The New York Herald Newspaper, December 20, 1873, Page 8

| | 8 THE CouRTS.| THE HARLEM COURT HOUSE FRAUDS Aenry W. Genet Convicted—Sen- tence Deferred Till Monday. Genet’s View of His Case—What the Jury Say—The Punishment to Follow the Verdict. THE COPPERMAN RECEIVING CASE, ‘The trial of Henry W. Genet was concluded yes- terday in the Court of Oyer and Terminer. Mr. Peckham, the prosecuting counsel, Occupied some | two hours in finishing his summing up; alter which Judge Daniels charged the jury, which took | almost an hour, The jury were absent two anda half hours, and then brought in a verdict of guilty— averdict that fell like a thanderboit on the ac- cused, and was hardly less startling to MMs host of friends and adherents. Motion was at once made by Genet’s counsel for his admission to bail pend- ing the submission of a bili of exceptions. This application was refused, and Genet was directed to be given im charge of the Sheriff pending his sentence on Monday, to which time the Court ad- journed. The farther hearing of the case of De Camp vs. The New Jersey Mutual Life Insurance Company ‘was resumed yesterday in tfe United States Cir- cenit Court before Judge Nathaniel Shipman and | the jury. The actionis to recover from the de. | fendants $10,000, being the amount of a policy | of insurance effected on the life of John H. De Camp. Several witnesses guve evidence to the effect that De Camp was u man of tem- | perate habits. Counsel for defendants summed up tie testimony, contending that De Camp died from excessive indulgence in alcoholic stimulants; that the policy was procured by misrepresentation and fraud, and by the suppression of facts neces- sary for the company to know, and that the pre- mium upon the policy nad never been paid. Coun- Bel for the piaintid took the opposite view ina very decided manner, and continued his address till a late hour in the evening. Hi. Martine, of No. 39 Varick street, and E. R. | Robinson, of No, § Minetta lane, were yesterday each held to bail in the sum of $2,000 by Commuis- sioner Shields, to answer a charge of having frandulently obtained $89 on acheck which was made payable to the order of Henry Rog, a volun- teer in the Union army, to whom it was due as his bounty money. The allegation in the complaint is that the defendants, knowing that the check had been sent to Roe’s dwelling, went there, got it from the landlady, representing that it must go through, the Clearing House, and then forged Roe’s mark to the check, and put on their own endorse- ments. In to-day'’s Jaw reports will be found an impor- tant decision of Judge Fancher, of the Supreme Court, in the Copperman case, recently tried in the Conrt of General Sessions. 1t will be seen that he grants a stay of proceedings and sends the case to ie Supreme Court, General Term. THE GENET TRIAL, Summing Up of Counsel—The Judge's Charge=Verdict of Guilty by the Jury—Sentence Deferred Till Monday, Acrowd much larger than on any previous day, | Bince the beginning of the trial of Henry W. Genet, filled, yesterday, the court room of the Oyer and Terminer and the vestibule and hallways leading tothe court. The progress already made in tne case made it quite certam that yesterday would conciude the trial, and, of course, there was in- ereaging anviety to bo in at the death, Genet Wearing the same confident look, was in attend- | ance, and his counsel with him, some time before the arrival of either Judge Daniels or the jury. Mr. Peckham, the prosecuting counsel, was also on hand early, and immediately on opening of the Court, resumed his summing up from the day previous. SUMMING UP FOR THE PROSECUTION. In resuming Mr. Peckham began by first calling attention to the character of the crime charged, claiming that no positive speech or act was neces- sary to constitute tue crime. Demeanor, manner, anything which went to convey a faise belief, was enough, Aman, for instance, without saying a word, hands over his check for goods to be deliv- ered, and it turned-out he had no account in the bank. There was a case where a baker gave for a ticket calling for a certain weight an underweight loaf, This was a false pretence. Tne prescntation through a third party of a false ‘Warehouse receipt lad been held within the law. in this case, when Mr. Genet calied on Mr. David- BOD, some months before, on the 4th of March, a large sum had been obtained for iron, gna, as, in fact, it had not been delivered, that money should have been in their hands. Besides, there was the O'Donnell contract outstanding. ‘They had made provision for all the iron they wouid need, and more, How came Mr. Genet, having no | Oficial position except that of counsel, to come for this trop ? He asked them to look at the bill, Sup- pose it had been headed in the name of their fore- Man With an item for cartage and the name of the past four months, Any of them put any other construction on it than that the goods nad been delivered? It was plain that Genet dictated this Dill; he was to receive the money; he wasa lawyer; he knew that he could not obtain the money until the goods were delivered, except by the corrupt action of officers. But the defendant, when | al sald he would have interpreted this as a ill for tron to be dclivered. Well, in a solemn pro- | ceeding he had made a careful statement, with the aid of counsel, that this bill was made out “asif the | ‘oods had been delivered.” He knew that as the | bill passed through the various offices they would understand irom it that the goods had already been delivered. It was a fraud in the start. it was only an Baa ay * It was Ne Cf that ci of irregularities which had cn- abled the theit of miilion#® irom the county; which had nearly doubled to every man the cost of the house that sheltered him. It was @ neglect of wholesome law to check fraud. Its parpose was fraudulent. If that was a’l the intent, to spend the money for the purpose, but freed from the trammels of law, that wes a fraud. On that alone tiey must convict, They would Motice that the defendant sald he handed it to one of the Com- Missioners, He always spoke of one of the Com- miséiouers, and when pressed the one Commis- Bioners seemed to be the “Boss.” It was not the Commissioners’ duty to pay money—that was the Comptroiler's business—nor even’ to forward the Dill to the Comptroller. Mr, Scalion told thein that he made out the payrolls and forwarded them to to the Comptroller. ‘The Commissioners Were simply to forward the bill, It was Mr. Genet who forwarded the bill, whether by his own hands or those of the Clerk or the Commissjoners. When he got (he bili he meant it shouid go to the Comptrotier’s office, and it did get there. If through Mr. Corgon’s hands, why was not be pro- aucedy Thence it went to the Mayor, as Mr, Genet knew it would. If Mt. Hall's action was ‘in any Way influenced by the belief that this was an hou- est bill, that was enough, even if other elements entered into it, All the stamps and certificates were merely ancillary to the bill Mr. Hall told them he wouid not have signed the warrant with- Out something to show It Was a just claim on the city, All the certification was to the truth of the bill, The bill was the foundation ofall the mat Everything related to it, If} was the main, con trolling, important element lying before the Mayor when he signed this bill, At this point the prosecution stopped, and the | to the men. | and sent them to the Comptroller, defence came in, ‘They admitted an irregularity but claimed that at some time the ‘acfendant in: tended to apply this money to the urpose for Which it was drawn, and theretore, the fraudu- lent intent being absent, it was . mere irregu- Jarity. Ordinarily, the law presuiled # Man in- | tended what he Wid, Here they hxq . Of the fraud; the ‘fact that thes drawn: that the city had not got’ the sovey Was nothing but the extraordinary ete %C7Ue, and some time or other, he can't ger -eement that and Without a scrap of paper + «* how or when, Mt to Mr. Scailon, Then t' — -v prove it, he gave cident,” by whieh, wher «ete was a lucky ‘‘ac- Mr. Corson nox Mr. '_ = this Warrant came in, not potedte bem” gweed, but Mr. Genet, hap- tudly omice whe Comptroller's omce, and the explana‘ cs handed him this warrant, The Foor won Was hardly suMictent. Well, the "a were ordered in June, as ueeded. On the ,enof July Mr. Genet got this Warrant, He toid {Mem that he had been several times to see Mr. Davidson. The goods conid have been furnished in two or three days; there was a Clerk to receive the Money, 4 mei to Saratoga, and @ telegraph, but the set fic warrant remained in Mr. Genet’s pocket; on the gist he drew the money. Why should he, it there were no intimation that Mr. Davidson would be here, endorse this warrant in Mr. David- son’s name and change the warrant, safe in his pocket, into biils the next thief might take? There ‘Was a little peculiarity here, tuat he signed if not as agent, his ustial way of signing. Another pecu- larity was, that on that very day the iron fur- nished by another party was being hauled to the Court House. Mr. Beach here Insisted that the O'Donnell con- tract was for different classes of iron. Mr. Peckham said tere was a little discrepancy in the description of the goods; in one It was “window guards,” in the other It was ‘window frames ;”’ in the oe, ‘iron beam: in the other, ‘dron timbers; it was for the jury to judge. There had been spent on this building several hun- dred thousand dollars. Mr. Waterbury here interrupted, saying that all the money passing through Scallon’s hands was 50, Mr, Peckham, after a brief inquiry of Mr. Tata- tor, stated that the amount paid out on ac- count of the Court House was $203,000, and there Were $40,000 of bills still pending unpaid. Mr. Waterbury insisted that this covered other moneys than those coming to Scallon. Mr. Peckliam replied that he was speaking from Mr. Scallon’s evidence. mite possibly that was false, but be was the witness for the defence, But they would notice that, according to Mr. Genet, he carried this large amount of bills, when | he drew them, direct to Mr. Dayidson, while the other proof was that he got the amount in July and offered it to Mr. Davidson in September, and then be made a formal tender toa man with whom he was on intimate terms. What should he have, done then? The easfest thing was to take the warrant back. Then there would be a receipt for it and a record of it. Then, if other iron was needed, a new warrant to other parties could. have been drawn in its place. But Mr. Genet did not do this, With tron on the ground, furnished by O'Donnell, he handed this money to Scallon. Scalion said he then or- dered the iron from O'Donnell & Dimond; but it turned out the order on O'Donnel! had been given | & mouth before the money was drawn and three weeks belore the warrant was issued: but there was no record, no Memorandum, no bank deposit of the amount—nothing but the bare, naked as- severation. He could not tella place where he | ot the large bills changed to pay the men. Did | firey believe that ifthey had carried about $5,000 in large bills and then been forced to change them, would they remember so little about it? Fe atgued that the Whole story of the payment to the men was an after thought. He was not liable He simply approved the pay rolls, They retain stllitn the Comptroiler’s office as claims against the city. It would be no defence to the city in an | action by the workmen for their pay that Mr. Seal- lon had paid them with this money. The city had never received credit for this money. He did not point out one man or one week’s wages paid by it, and not a memorandum, except, poi time books. Mr. Peckham here c: tion to the fact that immediately on defeat of the young democi the for this Court House was passed. Genet was appointed counse! to the Commis- sioners—a useless vilice. His friends and relatives were appointed on it; $88,000 passed through his hands, and all the account he gave was, It was a | allright, and he did not give one siugle person to whom he paid it, except Mr. Scallon, one scrap of paper or of account in all this immense sum. There was an explanation of this, he thought. The fact Was that, at this time, Mr. | Genet's house was g Up at Cils same time. It had gone up to completion, while the Court House had barely got over the foundation. Scallon was | the man wro had the payment for both. Mr. Genet Knew nothing about the house; he only paid Mr. Scallon. They had one lictic item—Muller & Co.'s bill for black Walnut and Inmber, Mr. Genet got that warrant, and, curiously, the black walnut found its way to Mr. Genet’s stables. Since, Genet told them he tol Scalion that was wrong, and paid the price to Seallon—not, let them notice, to the city. Mr. Peckham, in conclusion, spoke of his own position in the case. The District Attorney was oniy prevented irom being present by sickness. He ‘was here from no personal feelings ‘against the defendant, but from hig duty as an ofiicer of the law. He closed by appealing to the jury, while. taking fully into account the importance ofa ver- dict of conviction to the prisoner and his family and iriends, to remember the still greater impor- tance to the general public of justice against criminals, especially eriminal officials. The de- fendant, it was true, Was not technically an oil- cla!, but was nore. The public would watch care- fully their action upon the evidence which was be- | jJore that public as well as before them, CHARGE TO THE JURY. As soon as Mr. Peckham had concluded Judge | Daniels proceeded to cnarge the jury, standing as he spoke, aud the jury @iso Standing. Alter stat- ing the substance of the indictment he charzed that they must be satisfied that false representa. tions were made to the authorities and the Mayor with Intent to cheat and defraud, and that their influence procured the signature. The statute | had been read to them, and they would notice that there were two classes of cases— one where the crime was by false tokens or writ- ings and the other by simple false representations. W€ did not think this came within the ilrst class, but this bill might be considered as a faise repre- sentation. In this case it Was not essential to con- sider the first class o! cases, It appeared by the testimony that in May or June. 1871, the defendant, in consequence of some previous considerations, applied to Mr. Davidson for work and materials for Harlem Court House. Jt was important to inquire whether there was then a dawning intention not to get goods for the city, but money from the city for his own friend. He called their attention to the bill itself, im which months are mentioned | and in which there is a charge for cartage. Mr. Davidson testified there had been no previous dealings between him aud the Commissioners, but this was the first dealing at the instance o! the de- Jendant. The form of the bill was important for their consideration. Mr, Davidson told them that he could not recall precisely what occurred, but that this was made outin this form at the sugges- tion ol the defendant. The defendant denied this, and denied that he suggested the putting on of the months, as indicating that the goods had been furnisbea, the men to judge which tola the truth. He knew nothing in tals case going to discredit Mr. Davidson's testimony. If he lad no motive to misrepresent the transaction it was tor them to judge at whose instance it was made, It was an {mportant circumstance in considering the intent. In the contradictions between him and Mr. Genet, they would remember the bag aed and cogent reasons leading the latter to color the circumstances so as to excuipate him. If this bili were made out in this form, at the instance of the defendant, the question arose, Why was it 80? Was ft to be peg: | to pay ior goods for the city or was it for the purpose of enabling him to misappropriate moneys for the city? If the Jatter, then the question ‘was whetner this intent followed the Mill till it came before the Mayor? Mr. Genet took away the bill, and they heard no yaore of it tillit got into Mr. Corson's hands, the Secretary of this Board of Commtsston- ers. The bill was before the Commissioners of the Court House, and bears their signature, It also bears the endorsement of Mr. Scallon, Superintend- ent of the Court House ana of the defendant's house, and it was a question for them whether he lent himsetf for any improper purpose, and how far that would affect his credit. It would ap- pear that this bill Was intended to go before the authorities to persuade them that these goods had been Jurnished, and thus procure a credit or war- rant to Mr. Davidson. Direct evidence was not needed in such cases, In this case the circum- ftances Warranted the conclusion that this bill when put into Mr, Corson’s hands was intended to take the course it did take. It was an important circumstance for the defendant whether his connection with the bill ceased then, or whether by aby directions or acts he forwarded it on its course to consummation. ; Unless Mr. Corson himself were placed on the stand there could be no direct proof of what did occur in this respect. But ti the defendant knew this person and aid not call him, then it was | for them to consider what effect his failure to call him had; or if the prosecution knew the | facis, and tailed to call lim, they would give due weight to that omission, But in his | absence it was for them to determine from the circumstances whether W ut it in Corson’s hand, intending that sliould feach the Mayor, and that he should get the warrant, All the circumstances ee to be considered in this connection. The certificate attached to the bill stated that (he goods had been delivered. He recalied the testimony of the officers that, ac- cording to the course of business, the bill was a necessary part of the voucher and the ordinary course ot business in the Comptrolier’s ofiice, and especially the Auditor's testimony that he would not have audited the claim without the bill; but, finding the bill and voucher together and corresponding, he stamped it as correct an handed it to the Comptroller, from whom it wen tothe Mayor. The question then arose whether | the bill had any influence on the Mayor’s mind in inducing him ‘to sign it, Ther remembered the testimony of the Mayor, that he did not examine more than one per cent of the vouchers coming !¢- fore him, but never signed @ Warrant unless some voucher was before him showing the claim to be @ valid one against the city, Of course he spoke from habit and not’ from memory, And it was @ quesiion for them Whether this voucher was one of the things materially Influencing {he miud of the Mayor. It Was not necessary the Mayor should have read it, If this bill induced him to believe there was a valid claim Heaps the city, that was enough. But if he relied solely on the signature and stamp of the Comptroiler and Auditoy, then the case was not Made out. It was for them to decide, ‘This war- rant was made on the 14th of July, It was re- ceived by the defendant on the 17th, Mr. Genet says he happened to be there ar ny atten. tidn was chiled to te exisienos of tho ‘war- rant, and having authority from Mr, pevideon, he asked for apd got it. it was for them to con- sider whether he had the authority of Mr. David- son, and whether he was there accidentially or came there purposely for it, understanding it was ready for stig If he was there to mtercept the warrant, and mot to deliver it to Mr. David- son, but put it in his own pocket, that was @ very important consideration. They were bound to try and reconcile these circumstances with the innocence and good faith of the defendant; but if they car- ried their minds to the conclusion vf guilt they were equally bound to the public te deciare their conclusion. He stated at length the circumstances | sel, and then Mr. Peckham, aud then came the | necessary and a hardship. following the receipt of the Warrant and the two theories im regard to this—or the one hand that it showed he intended to pocket the NN ee NEW YORK HERALD, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 20, 187: money, and on the other that it was a proof of | houest intent, The defendant admitted that he endorsed Mr. Davidson’s name, but claimed that Le was authorized so to do. If his statement was correct no inference could be drawn against him from that one fact. But it was claimed that this was an after thought, and it was not till the publication of the frauds that this was setup. It was not till the latter part of August or the begin- ning of September that Mr. Davidson returned and Mr. Genet offered the money to him, which was re- fused. It was for them to give proper weight to that circumstance, It was after that that this money was paid to Mr, Scalion, as both testified, and the | direction giveh as they stated. Whether there was any intent to use the money for the purpose named was for them to decide. On it they might take mto account the fact that some similar ma- terials had been previously delivered. He recailed to them the testimony of Scallon as to his order- ing iron, and bis using the money to pay laborers | and his putting in bills for the same pay. He | recalled to them Mr. Genet’s printed statements, and charged them that if the defendant's evi- dence Was reliable, or threw 80 much doubt on the matter as to render their conviction unstable, theg must acquit. They must div their minds of Iny prejudice against the deiendant and decide the case solely on the evidence, giving the prisoner the benefit of any reasonable doubt. On the other no consideration Of consequences should lead them to fail in theirduty. He dwelt at some length on the special responsibility of officers, and | the necessity of holding them to @ strict account- ability, and as to what was reasonable doubt. He charged them that if they found that the defendant did set this bill in motion, with an intent to de- fraud, but that the bill after all had no influence on the Mayor's mind, then they could find the de- fendant ey ofan attempt to commit the crime. Judge Daniels, in conclusion, passed on the re- quests of counsel to charge. Mr. Waterbury added a few verbal requests, and Mr. Beach took several exceptions, It was a quarter to two o'clock when the case was given to the jury. By permission ot Judge Daniels, however, they were permitted go to dinner before being locked up. . WAITING FOR THE VERDICT. Upon the retirement of the jury pane in their | impatience for the result expressed their disgtst | atthe jury being allowed first to get their dinner. The theory of these malecontents was, that had the jury been sent at once to a room to deliberate upon their verdict the growing pangs of hunger would haye gesulted tn a speedy verdict, whereas under the seductive effects of a full meal they Would have been reversely slow and deliberate ib | reaching their conclusions, However, there was no othér alternative than patiently waiting the course of events, In the course of an hour the jury returned irom their dinner and were at once shown by Mr. Valentine, the chief officer of the Court, to the room set apart for the juries of this Court, Meantime there had been no diminution in the crowa in at- tendance, but, if anything, the number had aug- mented, Many gathered in knots both in the court room and out, and eagerly discussed the probable verdict. Mr. Genct, with a few of his percaal friends, sat in the small room adjacent, fe smoked his cigar and chatted with the utmost | seeming Indifference. An hour passed, and then | another, and half of the third hour had passed, and | most from thifdelay were arguing a disagreement when suddenly there came the announcement that the jury was coming in. There was quite a stir on this announcement. Judge Daniels came in, fol- lowed vy Judge Brady, and both took their seats on the bench. Genet followed, and then his coun- jury. - THR VERDICT. Every eye was directed to the jury. Genet looked at them as they took their seats, but nove gave back his glance. “Gentlemen of the jury, have you agreed upon a verdict,’ asked Mr. Sparks, the clerk? “We have,’ answered the foreman, rising. “How say you, do you find the prisoner at the bar, Henry W. Genet, guilty or not guilty?” “Guilty,”? answered the foreman, Upon this announcement Genet turned pale and gave a gasp as if for breath. In a moment he re- covered himself, and then, taking out a toothpick, began chewing on it as if utterly indifferent to the | utterance of asingle word upon which hung his future destiny. Mr. Waterbury asked that the jury be polled, and they cach answered, “That is my Verdict.” Judge Daniels directed the verdict to be entered, “Guilty of the charge contained in tho indict- ment.” MOTION FOR STAY OF SENTENCE. Mr. Beach moved for a stay of sentence until Monday to give time for preparing the bill of ex- ceptions. Meantime he would apply to the Court | to take bail for the prisoner's appearance, pend- | ing tl disposition of the e. i Mr. Peckham made no opposition, but referred | the matter to the District Attorney's oftice. Assistant District Attorney Allen being sent for, sovn arrived and objected to the proposal as un- | ee . Beach complained that the severity of an im- prisonment pending the bill of exceptions was un- Mr. Ailen said he would not consent, but the Conrt might exercise its discretion, i Judge Daniels said, if the District Attorney con- | sented, he might allow batl, but, as it was, the case should take tie usual course, and the defend- ant must remain ior the present in the custody of the Sherit After the Verdict—Interview with Mr. Genet. After the adjournment of the Court Mr. Genet and his counsei, Messrs. Beach and Waterbury, | withdrew into the adjacent court room, which was | unoccupied at the time. The rush of the crowd after them was something terrific; but the officers of the court, who stood guard at the door, were equal to the occasion, and denied admission to ail, except afew of his friends. Deputy Sheriff Shields, who seemed as unconcerued and seli-possessed as though he were going on a@ pleasure excursion with Mr, Genet instead of taking him into custody as a convicted prisoner, gave orders to admit the | HERALD reporter into the sanctum, and the officer meekly obeyed this order. The scene in this room was remarkable by the strained expression of anxiety and the flusa of excitement that could be seen in everybody’s face. In one corner sat Mr. Genet with his counsel. They were talking to himin a low, inaudible tone. They seemed to be but little affected by the adverse termination of the trial, and could not have been more phiegmatic if the result had been a victory instead of being a defeat, In the other part of the room generally set apart for the spectators sat some half dozen political friends of Mr, Genet. They were silent and looked at one anotherin a decidedly cheerless manner. Mr. Beach finally broke the heavy oppressive | silence by asking for the official stenographer, but one of the officers informed him that he was gone. Mr. Waterbury rose, and shaking hands with Mr. Genet, said coolly, ‘Good evening, Xr. Genet! to which Mr. Genet replied in his usual manner—the only change that had come over him was that his ‘ace was slightly fushed and his voice rather husky—“Good evening to you!” Mr. Beach’s parting from his client Was equally affecting. When they had lett Mr. Genet drew on his heavy overcoat and shook himseif as though he would shake off any feeling of uneasiness or neryol 8 that might have mastered him for the mor Y He stepped tor- ward, and, in the same tone of voice in which he might have asked some friend to take @ drink | with him, he said to Deputy Sherif Snields:— “Well, Mr. Shields, | am at your disposal,” Mr. Shields returned Mr. Genet’s smile by an- other smile—such a smile as only beputy Sneriffs are capable of when they take a prisoner jnto cus tedy prenaratory to conducting him to Sing Sing or to Black Weil's Islan¢—and without taking hoid of his prisoner walked out, followed by the HERALD reporter, several Deputy Sheriffs and a number of the prisoner's Riis. There was stul a very jarge crowd waiting outaidé on the staircase, and they | all craned their necks to get a view of Mr. Genet ashe came out, “Here he is, here he is} some- one cried, and everybody made a rush at the pris- gner, Mr. Genet kept his temper perfactiy, shook hands with and smiled at £1) whom he knew, and seemed as unconcerned as ff all this commo- tion were intended as an ovation to mm. His broad, burly frame moved lightiy and gracefuily through the crowd. He had polled outa cigar he- | fore hé emerged from tne court room, and now he stopped to light it comfortably, He puffed it with seeming gusto and kept at the same time talking to Mr. Shields, who treated the prisoner with the utmost Kindness and consideration, and showed had business, and finally to his house, where he Spent the night in charge of the deputy sherii, What the Jureys Say. A HERALD reporter saw several of the jurors after they had been discharged. He was informed by one of them that the jury had passed a resolu- tion not to divulge any of the secrets of the jury chamber. Several of the more communicative jurymen made, nevertheless, lengthy statements, from which that of Mr. Valentine Schneider, juror No. 5, is selected as the most comprehensive. Mr. Schneider said that when the jury re- tired an informal ballot was taken, the result of which was nine for conviction and three for ac- quittal; then, alter a long discussion abont the various points of law involved in the case, they par- took of luncheon, Another vote was taken, 11 being for conviction and one for acquittal and the next vote showed that the entire jury were ready to render a verdict of “guilty.” “A lormal ballot Was then taken, all the 12 voting “guilty,” and a resolution was passed enjoining tho strictest secrecy in regard to all that had been said and done in the jury room upon all the members of the jury. There was a long and comprehensive discussion of the case before this result was reached, as they did nat want to act hastily. Mr. Schneiler gave it as his opinion that Mr. Genet as fair a judge and as fair @ jury ‘as ever a prisoner had before.” There was not one man in the jury room, he thought, who would not rather have rendered a verdiet of ‘not guilty” if he could have done it with a clear conscience, ana they all felt sympathy and pity for his amicted family. owever, they had a duty to perform and they performed it. The main point whicn gave rise to discussion, he said, was the question whether the defendant had obtained tne signature to the warrant with a fraudulent in- tent, and as soon as this question was settled all the jury were ready to vote for conviction, JUDGE DANIELS ON THE PUNISHMENT. A HERALD reporter calied on Judge Danicls in Ms private room in order to ascertain the maxi- muin punishment to which the prisoner could be sentenced under the verdict. Judgo Daniels re- ceived him very courteously and sald the maximum sentence was five years in the State Prison anda $3500 times the amount of the warrant, about 10,000, THE COPPERMAN CASE. Stay of Proceedings Granted Upon a Writ of Error—The Case to Go to the Supreme Court, General Term—!Im- portant Opinion by Judge Fancher. ‘The case of Hyman Copperman, who was tried in the Court of General Sessions on the charge of re- ceiving stolen goods and found guilty, elicited at the time, from the peculiar circumstances sur- rounding it, a good deal of attention. Ex-Mayor A. Oakey Hall and Mr. William F, Howe, the counsel for the accused, having confidence in the legal points raised in his defence, moved for a stay of proceedings upon a writ oferror. This motion was argued at length before judge Fancher at Supreme Court Chambers, Mr. Russell, Assistant District Attorney, appearing in opposition. Judge Fan- cher gave his decision yesterday in the case granting the stay. His opinion setting forth his decision embraces, as will be seen, a review of some interesting legal questions :— OPINION OF JUDGE FANCHER. The prisoner was convicted at the General Ses- sions of New York of receiving stoien goods, The verdict of guilly Was accompanied with a recom- mendation to mercy. ‘The prisoner is a pawn- broker, and had previous to the trial been the resident of tie trustees of a Jewish synagogue. The thief who stole the goods was the chier wit- ness. He testified that he cold them to the pris- oner for an inadequate price. The prisoner, on the other hand, testified that the goods were pawned 4nd not sold to him. The thier said ne had sold the prisoner goods before. He was asked as to the goods in question, whether he sold them or pawned them, and answered “sold them,’ He stated that a year before he went to the prisoner “to pawn some goods,” and did then pawn them. The District Attorney at this point inquired of the witness as to former transactions, and after he had testified in answer to several questions tue District Atior- ney asked this question:—“Q, What was said be- tween you and Copperman on the occasion of the first interview? This was objected to by the pris- oner’s counsel, allowed by the Court and the pri onerexcepted. Itis then stated in the bill of ex- ceptions as jollows:—*It is agreed that all which Was said between the accused and the witness as to transactions prior to the one in the indictment comes in under the exception.’’ Tne witness was theretipon interrogated and auswered as to the conversations between him and the accused touch ing former transactions. ‘They were isolated trans- actions, None of them related to that respecting | which the indictiment was found, nor did they prove any teen the 4 thus given m 1 eneral oF continuous arrangement be- sel and the thief. The evidegce thave had much NFLUENCE CPON THE JURY, and the question raised upon the bill of excep- tions ix, Was it competent?’ The statute (3 R.S., “oth ed., p. 959, sec. 78) reads:—“Every person whd shall buy or receive in any manner, upon any con- sideration, auy personal property of any value whatsoever, that shall have been feloniously taken away or stolen from any other, knowing the same to have been stolen, shail, upon conviction, be punished,” &c. The essence of the crime is the wullty knowledge of the accused that the goods specified in the indictment had been feloniously taken or stoleu—wihether evidence tending to show nis knowledge of other thefts be admissible, as competent to prove the crime charged, is a dis- puted question, A majority of the Court in Peopie ys. Rando (3 Park., Cr, 335) heid such evidence admissible. There Was a dissenting opinion by one of the Judges; and, as appears by a note to the report ol the case, the Judge who delivered the prevailing opinion atterward said that he considered the question an open one, In MeNift’s case (1 City Hall Recorder, p. §) it was held that evidence in such a case that the prisoner had purchased other goods of the thief not contained In the indictment is improper, but that a general understanding between them to receive stolen property is admissible. In Regina vs. Oddy (5 Cox C, C., 210; see 3 Green}, on Kyv., note, re'ded., p. 17), upon a charge of feloniously receiving stolen goods, it was held that the pos- session of other solemn goods not connected with the immediate charge wus not admissible in PROOF OF GUILTY KNOWLEDGE, as it could not lead to any such conclusion, but, on the contrary, was quite consistent with the suppo- sition that on the former occasions the goods had been stolen by the prisoner himself. The principal fact In issue On the trial of the case under exam- luation was the guilty knowledge of the accused respecting the goods mentioned in the indictment. The — collateral tacts of acts and conversations as to other Pec received previously were offered to be own and received in evidence, we the ground that they bore upou the question of the intention of the prisoner as to the goods covered by the in- dictment. It has been said, tn respect to such col- lateral evidence, that no precise rule has been laid down, (Rex vs, Salisbury, 2 Russ. on Crimes, 776, third ed.; 3 ni, Ev., sec, 15.) It would seem that if the previous conversations show an under- standing with the thief or a knowledge of his crime tuey are admissibie; butif theyare in substance consistent with the supposition that the person receiving the goods was not made acquainted with and said notuing to indicate a knowledge ef the felonions taking or theft of them, he is not, by inconsequential inference merely, to be held guilt of the knowledge of the anlawful taking or theft. Conversations prior to the act charged cannot be competent unless they prove that the thief com- municated his own crime or that the receiver admitted his knowledge of the same, If the conversations come up to that grade they are competent (16 Peters, 840; Rosco’s Crim. Ey., 876; 3 Greeni. Ev., sec. 15); but if they fall short of that standard they should not be allowed to perplex or influence the jury. In this case some of the conversations admitted under the prisoner's objection and exception were con- sistent with the prisoner's integrity, For exam- ple, on one occasion he said, ‘You come back egain soon.”’ This may have been honestiy ree Taarked, with a view of ascertaining whetier THE GOODS \ en® HONESTLY ACQUIRED, i Abouer decision, when the witness was asked 1 u certain ‘class of goods" could be obtained for je accused, it would seem that the intention was to have purchased some goods of a particnlar kind, it would naturally be supposed he intended to have such goods purchased, and not stolen. It 1s & vjolont inference to suppose the accused in- tended to have the goods stolen. A selection of color in silks would not probably be indicated by one who intended they shvuld be stolen. Lam not tuat he could accomplish a diflieult and disagreea- ble duty with promptness as well as with delicacy, Mr. Genet shook bands with the HERALD Te- orter, when che latter addressed him and said, ightly, “How are your! fie reporter acknowledged the polite inquiry bo Be ‘~"This ig @ pretty severo verdict, Mr. ent, ‘Yea, it 18, Mr, Genet replied, with a comfort- Lg of his cigar, and walking briskly through the Park. “Did you expect this verdict?’’ the reporter ven- tured to ask. “No,” Mr, Genet replied, coolly, with another put of his cigar, which he seemed to relish Greatly. “No, I certainly didv't expect it.’ “I see you bear up againat it pretty well,” the reporter added, with some hesitation, for he feit that any conversation, under the circumstances, must needs be of a very painful character. “Well, it can’t be helped,’ Mr. Genet answered philosophically, and as though he were making an effort to appear as stoical as possible. There was acertain spasmodic twitching of the lips, how- ever, and a strained, painful expression of the eye which, for the moment, fae belied his appear- ance of nonchalance and indifference. This was ali that Mr. Genet said. He repeated, “Tt can’t be helped,” with a shrug of his shoulder, and stepped quickly into the coach, which stoo Teady at the corner, opposite A. T. Stewart's store. Mr. Shields and his deputy sheriffs stepped in after him, and the coach rattled away through the mud, Any indifferent passer by who saw Mr. Genet en- tering the carriage would have ecarcely thought that the humble, modest looking man who accom. panied him held him in bi ya r. Genet was driven to sevéral places where be sure that the prisoner Was not prejudiced by the doubtful testimony thus given at the trial, and I think he should have a stay of proceedings until the question can be examined and decided by the General Term of this Court, So ordered. SUPREME COURT—CHAMBERS. Decisions. By Judge Ingraham. a Sitton vs, Hanlon, Gaumbacher v3. McNamara, Bayard vs. Christi, Helman vs. Abraham,—Motions granted, By Judge Fancher. The People, &c., vs. Copperman.—Writ of error and stay of proceedings granted, (See opinion.) SUPREME COURT—SENERAL TERM. Decisions. By Judges Ingraham, Brady, Barrett and Fancher. Tretle Tngurance Compad vs. Austin et al.—Mo- for reargument granted, wonara et al, executors, v8, Bell et al.—Judg- ment ordered for plaintiffs declaring the provision of the thirteenth clause of the will void, plaintifs’ costs to be patd out of the estate. Opinion by Judge Ingraham. eerains ve. Squier,—Order appealed from afirm- ed, with $10 costa. Opinion by all the judges, Judge Barrett imwedets ¢ Conboy vs. Jennings et al.—Decree of Surrogate reversed, With costs, and judgment rendered, di- rectt the Surrogate to admit to probate thé pa pers signed by testator and two witnesses, The People ex rel. the Bank of Britisn North Anierica vs, The Qommissioners of Taxes, and two -WITH SUPPLEMENT. otner cases, mion Judge Fancher.—Judg- ment for respondents, with costs, The People ex rel. Navarro vs. Green, Comptrol- troller.—Opinion by Judge Brady.—Motion to strike out granted in part, according to opinion, Woods vs. The People.—Opinion by Judge Brady.— Judgment aftirmed, Belding vs. Leichard.—Opinion by Judges Fan- cher and Brady.—Decree of Surrogate adirmed, with costs, Bloss vs. Chittenden, Administrator.—Opinion by reg Barrett.—Judgment for defendant, wit! 3. Barry v8, The Mutual Life Insurance Company.— Opinion by Judge Fancher.—Order appealed from reversed, with costs. Platt and Others vs, Platt.—Opinion by Judge Barrett,—Motion for a new trial denied, with costs. Bentz vs. Thuber.—Opinion by Judge Brady.— Verdict set aside and new trial ordered; costs to abide event. Stillwell, Executor, vs. Carpenter et al.—Opinion by Judge Barrett.—Judgment afirmed, with costs. Sword, Administrator, vs. Edgar et al.—Opinion by Judge Brady.—Judgment afirmed, with costs. ‘The People ex rel. Broadway and Seventh Ave- nue Railroad Company vs. The Commissioners of Taxes and four other cases.—Opinion by Judge Ingraham.—Judgment for the respondents and writ quashed, with costs in each case, The People ex rel. Pacitic Mail Steamship Com- pany ve ‘The Commissioners of ‘Taxes.—Opinion yy Judge Ingraham.—Judgment for plaintif, setting aside assessment and directing the Commissioners to correct the assessment by deducting the value of the personal property out of the State unless the Commissioners elect to accept the amount ad- mitted by the relators in schedule C. In such case the assessment will be adirmed for that amount. SUPERIOR COURT—STECIAL TERM, Decisions. By Judge Freedman. Ronalds vs. The Mechanic National Bank.—Mo- tion granted and action referred, Payne va. The Forty-second Street and Grand Street Railway Company.—Motion to strike out certain answers in the deposition denied. Arnold et al, vs. Keyes,—Motion granted, Coe vs. Dav: rder for judgment ana for ref- erence to ascertain damages, &c. = COURT OF COMMCN PLEAS—SPECIAL TERM. Decisions. By Judge Loew. Barry vs. Spellman.—Sce memorande, White vs. Whitney.—Molion for further bill of | particulars denied, Hauser vs. Denning.—Motion to continue injune- tion denied, without costs, Meyer'vs. Meyer.—See memoran ta. Ripley vs. Dixon,—Motion to place canse on spe- cial calendar granted. Garraghan vs. Wilson.—See memoranda, COURT OF CEWERAL SESSIOKS, Child Killing and Convietion of Man- slaughter in the Fourth Degree. Refore Recorder Hackett, At the opening of the Court yesterday His Honor proceeded to charge the jury in the case of George Rose, who was charged with causing the death of a little child by throwing a smail hatchet at him. They found a verdict of guilty of Pann alag ier in the fourth degree, and recommended Kose to mercy. The Recorder directed the defendant to be remanded till Monday. This verdict gives His Honor a wide discretion in that punishment. Burglaries and Larcenics. Wilhelm Jacoby, who was indicted for bnrglari- ously entering the house ana store of Morris Exiemer, No. 91 Canal street, on the 24th of Novem ber, and stealing $3 in money, pleaded guilty to burglary in the third degree. He was sent to the Penitentiary for four years. George Robertson pleaded guiity to the same de- ‘ee of crime, the charge being that on the 1st of tis month lie broke into the hat store of Edward Miller and stoic hats and umbrellas valued at $200. The sentence was three years and six months in the State Prison, George Flynn was tried and convicted of grand larceny in stealing $188 from the liquor store of Mortimer Shay, No. 62 East Broadway, on the 12th inst., and sent to the State Prison ior four years and six months, Ella Johnson was found guiity of stealing a silver watch and a gold chain, on the 28th of February, belonging to Joseph L. Contrell, at whose house she was employed as a servant, George Nierney, who, on the 13th of November, stole a pack of dry goods valued at $64 from a pediar named Samuel Pollock, while !n a Roosevelt Street drinking saloon, was found guilty, These prisouers Were each sent to the State Prison for three years, Henry Smith, who, on the 19th of November, stole a gold watch and cham from Charles W. Blohm, pleaded guiity to an attempt at grand Jarceny. John McCoy also picaded gulity to the same of crime, the charge against im being that on the 6th inst. he stole d coat worth $60,.the property of Peter Renaldson. id Mary Ann Watts, alias Mary Wilson, charged with stealing, on the 8th of December, two pieces of silk valued at $86, from the store of Conkling & Co., 763 Broadway, pleaded guilty to an attempt to commit that offence, Catherine Robinson, who was indicted for steal- ing a silver watch and chain and a cloth vest on the 22d of November, the property of Edward Trudo, pleaded guity vo an attempt. Each of the above-named prisoners were sont to the State Prison for tivo years and six months. Thomas Williams pleaded guilty to an attempt at grand larceny, the allegation being that, on the 7th of this month, he stole $60 wortn of miscel- laneous property Belonging to Adolph Tarvenier. He was sent to the State Prison for eighteen onths, John Roberts, indicted for stealing wearing ap- parel, valued at $36, on the 22d of November, owned by Warren N, Lancaster, pleaded guilty to petty larceny. Tilly Seymour, who stole $32 worth of jewelry from Lena Sapire on the 12th of this month, pleaded tuilty to petty larceny. These prisoners were sent 0 the Penitentiary for six menths, James Armstrong (@ boy) pleaded guilty to sued to recover damages for an alleged breach of the contract, averring that, afterwards, a million pounds of such suppiles (corn) were transported yy one Fuller, under an arrangement with the de- partment. The damages were laid at $70,000, the claimant setting forth great expense in preparing to perform the contract and corresponding losses by the non-fulfilmeat, The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the contract was not vio- lated; that the corn transported by Fuller was simply @ delivery of corn purchased of him by the department, ani did not, tn any way, effect the contract. The appeal maintains that it was not a case of sale but of bailment. Peck, Durant and Homer for appellant; C. H, Hill for government. THE PRESIDENTS MESSAGE. Manifest Destiny as Treated by the Londén Leader Writers. {From the London Times, Dec. 4.) We should, perhaps, be scarcely justified in at- tributing to General Grant the random character of the paragraphs which make up his Message as telegraphed. As itis laid before us we see him touching on a subject and then dropping it, to re- turn to it again in a later part of his communica- tion to Congress. The Cuban question thus ap- pears, disappears and reappears. As we have already expressed our dissent from the claims put forward by the President on behalf of the national flag it is but right we should recora our satisfaction atthe moderation of his views in respect of Cuba itself, There is nota word to indicate a desire to annex the island, or even to intervene forcibly in its disputes, ‘This re. serve ig tho more praiseworthy, since it is Apparent that the President hay not lost his old hankering afier the extension of the power of the Uuion in the Mexican Gulf, If there is now no recommendation to purchase St. ‘Thomas or to accept the sovereignty of the Bay of Samana, he desires that the application of the government of St. Domingo for the pro- tectorate of the United States may be considered. But with respect to Cuba General Grant goes little further than to express # hope that slavery may soon disappear from the island, and with it the | Dloody struggle ot which it is @ principal cause, He insists, indeed,, upon the necessity of making the slave-nolding aristocracy of Cuba subordinate to the orders of the home government, or, failing in this, of preventing their using the pame and authority of Spain as the means of upholding their own misrule. So far the opinion of England will unreservedly support his policy. Spain must con- trol Cuba, or Cuba must be separated from Spain, and a tree creole Republic established in the island to replace the authority of the mother country. {From the London Daily News, Dec. 4.] President Grant has been fortunate in meeting Congress with the news of this diplomatic victory in his hands. The vigorous action of his govern, ment, from the moment the news of the outrage was received, is certain to meet the full approva, of the representative body. It is very possi- bie that the diplomatic settlement is not entirely acceptable to a section of the Amer; fean people. Annexation is always popular, and tne seizure of Cuba, a8 a fair prize of war, has come 80 near to possibiitty, or even probability, that some disappointment will be felt as the prospect vanishes away. Ten days ago everybody in New York seemed to have reachea the conclusion that the annexation of Cuba was inevitable. We do not hear so much nowadays avout “manifest destiny’? os we did in the old times of Southern predominance; but populgr opinion in many parts of the United States has long regarded the spiendid island which keeps the gates of the Mexican Gulf as a predestined member of the confederation of the Stars and Stripes. There has beon-less of this feeling since slavery was abolishe but the Cuban Junta at New York has kept tt alive, and the terrible records of Spanish cruelty made public in the “Book of Blood,” an account of which has been given in the current number of the Edinburgh Review, have a ae all sympathy with the rule even of a Spanish republic in Cuba. The bigh- handed violence shown in the execution of the crew of the Virginius found the Ameri- can people not merely indignant, but not indisposed to action. General Grant’s decisive and peremptory course, his preparations for war, his ultimatum to the Spanish government, his re- fusal to extend the time for compliance with his demands beyond the 27th of November, had the ers Danese approval of the public, and will ts tainly have full endorsement by Congress, The telegram trom our New York correspondent which we publish to-day shows that an excellent effect bas already been producetl in Cuba itself, and that some conciliatory steps have already been taken bf the Captain General. The distinc- tion the President has drawn between the Spanish Republic and the slaveholders who, as he says, “while maintaining a political connection with the Republic, defy its authority,” and his emphatic declaration that this evil must be abated, indicate a disposition to interfere in Cuban affairs ifa ft opportunity should arise. Such an inter- ference, espectally if it were undertaken in no un- mendly spirit to the government at Madrid, would poe be popular in the United States. «Indeed, ad President Grant announced a less moderate policy than he has adopted it might have met with considerable support. There are thousands of men up and down the country, and a good many even in Congress itself, who would have preferred a fight and an annexation, though a kindred goy- ernment in the Old World had been tumbled over in the struggle. (From the London Morning Post, Dec. 4.) The President is earnest and emphatic in the exe Pression of his opinion tat it ts in some way the duty ofthe United States to insist upon, and per- snatching @ pocketbook containing $1 50 from Eliza Ann Smith. He was sent to the House of Refage. TOMBS POLICE COURT. Diamonds Deep in the River. Before Justice Bixby. Peter Nooney, an ambulance driver of Béflevue Hospital, was held in $1,000 batl by Justice Bixby yesterday, charged with stealing a diamond stud worth $500 from the dead body of James Armstrong, a resident of Brooklyn. The facts of the case re- veal a peculiar state of things, The deceased, who was an eminently respectable gentieman, named James Armstrong, of Brooklyn, came by his death in @ manner unknown, tue first intimation of his demise being the’ finding of his remains by Ofiicer Biair, of the Second precinct. When the body was found three diamond studs, valued at $500 each, were found in the bosom of the de- ceased's shirt, but, strange to say, when the body arrived at the Morgue only two of the valuable stones were to be found. The evidence ts entirely circumstantial, based on the fact that when the dead body was found three diamonds were found in the shirt bosom, and when the body arrived at Bellevue Hospital only two of the brill- fants were to be met with. was a man of large wealth, and at the time of his death was on the eve of his marriage. His body was found off the Battery, and the manner of his death yet remains a secret. An Ex-Convict at His Old Tricks. John Otis, alias Cock-Eyed Jack, @ late arrival from Sing Sing, was cleverly caught by Omcer Dennison, of the fhe teen while loiteriag suspiciously in the hallway of 149 Fulton street. He denied all knowiedge of any bad intent, but on being searched in the station house several skele- ton Keys and other investigating instruments were found upon him, COURT OF APPEALS CALENDAR, ALBANY, Dec. 19, 1873, The following is the Court of Appeals day calen- day for December 22;—Nos, 172, 69, 70, 67, 161, 170, 165, 164, 148, 173, UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. onion perenailgematntcs Decisions, WASHINGTON, Dec. 19, 1873, No. 165. Solomons vs, United States—Appeal from the Court of Ciaims.—The appellant was un- der a contract to deliver at Camp Fiimore, to the United States, 12,000 busheis of corn between Sep- tember, 1864, and May, 1965, at such times and in such quantities monthly as the Quartermaster might direct. He delivered 9,000 bushels, but the balance was not called for and was not delivered. But in September, 1866, he offered to deliver the balance, and 87,420 pounds were received, as he Supposed and alleges. The government contends that the department deciined to receive it on ac- count of the contract, but that a clerk was author- ized to accept of any amount required for the time being. Meanwhtie & portion of the corn was 1n- jured in the barracks, The department tendered pay (which was refused) for the amount recetved by authority, and claimed that, the claimant hav- ing stored his own grain at the camp, without any responsibility of the government, the damage was his own loss. The Court below so found, and gave jndgiment only for that sum tenderea ‘and declined. The error here assigned is that the Court erred tn not holding that the amount of corn delivered was duly received by the department. 1. J. D. Fuller for claimant; ©. H. Hill for government. No, 16%, Shrewsbury vs. The United States—Ap- peal from the Court of Claims.—The claimant alleges that he had @ special contract with the government, made with an officer of the proper department, duly authorized to contract, to trans port all the military stores and supplies on the route from Kansas and Missouri to Mew Mexico from May to Septemner, 1865, except such as the government might carry by ite own means, and The deceased | the emect of these wo haps to aid, the Spanish government in effecting a removal of the cause of these troubles, The United States, he says, are not hostile to Spain, but they are hostile to slavery, and they have a bitter quarrel with the slaveholders of Cuba. These siaveholders are the enemics alike of the Spanish goverument and of the United States. We refer our readers to the remarkable words which President Grant uses upon this sub- ject. They are rather unaccustomed words from the mouth of an American Executive. Nearly 100 years ago the first President of the Repub- Ne Warned his countrymen against the danger of interfering with foreign governments or of con- tracting “entangling alliances” with foreign Pow- ers. Bat tho nineteenth President of the Republic now urges on Spain the absolute necessity, ‘in the interests of humanity, civilization and progress,’? of ahi 3 down With a strong hand a certain class of Its citizens, and plainly hints that, if Spain fi unable to accomplish this work. alone, the Daited States will be glad to aid her. It is scarcely prob- able that the President would have employed the very strong language which he uses when tee of “the pro-slavery autocratic party” in ‘uba; of its ‘open hostility to the home govern- ment,” and of the blessings which would follow the abolition of slavery in Cuba, without having had some Sele work with Setior Castelar as to is in Spain and in Cuba. With such an understanding these expressions would be wise; without it they would be at least irreconctlable with President Grant's dcclarations of friendship for the Spanish Republic. (From the London Telegraph, Dec. 4.] So far as Europe is concerned, the Message of President Grant to Congress presents only two im- Portant points. One is tho Spanish dimculty, the other American finance. On the latter subject the President speaks in atone that will certainly se- cure attention and approval on this side of the Atlantic, Commenting on the late panic, he points out that confidence can only be restored by a return to sound business principles, and he insists with emphasis on the necessity of speedily Fosuming specie ayments as the best security against further risks arising from strin- gency, inflation and pressure. The fact that the American financial crisis is now virtually over greatly reduces the iuterest which we should otherwise feel in the President's suggestions; and experience teachos us that the restoration of the currency to & metallic basis will be a tedious, dificult and trying operation. It ts at the same time satisfactory to see that no crude or Utopian theortes are ararted in eieeintetsde midaty one watch with the gron e ~ ee progress towards a result by which both. nations, as well #4 the commerce of the world gen- erally, will be gainers. But while the financial world will ponder his deliverance on this topic the immediate interest of the Message centres, beyond doubt, in the passages relating to the Virginius. ‘The first Impression conveyed by General Grant's langu is that the Spanish dificuity ts at an end. Con; 1 Informed curtly that the issue between Spain and the United States “is now happily in course of satisfactory adjustment in a manner hon- orable to both countries.”’ After referring to the settlement accomplished by the administration, the London Standard says, in continuation of its editorial on the Message :— But, Cee nnerins he (the President) goes on to indulge in an ontbarst of indignation against the Cuban slaveholders, which 18 not unnatural, indeed, under the circumstances, but which can serve no purpose but that of rendering more dim- cult the task of Seiior Caching 4 already, it is to be feared, but too diMcuit, Oo doubt the conduct of these slaveholders, or, at least, of the Veninsular party among them, fs such as to deserve the reprobation of every humane man, and we should not be inclined to judge President Grant too severely if he only condemned the atrocity of their acts, But when he proceeds to say that “in the loterests of hua- manity, clvilization and progress this evil inftu- ence must be averted,” he is using a threat which can have no meaning if the terms agreed to uw CONTINUED ON NINTH PAGE,