man got into a boat in a creek which ultimately engaged in plunder, each act from the time he entered the boat to the time of the robbery would tend to show his intent. Mr. Hannen held there was no evidence as yet as to the connection of the defendant with a conspiracy. On the contrary, that given proved distinctly the exact opposite. In order to convict in a case of conspiracy it was necessary to prove, first, the existence of the conspiracy; secondly, that the defendant was a member of it; and thirdly, that he acted in furtherance of the design.

Mr. Eames did not deny the correctness of this law; but he thought the court the right judge how far the evidence proved these points.

His honor held that his being on the steamer established some connection between him and the things actually done. It was difficult, in a court constituted as the United States consular court, to refuse to admit evidence when by so doing an end would be put to the trial. He was to decide cases brought before the court in conjunction with his associates, and he could not consent to make a ruling that would take the general matter out of their hands.

Mr. Hannen would not object to the evidence after the conspiracy was proved.

His honor ruled that a presumption of the conspiracy was shown by the facts deposed to.

(Evidence continued.)—After leaving Nagasaki, we went to a place which I do not know, not having seen it before. I went with my master, and some foreigners and Manillamen, on board the small steamer. There were some 30 or 40. Some were men whom I took for seafaring men. The large steamer anchored outside and the small steamer entered the river. We went some 60 li up the river, and then 10 or 12 li overland, and arrived at a spot. We carried with us four spades.

There was an elevation of earth, with each side a stone slab. I do not know what the place was. We commenced digging. We continued the excavation till we came to some heavy stone; when we came to it, having only spades, we had to abandon the operation, and returned to the small steamer and on her back to the China.

Cross-examined.-Mr. Jenkins had no business with me, or I with him, as I had been engaged by Mr. Oppert.

SIEN-PAN-LING. I left here some time last spring, in the China, to go to Japan. Mr. Oppert engaged me to go to Japan, and to a place that had not been opened. I went in no particular capacity. My ordinary vocation is that of a shroff. The only foreign passengers were Mr. Oppert, Mr. Jenkins, and a French priest. We went to the Corea. Some of them went on shore. We objected to going when so ordered. Mr. Jenkins did not order us to go. I can speak a little English. Nobody else but Mr. Oppert gave me

orders.

To the court.-The cases came on board in Nagasaki; but I did not know, otherwise than by hearsay, what was in them till they were opened. After getting back there was some difficulty about the payment of wages, and I went to Mr. Jenkins to ask about it. Mr. Jenkins had nothing to do with it. I only consulted him, and he said my master was soon coming back from Ningpo.

SUN-KEE. I went in the China to the Corea; I was told by Mr. Oppert that there was business to be done. We went to Nagasaki. We there took on board some cases. There were several. I did not know what was in them. They were opened and the contents distributed to the coolies; but I did not see them given out. I did not see the marks on them. I went with the coolies when they landed, from 12 to 1 in the morning. I can speak English a little, and a Ningpo man also interpreted. We went some distance and met several Coreans. We were accompanied by a French priest, who spoke to them in their language. The coolies then fired in the air, and after a little passed on; we went further, and after resting at a species of temple, we went to a grave, and we dug down till we came to stone, through which we could not penetrate. I saw Mr. Jenkins on board the steamer when we were going ashore. He did not advise us to abstain from doing so, nor did he interfere in any way.

Cross-examined.-I expressed my unwillingness to Mr. Oppert to go ashore. I saw Mr. Jenkins on board at 12 o'clock before we left.

To the court.-The men were arranged to receive the guns, and Mr. Jenkins was moving about here and there.

CAPT. MÖLLER, (recalled.) The arms were distributed to the coolies. I really do not know who gave them. The small steamer was manned by my chief officer, chier engineer, and one man. I had no idea what they were going after. I was on deck at the time the small steamer left. I did not go on the expedition into the country. I heard no dispute or disagreement with Mr. Oppert.

Cross-examined.-The small steamer was picked up in Shanghai.

Re-examined. The charter money has not, I believe, been paid. There is something

due.

To the court. We reached the Corea at 10 p. m. on Friday, the 8th April. The expedition started for the interior the next night, say about 28 or 30 hours afterwards. We moved further in at 10 o'clock of the morning after our arrival. Nobody left the steamer before the expedition left. On Saturday afternoon the French

clergyman got two sanpans, after speaking to the natives on shore. This was about 6 o'clock. They ordered them to be taken. I cannot say positively that they were taken against the will of the Coreans, but I think they did not quite agree as to terms.

R. HEINSSEN, (charter-party shown to him.)-Mr. Oppert is the charterer. He has not any money to my knowledge. I received one-half the money, and gave the captain instructions to receive the balance on his return. Mr. Jenkins did not himself pay anything on account of the charter. The check was made out to him, and indorsed, I think, on the back. I had no other agreement than the charter-party. I looked to that and Mr. Oppert alone. There were some arms on board, which we took in virtue of the charter-party. These were sent to Hong Kong in the Benares, and lost. There is due about $3,600. I do not think Mr. Oppert can pay it without assistance. I wanted an extra sum for the charter because the ship was going to a non-open port. I knew nothing of the nature of the expedition. I expected the French missionaries would pay the charterer some compensation. I cannot say positively whether Mr. Jenkins was in the office when Mr. Oppert paid me the check.

To the court. The check I received was for 5,000 taels. The first payment should be $4,000. I returned to Mr. Oppert in cash $900 or so, and made payments to his order to balance.

Mr. WINTER, (recalled.)-Some Chinese, Mr. Oppert, the priest, myself, and second mate went in the small steamer. I remained on board when the rest landed. Mr. Oppert requested me to go-no one else. The China arrived on the 7th, and the expedition left next day at 12 or 1 o'clock. Mr. Oppert superintended the operations. Mr. Jenkins was about, but did not assist. We took two Corean boats. We got to our destination about 1 o'clock in the afternoon. I do not know where Mr. Jenkins was when the steamer went off and got the boats. I did not see him noticing them. The arms were served out the same day we arrived. He was on deck during the operation. He said nothing about it. We were 58 hours on the expedition up country. I heard no disputes between Mr. Jenkins and the other gentlemen on board.

Cross-examined.-Mr. Jenkins did not serve out the arms. His being on deck was

accidental.

Mr. Eames here suggested that, if the court saw fit, he would propose to adjourn the case for the evidence of Chang-Man-Yuen; but it appearing that witness had gone away to Tsung Ming, and that it would take some days to find him, his honor decided not to allow such adjournment.

Mr. Eames then summed up his case, saying he had little to add to the remarks he had already made. The exhuming of the body could not be regarded otherwise than as a gross outrage, if not on the laws at least upon the feelings of the Coreans. The only point of doubt was the connection of the accused with the expedition; with regard to which it was to be borne in mind that he was on the steamer from the first, and that he had lent a sum of money to Mr. Oppert. It was beyond doubt, therefore, that he was on the expedition and had furnished funds. Mr. Heinssen had said he was not sure, but he thought Mr. Jenkins was in his office when the payment of the 5,000 taels was made. If it were necessary in a case of conspiracy to bring specific proof against each of those concerned in it, it was clear that in almost all cases the subordinates would escape; and it would appear that the presence of the defendant without his making any remonstrance was enough to show his complicity. It was scarcely to be supposed that he was ignorant of the terms of the charter-party, which showed completely that something extraordinary was contemplated. It was not likely he would lend the money to Mr. Oppert unless he expected some return of which nobody knew anything; it would certainly not be a compliment to the accused to suppose he did not know how the matter lay; and his being in the expedition, his lending the money, and his sale of the arms at Nagasaki, were strong prima facie evidence that Jenkins was equally concerned with Oppert, though the latter was the leader. One fact was very noticeable, and it seemed to be an instance of those cases where very shrewd people are at times a little too adroit. He made no interference, when to all reason he ought. It would certainly seem natural, when he saw the arms being distributed to the 130 coolies, that he would make some objection. Moreover, he was perhaps a little over-doing the matter with respect to the passage ticket. Mr. Oppert seemed to be the stalking horse. He came in and gave just sufficient evidence to screen the defendant and then shut his month. It could not really be supposed that the object of the expedition was innocent. Mr. Oppert spoke of concluding treaties, but this was not proved; as, although he said he had the draughts of them, it did not appear that he had applied to any mandarin. I was also impossible, as before observed, to imagine that Jenkins was quite ignorant of the object. Returning to the point raised for the defendant, namely, that he had nothing to do with the expedition, his making no objection was prima facie evidence of his complicity. The offense supposed was that of making preparations for exhuming the body of a sovereign of the Corea, or some person unknown. It had, however, only been proved that attempts had been made at exhuming, and did not appear from the evidence whose remains occupied the grave. If the court could believe that Mr. Jenkins had been imposed upon; that he lent Mr. Oppert the 5,000 taels and trusted him

with the 10 cases of arms without security, and was not concerned and interested in the expedition, then it was their duty to acquit him; but if he had aided and abetted in the preparation of an expedition having for its object the carrying out of an act against good morals, the fact that the act was committed beyond the jurisdiction of the court had nothing to do with the question, the act itself being proven only to show the intent with which the preparations and preliminaries were entered into.

Mr. Eames had already replied on the point of the nationality of the steamer. This would apply if the accused were one of the crew, but not to a mere passenger. If this were held, crimes committed under such circumstances could only be cognizable by a

court at home.

In conclusion, the learned counsel thought he had proven a case sufficiently strong to convince the court the defendant had been guilty of complicity in a gross outrage on decency, and on the feelings most sacred in the human heart; and that the deliberation and the extent of the operations aggravated the reprehensibleness of the offense which he had committed.

Mr. Hannen would be able to perform his duty of replying to the evidence in a very few words. His learned friend had complained that his evidence had disappointed him; and in fact, as his case seemed to have broken down, he was disinclined to go on; and perhaps it would have been better if he had not done so. What, in point of fact, was the case? His learned friend thought he could get proof of the offense laid in the indictment out of Mr. Oppert. It was very well to say that he ought to have been the defendant's witness; but he had been called for the prosecution, and was not to be objected to because he did not show quite what Mr. Eames anticipated. His evidence seemed to be very straightforward, and- although of course not bound to criminate himself-he came and stated a series of facts which distinctly disproved any complicity on the part of the defendant. He stated also that the object of the expedition was to obtain the signature to treaties and the appointment of an ambassador. The court would carefully note that while there was no direct testimony of a conspiracy, there was direct testimony on oath that none existed. The latter, it was needless to point out, was the stronger presumption. The learned counsel for the prosecution had laid some stress upon the vast preparation that had been made; and what was it alleged this vast preparation was all for? Why, simply to obtain possession of one coffin. Was it likely that all this would be done for such a purpose? On the other hand, could anyone think that any man in his senses would go with merely four spades to break open a sarcophagus? Certainly, if such were the case, it did not indicate much premeditation. But what actually occurred? Mr. Oppert, it seems, is led by the French priest to infer that he could conclude a treaty with the Coreans. He goes to the Corea, and proceeds up country with some coolies, and commences digging at a place said to be a grave until he is stopped by some stone. From this the prosecution wish to infer a deliberate purpose to exhume; but there was no proof that a body was there at all, and there was also no proof that the digging was for this purpose.

From these inferences a slender chain of circumstantial evidence was educed; but the court would observe that the strength of all circumstantial evidence was not greater than its weakest part. The defendant denied that he knew the exhuming to be the purpose of the expedition; and evidence distinctly disproved that he had any notion of it; and it also showed that it was only after leaving Nagasaki that he was informed in any way of this object of the visit to the Corea.

His learned friend had made a great point of the fact that the defendant did not interfere, and asked why he did not remonstrate. Why should he? He was told that the object in view was only the conclusion of treaties and the obtaining the appointment of an ambassador; and the fact that Mr. Oppert told him he was going away for the purpose of digging at some spot was surely not a thing to make his hair stand on end, and to cause him to set about making a remonstrance; moreover, he was powerless to prevent it had he attempted. The fact, therefore, that he did not interfere, or, as his learned friend had put it, that he had no disputes, did not prove very much.

The court had taken a great deal of trouble to ascertain the exact facts connected with obtaining the sanpans. With respect, the learned gentleman would submit that all that was shown was that the priest did not come to exact terms with regard to them, and it would be hard if this alone were taken as constituting proof of their being obtained illegally.

Mr. Eames had stated that Mr. Oppert's evidence was given with a bias in favor of Mr. Jenkins. Of this there was really no proof. And in regard to the payment of the money, Mr. Heinssen had said that he was not sure whether Mr. Jenkins was present when the check was paid. As to Mr. Heinssen having trusted Mr. Jenkins, because it was not probable he would give the credit to Mr. Oppert, this was a conclusion which did not follow, as he had stated that he understood the French missionaries were in the back ground; and in respect to the passage ticket, this was evidently given merely in the ordinary course, in order to allow Mr. Jenkins to go on board at any time he liked. Reverting to the legal bearing of the question, the learned counsel summed up the objections which he had raised. They amounted in substance to this: The charge was

that of conspiring in Shanghai to exhume a body in the Corea; and the objections were, that the act was not alleged or proved to be against the laws of the Corea, the evidence having nowhere shown this to be the case; and the fact that a priest thought the steps taken likely to do good, going far to show that those connected with carrying them out were justified in considering that the act was not very serious. If the act was not proved to be against the law of the Corea, defendant could not be convicted; and if a decision were under such circumstances given against him, he hoped he would be allowed the privilege of appealing.

The learned gentlemen then proceeded to make a few remarks upon the full case as it stood before the court. From the whole evidence it appeared clear that the intention was to go to the Corea for the purpose of obtaining the treaties which had been draughted by Mr. Oppert. Whatever may have been intended beside, it was distinctly proved defendant did not know, till he had left Nagasaki, and he did nothing which would show him to be implicated in a conspiracy here. The action taken was stigmatized by the learned counsel for the prosecution as disgraceful, it being to make money by exhuming a body; but as he had said, Mr. Jenkins was a shrewd man of business, and was it likely, if this was the object, he would have embarked upon such a wild goose chase, and would have made such miserable preparation for removing a sarcophagus as merely taking a few shovels? The hypothesis was certainly highly improbable. If such had been the object, better preparations would have been made.

With these remarks the learned counsel would leave the case with confidence in the hands of the court. As regarded its legal bearings, he would beg them to remember that they should not be influenced by their feelings or disgust at the acts alleged; but that they had simply, according to the act of Congress which provided that the court should administer the law, to consider whether they were legal or illegal. In conclusion, he would allude to an argument upon which his learned friend had laid some stress, namely, that such acts as that under consideration would tend to prevent the establishment of friendly relations. Was not such an argument appealing to the court and associates' feelings by their interests, instead of asking them, as they were bound, to decide distinctly what was the law, and to act according to that?

The court was then cleared, and after a short time the following verdict was returned: "I acquit the accused."

Assented to:

A. A. HAYES, Jr.,

L. H. STODDARD,

M. L. SMITH,

R. F. EASTLACK,

GEO. F. SEWARD, Consul General, acting judicially.

Associates.

SHANGHAI, July 11, 1868.

The case of the "United States vs. Jenkins" was one which undeniably attracted considerable interest, and which, when we come to look at it, is entitled to very little. The evidence before the court disclosed hardly anything of the real motives of the chief actors in the enterprise, and the public are still at a loss to account for an outlay which was considerable, and a risk which was certainly great. Numerous rumors have got afloat as to what the expedition was intended to effect, the favorite theory being that a considerable quantity of treasure was concealed in the tomb of some sovereign of the Corea, which enterprising capitalists were anxious to get at with a view to turning it to some more useful account than lying buried alongside the skeleton of a defunct king. Another idea was that the Coreans nourished a superstitious belief that so long as the body of this particular potentate remained imbedded in Corean soil, there was no fear that the kingdom would ever come to grief or be liable to the attacks of foreign powers, and that with the view of rendering them more amenable to reason, and the blessings of commercial intercourse, it was extremely advisable to borrow this body, and then trade upon the anxiety of the people to get it back again. Others said, however, that Corean ambassadors were anxious to visit foreign countries, and that the China was sent to fetch them and to do any trade that offered. The evidence leaves it open to us to single out any one of these hypotheses, or to reject them all. It is not very probable that we shall know what were the real facts of the case, and in truth it does not seem very important, as the signal failure of the expedition, with whatever motive it was set afoot, is quite sufficient, we should think, to deter any one from venturing again upon such a wild and unproductive goose chase. In the mean time, it is enough for us to rest satisfied with the verdict, and the moral effect which the investigation has itself produced. As a matter of law, no other decision could have been arrived at. First, whatever was said by witnesses, suggested by counsel, or thought of by the court, there was nothing that would have justified a tribunal in finding the accused guilty of

the particular charge as laid. The indictment we think was bad in law; indeed, about as bad as it could well be; and if even it could or ought to have been amended, it is extremely doubtful whether the offense as charged could have been brought home to the prisoner. Of what was he accused? Of having conspired in China to exhume a body in the Corea. Now per se no one will be rash enough to assert that this is a criminal offense. It may be one. But in order to make it one it must appear on the face of the indictment that exhuming a body is an offense against the laws of the Corea. Of course it is wrong, if even it be not an indictable offense, because it is calculated to hurt the feelings and prejudices of the people of the Corea, and to bring about a conflict in which a great deal of innocent blood might be shed and numerous lives taken. Moreover, no European, or indeed any one, except the Coreans themselves, can have any business to interfere with the tombs of their kings, still less to steal and carry away their bodies; and if it is true that the leaders of the expedition intended and did attempt to interfere with the graves, no one would have regretted their getting handsomely thrashed for their pains. But because it is wrong to do such an act as that alleged to have been contemplated, and because it was also wrong, to use a legal term, to conspire together for such a purpose, it is no reason that a tribunal is to strain the law beyond its true intent and meaning. The chances alsó of an indictment being framed next time better calculated to hold water will, we think, prevent any one from being insane enough to try the experiment again. The landing of armed men from a ship has been held to be evidence of a piratical act, although the landing was in a country occupied by people with whom Christian nations had no treaties; and in one case, if our memory serves us right, a foreigner was hanged for forming part of an expedition to an island, which, planned with a view to a simple robbery, resulted in the death of some innocent natives.

As we have already said, we see no reason to quarrel with the verdict of acquittal pronounced by the consul general of the United States in the particular case before him; but we are especially anxious to impress upon the minds of enterprising pioneers in that line of country that it by no means follows, because on one indictment a verdict of not guilty is found, on another indictment, a little more artistically drawn, and on evidence a little more carefully sifted, a very different conclusion may possibly be come to. At any rate, fillibustering expeditions of all kinds, whether to annex territory, to force trade, or to inquire into the contents of tombs, are prima facie contrary, if not in all cases to the letter of the law, to the spirit of modern legislature both in the United States and in all European countries; and being undeniably wrong and immoral in themselves, few people, we think, will care to risk their personal liberty and probably their lives on the chance of an indictment being drawn with sufficient precision and particularity to hit off the particular offense that may be laid to their charge. Murder, piracy, and robbery are capable too often of very easy proof, and ther act is too trequently held by juries to be evidence of intent, to make it worth any one's while to put his neck in a noose from which there is but one escape. The ingenuity of lawyers is great, and in many cases it may be shown on both sides of a case in a way calculated to render the particular object of the game very nervous as to the result; and when the offense charged is one against which the reason and feeling of mankind revolt, judges and juries are apt to look more broadly at facts than it is in the peculiar interests of the accused they should do. If any further expeditions to Corea or elsewhere are planned, we trust that those who engage in them will so act as not to leave any room for doubt as to the propriety of the object in view, and for their own sakes will take care not to jeopardize their necks on the idea that no lawyer can be found to frame an indictment which may possibly meet their case.

Mr. Williams to Mr. Seward.

No. 20.]

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Peking, August 3, 1868. SIR: I have the honor to send you a correspondence with Prince Kung (inclosures A, B) relating to the existence of a gold mine near Chifu, in the province of Shautung; and his desire to prevent it being worked, and thereby becoming a source of disturbance to that region.

My reply opposes the views taken respecting the treatment of such a discovery, and, so far as I am aware, all the foreign ministers have, in one way or another, urged upon the Foreign Office the necessity of doing something to regulate an enterprise they cannot prevent, and exerting