Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1845-12-26
(Gor. Bari5ey 10 CIR. VI Do,csH.)
EXEcuTIvE OFFICE, Ohio. J
Cn.nmbns. Nov. 3D.. IRI5. (

Slk'-l Iidh the lOltOT 70 receive Il few days
since, your EScellency's communication of
the 2ist ult,, in reply to my letter of the l3ti
ult. Six weeks precious TO the receipt Of
this communication, a rcquisition from this
office in due form, vas presented to vyrr Tx
ccllency, Tor the arrest and delivery to the
authorities Of Ohio, of Francis Lewis, wv
att Lewis, James Coe, Nimrod Coe and
Calvin Rockenbaugh, against whom indict-
mcrts were returned, in the couD,y of WASH
inC,on, and state of Ohio, for the a]irocious
crime Of kidnapping three citizens Of Ohio.
Your communication contains the first in.i-
nation fu.Hlrhed, as toany action on the part
Of your exec. cncv, on the subject Of the re-
QUESTION from this Office. As the crime on
which the demand for the arrest was prcdi-
Gated, is one OF no ordinary magnitude, and
as the execution of cri!ninal i%lStice always
requires promptness, you will allow me to
express to yon my regret, that circumstances
should have arisen, TO occasion so much de.
lay in your action.
! learn with no small degree Of surprise,
the determination which you have made on
the subject Of the requisilion. You have as
it appears. deferred your final decision, until
some future period, anl declined. at the pre-
sent, issuing a warrant for the arrest. You
say in your communication, after speaking of
the delay in your action, 81 have now. how
ever, to inform your Exccllencv, that all the
persons named in your reluisition, are ut this
time, Chat is, at the date Of your letter. un-
der legal process, compelling their attendance
as witnesses, in a prosecution" sc.
Your statement leaves ground for the in
ference, th1t after it had become known. in
Virginia, that a requisition had been presen-
ted to you, and during the delay which Oc-
cured, between the time of making the de-
maud upon you, and the date OF your letter.
the legal process spoken of had been served
on the persons whose arrest was required.-
If the persons mad been under legal process
at the time the demand for the arrest had been
made, it is to be presumed the fact would
have been SO stated. Permit mo further to
say to your Exccilenry. that the reasons as
signed fer your declining TO Issue the warrant
for the arrest, at present, and deferring your
final decision on the application; until a flu
turc period, are, TO my mind, very %unsltiS-
factory. Why defer your final decision up
on the merits Of the application, and deter
mine to take the matter up for consideration,
only after the potsons whose arrest is deman-
dcd, shall have been discharged from legal
process as witnesses! What bclrinr the
Judgment of Il criminal court in virginia, can
have on the prosecution of other persons, upon
a different charge, in enabling you to form a
more correct decision upon ihe pending reqnl'
sition. is wholly beyond my comprehension;
and the delay incident to tnIS course would
ah''l an "li"".'l'', ~ persons "I''.
arrest IS soagns 10 make tnelT gsraPpi an event
DOUBT ho'' WAIch your ENceliehcy would
much regret .
but the provisions OF the law OF ElFglni1
which you FURNISH ana eve as the ground or
which You base your refusal to issue a war
rant are not appliIcaole 10 the case. by the
provision OF t'at Jaw the exemption from ar