Bradford reporter. (Towanda, Pa.) 1844-1884, June 25, 1853, Image 1

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

    zolga] 17.7.
GatinbaP 11113rninD, 3nnc 25, 1853.
c ititttOi Vottrly.
- 1
Brother is life's morning clouded,
Has the sunlight ceased to shine!
Is the earth in darkness shrouded 1
Wouldst thou at thy lot repine 1
Cheer op, brother !—let thy vision
Look above—see ! light is near ;
Soot will come the next transition—
Trust in God and persevere!"
Brother, has life's hopes receded 1 .
Has thirs sought its joys in vain
Friends proved false when mostly needed,
Foes rejoicing at thy pain 1
Cheer up brother!—there's a blessing
Waiting for thee—never fear ;
Fees forgiving, since confessing,
Trust in God and persevere !"
Diother,all things round are calling,
With united voice," Be strong !"
Though the wrongs of earth beguiling
They must lose their strength, ere long•
Yes my brother, though life's troubles
Drive thee near to dark despair,
Soon 'twill vanish like a bubble—
Trust in God and persevere !"
He. from his high throne in heaven,
Watches every step you take ;
He will see each fetter riven
Which your foes in anger make•
Cheer up, brother—He has power
To dry up the bitter tears :
And, though darkest tempest tower,
Trust in God and persevere !"
Brother, there's a quiet slumber
Waiting for thee in the grave ;
Brother, there's a glorious number
Christ,in mercy reigns to save.
Wait, then, nil life's quiet even,
Closes round thee calm and clearer;
And, till called from earth to heaven,
Trust in God and persevere !"
A DicoNsoLare. Winow —Less than foie, weeks
cr., young man in Medford died after a brief ill
leaving a young and interesting wife. The
ur one mourned his early decease, but her grief
11 , not su,:h ae often crushes the life-blood from
e :inv. Her weeds gage a new charm to her
en'y—she won the heart of a sympathising friend
tempered her grief by listening to his tales of
and on Tuesday last the pair were married.
Le2rass lie not yet began to spring upon her late
n'und's gra ve .—Boston Chronicle.
WiLiws' griefs are short lived. Once upon a
.;:re runs an 0: iental story, a young and lovely
roman was called upon to mourn the dea h of her
A , sho loved him in life.with all the fervor of
I...Jralion, her grief at his decease was violent and
,lo:m>lable She filled the air with plaints; dectlar
t.: her , e:l lire most wretched of women; and in
ir,:en-iry of her grief made "a vow that she
mud wed no new lord lull the stream that ran
! , y her bower should reverse its course. A few
seeks alter she was observed busily engaged in
L:arimg rip the strrtm!
in the 'r Citizen of the World," te
at, a similar story. A lady on the death of her
Likud, vowed that she would not marry another
•!,e _rare of lier first loved, perennially mois
ned by her own and the tears of heaven, should
: , :come dry., Not many days after the dear crea
re was seen vigorously fanning the grave, in or
der that it might become sooner dry.
• Toe vt.ocial blindness of pride is seen in this,
thr !foie are :he proudest that have nothing to be
Proud of Such pride is the manifestation of es•
el self-love—of that love of sell which exists
rtlere telt is most vile and unlovely.
C~ " Won't you sing a song, s:r ?" said a lady
bier tore, as they were alone one evening. The
ITer soon commenced the popular air, " I wont go
nme till morning." And sure enough he didn't!
f A lady, who was not wholly indebted to
4cire for her blooming red cheeks, was seen pass
i'reet the other day with a written label on
lief back, Beware of paint." •
CO - It was told of Lord Newbury that when
Da-mag, the Fen e tic e of death upon a man for steal
.::g a watch, lie said to the culprit :
My good fellow, you made a grasp at time,
:Jut caught eternity"
man's dress - has a wonderful influence
on his character: Dress like a rowdy, and in leas
Man a month you will commence acting like one.
i• A Western editor says of a contemporary,
the only time he ever worked, win the day he
tool• castor oil for honey.
(0 - Mean men have no email wee. Who oa
tr heard of a miser going on a bust, s or speak well
of tobacco chewing We pause fora reply.
A Contemporary, speaking of the report on ge.n
4ernen'o fashion, says, " there is not much change
4Cen'lenaen's pants this month." Very likely.
to' Men scanning the surface count the wicked
4PPY; they know not the frightful - dreams that
4 Dlrti a sad roan's pillow.
ro A man wants just so much knowledge as
be h ' t the wisdom to use. Eat no more than you
W kelt.
epaaleis worn by Prince Albert, when in
costume, are worth the trifling sum of 500 X.
4 41411 1 farm on each shoulder.
e who lives only to tenefit himself giv s es the
a benefit when he dies.
........ ~ ~......„.,, , . .. .
r •• f , l''.,' •:-:'' .''.,-. er...... - . -• ••,'••',',.
. . ; ~....:' . ‘.. 7 . ,, ,,, :11....: -i - .....• -
~. „ . ._ . . . .
. ~.
. . .
. . _
.. - ~ L. • '
. ~ . . .
~.. .. . . ,
. ~,,,_...,,,,,..
~...,.. ..,. -:,.....,_:....:,,.....,.. 1 ...., ._, _
....... ,•:•
l• • • . .
To His Excem.caci,
the Governor of Pennsylvania:
Bra have maturely considered the requisi
tion made by your Excellency, for the apprehen
sion and delivery of Thomas M'Creary and John
Merlin, charged with the crime of kidnapping a
certain Rachel Parker. I must respectfully de
cline to comply with it, for the following reasons:
You will perceive by the tostemerd of L. A.
Schoolfield, E-q , (the truth of which has not been,
and I presume, will not be controverted,) that
Thomas M'Creary went to Pennsylvania, not as a
kidnapper, but for the sole purpose of capturing
Rachel Packer, then supposed to be Eliza Crocus,
the fugitive slave of Mrs. Dickeybut, It is also
certain that he carried with him the authority of a
power of attorney from the owner of the alleged
fugitive, or her agent, designing to act under it, in
good faith. It is likewise well known that hecap
tared Rachel Parker, believing her to be Eliza Cro-
cue. Neither can it be denied that be had good
reason for so believing, not only horn the informa
tion received in the neighborhood,_ but also from
the extraordinary I keness which exists between
Rachel Parker and DMA Crocus, and upon which
some of the most respectable citizens of Baltimore
were prepared to swear to the' fact of Wei:any.—
From these premises, the conclusion is irresistibly
drawn, that Thomas M'Craary is not a criminal
The presumption of malicious intent, necessary to
constitute crime, is absolutely rebutted by the facts
of the case. If guilty at all, under the law, his
guilt is purely technical. lie is morally innocent,
beyond the shadow of a doubt. The first.iluestion
which arises, therefore, is. would it be just for the
laws of Pennsylvania to punish a man under such
circumstances? The next question is, can I con
sent that a citizen of Maryland shall be exposed to
the hazard ot an unjust prosecution? It is unne-
cessary for me to assure you that the people and
government of this State hold the crime of kidnap.
ping in the deepest abhorrence, and that our laws
visit it with the severest punishments. But, 'bat
is not the enquiry here The question is, whether
or not, being perfectly satisfied of the moral inuo•
cence of the accused, I shalt send him into another
State for trial? It is extremely unpleasant to make
any allusions whatsoever, which may possibly be
supposed to reflect ungraciously upon ar.y of the
cilizens of another and a friendly State; nevertt~te•
less, it is my duty to remind your Excellency that
very strong and unreasonable prejudices, touching
the subject-matter of M'Creary's alleged offence,
prevail in the county where b 3 has been indicted,
which would render the result of his trial exceed
ingty uncertain. I could not, therefore, consent to
expose him to the I unless I felt constrained to
do so by the mandate of the Federal Consitturikin.
Without entering into an argument upon this point,
it is sufficient to say, that I consider the case of
M'Creary fully within the scope of that discretion
in regard to requisitions, which has always been
claimed and exercised by the Executives of the
different States of the Union. Not only the Gover
nors, but the C arts also, on I•abeas corpus, have
repea.edly gone behind requi.itions, arid hare ex.
amined and decided upon the me i its of the cases
I respectfully call your attention to a letter ad
dressed to me by the Hon. James Campbell, late
Attorney General of Pennsylvania, a copy ol which
is herewith enclosed. The late Attorney General
expressly states, that, at the trial on the petition for
freedom, filed by Rachel Parker, in the Circuit
Court for Baltimore county, it was distinctly under
stood arid agreed between the counsel for the peti
tioner and the claimant, respectively, that no et imi.
nal proceedings should be instituted against ISl'Clea
ry in Pennsylvania, if the claimant would abandon
the claim, and permit a verdict to be taken in favor
of the petitioner; and that lie (the late Attorney
General) would, without any hesitation, have en
tered a t,olle prosequi on the indictment lately found
against him (M'Creary) in Chester county, had he
the power to do so. From this statement of the
late Attorney General, it must be supposed tha
M'Creary was not regarded by the counsel as mor•
ally guilty, it guilty at all. In pursuance ol the ar
rangement entered into between , the counsel, a
verdict in favor of the petitioner was rendered by
the jury. It is not for me to inquire how far the
State of Pennsylvania might consider herself bound
by the deliberate act of the counsel appointed by
your Excellency, at the request of the Legislature
of y our State. I must regard those counsel, thus
appointed, as the representatives of Pennsylvania,
authorized to act in her behalf. I must, consequent
ly, assume that Pennsylvania has admitted the
moral innocence of M'Creary; because upon the
opposite hypothesis, I should be driven to the con
clusion (which is *holly inadmissible) that a fel
ony bad been compounded, in order that the free
dom of Rachel Parker might thereby be secured.
It cannot be doubted that the counsel, on both sides,
acted from the highest and purest motives; and
that, being satisfied of,the moral innocence of
M'Creary, the counsel for Pennsylvania considered
that a prosecution for kidnapping would not only be
unjust to M'Creary, but might tend very strongly
tc excite unpleasant feelings between two great
States, which have alwayacherished, and, I sincere
ly trust, always will continue to cherish the warm
est mutual respect and attachment. Here, then, by
the force of the facts themselves, ai well as by the
admission of Pennsylvania, clearly implied from
the set of her acknowledged legal repreaentatives,
am brought to the certain conclusion, that Thomas
M'Creary is an innocent man.
The case of John • Merritt rests upon the same
facts and is governed by the urns principles: lie
was but the assistaut of M'Creary ; and of course
should not be held accountable, it M'Creary be de
clared irresponsible.
Annapolis, Md. May 2, 1853.
Under these circumstances, I must decline to
comply with the requisition of your Excellency.
I have the honor to be, with the highest reopecl,
your obedient servant,
Harrisburg, May 28, 1853
To His Excellency, E. Louis Lowe,
Governor of Maryland :
Your Excellency's communication of the 2d in.
stunt informing me that you had ( ) echoed to issue
a warrant for the arrest and delivery of Thomas
M'Creary and John Merrit, alleged fugitives from
he justice of this State r came to hand by due
course of mail. An unusual pressure of other offi•
ciai duties must plead _my apology to your Excel
lency for having so long delayed to acknowledge
its receipt.
I have examined with some solicitude and much
care, the masons thus communicated to me by
your Excellency, for your refusal to comply with
the requisition of the Governor of this State for a
warrant to arrest the said fugitives, and regret that
I should feel required to say, after all this consid
eration, that I cannot regard the reasons assigned
as sufficient; indeed I feel constrained by a high
sense of official duty to dissent almost entirely from
be doctrines promulgated by your Excellency
cinching this unfortunate affair
Before proceeding to diruss the important tea.
ores of Ibis unpleasant controversy, it would seem
proper that I should at least attempt to remove from
your mind apprehensions, not disguised in your
communication, that the prosecution of the fugitives
may have proceeded from prejudice or unfriendly
feeling on the part ol certain citizens ol Pennsylva
nia. I can, lam happy to say, see nothing in the
preliminaries of this case to warrant this impres
sion. The vindication of the law and the punish.
ment of crime, I beg to assure you, were the only
objects sought. The very amicable relations which
have long existed between Maryland and Penn
sylvania should be sufficient, it seems to me, to re
lieve yonr Excellency fiom apprehensions as to the
just intensions of the authorities of this State. There
is surely nothing in the history of Pennsylvania to
excite distrust in the justice of her laws or the puri
ty of their adminit.ttation. Some excitement very
naturally pew out 01 the circumstances connected
with ibis affair; but I cannot conceive that it is of
such a character as to hazard the supremacy of the
law, or endanger the integrity of trial by jury ; and
I regret exceedingly that your Excellency should
have found it necessary to " make any allusions
whatever, which may possibly be supposed to re
lint ungraciously upon any ol the citizens ol an
other and a friendly State." Excitement and mis
directed feeling may, on special occasions, prevail
without, but the sacred portals of justice, in this or
derly Commonwealth, are seldom if ever invaded
by popular clamor. The guilt or innocence of par
ties is ever established according to the rules and
principles of the law. Far be it from me, there
to recognize the right of your Excellency, on
the law or rules of comity, to refuse to surren
the accused on the allegation that a fair trial
might not,be had by a jury of this State; nor can 1
agree with you that the interest manifested tys the
citizens of Chester county, in the girls, Elizabeth
and Rachel Parker, whom they knew to have been
carried off from their mid .1 in violation of law,
should be regarded as " a very strong, and unrea
sonable prejudice," nor that such a stale ol feeling
in a community is to render the ends of justice " ex-
ceedtngly uncertain."
I shall not attempt to answer at length the plea
ol innocence which you have been pleased to in
terpose for the fugitives, for I must deny its legiti
macy entirely. One ot two points, however would
seem to demand a passing notice. You allege that
" Mr M'Creary went to Pennsylvania, not as a
kidnapper, but for the soli purpose of capturing
Rachel Parker, then supposed to be Eliza Crocus,
the fugitive slave at Mrs. Dickeyhut." The an
swer to this is, that the laws ot Congress prescribe
a mode of reclaiming a fugitive from labor, and had
Mr. M'Creary respected these forms there would
now be no indictment against him. Had he taken
the alleged Eliza Crocus before an United States
Commisssoner, to establish her identity, as the law
requires, the fact would have been developed that
the prson whom he was about to carry off, was
not El a Crocus, but Rachael Parker. At beet,
M'Creary re, it will be seen that Mr 'Creary car.
) 1
vied o Rachael Parker in violation ol the law and
your Excellency will certainly ttgree with me, that
he shout I bear the consequences.
But this whole inquiry into the guilt or iiintio
cence of the accused parties, is unauthorized, and,
to my mind, in clear derogation of the letter and
spirit of the Constitution and laws ot the United
States; nor can I agree with you that the "case of
Mr. M'Creary comes within the scope of that dis
cretion in regard to requisitions which has always
been claimed and exercised by the Executive of
the different States ot the Union." I have also
searched in vain fur the cases in which " not only
the Governors but the courts on habeas corpus, have
repeatedly gone behind the requisition and' have
examined into and decided upon the merits ol the
cases themselves." This examination, so far froth
bringing me to a concurrence in your Excellency's
views, has confirmed me in the belief, that there is
nothing in the Constitution of the United - States, in
the laws ol Congiess, or the practice of the Gover
nors ollhe respective S ales, to warrant an Execu
tive in
-going behind a correct resold, to decide up
on the facts. Every suggestion which you have
made in defence pf the accused, constitutes subject
'matter for the consideration of a Pennsylvania jury
when trying the question of guilt or innoceuce,and
should not, I apprehend, have attracted the notice
of the Executive of Maryland, when enquiring into
the forms of the requisition.
. The Constitution of tbil railed States, provides
it that a porno cluiiged in any Stale with treason,
felony, or other crime, wtto shall flee from justice
and be found in another State shall on demand of
._t`! ..... r ... -a.c.-;. ..'~`:'..' _
... ~-"W.'1~:,,= ~,'t; s s;s'x{_^t~.r. , ..~xT~;~t"..Y•.~?>n.. ^"~.P.i/3':fSf~,`:l'~^.'~_as:.s,~:.n:. ~•.,:z
the Executive authority of the State from which he
fled, be delivered up to be removed to the State
having jurisdiction of the crime." The law of
Congrerta declares ig that whenever the Executive
authority of any State in the Union shall demand
any person as a fugitive from justice, of the Execn-
ive authority of any State or Territoty to which
such person shall have fled, and shall, moreover,
produce a copy of the indictment Mend, or an aB•
davit made before a magistrate of any such State
ror Territory, charging the person so demanded with
having committed treason, felony or other crime,
certified as authentic by the Governor or Chief
Magistrate (.1 the State or Territory from whence
the persons so charged fled, it shall be the duty of
the Executive authority of any State or Territory to
cause him or her to be arrested and secured and
delivered to the Executive authority making the
demand, or hie agent."
In what feature of this plain and mandatory law
re found the right to go behind the record and try
the easel The injunction to deliver the fugitive
under the prescribed forma of the requisition is
positive. it it had been contemplated that the-Go
vernor upon whom the requisition is made should
inquire into the merits of the case, why did not
Congress so declare t M'Creary and Merritt are
claimed on the indictment of a grand jury, the
highest grade of a prima facia cave that can be
made out; and still your Excellency has felt re-
quired to go behind this charge and inquire into
the lacta of the cue, ani even into the feelings of
the people who might be called upon to act as
Much controversy has been held between the
Executives of the respective States of the Union, as
to the meaning of the terms " other crimes" as ex-
expressed in the Constitution and touching the forms
of requisition ; but in n.► instance that I have been
able to discover before the present, has an Execu-
tive claimed the right to go behind an admittedly
correct record and dismiss the accused on the facts
of the case. No objection is made to the form or
substance of the requisition, and the crime charged
according to the language of your Excellency, is as
"odious in Maryland as in Pennsylvania " But
whilst admitting the sufficiency of the requisition
as to form, you assume or infer from ail unauthoriz •
ed inquiry into the facie, the innocence of the ac
cused 'and then ask " if it would be right for the
laws of Pennsylvania to punish a man under such
circumstances" and " if you should give your con
sent that a citizen of Maryland should be exposed
to an unjust prosecution." The answer is that the
law must be administered as it is. It is not for an
Executive officer to account for the consequences
nor is it safe to doubt the justice of the law. The
idea that it is my duty as an Executive to fore
know the kind of trial which is to await parties
claimed on the requisition of your Excellency or
the Governor of any other Sate is truly startling.—
Why Sir, to my mind no Executive should pretend
to utiderstand the facts or ine consequences; he
should be content to obey tbe mandates of the Con
stitution, confiding the rights and antelests of ac
cused parties to their peers and the laws of the land.
Your view of the subjee.i, it will be readily seen
would impose upon the Executive a most onerous
and delicate duty not contemplated by the act of
Congress. If•it be the right of the Executive, up.
on 'thom a requisition is made, to go behind the
indictment to notice the facts for the protection of
the accused, it is his duty to du so. If he has the
tight to do so in one case, he is bound to do so in
all, a duty utterly impracticable and never should
be attempted. Should an Executive be expected
to reverse the action of a grand jury in the absence
of all the testimony on which the indictment against
the accused may have been found 1 Should an ac
cased party be tried before arrest! Should judg
ment be rendered in the absence of both the pro
secutor and accused! The inevitable effect of your
Excellency's position would be to lead to daystem
thus impracticable and dangerous. 11, therefore, I
were entirely satisfied of the innocence of the ac
cused, I could not consent to participate in the es
te. lishment of a precedent so fraught with danger
ous ecntseqnences to the peace of the country and
the ends of justice, as to acquiesce in the right of
an Executive to go behind the indictment of a jury,
and a reqnioltion in regular form, to decide the
merits of the case.
The provisions of the constitution must have the
paramount effect of a treaty stipulation hem een
Sovereign and Independent States, and are not on
ly positive and mandatory in their requirements,
but contain a manifest intimation as to the jurisdic
tion of the offence charged. it it had been intend
ed to vest the slightest discretionary power in the
authority of the State to-which the person charged
may have fled, beyond the right to know that the
offence charged is a crime in the State %%hem com
mitted, then the mandate, that he or she be remov
ed to the State having jurisdiction would be super
fluous. ft the right claimed by your Excellency
exists for the purposes of protection—even as to a
citizen of the State to which he has fled, it follows
that it also exists fci: all the 'imposes of trial and
punishment; a principle entirely repugnant to the
well settled policy of the criminal law, the jurisdic
tion as to the goat or innocence of the accused be
ing vested-exclusively in the 'courts of the State or
place wherit the offence was committed. Nor is it
necessary to argue that legislative jurisdiction over
this subject is vested solely and' exclusively in
This point has been clearly maintained by the
Supierne Cciurt of the United States. Under this
view of the cue, as settled by the highest tribunal
known to the law, the. position contended for by
your Excellency derives no strength from a sop•
posed anafrogy to the poundings under a writ of
habeas corpus, of the &niers of,a committing mag.
istrate. .1n these,.l apprehend the proceeding is
regislated by the statute of the respective States, or
settled by the practice of the courts, and Call only,
in any cue, apply to the arrest and detention, on:
der the local law—it cannot interfere with the para.
mount - authority of the Constitution and acts of Con.
greet', Assuming, for illustration, that your Excel
lency had complied with the requisition, and alter
the arrest and delivery of the accused to the agent
of Pennsylvania, a writ of habeas corpus hail issued
fur their liberation, the legality of their detention
could be the only subject of inquiry before the court .
If, in the language of the Supreme Court, already
referred to, the act of Congress supercedee all State
Legislation on the subject, and by necessary impli-
cation prohibits ii, how can the Executive of a State
exercise a power expressly withheld from the -Le
gislature, upon the most important considerations.
Ewen in the ordinary practice, under the writ of
habeas corpus, I subunit, thatt l the only matter pro.
perly examinable would be the legality of the de.
tendon of the accused and • the bailable nature of
the offence. It would seem a novel proceeding in
deed to go behind the record of the committing ma
gistrate, and inquire in this collateral way into the
guilt or innocence of the accused. Be this as it
may however, the very point is settled in New-
York and doubtless in other States. In the case of
Clark, recorded in 9th Wendel, page 212. The
person charged bad been.arreated on a requisition
to the Executive of New York and delivered to the
proper authority, and a writ of habeas corpus award
ed for hie liberation, Chief Justice Savage decided
"On habeas corpus, a 'court or judge, before
whom is brought a prisoner arrested as a fugitive
from justice. by e warrant from the Executive of
one State on the requisition of an Executive of an
other State, under the Constitution and laws of the
United States, will not inquire as to the probable guilt'
of the accused. The only inquiry is whether the
warrant on which he is arrested states that the fugi
tire has been demanded by the Executive of the
State from which he is alleged to have fled, and
that a copy of the indictment or an affidavit char;
lug him with having committed treason, felony or
other crime, certified by the Executive 'demanding
him u authentic, have been presented."
From this view of the question, it !allows then,
that the only proper injury by the Executive autlapr.
ity of a State upon which a requisition is made, is
the strict legality of the proceedings. Your Excel-
lency may be understood by your silence to ccn•
cede, Ist. That the demand of the Executive of
Penns)lvania was in proper form. 2d. Tha,t a copy
of the indictment found, accompanied the requist
Lion, find 3d. That the offence with which the par.
ties were charged is a crime in Pennsylvania. If
there has been a doubt on your mind as to the lat
ter point, it must be removed by thecase just cited,
where it is also held, that an oflerice made indicta-
We by a Statute, is a clime within the meaning of
the Federal Constitution. By statute, the ()Bence
of kidnapping is made indictable in your State as
well as in this, and the crime regarded os odious an
If a State Executive cannot then, under the Con
atitution and hue, exercise the right of inquiring
into the guilt or: introcuce of a party charged with
crime, what is there in public policy or in the char
acteristics of the case under cunsideration, to F. 11 9'
ain such a dangerous assurophor. of power. That
ot trial by jury, the most sawed at time boomed
of hu - nan institutions is justly regarded as the great
safe guard ot ow liberty and prosperity. Any :eh.
er mode of establishing our rights judicially must .
be regarded as a usurpation of powrr and danger
ous to the integrity of our institutions. Next to this
is the right to be flied by jury of the vicinage which
in criminal accusation is a day as well as a tight.
As already intimated if the power to go behind the
record to examine the facts, exist in a particular
sense, it cart be exercised in a general•one. If your
Excellency has Oat) right to pass upon the guilt ot
Isl'Creary and Merril, in Ander to avoid the hazard
of an unfair arid prejudicial trial in Pennsylvania,
what limit would you assign to the exercise of tiffs
power? Where shall the duties of the Executive
end and those of the jury commence? Let it be
the ordinary case of a fugitive from justice, without
the claims of citizenship, and no distinction itt prim
ciplt can be drawn, what piotection could the ac.
cased have, if the principle contended be a true
one 1 11 the right exists all, it exists for the purpose
ot trial—and the inevitable-consequences would I e
that the accused might be twice tried and jeoparded
for the same offence. If tried and even acquitted
in the state to s which he hadfled, it would be no bar
to a second trial, for the same offence, in the Stare
from whence he fled It is thus apparent, that the
doctrine or right contended for is not only a virtual
dtsrega d of the law, but might, in practice, be et•
testy destructive to the rights of the accused. The
letter of the Constitution certainly gives no latitude
to Executive discretion, and if not a necessary re.
sun from its spirit or the policy of the law, when it
would follow that the duty of an Executive is a
plaid one. If satisfied that the forma required by
the Constitution and laws of Congress, have been
complied with, and that the offence •charged is a
crime where committed, there can be no other de
termination than to deliver up the alleged fugi
tive from justice to the authority lawlidly demand
ing him. A
The administration 01 the Constitution and laws
providing for,the'rediticm of fugitives from justice:has
been confided to the Executive authority of the
State aid in the absence of a revisory tribunal some
irregularity m practice ,has necessarily arisen.—
With the excepion :of a few decisions emanating
from individual judges proceedings On habeas cor
pus almost the only authorities bearing ou the ques
tions arising out of the subject, are the opinions of
State Executives. So far as 1 have been able to ex
amine:thern I find Ann against the position assum
ed by your Excellency. These controvertivs have
had reference mainly to the sufficiency of affidavits
the forms of requsition and the censtraction - that
should be given to the terror" other crimes" as
used in the Constitution.
Prior to the act of 1793, Mr. Edmund Randolph,
the Attorney General of the United :States, in dia•
cussing the very point taised by your communica
tion of the 2d, says : "In the present instance a
grand jury convened before two of the Justices of
the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania bare made it
(she charge of goih)and thus Fare famished the
ground fur bringing the foregoing persons, for for
mal trial. Should such a procedure as this, be de•
Glared to be incompetent as a charge, the object of
this article in the Constitution' mast either be de-
leateJ or be truly oppressive. For, bdwcen an in•
dictment anti vial there in'ermediate examin-
ation of the facts and to mail fir an examination
of an absent euipril, before a demand would com
pel a judgment to rendered behind his back.
Goverbor Bl'Donald, of Georgia; in a communi
cation to Gov. Seward, of New York, in June 1841
when insisting upon the delivery of a fugitive on a
requisition sustained by affidavits only remarks
" The object of the Constitution is to secure the ar-
rest of a crimnial in the State to which they may
flee, to be tried in the State within whose jurisdic
tion the offence was committed and not to Wm them
befbre arrest in the State where they be found. AU
that the Constitution intended is, that when a per
son charged with treason, felony or other crimes,
in one State shall escape into another, the officers
of the United, or if your Excellency please, of the
State in which he may be found, shall arrest him
upon the eame.evidence of guilt and no more than
would have justified his arrest in die State whence
he fled. An indictment is nailing more, than an
accusation or charge of crime," and " it cannot be
pretended that !he evidence on which the Grand
Jury based their charge should be communicated
to enable your Excellency to determine whether their
conclusions were erroneousin law "
That learned gentleman further remarks ; " that
no diAcrelion to pass upon its sufficiency was i►►-
tended to be conferred upon the Executive upon
whom the requisition is made, by the act of Con-
greys requiring a 4op} of the bill of indictment to
accompany the demand in certain cases, and yet
the submission of a copy of the bill of indictment
would " not he an idle ceremony," nor the provis-
alone of law directing it " unmeaning and useless,'
for as the bill of indictment is an authority in the
State where it is Mond to the presiding judge to is
sue his warrant for the apprehension of the accus ed, so is an authenticated copy of it authority in the
State to which he may have fled for a warrant or
order for his arrest there!'
le a case before Judge Ray, of South Carolina,
decided in 1844, " where certain persons were
brought before him by habeas corpus, who were
under arrest by order of the Executive of South
Carolina for the purpose of being delivered to an
agent of the Governor of New York, who had de
manded them as fugitives from justice in fiat state,
bills of indictment having been found against them,
their discharge was moved for on various_grounds;
'but the judge decided that he had no power or au
thority to discharge the prisoners, or in any way
whatever to interfere with the mandate of the Ex
-ecutive—that the rendition al fugitives from justice,
is a ministerial duty imposed upon the Executive
authority, by the Constitution and laws, and that i
must be considered ae a case excepted cut of the
State Habeas Co-pus act by the constitution of the
United States."
As to the plea that an impression was created or
an understanding had between the attorneys in the
trial for the Leedom of Rachel and Elizabeth Pack
er, I cannot see that it can relieve you or myself
from our obligation to carry out the demands oldie
law, in the prosecution against 111"Creary, I cannot
doubt that Judge Bell and Judge Campbell, attor
neys on the part of Pennsylvania, as well also as
attorneys on the part of your State, did what they
considered to be right under all the_ circumstances.
But I can recognise no official connection between
the trial for freedom of the Parker girls, and the
prosecution against Thomas hltreary and John
Merritt, for an oflence against the laws of the State
Judge Campbell did not appear i.i the defence of
the Parker Girls, in the capacity of Attorney Gen
eral but as one of the attorneys selected by the
Governor, under the resolutions of the Legislature.
His powers were the same as those of his associate,
Judge Bell, and ho more. But as Attorney Gener
al, under the late law of the State, he could exer
cise no greater than an advisary power over the
proceedings. The power to 'stay the prosecution
.against the accused, is vested solely in the Court
and District Attorney, Of Chester County. Had
these officials seen it. the proceedings in the case
of the Parker Girls, reason sufficient for entering a
nolleprosequi, the prosecution would have terminat
ed. They deem it to be their duty, however, to
send the case to the grand Jury, and a bill of in
dictment was found against the accused. On the
presentation of a copy of this indictment I conceiv
ed it to be my tat, under the law, to make a re
quisition on your Excellency for the arrest and de
livery of the accused and I can see tic, relief for
them,.save in a trial by a jury of this State. What
ever facts and circumstances there may be con
nected with the trial for the freedom of Rachel Par
ker, which rhould be plead in defence of M'Creary
and Merritt, a ill be subject matter for the considet
ation of the court and jury, when inquiring into the
facts of the case.
In conclusion allow me express my regret that a
difference of opinion should have arisen between
Excellency and myself on any subject, and to say
that I sincerely trust this unpleasant aflair may not,
to the slightest "extent, disturb the amicable rela
tions which have so long exiated between the peo
ple of the two States.
With the highest consideration, I remain your
' Excellency's obedient servant,
To Ccat Wsarr—Warts on the hand may be
cored by washing them several times a day in
strong soda water, and allowing them to dry with
out wiping.
The more we satisfy the demands of conscience
the stronger they become.
otrWe,carry our •eighbors crimes in sight, but
throw our owo over our etrultlers.