The New York Herald Newspaper, March 28, 1876, Page 4

4 THE. BALLOT. Important Decisions of the Supreme Court. The Enforcement Act Void of Force. ITS TERMS TOO SWEEPING. Able Elucidation of the Fifteenth Con- stitutional Amendment. A STATE RIGHTS TRIUMPH. The Grant Parish and Kentucky Cases Dismissed. Wasuinoroy, D. C., March 27, 1876. In the Supreme Court of the United States to-day the following important cases were decided :-- No, 880 The United States, plaintiff in error, vs. William J, Cruiksbank, Willlam D. Irwin and John P. Hudout—In error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana —Mr, Chiof Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the Court. This case | comes here with a certificate by the Judges of the Cir- cuit Court for the District of Louisiana, that they were divided in opinion upon a question which occurred at the hearing. It presents for our consideration an in- Hetment containing sixteen counts, divided into two veries of eight counts each, based upon section 6 of the Enforcement act of May 31, 1870 That section is ts follows :— “That if two or more persons sball band or conspire jogether, or go in disguise upon the publ'c highway, br upon the premises of another, with intent to violate any provision of this act, or to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate any citizen, with intent to pre- vent or hinder his full exercise and enjoyment of any right or privilege granted or secured by the constitu- tion or laws of the United States, or because of his naving exercised the same, such persons shall be held guilty of felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be Sued or unprisoned, or both, at the discretion of the court, the tine not to exceed $5,000 and the imprison- ment not to exceed ten years; and shall, moreover, be thereaiter ineligible to aud disabled trom holding uny or place of honor, protit or trust created by the stitution or laws of the United States.” (16 Stat, Mi.) ‘The question certified arose upon a motion in arrest of judgment aiter a Vercict of guilty generally upon the whole sixteen counts, and is stated 10 be whe the said sixtecn counts of said indictinent are sever- ally good and suilicient in law at. contain charges of criminal matter indictable under the laws of the Um- ted States. THE GENERAL CHARGE in the first eight counts is that of “banding, she second eight that of “conspiring”? Loge! jure, oppress, threaten and intimidate Levi Nelson and Alexander Tillman, citizens of the United States of African descent and persons of color, with the intent thereby to hinder and prevent them in their full exer and enjoyment of rights and privileges granted and secured to them in common with all other good citi- zens of the United States, By the constitution and laws of the United States, the offences provided tor by the statute in question do not consist in the mere “banding”? or “conspiring? of two or more persons to- gether, but in their banding or conspiring with the in- tent or tor any of the purposes specitied. To bring this case under the operation of this statute therefore, it must appear that the right, the enjoyment of which the conspirators intended to hinder or pre , Was one granted or secured by the constitution or laws of the United States. If it does. not 80 appear the critmmal matter charged has not been made indictable by apy act of Congress. We have in our political system a government’ of tho United States and a government of each of the several States. E hone of these governments 18 distinct from the others, and cact has citizens of its owp who owe it allegiance, and whose rights withm tts juris- diction it must protect. The same person may ‘be at the same time a cittzen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under onewf these governments will be different trom those | he has under the other, (Slaughter house cases, 16 ., 74). Citizens are the members of the political unity to Which they belong, They are the people who compose the community, and who, in their asso- tiated capacity, have established or submitted them- selves to the dominion of a government for the promo- tion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as their collective rights. in the formation of a government the people may confer upon it such powers as they choose, The government when so tormed may, and when called upon shou'd, exercise all the powers it has for the pro- tection of the rights of its citizens and the people within its jurisdiction, bat it can exercise no other. Phe duty of a government to afford protection is lim- ited always by the power it possesses tor that purpos Experience made the fact known to the gpople of th United States that they required A NATIONAL GOVERNMENT FOR NATIONAL PURPOSES. The separate goveruments of the separate Staies, bound together by the art) were not suilicient fur the promotion of the general welfare of the people im respect so foreign nations, or for the complete pro- section as citizens | of the confederated States ‘or this reason the people of the United States, “in order to form a more perfect union, extablish justice secure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common fetence, promote the general welfare and secure the dlessings of liberty” to themselves and their po: terity—(Copstitution preambie)—ordained and estab- lished the go pent of the United States. and detined its powers by a constitution which they adopted as its furldamental law and made its rule of action, The government thus established ana defined is, to some eXxtent, a government of tho States im their political capacity. It 18 also for certain purposes & government ot the pe Its powers ure limited in number, out notin degree. Within the scope of is powers 4s cuumerated and defined it is supreme and above the States; but beyond it has no existence. it was ted for special purposes aud endowed with all the powers necessary lor ils own preservation an@ the accomplishment of the ends its people had in view. any right or privilege not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. States resideut within any State aro SURJKCT TO TWO GOVERNMENTS, one State aud the other national; but there need Q0 conflict between the two, The powers which t Me possesses the other does not. They are estab- shed for different purposes and have rate juris. fictions, Together they make one whole and turnish the people of the United States with a complete gov- wament, ample for the protection of all their rights at home and abroad. True, it may jometimes happen that a person is amenatie jo both jurisdictions for one and the same act, Thus, ita marshal of the United States is unlawfully re- ed while executing the process of the courts within & State, and the resistance 1s accompanied by an ai fault ou the vilicer, the so’ ty of the Unite States 18 violated by State by the breach of peace im the assault. So, too, if one passes the counterfeited coin of the United States within a State, it may be an offence against the Unind States aud the State—the United States, because it dis- credits the coin, and the State, because of the traud pon him to whom it is passed. This does not, however, necessarily imply that the two governments possess powers in common, or that bring them into conilict with each otber. Ibis the oatural consequence of n citizenship which owes alle- fiance to two sovereignties and claims protection from both The citizen cannot complain, because be has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government. He owes allegiance to the two departments, so to speak, and, within their respective sphercs, must pay the penalties which each exacts for disobedience to its laws, in return he and protection irom each within its own juris- The government -of th it reserved i all powers not granted to it by that instrument ar States or the people. No rights can be acquired under the constitution or Jaws of the United states except such at the government of the United stateshas the to the authority to grantor secure, All that cannot be so ranted of secured are jeit under the protection of the tates, AN INALIENAMLE RIGHT. We now proceed to an examipation of the Indiet- ments to ascartain whether the several rights whieh it is aleged the defendants intended to interiere with are such as bad been in Jaw and in fact granted or se- cured by the constitation or laws of the Luited States, The first aud ninth counts state the intent of the de- fendauts to have been to binder and prevent the eiti- zens pamed in the full exercise and enjoy ment of their lawful rights and privileges to peaceably assemble and with other citizens of the jor & peaceful and lawful purpose,”? right of the peo; peaceably to assemble tur lawial purposes existed long before the adoption of the con- Hutution of the United States im fact, it ‘® aid = always has been one of the attribates of citizenship under a free government. It Grives 4s source, to use the jauguage of Chief Justice Marshall in Gibbons vs. Ogden, 9 Wheat, 211, fro those jaws whose authority is acknowledged by civil- faed man throughout the world; (t is tound wherever iVilization exists; it Was no there for a right granted de @ people by the consti a. The goveroment of ited States when established found it im existence, with the obligation on ti part of States to afford it protection, as no direct power over it was granted to Congress, It remains eeeording to the ruling in Gibbons vs. Ogden, 9 Wheat, fo subject tw Stato jurisdiction; only such existing were coma by the people to the protection es of confedcration alone, | It can peither grant nor secure to tts citizens | The people of the United | and that of the | NEW YORK HERALD, TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 1876.—TRIPLE SHEET. | of Congrese as came within the general scope of tne authority granted tothe national goverument, ‘The | fret amendaent of the constitution prohibits Congress | trom abridging the right of the people to assemble and to petition the government for @ redress of grievances, This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted al the sume time, was pot intended to limit THY POWERS OP STATE GOVERNMENT | in respect to their own citizenship, but operate on the | national government alone, Barron vs. The City of Baltimore, 76 Pet. 25; T., Lessee of Livingston, va | Moore, 7 Pet. 551; Fox vs, Ohio, 5 How., mith vi Maryland, 18 How., 76; Withers vs. Buckle | 90; Pervear vs, The ‘Commonwealth, 6 Wail., Twitchell vs, The Commonwealth, 7 Wall., #21; wards vs, Elliott, 21 Wall, 557. It is now too late to | question tbe correctness of this construction, as w: said by the late Chief Justice in Twichell’ vs. The Commonwealth, p, 325. The scope and application of these amenaments are no longer subjects of discus- sion here, They left the authority of the States just | where they found it, and added nothing to the alreaay existing power of the United States, The particular | | amendment now under consideration assumes the ex- istence of the rizht of the people to assemble for lawful urposes, and protects it against encroachment by Congress, The right Was not created by the amend- ment, neither Was its continuance guaranteed except | as against Congressional interference. For their protection in 1s enjoyment, the people must | Jook to the States, There is w be power for that purpose was originally placed, und it has never been surrendered to the United States, The right of the people peaceably to assemble fur the purpose of pe tioning Congress for a redress of grievances or for any- thing Concectod with the powers or duties of the ua- | tional government is an attribute of wational citizen- | ship, and as such under the protection of and guarw teed by the United States The very idea of a goveru- | ment republican in form, implies a right on the part | Of it# citizens to meet peaceably for cousultation in respect to public affairs und to petition for a redress of grievances. It, as it has been alleged in these counts, the object of the defendant was to prevent a mecting for such a purpose, the course would have been within the statute and within the scope of the sovereignty of Jnited States, Such, however, is not the case, ce as stated in the indictments will be made | | outif it be shown that the object of the conspiracy was to prevent a meeting for any lawiul purpose what- ever. The second and tenth counts are RQUALLY DEVECTIVE, ‘The right there specitied is that of bearing arms for a lawiul purpose, This is not a right granted by the | constitution, Neither isitim any manner dependent | | upon that instrument for its existence. The second | amendment declares that it shall not be intringed, but | | this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be iniringed by Congress. This 18 one of the amendments that have no other effect than to restrict | the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection agamst any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes to | what is called, in the City of New York vs. Milne | (AL Pet,, 13%), “the powers which relate to merely | municipal legislation,” or what was, perhaps, more | | properly called ‘internal police,” not surrendered or | | restrained by the constitution of the United States, The | third und eleventh counts are | BVEN MORE OBJECTIONABLE, ! They charge the intent to haye been to deprive the citizens named (they living in Louisiana) of their re- spective several lives and liberty of person, without due process of law, This 's nothing else than alleging a couspiracy to falsely unprison or murder citizens of | the United States, being within the territorial jurisdic- | | tion of the State of Louisiana, The rights of live and personal liberty are natural rights of man. “Lo secure these rights,” says the Declaration of In- | dependence, “governments are instituted among men, | deriving their just powers irom the consent of the | erued.” The very highest duty of tife States when | y entered into the Union, under the constitution, | was to protect all persons within their boundaries in | the enjoyment of these “inalienable rights” with | which they were endowed by their Creator. yvereignty for tis purpose rests alone with the tl Iv is no more the duty or within the power of nited States to punish for a conspiracy to falsely | 00 OF murder within a State than it would be to punish for lalse imprisonuent or murder itself. The fourteenth amendment probibits a State from | depriving any person of life, liberty or property with- | out due process of law, but’ this adds nothing to the | Tights of one citizen as against apother; it simply fur- | nishes an additional guaranty against’ any encroach. | ont by the State upon the (undamental rights which | long to every citizen as a member of society, as was | said by Mr Justice Johnson, im Bank of Columbia vs. U’Kely, 4 Wheat, 244. It secures the in- dividual from the urbitrary exercise of the powers of | government unrestrained by the established principles | of private rights and distributive justice, ‘These counts in the indictment do not callfor tho exercise of any of (he powers conlerred by this pro- Vision in the amendment. THE YOURTERNTH AMENDMENT, The fourtu and twelfth counts charge the Intent to have been to prevent and hinder the citizens named, who were of African descent aud persons of color, in “the tree exercise and enjoyment of their several rights and privileges to the tuil and equal benefit of all | laws and proceedings then and tetore that tune enacted or ordained by the said State of Louisiana and | by the United States, and then and there at that | time being in force in the same State and district of | Louisiana aforesaid for the security of their respective | persons and property then and there at that time en- | Joyed at and within said State and district of Louisiana | | by white persons, being citizens of said State of Loutsi- | | &na and the United States, for the protection of the | | persons and property of said white citizens. ‘There is ; bo allegation that this was done because of the race or | color of the persons conspired against. When stripped ot its verbiage the case, as presented, amounts to | | nothing more taan that the defendants conspired to | | prevent certain citizens of the United States, being | Within the State of Louisiana, trom enjoying equal pro- tection of the laws of the State and of the United States, The fourteenth amendment prohibits a State from denying to any person within its jurisdiction the equal | protection of the laws; but this provision dves not any | more than the one which pr it and which we | have just considered add anything to the rights which | one citizen has under the constitution against another. "The equality of the rights of citizens is # principle of republicanism, Every repubican government {+ 1m duty bound to protect all its éitizens in the enjoyment | of this principle if within its power, That duty was originaily assumed by the States, and it stilt remains there. The ouly obligation resting upon the United States is to see that tne Staies do not | deny the right. This the amendment guarantees, | but no more. The power of the national government | is limited to the enforcement of this guaranty. No question arises under the Civil Rights bill of April 9, 1866, 14 Stat., 27, which is intended for the protection of citizens of tb nited States in the enjoyment of certain rights, without discriminating on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude, because, | we has already been stated, it is nowhere alleged in | these counts that the wrong contemplated against the | Fights of these citizens was 0a account of their race or color. Another objection is made to_these counts that they | are too vague and uncertain. This will be considered | hereafter in connection with the same objection to | other counts. j | THX RIGHT TO VOTE CONFERRED BY THE STATES, | The sixth and fourteenth counts state the intent of the defendants to have been to hinder and prevent the citizens named, being of African descent and colored, in the free exercise and enjoyment of their several and Tespective rights to vote at any election to be there- atter by law had and held by the people, in and of the said State of Louisiana, or by the people of and in the parish of Grant aforesaid, In Minor vs. Happersett, 21 Wall, 175, we decided that the constitution of the United States bas not conferred the right of suffrage | upon apy one, and that the United States have no voters of their own creation in the | States, Io the United States vs, Reese, just | decided, we hold that the Fifteenth Amend- | ment has invested the citizens of the United | States with a new constitutional right, which is ex. emption from discrimination in the exercise of the | elective franchise on account of race, color or previous | condition of servitude, From this it appears that the right of suffrage 1s not a necessary attribute of national citizenship, but that exemption from diserimination in the exercise of that right on account of race, &e., is, | ‘The right to vote in the States comes from the States; | bat the right of exemption from the prohibited dis- crimination comes from the United States. The first has not been granted or secured by the constitution of = the United States, but the last has been, Inasmuch, therefore, as it does not appear in th ; counts that the intent of the defendants was tO prevent these parties from exercising their right to vote on account of their race, &c., it docs not appear that it was their mtent to interfere with | any right granted or secured by the constitution or | laws of the United States. We may suspect that race | was the cwuse of the hostility, but it is not so averred. | This is material to a description of the substance of the | offence, and canuot be supplied by implication, Ever thing essential must be charged positively or not infer. | entially, The defect bere is not in jorm, but in sub- | stance, | THE STATE POSSESSES THR REMEDY. | The seveuth and tfteenth counts are no better than the ixth and fourteenth. The intent here charged ts to | put the parties named in great fear of bodily harm, and to injure and oppress them, because being and having been in all things qualided they had voted ‘at an election before that time, had and held according to law by the people of the said State of Lousiaua, in said State, to wit, on the fourth day of November, A, D. d at divers other elections by the people of the also betore that time bad and held according to law.’ There is nothing to show that the elections voted at were any other than State elections, or that the conspiracy was formed on account 01 the race of the purtios against whom the conspira tors were toact The charge a$ made is really of nothing more than a amit a breach of the peace within a State. it will not be claimed that the United St power oF are required to do mere police duty in the States, Ia State cannot protect itself against domestic violence the United States may, upon the call of the Execat wheu the Legislature cannot be convened, lend their assistance for that purpose, is a guaranty of the constitution (art section 4), but it applies to no case hke this, We are, (here fore, of the op.niun that the rst, seco! third, fourth, sixih, seventh, ninth, venth, eleventh, tweltt h and Sfleenth counts do not contain charg de indictable under the luws it was the Intent vt the defendants, bv their conspir- }o hinder or prevent the enjoyment of any nght granted or secured by the constitution, VAGUENESS OF LANGUAGE, We come now to consider the titth and thirteenth | and the cighth and sixteenth counts, whicn may be | Drought together for that purpose. The intent | charged in the fifth and thirteenth is “to hinder and | prevent the parties im their respective and tree exe cise and enjoyment of the rights, privileges immunk | ties and protection granted and secured to them re- spectively as citizens of the United States and as elth- | |} gems of the said State of Louisiuna,” for the | | reason that they, bewg them and there citizens of Said State, and of the | nied States, were persons of | | Alrican descent and race aud persous of color, and | not white citizens thereof; and in the eighth and six- teenth “to hinder and respective free exercise and enjoyment of every, nd provent them iu their several The third seetion does not in express terms limit the the act are beyond that limit they are unauthorized, | CONGRESS. offence of an inspector of elections, for which the pun- | Alderman vs. The People, 4 Mich., 114; Stale va. each, ali ana singular, the several rights and privileges granted and secured to them by the coustitution and Jaws of the United States,” The same general statement of the rights to be interfered with fs found in the fifth and thirteenth counts, According’to the view we take of ishment is provided to a wrongtul discrimination on account of race, &c. This ix conceded, but it is urged that whon this section ig construed with those which rs, it the only precede it, and to which, as is claimed, it is so limited. The argument is that The Consular and Diplomatic Appropriation these counts the question is not whether it 18 enough , Wrongful act on the part of the officer, whose in general to describe a statutory offence in the lan- duty it is to receive or permit the re- Bill in the Senate. guage of the statute, but whether the offence hashere | quisite qualification, which can dispense with actual qualification under the State laws and substitute the prescribed alfidavit therefor, 18 that mentioned and prohibited in section 2, to wit, diserimimation on | account of race, &e,, and that consequently section 3 is confined in its operation to the sume wrongful dis been described atall, The statute provides for the pun- ishment of those who conspire “to injure, threaten or , intimidate any citizen with intent to prevent or hinder his full exercise and enjoyment of any right or privie lege granted or secured to him by the constitution INVESTIGATION, MORTON'S — MISSISSIPPI or laws of the Unit States.” These counts in , crimination, This a a penal statute, aud must be con- the indictment charge jin substance that the sirued strictly, rot ro stretly, indeed, as to defeat the intent in this case was to hinder ana | clear intention o Congres’, but the words employed prevent theee citizens sa the ree exercise und enjoy. | must be understood tm the sense they weroobviousy | UNtimely Pate of Mr. Payne's ment ofevery, each, alland singular, the rights granted | used (United States vs. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat, 85), them by the constitution, &q* Thore is ho specific. Il, taking the whole statute’ together, it Financial Measure. tion of any particular right. The Janguage isbroad | is apparent that it was not the “intention of enough to cover ull. under the laws of the United States the accused has the constitutional right “to be informed of the nature most important change in the election laws. Previous and cause of the accusation,” (Amendment 6.) In to its adoption the States as a general rule regulated in Uuited States vs. Mills, 74 Pet, 142, this was con- | their own way all the details*of all elections, they strued to mean that the indictment must set forth the rescribed the quulilications of voters and the manner offence ‘‘with clearness and all necessary certainty to | in which those offering to vote at an election should j apprise the accused of the crime with which he make known their qualifications to the officers in stands charged.’ And in United States ve. Cook, charge. This act imterferes with this practice and | Wall., 174, “that every ingredient of which the offence r ribes rules not provided by the laws of the States, is composed must be accurately and clearly alleged.” | It substitutes under certain circumstances a periorm- It is au elementary principle of criminal pleading that | ance wrongtully ee ted ‘or the performance itself. where the dotinition of an oflence, whether itbe at | If the elector mal nd presents his affidavit in the common law, or by statute, ‘includes generic terms, it | form and to the effect prescri the inspectors aro is not sufficient that the indictment snall charge tho | to treat this as the equivalent of the specitied require- offence in the same generic terms as in the detinition, | ment of the State law, Tis is but it must state the species, it must descend to par- | A RADICAL CHANGE ticulars” (1 Arch. Cr. Pr. and P. L. 201.) The object of | in the practice, and the statute which creates it should the indictment is, first, to furnish the aceused with such | bo explicit in its terms. Nothing should be left to | adescription of the charge against him as will evable | construction if it can be avoided. The law ought not | him to make his defence and avail himself of his cou- | to be in such a condition that the elector may act upon viction or acquittal for protection against a further | ove idea of its meaning and the inspector upon prosecution for the same cause; and second, to iniorm | another, The elector under the provisions of the the Court of the facts ‘alleged, so that it | Statute is only required to state in his affidavit that he may decide whether they are sufficient im law | has been wrongtuily prevented by the oilicer from In criminal eases prosecuted Congress thus to limit the operation of the act we can not give it that eflect The statute contemplates | THE SUBSTITUTION OF SILVER COIN | SENATE. Wasmixotox, March 27, 1876. A largo number of bills and memorial: re intro- duced and referred. Mr. Monroy, (rep.) of Ind, called up the resolution for the appointment of a committee to investigate frauds in the Mississippi elections, Mr. Curistiancy, (rep.) of Mich., introdaced an amendment and proceeded to discuss its merits, Mr. Morton said he was willing to accept the substi- tute, + Mr. Cooper, (dem.) of Tenn., demanded the regular order and the Chair laid before the Senate the Consu- lar and Diplomatic bill as the business before the Sen- to support a conviction, if one should be had; | Cera gd ‘There La no ha say ho Leniesion Jaren ate. fo. this, Facts are to be stated, not conclusions of aw | part of the section, In a case like this, if an affidavit aloue. A crime {s mage up of acts and tutent; and | 1 in the language of the statute, it ougus to bo sufi. | Mr Monrox moved to lay aside that bill and finish these must be set forth in tbe indict- | cient both forthe voter aud for theimspector. Laws | the Mississippi resolution, ment, Wilh — reusouable particularity of time | Which probibft the doing of things and provide a pun- | ‘The question was taken, and on it Mr. Morton de- and place and circumstavees, It a crime to | ishwent for their violation should have no double manded the yeas and pays and the motion was lost by & vote of 23 yeas to 31 nays. The Senate then proceded to the consideration of the Consular and Diplomatic bill, ‘THE CONSULAR AND DIPLOMATIC BILL. Mr. Sarcesr, (rep.) of Cal., said the committee had declined to agree to all the cuttings down of the House | jd inserted amendments restoring salaries but not pending any more than has been expended in former years, About forty Consulates had been abolished by steal goods and chattels, but an inaictment would be | meaning, A citizen should not unnecessarily be placed bad thardid not specify, with some degree of cer- | where, by an hon error in the construction of a tainty, the articles stole! th ecause the ac- | peual statute, he may be subjected to a prosecation for cused must be advised of the essential particulars of | @ false oath, and an inspector of elections should uot the charge against him, and the Court must be able | be put ta jeopardy because he, with equal honesty, en- to decide whether the property taken was such as was tertains an opposite opinion. the subject of larcency, So, too, it is mm some States a If this statute limits the wrongful act*which will jus- crime for two or more persons to conspire to cheat and | tily the affidavit to discrimination on account of race, detraud another out of his property; but it has been | &e., then # citizen who wakes an allidavit that he has held that an indictment for such an offence | been wronglully prevented by the officer, which {s true a must contain allegations setting fort the | iu the ordinary sense of that term, subjects hiinseit to | "4g House which Sent arte aia ae alte means proposed to be used to accomplish | indictment and tral, if not to conviction, because it is committee that, ol these Consulates were necessary. | the purpose, ‘This, because to make such a purpose | not true that he hag been prevented by such a wrong- | ie believed Geadtnin wane enon aoe 1 ea ye oi criminal, the conspiracy must be to cheat and de(raud | ful act as the statute contemplated, and if there is no i Whe: & Seno -i0e. Ganarey regceion: andeconomy. Possibly the House may bave gone too fur on some of these points, but he believed the coun- a? would approve of a general reduction. ‘he question wes taken on the first amendment pro- posed by the Senate committee, as follows :— For salaries of Envoys Extraordinary and Ministers Plen- ipotentiary to the governments of Great Britain, France, ermany aad Russia, tixed by the Honse at $14,056, the (tee move to strike out $14,056 and insert $17,570. The Senate agreed to the amendment. The next amendment was on restoring Italy to its | fermer position, but which bad been stricken out by the House. . Messrs. Edmunds, Hamlin and Morton advocated and Messrs. Stevenson and Withers opposed it. Pending its consideration, Mr. Camgnroy, (rep.) of | Wis., moved to go into executive session, but met with so much opposition that he wus induced to withdraw the mnotion with apotice that at three o’clock to-mor- : a + row he would insist upon an executive session, | teenth amendment. That section has for1ts object the Mr. Mornitt, (rep.), of Vt, then advocated the Sen- | punishment of all persons who by force, bribery, &¢. | ato amendment restoring Ialy, und at the close afr. hinder, delay, &¢,, any person from qualifying OF | Cameron again urged.a motion io-go into executive acs: voung. In view of all these facts we feel compelled to | say sabia bar opinion the language of the third and | #02, which was Rare Se, and a2 Tone 2 es eee combination with an intent to prevent the enjoyment | fourth sections docs not contiue their operation to un- | Ate Went Into executive session, and at five o'clock ad- ofany right granted or secured by the constitution, | lawful discrimination on account of race, &e. If Con- | Journ &c. “All rights are not so granted or secured. Whether | gress had the power to provide generally tor the one is so or not ts question of law to be decided by | punishment of those who unlawfully interiere to pre- the Court, not the prosecutor. Theretore the indict- | Vent the exercise of the elective tranchise without re- ment should state particulars to inform the Court as | gard to such discrimination, the language of these well as the accused, 1t must be made to appear—that | sections would be broad enouyh for that purpose, is to say, appear from the indictment without going | It remains now to consider whether a statute so further—that the acts charged will, if proven, support | geveral as this in its provisions can be made available for @ conviction for the offence alleged. But it is | the punishment of those who may be gu'lty of unlawfal needless to pursue the argument further. The | discrimination against citizens of the United states | conclusion is irresistible that these counts: are | while exercising the elective fganchise on account of too vague and general. They lack the certainty and their race, &¢. There is no attempt in the sections precision required by the established rules of criminal | now under consideration to provide specifically tor pleading. It follows that they are not good and suili- | such an offence. If the case is provided for at ail itis | cient in law. They are so defective that no judgment | because it comes finder the general prohibition against of conviction should be pronounced upon them, The | any wrongiul act or unlawful obstruction in this par- order of the Circuit Court arresting the judgment upon | ticular, We are, therefore, directly calied upon to do- in amode made criminal; it is necessary for the in- | such limitation, but any wrongiul act of exclusion will | dictment to state the means proposed in order that the | justify the affidavit and give the right to vote without | court may see that they are, in fact, illegal te vs, | the actual performance of the prerequisite, then the Parker, 43 N. H., 83; State vs. Keach, 40 Vt., 118; | inspector who rejects the vote because he reads the law in its limited sense, and thinks it is confined to a wrongful dis.rimination on account of race, &c., sub- jects himself to prosecution, if not to punishment, be- @nuse be bas misconstrued the law, Penal statutes ought not to be expressed in language so uncertain. It the Legislature undertakes to define by statute a new offeace and provide for its punishment, it should express its will im language that need not | | deceive the common mind, Every man should be able to know with certainty when he is committing a crime, but when we go beyond the third section and read the fourth, we find there NO WORDS OF LIMITATION OR REFERENCE even that can be construed as manifesting any inten. tion to coniine its provisions to the terms of the tif. | Roberts, 84 Maine, 32). In Maine it is an offence for two or more to conspire with tbe intent, unlawfully and wickedly, to commit any crime punishable by imprisonment in the State Prison (State va, Roberts), but we think it will hardly be claimed that an indictment would be good under this statute which charged the object of the consp:racy to have been unlawiully and wickedly to commit each, every, ull and singular the crimes punishable by imprisonment in the State Prison. All crues are not so punishable, Whether a particular crime be such an one or not 18 a question of law. The accused has, therefore, the right to have a specification of the charge against him in this respect in order that he tay decide whether he should present his defence by motion to quash, demurrer or piea, and the Court that it may determine whether the facts will sustain the indictment, So where the crime is made to consist im the unlawful | HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Wasuixaton, March 27, 1876. The SrEakER proceeded to call the States for bills, under which a number of bills were introduced and | Teterred, MR. PAYNE'S MILL Mr. Payyr, (dem.) of Ohio, moved to suspend the rules and pass his bill to provide for the gradual resumption of specie payments. The first section of the bill directs the Secretary of the Treasury to set aside and retain in coin each year until United States notes shall be appreciated to par the verdict is, therelore, aflirmed and the case re- | cide whether a penal statute enacted by Congress, manded, with instructions to discharge the defend. | with its limited powers, which provides with gold an amount equal to three per cent of the out- ants. general language, broad enough to cover wrong- | Standing legal tenders or legal tender notes, to be held . Mr, Justice Clifford dissented from the opinion but | tul ucts — without as well as within the | asa resumption fund for the redemption of such legal concurred in the judgment, | constitutional jurisdiction, can be limited by judicial THE KENTUCKY ELECTION CASK. | construction, so as to make it operate only oa that | No. 145, The United States, plaintifls, vs. Hiram | which Congress may rightially prohibit and punish, Reese and Matthew Fousbee,'in error to the Circuit | For this purpose we must take these sections of the tender notes, provided that such coin set aside and re- tained shalt be counted as a part of the sinking fund, The second section requires national banks to set Court of the United States for the District of Ken- | statute as they are, tucky.—Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion THe ACT INOPERATIVE. of the Court. This case comes here by reason ot a We are not al to reject a part which is unconstita- division of opinion between the Judges of the Circuit | tional and retain the remainder, because it is not possi- Court in the District of Kentucky. 1t presents an in- | ble to separate that which is unconstitutional, if there dictment containing four counts under sections 3 and 4 | be any such, fom that which is not, The proposed of the act of B1, 1870, 16 Seat, 140, against two of | effect 18 not to be attained by striking out or disregard- the inspectors of municipal election in the State of | ing words thatare in the section, but by insertin aside and retain from the coin received by them as in- terest on the bonds deposited, as security for their cir- culation, an amount equal to three per cent of their circulation; such coin to be counted as a part of their legal money reserve. ‘The third section repeals so much of the Resumption Kentucky for retusing to receive and count at such | those that are not now there. ~ Each o} ciection the vow of William Garner, a citizen of the | the, sections must stand as a whole, or | "Ct of January 14, 1875, as provides for the redemption United States of African descent. All the questions | fall” altogether, The anguaze s__ plain. | Of legal tender notes to the amount of eighty per cent Thore is no room for construction unless it be as to | the eflect of the constitution. The question then to be | | determined is whether we can introduce words of lim- | itation mto a penal statute so as to make it specific, | | when, as expressed, it is general only. It would cer- tainly be dangerous if the Legislature could set a net | presented by the certificate of division arose upon general demurrers to the sevoral counts of the indict- | ment in this Court. The United Stat ndon the first and third counts, and expressly wai' ye consid eration of all claims not arising oud cf the enforcement of the tifteenth amendment of the constitution. After of the national Dank notes in circulation and as much as provides for the redemption of legal tender notes in coin after January, 1879. THE VorR. The vote was taken and resalted—yeas 81, mays | 156, So the motion was vefeated. this concession the principal question lett for consider- ation 1s whether the act under which the indictment is found can be made effective for punishment of inspec- tors of elections who refuse to receive and count the votes of citizens of the United States having all the qualifications of voters because of their race, color or | Previous condition of servituce. If Congress has not declared an act done Within a State to be crime against the United States, the courts have no power to treat as such nited States ¥s, Hudson, 7 Cranch, 382."" [tas not claimed that there 18 any statute which’ can reach this case unless it be the one in question. Looking then to this statute, we find its lrst section pro- vides that all citizens of the United States who | power of States and the people, To limit this statute | Shall be prescribed, and that the total issue of silver are or shall be otherwise = qualified bt J m the manner now asked for would be to make | coin shall not exceed $50,000,000, law to vote at any election, &c, shall a new law, not to enjorce an old one. This is no | @ Speeches were made by Messrs. Landers, of Indiana, be entitled and allowed to vote thereat without dis. | tinction of race, color or previous condition of servi- tude, any constitution, &c., of the State notwithstand- ing. ' This sunply declares tho right without providing punishinent for its violation, The second section pro- | vides for the punishinent of any oiticer charged with | the duty of furnishing to citizens an opportunity to | periorm avy act which, by the constitution and la of any State, is made a'prerequisite or qualification of voting, who’ shallomit to give all citizens of the United States the same and equat opportunity to per- | with his opinion, form such prerequisite aud beeome qualitied on ac- count of race, color or previous condition of | do more than ailirm, lf, however, we reverse, all | demonstrated that it was cheaper to the govéFnment servitude of the applicant. This does not apply to or | questions certified, which may be considered inthe to issue it than to issue fractional paper cur- include the inspectors of an election, whose only duty | fival determination of the case, according to the | rency. He believed thi the people would not it is Lo receive and count the votes of citizens desig- | opinion we express, should be answered, The judg- jaw as voters, who have already become | ment of the Circuit Court is affirmed. nated by qualified to vote at the election, Tue third section 13 to the effect that whenever by or under the constitu- tion or laws of any State, &c,, any act is or shall be re- | quired to be doue by any citizen as a prerequisite to quality or entitle hita to vote, the offer of such citizen to perforin the act required to be done, as aforesaid, shail, if it tail to be carried into execution by reason of wrongiul act or omission, as wioresaid, of the per- son or officer charged with the duty of ‘be allowed to lie at the door of iss authors. He spoke receiving or permitting such — performance, DIES WITHIN A FEW HOURS—FOUR ORPHAN / of the bovdhoiaers us vampires sucking the loud of | or offer to perform, or acting thereon, bO| CHILDREN LEFT TO MOURN, the Amorican deemed and held as #periormance inlaw of such act, and the person so offering and failing, as afore- said, and being otherwise qualified, shall be entitled to | vote in the same maaner and to the same extent as if | ho bad in fact performed such act, and any judge, im | Spector, or other officer of election Whose duty it is to | eecerta oat po or to give effect to the vote of any | Schuyler bad both been ailing for some time past, es- | R ag (dem.) of N.J., spoke in favor of | sucl citizen who sball wrongfull: refuse, or | the bil. The republican had conceived and Omit wo feoeive, dc, the vote of. gach’) ony, we hustend, who bad been an invalid for | Silage forth the “reg babe? ued Mad tarbed tie 10 citizen upon representation by him of his affidavit ting such offer, and the time and place thereof, and the name of the person or officer whose daty it was to act thereon, and that he was wrongtally prevented by | such person or oilicer from performing such act, | shall, tor every such offence, ferfeit and pay, &c. ‘The fourth section provides person who snuil by furce, bribery, threats, mtimi tion or ot! uniawful means hinder, delay, &a, 01 shall combine with others to hinder, delay, prevent or | obstruct any citizen trom doing any act required to. be | done to qualify him to vove or from voting atany | election, | DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACK. The second count in the indictment is based upon | s¢eing that about half-past one o'clock the fourth section of this act wud the fourth upon the third section. Rights and immunities created by or dependent upon the constitution of the United States | would to some extent substitute the judicial for the | legitimate sphere Congress is supretne | beyond its reach, the courts are authorized to, and | | when called upon, in due course of legal proceedings, ws | other questions certified, since the law which gives | | streets, and the minister of that church attended both | tive coutrivance the Supreme Court of the United | r the punishment of any | during thefr illness. For severalnights past two la. | States had been reorganized amd packed in order to | | dies, members of the church, have watched Mrs. | can be protected by Congress, The Jorm and the man- | ner of the protection may be such as Cong! legitimate exercise of tts legisiative disc provide, These may bi 8 in the box she had put there, tion shall | over to ber Mrs. Sehyler began searching it, and then | the varied to meet the necessities | told her sister to put it away, meanwhile taking some- | Company were quoted at §7 50 per share now less large evough to catch all possible offenders und leave | it to the courts to step in, and say who could be right- fully detained and who should be set at large, This THE ISSUANCE OF SILVER COIN, The House then, at half-past two P. M., went into Committed of the Whole (Mr. Sayler, of Obio, in the chair) on the bill providing for the deliciency in the En- graving and Printing Bureau of tho Treasury and for the isuance of subsidiary silver coin, Mr. Townsenv, (rop.) of Pa., offered an amendment providing that han $3, | and shall be receivable for postage and revenue stamps and for all duties to the United States, except customs, in sums of not over $5, and shall be redeemed on pre- sentauion in such sums and under such regulations as __ legislative department of the government, The | courts enforce the legisiative will, when ascertained, if within covstitational grant of power. Within its d beyond the control of the courts; but if it steps outside of its | constitutional limitations and attempts that which is Must annul its encroachments upon the reserved | part of our’ duty; we must, therefore, decide that | Congress has not, as yet, provided by appropriate legislation for the punisi tof the offence charged in the indictment, and he Circuit Court properly rt. Lanpeks characterized the Resumption act as a sustained the demurrers and gave judgment for the de- | white elephant on the hands of the republican party, fendants, | and expressed his regret that any democrats were ‘This makes it unnecessary to answer any of the | found willing to assist in its management, Mr. Paittirs objected to it, among other reasons, the presiding judge the casting vote in cases of | because it established a third standard of value, division, and authorizes a judgment in accordance | Mr. BuRcHARD referred to the tact that all govern- (Rev, Stat, sec 650.) If we find | ments, except the United States, maintained a subsidi- that the judgment as reudered is correct we need not | ary silver currency, and to the’ fact that tt had been id Phillips, of Kansas, against the bill, and by Messrs, Eames, of Rhode Island, and Bureburd, of Ilinois, in support of tt. . intrust the control of the government to the demo- cratic party unless they were assured that that party would maintain the credit of ‘the government, whieh was now at four per cent. Mr. Brigur, (dem.) of Tenn., opposed the silver currency feacure of the bil and declared that the democratic party had no interest in shouid- ering the financial blunders of the republican party. If dsaster hung on the els of the financial policy of the government the tault should Dissenting—Mr. Justice Hunt. Mr. Justice Cliflord diissented from the opinion but concurred in the judgment, SAD CASE OF SUICIDE. A WIFE SHOOTS HERSELF, AND HER HUSBAND the Amorican people and as cormorants who are swal- | lowing up the of the r, He favored an ap- A melancholy suicide of a wife and mother, which |-propration for the employment of the 1,000 employee was followed within afew hours by the death of the | who had been turned out of the Engraving and priate husband, occurred yesterday morning at No. 452Grand | '9¢ gare Rate he wished it distinctly understood that | street, The facta are as follows:—Mr. and Mra | thy system of fractional werrence ee king down about seven months, On Friday last Mrs, Schuyler | gitimate buntling upon the country against the protest got very sicksand was obliged to keep to her bed. | and remonsirance of the democratic party, and it was Both husband and wile belonged to the Land and Sea | DOW very unkind in that party to repudiate its own Presbyterian church, corner of Henry and Market | fooschuld. Ho charged thit by legislative noe wane decide the constitutionuality of the Legat Tender aw. = | Mr. Pacx, (rep.) of Cal, denied that this bill would | Schuyler and two gentlemen wero in attendance on | denelit the Vacitic coast. any more than any other Mr. Schuyler. Neither of the sufferers wanted in avy | of the country, or that the interests of California and | Nevada were different in that res} from those of Way for the kindliest treatment, The two ladies WAP | any other part of the country. He aaidthes the people | were watching Mrs. Schayler during Sunday night, | of the Pacific coast had recently purchased from the | she Was grow- | government $4,000,000 worth of silver coi, for which ing worse, called her sister, Who was sleeping im auad- they had paid doilar for doilar im gold. asserted Joining apartment; and, when the ster came im, Mrs. | that silver coin circulated on the Pacific coast the ' Schuyler asked her to bring over to the bedside one of , same as gold com As to the assertion the drawers ofa bureau my room, saying she wanted# " that the issuance of silvor coin had been resowved on | | the drawer was taken | in the interest of the Big Bonanza mine, be pointed to act that the shares of the Consolidated California of the parteular right to be protected. The Fil- | thing trom it without being observed. The sick woman they were when that policy was entered on, | teenth amendment docs not confer the right of | then told the ladies to go away trom the bed, as she | Favoring, as ho did, the resumption of specie payment | suffrage upon any one it prevents the States meeded all the air she could get. In a minute or two / at an early aay, he was im favor of the bill and would or the United States, however from giving | sbe began apparentiy to rab ber body with ber right | vote for 1. | | | preference to one citizen of the United States over an- | band, and suddenly the report of a revolver was heard. other of account of Face, color or previous condition of servitude, Before its adoption this could not be done. It was as much wituin the power of a State to exclude citizens of the United States from voting on account of race, &c, us it Was On account of age, prop- erty or education. Now it is not. Previous to this amendment there was no constitutional guaranty | muzzle of the revolver under her leit breast, against ths discrimination. Now there is. It follows that the amendment has invested the citizens of the Unwed States with a new constitutional right, which is dir. lownseNp, of Pennsylvania, advocated the bill . little suspecting that Mra Sehylor and his own amendment to it. He characterized Mr. tol in ber possession, coneluded that | Hewitt’s speech against the bill ag intensely partisan, and gave to that goutieman’s quotation, ‘2imeo Danavs e dona fSerentes,”” the free interp tion, “Democratic rags ‘afe better than republican silver,” (Laughter. ) The three ladies could have a py the noiwe they had heard was trom the explosion of & uiedicine bottle on the table, bat in a few seconds the tace of the unfortunate woman showed that deuth was taking her away. It was found she had placed the Mr, SPEECH OF MR. RANDALL Schyler, who was sleeping in the rear apartment, was Mr. Raxpatt, of Pennsylvania (chairman of the bot awakened by the nore, which was considerably | Commitice on Appropriations) closed the debate with smotuered by the proximity of the barrel of the re- | aspeech in favor of the bill The chiet objections within the protective power of Congress, That volver to the woman's breast, nor was he | which had been made to the substitution of silver coin right if exemption from discrimination in the ex- | alterward told of the cause of the death | for fractional currency were:—First, that it ereise of the elec! iranchise of race, color, &e, of his wife, though apprised of the fact ' would be a depreciation of the currency, and second, This, under the ex provision of the second sec- | itself, He was so stunned by the news that he that the value of the stiver might rise and that of tho tion of the amendment, Congress may entoree by ‘np. propriawe wiation.”” ‘This ieads us to inquire whether ate legislation” for that purpose. The power of Con- gress to logistate at all upon the subject of voting at | three, Schyler was on the police force for about two | answered. There was no proposition to depreei State elections rests upon this amendment THY ACT UNAUTHORIZED. The effect of article 1, section 4, of the constitution im respect to elections for § ors and Representa- tives is not now under consideration. 1t has not been contended nor can it be that the amendment ‘coniers t now under consideration 18 “appropri- | leit orphans ‘by these two deaths, the oldest being a soon grew very faint, and be died at ten minutes to greenback depreciate to a point that would render it eight o'clock yesterday morning. Four children were protitaole to melt or export silver coi, and that the people thereby might be put te serious inconvenciencoe for want of change. The first objection was thegenl ate the boy about fourteen years, the youngest a little girl of | years, but in 1ST1 was dismissed or Fesigned in conse. siivercoin. On the contrary, the bill provided for the | quence of charges of negioce of duty Legon # preferred — issue of silver com of the same weight and purity against him by aroundsman. Previous to his last iil- | had been issued by the Mint since 1863. In fact, th ness he was omployed ag caulker, He was a member | coins sa eng to be issued would be slightly more of the Masonic fraternity, and the members of his | valuable than those coined from 1853 to 1573, as the lodge have been unremitting in their Kindvess and object was to make the silver dollar conform to authority t0 impose penalty for every wrongtul | tention. The members of the chureh to which he a we and value of the five franc ptece. The ture retusal to feceive the vote of a quali. | his wife bel have also been vory painstaking, and | drawn by the gentleman from New York (Hewitt), fled at State elections, It is ony | will assume the care of the cbiMiren, Mrs. Schyler | as to the injur; to the poor from the Substitution of silver currency for that of where the biceess oy refusal at such an election is be. had been several times delirious during her itln revious condition of servitude | and was no doubt insane when she committed the fal ‘an interfere and provide for its punish- act. She died repeating We words, “My Redeemer | thought sections of | home." | cause of race, color or that Congres: |, theretore, the third ana fourth ment . paper currency was bi overcharged. He (Randailj that these ane coins would Toatataln & will take me power equal with legal tender novws, or | of marder. | | Money, and being’ only procurable from *fiings some risk must. be encount even with gold for small ments, After the limit of Substitution would be readens then no further wssue of silver coin could be made except in gold, The entire amount of s f would be needed, and actively employed as change the for god coin at par a redundancy would be im ‘his check, and the amount for whieh s should be tegal tender, would effectually check any of the evils predicted, and no loss could result to the peo. ple, as silver coin woula be current at its nominal value. What was proposed to be issued was not de- based coin, as spoken of by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hewitt), bat coin of standard value, of au- thorized weight and purity, and more valuable thas pr issued by most enlightened countries of Europa to THE SECOND ORJECTION, that the eliver coin might not remain ont on ac count of an increased value in gold premium, or silver premium, or im both, he (Mr, all) woul chao, le at par poy posed | be gratified if some provisions of law could be enactet | which would appreciate the greenback, or if such a | condition of trade could be reached as could produco thesame result, for then silver coim would certainly ain out, Ip the absence of such a condition of but before the adjournment of this session the success or failure of the undertaking would be settled, and ifthere were any error it could easily be corrected, Vurious amendments were offered by Messrs. Wells of Missouri, Holman of Indiana, Townsend of New York, and others, The committee then rose and reported the bill and the amendments, with the understanding thata five minute debate will be allowed in the House, and votes taken on each amendment, ‘The House then, at half-past five, adjourned. THE STATE CAPITAL —_—_—--—_——_ A BILL AS TO CROWDED SEATS IN THE HORSE CARS—MORE WORK FOR THE LOBBY—AN ATs TEMPT TO SAVE RAPID TRANSIT. Avpayy, March 27, 1876. Many members of the Senate and Assembly last week rejoiced over the action the’ Railroad Committee took upon the “No Seat No Fare” pill, because they wera ‘thus enabled to dodge a square vote on the bill after it had been perfected tn Committee of the Whole, as it would have been had the committee reported favorably upon it. These members will, before the session is over, have occasion to try some new dodge to avoid going on record on a bill which the railroad com- panies do not ask for, if the bill introduced this even- ing by Mr. Watts, of New York, is properly looked after by the real friends of the original **No Seat No Fare”? bill. ‘ Mr. Watts’ bill reads as follow: Sxction 1.—It shall not bo lawful for any railroad company to seat, or allow to be seated, more than twenty adults, in @ car drawn by two horses or mules; nor more than fourteen agults im a car drawn by one Lerse or mule, See. 2.—Thirty days after the passage of this act, and the signing of the same by the Governor, the railroad companies of the city and county of New York shall be required to por- tion off the seats by iron railings, so as to avold all un- erowding aud confusion, Such companies, or cor- or their agouts, shall be liable for each and df the provision of t s than $50, nor more .—'his act shall take effect immediately. It wit! be seen that this biM does not provide agains» the overcrowding of the cars, but itis divested of all the “impracticable” features which made the Killian bill so distasteful to the Railroad Committee, that they could not tind it in their hearts to report it favorably, and they will therefore have to find some other excuse than the “impracticable” feature of the Watts bill vefore they have the effrontery te report against it on that ground. ‘The only bilis that are exceptions to this rule are the Supply vill and the Annual Appropriation bill.‘ It will be observed, then, not even if the Railroad Committee should report Mr, Watts? bill favorably, objection by a single member to its final passage, previous to any bill introduced before the 15thof the present month, would be fatal, This, however, should not deter the friends of the “No Seat No Fare” idea from making every effort to have incorporated in it those features which they deem necessary and ‘prac: ticable” to pat an end to the overcrowding of tho cars in New Yorkecity. When it is pat on its finat passage it will be easy to explain the motives of the Momber whose objection prevents the ‘yeas and nays’? being called upon it. There is already to-night some talk about how glad the lobby will be if this bill is reported by the Railroad Committee, so that lobby- ists get a ‘bone’ out of it by striking the railroad companies, Every one knows that the lobby will try to n.ake money out of any bill, good or bad, so it caa be taken for granted that from this out the raiload companies will, as they did with the Killaa bill, ae tempt to deter honest members from considering the Watts bill favorably, even in Committee of the Whole, by setting up the cry that every effort made in its be hall is an eflort pleasing to the lobby. In the words a the detective on the overland route, “This may be & very good argument, but it won't wash.’’ BATTERY VARK AND THR RAILROAD, After the Senate assembied this evening Mr. Gerard offered a resolution requesting the Asse: to retura the bill ip relation to the Battery Park, Ho said he had no time to see what the vill meant, Its tithe docs not show jts intent or purpose, 1t was moved up out of its order and without any indication of the motive behind it, which appeared to be to kill rapid transit New York city, It was passed without dis. cussion, and as far as he was concerned h¢ was williug to admit, without having received the consideration irom him that itdemanded. Mr. Booth op the resolution, and said the passage of the bill would prevent the cuiting down of a great many troes in the Battery Park. t. Gerard said permission had been granted by the Commissioners of the Public Parks to the Greenwich Elevated Railroad Company to extend their track along by the carbs op the outside of the Battery Park under express stipulation that none of the trees should be touched; that the trestle work of the raiiroad should be made as ornamental as possible, and that place of being an eyesore it would be a feature of at~ traction to thepark. “Mr. Starbuck said he chanced to be in his seat when the bill was up, and he voted for it Without any apprehension that so much importance attached to it, ide thought that the same course ought to be adopted as with the bill relating to the Black River and Utica Railroad; that is, to recall it—as it | would be no harm to have it back agaim— that it might be more fully considered. Mr. Booth hoped the resolution would — not prevail, One or two bills bad already been destroyed, and unless the bili was passed others would be sure to follow. If people had any objection to make they could present them to the Committee of the Assembly, to which the bill would be referred. The Senator trom the Fourth district (Mr, Morrissey) was absent, and might like to say Something in opposition to the reso- luvion. Mr. Gerard said he would not press his motion on the assurance that there was still an opportunity of having @ proper consideration given to the matter, ‘The resolution was permitted to lic on the table until to-morrow. SCHOOL TEXT HOOKS. A long discassion tollowed on the bill to provide for uniformity of text books in common sehools, giving to euch countys Judge the power to appoint special com- missloners in each county to determine and designate the text books to be used in the common schools in their respective counties. Mr. Prince considera that the bill possibly covers a big eet that the result of changing the text books for a milion of school children throughout the State would involve an expense of about $400,000, dnd that a few large publishers of text books would step in and have a monopoly of the entire printing. On motion of Mr, Woodin to strike out the title of the bill it suffered decapitation. TRUSTHES OF SAVINGS BANKS, Senator Baaden’s bill hold: trustees of savings banks to a stricter accountability for the conduct of officers of savings banks having been adversely re- ported, he intends to introduce another in the interest - depositors, to reach, after another way, the object in view. THE MURDER LAW. The act in relation to murder, ordered to a Teading in the Assembly this evening, is the Schoon- maker bill, Which passed the Senate a month ago, Ag the murder jaw now stands the killing ol a human be- ing when perpetrated “without” uny design to effect death by a person engaged in the commission of @ felony is murder the first degree. It will be seen that the natural jnierence to be drawn from this reading of the law is that the killing of a human being “with’’ design to effect death by a per- son committing a felony is not murder in the first de- gree, thus maxing intentional killing a less heineus offence than ubintentioial killing. The bill ordered to @ third reading amends this ab- surd feature of the law, so that it shall be murdep in the first degree when the killing of ahuman being is perpetrated “by a person engaged in the co mission of any felony.’’ In other words, no matter ‘whetbe: the Lim oy ren of a felony intends to kill or not, the person be attacks, if bis attack results in the death of his victim, he is guilty of the highest degree The bill provides that its provisions shall not apply to any ease py ings in which shall have been commenced previous to its becoming law, THE GRAFF AMENDMENTS wore again in Committee of the Whole this evening, und inserted in the Salary bill This is a sure indica Von that the bill, as amended, will b¢ defeated when it is put on ita dual passage. Graff should have let the bill aloae when two, weeks ago it reached its third readi with the Peabody reduction features in it, By having it recommitted to the Comuittee of the Whole he gave the e rene ‘athe anew opportunity to kill it, by reetng to his amondinents, which able suajority of the House, pau BAD POR THE LAWYERS, Carty introduced a bill which provides that ion days afwer presentation the Comptroller shall make payment for saiarics ot employés and other claims against the city, unless he bas reasonable doubts of their validity, in which case, within ten days alter the presentation of the claims, he shall ob- twin the written opinion of the Corporation Counsel and of the Recorder and District Attorney as to their validity, If two of those officials shall city has no valia deience o Gonlperolier a alt forthe with pay, and for bis neglect or refusal to then he or his sureties shall be lable to the M: and commonality of the city tor any cons Weaeaanaes [coped = bpigenttpe against them by reason of the ringing of any action tor salary ae y : ‘ecover any such o A DELRGATION OF BANKERS. A number of New York bankers will arrive here te Morrow to give their views on the bill introduced v; Senator Carpenter, which proposes to tax the sui and capital of banks, but Mot at @ greater rate other personal property,