The New York Herald Newspaper, April 10, 1868, Page 4

‘ 4 — “EUROPE. The Alabama Claims Question Before the British Peers. Earl Russell and the Lord Chancellor on Mr. Seward’s Position. Mr. Disraeli on the Conspiracy Against the Church. ‘Tne Junard mail steamship Australasian, Captain McMicken, which left Liverpool at eleven A. M. on the 28th and Queenstown on the 29th of March, ar- rived at this port yesterday morning, bringing a mail report, in detail of our cable despatches, dated to her day of sailing from Liverpool. ENGLAND. Whe Alabamn Claims—Earl Russell in Defence of the English PositionWhat Does Mr. Seward Really Ask ¢ In the House of Lords on the 27th of March Earl Rugsell said:—I rise for the purpose of calling your lordships’ attention to the commission on the Neu- trality laws and of moving for any further corres- pondence that may have taken place between this government and the American government Fespact ing the Alabama and other claims. My object in so doing is that we may avoid falling into an error just the opposite of that into which many members of both Houses of Parliament were disposed to fall a few yearsago. During the progress of the civil war in America it was evident that a considerable num- ber of members were hardly prepared to perform in good faith all the duties of neutrality towards the United Staies and to abstain from evel to which that government could justly take exception, iremember that when on one occasion I had men- tioned the “so-cailed Confederate States” a noble lord, then in opposition, said 1 might just as well have spoken of the ‘so-called United States,” and t saine noble lord indulged in a panegyric upon Mr. Laird, who, in my view, Was usurping fhe preroga- tive of the Crown and endeavoring to make war on his own account, thereby ranning the rk of involy- ing this country in hostilities. It will also be remem- bered that, in tue presence of a lal company of miembers of the House of Commons, Mr, Laird said he was proud of having fitted out the Alabama, and much preferred being the builder of that vessel to having made such a speech as Mr. Bright had re- cently delivered. Moreover, some noble friends of mine objected very strongly to our allowing ae iitted out in this country for the purpose of running the blockade to be subject to the common law of nations, which exposed merchant ships to the risk of capture if they carried anything contraband of war. ‘ney were tor protecting such ships by the naval force of this country, 1 find that the danger now is of a totally ditferent kind. Jjind that the partiality for the South has altogether ceased, and that instead of the dificulty which I had to encounter as the Minister of the Crawn, in performing the duties of neutrality, there is a difficulty in preserving the proper position and dignity of this Lepage Ni icine unreasonable or unfounded demands, fot that 1 think any objection can be taken to the course that has been pursued by the American government. It is only natural that people who suffered from the capture of their merchant ships and the destruction of their proper. should come to us for redress, ‘They have stated their case very temperately, and it is not from them that any of the excitement which has lately prevailed has arisen. It is persons in this country who, when the excitement respecting these, ciaims was entirely allayed in America, have raised the question anew, being apparently apprehensive that we shall have to meet tue heavy claims which have been preferred. Under these circumstances I fear that the government may be so pressed that, either by negotiation or by tlie introduction of a bill into Parliament at a time when the business of the session is hurried through—or, perhaps,‘by both modes—our position as a neutral nation may be endangered, and we may concede demands to which, as an independent Power, we ought not to submit. Now, just before I left the Foreign Omice I had a cor- respondence with Mr. Adams, and I cannot mention that gentleman's name without expressing my high esteem und respect for him—(hear, hear)—the valle I place upon his character, and the assurance I feel that m conducting business he did everything which honor and good faith and moderation could prescribe. While carrying out the orders of his government his invariably conciliatory conduct tended to render easy what would otherwise have been an almost im; ible task. (Hear, hear.) When about to leave the For- eign Ofiice I wrote to Mr. Adams, stating the whole case of the British government, and about a fort- it afterwards an answer was received by my noble friend, Lord Clarendon, foing the points on which I had touched. J had stated that I thought the conduct of the United States towards Portugal in 1818 was such as might advantageously be followed, since when some Portuguese ships had been Cet by privateers titted out in America they did all that was required ig! their neutral posi- tion and by their dignity as an independent State. Mr. Adams, at the commencement of his letter, stated that on that point he entirely agreed with me that there was no need of carrying on any corre- spondence upon the law of the case, since the two governments were agreed upon it. {had expressed a hope that there might be some legislation which would tend to ascertain more precisely the position of neutrals and on which both Powers migut agree. Mr, Adams, remarking upon this, said:— 80 long as the heavy list of depredations upon American commerce conseyuent upon the issue of a succession of hos- tile crufsers, built, ntted out, armed, manned and navigated irom British ports, continues to weigh upon thelr minds it would be the height of assurance to expeot any common legis- -atlo: Upon this Lord Clarendon, in a letter dated the 24 of December, 1865, remarked:— It {s, nevertheless, my duty in closing this correspondence to observe that no armed vexsel departed during the war {rom 8 Bricish port to cruise against the commerce of the Unived Stat Thus, while there was an agreement respecting the law of the case there Was the widest diference with respect to the facts. The noble lord who now hoids the seals of the Foreign Onice differed from me, tnas- much as he thought 1t would be wise to submit the question to arbitration. [ did not anticipate any great advantages from such a course, but I saw no rea- son whatever against his adopting it if he be- lieved it would iead to beneficial results, But as to the questions to be submitted to arbitration, I own I cannot concar with her Majesty's present gov- ernment. It seems to me that Mr. Adams havin, stated that a succession of hostile cruisers, mann and armed by this couutry, had been sent out to prey u the commerce of the United States, and Lord Clarendon haying distinctly denied that assertion, the first thing for an arbiter or for any commussion that might be appointed to investigate would be the facts. If it was found that there had been armed vessels, or even if there had been vessels built and equipped in this country that had gone out to prey on the commerce of the United states, it would then become a substantive question to ascertain whether there had been any want of due diligence on the part of the government of this country. In the meantime it would seem to be useless to place so vague a question before an arbiter as whether this country was morally responsible for that whieh had peen done during the war. Evt- dently that would be an entirely independent ques- tion, IT know not in what manner any arbiter or commission could proceed unless first to adcertaip the facts of the case. * Lown it seeius to me that we have already in spirit gone sar enough in our neutrality laws. It would be a wise precaution to give wer to the executive government over a 8 attern) AS leave our coast for bel- igerent purposes. But if we were by treaty or by law of the realm to impose such further obligations as I have just mentioned, and if we, as a ship build- ing country, engaged to stop unarmed vessels from Jeavi our coast, that would be a dangerous obiiga- tion into which her Majesty's government ougiit not to enter. Another suggestion las been made with regard to the Alabama claims and our dierences with America, It is understood to have been made by Mr, Seward—namely, that every other question with to which We have had controversies with the United States as to the meaning of treaties and the occupation of territory should be considered at the same time, and that we should come, if possible, to some agreement on all these points. i be- lieve that to be @ very wise and practicable su; tion, and at all events we should endeavor to settle all these matters, My lords, | will now ask my noble friend how soon the report of the Neutrality Com- mission will be laid on the table. The LonD CRANCELLOR—This time last year, as the noble earl has stated, a royal commission was ap- to inquire into and consider the character, ‘working and effect of the laws of this realm avail- able for the enforcement of neutrality during the existence of hostilities in other, States with whom her Majesty is at peace, and further to report what, if ought to be made to give them in: Ps A and bring them into full con- fo with her Majesty's invernational obligations, ae The other question put by the nobie lord is af to correspondence which may have tal een her Mi ‘8 government and of the United States in reference and other claims, There is no cor- reages nent to that which has been oe eee i am Mvanting 1h courtes or respect if follow him into the somewhat large and Sead ate oat rpc, at raat the head of the F om a opinion in the pro- Baaepieces jon muc! sien Seca jat_ which was emi- of rela- : . NEW tion of these claims. If I rightly understand the noble earl, the doubts which he suggested as to ar- bitration of that kind were really ry ine The noble earl, a8 I understood him, said that the case regards these claims was an ex- tremely clear one, and that we were not le in any way or manner in which the United contended we were chargeable. It is no reason for declining arbitration that you have an extremely ood case to submit to the arbitrators. On the con- ry, | think that would berather a reason why we should not shrink from having the case all ageinst us referred to a tribunal of that kind. The other objection which the noble earl mentioned was this—he said there was a controversy on a matter of fact at the pete Onmmencement of the claim which American government. He stated , Adams had contended that armed ships ports of this country, whereas Lord Clarendon had taken issue on that point and had ae- of 3 Boson to be referred to arbitra- re to mind your lordships exactly how they now stand. As the noble lord the Secre of State said elsewhere, we have now conceded t which in ae a \—that that there shall be arbitration a8 ility of the government of this country to the claims in question. But and since ea Bi reanaighien our part, in government rol Forel; Minister, have made a further demand, ana they re not merely that we stance the American government is to say, to the 1 with or improperly tn recognizing the at the time this coun- try so recognized them. In answer to that the argu- ment of my noble friend has been so simple, and I venture to say 80 conclusive, that in a very few sen- tences I will remind your lordships of it. “My noble friend contended in the first ae that that question is altogether irrelevant to the claims arising out of the case of the Alabama and of other ships, and irrele- vant for this reason: it has never been disputed on either side that there was a time at which, beyond all doubt, the recognition of the United States as bel- ligerents must have been proper and necessary on the part of this country. (Hear, hear.) If we take that time—it matters little whether it be a month sooner or later—about the month of July, or the date of the battle of Bull run, then it would be many months before the time at which the Alabama left this country, which was in the April foliowing. Next, my noble friend has contended that, according to the priciples of international law, According to all authorities on international law, according to the authorities re- cognized by the United States government itself, the question whether a neutral Power shall at any particular time recognize a state of war between two Powefs which are actually at war is a matter entirely to be decided by the neutral Power itself, and that there are no data upon which any arbitrator or independent tribunal can be called upon to pro- nounce whether the recognition was proper or was improper. Thirdly, my noble friend has contended— and this, perhaps, will be quite sufficient even if there were no other argument in the case—that be- fore the government of this country recognized the Southern States as belligerents the government of the United States itself had recognized the Southern States in that copecly, by declaring the blockade of their ports, which could be declared only upon the footing that a state of war existed. My noble friend has pointed out that if the question were to be re- opened it would go further than the United States has proposed, because it would entitle us to claim compensation for all captures made by the United States government of ships that were breaking the blockade. That is the stage at which the negotiations—I hope only for the Oop have come to a halt. The noble earl referred, in words which I am sure would find a response in the minds of all your lordships, to the character, great eminence and ability of the distinguished statesman who has so long the Minister to this country of YORK ost direct and open manner, A or two later ie of in eh he yiekied ‘onieman in ®., ssaniieeie designed. to ni a himself the of the raily round all friends English Church a liberal use of the ism that the Irish crisis was more properly an and the maintenance of the Es- f the Church of England. haa been evoked by this ay sernint Sis sat cp sta tasers upon ai Blaniey's amendment breathes asks only that the eeeatan of disestablishment or disendowment should be reserved for of @ new Parliament. The London Times adds:—“We are reluctant to say that Lord Stanley’s amend: or, more has fathered, strictly, the amendment Lord is but there is no other word applicable to it. government have sought to escape from a suuael position by the dexterous use of ambiguous wo! Church Rates Abolition—The Catholic and Presbyterian Collegiate Education. In the House of Lords on the 26th ultimo the Com- ulsory Church Rates Abolition bill was read for the rst time, and the second reading was fixed for the 80th of March. f. In the House of Commons on the same evening Mr. Fawcett gave notice that at an early day after Easter, he should move the following resolution:— - in the opinion of this House the Roman Catholi hie rians end other inhabitants of Ireland ought ‘DS Presb; to be placed upon an squall jrith those of the Ketablished Church, and that all the fe ps, professorships and scolarships of Trinity College, Dublin, should be removed, Mr. Fawcett said he intended a!so to move for a select committee with the view of administering and arrang- ing the revenues of that college, so that it should more properly fulfil the functions of a national university. ‘The House went into committee on the army esti- mates, and a number of votes were agreed to with- out discussion. ‘The British Volunteers, On the volunteer vote an interesting conversation arose in the House of Commons, during which ur- gent appeals were made to the government for fur- ther assistance, in support of which it was alleged that additional aid was indispensably necessary, in- asmuch as many of the most efficient volunteers, especially among the artisan classes, were unable to bear the expense thrown upon them, more particu- larly for renewals of uniform, and that many of the officers were compelled to make good any deficien- cies in the peeiens grant. Sir John Pakington indignantly repudiated the tn- sinuation that the government was indifferent to the volunteer movement. On the contrary, they felt the utmost admiration for the zeal and Dacian of the volunteers, and if they hadconsulted their personal inclinations they would have readily complied with the applications made to him; but they were obliged to consider the demands which at the present time were made upon the public purse, and to take into consideration the increased amount of the estimates this year. Brillinnt Reception by Madame Disraeli—Mr. Adams Obtains a Grand Citizen Chance. On the evening of the 25th of March the Premier and Mrs. Disraeli held a grand reception in that wing of the new government ofices in Downing street, London, which will in the future be devoted to the purposes of the Foreign Office. The affair was of a most brilliant description and the occasion of the eee together of the principal notabilities of the British metropolis, The Prince and Princess of Wales, the Duke of Cambridge and the principal for- eign ambassadors, including Mr. Adams, United States Minister, were present during the evening. This was the first reception given by Mr. Disraeli since his election to the post of Premier. The Cotton Trade. On the 26th ult. a numerous deputation represent- ing all branches of the cotton trade, and headed by Mr. Bazley, M. P. for Manchester, waited on the Duke of Richmond, President of the English Board of Trade, to again urge the government Lo introduce into Parliament a bill providing for the periodical collection and publication of cotton stafistics. Various arguments were adduced in support of the movement. The Duke of Richmond concurred in the United States, and whose departure from this country in that capacity we ail, 1 am sure, ee: regret, (Hear, hear.) I could not help being mucl struck by some observations made that very emi- nent person a few days ago. Speal on the sub- ject which has now occupied your lor: ips’ atten- tion, Mr. Adams is red to have said:—“The sum of all true diplomacy is to be found in the Christian maxim of do! to your neighbor that which you would he should do to’ you, and where the will is ood & way of arrangement is sure ultimately to be found.” My icrds, | think we have shown substan- tially that our will for the adjustment of this dim- culty is good, Iam willing to take according to the letter wpat Mr. Adams states of the will and inclina- tion of the American government. It will be strange, indeed, my lords, if ay that state of mind on both sides an ment of this aiaoutiy does not before long preseut itself, (Hear, hear.) Lord WestsBurY (the whole of whose remarks could not be distinctly heard) wished to offer a few observations, which, he said, would be elicited by the regret he felt that these negotiations for arbitra- tion been suspended for atime. He thought they were suspended under some misapprehension of the nature of the claim intended to be brought forward by the United States. It was extremely desirable to ascertain with accuracy what ought to be the condition of the arbitration. In the discussion of this matter we often heard the hrase ‘international law” and “breach of interna- ional law.’ No word could be more inappropriate toexpress the mutual obligations between nations than the word ‘daw,” for there was no law what- ever. There were, however, certain rules which had been om nag to by civilized nations, and ~which derived their authority and force merely from the consent of their governments. Throughout the whole of these discussions false notions were inci- dentally suggested by the use of the phrase “inter- national law.” = ‘The Lord Chancellor wished to correct two errors into which his noble and learned friend had inad- vertently fallen and which, if left unnoticed, might create some misapprehension elsewhere, His novle and learned friend had put a very ingenious con- straction upon the demand made on the part of the United States government by Mr. Seward. All he could say was that the explanation which his noble and learned friend had o: had never been given by Mr. Seward himself, and for this very good rea- son, that if all that was desired was that the pre- mature recognition, as it was termed, af a state of belligerency was to be made a topte af evidence be- Sore the arbitrator gotng to support claims in other respects, that was nota thing to be stipulated for beforehand, It was a question for the arbitrator Who was the judge of what was relevant and what was not. It was a thing unheard of that a submis- sion to arbitration should contain a reference to What was to be adduced in evidence before the ar- bitrator. The other error he desired to correct was the statement of his noble and learned friend that the negotiations had broken off. The exact point at which they stood was this:—Mr. Seward’s last com- meuenication contained a propose! in somewhat gene- rat terms of a commission to inquire into all the claims. His noble friend had requested Mr. Seward to describe more accurately what would be ainved at by that commission and hg was now awaiting Mr. Seward'sexplanation, (Hear, hear.) Premier Disraeli on the Church Crisis—Cabi- met Attempt at a “No Popery” Agitation— The Union of Church and State. When the Australasian left Liverpool the position taken by Mr. Disraeiiin regard to the Irish Church was producing a cry of ‘No Popery” in some quarters, and the following letter, addressed by the Premier to Lord Dartmouth, as President of the National Union of Conservatives and the Constitu- tional Associations, was attracting attention. He says:— 10 Downing StRERT, March 2, 1858, My Lonp—I have received with pride and gratitude the memorial of the Connell of the National Union of the Con- stitutional Associations conn that body, in which thay express their confidence in me and their thorough deter- mination to support by all means in their power the govern- ment I have formed by the command and with the approval of her Majesty. Such expressions of feeling on the part of {otuential bodies of my countrymen are enovuragingly oppor une. We have heard something lately of the erieis of Ire- laud. Th my opinion the erists of England ts rather at hand; for the purpose 's now avowed, and that by = powerful party, of destroying tbht. sacred unjon between Church and Sta! which has hitherto been the chief means of our civilisation and ts the only security for our religious Uberty, Ihave the honor to remain, my lord, yours, aincerely, B. DISRAELI. The Right Honorable the Earl of DanTMoUTH. Disraeli Endorsed by Lord Derby. Viscount Nevill forwarded for publication the fol- lowing letter, addressed by Lord Derby to the Earl of Dartmouth, in reference to a resolution y See en of Conservative and Constitu- A clations, ex, ‘egre' ment from public | ce bya ea: St. Jamra’ 8 jarch 1988. Mx LonD—I have to ucknowledge witty the treaiee tude the address which your lordab fhe ranemitting to me oi vebaif of the National Union and merous constitutional associations whose names are annexed, kindly ex from “dance, ert ope thee self compelle Soveret to whose a devted; and fo sever my official connect 4 muied uy, lom with a party sthich for so many years Uns honoreg is confidence, well as political regard, It wam bow I tw Tee to be empowered to transter the whee Binh no Wwenty years, and who, I ou will prove himself not unmindful of thoee great stitational ne wi it has been the study of my life Uphold, and to which, so far'aa tay health will pagia) eee apt gases to Give may ernest unofficial tupport.” Ihave the honor to be, my lord, your obiiged and faithha sery DERBY, ‘The Earl of DastuovtH. The Cabinet “Change of Front *—Cause an Danger of the Movement, of the Oabinet tact! @ change of ‘rom cept in Canes of extreme necessity. Mr. Disraeli has more than ‘once this axiom as f= Arue in political Mr. Disraecli'’s administration yeatera: Stanley" movement is entirely at variance with Mr. Dis els vious statements of the policy of the Cabinet. At he ie el of the woek Mr. Disraeli deciared his inten: to meet Ms, Gladstone's reaviutious iu a the opinion that the subject was one of great import- ance, and intimated his intention to bring the matter befoce the Zabinet, with whom its treatment must rest. THE COURTS. SUPREME COURT—GENERAL TERM. The Erie Litigntion—Conclusion of the Argue ment on the Appeals. Before Judes Barnard, Ingraham and Cardozo. Yesterday morning Mr. David Dudley Field ap- peared at the Supreme Court, General Term, before Jué@ges Barnard, Ingraham and Cardozo, to close the argument on the appeals from orders made at Special ‘Term in the great Erie Ratlway litigation. ‘Tie main tion of this =, was, of course, devoted to e discussion of the principal appeal, which was that taken from the order of Mr. Justice Barnard appoint- ing George A. Osgood receiver of the proceeds of $10,000,000 worth of Erie stock, alleged to have been issued in violation of an injunction. Mr. Field argued that if the proceenies: on which the appomtment of Mr. Osgood was made were reg- Alar his opponents should have directed some por- tion of their ee to maintaining this point on the preceding day. Mr. Charles A. Rapallo objected to Mr. Field rais- ing this question now, as under the ruling of the court on Tuesday they were restricted as to the time to be devoted to the argument, and it was not fair to call upon tem now to go further on that question. Mr. Field resumed, and argued that the appoint- ment of the receiver was made without proper grounds, and it was an unusual exercise of the power of the court, even if Mr. Skidmore, on ‘whom the papers were served in court, could be con- sidered as representing the Erie Rallway Company, Mr. Skidmore had never been charged with havi possession of the money, and the affidavits showe that the company never had it, and the order was made without notice to any person in whose pos- session the funds then were, Still, if the parties who had the money were then before the court no case for the appointment of a receiver had been made out. Plaintiff acknowledged that the stock charged to have been issued in excess was issued in conversion of bonds which had been issued for the purposes of the company, and such iasue of bonds was allowed by the general railroad law. But it was said to have been issued in violation of an injunction. Now, was it the injunction in the suit of the ple, or was it some other injunction? It would be a new doctrine to assert that a violation of an injunction in one suit may be avenged by the plaintiff in an- other suit when the parties to that suit do not com- plain, There was no evidence to show that the stock was issued in violation of the injunction in the Schell suit, The statute provided that there must be a regular contempt proceedt to punish for the violation of an Injunction, and it could not be grounds for the appointment of a receiver in any case, But without any reference to the merits of the pevooeang the injunction granted by Judge Clerke, and which was brought to the notice of the court and counsel on the day the order was made was an insuperable obstacle; that injunction was treated with contemptuous disregard, and had it not been for the discretion of counsel the court would have vacated the order at once, instead of ee it. But to go back to the 14th of March, and consider what occurred on the proceedings in the matter of the attachment of Mr. Diven. Counsel were not then thinking of anything further, as, the attachment hav- ing been served, the proceeding was out of One of the counsel then rose in his place and said, “L now ask for an order to show cause why @ sup- plemental complaint should not be filed anda re- celver appointed.”’ Mr. Rapallo su ted that it be madi returnable on Monday morning, but the court said, “Let it be made returnable forthwith,” and thereupon the Papers, and without examining them inserted the word “forthwith,” and handed them back. Coun- sel then handed the papers to Mr, Skid- more, who was arranging his bail with the Sheriff, and in less time than one could walk across the room three times Judge Barnard said, “Draw up an order appointing George A. Osgood receiver, with feecurity tr ten imifitons, of dotlarse ss Mr. Field concluded by saying that it was for the court to say whether such a ti should be lished as the rule of the court. But the law of the jand had something to say on that subject; the tice of the courte something to do with it; the due order of Judicial Pee 2 ‘was involved in the bears and the reapect which the law-loving and law-abi jt aes this State should feel for the miniaters of )' would depend in no small bey upon their decision. A e court then took the papers, reserving its de- cision. ‘SUPREME COURT—CHAMBERS. ‘The Gould Contempt Case—Important Ques- tion Concerning a Chair—Judge Barnard Declines to Hear the Case. Before Judge Barnard. A large erowd of persons assembled yesterday afternoon in the Supreme Court, Circuit room, in an- ticipation of further developments in the contempt proceedings against Jay Gould, one of the directors of the Erie Railway Company, who had been st tached for violation of the injunction in the suit of Schell versus Erie Rail pt ged commits rf , tiom by the defendant tn the issue of about cot foom, as it was expected that Field would be placed the witness would the of the incident in the ron AL B, Haskin, in the HARALD poe Many nN om. wail is and word on hand and & time was 0x. ‘as it was belle’ all be to renew the tm; contest the preceding day, « Barnard taking his seat Mr. Horace F. Clark asked the ¢.urt to direct one of the oficefs to him a chair. Judge Barnard repited that he did not think Mr. Clark would require a chair, as on consultation with some gentioman whom he had a right to consult he (Judge Harnaru) bad determined that tastoad of tis "athe. Courtethe testimony. t of 1e Ul mon: “Judge” Haskin ix was,’ to use the language of a gentleman I have just left, outrageous and scan- dalous, and should be stricken out as @ mark of re- spect for the court. rar. Pie: inquired whether the whole of it was to be stricken out, Fy Barnard—Yes, the whole of it. ark thought they were entitled to suck por- tions of the cee onr as were relevant, Eimony-the tesumouy of Ai. awards, some testiinony— . Edwari Peseeeeecen wana to know whether his Honor would make any order in reference to that. Judge Barnard—If the counsel appearing for the people desired to examine Mr. Edwards on affidavit they could do so, the same as the other witnesses. Mr. Pierrepont asked what was to be done with the testimony already taken; was it to be wasted? Judge Barnard—It will be stricken out, not wasted, Mr. Pierrepont wished to know whether the court declined to let them go on with the examination of Mi ee tieaet Yes, sir, I do. udge |—Yes, sir, I do. Mr. Pierrepont aid that on the examination of Mr. Haskin, yesterday, that gentleman had testified to circumstances connected with @ conversation be- tween himself and Mr. Dudley Field, and he thought it would be only proper that Mr. Field should have the same op poEaniat: of panne his public state- Vv ment of that affair as had been given to Mr. Haskin, and they were entitled to that as a matter of right and justice, Mr, Clark regretted that Mr. Field was not to be allowed to go on the witness stand as he desired ag earnestly as Mr. Pierrepont did to have the oppor- tunity of examining Mr. Field. Mr. Pierrepont sald that was what he wanted. Judge Barnard stated that that was what he did not want. He had already been busily engaged during the day in the other court room, and did not intend to sit here to eae rtinent curiosity. Mr. Clark said he catled Mr. Haskin yesterday as & witness to ask him no questions that were not rele- vant tothe contempt case, There had been testi- mony adduced on that examination which was scan- dalous, but he had not brought it out and was not responsible for it. All that remained to be done now was that his Honor should appoint some honorable, high minded man, against whom each party should have no objection, before whom this examination could be had, so that either party might have the right toan ex parte examination. He thought Mr. Brady and himself could agree upon some such suit- able person as referee. Judge Barnard said an examination of the par- ties before a referee was not necessary, until such time as the witness refused to give his testimony. In regard to the examination of Mr. Field, he (Mr. Field) could make his affidavit ex parte, and would have the same publicity given to his testimony as had been given to that taken enteren, Mr. Brady said he appeared this afternoon exclu- sively to attend to the examination of Mr. Field, Of course he had had no notice on his side of the case that there had been any conference between his Honor and other eminent gentlemen as to what course should be taken, He had come to take charge of Mr. Fields’ case, and as regards whatever had happened he took the whole resonsibility of it. it belonged to him exclusively—every quesiion, every suggestion, as it would also belong to him hereafter. He simply asked now that Mr. Field have the oppor- tunity to be heard in the matter publicly, as the other witnesses had been. . Mr. Clark, in reply, said that he would give Mr. eee @ promise that if he lived he (Mr. Bree) should have the opportunity of examining Mr. Field before a reteree, if they could saree upon a gentleman who should be acceptable, and concluded by asking the court that an order be entered which would enable them to secure the attendance of Mr. Jay Gould on the examination to be had, or he might not be in cus- tody when required for the pur of the case. One of the judges of the Court of Common Pleas had issued a writ of habeas corpus requiring cause to be shown why Mr. Gouid should be held to bail, and after having him brought before the court had him committed to the custody of an officer of the Court of Common Pleas, who had let him runaway. Mr. Gould did not appear before that court yesterday on the hearing of that case, but was reported to be in Albany. He merely desired, ao far as he was con- cerned, that nothing sliould be wanting to compel the parties to answer for this extraordinary effort to bring into contempt the administration of justice in this great State. Judge Barnard, in reply to Mr. Field, who asked for the appointment of a referee, said that he had made the only order in the case he would make to- day, and thaf the matter would now stand adjourned until Thursday next at three o'clock P. M. ‘The crier adjourned the court, and the large (and largely disappointed) audience withdrew. The Dissolution of the Erie Injunctions to be Argued To-Day. Before Judge Sutherland, Richard Schell vs. The Erie Railway Company et al., éc.—A number of motions in the Erie litigation were on the calendar of this court yesterday, and on this case being called Mr. Dudley Field answered, “Ready for the motion.” Mr. Vanderpoel, who appeared on behalf of the Vanderbilt party, stated that he was not prepared to proceed owing to the absence of some of the counsel associated with him, Mr. Fullerton being then en- way in trying a case at the Circuit, and he wished to know whether his Honor would reach this case in its regular order. Mr. Field said he understood there wi bout six- teen counsel engaged on Mr. Apt ae ide of the case, and he did not think that the absence of one of them was a reason why the case should be adjourned. Judge Sutherland said the case then before him, and which was unfinished from the Paine day, would occupy about two hours, and that another sone Her ready which would occupy the remainder of the day. Mr. Field asked that the motions might be set down for to-day, when Mr. Vanderpoel desired to know whether the court intended to sit on Good Friday. The court said that Judge Ingraham had said that Chambers was sometimes held on Good Friday, but he could not teil whether such holding of court re- ferred to litigated motions, After a little further colloquial exercise, in which allusions were made to the court over which Pontius Pilate presided on the day of which this 1s the anni- yersary, the motions were placed on the calendar for to-day. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS—CHAMBERS. The Erie Litigation—The Gould Contempt Case—Habeas Corpus Proceedings. Before Judge Barrett. The People ex rel. Jay Gould vs. The Sherif’ of the City and County af New York.—This case, which was adjourned owing to the absence of the relator, came up for hearing this morning at the sitting of the court. Messrs. Burrill, D. Dudley Field and J. T. Brady were counsel for Mr. Gould, and Messrs, Ful- lerton, Vanderpoel and Rapailo for the Sheritf. Mr. Vanderpoel inquired whether Mr. Gould was in court, Mr. Burrill observed that he did not know whether regal the court had been informed with rd to Mr. Gould being detained by illness, The Couri—That matter was referred fo yester- day, and affidavits were read in corroboration of the tatement. Mr. Burrill said that all that could be done was to let the matter stand over until Mr. Gould could be got here. Mr. Gould, owing to his illness, was not in a condition to leave Albany. The other side of course had @ right to decline proceeding with the investigation in his absence. He did not know whether the other side disputed the fact of Mr. Gouid’s illness. Mr. Van l—We dispute the right of Mr. Gould to leave the jurisdiction of the court. jurrill read the statute to the effect that sick- hysiclans attending him. He asked me whether he fie officer) should come to New York to make a statement to that effect. el relve o'clock at night. I mmodintely ta twelve o' nl to the officer, si that he peaked = eyo , that I wi a ae i: SY New Yor a soo in Broper_ to come go he would pegiving up the of Mr. I therefore di Tag da e wrong and by way of making amends, nod fe prove hig wine: , and if he wished atate- sec tet nia yeas oa poe ek himself, As the officer returns I ‘ he cus! ition in the wh Position ta ts mi take the itody. meine Very ones case Was adjousned till urday morning. ery After UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT—IN BANKRUPTCY, Sati Important Detision—A Bankrupt Charged with Swearing Falsely as to His Property—His for Discharge Refused. Before Judge Blatchford. Mr Me Matter af Witiam D. Hi, Bankrupt.— ens HpTEET 5 i lly sworn falsely 18 aMdavit annexed to his inventory of property, t on his examination bofore the Regis, im tue g5 4 HERALD, FRIDAY, APRIL 10, 1868—TRIPLE SHEET. and has made a fraudulent or transfer of TODAEIY $0, his wife, contrary to the provisions of Cooke and Lounsbury for bankrupt; W. Lawton for Petitions Filed Yesterday. Charles P. h a ,_onee. Poughkeepsie, Dutohess county. Stoner 8. ‘tt, New York city—Referred to Re- Edward Behrard, New York city—Referred to Re- gister Dayton. re Joseph Kem; and bee eo. Veg? pion Revaposet, New York ol rred I wdiert - ‘Hood, New Yo ork city—Referred to Regis- Joseph Murphy, New Y« —] P te Tetchon iy, New York city—Referred to Regis- SUPREME COURT—GENERAL TERM. The Right of Citizens to See the Public Records Denied—Tho Cornell Mandamus Reversed. Before Judges Barnard, Ingraham and Sutherland. The People, ex rel. Henry, vs, Charles G. Cornell, Street Commissioner, éc.—Yesterday, the appeal made by Mr. O'Gorman, Corporation Counsel, from the order made by Judge Barnard granting to a citizen the right to inspect the papers in the office of Street Commissioner Cornell came on to be heard. It will be remembered that on September 6, 1866, Mr. Richard M, Henry, a member of the Citizens’ Asso- ciation, apy d in’ the Supreme Court and made an affidavit that he had applied to the Street Com- missioner for leave to see and inspect certain con- tracts in the Street Department relating to the public works ofthe city and that the Street Commissioner refused to allow him to inspect them. Judge Bar- nard thereupon ited &@ mandamus requiring the Street Commissioner to permit Mr. Henry to see those contracts or show cause to the contrary to the court. The Street Com! pemraunesred im court and made an affidavit admftting that he had charge of the contracts for the benefit of the city and its citizens; that Mr. Henry had asked to see all the contracts for the year 1863; that he (the Street Commissioner) was fearful that the records in his oMlce might be destroyed if any citizen could come in apd see them whenever he chose; also that it would keep a larger number of clerks and more office room to accommo- date such persons, if their right to see the contracts was established, Judge Barnard, however, decided that the Street Commissioner was bound to show the contracts in his office to Mr. Henry, thus establishing the right of any citizen to examine the public acts and records of the city offictals. Mr, O’Gorman ap- pealed from Judge Barnard’s decision, and the argu- ment of appre was heard yesterday morning. Cor- poration Counsel O’Gorman appeared for the late Street Commissioner, Mr. Cornell, and Joseph F. Daly, the counsel of the Citizens’ Association, ap- peared in support of the decision. After full argument the court reversed the order below, thus deciding that the citizens had not the right to such inspection. Richard O’Gorman for ap- peillants; J. F. Daly for respondent, ‘The Gas Contract of the Common Council—The Injunction Appealed From. Christopher Pullman vs, Tlie Mayor, &c., the Com- mon Council and the Street Commissioner.—In 1866 the Common Council of this city passed over the Mayor's veto a resolution directing the Street Com- missioner, Charles G. Cornell, to advertise for propo- sals and make a contract to supply the city with gas. From the terms of the resolution and other facts it was understood that this contract was to be made with some new gas company and fora long period. Mr. Pullman, who was then a member ol the Common Council, protested against this resolu- tion, on the ground that it would authorize and was intended to authorize @ contract for twenty years, bindi: bs Cee NY pees poe one fe vee) for a supply of gas; that at the then high price of gas and coal (1866) it would be wasteful and ruinous to make a twenty years contract. Finally Mr. Pull- man, failing to stop the scheme in the Common Council, applied to the Supreme Court for an in- junction to resi moe of such a contract. Judge ard oe the injunction, this injunction has been held ever since. Mr. "Gorman, the Corporation Counsel, who opposed the injunctiod in the first instance, now brings an ap- from it to the General Term, and the argument on it was had to-day before afull bench (Judges In- graham, Cardozo and Barnard), Mr. O’Gorman ued on behalf of the Common Council that Mr. Pullman had no standing in court os no fight to bring this suit and obtain the injunction, becanse. the act of the Legislature which authorized him to brifg the sult was unconstitutional. Mr. Charles Tracy and Mr. Joseph F. Daly, for Mr. Pullman, argued in favor of ne the injunction and in support of the law of 1864 (chapter $06), under which any member of the Common Council or other citizen may proceed to suit to restrain any unlaw!ul waste of the public moneys. The court reserved its decysion. R. O'Gorman for the city; Charles Tracy and J. F. Daly for the respondent. . SUPREME COURT—SPECIAL TERM. The Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Rail- road Controversy=A Receiver of the Pro- ceeds of the New Stock Appointed. Before Judge Cardozo. James Fisk, Jr., v8. The Chicago, Rock Island ana Pacific Railroad Company et al.—Judge Cardozo yes- terday rendered the following opinion and decision on the motions in this case, which were argued bvefore him about two weeks since:— Cardozo, J,-I shall not follow the counsel over the extended fleld of discussion in which they indulged on argument of the motions in these cases, The statement of a wh few plain and well recognized propositions is all that 1s necessary to dispose of the questions pe involved, My views may be briefly expressed as follows:- a ‘irst—Even if my reflection and examination led me to a different opinion (which they do not), I should not feel at liberty to deny the existence of the juris- diction which tt is sought to have the court entertain in these actions, since the point has been fully and distinetly decided by the General Term of this court jn Grifith vs, Scott, cited on the argument. My views accord with that decision; but in any event I should consider myself bound to follow it. In tnat case Judge Ingraham said, “I think there can be no doubt but that a citizen of this State can maintain an action against a foreign ap ere for any cause connected with the recovery of or protection to his property or rights in said corporation.” Judge Leon- ard in the same case held that this court ‘‘ not the power to remove or appoint the trustees or directors of a fore! corporation, but it can enjoin their action when illegal or when acting fraudulently or unlawfully if they are personally within our juris- diction.” These reinarks are apposite to the present suit@ and dispose of the point aa to jurisdiction raised by the defendants’ counsel. Second—The issue of forty-nine thousand shares complained of was ultra vires, Neither the corpora- tion nor its directors had in any view the right to make certificates purporting to represent capital stock, which had not in fact been subscribed and paid for, and to put them in the market as stock and sell them below par. If they might do so and sell them at a disconnt of one or two cent, they might sell them at fifty per cent or any greater discount. It is not a question of good faith or of honest inten- tion or of wise policy or skiifal or di manage- ment upon the part of the directors; it is question of wer, Every r issued purporting to represent Broek which hi in fact no ex! 08 ‘was a false cer- tificate, and the directors were not authorized to make false certificates. No such power attaches to their office, and the stockholders have the right to complain that Thaw have ®@ power which was not confet upon them. These views con- ling the case are so familiar that they do not uire the Saamiee i. authorities 4 support Lo si oration. The certificates do not purport to repre- gent stock of 7 Yi Le pe renee bythe lows, but assume to represent stock consolidi W that company, consisting tion and the one formed under the laws of Ili The latter State, therefore, has te as much con- trol of the present matter as the of Iowa. Cer- tainly the act of either alone will not aid the defend- te otpourth—I se no reason why injunction should restrain have issued to wl except so me * the s Re t are Nass oped ransfer 0 was op sae prossote Eeounn Ta by tne ours prot ¢ company against the holders of the faise wo —- itto retire them; but nothing is disclosed in papers Which satisfies me that it is either ir or nevces- to prevent dealings in the genuine stock, or to interfere. with the business of the corporation except to the extent I have mentioned. ee the motions to attach the de- fendants, I have only to remark that 1 do not think that any branch of the in has been estab- lished by the afidavits si itted to me calling for Smith (the ugh ea a any present on. ar ar from with aes Chamberlain) juirin, shares, hi Gimreaneniee waters Gave ited receiver shall ‘ately in the ap States Trust Bouveny and the Unisa ‘Trust will be costa in the actions and abide the event of the 0 order 6 with views and containing such ions as ‘be desmed to them into effect will ent. Ordered accordingly. COURT CALENOAR—THIS DAY. UNITRD States Disraior OouRT--IN ADMIRALTY. — Nos. 24, 25, 2, 30, 31, 32, 3d. Scrnnus CouRt—CaAMBHAS Nom. 77, 101, 104, 122, 124, 125, 120, 127, 837, 139, 147, 148, 151, + Eneiee mreutrin 2s REAL ESTATE MA - Sales in New York and Brooklyn Yesterday. Yesterday showed something of a revival in real estate operations, the attendance at the anction marts, both in this city and Brooklyn, being consla- erable. The general features of the market remain about the same—prices ‘fair, bidding moderate and an increasing indifference, foreboding an carty of the season, being the main charac tbclow are given te, salen nti Bi |. BLEECKER, BON AND 00, Manston and 4 ‘Spuyten Di mone Bouse and A oad age 2T 0 each 35x Brown stone house aud lot, 115 ¥ iinet MeDermod., 1 lot m9 82d at, 200 ft-e Lith av, 2: No wasiogot ita asi 0 are, No 16 Last Broadway, lot x70. lots ma L1dth a, 00 9 of 10th No TH St Mast’s place, 1ot Wiig bioe 100, ‘AND 00, lot 27. BROOKLYN PROPERTY. The following sales were made yesterday at New York Exchange Salesroom:— BY JOHNSON AND MILLER. 5 tote m # of 8d place, 100 fe from Court BY MULLER, WILKINS AND 00. Bulldings and lotan w sor iin ‘and Cedar sts, 41x69...80,008 1 lot ne cor Boulevard and 107th st, 27.2%74. 5,e00 Slots ng, cach 26.113103, each. 4008 1iot 1 ie ia i 5 Jlot i Llot Bix 1 4 low each flow joining, ‘each $5x100.11, each. i 8 lots adjoining, each 5xi00.11, each. 1 4iots ining each 25x100.11, eact PY lot s w cor ‘ay and 108th at, 2k 1 Jot adjoining, 25.2x100..... 3 2 lots adjoining, each 26.dxi\ Wy 8 lots adjoint 1 1 lot adjoinin, 1 lot, se cor 1,308 2 lots adjoini 1210 1 lot adjoint 138 2 lots adjoin! 1,26 2 lots, ne cor 107 x Liot, ns With yan 1 lot,n 8 1u7th at, 74 ft © of Boulevard, 25xi00.11. Sue 1 lot'adjoining. 1 lot adjoining. Llot adjoint 165 1 lot adjoining. 1,500 4 lots adjoining, each. . 13m 4 lots adjoint 1,855 4 lots adjoining, each. 1,280 4 lots adjoining, each. ya whe wn S18 th trom ‘Pi a rom Pierrepon QA Butler, eacb.....2..004 RS * frame houses and lots, Nos 45 and 47 Middagh and Cranberry ste, plot Stx100, N’ Fannéliy-14 Qstory frame house and lol, No 872'Pacife st, lot 16.5x110, P Searie: 1,925 House and jot the same size as the above J Jones. 3,908 plot T3100, 36,600 ‘ark pl Brown ttone'touse and lot 295 Court st, between Carroll, and President ste, lot 22.6190) It Hirai Three story brick house and i from Smith st, R A Gray. ‘The following sales were Toom, Brooklyn:— Brick house and lot 34 Washington st, 175 ‘son Bt, lot 16,5x7 Panne Four gores and one frame house Three lots on e's of Howard av, corner of Dougias et, and lot on corn iit ava, lot JSackson. Two brick dwellings and lots ‘alb av, Mr Martin, each. Brick dwelling and lot on the nsof De Kalbav 80 ft from Clermont av, lot 20x80, J Jaok: Brick house and lot No 75 Hamilton lot 18.9x100, B Gates. ....-+..+++: Two atory brick house and jot on the ns of Gates av, 165 tt w of Maroy av, lot 20x100, T Finney. Three story brown stone house and lote ft sof Greene av, lot 20x90, D Glacking. One lot om the es of Houston st, 424 ft n ay, 20x100, A Scranello... ‘Two story frame hi 908 td 10,500 000 ose and lot, we ‘of ‘Bedford ‘av, 40 nof Van Buren st, lot 20x90, Mr Sweeny. and bs Pulaski st, GGG STTTEG frame house and lot No 6 North 6th st, 6) ft jot 26x100, Herman Graff. lots on ihe « w cor of Bedford av Brick howe and lot No $i Siaie st, 40% from Boad ai, jot 29,6x100, 8 J Hoppets.......+..2- ‘Three story brick house and Cheaver pl, lot 20x75, Ann Hignett Three story ‘brick house and Hot r e house et 88 Schetmerborn ‘st, cor 8, 40 ft on Lafayetio av ‘on Kosclusko st, 160 ft from Bedford av, B Three story brick house and lot 11 W Baitio at, 305 ft from. ‘Clinton st, lot 21.2x99.10, J Brandon. Two atory frame house and lot 81 Or: lot 25x108, Mr Hill. rt hi Ta Tee gae aoe Oficial Transfers of Real Estate. We give below a list of the official transfers and leases recorded yesterday in this city, Kings county, N. Y., and Hudson county, N. J., and in Weatchester county on Wednesday :— % TRANSFERS IN NEW YORK CITY. bGEGEEE 3% Hi E 3uth st, No 333, Mad sth ry W 10h si nee 4 eis er mini 4 Bist at a9, 10a 14500 Bath ot, 8, 20 ‘Nomina 36th at! n 8, 40,006 lst st, omy ‘6,008 $84 at, 08, 287, ‘3008 Gist at, 8 6, 881.6 10,500 Bada 407 260 70 iaoo Bath’ st, hs, 68 w 1208 we Both st) nm 78 fe ane ft Anew STE usm 33h: Hi LEAGR® RECORD Kent and Little Nassau ste, 252) TRANOPERG IN ¥ Ix BROOKLYN. 1 FORE. .6. Mercer st, 9 whet beer) 5 3 "4 : Gilbert at, 96: Balroad av, Y fot w of ailber + 8, 95x100. .. 0 bios 8 Madson Grove, 2100 13 and 14, seine. troae Tota, 7 and 6, block G, each Sai eee isiae rosty's peed Benedict's, 60x—. mgr tote af, Hoc exch ab10 Washi by 7 an 4 + 6 ‘TRANGF! UNTY ON WEDH! Ramin ae