Latest Intelligence

    Source citation
    “Latest Intelligence,” New York Daily Times, 21 February 1857, p. 1.
    Newspaper: Publication
    New York Times
    Newspaper: Headline
    Latest Intelligence
    Newspaper: Page(s)
    Date Certainty
    Meghan Allen
    Transcription date
    The following text is presented here in complete form, as it originally appeared in print.  Spelling and other typographical errors have been preserved as in the original.

    By Telegraph to the New-York Daily Times.

    Magnetic Telegraph Co.’s Offices—4 Hanover st., and 181 Broadway.


    The Report of the Investigating Committee—Decided Adverse Sentiment.


    Private Bills in the Senate—The Ocean Telegraph—The Dallas-Clarendon Treaty.


    Special Dispatch to the New-York Daily Times.

    WASHINGTON, Friday, Feb. 20.

    A very decided sentiment adverse to the course of the Committee of Investigation is becoming general. It is a striking fact that nowhere in their whole inquiry does there appear one question tending to elicit a favorable explanation. They seem to have been bent on accusing and condemning. Appointed to inquire, they have proceeded to try. Their verdict in rendered, and they ask the House, as its only duty in the premises, to execute.

    It is to be feared that partisan feeling is at work, it may be unconsciously to gentlemen themselves. Its expression inadvertently found utterance yesterday in a taunt to the Republicans, while Mr. BENNETT was advocating his resolution, and opposing the reports and recommendations of the Committee. It fell out from the Southern Democratic side—“It is the way you treated BROOKS.” The same in substance was reiterated to-day in respect to Mr. KEITT. In the precise proportion as this spirit is developed, will the accused be benefited.

    It is significant in this connection to note the summary of the testimony in the reports of the Committee, with the whole testimony as taken from the witnesses. It will be seen that the Committee never understate, but in important instances the reverse. Partial, as well as colored or distorted statements, damaging to the accused, therefore, often appear.

    The almost malignity towards Mr. SIMONTON has root in the same cause. The course pursued and proposed in respect to him is but a manifestation of a general governing of party intolerance. Such is the sentiment among intelligent and impartial persons here.

    Whatever may be the belief as to the existence of Congressional corruption—and “moral convictions” of the truth of its existence are very general—it is deemed clear that the Committee have pursued a harsh and oppressive course, have transcended their duty, and will not be sustained by the House. The moral sentiment of a majority of observers here has been absolutely shocked by the attempt so made to strike down citizens honored as Representatives of the people. Under our institutions, such proceedings for the ascertainment of guilt, or the punishment of the guilty, it is obvious, will not be tolerated.

    The resolution moved by Mr. CLINGMAN, permitting the accused members to file, and have printed with the reports of the Committee, explanatory statements of matters affecting them, was adopted by a vote so decided, as to show that another spirit than that actuating the Committee, prevails in the House. The objections of Mr. DAVIS to that course had no influence. The counter statements thus invited will be filed, and trials at the bar of the House demanded.

    The Tariff question engaged the House almost the entire day. Mr. CAMPBELL moved a substitute for the original bill, to which Mr. LETCHER offered an amendment. Each was passed, under the operation of the previous question, and LETCHER’S amendment was rejected and CAMPBELL’S substitute adopted, by a decided vote. That substitute, as the Tariff bill of the House, was at once sent to the Senate, where it was ordered to be printed.

    In the Senate many private bills were passed. The Ocean Telegraph bill slept, but only, however, to be speedily awakened, and become a law, as amended by the House. The Dallas Treaty has permission to sleep on until the 4th of March.

    HON. J. GLANOY JONES declines a place in the new Cabinet, preferring to take his chances to be made the leader of his party as Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means in the House. His choice, to be alive rather than be buried, is thought well of. This may make a place in the Cabinet for Indiana. Tomorrow all will, probably, be disclosed.

    The sickness here is mitigating, and the city is rapidly filling up for the events of the 4th of March. The Nationals, as a grand centre, is becoming crowded with notabilities more or less notable, and presents the lively features of some great commercial exchange.



    WASHINGTON, Friday, Feb. 20.

    The Senate, in Executive Session, yesterday, agreed to reconsider the vote by which the consideration of the Dallas-Clarendon Treaty was postponed till the 5th of March.

    It is stated among the friends of General CASS that he to-day received a letter from Mr. BUCHANAN, formally tendering him the appointment of Secretary of State.

    HON. J. GLANCY JONES has written to Mr. BUCHANAN, requesting him not to place him in the Cabinet. He did so in consequence of opposition in certain quarters in Pennsylvania, and in order to relieve the President elect from any embarrassment upon the subject.

    The Senate have called upon the President for all letters, if any, which may be in the possession of Government, from Judge LECOMPTE in vindication of his judicial conduct in Kansas. This is preliminary to the consideration of the nomination of Judge HARRISON in his stead, which is set down for Monday.


    WASHINGTON, Thursday, Feb. 19.

    Edward Field, plaintiff in error; vs. C.B. Ward, defendant in error.—This was an action on ejectment brought by C.B. WARD, the plaintiff below, for the recovery of lot No. 461, in the City of San Francisco. Both parties claimed under the Act of 26th March, 1857, the first section of which declares that all lots situated within certain boundaries, known as “beach and water lots,” are relinquished to certain occupants. Section second granted the residue of these lots to San Francisco, to be sold or leased; and section third provides that “deeds properly authenticated may be read in any Court in evidence, and shall be prima facie to recover.”

    Plaintiff exhibited title from San Francisco, and showed that lot sued for was within the first section of the act, and also within what is known as the “Kearney grant.”

    Defendant set up first, that the Kearney Grant was not within the meaning of the act; secondly, plaintiff’s title was not recorded as required by the act, and thirdly prior title, and possession 5 years prior to commencement of suit. Defendant exhibited title from the Alcalde of San Francisco,--confirmed by town council.

    Mr. Justice WAYNE delivered the opinion of the Court:

    Outside of the set of 26th March, 1851, neither party had title. Plaintiff charged defendant’s title to be fraudulent—the Alcalde having no right to make the grant and the town council having sated corruptly in confirming it. The Alcalde it is true had no power to make grants, out the titles were ear marks to designate the lands intended to be granted by the act. After determining fraud on the part of LEAVENWORTH, the court below left the other title (plaintiff’s) to the jury, to determine whether the Kearney grant was within the meaning of the act. If plaintiff, WARD, had no title he could not recover, and yet the fraud in FIELD’S title was made the turning point, and jury found for WARD. The Court should have passed upon the legality of both titles, and the finding of the jury is of no weight. Fraud vitiates, but it is only when properly before the Court for consideration.

    The question for the Court to determine is, whether a grant of land given by a sovereignty can be questioned by a third part. We hold that a patent cannot be inquired into collaterally. The act makes the prior record of title requisite. The Kearney grant was, therefore, also imperfect, and WARD should not have recovered.

    Judgment reversed.

    Same vs. Rucker—Involving the same principles, was similarly decided.

    Robt. Taylor vs. H.T. Carryl.—The Chief Justice orders a reargument in this case, on the following points:

    1. Whether District in Admiralty could make sale on no other process than that in the hands of the Marsbel.

    2. If sale could not be made, was the sale made absolutely void, or only voidable? Case continued.

    In case b1 the Court was divided, and no opinion.

    Case No. 189. The Michigan Central Railroad Co. vs. The Michigan Southern Railroad Co.—A motion to dismiss the cause was argued by Mr. WALKER in support, and Mr. Joy in opposition.

    LEWIS B. REED, Jr., of New-York, was admitted to the bar.

    WASHINGTON, Thursday, Feb. 19.

    Cases Nos. 19 and 20.—Edward Field, Plaintiff, vs. Pardon G. Seaburg et al. Judge WAYNE delivered an opinion, reversing the decree of the Circuit Court of California, with directions to award a venire facias de novo.

    No. 51.—Paul Mayo, Claimant of brig Clement, Appellant, vs. Matthew Hunt et al. The decree of the Circuit Court of Massachusetts was affirmed with costs.

    No. 29.—Adolphis Durant, Appellant, vs. Samuel Lawrence et al ; and No. 61,--Robert Taylor, Plaintiff, vs. Nathan Carryl, who survived WILLIAM J. WARD, continued to the next term for argument.

    No. 125.—John D. Braciss’ Administrators, Appellants vs. The branch of the Bank of the State of Alabama, at Mobile, Appelloes. Argued for Appelloes.

    No. 14d.—McCultech et al vs. Root et al, is the first case for argument to-morrow.
    How to Cite This Page: "Latest Intelligence," House Divided: The Civil War Research Engine at Dickinson College,