The New York Herald Newspaper, May 9, 1876, Page 4

cs EXTRADITION. The Note of Secretary Fish, of March 31, on the Winslow Case. DETAILS OF THE LAWRENCE CASE. Can the Terms of 2 Solemn Treaty Be Changed by Legislative Enactment ? A NEW CLAIM BY GREAT BRITAIN. aon Eee, ‘Winslow’s Surrender Demanded Without Conditions, Wasmixcrox, May 8, 1876. The following is the letter of Secretary Fish inthe Winslow extradivion case, which our Chargé d’Affaires at London was directed to present to the attention of Lord Derby. Tho reply of the British Minister has not yet been received :— {No, 864.} Deraxtaunt ov State, Wasuinorox, March 31, 1876. ‘Wickwa Horrmay, Esq., &e., &e., &0. ¢ Six—Reterring tO previous correspondence in refer- ence to the extradition of Winslow, in custody in Lon- | don, Ihave now to acknowledge the receipt of yours, No, 39, under date of March 10, enclosing a note ad- dressed to you by Lord Derby, of March 8, aud your re ply of the same day, With General Schenck’s No. 884 ‘Was enclosed a note from Lord Derby, dated February 2¥, in which it was stated that Her Majesty's Secre- | tary of Siwte for the Home Departinent had drawn attention to subsection 2 of the third section of the British Extradition uct of 1570, and feared that the Tight w tey Lawes Jaim by this government of e (Who hud been recently sur- rendered) for crimes other than that for which he had deen extradited, unts to a denial that any such Jaw a is relerred to in the British act exisis; and the dis- claimer of this government of the existence of any 11 plied understanding in respect to trial tor crimes other than extradition crimes, together with the interpreta- Vion put upon the act of Congress of August 12, 1842 which is, doubtless, an error lor 1848), preclude any nyer the belie! in’ the existence of an effective ar- government had pre- Hy in force, and it was added that the Secretary of the Home Department was compelled to state that if he were © m conside: tng that no such law exis would have no powe iu the absence of an arrangement, to order the extra- dition of Winslow, » although proper proceedings had been taken for that purpos Lord Derby called ¢ vrai Schenck’s attention to the Jntiination which he had received from the Home De- partment, and requested that the matter be brought to Vhe knowledge of this government, marked, however, that in this note ihe Foreign Office, ks distinguished from the Home Oitice, expressed no opinion on the question involved, but confined itself to | requesting that the views of the Home Oitice might be communicated to this government, A few day however, on the 8th of March, 1 more advanced position prev the Home Department and writes as follow: Her Majesty's government do not feel themselves justified in authorizing the surrender of Winslow until they shall ve Fecvived the assurance of your Koveruwent that this pers not, antil he has tunity of returning to Her M k in the United States for auy otfeuce committed prior der other than the extradition crimes proved the surrender would be crounded; and requesting that this decision be communicated to this government. ‘Yo this note you made reply under date of March 8, Telerring to the general practice tor many years under the treaty, and calling attemtion to the coustruction given to the twenty-seveuth section of the act of 1870 in the case of Bonnier, No iurther correspondence has reached this government, and the matter rests @pon this note of Lord Derby and your reply. THE REASONS GIVES by Lord Derby for the course int ted in his note e, as he stittes, from what had taken place in this couniry in the Lawrence case, and the positive terms of 8, subsection 2, of the British Extradition act of 187’ Moreover, it has been stated that the Homo Oilice had even gone further, and expressed the opinion Wat, not only bad some implied understanding been Teached as to the particular crime for which Lawrence should be tried, and that it would be in violation of the laws of te United States and of the general laws Of extradition of all countries, to try any p oner for avy other crime than the particuiar ex! dition offence for which he had been surrendered, With regard to any such understanding, either ex- pressed or implied by any authorized decliration ¢ engaxement of this srhment, no evidence 1s ad- duced, nor can be adduced. This government asked the surrender of Lawrence precisely as it has asked the surrender of all other fugitives who have been deliv- ered by Great Britain under the treaty of 1842, plying on its part with the require r treaty, aud neither by expression nor by implication entering into any “arrangement,” but simply requiring the lugitive to be “deliveged up to justice.” It furnished vidence of criminality as a t Rritain where the tu ding to the 3 found trial ti the crime or Great Britain recognized th ernment with all that the y Fequires The allusion made b the case of Lawrence needs possibly a passing remark, THE LAWRENCE CASK. Charles L. Lawrence is charged with a series of forger- fes whereby the government of the United States claims to have been defrauded to an amount not far short of $2.00 Buppesed to ha’ both in th pted of having 000 on Custom House entries, He 1s r merous and influential confed- country and in England, who are shared in. the spoils resulting from alleged frauds upon this nment. A large amber of indictinents have been found againat Law Fence, proceedings either civil or criminal are either pending or imminent against supposed accom. plices, It is supposed that prosecntion of these,cases Might possibly disclose names on either side of the Atlantic in connection with the alleged frauds not yet brought before the pablic, In the spring of 1875 Lawrence fled and escaped to Europe, aud was arrested under the assumed name of Gordon, at Queens- town, on a sition for his surreuder under the treaty, There were proved (as 1 am informed) betore bir Thomas Henry, in London, twelve or thirteen dis Hnet charges of forgery, each on papers connected ith a different imyuice of goods, The representative of this government supposed the extradition was made on all the charges, but the letier of report of Sir ‘Thomas Henry to the British Home Office led to the fasue of a warrant of surrender of Lawrence on a sin gle charge of forging a bond and aitidavit, on which ‘wurrant the keeper of the jail dehvered Lawrence to the agent appoited by the President to receive hit. The terms of the warrant were not known to any agent or officer of this government (as is represented to me) until long after Lawrence's return to the United States, His counsel ana irievus appear to have been apprised of the fuct that, although proof was presented on some tweive or thirteen charges of forgery, Uke warrant of surrender seems to be confined to the forging bond and affidavit, Up to this date Lawrence has been arraigned only upon one indictment based on the forgery of the bond and aifidavit’ mentioned tu Sir Thomas Henry's report to the Home Oilice, ana he has bot been arraigned for avy oftence other than the ex- iradition crimes proved by the tacts in evidence before Sir Thomas Henry aod ob whieh his surrender was based. Although not arraigned on any other indictment than for the lorgery for which he Was extradited, the Britigh Howe Office has raised the question that he may possibly be tried upon other charges and for oth chines, ins, therefore, that the Home Offic Britain andertakes to decide whatis the aw of the United States, as well as of Great Britain, and as- sumes that the law of the United States, as well as the eneral law of extradition and the Extradition act of reat Brita, prevent the trial of a crimmal sur- rendered under the treaty of 1842 for any offence other than the particular offence for which be was extradited, And the position which tt takes m the assump- it is to be re. | | it would be difficult to question their right to try him } Practice under t NEW YORK HERALD, nained in the warrant of extradition, he must find such | immunity guaranteed to him by the terms of the treaty, not in the act of Congress. The treaties which contain the immanity from trial for other offemces have been celebrated since the date of the act of 1348. At that | date the United States had treaties of extradition onl: t Britain and with France, neither of whic! the limitation referred to. j ‘The terms of the treaties alone define or | can limit the rights of the contracting parties. | ‘The construction of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain by the two governments, aud | their practice in its enforcement for many years, were in entire harmony. In each country surrendered fugi- tives have been tried for other offences than those tor which they had been dehvered, the rule having been that where the cruminal was reclaimed in faith and the proceeding was not an excuse or pretence to bring hun within the jurisdiction of the court, it was no violation of the treaty or of good faith to proceed against him on other charges than the particnlar one on whieh he had been surrendered. The judicial de- | cisions of both countries allirm this rule, It was so held in @ case of inter-State extradition by Judge Nel- son in Williams vs. Bacon, 10 Wendell, 686, and tho same prineiple was laid down by the Court of Appeals ot New York in alate case of Adrianee vs. Lagrave, who had been delivered up under the treaty with France. In United States vs, Caldwell (8 Blatch- Jord Cir, Ct. Rp., 181) Caldwell, after extradition trom Canada for forgery, in 1871, was indicted for bribing an | ollicer, and the plea was entered that the prisoner was brought within the jurisdiction of the court upon a | caurge of forgery, under the treaty, and that the of- | ve specified in the mdictment Was not mentioned m the treaty, A demurrer being interposed, the Court | decided the prisoner bad becn extradited in good faith, charged with the commission of a crime, and must be tried, In the case of Buriey, extradited from Canada on a charge of repbier, the’ prisoner was tried on assault with intent to kall In the case of Hellbrunn, who was extradited from this country for forgery, and tried in Great Britain for larceny, the facts, us stated by the Solicitor General of | Great Britain, who had charge of the proceedings, and who was examived belore the late British Comms- | sioner on the extradition question, were that the pris- | ouer, being extradited for forgery, was acquitted, and | was ‘thereupon tried and convicted for larceny, tor | which he could not have been surrendered, not being | enumerated in the list of crimes mentioned in the | treat In Canada there is the same current of authority, | In the case of Von E. Arnam (Upper Canada Reports, 4 | €. Zsx), the prisoner Was surrendered by the | | H { | | United States to Canada upon the charge of forgery, and application was made for release un buil, ou the ground that the offence was at inost the obtaimmg of money under false pretences and not within the treaty. Macauley, Chief Justice, sald, in denying the motion, that he was disposed to regard the offence as forgery, but evon if the offence were only false pretences, “alter being in custody, he is liaule to be for uny offence which the tacts may support. In Paxton’s case (10 Lower Cavadu Jurist, 212, 11, 854), the prisoner Was charged with uttering a forged | promissory note, He pleaded that he bad been extra. | duced upon the charge of forgery, avd could not be | tried for uttering forged paper or ior uny other than the | extradition offence, The Court decided that the trial | should proceed, The prisoner thereupon protested | | | | prosecu ted against being called upon to plead to any other chargo than that for which he was extradited, but he was tried, found guilty and the conviction affirmed on appeal. In addition to the foregoing, Judge Benedict, 1 his opinion im Lawrence's case, delivered within a few day: past, entirely ceipelides in these views, and the Soite tor Genoral of the United States, in his opinion in Luw- | rence’s case, dated July 16, 1875, reaches the same | conclusions. : An examination of the report of the Select Committee | on Extradition of the House of Commons, which gat 1m 1888, under whose superintendence the extradition law of 1870 was framod, and which was composed of some | of the most distinguished public men of Great Britain, among whom were the Solicitor General, Mr. Mill, Mr. Forster, Sir’ Rovert Collicr aud Mr. Bonnerte, shows that the law of the United States and the practice iu gard to extradition wore perfectly well understood, and they are distinctly reterred to on several uccastons, Mr. Hammond, now Lord Hammond, for many years Under Secretary of Stats, in speaking of Burley’s case, | stated that as it was ‘suggested that the prisoner, who had been surrendered on a charge of rob: bery, wax about to be tried for piracy tho mater had becn reterred to law’ officers of the Crown, and that it it was held that if the United States put him bona fide on his trial for the offence tor which he was extradited for piracy or any other offence of which he might be accused, Whother such offence was or Was notaground of extradition of even within the treaty, and addeg:—“We adinit in this country that if a man is bond Jide tried tor an offence tor which he was given up there is noth- ing to ptevent bis bein subsequently tried for another offence, either antecedently committed or not,’? (Answer 1,036,) Mr, Mullens, an eminent member of the bar, who was | counsel in the Lawrence case, in reply to a question of | Sir Robert Collicr, said that, in his opinion, a surren- dered eruninal ought to be’ tried for an offence other | than the extradition offence arising from the same facts; and Mr, Forster (question 1,214), considering the propriety of the proposed stipulation that a person | should bo tried for no offence other than the extradition | offence, said: t make that stipulation, or else yous, o try Heilbrunn for aby other of- | To which Mr, Mullens responded :— No; there ix no stipulation of that kind in the case of | America, | Mr. Mill thereupon saia (question 1,216):—* As I un- | derstand it, (he treaty with America would not pre. Vent our trymg a man for a different offence from that | he had been given up.” To which Mr. Mul- ps replied t would not; there is no stipulation that he shali not be tried for any other offence.”? Then follows question 1,217:—* Would you wish to extend | that state of things to other countries ¥”’ and the re- | ply, “with regard to America | have never found any ditticulty about 1,” &e. j So tar as can be ascertained there was absolutely no dissent at any trom these views as to the law and | aty, and the only question seemed | to be whother it was@wise to attempt to change them. Mr. Clark (an eminent British authority), in his | treatise on extradition, say: | At is qu ither the treaty uor the law of the United State: the provisious of the extradition net | ot 1870, CONCLUSIONS, It would appear, therefore, by the judicial decisions, by the practice of both governments, aud by the ut- derstanding of the persous most famiuar with proceed- ings in such cages, and the most competent to judge, that where a criminal has been im good faith ‘extra dited for an offence within the treaty, there ix no agree ment, expressed or implied, that he may not also be tried for another .Menee, of which he 1s charged, although not an exiradition offence, He is in tact (in Accordance with the language of tue treaty) “delivered | up to justice ;” and in the absence of any limitation by | treaty, to ‘Justice’ generally, each independent state | being Judge of its own administration of justice. | Surely Great vrituin will pot alow the Legislature of | another State to prescribe or to limit’ the cases or the | er in Which justice 18 to be administered in her | and she will not expect the United States | to be less tenae Now for tho first tine since the signing of the treaty | of 1842 Groat Britain raises the question of her right | to demaud trom the United States, as condition of | ‘the execution by Great Britain of her engagement to | | Surrender a tugitive criminal charged with a series ot | | conditions to the executory parts of & previously exist- | | ing treaty between * that Won that, in demanding an extradition under Uh ireaty, the United States is bound by the provisions of Mie wet of 1 nilict with the treaty or | not, and it ve arrangement was in foree,’’ that no criminal so Surreadered should be tried for any other than the par- cular extradition offence, on the faith ot which ar. Tangement it ts claimed (hat surrenders have heretwfore deen made and without which it is now said that a sur- render would not be possible under the English act; but, as already said, nothing is adduced m support of the belief of the existence of such supposed arrange. ment. These positions are so different fro the understanding of this governme opposed to the views which it w were entertained by Great Britain, and wh been recorded in Parliementary pal been asserted ind) ee a Teedgnized in judicial decision: as in this coun- ‘try and set forh by writers on extradition law, that £ Jewrn from Lord Derby's vote with surprive, equal to ‘supposed’? that an “ellect- | my regret, that they appear to be supported by the | Foreign Uflice. THe ACT OF AvGUST 12, 1848 reproduced in the Revised Stuatutes (Section 4, 5,276) reterred to in the correspondenc: OF limit the rights of the two governments ou the ee tion, This act is simply a general act tor carrying inte effect treaties of extradition, It provides the meehin t prescribes the general mode of procedure, bat th is of the United h are governed of the several treaties, nor to liwit or construe any particular treaty. In some few treaties between the United States and 0 to , does Lot attect countries provisions exist that the eriminal | shall wot be tried fur offences committed prior to extra- dition other than the extradition crimé, and in others no such provision is Agat der some treatie: the contracting powers are vem, surreadercd, while others conta 1 ception. States act of 1948 ts equally applicable to PR Sona a treaties. Lf the surrendered fngits (eto fod immunity trom trial for otuer thaa the olleuce citizens of subjects of Aproeatly exempt from such ex. | | | / | / stupendous torgert provided for in the an act of Parham the treaty bi A stipulation, or agreement not treaty, but asked ou the ground | 1 passed some twenty-eight years been in force, andgpreseribes tt as ould apply to when made with a foreign tion whether one of the | can change and alter its terms or | construction, or attach new conditions to its execution, | without the assent of the other—whether an act of the | Parliament of Great Britain, passed in the year 1870, can change the spirit or terms of @ treaty with the United States of nearly thirty years anterior date, or can attwh a new condition to be demanded of | the United States before compitance by Her Majesty's Koverument with the terms of the treaty as they have Been shown to have been unilormly understood and | executed by both governments for the third of a his government does not recognize any eflicacy | ina British statute co alter of modily or to attach new the United States and Great | Britain, Ido not feel called upon to examine particu- jariy the provisions of the IMw ot Is7v, But inasmuch as Great britain secks W impose the provisions of that | act upon the United States in the execution of a treaty | of many years’ anterior date, 1 do not fail to observe that while by the act Great Britain assumes te require bo surrendered fugitive shall be tried m the country which demands his extradition jor ‘any oftence other than the extradition crime’ (in the singular) proved by the facts on which the surrender is grounded, sbe roserves to herself the right to try a fugitive surrendered to ber for such crimes (in ihe piural) as may be proved by the facts on Whica the surrender ts grounded, This does not seem to ve Wholly reciprocal, and it the United States were disposed to enter inw wtreaty under this uet, 1t might expect some greater equahty of right than weursory eXumMination of this provision in the it 1# quite wel! knowa that atter the uct of 1870 an eflort was made to enter pa imto the number nees and otherwise ex- tond the provisions of the existing treaty, At the out set it Was apparent that the act of 1ST0 Was not an act to carry into effect treaties or conventions for extradi on, as is the United States’ act of 1848, vat one pro- viding & system to which all subsequent ‘treaties of ex- tradition must be adopted and which could be applied to enforce treaties or arrangements made ject to its provisions, This government was unable to agree Ww any arrangements based on the provisions of the act of 1870, and in a note addressed to Sir Thor er, under date of 27, 871, he was mformed that This government understands the twonty-seventh section of the extradi act of 18.0 as yiving continued effect to | the existing en e af eri uary | iu the power wovermnn ops @ more comprehensive and accept- able arrangement The British government was thus distivetly and formally advised of the posiion und of the views of the United States, and no excep. tion thereto bas been expressed. A further eitort | to effect a treaty was made in ISTS, after the Passage by the british Varhament of an act amending the act of 1570, whiels resulted in failure tor precisely | Bunilar reasons, This failure to negotiate a new trea becuuse the United States could not accep some of the provisions of the act of 1870, preferred to goon under the treaty of 1842 us theretofure con- | strued and practically carried into effect by each | government, and thus we bave proceeded up to the arose solely | part of it | Present time. Jn support of the constraction which this govern. | | tres | tore | in agree: | Power to change at tts ; and Great Britain ot the 9th of August, 1842 } such evidences of criminality as, accord ! of Great Britain, would justify his apprebension and | ing the part of Cicero in this proceeding; but | of having a sw ment in 1871, im the note to Sir Edward Thornton above referred to, gave to the twenty-seventh section of the extradition act, it appears that whea Court of Queen's Bench was called to pass upon very question m the case of Bonnier (27 Law pact mer Bg | S44) the Attorney General stated that the intent) | Deen to make a general act which should apply to all cases except where there was anything inconsistent with the treaties referred to, So far as the point was passed on, the Lord Chief Justiee e: the opinion that it was the intention while getting rid of the statutes by which the former treaties were carried out, at the saine time to save those treatics in their full ‘The Solicitor General of the United States, in his opmion in Lawrenco’s,case, given in August of last year, reached the same ‘conclusion, that the was ‘not affected by the act. 1t cannot readily be jeved that Parhament intended by the act of 1870 to claim the right to alter treaties in exwtonce without notice to the other government, or to impose new conditions upon foreign goveruments seeking extradition under treaties in existence prior to that act, The United States has declined to become subject to the British act of 1870, and with knowleage of this the government of Great Britain has continued constantly to ask and obtuin extraditions under the treaty of ‘1842, and since the reiusal of the United States to nego- tiate a new treaty under the provisions ‘of that act Since the passage of the act of 1870 Great Britain has obtained from this government some thirteen warrants: of extradition and bas instituted a much larger number Ot proceedings to obtain extradition, In no instance | bas Great Britain thought it necessary to tender any such stipalation as she now asks from the United ‘States, or to present her requests for extradition in any way different from that in which they were pre- sented prior to 1870. The United States in the same timo have instituted numerous proceedings, andat this | motent have three criminals in London in custody upon charges of forgery, whose extradition this gov- ernment is seeking in the usual manner provided py the y. During this period no intimation has reached this governinent that the treaiy of 1842 was notin fall force, or that the act of 1870 was cloimed to limit its opera- tion, or to impose upon this government the necessity either of changing its laws or of giving stipulations not known to the provisions of the treaty, and not hercto- weested, nor has any represepiation beon made to this government by that of Great Britain on account of any proceedings taken in the case of Lawrence, mentioned ip the opinion attributed to the Home Oflice in the note of Lord Derby to General Schenck, before referred to. Sul now with three important cases pending in Lon- don at the present time for extradition, in ono of whieh at least all the formalities have been com- informed 1 substance that to the present time pled with, we are it bad been sup % by the British Home Oflice to trials for other than extradition offences wos went with the law of 1870, but Minding it to be otherwise, we are confronted with tho requirement of A stupulation in order to obtain what is guaranteed by the treaty of 1842. whereby the United States must rec- ognize the right of the British Parliament by statute to change existing execut@ry treaties and to impose upon this government conditions and stipulations to which it had not given ts assent, As relates to the particular CASE OF THR ¥ . 80 fur as | am aware, any intention of try- m other t those on whien in- dictin which bis surren- der was dem States will give no stipulation of which the treaty docs not authorize the demand, ‘As the stipulation or condition is demanded by Great Britain as a right, the right of the demand mast be es- tablished. ‘Lhe President regrets that a condition, which, in his Judgment, i¥ without any justification under the treaty, should have been asked. He regards the question thus presented as of a grave and serious character, on the final solution ot which must probably depend the continuance of the extradition article of the treaty of Ls. He cannot recoznize the right of any other lexsure, and without the assent of the United States, the terms and conditions of a e@xecutory agreement in a treaty solomnly ratified tween the United States and that vower. He thinks that the twenty-seventh section of the British act of 1870 was specially intended to exempt the treaty with the United States from the application of any of the new conditions or provisions embodied 1m that act, and to leave tiat treaty to be construed and the sur- render of fugitives thereunder to be made as had been previously done, He hopes that on a further considera- on Her Majesty's goverument will see, im the section referred to, the effect which he supposes it was de- signed to have. But he recognizes that it is for the British govern- ment to construe and enforce its own statutes; and should Her Majesty’s government finally conclude that the British Parhament has attached a new condition to the compliance by that government of its engagement with the United States under the tenth article of the treaty of 1842, relating to extraditions, requiring from the United States stipulations not provided for or con- templated in the treaty, be will necessity which will thereby be imposed upon him, ‘and does not see how he can avoid regarding the re- Jusal by Great Britain to adhere to the provisions of the treaty us they have been reciprocally understood und construed from ite date to the present tiwe, or the vx- action by that government of a condition herototore there is n ing hin unkvown, as the infraction and termination of that | provision of the tres ty. You are not authorized to enter into any stipulation or understanding as to the trial of Winslow, in case he be delivered up to justice. His surrender is asked under and in accordance with the provisions of the | tenth article of the treaty between the United 5 ar le is charged with a crime icluaed within the List of crimes enumerated in the treaty, that crime was committed within the jurisdiction of the United States and he has sought an asylum and been found within the territories of Great Britain, and the United States have produced ig to the law commitment for trial if the orime or vilence had been comimitted im Great Britain, You will communteate the substance of this to Lord Derby, aud should he desire it you may read it to him, Tam, Sir, your obedient servant, HAMILTON FISH. IMPEACHMENT. CONCLUSION OF THE ARGUMENTS ON THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION-—MANAGER KNOTT ON THE DUTIES OF THE SENATE—CLOSING SPEECH OF JERE. BLACK ON THE OF THE DKPENCE—ORDERS OF THE COURT OF IMPEACHMENT. Wasutxatox, May 8, 1876. At eleven o'clock the Cheir announced that the Senate sitting in trial for the impeachn Belknap would resume its session, in a the order of saturday last. Proclamation haying been made by the Sergeant-at- Arms, and but few Senators being present, Mr. Merri- mon, of North Carolina, moved a call of the Senate, when thirty-nine Senators responded. The proceed- ings of Saturday's session were read, The respondent, with his counsel, Messrs. Carpenter, Black and Blair, and the Board of Managers being present, Mr. Manager Knott resumed and completed his argument commenced en Friday, He said the line of argument which be had proposed for himself had been so completely covered by b's colleagues that ttle hed been left for him to say, except, perhaps, to recapitulate some of the points and to elaborate to some extent a few of the sugges- trons so very ably presented by them, which he pro- ceeded to do, concleding as follows :— lam content to leave the question with you, per- feetly contident that no large number oi right minded people will accuse the house of lepresentatives of Leing composed of either fouls oF traitors for sending it here, or dedounce you for cowardice or corruption, de- cide how you will.” Whatever your decision may be I am satiefied it will be such ato redound to your own credit as jurists and state: well Vlowd, hut I stand 1 the presence of the ted tribunal known to the constitation of my native land, sitting .to determine one of the gravest questions ever submited toa human court, net for Ubis hour but forall tine; uot for the individual ac- cused, batior generations yet unborn. 1 would nob therefore, if 1 could, obseure a siugle ray of the pure, bright hgnt of truth ‘and reason in which this question should be considered, 1 would not it I could by any ue iniluence change in the estimation of a hair the balance which should be potsed here in the firm hand Of rigid and smpartial justice, I kuow nut that the pro- cvedings of this hour wih ever be recorucd by the oaid it be | trast that ers of living ght, exorable pen of history, bat the record will be ‘in Ie auent and enduring as the rock ribbed hills, that the Alu Senate, unbiased personal of party consid 8, uuintuc.ced bye private sym- pathy or popular prejudice, bal the sterling virtue to administer the law. in that seutimens 1 am sure that the very distinguished counsel who is vo follow me | Or, Blick) will Tully aceord; for in his own contnioa tious to the Judicature literature of this country, 1m lus manly, fearless and unabated vindication of U majesty of that same law, he has achieved « memorial wonate Veneration of his countrymen more W scuipiured marble and, I trust, more et monumental brass, (Applause. ) Black closed the argument on the part of the detense, He drew the distinction which existed between this case, where the wecused was not in office at the ume the House of Representatives took cognizance Of it, aud the case of an ofliciul resigning ufier that point of tine whether a man who had resigned bis office was to be sil accounted a public officer for all the purposes of mpeachment, On that proposition” he held negative and would maimain itif be was able. In discussing the legal powt he alluded to the speech of Manager Howr om Saturday last us the most eaborave and caretully prepared oratwn that he had ever had the good fortane to jisten to and admire. It had, how- ever, he suid, been Mied with the fiercest aud bitterest abuse of =the | accused, =as well as Of other persons absent aud undefended. He (Mr. Black) could not have any objections to that gentleman play- yh Ti tested that he had ne right to make an imaginary Maro Autony out of General Belknap tor the mere purpose tfor wis puilippic. He bad uot only ebarged General Beikuap as if ho wore guilty of every- Unug which the managers to set forth in their articles uf peach men: but be had gone out hia Way and charged the whole country was wo tull of corruption that It bad ! that oar law as | deeply regret the | PART | The real poit at issao was | had” seen proper | TUESDAY, MAY 9, 1876,—TRIPLE* SHEET. become a byword and a disgrace all over the world. According cA his account, ‘it would be inore toler- le for jom and Gomorrah,” than for those cities of the plain, whose wickedness had been impeaching. Like Lot, his | righteous zeal bad been vexed from day to day by these mmiquities. According to him all classes of this coun- try were weltering together in one great mass of moral putrefaction. He had treated the arguments made for the defence on this question of law as but the Jeers and sophistries of the criminal lawyer. If the gentleman were « criminal lawyer )as he supposed from his sneer he was not), or if he were any lawyer at all and ‘went into a court of ordinary jurisdiction, and on the | Pretence of arguing of law attacked simple question he | the opposite party with bitter abuse (unfounded on any fact), and then extended bis attack to everybody to whom he could lay the rough side of his tongue, he | would be gently reminded that he was ie sg out of record, and if necessary would be brought back to the port with a rather sharp turn. Judge Black then commented at length y the argument of Mr. Hoar and the quotations which that geuteman made from Johm Quincy Adams, and said Mr. Adams was the loast reliable man who ever lived on @ question of law; that he was always ready for a personal cont that his bomp of comabtiveness was always In a state of chronic inflammation and t he enjoyed nothing so much as the “rapture of the strife.” He next Te- ferred to the remarks of Mr. Hoar, made | in the House of Representatives when the articles of impeachment were presented, to the effect that the House had no_ power to impeach and the Senate no ju- Tisdiction to try the accused, and said of course that gentioman (Mr. Hoar) bada right to change bis opin- jon, | jon’ which he ight have about a question like this | When first presented to his mind, aud noone had a | | ! right to say that the change was not a conscientious one or that the gentleman professed now an opinion which he did not honestly and seriously entertain, 1t was true that the change had occarred under circum- stances of excitement and political terror not very enn- ducive to the formation of a sound judgment. The | gentleman bad been surrounded by A CONFLAGRATION OF ANGER ! and animosity, Paley was right when he said that he must be either more or less than man who refused to kiudie in the general blaze. It was somo honor to the gentleman (Mr. Hoar) that he was last one to take tire—(aughter)—although when he did begin he proved to be rather more combustible than any of the rest, (Loud Janghter in the galleries, which the Chair promptly suppressed. ) Mr. BLack coutended that the House of Representa- tives could not throw 1s drag net over the whole na- tion and draw in every man, whether a public oficer or private citizen. He denied the doctrine assorted by the Managers, that a man once iu ollice was always an ofll- | cer. He quoted from Rawle, Surgent and Story on the constitution in support of his views, and said several great political revo- Jutions had occurred m this — country when tho party previously occupying the seat of poweg | had been driven out with the wrath of their victorious enemios burning after them. Thu victors, as they came | in, were not sparing of their charges; treason, corrup tion and crimes and other misdemeanors wore talked | about, Yet it did not appear that it had ever entered | into the head of any human being to suppose that the | party coming in and having power in all the branehes | of the government could subject their displaced oppo- nents to the power of impeachment. Referring to THK ENGLISH PRKCRDENTS, . he sald it was acknowledged that in Englond the power of Parliamont was omnipotent, and for that very | Yeason there was no resemblunce except in name of the thing between impeachment in that country aud in this, The omnipotence of Parliament reached to every» sulject of the realm. Now, in the most ordivary times it might take pecr or a commoner, a prince or a peasant, or layman, freebolder, merchant, mechanic, any 0 they wero not restricted by any law to political casos. Parlament could hang and quarter a man, imprison for He next spoke of the power of Congress under our con- sutution and claimed that the resiguation of Belknap Referring to the allogea threat of Mr. Ciymer, | that uuless Mr Belkual resigned he would Mr. said the ee, either directly to General Belknap or mediately to hin through his counsel, that, it he did not.retire from ottice betore twelve o’clock on March 2 he would at that hour be impeached, and in consequence ol that, to avoid this threatened impeachment, General Belknap did take his resignation to the President at half past ten A, M. and got the Presidents acceptance of it by twelve o'clock. The time | when the House met the ollice had been declared vacant, and another person had been appointed aud | Was exercising the powers of it as its head The de- | fence did not claim that this was a compact with the chairman of the committee. Mr. Clymer had no right to speak for the House, but General Belknap knew that he was a leading member of the House, and that what ho proposed (0 do was very likely to be accomplished He argaed that the nen who framed our constitution whenever # doubt arose about the meaning of a partic- ular provision resolved that douvt in favor of public liverty. ‘This was the time above all others, and this | judicial occasion was the proper occasion for the Senate dogma put forth to flatter and eajole the people, but a principle founded in conviction and upon reaxon, Tho colossal grandeur of Washing- ton’s character still attracted the admiration of the world, and , Frankiin’s quict memory climbed to heaven, and ‘the pure philosophy of Jefferson illumi | nated the path of statesmen, Madison's wisdom was | the standard of all orthodoxy and Jackson's name would be a watchword to the free forever, The Ameri. can people did not forget what they owed to these | men, and if the members of the Senate belonged to that iilustrious breed, it wag fit that on a judicial occa- | that the constitution had given, we were always to give that feature the narrowest construction possible. This impeachment provision of the constitution affected several of the most important rights that wereever clatmed by « people er conceded by a government, and should therefore be strictly construed. For tance, allmen charged with criminal offences were entitled to atrial by «jury, but this provision took away the Tight of the party accused of a trial by his peers, and subjected him to # trial before a polttical body com- posed, it might be, of his rivals and his enemies. Mr. Biack said, in conclusion, that as he had begun his re- marks without exordium, 80 he would close without a peroration. | Judge Black concluded bis argument about three o'clock, when, on motion of Mr. Edmunds, the gab leries were cleared and the Senate went into secret | session. At five o'clock the doors were re-opened and the Chair announced that the Senate had agreed upon two orders, which were read as follows :— until further notice, the attendance of the managers and the respondent be required. 4 that, when the Senate sitting for t of impeachment adjourn, 1t be to Monday next, past twelve o'clock P. M. ‘The Senate then adjourned, trial half. OBITUARY. MAJOR ALEXANDER 8. MACOMB. The death of Major Alexander S. Macomb, of this city, occurred suddenly at a quarter past one o'clock yester- day, at the Union Club, and has cast a gloom over the members of that resort, While engaged in conversa- tion, he complained of oppression and endeavored to leave the club house, but he fell before he could reach the door, and his death foliowed almost instantancously, and, probably, unattended by suffering, being caused by the rupture of an uneurism of the heart. Mayor Macomb graduated trom West Point in 1835, He was tho gon of Major General Alexander Macomb, who bed the rank of Commander-in-Chiel of | the United States Army, preceding General Scott in | the same rank, After serving in the First and second | dragoons on th acted as aide de-camp to his father, aad resigned trom | the army in I84L While quite young he married Miss | Kearney, of New Jersey, and atter her decease he con- tinued to reside in this city. He was a prominent member of the Union Club and Was wellknown in all circles of society, whore bis courteous bearing, cheertul gallantry apd good nature made him universally beloved. His associates and ail who knew him will long regret the gallant geoticoman and amiable companion so suddenly removed from their midst. WILLIAM F. M‘NAMARA. After a very brief but painful fitness. William F, McNamara died at two P. M. yesterday, at his residence im this erty, No. 47 Henry street. The deceased was a well known lawyer, who has been practising with marked success at the Bar in New York tor a namber of years. He had the reputation of being @ well read lawyer, and, though not a brilliant advocate, was generally master of his case and bis briefs evinced close and indefatigable research. Outside of his profession he had a host ol friends, being « person of rare culture and most genial social qualities. HON, STEPHEN B, LEONARD. A telegram from Owego, N. Y., under date of the 8th Inst., reports as follows :—Hon, Stephen B. Leonard, the | founder of the Owego Gazette, a Representative in Con press four years, and who filled many important ollives of trust, died here this morning. piace on Wednesday. HIRAM GARRETSON. A telegram from Cleveland, Onio, under date of tho Sth inst, reports as follows:—“Hiram Garrotsou, late | President of tho Second National Bank of this city, died last evening of heart disease He was to have presented this district as the tirst delegate to the | Cmeinnatl Convention next month.” | } 1 JOSEPH P. RONAYNE, M. P. A cable telegram from London, under date of the 8th | inst., reports the occurrence of the death ol Josept: | / Philip Ron: ork, Ireland. He was a liberal und a home ruler, au | Was greatly respected by men of all classes tor bis ability and integrity. FIRE IN MULBERRY STREET, No man was bound to live aud abide by av opin- | for ts vicii o | lite, and fine him to the extent of tis whore estate. | was legal, and the Senate had no right to go behind it, | | to show that that doctrine was uct a mere political : sion hike this’ they should show the mettle of their parentage. He argued that whenever we | were considerimg any feature of the constitu. tion which intringed upon some great right frontier and in the Florida War he | iis funeral will take | yne, Member of Parliament for the cny of | jy THE EXPLOSION. Following the Trail of Sus- pected Persons. ORIGIN OF THE STRIKE A Reward to be Offered by the Railroad Company. The authoritios of Jersey City were all asiir yester- day on the subject of the explosion. Mayor Siedler, at ‘the request of many prominent citizens, consonted to Appoint commissioners to appraise the damage caused by the catastrophe and report as svon as possible. | This will be a precaution against exorbitant claims in cago the city should be sued for ; damages The Mayor intends to act with the committeo so that he may beable to advise tho different boards in any difficulty which may arise. The Board of Fire Commissioners has summoned several witnesses to appear to-morrow evening and give testimony on the subject. Chief of Police Champney and Captain Glenney, of tho Third precinct police, were closeted for three hours in the evening with Contractor McAndrew | and Superintendent Oakley, James Stanton, tho | night watchman at the eastern entrance of the tunnel, | has been summonod to appear this evening, His state- ment, as delivered to a HexaLp reporter apd published in yesterday's Heap, is provounced a falsehood | by Mr. McAndrew. It was a grout part of Sianton’s | authorities are convinced that Stanton is in possession | of important itormation. Officer Keenan, of the Third precinct, was brought before the Chief of Police, and he testified that he saw three men in the vicinity of tho explosion three or four minutes botore | it oceurred, The names .of these men are withheld from publication ‘or obvious reasons, | When asked if he had heard a pistol shot at the mouth of the tunnel shortly before the explosion he replicd in | the negative. The @®vidonce that sevoral strikers were loitering round Mr, McAndrew’s residenco during the ovening in a suspicious manner was corroborated, There is a remarkable unanimity of opinion among the dire:tors and ollicers of the railroad company on the point that the explosion was the work of a mali- cious scoundrel, Superintendent Oakley desires to | | | key of the magazime on Saturday night. | says that when the explosion —_ occurred the key was in the possession of Roynolds, the timo- keeper, who did not return it after he had taken a sup- ply of cartridges im tho after At the same tine 10 reaflirmed tho opinion that the key was perfectly safe in Reynolds’ custody. ‘THE STRIEKRS WEAKENING. Two gangs of the strikers returned to work in the tunnel yesterday, There are fifteen or twenty mis- chivvous charactere who expressed a willingness to return to work at the old rate of wages, but Mr. | McAndrow refused to admit them, ‘On no account | will the promoters of the strike be allowed to roturn,” | was his stern reply, One of the gangs which returned | was headed by & man named Keegan, who expressed regret on behalf of bis mon for the foolish step they ; bad taken, He endeavorod to intercede for others, but without avail, WHAT TH STRIKERS WANTED. Mr. McAndrew was anked yesterday to explain bis position toward the strikers, and he replicd as follows: “Op to three months ago the on the benches and headings were recoiving $1 60 aday, and the ‘muck- ers’ $1 50, The wages were then reduced to $1 #25) «per day for all the men, on wecount of the severity of the times, and the men submitted without complaint, About the 15th of April some of the mon who were experts in the ‘heading’ business applied tor an increase to $1 50. To this Mr. McAndrew consented and fixed the Ist of May for the new rate, The ‘muckere’ inade a demand for the sane rate, to which the contractor refused to accede. Now in Baltimore, where | @tupnel soven miles in we 1a being conatructed, the men reeeive vuly $125. Ihave bitherto retrained frou expressing my dissutisfaction with the manner m which a great number of the mea in my employment attended to their wock. Many a time when 1 catered the tunnel | saw the men ravning around domg noth- | ing, with their lights Hickering like fairies in the forts, | and when they saw me they would sneak behind an- | other gang and pretend they were at worl wder state Tue wanutacturers of the id rock that they are familiar with tue locality and the circum- stances relaung to the strike against the contractor, and remarked that there is “not a chance In 2 thou- sand that the disaster occurred otherwise than design ;” that rend rock explodes only under definite conditions, such ag having a fulminating cap on theend of a tuse, with confinement. If set tire to at don’t explode, but burns slowly, There must be imparted a certain degree of beat. The manutacturers have had | powder on band for four years, and tests ute regularly | appliod without showing’ any sign ot deterioration or | chemical change, Ithas Leen in constant use at the | mines on Lake Champiain for years withoat an acci- dent of any sort, At the Bergen Hill magazine it would only have been necessary to force a cartridge beneath | the foundation, with a cap and fuse attached, They be- | hove there could have beeu only a small quantity of powder on hand—not more than two cases, or 200 pounds—as the contractor had not been sapplied lately ; and as the work was nearly finished, but iittie ‘was re- quired. The workmen employed there all assumed to knuw much more than they chose to tell as to the cause of the explosion, using sly winks and signs among themselves where words might be indiseret. They are believed to have a correct understanding of the case beyond a doubt. HOROKEN SUFFERERS. Last evening a meeting was held at Otto’s Cottage Garden, Hoboken, witn reference to the question who | should pay for the damage mihcted oy the explosion in | Hoboken, Upward of 200 peopie were present. The meeting Was presided-over by Mr. Charles Spiehnan | Mr. M.D. Gerdts acted as secretary. Addresses were nade by — Matthew conklin and Samuel G, Derrickson, Jr, who — represented | the sufferers of Hoboken, They stated in substance that they would ascertain on whom the responsibility Testa for permitting the storage of the combustibles in the city limits and whether the agreement in regard to the storage of the explosive material had been violated. Alter some = discussion » Gerdts mova that committee of seven be appointed from am@hg the ‘heaviest losers, whose business it should be to ascer- tain the amount of dainage done report at a tuture | Meeting. The following gentiomen were named as | such committee:—Bernard McCioskey, Matthew Conk- hin, Patrick Landergen, D. Rangas aud Johu McDermott. | WHAT PRESIDENT SLOAN SAYS, | Areporter of the Hunatv called upen Mr, Sloan, the President of the De.aware, Lackawanna aud Western | Rasroad Company, yesterday to ascertain his views in | Tegurd to the cause of the explosion and tion | the railway company propose taking in the premises, | Mr. Sloan suid the matter of storing and caring for the powder and other combustibles necessary for the ecution of the work now going on at the tunnel w: wholly iu the hanes of the contractor, and in one Bense the company had nothing to do within He said, however, that the railroad company wiil make a thorough examination of the whole aflair, and will spare no pains to bring the guilty parties, if any such there be, to justice. He knew nothing of the | cause of the explosion other thau what had been pub- | ished in the papers; but he thought, from the fact of | the contractors having bat a deal of trouble with the strikers, that some of them-had set tire to the com- bustibies as has been charged. The most of the damage done, Mr. Sloan said, was sustained by the compan, ag all the buildings near the scene of the explusio | aud whieh were damaged more than any others, aro | owned by them, the road having been competed to buy } them to gain the right uf way, | As for the contractor, Mr. Sloan thought he had lived | up to all the requirements of his agreement, He had permission from the city authorities of Hoboken to store the powder where he did, and as he kept itin a | brick building and well guarded by a private watebman he (Mr. Sioan) did not see that mote could be done, Mr. Sloan had never beard that it was ever tound necessary to dampen the powder in question to prevent | Spontaneous combastion, In regard to offering a reward for the apprehension | 1 the guilty parties in connection with the disuste that was a matter properly belonging to the contractor nevertholess Mr. Sloan had sent word as soon as the | news of the explosion reached him to offer a suitable reward ou behalf of the company, In the matter of | suits for damages, i! any are brought by parties having | sustamed injuries to person or property, the President Was not cleur as to who would be held ‘responsible, bat presumed the contractor would. | VIRWS OF NEARKST NEIGHBORS, | AS was stated In yesterday's Haan, the residents on Palisade avenue have tor a long time been protest. ing against the magazine being left m a position | which, in the event of an explosion, would expose the | neiguLoring houses to almogt certain destruction, Mr, | Charles Roe was one of the most prominent in opposing the privileges granted to the railroad compan: nad the ‘contractors in placing the powder house on the site it occupied. He and other gentlemen stated to a reporter that the mass of explosives contained in its prectnets might be subject | to the act:on of temperature to an extent apt to mako the vicinity unsate, and, besides, the place might be | unwatehed and so be accessible at any time to parties | maliciously inclined who might gratity a nal Personal | 1 finiee at the expense of all the residents in the locality. A baker residing in the neighborhood stated that be had heard many people speak of the magazine od the disaster that mikht any cay occur from some of the workmen conspiring against the bosses, | The disposition ot the bricks and mortar of j which the = structure was bails = admitted j.of their beibg easily dis and placed, any one bent on mischief could readily att wh a fuse that | would carry destruction with it This gentleman and | At half-past two o'clock yesterday afternoon a fire | Various Inborcrs who had frequent occasion to pass the broke out on the top floor of the tour story fram te | . Damage $50, | the oxtoat of $008, No, 9 Mulberry street, led Eliea | charge. Tramps and di phy. Batage $60. "The building ‘was damaged to | shelter of is walla wad at night said that they had trequently been near late hour and bad never seen any watchman ia ikards ty the ove had ever been present mindtul had the ; to drive them ol duty to look after the powder house, The police | correct @ statement regarding the possession of the | He | ' Proper, authorities been of guarding the magazing that a knowledge of ite use was known only boda in the immediate neigh! and these, being habituated to it, bad generally overlooked the necessity < ae f the conditions of the permit gra the Fr ge the city to store “rendrock” by there been observed. The result was that no watchman was the buil as the yons of the permit pre- scribed, it was within the reach of any oue w: cared to apply its store of combustibles to purposes, On the day of the ex; Teport was generally circulated that a man James Staunton was — intrusted the charge of the and it at all hours of the n: A visit to Mr. Seer athe tytn Soares stated t luty was simply to move fi shaft underneath the ground and keep a lookout at the mouth of the tunnel. He occasion the magazine on coming to his post, and accustomed to take a look 4 {tana seo was all right, but he had not been guard over 4 <ering the night, and on did not seem to know who did officiate im pacity, ¥ BES “RENDROCK” POWDER. Last Friday Mr. J. R. Rand, of the firm of J. R. Rand &Co., the manufacturers of the “rendrock” powder, which caused such a terrible expiosion at the Bergen tunnel on Saturday night, made arrangements to try some experiments as to the value of the powder in | tearing stumps of trees out of the ground, The experi- ments took place yesterday about eleven and a hall miles from Jersey City, contiguous to Stitt’s station, which is on the line of the Paterson and Newark branch of the Erie Railway. The place selected was a clearing belonging to Mr, Thomas W. Satterthwaite, of No, 50 Clinten place, New York, who owns about 150 acres in the vicinity and who intends to make a park of the location where the experiments were tried, Mr. J. R. Rand, Mr, C. H. Scott, the agent of the com- pany, and the IHxravp reporter arrived on the ground selected about four o'clock yesterday afternoon and found a number of laborers at work digging out stampa of old trees. Mr. Satterthwaite and several property | owners of the neighborhood were also present, Stumps of ouk and chestnut trees were selected for the trial, Holes an inch in diameter having been bored into the top roots of these, Captain Scott, who conducted the operation, produced his terrible powder, which, by the way, lay in the rear paryof the buggy in which Mr, Rana, Captain Scott aud the reporter rode fur over five miles, | Somewhat to the reporter's surprise when it was taken out. ‘This “rendrock”? powder was done up in cartridges containing five ounces each, and to show | how safely it could be handled Cuptain Scott took one { of these cartridges, threw at against a rock near by and then kicked it im the air. The metbod of exploding the powder was then | explained, A fuse was brought out about two feet in Jength, and. a cap containing fulminaung powder was tixed upon ove end, which was then inserted into the cartridge, which was covered with oil paper. One of these ve ounce cartridges was then placed in the hole made at the root of ono of the stumps, The fuse was | lighted by Captain Scott, and every one presont ran for | a tree, trom behind which he peeped anxtously while the | tuse burned. A loud explosion was heard, and pieces of the stump Weighing three and four pounds each were thrown in every direction fifty fect in tho air, but nobody was hurt, thanks to the shelterig trees. | Ou examie nation it Was found that the stump selected had been TORN TO PIRCES, but not fully uprooted. Several others were tried sub- sequently with greater success. One. in particular, a tougu oak stump, was bored through to its centre, Captain Scott placed in the hole two cartridyes—ten ounces of the powder. When the experimenters re- turned after the explosion they found that it had been taken completely out of the ground, roots und all + It was then proposed to try its effect on stone. Three cartridges were placed upon an imbeddea rock and covered with clay. The fuse was hgbted, but this time the spectators ran tor the trees with unusual vigor, evidently vot wishing to have a piece ef rock uncere- moniously descend upon the tops ot their heads, But the explosion took place without any great eflect as far a3 casting rock into the ar, as fis jorce seemed to be directed downward and it SPLIT THM ROCK, 80 tbat it could be removed by one man with little trouble. To further suow the nature af this powder a quantity was iaid upon a stone and a lighted matca appited to it. It burned quietly, ke ordinary gun- powder, without any explosion whatsoever. In inot, the experiment proved pretty satisfactorily that the | powder would not explode without the cap containing | the ulminating powder, which produced the necessary concussion, It was argaed by Mr, Rand and his it that, after the exhibition made of the powder and its effects, there could be only one conclusion arrived at as to the CAUSE OF THE EXPLOSION on Savurday night—that some one connected with the work on tho tunnel and tully acquamted with the man- ner of exploding the powder must have operated on the twenty kegs stored in the magazine on Bergen Hill, A PARCEL OF EXPLOSIVES, A DANGEROUS CHARGE INTRUSTED TO A RES TAURANT KEEPER BY A MYSTERIOUS MAN, Yesterday morning, while an officor of the Fourth | Precinct was patrolling his beat he noticed Louis Kapp, a restaurant keeper, of No, 152 William street, carrying i | to te” aidewalk a curious looking bundle, which he | Seemed apout to expose im the gutter, When ho drew | } near enough to distimguish the contents of the parce! he saw with surprise that they wore largo cartridge, He ‘questioned Kapp and endeavored to prevent him | throwing in the street what must be dangerous ex- | plosives, and as the latter expressed his intention | to let them remain no longer im his house the otficer took tl aod =the paresl to | the station bon interrogated he said | that almost a ye: & tail man with u dark mus- a | tache, who seemed from nis appearance to be a mar- | iner, ‘entered his place and called for a glass of beer, | When he haa paid for the beverage he took from under | bisarm a paper parcel and left it on the counter, re- | Questing the proprietor w take care ot it Wil his re | turn, The parcel was placed on the upper sholf of 4 closet in the barroom and permitted to lie there til this morning, when, on taking it down, the paper was torn, displaying its contents. The memory of the Bor gen explosion was ripe in Mr. Kapp’s mind, and he resolved the explosives should remain no longer in nit house. The police relieved him of his dangerous ; ook and sent the bundle to th» Bureau of Combus- tibles. POST OFFICE REPORTS. Tho report of deliveries und collections in the Post | Office by the letter carriers of this city during the | mouth of April inclades the following itoms:—Carriert | employed, 429; delivery trips, daily, 8; collectiun triva, | daily, 18; registered lotters delivered, 20,289; mail let- | ters delivered, 3,706,657; mail postal cards delivered, 1,708,447; local postal cards delivered, 480,690; news | papers, &c., delivered, 004; letters returned to the Oflice, $4,821; letters collected, 4,837,150; postal cards | collected, 576,440; newspapers, &., ‘collected, 316,752, | Total postage on’ local matter delivered, $87,601 31; | amount paid carriers, $36,646 63. bd { beepaiinies | MANUAL FOR LETTER CARRIERS, Postmaster James bas compiled a manual of instrue | tions for letter carriers, which were formerly verbal, and consequently not considered imperative or oblige | atory. They were published and distributed to the employés yesterday. In addition to the general regu- lations, a number of special instructions are given op punctuality, obedience to orders, promptityde and fidelity in di vex and collections, propriety i de- Meanor and language while on duty, and neatness it | Porson and dress and the: acceptance of gratuities, 1 | forbidden, |A DRTECTIVE’S CABLE DESPATCH. | Detective Thomas Sampson, of the New York Stock | Exchange, telegraphs from London, where he is at present looking for the Gray, the following despatch to the Stock Exchange Board:—Louisville ofticers after Rivers, and Boston officers after Winslow, | and self nonptas-ed at tarn in affairs. Review | and Pall Mall Gazette sido with us; try and stir up w York papers to prees for early settlement Pres- | ent condition of things a luxury to rascals and expense to both governments, and ties our hands.” ANTI-USURY MEETING. The seventh annual meeting of the American Anth | Usury Society was held at Science Hall yesterday. Mr. Edward Palmer, the President, submitted as the | sense of the society propositions declaring interest om | money an vnrighteous tax on labor and brett in its effects upon both borrowers and lenders, | Hame, &. Heywood, J. K. Ingalls, Stephen Pearl Andrews, Thowas Davis and others took part in the | discussion. *| BAPLD TRANSIT FOR BROOKLYN. THE ALDERMEN GRANT A CHANGE OF ROUTE TC THE RLEVATED RAILWAY COMPANY. At the meeting of the Brooklyn Common Counef yesterday afternoon the Committee on Railroads, whom was referred the petition of the Brooklyn Ele | vated Railway Company asking permission to operate | thoir road through certain streets and avenues, ro | Ported th favor of granting the desired franchise. The | road is to commence on Water stroct, near the Faios | ferry, running thence to Pearl streot, t) r. 1) Willough | by street to Gold street, along thy foiior street en ue Junction of DeKalb avenue and Folion ang aroug diacomber Square and DeKalb avenue to ¢ aeenudy ut thence to Lexington avenue, to Broadway, to the cay | line, Permission is also | Commencing at the junction of Sands and Pearl streets, | and thenee along js to the New York bridge The | franchise alse accords permission to cross sald bridge given to operate a bran