ents. The latter states, that his instructions from the Respondents were to deliver Banca when small lots were required, but Revely when large lots of one thousand lbs. and upwards were required; and that, as far as his knowl edge went, this had always been done. Therefore, the contract was performed according to the mutual understanding of the two parties.

(7.) The price, according to the contract, shows that the tin called Revely was intended. This can be demonstrated. At the date of the contracts, 30th March, 1863, the price of Banca in the market was fifty-seven to fifty-eight cents a pound. Revely was less. The price stipulated in the contract was fifty-seven cents. But it is plain that the Respondents could not undertake to supply an article at less than its market price. This would be absurd. Of course, as merchants, they expected a profit. Therefore, in their bid, they would naturally take into consideration the various elements which would enter into the final price. These would be, first, the original price; secondly, the commission; thirdly, the condition of the currency, which at that time had begun to depreciate; fourthly, the variation of the market for a month; fifthly, store expense and interest; sixthly, the postponement of payment; and, seventhly, the risks of a contractor in placing himself within the unhesitating grasp of military power. So far as these can be estimated, they are as follows:

Now can any person of common sense, not to say any merchant, assert that fifty-seven cents a pound was a high price for the tin called Revely? Would anybody but a fool offer to supply the tin which in this prosecution is called Banca, at fifty-seven cents a pound, when its original price was more than this, and the contractor must take all the additional risks of currency, market, store expenses, interest, postponement of payment, and military tribunals, without the possibility of a mill for commissions? Clearly not. It is evident, therefore, that, in offering to supply Banca tin at fifty-seven cents a pound, they must have intended that species of Banca tin known as Revely, which, according to the usage of the Navy Yard and of merchants, had been recognized as Banca tin.

On this point we have the testimony of Mr. RICHARDS, a witness for the Government, whose cross-examination thus confirms the foregoing conclusion:

Cross-Question 37. What would it be worth to give a party the refusal for say five thousand lbs. of tin for twenty or thirty days?— Ans. At least fifteen per cent.

Cross-Question 44. During the year 1863, how much, in addition to the cash market-price, would you have considered should be added for a refusal of thirty days? Ans. From ten to fifteen per cent.

Cross-Question 45. Tin being sold to us at fifty and three-fourths cents net cash in the market, would fifty-seven cents be an improper sum for us to charge the Government on a time refusal?— Ans. I should think not.

Cross-Question 46. If you were to be subject to a delay of vouchers for merchandise delivered for thirty days; if there should be a reservation of twenty per cent until the contract was closed, and if then you were liable to be compelled to receive certificates of indebtedness that would not sell in the market at par, what, in addition to the cash market-price, would you consider should be added? Ans. From five to ten per cent, I should think.

Cross-Question 50. Upon a Government contract, to run three months or one year, with a reservation of thirty per cent, a bid being made which amounts to a refusal for twenty or thirty days, and sub

ject to terms of Government payment, what would you consider a fair addition to the cash market-price on a sale to the Government? Ans. At least ten per cent.

Cross-Question 53. Among Boston merchants what is the character of the house of Smith Brothers & Co. for integrity and fair dealing? Ans. A No. 1.

Such is the testimony of a witness for the Government. In the face of this testimony, concurring with the reason of the case, it is hard to tolerate the allegation against these Respondents founded on the price. Indeed it is hard to tolerate the allegation on any ground.

Under these seven heads, this whole case, so far as it concerns the contract for tin, may be considered. It appears that the loss to the United States from the delivery of Revely instead of what is called Banca, was not more than one hundred dollars in a mass of transactions amounting to more than $1,200,000; that, according to extensive and long-continued usage, Revely is included under Banca; that, according to usage at the Navy Yard, it was treated as Banca;, that the whole transaction and the delivery were open and without any concealment; that Revely was actually accepted by the officers of the Government in performance of the contract; that the Respondents never expected to supply other than Revely; and, lastly, that the price paid shows that Revely was intended. Surely this is enough. I forbear to go into the evidence of founders and plumbers, derived from experience; of assayers and chemists, derived from analysis of the two tins in question; and also of business men as to their comparative value,

for all this is superfluous. To charge fraud against the Respondents under such circumstances is cruel, irrational, preposterous. Their conduct cannot be tortured or twisted into fraud. As well undertake to extract sunbeams out of cucumbers, or oil out of Massachusetts granite.

It is difficult to imagine the origin of these unfortunate

proceedings, which, beginning in unexampled harshness, threaten to end in unexampled injustice, unless arrested by the President. But there are certain facts which may shed light upon some of the hidden springs. Nobody supposes that the able and candid Head of the Navy Department became acquainted with this prosecution, until after it had been already started, shaped, and set in motion. Others in the Department used its great powers, if not for purposes of oppression, at least recklessly and unaccountably.

It appears that Franklin W. Smith, one of the Respondents, published a pamphlet, in which he exposed abuses in the contract system of the Navy Department; and it is understood that sundry officials felt aggrieved by these disclosures. The spirit of these officials appears sufficiently in the following extract from a letter of one of the witnesses of the Government, holding an important position in the Navy Department, addressed to another witness, himself an official also:

"I have been summoned before the Select Committee of the Senate for investigating frauds in Naval Supplies; and, if the wool don't fly, it won't be my fault. Norton, the Navy Agent, has complained that I have interfered with his business: he and his friend Smith are dead cocks in the pit. We have got a sure thing on them in the tin business. They that dance must pay the fiddler."

The writer of this letter, after appearing before the Senate Committee at a later day, came on from Washington to appear before the Court-martial at Charlestown as a witness against the Respondents, where he underwent a cross-examination on which I forbear to comment. If the prosecution did not originate in the spirit which fills his letter, it is evident that this spirit entered into it. "If the wool don't fly, it won't be my fault,"—"Dead cocks in the pit,"-" A sure thing in the tin business; "such are the countersigns adopted by the agent of this dark proceeding, showing clearly two things:

first, the foregone conclusion that these Respondents were to be sacrificed; and, secondly, that the case turned on the "tin business."

It is hard that citizens enjoying a good name, who had the misfortune to come into business relations with the Government, should be exposed to such a spirit; that they should be dragged from their homes, and hurried to a military prison; that they should be obliged to undergo a protracted trial by Court-martial, damaging their good name, destroying their peace, breaking up their business, and subjecting them to untold expense, when at the slightest touch the whole case vanishes into thin air, leaving behind nothing but the incomprehensible spirit in which it had its origin.

Of course, the findings and sentence of the Court ought, without delay, to be set aside. But this is only the beginning of justice. Some positive reparation should be made to citizens who have been so deeply injured.

CHARLES SUMNER.

WASHINGTON, March 16, 1865.

TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.