The Tipton advertiser. [volume] (Tipton, Cedar Co., Iowa) 1856-1962, 1860-03-22

Doroic,l McgeiM tie uIiluEitto enable the
Court to iul@c Of thcir sufiicicncy to sup
port his belief Again he swears to Il
legal conclusion, whru be says Smith
was accessory before the fact. What
constitutes Il man an accessory - uucS.
ton Of law, and not always easy Of sou.
,ion. Mr.. EogGs opinion sAen is no.
authority He should have given the
facts. lie should have shown that they
we're committed in Missouri, to enab!e
the Court to tyst them by the laws Of
Missouri, to see il they amounted to Il
crime Again, tie u1idort Is ,tuiuNy
drtcc'irc in this, t|tnt Il .g9s sw-ars to has
JeliJ.
Let US apply ,hesc rules to the oilida.
Wit under consideration. Andrew Hunt
er does not swear positic~iy that 'orroc
was ever in Virginia, He says certain
persons other thsn Coppoc committed
certain crimes at certain places IN that
State, and that Coppoc "aided ana abct
ted them, leaving to be infcrre! that
he was with them iu Virginia; but he
might have furnished arms from OHIO, or
ammunition from Pennsylvania, or aid
and comfort. to them from Mary land; thus
''aid,nE and abctting' the crime COM
nlitted in Virginia, without being there
in person. and yet not be able to tc ,ricd
/ in Virginia, for so doing. Mr.. Hunter
says Loppoc is "a fugitive from justice,
escaping iuto the State Of Iowa. From
what State? From Virginia, or Mary
land, or p"nu>y yvania, CT Ohio -
1t may be i"t;rrb the escape was from
( Virginia; lut i; is not "positlvcly' 50
stated, nor is there On either point that
. "crr;alnty that would ju>,ifya magistrate
in committing au accused pary.' Again,
, Mr. Hunter "havine tho evidence and
Information in his possession, should
have incorporated it in the affidavit - He
swears to a legal conclusion when he
say, "Coproc uin'"} uni ojc'trI -
What constitutes oi'i"y an" ajettiny "is
a quest on of law and not always Of easy
soIution.' Mr.. Hunters "opinion is
not authority l!eshould have sworu to
the facts The affidavit is fatally Dc
fott:vc in this, that "iIunter swcars to
his belief The whole case is this. 4
paper was presented to me purpor,ing to
be an affidavit made und,r the law Of
Congress, but not made before an officer
recognized b. that law if the law Of
/ 1880 applies to this class Of cases, lacking
t. ita authenticity an essential requisite
! prescribed hy that law. That paner was
made the basis Of demand thnt should
/ arrest -ad surrender for trial for crimc,
in distant State, citizen Of this State
while it continued only the statement Of
person wholly unknown to me, tjnt he
briicrsH the citizen was gn!lty Of crime
which crime il committed at all, might
for aGght app'arin" in tho paper, have
! ., ,,',,....-;. cd i. so",o rthn,S.~.n". ,rol
. Virginia. refused the demand made
upoa r.e. and HOW after a wore full and
careful cons deration of the matter thsn
then gave it ain cou,~ui with the dc.
cision then made,
Ny action in thi. matter is not with
out precedent il our own State. Ny
immediate predecessor refused warrant
for Il citizen of this State, upon 4 requi
ston from the State Of Indiana, upon
the ground that tho affidavit rron which
the r,qu sition WIS lascl, although sutii
cicut in substance, was made before 4
Notary Public The Governor # Indi-
aaa did not, rs an advised. consider
this refusal IS evidence that the people
or authorities Of Iowa were unwilling to
perform thci~ coaa,i'u:ionrl obligations,
or matter Of sat,ic'cnt importance to be
the subject Of a special message to the
General Assembly Of that State
The Governor Of Virginia complains
that did not cause Corroc to be arres
ted and held until another requi5ition in
proper form could have been sent to me.
The law of tie State provides tho man
ner in which such provisional arrest
shall be made, Code, Sec. 3.>t. and the
remaining sections o. that Chapter |
called the attention o! the orent Of ! il
ginla specially to this law, read it - him
aud placed it in his hands, anl request
ed him to advise with counsel in relation
thereto, and &C. un0n that advice For
some reason, doubtless satisfactory to
himself, but wholly unknown t. ne, he
did not, 50 far a haze learnei, ac4 un-
der the provisions of that law. II the
Governor Of Virginia has cause for eon-
plant against any person on this point,
il is against his own agent. and TIC.
against me.
The Governor o' Virginia also com.
plains that the i,st Of n,y letters to him
was published in the p1pers Of this State
before i, had reached him, This is prob
ably true. uring the afternoon Of the
day on which the re1ni,ton was presen-
ted to me, aud after the fact hal becom !
public, mary Inquiries were made OF Inc,
touching the matter and great desira ox-
pressed to know my reason for refusing
the warrant. It would have been useless
and absurd in me to have affected secre-
cy in regard t. the matter, when the
agent Of Virginia had himself made it
public; and answered inquiries by sta
ting the facts, aai for my reasons refer
red to ny Letter, copy Of which had
kept. Some of the gentlemen who read
the letter, suggested that, as the matter
would probably excite some public inter
est, it would be we'll to publish the let
ter and not boing able to see how under
The circumstances, any possibo injury
could result from its publication, allow
ed copies to be taken for that purpose
It is to N" a matter Of profound rrgre'
/, that the Governor of Virginia did not il
his special message, content himself with