Philadelphia

After two days of shockingly bad weather, it has become fine again. The recent rains, however, have benefited the streams in this vicinity, which had become so low as seriously to affect manufacturing operations.

Yesterday, the United States District Court met for the purpose of receiving the returns of the Grand Jury, who have finished the business laid before them. Their presentment, after referring to other business, brought before the Grand Jury, mentions that the frequent reported cases of embezzlement in the Post-Office led them to examine the building in which it is located in this city, which they think not at all adapted to the use it is put to.

The small rooms, bad ventilation, crowded state of the employers, &c., are all referred to, and a comparison is made with Post-Office accommodations in other cities. On examining the office they ceased to wonder that there were cases of plunder in it. They urged that a large and better public building be obtained.

They also visited the Eastern Penitentiary and reported favorably on it. The portion of the presentment in regard to the Christiana outrage is as follows:

About the period when the Grand Jury were terminating their labors, a great public outrage occurred in a neighboring County, involving in its consequences the grave crimes of murder and treason. Their attention being drawn to the subject by the very able and interesting charge of the District Judge, Hon. John K. Kane, they entered into its careful and dispassionate investigation. Their labors have resulted in the finding of indictments against forty persons for the crime of high treason against the Government of the United States, and other indictments for minor offenses, arising out of the same transaction.

Although the Grand Jury have felt no hesitation in performing the duty imposed on them by the laws of the United States, in presenting these serious accusations for trial, yet they cannot but profoundly regret the necessity which has led to it.

At a period like the present, in the history of the Republic, when under the mild influences of a national Constitution, predicated on the principle of recognizing, respecting and vindicating the rights and institutions of every member of the confederacy, our country has gone on increasing in great prosperity and happiness, it is painful to the heart of the patriot that such an outrage upon the dignity of the nation and its laws should have been perpetrated as that which has led to the indictments found by us.

It is to be feared that the immediate actors in this drama of blood have, if not directly stimulated, been encouraged by those from whose social and public opinion, and intellectual culture, better things might have been expected.

From such sources we should expect to be taught, that obedience to the laws of the United States, enacted by the constitutional authorities, was the first of obligations imposed on an American citizen; and that any other resistance to them than the constitutional resistance which a change of laws gives, was among the political heresies most to be repudiated by an American patriot.

It is, however, to be ardently hoped that the bloody tragedy of Christiana may have a wholesome and abiding influence on our future national career; that it may impart moderation to political zealots, impress a lasting lesson of the necessity of obedience to the public laws while they remain unrepealed on the Statute Books, and manifest that there is but one true remedy for grievances, real or supposed, under which the nation may suffer - the remedy prescribed by the Constitution.

The Grand Jury cannot close this presentment without testifying their high appreciation of the professional efforts of the United States District Attorney, John W. Ashmead, Esq., who by his great energy and ability in the discharge of the duties of a laborious term, has materially facilitated the labors of the Grand Jury and rendered most important services to the Government.
Judge Kane responded appropriately to the presentment. He said that the portion of their presentment which related to the Post-Office came to the public at a time when alleged crime against that office are about to become the subject of judicial investigation. No degree of vigilance on the part of the Postmaster could have guarded against spoliation, with the present restricted limits of the building in which the business is transacted.

The Judge said that unless the Grand Inquest had some suggestion to make concerning the matter, the Court would order their presentment filed, and a copy sent to each of the heads of the departments at Washington.

In the United States Circuit Court yesterday James McClaskey, the keeper of the debtor's apartment of the Moyamensing Prison, returned that he could not produce the bodies of Josephus Washington and John Clark, the escaped witnesses in the Christiana treason case, as the said Josephus and John were among the missing. The hearing of the circumstances attending the escape will take place tomorrow.

Wm. S. Pierce, Esq., one of the counsel for the Christiana prisoners, excepted to that part of the language of the presentment which related to the Christiana prisoners, as he thought it was calculated to prejudice his clients with the public.

Monday, Nov. 17, 1851.
This morning, James McClaskey, keeper of the Debtor's apartment of Moyamensing, appeared in the United States District Court, with his counsel, (Messrs. Robt. Tyler and Wm. G. Smith,) to answer the habeas corpus directed to him, to bring forth the bodies of Washington and Clark, the witnesses who escaped from his custody in the early part of last week. The answer of Mr. McClaskey was filed on Saturday last. It merely set forth that the two witnesses called for were not now in custody, nor were they at the time he received them in Court as directed. The District Attorney J.W. Ashmead, stated that the case was to have been heard on Friday last, but time was given to file the answer until Saturday last, and adjourned until this morning. He then read the answer to the Court.

Mr. Ashmead moved the Court that the cases of Jacob Townsend, Castmer Hanaway, and thirty-nine others, against whom bills for treason against the United States have been found, be certified to the next Circuit Court for trial.

D.P. Brown, for a portion of the prisoners, desired the District Attorney to indicate which among the prisoners were to be tried first, and when the trial should take place. He might bring one hundred witnesses to Philadelphia, and after keeping them here for days, find that the prisoner in whose case they were called to testify, would not be tried for weeks.
Mr. Ashmead stated that he would try Hanaway first, a white man, and fixed the trial for Monday next. The second person tried would probably be Jackson. Mr. Ashmead further stated, in reference to the escape of the two witnesses from the Doctors' apartment, that Josephus Washington had told another witness that he was content to remain in custody if he was permitted to ride around the city and see the buildings, as he had never seen them. The matter of escape was one of perplexity, as no United State law existed upon the subject of escape where a prisoner had been committed to the custody of a jailor. There, however, was a State law, which fixed the responsibility and he had no doubt but that he could convict in a State Court.
Judge Kane said, a question might arise whether such circumstances exist as to require this Court, sitting as a Committing Magistrate, to make an order directing it to a Court having jurisdiction, if it should be found that this Court has no jurisdiction of the case.

Mr. Ashmead thought he could convict the keeper of making a false return. Under the decision of a Court, the U.S. Marshal was not liable for an escape from a jailor into whose custody he placed a prisoner or witness. The jailor is liable for his own acts.

Mr. Ashmead differed with Mr. Brown as to the importance of the witness's testimony for the defense. He (Mr. A.) was present at the witness's examination, and he deemed him a very important witness for the United States. There was something in the escape that he could not comprehend. These people were boarded at the expense of the United States and were to received $1.25 per day in addition. The United States was already indebted to them $70 or $80, a larger sum by half perhaps than a majority of the witnesses, who were poor blacks, had ever had in their possession. It looked to him as if there must have been a corresponding motive in the escape.

Judge Kane said - It was expected that a fuller return would have been made; but it is for the keeper to say whether he will or will not ask for time to amend the return. - In its present shape, it is important that a full investigation should take place.

Robt. Tyler, for the keeper, said that he was about to move that the habeas corpus be quashed as having been issued by the wrong Court. The act of Congress of 1789, to be sure, makes sheriffs, jailors and deputies liable to the same penalties as the acts of the Legislatures of the respective States in which they are located; but the act of the Legislature of 1847, sec. 6, declares it unlawful to use any of the jails of this State for the retention of fugitives from labor, and the 8th section repeals all laws that have been altered on this subject. The act of Congress of 1789 having been altered by the act of our Legislature of 1847, it is necessarily repealed, and the jailor, is not liable to its penalties.

Mr. Ashmead said - It was altered only so far as to the putting of fugitives from labor into it; but in all other respects it was in full force.

Judge Kane - The question of the validity of the writ of habeas corpus issued by this Court, will arise at another time. It may be, that Mr. McClaskey is not responsible as the keeper of the Debtor's apartment under the act of 1847, for the safe keeping of the witnesses; but at the same time he may be as a Deputy Marshal, acting for the U.S. Marshal.
Mr. Ashmead remarked that he was willing to give the defendant time for a fuller return to the writ, if the Court would permit it, and the defendent desired it. As it stands, it needs explanation. When the defendant shall have determined his course, he (Mr. A.) would inform his counsel what he intended to do.

Wm. G. Smith, for the defendant, said the return was as full as the facts would warrant.
Judge Kane remarked that the return had been made and filed among the records of the Court, but the defendant could still amend if he desired it.
The further hearing was then postponed, to give the defendant's counsel an opportunity to consult together. - N.Y. Tribune.