package down in the cnr-seat on their way from Washington to Georgia, and that she had taken it np from the seat. This was offered as a technical evasion, which he seemed to suppose would defeat the law. He further stated that he told the woman that it would not be safe for her to try to pass any of this money. She examined it and said that she thought she could pass it easy enough. He further stated that he suspected that she had been passing it to prove to him that she could do more with it than he gave her credit for. After pursuing this line some time, he asked if I had yet exposed him. I refused to satisfy him on that point, but repeated to him the situation in which his confession placed me in the eyes of the law, and told him he had no favors to expect from me. At this interview the matter of the publication in the Augusta papers came up. I think it came up by my asking him if he had seen the Augusta papers. He had not seen them. I told him that Mr. Smith, route agent on the Central Hoad, had been in my office the evening before, and had told me that he had seen an Augusta paper, which contained an extract implicating him in the matter for which Marian Harris had been arrested, and, npon this information, he at once left my office. In the afternoon of the same day he called again, and said that he had been to the Telegbaph office, and thatthe editor of that paper had called his attention to the article of which I had spoken. He then renewed his pleadings for silence on my part, and hinted, as a threat, that since I had shielded him thus far, he oould implicate me as an accomplice. I pursued the aloof policy—gave him no satisfaction, and he retired.On Thursday, the 8th, he visited me again and again renewed his pleadings, his excuses and explanations, but tbe same routine was repeated with immaterial variations.On Friday Mr. Neil presented himself.and after consultation with him I made affidavit to the facts, and as I am since informed a warrant was issued on that day. The editorial which appeared in the Union on that day, headed “Turner in Irons,” was written only because of the positive necessity to say something in defence or explanation of the published charges against Turner; and matters had not sufficiently developed to make a statement of the case without, possibly, defeating the ends of justice. That article, however, when closely analyzed, makes no defence of Turner,but what is conscienciously due him.