New-York tribune., 1867-06-14

"A
against civilization would have been committed and by
whomt by England! Lugnbrous surprise Stupor OF
night should issue No no no! repeat yOu
not England for dk You England TO set an example
10 present the spectacle OF ife and not the exampe OF
this moment in behalf of these condemned men is to come
to the aid of Ireland it 10 also to come TO the aid OF En
erected Burke, Mcclure, Arerty, Kelly, Joice, Culi
ten TO prescribed needless to make yourselves
black robes. Look with confidence your children
moarni2g. N who iG rules England mother viii not make
HGaeriHe House, May Is, 1867 VICTOR HUGO
BOARD OF TRADE RETURNS.
The British B0ard Of Trade returns s3ntnae 20 SnUT ha
exports for April exhibit falling Off in value Of 81 SOL
among All the % pepa arcs II is Observed
that much OF the dninuon the general total Is due to
ments Of cotton manufactures there has been falling of
Of IS cent in value there has been al increase oil per
cent Ill quantity.
PRIoLEAU ACT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND
ANDREW JOHNSON.
This came before viceChancelor Sir W. p. Wood,
the 9Oh upon exceptions to the answer put IN by de-
endans the United States of America to tho cross bill
OF Messrs Fraser Trenholm Co.. which was filed for the
purpose of obtaining discovery aid OF their defense 20
the original bill of the United States. The case It will be
Tecoected has reference TO the right OF the panhs 10
States and the plaintiffs claim the cotton is met by the
that these goods were from the Dcgnnlng, anu
that having been wrongfuy acquired In the first instance
during period of rebellion against the sovereign power
of the United States the plaintiffs have no right to claim
either property or discovery from the defendants To
this the plaintiffs reply is, that by the law OF the United
States bona vacanta do not belong to the Federal Union
in which the goods found; and that
this cotton by Of It's being seized during tho rebel
to the United states but TO the State Of Texas which
the property was found II to THIS point especially tnat
former hill filed by the United States) is dreced and the
seeking to obtain from the defendants statement OF the
propositions OF American law upon which they ntehd 10
Mr. W. NJ. James, O. c.; Mr.. Kay, @. c.; Mr.. Charles
Hail. and Mr Be1jamin for the plaintiffs supported INC
Mr.. Bruee. O. C.. and Mr. WicEens for the defendants
the United states supported the answer. n,,o, 81,
serving that the nterrogatory by asking whether there
was any law OF the United States whereby money or
States forming the Federal Union for any purpose, legal
illegal, vests in such Union. called upon he defend
same thing saying that the defendant has title 70
his property will appear II the defendant will produce
not be allowed and he therefore oycrrue the
as TO the second and third exceptions the stood thus
The third nterrogatory asked whether u was not tne
In particular OF Texas, all property in the nature
Of bona vaeantia belonged TO the Goyernment OF inc
whether the Federal Union did not claim this cotton as
bona vacaDai TO this the answer was, that III lsaS
became part of the United States The def.ndaDtsde
MED that by the Law of each separate state all properly
IN the of bona vacanta belonged to the Govern
ment of the separate States, and not 10 the Federal
Union said that If the cotton might be in any senso
deemed bona vacanta, IL was bona vacanta OF rebel
lions and unlawful armed organization against the au
thoy Of the United States and that on the cessation oi
such rebellion such bona vacanta did not yest III
the State of Texas but from the beginning,
and still continued TO be, the property OF the United
States. The fourth intermediary asked whether the
United states insisted dsclamed that they had any
right or interest in the cotton as OF ,he
Confederate States OF America and whether they insisted
Government exercising authority over the state o
TO this the that the defendants claimed the
cotton being the sovereign power, In opposition 10
which certain persons In rebellion collected the same
They did clam 6r discaim the cotton as successors 20
the Government Of the Confederate States for no such
government existed did exist In the ntendment
of this court seeing that no government coma plead IN
recogaed 70 exist by royal authority They said
that the plaintiffs had right 20 call upon them 10 make
certain persons nulawfuy calling themscyes the Of
Texas did rise IN rebellion and falsely pretend In a.soo
tended quality as government this court had no power
Judicial cognzance. Now sto the third exception
was OF the OF the that the plaintiffs shond
know whether IN fact certain persons dd OF dd mol So
enty contributions from others by force OF arms OF
whether there not de faco organized authority
similar had occurred In English history IN the reigno
Charles H. and IL might he matter Of grave Importance
whether the rights claimed by the present
plaintiffs were derived from persons engaged In rebel
lion like that OF Jack Cade from the authority " set
tied government however una wfn, such as tbat oil on
yer Cromwell during the proocOrate The question was
whether or not the plaintiffs had obtained the answer to
which they entitled and his Honor thoOgnt they
had not The defendants might deny that the persons
whom the plaintiffs rights were derived ever han
authority the state of Texas. But was TO be ob
served that they had gone long way IN admitting hat
they were facto government when 1t appeared that
prisoners had been In their custody upon parole
that proclamation had been issued declaring that there
was intention of interfering with their established
rights and tat the State OF Texas had IN fac a1tef
time the authority OF the United states
On the hand it open 70 the plaintiffs on HE
first suit by amending their bill 10 admit shat dc
government called the Government OF the Confed
states, had exercised authority over the State OF
Texas and that by force OF that authority contracts
bad been entered into. His Honor quite agreed
that the United States not bound 10 adopt
these states sovereign States; but they Coud not
escape from answering the nteogaory as 10 the facts
IL TO be observed that the answer carefully avoided
stating whether this authority ever exercised. ana
that was point which further answer was required
His Honor thought II mistake IN law 70 aege that
The Court had power TO take judicial consnee
Of government and without pretending to decide
whether acts legal according 10 American
law bound TO ascertain whether Its acts were car
ried on O constituted authority and not by body OF
Rebels acting In sporadic aud ftful manner Then as
They might deny that by the law Of each Of the sep
arae States bona vacana belonged TO the government
separate States and yet the proposition might DO
with regard to Texas The general denial might
be quite true the plaintiffs entitled 70 specific
answer the particular inquiry The second and third
exceptions must therefore, he allowed three months
wOud be gwen answer, and there would bc costs
either side
FRANCE.
THE CZAR IN PARIS.
The visit OF the Gar TO tParis though Ostensbly Tor