The New York Herald Newspaper, October 26, 1869, Page 3

WASHINGTON. BEN WADE AT THE CAPITAL. His Advocacy of Cuban Re- cognition. Important Decision in Case. the Yerger Tho Supreme Court Claims Juris- diction. WASHINGTON, Oct. 26, 1569, Decision of the Sapreme Court in the Yerger Case. ‘The decision offChief Justice Chase in the Supreme Oourt to-day, declaring that the Court has Jurisdtc- tion in the Yerger case, has created considerable excitement in the national capital, This case is one in which Yerger, 1t is alleged, openly murdered a United States military ofticer, was tried by a military commission, found gullty of murder and sentenced to death, which finding and sentence were approved by tho President, but execution suspended by the Presl- dent’s order, This decision is Hkely to call for fur- ther action on the part of Congress, The recon- struction law of 1867 admitted the legitimacy of trials by military commissions in States under mar- tial government, But fearing the probable course of the Supreme Court in the case of McCardle in con- nection with a revenue bill, which raised @ great commotion among the democrats at the time, Congress added a clause which repealed so much of the aci to establish Judi- cial courts in the United States,‘approved 1789, as authorized an appeal from the judgmeat of the Circuit Court to the Supreme Court of the United States, or the exercise of any such jurisdiction by sald Supreme Court on appeals which had been or might be thereafter taxen. This action of Congress had the desired effect. ‘The Yerger case, however, came up on an appeal from the Circuit Court, ask- ‘tng for a writ of habeas corpus to be served upon General Ames releasing Yerger from military cus- today. Under a law of 1785 the appellate jurisdic- tuon extends from any tribunal, whether mili- tary or civil. The radicals aro extremely exercised over this decision, and declare that its Immediate effect will be to inaugurate a scene of riot and bloodshed in the States of Mississipp! and ‘Texa4 which there will be no power tw control or check. They declare that this action of the Supreme Court will result in the defeat of Davis in Texas and Alcorn in Mississfppi; that the rebel element will be in @ condition with impunity to shoot down any republican voter and thus by mtimidation and ‘wanton bloodshed completely control the exercise of the elective franchise, This will require the ut- most vigilance on the part of military commanders, Which will inevitably lead to @ conflict between the authorities, One prominent radical this evening declared that the Supreme Court, instead of being the strong right arm of the govern- ment, was a paralyzed member which embarrassed the entire machinery of the constitution. That it has perpetuated treason, protected rebels in their persons and in their property, ‘This deci- ston 18 looked upon as the most important since the Dred Scott case, involving the recent issues which Congress set up in its legislation affecting the rebellious States. The decision has brought down a suower of radical ‘wrath upon thejChief Justice, and these expressions even go so far as tofinvolve a prospective case of impeachment upon the grounds that the Chief Jus- tice has been systematically perverting his high oMice to political aims. It 1s probable that some effort will be made to stave off the elections in Mississippi and Texas until Congress can have an opportunity to take further legislation. The President to Attond a Wedding. The President and Mrs. Grant will leave here at moon to-morrow for Philadelphia to attend the wed- ding of the daughter of Bishop Simpson, who is to ‘be married in that city on Wednesday. They will return on Thursday evening or Friday morning. Visitors to the President. Among those who had interviews witt the Presi- Qent to-day were General Harney, Senator Cole, Oliver Ames, President of the Union Pacific Ratiroad; KE. H. Rollins, E. L. Perkins, Secretary of New Mexico, and others, Payment of the November Interest. The Secretary of the Treasury has authorized the payment at once, and without rebate, the interest due November 1, both on registered and coupon bonds. The Mississippi Election, Tho following oMcers, now unassigned to regi- ments, are assigned to duty in connection with the registration and election in Mississippi:—Captain Francis W. Weir, First Lieutenanis John Pulfard, John P. Walker, Ephraim Williams and A, E. Niles, Ben Wade’s Views Upon the Cuban Ques. ton—Necessity for Recognition. Bluff Old Ben Wade 1s in town, ana though he is ‘Bo longer a Senator he takes as deep an interest in public affairs as if he were President. Now, as of old, Mr. Wade is open and fearless in expressing his opinions upon all questions before the country. He thinks it about time that the aaministra- tion took some decided action with regard to Cuba, “Out West,” saya Wade, “we are all in favor of recognizing Cuva, and that. with- out waiting to know whether old Spain likes tt or not.” Mr. Wade does not find any fault with Pre- sident Grant and Secretary Fish for enforcing the neutrality Jaws, but he insists that itis nota ques- tion relating to the neutrality laws. The only pomt, im his opinion, to be considered is whether the revo- lution In Cuba has attained such proportions as to warrant the belief that a majority of the Cuban people are in favor of it, and whether the Cubans have a de facto government, with @ reasonable prospect of sustaining themselves? Mr. Wade believes that these points have been set- tled to the satisfaction of everybody by @ year’s ex- istence of the Cuban revolution and by the manifest Anabillty of the lards to put itdown. The first thing for the administration to do 1s to ac- knowledge the Cubans, and the question of the neutrality Jaws will regulate itself. Old Ben has no tdea of waiting for Spain to acknowledge the independence of the Cubans. He says Spain has never recognized the independence of any of the South American repub- Jics that threw off her yoke, and it 1s not probable sho will act differently in the case of Cuba. In the case of the South American republics the United States did not watt for Spain, but, acting on the Principle stated above, merely waiting to ascertain that they haa a de sacto government and then recog- nized and treated with them. Mr, Wade and several Senators who are now here are of opinion that Con- gress will certainly take action with regard to Cuba, War Between the Sioux and Pawnee In- dians. Governor Rorbank, of Dacotah Territory, in a letter received this morning at the Indian Bureau, states that recently anumber of young Sioux braves lett the Whitestone Agency for the purpose of avenging ‘the death of one ot their warriors slain by the Paw- nees, and that they had returned from the raid ‘ with SIX scalps.” Itie not stated whether these were Indian or white men's scalps. Iv 1a supposed they were Pawnee scalps, as the latter had organizea a Darty aud made pursuit, chasing the Sioux to Whe ‘West side of the Missouri river, War Office Clerks Going Home to Vote. General Sherman, as Secretary of War, tesued an order this afternoon allowing to the employes of his department who desire to go to New York to vote a week, commencing next ‘Thursday, Tho Colored Bello Senndal. An impression has gained ground here that the young diplomat referred to in my aespatch the other night as having made himself famous py taking a colored belle to the theatre In this city belongs to the French legation. In justice to that legation it should be stated that such is mot the fack ‘Tye NEW YORK HERALD, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1869.—TRIPLE SHEET. young diplomat ts a Frenchman, tt 1s true, but Was attacged to another legation and a near rela- live of its head. The Minister whose relative has thus made himself famous ts a gentleman of the highest respectability and regrets the scandalous affair deeply. The Tonnage Dues Case. On Saturday I sent you a@ brief paragraph about @ new point raised In regard to one of the cases brought against the Corporation of Washington to re- cover back fees paid to harbor masters, with interest and cost of suit. The question was argued before Justice T. K. Plant, of this city, who to-day ren- dered a decision which explains all the potnts in- volved, and which are of great importance to siipowners in New York and elsewhere, Tue fol- jowing is ie decision of Justice Plant:— ‘This suit was brought to recover the suin of four dollars, money received for tonnage dues. The At- torney for the corporation, D. E. Cabill, claimed that the most of tne account was barred by the statute of limitation, and cites “Parsons on Con- tracts,” and furthermore clauned that vhe money Was said to the harbor master without protest by the captains or masters of paid vessels, aud that was for the plaintiff to prove that if the money was received by the harbor master that he had ever paid the money over to tle cor- poration; and again, that no force was used, but What the money Was paid without threats being made by the collector. R.S. Davis, attorney for the plain- UIT, in closing the case stated that under the act of the o ‘ailon appointing @ harbor master ic 18 made his duty to collect the tax, and in case of any captain or owner refusing to pay the tax said muster, captain or other person shall, for each and every Gience, severally forfeit and pay a sum not less than thirty dollars nor more than ity dollars, to be recovered, &.; also quotes Chitty, on contracts. In regard to the plea of limitation Mr, Davis quoted the cases of Sherwood ys. Sutton, 6 Mason, 143; Conyers vs. Kinans, 4 Georgia, 208; Turnpike Corporation vs, Field, 3 Massachuseus, I bave carefully read all the authorities quoted by both attorneys, and have also read the act oi the Corporation of Wash- ington, approved December 28, 1863. I am satisfied from the evidence of Mr, William H, Barnes that the money wys paid nnder protest, and that the harbor muster did threaten to collect the fees by legal pro- cess, 88 by Said act of December 28, 1863, ordered to do, and that the money was paid to avoid the deten- tion of the vess I do not believe that the statute of mutation acts as a bar to the recovery of money in cases like the one now in question unul the end of three years from sald act having been deciared by the Supreme Court to be illegar and unconstituuional. In regard to the defendant's plea that the plaintiff must prove that the money wus paid to the corporation by the harbor master it i lay opinion that it is optional with the aggrieved party to sue eituer the agent or principal, and 1 do not believe the plaintiff has anything to do with the uses to which the money is put; that 18 a matter resting entirely with the corporation. In view Of all the facts, as above stated, 1 give judg- ment for plamtiff for the amount (four doilars) «| clatmed, on interest from date, with costs of suit. Judgeship of the Fourth United States Judi- cial District. Mr. William J. Albert, of Baltimore, and Messrs. Archibald Stirling and Benjamin Deford called upon the President to-day in relation to the filling of the original vacancy in one of the judgeships of the Fourth United States Judicial circuits of Maryland. The new law provides for nine judges, Mr. Albert and his friends suggested the mame of Judge M. Lenox Bond for the position. The President spoke favorably of Judge Bond's fitness for the position. Attorney General Hoar is also understood to be in favor of Bond’s appointment. Evasion of Duties on Iron and Steel. Mr. 8. M. Felton ana Major Henry McAllister, Jr., of Philadelphia, secretary of the American Iron and Steel Association, had an interview with Secretary Boutwell this morning in reference to the under val- uation of foreign steel and the partial evasion of the duty on tron and steel rails, Mr, Boutwell stated that he was engaged in a thorough investugation of the subject, to which his attention had previously been called, and it was his intention to carry out the Jaw in letter and spirit. Fair of the Maryland Agriculturnl Society. A committee from Baltimore, representing the Maryland Agricultural Society, and a committee representing the Maryland Institute for the Promo- tion of the Agricultural Arts, called on President Grant to-day and tendered to him an invitation to attend the inaugural exercises of the revival of their State Agricultural Society on Tuesday and Wednesday next. The President thanked the commitiee for their courttsy, but stated he would be unable to avail himself of the invitation, Serious Illness of Governor Pratt, of Mary- land. Despatches received here to-night state that ex- Jovernor Pratt, of Maryjand,»%s alarmingly ill. Governor Pratt was elected Governor of Maryland an 1844, on the ticket with Henry Clay, and in 1848 succeeded Reverdy Johnson in the Senate, who was appointed Attorney General in Taylor's Cabinet, and served eight years as United States Senator. Goy- ernor Pratt’s influence in Southern Maryland was very great, and tn his death Maryland will lose one of her most distinguished and usefal sons. Consal General for the British East Indies. George Butler, a nephew of General Butler, has been appointed Consul General vo the British East Indies, Mr. Butler has for some time been connected with the press of New York, and has been here for che last week. A Long Term. Judge Fisher to-day sentenced a colored youth, seventeen or twenty years old, to tuirty years’ im- prisonment tn the Albany Penttentiary for an out- rage committed on a small child, also colored, Yellow Fever in British Honduras. The Vice Commercial Agent at Belize, British Honduras, under date of September 16, repo. 6 symptoms of yellow fever then prevatling. T: disease 60 far is not epidemic, The deaths are few and are confined to the non-acclimated, Personal. Colonel William G. Moore, formerly private secre- tary of ex-President Johnson, after spending a few days here returns to-morrow to his feild of duty out West as paymaster in the army. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. The Yerger CaseAppellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court—Authority to Issue Writs of Habeas Corpus—Opinion by Chief Justice Chase. WASHINGTON, Oct. 25, 1869, No. 17 (original). In the matter of Edward M. Yerger, Petition Jor Habeas Corpus and Certio- rari.—Opinion of the court by Chief Justice Chase, Upon the prayer of the petitioner addressed to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern district of Missisetppl, a writ of habeas corpus was directed to certain military ofMcers holding the petitioner in custody, commanding them to produce his body and abide the orders of the court. In obedience to this writ the prisoner was brougnt into court by Major Gen- eral R. 8S. Granger, who made his return in due form, certifying the cause of detention to be that the petitioner bad been arrested and was held for trial upon acharge of murder, by a military com- mission under the act of Congress of the 2d of March, 1867, to provide for the more eficient gov- ernment of the rebel States, Upon this return the petitioner was ordered into the eustody of the Marshat and the Court proceeded to hear argument. It was admitted that the petitioner was a private citizen of the State of Misslasippi, that he was being tried by the military commission without a jury and without presentment or indict- ment by ® Grand Jury, and that he was not and never had been connected with the army or navy of the United States or with the militia, in active ser- vice, in time of war or invasion. Upon this case the Circuit Court adjudged that the imprisonment of the petitioner was jawiul, and passed an order that the writ of habeas corpus be dismissed and that the prisoner be remanded to the custody of the military oMcer by whom he had been brought into court, to be held and detamed for the purpose and to answer to the charge set forth in the return, To obtain the reversal of this order and relief from imprisonment the petitioner now asks for a writ of certiorari to bring here for review the proceedings of the Circuit Court and for a writ of habeas corpus to be issued under the authority of this court to the oMcer to whose custody he was remanded, upon the suggestion of the Attorney General mate in view of the importance of the questions which will proba- bly arise if the case i# broaght to a hearing. We have heard the preiiminary argument upon the jurtadiction of the court to issue the writ prayea for, ‘and bave carefully considered the reasonings which have been addressed to us, Tins argument, by the direction of the court, was confined to the single point of Jurisdiction, and I am now to state the con- clusions to which we have come. The general quea- tion of jurisdiction in this case resolves iteell neces- gary ib two narrow auestions:—Kirgt—Has the 3 court jurisdiction in a case like the present to inquire into the cause of detention aliegea to be unlawful, and to give relief if the detention be found to be in fact unlawful by the writ of habeas corpus under the Judiciary act of 1789? Second—If, under that act, the court possessed this jurisdiction, has it been taken away by the second section of the act of March 27, 1868 (15 United States Statutes, 44), repealing 60 much of the act of February 5, 1867 (United States Statutes, 85) as authorizes anyone from Cireutt Courts to the Supreme Court? Neither of these questions is new here. ‘The first has on several occa- sions received very full consideration and very de- liberate judgment. A cause 60 {important as that which now invokes the action or the court seem however, to way @ reconsideration of the grounds upon which its jurisdiction has been hitherto matntamed, The great writ of habeas corpus has been for centu- ries esteemed the best and only sufficient defence of personal freedom. In Engiand, after a long strug- gie, it was formally guaranteed by the famous Habeas Corpus act of May 290, 1679 (3 British Stat- utes at Large, 8—Hallam’é Constitutional History, 19), for the better securing of the liberty of the sul Ject, which, as Blackstone says, ‘is frequenuy con- sidered as another Magna Charta.’ (3 Blackstone's Commentaries, 145.) Itwas brought to America by the colonists and claimed as among the immemorjat rights descended to them from their ancestors, Naturally, therefore, when the Confederated Colo- mies became the United States, and the formation of @ common government engaged their deliberations in conventions, this great writ found permanent sanction in the constitution, That sanction 1s In these words :— ‘The priviloge of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be sus. pended unless when, im cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it. The terms of this provision necessarily imply Judi- clal action. in England all the higher courts were Open to applicants for the whit, and it is hardly sup- posable that under the new government, founded on more liberal ideas and principles, any court would be intentionally closed .o them. We tind accord ingly, that the first Congress under the constivution, ‘after defining, by various sections of the act of Sep- tember 24, 1789, the jurisdiction of the District courts, the Circuit courts and the Supreme Court in other cases, proceeded, in the fourteenth section to enact “that all the before mentioned courts of the United States shall have power to igaue Writs of sclre facias, habeas corpus and all other writs not specially provided for by statute, which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective juris- aictions and agreeable to the principies and usages of law.’’ (lL U. 8. Statutes, 81.) In the same section it was further provided that Either of the justices of the Supreme Court, as well as the judges of the District courts, shall have power to graut writs ‘of habeas corpus for the purpose of an inquiry {nto the cause of commitment, provided that writs of hubeas corpus. shall in no cage extend to prisoners in jail unless they are in cus- tody under or by color of the authority of the United States, or wre committed for trial before some court of the same, oF are necessary to be brought into court to testify. ‘That this Court is one of the courts to which the wer to issue writs of habeas corpus 1s expressly given by the terms of this section has never been questioned, It would have veen, indeed, a remarka- ble anomaly if unis court, ordained by the constitution for the exetcise in the Untied States of the most important powers in civil cases of all the highest courts of England, had been denied, under a constitution which absolutely prohibits the suspension fof the writ, except under ¢xtraordi- nary exigencies, that power in cases of alleged un- lawful restraint which the habeas corpus act of Oharles IJ. expressly declared those courts to possess. But the power vested in this Court is in an Important particular unlike that possessed by the English coufts. The jurisdiction of this Court is conferred by the constitution and is appellate; whereas, that of the English courts, though declared and defined by statutes 1s derived from the common jaw, and is original, The judicia' power of the United States exteads to ail cases in law and equity arising under the constitution, the laws of the United States and treaties made under their author- ity, aud to large classes of cases determined by the character of the partjes or the nature of the contro- versy. Thatpart of this judicial power vested in {nis Court is defined by the eonstitution in these words: In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall bave original jurisdiction. In ail other cases before mentioned the Supreme Court shall have appel- te jurisdiction bota as to law and fact, with such excepuions and Under such regulations as the Congress shall make. If the question were a new one it would perhaps deserve inquiry whether Congress might not, under the power to make exceptions from this appeliave jurisdiction, extend the original jurisaiction to other cases than those expressly enuwerated in the con- sutution, and especiaily in view of the con- stitutional guarantee of the writ of habeas corpus to cuses arising upon petition for that writ. in the case of Marbury vs. Madison (1 Cr., 137) it was determined, upon full consideration, that the power to issue writs of mandamus given this court by te thirteenth section of the Judiciary act 1s, under the constitution, an appellate jurisdic. to, to be used only im the revision of judicial decisions, And this judgment has ever since been accepted a8 fixing the construction of this part of the constituuon. It was pronounced in 1803. In 1807 the same copstruction was given to the provi- sion of the fourteenth section relating to the writ of habeas corpus in the case of Baliman and Swart- wout (4 Cr., 100). The power to issue the writ bad been previously exercised in Hamilton’s case, 1795 (8 Cr., 448) and in Durford’s case (4—1806), in neither of which does the distinction between appellate and original jurisdiction appear to have been made. In the case ot saliman and — Swartwout, however, the point was brought distinctly before the court, the nature of the jurisdiction was carefully examined and 1+ was declared to be appellate. ‘The question then determined has not since been dtawa into contro- versy. The doctrine of the constitution and of the cases thus far may be summed up in these proposi- uons:— First—The origmal jurisdiction of this Court can- not be extended by Congress to any otwer cases than those expressly defined by the constitution. Second—Tne appellate jurisdiction of this Court conferred by the constitution extends to all other cases within the judicial power of the United States, Third—This appellate jurisdiction is subject to such exceptions and must be exercised under suca Tegulations as Congress in the exercise of its discre- tion has made or may see fit to make. Fourth—Congress not only has not excepted writs ‘of habeas corpus and mandamus from this appellate juriadictuon, but has expressly provided for the ex- ercise of this jurisdiction by means of these writs, We come, then, to consider the first great ques- tion made in the case now before us. We shall assume, upon the authority of the decisions referred to, What we should hoid were the question now for the first time presented to us, that in a proper case this court, under the act of 1789 and under all the subsequent acts giving jurisdiction in cases of habeas corpus, may, im the exercise of its appellate power, revise the decisions of the inferior courts of tne United States and relieve from unlawful impris- onment authorized by them, except in cases within some limitation of the jurisdiction by Congress. it remains to Inquire whether the case before us is proper one for such interpretation ; is it within any such limitation? In ovher words, can this court inquire into the Jawiulness of the detention and retieve from It, if found unlawful when the detention complained of 18 not by civil authority under a commiment made by an luterior court for trial in a civil court, but by military oMcers for trial before a@ military tribunal? After an examination into the cause of detention by the inferior court, resuiting im an order remanding the prisoner to custody, 1: was insisted in argument that to bring @ case within the appellate jurisdiction of this court in the sense requisite to enable it to award the writ of habeas corpus under the judiciary act, it is Decessary that the commitment should appear to have been by @ tribunal whose decisions are subject to revision by this court. This propost- tion seems to assert not only that the decision to be Tevised upon habeas corpus must have been made by a court of the United States subject to the orai- nary appellate jurisdiction of this court, but that having been so made it must have resulted in an order of commitment to civil authority subject to the contro! of the court making it. The first branch of this proposition has certainly some support in Metzer’s case (15 How. 176), in which 1t was heid that an order of commitment made by @ district Judge at chambers cannot be revised here by habeas corpus, This case, as Was observed by Mr. Justice Nelson in Kaine’s case, 14 Howard, 103, stands alone, and it may admit of question wiether it can be entirely reconciled with the proposition, which we regard as established upon principle and authority, thats the appellate jurisdiction by habeas corpus extends to all cases of commitment by the judicial authority of the United States not excepted from it by Congress. But it is unnecessary to enter upon this inquiry here. The action which we are asked to revise was that of a tribunal whose decisions are subject to revision by this court in ordinary modes, We need consider, therefore, only the second branch of the proposition, namely, that the acuon of the inferior court must have resulted in a commitment for trial in acivil court, and the inference drawn from it that no relief can be had here by habeas cor- pus from imprisonment under military authority, to which the petitioner mayhave been remanded by such @ court. This proposition, certainly, is not supported by authority. In Kaine’s case all the judges except one asserted, directly or indirectly, te jurisdiction of vhis court to give relief in @ case where the detention was by order of a United States Commissioner. The lawfulness of the deten- tion had been examined by the Circuit Court for the Southern district of New York upon a writ of habeas corpus, and the court has disiissed the writ and remanded the prisoner to custody. In this court relief was denied on the merits, but the Jurisdiction Was questioned by one judge oniy, and: it is dimcult to find any substantial grounds upon which jurisdiction im that case can be affirmed and denied in this, Jn Wells? case, 18 How. 208, the petitioner was confined in the penitentiary under a sentence of death, com- muted by the President into a sentence of imprison- ment for lite. He obtamed a writ of habeas corpus from the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia, was brought before that court and was remanded to custody. He then sued out a writof habeas cor- pus from this court ana ne case was July considered here. No objection — seems to have been taken in argument to the (eegcicnem, though there, as here, it was evident ‘hat the actual imprisonment at the time of the peti- tion for the writ, was not under the direction of the court by whose order the prisoner was remanded, but by @ diferent and distinct authority. In the case of Wells, however, Mr. Justice rts again dissented, and on the point of jurisdiction Mr. Jus- “ce Campbell concurred with lim, The other Juages, though they except one, were of opmion that the relief asked must be denied, agrecd in main- taining the jurisdiction of the Court. Judge Curtis, Who regarded the question ag left undetermined in Kaine's case, admitted that the jurisdiction was as- Serted in thia, and stated the a of judgment sdlming Jurisdiction to be thay “as the Circuit Court has had the prisoner before it and has re- manded hit, this court oy a writ of habeas corpus may examine that decision aud see whether it be erroneous or not.” Since tis = judgment was pronounced the jurisdiction im cases similar to that now before the court has not hitherto been questioned. We have carefully considered the arguinent against it made in this case and are satisfied that the doctrine heretofore maintamed 1s sound, The great aud leading intent of the constitution and the law must be kept con- stantly in view upon the examination of every ques- tion of construction; that intent In respeck to the ‘writ of habeas corpus 1s mauifest. It 1s that every citizen may be proveted by judicial action from an- Wiul imprisonment, ‘fo this end, as has been shown, the act of 1879 provided that every court of the United States should have power to issue the writ. ‘The juriadiction thus given by law to the Circuit and District Courts 1s original; that given by the constitution and the law to tits court appellate, given in general teria, It must neces- sarily extend to all cases to which the judicial power ofthe United States extends other than those expressly excepted the act of 1789, At did not extend to cas viction, under senience of compe to any prisoners in jati, unless in custody under or by color of the authority of the United’ States, or cominitted for trial before some court of the United States, or required to be brought into court to tes- tify. But this limitacion has been gradually nar- rowed and the- beneiits of tue writ have been ex- tended—first, in Isu5 (4 U. 8, Statute, 643), to prison- ers confined under any authority, Whether State or national, for any act done or committed i pursu- are of @ law of the United States or of any order, rovess or decree of any judge or court of the nited States, ‘Then, in isd2 (5 U. 8. Statute, 529), to prisoners being subjects or citizens of foreign States in custody under national or State authority for acts done or omitted by or under color of foreign authority and alleged to be valid under the law of nations. And finaliy, im iss7 (14 United States Statutes, 385), to all cases where any person may be restrained of liberty in violauion of the constitution, or of any treaty or law of the United States. This brief statement shows how the general spirit and genius of our institutions have tended to the widentng and enlarging of the habeas corpus jurisdiction of the courts aud judges of tne United States; and the tendency, except in one recent instance, has been constant and uniform, and it is im the light of it that we must determine the true meaning of the constitution and the law in respect to the appellate jurisdiction of this Court, We are not at liberty to except from it any cases not plainly exceptea by law, and we think it suMciently appears trom what has been said that no exception to this jurisdiction embraces such a case as that now fore the Court, On the contrary, the case is one Ol those expressly declared not vo be excepted from the general grant of jurisdiction; for itis a case of imprisonment alleged to be unlawful and to be under color of authority of the United States, It seems to be @ necessary consequence that if the appellate jurisdiction by habeas corpus extends to any case it extends to this. It is unimportant in what custody the prisoner may be if it is a custody to which he has been remanded by the order trom an inferior court of the United States, 1t 18 proper to add that we are not aware of any- thing In any act of Congress, except the act of 1863, which indicates any intention to withhold appellate jurisdiction in habeas corpus cases from tis Court, or to abridge the jurisdiction derived from the con- stitution and defined by the act of 178%, We agree that Congress may withhold or abridge it; for 1t is given subject to exception and reguiation by Con- gress. it is too plain for argument that the denial to this Court of appellate jurisdiction in this class of cases must greatly weaken the emi- ciency of the writ, deprive the citizens In many cases of its benefits and seriously hinder the estab- lishment of that uniformity in decisions upon ques- tions of personal rights which can only be attained through appellate jurisdiction exercised upon the decisions of courts of original jurisdiction. In the particular class of cases of which that before tne Court 1s an example, where the custody to which the prisoner § is that of some autbority other than that of the re- manding court. Itis evident that the imprisoned citizen, however unlawful his imprisonment may be, in fact is wholly without remedy, unless 1¢ be found dn the appellate jurisdiction of this Court. These considerations foryid any constructions giving witholding to doubtful words the effect of or abridging this jurisdicuon. They would strongly persuade against the the jurisdiction, even were the reasons for offering it less cogent than they are. We are obliges Circuit Court of the United States has, in the exer- cise of its original jurisdiction, caused a prisoner to be,brougut before it and has, after inquiring into the cause ol detention, remanded him to the custody from which he was taken, this Court, in the exer- cise of 18 appeliate jurisdiction, may, by the writ of habeas corpus, aided by the writ of cer- tiorar, revise the decisions of the Circuit Court, and if it be found unwarranted by law, release the prisoner from the unlawful restraint n remanded, usto the inquiry whether to which he has This conclusion brings the second section of the act of Marci 27, 1868, takes or affects the Caley jurisdiction of this court under the constitution and the acts of Congress: prior to 1867? We have already expressed in Mc- Cardle’s case our opinion that it was. But the point was not very carefully considered (7 Wells, 551.) ‘The circumstances undgr which the act of 1868 was On the 6th of February, 1867, Congress passed an act, to which reference has already been made, extending the original jurisdic- tion by habeas corpus of the District and Circutt Courta, and of the several judges of these courts, to rty in violation of the constitution, treaties or laws of the United States. peals to this court from judgments of the Circuit Court, but did not repeal away passed were peculiar. all cases of restraint of il ‘This act authorized a) uny previous act conferring jurisdiction by habeas corpus uniess by implication. Unaer — this act one McCardle, alieging unlawful restraint of mill- tary force, petitioned the Circuit Court for the Southern district of pened oe the writ of habeas corpus. The writ was issued and a return Was made, and upon hearing it the Court decided thas the restraint was lawful and remanded him to custody. McCardle prayed an appeai under the act to tais court, which was allowed and perfected. A mouon to dismiss the appeal was made here and denied. The case was then argued at the bar, and the argument baving been concluded on the vth of March, 1869, was taken under advisement by the Court, While the cause was thus held, and before the Court had time to consider the decision proper to be made, the repealing act, under consideration, was introduced into Congress, ‘The act was carried through both houses, sent to the Presiden’, returned with hisgobjections, repassed by the constitutional majority in each house, and became a law on the 27th of March, within eighteen days after the con- clusion of the argument. The effect of the act was to oust the court of its jurisdicuon of the par- ticular case them before it on appeal, and it is not to be doubted that such was the effect Intended. Nor will it be questioned that legis- Jation of this character is unusual and hardly to be Justified, except upon some imperious public ext- —. It was doubtiess within the constitutional iscretion of Congress to determine whether such an exigency existed, but itis not to be presumed that au act passed under such circumstances was intended to have any further effect than that plainly It is quite clear that the apparent from its terms. words of the act reach not only all appeals but all future appe: 1867, but they apps ending, are That so much of the act approved February 5, 1867, as appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court he exercise of authorizes to the Supreme Court of the United States, or any such jurisdiction by sald Supreme Court on app which have been or may be hereafter taken, be and the same is hereby repealed, These words are not of doubtful interpretation. They repeal only so much ol the act of 1s67 as authorizes appeals or the exercise of appellave jurisdiction by this court. They affect only appeais and appellate jurisdiction authorized by that act. They do not purport to touch the appellate jurisdiction conferred by the constitution or by ex- cepting from it any cases not excepted by che act of 1789. ‘They reach no act except the act of 1867, It has been suggested, however, that the act of 1789, 80 far as it provided for the issuing of writs of habeas corpus of this court, was already repealed by the act of 1867. We have already observed that there are no repealing words in that act. If it repeaied the act of 1789 it did so by implication, and any impltca- tion which would give to it this effect upon the act of 1789 would give it the same effect upon the acts of 1833 and 1842. If one was repealed ail were re- pealed. Repeals by implication are not favored. ‘They are seldom admitted except on the ground of repugnancy, and never, we think, when the former act can stand together with the uew act. No doubt the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, under the act of 1789, was less convenient than under the act of 1867, But the provision of a new and more convenient mode of its exercise does not necessarily take away the old; and that this effect Was not intended 1s indicated by the fact that the authority conferred by the new act is expressly declared to be “in addition” to the authority con- lerred by the former acts. Addition 1s not substitu. tion, The appeal given by this act of 1867 extended, indeed, the cases within the former acts, and the act by its grant of additional authority so cniarged the jurisdiction by habeas corpus that it seemed, as was observed inthe McArdie case, “impossible to widen It,” But (his effect does not take from the act its character of an additional grant of jurisdiction and make 1t operate as a repeal of jurisdiction here- tofore allowed. One conclusion is that none of the acts prior to 1867, authorizing this court to exercise appellate jurisdiction by means of the writ of habeas corpus, were repealed by the act of that year, and that the repealing section of the act of 186s ts hm- ited in terms and must be limited in effect to the appellate jurisdiction authorized by the act of 1867, We coula come to no other conclusion without nolding that the whole appellate Jurisdtetion of this court in cases of habeas corpus conferred by the constitution recognized by law and exercised trom the foundation of the government heretofore has been taken away Without the expres- sion of such intent and by mere Implication through the operation of the acts of 1867 and 1868. ‘The sug- gestion made at the bar that the provision of the act Of 1759 relating to the jurisdiction of this court by habeas corpus if repealed by the effect of the act of 1867 was revised by the repeal of the repealing act has not escaped our consideration, We are mnciaed to think that such would be the effect of the act of 1868; but having come to the conciusion that the act of 1780 Was not repealed by the act of 1867, it is not necessary to express an opinion on that point. ‘The argument having been confined by direction of the Court to the question of juriadiction, this opinion 1s limited to that question. The jurisdiction of the court to issue the writ prayed for is afirmed. Associate Justice Swayne was understood to re- mark that he bad been requested to sav for Agsociate to hold, therefore, that in all cases where a to this court under the act of ear to be limited to appeals taken under that act. The words of the repealing section Justice Miller, who was abgent, that the latter dis- sented from the opinion. Waring Versus the Mayor, &c. Corporation Taxes on Sales. No. 128.—Moses Waring vs. The Mayor, @¢., of Mobile.—Error to the Supreme Court of Alabama.— ‘The plaintiff in error is a merchaat of Mobile and claims to be an importer of salt into that port. He claims that the city, under authority of the State law, seeks to impose apon him a tax and @ penalty for its non-payment on sales, which he alleges is illegal, because in conflict with that clause of the geastitation of the United States which prohibits @ tate from levying any duties on imports and ex- ports, It appears that the salt 1s brought from Liv- erpool by merchant sbips as ballast and is laden on unt of the shipowners. These sbips being unable to come up to the wharves of Mobile discharge their galt. by means of lighters down the bay, alleged to be beyond the limits of the port, and the plaiatif in error owns boats of this character and receives the cargoes Of salt in the original packages, which he brings up to the city, formally paying the duties thereon, and proceeds to sell to the trade as im- porter. It was shown, however, that before the cargoes were discharged upon the plaintiff in errer’s lightera the shipowners made the necessary deposit in gold to secure the federal imports, in accordance with the lawa of the United States. ‘The action was brought to restrain the collection of the tax com- plained of and to enjoin the exaction oi the penalty claimed for non-payment. The Chaucellor granted reversed that decree and dismissed the complaint. stances of the case, State taxation. goods to arrive, lighters, were to pe deemed the importers, judgment below was affirmed. The Lockwood-Morey Patent Case. been long in use prior to the and a large number of exhibits ment alleged. ment. menced on Friday last and concluded to-day. been prepar and whic paralytic attack. ment. meat of this cause, before stated, was,continued. TROTTING AL THE FASHION COURSE. John Chambers’ chestnut stallion Hickory Jac! trotted before its conclusion. won by Hickory Jack. Tace very cleverly. seeming to fancy it. charming and the attendance satisfactory. the detalls:— THE FIRST TROT, the favorite at three to two. stand. He, however, retained the pole, backstretch was extremely interesting, mule pole he was one length ahead. Time, 1 stretch, only won the heat by @ neck. Time, 2:35. pole was passed by Dot mm 1:1533. began shutting u, stretch at Dot's wheel. An 2333%. three to two over his adversary. Third Heat.—Dot was the favorite before starting, the close of the previous heat. The turn. neck, in thirty-eight seconds. Gomg backstretch daylight at the half-miie 1:4. end and quickly showed tn front. he carried Jack to a break the heat by two lengtis in ee Fourth Heat.—Joun Cudney was taken from be- hind Hickory Jack and John Murphy substituted in his place. The start was*a very even one, but Dot took the lead on the turn, and he increased his ad- vantage toa length at the quarter pole, which he passed in thirty-eight and @ quarter seconds. Going down the backstretch Hickory Jack closed up a trifle, but he fell off again to Dot's wheel at the half. Mile pole. Time, 1:164. On the Flushing end Hickory Jack broke up and {ell off a length, Dot coming into the homestretcn two lengihs clear. Hickory Jack broke once more on the homestretch, and Dot came home a winner of the heat and race by three lengths, in 2:34 The following is a SUMMARY, FASmion COURSE, Oct 25.—Match, $1,000; mile heats, best three in five, in harness, B. Dobie named eb 1211 J. Cudney named 21223 Mile, Virst heat. 2 Second heat. 38 115g ‘vhird heat... 38 Lid Fourth heat....... B83 L6G THE SECOND TKOT, ¢ Heat.—Louise won the pole. She had an advantage of nearly a length at the start, but vroke up soou afterwards, and Burger took the lead by two lengths, which he carried to the quarter pole in thirty-seven and three quarter seconds. The stallion kept the lead down the backstretch, and was two lengths ahead at the half-mile pole in 1:16!%. Burger trotted steadily along, While Louise made several skips, and onthe homestretch made a bad break. ‘The stallion came home a winuer by nearly three Jengths in 2:04, Second Heat,—There was no betting on the race. ‘The horses had @ very good start, Louise having slightly the advantage on the lead, but the stallion soon showed in front on the turn, aud ied one length and a half to the quarter pole in forty seconds. There was no change in tle posir tions of the horses to the half-mile poi, which was passed in 1:18, Going around (he Fiust- ing end Louise made a skip or two, but did not lose by the changes of gait. Burger broke at the turee- quarter pole, when Louise collared him aud they entered the straight head and head. ‘The stallion beat the mare home after a oard siruggle by avout one length in 2:3734, Third Heat,.—Louise had the best of the start, but Burger 8000 took the lead away trom her, and gome around the turn one length in front, passed the of Moblie— the injunction, but the Supreme Court of the state A writ of error was then taken to this court. The cause was recently argued and now decited, Mr. Justice Clifford delivering the opinion of the court. It i# held that under the laws of the Untted States regulating imports, and under the circom- us stated above, the plaintil in error was Lot the importer of the salt, but the mere purchaser from the importer; and the fact that he sold in unbroken packages did not exempt him from He had noc partaken of auy of the risks of the voyage, but was a mere purchaser of ‘The owners of the ship on whose account the sait was laden, and who had complied with the jaws in the matter of Gisoharging by The No, 140.—Lockwood, Complainant, vs. Morey et al.—Appeal from the Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts.—The complainant in this case was the assignee of a patent upon reissue fora syringe, denominated the “Enema syringe,” which, it 18 alleged, has been infringed by the appellants. ‘The answer was that the original patentees were the first inventors, as the principle claimed had patent, and the quea- tion of priority was the chief matter for aetermina- tion, to be ascertained from volumes of evidence in the case, the latter being syringes of earlier make than the one covered by the compiainanv’s patent. The Judgment below was for the complainant, and the cause thence came here. Mr. Justice Nelson now deli- vered the opinion of the court, afirming tbe decree entered below, holding that it sumMciently appears that the patentees were the original inventors, and that the appellants had been guilty of the infringe- Maguire vs. Tyler—Motion to Reform Judg- No. 107.—Maguire vs. Tyler et al.—This is the motion to reform the judgment in the cause com- Gen- eral Ewing appeared and read the brief which had by his father, Thomas Ewing, Sr., he was elaborating at the time of his Judge Curtis conciuded the argu- No. 175.—Patterson vs, De La Rouse.—The argu- Two trotting matches came off yesterday after- noon at the Fashion Course, the first veing for $1,000, mile heats, best three in five, in harness, between Budd Dobie’s chestnut gelding Dot and nd the second vetween Mr. Scanion’s chestnut mare Louie and Mr. Paulding’s chestnut stallion Burger, mile heats, best three tn five, in harness, Dot won tne first race, four finely contested heats being Hickory Jack was the favorite before the start at three to two, but after winning the first heat Dot became the favorite and continued so to the end, except lor a few moments after the conclusion of the second heat, whicn was Dot was the favorite after the third heat at one hundred to ten, and wou the The second trot was won vy Louise, who won only the thira heat, however, Burger taking the first and second; but he was so used up alter the third beat that his owner concluded to withdraw him from the contest, believing that he had no chance of winning the race. He was the favorite before the start at three to one, with few takers. Very little money ‘was won or lost on this match, the speculators not The track was in excellent condition, the weather But to First Heat.—Hickory Jack won the pole. He was at the start they were very even, but Jack soon broke after leaving the and the horses went around the turn as if yoked together. At the quarter pole Hickory Jack bad his head in front in thirty-eight seconds. The contest down tne Hickory Jack drawing away inch by inch, and at the half. On the lower turn Jack drew away a little further, aud showed daylight, which he heid into the home- When the horses got into straight work on the stretch Dot made play and gained rapidly on Jack, and about midway up was very close to him, Jack then left his feet and Dot took theiead, but Hickory Jack trotted 80 fast afterwards that. Dot Second Heat.—Dot was the favorite at one hundred to forty before the start. ‘Ihe horses had a very even send-off, and they went to the turn on equai terms. Dot was a neck ahead at the quarter pole in tnirty- eight seconds. Going down the backstretch the race ‘Was close until near the half-mile pole, when Hickory Jack broke up and lost two lengths. The hall-mile Hickory Jack then the daylight, and he ciosed grad- ualiy around the Flushiug end, coming on the home- A very exciting stroggle ensued on the homestretch, aud after a desperate siruggie Hickory Jack won the heat by a short neck The result of this beat made a change in the betting fora short time, and ilickory Jack re- sumed nis Old position as favorite, selling at nearly notwithstanding that Jack had the call at neariy three to two when the pooiseller began business at horses hud & very even start and went head and head around the At the quarter pole Hickory Jack ied by a down the t jaltered, having become a little entangled, and fell off two lengths: but he soon straightened himself again, and quickly shut up the ole, Which Was passed mm Dot trotted very ast around the Flushing He came into the homeatreteh half a length in front of Jack, and after a hard struggle, which lasted all the wey up, ear the finish and wou quarter pole that distance ahead in thirty-n' seconds, Going down the backstretch Burger broke nd ran until he was two lengtis ahead at the halfe Inile pole in 1:18. Loulse, however, passed hing belore he recovered, and, coming on with the lead, Was one length in front at the three-quarter pole, Burger broke on the homestretch badly, and Louise won the heat by six leugths in ‘4. Burger was then withdrawa. ‘The following 18 & SUMMARY. Same Day.—Match $600, mile heats, best three tn five, in harne J. Murphy named ch. m. Louise. J. Paulding naiued ch. n. Burger TIME. First beat..... Second heat, . Third heat. PROSPECT PARK FAIR GROUNDS. A Public Day—Trotting of Members’ Horsee— Hatfeld’s Black Mare Kate, and Bates? Team Dan and Toby, the Winners. As bright and bracing a day as ever shone om autumnal foliage, gorgeous in variegated tints, greeted 600 visitors at the Prospect Park Fair Grounds yesterday, invited by the Trotting Com- mittee of the Association to witness two races—one for single horses thdt never beat three minutes in public, and the other for double teams known to be owned by members of the club at least one month previous to entry, The prizes offered for the first race were a blunket and hood, and for the second a gold medal to first team and robe for the second. Each race was to wagons, best three in five. The track was in splendid condition, and, with the charming sunshine biending deliciously with an exhilarating atmosphere, good time was expected, and, fortunately, developed. THE FIRST TROT. Out ofa field of twelve entries eight came to the stand but only seven started, The chestnut gelding Dick was withdrawn at the last moment, owing to the unfavorable position in which he was placed by the judges, The brown geiding Mocking Bird, gray mare Belle, bay geiding Billy, and brown gelding John I. were also drawn. The spotted gelding Flat- bush Boy was the favorite almost even ogainat the fleld before the start, but the black mare Kate, who hasa@ good turn of speed, won the race in three straight heats, Furst Heat.—After four attempts Nelly got away with the lead, Harry second, Kate third, Gipsey fourth, and the balance in a bunch to the rear. Around the turn Harry went to the tront, Kate second and Nelly third, the rest as before. The quarter pole was reached—BHarry two lengths ahead—in thirty-nine and three-quarter seconds, Kate second, one length in advance of Fisher Girl, the rest in their usual places, From this Kate trotted well, passing all shortly, reaching the half- mile pole in 1:20, Harry second, Fisher Girl third and the balance following at some distance. Home- ward Kate increased the gap to seven lengths, pass- ing under the string that stretch the winner, Fisher Girl, who had secured second piace, one length ahead of Harry, Nelly fourth, Willie fifth, Gipsey and Flatbush Boy distanced. Time, 2:44. Second Heat.—Kate got the bestof the send-off, Harry seeond, Nelly third, Fisher Girl fourth and the balance together. At the quarter pole, passed in 414, Kate was two lengths ahead of Willie, who had gone up to second place on a pretty burst of speed, Harry third, one length the best of Fisher Giri, who was two lengths in advance of Nelly. At the half-mile pole Willie broke badly and run from that position almost home. Kate followed the gelding, passing it in 1:213j, Harry third, Fisher Girl Fourth and Nelly last. On the homestretch and to the string Kate was two lengths ahead, Harry second, Nelly third, Fisher Girl fourth and Wilhe distanced for “running.” Time, 2:45. Third Heat.—The field now contained all four con- testants. Kate won it quite easily, passing under the string eight lengths to the front, Harry second, Fisher Girl third, aud Nellie fourtn. Time, 2:42. ‘The following 13 @ SUMMARY. Prospect PARK Fain GROUNDS, October 25.— Prizes, a blanket and hood jor horses owned by Members of the club that have not heaten three minutes in public; mile heats, best three im five to wagon: Mr. Hatfleid entered bik. m. Kate. . 1 Mr. Bush entered b. g. Harry. -3 382 Mr. Rogers entered b. m. Fisher Girl... 3238 Mr, W, Mundeli entered g. m. Neily.... 446 Mr, Willis entered b. g. Willie 6 dis, Mr. Talmadge entered spot g. Flatbush Boy.. din. Mr. Jones entered b. m. Gipsey . is. Mr. Van Brunt entered ch. g. Dick. ar, Owner entered br. g. Mocking Bird ar, Owner entered g. mn. Belle.. dr. Owner entered b. g. Bully. dr. Owner entered br. g. Jonn or. TIME. Quarter. Lalf. Three-quarters, Mil First heat.. + 39% ee 4 22014 2:44 Second head..... 4145 % Third heat. « WG "4 7 THB SECOND TROT. The race for douvie teama had three entries—Mr. Bates’ brown gelding Dan and chestnut gelaing Toby; Messrs. Smith, Gould, Martin & Co.’s brown ig Driitand chestnut mare idol, aud George team, Samson aod Annie. It was won by t! former. Drift and Idol were the favorites. In the first heat their opponeuts, Dan and Toby, came under the string four lengths in advance. Inthe second heat, splendidly contested, they passed home by a neck only. The third heat was adead one. The fourth heat and the race were wou by Dan and Toby. The following 1s a. SUMMARY. Samg Day.—Medal and a lap robe, for double teams known to be owned by members of the club one month previous to entry. Mile heats, best three In five, to wagons. Mr. Bates entered br. g. Dan and ch. g. 1 Toby ss 101 Messrs. 5 , 5 entered br. g. Driftand cb, m. Idol.... 2 2 0 2 TIME. Quarter. He First heat.. Second heat. ‘Third heat. Fourth heat. Aig 2:12 2362 ‘The prizes were exhibited from the siand oy the judges, ana found to be of value and exquisite workinangliip. Poo! Selling Last Evening. The untortunate postponement of the steeple chase because of the unfavorable state of the weather ope- rated last evening to prevent the usual lively interest generally taken in the sale of pools. Many had already invested, and most of the money floating about in sposting circles was consequently absorbed beforenand. The following exhibits the conaition of the bosang market: SALES DX. UNDERWOOP—JOCKEY CLUB ROOMS, TWENVY-PIRST STRERT AND UROADWAY, Steeple Chase, $1,000. Mitenell. $50 100-200 Bohannon. 40 80 160 Eminence + 20 25 105 Lobelia 20 25 = (100 1 38 110 2 se 90 eepstakes, $600. S25 100-200 0 4 9% Oak ay 6 25 65 6 20 45 4 pty 3o 5 20 40 oo 8 12 2 BY MR. JOUNSON, TWENTY-FIGHTR STREET aND BROADWAY. Steeple Chase. Mitchel! . 120 100 Bohaunon . 100 90 PANE . 5640 Fiei¢ + 9 4 00 Mile Heat Race, Lancaster. + $150 160160 Lizzie Rogers 90 85 BT Cottrill eS Field . of 50 60 Handicup, One and Three-quarter Mie, Cottrill .. siveness + $150 160-260 Metairie . » 90 90 164 Sanford... 48 64 120 Field .. 10863188. THE SUEZ CANAL. Visit of the mperor of Austrin to the Inaugaration, By mati from ope we learn that the Emperor Francis Joseph, on his way to the Suez Canal inan- guration, will leave Pesth for Rootschook by steamer, From Rootschook he will go by rail to Varna, where the Austrian squadron, under com- mand of Vice Admiral Tegethof, will await his arrival. The Emperor will go on board of the steam frigate Elizabeth. The stay at Constantinople wit be five or six days, during which time the imperial guest will live in the Suitan’s own palace, Although Very anxious to visit Jerusalem, mach wilt depend upon the time he can spare, ‘At Alexandria it ta surmised that the Empress of the French will meet him, and tat they will jointly pro il to the cere. monies. | On ius return tha Emperor of Austria will stopat Athens and pass a day with King Georg jrom whence le will proceed fiome via Brindisi Ancona. in passing through Italy it is official ‘a nounced that be Will have an interview with ing Victor Bmanuel. The imperial suite will consist of the Minister of State, Count von Beust; M. de Hofman, one of the chief oMcers of the Ministry of Foreign Affaire; Count Taaile, President ot the Cla. lefeban Ministry, and probably Count Andraseg, President of the Huvwarian Ministry,