matter, and accordingly withdraw entirely the inference drawn from the alleged statement.

66

We cheerfully publish Mr. Sedgwick's letter, and can only renew the expression of regret that the original statement should have been made :

"No. 56 WALL-STREET, May 9th, 1849.

"To the Proprietor of the Courier and New-York Enquirer:

"Your article in the Courier of this morning has been examined by Mr. Forrest with every disposition to accept any satisfactory withdrawal of the charges contained in the article in your paper of the 8th, and any reasonable explanation of the insertion of so erroneous and injurious a statement.

"But your paper of this morning contains an assertion which Mr. Forrest cannot for a moment allow to pass uncontradicted.

"You state as a fact,' in the article to which I refer, that Mr. Forrest had declared in public that Mr. Macready should never be permitted to appear again upon the stage in this city,' and the inference again said to be warranted by the fact, is, that the disturbance on Monday night was Mr. Forrest's procurement.' "Mr. Forrest pronounces this assertion to be absolutely false; and I am instructed to request that you will at once contradict it, or give the authority on whose information the statement is made.

66

I am respectfully, your obd't. serv't.,

66

THEODORE SEDGWICK."

It will be observed that this charge made by the Courier against Mr. Forrest, is the same as that insinuated by Mr. Macready in his speech, and while it was impossible to produce any evidence of the grave offence charged, it betrays the spirit of the challenge to the opposers of the actor. Mr. Forrest was, however, it appears, not to be trifled with, and retraction was promptly made. It now became evident that something must be done to preserve the peace of the city. The mayor sent for the manager, Mr. Niblo, and he attended at 11 o'clock, A. M. with Mr. Hackett. The mayor proposed to close the theatre. In this, he was resisted by the manager, who, in fact, governed the city in that respect. The mayor seemed to feel that it was his duty to close the house, but he was troubled with the indecision that beset Macbeth, and this want of firmness was fatal. The Mayor of Philadelphia, a few years since, when a riot was threatened, in consequence of an attempt to play a drama founded on the Mercer tragedy, promptly closed the house. It has been argued that the actor in the pursuit of a lawful calling, was entitled to protection, at all costs; in this we apprehend lies an error. Theatrical representations are not lawful in the sense that other occupations are lawful. They cannot be carried on without an express license, for which a tax is charged, and the necessity of the license grows out of the fact that they may, unchecked, offend good morals or disturb the public peace. Every man's calling is subject to prohibition when the public interests demand it. This has frequently been decided in the English as well as in our own law courts. It was particularly tested in England, in the case of a person who, within his own window, exposed a picture which daily attracted crowds, in consequence of which he was arrested, but having means, contested his right to have his own picture in his own window. This was ably argued, and carried to the court of last resort, when his right was confirmed; but it was also decided that that right must, when necessary, yield to the general

interests. In the case of the exhibition of the model artists in New-York, they were permitted until an indefinable line in respect of costume was passed, and then the police arrested the performers and closed the house. In the case of certain poor and friendless preachers of the gospel, many in New-York have been arrested and imprisoned, because they collected crowds. What are called disorderly houses, are daily broken up, when no actual disturbance occurs, because they offend good morals. A few years since, when Robert Morris, Esq., was mayor, the church in Crosbystreet, in the exercise of a most perfect right, proceeded to remove the remains in a burial ground, which had not been disturbed for many years. This gave rise to a popular commotion, which endangered the peace of the city, and the mayor promptly prohibited the proceedings of the church until the excitement was allayed. It never occurred to him to call upon soldiers to shoot the mob, even in order to defend the church in an inde feasable right. In the case of cholera, sick patients were taken forcibly from their own houses by authority, and died on the way to the hospital. The mayor, on the present occasion, which was that of a direct challenge between the friends of Macready on one hand, to his opponents on the other, to come and fight at the Astor Place Opera, being overruled by the actors, determined to permit the performance to take sides with Macready's friends against his opponents, and to defend the house. Having arrived at this conclusion, it would seem natural that he should consult with his chief of police as to the means at the disposal of the authorities to keep the peace. What these are, is known to every citizen, being provided by a law for which they all voted. There are at his disposal, under the chief of police, nine hundred men, who receive annual salaries of $500 per annum each. These are divided into companies under sufficient captains, who all. report to the chief. In addition to this force, he can appoint as many spe cial constables as the occasion may require. Now this force is not all on duty at once, but when difficulty occurs, all should be on the spot. At sea, a ship's crew is divided into watches, but a gale of wind calls all hands upon deck. At 11 o'clock on the morning of Thursday, the mayor summoned the chief, and Major General Charles W. Sandford, commanding the military forces of this county, and they appeared. Having decided, against his own judgment and the advice of recorder Tallmadge, to prevent the actor from being hissed, the mayor enquired of the chief if the civil force would be sufficient to suppress the disturbance. Now, as we have stated, this officer is in command of nine hundred athletic men, accustomed to manly exercise, receiving adequate salaries, and organized under proper captains,t their whole duty being to keep the peace. * Art. 1, sec. 2, law of May, 1846.

*

POLICE ORGANIZATION FOR 1849.

Force.

.45

2......60 Gold-street..

.Harlem, Yorkville, Bloomingdale, 33

14......Centre Market.

48

54

.40

Knowing these facts, he deliberately replied that they would not be sufficient. The mayor then asked if the military would also be required, and he replied, yes!* General Sandford declined giving an opinion. Soon after, the order for the military was given. Now, it will be observed, that "the military" forms no part of our government. There is no law whatever recognizing it any way as a part of the executive branch. It is a form of defence adopted against foreign enemies; but as a means of internal government, the ballot-box was long since substituted for the bayonet. The captain and private, as well as any other citizen, may be deputised as assistant constables to aid in keeping the peace, but only as assistant constables. As executioners, a part they sometimes volunteer to assume, they are not recognized by the law. The civil police are sometimes obliged to take life, but only when it is in defence of their lives; their military aid has no more right to use a musket than has a constable, and neither has either right to give the other liberty to take life. Nevertheless, there is this proneness on the part of the authorities, on the smallest occasion, to neglect their duties, and throw the responsibility of keeping the peace upon the military, and the officious vanity of these officers always seconds the call. The erroneous impression that the militia are necessary to keep the peace, and that they are a legally constituted branch of the executive, seems to be the main argument for preserv ing their organization; and this dangerous impression being shared by civil officers, prompts them to depend upon the militia, paralysing their own energies. In consequence of the order, General Sandford called out the 7th regiment of National Guards, numbering four hundred men, and a troop of horse; but it appears that only two hundred infantry and forty horsemen obeyed the summons. It appears from the evidence that he ordered a small force, because he thought there was to be a large police force, and the police force was small, because the chief knew that the military was to be present. It does not appear that any consultation was held, or that the mayor, who should have directed all, troubled himself about the matter.

From 11 A. M. until the hour of performance, the chief on his part, and the general on his, had to prepare, and it appears that the Opera House was placed in a state of siege, by nailing planks across its lower windows and strengthening its defences. At the proper time, the chief, out of his command of nine hundred men, which he thought insufficient to keep the peace without the soldiers, assembled three hundred and twenty-five, with whom, at 4 P. M., he repaired to the spot. Of these, he posted seventy-five in the house of Mrs. Langdon, a grand-daughter of the late John Jacob Astor, (what these men were placed there for has not been explained,) two hundred in the Opera House, and fifty in the streets. It will be remembered that Astor Place commences on the Bowery, and in its course to Broadway, divides at about half the distance, the northern branch being called Eighth-street, and the southern, Astor Place. The Opera House is the point of division. There are two entrances to to the house, one on each street-Mrs. Langdon's house being opposite on Astor Place. Now, it is obvious, that having delivered an opinion that nine hundred policemen would not be sufficient to prevent the actor from being bissed, the authorities would naturally make the most of their

Evidence before the Coroner.

force-and the station-houses could easily have been supplied with special constables for the evening, while the whole regular force concentrated upon the scene of the expected riot. Nothing of the kind, however, was done. But as soon as the crowd began to press, the military was sent for. It would appear very evident that there was from the first no intention of relying upon the police. That it was pre-determined to depend out of doors wholly upon the militia, and to induce them to take all the responsibility.

The Chief of Police states in his evidence, that there was a tumult in the house. Some persons "shook their fists at Macready," and for this he ordered persons arrested, and "ordered the amphitheatre to be cleared of all those disturbing the peace; this was done, and quiet was restored. The attack commenced outside, by throwing stones at the windows." Now, it would seem, that until the police commenced making arrests for " shaking fists," there was no overt-act; the usual noise of a theatre was somewhat exaggerated. The police in the house were in sufficient force to prevent any breach of the peace. They made what arrests they pleased without difficulty, and the play was played out to the end, when the actor was called out, hissed and applauded, and he then went home. Around the building on the outside were, it appears, about two hundred boys, from 12 to 18 years of age, throwing stones at the building; and these, by the testimony of all parties, constituted the whole of the mob. A large concourse of people was assembled, but they took no part whatever in the disturbance; so far from it that, among the crowd of spectators, were standing some of the gentlemen who signed the above paper to support Macready: and, as appears from the testimony, as in that of John Clarke, book-binder, many were remonstrating with others who were throwing stones. It has been said that no spectators had any right to be there. This may be true in despotic governments, where there are two parties only, the people and the government, and the latter wishes no disinterested witnesses of its executions. Under our institutions all citizens have a right to see for themselves how

*

* EVIDENCE BEFORE the Coroner.-Gen. Hall.-" The rioters appeared to be boys from 15 to 18 and 20 years of age, and I don't believe there was over 1,000."

S. L. Wylie, Piano-Forte Maker.—"The persons engaged in throwing stones were mostly boys, from 16 to 20 years of age,"

S. W. Gaines, Counsellor at Law." There were so few persons engaged throwing stones, that it was a matter of surprise to those witnessing it, why the police did not stop it."

Jesse C. Haviland, Contractor.-" There was a good many boys, possibly two or three hundred, throwing stones at the Astor Opera House."

T. J. Belvin, Boatman.-"I saw a lot of half-grown boys throwing stones at the Astor Opera House."

S. H. Stewart, Clerk of Police. "Those who were assailing the door were mostly boys and young men, 15 to 17 years of age."

Dennis Ryer, Ex-Policeman.-" I saw some boys, and a few men, throwing stones." John Clarke, Book-Binder.-"I saw some boys pick up stones and throw them, and one man, whom I told he ought to be ashamed of himself, for he ought to know better."

B. P. Fairchild, Capt. Police.-" From one to two hundred boys were throwing stones."

Johu B. Leveridge." The boys were throwing stones."

Charles Cook, Assistant Captain 1st Ward Police." The voices appeared to come from boys of 16 years of age; on the second fire they appeared to scatter, and in a quarter of an hour the street was cleared."

the laws are executed, and it is also the acknowledged duty of all good citizens to aid in keeping the peace, a duty which requires their presence, unless the chief magistrate, having provided himself with a sufficient number of special constables, requests, by proclamation, all others to stay away. No such proclamation was, however, issued. Now we know, from personal observation, that among the concourse there were numbers like John Clarke, desirous to preserve order, and if, previous to the arrival of the military, the mayor had come out and appealed to citizens present to aid in the arrest of the disturbers of the peace, he would have been promptly and efficiently responded to. It will be remembered that, although the chief had told the mayor at 11 o'clock, A. M., that the whole police force would not be sufficient to preserve the peace, and the mayor had, in consequence, ordered out the military with murderous weapons, he tells us that, at nine o'clock in the evening, when Gen. Hall was soliciting leave to fire, "there was no proclamation issued by me that day; I issued none, because I was not sufficiently informed of the state of facts to deem it necessary; the means taken through the day were precautionary." Would it not also have been "precautionary" to issue a proclamation, requesting citizens to refrain from congregating? We think this illustrates the fact that the authorities regard, what should only be the last resort in extreme cases, viz., the ordering out of the military, with loaded weapons, to shoot citizens, as a very trivial affair, of much less consequence than to issue a proclamation. Now it will be observed that 200 policemen in the theatre effected their object, in preventing any violence, if any was intended, beyond hissing, which, however, does not appear, and of which there is no probability. From concurrent testimony there were, then, 200 boys outside to be arrested, and for that duty 50 policemen only were detailed; the 75 who constituted a guard for Mrs. Langdon, it would appear, took no part. After the arrests in the house, the throwing of stones outside became more serious, and the chief, in his evidence, says: "I then rallied a body of policemen on the Eighth-street side, opened the doors, and charged the crowd, and drove them from the rear of the house; a number of the policemen were driven into the house badly wounded; almost all of them were more or less injured; the cry was then, where are the military?" Now, Mr. Stewart, clerk of police, says of this transaction :

"The number ordered out was fifteen men. On my going into the streets there apeared to be quite a concourse of people. There was quite a crowd about the door, but not very dense. I could not see how far the crowd extended. Those who were assailing the door were mostly boys and young men 15 and 17 years of age. Several of them were concerned in assailing the door. I cannot say how many. Certainly a very small proportion of the crowd. police arrested from six to ten of them and brought them in the house, and the attack on the door in Astor Place, and the force and press, appeared to increase after this.

The

Of 900 policemen, 15! only ventured among the boys outside on Eighth-street, and, although they arrested 10 of them, it was thought the military were necessary. In the evidence it is repeatedly stated generally that numbers of the police were injured, but there are no specifications. The testimony concurs on all sides that there was no serious violence until the military made its appearance. Up to this time the nature