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


and makes the case SO plain that ar
cument and illustration can add Meth
iuy to it, 1t is true, had not see n
this act when | refused the warrant for
Coppoc's arrest but if had seen it, my
action wou!d have been the same In
unswer to my objection that the seal Of
the Notary was not attached to the aili
lavit, he says: "The Notary before
whom the affidavit was made, was duly
appointed in pursuance Of the laws Of
this commonwealth, (Virginia) and his
Signature ,ros accompanied miM q scroN
in precise conformity with established
usage and the decision of our courts,
which recognize scrolls as seals.
If the Governor Of Virginia has not
failed to seo..' the "act of Congress,
passed September 10Th, lSO5,' he GER
tain|y failed to read it. 70 suppose he
had read it would be to suppose that he
had quoted just so much Of said law as
tclded to support the position he had
taken, and Suppressed SO much of it
showed that position to be untcnable
"a supposition which my sense Of
"comity" forbids my entertaining for a
moment supply that portion Of the
law which he has, doubtlcssl y through
inadvertcn:c, omitted. The last words
quoted by him, the words "State or Ter
ri:orv," are in the law as printed, follow
cd by a comma, and then in immediate c
connection follow these words: "nnt'
uhea certified undcr the hund and oMc
III seat Of such Notar:, shall have the
same force aud effect, as il taken or made
~ or before such justice or justices Of the
p"ace' See 9th Us. Statutes at large,
page 45S.l From this it appears by cx-
press provisions Of the law Of Congress,
IN affidavit made before Notary Public,
shall have ''force and effect only when
.'cc,t;fcd un1sr his hondond o6iciulsenl :
! Now, the oftidavit Madc in this case be-
fore Notary Public is MT certified uu-
der his hand and official SAL and | re-
-ret to be compelled to add that the state.
mcnt of Governor Lctchcr, that the sig
nature Of the Notary to the affidavit,
was accompanied by a srroll' is wholly
unfourded in fact. So far is this from
, being correct, that to this document re-
ceived from him and still in my possos-
sion, there is neither scroll, nor mark, nor
device whatever. "Comi,y' requires
- that shall express my belief that in so
radical an error Of fact, the Governor Of
Virginia was mislcd by the information
OF others, or by Il defective memory, rath-
, cr than by desire to support his argu
ment by mist eprcs sentatIon.
|. TO rccapitulatc upon these points: The
. law Of 1893 provides that when in this
class Of cases. an affidavit is used, such
affidavit must be made ''bcfore a magis
'ratc' Th" Governor Of Virginia doe
nst pretend that Il Notary Public is "s
ma1tS-ratc" witnrn ut'c rico":"9 vr .',",
law, bat claims that BY ,Aclaw Of
1880, the law Of 1893 was 50 modified
as to permit the use q aGilayits
: made before Notarics Public. But the
same law of 1870 Which moilies the law
Of 1898, expressly and in terms provides
that such a:iidavits, made before Notary
+ Public, "shall have force and effect
oNIy when "cert.ftI u"aer his hnUt and
odicini senl," and the affidavit in this
case was not 50 certified, Not being SO
t credited it did not havc''forcc and ccct,'
: and not having "force and effect no
) warrant could issue upon il; |: will be
observed that the official sea! Of the Nota-
ry is expressly required, ! could not
+ waive it if would. 1t appears to ne that
, upon these points "thc case is 50 plain
that argument and illustration can add
nothing TO it,
Ilc,vctEis part Of the discussion here,
: waving the question whether this law OF
1850, SO general in its terms, can b. con
strucd as repeating or amending the spc-
. ci.ic requisites OF the spccal at provld-
= ing IN all respects the nojo By which
fugitivcs from justice are to be snrrer
, dercd to other sovereignty tor trial! |
am advised that this construction would
not be admitted by the Court, aud is alto
= gcther untcnabIc and is without prec>-
dent in this State.
Ny third and fourth reasons, (Which
| shall also consider in connection are
, that the afiilavi,s did not show other
', wise than by Inference that Coppoc
was in Virginia at the tiHo lie "aldcd
; aud abcttcd' John Brown aud others,
as stated snd did no. legally charge him
with crime What is the substance a
=, the affidavit ? Stripped ofal 'erblase, il
is this ouly y Andrew Hunter >wears"thA'
John Brown aud others Oh certain days
and at il certain place in the State o.
Virginia. committed ccr.aiu crimes, anc
t "that from information received i'on
4 several prisoners recently condemcd anc
executed in Virginia, and from o:he,
n facts that have come to his knowledge
:, he peri2y believes that Barclay Coppoc
j. aided and abetted said John Brown ane
others in tho commission Of said crimes
= and tha, from other information mor,
$ recently received, he rer'H beliercs sai>
e Barclay Coppoc is fugitive from justice
d BOW escaping into the State of Iowa
Now what is the Law: lquote q n":,
y from Brightly's Digest Of the laws of til,
r United States, page 2o3 /; "The affidavit
when that form of evidence is adopted
l. must be at least so explicit and ccrtal'
: that if it were laid before magistrate i
l. would justify him in committing the ac
y cuscd to answer the charge: 6 Penn
/ Lac Jour. Al, lis. 1t must state pos
j. uirciy that tho alleged crime was com
n mitted in the State from which the part
: is alleged to be fugitive, and that tn
- party is actually fugitive from tia
l. .Statc 'E,partc Smith, ) Nc C2eau III