The Sun.
London, England, 1868-04-16 00:00:00

LAW AND POLICE.

WHIT IS PERSONAL LUGGAGE?-At the Derby County
Court a cause was tried which the judge said raised a
question of great importance both to railway companies
and passengers. The present action was brought by Mr.
Henry Hudston, a sharebroker, residing at Nottingham,
against the Midland Railway Company, to recover
£2 4s. 6d., which sum he had paid under protest at King's-
cross Station, London, for the carriage of a toy called a
spring horse, weighing 781 b., which they wrongfully
charged as merchandise, he being a first-class passenger,
and entitled to 1121 b. luggage. He also claimed for de-
tention from 3.0 p.m. to 5.35 p.m. at King's-cross,
expenses and business loss, by being prevented getting to
Nottingham to answer his letters that day, £2 2s. The
horse, he alleged, if not for his own personal use, was for
that of his family.—His Honour said that the case was one
of great importance, and the real question was what was
personal luggage. He would give his decision at the next
court.

KILLING AN OLD MAN.-At Worship-street Police-
court, Mr. William Blythe, a provision merchant, was
charged with having caused the death of an old man,whose
name is at present unknown. A witness named Valen-
tine stated that he was passing through Dalston-lane,
where the prisoner was driving a horse and cart at a
furious rate. When the vehicle was about eighty yards
from witness, an old man apparently 63 years of age was
in the act of crossing the road, when he was caught by the
shaft of the prisoner's cart, and knocked down and run
over by the near wheel. The defendant pulled up as soon
as possible and conveyed the deceased to the German
Hospital, where be died shortly after his admission. The
accused was remanded for s, week, in order that the surgeon
might attend, but was liberated on entering into his own
recognisance to appear.

CONSPIRING TO DEFRAUD.—At the Lambeth Police-
court, Alfred Charles Street, and George H. Smith were
charged with conspiring to utter a forged bill, with intent
to defraud Messrs. Martin, wholesale stationers, Cheap-
side. In January the prosecutor advertised a still and worm
for sale, and Smith treated for the purchase of the same,
and proposed giving a bill for £l5O on his brother-in-law,
Street, who, he said, was a person of independent means.
Street gave his endorsement at thirty days, and when
due the house where he said he resided, in
Lorimer-square, was found to be empty. A Mr. Alfred
Charles Street said he was leaseholder of the house in the
square mentioned, and he knew nothing of the prisoners.
The accused were committed for trial.

ASSAULTING A SERVANT.—At the Surrey Sessions, Mrs.
Emma Stroud, a widow of independent means, was in-
dicted for unlawfully assaulting Mary Ann Price. The
case occupied seven hours in hearing, and at the con-
clusion the jury returned a verdict of guilty. The accused
was fined £lO.

A well-informed Liverpool journal mentions a
report that the Queen will visit the Earl of Derby at
Knowsley on her way to Balmoral about the middle of
May.

In case Major Green Thompson declines to con-
test Cockermouth, it is understood that Mr. J. Henry
Fawcett will be the Conservative candidate. Mr. Fawcett
is a member of the Northern Circuit, and connected with
the county.
THE DRAMATIC COLLEGE.—The Prince of Wales
has, it is said, expressed a wish to Mr. Sothern that one of
the old comedies should be played for the benefit of the
Dramatic College, the cast to include all the principal
artists in London. Mr. Sothern is understood to be busily
engaged in making the necessary preparation.
DEATH OF SIR WILLIAM ABDY.—On Wednesday
evening Sir William Abdy died at his residence in Hill-
street, Berkeley-square, at the great age of 89 years. The
venerable baronet was taken ill on Friday last, and subse-
quently, as might have been expected from his advanced
years, never regained strength.

We are informed, says the Bath Chronicle, that
the vicar of Frome will not comply with the decision of the
Dean of Arches in the St. Alban's and Teignmouth cases,
and that he is resolved on continuing the Ritualistic prac-
tices prohibited—namely, the mixing of the chalice, the
elevation, and the tensing,
THE PORT OF WORKINGTON.—At the last meet-
ing of the trustees of the port and harbour of Workington,
Cumberland, it was decided to transfer the harbour to Lord
Lonsdale. The trade of the port has been decreasing, and
expensive improvements being necessary to prevent the
trade from further decaying, the inhabitants do not feel
inclined to incur the liabilities.

THE NEW PALACE OF WESTMINSTER.—In conse-
quence of the immense number of visitors on Easter
Monday and Easter Tuesday, who viewed the Houses of
Parliament, far exceeding in number those in the Exhibi-
tion year, it is understood that the Lord Great Chamber-
lain has decided that the "Houses" shall be open to the
public on Whit-Monday and Tuesday.

EMIGRATION FROM THE EAST OF LONDON.—On
Wednesday 150 people, including men, women, and
children, embarked on board the St. Lawrence, screw
steam-ship, lying in the Victoria Docks, bound for Quebec.
The men were chiefly blacksmiths, fitters, sawyers, and
labourers, and all of them in the prime of life. They had
lived in the East of London, principally in Poplar, and
had all suffered more or less during the long-continued
distress. None of them, however, had received parish
relief.

CHURCH PATRONAGE. —The Guardian considers
that the following circular, addressed to parish clerks of
Government benefices, and marked " private," deserves to
be made public :—" 53, Clapham-park-road, S.W., April
9. Sir, in the event of any vacancy, by resignation or
otherwise, in the living of —, I should be much obliged
by your giving me the earliest possible information of
such vacancy, and in case it were secured, as it probably
would be, for a friend of mine if the present Government
were in office, I would take care that you received a gra-
tuity of not less than £2O for your trouble. The expense
of any telegram you might send when necessary to save
time, as well as postage, would be cheerfully paid by
myself.—l am, sir, yours faithfully.—WlLFßED P. You-
TAME."

MR. DISRAELI AND JUDAISM. —The Jewish Chro-
nicle, a very high authority among the people whose views
it advocates, has the following remarks in reference to
the new Premier and Judaism :—" There seems, indeed,
to be a singular mistake as to the relation of Disraeli to
Judaism. Some Jews censure him as an apostate, and
urge his apostacy as an instance of tergiversation. Some
Christians scoff at him as a Jew, with a singular disre-
gard of all they owe to the Hebrew race. Now the fact
is, that in plain English, Disraeli is neither an apostate
nor a Jew. Ile was born of Hebrew parents. His
father, Isaac Disraeli, the author, and his mother, a scion
of the Basc-ni, were members of Sephardim Jewish
families. his grandfather and grandmother, indeed,
rest in the Portuguese cemetery at Mile.end. Benjamin
Disraeli was admitted into the communion of Israel, but
his father, thinking fit to quarrel with his synagogue,
failed to teach his child Judaism. Qne day Rogers, the
celebrated banker-poet, happening to visit at Isaac Dis-
raeli's house at Hackney when Benjamin was about five
or six years old, and regretting to find so intelligent a youth
without religious instruction, took him to Hackney Church.
From this event dates his absolute and complete severance
from the Jewish communion. He became a Christian,
1, great genies was lost toyl!",

(From the Anglo-American Times.)

The Impeachment question was fairly stated in
the Times last Wednesday. The argument will
mainly hinge on the wording of the Tenure-of-Office
Act passed ou the 2d of March, 1867. By yester-
day's telegram from Washington it appears that on
Thursday Judge CURTIS, in opening the defence,
denied that the Act was applicable to the offence
of removing Mr. STANTON from the War De-
partment. The Tenure-of-Office Act provides that
" every person holding any civil office to which
he has been appointed by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate . . . . shall be entitled
to bold such office until a successor shall have been
in like manner appointed. . . . Provided that
the Secretary of War . . . shall hold [his] office
for and during the term of the President by whom
[he] may have been appointed, and for one month
thereafter." All the Secretaries of State were
similarly exempted, the design being not to give
them a longer tenure of office, but that they should
vacate their posts with the President who brought
them in. The object was to deprive the PRESIDENT
of the power of dismissing civil servants appointed
with the consent of the Senate, without that consent
being secured for the dismissal. If the PRESIDENT
desired to remove an officer he would have to send
the name of his successor to the Senate for ap-
proval ; and if the Senate opposed the PRESIDENT
and favoured the subordinate, each name as it came
up would be rejected, and that subordinate would
retain his office in spite of the PRESIDENT. Among
the exceptional cases, however, is the one upon
which the main charge against Mr. JOHNSON is
grounded. The point is the meaning of the " term
of the PRESIDENT." The Times, while admitting
the difficulty of arriving at a true interpretation,
inclines to the opinion that it must be restricted to
the time a person does serve, and not to that period
for whichlhe PRESIDENT was elected, and it gives
these two reasons :—" First, because the language
appears to connect the Secretary personally with
the PRESIDENT ; and, secondly, because on the
other interpretation we should be landed in the ab-
surdity of acknowledging that a President might be
removed from office after impeachment without
affecting the position of his subordinate officers."
The Tenure-of-Office Act was a piece of legislation
directed against ANDREW JOHNSON. It is not in-
tended to last beyond his term, and can scarcely,
therefore, be discussed as any ordinary measure.
The intention of the Act was well enough under-
stood, and no lawyer can argue in the face of the
men who passed the measure that they meant one
thing when they well know that they meant the
reverse ; but the interpretation it can bear is another
question. It is stated in reply to Mr. JOHNSON'S
argument " that he did not appoint Mr. STANTON"
—that he sanctioned the appointment by his tacit
acquiescence in the tenure of the office by Mr.
STANTON, after the expiration of the month follow-
ing the assassination of Mr. LINCOLN, which was
tantamount to a nomination. But the Times con-
siders that Mr. JOHNSON has a second and more
substantial answer to the Tenure-of-Office Act in
his denial of its constitutionality, and consequently
of its validity. This is in truth the standard around
which the war will rage. The PRESIDENT'S plea
that he disregarded the Act as a step towards chal-
lenging its constitutionality before the Supreme
Court appears to the Times to be a successful
answer to those who allege that the PRESIDENT is
bound to execute the Act so bon as it remains on
the Statute Book uncondemned by the Supreme
Court. It adds that if Congress were to pass an
ex post facto law, any one aggrieved by it could re-
fuse obedience to it, and justify his refusal. It is
not contended by unprejudiced men in the United
States that the PRESIDENT has not the privileges
accorded to other citizens, nor do they doubt his
legal right to test the constitutionality of any mea-
sure ; but, like other paid servants who dispute
their master's regulations, his right to do so is out-
side his office, and ANDREW JOHNSON will
be afforded every opportunity of testing any
act as a private citizen of Tennessee, but
not as PRESIDENT of the United States. Sub-
ordinate officers are told that it is their business to
obey first and complain after, and paid officers of
the Government who refuse obedience even to an
ex post facto law which aggrieves them, may very
properly be dismissed, while acknowledging their con-
stitutional right of an appeal to the Supreme Court.
No Government can allow its servants the power of
dispiting the laws. It was unfortunate for ANDREW
JOHNSON that the lenure-of-Office Act referred
solely to himself, for, as the only man who could
be aggrieved by it, he alone could dispute its con-
stitutionality. To do this he must infringe it, and
infringing it he knew meant Impeachment. Now
Impeachment, he was also aware, must precede, not
follow, the decision in the Supreme Court on the
constitutionality of the Act. It would be an
absurdity to suppose that the Senate who passed
the Act over the PRESIDENT'S veto by the two-thirds
majority, with all ANDREW JOHNSON'S arguments
on its unconstitutionality before them, would now
acknowledge the Act to be unconstitutional. The
position may be considered an unfair one for the PRE-
SIDENT, but so is a pugnacious boy's, when his anta-
gonist has his head in Chancery. People who will fight
to the bitter end are sure to come in for some nasty,
and perhaps unfair, blows. The Times considers that
the Impeachment will turn upon the construction
and constitutionality of the Tenure-of-Office Act.
But, from the reasons we have advanced,
we believe that the constitutionality of the
Act will be put out of Court. The issue will
hinge on the question, whether the Act was in-
fringed ; and if this be conclusively proved, we
would give very little for ANDREW JOHNSON'S chance
of remaining in the White House. " The appoint-
ment of General THOMAS," the Times says, " was
confessedly provisional ; and if the removal of Mr.
STANTON be successfully defended, the Acts depend-
ing upon it will be justified." Now it appears to
us that if Mr. JOHNSON could remove a Cabinet
Minister and substitute an officer to act provisionally,
he would exactly reverse the position in which Con-
gress desired to place him when it passed the
Tenure-of-Office Act. The game, in truth, would
then be in his own hands, for he might turn out
the very Minister the Senate might desire to retain
to fill the post with a creature of his own, such as
LORENZO rHOMAS, then send a nomination to the
Senate which he knew the Chamber would not
sanction, whereby his provisional officer—that is,
his creature—would remain in office so long as he
chose to carry on the game. By this means he
would exactly turn the tables on the Senate, and,
however badly worded the Tenure-of-Office Act
may be, we can scarcely suppose it could be thus
construed. On the 3d inst. the Managers produced
several of ANDREW JOHNSON'S speeches, in which
he denounced the action of Congress, in support of
the last two Articles of Impeachment ; and on the
following day further testimony of a similar
nature was produced when the case for the pro-
secution was closed, and the Court adjourned
till last Thursday, when, as we before stated, the
defence opened. The victory of the Democrats
in Connecticut will have an influence favourable to
the PRESIDENT, but we have no means now of
judging to what extent. The nation continues
quietly to await the issue ; and few will care a
straw how soon ANDREW JOHNSON retires to pri-
vate life. What really concerns the people is the
reckless disregard of Congress to the Constitution.
ANDREW JOHNSON, deprived of power, will avert the
necessity for such measures, and his removal even
on this score would be beneficial. It has been un-
fortunate that the very time the full strength of the
Government was most needed, should be that when
it was neutralized by the Executive and the Legis-
lative branches pulling in opposite directions. Even
supposing that the PRESIDENT'S plan of Recon-
struction was better than that of Congress, it would
be preferable to have the inferior scheme, well
executed, to having both thwarted. It is on the
grounds of expediency that ANDREW JOHNSON will
hereafter be condemned. No man in a high posi-
tion has the right to oppose his will and opinions
against all with whom he has to work, and to en-
force his decisions, however, in his belief, desir-
able. The world is full of wrongs to be re-
dressed; of gross and palpable wrongs, bearing the
letters clearly written on their faces—yet states-
men are often compelled to accept these wrongs,

and when they approach them to do so cautiously,
however much they would like to take a sponge
and obliterate the word. Such, for instance, was
the Domestic Institution in the South—such, for
instance, is the Irish Church Establishment.
This Mr. JOHNSON was incapable of doing. He
may have intended well, but as a statesman he
had no conception of the word concession, and no
man can be a statesman who does not know how
and when to concede. We daresay that the argu-
ment will be in favour of Mr. JOHNSON, that he
will be able to justify his course with sound and
convincing reasoning ; yet history when it broadly
discusses the events of the period, will, we feel con-
vinced, condemn the folly of a PRESIDENT who ou
assuming power was backed by a strong majority
in the Legislature, and who turned this majority
into a bitter opposition by acting on principles the
reverse of those on which he was elected, and who,
while destroying his own political career, managed
materially to damage, the interests of those, he in-
tended to befriend.

fillE OVERLOOKED ISSUE.

---o- --

The London Press this week has been unusually
busy in discussing American subjects. Its tendency
is to regard the PRESIDENT as to victim of an
honest endeavour to shield the Constitution against
a bullying and usurping Congress. The question of
Impeachment being discussed on its abstract merits,
as a rule, the argument tells heavily in his favour.
To understand the case it is necessary to possess
some knowledge of American politics ; and we fear,
without this, Englishmen may drift into as great
errors as during the Civil War. A superficial
knowledge is very likely to lead to a wholly erro-
neous impression, and Europeans, before forming
and expressing strong opinions, should dive below
the surface, and endeavour to gain an acquaintance
with the facts. For instance, on Thursday, the
Standard wrote an article, the gross unfairness of
which is apparent only to the uninitiated. There
are few of its readers who are aware that while de-
nouncing in Billingsgate the errors of the Spectator,
it was itself wholly mis-stating the circumstances.
Broadly reviewing the position the facts are simple.
The most material event, indeed, that from which
all the others took their rise, is, as a rule,
overlooked in the quarrel between the PRE-
SIDENT and Congress. Instead of discussing
who struck the first blow the English papers aredis-
cussing who struck the last—that is, the burglar
who assaulted the respectable citizen for his watch
has in the police court turned the tables by proving
that eventually the citizen was the assailant, knocked
him down, and otherwise ill-treated him. If we
come in at the fag end of a fight the wrong side
may appear to us the right, particularly if the for-
mer bullying foot-pad is then being well whipped.
Now the last event of the great drama which com-
menced when the Southern members withdrew from
Congress, and shot and shell from the United States
arsenal were hurled against United States troops at
Fort Sumter, is the Impeachment of ANDREW JOHN-
SON, President of the United States. If people
think they can understand the merits of the quarrel
without considering its origin in the Civil War they
come in at the fag end of the fight, and profess a
knowledge they cannot possess. Congress is ac-
cused of working outside the Constitution—so does
the citizen when he knocks down the burglar act
outside the law. Were the Southern States acting
legally when from the national guns they dis-
charged Uncle SAM'S shot against Uncle SAM'S
troops? The position is a difficult one, for these
States having been thrown without the pale
of the law, the question is how they are to be
brought back ; and on this point the battle has been
fought. ANDREW JOHNSON has his own policy to
accomplish this, in which he is a strong and firm be-
liever, and that policy may be the correct one—a
subject now immaterial to our discussion. Con-
gress has its policy, in which it as strongly and
firmly believes as Mr. JOHNSON does in his. Being
antagonistic, the one or the other had to give way, or
both to yield something. But neither chose to give
nor to concede. Mr. JOHNSON, having the enor-
mous power left him by his predecessor, thought
himself the cock of the walk, and truly believing
that the nation was swinging round to the principles
of the Democratic party, made his celebrated tour,
on which he publicly announced his intention of
kicking out the Rump Congress, which—but for
that tour—he might have done. So gross and out-
rageous was his attack that he not only alarmed
Congress, but he alarmed and disgusted the people.
The result was the instantaneous arrest of the Con-
servative tendency in the nation, and a great
strengthening of the party of the Congressional ma-
jority. The gauntlet then thrown down by ANDREW
JOHNSON was taken up, and the effort of Congress
has since been to trip up the PRESIDENT and turn him
out of the -White House. Laws were enacted
against him, intended to strip him of power. Pro-
minent among these was the Tenure-of-Office Act,
so framed that he could only test its Constitu-
tionality by infringing it himself ; yet, by infring-
ing it he became li ble to Impeachment. Most
people held such laws to be unconstitutional, more
especially those that, on his account, Congress
directed against the Supreme Court. Few unpre-
judiced men approve the course of Congress in
these enactments ; but many of the most enlightened
and the most unprejudiced in the United States
entirely approve of the object of Congress while
condemning its action. The Reconstruction policy
of ANDREW JOHNSON would have brought back the
Southern States precisely on the old footing, and
the first step, when the men who had been the head
and front of the rebellion again came into power in
the South, would have been to re-enact slavery.
They would not have done this by declaring the
" Domestic institution" re-established, but by a
series of Acts. tying negroes to localities, and
making labour compulsory. Now the Northern
party who had fought for a distinct object were de-
termined to reconstruct the States, so that they
would come back wholly purged from slavery.
The irrepressible nigger is now, as he has ever been,
the cause of the trouble. Heaven knows, poor
fellow, it is no fault of his; but we find Congress
in a nasty-looking place choking off the PRESI-
DENT; and, at the first glanes, being inclined to
condemn its violent and even illegal action, we de-
sire to understand the reason for its decided course.
When the eyes of the indignant spectator are re-
moved from the present phase of the quarrel, and
he looks back over the battle-field to the beginning
of the fray, he sees on what noble and magnanimous
ground it is that Congress stands. The question
simply resolves itself into the old struggle for free-
dom. High-handed and usurping as Congress is,
it is the champion of the rights of mankind, of the
very first principle laid down in the Constitution
of the United States, that all men are born equal and
entitled to the pursuit of happiness ; and although
Congress may be infringing that Constitution in
detail, it does so to preserve the spirit. The sophistry
with which the ability of Southern leaders has
covered all their acts imposes on the English.
Who ever hears what the real issue is of the quarrel
between Congress and the PRESIDENT ? It is sim-
ply the elevation or the degradation of the Negro—
that is, according to the light of each party. We
are not so arrogant as to announce positively that
the Congressional plan is even the better adapted
for the end it has in view, but the deep conviction
of most honest men in both Chambers is that if
ANDREW JOHNSON'S policy had been carried into
effect, the " Domestic Institution" in a new guise
would have been the result. Is England sincere in
her professions of sympathy with the African race ?
If she be, awl understands the true issue, how can
she condemn the best friend the Negro ever had
in this ardent and self-sacrificing struggle to main-
tain their right—and that friend is the successive
Republican Congresses of the United States ?
ANDREW JOHNSON may be all that the Standard
asserts. He may be a pure, disinterested, single-
hearted patriot, defending at all personal risk and
cost the rights of the weak against the lawless
tyranny of the strong; the permanent guarantees
of liberty against temporary domination of a despo-
tic assembly ;" nevertheless, those who take a broad
view may see the subject exactly reversed, and any
ordinary person who uses his judgment is competent
to form as correct an opinion as the writer in the
Standard. He considers the weak the Confe-
derates lately in iNbellion WO may consider