Newspaper Page Text
THE NEW YORK HERALD.
WHOLE NO. 6430. SUNDAY MORNING, APRIL 2, 1354. PRICE TWO CENTS. HIGHLY INTERESTING ROM ALBANY. Tax UQVOX BZU. Veto Message of Governor Seymour. EXCITEMENT IN THE LEGISLATURE. Tl? Measure Finally IUM io the Senate, UNUSUALLY SPIRITED DEBATE, Ac., Ac., &c. The Veto Message of the Oorernor. Kxicumn OKAMiiE t, ) Albany, March 31, 1854. > Hon- Sanford E. C.'kjbch, President or the Senate At I do not approve of the bill entitled '? An Act for the Suppression of Intemperance," I return it to the Senate, in pursuance of the directions of the constitution of this State, with my objections to its becoming a law. I bare given to the hill the respectful consideration due to the importance of the subject and the deliberate action of the two branches of the Legislature. I cannot sign the bill, for I beli-ve its provisions are calculated to injure the cause of temperance and Impair the welfare of the State. Anticipating action on the subject of the bill by this Legislature, I took occasion, In my annual message, to suggest, that "it was surrounded by difficulties and em barrassments, and unless legislation in regard to it was judicious, it would increase the evila it was so important to prevent; that any measures adopted should be framed so as not to conflict with well letlled principles of legis lation, or with the rights ot' our citizens. The bill ia unconstitutional, unjust, and oppressive iu its character, and subversive of welt settlod principle.) of legislation. The people, irrespective of their different views of the use of intoxicating liquors, when advised of it* provisions, will regard them with surprise and alarm. The sale ot strong or spirituous liquors or wines, in quantities less thau five gallons, is now prohibited, and offenders are liable to be fine<l or imprisoned. To this general rule there are two exceptions: The supervisors and justices of the peace in each town, acting as commissioners of excise, are authorized to license per sons of good moral charactcr to keep taverns where in toxicating liquors can be sold, provided they have accom modations to entertain travellers; and a tavern is abso lutely necessary at the placo where the applicant proposes to keep the same. The Commissioners are also autho rized to grant licences to grocers to sell strong and spiri tuous liquors and wines, but not to be drank in their thops. houses, outhouses, yards or gardens. The statute further imposes restraints upon the sale of iutoxicating Jiouors by licensed tavern-keepers <>r grocers, to appren tices or minors. Violations of the terms of these licences are punishable by tiue or imprisonent. The evils which spring from the use of liquors in shops and drinking houses, are mainly owing to the fact that the presout laws are not enforced. In addition to this, the excise officers are elected by the people of their respective cities ?w towns, and the citizens of each locality can prevent the issuing of all licent-os, by electing those who are op posed to granting theiu. The people of this ^tate are divided in opinion with re qord to the propriety of using intoxicating drinks. One portion desire the passage ot' a law which will prohibit their sale, while another, embracing those engaged in various pursuits and professions, regard their use as proper, although they doplore the evils of intemperauce. These differences ot opinion have given rise to earnest discussions, and have led to the formation of societies <ind associations to check intemperance and to persuade all to abstain from the use of intoxicating liquors. The bill which I return proposes legislative interfer es. It is designed to compel abstinence, by severe fines and penalties, and by directing seizures and destruction of liquors kept contrary to its provisions. The ninth section of this a:t directs ? Sec.!). Whenever complaint on oath or affirmation shall be made in writing to say magistrate, by any twe or mure credible persons. residents of the town or city where the Mupiaiat is made, that they bate reason to believe, and do lelitve, that iutoxicating liquors are kept and deposited, intended fer sale by any perton not autnoriied to sell the tame in any place whatsoever within said city ogAown. or upon any water adjacent thereto, or within five hundred yards cf the boundari ? thereof, which complaint shall state the faots and circumstances en whieh such belief is found ed, it shall be the duty of such magiitrate, if he be satis lied that there is probable cause fcr such belief, forthwith to issue a warrant e?mmu>diag the officer to whom the same ? kail he directed, with proper ateiitance, forthwith dilUent lyte search MeUptaoe in the day time, and to seize all in Torieatfi? liquors r?uu4 therein, together with Ibe vessels within which the same are contained, and to store the aatns ia some safe and convenient place. to I e disposed of as here iaatter provided. But no warrant shall be isaned under this 01 the preceding section, to search any dwelling house j^wliich. or in part of which, a shop is not kept, except upon pfeof that intoxicating liquor has been sold therein by the joenpant thereof, or with his oon-ect, within one month be fore the time of making stioh complaint. Every warrant so issued shall dosignate and describe the place to be searched. The eleventh section of the Bill of Rights asserts '-that the rlglit of the people to be secure in their persons, houses. papers and eflects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, ought not to be violated : and no warrant can issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be search ed, and the persons and thing* to be seized. " The same declaration is contained in the Constitution of the United State*. This provision of the Constitution of the United States, an?l declaration in the Bill of Rights, were designed to prevent the issuing of 'general warrants." They were suggested by the controversy in Great Britain growing out of the resistance of the friends of civil and constitu tional liberty to the exercise tif protended prerogatives of tho crown. This controversy called forth able exposi tions of the rights of citizens, and excited profound in terest in Great Britain and its dependencies. The principles advocated by those who wore the bold ind eloquent defenders of the colonists were impressed upon the minds of the men who framed our political in stitutions. I The decision against "general warrants" by Lord Camden, whose memory will ever be held irreverence by the American people, for his defence of these rights, and for his great abilities as a judge and statesman, was received with tho utmost enthusiasm by the friends of constitutional liberty. He declared -'that to enter a roan's house under cover of a 'general wan-ant,' in or der to procure evidence, was worse than the Spanish In quisition ? a law under which no i^ngli?hman would wish to live an hour. It was a most daring attack upon the liberty of the subject." The warrant to be issued under the ninth section of this bill is obnoxious to all the objections urged against ?' general warrants," and eorfli ts directly with the de claration in the Bill of Rights. It is not directed against any person, and, thorefore, is a nameless war rant. It authorises officers, in tho^rtwcnce of tho owner of the premises, or of the property to be seined, to search wherever malice or their suspicions may lead them. It does not describe the thing to be seized by quantity, quality or insrks. The complaint may only charge that certain de scribed liquors are kept contrary to law; but the war rant must command the officer forthwith diligently to search the place designated, '? and to seize all the intoxi ating liquors found therein." These liquors may be en tirely different in their character, and may be owned by a great number of persons under varieus circumstances. In ca?e complaint is made because one cask of liquor in a warehouse, canal boat, cr other vessel, was, in the belief of thl*complainant. designed for sale, by a person not mthori/ed. tho officers would be compelled to seize all other liquors it contained, although they should be the proper!? of different owners, ar.d there should be no pre text nor complaint that they ?*re deigned for sale. It is made the duty of the officer to seize tliem, ejeu if it be perleutly apparent to him that they are designed for shipment to another Stat*. or foreign market, or are im ported and remaining in the original packag -s. Many of these objections apply with equal force to the eighth section of this act. It Is no answer to these objections to fny that the ar ticles cannot in the nat ure of things be more particularly described, or that artifice will be resorted to to conceal the n al owners of the liquors anil their intended uses. The inadequacy of all human taws to reach and punish of fences of "every grade, can never be obviated, and furn ishes uo reason for overthrowing the great principles of ju*tii e, or the safeguards of the constitution. To resort to this would be to create a l'ar greater evil than that for which a remedy is sought. New York was for some time unwilling to accede to the union of the States without amendments to the Nutional Constitution, which, among other thing*, should shield the persons and pro|ie. ty of our citizens ii-ainst unreasonable searches and seizures. When it finally adopted tint constitution, its assent was aecom psnied by a resolution that it was in full confidence that the proposed amendments would be engrafted upon it. This was done, and our State boul 1 be the last to vio liste principles adopted in accordance with its demands. The directions for seizing intoxicating liquors, con tnined In the laws of Massachusetts, are similar to those of this bill, and in most instances the wrao terms-are nsed. The distinguished Chief Justice of that State, in a recent and elaborate opinion, held such proceedings to lie in violation of the Kill of Rights of m.m? ichusetts, which contains deelarat ions on tin subject of searches similar to thnt of New V. rk It is true that the hill of Rig its in this State has not the authority of the constitution; ' ut with the law making power it is entitled to equal re;mrd It consists ot' de . T rillions of great ind universally concede I truths ? political axioms, which constitution* and laws are de signed to maintain and defend. This act Is more open to the objections urped against "general warrants" than the provisions decided in Jias-aciinst tts to 1?- Void* It is declared, in both acts, that -no warrant ahull lie issued under Ihlsor tha preceding section to search any dwel ling house except upon t>r<>oi thai intoxicating liquor ha* Ix-eti sold therein by the occupant, or bv his consent, W. tliin one month Ik fore the time of making such com plaints." The protection this elsnse iimiaiently gives to the home* of our citizens is prac tic illy destroyed by tho fol eatraorU.uaiy rule ?I eyidvues 1&U '11 tU? 32<i aec'ion of thin bill, and which i<* not contained in the law of Massachusetts ? S*o. H. Upontbc trial of tty cinaplniit tr civil action commenced under any provuioa of (hie act. proof of the sale of limner (hall he sufficient to ruitain an avnrment of an unlawful nalc Whenever an unlawful eale i* allowed, 1 and a delivery proved, it shall uot he naO'Hsary to prove a payment, but auch delivery ehall b? sufficient evidence of In other word*, when an unlawful sale or liquor* is alleped, it ii sufficient to convict tho accused of a inisde ' ineanor to subject him to fine ami impitsoninent, and to forfeiture of his pro|>erty, nierHj to show a delivery of liquor an act legal, and, under some circumstances, com mendable. Reverting every principle of evidence aud juatice, proof that.* citizen haa given and delivered to another any intoxicating liquora, although it may be for mechanical or medicinal purpose*, by a monstrous legal inference convict* him of a crime. Thus, without proof of guilt, he is condemned, union* he can prove hia inno cence. What security have our citlaena againat the in vasion of their homea, by officers (who are directed, without regard to the presence or absencc of their occu pants, diligently to search their dwellings.) whon the proof of an innocent art is sufficient to convict of an offence, and to place hla home upon the level of the shop or warehouse? Thia act la highly penal, and the searches which it directs are designed to seize pro perty, and to procure evidence of a violation or intended violation of the law. The doraicil of the citizen has heretofore been consi dered so sacred, and lma been so fortified and defended by the principles of the common law, that it is familiarly ?po!;enof as his castle: it cannot legally be searched, although the occupant in charged wKh murder or trea son. Under the most tyrannical sovereigns of England this principle hss been preferred by the Court*. The only deviation is in eases of searches for stolen property, which are allowed upon the ground that they are de signed to restore it to it* rightful owners. Kveu this ex ception has been regretted by emiucnt jurist*, and ita propriety doubted. What cannot legally be done to detect the darkest and most dangerous crime*, ia directed by this bill, to pro cure evidence of guilt, and to forfeit property for acts which are now legal, and the criminality of which is ad journed over until the close of the present year. The 18tn, 14th, and 17th sections of the bill, directing the forfeiture and destruction of liquors, are unconstitu tionpl. It is declared in section 6, article 1, of the con stitution, that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due procesa of law." Section 9 of the bill directs the officer, when a warrant is issued to search any place, "to seize all intoxicating liquors found therein.'' If complaint ia made that a sin gle cask in a vessel, custom or warehouse is unlawfully designed for sale, all other intoxicating liquors in such vessel, custom or warehouse, must be seized, although | there is no complaint or pretext that they are to be used i for any unlawful purpose. These are usually stored in large quantities in commercial towns. Any person plac ing a single cask of intoxicating liquor, which is unlaw fully owned, in a placc where such articles ar? stored, subjects them all to seizure. This may be done by malicious persons with a view to Cfinsi their seizure, or to take advantage of this unguard ed law to get possession of property with fraudulent de- \ signs. nr ^Wne'eizure, if the owner., a re unknown, I or cnnnot bo found, and their places of residence are not known to the officer, he ia directed to deliver a notice to i any person ol i mature nge, residing in the plac? where the seizure is made, or ir none such can be found, bv posting I the notice upon the outside of the premises, and in two I conMpicuous places in the city or town. Section 13 directs that the liquors shall be stored for two TieeUs alter service and posting notices: after which "iTV? KUe,F-r0r "f,such wrvice and poating, such liquors shall ^ thC mHtfiStrate' ttnleM ** Section 17 of the hill direct* that the mngigtrste. when W OW ; *h"" iwe a warrant command ing that the liquor so seized and forfeited be dostroyed. c* . 'i ctl?n3 the citizens of this and other '? fj *repent from all parts of this great country to be stored in our commercial towns. The summary measures against intoxicating liquors, authorized bv this act i7i? w^?' 10 ?ros\fraudH *nd malicious proceed u gs. Two weeks notice by posting would be entirely insufficient to non-resident owners. In the case of liouors seized because they are in the same rXl ot w.rifioSS with others, and forfeited and destroyed because the h n0t kn?wW of their He'7"re. cannot be said owners b*Je, ndepmed of their proinrty <by due r recess of law." No complaint has ever been made with regard to it, nor ia it within the contemplation of the complaint on which the Taw " thi?Ue"' "k1 Wll'1h ''*weeP? " into the net of the law there n-.ay be no charge, pretext or belief that it is designed for any unlawful object; no inquiry or investi of the rfl? V?ade b>" officer to ascertain the facts i ? Pr?l,er,7 18 ???**?, and because it is found on the -nine premises with other li.(u?rs intended imputed* fleDce " forfeitml aBd ^'troyed for this fort?nate]y receives notic*. his con stftul'oral rights ar?- not protected. The Supreme Court h?''rr 'n^l decided that the terms "duo process of law. u-ed ,n the constitution, "cannot mean less than f in'titi,,ed,and "OnJucted according m '?*"-/ r?rm* and solemnities far uacertaiiilnz guilt or determining the title to property. It will l,e seen that the same measure of protection against WUUtive encroachments is extended to iifr, liberty am! proue-tv and if the latter can he taken without foVenscMH^and judgment, there ia no s^cur'ty for the others. " l.-^lw''"! * rrCl~riX <*Du"t be destroyed by mere 1 fill1 Prr>v',: ' * that " any parson may. at luy time l.e , , f rt ititre, pr*p?nt a claim to the property neizeil ????! the ttaaiatratc *hall hold a cou: t for the Eriil of rlaitr. an -t ill a l Lear the proofs and allegations offered in aopport of and against the aame, and iSles. the SVimanfc fllinil sLow by positive proof to the ti&tiifai'tinn i?f *>.. t ?"chj "'inor is of foriign production aVd ha, been imported under the laws of tlie United States nu,i in th:?*wlth' "d u ??talned la ?he oViId5a*Mck n aes in *hicb the same was imported, and in cinantitie^ not less than the aws of the Uaitft State, priori*, aid that ?.e MMt was kcrt ty him for lawfal purwaeV or that th. "T'VY la* fnHy 4jt? his possession and was kept by him . n iu purposes, the *ame shall he adludaed lor&ita,? and udcrr.-nt .ban rendered against th? "ufmant for thi f.'*j *nd delault of payment thereof, execution ahull he issued thtrefcr, hK&mst Lis property and nerson." Although the seizure and forfeiture is highly penal in its rlmract?r. and no ebarge is made that the proper# is i He gaily held, yet against all principles of evidence y' '* that the law has been violated. tliak the owner ia guilty, and his property lia to confiscation, unless he can ;'sh+w bv nositivA proof that the -?me was }cept for lawful purpoeee!" Thi-. malfes It a question of intent, of which it U impossible to give positive proof." 1 There is nothing in the act requiring the complainant to appear against the owner so that he may be informed of the true nature and causc of the aocusation in truth no complaint may have been made against lii'ni or his JETS* 1 U n0t re1uircJ ,h?t ??c shall be confronted with tlie witiiesseg against him: his guilt is aMumed True, it is provided that the magistrate or jury shali hear the proofs and allegatirfcs offered in support of and againn the claimant, and that witnesses maybe com pelled Hi atteud; but until the claimant has first shown by positive proof hia ownership ef the property its lo galitv, and that he kept it for lawful purpSf the liw require# no allegations, and no proofs against him tiie Whfch St ,erCOmi! te b>" th^ oriK'"al ? oaths, upon which hi? property was seized by warrant. Reversing the order oi every other known proceeding, he stands convicted until liia innocence is proved upon charges made ana.nst other parties. 1 onarges This is not, due process ol law. Thisp?int was recent , l.y decided in the supreme Court of Mass?chuset:s wh.-re tl e same-iuertlon ?u involved. The language of the Bill of I-ights of that State i? not as decided against such forfeitures as the constitution of New York. * ^ other objections I shall urge against the bill apply to proMsions which aro not contained in the laws of Van ofany gtl'teC''r ti)j0Uld th'y ^ '0UUl1 iimon,f the "tatutes Thev are oppoaed to all well settled princijdes of com mon law. dangerous to the liberties of our citizens and repugnant to the religious and moral sentlmenes 01 thn c mtniin. ty. .Whatever differences of opinion ihere ihhv I li?r( r a tt|,Uw' Prohibiting the sale of intoxicating I oUhls tlii Wil' b" n0n0 Wi,h "Ome features Sectic n 19 pro> idea that? i white, j wfUin?' up, n wblch his t,4ii?ris lonn^d 'X'uJ maaMrate. ^y any p. r.<.n that be haajnat caui to an^V t aa.l doea ?n?p?. t and ttelieve, tl at any ofteare a?ai"n.t^.C , pruvlnun ot this act hai haen committed, and that some other per?on er ptr.ona, named by him, hai h?v,t,?? l?dg? of tie rommlaslcn of fuel, offence, fn.-h mair|jtrat? x't I bt tk??kth.r. h, pmbakle ,an,e to h?II.Vt??t ,n'h wr I n , r shall forti, With la, ne a aummona to the per Ir ' , ? , commai.din* him or them to ap I < ar "t i crc lnni at a place and time nm in.<re t. an [?? rt.u. there alt. r. to l? de,i/i,,ted. in such "umitona, to uTflfv fa relatif i. t< inch comidalBt te'tn> in Section 21 directs that: ? Whenever any p<?ra?n ahall nppearor t>e Hronzht W?r? "a " P/ovit',H '? ?he two preceding section. H th ' ?L*"flh m?K"trat?to adminiater tu aiicli ,er.oa an oath <>r aArinaiiua. ami to eaauiini! him f, r ths puri.i ? of aaec-rtaiainK whether any offence had l.een om 1 ii Jfainit any provlilon of thla act If .u,'h Ser?n ?hall refuse to !?? awrrn < t affirmed, or to ???w'r anv nn? ?ion r< rtfaeat to aueh examination, he ahall he ommlVfa l to the comtnc.n iall, there to remain until he ahall "on to he .worn <;r affirmed or to an.wer. If 0p?n Mi'l, ,.Tmi naticn it M?a]! appcur tliat any inch offenco i m i.e. n ?<.** n.it'e.l within the jurisdietlor. of fuch maturate, it ihall Te for iae *r"H of thi KVr aril the rean h of hla prfml ?? a' horeinift- r provided In order to subject any citizen to thia Inquisitorial pro creo ng. it is only necea-ary that a complaint should be nia.le. which need not state no:- prove that nu nlTonce liaa bron committed, but only aiiapicions and 1h? fact? t.pen wl "h thev ere founded, loauthoricothe mairi.trato j to b. int' '''tore him, by summons or attachment the por ! iaving ?om- knowledge ol a imputed ni.en.e. lh)% h#? may do, alt l ough no t rocc vlinm h ve | been ccmmenced arainst persons or iroperfv nn trial ?nding. no rig t to the s^ice.of counsel^ or open l.ear I lu1:: ? ihn i,r;in brought UJ. ^ t' ; 'i f ' mo*t iii-ely to be the offender himself- vc* Jm f" h!m, sur" ""h'nrn mr? iry. In thlseearch after an tdlcnce If tli > o zfrr :? to h* ?; tnan nor ?lo>?r ?h?re to remain until be consents 1^i?2\atlia?!?Lrf !,h0. derlarei ! tit ;z;;, / crim,n1'1 in er exi niriatlon. he would still bo compelled i? nmdo ierhn bvTcT -' / k? " Is mart< je..nn> bj he aci . if he admit* that he )iaa mm nutted an eii. nce it Is made tlio dutv ??-- - - ? ? 1 toarreat him and search his prefni"^ If this hill .should liecomo o hw. this iinnreeadon 1 1 imTn in:: w,r; 'r.:,prvprt?' ,o ",o pJrp^.., would be w^4too'n?iu tmnnony ia ciranu4cjimw i Milts, not growing out of thin taw, but arising out of the ordinary transaction* ot' Ufa. Proceedings to tyrannical and unusual would teud to strife, bitteruoiM and resist ance of the laws There are marly four tlnu -and local magistrate* be fore whom these inquisitorial proceedings may be had; there (ire to be no limitations of their power* ,* they are not to be subject to the rul*** of evldenoe, nor restrained by the rights of witnesses, they may aak such question* ah their dborotion shall dictate, and compel answers by imprisonment; the character of the nvestigatlon and the imprisonment are determined by the discretion of the Justice, The eloquent denunciations of a distinguished juriit apply with peculiar force to thia proceeding ? "The dia cretion of a Judge is the law of tyrants. It is always un known; it is different in different men; it is casual, and depends upon constitution, temper and passion. In the best, <t is oftentimes caprice; in the worst, it is every vice, folly and pension to which human nature is liable.' Section 26 of this bill provides that "any person may maintain an action to recover any money paid or the value of any services, or labor rendered or done, or the value or possession of any property, assigned and con veyed, in payment for liquor sold, contrary to the pro visions of this act, by the husband, wife, parent, child, ward, apprentice or servant of the plaintiff, and in every such action the person by whom such money was paid, services or labor rendered or done, or property assigned or conveyed, if not a party to the action, or the husband or wife of the party, shall be a witness to any matter pertinent to such action. Any married woman nuy commence and maintain any such action in her own name, w ifli or without the consent of her husband." Under section 29. another action may be brought bv the juroe parties, "against any other person who shall soil any liquor contrary tq. any provision of this act, to the hushsnd, wife, parent, child, guardian, ward, apprentice or servant of the plaintiff, or wlioeliall intoxicate or cause such person or persons to be intoxicated, and it ahall not be necessary in any such action to aver or prove any special damage, but the court or jury before which sucli action is tried shall assess the damages of the plaintiff therein; but any special damage may be shown. Auy married woman' may maintain any such action in her own name, with or without the consent of her husband." Those two sections create rights of action heretofore unknown; under one, the persons designated can recover money they have never paid, and under the other main tain an action for damages which they have never suffer ed. The sympathy which is naturally and justly extend ed to suffering wives and children, and the indignation excited by the belief that the seller of liquor has often turned a deaf ear to their entreaties, mint not lead us to create evils on the other extreme, nor to be blind to the unlimited effects of these sections. They do not make proper discriminations. They would permit the wife, parents, and each of the children of a temperate, intelli gent and virtuous man, without regard to their number, age or condition, to recover money which never belonged to them, tnd which may have boon paid to an unlicensed seller for liquor purchased for mechuni ical. medicinal, or even sacramental purposes. After his children, parents, or his wife have reoovered the amonnt paid to the vendor, the latter may again be sued by each of the described persons nnder the 29th section. In this action it is not necessary to show any violation of law*, except by the intendments consequent upon proof of the delivery of Intoxicating liquor. In the multiplied suits which may be brought under this section before a justice of the peace or other magis tri^e, it is not necessary to prove or aver any special damage, but upon mere proof of the delivery of intoxi cating liquors, the jury are authorized to assess damages at their discretion. The defendant is liable to be deprived of his property by a prejudiced or excited jury, without having any of the usual protections which our laws atturd to the most dangerous and hardened criminals. He is de nied the benefit of the intendment that he is innocent until he is proved guiltv. Under our laws, in certain cases, juries arc authorized to give vindictive damages where the violation of the law is shown by actual proof, and the character of the transaction is brought to their knowledge; the evidence given in such oases affords some guide to their judgment, and an unjust verdict may fee corrected : but under this section they may have before them only presumptions and intendments of guilt, and nothing to restrain their pnssions or prejudices. This section creates new rights of action, and abolishes salu tary modes of proceeding, and the best principles of evidence. I It is not the due process of law required by the con j stitutlon of the State. The suits under this section, and ' all other suit*, civil and criminal, authorized by this bill I to be tried subject, to the provisions of the thirtysecond 1 section, arc not trials in any sense in which that term i? understood by our constitution and laws. There are other objections to the twenty sixth and twenty ninth sections. The domestic relations are deemed sacred, not only by the laws of the land, but by the religious and moral sentiment of our people, and tlieie are but few who. under the influence of novel ideas and theories, seek to impair these relations. The public sentiment would approve df a law which should give a right of uction to the wife and children of intem perale husbands and father*, against those who should sell them intoxicating liquors, and which should subject the defendant to exemplary damages, if found guilty after a fair trisl. But the" lawful head of the family should not be deprived of the respect and author ity due to his position until he has forfeited them by his misconduct. fruits brought under these sections, where the father is the buver and a temperate man, necessarily imply that he is tfif instigator of a dishonest prosecution on the part of his wl'e and children, >r th.'t lie Is to be made an I object of contempt by tin in. It t*v>e? his home s scene I of s< rife or s pine* where fraud is plotted. In order to ' msintain suits li is not nee^jmrv to show that the father - I> au intemperate man. incapable of managing his af ? fairs, or thai the liquor was purchased for the purpose ! of drinking: lie in not oven guilty of an offence when he bvys. It may be said the seller should not violato the j law under any . circumstances But the worst of crimi j nals must not I'e deprived of the protection of the prin i ciples of justice. This act multiplies penalties, lines, forfeitures and actions against the allege*] offender, and at the game time deprives him of the constitutional right of presumptive innocence. The thirty-third section of the bill directs that li no person or corpoiation shall knowingly carry or transport I any liquor from place to place within this State, or from any place without this State.* to any place within this i | State, and no person shall knowingly deliver any liquor ! to any other pernon ov to any corporation, for the pur I ! pose of being so c?rrie l or transported, unless the n.xme ! ! and place of business or residence of the persor. to whom j ( the same is to be conveyed, together with the wonts | ' intoxicating liquor,' are distinctly marked on the out- I i side package in which the same is contained." j This regulation cannot be of great importance in car- ' rying out the object of the law: but it would, in connoc- j tion with the provisions for the seizure of liquor, inflict 1 ! a serious blow upon the great carrying and commercial : interests of tb? state of New York. .As there would always be a liability on the part of the ' citizens of other States to overlook or neglect these police ; r> vulatlons. they would create constant embarrassment to our domectic commerce. The law recognizes the ' I legality and propriety of manufacturing, transporting and using intoxicating liquors. Hut if It subjects them to penalties and forfeiture upon light proof, or for im puted offences, which are proved by the mere fact that they are found in vessels or store houses, with liquors illegally held, It will divert from our canals, our railroads and our cities, not only this particular commerce, hut all that is connected with itr I Tl.e citizens of other States will not separate their | diversified productions when they send them to or I obtain them from the markets of tiie east. If we drive | off a ] ortion of their commerce, their convenience and i interest will be promoted by withdrawing the whole, and j i k eking other channels which are free from embarrass j nients. | The idea prevades the law that unusual, numerous, ami severe penalties will lead to iU enforcement; but all I experience shows that the undue severity of laws defeats i their execution. After the excitement which enacted them has passed away, no one feels disposed to enforce thcin; for 110 law can be sustained which goes beyond public feeling and sentiment. I have omitted i<ny notice of many defective provi sions in the bill, ns they might be corrected by future legislation. I have confined my objections to those which aie radically wrong, which are inconsistent with the principles of justice, with the rights of persons and of property, and which so pervade the ldll that they cannot be stricken out without destroying its entire fabric. The bill is wrong, because it directs unreasonable searches ? f the premises and dwellings of our citl*'*i? under circumstances calculated to provoke resistance. It deprives persons of their property in a manner pro hibited by the constitution: It snbjects thera on mere suspicion ot knowledge of a suspected crime to an in quisitorial examination. l or ore act of alleged violation of law a citizen may be proceeded against as a criminal, may be fined or im irisoned, his property seized and forfeited in civil suits by various parties with whom he has had no dealings, and be tubjecUd to the iaymi nt of damages 'vheu none have been averred or proved. To all these prosecutions he infly be subjected, without the benefit of trial in the in ?1 and judicial meaning of that term. The constitution makes it my doty to point out the ob jectionable features of this bill: but I owe it to the sub ject, and to the friend* of the measure, to add the ex presslc n of my belief that habits of intemperance cannot be cxtiriwtcd by prohibitory laws. They are not consis tent with sound prlncij les of legislation. Like decrees to regulate religious creeds or forms of worship, they prowke resistance wh> re they are de-i? nod to enforce obedience. The effort to supj res* intemperance by un nrosl and arbitrary measures, proves that the Irglsla ture is attempting to do that which ia is not wlthiu its proviso* to enact, or its power to enlorce. This is the error which lies at the foundation of this bill, which distorts its details, and makes it a caueof sngiy controversy. Should it become a law, it would ren der its adipcates'odious as the supporter* of unjust and i arbitrary enactment*. It? evils would only cease upon itsvcptalcr when it becones a dead letter upon the statute book. Judicious bgislation may correct abuses in the manufacture, sale, or use of intoxicating liquors: it can do no more. 'lie cxpeiience of all nations in all periods, demon ; strate? that temperance, like other virtues, is not pro ; dnced by the lew makers, but by the Influence ofcduea | tien mrrallty, and religion. While a conscientious discharge of duty and a belief tbat explicit language is due to the friends of this bill, require me to state my ejections to the measure in de | cide-l terms It nn'st not be understood that I am indiffer ent to the evils of intemperance, or wanting in respect and sympathy for those who are engaged in their sup pies-icn. I 'regard intemperances a fruitful source of ? da Hon ?nn misery. I look with no favor upon the ' and practices which have produced the crime and !ng which arc constantly forced upon my attention ;.o fainful discharge of official duties, After long an 1 I .jest tcflecUon, I *i?j satisfied reliamo cannot he placed upon prohibitory laws to eradicalo these evils Men may be persuaded ? they canuot be compelled ? to adopt habiU of temperance. I concur with uiauy of the earnest and devoted friend* of temperance, in the opinion that it will hereafter lie c?um for regret, if the interest which ia now excited in the public mind upon the Habjeet should he diverted from ita proper channel* and exhausted in attempting to procure legislation which ouit lie fruitless. _ HORATIO SEYMOUR. TELEGRAPHIC. The Final Defeat of the BtU. MPKUL OOBKtWONDKNOK OP TUB IflW TOE* HBfUI.O. Albany, April 1, 1864. The Senate this morning proceeded with the considera tion of the bill for the suppression of intemperauoe. the question being, "Shall the bill pass, u>t withstand - ing the objections of the Governor. ' ' The vote was ayes 14, noes 13. So the bill is lost, two-thirds of tlio Senators present not voting in favor of it. nmom excitement in toe senate? the GOV ERNOR'S MMH SPIRITED DKI1ATK? TUB AS SEMBLY DRSSRTKD ? FINANCES OP TRINITY CHURCH, ETC. Aiaakt, March 31, 1854. There were exciting times iu the Senate In 1851, when the dornn Senators resigned to prevent the passage of the Canal bill. There were highly interesting scenes about the time Senator Beekman put his foot upon the aspira tions of ex-Governor Fish. There were animating and interesting periods when the sceues of thi secret session of 1842, even openly discussed, but neither on those oc casions produced any excitement within a hundred per cent approximating to that experienced in the Senat chamber this morning. Before the hourarrived for com menting business, Urge numbers of spectators ha ' gathered in the chamber. IJeut. Gov. Church called to order, the prayer wan made, the journal read, and numerous petitions presented. While standing and select committees were reporting bills, the confusion became so great and the lou<flaik so intolerable, that Senator Barr was compelled to rise and call the attention of the Chair to tit* fact that it was impossible to hear anything read at the Clerk 's desk; and, rather than continue in this manner to do business, he more l to take a recess until four o'clock. Mr. Bishop also stated that it was impossible for him to hear a word, in consequence of the continu.il buzzing about the chamber. The Chair ordered the officers to preserve order; when, after a few mo ments, Mr. Burr withdrew his motion. About this time Lieutenant Governor Church called Mr. Dickinson to the chair, who in a few moments vacated it, and installed Mr. Monroe. When the Senate arrived at the order of business, (for announcing messages from the Governor,) Mr. Monroe announced one from the Executive Chamber. The Clerk commenced reading, and It was immediately discovered that it was his Excellency's message vetoing th? Maine Liquor bill. By this time the uews had spread in every direction, and the Senate chamber soon became crowded to its utmost limit with anxious spoctatorrf, listening to the Governor's reasons for withholding his signature. The document was quite lengthy, and occu pied the Clerk three-quarters of an heur in reading it. The crowded audience, though jammed closer than in a mass meeting, listened throughout with silent attention, and every one caught eagerly eveiy word as uttered from the lips of the Clerk. The moment the message was received. Mr. Bishop and Mr. Z. Clark both rose simultaneously, the formor to offer a resolution that the Senate' do now proceed to re consider the Temperance bill, notwithstanding the veto from the Governor? the latter, that the subject be laid on the table, and tho message be printed. Mr. Bishop's motion lieing entertained by the chair, (Mr. Monroe,) Mr. Z. Clark moved to lay it on the table. Here a spirited aud somewhat excited discussion ensued. Mr. B. contend ing that it became necessary, in conforming with the provisions of the constitution, that the Senate should proceed to reconsider Its action upon the Temporanee bill. Mr. Spencer supported the motion made by Mr. Clsrk. Mr. Brooks inquired ? are we not now required to proceed io reconsider the vote last giren on the bill? How can the matter be disposed of, if the Senate can say that on some future day we shall proceed to reconsi der!* This body must proceed now as the constitution provides. Mr. Dkkinkin moved to lay the whole subject on the table. Mr. Chosby thought if the Senate only paused for five minutes to reconsider, without concluding, the subject could be postponed to any other time the Senate may deim pre per. Mr. 7.. O..AKK thought it premature to enter into a dis cii'sion npou reconsidering, before the message was ).rinted and on our table". Accor ling to all parliamenta ry proceeding', it wis competent to postpone the dubjeet nntil we have had an opportunity to examine the docu niert sent us. Mr. Biwor beHered tha' if tin- jjenntc desii?<l to pais the bill notwithstanding the veto of tin- Uovrrnor, we Di?' t proceed to reconsfdrr at once; but he was not aivjous to voie np?ii it at present; It Is however unne cessary to offer t Y.n resolution upon the coining in of the wcfiage, but a majority ?ray say when a vote shall be taken. Mr. Hopkins ? The Senate has already conformed to the constitution, po far as it has gone." A resolution has l?-en offered that we proceed to reconsider, and that is a sufficient compliance. Mr. Brahfom) inquired what was meant by "reconsider ation?" Mr. Pctnjim also wanted to know what was meant by it" Mr Parr replied, that by it was intended to get the bill apuin properly before the Senate Mr. Crosby roao to a point of order, in that Mr. Biali op'? rcuolution was out of order Tlie iRilR (Mr. Monroe,) decided it to be In order. Mr. (rotby appealed from the decision. The Chair repeated his deciiion, and fortified bin posi tion by referring to precedents. H-rethe con*titutional polnta wer<> elaborately dis ci -fed liy Messrs. Crosby, Hovmxh, Di*hoi\ Pl-tuah, and others; and there appeared much difficulty in ascertain ing whether " reconsider," as placed in the constitution, n cant voting or discussion. Mr. Pick infos here moved to lay tfce question on the appeal on the table. Mr. HoPEjss ? What will be the effect t The Cham, answering, said it would liave theetlect of laying the whole subject on the table. Mr. Wst. Ci ark? And the fubject can never be called up again. The question was then taken, and Mr. Dickinson's mo tinn was carried: ? Ayei? Messrs. Barr. Bradford. Brooks. Butts. M. H. Clark. Z. Clark. Dickinson, Dorranee, Kield. Ilitelico.-k, Hopkins, Frstt. Putnam, Robertson. Sberrill, Spencer. storing. Walker. Wat kill, Yost ? 20. Nay>? Barnard, Bisbep. W*. Clark, Crosby, Dant'ertb. Jlut i, ins, Richards, Whitney? 8. Mr. HaRR moved n reconsideration of this vote. Sir. Prooks moved to lay thht motion on the table and called for the aye* and noes. Mr. Robbrtfon moved to adjourn ? lost 10 to lb. The Chair then stated that Mr Barr'a motion was in order but not debatable, and Mr. Brook's motion not in oiiler. Mr. Brooks appealed l'rom this decision ? ?ut -cyiently withdrawn. Several Senators de?ired to apeak, but the On. agiin info mcd them that debate was out of order. Mr. DlCRINsos ? 1 want to say one word; an i lie ? on tinned for five minutes, during which time he - .ited th.it the person who had b?en all w inter more ansio,.- Diau any one else for the pas?ge of the t-mi ersn- e bill, wo* tlie chief constitutional ;tdvi?er ol hi? Excellency in vetoing it. Though no n.tme wa.? mentioned the audience well knew the allusion wa< inade to Edward C. 1'cUvan, who Kin* the first person who carried the new-- out ot the ex ecutive chamber yet-terday. tlmt a veto would tu?? place. Mr. Kobrrtsox again moved to aikjourn Mr. Cropsy laid the motion could no* be entertained a- ii. motion of that kind had just been lost. The Chair decidcd the motion in order, when the Sinate. atone o'clock, agieed to adjourn, by the follow in/ \otc ? Messrs. Ei?hoj>. Bradford. Bj'ti. /. Clar.: Dickie rn 1'rrranee, Field, Hitcbeeok llp'-ins Hut 'Mat. I. an sin . Prntt. Pntnsre. Rct.crtsoa. Sherrlll. Walker. W hit nev, Yost? U. N syi? Messrs. Barnard, Barr, Briok? M. If. Carl:. W. ( lark, Crosby, Danf >rth, Monroe. RIoLardi, Spencer, Sf-rlnr. M'atkins? 12. The membei i deserted the House during the excite ment in the Senate to such an extent, that Mr. I'cters tj ought proper to move a call of the Mouse, which was seconded, and the doors were closed, spectators turned out, and the Sergeant. at-Arms despatched to the Senate O ember, Congrese Hall, and other places, in search of absentees, An hour's time thus consume! when busi ness was resumed. A communication was rectived from ti e vestry, church wardens find vestrymen of Trinity Church, in answer to a resolution of the Assembly, asking for a. detailed state ii ent of the number of lots of land, where situated, il underlease, when the lease" expire, annual rent*. >iid inc me of all their property, and also the amount of debt owing by such vestry, nnd when such debt Is payable. The document Isqnl'e lengthy, occupying twenty eight manuscript pajres. 1 gather from it ? D'Uf or r.iaHU'ir* A?w*rd ft;/ Trinity Church I'onda or obligatio -mo by Trinity Church.. 9307,829 Temporary Loans 33,008 ] .labilities' opened 141 ?75 Total 9672.488 The item of 9141, 676 lathe amount presented toward* tl e erection of churches in vnriou* parts of the Sttte The Bros* annual Income of (lie parish is 180,907 70. annual interest on debts. 93ft. 682? leaving a net income < f $46, 40ft. Ground renta 184,507 >15 Do. Llspenard lease 177 ftfl Pew renta * ' 8,889 75 Interest 12.380 10 Total 9*0.987 70 Annnnl intercut on debt 936,682 08 Net annual income 94.">,406 02 Signed by WM DUN8COMB, Comptroller. Certified by Wm. Brrrtah, Rector. ? It" harp Haoaoork. Vealry Clerk. ft EW YORK LE*M<LATl?K. Auuxr, Apr'.l 1, If >J. KBeOKTrf. KTO. Relative to the mode of keeping tax MMints in New York. 'lli.* Pure Milk bill, coinpleto. The New York Juries bill, complete. Mr. Lavki.no, (nat. dem ) of JefTerson, reportrd advert* If to tlie petition of Masars. Brjrut, Gmlljr and other 4, for counsci >u Uu' Lemiuou ?U< o case. Mr. Hopkins, (dem.) of Washington, reported adrerse ly to tlie petitions of colored citiiens for the e<le:isiou of the right of suftrnge. Agreed to, 13 to 12. Mr. Cubic, (free soil) of St. Lawn-noe, reported a biH .authorizing Albany to aid the Alb-iny and Susque hanna R* ilro.nl. TUB TKMPKRANCK DILI. VKTO M1WHAQK Wag taken up. Mr M. H. Clauk, (whig) of Ontario, moved^to rnaVe the subject the special order for Tuesday. I<ost ? 10 to 10. Tli ? Chair put the question : " Shall the bill pass, not withstanding the objections of the Governor V I<ost ? ?ye* 9, nays 18. The Senate then, by a vote of ayes 14 nay a 13 refuse I to pass the hill. Here is the vote Avm? Mesirs. Bishop. Bradford, Butts. M ft. Clark. Dickinson, Dorrance, r'iold, Hopkins. Mtnro-v Pataam. Rlohardi, Robertson. Whitnsy, Williams? 14. Nays? Messrs. Barnard, Barr, Brooks, ("rosliy. D?nfor'l\ Hltoheook. Hutcbina, Lansing, Pratt. Storing. sJnia or, Watkins, Yost? 13. Mr. M. H. Clark moved to reconsider that vote, and to lay that motion on the Ublo. The Chair decided the mo tion out of order. Mr. Clark appealed; but the Senate sustained the < hair, 17 to 7. and refused to reconsider. Mr. M. H. Clark now moved the reconsideration of the vote on the final passage of the bill. Lost ? ayes 10, noes 15, as fellows: ? Ayks? >t?*?rs. Burr, Bishop, Rrsitforl But*". M II. Clark, HuloUins, Munroe. Rlohards. Robertson, Williams? It. , Nofs? Messrs. Barnard. Brooks, Crosby. Dsnfortli. Dick* iason. i'ieltl, It it clicook . I.an*inx Pratt. Putnam, 3|>on?or. Storing, Wstkins. Whitnov, Yoct ? IS. N0TICR OF A NKW BII.I.. Mr. Wii.t iam.s gave notice of a bill to am >nd the revised statutes iu relaiiou to licensing the sale of intoxicating liqiors. uenran. Mr. Williams, (whig) of Tompkins, gave notice of a bill to amend the Revised Statutes relative to iicena-s. MXKD SALARIED FOR TUK MEtrr. OOVKKNOR AM) OAKAL AP PRAISER. Mr. Danforth (nat. dem.) of Schoharie, introduced hills to fix the salaries of the Lieut. Governor an I Canal Appraiser. LONG BUND RAILROAD. Mr. HctchinA, (nat. dem.) of Kings, pres >nle 1 a re monstrance from Brooklyn against the I.ong Island Rail road. DK^IRODH OF RROOKM.Yfl HIS vOTK. Mr. Z. Clark asked consent to have his vote on the question, shall the Temperance bill pass, not withstand ine the objections of the Governor. He desired to vote " no." Severnl objected, on the ground tliat the constitution provided that onlg those should vote who were present. NSW YORK COMMON PLEAS. The bill in relation to the Court of Common Pleas in the city of New York was read a third time, and then laid on' the table. BILLS PA8BKD. To amend the Revised Statutes in relation to proceed ings for tne perp<tnation of testimony. To amind the charter of the Crystal Palace Associa tion. 1 'lo authority other persons than over&ecTa of thep?or to prosecute for violations of the Excise law. TI1K TEMPRRANCK Rlt.I. A<1 AIM ? INTKKKslING PltllATK. Mr. Bishop moved to recommit the bill, and alluded to the inconsistencies of thereto message. It whs a mis statement of tholaw. where the law was pretended to he quoted. It wax a contradiction throughout. He withaiew his motion. Mr. Crosby had no doubt if the bill passed it would increase litigation in the community ? fill tbe pockets of the lawyers alone. It would be a rich harve*t for that clasp. He was opposed to the bill. Mr. I'ickjsson Imped the bill would pass. Mr. Richards' objection to the present laws was that they were unequal. The argument of the opponents of a prohibitory law had Von that we had law- enough ? it was only neces-ary that they be enforced. He was not surprised at the inconsistency of the opponents of the prohibitory law manifesting itself on the bill. Mr. WlMUKs hail paid but little attention to ihis bill, in consequence of tlse general desire to pass a prohibitory law intended to do away with this entire system. He hoped, instead of passing this bill regulating tbe traffic, we should yet strike at the very root of the evil. He re garded It as granting special charters to engage In 'he liquor traffic, and then | ass little petty general laws to emulate this matter. His object !n giving notice of it ill to-day was to repeal this special chat ter system. He leferred that the bill be laid aside: ftr. DAJnWtTH staled that the vote was taken on the ucstfon sustaining tbe veto of the Oovernor without disensston. because a number of members de.ire i to leave at noon. He regretted that the Oovernor had placed himself against prohibitory laws altogether. He regretted, aa a friend of tempeianee. that this question must go down to the next canvas*. He regretted tha' the men who stood at the head of the temperance troops in this State bad ? not in so many words, but in efec? ? sustained the veto: had prepared a feather bed for the veto to sleep in. The hand upon the dial of temperance bad gone back at least twenty rears Although late in the session, he hoped some act would tie passed to put this traffic out of existence. He doubled the efficacy of this bill. Mr. Di? KI5B0X remarked that the Senator from the Se venteenth. as a partisan, ought to have known that t lie would be vetoed. | Mr. Panfortu had no doubt of it was the flr>t. Mr. Dicxitoox had seen the men who brought about this veto. Prince John Van Rnren was here as he was when the twelve Senators resigned. The scheme was concocted at Washington by the Lecretary of State. Ho ratio Seymour was to be the candidate for (iovernor. and if defeated would ha\e a call across the Atlantic. Hut he worth] lie sft badly beaten that it would r< quire affidavit* from all parts of the State to prove that he was a candi date. The power of the adamantine" would b? . sufficient to call in the men who stood by the rights of the oountrv ? who had some respect for the morals of the cosununi ty and the rising generation. TheOovernor w,i? *o effect ually killed that no galvanic battery could revive him Mr. Pratt, a.* he understood this debate, it amounted to a post mortem examination of the prohibitory law which had been killed tlds morning. He thought th? bill would have an unequal and unfavorable effect, and lie would prefer trying to enforce our pres< nt laws a lit tle fat ther. Mr. Fhwcrr believed it an honest vote. He could not understand why the Senator from tin* Twenty sixth de sired to mix this matter up with politics ? nor could he understand why party tactics had been brought to bear to postpone the law go ng into effect until December. Mr. riOKlKVIf ? It was but jnst totho*ewbo were en gaged in the business that time should be given to close up this business Mr. Hopkixh said ?!lusi? n had been made to one of hi Cf nstltuents ? Mr. Pelavan. Mr. PiociNsojr ? Doe* he live in Sandy Hill. Where they here stated preaehing.' Mr. IIopkiv? ? No, sir; but If the Senator will intro due# a bill to clange l is place of residence. I will for it. Fut . sir, after this bill has cone to the Gorernor. who ?i> consulted in regard to it? Kdwanl (.'. Delevan. Who first saw the message Kdwsid C. I?el van' Who first g.'ve public notice tl,at the h'll would l>e vetoed!" Kdward C. 1 eleven. He thought that In tblMourse Mr. I'-devan I h d forfeited his cla m* a* the leader of the temperance it en in this State. This npostle of temperance deserved the reprobaticn of every man in this community for c< n.inc Out and j aving the way for tl e i.'overnor'* veto; after working for the bill all winter JWith nlia' propriety did thi* man appear before the i ^nple of this State- T" h. ve tempr'anee men de?e: t us before even the <?0'0 nor 1 rd rent in his veto was so insult to the ten-per.inee ' rr'-n ol the State. He thought the Maice law bad suf fered more a; 1he hnm> of its l'tiend* then its ? nemie. \ resolution ought to he offered to return to F.d ward C IMcvi-n the diploma h* > ad presente I the Senate He hoped It would lie offered. Mr. Barr v. as about or.<ringone thankinr him fortlie veto Mr W"jij*sos though' the friends of tempemnce should not he dlshearfepeil 1 v the?e reverse* We had a> '.ed wisely, discreetly, in h s judgment in fixing upon I the day the prohibitory law whs to take eflect. That hav:ng been lost, we *hould take conra^e He d'd net , belit \e the gentleman who had been alluded to aflrmod o' the course of the iJovt nor. ortha' lie counseled such a enurse. Still, take courage froin adversity, an. I pass a bill to s'rike at the root of the evil although the (Jover ! nor inleht ?tand in the war. Mr. <"Rohry wa -i surprised f o s< ? thes# <ii*sensions in the rani* of those who bad -n long stood "hottlder to older. er tha' they anouM a'tack ore of th- ir pr'me movers. He liked to see consistency In this matter. He i' lieved the Governor nou! i be sustained by the cora P1 unity in his action, not politically, for h' had not tho -ladew of a party bane t>e at his heels lie awarded I. m consistency in this matter. Whohri Mr. l^davsn desired to know what t he aolion of the Governor would be and \>ho would lie the first man to publish that de ci-ion to the world? Mr. Pasforir had not noticed any disagreement on tbt. part of the temperance men here. Th" friend* of temperas < desired to strike out entire section* of this I 11, hut the pressure from the outside was too strong for it, and hence the ve>o. Mr. 7. Clark favored the )>s<-*agc ol the bill before u*. He knew the excitc law in its present, shape could not be Carried Otii. He insisted that the Senator from the Twenty-silth, (Mr. Dickinson.) had not nerve enough to puss the prohibitory law to take affect before theelection. Mr. DkmMKt had never expected that uny Senator would aay that he bad wot nerve enough to act upon a question' He believed the Senator from the Fifteenth (Mr. 7. Clark) had not nerre enouih to be present to vote on the veto message. Mr 7. ft ark? I a*kel consent to record my rote, but it wan refused. Mr rttCRfwaoN continued ? Bv adopting December wa designed to keep the question out of | olitic< ? out of the next election. Mr . PcrKAM. The bill had been 'l-'cate' th? 8RHW hid not been atated. Whether it w*i Mr DeUvan, M van uot prepared to aay. What had '*fn couree m the j>ecuiiar frieodi of th0 bill in both t to fore* down proriuioos exceptionable, irfthoiit ????? nient, and it had received iU fate. lie aaid *? the fne?Ja of t"iri|H"r?Qr? tliat they luust listen to moderate me? ? must give Aomc heed to their counael*. Tim b II h i<1 been carried through by llliberality. When ihe b? passed tii 14 Ixxly first, the moderate men were t>?r*tod i? the lobbied, ami in the public preaa by f&natica. Tlie ?m treme friend* of the ir.ea.uire might charge upon flkeaa driven, in a great measum, the defeat of tbia bill. The bill under discuasion waa laid on the table, nm oovkr.-.or ami uu Ai'iDnmuurw. The hill to amend the Kevi*>d ^ututeM in relation lo the power of the Oovemor to make appointments during the receaa, came up from the House atnnnded, a ad ?W concurred in. Thin bill is to preveut the r,oY?rnor fro? filling certain office* that will become vacant after the adjournment of the Legislature thk I'Kiyn.M) or nm K>?uoa Mr. SrSNCn moved t hat 10,000 copies of the Gamur'l veto message lie printed. Mr. M. H. Ci ark moved to liy the mation on 'ha ta>le. Agreed to. Adjourned to U A. M. on Monday >wrm*r1r AISAHY, April 1, ISM. BII.IH I'AHHRD. Tho bill to incorporate the Tract Society of New York, (Methodist Episcopal,) waa panned. To allow Brooklyn to raise money for an armory. To incorporate the Tract Society 'of the Methodut l^pu - copal Church. To amend the Revised Statute* in relaton to the ap poiutmenta to office by the (iovernor. For the better regulation of the firemen of the OiW ef New York. Relative to tho salary of the Police Justice* *f the ?''tf of Albany. snx ooranw. The bill creating a State paper ?M COKBitMd (f I M> lect committee. ?* kutcrk nuCR or innm.ia. Mr. Moti raw moved that on and after Tuesday nest, tt* Ho use will meet at 0 A. M., and hold, also. afternoon and evening sessions. Agreed. HTATK PA1H* When the bill to designate a State paper cjM> up for a third reading, Mr. Amur moved to recommit the bill *.i as in strike out the clause providing feea, ins'at'n^ that lh.> punting should lie done aa cheaply aa it is now done. Mr. D. P. Wood thought the bill, a* amended, just right He lielieved that all who worlte 1 for the Slite should be paid. Mr. Clinton believed tho bill should be recommitted. l.ost, and tlie bill waa then passed, 06 to 30. HRFiCiRsrY UtWRUIIW nrLL. Making appropriations to provide for deficiencies exist ing in appropriations for the present fiscal year, to meet claims and demands against the Treasury, on account of the canals. Passed. Adjourned to Monday morning. NEWS BY tel.egra.ph; mi,? The L,atr"t ftfom Washington. TV WARRIOR AFFAIR? THK 0\r?anKK TKRA TT * * CUTTING AND IIKKCKtNIUDOK l?!FFr tULTi f ETC* Washington, April 1, ISM. e understand tbat government has received dea patches from Havana which are calculate.! to etnbirraaa and c< triplicate the ?ftttlemeut of our Cuba trouble*. British emissaries ara suspected of having instigated tho Buck Warrior aff.ifr, under cover of the British *~f French protectorate. The Gadsden treaty in Retting very weak in the baok. There id a prospect, indeed, that it will be rejected, a?t ^ withstanding the pulling and blowing of the lobby. Ii U understood that the late pending duel hung fire on the challenge. Mr. Cutting s first note to Mr. Breek enridge, demanding a retraction, involved ako a chal lenge. Breckenridge declined to retract, but, overlook ingjhe challenge, did not signify his acceptance, la th* controversy which followed. Catting claimed the right of the challenged party, and named pistoi* as his wea pons. Breckenridge, insisting that his right was not superseded, selected the rifle. This was the great diffi culty: but at length mutual retractions were secured and peace restored. The friends of Breckenridge hare placed the correspondence at the discretion of the otbar side. and we presume It will be published. Rumor sa y* Bieokenrkige has the advantage in the settlement; bat tlii. cannot he. for it would reflect dishonor upon tb * other party in thus overreaching his adversary by dipl* maey. I.et the correspondence he published. Since writing the abort we learn that Mr. Breckenridge has authorised the publication of the ternu on which tb* difficulty was settled, end they will appear soon. 1 he amount of public debt redeemed during the past I week was $312,800. The amount in the Treasury on tb* ; r t ot April Hulijeet to draft, was 3i8.74ti.7<)2 78. ? The jury in the Scljauinhnrgh ciae are still out. with | no prospect of agreeing. From the South. THF nnVEXCB CVTTKB CAMPBKLL ? PORTSMOUTH TA MAYOR ALTV. Baitwork April 1, 18M. We have no mail south of Washington. The revenue cutter Campbell ha* arrivet at JforfoJlt fr. ra her winter cruise, having sailed over three th xisund miles, spoke three hundred and fifty vessels, relieved tea in distress, and saved four live-. Hetekiah stokes was to-day elected Mayor of Ports mouth. Va. Olsnater to the Steamer City or Richmond. | I'hiladilpiiia, April 1. 1864. j 1 i.e steamer City of Richmond, which left here thU morning, was compelled to return this afternoon in con | sequence of Fo?e damage to her machinery. She wa* t? ven lor the City of Glasgow, and su announced from N? wcastle. Three- Live* Lo*t from Exposure. Chicaoo April 1, 1854. A boat containing three dead men was found on the lake shore, eight miles weet of Michigan City. Tliey are supposed to have been fishermen fr .m Milwaukie, and died from qjpoxure. Conviction of n Mnnlerrr. J'oktla.mi, April 1, 1854. The jury in the case of Conolly Brothers, on trial foe the murder . f Guiner at the lato Irish riot, haro brought in n v?r!ict of guilty of murder in the second degree. The Weather In the West. .. . CwcitrxATl, April 1, 1H.VI. II." leather here is very cold, and it is now suowiac Diipkljr. 9 AvornKK I'koeabi.f. Homciwi in New Or I Xssf? Uirr. AMI VKTOMAXtT ? fit Charles street was vea tercay thrown into a high *:ate ol excitement by an' at ? torn 1. 1 on the I art , f ft wemsn to kill a man in 'the bil I Hard rr. mi of the St. <bi.rl?. Hotel. And. indeed. the atNmj t was but too nea.' saecenful. John Hitaelburger, tbeviMim, was tfci gx me keeper of the billiard r.xwis. nr.?! r<1 of the Hj<Hrtin^nt? bv nf^htand by d tr. Occasfet ally e rlrl nsm?.l Bridget <)ufnn had >Wn em ployed after the ro< m* were closed rt night, to scrub awl clean tli' m, m.l tter*ra!ly the nime keeper remained in | lh? room t? look af'er his queues an I balls. Ibirlni t>.cfo mMrfgh' seruhhfnr* it is ssid that John mad* verr | mpr. j* *d?an ?<- to f'ri.Jjret am', indeed, went so far I a* to enrompa** ?r ruin by t iumthintt over her\irtne When M *r Br ? if' t Murphy. the mother or Bndg?t y.iinr. esrned i i w irstf. rs stood. her Ire became uncon J tri !!*>?!?? hmI sun.n i uirg her laughter to her side ?h* repaired arn-rd wi-h a hnrwaad keen-edged knife, tothe bil lard rm.ir. Tn search of John. It was shortlv after | n ,? ?,sy wt.i n the '?n art !v?d. ,ar.l everv table was sur | rounded by anxious players Kven John had a qneu* in nis hands, and w?< glorying over the fs^t that he ha4 jn>t roai'.e a run nl thir^' which he concluded by jiocket mg both jof the nark Istils, and thereby terminating th* k?n e in his fa>or The yonri)rer Rrldpct sent for the gar k tii^bt of the <jur\ie. sn>' ?to<. ' aps't with him for a tlm* In earnest c< nreifat'on What tha' eonversation was ire ecu Id not barn: yet, certain It I*, that heiore it endod the elder Bridgel appro?che.j whispered somethinir liisa int'lv in1<i the ? sr . I Hitselbiirge- snd then pl.inzeil the knife. (?hlch ?hc h?.l hit'.erto c,.nceale 1 beneath her rr.antle.) thrice iutc his bo<!: . The daughter, when ahe saw what her mother had don-, selred her with frantic *T?.p In erdf r to | reren' hei fre,n again using hsr knife. In the meantime Hltselhurgi r staggered and fell, and was < xert.ua!ly conveyed to the f'harltv Hospital where hut sirs'] W [ es f' bis recovery are entertained. B.,tb the im therand tl.e rtsiiphte wer?' arrested, and are held to await the rtsult of Illtai'lbtlrger's wotin Is.? A'eis 'Msmi 'try I "Ho Ma-rrh 16. Klraf Dlatrlet Conrt. Before Hon Justice (.teen I.ASPf.ORD ASP TEN A NT. , A'Ri 1 .?Jarti /, Unhkrt'n 'iqa>n f ,va>itut! Sjiencrr otvi others ? Tliis w,.? r> gurrmirr procee ling to obtain p.nnes aif i? Of premii - 110('hnml'? r? ? rc?t, let to the defendant St 'neer at a rrnt of #1.000 a year, and on which it was alleged that there w?s dn? to him $T77 7%. Spencer did n> I sppn r, 1 at the under tennta who are al?o included as rtcfen 'anls. came forward and set up In their affida vits that they onlv owe.j their immediate landlord. fSpinccr,) $1'.0 They did not however, deny the alle gRtlons contained in the plaintiff's affidavit Hie Court held tha' the under tenants. In order to reia'n pn-.se* ?'on. were jionrd to pay th? hea l landlord. Judgment, for plaint i<C. 8 Some three or fonr of the Olouooster halibut fishermen, who have now Jie^i. abaent ?er< ral weeks, it id 1?JU?* foundered In