The New York Herald Newspaper, October 16, 1869, Page 3

WASHINGTON. THE ROTHSCHILD LOAN. Negotiations Carried On with the President in Person. Interesting Discoveries of Ancient jaces in Arizona, The Yerger Case in the Supreme Court. WASHINGTON, Oct. 15, 1869, Tho Rothschilds’ Offer of a Loan to the Gove ernwentLotter from M, Friguet~ President Grant Conducting the Negotiation. A short time since a statement appeared in the Washington correspondence of the HERALD that an agent of the great banking firm of Rothachilds had arrivea in this country and submitted an offer to loan the government all the money they required to liquidate the debt at an interest of four per cent. ‘The truth of this statement has been reflected upon by nearly all your‘contemporartes, I have to-day seen & letter, purporting to be from M. Friguet, dated from New York, to a friend in this city, in which he makes use of the following language:— The proposition and correspondence relative thereto has been conducted by me direct with the President, at his request, and the public announce- ment inthe HeraLp was evidently the result of Jealousy on the part of the Secretary df the Trea- sury, Who had not been consulted in’ the matter. I return to France to-morrow, but yet believe the mat- ter will be successfully carried out, M. Friguet is said to be ao partner in the Rotn- achilds’ banking house of Beexer Brothers, and was for many years the spiritof their Paris firm. The President being out of town at present, of course Thave no means of ascertaining whether M. Friguet bas had any correspondence with the head of the government on the subject referrea to, Departure of Speaker Blaine. Speaker Blaine, who has been here for several days fitting up his residence for the winter, left to-night for Maine. He is of opinion that the com- ing session of Congress will be harmonious and that business will be despatched with unusual celority, The chief subjects of interest, he thinks, wiil be the financial question and the funding of the public debt, Trade Statistics for July. Monthly report No. 1, series of 1869-70, from the Bureau of Statistics, now in press, shows the value of domestic exports from the United States during the month of July, 1869, to have been $35,433,835, of which $27,004,216 was of merchandise from Atlantic ports, $987,013 merchandise from Pacifle ports, $6,107,047 specio and bullion from Atlantic ports, $1,245,559 specie and bullion from Pacific ports—the whole, reduced to gold values, amounting to $28,291,177. The principal artictes of export were:—Wheat, $5,960,168; four, $2,240,160; raw cotton, $1,274,016; sporting guns, $633,461; petroleum, $3,315,998; bacon and hams, $848,282; lard, $463,773; pork, $259,822; cheese, $1,119,085; leaf tobacco, $4,165,500, The present account contains the new classifica- tion of domestic exports, the commodities specified numberlng twice as many as in previous years, Total imports during the month, $87,604,886; dutia- ble, $34,928,000; free of duty, $2,678,886; entered for consumption, $20,031,684; entered warehouse, $16,673,202; brought iu American vessel, $10,238,591; in foreign vessels, $27,366,295. Bhe principal arti- cles imported were:—Silver com, $656,129; cofiee, $1,267,850; chemicals, drugs and dyes, $649,590; manufactures of flax, $1,262,109; hides and skins, $1,125,786; raltiroad bars or rails, $896,471; silk and manuiactures, $2,828,645; ‘brown sugar, $5,082,636; Molasses, $1,448,223; tea, $687,290; tin and manufac- ures, $635,550; wood and manufactures, $1,382,501; Wool, $614,012; woollea dress goods, $2,011,421. The total value of re-exports was $1,747,206, of which $838,927 was gold and silver coin, ‘The statements of imports, exports and re-exports show the transactions under these respective heads for the month of July, 1869, aud for the seven months ending the same, compared with the corresponding periods of 1865, ‘The total tonnage of vesaela engaged in the foreign trade during the month was:—Enitered, 1,020,704; cleared, 1,028,024. The entrances and clearances at the 81x principal ports were as follows:— Entered, Cleared, 204,952 301,178 New York. 75,849 SCO. 42,966, Philadelphia... 183 Baltimore ....... 21,623 New Orleans... 8,303 13,352 Land Surveys in Arizona—Interesting Dis- coveries of Extinct Ruces, The General Land OMce has received returns of the survey of the township and section lines of five townships on tho Gila river, in Southern Arizona, containing 105,252 acres of agricultaral and grazing Jands, bearing evidence of having been formerly under a high state of cultivation for centuries, and abounding in rains of elaborate and sometimes mag- niiicent structures, together with relics of obliterated Faces, possessing considerable knowledge of the arts and manafactures, among the most extensive of he ruins being those called Casa Grande, about two miles southwest of the junction of the east and south channels of the Gila river. These townships em- brace the growing towns of Adamsville and Florence, on the Fort Yuma and Fort Grant wagon roads, as Well as numerous productive farms and pastures, Well stocked with cattle and sheep, Custom House Receipts. The receipts from customs from October 1 to 9, in- elusive, were as follows;— Boston. + $543,934 35 New Yor! + 8,482,317 45 Philadelphia. + 220,476 67 Baltimore + 207,511 90 San Francis: + 209,466 34 DOL itivevitridss esseseve eee see$4,0%0,706 TL Stationery Contracts Awarded. The contracts for furnishing stationery for the Senate of the United States during the ensuing year have been awarued to several firms of this city, New York and Philadelphia, Porsonal, Reverdy Johnson made his appearance in the Supreme Court to-day. fe comes here to argue some cases to come before the court, UNITED STATES SUPREME OOURT. The Yerger Case~Points of the Attorney General—Argument of Counsel for the Peti« thoner. WASHINGTON, Oct. 15, 1869, Ex parte Edward M. Yerger.—It this case to- ay Mr. Phillips opened the argument for the petitioner. He said the petitioner, on the 224 aay of July, 1869, filed hia petition in the Ctroult Court of the United States for the Southern district of Mississippi, setting forth that he was a citi. zon of the said State, in no wise connected with the military service of the United States; that he ‘was then held in custody for trial before a military commission for an offence alleged to have been com- mitted “against the peace and dignity of the State,’ ‘and praying for the writ of habeas corpus, that the legality of lis commitment may be inquired into, The writ was issued, and on the 220 of July he was produced tn open court by Brevet Major General R. 8, Granger, whereupon it was ordered by the Court that “the said Edward M. Yerger be placed in the custody of the Marshal of the Southern district of Mississippi, to be by him held and detained in cus- today until the further order and judgment of the court.” Afterwards, the cause coming on to be heard, the following entry was made:— The Court, therefore, accordingly adjudges that the Im- prisonment of the prisoner (or the causes in the return to the Writ of habeas corpus t0 the ease orth, are sudicient gause and warrant in ‘jaw for his detention by sald Granger. ‘It ts, therefore, ordered that the writ De dismissed aya the rh be remanded to the custody of said Brevet Major ral R. 8 Granger, to be by him held and detained in ‘ouatody for the pu and to answer io the charge as pet forth in the retubn of said Granger. ON these facts the vetitioner founds his applica- NEW YORK HERALD, SATURDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1869—TRIPLE SHEET, tion to {hid coutt fot the writ of habeas corpus, aided by a certiorarl, And first, as to the JURISDICTION. "The fourteenth section of the adt of 1789 provides that the several courts of the United States Bhall have power to issue the writs of scire facias, habeas corpus and ail other writs not spectally, provided fot by statute which may bem to the exerciso of their respective jurisdictioi ly to the principles and ‘usages of law; and thal either of the Justices of the Bupreme Court, aa well aa the Judges of the District Court, shall bave power to grant the writ of habeas corpus for the purpose o! an inquiry {nto the cause of the cominitment, provided that writs of habeas corpus shall in no cases extend to Ju jail unless they are fu custody under or by color of the ‘authority of the United States, or are committed for trial before dome court ot the same, or are necessary to be brought into court to testify. ‘This statute at an early day was discussed before this court, and it was then held:—1. That the res- trictive words “necessary to the exercise of their respective jurisdictions” did not apply to the writ of habeas corpus. 2, That the proviso extended to the whole section, 3, That where the commitment was by an inferior court of the United States, this court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, could issue the writ to inquire into the cause of the com- mitment, (Ex parte Bolman, 4 Cr., 101.) In ex parte Crane, which was an application for & mandamus, it was insisted by Judge Baidwin— “That there were but two cases in which the appel- late jurisdiction could be exercised, to wit, appeals and writs of error; and that the writ of mandamus covtatns no order to remove a cause or any pro- ceedings therein to the court issuing it, nor has it this effect.’” But the decision of the Court was that &@ “mandamus to an infertor court of the United States is in the nature of appellate jurisdiction. That im England itis awarded by the Chancellor, but in the United States it is expressly conferred on this court, Which exercises both common Jaw and chan- cery powers, is invested with appellate powers and exercises extensive contro} over all the courts of the United States.’’ It is therefore sppareas that the exercise of the appellate power 1s not limited to any particular form; where the object is to revise a Judicial proceeding the mode 1s wholly immaterial, and a writ of habeas corpus or mandamus, a writ of error or an appéal may be used, as the eeimavare may prescribe. (2 Story, Comm, Con., 575.) When the habeas corpus is used it may not be, strictly speaking, @ power of revision, which in- cludes properly the power to affirm or reverse the judgment, and so establish or destroy it, but a power to arrest the exeoution of avoid judgment; it acts directly on the effect of the judgment, and collate- rally on the judgment itself, “In Bolman's case the Chief Justice says:— ‘The question whether the individual shall be Imprisoned is always distinct from the question whether he shail be con- victed or acquitted of the charge on which be 4s to be tried, and therefore the questions are separated and may be tried in different courts, ‘The decision that the individual shall be Imprisone must aiwaya precede (he application for the writ of babeas corpus, and this writ must always be for the pur- pose of revixing that decision, and therefore appellate in its nature. (4 Cr, 101) So in ex parte Metzger Justice McLean says:— It may be admitted'there is some refinement in denominat- ing that an appetiate power which is exercised through the instrumentality of a writ of habeas corpus. In this form nothing more can be examined {nto than the legality of the ¢ommitment, “1a crizalual cases this Court can have. no re- jsory power Over the decisions of the Circuit Court; and ‘appears fro se8 cited, “the cause of commit- mm we” may be exemined in this on a writ of habeas corpus and this is done by the exerciae of appellate power, (6 How., 191.) It may be said that the “canso of the commit- meat’ 18 not to be found in the action of the Circuit Court now under consideration; that this Court poy remanded lum to the custody in which it found ink. Our answer 1s that when Yerger filed his petition clauning that his imprisonment was in violation of the constitufion, he then instituted a suit; there was theu a case arising under the constitution to which the {RGISIAL pa eee attaches; and when a judgment is rendered denying the right claimed the ‘appeilate is properly invoked, (2 Story C. C., 485-6.) In the celebrated case of Yates va. the People iV Joln), Yates, who had been imprisoned for con- empt by the Chancellor, applied to the Supreme Court for @ habeas corpus. On the return to the writ the Court held the return to be good, and remanded him inte custody, whereupon he sued out his writ of error, A most elavorate discussion was ad as to the character and effect of this judgment ororder, A majority of the Court held “that the question brought on a writ of habeas corpus was, is the prisoner legally imprisoned? If the Court decide in the aliirmative the deprivation of liberty continues, 18 not this a final decision of the case, and aoes it not deprive the party of the remedy he solicits? But admit- ung it is not technically a judgment, yet it clearly comes within the ‘definition “of Coke, It 18 an award, in the nature of a judgment, And as a habeas corpus 1a in the nature of a writ of error, 80 18 the determination upon it in the nature of a jug ment.’ The same question has been con- sidered by this Court. Holmes was arrested by Gov- ernor Jeanison, of Vermont, who ordered him to be sont to Canada to answer an iadictment. He applied lor habeas corpus to the Supreme Court of the State, and, on coming tm of the return thereto, was re- manded to custody, A writ of error was sued out to this court under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary act, and it was held by the Chief Justice, whose opinion was concurred ti by Story, McLean and Wayne, Justices, that this wasa “inal judg- went” in @ “ault” wiin the meaning of this sec- tion. Catron, Justice, delivered a separate opinion, in which he concurred in this view, and on this point of the cage Baldwin, Justice, alone dissented, Ina very recent case the question was presented under the twenty-second section, when the Court, speaking through Nelson, Jusiice, declared that no doubt was entertained that the judgment was a tinal judgment, and tiat the only objection to the juris- diction was the waut of the property value required by that section, (Pratt va. Fitznugh, 1 Black, 272.) The same principle Was applied in the case of Weston vs. ‘The City of Charleston, (2 Pet., 449.) Prohibition was applied for to prevent the collection of an unconstitutional tax. This was refused aud the relusal was held to be @ final judgment in a suit. ve ok to the case In re Kaine, decided in 103, Kaine, a fagitive from Great Britain, was arrested by the Comuussioner of the United States. He applied to the Circuit Court for a habeas corpus, and on return thereto was remanded to cus- tody. ‘Thereupon he applied to this court for a habeas corpus and certiorari, The question of juris- diction—though, ag it would seem, was not made at the bar—was raised very disuuuctly by Judge Curtis, ‘TLe case iy fully considered as to the facts, and the opinion of the Court, deilvered by Judge Catron, and concurred in by McLean, Grier and Wayne, Jns- tices, tus concludes:—“We refuse the motion on ita merits, We are not disposed, under the circum. stances, to exercise the jurisdiction of the court.” (P, 11%.) Judge Curtis strenuously insisted that (ue court had no jurisdiction, on tie grouud that the action of the Circuit Court Was not “the cause of the commitinent”—that it created no new cause, but slimply declared the existing cause to be suiticient, ‘This argument is combated by Judge Nelson, who, afver reviewing all the cases theretofore decided, Bays:— ‘The whole caso was {a that court, and penting the examt- nation (ye prisoner is detained, not on the original warrant, but under the authority of the writ of habeas corpus. The writ while the proceedings under it are pending and the safe keeping of the prisoner are entirely unuer the direction issu- fing it, (B.S) This opinion is very emphatically approved by the Chied Justice and Jusitce Daniel. Again, ia ex parte Wells (18 How., 307)—decided as Jate as 1565—Wells, who had been convictea of murder, received a pardon-from the President, com- muting his sentence to imprison nent for life. He petitioned the Circuit Court of this district for a habeas Corpus, Claiming thatthe pardon was abso- jute and tie condition void. On hearing of the return the Civeuit Court dismissed the writ and remanded him to custody. On his application to this court for & habeas corpus ail the Judges, except Curtis and Campbell, Justices, assumed jurisdiction and denied the Writon the merits, In his dissenting opinion Judge Curtis says:— In Kaine's caso I exarained with care the jurisdiction of this Court to issue writs of babeas corpus to tiquire tato the onuse of commnitinent, I when came to the cor mere fact that the Cireult Court ‘ge thy oner did not @ writ of habeas corpus to re-examine we ol commitment, Though subsequent refi tion has confirmed the opinion then formed, I should hai acquiesced in the Jurisdiction assumed in this case if a ma- jority of the Court in Kaiue’s case had decided contrary to my opinion. | But the question was then left undeolded, aud in this case, for the first time, in my judgmont, has jul ton been assumed on the ground that as the C}reult Court hay had the prisoner before it and has remanded him, this Cour! by writ of haboas corpus, may examine that decision and soe whether it be erroneous oF pot, (394.) This case, then, even in the Opinion of Judge Cur- Us, finally settied the question involved in the pre- sent application. But the facts now before us autho- Tize us tO proceed one step further. It will be seen by the argtment of Judge Curtis in Kaine’s case that he mataly reste his denial of the jurisdtction on the ground that the “custody of the prisdner was at no time changed,”” He admits “that when a prisoner {8 brought into court under the habeas corpus he is in the power and control of the court; but unless the court Inakes some order changing the custody, it remains, The court may tn some cases admit to bat, and may alao take order for (he future produc: ton of the prisoner without ball; but in all cases, unttl the court make some order changing the cus- tody, either for the care or security of the prisoner, the original custody continues, In this case no order Was made,"? It would seem, therefore, that tie pivo- tal question of jurisdiction, tn the opinion of Judge Curtis, 1s whether there Las been an order of the Circuit Court changing the custody. Now, by turning to she entry made in this case, it will be found that when the hike ge was produced unaer the writ, the Court ordered that “the sata Edward M. Yerger be placed in custody of the Marshal of the Southern District of Mississippi, to be by him held aud detained tn custody until the further order and judgment of the Court.) It was by the judgment of the Coure that the custody thus heid by the Mar- shai was transterred to that or the military authorl- ties, and 80, in matntaluing the jurisdiction of the covrt, in the present application, we are fortified With the opinions of all the judges of this court since its organization, saving only that of Judge Balawin, We scarcely deem necessary to consider the effect of the act of 5th of February, 1807, This did Not In anyWise operate @ repoal of the pro. Visions of the act of 17) but was passed for the declared purpose of conferring “additional autho- rity.” The of 1568, which took away the right to an “appeal” given by it did not ‘affect the pel- late power of this Cours by means of the habeas cor- pus under the act of 1789, It is suMcient on thi point to refer to the decision made at the las term :— Counael seem to muppose that if effect be given to the re- in that the hots appellate power of the pepe ns of habeas corpus ia defeated. But this is an ‘error; act of 1808 fag omg mes 9 from that jurisdiction oy cakes but apy trom Cireuit Courts uuder the act of 1867. It does not affect the jurisdiction which bas been pre- viously exercised. (Ex parte MeCardie, 7 Wall., 615). FINALLY. As tothe argument ab in convententt we are con- tent vo use the language of Mr, Justice Nelson:— It bas been argued that great inconvenience would anse if the writ of habeas corpus could iesue from this Court into any part of the Union to bring up & prisoner on @ petition that ie was illegally restrained of liberty under th authority of the United States, as the proceeding must be attended wit delay and expense, by reason of the groat extent of our terrl- tory. But it must’be remembered that in the case of a right of property Juvolved, dependent upon the lawa of the Union, ‘and a decision against it, the party against whom @ decision had been made in @ State court, however controversy, 1 entitled to a writ of error to this Lam yet to learn that the right of the liberty of not as dear to him and entited to be guarde care by the conatitution and laws as the right of property, notwithstanding the supposed inconvenience. Such has bere- tofore been the practice, as we have seen the opinion in this Court when dealing with the writ In question, and 1 will sim- ply add, Jn tne language of Chief Justice Denman, in the case of the Canadian prisoners, “that it seems to me that we would be tampering with this great remedy of the aubject If we did not say that we would abide by the practice we find and deal with this aa it has been formerly dealt with.” (In re Kaine, 14 How., 185.) POINTS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. First Point—The Supreme Court of the United States can grant a writ of habeas corpus ad subjuci- endum only in the exercise of its appellate jurisdic. tion, and by means of such writ can revise only the proceedings of those tribunals over which aad in Tespect to which it has appellate control and author- ity. The leading case upon this subject 1s ex parte Bolman and Swartwout (4 Cranch, 75), who had been committed by the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia on a charge of treason against the United States. The only point of aificulty in that case was upon the construction of the fourteenth section of the Judiciary act of September 24, 1789 (1 Statutes, 81), Which provides:— ‘That all the before-mentioned courts of the United States (Supreme Court, Circuit Court and District Court) shail have Power to issue writs of acire facias, habeas corpus and all other writs not specially provided for hy #tatute which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the principles and usages of law. And that either of the justices of the Supreme Court, as well as the judges of the District Courts, sball have power to grant writs if habeas corpus for the purpose of an inquiry into the cause of commitment, provided that writs of habeas corpus elall in no case extend to prisoners in jail, unless where they are in custody under or by color of the authority of the United Btales, or are committed for trial before some court of the same, or are necessary to be brought into court to testify. It was held that by the sound construction of this section the power to award writs of habeas corpus in order to examine into the cause of commitment is given to the Supreme Court, and the argument was rejected that the restrictive words of the first sen- tence of the section, “which may be necessary to the exercise of their respective jurisdictions,” Umited the power to the award of such writs of habeas cor- Pils AE Abo TECORRATy, to enable the courts of the nited States, mentioned in the act, to exercise their respective jurisdictions ia some cause which they are capabie of finally (eal To the objection that an fnquiry by habeas corpus into the cause of com- mitment in a criminal case Was an exercise of original jurisdiction in a case not within the constitutional grant of original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Marshall repled:—“Tie — jurisdic- tion which the court is now asked to exer- cise 18 Clearly appellate. It is the re- vision of a decision of an inferior court, by which @ citizen has been committed to jail”? Before the case of Boluaa and Swartwout, tae Court had issued writs of habeas corpus in two cases of com- mitment for criminal offences, ‘The first was the United States v3. Hamilton (3 Datias, 17), 1a which the prisouer was charged with high treason, a capl- tal olfence, ana had been committed upon a Warrant of the District Judge of Peunsyivanta, The prisoner was adimitted to bail, The thirty-third section of the Judiclary act (1 Stat., 91,) autiorized this, The second Was Buford’s case (3 Cranch, 448), Where the party had been cominitted by @ defective warrant of certain justices of the peace, and brought bejore the Circuit Court of the Pistrict of Columbia on habeas corpus, which, after hearing, passed an order, given in full by Mr. Justice Curtis, in Katne’s case (14 How., 124), remanding the prisoner to jail until he entered into a recognizance to keep tie Pnewg It was under this order of the Circuit Court hat Buford was imprisoned when he petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of haveas corpus. After Bolan and Swartwout, the case next in order is ex parte Kearney (7 Wheaton, 88), which was an application for haveas corpus by a prisoner in custody nader a comumitinent of the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia for contempt a3 a wit- ness, ‘the Oourt sald two questions arose—First, whether this Court has authority to issue a habeas corpus where a person is in jail under a warrant or order of any otner cours of the United States; sec- ondily, whether, if it have, a case 1s made out to jus- tify the exercise of such an authority, ‘As to the ret question, 143 unnecessary to Bay more than that the point has already passed in rem, judicatum in this court.” The writ Was reiused, however, on the ground that the writ was not a proper remedy in case of commitment for contempt by & court of com- petent jurisdiction, EX parte Watkins (3 Peters, 193) was the case of o prisoner in jail in the District of Columbia, under @ Judgment of the Circuit Court in & criminal prosecu- tion, The application for the writ was relused on the ground tliat the judgment was of a court of gen- eral and tinal criminal jurisdiction, and justified the imprisonment, Ex parte Watkins (7 Peters, 568) was the case of a party in custody under writs of capias ad satisfa- ciendum, issued out of the Circuit Court of the Dis- trict of Columbia, and the ground ot was that the Marshal had not brought him into court on the return day of the writs, but detamed him in prison contrary to the statuce of Maryland. On the question of jurisdiction the Court said: The question turns on this, whether it is an exercise of original or appellate jurisdiction, If it be the former then, ag the present is not one of the eases in which the constitu: tion allows this Court to exercise original jurisdiction, the writ must be denied, If the latter, then i may be awarded, Binice the act of 1759, section fourteen, has clearly authorized the Court to iawue ft. The award of the capins must be con- sidered as the act of the Circuit Court, it being judicial pro- cess fasuing under the authority of the Court. ff the Court ehould, upon the hearing, aecide that the capias ad salis- facienduim justities the present detainer, and ebould remand the prisoner, ft would be clearly an exercise of appellate juriadiction, for it would be revision aud conlirmation of the act of the Court below. George Holmes, plaintiff tn error, vs. Silas II, Jen- nison et. al. Peters, 540.)—A writ of haveas cor- us was, On the petition of George Holmes, issued ty the Supreme Court of Vermont, and on the return thereto by the Sheriif, stating the warrant of the Goy- ernor to be the cause of his detention, he was remanded by the Court. Holmes prosecuted a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States, The writ of error was dismissed, the Court beg equally divided. EX parte Barry (2 Howard, 65).—This was a petl- tion by an alien for @ habeas corpus to obtain the custody of bis infant cluld. ‘Tae application,’’ said the Court, “in effect sceks the exercise of original jurisdiction in the matter upon which it is founded.” The writ was refusea, Ex parte Dorr (3 Howard, 103) was an application for the writ by a party tiprisoued on State process; but the Court refused it. Barry vs. Mercien et al. (6 Howard, 103) was a case brought up by writ of error to the Ciroult Court of the Southern District of New York, tu which the Ou. cuit Court refused to grant a writ of habeas corpus prayed for by a father to take his infant child out of the custody of its mother. It was held that the Supreme Court had no Sorelle power in the case, and the writ was dismissed for waut of jurisdiction, Metzer’s case (5 Howard, 176,) was that of an appii- cation for the writ of @ prisoner comumitted to the custody of the Marshal by the District Juage, at his chambers, under the French treaty of extradition, ‘This Court refused the writ on the ground toat there is no form in which an appellate power can be exer- cised by it over the proceedings of a district judge at his chambers, “He exercises a special authority, and the law has made no provision for the revision of his judgment, [t cannot be brougit before the District or Circuit Court; consequently cannot, in the nature of an be ee be brought before . this court. ‘The exercise of an original jurisdiction only could reach guch a proceeding, and this has not been given by Congress if they have not the power to confer 1t.”” Tn re Kaine (14 Howard, 103), @ prisoner commit- ted by a United States Commissioner, under the British extradition treaty, applied to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York for a writ of habeas corpus, which was ‘anted; and upon @ hearing before the district judge presiding in that court the prisoner was re- manded to the custody of the marshal, He then presented a petition to the circuit judge, addressed to the justices of the Supreme Court, for @ writ of habeas corpus. A gee was also made in the Supronie Court for writs of haveas corpus and certiorari, and one question argued was, in the language of Mr. Justice Nelson, whether “the prisoner was or was not held in con- finement under the order of the Circuit Court,” or whether the decision of the Circuit Court was “the cuuse of commitment.” For if it was, it was admit ted that this court had jurisdiction to inquire into it; and if it was not, the @ecision of ae Cireuilt Court was not within the Ce ied of the writ, formed no part of its subject Maver, and was not within the appellate control of the Supreme Court, The spplicayen was denied on the merits, Ex parte William Wella (18 How., 307).—Wells was convicted of murder before the Criminal Court of the county of Washington, in the District of Colum- bia, and sentenced be bung. The Prosident granted “a pardon of the offence of which he was convicted, upon condition that he be imprisoned during his natural life—that ta, the sentence of death is hereby commuted to imprisonment for iife in the Pepiténtiary of Washington’—and Wells accepted the pardon with the condition, Wells Applied to the Circuit Court fer a writ of habeas corpus, Which was granted, and that Court, after a hearing, remanded him to the Penitentiary. Wells then petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus, which was denied, Hx parte Milligan (4 Wall.,2) came before the Supreme Court upon a certificate of a division of opinion between the judges af the Circuit Court, And arose under the act of March 3, 1868 (12, Stat., 766), and has no application to the case Gt bar, EX parte McCardle (6 Wall., 818) Was @ motion to dismiss an appeal from the Circatt Court of the Dis- trict of Mississippi, under the act of February 6, 1867 (14 Stat., $86), This right of Appeal was taken away by the act of March 27, 1807 (16 Stat, 44), (BX parce MeCardle, 7 Wall, 606), It abundantly appears trom the foregoing cases that to nae a case within the appellate jurisdicuon of this court, in the sense requisite to enable it to award the writ of liabeas corpus under the Judiciary act, itis necessary that the Commitinent should ap- pear to have been by a tribunal whose decisions are subject to revision by this Court, ‘Chis court has never granted this writ when the prisoner was not at the time he petitioned for it in coufinement under ‘a0 order of @ Couft whose proceedings can be re- vised by the Supreme Court, Second Potnt,—This Court cannot oxercise any @ppeliate contigl by appeal, writ of ciroror apy other proceeding over the milit commission by virtue of whose sentence the petitioner is impris- oned, nor has the Court power in any form or by any procedure to revise the proceedings of that commission in the cuse of the petitioner. 1, This Court has appellate power only in cases oe for by Congress (Durrourseau va. United tates, 6 Cranch, 307). and Congress has not provi- ded by law for a review hy this court of the acts and proceedt. of this or any other military commuis- sion exercisifg jurisdiction under the authority or color of authority of the Culted states. Every exist- ing statutory regulation of the appellate power of this Court excludes and excepts from that jurisdic. tion cases adjudicated by such tribunals. 2. But ete. preg d of this, whatever jurisdiction Was posset by this milttary commission was not a pat of that judicial power which is defined in the hird article of the constitution, and, therefore, this court could and can have no appellate control or authority over that pody. Congress must not onty ordain and establish inferior courts within a State, and prescribe their jurisdiction, but the judges appointed to administer them must possess the constitutional tenure of office before they can become invested with any portion of the judicial power of the Union. There Js no ex- ception to this rule in the constitution, —Benner vs. Porter, 9 How., 244. noe Company vs. Canter, 1 Pet., 545, The mupelaie power of this court cannot extend beyond the action of inferior courts established by Congress to take original jurisdiction under the con- stitution, and which exercise judicial power therein conferred.—United States vs. Ritclile, 17 How., 533, Third Point.—The addressing & Writ of habeas corpus to the Military Commander in Mississippi would be am exercise of original and not of appel- ate jurisdiction by this court. He does not hold the perisoner ugder any order of decree of the Circutt ourt, but by military power. The order of the Cir- curt Court ly left the matter as it found tt, The Military Coufmander could discharge the prisoner at his pleasure, notwithstanding tue action of the Cir- cult Court. Fourth Paint.—The habeas corpus issued with the certiorari, agan adjunct of the appeliate power, ts only permitted where the custody of the prisoner is ap essential partof the judginent or decree from which the appeal is taken, Fifth Point—Tne repeal by the statute of March 27, 1868, of 80 much Of the act of February 5, 1367, as granted appeilate power to this Court in cases of this nature Was intended and should be construed as taking away not the whole appellate power in cases of Dabeas corpus, but the appellate power in cases to Which that act applied, It did not mean merely to substitute a cumbrous and inconvenient form of remedy foradirect aud simple one. (Ex parte McCardie, 7 Waliace, 506.) Sith Point—The statute of 1807, providing for miliary government in Missiasipp!, necessarily sus- pended the writ of habeas corpus in that State, which it was within the clear constitutional autho- rity of Congress to do. ‘The Attorney General having argued that the re- peal of the act of 1807 was also a repeal of all statutes cradle, jurisdiction of the subject of babeas cor- pus on thise ourt, asked if there was apy one who would have the courage to assert that such was not the intention of Congy¢ss, In reply to this Mr, Carlisle, for the petitioner, Said that as @ citizen he confessed there was 10 means of determining what Congress might have intended to do; butit was certainly dimicult to tell, when Congress had come into court and seized upon @ cause sub judice and strangled it, what might not have beea the intention, But as a lawyer it was easy to say What Congress reaily had done by apply- ing the ordinary rules of interpretation, And by such means he found that Congress, by the act of 1868, repealed only tue statute of 1867, which had given spectal jurisdiction ta certain cases in addl- uon to the jurisdiction before existing, The four- teenth section of the Judiciary act was unatlected by the repedling act of 1563, and it was under the provisions of that section that this proceeding was instituted, and not under the act of 1867, as contended by the Attorney General, He had heard no argument which had in the least shown that this court was without jurisdiction under the Jadiclary act, and he would be inexcusa- bie in long detaining the court in insisting upon a jurisdiction which it bad retterated and reaulrmed lime and ume again, Mr. Carilisie spoke briefly and without notes, mak- ing the argument of the Attorney General the basis of his remarks, Tne excitement at first caused by the proceedings seems to have greatly subsided, but a Spectators having sat out the argumeut or to-day, ‘the venerable Thomas Ewing, of Ohio, was present wutil the argument closed, aud appeared to be much mierested, Tuteresting Patent Cusc. No. 140.—Lockwo0l, Complainant, vs, Money et al, Appeliants—appeal from th: Clrcuit Court of Massachusetts.—The interest involved in this case {3 @ patent, upon reissue, for a syringe, assigned to the complainant in August, 1865, which, it is alleged, has been infringed by the appellants, The auswer is that the original patentees were not the first in- ventors of the improvement claimed; a dental that they ever had any exclusive pyssession, in fact or io law, under the original or the reissued patent, and an averment that the complainant has long acqui- esced in the public and general use of the invention, The judgment velow was for the complainant, and the cause thence came here, In the original description of the improvement patented, denominated the “Evening Synge,” vhe patentee claimed to have invented a syringe haying an elastic gac, with flexibie tubes, urinate in valve boxes, containing valyes arranged for the purpose of reduction and rejection when the sac tubes are in the same, or nearly the same, axial line. The appellants claim that these devices, with precisely the same arrangement, are combiued in what is called the barrel syringe, as shown by testimony and exhibit in the case, The claim in the reissued pateat described a syringe having “an elastic bulb, or chamber, flexible tubes and @ suitable vaivular arrangement.” The appel- lants insist that both the ‘barrel syringe” and tne “Theln syringe” fail within the deseription, and evidence? and exhibit are adduced intending to show that the patentees had been anticipated in every particular claimed by them im respect of both the original und reissued patents. Tie claim in the re- issued patent is asseried to be broader than the Invention us originaily described, and, as a matter of law, therefore, void. It 1s furtaer insisted that aa the origiual patent was neliver ‘inoperative nor invaid,” bor the specification defective or insuM- cient, the reissue was withuut authority of law, and that the patentee’s claim 13 substantially, if not technically, for @ combination of old parts, and not for an invention. It 13 the arrangement or organization which is new, if anything, and not the invention. Syringes containing ail that is claimed as the mvention of the patentee were long before known and used in this country, ‘fhe appellee cites and comments on sixteen diferent kinds of syringes, among which were those issued by the appellant as prior inventions of the same improvement, io show that te claim Was wholly unlike that of any former patent. The questioa of iact as to priority oi invention and tue record of evidence are yolu- minous. Argued by H. F. Freude and Secretary Boutwell for the appellants, and by Austin Browae and BR, Curls for appellee, Secreiary Boutwell closed the case for (he appellants, Juvisdiction in Maritime Contracts. No. 152. Steamtug James B, Bagle, Impleaded wi Barge F, Moore, Appetlant, vs. Wm. PF. FP 4 Owner of (he Brig General Worth—Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.— ‘This libel is Mled by the owner of the brig General Worth, to recover damages done to the brig while in tow of the tug from the water between Lakes Huron ana St. Clair to Lake Erie. Both the tag and the brig are American vessels. On the voyage the brig Was grounded on Peche Isiand reef, in the Detroit river, on the Canada side, and while grounded the barge F. Moore, aiso in tow by the tug, at the same ume, raninto her stern, doing the damage com- plained of, In the District Court below the cause was heard on the merits, no question of jurisdic- tion being raised, and was decided in favor of the libellants. It was then appeaied to the Circuit Court, but on the hearing the claimant and appellant aban- doned his appeal on tne merits and based his defence upon the want of jurisdiction in the ourt, because the collision occurred on the nr Janada side of the boundary line, Tne deci- on below was aflirmed by Circnit, and the gz that the claimant bea to thls court, in: courts of the United States have no extra territorial jurisdiction, nor force to éreale rights in a foreign territory, ‘There is no law ia Canada, where the rong complained of was committed, which gives a len upon the vessel for the alleged damage. As the admiralty lien isa “right in the thing”—Jus in re, not jus ad rem—the llen must depend upon tue law of the place where the alleged right occurred; and, there being no law where the damage occ! rred iving the Hen there 1s no such Hep, and the court without jurisdiction to establish it, The appetiee submits that although the jurisdiction of this court 4s to torts depends somewhat upon the locallty, “of as to contracts it depends upon the persons ine subject matter and the nature oF the contr a¢f;'and this contract to tow the brig contains al) elements of @ maritime contract. The defence of the merits being abandoned, and the jtirlscistion being estab- Iighed, it is insisted that the decree gtould be afirmed, The argument 1s stl pending. J. S. Newberry for the Lo la W. A. Moore and George L, Hibbard for appellee, LOLAL INTELLIGENCE. Feit PROM A BUILDING.—Jobn Gieshart, a German, thirty-five years of age, residing at 443 East Thirty- seventh street, while at work on a building in Madt- son avenue, near Thirty-fourth street, yesterday aflernoon, fell from the third story vo the cellar, apd was badly injured, RAILROAD ACCIDENT.—John Molion, aged thirty, residing laNewburg, feil off one of the Hudson River Ratlroad cars at Fishkill yesterday afternoon, and was sevorely Injured internally, Ie was placed on the train and brought to this city, and removed to the City Hospital by olcer Lhompson, of the Third precinct. RESCUED FROM DROWNING.—At half-past twelve yesterday morning oMicers Oicott and Birdsall, of the Nineteenth precinct, rescued a woman from drowning, named Maria Major, sixty-eight ye of who had either fatten or jumped olf the dock on Blackwells Island. She was taken to the Work- house, and died shortly after, ‘the Ooroner was notined, aud Will hold an inquest this morning. Meeting of the Citizens? Reform Associa~ tlon—The Legislators te be Appealed To Colonel Thorpe Gives His Views. The regular weekly meeting, a8 called for by the ward delegates to the Reform Association, Was held last evening at Phenix Hall, Court street. Mr. Joni B. Pitt was chosen chairman pro tem., and Mr. ‘Tobitt oMclated as secretary. The assemblage was exceedingly sparse in point of numbers, Mr. FITZGERALD offered @ resolution authorizing the transmission of a letter to each of the candidates for the Legislature, asking them, in case of election, to use their influence for the repeal of all commis- sons now imposed upon the government of the city of Brooklyn, and to exert their influence to restore to the city a charter giving to the people, through their elected representatives, entire control of the muniectpal affairs. For the benefit of the oppressed taxpayers a prompt and unequivocal answer is de- sired by the Reform Association, The resolution was adopted. Colone} TuorRP, in response to acall made upon him for @ speech, took his position on the platform, and after asserting that his only object in joining this association was the furtherance of the reform of the evils which now oppress the municipal adminis- pienn he reviewed the Jate disgraceful scenes enacted before the association. He would fight this fight out whether nis fellow members were with Lim or not, The press of Brooklyn bad dealt unfairly by the clUzens in this reform movement, and had ridi- culed them from first to last, This was alto- gether wrong, and was @ discourtesy to the gentlemen who favored reform aud met to enforce lt and were eniitied to respect lor the sin- cerity of thelr views. He wanted to pull the lion's skin olf these asses who control the city and show them up to pubiic obliquy. ‘he Colonel took occa- sion to animadvert on the action of Mayor Kaib- fleisch tn calling for the ‘previous question” in the meeting of the City Board of Supervisors the other night, When objection was made to the list of in- spectors and canvassers of election on the ground that there was not @ fair distribution of the oilices among the republicans. This was 4 disgraceful act, the speaker held, and could but result in the injury of the men who perpetrated this tnjustice upon the minor- ity party in this city, He endorsed heartily the letter to the legislators. ‘The evil was of their creation. Henry C. Murphy, Seaator, couid crush the whole system of commission with the greatest ease, If he would, at any time in Albany, The public servants should carry out the will of the people, He objected to the term Permanent Water Boar it would not last a3 long as tue Pyramids of Egypt—4,000 years. In US opinion the Water Bourd would be buried next spring. He wanted the monument to be erected in an old horse pond to thelr memory, and each resident throw a paving stone upon the hedp dnd thére let tt stand to com- memorate a fraud upon the peopie, The tax of tue city was given as three and a half per cent. Sot was at present, but why not include the increasing expenses of these commissions, and then it would be seven per cent. Even at three and a half per cent was It not too much to adsorb In taxes one-lalf of the interest upon a man’s income? The fact wae, these uuptiaci pled politicians go to Albany and Btake out the city in placers, ag the miners do in the fold Tegious each one runs Lis stake aud digs for 13 goid, PROSPECT PARK. “The Prospect Park Commision is the biggest swindle of the whole,” the Colonel said. “rhey have Qld Abe Lincoln's statue shat up there in a big box, and it 13 to be opened with great display in a tew days.’’ The waste of money there is enough to inake in itself @ revolution in this city, and 1s enough to make the men engaged in carrying it out leave the city and never come back, 1t cost for the purchase of the ground originally $480,000, and the cost of the iuterest on the debt on the Park was noW annually $500,000, while it had cost more, comparatively, than had Central Park. He wanted, 1a brief, Maat the expenditures of the commissioners should be consistent with the re- sources of the city and not sink it in dept. A vote of thanks Was returned the speaker upon conciuding his remarks. Mr. Tobitt read a paper Which he termed an important history of the assuci- ation. Captain Baxter spoke in favor of “doing some- thing’ and not being like “Barney's buil’s tall,” which was always belind time, oF the politicians Would be alead of thea. ‘ihe meeting adjourned until Tuesday evening. AN OBESE CONCLAVE. Meeting of the Fat Men’s Association Last Nigut—A Ball to be Started Rolling. The second regular meeting of the Fat Men’s Asso- ciation was hela last evening at the Revere House. This association 1s composed of gentlemen who must each weigh 200 pounds in order to be admitted into the society, and already numbers about 200 members, residing in various parts of the country. The object of the soclety is to form a corpulent brotherhood that shall give a clambake within the limits of Fairfield county, Conn., aud a bail, each year. Owing to the somewhat crowded condition of the street cars and omnibuses, the attendance of mem- bers at the meeting last night was limited to six; these gentlemen foitunately having started early and by different routes converging near the rendez- vous. The meeting was announced for half-past eight, in order to afford sufficient ume for the fat men to reach the hotel, but the association was not called to order until a iater hour, in consequence of considerable delay in getting the President, Mr. J. A. P. Fisk, up stairs, Another dimiculty was encountered in finding a room with a door of sufficient width to admit the ingress of members, but after trying a few rooms mips bad of the hotel, Mr. Coe, who is a member of the association, kindly tendered his pri vate apartments, the door of which had been made expressly for himself. All unnecessary furniture having been removed from the room, 1,530 pounds or the association entered and was seated in six chairs provided expressly for the occasion. As soon asthe association had recovered its breath, alter the exertions in behalf of the President, Mr. Fisk, the society was calied to order, and the secretary announced that siuce the preceding meeting eigi- teen gentlemen had added 4,531 pounds to the mem- bersitp. These heavy weights were G. Durfee, 226; P. Reid, 205; W. Miller, 203: W. Trudgeon, 248; Mr. Frink, 200; J. A. Taylor, 223; D. C. McF 3 F. J. Shieis, 210; J. Haggerty, 225; D. Stewart, a. bec $26, and S. Flemin, York; A, J. Wright, of Newark, 266; S, W. Stout, of Poughkeepsie, #83; 'C. C. Hoff, of Poughkeepsie, 370, G, Lyman, of White Plains, ; A. EB, Brackett, of New Haven, 220, and J. 1. Hough, of Jersey City, 230. ‘The President reported that since the last meeting he had succeeded in getting to New Haveo for tie purpose of interesting the Connecticut fat men in the association, and that a large number would join. fe also stated that the representative of the association in New Haven, Mr. Charles Bradiey, was discovered by him in the act of paring his corns, and he deemed it proper to recommend that Mr, Bradley be weighed again, as the act referred to was considered beyond the ability of members. Committees were then appointed to drait by-laws for the government of the association and to make arrangements for agreat bail at Irving Hall on the 20th of December. it was ordered that complimen- — tickets should be sent to the leading journals, and the Mayors of cities represeuted in tie associa- tion, The President gave notice that he would need ten tickets, It is understood that ladies of the re- quired weight will each be allowed to bring gentie- men with them to the bail and vice versa. ‘The bail will be opened with a promenade of the fat men, a performance on the flying trapeze by the President, r. Fisk, and a grand march by a band of forty pieces. No base drum will be allowed. After ap pointing members of the association in various parts of the country agents to receive subscripitous for membership the meeting adjourned. 8; 342—all_ of New MERICAY JOCKEY CLUB, Pool Setling Last Night on ihe Entries for To-Day’s aces. There will be five races At the Jerome Park to-day, The first will be @ qurdie race for a purse of $500, handicap for all ¢ges, one mile and three-quarters, over #iX li.mijes; the second, sweepstakes, for two year ©.¢3, one mile and one-eighth; the third, the 8N ani sweepstakes for three year jolds, two miles; the fourth, for all ages, two mile beats, for a purse of $800; the fifth, handicap, for horses only that have run during the meeting, one mile and three. uarters. ‘The following are some of the largest pools sold last evening by Dr, Underwood at the Jockey Ciub rooms and Dr, Johnson at Retilv’s restaurant:— FIRST KACY —By Underwoe ~By Jonnson.~ Mitchell. «$160 125 130 160 Lobella . 80 6 125 Eminence. .. 80 90 + % Harry Booth,.... 80 109 120 85 SECOND RACE. Morris 0 690 259 Belmor aie 190 120 Sanford 80 70 Lady Pet =) rn Harbinger. 60 25 McDaniel bn) 20 THIRD RACK Glenelg. . + $160 300 180 Invercauld 60 130 16 Cottrell 60 10 60 Vespucius... 90 40 Sauford. 5 € ao McGrath ......++. 25 50 30 20 SECOND Rack (With Morris’ entry out). Belmont $60 lw lw oo Harbloger, 2 45 65 25 Sanford. =~ Db 30 20 86 Lady Petra.....+5 20 40 25 20 . ty 2 95 125 40 60 225 90 | 1a ao KJ EEE « Gths | cae» 5 a ee ee ee. es me SUBURBAN INTELLIGENCE, NEW JERSEY. Jersey City. STABBING AFFRAY.—At an early hour yesterday morning a German named Lewis Kahn, residing at No. 45 Norfolk street, New York, was stabbed by & man uamed William Sheridan, The parties had been attending a picnic at Mount Pleasant Park, The alleged assailant was taken before the Recorder, WhO committed him for trial. DemocRatic County CoNvENTION.—The Hudson County Democratic Convention assembled yesterday afterncon at the Philadelphia Hotel and made the following nominations:—For Sheriff, Patrick Har- rington; County Clerk, John Kennedy; Surrogate, James O'Neill; Coroners, Dennis Bi Martin Han- ley and B. N. Crane. Acneas Fitzpatrick was elected chairman and Richard Garrick secretary. Con- vention was addreased by Leon Abbett, who stated that the demod¢ratic party would be triumphant in 1872, Mr. Abbett received the nomination for the Assembly on Thursday night in the First district. Newark. BURGLARtES,—About six o'clock yesterday morn- ing an attempt was made to force epen the jewelry case of ©. H, Brocksmitb, corner of Broad ana Market streets, but the burgiar was put to pant without taking away anything. Detective Smith yesterday arrested Owen Relily, William O’Brien end Patrick Burns, on a charge of burglary ab the store of Owen Liddy, No. 406 Walnut street. They were committed for trial. RalLRoaD ACcIDENT.—A Man, name unknown, dressed in a dark gray coat, mixed vest, black pane taloons and biue sallor's shirt, ap) tly about thirty-five years of age, was killed on New Jersey Railroad last evening by the twenty minutes past seven train from Elizabeth for New York. ‘The body was brought to the Market street depot, Newark, for idenilfication. He nad forty centa on his person and a heavy platn gold ring on the little duger of his left hand, No HoMIcipE ArTER ALL,—Some time since Wil- Mam Weis, the keeper of a boarding house on Rail- road avenue, in this city, suddenly disappeared, leaving a quiet, industrious wife and five healthy children to fake care of themselves. He was sup- posed to have been murdered, in consequence of a dream to that eifect which Mra, Weis had had shortly after bis departure. A few days ago aletier caine from a friend in Philadelphia who had seen Weis leave by the overland route for the Pacitic slope, The distracted wile, to make assurance doubly gure, went to Philadelplita, and was con- yinced of the fact. Wels had at the time $100 and forty dollars which were given bim to ve deposited in @ bank by one of his boarders, Paterson. ANOTHER ERRONEOUS ASSESSMENT.—The Com- missioners of Appeals yesterday made a deduction of $9,000 from the valuation set upon O’Neii’s sills miil, in Paterson street, vy the assessor, CrICKET.—A game of cricket was piayed upon the Paterson Race Course on Thursday afternoon, be- tween the Paterson Club and the Manhattan Club, On the first innings the latter scored seventy-nine and tne Paterson Club sixty-eight The Manhattan Club made fourteen on the second innings, but the ame Was then ended by darkness coming on, The vaterson Club feel confident they would have soon bad the game been properly Hinished. ilme of game, five hours and @ quarter, Court SENTENCES.—The following sentences were pronounced in the Passaic County Vourts yesterday by Judge Sandford, and comprise about the last im the criminal line before this term:—Muichael McGill, assault and battery, len days in county jali and $10 fine. The following fines (with costs) were inflicted for assault and battery:—Jobn Lawrence, $25; Pate rick Scully, $10; John Soully, $10; Timothy Quin- lan, $10; Leah Van Kiper, $10; Thomas Mackerel, $10; Patrick Mahoney, $10; Joseph Bussin, $10; Michael Carroll, $10; Charles Carroll, $10; John Lamourdin, $25; Wiliam and James Ackerson, $1 each. ‘Trenton. Sexiovs AccIDENT.—On Thursday afternoon @ young man named Raynor, whie employed in the ‘Trenton Iron Works, had his foot so badly mashed by being caughtin the mactinery that amputation had to be performed, PROBABLE DEATH.—The man Sweeny, who was struck @ week since with @ hammer on the head, as alleged, by aman named James Murpby, was not expected to survive jast evening. In consequence of his dangerous condition his alleged assailant Murphy, who was out on ball, las been rearrest and committed to jail pending the result of Sweeny’ injuries. FUSION OF AGRICULTURAL SOCIETIES,—During the holding of the fair of the Central Agricultural So- clety of New Jeraey near this city this week the ex- pediency of effecting @ fusion of the State Agricul- tural society with the New Jersey Cevtral was largely canvassed end its gs sige much favored by prominent men throughout the State wo attended the Jair, Many reasous were urged 11 favor of the project, such es the central position of Trenton and its being the capital of the State. Several promised $600 each to carry out the movement. LONG ISLAND, DeaTH FROM LockJaw.—Charles A. Wells, of Mids dle Roads, Riverhead, lost a finger yesterday week aud died from jockjaw on Thursday. ALLEGED HIGHWAY ROBBERY.—A bold highway robbery, in open daylight, was committed in Pon- quogue on Tiursday. Mr. White, while pose \hrougu a private thoroughfare, was seized from betind by two masked men, who relieved bim of his gold Watch and his wailet, containing about eighiy dollars. The thieves are unknown, FIRE IN FLUSHING.—At eleven o’ciock on Thurs- day night a fire broke out in Sammis’ livery stable, on Bridge street, Flushing, which communicatea to au adjoining siabile, totally destroying both. The lorses and Wagons were rescued, but several sets of harness, sleiglis, hay and feed were destroyed. Loss about $4,000, Supposed vo ve of incendiary origin’ BURGLARY AT Norturort.—On Thursday nig 1 tast a burglary was perpetrated at the regidence of Gardiner Muliord, at Northport, L. T, and a check for filly dollars, besideg a quantity of valuable cloin- ing, was stolen, The robvers are believed to be con. nected With or @ part of the gang that recently burglarized the Maimlok store at iuntington. No clue Was obtained as to their identity. CONNECTIUT, Salisbary. MURDER.—On Saturday evening last Mr, Halstead, landlord of the Salisbury Hotel, was killed by a young man, & boarder, named Henry Bostwick. There seems to have been a dispute between the parties relative to @ bill, and they finally came to blows. Mr. Liststead, who ts an old man, retreated behind the bar, and was followed by Bostwick. Ha'stead then struck Bostwick witb a cane, dealing hun 4 heavy blow, and keeping him back with the weapon. Bostwick left the room and went up to his apartment, procured a revolver and came down, seeking Mr. Halstead again. The par= ties met in tbe hall, aud Bostwick, pointin, his revolver at the head of Mr, Hals' exclaimed, “I’m going to send you to heil,?” and fired, the bail taking effect in Mr. Halstead's ‘prato, klling him instant! Both parties are well known, and the murder creates the most Intense excite. ment. Bostwick Is a young man of means and has been living on his money without being engaged in any bDusiuess, He has been arrested and await trial, Brookfield. KILLED By A Horse,—On Thursday last Mr. Alva Smith, of this town, while engaged in catching his horse ina ay ge was kicked in the stomach by a colt pasturing in the same field, aad was so badly injured that he died shortly after. He was a man eighty-four years of age, and a well known aud much respected citizen. Bridgeport. Bopy Fouxn.—The dead body of a woman named Mrs. Eliza Ann McCarty was found tn the harbor near the railroad bridge on Wednesday the 13th. No marks of violence were found upon it aud a coro- ner’s jury returned a@ verdict of “drowned while in @ state of intoxication.” AEAGH AND THE PIGEON SHOOTERS, New York, Oct, 15, 1860, To tne EpiToR oF Tn# HERALD: In your account of & “pigeon mateh,”’ said to have taken place at the Union Race Course \: ster day, you are picased to censure the undersiy .ca for “not putting in an appearance” with a view to the suppression of the same, although notilied io advance by “a distinguished sportsman,” ‘The facts are as fullowa:—At quarter-past eleven o'clock on Thursday, the appointed day, I received a note from the gentieman in question adv! of the appointed inatch, to taxe place at two Me Without a moment's delay Lcailed upon the gentle. man to Whom you ailude and submitted to him that the locality choseu and the shortness of the notice would probably defeat the object of himself and friends, namely, ‘to procure & vest case to bring before the courts.” He readily acquiesced m this Sliggestion, aud satd that althongh his letter vie 17 written the day before it had failed to reach if, destination tn Uime, aud, excusing himself, be W out to endeavor to stop the “match,” in w. seems le did not succeed, Now it is in no spirit of bravado or deflance I here remark, (hat so long as te people Jaws authorize the protecuon of God's infor! tures from needless niutiiation and Killin: mere spvit, this society will, at all times in places within the jurisaiction of this State, 1 authority, when timely notified of such on. jor and is sustained in doing by the humane intelligent oplulon of all good citize ne, HENRY BERGH, Presiden, ‘To protect as far as possible all aumb, ba brate creatures from cruelty 18 What it was 4