Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1849-1856, 1855-11-22

II matter settled at once" Can any
unprejudiccd person doubt either the
propriety or right of the Executive to
write such note, without being liza.
bic to the imputation of using under.
handed means to withdraw this person
from the jurisdiction of the Commits
/ sioners, without their knowledge or
consent 4! Is there any thing in this
act of nine to prove that had deci-
ded that she should come off at all,
unless il should be decided by their
agent that it was prudent for her TO be
sent to the city? How unjustly,
therefore, do they say that "the Mayor
attempted to procure her discharge
without an order from the Commits
sioncrs" and Z" failed to do so."--
Finding the Commissioners had resis-
ted what believed to be an undoubted
right ofthe executive, after sufficient
deliberation, decided that the ques-
tion of the right to exercise a larger
power, to wit, ) the removal of an in
mate from the Asylum, by the concur.
ent jurisdiction Of the Executive, with
that of the Commissioners, should be
tested. Accordingly, Oh the next
day, | sent to the chairman of the
board, for his endorsement, an order
for the release of Elizabeth Heath, at
the same time directing Mr.. Hazard
J (the bearer) not to use any other or
der, but to return mine unless it was
endorsed. When he returned, he
brought my order which was not en-
dorsed, and also another order from
the Chairman to the keeper, direct
ing him to deliver her to the Overseer
Of thePoor, This evasion of the point
was to me unsatisfactory. l took both
orders to the Chairman and told him
that unless my order was endorsed, /
should take other means for her removal,
| that | was determined that the question of
| right should be settled ; that | would not
remove her by any order OF theirs which
did not recognize the concurrent jurisdc-
lion of the city authorities, if not over
pauper, at least ,over those confined
a, matter of police,-for' notwithstanding
heir nice distinction between "the Mayor
and the City Authorities" the Mayor is
not only their representative, but their
head, even the embodiment of their exec
utive power.
1t was not "out of difference to the May
or" that 'lhe Chairman issued proper
order" for had there been the least feeling
Of "deference for the Mayor" they would
not have caused collision by denying his
righ, to grant a permit, for the visit of
Heath (he fathcr) but, on the contrary,
hey would under that feeling of "dofer-
ence," even allowing that the Mayor had
no right to have granted it, have allowed
the man to visit the Asylum, without
substituting their permit for mine, neither
could they have "supposed it was mis-
take Of the Mayor from his odm of erperi-
ence of our Municipal affairs" b. cause
they we'll know that had made it a point
that the concurrent jurisdiction OF the city
authorities over the inmates of the Asylum,
confined ihorc under police discipline,
should be recognized in me as Mayor ;aud
unless they endorsed my order, would
N Ike use of other means, and leave tn,
question of RIGHT 10 be settled by the City
Council. ..
then caused State warrant to be is
sued for her arrest, and when Mr.. Hazard
reported that he had been resisted, placed
the warrant in the hands Of the Sheriff, an
took sufficient force to ensure its service
efIectually. The warrant was served in
as quiet manner as possible, considering
the means taken by the Commissioners to
defeat its service. There was no "iracas
got up by the Mayor and his posse," and
il any unfortunate persop has been led
"into indiscre,ions cndangering her health,'
regret il as much as any one but the
sin must lie at the door OF those who at
| tempted to defeat the service Of a warrant
by locking up the defendant beyond the
reach OF the officer charged with the SER
vice.
Had Miss Heath! been allowed to come
off with Mr.. Hazard, there would have been
no "Mayor aud hi' posse" at the Asylum.
| did withdraw the complaint, but have
yet to learn that was the proper po rson'
either to make return OF the doings OF the
officer on the warrant, or to certify the re-
cognizance this thing do know, | never,
by any act Of mine, indmated to the officer
that did not wish him to make a return
of the warrant, nor did interfere 10 pre-
vent the Magistrate from certifying tho
recognzance to the court" How then
can any one say that II was by my "dIrcc-
ton that the warrant was not returned TO
the court, or tho recognizancc certified to
the said court"
Again, they say that Elizabeth llonb
was IN the streets in ,he evening. and as
hs Commissioners gre informed, had her
house opened az usual during the night