to £3 18. ‘The return of the Bank of England for the week end- ing the 4th of January, compared with the return of the previous week, show the following resulis:—~ A decrease in notes issued o! £318,770 An increase in rest of.... + 53,369 A decrease in public deposits 0! + 045,17 An increase in other deposite o! . « 837,917 ‘An increase in seven day and other bilis of,..... 91,992 On the other side:— A decrease in gold coin and buition of. 818,770 Ab increase in government securities of, 1,875 An increase in other securities of...... 1,185,329 A decrease in notes Of.,.... +++. 71925 ,390 ‘A decrease in gold and silver coin of, 30,460 ‘The following is the official return of the iraporta and ex- ports of the precious metals, to and from London, during the week ending 4th of January:— Imports, Exports. Gold, om £390,026 £181,666 Shiver 897,007 275,886 Count Walewski’s Resignation and Re- wards—Dificulties of Napolcon’s New Policy. [From the London Times, Jan, 7.] Count Walewski bas fallen, like Jupiter, in a shower of gold. Fortune follows her favorite even in his descent from power, and spreads luxury and wealth, like soft spangled cushions, On the spot where he is to strike the . The decision which dethroned him was sudden, and the exact cause of that decision may still be a problem. It may be but asthe taking down an Austrian baoner from a place of honor, but laying it by tenderly to be re- placed at a convenient season. It may bea demonstra- ‘tion that the Emperor is about to break for ever with the course of policy of which Walewski was the visible ex- nent. But, on the other hand, it may also be that the peror is justin the actof trying a new combination, and thinks it convenient to play this new game entirely out his own hand. It must be admitted that if Napoleon If. bas prohibited the action of the press in its ancient sphere, he bas very largely increased its direct importance by’ the work he bas imposed upon it on his own bebalf. In Paris, and now in Rome, the pamphlet apd the journal have taken the place of the diplomatic note. The Powers of Europe come inte the lists of jourual- ism, mingling hotly in the mélée, and only kvown in their plain armor of anonymous knights by the heartiness of the blows they deal, and by the deference which is paid them by their opponents. It was curious to see the master of so many legions tilting with his vizor down at the Holy Father. Now we have the Holy Father himself assuming the pseudonym of “Giornale di Roma,’ and returning the blow from under the disguise of the broad sheet. His versatile assailant receives bis lance in full career, but, changing horse and arms and blazon returns’ into the lists, and resumes the combat under the nom de guerre of ‘M, Grandguiliot,”’ of the Constitutionnel. This could not go on for ever. ile the Emperor and the Pope are thus belaboring ‘other in disguise, M. Walewski and Cardinal Antonelli, the two oificial re- presentatives of the two sovereigns, could not for very Tidicule continue to bow and embrace and pass endearing compliments. Walewski has been removed from the scene, and Antonelli must now bow to space. The Em- peror is getting tired of play, and is looking round to seo who will be with him and who against him if he screws on the trom to his lance. But mnch will depend upon the at- titude of the other champions in the lists; and if he sees that they do not flock to hie leadership, if is by no means impossible that Walowski may again pop up opposite to Antooeili, that the bowing and embracing pageant may be recommenced, and that the lists may be closed. All this, however, is a great mystery. It would be rash to prophesy the actions of a man who ts possibly in a state of evem more acute expectation than we ovrrzelres can be. But, whatever may be the secret springs of the public act which bas just been aunounced to Europe, we cannot Dut congratulate the Emperor upon the very Grand Seigneur air with which he has settled this affair of State. It used to be ove of the maxims of that highly polished corruption which reachod its most shining point during the government of the Regent Orleans, that a gentleman of sober babita might be even & miser without derogating; but thet no gentleman could be parsimonious in his vices. ¥f an instrement had done bis work, it was a duty of gen- tillase to reward him well. Napoleon acta up to the gene- rous traditions of the Regency. If ho does not allow his Ministers much power, 1 he even suffers them to pro- mise what be does not intend to perform, and dis- vows and reassures them when their obligations be- come troublesome, no one can say that he does not, with a noble disdain for all meaner considerations, throw them gold and decorations. 'nder certain condi- tions, and with certain restrictions, the service of Napo- Jeon IU. is the best in the world. There appears w be perfect independence; for you may say what you like, cer- tain tha’ whatever you may say your master will do as he dikes; and when the time comes that the discrepancy be- tween official words and Imperial acts becomes inconve- nientiy glaring, behold there is m golden chariot and gar- Jands and blue fire to accompany you in glory from the scene. The conditions are that you must not pretend to exercise any solid power, or chafe at the small credence given to your official explanations. Count Walewski, hav- ing failed in the conditions, or having arrived at that fatal point of discrepancy, goes forth covered with all the stars of our modern carpet chivalry, invested with the rank of Senator, gifted with two estates, mere mementoes of the Emperor’s generosity, and endowed with a salary of £5,000 a year for life. This, moreover, is a Minister to whom it is now evident that the Emperor has never been indebted for his policy. Napoleon IIL. was never depen- dent upon Walewski, either for his expedieats or for | his resolutions. Walewski was nota Richelieu, nor even ‘a Dubois: he was simply a drag upon his master’s course, Ddut an impediment so slight that he could not afford to tolerate! it. He was a emall domestic opposition. But he has served the Emperor. To mete out bis reward would be to measure his own honor. Tne Emperor scorns to do 80 bourgeois an act; Walewski goes forth, therefore, like Alcmiwon from the treasury of the Lydian King. How much more modest and more Spartan-like are we in our constitutional government when we reckon with our old servants. When we allow £5,000 a year to sustain the dignity and the expense of the highest’ offices in the State we think we are doing a remarkably hand some thing, and such men as Mr. Williams, of Lambeth, and Mr. Bright do not fail to reckon it among the extrava gances of a corrupt aristocratic system. Yet we work our men hard, mulct them in the expenses of frequent re-electious, aud cail upon them both io opposition and in office for the devotion of all their time and energy in pub- lie services of kind. Yet, votwithstanding the strong contrast between the emoluments of office m France aud England, and notwith- standing the bard work and the—to a sersitive rind Still more disagreeable grudging complaints» oar reasonable persons, we shall not find amo: y Count Walewski either his © OF bis, fortune. mperor of the French deserves all praise for being a generous inaster: he pays generousiy for ser- vices rendered. We have lackeys and flunkeys to whom 2 are sometimes less wisely thrown, but our pab- lic men envy neither foreign nor domestic courtiers. ‘There is a pleasure in holding part in the working of a free government whtch nly a free people can comprehend, and which is quite apart from, and can compensed by, money or titul distinctions. Count Walewski bas all our good wishes in his retirement. We hope that he now carries off with him upon his travels not only his pensions, and his little firmament of stars, and is double rent roll, but also the last hope of Austria to restore the Grand Dukes to Modena, Parma and Tus- cany, or the Pope to the Romagua. British Trade with France and the United States. (From the Manchester Examinor, Jan. 6. Why cannot we do more trade with France? ‘This #s & plain question, and probably savors of simplicity, but it is one in which we are all interested, and which deserves more attention than is usually paid to it. In the first place, we should have no objecdon to a lite more casiom =The larger the number of our customers the higher our profits are likely to be; and an increased amouat of business, to say nothing of a higher rate of profits, would fad a larger number of our workpeople im constant employment. Be- Sides, it is loss expensive to ship @ cargo across the Chan- nel than to send it across the Atlantic, and when we have achance of doing the same amount of business with two sets of customers, one four thousand miles off. the other only twenty, i is mat dij to determine which ought tw be Bat setting commercial considerations: aside, we have reasons of the very strongest kind for desiring to cultivate a closer connection with our neighbors across the Channel: They are putting at © &@ great deal of expense. lostead ‘ha gratulate ourselves that so great and gal- people live within hailing distance of our ow7 it would be a furtanate thing for us if they were * somewhere at the We owe it soleiy ‘nat we are paying « donbdle income tax upon one- ear’s amount, and we have been gra- distant sight of a little bill of £10,000,000 wails Armstrong’s guns to protect us their inroads upon oar security. We are that henceforth it will not be safe for us to have our chief arsenals within reach of their artillery. Soa now establishment on a gigantic scale is to be tixed some whore im the midland counties, and we ovserrs thit the town council of Birmingham are petition'ng the government to make that place the selected sive, Now, ag these defensive measures involve considerable outlay, it is well to ask whether we cantot adopt some other steps which would be not only economical but protitable. How fs it that we have no fear of a war with the United ‘States? How is it that we take any amount of binst and threatening with the utmost equadmity, our ebant giving and taking orders as if it were only the Bary ig of a gremabopper: ine rumen ww ve ued ages cEESs nal it wt be measured or re- | } j { Ia | | the annua) returns of trate and navigation. The simple Fact is, that the people of this country ama those of the Ui ‘Stales ave such excellent customers to cach other that they can never come to lows. Ip avy unpleasant crisis there is au argument in the pocket which never fails to make itself heard when the diplomatists have finished their wrangles. No shopkeeper will knowingly kuock is best customer on the head; and this persuas m. fortably, though we are aware that al! is n as it might be in the neighborhood of Vanco: . The Methuen treaty, as it is calied, bas been an insupel Die obstacle in the way of our Freuch trade, not only in Consequence of the dixabilities thereby imposes on it, bat ‘because the spirit in which we then negotiated has been allowed to preside over the rest of our intercourse with France, A wiser spirit is beginntng to prevail. It ts well kncwn that the Emperor Napoleon 18 sincerely desirous of relaxing tbe heavy duties which impede the entrance of Britieh commodities inwo France; and it is hoped, on no feeble grounds, that be is preparing to set the monopoliats of timber aud iron at defanco in the interest of tho Freach consumers geverally. Cannot we meet him half way? A Congress is, or was, about to assemble, to determine the Politics of Europe; what if we bad & Congress to discuss the expediency of those barbarous laws which make two great peoples almost strangers to each otber? Lf we want @ plenipotentiary for this purpose we have one already on the spot. Mr. Cobden is known to be on an intimate foot ing with the Emperor; suppoge we commissioned him to talk over the waiter and arrange terms with our august ally? In that case we migbt in a fow years find a better guarantee of peace in the pockets of the French nation than in iron plated ships, coast fortifications and rifled ar- tillery. ted Commodore R. F. Stockton—Union M ings in Relation vo the South—Tne gul Existence of Slavery. Paisogron, Jan. 24, 1860. GenTLEMEN—I have received your letter reques' “the expression of my opinion in relation te the recent Unien meetings held in New Jersey, and upon the dangers which at the present time threaten the republic.” [thank you for the commendation you bestow on my ‘‘national and coneervative spirit, and my devotion to the Union,” and ‘will pooceed to answer your iuquiries without turther de- > 1 have declined participating in the Union meetings to which you refer. Such convocations, composed promis: cuously of ail parties, are in my opinion fallasious and | calculated to deceive. How can it be otherwise, when portions of those who constitute the parade, return to their political associa- tions, and with augmented virulence prosecute their sec- tional designs and continue their sectional warfare? II am not mistaken, republicaus, as well a8 democrats and Americans, have taken part in those meetings; and al- though the sole object of such meetings is to counteract the disunion tendency of a sectional party, especial care ia taken to use no language offeusive to the most ultra republican, Yet the republican party is an orgauization formed for the purpose of hostile geographical azgresaion. Jt breathes menace and a perpetual conilict vards the laws and institutions, and social compact of fifteen States of the Union. 1 is from its nature and coustitution an in- strument adapted to produce disusion. Its success must inevitably insure that result. What a farce, therefore, of hypocrisy and deception is the performance of republicans at Union meetings! Is it possible that our Southern brethren will not detect and despise the imposture. For these reasons Iam unwilling to take any part in such demonstrations. They may bo harmless; but certainly they can produce no Substantial change in the relations now so alarming between the North and the South. A Union meeting which should be so constituted as to speak substantial words of fraternity and encouragemout: to the South, and which should say that the Fugitive Slave law is right, and should be executed; which should say that Southern men may lawfully take their slaves into the Territories, and that the decisions of the Supreme Court must and shall be considered the supreme law of the land, such a Union meeting I could attend with plea- sure and without any forfeiture of self respect. My opinions on the subject of slavery have long since been freely expressed, when the geographical conflict had hard- ly commenced, and the portentous dangers with which it was pregnant could only be discerned in the future, like a dark cloud on the distant horizon. Commodore Stockton here reiterates his views, which were expressed in a letter to the Hon. Daniel Webster ia 1860, as to the debased condition of the African and hig unfitness for self government. From tne dark land of Africa, sold, bartered away by his countrymen—the slave was brought to these shores while we were colonists, and subject to British law. Here he is ina civilized and Chris- tian country; he has more opportunities of onlightenment than be would bave bad in Africa; he is, as a general rule, treated with kindness; he is protected from want in sick- nees and old age; and is, on the wn>le, better off, safer, happier, than he would have been in his native country. He goes on tosay:—We must reason about things as they are, not as we might wish them to be. The slave is property; he became so by a !aw of our common ances- tors; be was left in that condition by the law of our com- mon fathers who founded the republic. The burden of this purchase should be borne in all justice equally by our citizens, and we are not ready to pay pepeees but if we were ready he is not in a condition to take care of himeelf. He bas not the culture, the training, the expe- rience, necessary to self-dependence. And where is he to go? No reflecting man is prepared to say he is willing to have three millions of slaves turned loose in the States, to fill the prisons, and poorhouses and almshouses of the country, or to live by plunder on the community, What, too, is to be his Jot for the future tn such a case? Is he to live in our midst as a marked and degraded being, through all time, or are we prepared to place him on an equality with us, civiland socially? Are we ready for amalgamation? He maintains that ‘if the permission for the existence of siavery in any part of the Union beacrime, it was committed at the formation of the government, at the adopt of the constitution, and by the Washi: } the Roger Shermans, the Hamiltons, the Madisons, the Frank- ins, the Pinckneys of the land—by such men as Living- ston and Paterson, Brearly and Dayton, of his own native State, approved and sanctioned with unparalleled una- nimity by the North and South. The constitution is neu- tral on the subject of slavery; to make it ressive or defensive is to violate it, Union can only be pre- served by astrict adberence to the constitution. If that ve violated, the bonds of the Union are broken, and the aggrieved parties will seek redrees and compensation with- out regard to its obligations.” * * * The discussion of these vexed questions bas only aggravated the angry feel- ings of the hostile sections. Step by step the anti-slavery agitation has advanced in the work of producing the mt inflammaiory excitement. The pulse of the people has been felt from time to time, and if the fever abated, new methods of stmaeting 8 ie desired state of frenzy were adopted; until at last the public were awakened as if by an earthquake shock, to find that treason had beea committed and civil and servile war commenced. In the midnight hour of a Sabbath, away among the secluded mountains of Virginia, a slumboring village is suddenly aroused by armed ruffians, its citizens killed or made prisoners, the slave invited to insurrection, a go- vernment arsenal seized, and murder and robbery perpe- trated. In vain bad wise and good men for years declared that anti-slavery agitation would produce just such results as Jobn Brown’s foray. Their warnings were unhoeded— their prophecies derided—and how bas John Brown's treagon been greeted? By one universal, unanimous voice of execration? No such thing! He is glorified by nambers as a martyr—village bells tolled in reqaiem to his depart ed spirit—sermons and orations were delivered in various quarters to applauding auditors, extolling his virtacs— excusing his crime, and with infidel ribatdry comparing the execution of this criminal with the cracilixion of the Blessed Redeemer. Now I will not be guilty of the in- justice of holding the great body of the republican party responsible for John Brown's acts, or for the encomium3 lavished upon his crime. The great body of that party are innocent of such re- sponsibilay. They have been organized as they believed for the redrezs ot great wrongs. But they have been led by their master spirits from one stage of excitement to | another, until they have reached that point in which a further advance must be over tbe ‘broken and dismem- bered fragments of a once glorious Union.” * * * * Against these designs and results the South staods as one wan on the defessive—they clearly perceive and fully appreciate the impending dangers which iling their awful shadows over the whole breadth of their beautiful coun- try. The horrérs of a St. Domingo tragedy threaten to make desolate their homes; to drench their peaceful plains with blood—to light op theie midnight skies with the con- flagration of their cites and plantation villages; aud to conve ir faithfai and contented domestics into incar- nate bends; inviting (after rivers of blood have lowed), their ow erminauon. In ths evensive attitude of the South I, for one, will stand by es 8 a friend to the last gasp of my exis- solution of the Union is inevitable, then bave tue lies of separation drawn along the Had- gon and the lakes, rather ‘the Potomac and the Ohio. Ihave no doubt that in such an event the Northwestern States would unite with New Jersey, Pennsylvania and the South. I will stand by them because they are right; Istand by them because they have the constitution and the law on their side—on these bulwarks we will plant our standard, und defy the bosta of fanatics. The quos- tions at issue now between the South and the anti-siavery party seem to be few but of great importance. The South demands that the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States shall be recognized as supreme law, that the fugitive slave law shall be executed, and that they shall be free to take their slaves into the Territories, which are common property of the United States. ® & = # In the face of the fact that 4,000,000,000 of property at the South consists of slaves, they proclaim the absurd fal- lacy that there can be no such property in man. Taey say that the original title to the negro being founded on robbery, it is therefore void. By this process of reason- | ing, what is the title of every man in America to his farm worth? Was tt not all wrested by force or fraud from the aboriginal Jndiac? That is property which the law re- cognizes a8 such, and any other doctrine is subversive of government and tbe parent of anarcliy. Then ail that re- mains of the controversy is the claim of the citizen of the South to emigrat’ with Lis slave property to the common territory of the United States if he sees fit todo so. He claims it ag aright. Suppose itis considered by the North = 8 | asa concession, what does it amount to? * = A$ politicians and honest patriots, our highest duty is to protect, defend and uphold the Union. Washington de- clares it to be the palladium of liberty. It is so, if there be such a thing as the philosophy of history. Jam for peaco—I ant for the Union—and therefore I am for concession if concession will ensure peace. The North is infuriated with a passionate, almost trretigious fanati- clsr:, the South, maddened by the certaiuty of the horri- bie results which that fanaticism unreatens, is assuming an attitude of serious, stern resistance. Toavert the in- evitable progress of the conflict, 1 would Dave the North concede at once, and prom and agree, first, to recognize as final and ive, decisions of the Su Court. Second, comply faithfally with the re- quisitions of the ve Slave law. Third, to recognize the right of our thern fetlow-citins to take their slave the Territories, and to its protection there under constitution of the Uaited States. ‘While the South, ia return, should concede “specific duties,"’ or a more satisfactory “tariff than that of which the North at present s» generally complains. ‘Phere concessions, if m truth they can be so termed, are and patriotic, and are, in my judgment, indispen- sable to preserve the Union. They must be made, or ctyil war will be the inevitable result. The should no longer submit to the dictation of political ; they snowki take the matter into their own hands; they shouid take the subject up before it is too Inte, as a practical question, abandon all abstract theories, and apply the onty practical gad efficient means to prevent fraternal war, R. F. SPUCKTON THE LEMMON SLAVE CASE. mt of Mr. Evarte in the Court of Appeals. Apany, Wednesday, Jan. 25, 1860. ‘Tho interest felt in this case, and the desire to hear Mr. O'Couor and Mr. Evaris, recognized champions of the doctrines sustuined on each ile, drew a large attendance to court yesterday and this moruing. Several laties were Present, and were accommodated with seats near the clerk’s desk. It was evident that their sympathios, as well as those of the majority of the sterner sex present, ‘were with Mr. Evarta’ side. After Mr. O’Couor (the principal points of whose argu. ment I forwarded yesterday) had concluded his opening, Mr. Joseph Blunt spoke for an hour and a half. Mr, Evarts followed, occupied the balance of the morning ses- sion, continued his argument at four o’clock, aud had not concluded when the Court adjourned, at six o'clock. Ho resumes this morning, and Mr. O’Conor will close. MR. EVARTS' ARGUMENT, Mr. Evarts devoted himself more exclusively to the legal aspects or the cage, especially as regarded that great feguard of human freedom, the writ of habeas corpus, which be said should not be permitted to be interfered with by any considerations of policy. The ground taken by counsel for the Virginia, that citizens of a Biave State were to have the right of carrying with them that domestic institution when passing through other S aves, was one, he said, which interfered with the sovercign- ty of the State of New York, in determiaing the political, civil and social status of persons witbin ts borders, The principal points of his argument were:— ‘That the writ of habeas corpus belongs of right to every person restrained of liberty withio this State, under any pretetice whatsoever, unless by certain judiciai process of federal or State authority.—(I Rev. Stat, p. 563, §21.) ‘This right is absolute (1) against legisiative invasion, and 2) agaivst judica) discretion —(Cons. Art. 1,§ 4; 1 Rev. » Pp. 565, § 81.) In behalf of a human betng, reatrain- ed of liberty within this State, the writ, by a legal meces- sity, must issue, The office of the writ is to enlarge the person m whose behalf jt issuce, unless legal cause be shown for the restraint of liberty or its continuation; and enlargement of liberty, unless such Cause to the contrary be shown, flows from the writ by the same legal necessity that required the writ to be issucd.—(1 Rev. Stat., p. 667, 39. Argu: ‘The whole question of the casa, then, is, does the rela- tion of slave owner und slave, which subsisted in Virginia between Mrs Lemmon and these persons while there, attend upon them while commorant within this State, in the courge of travel from Virginia to Toxas, 80 as to furnish “egal cause” for the resveaivt of liberty complained of, and 0 as to compet the authority and power of this State to sanction aad maintain such restraint of liberty? Legal canse of restraint cap be nove other than an antbority wo maiptain the restraint which bas the force of iaw within this State. Nothing bas, or can claim, the authority of Jaw within this Stale, unless it proceeds from the sove- reiguty of the State, and 1s foon: in the coustitation or statutes of the State, or in its unwritten common (or cus- tomary) law; or from the federal government, whose copstitution and statutes bave the force of law witain this State. Sofar as the law of nations has force within this State, aud so far as, “by comity,’’ the laws of other sovereignties have force within this State, they derive their eficacy, not from their own vigor, but by ‘adminis- tration as a partof the law of this State. (story Contl Laws, ( 18, 20, 28. 25, 20, 33, 35, 27, 88. Bank of Augusta vs. Karle, 13 Pet., 619,589. Dalrymple vs. Dal- rymple, 2 Hagg. ‘Consist. Rep. 69. Dred Scoit vs. Sand- ford, 19 How., 460-1, 486-7.) The constitution of the United States and the federal statutes give no law on the subject. The federal constitution and legislation under it have, in principle and theory, no concern with the domes- tic imstitutions, the social basis, the social relations, the ervil conditions, which obtain within the several States. ‘The actual exceptions are specia! and limited, and prove the rule. They are:— 1. A reference to the civil conditions obtaining within the States to furnish an artificial enumeration of persons ‘as the basis of federal representation and direct taxation distributively between the States. 2. A reference to the political rights of suffrage within the States as, respectively supplying the basis of the fede- ral suffrage therein. 3. A provision securing to the citizens of every State within every other the privileges aud immunities (what- ever they may be) accorded in each to its owa citizens. 4. A provision preventing the laws or regniations of any State governing the civil condition of persons within it, from operating upon the condition of persons ‘‘held to service or Jubor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another.”” (Const. U. S.,art 1., sec. 2, subd. land 3. Art. 4, seo. 2, subd. 1 and 3, Lawsof Slave States, and of Free States, on Slavery. Ex parte Sim- mons, 4 W. C. C. R., 396. Jones vs. Van Zandt, 2 McLean, 597. Groves vs. Slaughter, 15 Peters, 606, 508-510. Prigg vs. Penn., 16 Pet., 611-12, 622-3-5. Strader vs. Grabam, 10 How., 82,93. New York vs. Miln, 11, Pet., 136. Dred Soott vs. Sandford. Ch. J.. Nel- son J., 459, 461. Campbell J., 508-9, 516-17.) None of these provisions, in terms or by any intend- ment, support the right of the slave owner in his own State or in any other State, except the last. This, by its terms, is limited to its case, aud necessarily ex- cludes federal intervention ia every other. The common law of thia State permits the existence of slavery in no cage within its limits. art. 1, §17; Sommersett’s case, 20 How 8t. Trials, 79; Knight vs. Wedderbura, id., §2; Forbes vs. Cochrane. 2 B. & C., 448; Shanley ys. Har: vey, 2 Eden, 126; the Slave Grace, 2 Hagg. Adm , 118, 104; Story Conti. Laws, § 96; Co. Litt.,124 b.) The sta- tute law of this State effects an universal proscription and prohibition of the condition of slavery ‘within the lmiis of the State. (1 R. St., p. 656, §1; p. 659, 16. 2K. St, p. 664, §28; Dred Scott ve. Sandford. 19 low., 591-595. Laws 1857, p. 797.) It remains only to be considered whether, uuder the principles of the law of nations, as governing the inter- course of friendly States, and as adopted and incorporated into the administration of our municipal law, comity re- quires the recognition and support of the relation of slave owner and slave between strangers passing through our territory, notwithstanding the absolute policy and com. prebensive legislation which prohibit that reiation and render the civ1) condition of slavery impossible in our own Socie'y. The comity. it is to be observed, under inquiry, is (1) of the State and not of the Court, which latter has no Authority to exercise comity in behalf of the State, but only a judicial power of determining whether the main policy and actual legislation of the State exhibit the comi- ty inquired of; and (2) whether the comity extends to yielding the affirmative aid of the State to maintain the mastery of the slave owner and the subjection of the Blave. oF, Conil. Laws, § 38. Bk. Augusta vs. Earle, 13 Pet, Dred Scott vs. Sandford, 19 How., 591.) The principles, policy, sentiments, public reason and con- science, and authoritative will of the State sovereignty, as such, bave been expressed in the most authentic form, and with the most distinct meaning, thatslavery, whence- soever it comes, and by whatsoever casual access, or for whatsoever transient stay, shall not be tolerated upon our soil. That tbe particular case of slavery during transit bas not escaped the intent or eflect of the legislation on the subject, appears in the express permission once ac- corded to it, and the subsequent abrogation of such per- mission. (1 Rey. St., parti, ch. xx, Tit. 7,§) 6,7. Re- pealing act, Laws 1841. ch. 447.) Upon such a declara- tion of the principles and sentiments of the State, through its Legislature, there is no opportunity or scope for judi- cial doubt or determination. (Story Confl. Laws, \ 36, 87, 23, 24. Vattel, p. 1,4)1,2) But, were such mani- fest enactment of the sovereign will in the premises want- ing, a8 matter of general reason and universal authority, the status of slavery is never upheld in the case of stran- gers, resident or in iransit, when the domestic laws reject and suppress such status as a givil condition or social re- lation. ‘The enme reasons of justice and policy which for- did the eanction of Jaw and the aid of public force to the proscribed status among our own population, forbid them in the case of strangers within our territory. The status of slavery is not a natural relation, but is contrary to natare, and at every moment it subsists. it is an ever new an active violation of the law of nature.—(Cons. Va., Bill of Rights, §) 1, 14, 15.) riginates in mere pre- dominance of physical force, aud is continued by mere predominance of ‘social force or municipal law. “When ever and wherever the physical force in the one stage, or the social force or municipal law in the otuer stage, fails, the status falls, for it has nothing to rest upon. To continue and defend the status, then, within our terri- tory, the stranger must appeal to some municipal law. He bas brought with him no system of muncipal law to be @ weapon and a shield to this status; he finds no such system here. His appeai to force against nature, to law against justice, is vain, and his captive is free. The law of nations, built upon the law of nature, has adopted this. same view of the status of slavery, a8 resting ou (orce against right, and finding no support outside of the juris- diction of the muricipal law which estabiishes it. A State proscribing the status of slavery in its domestic system, ‘has no apparatus, either of law or of force, to maintain the rejation between strangers. It has no code of the slave owner's rights or of the slave's submission, no processes for the entorcement of either, no rules of evidence or adju- dication in the premises, no guardhouses, prisons or whip- ping posts to uphold the slave owner's power and crush the slavo’s resistance. But a comity which should recog- nise a status that can subsist only by force, and yet refuse the force ta. sustain it, is illusory. If we recognise the fragment of slavery imported by the stranger, we must adopt the fabric of which it isa ‘and from which it derives its vitality. If the slave be eloigned by fraad or force, the owner must have ri for him or trover for his value. If a creditor obtain a foreign attachment against the slave owner, the sheriff must seize and sell the slaves. If the owner die, Surrogate must administer the slave as assets. If the slave give birth to offspring we have a native born slave. If the owner, enforcing obedience to his ca- prices, maim or slay his slave, we must admit the status 98 a plea in bar to the public justice. If the slave be for crime, upon hig owner's complaint, the testi- mony of his fellow siaves must be excluded. If the slave be imprisoned or executed for crime, the value taken by the State must be made good to the owner, as for ‘ pri- yate property taken for public use.’’ Everything or nothing is the demand from our comity; everything or nothing must be our auswer. The rule of the law of na- tions which permits the transit of strangers and their pro- perty throuch a friendly State does not require our laws to uphold the relation of slaveowner and slave between strangers. Ry the law of nations men are not the subject of property. By the law of nations the municipal law which makes men the subiect of property is limited with the power to enforce itself, that is by its territorial furiedic- tion. By the law of nations, then, the strangore stand ‘upon our soil in their natural relations a¢ men, their arti- figial relation being absolutely terminated. ope, 10 Wheat , 1: Seem het eerntner =” Ble of the law of nations which attributes 8 the power to fix the civil status of ‘not require our laws to uphold, within oar own San pret Me or owner orth between iple only requires us (1) to recognise reference to subjects within our own 5 yin g i i pies iiss Hitt S beeen marriage here, So ee relation here; yet, incestuous mar. lawful in the foreign domietl, cannot be held ae & feweal continuing relation here. (Story Confl. Laws sections 51, G1, &, 89, 128, 116, 06, 406, 620, 626.) Tas free and gave: NEW YORK HBRALD, FRIDAY, JANUARY 37, 1860. tig State, in determining to which of two external Iawsit will by comity add the vigor of its adoption and adminis- tration within its territory, viz, & foreign municipal law of force against right, or the law of nations conformed to {ts own domestic policy under the same impuige which bas purged its own system of the odious and violent injas- tice of slavery, will preter the Jaw of nations to the law of Virginia, apd set the slave free. Impius et crudelis ju- divandus, et qui libertati non fare. Nostra jura wm omni casu libertats dant favorem. (Co. Litt. ut supra.) THE NEW JERSEY RAPE CASE. Conclusion of the Testimony—The Jadge’s Charge—Verdict of the Jury. HUDSON COUNTY (N. J.) CIRCUIT COURT. Before Judge Ogden. TUESDAY'S YROCREDINGS. Mrs. Elizaboth Bennett, sister of the girl, was again call- od, It was about the ninth or tenth day after Harriet told her of the occurrence, and about five or six days after Dr. McCready called; cannot remember the date exactly; Har riet told witness the occurrence took place the Saturday before she came home. Nothing further of importance ‘was elicited {rom this witness. ‘The testimony for the prosecution here closed, and the case was opened for the defence in s brief address to the jury by one of the couneel for the defence. The firet witness called was John Pate, a plate printer, doing business in Baltic street, Brooklyn. He testified to being acquainted with defendant, and doing business with him on Saturday, the 9th of July, at his place in Brooklyn, Jate in the afternoon of that day. William Wellstood testified in corroboration of Mr. Pate’s evidence. S. Lee Perkius knows Hollyer; was also present on the occasion alluded to by Mr. Pate. Mr. Nichols sworn—Xs an inventor; lives at the Bel- mont House, Fuiton.street, New York; has kuown Holl- yer vine years; saw bim at Pate’s place on the day in Question, about three o'clock in the afternoon. Wm. Pate (brother of former witness of same name) produced a memorandum book, containing an etry de- signed to show that the defendant was at witness’ placo of business, in Burling slip, on the day of the alleged oc- currence, Albert Ward (now living at Hudson City) testified to Hollyer’s betog at his (witness’) employer's, Mr. Gilbert, in Canal street, New York, and running to catch the six o’clock Bull's ferry boat on the $th of July. Wm. Cable swore that he felt a great interest in the case in behalf of the defendant, Had not olfered to bet that he could show Hollyer to be not guilty. A lad nained Jacob Wynds, who resides with his uncle, adjoining Mr. Hollyer’s, testified to aving heard profane language, and observed very improper conduc: ou the part of Harriet. The uucle of the boy, a German, named Hoffmire, also testified to improper coudact on the part of the girl. ae Holiyer, the defendant, was placed upon the stand, and testified that he never had any improper intercourse with the girl; she was taken sick on Monday, the t1th of July, at the dinner table, as he supposed from eating currants; she continued to grow worse, and on Wednesday he sent her in a @arriage to the house of Mrs. Boanew, her sister, in Houston street, New York. The girl Harriet was recalled, and denied any improper conduct as sworn to by the German and the boy. The evidence was here closed, and the Court adjeurned till the next mornin, WEDNESDAY'S PROCEEDINGS. ‘The Court re-assembled at ten o'clock, when Mr. Wake- Tan immediately proceeded to sum up the case on the partot the defendant in an able manner. He occupied the Court about two hours and a half, his remarks during this time being listened to with the utmost attention. He was followed by the counsel for the plaintiff—Mr. Jelifti—wbo stated the cage to the Judge and jury in an able manner, THE JUDGE'S CHARGE TO THE JURY. Judge Ogden then proceeded to deliver his charge to the jury, amidst the protoundest sileuce. He commenced saying:— GENILENEN OF THE JuRY—The cage which is now to be sub- mitted for your decision is one of great interest aud importance to both parties, ‘The trespasa which has been Lad ye ‘upon the defenoant ts most aggravated in its character and in ‘the sur rounding ciccumstances. The plaintiff a!leges, and has 30 tes- titled, that she was under the protection of tbe defendant an his wife, who lived st Bull's Ferry. on the banks of the. Hud- eon, in reet f¢ State, about half an hour's sail from the Spring -y, io New York: thet her mother ig dead and ber ‘ay, abe baving been taken and cared for by a murried in the city of New York; that the defendant, lvl idtess by his wife, who iatance daughier or foster-sister » aid Mra. cr av eat at their table; that ‘such an effect were made for her by the sister, and ia or about the month of ‘April last she went thet her in- in the family and satis. fact until =the ing the event which bas given rise to thi insists that on the %b of July Jast, Mra Holly. directions to go out upon the grounds belonging to the house where they Jived, and gather some rasp ; that after this direction this lad; y—Mrs. Holl- music dalliance and taging f and foatilag, whies, cess of . fondling, wi soe ony, resulted in the’ fercinie wiolation of fos parson teat he threatened great personal injury to her if she reveaied bis offence; and then returned to the honse, leaving her there. for- aad ruted condition. concealed the base act from from the effects of her violation. trea: which facts lei to person. The of her aut was discovered, upon it being manifest that had habited with; whereupon sbe related to her sister the revolt- ing facts, iaculpating thie defendant, which bave been sworn to and commented on in your bearing. If this be defendant committed the act which the plaintiff has eh: him with under oath asa wees et ey, of .be assault and battery, with the aggravations set in the declaration; and any amount of damages which, a8 reasonable and hono- rable men, you may see tO assess against him at all consistent with bis station cannot be beld to be ex-ess- ive tu redressing such a wrong and in punisbiog such an out. rage But, gant . tha case is not only one of g’ eat inte- reat to the plaintiff, but it likewise is one of vast importance to the defendant. He isa married man, jnst in the summer of a0 know, pursuing a respectable ciating with bis wife on terms required by the conjugal rely tions He was suddenly charged by ‘an inmate ly, who bad been @ stranger till within months, with the commission of “a brutal outrage in & sequestered place, and he hes been ar fore the bar of the public and this conrt, and is called mpon to cleange himself trom the al exed erimipality, by establishing his innocence. How, gentlemen, was that to be done? He couid not prodnce the testimony of a thtrd party to show himself guiltl Pisiatl has located the ct in a spot where the two actors could not be seen by others. It tea fearful power which female domestics who are wicked and false hold over male members of a family; and when a charge of the nature of the present one is made it hehoves all upon whom an investigation of it is dovolved by the law to search most critically and anxiously for the truth—not only for the purpose of protecting an, innocent man from an anjust attack upon bis ter and his pocket, but also for the par- pose of sustaining and recompensing female virtue, so far as money can do it, and properly punishing the vile wretch who will sacrifice an exposed girl to his besstly lusts. if the proceedings had on the criminal side of our courts, the defendant would bave been left without the power ef contradicting the testimony of the girl by bisown ath; becuuse @ party tried 2 an indictment fs not Us Seemed jo be a witness for himself. Bat the law ts dit- rent in civil actions. and benos Mr. pe was placed on the witness stand in hisown defence. He mos! positively and unquestionably devied that he ever had sexual interoourse ‘with the piatntiff, or ever attempted any liberties with ber per sou. You have before you, too, & girl feurteen years of age, proved by the opinion of a very reliable and experienced prac: Ucing physician te have been cebebited with, charging that car- nal Knowledge of her person upon the det it di some week or more before the disclosure was made; and you also have the subject of the accusation swearing to you that he isnot the man. Boh witnesses neosesarily bad equal means of knowledge, and therefore one of them muat have been fo: ¢- worn, and har» committed wilful and corrupt perjury before God and man, for the purpose of wickedly perverdag ‘the pure stream of justice. Jt is a fearfal thing when truth, which should always shine out in clearness. becomes so hidden and obecured. through the inst; of the devil. But, gentlemen, which one of the two is to be stig- matiged as perjured? That question you must solve, becaiae your verdict for the plaintiff can only be sustained upon a clear con riction from the evidence that the defendant has foresworn: himeelf; apd yonr verdict for the defendant can only be sus- taised by pond conviction the girl has foreswora herself; because if she has told the trath, he ts gniity of the trespsas. ‘What sid can you derive frem corroboratiog or from condema- ing chonwstances on either side? youke eat hnee i te neighbor! une ing ta the nm ar auly, the piaiotitt was in ber ap errand st the butcber’s shop, balt low. incontradicted before PAN that the sick during Monday night. the Lith of July, ‘bat Tueeda that er gent for a physician, and on morning Mrs. Hollyer wert to New York and informed Mee. Repnet: of tbe plainuil’s severe sickness. You must say whe- ther, if the cause of ber suffering on Saturday, she originated been as buoyant in epfrite and lived; we Waters t iy ia she was t Gay afternoon after the ith of July, nor is there ‘any proof that currants were expected to have been picked by her on that day. The defendant has niso attamoted to impeach her char- acter for chast'ty, by the testimony of the old German neighbor ‘and the litle boy, both testifying to her lewd and unbecoming conduct ip public. If their statements are true, such indelicacy and waptonness should make you hesitate as to the truth of her statements, tending 10 criminate Mr. Hollyer with an offence of the character here alleged. But if yon are not pre- pared to believe them, and are satis‘ied, the whole com- jilation of the case, that those stories have Deen manufactured Fr the occasion. sneh conviction on vour part should operate {o convict the defendact jor bia attempt to mialead you derived from false witnesses. @ false accusation. fe proved to bare been oo:amitied, the ide: of the perpet ator, a party y proving, by ireeteagible are owas 10 8 place which would make his presmuos at the apat Adsolit 3 man shield g: ately if from ab-enc 1} as Mr. Holler, she recy 1ald the time in the ‘Tho jury immediately retired, and after an absence of three hours returned a verdict of $1,200 damages for the lain tiff. ba During each day’s proceedings the court has been densely crowded. The defendast was in court yestorday afternoon, and attempted to interrupt the plaintifl’s counsel while he was summing up. The Five Points Murder—The Jary in Deliberation. OOURT OF OYER AND TERMINER, Before Hon. Judge Ingraham. ‘THIRD DAY. Jan. 2%5.—The People vs. William Jones.—\Vounsel having summed up for tho prisoner, and the District At- torney baying reviewed the testimony in an able and elo- quent addresa, JIndge Ingrabam, in charging tho jury, said that in com. mitting this case to their hands he felt relieved from the necessity of entering minutely into the detaila, in conse- quence of the very thorough examination which bad been given it by the counsel for the prosecution and the priso- ner. It was always a matter of regret that a jury should be called upon to decide, either in civil or criminal cases, on testimony such as has been produced in this case—it is stil! more so im (@ matter of life or death; and it will be neceesary for the jury to examine the testimony more thoroughly than under other cir- cumstances. In cases of this kind other testi- mony can rarely be produced, and when partics Place themselves in a position to be brought to trial on the evidence of such associates, they must take the conse- quences, In examining this testimony, the jury must see if the witnesses for the prosecution corroborate each other, or whether there are circumstances which would autho- rize them in joey gS It altogether. The charge against the prisoner is murder, All the parties who were present on the occasion have been examined except the two prisoners who are under indictment, and the law does. not permit them to give their version ‘of the transaction, ‘The jury are called upon te examine two questions—first, whether there was a murder committed, and if 80, Be- condly, whether the prisoner committed that murder. The juestion whether a murder was committed depends upon degree of credit to be given to the witnesses for the prosecution; if the jury believed them, there would be no doubt that the man was killed by a blow on the head. ‘The testimony for the defence is, that the man fell down stairs and was killed. If so, there is to con- Rect these parties with the transaction, Judge here the substance of the testimony. He did not id to say anything to the jury as to the degree of credit they were to give to the witneases for the Prosecution or defence; they had seen their demeanor and noticed the manner in which thoy had testified. If the jury belleve, as testified to by the witnesses for the defence, that this man fell down stairs, then the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. If, on the other hand, they ve- Leve the testimony for the prosecution, there was undoubt- edly @ murder commilted. Another question is whethor (if a murder) the prisoner was the person who committed it. The evidence of all the witnesses shows that Jones and Farrell were in the room, and remained there; that they were cognizant that a two dollar bill, about the genuineness of which some doubt was expressed, had ace, pin by the deceased to Jane to get changed; that Farrell dis; of Jaue Bradford, keeping her in one bed while was sitting on the other and Jones hovering about him; she wag ton mceapable of sayin what took » owing to her intoxication and the ill usage she received, unti! Benjamin returned. The Judge again referred to the evidence, and continued to ef that the matter which the jury were to decide was whether there was a murder, and waz Jovcs the person who committed it? It is not enough for the jury to say that, from the evidence, Jones might have been tho per- fon, and that no other person could have committed it, because then the jury were not free from the reason able doubt to which the prisoner is entitled. Then there was the finding of the door fastened on the inside, the ed attempt of Jones to escape from the window, and tht to Philadelphia. The jury were to dwell on these circumstances, and well all the evidence. The Court then defined the law of murder. If the jury had any doubt as to whether there was an intent to kili—but in an attempt to rob the man he struck a blow which re- sulted in death—they might find a verdictof manslaughter in the first degree; or if they thought ghat angry worda may have arisen between the prisoner and the deceased and that the blow was given in the heat of pa:sion—and the testimony of Jane ford went to show that such words had en their verdict might be maa- slaughter in the third degree. But if they find that the ans was intending to rob the man, and that he took is life in the attempt, he is guilty of murder. If, how. ever, any fact attempted to be against the prisoner ‘was hot proven to their satisfaction, the jury are bound to give him the benefit of it. The jury retired at five minutes after two o’clock P. M., and as there was no probability of theiragresing, the Court took a recess until ten o’clock Thursday morning. ALLEGED TICKET SWINDLING AND FALSE PRETENCES. During the absence of the jury in the case of Jones, the trial of Frank Fowler and John Giibert, charged on the complaint of Christian Heine with selling him a bogus ticket for a passage to Liverpool by the steamship Ham- monia, was called up, butat the request of prisoners’ counsel was postponed until Friday, JONES CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER IN THE THIRD DEGREE. Jax. 26.—The jury came into court this: morning and rendered a verdict of not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter in the third degree. We learn that the jury had agreed at nine o’clock on the previous night, but as they had told the Judge that there was no probability of their agreeing, and that he could go home, they did not let the pene know of their agreement, for fear they would send for him. The prisoner was remanded for sentence. The penalty is not legs than four years and not more than seven. CHARGE OF ASSAULT AND BATTERY WITH FIRE- ARMS. John Crowley, indicted for an assault and battery with firearms and intent to kill Patrick Loveloy, withdrew his plea of not guilty ana pleaded gnilty. It appears that the prisoner was sun struck some time ago, and when he in- dulged in liquor he became unconscious. Lovejoy and the mer were intimate friende, and the former requested . Tallmadge ae ot the Court to discharge Crowley. ‘The Court di that these statements must be pro- sented in writing. ANOTHER CHARGE OF MURDER. John Donnelly was indicted for the murder of Charles Cobane, in West Sixteenth street, on the night of the 28th of Octobor Inst. ‘The following jurors were sworn:— 1. Charles Saybolt. 7. Joseph A. Sweeteer. 2 Christian T. Preiffer. 8. Jas. R. Barthotemew, 9. Edw. G. Bradbury. 10. Robert Russell. U. Edward Stone. alle, his 6. Jobn Love. 5 Mr. John H. Authon opened the case for the prosecu- tion, by which it appears that a difficulty arose between the prisoner, deceased and others, at lien’s grocery store, 220 West Sixteenth street. ; & a 4 a 2 4 = in a tcp lies seeipsteps ith was og asked him e . that be should not call me a hog; the prisoner said he (mj Cee urls maak prima commenced qi "3 they went out on the edewalk; I ta aller them them clenched; several others came out; wo them; the struck Oe him as hard as I hold of me and pulled me a and Tom Cobane nd 1 hog ; not EER HW i : Bis: i i | Fi 38 Fe s Leta: it i ‘teat Ht TH a “bat” or two; night, the prisoger £ z i E & i fiona baving been committed to. writing by’ the Doan a stone; it looked like a kn ‘To Mr. Anthon—The ing house bagpe; i it was. ieauaivees ne bad nothing Boyd an came to the Soene. and ‘cenisted risoner, the Do you Kooi specting life death at the time he made ‘th: tion? (Objected to.) By the Court—He bad no, intimation from, 1! of the atten ante of the hogpitai that he was. ‘The objection was sustained. Thomss Cobane recalled] was prosent at th] when my brother made his dying declaration to ber. my brother statet to me his condition. “Ex Recorder Smith objected to such téstimd Prosecution shovid call the Coroner himself, 80 that he can be crdss-examined a8 to the app dition of the patient'when making his deéiaratid elias ot aah 9, him, ina. bad mt 4 are ina. he truth and nothing buf the trad: T don't 1 told him whether the doctor said it or'not; the <i boarding house keeper was then present and lady. Dr. Schirmer examined—I took the dying deci the ; before taking it I told him’he was , By the Court—He did not nythin his condition to me; he said his hope or expectation of ‘Statement of the ‘lea Cobaze, being sworn, Seprons borer, and live at 79 ke avenue; into tbe liqnor store of Owen Mallen, tween Figs and Birth avenues, there; M: and not drinking; iB not; Monaghan win the pistol; Cobane struck Donnelly, sons assisted kicking and beating him when [The witness then went on to testify to the same the testimony given on behalf of the prosecution, exception that the brothers Cobane, assisted by Orst knocked Dounelly down on the sidewalk, and him when he was down.} He had no knife abo they beat and kicked bloody—that he and arrested hin; he did not say in Mallen’s store ¢ would lick anybody there; the u ; be uses a large Cross-examined—I don’t know where Donnelly after ho went down the street; I saw him afterward cod by the officers who were dispersing the crowd »-direct—The next I saw of him ne was on the Owen Mallen recalled—I saw Donnelly that night no weapon in his hand; I did not see. the woman ( rine Kattle; if Donnelly had made that offensive re T could have heard it. Cross-examined—Iit was not in the back room: there was a great deal of noise and confusion; 1 wa talking to any one there. ‘To the Court—J heard some oné say that @ woma her arms round John Monaghan, but I did uot see it. Thomas Cobane recalled—I never heard Donnell that any person was as——of a b——, for I wasi back room. Cross examined—After he run away I came out; I knew Donnelly before that time;I was just inside th when be struck me. Ex-Recorder Smith then summed up in an ablo ment on behaif of the prisoner. The Court then adjourned to Friday (this) moi ir the peopl when the District Attorney will sum up More of the Schuyler Frauds. SUPERIOR COURT—SPEOIAL *TREM. Before Hon. Judge Woodruff. Jax, 24.—John @. Woodruff and Robert M. Henné : A g iY consented to by the usual cierk in no new certific#te was taken out. § made, and Morris not having repaid tt, andthe having declined to recognise the certificate or mr High of the plaints 30 the staat, ination pres Dr. ming 0 z ! i u ste iw il ty i i i F f z F A A & i : F Fe i g & é E