This communication from the City Clerk of Mobile is valuable in more points than one. In another place he states that there is in his office on file an affidavit from Shoemake relative to the prosecution. The nature and subject of this affidavit was not inserted in the Clerk’s communication. Why this affidavit of Shoemake’s as one of the prosecutors, and none to be found from any of the other three prosecutors, is a profound mystery. Again, affidavits before Grand Juries, in connection with prosecution for libel, surpasses ordinary comprehension. The missing of so many papers, and the derangement of all others, might be charged to the neglect or carelessness of the custodian, the then Clerk, but how can the legerdemain disappearance of Shoemake’s name from the trial docket be accounted for? No reasons—no cause for the same can be found! The present Clerk is bewildered, and can give no explanation on the matter. Such being the case, is it not reasonable to presume that the leaders of the prosecution then controlled the files and records of the office to suit convenience? Prosecution foul in the commencement needs props, subterfuges and mystery in every stage of progress. But the most impenetrable darkness of all is, Shoemake’s name being found on the trial docket as one of the prosecuting parties. The order in which they stand on the docket is cases number 61, 62, 63 and 64, corresponding with which the prosecutors are G. Y. Overall, C. F. Moulton, G. A. Cleaveland and S. S. Shoemake; and in agreement with the same, four appearance bonds are found. The question now for solution is, did Shoemake really get a bill from the Grand Jury of Mobile at the November term, 1858, along with the other three? The files and records show that he did. Now let it be borne in mind that this man was the agent to bear the requisition from the Governor of Alabama to the Governor of Mississippi for the arrest of J. R. S. Pitts. Let it also be borne in mind that J. R. S. Pitts is positively certain that he never gave any bond to cover the case of Shoemake—only three, Overall, Moulton and Cleaveland’s; and that before receiving the Clerk’s communication, he never knew that Shoemake was one of the docketed prosecutors; but he did learn during the time of his trial, that Shoemake tried to get a bill in the February term, 1859, and signally failed. Choose either end of the dilemma and the difficulty is not at all obviated. If he did get a bill, the rascality is equally manifest. To go to Mobile, Ala., to prosecute while he was a resident of Mississippi, and J. R. S. Pitts also a resident of this State, is utterly incomprehensible in any other light than a flagrant outrage on every principle of law and justice. If he did not get a bill, the files and records show forgery of the darkest hues. So, then, from whatever stand-point the whole affair is viewed, atrocity and corruption of the most aggravated character stare the impartial inquirer in the face from