The New York Herald Newspaper, May 19, 1871, Page 4

4 THE GREAT TREATY. British Claims for Losses Dur- ing the Rebellion. They Are Not Legal Under the Laws of Nations. European Precedents In Support of the United States. A Forcible Argument Against British Pretensions. Wasnincron, May 18, 1871. The following is among the papers reported to the Senate by the President. It is in the form of a brief, prepared by Secretary Fish, on the subject of the claims of British subjects against the United States for josses and injuries arising out of acts com- mitted during the recent civil War in this country, The British Claims. These must be examined upon principies applica- bie to public war, The British government has recognized the confict as waged by-one actual gov- ernment against another. The Supreme Court of the United States, in Mauran vs. lusurance Compa- ny, buys: — ‘The constitution of the United States, which in the funda- mental law of each and all of them, not only afforded no countenance or authority for these proceedings (those of the Febola}, but they were, in every part of them, fa express. dis: regard und violation of ft, Still it cannot be denied that by the use of these uplawiul and unconstitutional means of government in fact was erected greater in territory than many of ‘ho old governments in Kurope, complete in the or- avization of all Its parts, containing within ite limits more han eleven millions of people, and of suilicient resources in meo and money to carry on @ civil war of wu id di- sions; and during all which time the exercis at rights were either concede: to It or acquis the supreme government—such as the treatment of Doth on iuad and sea, as prisoners of war, the exc! prisoners, their vessels captured recognised aa prizes And dealt with accordingly, their proper ferred to the judictal tribunals tor adjudication, their ports Dlockaded and the blockade maintained by m anltable force and duly notified to neutral Powers, the same ag in open and public war. (6 Wallace, page 14.) INJURIBS INFLICTED BY REBEL AUTHORITIES OR BY PRIVATE REBELS. Lord Stanley, atterwards Earl Deroy and Prime Minister of England, in @ debate on the affairs of Greece, June 17, 1850, said:— I do not understand that where, by no fanit of a govern- ment, olfences are committed against foreigners, the govern- meat'is bound to indemofty those foreigners. Thé government ts own is bound to afford its protection to foreigners an @ubjeots alike; but British subject before now have beon illaged tn the Roman States und the Nospolitan States, and never heard of any demand against the government uf gither of those States, (Hansard, Sd series, volume 111, page 308) In further support of the general preposition that no government is responsible for injuries dove to the inhabitants of the country, whether citizens or foreigners, by rebels or by allen enemies exercising in the particular locality or for the time being supe- rior fore inst such government, see Rutnerford’s Institutes, p. 509; Vattel, book 2, ch. 6, 8c. 738; Phil- limore’s International Law, vol. 1, sec, 218; —— Cal- vo Derecho Interuational, tom. 1, p. 887. INJURIKS SUSTAINED FROM MILITARY OPERATIONS OF THE UNION FORCES, On the 19th of June, 1857, 1n reply to questions as to the responsibility of the United States tor mjunes sustatned by British subjects in the bombardment of Greytown, Lord Palmersvon said to tne House of Commons:— Itix undoubtedly a principle of tnternational law that When one government deems it right to exercise acts of hos- Ultty against the territory of another Power, the subjects ‘and citizens of third Powers, who may happen to be resident io the place attacked, have no cialm whatever upon the government which in the exercise of its national rights com- mite these acts of hostility. For instance, it was deemed necessary for us to desiroy the town of Sebastopol. There may have been in that Germans, Italians, Portuguese and Americans; but none of th ground upon: which to claim trom govern. mente compensation for losses sustained In consejuence of those hostilities. Those who go and settie tn a foreign coun- try must abide the chances which may befall that country, and if they have any claim ft must be upon the government of the country im which they reside; but they certainly can have no claim whatever upon the government which thinks right to commit acts of hostility against thut State, (Hansard, 8d series, vol. 148, page 41.) Sir Richard Lethell, in the same debate, sata:— The principle which governed such cases was, that the cttl- gens of foreign States who resided within the of war bad no right to demand compensation from either of the belligerents for the losses or injuries they sustained. (bid. page 4.) Lore John Russell said :— The iaw officers of the Crown, th neral, the Solicitor General and the Queen's Advoca as I'am ven to understand, expressed their opinion that’ these igeremt proceedings having been aatborized by the American government, it is not suistectns for British goverombnt to demand or obtain satisfaction or reparation for the inju- ries done to British subjects at the hands of the American ernment. As I understand it, they compare it with the anbardment of Copenhagen, which took piace in 1807, and they would maintain, no doubt, that if an American citizen ernment would bave been fully justified in refusing that repa- ration. Itakeit, that is the version of the law of nations, nd upon the authority of the Iaw ollicers of the Crow: confess I are no reason to doubt its accuracy or {ts applica- won, ‘Hansard, 31 series, vol. 146, pages 55 and 56.) On the 7th of July, 1857, Lord Palmerston, in reply to the question whether It was intended to grant compensation to British merchants whose property at Uleaborg, in the Gulf of Bothnia, was destroyed in June, 1554, bv the boats of a British squadron, said:— ‘The proceedings in this matter must be regulated by the Principle which he bad stated to be an international princi- bie when @ question arose some time mgo as to the losses sus- tained by Britiah subjects at Greytown. He then stated the riociple of international law to be that persons who were domiciled iu a foreign country must abide by the fate of that country and war, and that, therefore, no de- be made’ upon the American govern- meat for josses sustained by British subjects in Greytown in consequetice of hostilities which took place between the United States and Gianada. (Hansard, 8d series, vol. 148, pages 1,045 and 1,046.) This was a case of war between two sovereign Powers, recognized as such by the neutral. The fol- lowing relates to the case of @ sovereign and rebel- ious subjects. The cage is stated by Lord Palmer- ston in the fo.lowing language:— When there was a revolt at Leghorn the town was taken ‘by storm by an Austrian corps, scting as auxiliaries of tue Grand Duke of Tuscapy. After the town had been taken, ‘and when resistance was over, some of these Austrian troops plundered the houses of certain British subjects. Among others, the house of a Mr. Hull was forcibly entered by a do- tachment, headed by an officer, remained in the honse for several bours, brought juto the house the wives of the soldiers, broke open and plundered everyihing from the cel- Jar to the garret, destroyed what they did not take away, car- ried away many of the things in the house, selling them to the people at the gate, which was not far of, and returning siterward to take away other cargoes. This Was done at the houses of Mr. Hall, of @ widow Iady and of other persons, each of those botises havis & matter of precaution, been marked visibiy on the oulside door as the residences of British suojects, under the protection of the British Consul. It was for these losses that, upon legal advice, compensation bad been demanded, (Hauieard, Third Series, vol. 113, page .) Wit reference to this affair a correspondence en- sued, which is cited in detali in @ note to Gulllaa- inin’s edition of Vattel, 1863, vol, 2, p. 49 It is be- lieved that this correspondence has never appeared | Stat iu England, The copy herewith submittea was transiated from a Spanish-American publication. (forres Cuicedo Union—Lat.ao, Americana, pages 343 aud 34s.) [Austrian Despatch.) ‘THR PRINCE OF SOMWARTZENKERG TO BARON NOTTER, LONDON, ON VR DEMAND FOR INDEMNIFIOATION WHIOH THE GOVERNMENT OF ENGLAND MAKES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF TUBCANY AND NAPLES, VIENNA, April 14, 1850, We ave been informed with reference to the demand for ipdemnitication which England makes against Tuscany for Jleged damages which Engtieh subjects had suffered in Leguorn, in covsequence of the suppression of the revoit Which wok place in that city ia May of 1849. Such «claim, ts of view, ie Worthy the attention of the im £0 In fact, the injuries which give room for this claim are aitributed to the troops of his Majesty the Kin- PET, Wich acted aa tise allies of the legitimate sovereign of scaby. On the other hand, independently of thie circuzn- ance, it was batural that Ausiria, united to 1 y Close ties and by ancient and’ modern treaties, should end, and lend articular interest to whatever refers to that’ couutry. Fin the pomt of most tmpor- tance, tbe English preteusions tend to raise a question of prin- siple, the solution of which is of the highest importance f nd security of all the States which main- 8 with Germal yeriod in which ¥- im back to the ‘the city of Leghorn was In full tusurrection against the le- Filimale goveroment. ‘The Austrian troops cailed to re-es- abiteh the authority of the laws were received ‘at the can- on's mouth, aod firing upon them covtinued from the windows until the city was captured. Our solders found themselves obliged to enter force {nto warehouses and dwellings, in er to ascertain if armed men and munitions of war were not therein concealed. If, op such an occasion and {nu spite of the efforts of our oficers cles by [.zrEren! disorder, there was disorder, and if some art ‘onging to Englishmen were abstracted or destroyed our soidi ted by the ight and by @ blind and tenactore resistance, is there cause for surprise? Ought not that m: damong the fatal and inevitable couse- besides by the the government ‘shat he is not o} ‘onde bjects who fered ionses in consequence of the storming of the city of born, when Ht was obiiged lo surrender, after baring figed all conciliatory propos! juence the or of the Grand Duke of Tus- Ip conseq eany has on jeoted to treat the English more favorably thao his own aubiects, He hae not tbougbt ito be @ duly to place the Kngilsb subjects in a more advantageous position, by Paying ibem ip character of indemaity sums which are not Paid to Tuscan subjects, the more 60, inasmuch as if the for- eigners bad their and property Ja security they would have been able to escape with ease the gone! misfortunes to which the inhabitants of a besieged cily must sabmit themselves. These reasons, which the Tuscan government bas opposed 40 the detoands of Lord Palmerston, appear to us founded Upon principles so high and so that with re- gret we have seen bis Excellency persist in such pretensions, boiwithatanding the weight of reasons. Bo far from desist e English Ambassador receives or- ders to eee enorg to cause to be understood tment Kngleod ry them by adopt By advice of ish Atubassador in Florence Tuscany matter to the arbitrament of w third morte of procedure had been adi whieh would have permitted @ pactic so We canna! ccceal (hat Jo the uressnce af other amalo- NEW wi asmure principle of public right, rm and unchangeable, in a fi je treatment than shat whieh to natives. To place in doubt thie which we are resolved to maintain and to claim for Englishinen tty am exceptional jecta whom they consent to receive. be the first to adopt that necessary it necessary to confe would forma measure, which, nfese, notable contrast to the tendency of our epoch to multiply and activate the commercial between peoples and to relations r distan 4 "Eel thls be as imag the rat te fea independent State 1s to insure tte sel!-preservi ‘all the means in ils power. From the time that a sovereign, availing himself of bis right, finds himself obliged to have recourse to arms to suppress an {nsurrection, and that in the civil war which results the pro- perty of foreigners established in the country is in Jeopardy, in my view itis public misfortune, which foreigners shot suffer as well as natives, and which does not entitle them to YURK Wildman International Law, vol, tt. 49 and 18; Phullimore, vol. tit, 138. Unt rot page 302; The Pizarro (2 case, joint commission under treaty of 1853, be- vee United States and Great Britain, page 120 OTe. Since these instructions were given a British blue book, Feaune, fo the “claims of British subjects against the United government, from the commencement of the civil war to the 30th of Merch, 1864," which had been reprinted in the diplomatio correspondence, submitted to Congress in the year 1864 (Diplomatic Correspondence, 1864, part i., page 736), has been reprinted in one of the leading \our- nals of the country, with a view undoubtedly of enabling the pudlic tosee that most of the claims described 1y it have been atsposed or. AD oe of that document shows the following resuits:—Three hundred and twenty-one cases of the four hupared and fifty therein enumerated have ‘been disposed of. Of these forty-three were cases in which the British government refused to interfere on the advice of the law officers of the Crown. One hundred and sixty-seven cases have been condemn- exceptional indemnity, as they neither would have that right if any other calamity should happen proceeding from the will of men. Jie most simple expression, the questionable tw the Tuscan government, We are {m- p f ravity of the consequences which proceed trom the question of knowing if the principle treated of ought oF ought not io be reapected: and for this reason we obey the necessity of submitting it tn the most frank manner to the examination of the Brit vernment. It belongs to it to weigh the question in its wisdom and equity, and this will lead, us we hope, to & quick and satisfact alta tion of the quemtion which 1 being di You are charged to read this despatch to the Minister of Foreign Relations of Great Britain, SCHWARTZENBERU. (See Torres Caicedo, p. 343.) DESPATOH FROM TUR COUNT OF NESSELEODR TO BARON BRUNOW. ST, PETERSBURG, May 2, 1850. The Cabinet of si eres Col letely to the primciplen which have werved ina 'h basi to tne demand crake Cabinet of Vienna. Russia ts yh interested In thy tcl maintenance of the independence of the secondary States and in the repose of Italy, and for this rearon cannot but Associate iteelf in this caso with the sentiments and political "iQceording to the rules of publ cording to the ru'es of publi right, such as they are un- derstood by Burstan policy itoanuol be aderition thee soos, reign, obliged, as was the Grand Duke of Tuscany, by the ob. stinacy of his rebellious subjects to retake city occupied by the ingurgents, should be obliged to tademnity forelgn sub- Jecta who may have suffered damages in consequence of tho ‘assault undertaken againat that city. When a person instails himeeif in a country other than his own he accepts the possibility of all the dangers to which he may be exposed in that country. orn revolted; it was nocessary to employ arms. to reduce it. Some. Knalish pro- prstors have participated in the damages experienced by the ative proprietors.” Why should they alone have the righe to be Indemnited for their losses when, the Tuscan goverument does not indemnify its own subjects? ‘These reasons are 40 clear that Tuscany, having applied to the Emperor, asking his arbitrament, the Emperor, notwith- standing the lively interest which he been able to accede to its desire. It is in amount, whlob { fgares, more prin ‘nnot admit or less ciple which his imperial M: iat 18 to aa inciple of any Indemsaitzation whatever claimed an legitimate right, much less when. Ile, sought to exact it by fore, Tt would have speared that ‘he Tisplicly tioned it had he offered his arbitration to the two parties, posing Kugland bad conaanted to adopt the expedi "As Fuscany is disposed to tender concili tt could not enter into the intentions of the ment to dissuade it from a. friendly English government, But th tice and moderation of the Ln will not, to obtain ft, employ ol also; and the fmaperial Cabine! Concerned, at once to make its rese! explanations, jussian govern- arrangement with the Emperor hopes, from the jus- government itself, that it an couciliatory mean rvations as to which it considers aa in amall conformity with the recognized maxims of the law of nations, as 1 thay The Cabinet or London ought to recognize that one of the ravest questions for the independence of all the States of the Continent ta being treated of. In effect, if what E attempts to establish at this moment with ‘respect to and ay ahould come to be admitted as @ precedent, it {ould retult im placing British subjects abroad in an excep. ronal position, very superior to the advantages enjoyed the intiabitants of the other countries, anda altuntion tre tolerable for the governments who receive them. Instead of being, as up to the countries where they establish themselves and to which they bring, with their wealth and industrial resources, the habits of morality and order which so honorably distinguish the English people, their presence would be a’ perpetdal venience, abd, in certain cases, areal affi:ction. ace would be, for the promoters of insurrections, a nt to revolt; because, if behind the barricades there should continually raised the threatening oventuality of future reclamation in favor of English subjects. who may hav ceived injury in their property by the suppression, all reigns whom thelr positions and respective weakness expose to the coercive measures of an Kuglish fleet would become powerless in the presence of an insurrecticn; they could not dare to use coercive means, and if they used tl would have to examine the details of’ the operation, estim: the necessity or uselessneas of this or that strategic measure Which might expose the English to suffer loases ; they would have, finally, to recognize the English government as judge between sovereign aud subject in matters of civii war and of interior government. ‘Tne Emperor cannot, then, subscribe to such a theory, Re will never compromise in thé matter of the principles wii he has just set forth; for, very much dig ashe may be and as he always bas been to receive with benevolence indi- viduals belonging to the British nation, bis esteem for whose character is Known, if claims like those which have been nstatned by mmiuing and of fixin upon which he will henceforth consent to allow to British subjects the right ‘of residence and of property in his States, ‘The Russian government hopes that the English Cabinet ‘will accept these reflections {u the impartial spirit in which they bave been dictated, and that it will notlose sight of them In the course which it may adopt with respect to Napies and Tascany. The cause of these isthat all weak States whose existence is guaranteed alone by the maintenance of the tulelar principles watch have just beea invoxed. At the mt moment, more than ever, the respect of these prin- ciples by the great Powers alone can preserve Europe from tite greatest disturbances, You will communicate to Lord Palmerston this despatch, ‘and you will give him a copy of the same. (See Torres Caicedo, p. $43.) NESSELRODB. The United States followed these precedents when dechining, in 1! the request of our citizens that we shoald ask indemnities for their losses sustained in the bombardment of Valparaiso. See opinion of Attorney General Stanbery, (12 Opin. pees. 21.) also correspondence between Mr. Secretary Marcy and the Count de Sartiges. (Ex. Doc. No. 9, Senate, Thirty-fifth Congress, First session.) CAPTURES BY FEDERAL CRUISERS. The rule on this subject was laid down in terms which have become classical aud accepted as the standard authority in ail Europe, by Lord Mansfeld, iu the memorr on the Silesian joan:— The law of nations, fyunded upon justice, equity, convert ence and the reason of the thing, and confirmed by long unage, does not allow of reprisals except tn case of violent injuries directed or aupporte’ by the State, or justice abso- Intely denied in re mixime dubia by all the tribunals and after- ward by the Prince. | Where the judges are left free and give sentence according to thelr conscience, though ould be erroneous, that would be no ground ‘for reprisals. Upon ¢onbiful questions different men think and judge differently; and aila foreigner can desire is that justice should be Im- partially administered to him, as it isto the subjeots of that prince fo whose courts the matter 1s tried. That our admiralty courts had all the intelligence and impartiality that can be required was repeat- edly admitted by leading members of the British government during the rebellion. ‘The following extracts are selected for the reagon that the speeches Irom which they are taken were made at a late period of the war, and after a very great number of adjudications had been made and had become known to the British government. On the 12th Febraary, 1864, In reply to strictures on some decisions tn prize cases, the Attorney Gea- eral, Sir Rounded Palmer, said, in the House of Commons:— Though in the judgments of the United States Prize Conrt there may be passages open to criticism upon matters of legal theory, and although I'am far from saying that they have always applied the principles of law correctly to tho facts of the case, yot I am not aware of one single decision pronounced duriig the war in any one of those courts which does not bear upon the face of it signs of an hovest inten- tion to administer the law as received in the United States, and the case of the Springbok {s no exceptionto that rule, In all the three points to which my bonorabie friend has re- ferred, whether or not the principles were rightly applied to the facts and evidence, the decision come to was based on principies, be they right or be they wrong, which were prin- ciples of our own prize courte in tae war with France. In the same debate Lord Palmerston said:— I think 1 right, however, to state, with regard to the gor- ernment of the United States, what bas, indeed, been already stated by my honorable and learned ‘friend, the Attorney General, that we have no reason to mistrust the equity und independence of the tribunals of the United Bt which have to try questions such as those now under sion ; and it is but due to th to say that they have invarlably received our repre- sentations in a spirit of respect, equity and justice. And in proot of this, to show that, when we had s stron Femonstraoce, justice has ‘been done to us_by the Lnitel States, I need only refer to the case of the Trent, in which the government ofsbe United States very handsomely and properly dit juatice fp the demands we, mnadey and the Fights they did not den: jerefore, 1 think tt ts prejudictal to the understanding between the two governments, od teria, that we shot 28! sent time, a benefit to the diner overnment of the United which are here accuse a foreign govern. ntof that Of which it 11s pot guilty, and express mis- trast of their equity and fairness when nothing has occurred t think {t only eroment of the accusations are not just, | ‘and that nothing bas occurred to warrant thet The contidence of each of the two governments In the integrity and ability of the prize courts of the other has, since ail the transactions which can come under examination by the High Commission, been pened by au act without parallel in diplomatic history. . The additional convention in relation to the slave trade, concluded June 3, 1870, provides: — ART. 3. It {8 agreed that in case of an American merchant vessel, vearched by @ British cruiser, being deta ined as havin, been sugaged in the African slave trader as having been ht ‘Out for the purposes thereof, abe auall be sent to New York or Key West, whichever aball_be most accessibie, for adjudica- tion, or ahall be handed over to # United States cruiser, ff one sbould be available in the neighborhood of the cay i st 1p the corresponding ense of a British mere cruiser, bet an it Veusel searched by # United Sta ing detained as having been en; in the African slave trade, or as having been ftted out for the purposes thereof, she shall be sent for adju- dication to the nearest or most accessible British colony, oF shall be banded over to. « British crater, if one suonld be available in the neighborhood of capture,’ * ¢ © Under thia provision Great #ritain submits to the adjudication of our courts the validity of captures made by her own cruisers, and its resulta from this and from the fifth articie of the original treaty (12 Stat., 1,232), that if an American court pronounces against the capture of an American vessel by a British cruiser, and awards restitution with damages, the British government stands engaged to pay such damages within one year. TREATMENT OF BRITISH SUBJECTS AS TO PERSONAL ed by the pene courts of the United States, With the exception of one case, that of the Springbok, the Departinent of State is not aware of a disposi- ton on ibe pert of the British government to dissent to any fi adjudication of the Supreme Court of the Unitea States in a prize case. The Supreme Court has tn several cases reversed condemnations made by the inferior tribunals of prizes, in some of which Congress has made appropriations for the ladarenitce ton of the owners of the property cap- ured. In most of the cases where it is stated that vessels have been condemned, but that appeals are pending, the condemnations by the courts below aave been sustained. In sixty-three cases 1t appears that property taken. by the United States has been restored, and that per- sOnS imprisoned or said to have been illegally en- listed have been released. While the conterences were being held in Wash- ington @ correspondence was going on tn Engiand between the Foreign Office and British subjects re- siding in France, and preferring claims for loss of property since the entry of the German army into france. A portion of this correspondence has been published in Blue Book No. 4, for 1871, Franco Ger- man War. The following letters from this publica- tion bear directly upon the questions considered in this portion of the “confidential memorandum :'— NO. 3—-BARL GRANVILLE 10 LORD LYONS. Foretan Ovvicg, Jan, 11, 1871. My Lorp—I have received your Excellency's de- Spatch of the 6th inst, enclosing a letter from Mr. irby, an English gentieman, established with his family at La Ferié Imbauit, complaining of the con+ duct ‘of the German troons in mahing requisiuons on his property; and 1 have to instruct you to acquaint that gentleman that much as her Majesty's government regret the inconvenience and loss to which he and his family were exposed, it 1s out of their power to interfere to obtain any redress tor him, inasmuch as foreigners residing in a country which is the seat of war are equally liable with the natives of this country to have requisitions levied on their property by the belligerents. Iam, &c., GRANVILLE. NO, 10—RARL GRANVILLE TO MR. WEST. For&iaN Orrick, March 1, 1871. Srr—I have consuited the law officers of the crown upon the point submitied tome in your despatch of the 24th of February, as to the claims of British sub- jecta to be indemnified for the loss of property during the war; and | have now to acquaint you that lam advised by them that her Majesty's subjects resi- dent in France, whose property has been destroyed during the war, cannot expect to be vompensaied, on the ground of their being British subjects, for losses which tne necessities of war have brougnt upon them in common with French subjects. Iam, &e., GRANVILLE. ForRIGN Orrror, March 28, 1371, Str—I am directed by Earl Granville to acknow- ledge the receipt of your letter of the 22d inst., con- taining a statement of certain property possessed by you tn Par.s and the neighborhood, and referring to the losses which you state you have sustained In consequence of the Occupation of such property by French aud German troops, and requesting that our interests may be placed under the protection of ord Lyons, with the object of your claim being ulti- mately urged upon the French government on ac- count of such losses and dilapidations, J am now to inform you that Lord Granviile has taken the opinion of the iaw officers of the crown as to the liabilliy of the French government to com- pensate British subjects resident in France for loss and beg to thelr property during the late war, and that his Lordship has been advised by them that the British subjects resident in France would have, in thelr opinion, no just ground of complaint against the Freach authorities tn the event of their property having been destroyed by the invading armies; their losses under such circumstances would be among the inevitable consequences of war raging in @ state within which they have chosen, as for- eigners, to take up their residence; and with regard to such losses Britis subjects would not be entitied to claim any compensation from the French authori- tues. Lam, &¢ E. HAMMOND. NO, 22—MR. STEWART TO EARL GRANVILLE—(RE- CEIVED AUGUSY 31.) 33 UPPER BRUNSWICK PLACE, BRIGHTON, March 30, 1871. My LoRp—I Lave the honor to acknowledge your Lordship’s letter, of the 28th inst., in answer to mine of the 22d, on the sudject of the losses I uave sus- tained by the occupation of my houses in Paris and its neighborhood vy French troops during the late war, informing me that your Lordship had taken the opinton of the law officers of the crown as to the liabliiey of the French governmen. to compensate British subjects resident in France for loss and dam- age to thelr property during the late war; and that your Lordship had been advised by them that Brit- ish subjects resident in France wonid have, in their opimon, no just ground of complaint against the French authorities in the event of their property having been destroved by the tavading armies, 1 beg to submit to your Lordship that my case does not come within the terms of the one submitted to the law officers of the crown. At the commence- ment of the siege of Paris all the inhabitants of Boulogne-sur-Setvel were ordered by the French gov- ernment to leave the r houses and my tenant at No. 5 Avenue des Princes, Koulogne-sur-Seine, accord- ingly removed his furniture and gave up possession tothe authoriues, who occupied the premises for more than five months with upward of 150 French soldiers, who remained in it until the signature of ‘the treaty of peace, and then left it in the most ruin- ous condition. The German troops passed one night on the premises after the temporary occupation of Paris, but did no additional damage to the property. My other houses within the enceinte of Paris were occupied wholly by French troops and French peas- ants. “No destruction of property by invading armies’ consequentiy took piace in my case. In my opinion, my clain 1s similar to that made by your Lordship on the German government for tne Joss sustained by British shipowners whose vessels were seized and sunk near Rouen. In the one case ships were seized and destroyed by the German authorities; and, in the other, houses were seized and destroyed by the French authorities, both be- longing to British subjects, and demanding similar compensation. 1 have now, therefore, to beg that your Lordship Will be 80 good as to forward iny claim on the French | diame ped to Lord Lyons, with a request that lus xcellency will give me such assistance as may be required in his capacity of Euglish Ambassador, tn order to induce the French government to entertain my claim when the Ee r time shall arrive for sub- mitting it to the authorities. I beg, however, to add that I am informed that, by the law of France, com- pensation 1s due not only to foreigners, but to French subjects for mjury done to their property by invading armies, and for the occupation of their houses by French troops, ana for damages resulting therefrom. I trust, therefore, that it will not be necessary to call for Lord Lyon’s intervention. T have thought tt my duty to trouble your epee with this letter in order that 1 may point out tne dif- Jerence between my case and that submitted to the Jaw officers ot the crown, and I may add that f think it will be found that few British subjects are in the same position as I am with respect w my French property. Ihave, &c., UHARLES STEWART. NO. 23—VISCOUNT ENFIELD TO MR. STEWART. FOREIGN f, April 13, 1871. Str—I am directed by Earl Granville to acknow- ledge the recetpt of your letter of the 30th uit., in which, with reference to the answer which Lord Granville caused to be returned to your letter of the 22d March, respecting the losses which you state you have sustatned by the occupation of your houses in Paris and the neighborhood by French troops during the war, you now submit that your case does not come within the terms of that which bad been sub- mitted to the law officers of the crown, and upon Whose opinion with reference thereto the answer to your representation had been founded, inasmuch as there was ‘no destruction of property by invading armies,” but that the damage was caused in conse- quence of the occup ition of your property by French troops, which property had been vacated by orders of the French authorities themselves, J am now to state to you that Lord Granville has taken the opinion of the law officers upon your Surther application, and I am w observe hat her Majesty’s subjects restdents in France cannot of right claim to in a better position P. Tespect to their immovable pro- perty in ince than French subjects, and that if you have been porrectly informed as to the jaw of France, the intervention of her Majesty's gov- ernment will not be required to enable ee to prefer a claim berore the French authorities to compensa: von for any losses resulting to you from the occ' pation of vour houses by French troops. But whether you have been correctly informed or not, her Majesty's government cannot intervene if you receive at the hands of the French government the me treatment which French supjects themselves receive. With regard to your allusion to the case of the British ships which have sunk at Ronen, I am to ob- verve that there is no anal between ships and immovable property, 1 am, £c., ENFIELD. Another pertinent case has recently been decided by the British government againat a claimant, mr. RIGHTS—AKBITRARY ARKESTS—OOMPULSOKY MILI- TARY SERVICE, ETC. This head of possible inquiry by the High Com- Mission 1s treated with such general candor and fatr- ness by Professor he ed Bernard, in chapter xvi of his “Neutrality of Great Britain daring the American Civil War,’ and in Mr, Abbott's memo- randum, appended to the report of the Briush Commissioners on the laws ef naturalization and allegiance, from which Professor Bernard makes considerable citation, that it seems unnecessary to do more than refer the High Commission to those ers. pat may be convenient, however, to furnish refer- ences to some of the authorities Which establish the liability of persons domictted, for commercial pur- p & belligerent on w be treated aa indis tungulsbable from the active enemies, in the midst of whom they are found, rrofessor Abdy’s edition of Kent on International ing sec, tv. of Kent's Commenta- age 74, et seq, of orinal padiuation; Law, chap. ries, Vol. L, Worth, @ British subject, claimed indemnity on ac- count of imprisonment to which he was subjected by the German authorities on bis capture in an at- tempt to esc: ape rom Paris in a balloon. Lord Enfeid, in @ note of the 3d of April, informs Mr. Worth that Lord Granville regrets that, ‘after consultation with the proper law adviser of the crown, he does not feel justifed in placing such & claim on your (Mr, Worth's) behalf before the Ger- man government."’—British Blue Book, 1871; cor- respondence respecting the imprisonment of Mr. Worth by the Prussians. FOUND OROWNED AT FORT HAMILTON. The body of a man, apparently about forty years of age, was found on the shore at Fort Hamilton yesterday. The dress ts blue blonse, blue plaid vest, white knit undershirt, flannel drawers, gray pants, woollen socks and ection boots, ere was & Certificate or dratt, No. 352, dated March 31, ia or of Gif Romain, Cor $150, on bis Dodgy THE COURTS. Charge Against a Tobacco Dosler—A Soap Boiler in Trouble—Verdict Against a Fire Insurance Company—Important Insurance Case in the Court of Common Pleas UNITED STATES COMMISSIONERS’ COURT. Charge Against a Tobacco Dealer. Before Commissioner Shields, The United States vs, T. H. Petthman.—The de- | fendant was held yesterday tn $1,000 bail for exam. ination on a charge of not making proper entries of his sales and purchases of leaf tobacco, UMITED STATES ClaCUIT COUaT. A Patent Si To thia court, yesterday, in the patent saw case of Margaret Myers, executrix, &c., vs. Jonn Frame and others, Judge Blatchford gave @ decision sustaining the plaintit's patent for the saw, and her right to sell it in tue Territory in which the infringement oc- SUPREME COURT—CHAMBERS. A Seap Boiler in a Whirlpool Troubles. Bofore Judge Ingraham. Thorp vs, Spraque.—The plainuf ia proprietor of soap boiling establishment in Queens county. A recent law allows any one made uncomfortable by a nuisance of this kind to sue personally and recover twenty-five dollars penalty for every day he has been subjected to sucn nuisance, Fifteen persons living in the neighborhood of the soap boiling cs- tablishment instituved suits on account of the al- loged nuisance, claiming this penalty for about six months, or $1,500 each. The plaintiff moved for an injunction to restrain the prosecution of these sults. It was contended on his side that if this sort of wholesale ligation was allowed any one who had passed anywhere near the piace and snutted the offensive odor could bring suit and that he would be involved in endless sults and costs. The defendant stood upon the statute. The Judge took the papers, reserving bs decision. SUPERIOR COURT:-TRIAL TERM—PART I. Wholesale Verdicts Avainst Companies. Before Judge Jones, Wm. Ettinger vs. Home Insurance Company of New York.—The plaintiff nad a fur store on Broad- way. On December 11, 1869, the place was burned, Afterwards, it will be remembered, the plaintiff was arrested by the Fire Marshal on suspicion of having @ guilty knowleage of the tire; but, on examination, was honorably discharged, The damages by tne fire were $21,000, He had policies of insurance in twelve aifferent fire insurance companies, including that of the defendant, all of which, ic ts alleged, re- to pay the amounts they had insured. Suits were accordingly brought to compel such pal ‘ments, the sult against the deiendants bet called first in the series, None of the companies, however, put in an appearance, and verdicts were yesterday given by default. The verdict against the defendants was $3,260 59. Tuere were five other verdicts against five other companies, as follows :— of Logal Fire Lasurauce Against the North American Insurance Company, $6,432 64; the Giove Insurance Company, $s 1) 5; the Park Insurance Company, $2,173 06; the Niagara Insurance Company, $5,432 64, and the Wilkamsburg City Fire Insurauace Company, $2,716 32, The re- Maining cases will be tried in the other branch of the court. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS—SENERAL TERM. Important Insurance Case—All About Cotton. Before Chief Justice, Daly, Judges Robinson and J. F. Daly. The Great Western Insurane Co. vs. Richard At- kinson and Henry J. Hewitt.—This action was tried before Judge Van Brunt anda jury in May, 1870, resulting in the Court directing a pro forma verdict for plaintid’s for the sum of $19,361 in currency, and the case now comes before the General Terin on the exceptions of the defendants. The action was commenced May 25, 1867, to recover for the loss of nineteen bales of cotton insured by the defendauts, @ marine insurance company in New York, under the platntiffs’ open policy, which the detendants had issued 2d January, 1866, and which, by endorse- ment of successive additional amounts, had been continued to a@ time subsequent to the insurance in question. The body of the policy insured “R, Atkinson & Co., account of whom it may concern. In case of loss, to be paid to them in the gold currency of the United States, at and from Columbus anda other ports and places in the interior of the State of Georgia, via Apalachicola, to port or ports in Great Britain. On cotton, to cover all shipments, their own or cousigned to them, or in which they bave an interest, by vessels sailing on and alter 15th December, 1865." To attach “irom ume of shipment, and also to cover the risk of fire on cotton in transit while waiting shipment.” The enumeration of perils insured against includes “barratry of the master and meriners.”” “Valued at $190 per bale, unless otherwise agreed.” ‘all ap- proved endorsements on pass book to apply in all Tespects to this policy, the same as if endorsed thereon;” also “to cover such other risks a may be approved and endorsed hereon.” By a subsequent endorsement, “March 5, 1866, it ts understood and agreed that this policy covers from the interior of the State of (Georgia via the AUantic as well as the Guif ports to port or ports in Europe.’? On the Sist October, 1566, the plaiutitfs reported to the defendants as a risk to be covered by the poicy 202 bales of cotton from Augusta, Ga., to Liverpooi, England, valued at $26,260, gold. This was entered on the pass book. By the established course of business of the parties under the poiicy the defend- ants bad been in the habit ot Jeautng, when applied for by the plamtfs, negotlable certticates of insur- ance under the policy, which was done in this case. ‘The certificate makes “the los3_ payable vo the order of R. Atkinson & Co, endorsed on this certincate, which 1s to be surrendered to this company. It 1s understood and agreed that this certificate repre- sents and takes the place of this policy and conveys all the rights of the original policy holuers (for the purpose of collecting any joss or claim) as fully as if whe property was covered by a special policy direct to the owner of this certificate, and free from any liability for unpaid premiums.” The 202 bales of cotton were purchased at Augusta by Branch, Sous & Co., of that place, for account of the plaintiffs, and by piaintifis’ order shipped by them by railroad to Charleston, thence to be shipped to Liverpool per bark Victoria, J. N. Robson, for Brauch, Sons & Co., engaged freight for the whole by the Victoria. ‘The master of the Victoria gave a clean bill of | ing for the whole, but seventy-seven of the bales were shut out of the Victoria for want of room and went forward by the brig Albert, arriving satel, Liverpool. Ninety other bales of the 202, being the ninety bales tu question, were taken by the Victoria and Carried on deck. On the voyage these were “jettisoned” in astorm. The plaintiffs im New York tt no knowledge of the shipment on deck until they heard of the loss by te.egrapn on the arrival of the Victoria at Liverpool, and the defendants had no knowledge of it. The rate of premium was fixed as for cargo under deck, and the proof was that the regular rate for deck cargo would be three times as much as for the same cargo under deck. Street Brothers & Co., of Charleston, were agents of the owner of the vessel, St. Juan Laroche, o1 Santa Cruz, Teneriffe; and Manuel Liorca, the mate, was authorized by him to act as supercargo. Street Brothers knew of the lading of the cotton on deck, and stated to the cap- tain that, ashe had given clean bills of lading tor the cargo, he was bound to carry the cotton under deck or w provide tor it on deck by extra insur- ace; that the insurance taken by clean bill of lad- ing would not oover the cotton on deck. The bill of lading in the margin stated that the policy was insured in the open policy of R. Atkinson & Co., the plaints. By arrangements vetween the cap- tain and supercargo, the latter, before sailing, wrote to the consignees of his owners in London, stating that the coiton was on deck, and requesting them to Insure the same for $9,000, gold, for ac- count of the vessel. The case was argued at length yesterday aad decision reserved, COURT GF GENERAL SESS.ONS. Before Gunning 8. Bedford, City Judge. Yesterday William Johnson, a colored man, pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with stealing three sets of harness from William Galla- gher on the 10th of March. He was remanded for sentence. Jonn Moore, who was jointly indicted with others, was tried for burglariously entering the cigar store of Morris Prowier, 160 Spring street, on the night of the 13th of April. About $450 worth of cigars were stolen, & portion of which was recovered by the of!- cers, Who found the boxes concealed in & “night restaurant” in Grand street. Moore was seen to leave the stoop where the stolen property was found. The prisoner dented Jnr | had anytuing to do with the burglary, but admitted that he was an escaped convict Trot the Clinton St rison. Judge Bedford, apon conviction of grand larceny, sent lim to the State Prison for five years. COUAT GALENDARS—1HIS OAY, SurreMe CouRT—SrectaL TRRM.—Nos, 147, 112, 113, 158, 101, 10144, 69, 114, 59, 95, 99, 67, 58, 61, 84, 107, 68, 163, 167, 88, 93, 139, 242, 116, 119, 180, 125, 126, 178, 102, 64, 44. vacrnbun’ CoUnT—CHAMBRRS.—Nos. 10, 86, 96, 109, 116, 128, 137, 138, 150, 157, 161, 102, 4 SUPERIOR COURT—TRIAL TeRM—Part 1.—Nos, 717, 81945, 958, 956, 959, 951, 963, 065, 967, 969, 960%, 073, 975, 977, 979, Part 2.—Nos. rg oy 822, 162, 648, 1345, 351, 1101, 1405, 1408, 1141, 1341, 1282, Tes, Doe Lae, ry ioe, ier. 1296, 1061, 1184, 1107, 1261. Court or Common PLgaS—GENERAL Teau.—Ad- June 30. seen Count TRIAL TRRM—Part 1,—Nos. 5790 ii H749, G48, 6960, 6701, 6630, 6800, 529¥, 9635, | terfeit bilis in Jersey City. S HERALD, FRIDAY, MAY 19, 1871—TRIPLE SHEET. Part 2.—Hos. 5760, S81 6m, BRR "Pare LM. 088, 640%, 6200" 6050, BAST BROOKLTN couRTs. SUPREME COURT. ‘The Central Bauk. Before Judge Barnard. Wiliam a. Fowler and Others, of the Perma- nent Water Board, vs, John K. Pruyn, James Elwell, et al,, Directors of the Central Bank,—This action is brought by the plaintiffs to recover $21,911, the amount of money which the plaintiffs had on deposit in the Central Bank at the time of its aus- pension in Auguat, 1870, The action is against the directors in their individual capacities, and all have us in answers 6: Messrs. Pruyn and Elwell. ‘ne latter ateman demurred on the ground that the Water a ae ity to bring an aetion, and also that it is on insufficent grounds. The demurrer was argued at some length yesterday, and the Court took the papers ana re- served its decision, ‘Tho Claims of Alieus te an Estate. James Doherty et at. vs, Ann Gleason and Other's.— ‘This is @ case which involves a nice point of law in regard to the rights of aliens to inheritance of lana in this country, It appears that one Edward Do- herty, & naturalized citizen, died in February, 1870, {n Brooklyn, where he was at the ume residing. He owned two houses on Warren street, near Co- lumbia, at the time of bis heath. He was unmarried and without children, but left brothers and sisters, all in Ireland except the defendant, Mrs, Gleason, who was in California, The plaintiffs claim to be entitled to the properly as hetrs of deceased, and sent over James Donerty with power of attorney to sell it and divide the proceeds among them ail. The defendant claims that the platntifs, being non-residents and aliens af the time of Donerty’s death, are entitled to mo Interest in the property, and that Ann Gleason, being a citizen of the Untied States, is entitied to all of it. Her attorneys make the point that if deceased had been an alien at the Ume of death the aliens would take a share, bat as. he was a citizen none but citizens can become heirs, The matter was referred by the Court yesterday to ex-Juage Reynolds as referee. Conjugal Infolicity. Juliet Renwtck vs. Frederick W. Renwtck.—Thia action came up yesterday on a motion of defend- ant’s counsel that defendant have leave to put in an amended answer sctting up counter charges of adui- tery against the plaintim. ‘The defendant's amdavit showed that the plaintiff had some years ago been Married to & man named Wright, by whom she had eight children. She was divorced from him and lived some timein adultery with another man named Jones, bearing him two children. Afterward she formed her alliance with this defendant, gwho has become the father of two children, The parties two years ago separated, he agreeing to per twenty doilars weekly ior the support of the children; and the plaincif recently instituted an action for di- vorce, The Court after hearing the affidavits and argument, _— the motion for an amended answer on the condition that the defendant pay plaimtif’s counsel $500 within ten days to aelray the Costs of the litigation; otherwise denied. $10,000 Claimed for a Broken Noxe. Francis Whitley vs. Sarah McCarthy.—Tue plain- tif, on the evening of the 26th of November last, was walking along Front street, in this city, and fell into au area in front of @ house which defendant was causing to be bullt at that time. The area or exca- vation in front of the house was not guarded in any way nor were there any lights to show passers by the danger, The plaintiffs nose was broken and his hand and arm severely injured by the fall. He brings the suit to recover $10,000 damages from the defendant, who was the owner of the premises. The defendant puts in a general denial, and al- Jeges that the accident was owing to the plaintit’s own negligence, At the conclusion of the testimony Mr. D. P. Bar- nard, of counsel for the detendant, made otrion for © nonsult ou the ground that the liabiltiy tor damages was on the contractors to whom the con- struction of the house had been given and not upoo the owner, The motion was demed. Verdict for platntit, $160, CITY C2URT. The Boiler Explosion gt the Novelty Iron Work: Before Judge Thompson. Mary Ann Robinson vs, Wiliam Miller and Others.—This action was brougbt by the plaintiff to recover the sum of $5,000 damages, sustained from the explosion of a boiler at the Novelty Iron Works, of which defendants are owners, at North Thirteenth street, near Second. A portion of the boiler, the bouy of the engineer and a quantity of iron were hurled tto the apartments of the plaintiff, and she was severely injured, The jury returned a verdict yesterday giving her €300. THE EVANS ABORT!ON CASE. Conviction of “Dr.” Evans of aa Attempt at Manslaughter. Address of Assistant District Attorney van—Evans Sent to the tate Prison Three Years and Six Months—Ju Bedford's Remarks Uyon Pro- fessional Abortionists. Eulli- for It will be remembered that the jury in the case of Thomas Lookup Evans, tried for producing an abortion upon Ann O'Neill, failing to agree on Wednesday afternoon, were locked up for the night by Judge Bedford, Long before the hour of opening the court the doors were beslegea by persons anxious to gain admittance to witness the closing scene of this memorable trial, As soon as the City Judge took his seat upon the bench the clerk called the jury, and the foreman announced the verdict, which was:—‘We find the prisoner guilty of an assault on the person of Ann O'Neill, with the intent to commit manslaughter in the second degree,” Mr. Howe moved for a new trial and also an arrest of judgment, basing bis motion upon certain Jegal considerations, which he ably argued. In the course of his remarks he apologized to the Court for the impetnosity manifested at the time the jury first brought in tneir verdict, Judge Bediord accepted the apology for the appa- rent contempt of court, but dented the motion. District Attorney Sullivan moved for sentence upon Evans, and in doing so sald:— MAY IT PLEASE THE CoURT—The best of books has said of the hardened, resolute criminals, however they seem to prosper and however secure they may think themselves, ‘their feet shall slide in due time. Your Honor bas well said that in tue conflict be- tween justice and crime the latter must invariably Tall. We witness here a striking illustration that guilt can build bo tatrenchment that is impregnable. ‘Thomas Lookup Evans has vome to the end of his infamous career, The good people of New York have reason to felicitate themselves that the statutes against the murder of unborn infants is not a dead letter; and especially that the Juries love the law, and love the home virtues ana soctal purity, without which our community would s1nK to the lowest level of vice. I hope his pun- ishment will be the iuil penalty of the law. Judge Bedford, in passing sentence, spoke as fol- lows:— Evans, considering the overwhelming evidence against you, and (he wilful perjury you commutied when in the witness box, | must express my great astonishment that a jury of twelve men snould re- Inain out all night, I was determined tu keep them together until they agreed one way or the over; the jury having Jound ,the facts against you, they were bound to take the law from the court. This morning, after a nights reflection, they have done so, From my ofictal experience of eight years in this court room, I believe you to be the most consum- mate villain ever convicted in = court of justice, You are & profeastonal abortionist. You have lived, thrived and prosperea in your wicked career and have accumulated by reason of your dark undertak: ings an immense fortune, Let your conviction be a stera lessen to the many professional abortionists of ‘this city, lor on conviction they will all learn that neither their ill-gotten wealth nor their alleged great iofuence will be of any avail when tried in This Courtroom. The same penalty now about to be meted out to you will unquestionably be meted out to every other convicted professional abortionist of this city. Three years and six months’ confinement i. the State Prison—the full penalty prescribed vy AW. Evans appeared to be just as callous and unfeel- ing aiter the sentence was pronounced as he was during the trial, The remarks of the Judge seemed to give great satisfaction to the audience, who, when Evans was being removed from the bar, could seurcely be refrained irom giving vent to their ap- probation at the conviction by applause. The fact 13 Worthy Of note taat two abortionisis have been put ont of the way by Judge Bedford within six months, UNITED STATES COURT AT TRENTON. In the United States District Court at Trenton, N sterday, George Kaiser was found guilty of pears counterfeit bills in Newark, purporting to Y rawn on the Shoe aud Leather Bank of New ork. Willtam H. Treadwell, @ tt gh yl Der aan: the clei e was placed on trial on the ouers oy the jury in the afternoon, but tuey had not agreed ae verdict up to a inte Hout. | THE DIAMOND SMUGGLING CASE. Further Developments—Whit'ey’s Orders to His Subordinates Ayzainst Commissioner Os- born—Insalt to a Mazistrate Be- cause He is Independent. The further hearing of the case of the United States vs. H.C. Justice, who is charged with hav- ing conspired to smuggle diamonds from Bngiand int this country, was resumed yesterday before Commissioner Osborn. The proceedings have new become deeply interesting. The court room was nearly filed with spectators, the majority of them being “operatives” of the Secret Service Depart- ment. Mr. Purdy and Mr. De Kay appeared as counsel for the government, and Mr. W. F, Kinczing for the defendant. A. 0. BEATTY RECALLED. This witness, who 1s now a@ private detective, aud was fotmerly an operative of the secret Service under its chief, Colonel Whitley, was recalied for further examination for the defence. He testided—in company with Colonel Whit- ley I went to look for diamonds in Pike's ox- change office, corner of Broadway and Maiden lane; 1 found no diamonds during that search, but I un- derstood Colonei Whitley did; I arrested the prisoner im Radeliffe’s office, Counsel forthe government objected to this iine of examination, it was entirely immatertal and tna- proper, Mr, Klotzing—l1 desire to show that Colonel Whit- ley, instead of returuing the diamonds to Radcliffe, then owner, he sold them, and that tnis prvacontion 48 & Couspiravy intended by Colonel Whiuey to ruta Mr. Justice, Colonel Whitley himself being the prin- clpal conspirator. Q After you brought Radcliffe before the Com- missioner did Colonel Whitley issue any order to Bis Li teiniaeeld Ifso, what was the nature of that order ¢ Counsel for the government objected to the ques- jon. Mr. Kintzing—I want to show that Colonel Whit- ley issued an order forbidding any of his subordi- nates {rom coming before you, Mr. Commissioner Osborn, on account of the rebuke you administered to him. and that he said he would rather they should let a prisoner go than that they should take him before you. This rebuke was in reference to tho detention of Radcliffe in prison @ longer time before his exam- ination than the Commtssioner deemed just or pro- per, though Whitley sought to explain the mater away, by stating that the detention was caused very much by Radcliffe’s own pe and also by the fact that Whitley nad to go to Washi Dat the time—all of which may be true, but did not thea justify the detention of Radcliffe, who could have been brought down to the court at any moment by one of Whitley’s subordinates. Q. Did you bring Radcliffe before Commissioner Osborn? A. Yes. Q. Now, sir, did you receive from the Oom- missioner a severe rebuke? A, Yes, Q. After you left this office and went down stairs did not Colonel Whitley issue an order to you and to the rest of his subordinates telling you never to take another prisoner before Commissioner Osborn; that 11 you did you would be dismissed from the service; and, furthermore, that if you arrested a prisoner and brought him here, and found no other it Commissioner but Commissioner Osborn to, take him before, you should let him go; and at the same time that Colonel Whitley gave that order did he not use some vile language and epithets in reference to the Commissioner t Counsel for government objected. The question was wholly immatertal to the issue. Witness— Yes, Colonel Whiticy issued that order. Commissioner—The question 1s immaterial, I do not care one way or the other what order Colonel Whiuey tssued, or what he said regarding me. TESTIMONY OF A. B. NEWCOMB. A. B. Newcomb, an operative of the Secret Ser- vice, was next called as a witness for the defence. Iu reply to Mr. Kintzing he testified as follows:— ue the arrest of Radcliffe was in the monta of january. an Ho you receive any diamonds from Colonel hitley Objected to by counsel for government. Mr. Kintzing said he wanted to corroborate Beatty by this witness. Q. Were you present at the time Mr. Beatty bougut diamonds from Colonel Whitley ¥ Objectea to by counsel for government, on the ground that the prisoner was rot present at the time. A. [never knew of any diamonds being sold by Colonel Whitley; I saw some diamonds in the pos- session of Colonel Whitley—some of them in the oilice of Mr. Radcliffe, in Broadway. Q. Did you receive anything from Colonel Winwey in the month of January or February? A. Yea; I received my salary (laughter) and orders and a great many things, . What were those great many things? byected to by counsel for government. Q. Did you in the month of pepe February receive any diamonds from Colonel ey? Objected to as leading. ‘The Commissioner said that If Newcomb would swear that Whitley had diamonds which he (Whit- ley) told the witness were Redcliffe diamonds, he would allow the question. Examination continued—Colonel Whitley had some smail diamonds; I received two diamonds from Colone! Whitley after the seizure of the Rad- cliffe diamonds; 1 do not know that those diamonds were portion of the Radciife diamonds, Q. Did Colonel Whitey tell you where he got these diamonds trom? A. yes; 1 think he sald toey were put ito & pawnbroker’s oMce by Mr. xadcliffe; I do not know if Pike is the pawnbroker’s name; | do not recoliect anything about that. TESTIMONY OF D. 0. BRADLEY. 1 am an altofhey at 30 Broad street. Q. Did you have in your Papen any of Rade cliffe’s smuggied diamonds? A. [ had in my pos- session diamonds belonging to Mr. Radcliffe; they were seized and taken from me by Colonel Whitiey; he vook ot carats, 60 or 61 carats of medium dia- monds and 12 pieces of set diamonds; I know Red- ane was urrested and taken before Commussioner sborn. Q. Did you have an interview with Colonel Whit- ley? A. Yes, sir. Q. Are you the gentleman wno nogotiatied the settlement of that affair between Colonel Whitley and Mr. Radcuffe? A. I advauced the money re- quired by the government. ee Did you pay any money to Colonel Whitley? . Never. Q. Did you make him any promise for his inter- ference on behalf of Radcliffe? A, No, sir. . Do you know what became of those diamonds that you gave Whitie7? A. I received them back Jrom the Auditor's clerk of the Custom House, Q. How much money was paid? A. $4,500, Q. Do you kuow anything of diamonds peionging to Radcliffe that were pawned with a broker? A. EH ae Imust say that 1 have heard something about it Cross-examined by counsel for government—This $4,500 was handed to Disirict Attorney Davis. Q. Was there any negotiation with the Secretary of the Treasury to receive this money as a com- promise? A. Yes; 1 was sown papers in regard to ui purporting to come from the Secretary of tae reas) ury. Q. Did not Mr. Radcliffe pay the government that money In order that he might be absolved from pun- ishment? A. Yes; Mr. Radcliffe sent a petition to the government; I could not tell who drew the peu- tion; he told me he had signed one, and I advised him to do it; I know nothing of the contents of tho petition, but I know that bis reasons for asking for clemency were that he was a young Englistt unfamiliar with the Jaws of America, and he claimed that Mr. Henry ©. Justice had misied him; on this understanding he was let off; I desire to say that tne diamonds were in my custody, and, on receiving them back, they were weighed and their weight then Was three-eignhts of A carat more than when they were turned out to the government. TESTIMONY OF JAY PIKE, My place of business is at 174 Broadway; I have seen Colonel Whitley; he waated to see afamonds that had been left with me as collateral; | had very litte conversation with him at the time, Q. What was done with those diamonds you had? A. Colonel Whitley came and paid me the money that I had loaned on them; they were sealed up; they were opened in my presence; he wanted me @ open the package, but I declined, and then he opened them in my presence; he counted tne dia- monds and paid the money; | got those dlamonds on receipts; Mr. Esmond oame into my office, said he had a note to pay, aud wanted me to advance money; he had six carats of diamonds; I advanced the money; I asked him if they were his own dia- monds, and he said they were. Q. Did Colonel Whitiey, in any conversation you had with him, enter into any conspiracy with yout A. He wanted me to make my office as headquarters for persons who stole bonds or things of that sort; he asked me to buy them and then have the parties 1 said he should not come ty me on such af- ; | told him f woulkt not engage th any such business as that. Q. How many lots of diamonds (id you have? A. Six carats from Esmond, and a few weeks after six carats from Radcliffe; they were all smail diamonds. Q. What was done with the first lot? A. They were sold for twenty-two doilars advance; Radclite came to my office and brought the recelpts of Es- mond; he satd he did not want to redeem the other goods, but wanted to leave six carats more, Cross-examined by counsel for government—Tne Ajamonda Esmond left tsoid; Whitiey told me be ‘was Chief of the Secret Service Department. Q. Was not the conspiracy he spoke to yon about, that you snould make your office a receptacie fot storeh bonds, in order to detect the person# weLn them and punish them for crime? A fe ; wat was his object: the only thing he wanted me to do was this:—He told me to keep the goods under eeal, and said, “I will give back the Uckets to Radcliffe, and " Radeltte comes to you to redeem those goods I will, if you let me know, seize those goods in ihe interest of the gov ernment.” Mr. Kintzing proposed to call Mr. Sullivan, an op- erative Of tne Secret Service, for the pu ot Proving that diamonds had been avid to him by Vol- one! Whitles; but Mr, Snilivan, who was it, was not examinod, the fact being admitted b; Gece ce eects Bae a 0 Another 0) M * Tuts closed tie testimony on .eiaee the summing uo will take glace to-morro'