A. I cannot say, with accuracy, whether he did or not. He talked very fast; he was in a talking mood, and said a good deal; I saw from his flushed face that he was in a talkative way.

Q. Did he at any time try to get you to write editorials in your paper on this British question?

A. He did. He was in the habit of coming into the Pennsylvanian office nightly and daily, long before I knew who he was. After he had been coming there several weeks, he ventured into the editorial. department, and conversed with the telegraphic reporter, Mr. Johnson; he entered into conversation nightly with me upon the subject of the war in the Crimea, and contended that the democratic party ought to take ground in favor of the allies; that, in fact, the United States, as a general thing, should do so, because she was the daughter of Great Britain; our people spoke the same language, and were educated in the same literature, and so on; he frequently grew warm upon the subject, and I listened to him; and repeatedly, while he was talking upon that subject, I was writing an article against the allies, and combatting his argument as he was progressing.

Q. Which is Mr. Perkins?

A. I know him very well-I have seen him almost every day; but I do not see him now in the room.

Mr. Guillou. There is no difficulty about that.

Witness. He always said that he was an agent of the British government, and that he was in correspondence with Lord Palmerston, and I think Lord Clarendon. He gave me to understand that he was a tory, and that the tory party in England was the only party that knew anything, [laughter;] that they were always able to carry on the government properly; and that the whig party was composed of dunces, [laughter,] who always got into difficulties, and were the bitter enemies of this country. He said that he was a correspondent to several newspapers, and mentioned particularly the Times; and stated that he had, with every mail, sent a file of the Pennsylvanian to Europe, to the Times. He also spoke of Lord Brougham, and said that he was in correspondence with him.

Q. Did he say the correspondence was on this subject?
A. No, sir, I do not think he did.

Q. Did he mention the subject?

A. He was talking about this subject at the time he said this. He complained about the tone of the articles in the Pennsylvanian, and showed a good deal of feeling. He said that he had written to his employers in Europe, and had assured them that the democratic press in this country was all right, which I believe did not happen to be the case, [laughter;] and that they would think it very strange that he should give them such information when they found the tenor of the articles against the allies so ultra, and so strongly in favor of Russia. Judge Kane. Did he classify Brougham among the whigs or the tories?

Witness. I do not remember whether he classified him or not; he said he corresponded with him.

Mr. Guillou. May it please your honor, he was like the man in the play; "he received letters from Constantinople." [Laughter.]

Q. Did he speak of this as confidential?

Witness. Yes, sir, he did, and remarked on several occasions that what he told me was contained in some letters which he had just received, but could not show the letters to me. [Laughter.]

Judge Kane. Was there any relation between you and him which would have suggested the propriety of his telling you this?

A. No, sir; he is excessively talkative, but is a man of large information, obtained by travel, and is a man of education. He spoke of his being lieutenant in the British army in India, and was promoted to a captaincy by the brevet; that he had been there, and was in Hindoostan, and in that terrible fight in the mountains of Affghanistan where the British army was literally destroyed. He also spoke of his wounds, but never showed them. [Laughter.] He also spoke of his having been directed to superintend the embarkation of troops to some part of Africa or Hindoostan.

Question by Mr. Van Dyke. You are the editor of the Pennsylvanian?

A. I am.

Q. And that is what induced this conversation with you?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You were at the time editor?

A. Yes, sir.

Judge Kane. And your press was at the time unfriendly to his projects?

A. It has been during the year and a half that I have been editor, and was so, I think, before. I did not like the threatening remarks towards the United States of some of the gentlemen high in power in England and France, and I thought we had better take care of ourselves, and put our house in order; and, therefore, I wanted the allies soundly drubbed.

Question by Mr. Van Dyke. I believe you have stated, in substance, everything?

A. As far as I recollect.

Q. Did he at any time say he engaged or retained any person to go to Halifax with the intention of being enlisted after he got there?

A. Well, he spoke in general terms, and left the impression upon my mind that he had employed those men for that purpose, and had some understanding with them that, after they got there, they were to go into the barracks. He may have mentioned them by name, but I have no recollection of it; he left the impression upon my mind that they were employed for that purpose.

Q. Have you stated fully the conversation which he repeated to you as having had with Crampton upon that subject?

A. I cannot recollect it; he talked a good deal upon that subject, and endeavored to impress me with the idea that he was a very great man, and knew the secrets of the British cabinet.

Q. You were never at this recruiting office, No. 68 S. Third street? A. I passed by it daily, and saw something was going on; but did not know what. I saw several persons going in and out, and saw him repeatedly come out, which led me to suspect that he was a party in the matter.

Cross-examined by Mr. Gillou :

Q. I do not think you understand a question of the judge. He asked you whether the opinion expressed in the Pennsylvanian was adverse to the project of the defendant, and, as I understand you, you answered that it was adverse to the war in Europe?

A. It has been against this project of enlisting, and it has been very severe. It was the first that denounced it and exposed it.

Q. State whether Perkins is not a man who talks a great deal?

A. Yes, sir, he talks incessantly. He is a man of large information, obtained by travel, and is a man of education, but not much judgment.

Q. His temper rises pretty high sometimes?

A. Very.

Q. Mr. Conroy mentions an instance when he left your office-cursing all in the office?

A. He was frequently excited about the subject, and I would then draw him out to the length of his tether.

Q. And you were writing articles, firing away at the allies, and loading your guns with the ammunition he furnished you?

Mr. Van Dyke. May it please the court-having, as I think, proved a clear prima facie case against one of the defendants, (Hertz,) and submitted all the testimony I have to offer against the other, (Perkins)—I deem it unnecessary to extend the examination of the witnesses relative to Mr. Hertz; I therefore close for the present the case of the government.

[The court then took a recess for half an hour.]

The district attorney having closed his case, the counsel for the defence said they had no testimony to offer.

Mr. Guillou, for Mr. Perkins, asked the court to instruct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty as to Emanuel C. Perkins, there being no evidence to hold him.

Mr. Van Dyke. Is it the intention to make a witness of the defendant?

Mr. Van Dyke. This application is entirely within the discretion of the court, and I presume might be granted, if the ends of substantial justice were to be served by so doing; but, as Mr. Perkins is not to be put upon the stand, nothing is gained to either of the defendants by separate verdicts. I am free to admit that, under the former ruling of the court, I have not made out such a clear case against the defendant Perkins as I should have liked, but I prefer the going jointly to the jury as they now stand. The result, no doubt, will be the same to Mr. Guillou's client.

Mr. Guillou. Under the remarks of the district attorney, I withdraw my application.

Mr. Van Dyke, in summing up for the United States, said: He did not deem it necessary further to examine the witnesses who could be produced; that he was satisfied the testimony which had already been submitted was conclusive in favor of the government on all the questions which had been submitted to the jury. He had but very few suggestions to make at the present time, and such he should address

to the jury more through the medium of the court than directly to themselves, because it was his belief that under the charge which the court would give of the law bearing upon the case the jury would have no difficulty in finding the defendant Hertz guilty, in the manner and form as charged in each and every of the bills of indictment laid before them.

The act of Congress, may it please the court, provides, (I recite it from memory, and the court will correct me if I am wrong :) First. That if any person shall, within the territory or jurisdiction of the United States, enter himself in the service of any foreign prince, &c. This is one distinct and separate misdemeanor created by the act.

Second. If any person shall hire or retain any other person to enlist or enter himself in the service of any foreign prince, &c. This is another, and the second distinct misdemeanor created by this act.

Third. If any person shall hire or retain any other person to go beyond the limits or jurisdiction of the United States with the intent to enlist or enter himself in the service of any foreign prince, state, colony, district, or people, as a soldier-not as a soldier on board any vessel or letter of marque, as has been contended, but as a soldier according to the general common acceptance of the term—or as a mariner on board any vessel or letter of marque, &c.

Now, these three are distinct and separate offences. The first is that of a person enlisting or entering into the service of any foreign prince, state, colony, district, &c. In relation to this he said the defendant is not in any manner charged in the indictment, and, therefore, it is unnecessary to embarrass the court and jury in taking into consideration any facts which relate to an intent on the part of the defendant to enter and enlist himself. Neither has the defendant, nor any other person, been charged with having absolutely enlisted within the territory or jurisdiction of the United States; nor is the defendant, or any one else, charged with having gone beyond the limits or jurisdiction of the United States with the intent to enlist.

What, then, is the charge? What the only issue upon which I ask this court to charge the jury, that the government has made a clear case? It is: first, that the defendant hired and retained some persons to enlist within the limits or jurisdiction of the United States. This crime is charged in two ways in the first two counts in the indictment; and, secondly, that the defendant has within the jurisdiction of the United States hired and retained certain persons to go beyond the limits and jurisdiction of the United States with the intent to enlist when they arrived beyond such limits and jurisdiction. This crime is charged in various forms in the four remaining counts of the indictment.

It is no offence under the statute, in Muhn or Budd, or any one else, to be hired; so that those recruits who have voluntarily come upon the stand and confessed their participation in this lawless transaction have confessed no crime. If A hires B to go beyond the limits of the United States with the intent mentioned in the act, B having agreed with A within the limits of the United States to depart with the intent to enlist, the crime or offence is not committed by B, because he merely engaged with A to go, but the offence is committed

alone by A, who hired him: for, so far as the going beyond the limits of the United States with the intent to enlist is mentioned in the act, the offence consists in hiring or engaging the person to go, and not in being hired or engaged to go. And the court is asked so to charge the jury. Then, as to the intent, what is meant thereby? and who must have such intent? On this point the court is asked to charge the jury, that the intent mentioned in the act is the motive in the mind of the person hired, and has no reference to the design of the person hiring, except that the person hiring believed, or had reason to suppose, the person hired really intended to enlist when he should arrive beyond the limits of the United States, and that he hired him. for such purpose. That if the jury, from all the testimony, are satisfied that Hertz, at the time he engaged Muhn, Budd, Weaver, or any other person mentioned in any of these bills of indictment, to go beyond the limits of the United States, and furnished him the facilities to depart, had the intention to enlist in the British military service, then that point of the act which speaks of the intent is sufficiently established.

Believing that the learned court will give the jury in charge the law as he has stated it, Mr. V. called the attention of the jury to the principal features of the evidence in the case. He contended that he had established every point made in his opening remarks.

First. He had shown by incontrovertible testimony, that the necessities of the British government, resulting from the disastrous condition of their army in the Crimea, and the unpopularity of the cause of the allies at home, compelled them to hazard the enlistment of soldiers within the limits of foreign neutral nations.

Second. That in the accomplishment of this design, the English authorities at home, and their representatives on this continent, had, in gross violation of the laws of the United States, concocted and partially matured a plan for procuring, within our territorial limits, sufficient men to supply the forlorn hopes of an unpopular war, and regain the lost prestige of a waning administration.

In support of these points, Mr. V. adverted to, and commented upon, the testimony of Captain Max F. O. Strobel, Colonel Burgthal, Colonel Rumberg, Dr. Reuss, Mr. Bucknell, and Mr. Budd. The truth of their representations had not been questioned, and the jury are bound, under their oaths, to regard their evidence as conclusive.

Third. That Henry Hertz, the defendant, was an agent of the English government in the accomplishment of this general plan and design. That he had been employed for that purpose by Mr. Crampton, her Britannic Majesty's envoy extraordinary-the highest British functionary known in this country-as also by Sir Joseph Howe, the general agent, specially sent to America for this purpose; and by Sir Gaspard le Marchant, the governor of a neighboring British province. Fourth. That in pursuance of such employment, this plan was regularly carried out by the defendant. That he did, in the city of Philadelphia, engage at least two hundred men to go beyond the limits of the United States, with the intent to become a part and parcel of the British foreign legion. That in order the more effectually to accomplish this design, he opened, under the auspices of his English