Will you please inform me, by the bearer, if you intend to reply to that communication? and, if so, when I may expect to receive it?

Your obedient servant,

ARTHUR T. JONES,

115 Broadway.

MEMORANDUM.

Called on Mr. Hall, who said he had answered it the same afternoon, and had sent it to the St. Nicholas Hotel, supposing that to be Mr. Jones' residence. I went to the St. Nicholas Hotel, and could not find it. I then called on Mr. Hall again, saying that Mr. Jones requested him to send the person who had left the letter at the St. Nicholas, up there, and point out the place where he had left it. Mr. Hall said he had sent his boy up there with it, but would make a copy and send it down to Mr. Jones.

(Copy of a letter addressed to A. T. Jones, Esq., left at the St. Nicholas Hotel, evening of July 20th, supposing that to be his residence.)

SIR:

July 20th, 1855.

In answer to your letter of to-day, I have only to state, that by rule of court, no business, except in regard to prison felonies, is transacted during the months of July and August; and I shall not make any exception to that rule in regard to the case of the People against Carlin. Mr. Whiting being interested for the defence of similarly situated cases, and being an Ex-District Attorney, ac

quainted with this rule, of years' standing, will undoubtedly inform you to the same effect. I have documentary evidence that the very last adjournment was made when the counsel for Carlin was ready, and the people, by private counsel, were not.

I may add, that the case is not behind others of the same date of issue; but, on the contrary, was preferred to matters then, and still beyond it.

I may also add, that all familiar with the practice in criminal courts know that delays of counsel for defence, however annoying to the prosecution, are not only unavoidable under that practice, but promoted when private counsel assist for the prosecution.

I am so accustomed to insinuations and reflections in my official life, from parties who have not alone public ends to promote, but private interests and passions to subserve, (and who very naturally imagine that there is but one case for the District Attorney to try, and that their own,) that the collateral matters of your note leave only a regret that a gentleman of your experience, education and association, should indulge in them.

As I understand my duty, I discharge it. I listen with respect to your suggestions, but I follow my own course.

You have my full permission to canvass my acts, in this and other matters, whenever you please. Particularly, as I feel assured a man of your ingenuousness would at the same time exhibit this note. I conceal nothing, and I ask no favors.

ARTHUR T. JONES, ESQ.,

Your obedient servant,

A. OAKEY HALL.

Present.

The "cloven foot" had made its appearance at last. I had been walking over the volcano for a long time; at last the fire had broken forth, and had discovered a spot where it might be quenched. I thought I would see if I could not throw a little cold water upon it.

JONES TO HALL

NEW-YORK, July 30, 1855.

A. OAKEY HALL, ESQ.,

SIR:

On the 25th inst. I received your copy of a letter, said to have been left at the St. Nicholas Hotel for me, on the 20th inst., (which did not come to hand,) in answer to mine of same date.

As to the "rule of court," that "no business, except in regard to prison felonies, is transacted during the months of July and August." I told you in the latter part of May, or the first part of June, that I had understood there was a custom of that kind; and I therefore respectfully asked you to have the case of Carlin tried at once. You then promised to have the motion argued on Saturday, the 9th June, and that he should positively be tried during that month. At the interview I had with you on the 20th inst., you then peremptorily told me, that the motion to quash could not be argued, nor the trial be brought on, till the September term. I was much surprised, when you told me that there was an arrangement between my counsel, Mr. Whiting, and ex-Judge Beebe, to argue the motion in the first week in September, particularly as I had seen Mr. Whiting on the subject but a few days before, when he gave me to understand quite differently. I immediately addressed a note to Mr. Whiting upon the subject, and I here quote from his reply:

"It is true, I have been ready to argue the motion to quash the indictment against Carlin, or to try it whenever it can be brought on. I have attended the Court of Sessions many times, ready to do either. Judge Beebe has repeatedly promised to send in his written points, to quash; but has not done it."

As to the "documentary evidence," which you say you have, "that the counsel for Carlin was ready upon the very last adjournment, when the people, by private counsel, were not." I think it quite likely that when they found the "private counsel" happened to be absent upon one occasion, they professed to be ready.

Mr. Whiting's reply, as above quoted, is good evidence to warrant that conclusion.

Regarding your remarks respecting the annoyances, and their promotion under the practice where "private counsel" assist for the prosecution, I have nothing to say; except that the people or yourself frequently avail yourselves of the custom, as in the case of Graham, Cole, and hosts of others. On the Cole trial, I think I understood "private counsel" Whiting to say to the jury, "that he had no motive or desire to convict Cole, but was merely doing his duty as the public prosecutor, in the place of the District Attorney, and at his request;" adding, that "the law authorized the public prosecutor to engage 'private counsel' to assist him in his extensive and arduous duties."

As I paid Mr. Whiting from the start to prosecute Thomas Carlin, I presume there is no impropriety in requiring him to earn his fee; or in his relieving you from a portion of your many duties; particularly as it is not unlawful.

I acceded to your desire, that I should employ "private counsel," (at my own expense,) in the case of Sheriff Orser, to assist you in the duties incumbent on you to perform, in your official capacity of District Attorney for the people; on account of your being placed "in an unpleasant position," from being the "private counsel" for the Sheriff, and the political (?) friend of the Governor."

I therefore presume there is no apology necessary, either for Counsellor Whiting's acting in the case, or for my employing him

in it.

With regard to the "insinuations and reflections," which you say you are so accustomed to, in your official life. If a man does his duty conscientiously, he will be enabled to consider them with as much contempt, or pity, as he could look upon a man who would write flattery, or utter it to his face.

If you intend to apply your remarks to me, when you say, “insinuations and reflections from parties who have not alone public ends to promote, but private passions to subserve, (and who natu

rally imagine that there is but one case for the District Attorney to try, and that his own)," I beg to tell you, (not to be contradicted by you or anybody else,) that I have no private interests, or private feelings to subserve; but that in my proceedings against John Orser, Sheriff, and Thomas Carlin, one of his Deputies, I act solely from a conscientious duty to myself, and to this whole community; and to show that these high officials, and all other officials, high or low, are amenable to the laws, when they abuse the great powers confided to them, by breaking them and robbing the people of their rights and property.

I understand it to be the duty of the District Attorney, to whom the people have delegated the important trust of protecting them, to do all in his power to further the ends of justice, to the accomplishment of the same purpose.

After your once having set down the trial of Carlin for the third week in May, promising me that the motion should be argued on the 9th of June, and positively assuring me that he should be tried in June, and I having acceded to your wishes, by employing “private counsel," to assist you with your duties, in the case of Sheriff Orser, I considered that I had a right to ask you to bring on the trial of Carlin at once.

I think I am correct in saying, that you have the power to bring on any trial, whenever you please, and unless there are objections on the part of the defence, satisfactory to the Court, the trial must proceed; and it is not in the power of the Court to compel you to bring on any trial against your will.

In speaking of that "rule of court," you say-" And I shall not make any exception to that rule, in regard to the People against Carlin;" by which I imply that you could, if you pleased.

Again you say " As I understand my duty, I discharge it. I listen with respect to your suggestions, but I follow my own course." Well, you have told me that you will not try Carlin till September-we will see if he is tried then.

Without any "insinuations," I tell you plainly, sir, that I believe