The New York herald., 1879-09-12

not Under such circumstances l should only
cumb with Don Alfonso and the kspubic would be
proclain;ed, because my banner, round which the
partisus ~ the monarchea system IN general could
have rallied, would have been buried with his IL is
use talking OF foreign nOnarches. for every ono
has long known that they utterly impossible IN
Spain. My ideas about nay rights are very absolute
hat they are also tho OF my cousin, the Conie dc
Chablhord, ho has oitcn declared that he Only rec
,sAi2es me rs the lawful King OF SPAN NO ore
desiresa reeoneiliation more than do put Il ieft
he the basis OF the semi sac law established ny
Philip y. in concert with the general cortes.
Ihe GdHsoss also publishes an account or It's inter-
views ~ tn Dou Carlos, which in some places tales
ideatcay with that given above, while In no partic
ular does it differ in spirit from the preceuing..
am no consprator.' declared the Duke or Madriu NJ
its conclusions II await the course OF events anu
believe III God" II will oe seen IRON TINS tnst.
though Don Carlos is unwilling TO cede any OF what
lie his rights there Is really no formal con-
tradiction the announcement that oVeftures were
beinr contemplated which may even have been made
TO him As there s so far ns can see, no rea-
son for doubling the perfect authentcity anu eooo
faith the statements simultaneously published by
the Figaro and GdutotS
PRINCE JEROME AND THE FIGARO.
The Oydre has stated that it is formally author
lied to say that the conversation in question never
took place" Prince Napoleon 1t is said. declares
the fabrication of the story to have been an "or-
leanist maneuvre to get him expelled from French
territory" and the fact that -he publication
of such manifesto would no doubt have
exposed the Prince to this danger was from
the first reason for suspecing It's truth. 1t is.
nevertheless. felt that the opinions attributed to
Prince Napoleon in the Imaginary conversation. 'are
quite characteristic enough to have been really ex
pressed by him at some time other. Tho London
Times correspondent says:-"According to in orma-
ton cleaned from trustworthy sources, everything
in that conversation has been really derived from
Prince Napoleon; only everything was not said on
one occasion even the same epoch. No attempt
is made to assign its proper date or utter
ance TO each one OF the opinions ex-
pressed by the Prince; but the information
or the natural acumen Of the Times correspondent
enables him to declare that the arks upon 'the
Prince Impcrial's death and Prince Napoleons own
position as pretender have undoubtedly been ut
tered by him since the Prince Imperials death"
The rest told "has been uttered 1T different
occasions and at divers epochs before one or moro
persons who have taken notes OF it and have given
them the form OF logical sequence in which the
FagdroS1published them" There is little doubt
that this is the explanation OF the mystery.
The Figaro. alter producing an extract on
the subject from the Jourl des Detd concludes its
article thus:--"We maintain, for the last tme the
absolute exactness of the political programme pub
shed by the Figaro resolved we are not to attach
the slightest Importance TO dcnlals which proceed /
from second and from third person. and
which, therefore, have no other value than NAY be
given to protestations emanating from individuals
who have nothing to do with the discussion. and
who are more or less interested from party motives
in contradicting the evidence" 1t is generally be-
eved that the Figaro has the best of the argument.