Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1860-03-15

virginia 10 this case and general indignation was
excited against the Governor Of Iowa, by the spe-
c;al nsssage Of Governor Letcher. detailing to the
Lsgislstare the facts connected with his demand
for the extradtioa Of the supposed fugitive from
justice. coppic.- From the statement of Governor
Letcher, there was strong reason for the belief
that the Governor Of Iowa was obnoxious 10 the
Eravest censure in that be connived at the escape
Of man whose hands we're stained with blood,
and who was guilty Of the double crime Of treason
Ind murder.
We confess, that our rrejudices were strongly
excited against Governor Kirkwood. and We have
looked with great interest for the vindcation he
would offer for the course he pursued.
In q communication to the Legislature Of his
State. in reply to an inquiry from tina. body, he
has submitted at some length. and sustained with
considerable ability. the views that governed his
action in the premises. For want Of space, we
can only furnish the most material portions of the
message. After the usual preminarics, and
copy Of the AFFIDAVIT Of Andrew Hunter, Governor
kirkwood proceeds
Upon examination OF this paper. I declined to
issue my warrant for the arrest Of the alleged fu
give, because, in INV Judgment, no authority NJ 10
do was conferred on me by law in case resting
on such basis.
1t is high prcrogative Of official power in any
case to seize citizen Of the State aud send him,
upon an-erp1rtc statement. and without ANY pre-
vions examination, and without confronting him
with a single witness, TO distant State f,r tlial.
II il prerog ,tive high that the law tolcratcs
its exercise only on certain Gxcd conditions; aud
| certainly shall not exercise that power. 10 the
peril of any citizen y Iowa. upon the demand Of
the State Of Virginia, or any other State, u"less
these conditions be complied with.
The act Of Congress provides that. besides tho
Executive demand for the fugitive, there shall BIO
produced "the COPY Of an indictment found
affidavit made before magistrate OF any State or
Territory as aforesaid, cha ging The person Do
manded with having committed treason, felony,
or other crime, certified rs authentic by the Gov
crnor." &c. upon the presentation Of which it be-
comes my duty to cause the arrest to be made
There not any copy of an indictment found"
presented to me- and OF course tho rested up
on the affidavit.
refused the order of arrest in this caso for tho
following reasons;
lst. The affidavit presented was not made be-
fore "a magistrate" but before notary public.
I'd. Even had the law recognised nffdasit
made before a notary public, the affidavit in this
case is not authenticated by the notary's seal
Sd. The affidavit does not show. unles, it be in
ferentially. that Coppic was in the State Of Nrgi-
MIA Mt the time he aided and abetted John Brown
aud others" as stated therein.
9Th. 1t did not legally charge with commits
sion of ''treason, felony, or other crime"
will consider the first and second reasons in
connection. 1t will not be pretended that nota
~ public, officer unknown to the common law,
and equally unknown 10 the administration Of
justice and never cha,g ed. directly indirectly.
with uny step IRON Rrst last in the trial Of cri-
minal offences, IL a "magistrate" within the mca
niu0 nj TO aQ nRpdh pra nd als xhnrn
The Governor Of Virginia does not pretend
but seeks TO avoid the force of this objection by
citing an act of Congress passed September, 1850
He says:
But the Governor OF Iowa has failed to sec
that by an act of Congress. passed on tho 10th
day of September, 1850 il is provided that in all
cases in which. under the laws of tho United
States, oaths or afirmntions. or acknowledge
ments, may he taken before any justice of the
peace of any State Territory. such oaths afr
nations, or Acknowledgements may hereafter be
alsotaken or made before any notary public dnly
appointed in any State or Territory" This
act" he adds completely overthrows tho reason
assigned by the Governor Of Iowa, and makes the
case so plain that argument and illustration
add nothing to it."
It'll true | had INST seen this act when refused
the warrant FOR Coppics arrest. but if had seen
it my action would have been the same. In an
swcr to my objection that the seal Of the notary
~,
The notary. before whom the affidavit was
madc was duly appointed in pursuance Of the
laws Of this Commonwealth tVirginia.) and has
signature Tas accompanied bya scroll in precise
conformity with the established usage and The de-
csions Of our courts which recognize scrolls rs
seals"
If the Governor of Virginia has not "failea to
see" the 'act OF Congress passed September Is,
1885," be has certainly failed to read il. To sup.
pose that he had read II would be TO suppose that
he had quoted Just SO much Of said law an tended
to support the position he had taken. and sup,
pressed so much Of it as showed that position to
be untenabe--a supposition which my sense o.
comfy" forbids my entertaining for moment.
supply that portion of the law which he has,
doubtless through inadsertanee, omitted The
last words quoted by him were the words Estate
or Territory" and in the law, printed are fol-
lowed by q comma, and then in immediate con
nexion follow these words:
"And when certified under the hand and official
seal OF such notary shall bavc the same force and
effect as If taken or made by before such justice
or Justices of the peace" (See 9th u. S. Statutes
at Large, D. 45S.) a
From this it appears. by express provision Of
the law Of Congress, an affidavit made before ,
notary public shall have "force and effect onl,
schen certified under has hand and official seal
Now, the affidavit made in this case before tn
notary public is not certified under his hand an
official seal, and regret to be compelled to nd,
that the statement Of Gov Letcber that the sigma
ture Il the notary to the affidavit was accoinpa
MED by a scroll is wholly unfounded in fact. S
far Is this from being correct that to this docu
ment received from him, and still in my posses
sion, there is neither seal, scroll. nor mark
nor device whatever. "Comity" requires that
should express my belief that in so radical an Ell
ror Of fact the Governor Of Virginia misled b.
the Information Of others, or by defective mem
DRY, rather than by desire TO support his argu
ment by Misrepresentation.
To recapitulate upon these points, the Jaw O
1893 provides that when in this class of cases al
Affidavit n nsed such afidnyit must ha made he