New-York tribune., 1869-06-07

prise. and declared he would take the re-
sponsbty OF committing MN 70 @ .o Dstct " SftonrV
Hatnett is native of Ireland aged e years ana nyes
at No S IF'aye sgd ds 81 Se TeaTs gToceP dong
the corner OF Twenty ana m rca dng are
to be taken to Newburgh for interment
ALLEGED ARSON.
Early Yesterday morning q fire was discoV-
cred in bed the apartment of Mrs. Sarah L. bIauoH
colored) on the first floor Of the tenement NO %
rens-st II extnguished after causing d"lnaso D.
amount Of s25 Patrolman Hudson OF tbs ANNE Giles
10th coored on the COMPLIANT Mrs BranaoR be wo a
charges them with having fired tS Lang IT said
formerly cohabed with Mrs ,n accused were taken
ago they separated 1es'SrG' 'GS remanded them TO the
Princest Policestaton 10 aNa cor in bs preliminary
Fire Marshal that accused were seen to
leave ihe room OF Mrs Brandon cv had no business
L & % S,as discovered, and as lneE M NJ lo nSo9
S e Spd both bad terms eTdd WITH m MRS be5 IN Sef
the presumption Is that 1 Thew are locked up to
await further inyesuR"uoh'
REVOCATION OF A PARDON.
T. NAV he remembered that one Of the last
ex President Johnson was the issuing OF pardon
FOR Jacob and Moses Depew father and son, VINO hau
hoen convicted and sentenced for rescung seized whisky
From, the Blaisdel Eckel dstiery, while the whisky
was in the custody and possession Of u s. Revenue OIL
GERS Jacob Depew had been sentenced To Two years w
prisonmen az hard labor and fined $500 ana aosfs 20 10
The fines were paid hut. hut shorty Snd commepeod
on the sd Of March 1869, the pardon mentioned was
granted by exPresdent Johnson, but was G0hdluoheu
U se receyed at Marshal Mnrrays Office on the 5h the
same month"; and retained there until the 6th On
the eth aud while the pardon was still in the Mar;h3Is
once President Grant having in the meantime verbally
directed Secretary Washburne to send to Marshal murray
an order that Depews had not 9eeh ~ m %
their pardon Cancelled aud return their pardon 70 tne
Secretary of state telegram TO that erect was as
was returned to the State Department ana was received
there the following day Wlen as aegeu, TdeSdden'
Grant Immediately directed the pardon 10 DC cahcGleu
Uuder these facts TO test the question as 10 WhetneI
the pardon had been legally revoked VIII Tl M bo
corpus obtained requiring legal cause 10 oe sho"n
why Moses Depew is detained in custody ,..-,-. 49,,
Tie return 10 the writ made 10y the warden having tne
prisoner m custody stated that no pardon for the prison
ar ever received by him. The matter coming on for
10 whether the pardon after 10 had been returned TO e
state Department, was in fact Cancelled or hteraIy ue
dcpee of the fact can be obtained from Washington III
was claimed on behalf OF the Government that the
pardon ala not correctly state the term OF the court at
which the conviction took place stating January Wheb
as fact, It was February nor correctly state the pun
shment and fine il stating that Jacob Depew was sem
fenced years imprisonment and hned $500 Wheh'
fact, he was sentenced 10 Mo teIIs VI Cc car ', ~
pay two fines of $3.50 each and further staring that
Moses DcpeW sentenced TO one years imprisonment
and fined s. when, fact he was sentenced TO two
terms Of months each, one term to Immediately IOl
low the other and 20 pay two fines or 81 each
Counsel for Noses Depew cOneuded that the CONVICTION
mot Cr9piug il jid NOT the missatcmeut was simply
clerical error and dd vtiate the pardon The intent
Of President Johnson was the point TO be considered
aud there cOud be question that he intended 10 par
don the Depews As 70 the point raised about the nus
Statements punishment 10 could be considered Of
very little account the duration of imprisonment ana
amount OF fines, had been, substantially, correctly
stated and il would be triiDg with the liberty OF the
citizen to consider such point IN q serious hight.
The pardon correctly stated the Oense committed, ana
II was not claimed that Moses Dcpew had ever been CON
victed more than IN the United states Circuit Court
OF such Ocnse, and hence, II was papabe that the
pardon was Intended 10 the conviction and sen
fence Ia question The act OF pardon personal aud
private matter, a prerOgatiVe Of particular Presl.
dent aud dependent upon the Judgment aud
feeling Of particular President and once
granted, could not be revoked by another Prcsi-
| dent. The pardon IN this had been legally
granted and had been legally delivered, having come
into the hands of the last officer OF the Government
powered to receive IT, and who had legal right 20 de-
tain it the possession Of the parties for whom was
| intended. Argument st!ll on.
On the part Of the Government 10 was concnded that
the decisions favor Of the construction that where
a pardon incorrect in the particulars in which II
alleged this was, It was void. The Court re-
! served its decision.