New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1870-05-20

bcgln 10 rear ne mas cOInIitVu ID ki"'O
error and worse than error. The evidence
against him is slight, and its truthfulness open to
every suspicion. But his failure to deny his own
connection with the alleged conspiracy strengthens
the proof against him, which word from him would
overthrow cannot yet believe he was privy to any
plot for assassinatng the Emperor If any such plot
there was But whatever the fact may he, there Is,
repeat nothing in my relations with FlOurens that
/ have the slightest wish to conceal L knew, OF
course that man who had just escaped from Paris
| after an attempt at revolution, could not receive
letters openly addressed to him. Nothing was more
natural than that he should ask leave to have his
correspondence sent to my address, and nothing more
natural than that should assent. knew no reason
why should deny to him the courtesy should ofer
to any other acquaintance. Some letters came under
cover TO me- in the indicated In his letter 10
Beaury who wrote them. What their purpose or
contents were never knew, nor cared to know. IL
was no affair of mine, and gave it no thought.
1t can hardly be necessary for me to say
that on other matters / was equally ignorant.
If Flourens had any revolutionary plans, they
were not confded to me. If he had any connection
with the alleged plot against the Emperors life, IL
also was absolutely unknown to me. If he used my
address to carry correspondence on such SUD
ject of which there is not sufficient proof he abused
the privilege given him. have only to add, on this
point that came to Paris last Sunday to write two
or three letters to THE TRIBUNE the Plebscitum;
that lodge at well known hotel, where also am
well known that neither before the appearance OF
the Beaury letter nor since have varied my usual
way of life in Paris; that my being here is known to
a great many people, and that am quite ready to
answer any questions which NJ. lie procureur general
GrandperTet may desire to put. Thus far he has not
seen fit to ask any, although there seems to have
"a 10 dot rTnin IN n
ITCHY of the Beaury letter in which my name occurs.
and which, because of the address given in it, am
inclined to believe genuine partly genuine letter
from Flourens.
There remains the affair of the bombs; but NJ.
Grandparents account is substantially the account
already published in the Paris papers, and given you
at length in former letter. The police who allowed
Rousse the contractor for the bombs to escape have
not vet found it convenient to rearrest him. Our
knowledge of the bombs is therefore, Just where IL
was. If they had any connection with plans for
Revolution the most plausible theory have heard
suggested is that they were meant to be used from
behind barricades against attacking columns OF
troops.
Opinion in Paris does not seem to he much changed
at any rate is not convinced-by NJ. Grandparents
statement The taste of the people whose official
duty it is to believe has, perhaps been made easier
~'N'
something more is necessary.
/ may quote, from the Rappel, NJ. Edouard Lock-
roys delightful cyogism-if not as type ofopinion
vet for its trenchant wit. 1t is NJ. Grandperret who
speaks:
As for the culpabity OF Flourens, establish it
by an irTefutabe arguments
SYLLOGIsM.
Major. premise-Every man who tries to mako bombs
tries to kill the Emperor.
Minor premise-Beaury did not make bombs.
Coneimsion-Hence, Fourens intended 10 assassihate
the Chief Of the State
That Ia why have convoked the High Court.
Probably for the purposes Of the Plebiscitum the
Government has done the best it could. After the
Plebiscitum it may less for opinion hear this
afternoon that the old bad days Of rigid repression
and vindictive punishment are to return; that the
press above ALL is to be held in stricter subection
NJ Olviers letter to the Emperor with its insolent
calumnies against the whole Republican party and
press gives counenance to the report. should ike
to comment on that letter, except that l have no
more time for mine. 1t might well have been
written by Rouher except that Rouher is far too
adroit to have exposed himself to the damaging 1c
tors which NJ. Ollivier's needless rhetoric invites
g. W.