The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1860-03-16

affidavit "was accompanied BY scroll' il
wholly unfonnded in fact So Far is this
from being CORRECT, that no this docnment re-
.cev1a from him and still in my possession,
there IL neither seal, nor scroll nor mark,
nor device whatever. Comfy rsonires tina.
shall express my belisf TINT u 30 radical
an error Of fact, the Governor of Virginia
was misled by the information Of others, or
By defective memory, TO support his argu-
ment by interpretation.
To re6apitulate upon these points: The
law OF 1893 provides, that when 10 this class
OF cases an affidavit is used, such affidavit
must be made ssbefore q magistrate" The
Governor Of Virginia does not pretend that
Notary is ssa magistrate within the mean
ing Of that law, but elaine that by the law
or 1850, the law of 1898 was 90 modified as
to permit the use of aiidavits made before
Notaries Public. But the same Law OF 1859
which modities the law of 1893 expressly
and in terms provides that such afhdavits,
made before . Notary Public "shall have
force and effect" only when certified under
his hand and official seal, 'and the affidavit
in this case was not 90 certified. Not being
90 certified ibid not have ssforce and effect -
and not having ''force and effect" no war
rant could issue upon it. twill be observed
that the official seal of the Notary is express
ly required by the act of Congress, and be-
ing 30 required, i could not waive il if
would. IL appevrs to me that upon these
points 'sthe case is so plain that arguments
and illustration can add nothing to it."
leave this part OF the discussion here,
waving the question whether the law Of
1850, 80 general in its terms, can be con-
strued as amending or repeating the specific
requisites of the special act providing in all
respects the mode by which fugitives from
Justice are 20 be surrendered to another sove-
struction would not be admitted by the courts,
and is altogether untenable, and is without
precedent in this State.
My third and fourth reasons ( which shall
also consider in connection lie that the aih-
davit did not show, otherwise than by infer
ence, that Coppoc was in Virginia at the time
be "aided and abetted," John Brown and
others as stated, and did not legally charge
hm With crime. What is the substance of
the affidavitp Stripped Of all verbiage, it is
this and this only. Andrew Hunter swears
"that John Brown and others, on certain
days and at a certain place in the State OF
Virginia, committed certain crimes,n and
that from information received from several
perso-s recently condemned and executed in
Virginia, and from other facts that have come
to his knowledge, he "verily believes that
Barclay Coppoc, 'taided and abettedo said
John Brown and others in the commission
OF said crimes, and that from ether in
formation more recently received, he "verily
believes" said Barclay Coppoc 10 fugitive
from justice, now escaping into the State OF
Iowa.
Now what is the lawp Iquote note from
Brighbly's Digest of the laws of the United
States, page 1893: "The affidavit, when that
form of evidence 10 adopted, must be ut least
so explicit and certain that If it were laid
before magistrate 1t would justify him in
committing the accused to answer the charge;
6 Penn. Law Jour. Ala, 4ls. Ii must state
positively that the alleged crime WAS COM
mittea n the State from which the party is
alleged to be fugitive, and that the party
is actually fugitive from that State. s'Ex-
parto Smith, MCLEAN III, 122, Fetters
case Zabr. 3ll. In the matter of Hayward.
Law OF s. c., 70l Degant o.. Michael,
Carter, 396. quote further from Mclean
1885, "Again the affidavit charges thsshoot-
ing on the 9th OF May in the county OF jack
son and State of Missouri, that be believes
and has good reason TO believe from evidence
and Information now lthen) in his posses
| sion, that Joseph Smith was accessory be-
fore the fact, and is q resident or citizen OF
| Illinois," The Court 60 On to say: "There
are several objections 10 this. MIR. Boggs,
| (the afhant in the case,) having the evidence
| and information IN bis possession, should
have incorporated il in the affidavit, to ena-
Die the Court to judge OF their suficiency to
support bis belief. Again, be swears to a
/ legal conclusion when he says Smith was an
accessory before the fact. What constitutes
a man an accessory Is a question of law and
not always easy Of solution. MIR. Boggs
opinion then is not authority. lie should
have given the facts. He should have shown
that they were committed In Missouri, to en-
able tho Court TO test them by the laws oil
Missouri, to see il they amounted to crime
Again, the affidavit is fatally defective in thi.
that Boggs swears to his belief
| Let us apply these rules to the affidavit un.
der consideration. Andrew Hunter does not
swear positively tha. Coppoc was ever IN Vir
GINA. He says certain persons other thar
Loppoc committed certain crimes at certain
places in that State, and that Coppoc "aidct
and abettedn them, leaving to be inferred
that ho was with them In Virginia; but BIZ
might have furnished arms from Ohio, OF
ammunition from Pennsylvania, or aid ant
comfort from Maryland; thus ''aiding and
| abettlngo the crime committed in Virginia
without being there in person, and yet no
be liable to be tried in Virginia torso doing
MIR. Hunter says Coppoc is Ga fugitive from
justice, escaping in the State of Iowa.
From what States From Virginia, or Mary
land, or Pennsylvania, or OhioP 1t may b
inferred the escape was from Virginia; bu
it is not positively" so stated, nor is Their
on either point that certainty that wouls
justify n magistrate in committing al &C
oused party" Again, Mr.. Hunter shaving
the evidence and information in his posses
sion, should have Incorporated it in the aft
dayit.o lie swears to legal conclusion
when he SAYS, aGoppoc aided and abetted.'
What constitutes aiding and abetting isis
question Of law and not always OF easy so
LUTON" Mr.. Hunters "opinion" is not au
Al