"We proceed to the proof in justification of this step. Hopkins had deceived Dona Elenturia Bedoya, widow of Don Ramon Zelada, into selling him a piece of land which was exclusively the property of her minor children, who had obtained it by paternal inheritance. He had abused the ignorance of the widow, who was incapable of making this sale without a previous notice of its utility, and without a judicial mandate, as Hopkins had been admonished by the civil notary; but this delegate of justice was also deceived by Hopkins saying, in reply, that he could proceed to purchase the ground, owing to the existence of a verbal order from the President in his favor, which authorized the deed of sale to him without the intervention of the defender-general of minors being requisite.

"Hopkins refused, with the greatest contempt, to receive back the price of the ground, and consequently this money was appropriated for the benefit of the poor in the prison. Contravening the supreme act of August 23, 1854, he purchased other pieces of land without taking possession. The government could not regard with indifference such disrespect to the law, and the term of six days, which is set down in that regulation, having expired, these lots of land were adjudged to the State, their values being ordered to be charged to the account of Hopkins' debts to the State."

He says that his conduct, to avoid ulterior reclamations, was grounded upon the alleged fact, that the sale of the land to us, which belonged to minors, had not been sanctioned by the judge of probate or defender-general of minors; and that the scrivener had been surprised or deceived by Hopkins into making such a deed without such sanction, by representing that the President directed it to be dispensed with. Now this defence set up by President Lopez is shown by the original deed here produced, to be an unfounded pretence. (See its translation in Senate report, page 80.) The official guardian of minors did intervene, and moreover, joined in the deed. How came this pretence to be set up? The defender-general of minors had deceased. Hopkins, in his hurried notes in reply (allowed but a single day) to the many alleged grounds for the decree at the time, had not brought out this fact. We had the deed, Captain Page having sustained us in the right to carry them off, though Lopez at first refused our passports, unless they were surrendered, (see Page's despatches,) and probably did not know their contents. Thus the ground of his action set up in his official

organ, in reply to the President, is shown to be utterly untenable. Again, had the fact been otherwise, by what right should the President interfere! The parties concerned did. not complain. They had received fifty per cent. more than the adults for their portion, and (here comes in the ten dollars paid to the widow to make her portion equal to the minors') besides, no compensation was offered for improvements and expenditures, which amounted to thousands.

It is said also, now, that the land was the site of the gov ernment barracks. Very well. It is admitted in the Paraguayan proceedings, that the land did not belong to the government. They take it, and pay rent for the past occupation. We bought it and paid for it, without, however, at the time of purchase, supposing that it included the barracks. (See Hopkins' notes, No. 7, his objection to decree.) The barracks had been leased to us for two years, (see C. E. H.'s deposition, and E. A. H.'s despatch, and Ferguson's closin testimony,) just as the money was loaned to us for two years. We had a right to occupy them until that time expired, owning the land, and the barracks having been conceded for that period. It is said we put up new fences; of course we had a right to do so on our land. But we did not enclose the barracks, (or any property during our rightful exclusive possession,) only enclosing some of the land which had been open, changing the route for a way across it, without complaint from government. But these things are too small to dwell upon as grounds of confiscation. They They are not even mentioned by President Lopez, an able and intelligent man, in his Seminario reply to the message of President Buchanan. Again, he had a full knowledge of the transaction as it progressed, and assented to it. C. E. Hopkins says:

"Another subject of conversation was the documents for the San Antonio property. Extraordinary delay was practiced by the notary public and civil judge in the preparation of these papers, and though the company were in actual possession of the property early in November, it was not until the following March that the documents were signed, sealed, and delivered, and the money paid in full. That the President was aware of all the steps taken in the negotiation must be evident, as the notary and the judge, like all the subordinate officers of the Paraguayan government, are directly responsible to the President, and dare not take any important step, such as the consummation of so important a sale as that of the San Antonio property was considered to be, and which

had been five months in progress, without direct orders from their superior. I had occasion, when afterwards acting vice consul, during the absence of Mr. Hopkins, to call the President's attention to the delay in the drawing of the papers by the notary; and he put me off, by saying that there was time enough to arrange all that, and that it was a tedious matter to arrange and copy all the documents in a case where so many persons were interested. The subject of the licenses for the saw-mill, warehouse, and cigar factory, was also spoken of; and Mr. Hopkins always understood the President to say that he excused him from these formalities as a matter of special favor."-Record, page 63.

Question No. 7. Did you have a personal conversation with the President about the San Antonio deeds?

Answer. Yes.

Question No. 8. Were the company then in possession of the land?

Answer. Yes.

Question No. 9. Did the President know it?

Answer. Yes.

Question No. 10. What did he say about the deeds? Answer. He put me off, by saying, generally, that it was a long job, and that there was plenty of time.

And moreover, when the government, on the 7th August, proposed to buy the land of Hopkins, fixing thereon a price, a mere cypher of its then value, he admitted the pre-emption right to purchase the site of public works. but wished time to make a proposition in reply. On the 11th August, Lopez withdrew the offer to buy, and declared his title null and void, and proceeded to eject him, and take the land to himself for the government. (See paper filed by defence, 2 A.)

Without the use of that part of the land including the barracks, the only house for our men and the shelter for our machinery, the establishment must stop. The eviction turned persons and property out of doors. It was suggested in argument that Lopez had the right to revoke the permission to use the barracks. He had no right to annul the title to our land, and eject us for that. Nor, as we understand law and justice, as administered in any court, however strict, still less in one constituted like this, can a party revoke an act, upon the faith of which another has made expenditure, without making him whole. The wholesome doctrine of equitable estoppel, adopted by the common law from courts of equity, preclude such conduct. It was a lease for two years, and

not at will. The right claimed to revoke the lease, upon the faith of which we were established at San Antonio, is another illustration of the breach of justice and good faith which is the substance and body of the case.

Upon being served with the decree declaring his purchase of the 2 cuydaz of land void, and ordering the vendor to return the purchase-money, he replies, according to the record produced by defendant, as follows:

"Mr. Hopkins has the honor to inform Mr. Vasquez that he will send an authorized person at 3 p. m. to receive a copy of the deed mentioned by him. This person will have no authority to receive any money, as Mr. Hopkins has nothing to do with any money paid to Douce or Madam Bedoya, for a part of the San Antonio lands, belonging to the United States and Paraguay Navigation Company, which he purchased for them as their general agent. He refuses positively to sell the said land. May God preserve the honorable judge many years!

"ASUNCION, August 18, 1854."

EDWARD A. HOPKINS.

This reply is thus described in the decree which followed it as an impertinent reply, "exhibiting an unparelled boldness and an unaccountable grossness, when he might have exercised decency and politeness;" and that he would not "hesitate to insult the government in the most impudent manner." This decree the public saw; the letter they did not. Both now appear in the judicial proceedings. The language adds insult to injury, and illustrates upon what slight ground hard words are used in accusing Hopkins.

This charge about obtaining this deed without the intervention of the guardian of minors, is on a par with the charge against Hopkins of smuggling. The original permit having been produced and filed in our Department of State, and the testimony of a crowd of witnesses, (see Hopkins, p. 7, dep.,) the charge is abandoned.

So the fancy sketch sent to our government, of the river at Itapiru. So the grave reasons for refusing to ratify the treaty, the thirty-three important charges, as they are described in the Seminario, consisting of changes of the words North America, Union, and similar phrases, to that of our legal title, United States of America.

In fact, no specific charge is made against Hopkins which does not utterly fail. Vague talk and abuse cannot be an

swered. But we commend the terms of his notes and those of the government to him, to the perusal of the commissioners, if, indeed, they deem it necessary to trouble them. selves with this part of the case.

If Mr. Hopkins deserved the language applied to him, if he did act in the matters of the company in any one respect wrongfully, it certainly could be shown by evidence from Paraguay. There is no attempt to produce any. Powell, with whom he had a controversy, said that his (Hopkins') reputation in the navy was that he was egotistical and presuming. He had for years left the navy. Ferguson, who stands in a peculiar position in this case, was originally employed to go to Paraguay, by the consul of Paraguay at Buenos Ayres, and by his brother and partner, Decoud, who went to Europe with the son of Lopez, both believed to be partners of Lopez. He says he was not personally insulted in Paraguay; but in the same breath he says, in his affidavit annexed to Hopkins' despatch, 207, that he well knew the notorious fact that all the Amercans were insulted and abused. He signs many documents at the time, confirming and concurring in all our complaints, and his private journal expresses the same view of the relative conduct of Hopkins and Lopez. Something has changed his impressions. Perhaps it is nothing more than the fact, which he admits, that he had a violent quarrel with Hopkins at parting, and is now his enemy. Such a man, of all the residents of Paraguay, native and foreign, is the only witness cited to instances of Hopkins' misconduct. Once striking a man with a whip on the highway, again punishing severely a worthless slave who had repeatedly run away. The explanations of the first made by Hopkins are forgotten by this witness. Is not the fact that this important branch of the defence is left to such a witness the best proof that there is nothing in it?

Company to be Expelled.

Again, it is said that the oppposition of the government was a personal one to Hopkins, and not to the company: 1. This, if true, cannot justify the action of the Paraguayan government.

2. There is no evidence of it; but the verbal statements of President Lopez to Commander Page and Lieutenant Powell, both of whom have put on record their experience, that such statements and assurances were utterly unreliable,