The Sun.
London, England, 1866-01-06 00:00:00

THAMES.

MisainEvors AND DANGEROUS BOYS.—Edward Rind,l6,
a lame tailor on crutches, and who is the ringleader of a
gang of juvenile vagrants, Charles Parker, 15, Frederick
Rayment, 12, and Herbert Rayment, 10, his brother, were
charged with throwing stones at a bargeman named Wm.
West, while he was navigating his barge along the
Regent's Canal, near the Mile-end-road. The boys were
on the bridge near the New Globe Tavern, and a shower
of stones and gravel fell on the barge.
It was stated by Police-constable Simmons, 127 K, and
by West, that the nuisance of stone throwing had become
alarming, and that several bargemen had been hurt by the
abominable practice of throwing stones from the bridges
by idle and mischievous boys.

The prisoners, in defence, said—We only chucked mud,
sir.

Mr. Paget Why did you do that ?
The prisoners—Because other boys did it.
Mr. Paget said he would put a stop to this very danger-
ous sport if possible. Ho remanded the prisoners.
THROWING RUBBISH INTO THE THAMES.—Henry Wes-
sendorff, a lighterman, aged 50, was charged with throw-
ing a quantity of old matting into the Thames.

George Reed, an inspector of the Thames police, was
surprised yesterday afternoon at perceiving a large quan-
tity of old light matting coming up the river off the Tower
with the flowing tide. He rowed down the river and
caught the prisoner in flagrante delecto throwing old and
useless matting from a barge into the river. This matting
sunk when it got wet, and got about ship's moorings or
the paddle-boxes of steamers and caused great obstruc-
tion to the navigation.

The prisoner said he was cleaning out his barge and put
the rubbish on the gunwale ; it fell overboard. He would
not throw anything into the river—not ho, surely; ho
would scorn the idea.

The magistrate did uot believe him, and fined him 10s.

THE RADICAL AMERICAN CONGRESS. The
American Congress presents the extraordinary
spectacle of a Republican Legislature in conflict with the
executive power and at variance with the 'public opinion
of the country. To explain the anomaly it will be only
necessary to contrast the demands of peace with the
exigencies of war. For the latter purpose resolute men
and vigorous measures were indispensably required, and
the most uncompromising principles naturally prevailed.
For the former a different agency is needed, and
fanaticism becomes an obstacle instead of a reoouree.
The Lower House of Congress represents by a very strong
majority the Republican party in the United States, and
such a constitution of the Assembly would have been
exceedingly useful in supporting a war policy against all
opposition, but it is evidently less adapted to the task of
conciliation and reconstruction actually before it. The
war is over; the South is conquered, and the Southern
people, according to the report of General Grant himself,
are at length prepared to fulfil what, a few months ago,
was the most ardent hope of every American breast, and
re-enter the Union. It happens, however, that the work
of compromise now devolves on those who were the most
determined enemies not only of Southern insurgents, but
of Southern institutions, and these politicians have gone
the length of refusing an compromise whatever. They desire
apparently no "reconstruction" at all. It is enongh for them
that there is no division of authority within the limits of
the Union, no independent Confederacy confronting the
original Republic. For the rest, they have no objection
to see the States of the South in the position of the un-
organised provinces of tbo extreme West ; indeed, they
think it rather advisable, for the present, that the
United States should not be considered as including the
States recently in rebellion. The result of the policy is
that the great object of the war is for the time as com-
pletely lost as if the Confederates had been victorious. At
this moment the Union is shorn of eleven of its ancient
States. Secession itself, if successful, could have pro-
duced no worse curtailment. The only difference is that
in the latter event these States would have formed an in-
dependent Power, whereas they have no organisation at
all. They are still out of the Union as completely as ever.
There can be no difficulty in believing that this policy is
directly opposed to the present views of the American
people. If the policy of the Republicans expressed th 3
national convictions while the South was in arms, it does
not express them now that the South is utterly beaten.
The people of the States as a body are neither vindictive
nor fanatical; they take no very keen interest in the posi-
tion of the negro, so long as actual slavery is abolished,
and they are far more desirous of seeing the old Union
restored and the works of peace recommenced than of
witnessing the ascendancy of any extreme principles.
Such, we are credibly assured, are the opinions prevailing
in the Northern States, and they have hitherto been judi-
ciously adopted by the President.—Times.