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

certain days and 1t certain place in the State oil
virginia committed certain crimes. and that
from information received from several persons
recently condemned and executed in Virginia, and
"from other facts that have come TO his knowledge
he rerlly 5eiieres that Barclay corpic aided aud
abeted said John Brown and others in the com.
mission of said crimes" and that from other in.
formation more recently received he yieiferrs
said Barclay Coppic is a fugitive from Justice how
escaping in the State Of Iowa"
Now. what 10 the law. l quote from Brightley's
Digest Of the Laws ofihe United States. page 293.
'The affidavit when that form Of evidence is
adopted must be ut least 90 explicit and ce.ain
that II il were laid before q magistrate IL would
justify him in committing the accused to answer
the charge" 70 Penn. Law jour. 4l4iils.1 ut
must state positively that the alleged crime was
committed In the State from which the PARTY Is NIL
legged to be a'fugtiyc and that the party snctualv
a fugitive from the State" tExparte smith ,
Mclean. 12l. 1872 Peters Case, 3 Iabr., 3lt. In
the matter of Maynard, Laws Of s. C., FOL. Di-
gart vs.. Michcal. . Carter 1916.
| quote further from McI.ear 1886.
Again. the affidavit charges tho shooting on Tho
9th Of May. in tho county Of Jackson aud State OF
Missouri, that he believes and he has good reason
to believe from evidence and information now
(then) in his possession that Joseph Smith
accessory before the fact, and is resident citi
zen Of Illinois"
"1hcre are several objections TO this Mr.
Boggs, THE afhant in the case.) having the evil
dence and information in his possossion, should
have Incorporated IL in his affidavit to enable tho
court TO Judge Of their sufieiency 10 support his
belief. Again he swenrs 10 legal conclusion
when he SAYS Smith accessor before the fact.
What constitutes mnn nm accessory is question
Of law. and not always easy OF solution. Mr.
Bogg's opinion, then, is not authority. lie should
have shown they were committed in Missouri tp
see If they amounted 10 n crime. Again H." nh
davi, is fatally defective in this, that Bosss smcrs
10 his bciisf,"
Let us apply tbe.c rules 10 the affidavit under
consideration. Andrew Hunter docs not swear
posihrriy TINT Cnppic ever in Nirginin. lilo
SAYS certain persons other than toI,pic committed
certain crimes Mt certain place III that STATE, ami
TINT Coppc "aidcd and abct,nl" them, le'yug to
I've inferred that he WAS with them in irsinla.
But he might have furnished arms from Ohio. or
ammunition from Pennsylvania, or aid and com
fort from Maryland. TINS 'aiding and abcti'pg"
the crime committed in Virginia, without being
there in person. and vet not he liable Ia be tried
in Virginia Tor 30 doing. Mr. Hunter says Top
pic in "a fugitive from Justice escaping IN the
State Of Iowa" From what Stnte3 From Nr-
ginia, or Maryland, or Pcnn.y lynna, ar Ohm?
Ii may be inferred his ESCAPE was from NIrsinia
but il is not positively 20 stated nor il there
on either point that cera:ty that would Justify
magistrate in committing mn accused party.
A gain; Mr. Hunter, "haying the evidence and in
formation in his possession. should have incorpo-
rated IL in his affidavit" He swears TO legal
conclusion when he snys Coppic aided and nbct
ted" What constitutes aiding and abctting ''lsa
question Of law, and not always Of easy solution"
Mr. Hunters ''opnian is not authority. He
should have sworn to tho facts. Tho affidavit is
fatally defective in this that Hunter to his
belief"
,t,,in l. A rl
to mo purportng to be ntidass made under
law Of Congress, but not made before an u,hcer
recognised by TINT law; or. it the law OF 1859 APP
plies 10 this class Of cases, lacking, to its authen
ITCHY, nm essential requisite prescribed by that
law That paper was made the huss OF u demand
that should arrest aud surrender for trial Tor
crime in n distant State citizen of this State,
while it contained only tho statement of person
wholly unknown to me that he believed the ciu
zen was guilty of crime which crime. il commit
ted Mt all might, for anght appearing IN thu pa
per have been committed in any other State
well as Virginia refused tho demand made
upon me and now after n moro full nnd careful
consideration of the matter than then gave it,
am content with the decision then made.
My action in this matter is not without proce
dent in our State. My immediate predecessor re-
fnscd n warrant for citizen of this State upon
rcqusition from tho State Of Indiana, upon the
ground that the affidavit upon which tho rcquis
ton was based, although sufficient in substance,
was made before notary puhr. The Governor
of Indiana did not as am advised, consider thus
refusal ms evidence that the people or authorities
of Iowa were unwilling to perform their consli,n-
tionnl obligations. or matter of sufficient imror-
lance to he the subject OF SPECIAL message OF the
General Assembly OF that State
The Governor Of Virginia complains that did
not cause Coppc To lc arrested aud held until
another rcquistion in proper form could have
been sent to me. The laws of the State provide
the manner in which such provisional arrests shall
be made. (Sce section 1924, nn'i the remaining
sections Of TINT chaptcr.l | called the attention
of tho agent of virginia especially to this law,
read il to him. and placed IT in his hand, aud re-