rortictli ConfrrcM-Tnird session. | ChOBB OF TMiUKDAT’S PBOCKSDOTOS. | sifwATK.—The amendments to the Constitu tional Amendment were tinder consideration. Air Stewart withdrew his motion to Inslßt, and moved that the Senate recede and agree to the amendment made in tbo Honso. mV°Co'nhHn'g BirlqoUed'of 8 irlqoUed'of the Chair what the pending motion of tie Senator from Nevada was. The President replied that it wub merely a mo tion to recede from the 8< uate amendment. Mr. Stewart said his motion was to recode and eonenr in the House proposition. ' Mr. Pomeroy thought that, according to strict parliamentary law, tho Senate, by reciniing from ftTown amendment, would adopt the House pro- P Mr lo !Borton said the Constitution required that any constitutional amendment submitted to the States for ratification should have recoivedthe assent of two-lh.rds of each House, which re quirement could not be evaded by any parlia- abrief but confused discussion of rules, and (be eifect of a vote to recedo, the President asked the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Stewart) to spite exactly wbal hlB motion was. Mr. Stewart— My motion Ib to recede from tho amendments made to the Honse proposition by the Senate, and to agree to the House pro- P °Mr!° Sherman—l call for a division of tho quistion. , There was discussion of The question whether a vote to recedo from the Senate’s amendments would effect a concurrence in the House propo sition Mr. Hendricks asked tho Chair to decide the question. , The President submitted the question to the Senate in this form: “In the opinion of Senators, will a vote to recede pass the bill?” And it waß decided in the negative. The Senate then receded from Us amendments to tho original House proposition by the follow ing vote: „ .. „ Yeas— Messrs. Anthony, Cameron, Cattoll, Chandler, Cole, Conkllng, Corbett, Oragln, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden, Frellng hnjsen, Harris, Howard, Kellogg, McDonald, Morgan, Morrill (Yt.), Morrill (Me.), Uortoo, Nye; Patterson (N. H.), Pomeroy, Robertson, Stowart, Thayer, Tmmbull, Van Winkle, Welch, Willey,-Williams, Yates—33. Nays— Messrs. Abbott, Bnekalew. Davis, Dix on, Doolittle, Fowler, Harlan, Hendricks, Mc- Crcery, Norton, Osborn, Patterson (Tenn.), Pool, Rice, Ross,Baul*bury, Sherman, Spencer, Vickers, Wade, Warner, While, Wilson —28. Mr. Morton thought it best to reconsider the vole by which the Senate had receded from its amendments, and then to appoint a committee of conference, which could meet the House com mittee at 1 o'clock. The Senate, after discussion, refused to concur in the House proposition by the following vote : Yeas— Messrs. Anthony, Cameron, Cattail, Chandler, Cole, Conkllng, Cragln, Drake, Ferry. Fessenden, Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Har ris, Howard, Kellogg, Morgan, Morrill (Vt.), Morton, Nye, Patterson (N. H.), Pool, Ramsey, Rice, Robertson, Sherman, Stewart, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Wade, Williams, and Yates—3l; not two-thirds. , _ , , Nays— Messrs. Abbott, Bayard. Bnekalew, Davis,. Dixon. Doolittle, Edmunds, Fowler, Grimes. Hendricks, McCreery, McDonald, Nor ton, Osborn, Patterson (Tenn.), Pomeroy, Ross, Saulsbnry, Sawyer, Spencer, Snmner, Thayer, Vickers, Warner, Welch, White and Wilson—27. Mr. Stewart then moved to proceed with the consideration of the Constitutional Amendment reported by the Judiciary Committee, as fol lows: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote or hold office, shall not be denied or ab ridged by the United States or any State, on ac count of race or color or previous condition of servitude.” , Mr. Stewart’s motion was then carried aed the amendment reported by tho Judiciary Committee was before the Senate. After debate, the report of theßenate Judiciary Committee was adopted. Yeas— Messrs. Abbott, Chandler, Cole, Conk ling, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Frelinghuysen, Harlan, Harris, Kellogg, McDonald, Morgan, Morrill (Vt ), Morion, Osborn, Patterson (N. H.), Pomeroy Pool, Ramsey, Rice, Robertson.-Ross, Sawver. Spencei, Stewart, Thayer, Vau Winkle, Wade, Warner, Welch,Willey, Williams and Wil son—3s. _ , _ Nays— Bayard, Bnekalew, Davis, Fowler, Hen drieks, McCreery, Norton, Patterson (Tenn.) Sanlsbnry, Vickerß oDd Whyte—ll. Adjourned House.— Tae House then proceeded to the consideration of the act supplementary to the national banking bi.l. After considerable debate, the Honse proceeded to vote on the several amendments pending. Mr. Ingersoll had the rule read which iorblds members interested in the result of any question to vote on it, and said he would leave the matter to the sense of honor of members. The amendment offered by Mr. Price to the fourth section to increase the allowance of circu lation to bunks with capital not exceeding $200,- 000, from 80 to DO per cent, of capital, was agreed The firet, second mid third amendments ot tered by the Committee on Banking and Cur rency, being merely formal, were agreed to. Mr. Bucklaud’s amendment regulating bank circulation at the rate of $1,250,000 for each member of CongreßS lrom States, was rejected. The amendment offered by Mr. Smith to in crease the maximum limit of national circulation by $200,000,000,wa8 rejected. The amendment offered by Mr. Coburn aa a snbßtilule lor the lourth section was agreed to. Yeas, 94, nays 80 A motion to reconsider the vote on Mr. Co burn's amendment was laid on the table—yeas 90, nar s 84. This made the action of the House, in substi- tuting Mr. Coburn’s amendment for the fourth section of the bill, Onal. Mr. Miller moved to lay the bill on the table, remarking that the adoption ol that amendment destroyed the bill. The motion wa6 rejected—yeas 6a, nays 102. Ou motion of Mr. Griswold, the second section ■was amended by extending the time for the pay ment, by liquidating banks, of the amount of their circulation from thirty to ninety days after the passage of this act. The amendment ollered by Mr. Butler (Mass.), in reference to banks in liquidation, was rejected —yeaß 66, nays 87. The amendment offered by Mr. Ingersoll was to strike out sections 2 and 4, and substitute other sections for them. The House refused to order the yeaß and nays on Mr. Ingerßoll’e amendment, but agreed to it on a count by tellers, 84 lo 38. The question was next taken on Mr. Wood's amendment, and it was rejected—yeas, 16. nays 149. Mr. Wood then moved that the bill and amend ment be laid on tbo table. The motion was agreed to—yeas 92, nuys 78. Mr. Wood moved to reconsider the votes and lay the motion to reconsider on the table. Mr. Ingersoll moved to adjonrn. Pending the vote by yeas and nays, the hour of half-past four arrived, and the House took a recess till half-past seven, the evening session to be for appropriation bills. 7 . The bank bill comes up to-morrow on the mo tion to reconsider. Kveniva Session.—The House met again at half past 6CVCD In Committee of the Whole, Mr. Ferry in the chair, and resumed the consideration of the A rmv Appropriation bill. _ _ The question being on the amendment offered by Mr. Bntler (Mass.), for the redaction ol the army, Mr. Butler spoke in advocacy ol his amendment. After speeches by other members, the House adjourned. i*euu«Tlva.nia, 4.effi»lature. | tiOSCLLbiON OF PROCEEDINGS Senate —Mr. Fisher introdneed a bill annull ing the marriage contract between Henry K. Kauffman and Louisa, his wife. Mr. Connell, one for the relief of Agnes S. Ken nedy. Mr. Brown, of Northampton, one allowing the Bethlehem Slute Company to mortgage their franchise to an amount not exceeding $lOO,OOO. Mr. Davis, one to provide'for the adjudication Of certain military claims. (This bill makes tho Adjutant General, Auditor General and State Treasurer, a board lo whom all claims for darna -gea done to lands or tenements by the occupa tion of troops durlDg the Late war, shall bo sub mitted, In the following cases: Claims or Berks County Agricultural Society; of A. 0. Campbell Of Philadelphia; of Jones' Hotel, Philadelphia’: ot A. A. Lechler and Wm. Bateman, of Phila delphia.) A lengthy debate,took place on Mr. Lowry a resolution to authorize the Committee on Educa lion to investigate the affairs of the State Agri cultural College, and particularly as to the mis application or funds derived from the Agricultu ral scrip. The resolution was finally passed by 17 to 14. Mr. Blllingfelt offered a resolution requiring the Committee on General Judiciary to inquire iind report as to the propriety of abolishing the civil codo commission, or of reducing the ox pi nses of the commission. In presenting the lesolutloi), Mr. B. said he understood that one of the three commissioners (Messrs. Hall, of Bed ford. Derickeon, of Crawford, and McVeigh, of Chester), had not rendered any services, although he Is receiving as pay $3,00(7. a year, and he thought the expenses ought to be reduced or the commissioners required to attend to their duty. Adjourned until 3 P. M. The afternoon session of the Senate was spent in the consideration of the revised tax laws of the State. The bill does not make any chango in existing laws, but merely embodies thorn all into one enactment. Mr. Searlght’s bill, declaring coke, lime and crushed sand to be lluble to the samo tonnage tax as the product of mines, was considered, but not disposed of. Adjourned. Honsit.—The resolution discharging the twenty seven extra emplojds of the House, who had bun appointed without authority of Act of As sembly, was finally disposed of by passing ajoint resolution for the discharge of the twenty-seven men, and by adding to it a section for their pay ment to the present time. (Tho Senate must concur in the resolution before it becomes opera- tive ) Tho Houbc then considered tho General Ap propriation bill in Committee of the Whole until the hour of adjournment. ... • Evening Session . —This session was devoted to the consideration of the General Appropriation bill in Committee of the Whole. Tbe Presidents Amnesty Proclama- tion. The Judiciary-Committee of the Senate, to which wos referred the message of the President of tho United States, communicating in com pliance with the resolution of the Senato a copy of the proclamation of the President, December 25, 1868, purporting to extend pardon and amnesty to a class of persons guilty of treason, etc., respectfully report: It purports, by the will of the Executive alone, independent and supposably in spite of tho law making power, to grant, by general proclama tion, ‘‘full pardon and amnesty’’ to all persons engagt d in the late rebellion, to all traitors, with restoration of all rights, privileges and immu nities under tho Constitution, etc. Tbe exercise of this high power is asserted by virtue of tbe power and authority vested in him by the Constitution, and in the name ot the sovcieign people of the United States, and it is insisted that this act of tho sovereiga people, through the President, is authorized by the clauses of the Constitution which declare, “the Piesident shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment,” and that the proclamation is in Btrict accordance with tho judicial exposition of the authority there con ferred upon the Executive,as would be seen by re ference to tbe accompanying papers, etc., and in conformity with the precedents established by Washington, in 1795, and followed by President Adams in 1800, Madison in 1815, and President Lincoln in 1863. and by the present Executive in 1866, 1867, and 1868. The committee, after a careful examination of the subject, have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion (hat the proclamation in question was wholly beyond the constitutional power of the 1 resident, aDd that it can have no efficiency to (be end sought to be reached by it. Tho opera live words are “pardon” and “amnesty,” the first of which is found in the Constitution and the latter is not. The Constitution, with its weighed and carefully chosen language, permits the President to grant reprieves and pardons, not pardon and amnesty. These two words have hi en known and used in tho low for a hundred 3 ears, und their scope and meaning have never b> en a subject of dispute. They are not synony mous or equivalent. They import, as they al ways have done, widely different things. A relercnce to history and to the standard law books will demonstrate this fact. Pardon, in the English law, ns it had existed down to the forma tion of onr Constitution, and as it still exißts, was an act of executive clemency, proceeding person nllv lrom the king, either directly by the sign manual, or indirectly under the great seal, to a specified person named in it: and the effect was, if be chose to avail[himself of a, to relieve him from the punishment and losses not already suffered for tl e specific crime named in the instrument. It did not look backward, but only forward. It did not restore what was lost, bnt remitted what was yt tto be suffered, i See Blackstone’s Commen taries, vol. 4, title Reprieves and Pardons. And to jealous was the law of England ou the subject that until a comparatively recent period the royal prerogative of pardon was coDflned to a limited class of offences In which the presumption might exist that the accused was morally innocent, and the power was otherwise hedged about with many other safeguards against abuse not neces sary to be here referred to. The power of general p .rdon by proclamation did not exist and was loi claimed by any English soverelgn.as the com miitce believe, after Great Britain had a constitu tion and a settled jurisprudence, although it was frt (jnently exercised under and by act of Parlia mfrnt. From the earliest years of the reign of Eliza beth, 1536, until after the American Revolution, amnesty waß an act of oblivion of past offences granttd by Government to those who had been guilty of crime. It was an act of sovereign power which effaced and caused to be forgotten the ofl'eDce itself, and it made it the same, so far as the public was concerned, as if the offence had never been committed, and by consequence it operated a restoration of all rights, etc., which a purdon did not. One instance will illustrate its difference from and superior effect to a pardon : It purified blood corrupted by attainder and mode it inheritable, which pardon did not; it was granted by the sovereign power to the whole classes of offenders for the purpose of sustaining tranquillity in the State. Thus it will be per c( iyid that amnesty is a larger power than par don, operating upon the crime instead of the criminal, and effecting restoration and restitu tion ub mitio, instead of merely remitting unex ecuted punishment, and proceeding, like what is culled a general pardon. Dot from the Executive, b< be kiDg or president, but from the Govern ment, the sovereign power, which in England was the King, in and with his Parliament, as iu the Vnited States it is the Congress acting with the appiovnl ol the President, or by a two-thirds vote without It. Tho clear conclusion is that under the English system of government no power either of amnesty or general pardon ex isted in the King. The knowledge of these legal linns, “umnesly, pardon, reprieve,” and of their si ti ed meanings and effect, must have existed In the Constitutional Convention of 1787. That body, striving to bridle all powers of a kingly nature rather than to enlarge them, did not choose to use the word ‘ amnesty" at all in the Constitution, and conferred upon the Presi dent the power simply to grant reprieves and pmdons, the one expressing a temporary and the other a permanent suspension of punishment on an individual offender. The committee further express their views, and reply to tho authorities given by the President for it suing the proclamation, and conclude aB lollows: They are of opinion that the power attempted to be exercised in the proclamation referred to, togranlu general and amnesty By tho President by proclamation, withoultheauthority or assent ol Congress, hue no foundation in the Constitution or luwb, and that the exercise ought not t 6 be continued. They therefore report a re solution that, In the opinion of the Senate, the proclamation of the President of the 25th of Do i ember, 1868, purporting to grant pardon and umnesly to all persons guilty of treason and acts of|boßlilily to the Culted Slates during the rebel liojn, with restoration of rights, etc., was not au thorized by the Constitution or laws. The subject lies over in the Senate for future action. Tlre Insurrection in Cuba, Havana, Februury 14.—[Special to New York Herald. |—The Insurgents have made their ap pearance In the dlßtriet of Colon, under the leadership of Col. Juelard, a Mexican officer. In Cozen Mountains 2,000 men are waiting the signal for revolt. There are other Mexican offi cers Ip command of the insurgents in this dis trict, and in other parts of the island. The Cuban passcngerß who were found on board tho 6cbooncr Galvanic have been tried in tho Mari time Court for treason, and sentenced to doath, btjt Gen. Dulce will probably commute their sen- THE DAILY EVENING BULLETIN—PHILADELPHIA, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 18,1869. tences, and send them out of the island to some convict station. . . s . , . „ The schooner has been declared a legal prize, of which judgment the British Consul has noti fied bis government. He boa also expressed his hopes that the captain and crew of the schooner wifi be released. Advices from Trinidad to the 9th have been re ceived. Tbe American Consnl there had joined tho insurgents, and turned over his office to an other person. The insurgents hold Tunis and have many Spanish prisoners. The Wife of Gen eral Dnlce will soon leave for Spain. The Government has received intelligence of a rising in the vicinity of Matanzoß. The rebels nnmber over 300, and the greatest alarm prevailed llicrc Sendr Castillo, tho Director of the Savlngß Bank,has been arrested, and the police arc search ing for other wealthy and suspected men. Havana, Feb. 16.—The United States Consnl having applied for passports for a naturalized citizen, the latter wn? arrested, and tho Coubul was informed that the government could not re cognize his right to apply for’ passports. The Consul has telt graphed to Washington, asking lor prompt intervention of the Government to protect its cilizenß.and in case of refusal, tender ing his resignation. Latkk.— General Dnlce released a native ol Cuba, wbo was arrested yesterday, on his pro ducing bis American naturalization papers Tbe principal American residents in Cienfuegos applied for a war vessel for their protection. An answer was returned that it was impossible to send them one at present. Tbe city of Havana ie practically in a state of siege. Gen. Dnlce has been urged to formally declare a state of siege, but is as yet disinclined. He, however, may issue a proclamation to that effect after the expiration of the term of amnesty. Cubans are applying daily to be permitted to take refuge on board the flagship Oontocook, in case trouble should break out in the city and their lives be threatened. Admiral Hoff baa consented to take American residents to Key West. , , An engineor, employed on a plantation in the jurisdiction of San Antonio, has arrived here. Hu reports that a party of insurgents, 300 strong.had invaded that district The plantation hands fled, panic-stricken, and the work on the estates had ceased. , , The plantation engineers have also fled hither from the Vuelta Abajo region and other parts of the Island, fearing that they may be impressed into the military service. ...... A letter from Trinidad, dated 13th instant, saj s. the Cubans have raised the standard of re volt everywhere, and have..itlestroyed the tele graph lines and slopped the mails. A despatch from Neuvitas, dated the llth inst., reports that banditti are pillaging the estates in the country. On the 9th lost., a detachment of troops marched from Neuvitas to Miguel Birco, burned ihe towns and returned the next day, having lost 20 hilled, wounded and prisoners. The insurgents firmly held their ground in the vicinity of the town. The negroes are wander ing about the country without restraint. There aie many Spaniards in the insurgent ranks. At Puerto Principe provisions are scarce, and the inhabitants are threatened with famine. The roace between Puerto Principe and Nenvitas are Impassable, owing to heavy rains. A hundred Boldiers arc sick In the hospital at Neuvitas. Havana. Feb. 17.— Transports arrived in the baifcorto day, with reinforcements of regular [mops from Bpain. The number of arrests for political causes are daily increasing. Several .officials harm been thrown into prison on suspicion of revolutionary proclivities. Engagements between tho troops and the rebels are reported to have taken place mar Trinidad, Cienfuegos and Espiritu Santo. TUB GOUBTB. Tbe Dempsey murder Oyeb and Tkrminer Judges Ludlow and Brewster.—The following witnesses were called lor the defence : John W. Hays sworn—l found John Maguire s knife in Esler’s planing mill on Tuesday; Dena ture had been working in the mill fifteen months: IloDahue asked me for the knife to fix his book ease that evening, and I was glad to lend it to him for he had frequently borrowed my knife. The witness told Donahue he might keep the knife, as Maguire, to whom it belonged, had left tb<- place. K B. Esler sworn—l live at 1020 Green street, and am a manufacturer of wood mouldings; have known the prisoner nine years; he is a finishing moulder; on the morning of the 13th X authorized tbe payment ol eight dollars to Donatme to pro cure a writ; Dempsey did not threaten Donahue in my presence; did not Bee Donahue get the wiit, but saw him go for it. Gen. Wm. F. Small sworn—l am a member of the liar; saw Donahue on the 13th of January last, and issued a writ for him. Objection being made as to the question, What was the object of issuing the writ? Judge Ludi low thought all that General Small said on the occasion to his client must be excluded, and he had grave doubts whether Donahue's statements were admissible. The writ Itself was admissible. Judge Brewster thought the affair somewhat obscure, and was of tbe opinion that it would be competent to show the declarations of the priso ner accompanying the taking out ol the writ. The statements of counsel made at the time were cliaily inadmissible. An offer to show that on the day previous to the muidor the prisoner stood In terror and fear ot Dempsey, was considered, and the Court de cided that whatever occurred at the interview when the prtrclpe was signed, could be stated; that is, only the declaration of defendant. ■Witness resumed—The praclpe was Bigned on the morning of the 13th; Donahue said he had hem greatly annoyed, threatened and abus-d by D, mpeey, and it would be impossible for him and his lamily to live in that bouse unless Dempsey was pnt under restraint; after I had advised him he desired me to Issue the writ; I prepared the pruecipe while he waited; he said Dempsey was a violent man, and he was afraid of him; I did not get the Sheriff's writ until nearly three o’clock, and then there was a blunder, as the seal was not on, and we had to get it; I handed the writ to Mr. Vanhook, and told him it waß highly important that writ should be served ImmedUtelv; he ri plied it was too late for that day, but would serve it on the next; Donahue joined in and 6ald, “I want vou to take good bail,and none but good bail, an p’orhaps that would keep him quiet, and I could live In peace;” I heard no more of the case until I heard of the homicide. Crcss-examined- Donahue mado the affidavit to bold to ball in the case, and tixed the amount oi damages at $6OO. John R. Downing, sworn—l am a doputv sheriff: I received a writ on the 13th of January, oi 20 minutes of 3 o'olock; it is a capias case; I pkeed the writ in the hands of a reliuble officer at 7 o’clock that evening, with instructions to , 5, cute it the next morning; he had a writ of pos session, however, the next day. which required nearly all of the day; on the morning of the loth be went to serve it, but heard of the circum stances; in cbscb of writs against a working man lb, y arc generally served early in the morning btfore he goes to work, bo as to avoid going to his place of business; the officer who had the writ did not suppose he would be detained more than an hour in serving the writ of possession. Hebert Dempsey recalled —When my father w,nt up stairß 1 told him not to do so; I did not state any reason; I did not hear much scuffling; 1 did not take notice where Mrs. Donahue was; 1 guess she was excited when she told rne to go tui the police; my father went up stairs twice, 1 believe: he did not tell me what he was going up stairs for; be did not say he was going to bed. Cross-examined—The first time he only went ' up a few steps. Examination direct—l did not want him to go up for fear he might get in a fight with Dona hut; 1 did not hear him sav anything about being sued. Mary Donahue recalled—Wo lived with the Dempseys nine months; went there shortly after Easter; never knew of any quarrol betweeif my father and Dempsey in that time; we all lived peaceably as one family; did not know anything oitbe trouble on Tuesday night; the landing at the head oi the stairs was kept clean betwoon us, my mother having most charge of it; Mrs. Demp sey only took charge of it when her family mado dirt there. The witness repeated a portion of the evidence sho gave yesterday,and said sho did not hear a struggle when 6he went behind the par tition, as she was too much frightened. On cross-examination the witness said that the book-rack, on which her father had been work ing, stood on a chair in the mlddlo of tho room, and the candlo on another chair. John Maguiro, sworn—l am a carpentor; on the evening before tho murder I saw Dempsoy and Donahue at Fiitconth and Chestnut streots; i first met Donahue between 7 and 8 o’clock; we were standing on the corner, and Dempsey came up and said, “here Is the dirty, cowardly ,' and made as I thought, to strike him; I got be tween them, and Donohue said, John, do yon see that ?" Donahuo left, as I supposed, to go home, and I went home. Cross-examined —I should think Dompßoy was under the influence of liquor; he was not very drunk; I should judge Donahue wob sober; Donar hue seemed to be afraid of Dempsey; he showed his fear by getting away as quick as no coma; he walked away; I concluded ko was afraid because ho wont away so quick: I did not con clude ho wanted to got away from a man who wos abusing him; I got botween them and was not afraid of being Btruck. . . Examination direct | knife shown] -This is my knife. The defence closed. . ’ Mr H. S. Hagert summed up tho case, and was followed by 8. D. Page. Mr. W. L. Hirst, Jr., closed the argument for the prisonor, and Dis trict Attorney Sheppard closed for tho Common wealth. Judge Ludlow charged the jury. Tho bill of indictment was handed to tho jury at 9.35 P. M., and at 10.15 P. M. they returned a verdict of gnilty of manslaughter. Mr. Gross asked that tho jury bo polled, and each responded to tho vordict ns prououncod tbrongh their foreman. The prisoner waß remanded for sentenco. Tiik Heenan Homicide. —The Supremo Court yesterday refused the allocation applied for by Messrs. Shapley and Brooke, counsel for Gerald Eaton, who was convicted of murder ol tho first degree In killing Timothy Hoenan. Ab this is the court of last reßort, and as they find nothing id tbe reasons assigned for interfering with the court below,there is an end to Eaton's case,so far as the courts are concerned. Tho Governor has fixed the 251 h inst; as the day for the oxeoutiou or Eaton, and unless he grantß a respite or reprieve, the dread penalty will bo inflicted by Sheriff Lyle, as commanded by tho Executive. The Contested Election Cases. —Messrs. Wm. P. Messick and K. M. Batturs, examiners to take testimony in the contested election cases, held another session yesterday afternoon. Patrick Dunleavy testified—Beside back of 821 Essex street; did not vote at the last October elec tion. [No. 706 on the list of voters. | Mrs. Mary McLaughlin testified—Robort Mc- Laughlin, No. 735 Lebanon street, is my son; on the sth of October, 1868, he was 21 years of ago; my husband la living, and is in California; he went there eleven years ago; no other Robert Mc- Laughlin but my son was in my house last Octo ber. | Robert McLaughlin is assessed, and is No. 83 on the list of voters. J ’ Mary Dolan testified—Reside No. ,06 Folios street; have lived there seven or eight years; know Andrew Kelley, who formerly lived there; be moved away about the Blh of October; his wife said ihat they were going to Twenty-eighth and Federal. | Kelley is No. 372 on|the list of voters. ] Alexander Ball testified—Reside at 718 Lebanon street, and voted in the Seventh Division, Third Ward, at the October election; am a native of England; arrived in this country in 1832; my father was naturalized when I was about sixteen rears old, and I have been under tbe impression ibat I am naturalized through him; my father hue been dead about nine Years; mv younger brother has his certificate of naturalization; I kuve read it more than fcnee; think my father wos naturalized in 1837 or 1838; I produced no nrtifieate of naturalization when 1 voted, as I wns not asked for it; tho first time I voted was in 1866 | Alexander Ball is assessed, and is No. 192 on the list of voters. | Cross-examined — Nobody challenged me; a rcket purporting to be a Republican ticket was put under my door; I compared it with tne news prrs, and found it to be correct; I cut it and ft d it together, and offered it at the window; the man inside said that it was a doable ticket, •at d dropped it out; I then got another tlcbctand voted it, but being confused I did not examine it. Mrs. Alice O’Connor testified—Reside at No. 7-jn Unbbell street; James Fallen did not live il.ere In October last; a man named John Fnrniss was there; no other man was there. Mr. Mann—On the list of votes. No. 428 is l a mis Fnrniss; on the list of taxablea Is James r'allon, No. 720 Hubbell street; on tbe list of , o ies No. 428 is James FarreD; on the list of tax able Jamas Farren, No. 720 Hnbbell street, is marked “V;” James FurniES is not on the list of laxablefi. , „ Joseph Ralston testified—l was at the polls o 111!' Seventh Division of the Third Ward for a while on the October election ; know Isaac Mitchell; saw him vote; (Isaac Mitchell is not on the list of taxables or voters;) don’t think that ht- lives in that division; he didn’t vote in his own name; I was going to challenge him, but thought it was of no use there, as the officers said It was all right and tooK his vote; I voted the Republican ticket at the October election In that division. , Cross-examined—Mitchell used to hang about Third and Catbarino streets a year ago, or it may be less; have known him since 1863; got acquainted with him at the Baltimore Depot; he is a hack driver; he need to drive the Weccacoe’s steamer, and lived at the engine house; that was three 3 ears ago; don’t recollect the name he gave when he voted; it was not Isaac Mitchell; a man chal lenged the vote, and they 6aid inside it was all right; he gave his residence at Sussex street. John Quinn testified—l know John Wilber, who lived back ol my house last summer; he came to me on the 18th of August; he staid about two months; he said he was going to New York; the rent due in September I paid back to Mrs. Wilber, as she said she didn’t want to stay in the house; the house was idle two weeks; the new tenant rented on the 23d of October; Wilber left about a week before his wife; I heard that he was here about two weeks ago after bis wife; he moved to my house from -Stewart street, above Catherine. [ John Wilber is 487 on the list of voters, and assessed 709 Stewart street ] John Meehan testified—Reside 703 Montcalm street- don’t know any other John Meehan in llm Seventh division of the Third Ward; I voted in that division in the October election; lam sore I didn't vote twice at that election. | John Meehan is No. 160 and 4A6 on the list of votors. | Wm. McConnell testified—Reside back of 715 Christian street; don’t know of any other person of my name who lives in the division; 1 voted at the October election: voted only once; voted the whole Democratic ticket except for Auditor- General. | Wm. McConnell is No. 319 and 602 on the llßt of voters | „ „ _ Patrick Fitzsimmons testified—Reside <22 Montcalm strei t; voted in Seventh Division, Third Ward, at October election; only voted once- don’t know any other Patrick Fitzsimmons ir, that division. [Nos. 240 and C 72 on the list of voters; only one assessed. | William A. Langdon testified—Resided at oOG Catharine street. Fourth Division, Third Ward, ut the October election; went to the Ward assess ment to be put on the extra list; gave my name, occupation and residence 60G Catharine street. Mr. Mann —The assessors in carrying this out entered it Wm. A. Laudon, artist, 806 Catharine, which put it in the Seventh division, No. 609 on the list of voters Is Wm. A. Langdon. There is ulso on the lißt of voters 313, Wm. Landon, as „esscd at 930 Filzwater street. Witness continued—l did not vote in the Sev enth district; voted at Fifth and Queen Washington B. Erben testified —Realdo at