The New York Herald Newspaper, April 1, 1875, Page 3

ENFORCEMENT LAWS. Do They Violdte the Rights of States ?--- Are They Constitutional? eeieeeamantemioemares Argument of David Dudley Field in the Supreme Court. AN IMPORTANT DECISION PENDING. WASHINGTON, March 31, 1876. ‘The case of the United States vs, Cruikshank and two others who have already been convicted Of Violating the Enlorcement act, was tuken up in | the United States Supreme Court yesterday, con- tinued to-day, and argument upon It 18 Itkely to last during the week, The defendants in the original suit were Crulksbank and ninety-six other white citizens of Grant parisn, Louisiana, who were indicted ior murder, conspiracy w pre- vent negroes {rom voting, and for other crimes and misdemeanors under numerous counts. The present parties to the suit, ousside of the United States government, are the only origina! defend- ants who were convicted of criminal conduct. The question now belore the Supreme Court i:—"Is the Congressional légisiation” to enforce the prohibitions of the last three amendments to the constitution compatibie with that ingtroment ?” ‘The counsel of urulksuank and his fellows, Messrs. Reverdy Johnson, David Dudiey Field, John A, Campbell and a. H. Marr, of Louisiana, claun thatitis not. Arguments were made to-day by Solicitor General Puillips, on the part of the United States, 2nd Messrs. Field, Marr and P. Phillips, op that of the desendants in error. | Mr. Ficld made a forcible argument, of which tue following presents its strongest points :— The argument that 1 shail have the honor to ad- freas to Le Court Will ve confined to the ques- ion of compatiniiity between the federal consti- tution and the legisiation of Congress, which 13 supposed to autiorize the present indictment. 1t ia, IMieed, true that if the jorm of the accusation \» not coniormable to the act of Congress tne e- ‘eodants are entitled to be presently discharged; but, inasmuch as a new indictment mignt possibly be preferred, supposing the present to fail tor de- fect 01 jorm, this question 1s imsignificant com- pared with the other. For my part! shail leave the matter of procedure where it now stands upon the argument and confine mysell to the Question of coulormity or non-comioriity of the fact o! Congress lo the constitution. lauon = =upoR which = Whe 1s conformaoie to the Organic law ol this country, then it matters little Woatis or 18 not decided about the form of proceeaing. Tne substance of Awerican constitutional government, as received Irom the jathers, will bave gone, and the forms If the legts- | indictment rests | \ | Wil not be iong in following. Let us reduce and | formulate the question, if We can, #0 us to sepa- fale toe incidental from the essential, in order bhat our atieution may be withdrawn trom ail otner consideratious than that of the one funda | Menta; and permanent theory upon waich this iegislation must stand, If it stand at all. lu craer to reduce aud formulate the question Mr. Field ran through the provisions and pronibi- tious Of The latest turee aiendments to the con. | stitution and of the acts Which wave been passed | by Cobgress as “appropriate legtsiation” to en- force such provisicns and prohibitions. THE CAUSE OF THE SUIT. By authority of thts jegisiation uinety-seven ersons were indicted together in the Circuit Sourt of the United States ior the District of Louisiana, and three o! them. ihe present defepd- anis, Were found guilty upon the Girst sixteen counts. Ihe indictment was iouad under the th and sevento sections of the Enforcement act, sixteen counts being for simple conspiracy unuer the sixth section and the other sixteen Ting Sor conspiracy, Win overs acts resulting in marder, This indictment, or that portion of it upon which these defendants have been convicted, is supposed to be justifiea by the sixth section of the Enforcement act, and that section is said to rest upon the late amena- ments. In considering the question whether it 1s or is hot sapported by tuem, I assume what indeed po one disputes, imat belore tue late amenaments this section, and the same may be said of the other sections, would have been be- youd .the competency of Congress. The point of Coutention, tuerefore, 18 waetuer the amenuments have couierred tne power. Upon this my first Proposition 13, that it was not the design of the opie in adopting them to change the jiunda- Mental cuiaracter of their the relations between the Union and the States. Toes iuiended that the Union should continue to be what it had veen before, to use the language, slightly changed, of the lace Chief Justice, an in- destractiole UMON OF INDESTRUCTIBLE STATES. The events of the last fiiteen years are no secret. The origin oi the War, the war itself, the ques- hops to whien, in its Varying propress, it gave fise, and it$ great results, are Kuown o/ ail men. It established the unity of the pation and the freedom of the staves. Upon the fual settlement, while it Was nut thought necessary to make apy | tonstitutional changes in respect to the claim of secession and the relation of the States to the Union, it Was thought Mecesary to provide for the equa: of the ireedame: In domg tats two sourses were Open; one was to piace them and all their riguts “and relattous under the rognizauce of the iederal power, and the ocher was to leave them as they were, under tue souu.zanee of the States, but Ww provide that these shovlu make bo discrimination to their disadvan- sage. The latter course was adopted. The articies tre congrucus aud plainly adapted to that end. Chey all imply tha!, apart irom tae prohivitions, she States fave plenary power over the subject, ind they leave that power as it was, with the ie quaufication that it shall tr all alike, the emancipated slaves side ny side with (heir old it Was in this reapect somewhat like the stipniation that we oiten make, agreeing that the vation treating with us shall be put on the footng of the most lavorea nauons, which, While it leaves as at full liberty to make wuat alies OF enact What new laws We please, 10 gTat to the one What We grant to the others. it Was the design of the amendments, and. their Whole design, tw raise the freediven to au equality With their iate masters vefore the law and to give the biacks ali the rights wuich the whites enjoyed. here was no complaint thas the whites were op- eased. There Was mo mischief in tnat respect io remedy. aud hone Were jitenued for them. The complaint to ve relieved, the mischief to be remedied, the fuarantee to be provided, bad respect to the ately subject race and to that aione, In s*ying ibis We Of course leave outo! View the temporary provisions respectuog the treatment of the revels abd the rebel deot. So understood, were is syn tie Ty in the Whole of the amendments; they WL contormed to one pian and carry out one great yarpose. The geuerai question now is, * WHAT MAY CONGRESS DO co enforce the promiviticns \hus directed against the States? The particular question o;0n which this case depends is Whether, under colur of en- forcing the prvbivitions, aud berore any State bas Viojated them, Congress can anticipace and pre- veut their Violation oy taking into its own baods the reguistion o1 the Whole subject? This may be andouviedly one way of accomplishing the object. jou cau prevent a thing being done ina manner ‘displeasing to you by domg it )oursell. can prevent the States irom making a wrong Tegulat.ou by iisell making all the regu ations. But 18 tuat the fair purport of the authority? As tt the legitumate mterpretation o1 a cherter of tea- efal governiient, by which power ia careful riliioned detween the Lmion and the States, fay that if tee sormer bas autho: fe letter irom dviug @ Wrong thing it may pri nt their doing anysiiny vy volng every thing iteel? Ibe prouibitions of these AMENDMENTS OF THR Las? DECADE fare reasonably ciear: their general purpose is un- Giistukavie; they are laid upon the State Congress eXpress power tu eusorce tem by appropriate .cgisiatioM. So much 1s invis) ubable. Lhe dispate Legins When the word appropriate is to be interpreted. What isand what is gel ap Propriaie legisiation? And who is to judge uf the appropriateness? These ure the cardinal que ous Upou Woicd hinge: and with it th small measure of tue future of first vbservativa to be made the decision of tue pres- determination in no Toe the country. jovernment, or to alter — They did not need pew guaraniecs | aod | ments beg laaGe pari vf the constitution are to | be coustrued in con.ection wita toe origiual parts of it, amd ording te the well understood aud woug @stabiismed interpretation of that instrument Comgress 1s, wituim certain limits, the excinsive | judge of the appropriateuess of its legislatiou to the ead designed; buttnat there are sucn hmits, aod beyond them Congress may not pass. WHAl CONGRESS CANNUT DO. Mr. Field bere argued that Congress could not ‘ander color of preveutiug a State rom dolug ce tain t0.ugs destroy the State or auy of its esse: hal attrivutes, Woeu, therefore, he continued, \L ww said, as it ofveu is, that Congress is the exclusive judge of the means to chosen lof attaining aa ena, the proposition is to oe admitted only With the two quaufications tuat have Leen mentioned. Su it was said by Madison, Hamilton and Jay, in the Federalist; so it was DANK of tue Cited States; $0 it Was said Lys Coler Jus ice Marshall iu Mecailoch v8. Maryland, and 90 It Gas bee said, Scores of times since, by judges br this coUrt und Otuer judges, State alld federal. There are Many limitations upon the chuice of Means beyond those Wien are expressed. They fre implied, irom the Latate o: the guvernment, t toe \wadi- to deciure win same to listery of (ne country and ne the peop! fue rights avt invalid, because incompavivle sue constiimdun, apples with the eGect Wire the incoimpatibuity relates tue upied a# Woere it relates to the expre Wiotations o: the cunstitutivu. Generailauyuag ' ul m though iu itsel; Unambiguous, Is lmmiied D; Chi Cumasan. Which it us lous “toe Voted States sli guarantee to 7 State in this Union @ re, i iota of government,” ry ‘out Waat sore ar) sepubucaD goverament? a oy Hamilton in his argument ior a , | present | NEW YORK HERALD; THURSDAY, APRIL 1, 1875—TRIPLE SHEET. there any express provision of the constitution Which forbids Congress to establish in a State, Whose authorities are overthrown, a government like that of Venice, gr like that of another of the Italtau republics of the Middle Ages? According tw the classification of writers on government, Genoa ander its doges, Florence under !18 dukes and Poland under its pings were republics. Why may not Congresé take that form of republican government now existing in France, or that jately existing in Spiip, or any of the republican lorms of past ages—that, jor instance, of the Commonweaitn of England under Cromwell, or even that of Poland. ‘There is NO reason Other than this, that there ure certain essential, innereat, imeradicable principies of American republican government to which the framers of the constitution referred and by which Congress is bound. And tf Congress be thus lim- itea the courts must say so Wheuever the question 1s brought belore them. What, otherwise, conid prevent Congress trom establishing ‘n a disorgan- ized State A GOVERNMENT OF MILITARY DUKES ? In all that! nave said | am justifled by recent decisions o/ this Court, Not longer ago than 1863 vhis Court, speaking by its late Chiei Justice, ut- tered these memorable words, which will live in constitutional bistory so long as the constitution lives ing ite vigor ot only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and inue- pendent autonomy to the States through their union under the constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that ‘the pre- servation Of the States and the maintenance of their goveruments are as uch withm the de- sigh and Care of the Constitution as the preserva- tiou of the Union and tne maintenance of tue national government, posed of indestructibie States.” (lexas a. White, 7 Wall, 725.) The only principle that can jus- tily the legisiation Dow in auestion, if it be justifiable at all, 18 tis: that im the enoice of means to prevent @ State violating the pronipitory clauses of the late amendments Congress may itself do the things which the State would otherwise have done, in order to make Sure that they are not done improperiy. ‘The States may, every one of them, do what New York and Massachusetts now do, in securing the | right Of all citizenseto vote, without regard to race, color or previous condition of servitude, but tor fear tuat they will not continue todo so Con- gress may, it js claimed, register the voters and Teceive and count the votes, And if it may ao tuat it may do apy other thing thatiato be done by @ government in an election; in short, take upon itself to construct aud work the who.e ma- chinery of elections, Aud what is true of voung 18, a8 i Sball eudeavor to show more fully here- after, true also of every other subject witnin the Scope of these amendments, and tuat imciudes almost every subject of government. For what is there in the world tor State legisiation but ie, liberty and property,” und tue “protection ol tue laws?" Lr the validity of tue present legis- lation 18 afirmed one may afirm the vaudicy of legislation upon any subject cooverning lite, liberty, property and protection by the law, Ibis idie Lo ansWer that such an atkempt Will never be maue. Who can tell what, in THE FRENZY OF FUTURE PARTIES, may not be attempted? Who tnat bas seen the things happening in this generation can foretell what may not be done or uttempted in some of whe umes to comet One ot the most extraorii- nary phenomena of political history ts te ten- gency of majorities fo Oppress minorities, and to trample upon ail obstructions standing in the way. Whoever bas care- lully Watebea the political events of the last decade must Dave seen a constantly accelerated movement toward toe organization and cumula- tion of federal authority, ‘This bas been brought about by the acuon of good men a3 well as in obliviousness of tae truth that every NEW POWRR ADDED TO THR NATION is just so much subtracted Irom the States, A poiltical argument addressed to the Su- preuie vourt would, of course, be out of piace. its great but singie function is to interpret the law and the constivution, ve tae consequences what they may. My argument, therefore, Will Consist of an endeavor to establush the following two propositions :— rst—The pavora interpretation of the lan- guage of the new amendments does not justify the present legisiation. Second—li the pavural interpretation did justly it, yet, as the language is Susceptible of a different one, the latter must be prejerred as that alone in Which it Was Understood by the peopie. ‘The natural interpretation of the amendment does pot justly the legisiaiion. No Stase—tiis is the language—sbail uke or enforce any law which Shall abridge tue privileges or immunities oi citt- zens Ol the Unised States, or deprive any person ol life, liberty or property, witnout due process of law, or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equai protecfion of tne laws; no State shall deny or abridge tne right of citizens vi tue United Stares to vote, without regard to race, color. or previous condition of servitude. A State is a corporate body, aud can act only by its corporaie uutnorities. Unul these corporate authorit beng acted the State bas not Violated the probi 100. State, moved, not belore it. But as yet no State has so iar a8 we are informed. Fatlure to depriving 80, then Congress 01 the States, snd uf it found thetr provisions 1u- adequate migat supplement them. Were a state fo repeal @ part of 118 !aws for the protection of rights or the punishment of crimes the national qoverement. could pot supply the deficiency. it could hardly be claimed that robibitious require any more of wslatures than woud Dave been required of them i the same bad been contained in their own constitutions, Then, 6urely, their doing no more aad DO less Cannot give just occasion for | federai interpostuon. state maction, taeretore, is NO CAUSE POR FEDRRAL AOLION, There must adirmative action by @ State teading to deprive @ citizen of bis rights bewre Cougress can iteriere. Seould a Stave Legisia- ture aitempt to deprive @ person of property Without due process of law its action would be & nullity. What, in that event, might Congress dot Provide legal means (or establisaing che nullity. The constitution, in ali its | provisions, JOoks to an indestructible union, com- | | true and the only constitutional mode of entorcé ) (layton and Harrison vs. Hadiey, and these cases | are but a joretaste of what we may have here- Congress, therefore, Must move aiter the | these | the State | What legal means did Congress loug ago provide | jor establisoing the or % law impairing the obligation of contracts or & bili of attaiader ? An appeal to the federal courts. Has not peered pogo adequate? ‘rhe whole question may be Sta’ im these words :—How may C. ngress enio.ce tae nullity Oo! a State law? Guaranty is hot tae couverse of promivition. The pronibi- tions do not amount w guaranties. Tney do not require the States fo Make sure that no man shall be deprived of ble, liberty or property with- outlaw. The probibitory ameodments act upon the Staces aod not upon individuals. Because the States are wterdicted trom certain things and Congress Way eniorce the taterdict that does not Ulity Ol @m ex post Sacto law, — one tuat Congress may do the converse tings. | ecauuse the Stutes are pronibited it would be a strange inference that Congress is When the constitution says to the Sta shall BOT," Laat is Dot tu @s suying to Congress, * You shali” or * It it were so there Would be fongd 4 strange umission in the coustiturion, wide endugh to lee in many of the mischieis Whicu the prohibitions Were lacended to remedy. Congress 1s Nos vy these amendments pro- hibited. It is only gue States whichare. if im consequence of tae prouivition upon the Stace: Congress can exercise plenary power over supject, Itcam do some, indeed wany of tue very tlogs Which the States were forbidden to ao. Congress is mot torbigden to pass a luw abridging tne privileges abd immunities of citizens or deny- ing Lo certain pervous ine equal protection of ihe Jawa. But suppose a State, not cunt With 138 to ve about to act aggressively aud tous to te toe promibition, w speculate upon What Congress could, In that event, enact, ‘The Means adopted mast ve appropriate and not prohibited. by statute, to be put im execution vy the Execu- tive aud the Courts. Could Congress authorize the Executive todo anytniug agaist the recaici- trant Stare’ It is diMcait to see woatit couid em- power the lresicent to do. iy MUSY ACY THROUGH THR CouRTS. jorized. » “You federal Legisiavare can act only | And toe omy question is, W bat appropriace action | could Vongress to enforce the athorize to be taken in the courts romibitioa, that is, to prevent or redress tne Violationy The remedy is to nullify the action whien the State shoud not have ordained rc itted. Equaiuty Ly belore the law is the general awendments, Ihatis secared by nuiltiying ine- quality—spat Is, ior example, vy deciating that whatever the Scate grants to its waite citizens shail for (hat reason be aiso the right of tne b:ack. Tuis rule Would execue itself in most cases, Take that clause of the fourteenth amendment Waich forbids * State To Make wr enorce a law avriagipg (he privileges aod immunities o1 citi- zens of tne United states. The state cannot enforce a law autu it is made; if, therefore, tt Wakes Le such i@W the conditton on waich Congress can act has not arriv: When the State hus made such a law then Congiess can take steps to eafurce tue protivition. Wuat may they be? Not tre passing of an aim of tue | tone | act to deciare the State | Jaw pall; tnat has already been cone oy a power | higher (hau act of Congress—tuas is, the constitu- on itseli—not by empowering the President t, for he capnot use force against a Sta statute, bus by protecting the individual aggrieved irom the operauion of the obnoxioas law. Will it be sald, that ii/e, uberty and property cannot be protected witnoat law ; that the equal protection of the law pre-supposes the existence and enforce: | Meut of laws, Aud Wat if the States do nos make the laws, or, being Made, de not enforce them, then Congress may interier 1 have already said sumetoing of this head and will aad only a tew words, Let the question be” put in this jorm:—suppose a sta not to provide adeqaate remedies for t protection Of le, libercy and property, what may do? ine answer must ve, Congress may voshing whatever, beyond Jud: Temedies 10 federal courts for pi by deprivation of their righis, 1eS aggrieved Beyond this th is uo alternauive between duing nothing or doing | everyting, between leaving tne Stutes alone of Gestro) ing (bem altogetuer. Congress canuvt do everytuing, because that would be the anniniia- tou of the States; thereiore 1¢ can do gotoiug, beyond providing the judicial remedies dicated. for Want of a better expression { Wil Cail alitmative jegisiation taut which deciares and egiorces substantive law; and by uegative legisiatioa that which operaves by way 01 deleace Ju giving redress to @ party aggrieved. Using the expression in this sens aiirmative legisiation iu respec to Lue prouibie tions of the .ourteenth amendment is not Win the competency of Vougress. | see no Diadie round between giving Congress pienary power over the subject of th Tuudamentai Tights and giving te wone, Th & us cous! rohibitiog of the fiteenta amendment, here im | Should say fsoat | x | three words is Of Giusels OF Sue Uuited states to Vote Bum | pieuges Of tue 1ut | and o) the right to the equal protection of the | State concerns. | ehicul can stretch itsell over fiity degrees of ougi- | tude and half as many of latitude, witn 50,000,000 not be denied or abridgedby * * * an State, on account of race, color or previous condi- | tion of servitude,” ana Congress may euforce the provisions of this article. 1t might seem at first sight that here isa declaration of the mgnt citizens of the United States to vote, but th would be an error, No right is guaranteed oF as- serted. Discrimination only 18 prohibited. The right or privilege, whichever it may justly be cailed, of the elective iranchise is still where it has always been, under State control, with this Single qualitcation, that in determining it the State shall make Do distinction on account of rr: color or previous servitude. This amendment 19 NOTHING BUL & PRORIBITION, like the first secylon of the fourteenth article, and should be dealt within the same manger. But the mghtor privilege of voting cannot be exer- eised without affirmative legislation, it may be Sail. No more can the right to property be exer- cised without aitrmative legislation. My prop- osiion, im short, is this, that an act of & State in violation of the prohibitions of the | amenaments would be a nullity, and that Con- gress, being authorized to enjorce the pronivi- lions by appropriate legislation, the uatural, th ment is by judicial remedies to estabvlish aud en- ferce the buuity, The sixth section of the Enforce- Ment act assumes that Congress has power to puriae @ Conspiracy Lo deprive any citizen of the Jnited States of his right vo vote, of any righs granted or secured by the federal constitution, of any privilege or immunity of a ciuzen of the United States, of the right to Use, liberty and property, laws, Let us take one of ‘hese and direct our attention to tnat; for example, the right of property. The prohibition of the lourteentn amendment commands a State not to deprive any person of property without due process of law. ‘The state May deprive a person of his property by due process of law, but not without it. ‘To de- prive without due process is to proceed without jaw, by arbitrary acts oi legislation miscailed law. ‘the State can act only by its corporate oficers, and then only in pursuance of State legislation. If a State Governor despoils @ citizen be 1s @ sim- ple trespasser, unless there be a State law to jus- | tly him. We wil suppose, then, @ state law Tvbivited by this amendment, which law autbor- izes a certain thing to be done; it is the doing of | this thing wiich Congress may nuilily. We must discriintuate among the prohibitions— between those whic aim merely at equality and tiose Which wim at other riguts. The provision about tle right to vote, without DISPARAGEMENT ARISING FBOM RACE, confers bo rigut ol young, bat simply provides | That, if the right be given to whites, 1% shall be | given to blacks also. Had a similar expression Deen used in respect to the right to hoia ofllce, it Surely Would not have been said that @ rigut to. an ollice was conferred. So ii the right to education | nad been mentioned in the same terms, that would not have been construed to confer the right to ve educated, Upon the whole, it is saomitted that the amend. ments, taken in their navural sense, do not justily the legisiation now under review. We come now to the second proposition, which is, that if the interpretation contended Jor were | not the more patural one, yet it is at the very | least a possible intermetation, and 1s to be pre- ferred, because it 19 the only one conformable to | the understanding and purpose of the people, by Whous the text Was adopted. The generaldoctrine | up to the time of these amendments continued to | be that the States were sovereign over their own | This complex government was curiously contsived to give liberty and salety to the people of all the Stutes. It was iasmioned by ine people. in the name of the people and ior tue people, its aim was to Keep tue peace among the States and to manage affairs of common concern, while it leit the States the entire mahagement of thelr own allairs. No man in his senses could have supposed at tbe formation of the constitution, or can now suppose, that a consolidated government, extend- ing over so mueh territory and so many people, | can jast% generation without the destruction of | the States and of republican government with them. History ts @iavie and political ppilosophy a delusion i! any government other then monar- peopie, where there are no local goveruments capable Of standing by themselves and resisting all attempts to imperil their seif-existence or im- pair their authority. The momeut it is conceded that Washington may, at its discretion, regulate all the concerns of New York ana Cualilorma, of Louisiana snd Maine; that THE AUTONOMY OF THE STATES has no delence stronger than the self-denial of fluctuating Congressional wajoriti at thas moment the Repuvuc of our tathers will have dis- appeared, and @ Republic in name, but a despot- ism in lact, will bave taken its place, to give way in another generation to a government with another name and other attributes. Observe how faron that road the maintenance of the present legisiation will carry us. it bas already | led to Kellogg vs. Warmouath, United States vs. aiter. Its essential principle is, thatin order to anticipate and prevent a violation of the pronibi- tions, Congress May estaolisnh a system of jaw for the geueral regulation of ail subjects within the scope of the amendmenisa. The logical and inevitavle conclusions from this new theory are that the prohibition against denying or abridging the right to vote on account of color, Face Oe previous condition of servitude may be eusorced vy iraming and working the machinery orelections, 10 matter what may be the office or the ,unction to be Billed by the electors, The pro- hibiuon against making ur en oreing any law aoridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States may be enforced by iramiug & code of these privileges and immuuities, defou the methods of enjoyment, and providing penal- ties ior their Violation. And the still more com- prehensive pronibitions ugamst depriving apy person ol life, liberty or property without due pro- cess Of law, or denying to any person the equal protection of the laws, may be eniorced by a more comprehensive Code, defluing tue risnts of lle, liberty and property, in all their ramifications, the processes of law which are to be deemed rotection Of tue laws which ts to be equal and the various modes of en- ‘nts of life, liberty and property by emedies civi! and crimipal. If tuese numerous and muitiiorm provisions would not cover the | whole ground 01 law, suostantive and remedial, | If 18 NOt easy to see What would be owitted that — 13 contained ip most comprebensive existing | code. The legislation of Congress would, 01 course, supersede or exciude legisiatuion by the States upon the same subdjects; the United states would stand as tne universal lawgivers of the couniry, and | the laws of the States would dwindle to the di- | mensions of corporation ordinances or the regu- | Jatious of county supervisors, Tne argument ap- Pears to be UDaNSswerable that such Was not and | could not have been the invention of the Ameri- | can people in sanctioning these amendments, aud theretore they shouid not be th Interpreted, even if the natural significance of their language were, a8 it 1s NOt, favorable to such an interpre- tation. } Mr. Field, in support of nis views, bere quoted extracts irom a decision of tue Sapreme Court, in relaion to the alwendment, which Was denverea vy Mr. Justice Miller two or three years ago. Con- tinuing bis speech, ne said :-- These eXtracts trom the opinion of the Court, delivered by Mr. Justice Miler, are given at such lengt., because they are so importantin them. | selves, aud dispose Of So maby of toe questions tn the prevent case. U1 the taree dissenting opinions, two certaimiy, aud perhaps the third, properiy ubderstood, Contain Lushing in conflict with woat is here stated. Tae difference of views among the consider Joreing bh learned judges of the court was upon the extent of the pronivicions, not upon the means of eniorcing them. If tnese amend. | ments be understuod and applied, as itis were insisted they should, they will prove most beneficient in results. The provibiuons upon the States are mereiy such us every State constitution should contain jor tts own Legisia- | ture. It is only when the interierence of Congress is invoked that the Ganger begins, and that will | so Soon as It 18 unders(ood that Congress not act unul the States have levislated in Violatton of the pronivition, and ten only by way of nailuying their acuion through the courts, 1 | must here close wy part of the discussion. fhe general claim on the part of the iederal govera- Ment is Hotuing more nor less than this—iuat | Congress 1s clothed with authority to punish in federal courts any persons lor agree: lowether tm intention to prevent or under toe free exer- cise and enjoyment by any citizen of any rigot or privilege granted or secured to him Dy thecon- | stitution or iaws of the United States, these laws delug not oniy the three statutes Just mentioned, | but ail other eXisting statutes, revised and ao. | revised, aud all statutes whica Cocgress may | choose pereaiter to pass. This 1 AN ASSERTION OF ABS | or legislative omnipotence amazing to contem- plate. ‘ine particular claim tu tue present case is | ultpority to punisa a0 agreement vetween two | | } Urisa Or wore persous to prevent or ninder tue free exercise and enjoymeut by any citizen of his Tight to tue equal protection of tue laws, his right to Iie, loert pe unless deprived tmereut by due pr of law, aod bis rigit to Vote, Witaout regard to race, color or previous | servitude, This is the claim In the preseut case, | reduced to {ts strictest limit, [t inciudes, of | course, a3 has been already said, the power to define wnat is tne rigot to the protection of the laws, what is the right to lite, lteerty aad | property, what is due process of law, wnat | is the Tignt 10 vote. It would de @ logicai incon- sistency to pretend that @ government can ciotne 8 courts With authority to punish tor eri Without autiority to say in What that crime con- | Sists. When the constitution gave Congress | power to punish piracies and jelonies on the bign | Seas and Offences against the laws of vations, it | gave «iso the power to define them. It is dimicnit | To speak of the preteusions upou witch this legis. | lation rests iu guarded langua; It is @ relie! to UhiDk that they are bere to be tested by the con- | Stitutiou of the country, without the disturpiag influence of party; by that constitution Which 19 above ail parties, aud Whicu W2s made not jor the Use Of partisaus, but for tue salety aud bDappwess Oi the Whule peuple, amd not lor one, out | many generations. Tue first two words of the DAtOMAL MOLLO are a8 WUEH a part OF It as the last. Toey have never veeu changed Snce ther use | begun. They have veeu Vorue in every bactie and ou every march, by land of ses, ig defeat as in victory. They are sill biagoned Ou our eseatcueon ahd coped on every seal vt office. May the motto never ve Mutilated or Cisowned, 1 Would have it | Written on the Wass of the Capitol and oi every | State bouse, [ would Wisa it written on fhe ceils | ing Of tars chamuer, toast Lpon every (arming of Wwe jace upwara te meet benoid it, Iu ite ritten & pi bistery; May ‘ise With@usos of toe paar they abiae for Oy THE CANAL RING. A Very Good Chance for Noth- ‘ing To Be Done. ital ak a THE RED-HOT ZEAL FOR INVESTIGATION COOLING. lls a alm Decision of the Senate for the Appoint- ment of a Commission. ‘THE M’GUIRE PACTION OBTALN A JOINT COMMITTEE. ALBANY, March 31, 1875. ‘The spirit of accommodation has triumphed in the matter of capal investigation, and everybody is pleasea because everybody has gained a vic- tory. Tne Governor has got his commission, while the republicans in the Sepate and his demo- cratic enemies in the Assembly have sauvbed him in according it to him. Tue McGuire faction have gained an indorsement of their beloved Speaker in the assent of the Senate to the resolution for a Joint committee, even though it comes back to the Assembly slightly modified for the concurrence ot the House. The republicans are satisfied, because they dictated the final shape of the supposed measures tor a better administration of the Canal | Department, and the Canal Ring are jovial, tor the Whole matter is to end in useless imves- Ugation, There is @ great chance for | Mothing to be done, and if became ap- | Parent to everybody, to those who wished to make political capital out of investiga- Uon ag well as those whose first desire Is to be let alone, that the best Way to do nothing was to atfect a red-hot zeal for investigation, Accord. ingly all the statesmen in both houses met this morning with a bigh determination not to allow the resolutions for investigation to lag any longer, Senator Woodin was willing to forego tne speech Upon which he bad been incubating fora week. Senator Lord was so extremely anxious for the compietest investigation that he was vexed in spirit at the thought that the inquiry would go over another twenty-four hours beiore the com. | mittee could ve named. Even the Governor, who | 13 appgrently the only sincere man in Albany on this subject, was so ready to sacrifice himself and Dave the snubbing he received from the Senate ta the limitation of his nomination of Commissioners | nicely rubbed in that Mr. Daly, in his behalf, not only moved the adoption of the resolution as it ¢ame from the Senate, but prevented any earnest but indiscreet triend of ‘Tilden from uttering a word iu the Governors behalf by interposing the previous question. yesterday there was no chance of the Senate act- ing upon the House resolution for a joint com- The mittee except as the result of a bargain. bargain was agreed upon and the Assembly first to give it eifect. MR. DALY'S MOTION, Scarcely had the House come to order this morning belore Mr. Daly moved that the Assembly concur im the Senate resolution for a commission | to be composed of four persons to be appotated by | the Governor, by and with the advice and consent | ofthe Senate. The dose was a bitter one, but as the patient about to take a nauseous draught first shuts his eyes and then drinksit, Mr. Daly moved the previous question as some assistance in swallowing the obnoxious pill. Mr. Taylor, of Monroe, tried to get the floor to move an eXtension of the period of the inquiry from 1868 to 1860, but the terms of the bargain would not admit of such an amendment so grateful to the democratic heart and the previous question choked it. “It was a di eeable dose,” said a statesman from New York, “but we were compelled to swallow it." hen the Assembly had completely surrendered to the dictation of the Senate the Senate in turn was ready to give the Assembly some consideration. As 800n as the action of the ‘) Lower House was kuown the other branch of the Legisiature proceeded to act upon the resolution for a jotmt committee. But at the very outset it Was found that the Senate could not pass this resolution without amendment upon technical grounds, the number of members being in excess of those allowed by the rules. In order to bring it under the rule it was so amended as to reduce the pumber to three foreach house, and it was agreed that the committee should be named by the Speaker and the Lieutenant Governor. Every | word of the debate which preceded the adop- tion of the resolution showed the insincerity Which inspired ali alike. Mr. D. P, Wood favored the resolution because the committee would ve non-partisan, but Mr, Lord very justly ridi- culed the id of & committee being non-partisan simply because it was to be composed of three democrats and three republicans. Tne ‘worst frands in New York city, ke said, were the result of non-partisan commissions, and the non- partisanship in this case would only result in the acquittal of democratic offenders by the demo- cratic members of the committee and of the repub- lean offenders by the repabiican members. This unquestionably is the Jesire of all parties and the grand effert is to conceal lt by the exhibition of er zeal for inquiry and exposure. MR. LORD'S ANGER. lisping @ truth in anger and dis- nt that he would have been siow to tell had not bis seelings got tne better of his judgment, As the resolution first stood in the Senate there ‘was no provision for the appoimtmeat of the members on the partof that body, and accord ing to the langaage of the resolution itse! that power was apparently in the Speaker of the Assembly, Attention was cailed to the over- sight, however, before the adbption of the resoiu- tion, and a chance for a itttle tun was spoiled, ‘The resolation as tt passed the Senate is compre- hensive enough for any purpose, but as the com- As Lsaid | | of the resolution, and @ disagreement between | Lieutenant Governor, the Secretary of State and | he had been instrumental in obtainiug an appro- | | us fraudulent on their face, pies very high ground, and stands in marked con- trast to the partisanship and insincerity he bas encountered in both how But for the fact that he was ready to acquiesce in the action of the Senate there would have been delay in the passage the Senate aud the Assembly which could only have been settled by a conference committee, ACTION OF MR. DALY. ‘The plans were macured tor such a course, and it was only by the action of Mr. Daiy in moving the previous question, undertaken at the instance of the Governor, that they were tuwarted. Tae old army word “demoralized” is the only one that wiil describe the condition of the more extreme friends of the Canal Ring this morning; but had not the republicans been conceded everything they required it would not have been so easy to have gained even this qualified triumph, As itis the Governor will soon have his commission at work and tuere will be some deligntfu! squealing before the end is reached. He ts to be embar- ragged as much as possibie, however, by the action of other investigating committees, and the Canal Bourd to-day contributed something toward that end by appointing ap investigating committee of its own, This committee ts to be composed of the the Attorney General. What good this committee Js to do in its Investigating capacity it is not easy to see, but its appoiutment is another evidence that the zeal for investigation 1s intended to de- feat the Governor’s intentions and to make the effort at relorm a failure, THE SENATE EVENING SESSION. Notwithstanding the Senate has disposed of the question, so far as iv can act upon it in the direce tion of investigation, the evening session was seo | apart for the consideration of the Goveraor's | Message, and was speut in loose aud unnecessary talk about canal contracts. | Mr, Parmenter advocated the right, inextremely bad grammar, for nearly an hour; but he en- livened his speech with some little incidents that | had a pleasant effect, He sald, for instance, that priation of $5,000 for some necessary canal work. | After the appropriation bad been secured the work was begun, but was so neglected by the | persons who have it in charge that it ts in danger of being swept away by the spring floods, | Meeting the man to whom it had been commitied he was asked, in answer to his questions concern- | ing it, Whether he expected @ public work to be | compieted on a single appropriation, He also raised a little breeze by informing Senator Lord that the people regarded mm as putting himselr on the wrong side by taiking too much, especially to a reporter of the HERALD. ME, LORD ON HIS FEET. This subsequently brought Mr, Lord to his feet, who declayed that he was in favor of investiga- | tion fromff the beginning, and tnat he repelled any | insinuation to the contrary. Tue more solid parts | of Mr. Parmenter’s speech were a recital of Judge Peckham’s decision, already frequently quoted, | by which 1t was determined that it was the duty of the Contracting Board to reject unbalanced vids | Mr. Seikreg followed Mr, Parmenter, and earnestiy defended tne repub- jiean party irom any intention to defend any fraudulent caual contract or contractor. He ridt- culed the idea of the fault being in the system, when there was fraud in all the public works of the State and the Legislature assisted in its pro- motion, ‘he fault was in the fact that the laws were not execu:ed, and the remedy was in the conviction and punishment of tne engineers, through whom the laws are violated. JACOBS’ HAND. Atthe conclusion of Mr. Seikreg’s speech the committee rose, and the Message would have been referred to the Committee on Canals bad not Mr, Jacobs intimated a desire to introduce some reso- lutions on the suvject, He subsequentiy intro- ducod a bill giving the commissioners to be ap- pointed by the Governor power to subpwna wit- nesses and compel their attendance. The bill also fixes the compensation of the commisstoners At $20 per day for each day of actual service. The bill was read through, and after a brief considera tion in Committee of the Whole tt was passed ‘This closed the work of the day upon the canal trauds, ana the Senate adjourned. THE DEBATE IN THE SENATE. ALBANY, March S81, 1875, The Senate resolved itself Into Committee of the Whole this evening on the Governor’s Canal Mes- sage. Mr. PARMENTER took the floor and said he was | giad the Governor bad inaugurated this inquiry | into the canal irauds. As a@ partisan he was glad a democratic Governor had inaugurated the re, Jorm, and was pleased to see so many gentlemen on the opposite side rally to the support or the Executive.. He denounced the sys tem of making estimates, saying the craft of the devil was shown in the manner ofmaking them. Is this system an accidents or the result of collusion between the contractors and the employés of the State? There 1s wicked. | ness in those estimates, Which are at tne begin | ning of the frauds. The engineer who prepares | these false estimates is tne first guiltyone. A | periect understanding must exist between the contractor and the engineer. Did the contract ing boards discharge their full duty when these fraudulent bids were accepted? The people have & right to require that members of the Board shall be high-minded, honest men. There is a popular veliei that the pubic gouse is @ bird te be piucked, A LITTLE STEAL. He instanced a case whica occurred in his own district. Last winter the sum of $5,000 was appro- priated for a littie dock between Troy and Lan- singburg. In passing the spot some weeks ago the speaser bad ovcasiou [0 puss the polut where the dock was to be constructed, and found that it had only been halt completed, leaving it that way purposely (hat the spring fresvets may carry away ali the work done thus far. On mee\ing the ecoutractor be (Mr. Parmenter) askead why the | Work Was not completed vefore the winter set in. Tue contractor repued, “Woy, you don’t expect to | | get any State Work dope from one appropriation, ¢ mittee is allowed only whirty days in which to | make inquiry and report itis plain toaoy understandiag that it cannot make any very thorough investigation. This would be a very im- | portant matter if an investigation was either necessary or important; but as beta branches of the Legislature already know as much about canal | irauds as they want to learn it will be seen that this resolution completely answers the purposes of | everybody opposed to honesty in canal manage- meot, The imtention now its to embarrass the Governor a4 much as possible by a failure to affora the necessary remedial legislation, and this fatiure | ts to be excused on the ground what the Legisia- ture dia everytoing in tts power to effect such leg- islation in the short time allowed for the purpose, as evidenced by the multiplied means of investiga- ou and exposure which it afforded. The resolu- tom as amended has yet to receive the concar- rence of the Assembly, and tough there are load mutteriogs and defiant tureats on the floor of te Lower House, there is not enough Courage in the democratic majority of the Assembiy to boldiy meet the republican dictation 9f the Senate. They say they will refuse to concur in the resolution as it NOW comes back to them, but they are not likeiy | to do #0 When the time comes, and it really makes uo diference whether they do or uot. REPUBLICAN DICTATION. Aiter ylelding the Little port of pride which the Governor mig st naturally feei in naming the com- | seventin district) MISSION Of Investigation [ree from the repudlican | dictation, the Assembly weuld only add to the evidence of iis own imbecility if 1t should concur 1m amendments woich have no importance what. eve The republicans, doubiiess, would be rejoiced to see the Assembly commilt vis addi- tional piece of foolishness, but 1% 18 dificult to be- lieve they will be gratified in tois respect, thoug: the House is quite capabie of gratilying them. The next thing in order will be the appointment of the commission by the Governor, but it is un- | derstood the names of the commissioners will not ve anounced for a day or two, Already great pressure is brought to bear upon this subject, aud even the New York Chamber of Commerce is anx- lous to suggest one of tue members, Ihe Goveraor receives ali suggestions that are made to bim, and Unnesitatingly aeclares that he cates vevy littie for the limitauoms of the Senace in regard to his do you? We Will need One or two more grants to complete the duck.”’ This, Mr. Parmenter said, Was a Sample Of the jeeling existing among tuose contractors. No new laws are needed to remedy | this so-called Viclous system. The constitution is | rigit in requir toe work to be doge at the | lowest figures. He instanced the cuse of a bid made by a Mr, Buliard for work ou the Champlain Canal, His bid Was we lowest one, but the Board | would not give bim the work, believing that toe bid Was mot an houest one, and awarded the con- tract to anotuer party. Mr. Bullard appealed to | Justice Potter, in Special Term, in 1860, and he decided in favor of Bullard, saying Wat he was entitled to it as the lowest vidder. The case was appealed to the | General Term of the Supreme Course. ia 1861, when | body sustained the order of the Contracting Board, | Mr. Ba lard then appealed to the Court of Appeais, Which body afirmed the decision of the General Term. This was in 1863, All these gigantte fraud: have been perpetraced since 1808, aud ny mantle cau be thrown over (he actions of she delinquent ofMiciais serving since that period, He would tuvor | Gismissing why oficer Who would sigu such eon. tracts as have been made puvilc since this ques- tlon has been under discussion. | MR, LORD COURTS INVESTIGATION, | Mr. LORD sata that It Was Wrong to clarge him with betag opposed to this investigation. It was not so. He desired It, and was Wiliiug to leave tue question of the honesty of himself and tue | Senator from the Twelftn q@istrict to their re. spective neighbors. MR. SELEREG'S SPRECTT. Mr. SELEREG Said tois question o: caoal frauds has received the uttention of every taxpayer in the State, was pained to hear from the | Senator jrom the Twentyseveuth dissrict | that thé republican party aione Was | charged witu§ countenancing these frauds. | He qnoted from Senator Bradiey’s (Iwenty- speech and said sucha charge Was nujust In isto, when the Legislature aud Executive were democratic, three pages of canal claims ure jound on the journal of cue Assembiy for the year, bis system of Canal frauds bas haa | The cognizamce not only of eagineers, but of the Legisiature. In nis judgment, were the jaws how on vur books Carri out, there would be BO Op. portunity of fraud. He instanced the case where, jo 1870, oae William Mudgeit was, | by order of toe Legiviature, paid tor | work aud then ior ‘tne use of tooim le real irom @ contract awarded only two Weeks yengineer who siguéd such # } avy Senstor | Xisting @Fiis { | | brog- ress. MR. JACOBS! BILL. Mr, Jacons introduced the jo.jowing bill, Which Was read a third time and passed, al the Senators present ((Wenty-lour) Voung toereior:— 8 L—wither of the commissioners aj 4 appoinved, ots ———————$—$s—=— | that 1% would be haxaraous for the Senate to | within this state by auy person, and must be served by | refuse to contirm them. Jn this respect he occu- is | were adopted. | Tilden, exposing the ony. bie When thereunto required. ease of the lailure of any Wiiness so subpoenaed to obey uch subpena, the 's, or & majority Of them shail have power to issue an’ attachment to the Sheriff of any county requiring him to atiach 1s of such Witness and briny hii before such commission. 4nd the like proceedings spall thereupon bi such commission Was a court of record, und nesses had been duly subparnded to attend t swearing before such commission shall be deem) perjur} Ske. Last —Fach of such commissioners shall receive $20 ach day actually enployed in the business the Comptrotier and paid out of the state Treasury. bec. 3.—Such commissioners shall have power to eum ploy such experts, agents and other assistants as they shall dee sary. ‘Ske. 4.—This act shall take egect immediately. By Mr. Lonp—Relative to the Treasurer of Mom roe count Aajourn THE CANAL CONTRACTS. BUFFALO, March 31, 1876. Aresolution was passed by the Koard of Trade this morning, calling a mass meeting Of its mem- bers and citizens generally, the object being ta 1udorse Governor Tilden’s Message on the canal contracts and irauds, The meecing will be beld at eleven o’ciock to-morrow morning. THE IMPORTERS AND GROCERS. A special meeting of the above Board was bel¢ yesterday at half-past two o'clock P. M., in thei rooms, No. $7 Wal! street. Mr. Williain A. Bouth presided and Mr. W. H. Neilson was secretary The proceedings were opened by the secretary reading the special call under Which tuis meeting and the Chairwan further eX: plained that the object tn view was to elicit an exe pression of opinion in regard to the action of toe State authoriues touching the canals aud canal tolls, Mr. Charles A. Hill, Chairman of the commisvee previously appointed jor tuis purpose, read & set o1 resolutions. He also read the invitation iron the Produce Exchange rejerred to Im the resolue tons, ‘Ihe report of the committee Was received, and, upon motion of Air. Turnine, the resoiwuons ‘They are us Jollows Whereas the recent promment action ef Governor ontinued abuses pi ia canal system or th seeking expression through the press aid | business organizations of the Suite and cou jore Resolved, That this Board heartily approves of tha course laken ¢ State Executive in vigorously polit. ing out the evils pow existin: tion of a proper mode for their 1 Kesolved, That this Board 5 propriety of the measures und favored bY the Canal Board for the reduction of the toils, aud urged upon the Legislature | ropriate action. Resolved, That we nend to the meimbe: Board their attendance. in furtherance or th and suggesting tie adep- mation of this views, held on ata meeting in the Produce Exchange, to Thursday, Ist of April, at two P. M.. in “accoraance wiih | the invitation from the managers of that mstcution, herewith communicated. After the transaction of some routine business and the admission Of new members the meeting adjourned. THE MERCHANTS’ MEETING. The meeting whica 's to be held at two P, M, tow day in tue Produce Exchange will undoubtedly bee an influentiafassemblage, and one which will ex- press in its resolutions the unanimous sense of the mercancile community im reference to the management of tue canals, It seems irom the toue adopted by business men in speaking of the recent message sent to the Legisiature by Governor ‘Tilden that they are ceter- mined to applaud the Executive aug to enn courage him im his contest with the Canal Ring, Whose existence bas so greatly imperiled tne business of New York. No Goverior tas ever by bis action cailed such Immediate and unani« mous commendation from the mercantile classes as will be expressed Chis afternoon. — it 1s desired by the Committee of Arrangements of the Produce Exchange that the meeting snuil ve attended by every Merchant who can spare the time to bo present. It nas not been intended thac the mee: ing should be aoe ab assembiage of represen tatives of trade societies, empowered to express the sentiments of such association, but of ousi« mess men generally, the societies being invited formally in order to obtain @ more extended nolice of the meeting among that class of waicll they are composed. THE SCHOOL CONFERENCE. To THe EpItoR OF THE HERALD: — ‘The controversy consequent upon the imprudent | language of a single clergyman concerning our common schools ig at most an incident much to be regreited just now. It occurred at the very moment when steps were taken by the authorities in the Roman Catholic Church, supported by en lightened and distinguished laymen, to bring about @ solution of a formidable and ever threaten« ing difficulty, 1 woulda theu most respectiully be+ speak your own attention as well as the modera~ Mon and patience of the public, while the twa committees of conierence are discussing calmly, and with a due sense of their own respon« gibility, the conciliatory plan submitted to theme i$ 13 NOt promising too much to the just sense of patriousm and religion of our citizens to assure them in advance that, while the most poweriul motives urge a thorough and searching examinax tion of the proposed basis of agreement, the issue Will be such as to bring satisfaction and perma- nent peace. The scheme of settiement is not am | laeal or visionary one; it has worked andis sull working most successiully, both in New Enogiand and at the South, It is founded on a state of things satisfactory to all religious denominations in Great Britain as wellasin Canada. The prin- ciple that underlies it supposes that it is the in alienable right of any parochial society to build its own schoolhouse, provide teachers certidcated as competent, both with respect to learnivg aud 17 morality, and claim irom the public schou/ fund a sum proportionate to their own pro rata of | taxation. This, while alowing the Hoard of Edu cation its legitimate control over the parish | schools, is simple equity; and sucn a solution ts ttle likely to endanger the peace of the commu: nity or to constitute a danger either for the civil or the religious freedom of any class or sect of citizens. Such is the principle which has guided legislation oa common schools in countries as en lightened as our own. I do not know how it may be modified or applied bere; but I have great faith in the moderation and wisdom of the gentie- men im whose hands the present settlement lies, To their conscientious sense of right and duty we should leave the matter in its present stage, aud turn a deaf ear to the unauthorized fanatics wa represent no one but their own theological or poe litical passions. CILIZEN, « THE MURDERER SHARKEY. AN UNFOUNDED RUMOR OF HIS RETURN. A large number of people gathered on the wharf of the Mexican Mali Steamship line last evening, upon the occasion of the arrivalof toe steames City of New York from Havana, {t having beer currently reported throughout the First ward that the escaped murderer, Sharkey, had been quietis imuggied on board that vesse! and brought on t« ew York. Police Captain Saunders gave ordert that the crowd should be kept back; but, as soo as it Was known that Sharkey was not on voar: the crowd disappeared almost a8 quickly as tt h jormed. in con on with several oilicers of the City of New York they stated that suarkey “Wag hourly expected in Havana when they le and that he would, im ai! probability, jeave t New York oo board the ste ip City of gop Which wag set down to leave Havana on the day of March. UNLICENSED LIQUOR DEALERS. Captain Saunders, of the Twenty-seventh prev cinct, with @ platoon of police, made a raid on the unlicensed liquor dealers last evening, and ar rested the following, charged on complaint oj Excise lnspectors Forbes and Costelio with viola« tion of the Excise Jaw:—James Ratigan and B. Corcoran, oj No. 5 Broadway: James O’ Hearn, No, 20 Greenwich street; Dennis Keenan, No. 49 Greenwich street; W. H. Gritin, No, 118 Green wich street; H. Dougherty, Se. 94 Washington street; Patrick Afgoid, No, 122 ¥ ants nena Dennis Winckly, No. 21 West een, No. 24 West street reet; Michael Brennan, these par vhe Excise Board and by the DI that oor would ae Jecormnee gaiust it neglected to comply Wito the law, aud that paid no attention to toe notice. A BOLD THIEF. A well dressed young man entered the jewelry store No, 71 Third avenue, about eight o'clock last evening, and asked vo see some gold wedding yings. The proprietor placed @ tray fll on the case, and (ue young wan tried on two or three of them, leit their Weight, and seemed aitfeult vo Uriel Attorne: = suit. Wale the prietor Was lyon! io the case Jor other riogs cusiomer suddenly seized tn tray, Tau vat of tne ¢ dvor, jampea into @ Wogiu, and drove down the aveune soward Bignth street, tarough kignth and escaped The slugs ateiu axe Vauedat