ple. Having seen
something of this person, and been _myself a victim_, I have felt it due
to my friends in Portland to put them on their guard. He is the son of a
merchant in Trieste, driven from his home and his friends in consequence
of his crimes. His pretension to any of the titles he claims is
altogether without foundation. After _exhausting Europe_, he has within
a few years turned his talents to good account in our country. He made
his appearance here about two years ago as Consul-General and Envoy from
Greece, in which capacity he was very free with his commissions of
vice-consulships in New York and Philadelphia. He was indicted here for
forgery,--_convicted_,--obtained a new trial by the false oaths of his
associates, some of whom are now in the state prison (one for
horse-stealing), and gave bail for his appearance at the next term. The
pretence for a new trial was the absence of a witness _who never
existed_, but who was expected to prove his innocence. Before the next
term, the Consul-General took wing, leaving his bail, a simple
Frenchman, to pay the forfeit. It would be impossible for me to give
anything like a history of his crimes in a letter. Suffice it to say
that he is a notorious swindler, the most unblushing and inexhaustible
liar and the most finished rascal I ever saw."

If this were true, how happened it that the notorious swindler, the
horse-thief, the convicted forger, and the escaped convict was still at
large,--and not only at large, but always before the public, and _always
without a change of name_? Why was he not surrendered by his bail? Why
not followed by a bench warrant, or a requisition from the Governor of
Pennsylvania? Of course, the story could not be true, as told by Mr.
McIlvaine. It was too absurd on the face of it.

But was any part of the story true? and, if so, how much? Having been
frequently imposed upon, both at home and abroad, by adventurers and
pretenders, I determined to go to the bottom of this case before I
committed myself, and I must say that, for a while, the stories told by
General Bratish, and the explanations he gave, seemed to me still more
absurd and preposterous.

According to his story--to give one example out of a score--he had been
obliged to apply for the benefit of the Insolvent Act, in Philadelphia,
owing to losses he had sustained by lending money to distressed
compatriots, and eleemosynary outcasts, and had been opposed in the
Court of Insolvency