Civilian & telegraph. [volume] (Cumberland, Md.) 1859-1875, 1861-06-20
The Bridge Burning.
LETTER OF GOV. HICKS IN REPLY TO MAYOR
BROWN.

ton, with accompanying ccltliicates, from
the Mayor of Baltimore to the House of
Delegates Of Maryland. in which is asserted
completely on my part III th" unlawful ,les-
TRACTION Of the bridges nu tie Philadelphia,
Wilmington and Baltimore, and tie North
ern Central Railroads, on the night of the
13th OF April.
\ desire to obtain expected information
from the tclcIraphic dispatches recently Sci
/ zcd By the Govrrnmcnt--bnt which have
not yet received-addel to the pressing MAJ
ture of my official duties, has prevented me
from making this publication at an earlier
period.
1.-THE Governor here quotes from the COM
muhication of Mayor Brown To whirh he re-
! ierS and the certificates Of j. Cumming
! Brown. George T. Kane, and ex-Gnv. Lowe
all Of which we have heretofore publish
ell
This is the sum of the charges brought a
gaust me by Mayor Brown and his Witness
cs. 1t is due to the Mayor to say, uncquiv-
ucally that do not believe he had any knowl =
edge "t the plot Of which the destruction IF
tie bridges was part. | had little acluain-
lance with him at the time referred t., but
| had formed high estimate Of his cLarac-
ter rs a faithful public servant, and as 4 high
toned gentleman; and believe that the pro-
cpclngs which he countcnanceG, and in which
| he seems to have been a participant were
iuaugurated Ivy Others. His apparent com :
pIicit was only what might have attached to
any other man in the trying aud delicate and
painful circumstances in which he found
| himself. The evil men who surrounded him,
and who cIuudcd his better Judgment, had
designs which could be consumlnatcd only
by his official aid and they spared no efforts
t" cntaugie him in the SHARES they lad pre-
pared,
It is alleged by the Mayor and his Witness
es that have nv c"msrnt rtJjdNJ. am
sure the public will agree with me in think
in. il strange. under all the circumstances,
that an act Of So great importance, Iequir-
ing, as is alleged, my authority to make it
valid, should have been cunsummoted under
a pretended verbal assent, admitted to have
been unwiIliuSly given by person who
expressed some doubt rs to his authority to
give such an order None but old cousp-
rators would have proceeded to pcrpctrate
surh an unlawful act without authority in
writiny from whomsoever they believe COM
pctent to give the necessary order. Arcor-
ding to their showing, Il written order from
me would have absolvcl the Mayor and his
associates from all responsibility in the prcn-
tc- But they confess they bad 40 authority.
and attempt to Justify their unlawful acts hy
a pretended verbal assent by me; certified to
by witnesses interested very materially in Sis
tanning the position assumed by the Mayor.
1t seems to me that in this respect my arcns-
ers fled themselves in a difficulty from which
they cannot cxtricatc themselves
The Mayors communications doc not pro-
Tess To quote the language USED 10y me ON the
occasion referred to. 1t is admitted that
alleged want Of authority t" order the DIES.
tructiou ol the bridges The Mayors wit.
ncsscs admitted that desired time for rc-
Aactun. Eut time for reflection would have
materially damaged the plot, ua,nuch as
men were already on the way 10 Go what
they desired me tu endorse. Accordingly
they Jumped to the desired conclusion that
consented, hccausc | contcnlcd that had
no power to consent to, and no mower to pre-
vent the outrage contemplated, and which
was then in process Of execution. Tho visit
Of Mcssrs. Brown kahc and Lowe to my bed
chamber WAS at tie late hour of the hight
| The Mayor : companions were men in whom
| | have no confidence. Indeed, it was only
on account Of the oiii"ia nature OF the visit
| that, under the circumstances, consented to
any communication with such people. No
man IF intelligence can fail to see that it was
impossible for me to consent uucuuvucallv
To the unlawful act which was proposed Ia
me by such men rs Kane and Lowe, no mat
ter how Necessary itmight have appeared to
be IN the emergency. CunSeq ucntiy, m
hcsItniinsly assert that refused my consent
and gave rs my reason therefor that II had
no authority i'll the prcmlscs- that the hridg-
es were private property--t!Iat the proposed
act was unlawIul-that was lover Of law
and ordcr-that the Mayor could &C: as he
plcasca-and that had no power to utter
lere with his dc5igus. ii thls tie consent to
the destruction OF the bridges. then CONSENT
ed. Ii this be completely III an unlawful act.
then | WAS accessory.
do not deny that the proposed act. an
lawful though 1t WAS, seemed IT, ba the only
means Of avcrtins threatened bIoolsheI. -
But it would have little become me. as Gov.
VI the State, t" interfere with the province of
the Mayor Of Baltimore to prevent a riot -
Still less did it become Inc to forget my cath
Of Office, and consent to an iniractun of the
laws which ! had sworn to enforce. am
sure no unparalleled man can conclude it to
be within the range o! probability that |
could have acted in the manner aScribed to
me.
AS Il matter o! course, it is not easy TO adj
duce proof OF my opinion. Those who were
near me throughout that trying day can
bear but little accurate testimony as to what
was said or done by me. Every one was full
OF excitement. and men whose Judgment hal
always challenged my respect urged Inc 20
do many things which they now regret to re-
member. | was, perhaps, no cooler than
those who surrounded me, but it was not
possible for me to forget what was due to
my position aud to my oath of Office. did
not do either | strenuously resisted all prop
ositions which | deemed Inconsistent with
law and order, and did nothing Oh that e.
veutlul day which have any reason to re-
gret.
Ny accuscrs seem to forget that long be-
fore nighttall | positively and persstently
refused my assent to the scuttling or even
removal of the steam ferry boat Maryland,
at Perryville, which was proposed to me by
so many persons, and which. if consum
ted. would have prevented any necessity for
the destruction of the bridges. The follow
ing letter from Col. II. S. Mercer, of Anne
Arundel county, is evidence that did refuse
my assent to this proposition:
PARKHUEsT, May iG, 1861.
10 His Erceuency, Coz. Hicks:
Dear SRI have just read your card in
the American denying the change made by
the Mayor Of Baltimore, Marshal Kane, and
others, that you had given your consent aid
appreciation to the burning of the various
railroad bridges leading from Baltimore 10
pennsy lvania.
Having, Oh the 18th of April, acted as
your Abide Camp | was present at all your
consultations and interviews with the city
officials and other prominent citizens, until
the violent excitement which marked that
day had subsidized | conceive it to be my
lutv RI make the following statement which