The Buchanan County guardian. (Independence, Buchanan County, Iowa) 1858-1864, 1860-03-21


official SEAL" and the affidavit in thi
case was not so certified. Not being s.
certified, il did not have "force and ef
feet" and not having force and effect
no warrant could issue upon it. 1t will
b. observed that the official seal of tn
n ,tary is expressly required by the &C
OF Congress, and being SO required.
90 Id not waive it if | would 1t ap
peirs to me thatupon these points . the
case is SO plain that arguments and illus
tralion can add nothing to it,
I leave this part of the discussion here
waising the question whether this Law
Of 1850, so general in its terms, can be
construed as repeating or amending the
specific requisites of the special act pro.
viding in all respects the mode by which
fugitises from justice are to be surrender
ed TO another sovereignty for trial. am
advised that this construction would no,
be admitted by the Courts. and is alto.
gether intenable and is without prece-
dent in his State.
My lE ird and fourth reasons, (which
| shall 70 consider in connecticut are
that the sfidavits did not show otherwise
than BY inference that Coppoc was in
Virginia the time he aided and abet.
ted" John Brown and others, as stated
and did rot legally charge him with
crime. What is the substance of the
affidavit Stripped of all verbiage, it is
this and his only Andrew Hunter
swears =" that John Brown and others on
certain daysand at certain place in the
State of Virginia, committed certain
crimes, Ind" that from information re.
ceived frGn several persons" recently
condemned and executed in Virginia,
and " frontotler facts that have come to
his knowltgs." he "veriiy believes
that BarclS Coppoc is a fugitive from
justice nowescaping into the State OF
, Iowa."
Now whalis the law l quote a
note from Bfhtly's Digest of the laws
OF the un'tedftates, page 293: 1.-The
athdavit, whet that form of evidence is
adopted, muspe at least so explicit and
certain that i'll were laid before mag
lstrate 1t wouldjustify him in commit
ting the accusd to answer the charge !:
Penn. Law bur. Ala. 4l8. II must
state positively aat the alleged crime was
committed in th State from which the
party is alleged sbe a fugitive. and that
the party IS actuay fugitive from that
STATE. +" Erparte Smith, 8 Nc Clean I2l /,
l22, Fetters case 4a5r. 3ll. In the mat
ter OF Hayward. .Sandf. s. c.. 7O1 +;
Oegont Us. AichdR, 2 Garter 1886"
quote further frouls 8 McCgain 1856 -
Again the affidavit charges the shoot
ing on the 9th of My in the county of
jackson and State sf Missouri, Mat he
believes and has god reason TO 5elieve
from evidence and information nov (Men
an ms possession, that Joseph Smith ,cas
accessory before the fact, and is resident
or c"'zen Of Illinois" The Court goes
on to say " There are several obiec-
tons to this. Mr.. Boggs. Ithe affiant in
that case having the evidence and in
formation in his possession, should have
Incorporated il in the affidavit, to enable
the Court to Judge of their sutficiency
to support his belief Again he swears
to legal conclusion. whep he s--.- e.:.'''.
was an ncoessory before the TACT. What
constitutes man an accessory is ques-
ton Of law. and not always easy of solu-
ton. Mr.. Boggs' opinion then is not
authority. He should have given the
facts. He should have shown that they
were committed in Missouri, TO enable the
Court to test them by the laws Of Mis-
souri,. to see il they amounted to crime.
Again, the affidavit is fatally defective
in this, that Boggs swears to his belief"
Let us apply these rules to the atiida-
Wit under consideration. Andrew Hunt
er does not swear positively that Coppoc
was ever in Virginia, He says certain
persons other than Coppoc committed
certain crimes at certain places in that
State. and that Coppoc "aided and abet-
ted" them, leaving to be inferred that he
IVES with them in Virginia; but he might
have furnished arms from Ohio. or am
munition from Pennsylvania. or aid and
comfort from Maryland thus aiding
and abetting" the crime committed in
Virginia, without being there in person.
and yet not be liable 10 be tried in yir-
ginia for SO doing. Mr.. Hunter says
Coppoc is "a fugitive from justice. es
Gaping in the State Of Iowa" From
what State ? From Virginia. or Mary
land, or Pennsylvania, or Ohio !? Itmay
be inferred the escape was from Virginia !;
but il is not positively" SO stated, nor
is there on either point that " certainty
that would justify magistrate in COM
mitting an accused party" Again, Mr..
Hunter having the evidence and infot-
nation in his possession. should have in
corporated it in the affidavit" He swears
to legal conclusion when he says,
!" Coppoc aided and abettsd" What con.
stitules aiding and aberting is question
of law and not always Of easy solution"
Mr.. Hunters "opinion is not authority
He should have sworn 70 the facts. -
The affidavit is fatally defective in this.
that " Hunter swears 10 his belief" The
whole case is this A paper was present
ed to me purporting TO be an affidavit
made under law Of Congress, but not
made before an officer recognized by that
law--or if the law OF 1850 applies TO this
class of cases. lacking to its authenticity
an essential requisite prescribed by that
law. That paper was made the basis Of
demand that should arrest and sur.